Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Members' Journals => Journals => Topic started by: lex_rooker on June 14, 2008, 01:54:49 am

Title: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 14, 2008, 01:54:49 am
Here is a graph of my baseline blood glucose curve before changing the fat ratio.  I will add an updated graph soon for comparison.

Below the graph are also links to PDF documents showing my Blood Test Results for 2007 and 2008.  For the 2007 results I had been eating a 68%fat / 32%protein diet for a over 1 year.  The 2008 results I had been eating 80%fat / 20%protein for about 6 weeks prior to the test.  Almost all numbers improved.  Everything has improved dramatically since I started this adventure over 3 years ago, but especially since I started eating Slanker's grass-fed beef a bit over 2 years ago.  In 2005 cholesterol was 230, HDL/LDL ratio was 4.7, fasting glucose was 140.  From the blood tests you can see the on going improvement from eating grass fed beef for over 2 years.

Below I've added a PDF of my current 24 hour BG curve with comments.  Compared to the initial curve it is a rather dramatic change.
Title: Lex's Fat Ratio Experiment
Post by: lex_rooker on June 14, 2008, 01:55:27 am
A few months ago I was prompted to set up an experiment to see what would happen if I changed the ratio of fat to protein in my diet.  For the past several years my diet has been meat and fat only with a ratio (by % of calories) of 68% fat to 32% protein. My weight has been stable at about 160 lbs for almost 2 years.

I set a base line of Blood Glucose and urine Ketones and came up with the following results:
BG was about 95 just before my single afternoon meal
BG rose to about 120 over a 2-3 hour period after the meal
BG dropped to 106 and stayed there for about 18 hours
BG dropped to 95 about 2 hours before meal time

Ketones always measured between zero and Trace.

As of June 1st I changed the fat ratio of my food to 80% fat and 20% protein by adding addition suet to my meat mix.  I have a commercial fat analyzer used by meat markets to test the fat content of their ground beef so I'm able to measure the fat content of my mix fairly precisely.  After 2 weeks on this new diet I have the following results:

BG is now 80 just before my single afternoon meal
BG rises to about 96 over a 2-3 hour period after the meal
BG drops to about 87 by bed time
BG is usually about 80 upon arising in the morning
BG jumps to about 90 about an hour after arising
BG slowly drops to 80 and stays there for an hour or so before I eat.

Ketones have jumped sharply to Moderate (middle color band) and on occasion to Large (next to last color bad)
I also dropped 2 lbs in weight even though total calories have remained the same.

This morning for the first time my morning BG dropped to 75 and then rose to 80 about an hour after arising so it is clear that things are in dynamic flux.  It will be interesting to see what happens over time.

Also, you'll notice that my BG jumps several points in the morning even though I haven't eaten anything and won't eat again for another 9 or 10 hours.  The theory for this is that either the liver is dumping glucose to meet the needs of new muscle activity as I begin to move around for the day, or that the adrenals are signaling the body to break down body fat for the same purpose.  I expect that it is the breakdown of body fat as this would cause the ketones to rise (which they have) and release of glucose from the liver would not cause this rise in ketones.

I put this first post in the General Discussion area so people would see it.  I'll be making future posts on this subject to the Journal area.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 14, 2008, 10:26:13 am
What prompted this experiment in the first place was Gary Taubes lecture on obesity which can be found here:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216

During this lecture Taubes talks about what makes us fat.  He pointed out that scientists have known for some time that fat can't be stored unless alpha-glycerol-phosphate is available to create the trigliceride that can be stored in fat cells.  Alpha-glycerol-phosphate is created when carbohydrates are metabolized in the presence of insulin.  Insulin is primarily driven by eating carbs.  Pretty much it's

Eating Carbs creates insulin - insulin metabolizes glucose - alpha-G-phospahte is created - liver uses a-g-p to create triglicerides - triglicerides are then moved into fat cells.  Bottom line no a-g-p no fat can be stored, at least that's the theory.

Taubes also stated that 58% of protein can be converted to glucose, but didn't say how or when this would happen.  If this is true, then too much protein in the diet could cause a rise in insulin thereby creating a-g-p and causing fat storage.

My experience was that when I started eating this way I started with a higher fat content in my meat.  Initially my weight dropped to about 150 lbs but then I got lazy and stopped adding the fat to my mix.  Over several months my weight increased to 160 and then stabilized at that level.

I decided to test Taubes theory.  If he is correct, since I don't eat any carbs my only source for glucose is from protein.  If I reduce the protein and raise the fat to bring the calories back up, then less glucose would be produced and I should again lose weight even though calories stay the same.  Less protein means less glucose created, hence less a-g-p all leading to less fat.

Still early yet but this seems to be working just as Taubes expected.  My average blood glucose had been reduce by about 20 points since I made the change 2 weeks ago.  I've lost 2 lbs in 14 days.  Ketones went from less than Trace to Moderate which shows that body fat is being consumed.  I have no idea how far this will go but intend to stick with it for several months at least and maybe forever.

There is a minimum amount of protein that the body will always need and I can't go below that amount or my health will suffer.  This amount is between .8g and 1.4g of protein per KG of lean body weight.  for me this is about 85g protein per day.  This will produce about 50g of glucose and my final stable weight should be based on this amount.

Part of what was not clear in Taubes lecture, and no one else seemed to know, was if some portion of all protein eaten is converted to glucose or if this only happens in a metabolic emergency. The infamous “Bear” (Stanley Owsley) said this conversion only happened in metabolic emergency.  I’m finding that this is not true.

What I'm finding is that all protein eaten is converted to glucose at the rate of about 58%.  This was demonstrated to me by the drop in blood glucose levels when I changed my diet from 32% protein to less than 20% protein.

My original protein consumption was about 150g/day.  This converted to 87g of glucose and you could see my blood glucose level rise about 25 points over a three hour period and then it would decline to an average resting value over the next 18 hours or so before finally dropping to the original starting level a couple of hours before I ate my next daily meal.

When I cut the protein to 90g/day (I raised fat to keep calories the same) there is 52g glucose created and my blood glucose levels only rise 15 points before dropping back to the average resting value.

What is interesting is that the drop in protein from 150g/day to 90g/day is a 40% drop. The "calculated" drop in glucose manufactured from protein from 87g to 52g is a 40% drop.  The measured change in the rise of blood glucose directly after eating a meal from 25 points to 15 points is also a 40% drop - so all these numbers track exactly.

I keep very accurate records and measure my blood glucose every hour when I'm awake and every time I awaken during the night, and yes my fingers are shredded and painful but without doing this you'll never see these relationships.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: jamiedolan on June 15, 2008, 07:05:55 am
"Taubes also stated that 58% of protein can be converted to glucose, but didn't say how or when this would happen.  If this is true, then too much protein in the diet could cause a rise in insulin thereby creating a-g-p and causing fat storage."

 Lex, Thank you for doing this experiment and sharing the results with us.  It is very good to know.  I have long suspected that a portion of protein can be converted to glucose, but knew of no one that has tested the theory with such accuracy as you have. 
Thanks Again, Keep us posted on your results.
Jamie
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 15, 2008, 09:39:05 am
Hi Jamie,
Yes it was a surprise to me too, when I found that a portion of any and all protein eaten is converted to glucose.  This goes against the conventional wisdom, but I suppose if you and I were "conventional" we wouldn't be members of cutting edge forums like this!

BTW, I know two other people that have done similar experiments and they had the same results.  Both are women so it is clear that gender has nothing to do with it either.  I'm looking forward to my annual doctor's appointment in mid July.  I will have much information to share with the good doctor.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on June 15, 2008, 06:58:52 pm
I posted some questions to Dr. Groves; to find peace of mind but I don't think that I will ever find that - life would become to boring? I am glad, that we have people like Lex - working on a plan and keeping things simple and clear. We must not fear life - but respect :)!


Hi Nicola

It is quite wrong that carbs are needed to metabilse fats. This was a mantra developed in the 19th century. There is no basis for it whatsoever. If there were, how would Maasai and Inuit live? They don't eat any plant material at all, and, while they may get a little from the meat and milk they eat (glycogen and lactose), that's a tiny amount compared to the much greater amounts of fat they eat.

On the brain's reliance on glucose:

In the past was the belief that the brain couldn’t function properly without glucose. However, a study published in May 2003 showed that the brain can use ketones made from fats just as other normal cells do.[1] It was also shown nearly 70 years ago that ATP is delivered from the liver to the brain by red blood cells.[2] So there is absolutely no need to worry about the brain being starved of energy if we cut carbohydrates out of the diet.

References

1.     Takenaka T, et al. Fatty acids as an energy source for the operation of axoplasmic transport. Brain Res 2003; 972, 1-2: 38-43.
2.     Hockerts T, Hingerty D. Medizinische 1937; 289. Cited by Werner E. Mschr f Kinderheilk 1960; 1: 5.

Ketosis is not defined by ketone bodies found in urine; that is ketonuria. Ketosis is a condition where there are raised levels of ketone bodies (acetone, acetoacetic acid and beta-hydroxybutyrate) in body tissues. Ketone bodies are formed naturally from the breakdown of fats. As the calorific value of my diet is about 75% fat, I must be 'in ketosis'. The fact that I have one piece of fruit a day is not relevant.
 
Regards
 
Barry
Author: Natural Health and Weight Loss
Co-producer: Be Slim Without Dieting (Video / DVD)
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk
http://www.diabetes-diet.org.uk
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.org.uk

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 15, 2008, 11:57:38 pm
Nicola,
I have no quarrel with Dr Groves and his assertion that he is in ketosis.  My original post on the Saturated Fat Forum was just to point out that Dr Groves definition and Mary's definition of ketosis are different so you can't compare them.  Which one is correct?  Who knows - I certainly don't.  The best I can do is monitor the way I feel and adjust things accordingly.  If I find that something isn't going as well as expected then I'll make a change just as I found that I seemed to do better with some salt added to my diet.  Doing what works best for me is more important to me than following some strict dietary rules made by someone who doesn't really know any more about diet than I do. 

Mary, Kata, and I are doing experiments where we collect a lot of actual data (bg, ketones, etc) which we try to analyze to come to a reasonable conclusion.  We also make changes very slowly so that we have time to observe the more long term effects of a change - often weeks or months.  Most people just go by how they feel when they get up in the morning and have no actual data to back up what they say.  This is not to imply that Dr Goves falls into this category.  He is a professional and has many years of experience so I have no reason to doubt what he says.  I just have to know what his definition of the various terms he uses are before I can understand his point of view verses another person's point of view.  Also, you will find Dr Goves, (like Mary and Kata) is very consistent with his recommendations and advice.  Compare this to AV who changes his mind on things more often than I change my socks.

Hope this helps,

lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 16, 2008, 12:14:09 am
Summary of Lex’s Experiment After 2 Weeks

Baseline diet was 68%Fat/32%Protein (145gF/145gP) all from animal sources and followed for 2 years.  Diet changed to 80%Fat/20%Protein (195gF/90gP) from the same animal sources. Organ meats comprised approximately 20% of diet and any Carbohydrates would come from that source.  No supplements other than approximately 1g of salt added to food per day.  Only one meal is eaten in the late afternoon.  Food portions were adjusted to keep Calories consistent at approximately 2,000 per day.

                             68%F/32%P      80%F/20%P
                               Baseline            14 Days

BG Daily Avg                 106                  88
BG Hi/Low Range          90/120             75/105
BG rise after meal           25                   15
Urine Ketones              0-Trace            Mod/Lg
Resting Heart Rt            58                    68
Weight                        162                  159
BMI                            21.4                 21.0
%Body Fat(calipers)     11.09                10.77


Obviously the duration of the change is very short at 2 weeks so many of the measurements are quite dynamic where the baseline readings were very stable.

Average BG has dropped about 15 points.
Hi/Low daily BG range has dropped a corresponding 15 points
Ketones have risen dramatically from less than trace to large
Resting heart rate has also increased by 10 BPM
Small drop in weight and BMI as well as body fat.

Ketones stay consistently high and usually measure Large but will occasionally drop to Moderate sometime during the day.

Baseline BG curve was very consistent, rising after my daily meal to a maximum of about 120 then dropping to 106 for many hours before dropping to minimum low 90s just before next meal,

Current BG curve is very dynamic.  BG rises to a maximum of 105 or so after meal, then drops slowly through the night to a minimum usually in the mid to high 70s in the early morning, then rises and fluctuates between the mid 80s to low 90s throughout the day and then the process starts over again.

I eat at the same time every day and the high BG reading about 3 hours after my meal is consistently 15 points above BG reading taken just prior to eating the meal.  The reading before the meal seems to vary between 80 and 90 so BG tops out between 95 and 105.

Baseline BG rise measured 3 hours after the meal was 25 points.  The reading before the meal was usually between 90 and 95 so BG topped out between 115 and 120.

Comments would be greatly appreciated,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on June 16, 2008, 07:17:47 am
Summary of Lex’s Experiment After 2 Weeks
[snip]

Resting Heart Rt            58                    68

[snip]

Resting heart rate has also increased by 10 BPM
Small drop in weight and BMI as well as body fat.

[snip]


Hi Lex,

I hope you won't mind me quoting you in snippets as I have.  This resting heart rate rising has me intrigued.  Both numbers are nicely low, but I wonder if you feel any different with the higher RHR.  And then I wonder what your blood pressure is and how that has changed.  Do you have a cuff?  If not, I think you should get one or get it checked every few months or something.

Otherwise, I am fascinated by your report and consider the higher fat to be the answer to great health.

Oh, one more question: What is your activity level like?  I may have asked this before, but I won't assume anything.  Please include your basic exercise plan if you have one.

I will be reading your replies.  My sister is visiting for the first time in over a decade, so I may not be as quick to answer in the coming week or so.  However, I will exchange with you when I can and I thank you for reporting on these changes in diet and the resulting physiological changes.  Good stuff!


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 16, 2008, 10:35:34 am
Satya,

I understand from others that have converted to a very high fat diet, that the rise in heart rate is temporary.  The theory is that I'm dumping large amounts of fatty acids in the blood that weren't there when eating at the lower fat level.  The body will treat this as a windfall (just killed a woolly mammoth and have lots to eat for a few weeks then it's back to famine again) so it doesn't create the hormones to keep everything under control especially since high fat is not life threatening like high glucose is.  After a few weeks of high fat levels in the blood, the body will start to manage it better and the heart rate will return to its previous level and sometimes lower. They say the heart responds this way because fatty acids are the heart's primary fuel.   The higher heart rate does not bother me but I did notice it.

I don't exercise for the sake of exercise.  I do walk a good bit but again not exclusively for exercise.  It's just that I'd rather walk to the market, postoffice, bank, etc when I have the time.  I don't dawdle but then it's far from a power walk.  It's 1 mile to the nearest market and the postoffice is two miles away, therefore when I walk it's between 2 and 4 miles round trip.  I do this between 1 and 3 times per week.

When I started this dietary adventure 5 years ago my BP had crept up to 145/95.  For the past 3 years or so eating a paleo style diet my BP has stabilized around 110/70 give or take a few points.  I'll keep an eye on it and if I see any changes I'll add this to my "monitor" list.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on June 19, 2008, 01:34:50 am
Lex,

The first time I went zero carb I had a fast heart rate. I didn't measure it but it was definitely higher. I thought that was a symptom of sodium deficiency but you've convinced me that it was the fat-adaptation process.

I can't thank you enough for doing these experiments.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 22, 2008, 10:30:39 pm
Here is the 3rd week update on my fat ratio experiment.

                       68%F/32%P  80%F/20%P  80%F/20%P
                          Baseline       14 Days       21 Days

BG Daily Avg           106              88              94
BG Hi/Low Range    90/120        75/105        92/103
BG rise after meal      25              15              10
Urine Ketones        0-Trace       Mod/Lg       SM/Lg 
Resting Heart Rt        58              68              63
Weight                   162            159             159
BMI                       21.4            21.0            21.0
%Body Fat(calipers) 11.09          10.77          12.35


Average Dailly BG has risen 5-6 points to 93/94.  However, the daily BG high/low range has narrowed from a 30 point swing (75/105) to a 11 point swing (92/103). The rise in BG after a meal also continues to drop and is now about 10 points, down from 15.

Urine Ketones were running consistently at level 3 with an occasional dip to level 2.  They now swing between level 2 and level 3 throughout the day with an occasional dip to level 1.

Resting heart rate has dropped about 4 BPM from 68 to 63.

Weight has been fairly stable at 159 +- 1/2 lb.  However caliper measurements show an overall increase in body fat from 11.09% to 12.35% which is a 1.25% increase.  Since weight has been stable my conclusion is that some Lean Body Mass has been sacrificed.

Orignial Caliper measurements were Chest 6mm, Abdomin 10mm, Thigh 11mm
Current Caliper measurements are   Chest 8mm, Abdomin 12mm, Thigh 11mm
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on June 23, 2008, 06:01:45 am
This is most interesting! So, if you weren't keto-adapted as you thought, I suspect your body was using it's own protein stores to raise its glucose to a more comfortable level. As you become more keto-adapted, you should be using more fat and less glucose which would then start sparing protein. I suspect this will happen when your BG levels off and your ketones drop.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 28, 2008, 09:32:28 am
Something is definitely happening.  Not sure if it's good or bad.  Today I felt horrible. Muscle weakness in arms and legs and the thought of food was not very appealing though I did eat my norm rations. In fact, my normal meat mixture was so unappetizing that I had to break it into 2 meals just to get it down. This is the first time this has ever happened to me when it wasn't connected with the flu.

I think I've heard that this is normal at about 5 to 6 weeks into a very high fat diet as the body adapts to burning fat and ketones rather than glucose. This is only my forth week, but I started from several years of a moderately high fat diet so it may have happened sooner.

BG is swinging between 75 and 105 every day. Ketones are very high at level 3 and twice yesterday I hit level 4!
Rather than using color references on ketones I'm designating T= Trace 1=Small 2=Moderate 3=First color patch of Large and 4= Darkest Color patch.

Hope things improve quickly as feeling this way is the pits....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on June 28, 2008, 11:42:06 pm
I hope this doesn't last long. If your ketones are still that high, it tells me your body's not utilizing them hence the muscle weakness.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 30, 2008, 12:32:38 am
I spent the better part of yesterday helping a friend take out two old trees in his front yard.  The chain saw gave up the ghost about half way through so we had to use hand saws - a lot of work.

I measured BG every 2 hours and it stayed consistently between 94 and 98.  Ketones remained very high and ran between level 3 and 4.  If I interrpret this correctly, I'd say my muscles are still using glucose as their preferred energy source, and that internal fat was burned when necessary to create glucose.  This created excess ketones which showed up in the urine as the body didn't need them.

I'm very tired this morning.  Had difficutly getting up.  I slept about 10 hours, and would love to sleep some more but just have too much to do.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on June 30, 2008, 07:22:29 am
Lex,

That sure sounds like what I went through keto-adapting but I was getting much better after only two weeks. Don't quote me but I think it's two weeks to keto-adapt and then longer, maybe the 5 - 6 weeks you mentioned before, to adapt to using free fatty acids themselves.

Getting glucose from fat is very inefficient. Have you dropped any more weight than the three pounds? It's a possibility that your body is using ketones but hasn't yet honed its ability to produce them efficiently and is over-producing them just to be safe - until your body adapts and is able to use them or FFAs efficiently.

It could be the other way around with your body producing the precise amount of ketones needed but your muscles aren't able to use them up efficiently, resulting in tiredness and excess ketones in the urine. The energy is there, just not usable yet.

I would show high ketones after exercise even after I was adapted (after the two weeks). I'm not sure about now though. I haven't measured ketones after exercise in quite a while.

I wonder why it's taken you this long to get to this lethargic point. You couldn't possibly have had three weeks worth of glycogen stores...unless maybe you were already partially fat-adapted. I don't know what to make of it. 

Re your fat caliper readings, it looks to me like you were not using muscle for your glucose production during the second week but burning fat as your weight and body fat % went down. The third week, your fat % went up at the same weight. Wouldn't that only happen if you were catabolizing muscle and perhaps turning some of that protein-derived glucose into fat?

This is all very perplexing! Thanks for hanging in there and I hope you start feeling better sooner than later.

Craig

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on June 30, 2008, 10:46:40 am
hey

Lex, I'm really enjoying your journal. So very interesting especially when you come up to the 6-8 week mark.

I'm 3 weeks in and a few times I've been disgusted by meat and fat and lost my taste for it. I felt really bad at the 2 week mark (really down, now energy and felt sick) I cracked once and had some carbs, I felt better immediately and interestingly my taste for meat came back.

I'm sleeping alot also. I've been sleeping up to 9 hours a night which is 2 hours more than normal. I don't think this will last though.

Andrew

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 30, 2008, 01:06:45 pm
Craig and Andrew,
Thanks for the feedback.  Let me try to cover some of the areas that you both outlined in your responses.

Have you dropped any more weight than the three pounds?

No, I seem to have stabilized at about 159, however, lean muscle has apparently been sacrificed to create glucose which then raised insulin high enough at times to create fat.  I started with caliper readings of Abdomen:9mm Chest:6mm Thigh:11mm.  The readings are now Abdomen:12mm Chest:7mm Thigh:11mm.  As you can see I've added belly fat.  Not much, but to me it is noticeable.

It's a possibility that your body is using ketones but hasn't yet honed its ability to produce them efficiently and is overproducing them just to be safe - until your body adapts and is able to use them or FFAs efficiently.

My understanding is that the muscles can use both FFA's and Glucose but not ketones until they've adapted and this means sacrificing Fast Twitch muscle fibers (the kind that grow when you exercise), for Slow Twitch muscle fibers.  The slow Twitch must also adapt by adding significantly more mitochondria to efficiently process ketones and also build a denser capillary structure to better supply the fuel in real time as ketones can't be stored like glucose and ffa's.


It could be the other way around with your body producing the precise amount of ketones needed but your muscles aren't able to use them up efficiently, resulting in tiredness and excess ketones in the urine. The energy is there, just not usable yet.

Probably and over simplification but something of this sort is what seems to be happening.  I'm told that the body adapts in stages.  The brain adapts first and begins using ketones for a little more than half its energy requirements.  Under normal conditions it will use about 5g of glucose per hour.  When keto adapted it used 2g glucose per hour.  However, even though the brain has adapted the muscles will still use glucose if it is available as their conversion is much slower as a new infrastructure must be built to support it (mitochondria and capillaries).  This starts immediately, but takes several weeks to transition.


I would show high ketones after exercise even after I was adapted (after the two weeks). I'm not sure about now
though. I haven't measured ketones after exercise in quite a while.

If the muscles are adapted then ketones will most likely drop immediately after exercise as they were used up.  However the body will continue to create them for while even though the immediate demand is gone so they will again show up several hours later.  Within a few hours all should be back to normal.  This is why you will see variations in ketones once fully adapted.  It will be ketones that will vary as energy needs vary and glucose will now become very stable - exactly the reverse of the "normal" glucose driven metabolism.


I wonder why it's taken you this long to get to this lethargic point. You couldn't possibly have had three weeks worth of glycogen stores...unless maybe you were already partially fat-adapted. I don't know what to make of it. 

My best guess is that my brain adapted early on, however, I was eating enough protein (about 150g/day) to supply the glucose necessary for the muscles.  During off-times glucose was manufactured by converting 58% of the protein into glucose.  This was stored in the muscles as glycogen and then as glycogen reserves in the liver as well.  Since I don't workout, this was plenty of glucose to fuel my normal activities.  Once I went to 80% fat, protein dropped to about 70g/day and the muscles were forced to start adapting once their glycogen stores were gone and the liver had used up its reserves.

I'm 3 weeks in and a few times I've been disgusted by meat and fat and lost my taste for it.

This just happened to me recently.  Of course it took a while to really enjoy my meat/fat diet but after a year or so I really started looking forward to each meal.  It's just in the last few days that I've really wanted a carb and meat and fat just didn't appeal to me.  I've held strong and stuck with my prescribed food rations, but have on a couple of occasions had to eat two separate meals about 6-8 hours apart to get it down.

I felt really bad at the 2 week mark (really down, now energy and felt sick) I cracked once and had some carbs, I felt better immediately and interestingly my taste for meat came back.

Again, this is new for me.  I never really felt bad or rundown even in the beginning several years ago.  I think this is due to the relatively large amount of protein I was eating which supplied the glucose my body needed.  A younger person would probably have it the wall because their activity level is so much higher.  Though I walk a good deal I don't do any intense workouts or training of any kind so the 80-90g of glucose was enough  since my brain did convert early to ketones and didn't require much of the glucose.

I'm sleeping a lot also. I've been sleeping up to 9 hours a night which is 2 hours more than normal. I don't think this will last though.

I've always slept about 7 hours.  Sleeping 10 and still wishing I could stay in bed is a bit depressing.  Oh well, with perseverance this to shall pass,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 13, 2008, 11:21:48 pm
Here is the 6th week update on my fat ratio experiment.

                       68%F/32%P  80%F/20%P  80%F/20%P  80%F/20%P
                         Baseline       14 Days       21 Days       42 Days

BG Daily Avg           106             88              94              92
BG Hi/Low Range   90/120       75/105         92/103        80/100
BG rise after meal      25             15              10               6
Urine Ketones       0-Trace      Mod/Lg        SM/Lg      Trace/Mod
Resting Heart Rt        58             68              63             60
Weight                   162           159             159           165
BMI                         21.4          21.0            21.0          21.8
%Body Fat(calipers)   11.0          10.7            12.3          13.9
BP                       110/70       106/68        105/67        98/63

Average Daily BG has dropped a couple of points to 92.  The daily BG high/low range has expanded a bit from a 10 point swing 21 days ago (92/103) to a 20 point swing (80/100). The rise in BG after a meal also continues to drop and is now about 6 points, down from 10. I now see the bigest change in BG in the early morning.  Upon arising it is usually around 80/82 and then rises about 10 points into the low 90s where it stays much of the day.  After eating it rises to between 96 and 98 and on occasion reaches 100.

Urine Ketones were running between level 2 and level 3 throughout the day with an occasional dip to level 1.  Now they are about level 2 upon arising and then quickly drop to between Trace and level 1 throughout the day.  Not sure what this means.  BG has dropped a little but ketones have dropped significantly.  Not sure if I'm using then or just not creating them.

Resting heart rate has dropped slightly over the last 3 weeks from 63 to 60.  I was asked to track BP so I've added that to the chart.  As you can see it has dropped slightly as well.

Weight has surprised me my going up from 159 to 165, a gain of 6 lbs.  Unfortunately caliper measurements show that all of this weight increase is body fat which rose from 12.35% three weeks ago to 13.91% this week which is a 1.56% increase. 

Original Caliper measurements were Chest 6mm, Abdomen 10mm, Thigh 11mm
Caliper measurements at 21 days    Chest 8mm, Abdomen 12mm, Thigh 11mm
Caliper measurements at 42 days    Chest 9mm, Abdomen 14mm, Thigh 13mm
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on July 13, 2008, 11:44:50 pm
Wow!  Lookin' good Lex.  I wouldn't worry too much about the body fat with the rest of your numbers looking so good.  I think I was the one who asked about BP, and you are definitely lowering it (not that you really need to, but...).  How are you feeling?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on July 13, 2008, 11:50:59 pm
Hey, btw, if you ever want your journal posted on rawpaleo.com, lemme know.  It might be nice to create a separate journal page and crosslink with your testimonial.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 14, 2008, 01:49:10 am
Satya,
What has surprised me is that things are still so dynamic after 6 weeks.  There has been significant movement in one or more of the parameters in each 3 week period.  BG seems to  be continuing a slow decline as are Ketones.  Not happy with the rise in body fat but this could still change.  The question is will it be for the better or worse, and only time will tell.  I actually prefer the 68/32 mix better but will stick with the 80/20 protocol until either stable or my promised 4 months is up - whichever comes first.

What I post on these forums is public information and you are free to cross post or use the information in any way that you think would be useful.  If you'd like to link to my testimonial on the main site feel free to do so.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 14, 2008, 07:07:02 am
Great job Lex! Are you feeling any better now?

If you're gaining your weight back(and then some), I don't think the ketones are being wasted. If you're feeling more energetic, I'd say that you're using them. If you're still lethargic, I'd say you're body is making less of them.

I'm really surprised at your continued fat% and weight gain.  One thing to consider is that you don't have to eat as much when 80% fat than 68% fat since only 58% of protein is turned into carbs. In other words, if 100g of protein yield 400 calories and only 58% of those 100g are turned into carbohydrate, that means you're only getting 232 usable calories per 100g of protein. That's assuming you aren't using any of that protein as building blocks. This may explain your wanting to refuse food. You're getting more usable calories now than before.

I've calculated your lean weight and fat weight according to your measurements and it looks like your lean is now coming up as well as your fat weight:
Lean/fat
144   18 - Baseline
142   17 - 14 days
139   20 - 21 days
143   23 - 42 days

I'm VERY curious to know how this will pan out. Somehow, I think your body is storing those extra usable calories as fat and that your lean body mass is returning to normal as a result of your body's switching away from protein catabolism (or carbs from protein in general) as a your primary fuel source. Am I out of my mind or does it sound plausible?

I think it'd be a great idea if Satya but your journal up on Raw Paleo (http://www.rawpaleo.com/)!

Craig



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 14, 2008, 01:20:27 pm
Craig,
I've had a lot of comments on other forums and several have encouraged me to change my protocol.  Things like add more carbs, reduce the fat, divide my daily food into several meals etc.  I actually tried to eat twice a day but just wasn't hungry and even got so I dreaded meal time so I went back to one meal per day.  I'm also concerned about changing the protocol before everything is stable again.  After 6 weeks parameters are still changing significantly.  I think we'll all learn more if I stick to what I started with (80/20 fat/protein ratio with one meal per day) until the dust settles. 

I also had my annual blood test last week. I expect to get the results sometime mid next week.  It should be interesting to compare it with last year when I was eating a leaner diet.  My doctor knows what I'm doing and is concerned that the lipids (cholesterol) will be off the charts.  I also took my own BG reading just before and after they drew blood and both of my readings were 90.  I'm very interested to see what the lab says my BG is.

I'll post old and new blood results when I get them.  I may also do an updated average BG chart so people can compare where I am now with where I started.  Nothing like a few test results and graphics to liven things up a bit.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 14, 2008, 01:52:52 pm
Here's the average breakdown of my daily meal.  All numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.
                             
Total      Percent     Percent    % Calories    % Calories    Total      Total       Calories        Calories         Total Calories
Eaten        Fat        Protein         Fat            Protein       Fat       Protein     From Fat     From Protein      Consumed

633g         30%         14%          81%            19%         190g       91g         1709            391                 2100
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 14, 2008, 06:33:29 pm


Lex,

No, I'm not suggesting you change your protocol now. I was just stating what I think's going on in your body.

How are you feeling?!   :)

Can't wait for the test results and graphics. Hang in there.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 16, 2008, 04:00:42 am
I got my annual blood test results today.  My doctor was amazed at the cholesterol levels.  Knowing my diet was very heavy in saturated animal fat he was convinced that cholesterol would be off the charts.  I’m glad to report that this was not true.  In fact, the number improved over my previous test. 

My scanner died so I’ll provide a summary comparison here, and will post a PDF of the actual lab report in the near future.

Last year’s lab was done while I was eating a 68%Fat/32%Protein diet.  This year’s labs were taken after I had been on the higher fat protocol of 80/20 for about 5 weeks.  The results are interesting.

                                  07/2007                07/2008
Triglycerides                      43                      52
Cholesterol Total               211                    189
HDL Cholesterol                  52                      63
LDL Cholesterol                 150                    116
CHOL/HDCL Ratio                  4.1                    3.0
Blood Glucose                    111                     97
AST                                  18                     20
ALT                                  21                     23



As you can see almost everything has improved or is well within acceptable limits.  I have 3 pages of tests and most everything is right in the middle of the acceptable range.  If there is a specific number you are interested in let me know and I'll see if that test was done.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 16, 2008, 11:13:26 am
Congratulations Lex! Even I didn't expect an improvement like that. Your HDL and LDL are remarkable.
Was there any change in your serum calcium?

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 16, 2008, 11:39:36 am
Craig,
Here’s a list of the various metabolics:

                                    07/2007           07/2008
Urea Nitrogen (BUN)            25                   22
Creatinine                           1.2                  1.06
Sodium                            142                 140
Potassium                           4.1                  3.7
Chloride                           105                 105
Carbon Dioxide                   22                   27
Calcium                              9.2                  8.7
Protein, Total                      6.6                  6.5
Albumin                              4.5                  4.3
Globulin                              2.1                  2.2
Bilirubin, Total                     0.4                  0.5
Alkaline Phosphatase           89                   79

PSA                                  0.6                   1.5

Everything is well within range and most things didn’t change much at all.  I’m a bit disappointed as PSA rose more than I would like so will have to keep an eye on it. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 17, 2008, 06:22:14 am
I’ve been trying to understand why Craig seemed to adapt so quickly to a Fat Based Metabolism and yet I have struggled with large swings in ketones and BG since I upped the fat content of my diet.  It became very clear that even though I had been eating only meat and fat for several years, the larger amount of protein I was eating provided enough glucose to meet my body’s needs.  This got me to wondering what was different about Craig’s environment and mine, and I think I’ve hit on a possible solution to the problem.

Craig is younger than I am and though I don’t think age itself is the major factor, he is still working, and if memory serves, his job is one that has a high level of strenuous activity.  With no disrespect and an attempt at some humor, I’ll call this “The Ditch Digging Factor”.

I, on the other hand, am retired and have no real activity other than a leisurely stroll to the market a couple of times a week.  I fall squarely in the middle of “The Couch Potato Crowd” complete, when I was working and eating a normal high carb diet, with “Bubble Butt” syndrome (also affectionately known as Secretary’s Spread).  Yes, I’m active, but none of my activity is strenuous.

Advice that I’ve received on other groups on successfully transitioning to a Fat/Ketone based metabolism has focused on manipulating both the composition of the food I eat as well as eating many times per day to spread out the effect of one large infusion of protein from a single meal.  This approach seems rather contrived and our Paleo ancestors certainly wouldn’t have worried about consuming exactly 5 grams of carbs and 20 grams of protein at each of 5 meals which must be space exactly 3 ½ hours apart, a fat only snack just before retiring, and checking BG when I get up to pee in the middle of the night and consuming more fat if BG is too high.

All this is leading to a hypothesis.  I believe that our muscles and liver store carbs in the form of glycogen.  My low level of activity draws on these stores when I go for my walks, but there is sufficient time between these minor increases of activity to allow what glucose is manufactured from the protein I eat to replenish these glycogen stores.  This means that I’m always using glucose as my body’s preferred fuel as there is always sufficient glucose available.  Since Craig is forced to do strenuous physical activity almost every day as part of his job, his glycogen stores are always depleted, so his system had no choice but to convert to using a different primary fuel – fat and ketones.  Craig’s level of activity made it impossible for him to eat enough protein to make sufficient glucose to replenish reserves.

I’m in reasonable shape so I’m going to test this idea by increasing my activity enough every day to try to deplete my body’s glycogen reserves.  This should have a profound effect on BG and ketones.  I’m eating less than 100g of protein per day so I have less than 58g of glucose available to support the glucose driven systems and replenish glycogen stores.  I’m going to start off with a slow 2 mile daily jog.  This should do a number on any stored glycogen and with less than 58g of glucose available from my daily food intake, there shouldn’t be enough to fully replenish glycogen stores and my body will be forced to use ketones and fat.

If my activity level is high enough then minor differences in protein and fat ratios should make little difference.  Also, there should be no requirements to eat more meals or any other artificial manipulation as the total raw materials consumed each day just won’t be enough to allow my body to continue using glucose as its primary fuel.  Our paleo ancestors certainly had a much higher level of activity than I do and this may have been the key to their success.

Thoughts?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 17, 2008, 11:05:30 am
Lex,

My thoughts are that you have something there. The ketogenic studies claiming a two-week adaptation period have been done primarily on athletes, haven't they?

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 17, 2008, 11:37:56 am
Attached are the PDF's of last year's and this year's blood tests.  I've also added them to the very first post of this journal directly under the chart.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on July 17, 2008, 02:16:06 pm
Brilliant analysis. I was wondering about long distance athletes that consume carbs and appear to be keto-adapted and perhaps extreme depletion of glycogen might cause adaptation in a person who is not even eating a ketogenic diet.

For example triathalon or marathon athletes who may use over 10,000 calories of energy in a day of exercise for those long events; the body could not possibly store enough glucose in any form for that kind of expenditure. This is why many of those athletes must consume carb foods during their events; but I've heard of some who eat more fat in their diet and they claim to not have to rely on food during events.

To put it simply it may be that the level of carbs you can still consume and become keto-adapted on is proportional to your level of activity; in particular your level of calories consumed in strenuous exercise that would use up all glycogen stores.

With enough studies a loose equation might even be possible like if you increase calorie expenditure X amount you can increase carb or protein (protein would be .58xcarb increase) intake by Y and still stay keto-adapted.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on July 17, 2008, 06:15:36 pm
I feel better when I go for walks, run, go swimming; it gets the food working in the system and helps with brain work as well.

This ionized water gives me the kick...

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 17, 2008, 11:29:19 pm
Attached are the PDF's of last year's and this year's blood tests.  I've also added them to the very first post of this journal directly under the chart.

I'm curious. What is your doctor's chicken scratch around the circled lipid profile in your recent test?

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 18, 2008, 12:13:02 am
The hen scratchings are a note to his Admin Aid to mail me a copy of the report.  Unfortunately, the Aid got sick and I had to go pick them up.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 18, 2008, 10:38:39 am
The first day of added exercise has definitely shown significant changes in BG and Ketones.  BG has dropped into the 70's most of the day and ketones went off the chart to the highest color patch - level 4 or above.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'm forcing my body to metabolize stored body fat as fast as possible to free the glycerol for converting to glucose.  This frees a bunch of fatty acids that I'm not currently using so they're disposed of as ketones in the urine and through the lungs.

Time will tell if this strategy will work.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on July 18, 2008, 11:50:35 pm
The first day of added exercise has definitely shown significant changes in BG and Ketones.  BG has dropped into the 70's most of the day and ketones went off the chart to the highest color patch - level 4 or above.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'm forcing my body to metabolize stored body fat as fast as possible to free the glycerol for converting to glucose.  This frees a bunch of fatty acids that I'm not currently using so they're disposed of as ketones in the urine and through the lungs.

Time will tell if this strategy will work.

Wow, BG in the 70s!  How do you feel?  Good for you for beginning an exercise program, especially in summer.  I tend to focus more on weight training in winter as I tend to get minor injuries in the cold ... and age will expedite those problems methinks.  I am sure you are proceeding at a good progressive pace.  Go Lex!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 19, 2008, 12:39:23 am
The first day of added exercise has definitely shown significant changes in BG and Ketones.  BG has dropped into the 70's most of the day and ketones went off the chart to the highest color patch - level 4 or above.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'm forcing my body to metabolize stored body fat as fast as possible to free the glycerol for converting to glucose.  This frees a bunch of fatty acids that I'm not currently using so they're disposed of as ketones in the urine and through the lungs.

Time will tell if this strategy will work.

Lex

I wonder with the increased activity if your appetite will return.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: akaikumo on July 19, 2008, 08:59:03 am
This is REALLY interesting. I appreciate all the data you're taking.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 19, 2008, 09:34:11 am
Killer day today.  I think I used up all my glycogen reserves yesterday and today was a real struggle to complete my two mile jog.  I had to walk/jog as I couldn't jog more than 100 paces at a time, stop and walk until I recovered a bit, and then jog another 100 paces.

BG was in the high 60s most of the day, 66-71 area.  I expect it will rise into the 80s after my meal but it really is low.  Ketones were again off the charts at level 4+.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 19, 2008, 12:51:33 pm
I've added a PDF of my latest 24 hour BG curve to my initial post as well as to this post below.  Comments are in the the PDF.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 21, 2008, 04:11:04 am
Really tough couple of days.  I did manage to do my two miles yesterday and was able to up the jog/walk from 50/50 to 60/40.  The day went down hill from there.  Felt very tired and just didn't want to eat anything. I was only able to eat about half my normal food and even that was a struggle.  I'm craving carbs so it appears my body is not amused with the added exercise.  I'm hoping that this is a good sign and that when I don't give into the cravings my body will be forced to switch to burning ketones which are still off the chart at level 4+.

BG has also gone up almost 20 points in the past 48 hours into the high 80s/low 90s - this even with eating about half my normal food intake.  I've also lost 5 lbs of weight; 160 again, down from 165.  Much of it appears to be fat.  Previous caliper readings one week ago were Abdomen:14 Chest:9  Thigh:13 for a body fat of about 14%.  Today's caliper readings were Abdomen:12 Chest:8 Thigh:10 for a body fat of 12%.  This is a drop of about 2%.  I seem to be sacrificing fat to keep fatty acids and glucose high enough to support the increased muscle activity. I don't think this can continue much longer without my body switching to ketones which are currently in great abundance.

Things are definitely moving, the only problem is I feel terrible.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 21, 2008, 01:25:28 pm
This is REALLY interesting. I appreciate all the data you're taking.

I just noticed that this is the second most popular thread having 529 unique views - second only to a much older thread.
Not many people are posting in it but they sure are reading it!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 21, 2008, 01:47:01 pm
Really tough couple of days.  I did manage to do my two miles yesterday and was able to up the jog/walk from 50/50 to 60/40.  The day went down hill from there.  Felt very tired and just didn't want to eat anything. I was only able to eat about half my normal food and even that was a struggle.  I'm craving carbs so it appears my body is not amused with the added exercise.  I'm hoping that this is a good sign and that when I don't give into the cravings my body will be forced to switch to burning ketones which are still off the chart at level 4+.

BG has also gone up almost 20 points in the past 48 hours into the high 80s/low 90s - this even with eating about half my normal food intake.  I've also lost 5 lbs of weight; 160 again, down from 165.  Much of it appears to be fat.  Previous caliper readings one week ago were Abdomen:14 Chest:9  Thigh:13 for a body fat of about 14%.  Today's caliper readings were Abdomen:12 Chest:8 Thigh:10 for a body fat of 12%.  This is a drop of about 2%.  I seem to be sacrificing fat to keep fatty acids and glucose high enough to support the increased muscle activity. I don't think this can continue much longer without my body switching to ketones which are currently in great abundance.

Things are definitely moving, the only problem is I feel terrible.

Lex

Lex,

The suspense just kills me. There are so many unexpected twists and turns. The 60/40 jogging is very quick. Your body must be getting the energy that that increase took from somewhere. I'm hoping it's from some of the ketones since your blood sugar didn't drop this time. I'm hoping you've already hit bottom and are now on the rebound. Once you're keto adapted and able to jog 100%, you can take a month off and go right back to it with no problem. Whenever I'd take time off from cardio on a high carb diet, I'd be almost completely back to square one.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 21, 2008, 02:39:22 pm
Glad I'm adding some value to the forum.

I've been trying to reconcile my 4 day weight loss that seems to have lead to a 2% body fat reduction with only a relatively minor increase in activity.    I'm sure some of the weight I lost was water which was released when the glycogen was used and not replaced.  My understanding is that for every gram of glucose or glycogen the body must also store 6 grams of water.  I lost 5 lbs but the caliper measurements said that 2% of that weight or 3.2 lbs was fat. So it looks like I lost 3.2 lbs of fat and 1.8 lbs of water.  The issue is this: to lose one pound of fat you must burn around 3,600 calories. The 3.2 lbs of fat represent 11,500 calories and therein lies the conundrum, where did all those calories go?

The only change I made was to increase my activity by adding a very slow 2 mile jog to my daily routine.  If I remember correctly the body burns about 100 additional calories above baseline per mile when jogging.  This means that I was burning and additional 200 calories per day for a total of 800 additional calories over 4 days. Even if you double this amount it only accounts for about 10% or less of the fat calories I lost, again where did they go?

What do we know: I burned an extra 800-1000 calories over 4 days, ketones rose to level 4+ and stayed there, I lost enough fat to account for 11,500 calories, and I really feel tired.

Here's my best guess on what's going on, and if anyone else has thoughts please chime in.  Most of my body functions are still using glucose - especially the muscles.  We can tell this by the fact that ketone levels don't drop after exercise so they aren't being burned as fuel.

The added exercise is demanding more glucose than I'm supplying in my daily food intake.  I'm eating zero carbs and protein intake is 90-100 grams per day which is the only external source and this is not sufficient to replace the glycogen used by the added jogging activity.  The body has to get the glucose from somewhere - either by sacrificing muscle tissue to get protein to convert to glucose or from fat stores.

I may be sacrificing some muscle tissue but not much as I'm using the majority of my body's muscles in the act of jogging so I don't believe the body will sacrifice tissue from the muscles that are calling for the increased fuel unless there is no other source.  I had a good bit of fat at 14% so I expect this is what was used to create the needed glucose/glycogen for the muscles.

But the body can't really make much glucose out of fat, and my body isn't burning the fat so what gives?  Fat moves in and out of the fat cells as Triglycerides.  A Triglyceride is a Glycerol molecule that binds with 3 fat molecules. The liver can easily convert a glycerol molecule into a glucose molecule.  My theory is that the body is calling for glucose to feed the muscles, the muscles are active so they won't be sacrificed if the body has any other alternative.  There is fat available so it is being called out of storage and the the triglycerides are moving to the liver where the 3 fat molecules are stripped off, converted to ketones and sent to the kidneys and lungs for removal from the body hence level 4+ ketones in my urine.  The remaining glycerol molecule is then converted to glucose and sent to the muscles to be used as fuel.

In other words, very little of the fat that is being pulled out of the fat cells is being used - it's being thrown away.  Only the carrier molecule, glycerol, is useful while my body is running on glucose, so it is the only part of the triglyceride molecule that is being used.  So that is what's happening to the majority of the 11,500 fat calories - their being thrown away at the rate of 3 fat for every 1 glycerol just so the body can free up the glycerol molecules to make glucose! 

If this theory is correct it's clear that this is a stop-gap measure and can't continue very long as it is incredibly inefficient and I have limited stores of fat.  I'm sure the body won't use 100% of my fat so there has to be a limit at which point it will be forced to convert as many systems as possible to ketones and fatty acids as these are in abundance where glucose and the raw materials to make it are scarce.  I expect that as time goes on, if I continue the increased activity, there will come a time where weight loss will stop and ketones in the urine will drop to Trace level as they will now be used as the primary fuel for most body activities. At that point the body will be using 100% of the energy in the triglyceride molecule as the body will be running mostly on fat and ketones but will still need a little glucose for some critical systems.  Hence both the 3 fat molecules as well as the glycerol molecule will be fully metabolized again.

Time will tell if this idea is born out.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 21, 2008, 03:47:11 pm
That didn't make sense to me when you were gaining weight but it makes perfect sense now. I'm glad you're able to analyze this in your condition. How's your thinking? Besides feeling awful, you believe your brain is keto-adapted. Do you have any brain fog or episodes of seeing spots or can you still think clearly.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Lauren on July 21, 2008, 10:02:40 pm
I just noticed that this is the second most popular thread having 529 unique views - second only to a much older thread.
Not many people are posting in it but they sure are reading it!

Yes, many outside of this forum are reading this thread. The only reason I used to log on to the MB was to read Lex's proposed experiment. I wondered what happened when it never surfaced and was happy when Nicola mentioned this thread on another forum.

Thanks Lex for doing this. I'm reading along with great interest.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: caroline on July 22, 2008, 12:14:02 am
Hi Lex!

Thanks for your efforts--I found you through Lauren on the Living La Vida Low Carb Forum.  I guess my prayers were answered b/c I have been hard pressed to find a site where someone is doing zero carb other than Charles on the Livng La Vida Low Carb Site. 

I can't understand all of what you are talking about, but just to have someone out there doing this kind of work is great! 

Thanks to you Lauren, for pointing out this site!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 22, 2008, 01:52:25 am
Craig, my brain seems to be functioning normally, at least I don't see any impairment, but others may judge differently. ;)  When jogging I don't seem to run out of breath, it's that my legs give out and then I'm dragging for the rest of the day.  I think that this is a good thing as I want my body to struggle to meet the energy demands so that it will transition to using the more abundant ketones and fatty acids rather than glucose for fuel.

Lauren & Caroline,  Thanks for your interest.  I understand that some of what I'm doing is a bit esoteric and can be confusing.  If you'd like clarification on anything feel free to e-mail me at lex_rooker@yahoo.com and I'll try to fill in some of the gaps.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 22, 2008, 12:45:06 pm
I took yesterday off and didn't jog, however, I did walk about 10 miles.  My jog this morning was much better after the day off and I actually completed the first mile without walking and was able to jog about 70% of the second mile.  Since I only started the added activity less than a week ago the improved performance would not be the result of any improved conditioning.  I had hopped that it might be due to some adaptation of the muscles to using ketones for fuel but alas it was not to be.  Urinary ketones were still off the charts at level 4+ all day today.

My thinking is that the day off from jogging allowed my body to replenish glycogen reserves to some extent with the glucose made from the protein in my normal food ration.  This allowed a bit better performance today (much the same as my first day out).  Since I do my jogging in the morning and I eat late in the after noon, there would have been two meals from the last time I jogged Saturday morning until my jog this morning.  With my normal protein intake at about 100 grams per meal, this would have created 116 grams of glucose, much of which could have been stored as glycogen.

I expect that tomorrow will be miserable again as I should have depleted glycogen stores again with today's jog.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 22, 2008, 01:33:12 pm
Lex,

I can't wait to see what tomorrow brings. What were your BG readings for today and yesterday?
When I first transitioned, my ketones were always high. After I'd adapted, my ketones were still high after exercise.

Keep in mind that on your first day of jogging, you were only able to jog 50% of the time and this was without previous exercise so you would have still had your glycogen stores. This time, you jogged 70% after having walked ten miles the previous day! I really do think you're on your way to full keto-adaptation.

Thanks and looking forward to further updates!

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on July 22, 2008, 08:39:52 pm

I've been trying to reconcile my 4 day weight loss that seems to have lead to a 2% body fat reduction with only a relatively minor increase in activity.    I'm sure some of the weight I lost was water which was released when the glycogen was used and not replaced.  My understanding is that for every gram of glucose or glycogen the body must also store 6 grams of water.  I lost 5 lbs but the caliper measurements said that 2% of that weight or 3.2 lbs was fat. So it looks like I lost 3.2 lbs of fat and 1.8 lbs of water.  The issue is this: to lose one pound of fat you must burn around 3,600 calories. The 3.2 lbs of fat represent 11,500 calories and therein lies the conundrum, where did all those calories go?

I do believe that 1 gm of glycogen is stored with 3 grams of water.  Where did you get the 6 g info?

The only change I made was to increase my activity by adding a very slow 2 mile jog to my daily routine.  If I remember correctly the body burns about 100 additional calories above baseline per mile when jogging.  This means that I was burning and additional 200 calories per day for a total of 800 additional calories over 4 days. Even if you double this amount it only accounts for about 10% or less of the fat calories I lost, again where did they go?

It is true that 100 kilocalories are burned per mile on foot, whether walking, jogging or doing HIIT (high intensity interval training).  You might even crawl the distance to burn the 100 kcal.  I have read in runnersworld.com that HIIT actually does burn more calories than the other modalities (like 10 more methinks).  Also, interval training pushes your body to better fitness in some very profound ways.  The heart, legs and lungs get worked much harder when you sprint 100 meters, walk 100 m, repeat, than the same distance covered in a steady state.

I may be sacrificing some muscle tissue but not much as I'm using the majority of my body's muscles in the act of jogging so I don't believe the body will sacrifice tissue from the muscles that are calling for the increased fuel unless there is no other source.  I had a good bit of fat at 14% so I expect this is what was used to create the needed glucose/glycogen for the muscles.

Well, at the short distance you are covering, muscle catabolism probably isn't much of an issue, especially if you start incorporating intervals and/or strength training.  You can do some yard work for the latter, as I don't think you are into weight lifting, correct me if I am wrong.  But just look at the difference in physique of a marathon runner or a sprinter.  The sprinter has more muscle mass, whereas the marathoner will have catabolized precious muscle to endure the long distance.  This is a generalization, of course.  And I would be very curious to see the physique of a low carb marathoner.  I know they exist.  Do they burn their vastly greater amounts of fat nearly exclusively (everyone has at least tens of thousands of calories of fat on their bod) and spare the muscle, or do they burn both the fat and the muscle (to get the glucose from it)?  I would bet the latter, though it is just a guess. 

The body can only store about 2500 kcal of glycogen, and even if fat metabolizers spare it, long distances will deplete the stores, won't they?  But then, the high intensity work like sprinting and strength training burn it faster.  I would love to see you embark on a strength training protocol at zero carb.  I could do it myself but I am a wimp when it comes to an all carvivorous diet.  Besides, you have been doing this sort of diet for years, and have all the science to back you up.  Just a thought.  You see, I think low carb can go well with intense workouts and would actually spare muscle, but until and unless someone gets out there and does it, we will never debunk the myth that you need carbs for that kind of workout.  Maybe I am low carb enough to try?  I dunno, but I do some high intensity training.

Keep us posted, Trailblazer Lex!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on July 22, 2008, 09:02:44 pm
I should note that Dr. Eades has a different spin on calories burned during a particular activity.  He may be correct in his reasoning, but I think he dismisses the power of exercise to have positive changes on body composition in general (who cares about the weight on the scale if you have dense muscles and bones and a reasonable amount of body fat (and too little fat ain't good neither)?). 

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/calories-and-exercise/
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 23, 2008, 01:39:02 am
I can't wait to see what tomorrow brings. What were your BG readings for today and yesterday?
When I first transitioned, my ketones were always high. After I'd adapted, my ketones were still high after exercise.

BG was running in the high 80s low 90s on Sunday.  After my jog Monday morning it was 66 and hovered in the 70s and low 80s for most of the day.

Keep in mind that on your first day of jogging, you were only able to jog 50% of the time and this was without previous exercise so you would have still had your glycogen stores. This time, you jogged 70% after having walked ten miles the previous day! I really do think you're on your way to full keto-adaptation.

Actually I didn't report on the first day of jogging. The 50/50 was the second day which was miserable.  On the first day I was able to jog the first full mile and about 70% of the second mile so my performance on Monday was about the same as my first day.  This is part of what leads me to believe that the increased performance on Monday was due to stored glycogen rather than any significant training effect as my performance was actally the same as the first day.

I do believe that 1 gm of glycogen is stored with 3 grams of water.  Where did you get the 6 g info?

I think I got this from Runners World back in the 1970s when I was a dedicated runner. Short, Rogers, and Anderson were my idols.  I used to run ten 6:30 miles every other day. 

Satya, you are certainly generous with MY exercise routine.  Here I am struggling to jog 2 miles and you're trying to up the ante with 100 yard wind sprints.  Please keep in mind that I'm pushing 60 and my max heart rate isn't what it was when I was in my 20s and 30s.  My bones creak, and everything sags.  To be honest, I'm very please that I'm able to exercise at all.  Many my age are riding around in power chairs.

I should note that Dr. Eadie's has a different spin on calories burned during a particular activity.  He may be correct in his reasoning, but I think he dismisses the power of exercise to have positive changes on body composition in general (who cares about the weight on the scale if you have dense muscles and bones and a reasonable amount of body fat (and too little fat ain't good neither)?). 

I read the article and tend to agree with Eadie's.  This is why I was so astounded when I lost 3 lbs of fat in 4 days.  There had to be something going on that would account for this amazing fat loss as it clearly wasn't water if you believe the skin caliper readings.  That's why I'm convinced that the fat was pulled out of storage to give the body access to the glycerol molecule to turn into glucose and it discarded the fat.  There are 3 fat and 1 glycerol molecules in a tryglyceride. Since my body seems to be using glucose to fuel muscle activity, and only the glycerol molecule could be turned into glucose, this indicates to me that the body discarded the 3 fat molecules which is 75% of the energy contained in the triglyceride. This is also supported by the fact that ketones are above the highest level measurable on the color chart.  It would also go along way in explaining where all the energy in the lost fat went.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 23, 2008, 07:06:02 am
As expected today's jog was a struggle.  Probably back to 65/35 or possibly a bit better.  Ketones are still maxed out so no change there.  BG has been yo-yoing between 66 and 100 over the past 48 hours.  No clue what is causing this.

After this morning's jog I stopped in at the local CVS Pharmacy (which is right on the corner where my jog ends) and puffing and panting went to their BP machine to check Blood Pressure.  I was expecting both pulse and BP to be rather high as I haven't really jogged or done much cardio type exercise for many years.  Pulse was 125 which seemed about right for my conditioning level and 3 minutes or so after jogging.  It's the blood pressure that blew me away - it was 87/53.  Normal resting BP for me is usually around 105/65 and I was expecting it to rise substantially after heart pounding exercise.  Not sure if the lower BP after jogging bodes well or not.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on July 23, 2008, 08:12:43 am
I think I got this from Runners World back in the 1970s when I was a dedicated runner. Short, Rogers, and Anderson were my idols.  I used to run ten 6:30 miles every other day. 

Lex,

Wow, what a great pace for such a distance!

Satya, you are certainly generous with MY exercise routine.  Here I am struggling to jog 2 miles and you're trying to up the ante with 100 yard wind sprints.  Please keep in mind that I'm pushing 60 and my max heart rate isn't what it was when I was in my 20s and 30s.  My bones creak, and everything sags.  To be honest, I'm very please that I'm able to exercise at all.  Many my age are riding around in power chairs.

Sir, I do apologize if I came across as pushy.  That was not my intent.  You're doing fine, and I wish you all the best!  I am really happy for you, and I am sure you will get many benefits from your fitness endeavors.  Since you have such a track record with fitness, I am sure you will progress quite nicely over time (and thus wind sprints might be in your future  ;) ).  And really, what's a bit of creaking and sag?  Better than a catheter and hospital bed, eh?  I know some really fit people past age 60, and I am so inspired by them. 

Jack La Lanne is pushing 94, and I do believe it is his exercise routine that keeps him going.  He used to push the protein, but now he is almost vegan, but with egg whites and fish, iirc. 

I read the article and tend to agree with Eadie's.  This is why I was so astounded when I lost 3 lbs of fat in 4 days.  There had to be something going on that would account for this amazing fat loss as it clearly wasn't water if you believe the skin caliper readings.  That's why I'm convinced that the fat was pulled out of storage to give the body access to the glycerol molecule to turn into glucose and it discarded the fat.  There are 3 fat and 1 glycerol molecules in a tryglyceride. Since my body seems to be using glucose to fuel muscle activity, and only the glycerol molecule could be turned into glucose, this indicates to me that the body discarded the 3 fat molecules which is 75% of the energy contained in the triglyceride. This is also supported by the fact that ketones are above the highest level measurable on the color chart.  It would also go along way in explaining where all the energy in the lost fat went.

Sounds good to me.  So your fat is at 12% now?  Are you shooting for any particular goal in this regard?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 23, 2008, 01:36:59 pm
Satya,
I guess I should have used a smilie since my admonition about pushing my exercise limits was meant to be tongue in cheek.

I'm well past the point in my life of trying to force specific outcomes. It takes an extraordinary amount of energy, rarely works, and if I succeed I often find that it was not in my best interest anyway. Now I'm pretty much along for the ride to see where it takes me.  I started eating just meat and fat to see what would happen.  I survived that adventure and feel better than I have in years so after learning a few more facts from people like Gary Taubes, I decided to change the ratio of fat to lean to see where that goes.  I've added a little exercise to see if this will act as a catalyst to expedite the changes, but rather than try for a specific change I'm monitoring and reporting on what I experience along the way. 

Some things surprise me and seem to defy current wisdom or are contrary to my current belief system so I try to analyze them within the structure of my current knowledge and shine the light of public scrutiny on them through forums like this one to see if they hold water.

Based on the above, I really don't care where my % body fat ends up as long as I feel good and can continue doing the things I enjoy.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 24, 2008, 11:23:40 am
Something must be changing.  Today I completed my 2 mile jog without stopping.  They were 10 minute miles and most people probably could have walked just as fast, but they were nonstop none the less. Today completes one calendar week of the increased activity and I just don't believe that there is any significant training effect at this point, to me this points to better fuel availability for the muscles.  I felt more energized most of the day today, where for the past 6 days I've felt very tired. Ketones are still level 4+ so not convinced that my muscles are using these for fuel.  It could be that they are now using fatty acids directly.

Another thing I noticed is that the weight loss has either stopped or at least slowed significantly.  For the first 4 days of this phase of my experiment I lost over one pound per day at the rate of about 1/3 water and 2/3s body fat.  For the past 3 days my weight hasn't varied more than one pound up or down from 160.

BG has been in the high 80s low 90s all day and about the same over the last 3 days.  If my muscles have adapted to using FFAs rather than ketones in place of the glucose this could explain both the higher BG and the reduction in weight loss.

Here's my current theory:  I eat enough protein to create about 58 grams of glucose per day.  Without the added muscle activity of jogging this amount seemed adequate for glucose dependent systems.  I increased my activity and this started sacrificing some lean muscle mass as well as a significant amount of body fat to release glycerol to create enough glucose to support the added activity, but discarded the resulting FFAs as they couldn't be used at the time - hence the rapid reduction in weight.

If my muscles have now started to use FFAs, the body fat will still be transported out of storage as triglycerides when energy expenditure increases when I exercise, however, now the 3 fat molecules of the triglyceride will be used as fuel for the muscles which is far more efficient and requires far less fat for a given amount of energy.  The glycerol molecule will still be converted to glucose by the liver, however the muscles don't need this anymore as they are now using the FFAs as their primary fuel source.  This means that the newly created glucose will be released into the blood stream and raise BG.  If no systems need this glucose, and if it rises high enough, then insulin will be released from the pancreas to convert the excess BG to glycerol which will combine again with 3 fat molecules from the high fat diet I'm eating and then stored again as body fat - hence no weight loss at all as the glycerol molecules are just going through a cycle from stored body fat, to triglyceride, to free glycerol (releasing 3 fat molecules in the process), converted back to glucose in the liver, then converted again to glycerol in the presence of insulin when BG rises, and finally combining again with 3 fatty acids to make a triglyceride to be transported to fat cells for storage.

Fatty acids from the foods we eat will only be stored as body fat if there is a free glycerol molecule to bind with them to create a triglyceride. Glycerol is a by product of glucose metabolism in the presence of insulin.  As long as we limit BG (by eating zero carbs and reducing protein to a minimum), to a level just sufficient to support glucose dependent systems, then no insulin is released, no glycerol is created, and no triglycerides can be formed so no additional body fat is stored.  The excess fat from the diet will be turned into ketones by the liver and eliminated from the body through lungs and urine.

What I think is beginning to happen to me now is that the protein I consume creates enough BG for BG dependent systems.  The muscles are converting to using FFAs directly as their primary fuel source so these are being consumed by the muscles when they are realeased from the triglycerides molecule and before they can be converted to ketones.  The glycerol molecule is no longer needed for muscle fuel so it is converted back to glucose by the liver but the protein I eat already meets my body's needs so this new glucose causes BG to rise.  The rise in BG causes insulin to be released which converts the glucose back to glycerol.  The glycerol hangs around until I eat my meal and flood my system with FFAs at a time of low activity so there is no competition for them from the muscles.  Some of the FFAs bind with the glycerol and create new triglycerides that are again transported to the fat cells for storage until they are again released during periods of high activity.  Fat that is not used either to create a triglyceride or as a direct energy source for some body function is converted to ketones by the liver and used to fuel some systems but most is discarded. 

As you can see, if my theory explained by the above process is accurate, we should expect weight loss to totally halt and the body will just recycle the extra BG from the triglycerides over and over again.  If I were to increase protein or add significant carbs then weight would increase again due to more available glucose, until again a balance is reached.  If I were to reduce my protein, then I will lose weight due to less available glucose until this balance is reached again.  The problem is, if I reduce protein to low, then there won't be enough protein to maintain and repair muscle tissue so when I lose weight, much of it will be lean muscle mass rather than fat.  This is what happens when people go on a water fast.  I did this for 31 days straight and lost about 90 lbs - much of it muscle.  It took me over 2 years to recover.  Doing this experiment has helped me understand what actually happened on this water fast and I would caution even my worst enemy against it.  However, I was young and even more gullable than I am now, and was convinced that Sheldon, Bragg, Carrington, and a host of other gurus championing the long water fast had found the holy grail.  I no longer think so.....

Well, that's what I'm thinking.  It could all be nonsense and pure hokum, but it seems to fit within my understanding of how our basic metabolism works. It also provides a reasonable explaination to account for BG, ketones, weight, and other parameters I'm monitoring.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold and see what unexpected surprises are around the next corner.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on July 24, 2008, 06:47:30 pm
A new "Slanker's Newsletter" was mailed to me today with a health report from a "Caveman"...Lex!

http://www.texasgrassfedbeef.com/

They should send you your meat for free...

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on July 24, 2008, 11:42:21 pm
I guess I should have used a smilie since my admonition about pushing my exercise limits was meant to be tongue in cheek.

Lex,

I was pretty sure you were joking about me taking liberties with your workout.  However, you might have been miffed.  So I did what Korean cultural influence dictates:  I took no chance of offending an elder.  Wisdom comes with age and it should be valued and respected.

I am glad you are getting some energy back.  And you are eating 100g of protein a day, yes?  That should be more than adequate for your present workouts, don't you think?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: iamdj on July 25, 2008, 02:43:41 am
Lex:

My hat goes off to you.

In 2003, I had a stent put in my left anterior descending artery. It was 99% clogged. The doc's tried to put me on statins and the like. Long story short, I am a FIRM believer that cholesterol is not only necessary, it is VITAL to our well being. Taking a pill to hammer my liver because of my blood cholesterol seemed illogical. Later of course, after reading more about the cholesterol myth, it lead me to discover about how our ancestors ate and that it was agriculture of GRAINS and how we process them is the more likey culprit of my clogged artery.

There have been studies of certain tribes in Africa, forgot the tribe name, that heard grazing animals, and the typical diet of these tribes consists mostly of meat and blood from these grazing animals. When they examined the bodies of these tribes people, their was no trace of atherosclerosis in any of them. Clearly eating fat and protein (animal) has no relevance to arterial damage. Saturated fat and red meat have been demonized. I could go on with other studies of course.

Your diet clearly DESTROYS all assumptions and studies that eating protein and fat causes high cholesterol and/or arterial damage.

When I attempted the ATKINS approach, I felt horrible after a while. My head was foggy and I felt out of it. Did you go through any of those feelings?

I have increased my fat and protein recently, but still eat some carbs. Mostly vegetables and fruit, some nuts and seeds.

Thanks,

Dave
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 25, 2008, 10:44:50 am
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the encouragement.  This started out as a simple experiment and has gotten far more attention than I ever expected.  I had no idea so many people were interested in this sort of stuff.

When I attempted the ATKINS approach, I felt horrible after a while. My head was foggy and I felt out of it. Did you go through any of those feelings? 

To be truthful I never really had much trouble at all until I upped my fat level to 80%.  Even then my head has been clear, it's just that my body became annoyed with the change and in the course of adapting I've had a couple of weeks of feeling real tired.  This happened when I increased my exercise level beyond what the glucose created from the 90-100 grams of protein I eat per day could support.  Before this I was eating about  150 grams of protein a day and this provided plenty of glucose to run just about everything.  Ketones were created and present in the urine, however I think these were just unused fatty acids that the liver converted to ketones so they could be eliminated.  This is just speculation of course and I could be full of horse pucky but it makes sense to my limited mental capabilities.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 25, 2008, 10:48:34 am
Hi Satya,
And you are eating 100g of protein a day, yes?  That should be more than adequate for your present workouts, don't you think?

I seem to be doing well on the 90-100g of protein.  There isn't any evidence of excessive loss of muscle mass and I'm beginning to feel much better so I don't think my lethargy had anything to do with protein deficiency.  I'll keep it where it's at for the time being and see where this leads.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 25, 2008, 11:17:15 am
I amazed myself again today by completing a full 2.5 mile slow jog without stopping.  This is 1/2 mile more than yesterday and I truly believe that I could have made 3 miles but my legs were getting very heavy and the last thing I need is a broken bone from tripping over a high curb.  I have no "goal" as I'm not trying to become "conditioned".  My purpose in starting to increase my level of exercise was to attempt use up blood glucose to try to expedite whatever changes my body is going to make.  This seems to have worked as my BG curves over the last week have changed dramatically from the previous week. Any conditioning will just be a side effect.

BG actually rose a bit after my jog this morning and I feel that this supports my idea that I'm releasing stored body fat to obtain the fatty acids and the left over glycerol molecule is being converted to glucose by the liver as when I'm exercising there is no surplus of free fatty acids around to create a new triglyceride as the FFAs are being used by the muscles for fuel. (see yesterday's long winded post for details of what I believe is happening).

BG range today was again from the high 80s to the mid 90s.  Another sign that I'm not really using much of it.  When I first started jogging a week ago my BG would plummet during the jog and be in the low to mid 60s for several hours after the jog.  Now it starts in the low 80s and rises after the exercise.  This is a completely new BG response and it will be interesting to see if it changes again as this adventure continues.

Ketones were level 4+ as usual and again I have a suspicion that this is the body's effort to remove unused FFAs.  Eating 80% of my calories as fat I'm sure there are plenty to get rid of. 

Pulse this morning was 66 upon awakening, and resting BP was 98/63. Highest recorded BP for the day was 111/69.  This is amazing since my starting BP in 2005 seldom dropped below 145/95, and the cool thing is that I take no medication.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 25, 2008, 11:45:21 am
Lex,

It gets better everyday as it did for me. It took some time before my ketones went down to trace levels but I felt much better even before that happened. Do you still have to force yourself to eat or are you able to eat to appetite? I'm not suggesting you change your protocol but if you were only to eat to appetite, your ketones would probably go down sooner. I do believe you need fewer calories when 80% come from fat and if you're forcing them down for the sake of the experiment, something has to happen to them; they have to go somewhere.

According to Gary Taubes' research, the more calories you take in, the more energy you'll expend. So, as you become more fat-adapted, your energy levels may increase to help burn some of the extra calories.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 25, 2008, 11:56:25 am
Dave,

I did experience heavy brain fog and infrequent feelings of passing out with seeing dark blotches. I couldn't concentrate and would forget something I was told the second after I was told it. This seemed to come and go and get less frequent as the adaptation went on. My brain improvement coincided with my physical energy improvement. After about two weeks, I was pretty much adapted and I had a sense of calm about my brain with the return of a steady energy. Before, as a high carb eater, my energy was a nervous energy accompanied by ups and downs. I'm sure this was a result of BG and insulin swings.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 25, 2008, 01:18:51 pm
Hi Craig,
I think you're experience is pretty much paralleling mine with the exception that I really haven't experienced the brain fog.  This may be due to the fact that I'd switched to a raw meat diet about 18 months before this experiment in raising the fat.  Under my old protocol I was eating much more protein so I'm sure there was plenty of glucose to keep things running smoothly.  I was still producing ketones even then so possibly my brain transitioned slowly over time since both glucose and ketones were available in abundance. I'm now starving my body for glucose and forcing it to expend muscular energy which has interrupted the status quo -at least for the muscles.  The brain is fine so it must have made an orderly transition to ketones many months ago.

For the sake of the experiment I'm attempting to eat the same number of calories that I did before - just change the fat/protein ratio.  This means I'm eating significantly less volume of food, about 630g vs 900g.  I get full rather quickly and on occasion find it a struggle to finish even the lesser portion, though on other occasions I'm left wanting a bit more.

Yes Taubes said his research indicated that there was a theory that, all things being equal, if more calories were ingested then the body would increase energy expenditure over time to match.  Who knows?  I have no idea if my thinking is anywhere near cogent.  What I can say is that since going all raw meat, at times I wake up at night quite warm and have to throw off even the sheet in an effort to get back to sleep.  My wife thinks it's amusing as she had similar issues as she went through menopause.  The difference with me is that when eating a vegan diet I was always cold and usually slept with a blanket even in summer.  Now I usually sleep with only a sheet, a ceiling fan on low, and often with no covering at all so it's not really a hot flash.  But something is stoking the furnace that's for sure.

Lex

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 25, 2008, 01:31:45 pm
Yes Taubes said his research indicated that there was a theory that, all things being equal, if more calories were ingested then the body would increase energy expenditure over time to match.  Who knows?  I have no idea if my thinking is anywhere near cogent.  What I can say is that since going all raw meat, at times I wake up at night quite warm and have to throw off even the sheet in an effort to get back to sleep.  My wife thinks it's amusing as she had similar issues as she went through menopause.  The difference with me is that when eating a vegan diet I was always cold and usually slept with a blanket even in summer.  Now I usually sleep with only a sheet, a ceiling fan on low, and often with no covering at all so it's not really a hot flash.  But something is stoking the furnace that's for sure.

Lex



Hmmm.. I remember reading something about futile cycles. It has something to do with the body getting rid of energy and increased heat is a result or side-effect. I can't recall the details or how it works though.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 25, 2008, 03:25:51 pm
A new "Slanker's Newsletter" was mailed to me today with a health report from a "Caveman"...Lex!

http://www.texasgrassfedbeef.com/

They should send you your meat for free...

Nicola

I got it too and in the past couple of days, the unique views have almost doubled, putting this thread in #1 place for unique views! I'm sure it's due to the Slanker's Newsletter! I'll check the Awstats when they update but I've found that email links are hard to track.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CherylJosie on July 25, 2008, 05:51:45 pm
Hello Lex,

There are a few things I recommend that you do before committing to your experiment long-term.

First, I would read McDougall's Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion, because it recommends basically the opposite of your regimen and gives scientific analysis for the why. It will give you insights into the other side of the aisle, which could be vital to proper analysis of your experimental results.

Second, I recommend that you investigate the following items to see how your regimen is affecting them:

I just hope that your experiment is not causing you too much damage. The original Eskimos did eat a diet of nearly pure fish, and did not die of heart disease or blood clots, but the high concentration of Omega 3 in their diets interfered with clotting, essentially blocking the plaque from forming a clot when it ruptures and preventing stroke and heart attack by that mechanism, not by actually cleaning the arteries out, sort of like super-aspirin or heparin when used in the hospital during coronary thrombosis or stroke. Will a diet of pure grass-fed eventually cause you the same side effect that the Eskimos suffered -- fatal nose bleeds from inability to form clots?

These extreme diets may produce all sorts of interesting effects, but just because some test results get 'better' does not necessarily mean that you are healthier. I encourage you to try reading many different sources and getting a more wholistic view of what you are doing to your body, just in case you are robbing Peter to pay Paul with your dietary changes rather than actually building equity in your health.

Skepticism is a rare quality to have, just remember to be skeptical of everything in equal measure so that your mind stays open to the possibility that you too are in error, and that there may be more to the picture than just doing the opposite of conventional wisdom to maximize health.

Cheryl
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 25, 2008, 06:48:55 pm
Hi Cheryl and welcome,

Perhaps a little of Lex's history is should be known.
Please read: http://www.rawpaleo.com/lexR.html

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on July 26, 2008, 01:26:12 am
CherylJosie Lex has more tests done on his blood than anyone I know. Also he eats his food raw so the free radical creation from cooking you're talking about is a non-issue.

Although if he hasn't had any pH tests (which I would find hard to believe knowing Lex a little by now) then perhaps he should.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on July 26, 2008, 01:35:39 am
The issue re Eskimos and nosebleeds has been way overblown. And Eskimos on traditional diets actually had much lower rates of heart-disease- it was when they switched to modern, refined diets that they started getting serious problems re heart-disease etc.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: coconinoz on July 26, 2008, 03:24:30 am

lex says:
"when I'm exercising there is no surplus of free fatty acids around to create a new triglyceride as the FFAs are being used by the muscles for fuel."

lex & all in the know:
could you please elaborate on muscle fuel? what are the conditions leading to & the results of the muscles using glucose, ketones, fatty acids?

thanks & ve well

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: iamdj on July 26, 2008, 03:31:17 am
Firstly, I like to say, congrats, to all of you for trying diets that go against the modern diet. Cleary the, classic modern diet, refined grains, and the like has caused an epidemic of health problems.

I first came to this blog because of Ted Slanker's emails. I someday hope to afford grass-fed beef only.

I think Cheryl makes some great points, I'm also sure that Lex will look into his PH levels if he hasn't already.

My view on the Paleo diet is that while I believe that our ancestors, the earliest, must have eaten meat raw. At some point, after the discovery to make fires on demand, they might have started cooking their food, or at least tried it. I have no evidence of this or any idea why they may have cooked their food. Curiosity? Increased time before spoilage? Taste? But, also I can only imagine that they ate berries, nuts, grubs, bugs, seeds, root vegetables and perhaps even certain green leaves. I thought I read once that the ICE MAN, they found a few years back had a sack of seeds on him. I could be wrong.

I don't have any issues with the RAW meat versus cooked idea, other than certain pathogens that might be killed by cooking. I don't understand the raw meat ONLY approach. Do I have this right? Is this forum for those who eat raw meat only?

I'd like to hear or read more about this approach. Specifically as to why you choose not to eat ANY vegetables.

Thanks!

Dave ;D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on July 26, 2008, 05:08:54 am
This forum is for people that eat a primarily raw animal food based diet as far as I know.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on July 26, 2008, 05:21:47 am
The board as a whole is for people who eat at least a little raw animal food - only a small minority really eat only raw meats/organ-meats and nothing else - most include lots of raw meats/organ-meats in their diet  but also include some raw carbs(fruit, and to a lesser extent, raw veg). Most members on these kind of forums eat either mostly raw or all-raw.

If you look at all the palaeo evidence, you'll find that meat was at the very least the primary portion of the diet(plus some berries and similiar roughage, to a much lesser extent). That's one of the many reasons why Wrangham's idea re cooked-tubers supposedly being a major part of the Palaeo diet has been so soundly rejected by most palaeoanthrologists.

The Ice Man I think you're referring to was "Otzi" found in the Alps.He was from only 5,000 years ago, long (c.7,000 years) after  the Palaeolithic era ended. It was only in the Neolithic that seeds and grains and tubers etc. were eaten in large quantities.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: iamdj on July 26, 2008, 05:42:18 am
Thanks, everyone.

I find all of this fascinating.

I guess you'd have to call me a Neolithic eater, then. (not really 'cause I still cook my food)

None the less, I wish you all long and healthy journey. Congrats on you courage to go against the grain. Pun intended.

Dave
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 26, 2008, 08:46:01 am

Although if he hasn't had any pH tests (which I would find hard to believe knowing Lex a little by now) then perhaps he should.

Lex's urinary pH is normal. See 2008 blood test in first post. Also, he experienced an increase in bone density when eating an even higher amount of protein than before this experiment, 32% of calories vs 20%. Studies that concluded that protein leads to bone loss were conducted with fractionated protein, not whole, raw animal protein with all of its fat soluble vitamins and cofactors that make minerals more bioavailable.

Craig 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: akaikumo on July 27, 2008, 08:58:54 am
Lex, what do you usually eat? I know the ratio, but what are you eating to get the fat/protein?

I don't think I've seen what your meal plan looks like, but if you've written it already I'd appreciate it if someone would link me to the post.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on July 27, 2008, 09:05:28 am
Lex, what do you usually eat? I know the ratio, but what are you eating to get the fat/protein?

I don't think I've seen what your meal plan looks like, but if you've written it already I'd appreciate it if someone would link me to the post.

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/fat-ratio-experiment/msg1593/#msg1593

here you go  :)
Title: Re: Guests! Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 27, 2008, 09:53:44 am
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/fat-ratio-experiment/msg1593/#msg1593

here you go  :)

This reminds me... I've enabled the viewing of attachments by GUESTS and moderators (please don't ask)

Lex's attachments are in the first post of this thread and throughout.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 27, 2008, 01:08:36 pm
I didn't post yesterday as it was a very busy day with a lot of commitments.  I didn't even jog.  Just no time.  I had an early dental appointment at 7am for the dentist to replace a 40 year old 3-tooth bridge and the day just went down hill from there.  I knocked out a tooth when I was 12 years old when a dog chased me on my bicycle and in trying to fend him off I ran right smack dab into the back of a parked pick-up truck.  This was in the 1963.  I had a bridge put in 1969 when I turned 18.  I guess the glue finally gave up and I had to get a new one.

I want to thank everyone who posted in my absence and especially those that were able to answer some of the questions in my absence.  I do see a couple still hanging in the wind so to speak so forgive me as I attempt to address those.

could you please elaborate on muscle fuel? what are the conditions leading to & the results of the muscles using glucose, ketones, fatty acids?

On this one I'm a bit like Will Rodgers - "all I know is what I read in the newspapers" - and the truth is that you can probably get a much more detailed answer from Wikipedia or some of the better muscle building sites.  Speaking from the 20,000 foot view, the muscles can use glucose, fatty acids (FFA's) or ketones as fuel.  As we generally eat a high carb diet, our muscles have adapted to using glucose as their primary fuel source.  FFAs are just fat molecules as they've been broken down by digestion or from body fat.  This is the second easiest fuel for our muscles to use if glucose becomes scarce.  I think I read somewhere that people who run marathons quickly run out of glucose (stored as glycogen in the muscle tissue and liver) and for about 2/3s of the race their muscles switch over to burning FFAs.  The belief is that the switchover happens when they "hit the wall" and if they persist (and have trained long enough to teach their body to do this which can take months) and push through the wall the body switches to FFAs for the duration of the race - using FFAs released from the breakdown of body fat while they are running.  Finally the muscle cells can burn ketones which are a form of carbohydrate formed from FFA's in the liver.  It takes a good bit of doing to get the muscle cells to switch to ketones as their primary fuel as it takes both a significant increase in mitochondria in the cells as well as the manufacture of a specific enzyme to assist in the metabolism of the ketone bodies.  Since our normal modern diet is very high in carbs, the cells don't develop the extra mitochondria and the ability to make the enzyme goes dormant.  It can take several months to get everything back in production and when that happens, the muscles cells can no longer efficiently utilize glucose or FFA's.  At this point if we suddenly switch back to a high carb diet we will go through the same issues we faced converting to ketones as the body tears everything down and restructures to use Glucose and FFA's again - the whole thing is sort of a round robin catch-22. 

The switch from a glucose/FFA based muscle fuel to ketones (or visa versa) is a rather expensive proposition as far as the body is concerned and it will do everything possible to avoid the switch.  Even though we may eat no visible carbs, about 58% of all the protein we eat is converted to glucose and as long as we are eating enough protein to provide the minimum amount of glucose and FFA's the muscles won't switch to ketones even though they may be plentiful in our blood and/or urine.  Hope this helps.

There are a few things I recommend that you do before committing to your experiment long-term. ....First, I would read McDougall's Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion

Hi Chery, I've actually called and talked with both Dr.John & Mary McDougall as well as Dr. Barry Sears one-on-one about their theories and how they came to their conclusions.  These are very intelligent individuals.  The problem is that their theories are just their interpretation of the data they've collected under the conditions that they've engineered. This journal is loaded with my theories based on the data I've collected under conditions that I've engineered.  Most all of this is just our best guess as to what we think is happening based on what little we know or can accurately measure. My own experience does not support either McDougall’s or Sear’s findings.  One major problem is that none of them has done a long term study of what happens when your remove carbohydrates from the diet. They all play it safe with making sure to recommend x% of fresh fruits and vegetables to meet the vitamin and mineral needs of the body. None of them has done a study where they eliminated all foods other than meat and fat.  I did this starting about 3 years ago.  My doctor warned me about all the deficiencies I'd face as well as the kidney issues, the acidic blood issue and on and on.  None of this has materialized in 3 years and my blood tests get better and better each year as do my vital signs.

Second, I recommend that you investigate the following items to see how your regimen is affecting them:

1. blood PH... amino acids and fatty acids, when consumed in excess, make the blood PH go down, and the body may dump calcium from the bones into the blood stream to compensate. Since leafy greens are rich in calcium, it might be vital to add them to help buffer your PH and spare your bones. Basically, by eating grass-fed meat, you are eating animals that did in fact have alkaline diet, bur you are inverting your PH by eating the animals rather than the leafy greens. I recommend a bone scan periodically too, to make sure you are not dissolving your vertebra and setting yourself up for crippling injuries or fractures.

How do you know this? Is it because a guru in current fashion declares so in his latest book?  How does he know?  The reason I'm so skeptical is that based on x-rays my bone density has increased over the last 5 years and more than 3 of those years have been meat and fat only.  Milk is supposed to be loaded with calcium, however, most of the people that I know with bone density issues are heavy consumers of dairy products - at their doctor’s insistence - yet their bones continue to deteriorate.  Greens measure rich in calcium when tested with reagents in the laboratory, the question becomes, is this calcium available to the body - or are there anti-nutrients that block its absorption.  What role does blood glucose and insulin play in the proper absorption of nutrients?  By the way, my bone integrity was confirmed by an orthopedist.  I broke my finger a little over a year ago (compound fracture).  It healed in record time and after 8 weeks when he normally puts people with my injury in therapy, he was amazed to find that I already had 90% movement back and the break was completely healed.

free radicals... long chain fatty acids of the saturated variety are not as bad as unsaturated in this respect, but basically any fat that is heated to cook it is damaged and will end up with dangling bonds. The dangles represent spare or missing electrons that can cause the cooked (broken-down) fatty acids to react with (glom on to) other molecules, causing them to also become reactive, resulting in long tangled chains or bursts of additional dangling bonds, and cross-linked proteins. Cross-linking causes connective tissue to become less flexible (hydrogenated oils are worst in this respect) and also can cross-link right into DNA, potentially activating growth genes that might start the cell reproducing uncontrollably in a tumor. This is basically a process of 'oxidation' or burning when these burnt fats get into your system and start reacting with your own cells, and anti-oxidants serve to terminate the long chains of free radicals by donating or accepting an electron without damaging a cell in the process. Again, leafy greens are rich in anti-oxidants. The animals you are eating had the benefit of the leafy green to protect them from cancer and connective tissue damage, but you do not.

Again I must ask how you can be so sure about what happens in the body related to the various fatty acids.  I eat my fats raw for the most part so what does that mean and how do you know?  The cross linking I've researched only happens in the presence of blood glucose and high insulin levels and again this is only a theory - no one really knows.  What makes you think that leafy greens will protect you from cancer and connective tissue damage.  I've seen this stated many times but I've found no research that supports it - and worse, books that reference studies that supposedly support it, when you actually read the study itself, you find that any link is tenuous at best and often missing altogether.

I just hope that your experiment is not causing you too much damage.

I assure you that some of the worst damage I've ever done to myself was to blindly follow the writings teachings of the latest diet gurus, and I've followed many of them.  I no longer do this.  I now do my own research, my own experiments, and when things aren't working I'm not afraid to take the exit and try another path. I get an annual physical and to be honest, at age 57, I'm in better shape than the 30 something doctor that performed my last physical.  Blood tests, vital signs, energy all have improved dramatically since early 2005 when I started this paleo adventure.

These extreme diets may produce all sorts of interesting effects, but just because some test results get 'better' does not necessarily mean that you are healthier. I encourage you to try reading many different sources and getting a more wholistic view of what you are doing to your body, just in case you are robbing Peter to pay Paul with your dietary changes rather than actually building equity in your health.

Who could I possibly read that would know anything about a totally zero carb diet?  I read constantly and this Journal is an effort to document the findings in Gary Taubes book Good Calories/Bad Calories.  Taubes admits he doesn't know but his research lead him to his conclusions.  I'm doing my best to test some of his insights and theories.  There is really no one else in the popular press doing stuff like this.  Stephen Phinney has done some work with athletes on Zero Carb diets and he disproved most of the myths you've repeated in your post.  Unfortunately, Phinney's work isn't in the best selling diet guru section of the local book store.

Skepticism is a rare quality to have, just remember to be skeptical of everything in equal measure so that your mind stays open to the possibility that you too are in error, and that there may be more to the picture than just doing the opposite of conventional wisdom to maximize health.

Believe me when I say that there is no one more skeptical than me.  I question everything and everyone.  I take nothing at face value and if I find something is not working I won't hesitate to change it.

Hmmm.. I remember reading something about futile cycles. It has something to do with the body getting rid of energy and increased heat is a result or side-effect. I can't recall the details or how it works though.

Dr Eades discussed futile cycles in his response to an e-mail asking about where all the calories consumed in a high fat diet go.  I read through this work and again it is just a theory.  It started as a possible theory to explain homeostasis - that the body will do useless work to create heat to keep our body temperatures at 98.6 deg.  Eades just extrapolated this idea and suggested that the body might be doing this same thing to use up all those extra calories we eat as fat.  It makes no sense to me.  Start with the original premise of the theory - that the body does useless work to keep body temperature constant.  Now take a simple observation (near and dear to my heart of late) that jogging a mile will raise my body temperature and cause me to break out into a sweat and yet all I've consumed is about 100 extra calories.  Many of us consume several thousand extra calories per day as part of our high fat diet.  Now if the body was burning 1,000s of extra calories per day in futile cycles (remember futile cycles keep the body warm) I figure I should be shriveled up, burned to a crisp, and glowing so hot you'd need sunglasses to look at my remains. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on July 27, 2008, 01:36:37 pm
Lex, the way I understood the explanation of the burning of extra calories is that the body will work to use them, which results in heat production, not to keep the temperature constant but to use the calories. Constant body temperature is something the body does no matter what, and if you don't have enough calories to keep that up you are not long for this world. If you are running every day then I would surmise your body would have less extra calories to burn off with heat-producing busy work. Is this anywhere near your experience?

In other words, if you were to consume twice as many calories as you do now (force feed yourself) and lower your energy use (or simply not increase it) then your body would overwork certain systems to use up those calories more often, resulting in hot flash type symptoms.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: akaikumo on July 27, 2008, 01:48:10 pm
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/fat-ratio-experiment/msg1593/#msg1593

here you go  :)

thanks!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 27, 2008, 01:48:50 pm
I grabbed a snail from the garden as I headed out to help set my jogging pace.  Together we completed 3 full miles, and I'm proud to report that I won by a full length!  Ten minute miles as usual so nothing to write home about but going from nothing to 3 non-stop miles in a week and a half is better than I expected.  I really believe that I could have done 5 without much effort, but will probably keep it around 2-3 since I'm not trying to break any distance records.  I think the next step, is to follow Satya's suggestion and up the intensity rather than just add more and more of the same slow pace.  I'll keep it at 3 miles slow jog for next week just to make sure that I'm solid there and then maybe the following week jog the first 2 and do intervals on the last mile.  Now for intervals we're not talking 10 second 100 yard dash here.  Just picking up the pace from a 10 minute mile to maybe a 6 or 7 minute mile and hold it as long as I can - then walk until I've recovered enough to do it again, repeating as many times as I can in the 3rd mile.  Comments and suggestions welcome. 

BG rose again today.  It was 88 about 30 minutes after jogging (9am) and it is 105 now (10:30pm). 

Ketones are still at level 4+ but I did see a dip at one point in the day to level 3. Not sure if this was just a bad test strip or if it was a true drop.

BP was 111/54 about 3 minutes after jogging and dropped to 98/57 when I was resting later in the day.

One of the posts above was concerned about pH levels.  I do monitor urine pH and it is always acidic at between 5.0 and 5.5.  I looked up the medical evaluation from Steffansson's 1 year all meat diet and it showed that both Anderson and Steffannson's urine pH dropped to around 5.0 while eating only meat and fat.  My levels are consistent with these findings.  I have no way to find my actual blood pH so rely on my annual blood test which is posted in the first entry of this journal for that information.  It has been within normal range the last 2 times tested.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 27, 2008, 02:22:02 pm
Constant body temperature is something the body does no matter what, and if you don't have enough calories to keep that up you are not long for this world. If you are running every day then I would surmise your body would have less extra calories to burn off with heat-producing busy work. Is this anywhere near your experience?

In other words, if you were to consume twice as many calories as you do now (force feed yourself) and lower your energy use (or simply not increase it) then your body would overwork certain systems to use up those calories more often, resulting in hot flash type symptoms.

Hi Kyle,
My point was that the idea of futile cycles was initially proposed as an attempt to explain what the body does to maintain body temperature - it just does useless work that creates additional heat when needed.  The second point was that Dr. Eades extended this idea to suggest that futile cycles could also be used to explain how the body used up extra un-needed calories without storing them as fat.  My point is that if enough heat is created by burning an extra 10 calories per minute for 10 minutes (100 cal total) to raise my core temperature such that I break out into a sweat in an attempt to cool my body down, how could this possibly account for using up thousands of extra calories eaten in a high fat diet.  We'd all be dripping wet with sweat as our bodies desperately tried to keep cool.  I've also found that I tolerate both heat and cold much better than I did eating a high carb diet.  Yes, I often wake up warm at night and throw off any covers, but unlike a hot flash, I really don't need covers to start with and mostly put them on from habit.  So it appears that my metabolism is generating more heat, but it also seems to tolerate hot weather better also which seems a bit of a contradiction.  My wife's hot flashes on the other hand were intense in nature and rather short in duration.  You could also measure her body temp rise at these times.  Even though I feel warm my body temp stays stable.

Also, there's the problem that if futile cycles burn all these excess calories when eating a high fat diet then why isn't the same true when eating excess calories as carbs.  If futile cycles are part of the homeostasis loop then they must be called into play no matter what the fuel source is.

Just some random thoughts as I truly know nothing at all about this.  Its just that what I've been told didn't make sense to me and this may be because I'm only seeing a small fragment of the picture.  If there truly is documented existence of the futile cycle I'd love to read the research on it.  Until then I remain a bit skeptical.  The good thing about it is none of this depends on whether I believe it or not.  Whatever is happening will happen regardless of what I think or believe.  Kinda like gravity, you can insist that it doesn't exist, but it governs every physical movement you make whether you believe in it or not.  We are not given a choice when it comes to autonomous body functions - they just happen - and that's a good thing.

lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: coconinoz on July 28, 2008, 01:15:57 pm
thanks so much for your explanation of muscle fuels, rex; really appreciate it -- looks like we people on this forum give you a great opportunity to exercise your finger muscles (run by glycogen, ketone, ffa or good will)

i've done a little reading on the subject, yet my level is still free weekly local paper whereas yours must be nyt or better...

1 thing that has caught my attention is that fast twitch muscle fibers (used in weight training & sprinting) are said to be fueled by their own glycogen or ketones; those ketones are generally supposed to be endogenous but i've speculated in the metabolism of lipids thread that they could also be dietary ketones
the slow twitch muscle fibers (endurance), on the other hand (or foot for that matter), are said to be fueled by ffa

so now my question is how a certain foodstyle could make it possible to optimize the enjoyment of both types of muscle fibers; i tend to think there must be a way to do it
i'd like to gather data from both what the experts say & what the paleo/raf eaters experience

incidentally, i read gary taubes' gcbc from a to z; his ch15 on hunger & exercise i found the weakest
now i want a book just like that but focused on raf & with a better ch15, of course


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: coconinoz on July 29, 2008, 11:31:46 am
here's a couple of relevant links:

~ a somewhat detailed description of both muscle fuels -- glycogen/ketones vs ffa, i.e. carbs vs lipids -- based on the findings of many research projects
1 of his conclusions is that in 24 hr to several weeks after the exercise the effects of both types of fuel will even out
this is found in his article in 3 parts (& he also has another article on if, incidentally)
http://alanaragon.com/articles.html (http://alanaragon.com/articles.html)

~ a rather technical paper on the thrift genes/enzymes/hormones focused on the cycles of feast-famine & exercise-inactivity
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/96/1/3 (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/96/1/3)

p.s.
myself, i think not only exercise & intermittent/fractal meal cycles but also exposure to outdoor (mountain or ocean) air, sun, tree shade, river/lake/ocean water or walking on grass/sand do make a difference -- for example, lying on the grass basking in the sun has similar effects as some exercise...


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 29, 2008, 12:40:04 pm
Hi Coconinoz,
I worry when people think I have a high level of knowledge of much of anything.  Most of what I write is just my thought process in trying to rectify what I am experiencing with what little I know.  For all practical purposes it is probably nonsense.  What I think sets me apart is that I'm willing to try things out for myself and document my findings along the way.  The measurements I publish (BG, BP, Heart Rate, Ketones, etc) are accurate.  My reasoning as to why they are what they are is mere speculation.  The real problem is that there is very little unbiased research being done so we are pretty much on our own if we decide to deviate from the status quo.

As for Gary Taubes, don't judge him to harshly.  Afterall he's a journalist not a researcher.  It is his willingness to buck the system and publish a book that doesn't tow the party line that may get others interested in actually doing useful formal research in a much neglected area.

Thanks for the links.  I'll try to read them tomorrow.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 29, 2008, 01:00:23 pm
Since I cheated and didn't jog on Friday I decided that I should at least make a show of it Sunday so I slogged out about 2.5 miles.  This morning I felt pretty good and had no trouble completing 3 miles at my usual slow pace.  I try to speed things along a bit now and then but quickly run out of steam and have to slow down - though I never actually stop and walk.  We'll see if I'm able to improve my performance over time.

My guess is that there are two things at work here, one I haven't really exercised for many years, and the other is diet.  As I remember from my running days in the 70s and 80s, it takes about 90 days for additional blood cells to mature once you start a regular exercise program and so I'll be interested to see if I have a significant improvement around the 3rd week in October.

BG was 91 before my jog today and dropped to 83 after the jog.  This is interesting as my BG would drop into the 60s during the first week I started jogging.  It has been slowly creeping back up to the same levels as it was before I started the increased activity.  Not sure what to make of this.

Ketones were off the chart at level 4+ as usual and I see no change in them after exercise.  I'm guessing that with my diet so high in fat, my body is discarding much of the extra energy by converting the excess FFAs into ketones so that they can be eliminated.  I've never read anything that described how the body could eliminate FFAs directly once they entered the blood stream, however, there is much written about ketones being eliminated through the kidneys and lungs.

With the 10 point drop in BG after jogging it seems my muscles are still using glucose even though I don't eat any carbs at all an protein is only about 100g per day.  The fact that overall glucose seems to be rising still has me wondering if I may be burning a significant amount of FFA's as muscle fuel and that the glucose created from the breakdown of the triglyceride is what is keeping it in the high 80s to mid 90s.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on July 30, 2008, 12:09:29 am
With the 10 point drop in BG after jogging it seems my muscles are still using glucose even though I don't eat any carbs at all an protein is only about 100g per day.  The fact that overall glucose seems to be rising still has me wondering if I may be burning a significant amount of FFA's as muscle fuel and that the glucose created from the breakdown of the triglyceride is what is keeping it in the high 80s to mid 90s.

Lex

Lex,

This time you sped things up until you had to slow down. As opposed to your last update, you were probably going anaerobic this time and were using glycogen stores. You're BG probably went down to replenish some of those stores. The glycerol molecule will be converted to glucose until your body's requirements are met. The rest will be recombined with fatty acids to reform TGs. I read this somewhere, GCBC perhaps? Charles also explained it very well on the livinlavidalowcarb forum before it got hacked. It stuck out in my mind because I couldn't figure out why my own serum TG didn't fall as quickly as I expected. They probably would have fallen more quickly had I been raw low-carb, keeping my body at the glucose burning threshold, vs zero carb. But, for me that would be like an alcoholic only drinking two drinks a day.   

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on July 30, 2008, 11:21:23 am
I just noticed that this is the second most popular thread having 529 unique views - second only to a much older thread.
Not many people are posting in it but they sure are reading it!
I'm one of the "lurkers"  ;D I'm finding this absolutely fascinating!

Lex, thank you for charting all of this.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on July 30, 2008, 07:17:29 pm
I thought I read once that the ICE MAN, they found a few years back had a sack of seeds on him. I could be wrong.

That was Tommy Chong, I think.  :o
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on August 02, 2008, 10:54:58 am
I hope I didn't kill the journal  ???
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 02, 2008, 11:37:38 am
I hope I didn't kill the journal  ???

No, Daryl, you haven't killed his journal. Lex normally updates at least once a week and then spends some time replying to questions. He will get back, I assure you. He would never leave us hanging without an explanation.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 02, 2008, 11:41:13 am
I'm one of the "lurkers"  ;D I'm finding this absolutely fascinating!

Lex, thank you for charting all of this.

Sorry, I should have welcomed you! Welcome Daryl!
I'm glad you find this as fascinating as I do!

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on August 02, 2008, 05:57:20 pm
Sorry, I should have welcomed you! Welcome Daryl!
I'm glad you find this as fascinating as I do!

Craig
Thanks, Craig  ;D  It's like watching a scientist at work, on one of my favorite subjects.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 04, 2008, 02:28:14 pm
It's been a rough week.  Was at a seminar for 6 days and unfortunately meals were included and they were not paleo friendly.  Wasn't able to job for the 5 of the 6 days (jogged before I left on day one and that was the end of that) but just finished 3 miles this evening after returning home and was able to slog through it non-stop.

Meals were the pits.  The only meal that even came close was breakfast.  All the others were carb centric and there wasn't enough meat/fat content in them to bother with.  Most meals were an ounce or two of stuff like 95% fat free turkey loaf on a big fluffy bun with a tomato slice thin enough to see through and just enough lettuce to add a bit of color. 

I still only ate one meal per day but focused on breakfast as my best option.  This was always an open buffet with all you could eat scrambled eggs, bacon, sausage links, etc along with the biscuts and gravy, waffles, and other stuff.  Of course everything was cooked the max.  From what I could tell I ate about 6 - 8 scrambled eggs per day (often mixed with some cheese flavored stuff to pass it off as sort of an omelet - it was premixed, I had no choice), about 10 - 12 breakfast sausage links, and 7 - 8 pieces of bacon.  I usually smothered the eggs with additional butter.

The end result of eating like this for a week was not good.  I developed edema (swelling of my ankles to more than double their normal size with the skin so tight I could feel it stretching), as well as very lose stools.  I also gained eight pounds in the six days so my current weight is up to 169.  With the edema I'm sure that much of this is water retention.  Ketones dropped to a solid level 2.  I expect that this had to do with carbs in the cheesy stuff and the eggs.  Everything was extremely salty and this may also be a big contributor to the problems I'm experiencing.

Looking forward to getting back to normal routine and my regular food tomorrow, Monday.  I just logged on for the first time since I returned so I haven't yet read the posts that have accumulated since I left.  I'll try to get to them over the next couple of days.  As you can imagine, my e-mail box is stuffed filled to over flowing and I've got to sort through that as well.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: akaikumo on August 04, 2008, 04:58:05 pm
Oh wow, that sounds like hell. I hope everything returns to normal quickly.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on August 04, 2008, 06:28:02 pm
Hang in there, Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on August 04, 2008, 07:13:34 pm
Lex, I can not understand why you didn't organize this trip like you have been doing so; taking your own dried beef&fat...Did you think, that things would work out and that your body could handle that kind of food after so long not eating SAD?

So meat and fat was not in sight (no shop?) (perhaps 3x a day)...

http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=367

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: rawlion on August 04, 2008, 11:02:39 pm
 After such painful experience I think the next time you may consider a 5-6 days long water fast... I believe it would have been more beneficial should you chose to not eat at all...

Yuri
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on August 05, 2008, 01:31:07 am
Wow, well I can honestly say in that situation I would probably have broke down and ate carbs and other garbage. At least you did your best.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 05, 2008, 08:19:54 am
Thanks for the update. Sorry you had to go through that but it's a glaring example of what cooked, non-Paleo foods can do to a body pristine for so long. According to the Drs. Eades, scrambled eggs are the worst foods to eat since they are exposed not only to heat but also more oxygen in the scrambling process - resulting in extremely oxidized cholesterol.

All is not lost. Andrew, I, and a few others have found that subsequent keto-adaptations are very short-lived. For me, it was a day and my body picked right back up where it'd left off. There seems to be some sort of keto "memory" involved.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 08, 2008, 08:31:46 am
I finally got things caught up and can put more attention to the journal.

Daryl, Welcome aboard.  Hope you find something useful here.  If you have specific questions I'll be glad to try to answer them.

Nicola, You are probably right, I should have done more preparation, however, the opportunity popped up unexpectedly and if I didn't take it the next opportunity for the same training could have been several years down the road.  I figure that, like everything else in life, stuff happens and we just have to adapt the best we can.  Our paleo ancestors were regularly faced with far worse situations.

Yuri,  I've done the fasting thing to the max - 31 days water only.  Learned my lesson and won't do that again.  It took me over 2 year to recover.  I do miss a day eating on occasion, but don't plan for it - I just get busy and absorbed in what I'm doing and forget to eat.  One rule I've made is not to eat anything after about 6pm.  That way I don't go to bed with a full stomach and I usually sleep better.  If I haven't eaten by then, then I don't eat at all that day.

Kyle, you can bet I thought about just eating what was there, but I felt that I'd put so much effort into where I am today, and there were some acceptable options so I chose to do the best possible in the situation.

Craig,  I'm totally bummed.  I love scrambled eggs.  I usually eat them once a month or so and make them using the lowest heat possible to set the eggs and very high in fat by using 1 tablespoon of butter for each egg.  They're just dripping with melted butter and Oh So Gooooooood!  Unfortunately, this past experience has shown that a steady diet of scrambled eggs leaves much to be desired.

Lex   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 08, 2008, 09:00:49 am
I've been back on my raw meat and fat only rations now for 4 or 5 days now.  My edema has subsided significantly but my ankles are still just a bit larger than normal.  With some luck they will return to normal over the next week or so.  My weight has also dropped by a pound or so per day and today I was at 164 - down from 169 on Sunday.  This makes me believe that most of my problem was water retention.  Just wonder what caused it.

I checked BG this morning and it was 76 which is very good.  Wish it would stay there all day.  Right now it is 98.

Heart rate upon arising has slowly declined to where it is now consistently around 60 bpm.  Before I raised the fat level to 80% It was at 56 bpm and it looks like I may return to that level over time.

BP seems to have stabilized over the long term and now varies in a narrow range between 90/60 and 110/70.  What surprises me most is that 5 minutes or so after jogging it has returned to this narrow range which to me is remarkable. 

Every health issue I've had has gone completely away except the prostate enlargement (BPH).  I'm glad to report that I'm making measurable progress here also.  In 2005 I was put on 4mg per day of Doxazosin (the only medication I take) which is an alpha-blocker that relaxes the muscles to allow easier urination.  I had hoped that a diet change would rapidly solve the problem but this was not the case.  In fact, I had pretty much given up on this and figured it was a permanent condition - possibly preventable with proper diet, but not curable once you've got it.

Well, there has been slow but measurable improvement.  When I started taking Doxazosin in 2005 I was getting up 4 to 5 times per night to urinate.  With the medication this was reduced to once per night between 2am and 3am and then in the morning between 6am and 7am.  Over time I've been able to reduce the medication from 4mg per day to 2mg per day and for the last week I've been taking only 1.3mg per day.  Night time bathroom visits have remained stable.  I'm very encouraged and as time progresses I may actually achieve my goal of being medication free.  When I reduce meds like this I stay at the new level for at least 3 months as there is some residual effect and I want to make sure that everything is stable before I make another change.  Will report on this occasionally when there is a change for the better (or worse) as time goes on but based on how long it's been to get this far reporting will be very sporadic.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on August 08, 2008, 09:55:19 am
Good to hear from you Lex!
I'm glad that you're recovering from the "Week of Horror"!
And I do hope you are able to get off the medication eventually!
But once again, compared to most Americans that are your age and even younger, one medication is nothing!   :)

Take care!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 08, 2008, 11:47:43 am
Lex,

I'm glad to hear you're recovering! I don't think scrambled eggs once a month is going to kill you. Every morning maybe but don't be bummed. The stress of being bummed will probably be worse.

Quote
Every health issue I've had has gone completely away except the prostate enlargement (BPH).  I'm glad to report that I'm making measurable progress here also.  In 2005 I was put on 4mg per day of Doxazosin (the only medication I take) which is an alpha-blocker that relaxes the muscles to allow easier urination.  I had hoped that a diet change would rapidly solve the problem but this was not the case.  In fact, I had pretty much given up on this and figured it was a permanent condition - possibly preventable with proper diet, but not curable once you've got it.

Do you mean since going RAF or 80% fat? I'm pretty sure it's the former but just wanted it to be clearer for your fans.

Thanks for the updates!

Craig


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 09, 2008, 01:51:41 am
Yes, since going RAF.  I expected rapid improvements and got them for the most part.  It seems that some things just take time and others won't improve much at all.  BPH has been very slow to show improvement but there clearly is some.  The question is whether I can drop the meds entirely or just reduce them - time will tell.   

Hair loss is another area where I think it could have been prevented by a proper diet but once the hair is gone for many years you just won't grow it back.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on August 09, 2008, 06:29:08 am

BP seems to have stabilized over the long term and now varies in a narrow range between 90/60 and 110/70.  What surprises me most is that 5 minutes or so after jogging it has returned to this narrow range which to me is remarkable. 


Thanks for the welcome, Lex. Your BP & heart rate numbers indicates that you have a very strong and healthy heart, good going on that  :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on August 09, 2008, 07:16:23 pm


Though your body may have not fully adjusted to eating 80% fat so that you don't feel as good as you used to be on higher protein mix, your lab result is even better than it was previously which I believe is an indication that your body is healing even further. I can't imagine what will happen when the body actually adopts to burn fatty acids and ketones more efficiently over the course of time! Maybe you'll get even more energetic and fit that I'll see you in marathon competition in the next Olympics :D

I know you took up jogging because you wanted to fast track the adaptation period by depleting glucose from gluconeogenesis, not necessarily for athletic purpose. However, I'm very moved to see you improving your performance and most importantly, enjoying yourself as you go on. I'm learning a lot from your experiment and certainly motivated by your determintaion.

By the way, are you going back to your former mix when the experiment is over? It seems that men do handle higher protein diet better when it comes to body composition and possibly energy, but fat seems to be the least stressful macronutrient for the body. Keep us posted!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 10, 2008, 11:18:04 pm
Hi Elli,
Thanks for posting.  I'm not sure where I'm going after this.  If the higher fat works out well for me over time then I'll stay with it.  If I feel that I was doing better on the higher protein mix then I'll go back to that.  I'll be on the higher fat probably at least until the end of October and maybe until the end of the year before I make my decision of what to do next.  One thing I've learned, it takes the body a good bit of time to fully adapt to changes like this and I don't want to interrupt the process until the things I can measure are stable again.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 11, 2008, 12:12:54 am
Here is the 10th week update on my fat ratio experiment.

                       68%F/32%P  80%F/20%P  80%F/20%P   80%F/20%P
                         Baseline          21 Days       42 Days       70 Days

BG Daily Avg           106              94              92                 87
BG Hi/Low Range   90/120         92/103        80/100           71/98
BG rise after meal      25              10               6                 12
Urine Ketones       0-Trace      SM/Lg        Trace/Mod         Large+
Resting Heart Rt        58             63              60                 59
Weight                   162            159            165               160
BMI                         21.4          21.0           21.8              21.1   
%Body Fat(calipers)   11.0         12.3           13.9               10.8
BP                       110/70        105/67        98/63            103/65

Average Daily BG has dropped a good bit to 87.  The daily BG high/low range has expanded from a 20 point swing 28 days ago (80/100) to a 27 point swing (71/98).  The good part (I hope) is that the over all numbers are lower. I hope this holds  I’ve noticed over the last couple of days that BG is staying in the mid 70’s range during the day until I eat my meal and then it usually rises into the high 80s but did reach 98 once.  The rise in BG after a meal dropped during the last period but has risen again and is now about 12 points or so, up from the previous 6. For the past couple of days my BG has been in the mid 70’s upon arising and surprisingly it has stayed there much of the day until I eat my meal in the late afternoon and then it rises into the mid to high 80’s.

Urine Ketones were previously running between level 1 and level 2 throughout the day.  Now they are maxed out at level 4+ throughout the day and have been at this level for most of the 4 week period.  Not sure what this means.  Average BG has dropped over the last 4 weeks but ketones have sky rocketed.  I now think it’s pretty clear that I’m not using them to any real extent to fuel muscle activity, especially since I don’t see a drop after jogging.

Resting heart rate has dropped slightly over the last 4 weeks from 60 to 59.  This may have been helped by the jogging I started several weeks ago.  BP is pretty stable.  The overall average this period was about 103/65.  It varies from 90/60 to 115/70 or so.

Weight was a real yo-yo this period.  I had a 6 day period where I was unable to eat my normal food and had to do my best on cafeteria fare.  I ate mostly breakfast foods – eggs, sausage, bacon, ham, and a little cheese.  I drenched everything in as much butter as possible to try to assure that the fat was very high.  The effect of the week was significant water retention to the point that my ankles swelled up to about 3 times their normal size.  They were so swollen that I could feel the skin stretching – very uncomfortable.  I’m glad to report that after a full week back on my normal diet of grass-fed beef, everything has returned to normal and I’ve even lost weight from last period down to 160 from 165.  Caliper measurements show that much of this weight was body fat which dropped from 13.91% to 10.8 this period which is a 3.1% decrease.  Could it be that I was losing body fat during the week that I was gaining water weight from the less than optimum diet?  Surely I couldn't have burned away 5 lbs of fat in 7 days, there just wasn't that much difference lifestyle to cause such reduction and much of the weight lost over the last week had to be water from the edema.  I guess the added activity of jogging must also be contributing to the overall reduction of weight and fat as this has been an increase of actvitity for about 3 weeks which could account for significant additional fat loss.

Original Caliper measurements were Chest 6mm, Abdomen 10mm, Thigh 11mm
Caliper measurements at 21 days    Chest 8mm, Abdomen 12mm, Thigh 11mm
Caliper measurements at 42 days    Chest 9mm, Abdomen 14mm, Thigh 13mm
Caliper measurements at 70 days    Chest 6mm, Abdomen 8mm, Thigh 12mm

As you can see things are still very dynamic. I was hoping that increasing my activity level by jogging would shake things up and it seems to have done just that.  It will be interesting to see where this goes. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 11, 2008, 10:53:00 pm
I have been jogging in the evenings as it is much cooler - sometimes waiting until 10pm or so.  Up until now I've been doing 2 miles at a fairly slow pace of 10min/mile.  This is much slower than 25 years ago in my early 30s when I would do 10 miles every other day at a 6:30 pace.  I expect that there are several things at work here. 

First and probably most important is that I've gotten older my maximal heart rate has dropped.  If I remember correctly the formula is something like 200 minus your age.  I've attached a chart below showing how, as we age, our heart rate slows down and as such this affects the delivery of oxygen to the muscles and affects overall performance.  As you can see from the chart, in my 20s/30s my heart could beat at 190 to 200 bpm when I put in an all-out effort.  Now in my mid to late 50s were looking at the 160 bpm range.

Second is that my increased activity was re-started 3 weeks or so ago after about 20 years of much more sedentary behaviour.  Once new activity is started and is sustained long enough for the body to recognize that it is not a one time flight-or-fight activity, the body starts to do whatever is necessary to support the new activity level.  New capillaries are built to supply more blood to the muscles, more red blood cells are produced to carry more oxygen, & etc.  All this takes time.  As an example, it takes about 90 days from the time the body starts building additional blood cells for those cells to mature and enter the blood stream. 

Overall this means that once the increased activity starts, the body will start a "conditioning" process.  At first this process will be rather slow, and the perception will be that little or nothing is improving much.  However, at about the 90 day point things reach critical mass with a sudden increase in red blood cells now supported by increased capillaries and there seems to be an overnight jump in performance.

Since I started this new activity about the second week in July, the performance boost should happen about the second week in October.  Of course I've seen a lot of improvement in the last 4 weeks, however, things should really start perking at the 90 day point.  Most people become discouraged after a couple of months as they continue to struggle and often give up just days before things would significantly improve.

I've also started to have trouble with my left knee.  I injured it when I was about 12 years old and it has given me minor problems ever since.  In my 20s/30s I found that if I jogged every other day, it seemed to allow my knee to rest enough between jogs that it didn't cause any significant issues.  Based on this, I'm going to modify my jogging pattern to every other day but double the miles run per session to 4 miles.  This will keep total milage the same but give my knee 48 hours of rest between sessions.

The adventure continues,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on August 12, 2008, 02:03:23 am
Sluggish forum re posting.  I lost a post to Lex.  I will provide short version hoping for post.

Lex, try the Karvonen formula for your age and resting heart rate.  HRmax is 220-age.  Good for you doing alternate days with double mileage - prudent in light of knee issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Karvonen_method

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on August 12, 2008, 03:00:48 am
Lex, I know Charles is "only" in his 40is but he runs and thinks...

Pirie's Laws of Running:

http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=367&page=21

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 12, 2008, 12:49:09 pm
Thanks for the encouragement Satya.  As I round the corner for that last mile it's the thought of not letting the group down that keeps me going.

Nicola, I read a good bit of Charles' journal and he is amazing.  Thanks for giving me the heads-up.  I'll be checking regularly to see where his path leads him.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 12, 2008, 01:05:43 pm
Sluggish forum re posting.  I lost a post to Lex.  I will provide short version hoping for post.

Lex, try the Karvonen formula for your age and resting heart rate.  HRmax is 220-age.  Good for you doing alternate days with double mileage - prudent in light of knee issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Karvonen_method



I've repaired and optimized the database. Anything using the database should be fixed. There SHOULD be no more sluggishness, or database errors. Blue Host is very accommodating. I hadn't realized this was something I needed to check every so often.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 12, 2008, 01:25:29 pm


Lex,

I might have mentioned this before but my ketones were always higher after exercise than before. What I think was happening was that the body ramps up their production but keeps it going some time after the exercise stops, leaving more to be excreted.
You may not be utilizing all of them since they are always high but I think you'll find that, as your body becomes more efficient, they will go down when inactive and increase when, or after, exercise because of a lag between the stopping of exercise and the production of the ketones. As you get even more adapted, you may show trace amounts when inactive and only slightly higher levels after activity. This has just been my experience.

This is the opposite of BG utilization because the body cannot produce enough glucose to keep up when the body is using glucose as its primary fuel. This is why you'll run out and hit the wall. I could be wrong but I would look more at your ketone levels before exercise as a marker of your progress in adapting and less at the post exercise levels for now.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoKyle on August 12, 2008, 06:56:52 pm

Lex,

I might have mentioned this before but my ketones were always higher after exercise than before. What I think was happening was that the body ramps up their production but keeps it going some time after the exercise stops, leaving more to be excreted.
You may not be utilizing all of them since they are always high but I think you'll find that, as your body becomes more efficient, they will go down when inactive and increase when, or after, exercise because of a lag between the stopping of exercise and the production of the ketones. As you get even more adapted, you may show trace amounts when inactive and only slightly higher levels after activity. This has just been my experience.

This is the opposite of BG utilization because the body cannot produce enough glucose to keep up when the body is using glucose as its primary fuel. This is why you'll run out and hit the wall. I could be wrong but I would look more at your ketone levels before exercise as a marker of your progress in adapting and less at the post exercise levels for now.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Craig

I find the opposite to be true for me. When I was keto adapting I always had moderate amounts. At that time I was inactive and tired. Now that I am fully adapted I will get negative to trace amounts during the day and when I exercise(I do not run, but will hike and fast pace walk for 10+ miles. my job is also very physical(landscaper)) When I first wake up in the morning is when I get moderate amounts. Since fully adapting it has been like this...moderate in the morning then negative to trace in the day and evening. My energy is always consistant as well.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 12, 2008, 11:57:56 pm
Craig,
My take on ketones is similar to Kyle's.  In my case, I believe they are up because my body is not using them to any extent to support muscle activity.  Instead, I believe my body is breaking down body fat to get at the glycerol to create glucose to support the muscles and this creates an excess of FFA's in a ratio of 3 to 1.  The three unused fatty acids in the triglyceride molecule are then being converted to ketones so that they can be excreted via the urine and lungs while the glycerol molecule is being converted to glucose to fuel the muscles - hence ketones rise during periods of increased activity. 

Additional support for this comes from the fact that BG drops 5 to 10 points after exercise, so it is clear that I'm using BG during the activity.  The good news here is that BG stays down now for many hours after the activity (actually until I eat my next meal about 16 hours later) indicating to me that BG is not needed for my normal activities.  And with luck, possibly my body is transitioning to FFA's and/or Ketones.

Also, if I was using body fat to get at the FFA's or to produce ketones and my body wasn't using glucose to fuel the muscles, then BG should rise after exercise as the glycerol from the triglycerides would still be converted to glucose as usual, but not used for fuel.  In my case I think the opposite is happening - I'm using the glycerol and discarding the FFA's.

Like Kyle, I believe I should see a reduction in ketones after exercise if my body is using them as the primary fuel for muscle activity.  Ketones should also vary with activity level if muscles are using them - lower activity, higher ketone levels - higher activity, lower ketone levels.  In other words, ketones should vary in the same way that BG varies in a person using glucose as the primary fuel.

It is very clear to me that things are still very dynamic so my body is still adapting.  Only time will tell where this rabbit trail will lead.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 13, 2008, 01:05:44 am
Maybe it happened to me because I'm considered "older" as in this study:

1. The effect of exercise on blood ketone body concentrations was studied in trained athletes and in sedentary subjects pedalling a bicycle ergometer. 2. Although the untrained subjects had higher heart rates and blood lactate concentrations at the same work load as the athletes, neither group developed ketonaemia even after intense or prolonged exercise. 3. Older subjects developed post-exercise ketonaemia, reaching maximum about 3 hr after exercise. 4. A high-carbohydrate diet before the exercise could prevent the onset of post-exercise ketonaemia and a low-carbohydrate diet enhanced it. The highest post-exercise blood ketone levels were recorded in marathon runners after a "glycogen-stripping' regimen. 5. Concentrations of free fatty acids, glucose, growth hormone and insulin in blood after exercise followed different patterns from that of ketones. 6. Post-exercise ketosis, when it occurs in untrained subjects, may be due to a lower carbohydrate intake than that of athletes.

http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/reprint/301/1/79.pdf

Sometimes both can be true but since Lex is older than I am, I expect higher ketone levels after exercise as I experienced during adaptation.

There is also this:

The concentration of ketone bodies and their rate of transport (estimated with an infusion of beta-[14C]-hydroxybutyrate) were determined before, during, and after exercise in overnight-fasted and 3- to 5-day-fasted subjects who walked on a treadmill for 2 h at approximately 50% of their VO2max. In overnight-fasted subjects, exercise increased the rate of turnover (+125% after 2 h) and the metabolic clearance rate of ketone bodies whose concentration rose from 0.20 to 0.39 mM. Discontinuation of exercise was associated with a marked increase in ketone levels (+0.73 mM after 30 min of recovery) that was related to a further stimulation of ketogenesis (+19%) and to a marked drop of the metabolic clearance rate to below preexercise values. In sharp contrast with overnight-fasted subjects, starved subjects (with a resting ketone level averaging 5.7 mM) responded to work by a decrease in the turnover rate and in the concentration of ketones, their metabolic clearance rate remaining unchanged. Thus, the response of ketogenesis and muscular ketone uptake to exercise are both markedly influenced by the initial degree of fasting ketosis.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/245/4/E318



Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TruthHunter on August 13, 2008, 04:51:55 am

BG actually rose a bit after my jog this morning and I feel that this supports my idea that I'm releasing stored body fat to obtain the fatty acids and the left over glycerol molecule is being converted to glucose by the liver as when I'm exercising there is no surplus of free fatty acids around to create a new triglyceride as the FFAs are being used by the muscles for fuel. (see yesterday's long winded post for details of what I believe is happening).

BG range today was again from the high 80s to the mid 90s.  Another sign that I'm not really using much of it.  When I first started jogging a week ago my BG would plummet during the jog and be in the low to mid 60s for several hours after the jog.  Now it starts in the low 80s and rises after the exercise.  This is a completely new BG response and it will be interesting to see if it changes again as this adventure continues.

 

Lex
I would guess that the spike in BG at this point was because of a rise in cortisol hormone. The abrupt change in activity was stressful.  You were doing the exercise in the morning when CH is highest and the adrenals are most responsive.  This is why exercise induced euphoria is more common for morning exercise. The rise in CH may have contributed to the 80 to 90 sustained level. CH usually promotes catabolism of protein, so I suspect that this would tend to reduce muscle mass. Which did happen early after the change.

 Thanks for this thread.  You've used readily available tests to shed a lot of light on what is happening. Keep it up. When I first read of your change it seemed extreme. Perhaps you had gone too low on protein.  Now it appears that you are moving in the right directions.  From what I remember, except under extreme stress, only about 20 to 30 gm of protein are actually needed for maintenance.The rest is converted to glucose or otherwise broken down(some amino acids may not be converted?)   40% of 90 -  100 grams is still higher than this, so you probably haven't cut protein too far.

One suggestion I have to offer, for any one doing this kind of personal testing. Perhaps you could add this even at this late date.  When you record the data, do a hand squeeze on a bathroom scale to measure grip strength. This will give a rough measure of muscular development/overall strength.

Protein isn't the only thing to consider.  Does the increased percentage of fat, mean less nutrients? Perhaps you should make more of the remainder organ meats.

Thanks - Keep up the good work.

John
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 13, 2008, 08:44:55 am
Craig,
You're way ahead of me on much of this.  At this point I'm just doing my best to measure what I can and report my findings as objectively as possible.  The other big issue is trying to keep things as constant as possible so that the measurements are meaningful.  My week at the seminar showed how important this is. 

As for ketones, my observation for the past 5 weeks is that urinary ketones are at the maximum measurable amount (or above) and have stayed at this level with almost no variation based on activity level.  I do my best to reason through what this means but it is pure speculation since I have no way to really know what's going on.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 13, 2008, 08:53:34 am
John,
Thanks for your insight.  Like Craig's post, this is far above my level of knowledge.  I really know nothing about cortisol or the adrenal hormones and their effect on other hormones like insulin.  I also know of no way to measure any of this that is available to consumers.  If you know of additional tests I can make that would add value please let me know and I'll add them to my arsenal.

Unfortunately, my scale is a digital platform with a rim around it and does not lend itself to squeezing with my hands.  My only other scale only goes up to 11 lbs and is not suitable either.  I can say that at my last physical my doctor commented on how good my muscle definition was for my age - especially since I don't lift weights or make any effort what so ever to enhance them.

EDIT:  John, another thought occurred to me regarding testing things like strength, endurance, & etc.  Often performance in these areas is more about the discomfort that the participant is willing to endure rather than a measure of their actual strength or conditioning.  As an example, my jogging is an attempt to tax my body's use of its current primary fuel source (whatever that is at this time) and not an effort to gain any specific level of conditioning.  I currently jog at a 10min/mile pace but could probably do much better if conditioning were my goal.  I don't report my time-per-mile as a measured parameter as I'm no where near VO2max and don't want to be so any report of this type would be totally subjective.  I prefer to sick to reporting objective data like weight, BG readings, Ketone readings etc where my threshold for discomfort doesn't enter into the measurement. Hope this makes sense.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 13, 2008, 02:32:08 pm
Craig,
I read and did my best to understand the published studies from the links you provided.  I have a couple of observations:

1. From what I could tell all the subjects ate fairly standard diets so their bodies had to be running on glucose.
2. Any dietary change or fasting was of such short duration that body systems could not possibly have fully keto adapted
3. The researches only made observations of what happened to their test subjects under the test conditions
4. The researchers made no mention at all as to what biochemical reactions were taking place in the body to cause the observed changes.
5. Diet was positively correlated to their findings but only in a general way as there was little or no control of what the subjects ate.

I have observed similar ketone variations to the ones described in the studies.  The musings in my post were an effort to reason through the biological mechanism that was causing the various fluctuations in Ketones and BG.  I found it interesting that the study stated that they could find no relationship between the variations in ketone levels to the variations of any other measured parameter such as BG.  In fact the researchers indicated that ketone levels must be controlled by some independent and currently unknown mechanism.

Not sure this study was very useful for low and zero carbers.  It doesn't tell us anything we haven't already observed for ourselves, and with no hint as to what biological mechanisms are causing the changes in the parameters that were tracked during the study we have little or no useful information to help us understand how to better manage our own situation.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on August 14, 2008, 01:37:21 am
Howdy!  Been reading this for months, both here and elsewhere.  Fascinating!

I just had to chime in on the ketostick issue.  I hate "off-scale".  You can extend your ketone measurement range by simply diluting the urine before measuring it.  I know this adds a bit of inconvenience (and mess) to the process, but it would allow you to trend yourself even when you are off the charts.

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on August 14, 2008, 06:37:10 am
I don't think muscles burn glucose, EVER! Glucose gets converted in muscle as glycogen for later conversion to glucose if needed by other body parts but that's as far as it goes. Consider that during a fight-flight response (or intense exercise), when muscles are called into action, adrenaline is secreted. Interestingly, adrenaline mobilizes fatty acids and that tells us that muscles need fat for fuel, not glucose.

When you exercised, fatty acids in the blood (or circulation) increased due to increased mobilization (adrenalin). In the process, ketones were also formed from those fatty acids. While you were able to make use of fatty acids for exercise, it could only last so long because your muscles are still not adapted to ketones. If they were adapted, endurance would increase. To last longer, the only option at this point is to eat more fats when you are at your limit to increase fatty acid availability although ketones will continue to increase as well.

Glucose appears to be beneficial for muscle and acitivity but only because it will convert to fats, increasing fatty acid availability.

This is just my opinion, of course.  ;)



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 14, 2008, 06:44:03 am
I don't think muscles burn glucose, EVER!




Not even anaerobically?

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on August 14, 2008, 08:29:56 am
Hi Craig,

Not even anaerobically.

I earlier said that muscles can use fatty acids and ketones. I now think that muscles ONLY use fatty acids, not ketones. Ketones are used by those cells able to run on either glucose or ketones.

There is only so much fatty acid that can be mobilized but I think, once keto-adapted, when cells in the body aren't starving anymore and using ketones as fuel, the body, as a whole revs up, metabolism increases and fat mobilization increases such that more fatty acid is available to muscles, up to a certain extent, of course. The body needs fat!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 14, 2008, 11:52:29 am
Well Kristelle and Craig, I'm going to go out on a limb again and possibly saw the limb off after me :(.

Some additional thoughts on increase of ketones after exercise.

I’ve been following the considerable work done by Mary Massung and Kata Strong regarding how our bodies utilize FFAs, Glucose, and Ketones in the different metabolic states. Mary and Kata do much of their own testing similar to what I’m doing, as well as drawing from recent work done by body builders and performance athletes.  They will tell you that many of their conclusions are speculation, but it is also based on their considerable knowledge and experience.  In sifting through dozens of their notes and online posts here’s what I've come up with.

Assuming that the muscles are NOT keto adapted, and activity is increased to a level that will deplete stored glycogen in both the muscles and liver, then the body will start breaking down stored fat (and possibly some lean muscle mass) to create sufficient glucose to fuel the increased activity level.

The muscles also have the ability to use some FFAs directly but prefer glucose (converted to glycogen) as their primary fuel.  The glucose would come from the glycerol molecule that binds the 3 fatty acids in a triglyceride.  Also, about 2/3s of the released FFAs will be utilized directly by the muscles as the activity continues.  This leaves only a small surplus of fatty acids to dispose of by converting to ketones for elimination via urine and lungs so ketones would not rise excessively during exercise.

Once the activity or exercise stops BG would be low to moderate (mid 70s to 80s) as it was the primary fuel for the activity, and stored glycogen in the muscles and liver would be depleted.  In this state the body would continue to break down body fat in an attempt to raise BG and replenish critical minimum levels of stored glycogen in the muscles and liver.  However, since the activity stopped, the muscles are no longer using any the FFAs released from the triglyceride molecule.  Only the glycerol molecule is used as it is converted to glucose and used to replenish BG and glycogen stores.  The excess FFAs have no where to go so they are converted to ketones so that they can be eliminated via urine and lungs – hence the rise in ketone levels after exercise in a NON KETO Adapted person.

The above breakdown of stored fat continues (possibly for several hours) until BG starts to rise again and reaches a trigger point (usually somewhere around 100 mg/dl) causing the release of insulin which stops the breakdown of body fat as this signals that the body’s current energy needs are satisfied.  The rise in BG is either caused by the replenishment of the minimum critical level of stored glycogen in muscles and liver, or eating a meal which would have the same effect.  Again, this would be for a person who’s muscles are using glucose (glycogen) as their primary fuel with FFA’s as the secondary fuel choice, and using ketones as a mechanism to rid the body of excess FFAs.

Mary and Kata call this a BG Cascade effect.  It can easily be recognized by the fact that under this cascade condition both BG and ketones will rise simultaneously after an increase in activity levels though BG will rise somewhat more slowly.

Mary and Kata have done remarkable work and you can follow along on their Yahoo forum at:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaturatedFatForHealth/

Be aware that they get very technical and use very different terminology to designate the various metabolic states and body biochemistry, but it is very worthwhile if this is a subject that interests you.

I also recommend that you take the time to read ALL of Mary’s and Kata’s posts from the beginning of the forum as it will  be difficult to understand the current context of much of what is going on without this background, and it is unfair to ask Mary, Kata, and the rest of the forum to continually repeat past information.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 14, 2008, 12:08:30 pm
I just had to chime in on the ketostick issue.  I hate "off-scale".  You can extend your ketone measurement range by simply diluting the urine before measuring it.  I know this adds a bit of inconvenience (and mess) to the process, but it would allow you to trend yourself even when you are off the charts.

Thanks Erasmus!  I'll look into this.  I'm not a real fan of "off-scale" either, but let's face it, ketosticks don't provide much more than an "order of magnitude" type of measurement at best.  Generally the color patches represent a doubling of ketones.  I'll try a 4/1 cut and see what happens.  This should take a level 4 (Large-160) down to a level 2 (Moderate-40), and then all readings would be multiplied by 4. 

Will post my results,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on August 14, 2008, 01:19:08 pm
Lex,

I was a member of that forum, remember? I got booted out.

anyways...

Where I disagree is that muscles neither use glucose nor ketones for energy. Fatty acids only. But when fatty acids go up as they do when muscles are called into action, ketones are also produced and that's why they go up. If keto-adapted, these will be used up by those organs that need ketones and possibly allow you to exercise longer because of that and also because fatty acids are better mobilized than in a state of ketosis.

Exercise endurance and performance is more than muscles having enough fuel, it is also about other tissues (cells) working optimally simultaneously. Some of these are dependent on either glucose or ketones (when keto-adapted). In ketosis, the lack of glucose and inability to use ketones reduce the overall efficiency of these tissues hindering performance and endurance. I suspect than once keto-adapted, these will not only recover but be better than before.

To summarize, during ketosis, endurance and exercise may suffer because mobilization of fatty acids is somewhat reduced and especially because tissues OTHER than the muscle, needed during activity (intense or not), are not thriving due to lack of carbs and inability to use ketones.


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 14, 2008, 02:25:19 pm
Hi Kristelle,
I'd appreciate some links or references so that I can follow up with to better understand what you are saying about muscels using only fatty acids as fuel and not glucose (in various disguises like glycogen) or ketones.

I'm also not sure I understand about endurance suffering because mobilization of fatty acids is reduced.  If this is the case, where are the ketones coming from if not partially metabolized fatty acids?

Anything you can provide that will help me understand this stuff better would be appreciated.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on August 14, 2008, 06:55:18 pm
Lex, your diet has come to be subject:

http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=1037&pid=20229#pid20229

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on August 14, 2008, 11:06:57 pm
Hi Lex,

Even if fatty acids are less mobilized, there are still some that get mobilized and enough so that ketones also rise significantly.

References

'What's the best fuel for muscles?' Jeff Everson- interview With Greg Ellis- Weider's Muscle and Fitness mag, May, year (?)
 
'Body Fat' by Vincent P Dole, Scientific American.

'Dietary hyperphagia in Rats: Role of Fat, Carbohydrate, and Energy Content. Israel Ramirez and mark L Friedman, Physiology & Behavior, June 1990.

'Regulation of Hepatic Fatty Acids Oxidation and Ketone Boldy Production' J D McGarry and D W Foster, Ann. Rev. Biochem 1980 49:395-420.

From The Bear, with 47 yrs of experience on an all-meat diet...

"I am searching for my collection of metabolic studies, but so far it has eluded me. Two studies relate to energy source and exercise, both were done with lab rats. One shows by muscle biopsy/analysis that the glycogen in muscle tissue does not vary with exercise, whether anaerobic or anaerobic. The other shows massive gains in endurance over a sufficiently long period of adaptation to a zero carb diet. This study is one of the very few to use a true zero carb diet against a normal rat-chow control in a test."

"glycogen is never used as a fuel for exercise- the muscles burn only fat). Glycogen is stored around the body and is used as a fast resource when blood sugar drops- since glucose is not consumed by skeletal muscles it remains in the tissues."

"Carbs before a workout will reduce your energy- although some people will have a kind of 'boost' from the sudden insulin rush. The muscles run on fat, and once the body starts to store the glucose as fat, it interferes with energy and strength. Carbs weaken you by initiating fat storage activity just when your muscles need the fat for power."

"I am carb free, I exercise anaerobically by lifting weights. I NEVER get sore muscles the next day- or the day after unless I am forcing a severe weight overload, which causes more severe micro damage to the muscles, and some second-day soreness. So there's the 'practical' proof that glycogen does not deplete with exercise."

"ALL muscle fibres use the same fuel, fast and slow both burn only fat. NO muscle fibre uses carbs. (Once more) glycogen is not used to do work, only ATP-ADP reduction is used, that is rebuilt by fat. Glycogen does not produce ATP. Glycogen is not depleted with exercise- this is proven and is in the literature. Opinions to the contrary are just repeating fairy tales from the past. Carb intake reduces strength/speed, and likewise reduces endurance/distance."
 
"A careful read of the article on

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

reveals that contrary to the assertion, 'glycogen depletion' was not taken as a measure, only oxygen consumption. Glycogen STORAGE was reduced during the first TWO WEEKS and thereafter remained stable- not surprising since much of the reason for holding glycogen in the muscle tissue is the need to quickly remove glucose from circulation- it is much faster to convert glucose into glycogen than for the adipose tissues to convert it to bodyfat. Glycogen is not used up or 'depleted' during exercise, it functions only as quick, emergency source of blood glucose- and that is all. After withdrawal of carbs from the diet, the massive glycogen storage in the liver is also vastly reduced, thus facilitating blood flow through the hepatic vein from the lower body and preventing the 'stitch in the side' so commonly experienced during carb-loaded athletics."

"ATP is not CREATED by fat, the ADP produced from ATP during work by the muscles is RECYCLED in the cell by a mechanism FUELED by the complex: n,acetyl carnitine:fatty acid."

"Actually insulin is NOT anabolic to somatic working muscles, striped and short-striped- only to the involuntary, smooth kind found in the intestines and arteries, where the effect is undesirable."

"Carbs of any kind, glucose OR glycogen are NOT used to do work by the muscles. Until you are free of carb intake long enough top fully keto-adapt, which takes from 3 to 6 weeks, you will experience a feeling of lower energy. ANY carb intake, no matter how brief, will derail the keto-adaptation process. Your 'keto-diet' is complete nonsense."

"Insulin is not anabolic to the skeletal muscles, it will cause an apparent increase in size due to an increase in intramuscular glycogen storage and the associated water retention, as well as fat (marbling) but the muscle cells do not show any increase in the size or number of active fibre bundles as is associated with genuine anabolics, like testosterone and its derivatives."

"Yes indeed, high carbs are absolutely great at building intramuscular fat,looks good, big and meaty, but carbs strongly limit any addition of larger muscle fibres (real muscle size)"

"Muscle cells 'run' on ATP-ADP conversion. ADP-ATP re-conversion is done with FFA's. It makes no difference whether the exercise is anaerobic or aerobic, the muscles still work the same way. This is like a car- whether in first gear or in overdrive, it still uses the same fuel. Glucose is not a fuel. Glycogen is not a fuel. Neither can be used to translate ADP back into ATP until converted into FFA first. Mitochondria mediate ADP to ATP conversion which is why there are two 'types' (fast and slow twitch) of muscle cells, fibre bundles with more mitochondria have a different response to the two types of work, aerobic and anaerobic. The mix of types in a given muscle can be altered to some extent by training."

   
     
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 15, 2008, 12:59:22 am
Nicola, Thanks for the link.

Kristelle, Very informative and I appreciate the references. I will follow up as time permits and try to add a bit more to my knowledge on this stuff.  I have read most of what Stanley Owsley (The Bear) has written and found many inconsistencies as well as what appears to be inaccuracies in his musings.  I also acknowledge that these seeming inconsistencies could be a result of my lack of knowledge.

One interesting observation that I've made, Owsley states that Gluconeogenesis only happens under conditions of starvation.  As I remember he also states that very little glucose is created from fat.  If this is true, then why does my BG rise significantly for several hours after eating a meal.  This doesn't make sense to me.  What I find is that the rise in BG after eating seems to coninside directly with the amount of protein I've consumed at that meal - more protein higher rise in BG - less protein, lower rise in BG.  This seems at odds with Owsley's statements.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on August 15, 2008, 01:11:28 am

Gluconeogenesis only occurs in two instances:
1) when reducing carbs all the while keeping protein high enough (and not eating enough dietary fat) such that cells in the body can still get all the glucose they need from dietary protein. The body will never break down bodily protein in such a situation. If insufficient dietary protein is eaten for glucose needs, then ketones begin to form. 
2) in starvation, when body fat reserves are used up and protein needs to be broken down to provide glucose to critical systems allowing us to stay alive for somewhat longer.

Since you are in ketosis, I believe that BG increase is due to glycerol conversion to glucose. You do not have sufficient protein to provide glucose. BG rises for several hours after your meal because of glucose needs, perhaps increased after a meal so more glycerol is converted to glucose. That's all. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 15, 2008, 01:36:44 am
Gluconeogenesis only occurs in two instances:
1) when reducing carbs all the while keeping protein high enough (and not eating enough dietary fat) such that cells in the body can still get all the glucose they need from dietary protein. The body will never break down bodily protein in such a situation. If insufficient dietary protein is eaten for glucose needs, then ketones begin to form. 


Not all of this is hanging together for me.  My direct experience is that under this high fat diet, at one point body fat increased and lean muscle mass decreased (based on weight and skin caliper readings) which is at odds with the above statement.


2) in starvation, when body fat reserves are used up and protein needs to be broken down to provide glucose to critical systems allowing us to stay alive for somewhat longer.

I have personally done a 31 day water-only fast and I assure you that lean muscle mass as well as fat was sacrificed during the entire period - there was no waiting for fat reserves to be depleted.  It took me over 2 years to recover from this foolish undertaking and I'm not anxious to repeat the experience.

Since you are in ketosis, I believe that BG increase is due to glycerol conversion to glucose. You do not have sufficient protein to provide glucose. BG rises for several hours after your meal because of glucose needs, perhaps increased after a meal so more glycerol is converted to glucose. That's all. 

I've been eating between 90 and 100 grams of protein per day.  If 58% of this were converted to glucose there would still be plenty of protein for body maintenance.  If BG rises after a meal only because of glucose needs, if I'm in heavy dietary ketosis then why do I have these needs?  The idea of the body only making this glucose due to "need" doesn't fit with BG curves of a person eating a normal carb driven diet.  There are large glucose spikes when carbs are eaten and it certainly isn't due to any "need" for the glucose.

I can't say that what you are proposing isn't true, only that it doesn't seem to fit with my direct experience.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on August 15, 2008, 01:48:26 am
31 days!!!? I'd heard of people dying from 13 or 16-day water-fasts.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 15, 2008, 02:02:42 am
Yup, 31 days.  This was due to blindly following Bragg, Sheldon, Carrington, and a few other gurus who had convinced me that I was highly toxic and needed to remove all this toxic waste through fasting.  The mantra of the day was to fast until "true" hunger returned and then everything would be wonderful.  I went from 185 lbs to 96 lbs and was so thin that I could litterally put my hands around my waist and touch thumbs and middle fingers - we're talking 6" in diameter or about 18" in circumference.  I looked like survivor from a concentration camp.

It took years for me to recover from this and I imagine that even after 28 years there's still some health consequences.  I was young, stupid, and gullible.  I suppose today that the only real difference is that I'm no longer young..... :)  though I hope I've learned something along the way.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 15, 2008, 02:04:01 am
I'm having real trouble eating the full 600g-650g of food each day.  The last 150g or so is really tough to get down and on occasion even makes me a trifle nauseous.  I'm going to reduce my food intake to 450g-500g per day which is the level where I usually feel satisfied.  Then, if I get overly hungry, I'll add the 150g back in as a second meal if necessary.

I really want to continue with one meal per day as my normal protocol, but I have found over the years that when doing heavy manual labor like digging ditches for sprinkler systems all day I needed to eat additional food.  Since I'm now jogging every other day it will be interesting to see if I need more food during the 24 hours after the jog and less food on the off day.

I'll keep you posted on what happens,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on August 15, 2008, 06:52:09 am
In ketosis (or starvation), lean muscle mass will decrease because you have less energy, reduced overall activity and don't need that much muscle. Less activity will lead up to muscle atrophy...simple as that. Muscles develop according to activity level and type of activity.

In ketosis, increased body fat is not surprising because cells are starving, you aren't providing them with glucose and as such, metabolism slows down so fatty acids mobilization decreases and the body holds on more strongly to fat. Sensing starvation, the body now holds on to fat, as much as possible.

I suspect that if you eat around 80/20 fat/protein, you will naturally eat just enough protein for purposes other than glucose. Perhaps the 58% conversion rate is wrong...who knows?!

In ketosis, you have important glucose needs because cells are not yet adapted to using ketones. Ketones replace glucose and as long as you are not adapted and remain in ketosis, glucose needs will be significant.

On a "normal" carb-diet, people eat alot of carbs because they eat so little fat. Some cells needs glucose, some cells need fat. They try to meet both of these needs with glucose and that's why carb consumption is high. They don't have that natural craving for fat but instead for glucose (which need is already met) so that excess glucose is just stored as fat. And so the cycle continues...


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 15, 2008, 09:24:22 am
Yup, 31 days.  This was due to blindly following Bragg, Sheldon, Carrington, and a few other gurus who had convinced me that I was highly toxic and needed to remove all this toxic waste through fasting.  The mantra of the day was to fast until "true" hunger returned and then everything would be wonderful.  I went from 185 lbs to 96 lbs and was so thin that I could litterally put my hands around my waist and touch thumbs and middle fingers - we're talking 6" in diameter or about 18" in circumference.  I looked like survivor from a concentration camp.

It took years for me to recover from this and I imagine that even after 28 years there's still some health consequences.  I was young, stupid, and gullible.  I suppose today that the only real difference is that I'm no longer young..... :)  though I hope I've learned something along the way.

Lex
Lex,

It's a wonder you're still here!

I hear you about the food amount. I could probably put away 10 lbs or so a day on SAD. Now even 2 can be a struggle at times. People seem to be surprised when I say that but I'm sure, because of your experiment, it's the amount of fat I eat.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 15, 2008, 09:28:27 am


I suspect that if you eat around 80/20 fat/protein, you will naturally eat just enough protein for purposes other than glucose. Perhaps the 58% conversion rate is wrong...who knows?!


I used to disbelieve that before this experiment too. If the 58% is net protein then it would depend upon how much the body requires for tissue repair etc..

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 15, 2008, 11:26:32 am
In ketosis (or starvation), lean muscle mass will decrease because you have less energy, reduced overall activity and don't need that much muscle. Less activity will lead up to muscle atrophy...simple as that. Muscles develop according to activity level and type of activity.

This is where semantics become an issue.  Lean muscle mass will drop during starvation due to atrophy...  So where does it go?  My understanding is that the protein is broken down during this process and recycled or converted to other forms as needed to keep the body alive.  Atrophy usually implies wasting away but there has to be a reason for this (in this case starvation) and the energy/nutrients released by the atrophy process don't magically disappear.  I suspect that the idea that they are reused is most accurate therefore my initial supposition that they are broken down to provide needed energy seem to hold water.

In ketosis, increased body fat is not surprising because cells are starving, you aren't providing them with glucose and as such, metabolism slows down so fatty acids mobilization decreases and the body holds on more strongly to fat. Sensing starvation, the body now holds on to fat, as much as possible.

If Taubes is correct, little fat can be stored without Alpha Glycerol Phosphate which mainly comes from the metabolism of glucose in the presence of insulin.  Since I eat no carbs, and your position is that protein is not converted to glucose unless under conditions of starvation (which I'm clearly not), then where is the AGP coming from to create the triglycerides to transport and store fat?  If it's just being recycled then I could only maintain.  If the glycerol molecule is being converted to glucose to support systems requiring glucose then there would be a decrease in available AGP and weight should be lost.  The fact that metabloism slows would not be a good explaination either as many of us have proven that we can eat thousands of calories above what is required to maintian our systems yet we don't gain weight.  If I were buring all those thousands of excess calories through a very high metabolism then my body temperature should increase or I should be sweating profusily in an effort to keep my body cool from the buring of all that excess energy.

I suspect that if you eat around 80/20 fat/protein, you will naturally eat just enough protein for purposes other than glucose. Perhaps the 58% conversion rate is wrong...who knows?!

I have no idea what the conversion rate is.  However, my BG meter tells me that the more protein I eat at a meal the higher BG rises.  This is keeping total calories the same - just changing the ratio of fat to protein.  To me this is direct evidence that some portion of all the protein I eat is converted to BG.  To state that I would "naturally eat just enough protein for purposes other than glucose" is nonsense as I'm totally manipulating and precisely controlling the makeup of my food.

In ketosis, you have important glucose needs because cells are not yet adapted to using ketones. Ketones replace glucose and as long as you are not adapted and remain in ketosis, glucose needs will be significant.

I would expect that this is correct.  Now my question is, after 3 years of eating only meat, and now almost 3 months of 80% or greater fat content of my food, just when does this adaptation take place and how do I recognize when I'm there?

On a "normal" carb-diet, people eat alot of carbs because they eat so little fat. Some cells needs glucose, some cells need fat. They try to meet both of these needs with glucose and that's why carb consumption is high. They don't have that natural craving for fat but instead for glucose (which need is already met) so that excess glucose is just stored as fat. And so the cycle continues...

My experience tells me that the basic premise of the above statement is incorrect.  If you look at the SAD it is high in fat and very high in carbs and low in protein which is the worst of all scenarios.  Fast food (fries, donuts, Big Macs, KFC, Pizza, Taco Bell, etc) all very heavy in fat as well as carbs - very little protein.  Frosting, double stuff cookies, twinkie filling etc is nothing more than pure fat mixed with powdered sugar - fat and carbs.  Cookies, pies, cakes, and most candies are loaded with fat as well as sugar.  In the South, gravy is made by melting a pound of fat, adding 1/4 cup flour and frying it in the fat until golden brown, and then cold water is wisked in to make a thick emulsion - almost pure fat.  My wife is Greek and they consume mostly carbs soaked in olive oil for every meal.  Again, your statements don't ring true with my experience.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 15, 2008, 02:15:48 pm
For those interested in the conditions under which I conducted my 31 day water fast I thought I’d expand a bit further.  Many people assume that such a long fast would be done with lots of bed rest and much reduced activity.  Take time off work, relax and catch up on some reading.  For me this was not the case. 

During the fast I never missed a day of work.  I lived 23 miles from my place of employment and at the time didn’t have a car so I took the bus.  The closest bus stop was over 1 mile from my home and a similar distance from the bus stop to my place of employment.  Every day I walked almost 5 miles round trip between the bus stops, home and work.  During the 31 days I racked up well over 100 miles walking just getting to and from work.

Twice during the 31 day period I was called out after hours when the buses were not running and I rode my bicycle 23 miles each way to and from work to make the service call.  I usually made the 23 mile trip in 1 hour and 10 minutes each way.

My job was Telecommunications Technician and I installed, repaired, tested, and maintained communications equipment like microwave systems, telephone switches, 2-way radio base stations, remote controlled television systems etc for Southern California Edison Company the 2nd largest electric utility in the US. 

Once at work I would pick up a company truck and head for the job site.  Many of the sites were on mountain tops at 3,000 ft level or above and equipment had to be packed in with backpacks.  Much of the test equipment weighed 50 to 70 pounds (remember this was in the late 1970’s).  I’d pack the equipment in (often making several trips), make tests and repairs, pack the equipment out, and then move on to the next job.

When working at comm sites in the city it wasn’t much better.  Many of the buildings were very old (built in the 1920s) and had narrow circular stairways and no elevators.  Equipment had to be carried up the stairways as they were so tight and narrow that you couldn’t use hand trucks or dollys.  Believe me it is no fun hauling a 70 lb signal generator up a narrow twisting flight of stairs at the best of times, let alone when you haven’t eaten for the better part of a month and weigh only about 30 lbs more than the equipment you’re carrying.

I’m 6’1” and when I ended the fast I weighed about 96 lbs.  This is a BMI of around 13 or so.  It took many months – in fact years for me to fully recover from this folly.  If anyone has specific questions I’ll do my best to answer them.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on August 16, 2008, 01:27:27 am
Thoughts on 58%...

This is all strictly conjecture  (you have been warned)

Idea 1)
58% is based on a average 100g intake meaning that our absolute protein need 42g (based on the mythical average human) and any additional protein is simply fuel.

Idea 2)
On a ZC diet, glucose needs are met FIRST by dietary protein GNG.  The next use of dietary protein is for structural needs, followed by fuel.

Idea 3)
58% may be the running average of SUPERFLUOUS amino acids in the diet.  That is, the body needs certain AAs to rebuild, not just the ones you eat.

Idea 4)
What happens that makes us need new protein even a body that is at a steady state?  And where does THAT old protein go?  Maybe, on average, the minimal fasting states that we all normally have result in a running average 42g of protein catabolism, requiring a 42g replacement.  In such a case, another 58g or so would most like be needed when on a ZC diet.

Idea 5)
Basic chemistry requires that 58% is at best an average of a very narrow band of dietary conditions.  Assuming an unlimited desire to convert protein:  If the body's capacity to convert is a limiting factor then as dietary protein approaches zero the percentage of conversion approaches 100%.  And if dietary protein is the limiting factor then the conversion is always near 100%. 

Idea 6)
We know that the body CAN utilize far more than 42g of protein a day, weight lifters and children do it all the time.  There may however be an upper limit to this rate that is reached when in a single meal per day environment.  I doubt we reach this when in a steady state.

I don't know.  I tend to think that we need to eat a certain amount of protein to meet our specific AA requirements and that the consequence of that is the GNG of the unneeded AAs.

Just my thoughts.  I could be totally wrong.  ;)

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 16, 2008, 11:53:39 am
One thing to be mindful of is that all protein is not created equal.  The amino acid profile of plant protiens is totally different than protein from animal sources.  Not only are the proportions of the amino acids different but some amino acids are missing altogether from the various plant sources.  This causes me to believe that the conversion rate of protein to glucsoe is probably dependent on the amino acid profile of the food source. 

If this is true, then it may be that the body can only convert certain amino acids into glucos and, for example, the critical amino acids that the body must get from food sources would not be converted as there is no other source for them.  So the basic idea here is that certian amino acids can be converted to glucose and others can't and this may be the limiting factor.  The total amount of protein converted to glucose would then be dependent on the amino acid profile of the source and have nothing whatsoever to do with what the body needs at any given moment.

I sort of picture it this way.  The food we eat is digested and the products of digestion enter the blood stream which is a big soup cauldron with the soup circulating to every point in the body.  Raw materials are picked up as needed by the cells, but at the same time some of the soup is flowing through the liver, kidneys, and other organs.  If an amino acid that can be converted to glucose makes it to the liver then it is converted.  If it was picked up by a cell to make a repair or other function and it never made a pass through the liver then it is not converted.

There would be no "wisdom" required by the body in this case.  Just the circulation of the magic fluid and what happens to the elements in the fluid depends on what tissue it is passing through at the moment.

Pure speculation of course, but good fodder for the grist mill.   

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on August 17, 2008, 12:20:16 am
Hi Lex,

I've been thinking of what you said and what the Bear said and thinking and thinking...based on your results, it does seem that protein contributes to glucose synthesis in the body, that is the only explanation, as far as I can see...unless the Bear wants to chyme in and offer us an alternative explanation which he won't, of course!

But, I also think that excess protein will not automatically convert all to glucose, just convert to enough glucose that is needed by the body at a certain time...no more. If it did convert to more than we needed, then insulin would be produced and lead to fat storage which does not happen on an all-meat diet. Excess protein intake could lead to weight gain and that makes no sense to me.

So, at the moment, I think that protein and fat contribute to glucose, while fatty acids fuel the heart, muscles and some other tissues while the brain mostly runs on ketones (if not almost entirely).

I also think that you may be actually eating EXCESS fat and that's why your ketones are moderate/high (not because you aren't keto-adapted). I suspect you are already keto-adapted and that you just don't need that much fat. I also don't think muscles run on ketones, just fatty acids. You were probably doing just fine before and I don't think it was necessary to change anything. Sometimes, we overestimate how much fat is needed...since reducing my fat, I'm already seeing some improvement. I also didn't understand why my ketones were constantly high, now I think I finally figured it out.

Best of luck Lex. :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on August 17, 2008, 03:45:16 am
Further to my post, I just thought about something...you eat organs, right? They contain glycogen (glucose) right?  By increasing fat and decreasing protein, you also decreased organs, a source of glucose. Who's to say if a drop in BG was due to proteins OR organs?

I would also like to mention something about muscle mass loss during starvation. Don't you need to eat protein to maintain muscle mass and if you stop eating it, muscle mass is lost? Isn't that why muscle mass is lost with starvation? That's why we are advised to eat a certain amount of protein to maintain muscle mass. And just as excess fat gets discarded (unlike carbs), excess protein is also discarded. Again, if excess protein were not and always converted to glucose, then as one increases protein intake on zero-carb, one should gain...clearly not my case or yours or many others. I actually weigh less when eating more protein.

Let me know what you think...
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: coconinoz on August 17, 2008, 05:42:32 am

"Sometimes, we overestimate how much fat is needed...since reducing my fat, I'm already seeing some improvement. I also didn't understand why my ketones were constantly high, now I think I finally figured it out"

hi kristelle,
can you elaborate on the above?

what kind of diet changes both in sources & % are you talking about: raw or cooked, plant or animal fat, land or sea meat, # & timing of meals....

what kind of results have you observed: total body weight, body fat %, strength, daily activities.....

thanks

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on August 17, 2008, 06:28:13 am
I'm talking about animal fat and protein eaten raw. Before, I ate fat first (i.e. bone marrow, subcutaneous animal fat) and then fatty protein (prime rib, brisket, chuck). From the symptoms I got, it seems I ate so much fat that there was indigestion and all sorts of other problems. Now, instead, I still eat fat first but after, very lean protein like horsemeat muscle, lean fish, or even the occasional organ (for the taste only, I personally don't think it's necessary). I've only made the change very recently but I already notice better energy, no abdominal aches and pains. My ketones are beginning to decrease too.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on August 17, 2008, 09:52:51 am
I have no idea what the conversion rate is.  However, my BG meter tells me that the more protein I eat at a meal the higher BG rises.  This is keeping total calories the same - just changing the ratio of fat to protein.  To me this is direct evidence that some portion of all the protein I eat is converted to BG. 

Lex

From a woman named Susan on the Active Low Carbers forum:

Quote
Both Gary Scheiner "Think Like a Pancreas" and John Walsh "Using Insulin" caution against too much protein and often cite a 48% figure. I have to bolus a lot of insulin for a 12 once steak, about 3 times as much for 2 eggs and bacon which are higher in fat. Most type 1s are restricting their protein for the same reason. If protein were not converted to insulin by a substantial amount, there would be no protein bolus of 1 unit per 1.5 ounces. My carb bolus is 1 unit per 15 carbs. 12 ounce steak = 8 units, according to Bernstein's formula, but more like 6 for me. A half cup of oatmeal (dry) = 45 carbs and 3 units.

Type 2s don't think about the amount of insulin it takes to cover protein because they don't track their insulin usage.

I wished we could devour as much protein as we liked, but the more I read, the more it seems to suggest this isn't the case.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 17, 2008, 04:41:49 pm
I've been thinking of what you said and what the Bear said and thinking and thinking...based on your results, it does seem that protein contributes to glucose synthesis in the body, that is the only explanation, as far as I can see...unless the Bear wants to chyme in and offer us an alternative explanation which he won't, of course!

Hi Kristelle, Glad I've provided food for thought.  I've read most of what is available on the web written by Stanley Owsley "TheBear" and find that much of what he says is also at odds with my personal experience. 

But, I also think that excess protein will not automatically convert all to glucose, just convert to enough glucose that is needed by the body at a certain time...no more. If it did convert to more than we needed, then insulin would be produced and lead to fat storage which does not happen on an all-meat diet. Excess protein intake could lead to weight gain and that makes no sense to me.

Why would you think that the body will not convert whatever amount or type of amino acids or protein to glucose if they are present just because BG is already adequate?  Our bodies don't stop digesting carbs even when BG is very high.  It just releases insulin in response to excessive BG in an effort to try to reduce the level.  Why would you think that the digestion of protein would be any different?  My guess is that amino acids are released into the blood stream through the digestion process and circulated through the body.  If they are not picked up by other tissues to be used for growth or repair, when they reach the liver certain amino acids (probably not all, just specific ones) will be converted to glucose.  This would account for the percentage of conversion being far less than 100%

My approach is that the body always treats each element that it is presented with in a consistent way.  It may treat each element differently, but if Tryptophan is converted to glucose by the liver then it will always be converted to glucose by the liver.  If Glutamine is not converted then it will never be converted.  If BG is high and Tryptophan is converted to glucose which causes BG to rise higher then the feedback loop causes insulin to be released to lower BG.  In other words I don't believe that the liver checks BG levels and then decides to convert or not convert.  This would be consistent with carbohydrate metabolism.  The body doesn't check BG to decide whether to metabolize the carbs we eat - it always digests them, converts them to BG and then other systems take over to manage BG levels independent of the digestion or metabolism process.

Is this theory correct?  I have no idea, but it is the only one that makes sense to me and fits with my observations. 

So, at the moment, I think that protein and fat contribute to glucose, while fatty acids fuel the heart, muscles and some other tissues while the brain mostly runs on ketones (if not almost entirely).

I really have no idea here.  In my case I have no evidence that my skeletal muscles are using ketones or fatty acids.  Ketones don't drop after exercise so they are either not being used or they are manufactured at a rate that keeps up with the rate at which they are being used.  This is not the experience of others like Andrew who sees a variation that tracks with his activity and provides a strong implication that his body is using the ketones to support skeletal muscle activity.  This make me suspect that at this time I'm not using ketones-they're being discarded through the urine.  I have no way to measure fatty acids at home so I'm completely in the dark here.  I do know that BG drops about 10 points after exercise and usually stays down for about 16 hours until I eat my next meal.  Exactly what is happening I have no way of knowing, but it is clear that the increased activity is lowering BG.  This provides evidence to me that something is using it and the only thing used during the increased activity is skeletal muscles.

I also think that you may be actually eating EXCESS fat and that's why your ketones are moderate/high (not because you aren't keto-adapted). I suspect you are already keto-adapted and that you just don't need that much fat. I also don't think muscles run on ketones, just fatty acids. You were probably doing just fine before and I don't think it was necessary to change anything. Sometimes, we overestimate how much fat is needed...since reducing my fat, I'm already seeing some improvement. I also didn't understand why my ketones were constantly high, now I think I finally figured it out.


Yup, I think you are correct, I was just fine before starting this high fat adventure, however, I like to test the various ideas and theories that are in line with the lifestyle I have chosen to lead.  After all, by current standards I was doing fine before going paleo, I was fine when I went raw, and I was fine when I went all raw meat. Yet I've learned a lot from each change and will continue to make changes and correct course as time goes on.

I took Erasmus' advice and diluted my urine by 4 to 1 to see if I could bring my ketones back to a more definitive reading other than "off the charts".  The color patches on the Ketostix show that the darkest patch represents 160.  Even at 4 to 1 dilution I get level 3 (80) or level 4 (160) which equates to ketone levels of 320 to over 640.  I still have more experimentation to do here but the results so far have been interesting.

I also now question just what being "Keto Adapted" actually means.  I'm now convinced that it has little to do with spilling ketones into the urine.  Hopefully I'll understand more as time goes on and this adventure we call life continues,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 17, 2008, 04:56:11 pm
Daryl,
Thanks for finding that other post that shows that my results seem to be consistent with the experience of others.  I have a lot of things going and just don't have time to track stuff like that down.  It's nice to get a bit of validation now and then.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on August 17, 2008, 05:41:00 pm
I'm talking about animal fat and protein eaten raw. Before, I ate fat first (i.e. bone marrow, subcutaneous animal fat) and then fatty protein (prime rib, brisket, chuck). From the symptoms I got, it seems I ate so much fat that there was indigestion and all sorts of other problems. Now, instead, I still eat fat first but after, very lean protein like horsemeat muscle, lean fish, or even the occasional organ (for the taste only, I personally don't think it's necessary). I've only made the change very recently but I already notice better energy, no abdominal aches and pains. My ketones are beginning to decrease too.

That fits in with what I've found, despite the conventional wisdom being that fat is more easily converted. Having some lean meats is a good idea.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: stevesurv on August 17, 2008, 10:58:41 pm
Hey Lex
I'm wondering how your diet has effected your cognitive function over the last few years. Improved? Same?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on August 17, 2008, 11:00:09 pm
Lex,

Could BG be dropping after exercise because other cells/tissues need glucose during intense activity like red blood cells which transport oxygen to muscles?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 17, 2008, 11:14:24 pm
Could BG be dropping after exercise because other cells/tissues need glucose during intense activity like red blood cells which transport oxygen to muscles?

Interesting thought.  I don't remember ever reading anything that indicated that passive tissues like red blood cells increase their metabolic activity due to exercise.  The heart pumps faster but I have read, as you've pointed out in your posts, that the heart uses only fatty acids for fuel.  Do you have any experience or a reference that might cause you suspect something like this?  Or possibly, can you think of something that I could do or measure that would help settle the question?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 17, 2008, 11:29:06 pm
I'm wondering how your diet has effected your cognitive function over the last few years. Improved? Same?

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by cognitive function.  I certainly don't think I've gotten any smarter - no increase in IQ  :( darn it.

On the emotional side, however, I've become much more stable.  For many years I would alternate between emotional highs and lows almost to the point of being manic depressive.  Since I went paleo and cut out grains, dairy, legumes, etc, all the hills and valleys have leveled out and I pretty much feel the same all the time.  Fortunately, the point where I've level out is on the high side.  I get up every morning looking forward to the day, exited about life.

I don't think there has been much change since I went all raw meat as my diet.  The major changes took place early on when I first went paleo and cut out all non-paleo foods.  I can't even say that cooking or eating raw made much difference in emotional stability either, though it has seemed to make a significant difference in my physical health.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: stevesurv on August 17, 2008, 11:41:30 pm
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by cognitive function.  I certainly don't think I've gotten any smarter - no increase in IQ  :( darn it.

On the emotional side, however, I've become much more stable.  For many years I would alternate between emotional highs and lows almost to the point of being manic depressive.  Since I went paleo and cut out grains, dairy, legumes, etc, all the hills and valleys have leveled out and I pretty much feel the same all the time.  Fortunately, the point where I've level out is on the high side.  I get up every morning looking forward to the day, exited about life.

I don't think there has been much change since I went all raw meat as my diet.  The major changes took place early on when I first went paleo and cut out all non-paleo foods.  I can't even say that cooking or eating raw made much difference in emotional stability either, though it has seemed to make a significant difference in my physical health.

Lex


I meant general function. Thanks Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on August 18, 2008, 01:53:20 am
Quote
Lex wrote:

Mary and Kata have done remarkable work and you can follow along on their Yahoo forum at:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaturatedFatForHealth/

Fascinating stuff there! What are your views on their methods, Lex?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 18, 2008, 10:53:46 am
Daryl,
I have the greatest respect for Mary and Kata.  Sometimes I think they draw conclusions a bit too early - before things become fully stable again, and this can cause them to pull back from earlier positions.  That said, I don't know of anyone else that even comes close to them for their understanding of the various metabolic states.  They also freely admit that everything is a work in progress and is subject to change as they move forward with their studies and experiments.  The good thing is that they will correct earlier statements that they come to find in error unlike some of the gurus out there, which I find refreshing.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 20, 2008, 01:47:41 pm
Lex,

I used to pop into the Saturated Fat Group once in a while when it was open. I'll apply for membership soon. Haven't had time with never-to-be hurricane threats.
I respect you, Lex for keeping us updated in this open forum, which can invite disbelievers wanting to "save" you. You handle everything very well and I do hope you consider Satya's offer to have this experiment, digested or not, published on  The Raw Paleo Diet & Lifestyle Resource Site (http://www.rawpaleo.com).

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 20, 2008, 02:23:13 pm
Craig,
Lex starts with an "L" not an "S" :-[ It's the same finger, just on the other hand.

I made a similar error once on a power point presentation to a group of executives.  To say I was embarrassed doesn't even come close.  I just wanted to fade away never to be seen again.   The preferred fix of course would be to have spell-check replace what I said with what I meant to say!     

Fine with me if Satya posts the Journal to the Paleo Web Site.  I'd prefer that we remove the non-relevent posts.  As an example there's several posts related to the ability (or lack of it) to view attachments etc and this is just useless clutter.

I will be adding my 12 week update at the end of this week.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 20, 2008, 02:45:31 pm
Lex,

How embarrassing! :-[ I'm used to a DVORAK keyboard and have been trying to teach myself QWERTY again! I get finger dyslexia sometimes. I did need a laugh. Was it your name on the power point presentation or something else? My guess is something else. I'd have noticed it if "sex" weren't a word but it is.

I too would prefer your journal be as if it were something you were keeping to yourself - without the comments and replies of others, which would make it harder to follow for those reading it for the first time.

I've edited the "S" I can laugh at myself so I don't mind if anyone saw it. 

Twelve weeks already! Wow! Looking forward to it!

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 21, 2008, 03:17:29 am
I made the exact same mistake you did.  It is interesting how our fingers will make a mistake that is a mirror image - same finger, wrong hand.  I assure you that I made sure to proof read everything to death after that.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 21, 2008, 11:35:36 am
Lex,

Had that been me, I think would have wanted to sink into the floor.

I discovered that the same fingers on both hands want to do the same thing. I've never taken piano lessons but I remember trying to play something as a child and it was almost impossible to get different fingers on either hand to do something different simultaneously. I don't know what sort of evolutionary advantage this would have whatsoever. It's not so evident with typing because we type one finger at a time but I suppose a signal can take a left instead of a right at times. The finger movements on both hands must be very closely linked somehow.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 21, 2008, 02:00:25 pm
I had an interesting experience day before yesterday.  I took my wife out to eat and ordered two 16 oz ribeye steaks as rare as they would make them.  I ordered them without any seasoning.  My wife was unable to finish all of her steak so I ate about another 8 oz of medium rare steak for a total of 2 1/2 lbs.  I felt rather thirsty for several hours after the meal, which we ate a bit earlier than usual at around 2pm, even though the steaks were not salted or seasoned in any way.

I checked BG in the early evening and before going to bed and it had risen about 30 points well into the 100's.  When I got up in the morning I did my usual weigh-in and was up about 1 3/4 lbs.

The USDA website says the average ribeye steak is about 20% fat and 17.25% protein.   2.5 lbs of steak would then be about 225 grams of fat and 195 grams protein.  If 58% of the protein were converted to glucose this would work out to about 113 grams of glucose.  I've read where each gram of glucose causes the body to store an additional 6 grams of water.  Therefore 113 grams of glucose would cause the body to hold and additional 678 grams of water (113 x 6) for a total weight increase of 791 grams (113 glucose + 678 water).  791 divided by 453 to convert back to pounds equals 1.75 lbs which exactly matches my increase in weight.

Since I lowered my food intake to 500g per day my normal protein intake is about 70 - 75 grams .  As you can see, eating those steaks gave me almost 3 times my normal protein for one day and I believe it clearly created a significant increase in glucose based both on the weight gain and the rise in BG.

I also found that I had no trouble eating the 2.5 lbs (1.15Kg) and I assume that this is because of the difference in the ratio of fat.  My normal food is over 30% fat so it takes much less for me to feel satisfied with the significantly higher fat level of my normal food.  In fact, there is no way that I could eat 2.5 lbs of my regular high fat food.  Doing so would make me nauseous.

I thought the observation and the math were interesting.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 21, 2008, 02:19:14 pm
Thanks Lex,

This now confirms to me even more as to why I can eat so much more "cooked" meat than raw. Even slathered with butter, commercial meat cuts just don't have enough fat to satiate me. The next time I go out, I'll bring some suet with me and maybe save some money!

I've been accepted to the Saturated Fat Group. I'm surprised as I should have a keto driven metabolism yet my ketones stay low to trace (last I checked) I haven't had time to read all the posts yet but I've read the documents they send out upon joining.

Now I have a clue as to what coconinoz was talking about.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on August 21, 2008, 06:39:12 pm
Thanks Lex,

This now confirms to me even more as to why I can eat so much more "cooked" meat than raw. Even slathered with butter, commercial meat cuts just don't have enough fat to satiate me. The next time I go out, I'll bring some suet with me and maybe save some money!

I've been accepted to the Saturated Fat Group. I'm surprised as I should have a keto driven metabolism yet my ketones stay low to trace (last I checked) I haven't had time to read all the posts yet but I've read the documents they send out upon joining.

Now I have a clue as to what coconinoz was talking about.

Craig

Craig, I thought you are trying to loose weight; does this work on your high fat diet?

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on August 21, 2008, 09:26:28 pm
Craig, I thought you are trying to loose weight; does this work on your high fat diet?

Nicola

I lost about 25 pounds and then stopped. I'm at 210 but would like to get down to 180.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on August 22, 2008, 02:47:37 am
I had an interesting experience day before yesterday.  I took my wife out to eat and ordered two 16 oz ribeye steaks as rare as they would make them.  I ordered them without any seasoning.  My wife was unable to finish all of her steak so I ate about another 8 oz of medium rare steak for a total of 2 1/2 lbs.  I felt rather thirsty for several hours after the meal, which we ate a bit earlier than usual at around 2pm, even though the steaks were not salted or seasoned in any way.

I checked BG in the early evening and before going to bed and it had risen about 30 points well into the 100's.  When I got up in the morning I did my usual weigh-in and was up about 1 3/4 lbs.

The USDA website says the average ribeye steak is about 20% fat and 17.25% protein.   2.5 lbs of steak would then be about 225 grams of fat and 195 grams protein.  If 58% of the protein were converted to glucose this would work out to about 113 grams of glucose.  I've read where each gram of glucose causes the body to store an additional 6 grams of water.  Therefore 113 grams of glucose would cause the body to hold and additional 678 grams of water (113 x 6) for a total weight increase of 791 grams (113 glucose + 678 water).  791 divided by 453 to convert back to pounds equals 1.75 lbs which exactly matches my increase in weight.

Since I lowered my food intake to 500g per day my normal protein intake is about 70 - 75 grams .  As you can see, eating those steaks gave me almost 3 times my normal protein for one day and I believe it clearly created a significant increase in glucose based both on the weight gain and the rise in BG.

I also found that I had no trouble eating the 2.5 lbs (1.15Kg) and I assume that this is because of the difference in the ratio of fat.  My normal food is over 30% fat so it takes much less for me to feel satisfied with the significantly higher fat level of my normal food.  In fact, there is no way that I could eat 2.5 lbs of my regular high fat food.  Doing so would make me nauseous.

I thought the observation and the math were interesting.

Lex



Interesting.  Remembering that this is a single data point with a multitude of potential confounding factors and highly imprecise measurements (both the restaurant's version of "16oz" and your own scale)....

It would seem that 58% is an upper limit of of conversion as your meal was well past the point of having intake being a limiting factor.

As a side note, were I thinner, you and I are about the same size.  I *can* eat that much, but boy howdy would I be uncomfortable for quite some time.  If I could do that consistently, I would spend my time at the local all-you-can-eat Brazillian BBQ rather than the steakhouse.  :)  But then I prefer my food cooked, rare, but cooked.  And I like salt.

As a side side note to the forum, I don't see anything wrong with raw.  In fact I suspect it is better for you.  I'm just not there yet.

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 22, 2008, 01:17:12 pm
It would seem that 58% is an upper limit of of conversion as your meal was well past the point of having intake being a limiting factor.

I really have no clue about the upper limit or even if 58% is a reasonable conversion factor.  I do know that I've observed that the more protein I eat at a meal the higher my BG rises and the longer it stays elevated.  I used 58% as this seems to be the accepted number and it is the number used on the Saturated Fat Forum as well.

I’m also guessing that only certain amino acids can be converted into glucose and this is what sets conversion factor and/or the limit.

I *can* eat that much, but boy howdy would I be uncomfortable for quite some time.  If I could do that consistently, I would spend my time at the local all-you-can-eat Brazilian BBQ rather than the steakhouse.  :)  But then I prefer my food cooked, rare, but cooked.  And I like salt.

When I was eating 68% Fat/32% Protein I consistently ate 2 lbs and often 3 lbs of food every day.  Now that I've I upped the fat from 68% into the 80+% range, I find that I desire much less food - even 1.5 lbs is often a struggle to get down in one meal.  In fact, I recently cut my meals from 600-650 gram range down to the 500 gram range.  I thought that this would probably cause me to be very hungry during the 24 hours after jogging (I now only jog every other day but double the distance) but this hasn't been the case. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on August 23, 2008, 12:11:23 am
I really have no clue about the upper limit or even if 58% is a reasonable conversion factor.  I do know that I've observed that the more protein I eat at a meal the higher my BG rises and the longer it stays elevated.  I used 58% as this seems to be the accepted number and it is the number used on the Saturated Fat Forum as well.

I’m also guessing that only certain amino acids can be converted into glucose and this is what sets conversion factor and/or the limit.

Well it seems your anecdotal evidence seems to support the 58% number.   I suppose it could be a maximum conversion factor OR it could be simply that the AA content of YOUR diet lends itself to a 58% conversion. 

I suppose that both options would be easy to test, if you were inclined, when you are finished with this experiment, after you get all of those other experiments out of the way.  You know, in a decade or two.   ;D

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 23, 2008, 06:18:12 am
E,
One of the interesting corollaries to my idea that specific amino acids are converted to glucose and others are not, is that I would expect the amino acid profile of meats to be similar and therefore have roughly the same conversion rate.  However, the amino acid profile of plant proteins vary all over the place and the conversion factors would vary significantly depending on the source.  Very difficult to test as I know of no vegetable protein source that doesn't come with a carbohydrate load far exceeding the protein content.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on August 23, 2008, 07:33:55 am
E,
One of the interesting corollaries to my idea that specific amino acids are converted to glucose and others are not, is that I would expect the amino acid profile of meats to be similar and therefore have roughly the same conversion rate.  However, the amino acid profile of plant proteins vary all over the place and the conversion factors would vary significantly depending on the source.  Very difficult to test as I know of no vegetable protein source that doesn't come with a carbohydrate load far exceeding the protein content.

Lex

Not that I'm suggesting it for now, but should the time come, you could do your BG tests after a "meal" of one of the various protein isolate powders out there.  You could even keep these "meals" isocaloric by adjusting the fat content by making them with cream.  (It'd probably pretty tasty too)  You could try a soy as well as a casein based powder.  This is assuming that they do in fact have worthwhile differences in their AA profiles.  This I don't know off the top of my head.  Also, even if the AA profile is different, switching out an AA with another AA that is equally glucogenic would confound the test.  Problems problems...  ;)

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 23, 2008, 10:21:27 am
Not that I'm suggesting it for now, but should the time come, you could do your BG tests after a "meal" of one of the various protein isolate powders out there.  You could even keep these "meals" isocaloric by adjusting the fat content by making them with cream.  (It'd probably pretty tasty too)  You could try a soy as well as a casein based powder.  This is assuming that they do in fact have worthwhile differences in their AA profiles.  This I don't know off the top of my head.  Also, even if the AA profile is different, switching out an AA with another AA that is equally glucogenic would confound the test.  Problems problems...  ;)

I hadn't thought of using the isolate powders that body builders use.  I guess that's because I tried them several years ago and I just didn't feel very good after ingesting them.  I used the pure protein powders, not the flavored ones with all the sugar and/or sweeteners added, and made my own concoctions with various combinations of milk, cream, fruit, and veggie juices - sometimes with raw eggs added.  I can say that it wasn't the best experience I've ever had.  I tried several of the top rated powders, all of which were very expensive at $100+ for a 3 or 4 lb tub.  I tried soy, casein, and egg based as well as "balanced" blends and all made me light headed and a bit queasy feeling after taking them.  I did try just taking the juice/milk/egg mixtures without the protein powder added and these did not cause the negative effects, so as far as I'm concerned it was the protein isolates that caused the problems.  Needless to say, I'm not wild about repeating that experience - even in the name of science...

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 23, 2008, 11:18:20 pm
Here is the 12th week update on my fat ratio experiment.

                     68%F/32%P  80%F/20%P  80%F/20%P   80%F/20%P   80%F/20%P
                         Baseline          21 Days       42 Days       70 Days          84 Days

BG Daily Avg           106              94              92                 87                 88
BG Hi/Low Range   90/120         92/103        80/100           71/98          72/109
BG rise after meal      25              10               6                 12                 25
Urine Ketones       0-Trace      SM/Lg        Trace/Mod         Large+       Large/Large+
Resting Heart Rt        58             63              60                 59                  59
Weight                   162            159            165               160                 155
BMI                         21.4          21.0           21.8              21.1                20.4
BP                       110/70        105/67        98/63            103/65           106/67
%Body Fat(calipers)   11.0         12.3           13.9               10.8                9.5
Caliper A/C/T      10/6/11       12/8/11       14/9/13          8/6/12            7/5/10

It has been 12 weeks since I made my initial dietary change from 68% fat/32% Protein to 80+% Fat/20% or less protein.

About 6 weeks ago I increased my activity by slow jogging about 2 miles per day which I modified a couple of weeks ago to jogging 4 miles every other day with a day of rest in between.  This kept total mileage the same but to allowed my knees a day of rest.  The idea behind increasing activity was to see if body adaptations would be accelerated.

About the time I upped the mileage and lowered the frequency of my exercise I also lowered my food intake by an average of 100 grams (3 ½ oz) per day.  Down from 600 g/day to 500 g/day.  This dropped overall calories from a little over 2,000 per day to about 1,700.  I expected to be ravenously hungry during the 24 hour period after jogging on these reduced rations, however, this was not the case.  I wasn’t anymore hungry than normal between meals (one meal per day eaten in the late afternoon) than usual and on occasion would forget to eat if I was busy and interested in something else.

As you can see the drop in calories did cause me to lose some weight, so it is clear that calories do have some effect - at least it shows that there are a minimum number of calories necessary to support a specific weight level, however, others have demonstrated that beyond the minimum, once weight is stabilized, eating more calories -especially from fat, does not seem to cause any significant or permanent weight gain.  Weight has dropped from 160 to 155 for a total decrease of 5 lbs over about 2 -3 weeks.  Weight loss has definitely slowed, but I cannot yet confirm that it has completely stopped and stabilized.  We’ll see over the next few weeks.

Percent body fat has dropped a bit more.  Caliper measurements this morning were Abdomen 7mm, Chest 5mm, Thigh 10mm.  This correlates to a body fat level of 9.5% and with a weight of 155, BMI is 20.4.  This drop in body mass is clearly related to my reduced food intake.

One thing of interest is that right after dropping food intake and during the initial period of most rapid weight loss my BG dropped into the mid to high 70s for much of the day.  As weight loss slowed and weight became more stable at a lower level, BG began to rise again into the high 80s low 90s.  Going back over my records, it is clear that each time I’ve gone into a period of losing weight BG has dropped and once weight has stabilized BG has risen again.  Current BG average is at 88 –  just one point above what it was 2 weeks ago.

I also find that with the lower food intake BG usually peaks in the high 90’s, seldom going over 100.  This appears to be consistent with the total protein content of the meal.  Protein has dropped from 95 g/meal to 70 g/meal.  I also observed that when eating out and consuming about 2 to 3 lbs of ribeye steak which has a much lower fat content and hence a higher protein content (not to mention I’m eating almost 3 times the normal amount ) of my normal rations, BG peaks well into the 100s and stays there for several hours.  I also appear to store additional water as my weight increases significantly (almost 2 lbs) for the 24 to 48 hour period after eating a meal like this.  I brought this up in an early post a few days ago and the weight gain seems to track with the theoretical amount of additional glucose created from the excess protein.  Whether this is actually true is mere speculation as I really have no way to prove it but the math does seem to support the idea.

Ketones have been more variable during this period.  In the past they exceeded the maximum amount that could be measured by Ketostix.  Erasmus suggested I dilute my urine and then measure.  I did this and found that most of the time Ketones were in the 320 to 640 range (the max Ketostix can measure is 160).  Over the last week Ketones have dropped into the normal measurable range and now seem to be running in the 80 to 160 range (Level 3/Level 4).  Whether this is due to the reduced food and associated weight loss, I’m not sure.  We should be able to confirm this over the next couple of weeks.  As weight becomes more stable it will be interesting to see if Ketones rise, fall, or stay at this new lower level.  Also, since weight is dropping at the same time activity has increased, it may be difficult to determine if ketone levels are being influenced more by the reduce food intake, or body changes brought about by the increased activity.

The adventure continues,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on August 24, 2008, 12:29:36 am


Extremly interesting, as always.

I think your new exercise regime of giving a rest every other day is a good way to go.
I have read some writings about how we are not exactly designed to do long jogging
very frequently; it uses up and wastes muscles away. I'm not against runner's physique,
in fact I prefer leaner body as supposed to bulkier one. However, the problem is that
those who engage in excessive long running almost everyday is in danger of wasting
away muscles of internal organs such as the heart. I don't know how valid this theory
really is, but at least it's good to give the knees some break every other day :)

How are you feeling overall? Many associate lower protein with less vigor, but it doesn't
seem to be the case for you at least! And your numbers are improving so I would say
your experiments is rather a successful one so far. All that expenses spent on BG strips
and ketostix were worth it ;D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2008, 01:30:46 am
Hi Elli,

Thanks for the encouragement.  Yes, I feel great almost all the time.  I did have a rough week when forced to eat cafeteria food, but when able to eat my normal food I do wonderfully. 

I'm not so sure that distance runners waste away, their body's just reconfigure to support their specific activity.  Since there is little upper body participation in long distance running, I expect that this area does "waste away" to some degree, however, legs and lower body, though lean would still be muscular - at least this was my experience during my 20s and 30s when I was running 10 miles every other day at a 6:30 pace (boy those days are gone, darn it).

Satya has suggested that I vary my routine and do some distance as well as some higher intensity interval work - and probably need to focus on upper body development as well.  The problem is that I'm very busy and I need to find a way to work all this in without taking a large amount of time.  My experience is that anytime I do exercise it consumes at least one hour and usually more.  This includes the time to get ready, the exercise itself, cool down period, shower, etc.   As it is I spend about 1 1/2 hours every other day with my jogging routine.  I'm now working on incorporating the greater variety of exercise, keeping the total activity level about the same, but not committing any more additional time.  It's quite a challenge.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on August 24, 2008, 04:20:50 am


In GCBC, Taubes talks about how exercise and obesity doesn't necessarily go together.
He suggested that obese person may be more sedantary or have no energy/motivation
to move around due to insulin floating around their body all the time. That doesn't help
with circulation of free fatty acids throughout the cells, and the person is less likely to
have energy to move around.

Maybe because of your higher fat plan, even less insulin is being generated by your body
and that you're motivation to add more variety of exercise to your routine :) I know you
didn't start running just because you were full of energy all of a sudden, but to faciliate the
transition. But the fact that you're enjoying your new physical activities and even planing
on adding more variety into it seems to be a good sign. Not that I want you to overdrive
yourself though.

I know that I should be more active, but knowing it and wanting to be more active is little
different, isn't it ::)?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2008, 04:50:15 am
Elli,
I wish I could say that I enjoy my increased activity level.  The fact is, I'd much rather be doing something else.  I intensely dislike jogging, lifting weights, or any other contrived physical activity.  I do, however, find the end result useful, and I'm willing (at this point in time anyway) to endure the annoyance and discomfort.  Unfortunately, there really is little or no motivation for me to add variety to my exercise routine or I would have already done it.  When I say I'm working on a way to incorporate a wider variety of exercises into my routine, what I'm really saying is I'm looking for a solution to the problem of finding a way to make myself do it.  Everything else is just my battery of excuses to justify not doing something I don't want to do in the first place.

I made a commitment to increase my level of activity through jogging to see what effect it has on the various metabolic functions I'm able to measure during this experiment, and I will keep that commitment or die trying.  Whether I expand my exercise routine remains to be seen.  To be sure, I'll have to have some expectation of significant benefit beyond what I'm currently receiving from what I'm doing now.

Sorry to be so blunt, but to pretend that all is glorious would be a disservice to those who are following this journal.  What I do, I do for a specific purpose, and I often must make choices and commitments that I don't enjoy fullfilling to achieve my end goal.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on August 24, 2008, 09:02:29 am


I absolutely understand and can even relate to you.

I don't know if it's due to high insulin level or I'm just plain old lazy, but I don't
really enjoy intensive exercise too. When the weather is nice, I like taking some
walk or even ride a bike, however, never liked jogging or any competitive sports
in that matter. To make the things slightly worse, I don't even enjoy weight
training despite all that benefits it claims to give. But I have decided that all
that stress that I'm going to be giving to myself by forcing to do activities I don't
like to do will counteract the benefits, so I'm happy for now. I won't look like the
front cover model of a fitness magazine, but I that doesn't really matter, does it :)?

I'm always impressed by how organized and goal-oriented you are. The way you are
living your life is actually motivating me not only in diet area but in many other senses.
Good luck with upcoming days!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2008, 02:47:01 pm
Thanks Elli, It's always nice to hear that others are gaining benefit by following along.  At this point in my life I've pretty much done whatever it is I'm going to accomplish.  The best I can hope to do now is help others find their way without having to repeat the errors I've made.  My hope is to inspire you and others to emulate my process of thinking things through and solving problems rather than just blindly copying my protocols.  Learning how to create your own experiments and solve your own problems is where the power really lies.  In fact, it is the key to success in every aspect of your life.

lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on August 24, 2008, 03:37:38 pm
Hey Lex

I'm guessing you don't get a runner's high? Did you get get a runners high in the past?
One of my main motivations for exercise is the high I get afterward.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2008, 11:54:01 pm
I'm guessing you don't get a runner's high? Did you get get a runners high in the past?
One of my main motivations for exercise is the high I get afterward.

Back in my 20s and early 30s I used to get runner's high, but only if I ran long enough - say 5 miles or more - and then it had to be at a good pace, about 7 min/mile or better.  Just slow jogging like I'm doing now would never do it for me, and today I couldn't keep a 7 min/mile pace long enough.  I find it's now a real challenge to manage a 9 or 10 min/mile pace for any significant distance.

Compared to the average person I'm not out of shape by any means, however, as I've gotten older, things that I used to take for granted I often can't do at all anymore.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on August 26, 2008, 08:12:40 am
I hadn't thought of using the isolate powders that body builders use.  I guess that's because I tried them several years ago and I just didn't feel very good after ingesting them.  I used the pure protein powders, not the flavored ones with all the sugar and/or sweeteners added, and made my own concoctions with various combinations of milk, cream, fruit, and veggie juices - sometimes with raw eggs added.  I can say that it wasn't the best experience I've ever had.  I tried several of the top rated powders, all of which were very expensive at $100+ for a 3 or 4 lb tub.  I tried soy, casein, and egg based as well as "balanced" blends and all made me light headed and a bit queasy feeling after taking them.  I did try just taking the juice/milk/egg mixtures without the protein powder added and these did not cause the negative effects, so as far as I'm concerned it was the protein isolates that caused the problems.  Needless to say, I'm not wild about repeating that experience - even in the name of science...

Lex


LOL  I suppose you could always  have the fish.   ;D

-E

PS.  On a more serious note...  An AA composition test would be rather pointless.  However testing the lower limits of this 58% thing would be easy and somewhat revealing.  I see two possibilities, one there is no lower limit and two there IS one.  Assuming there is a lower limit, I would think that it would be showing the test subject's (you)  ACTUAL protein requirements, for that point in time anyway.  This could be further tested by going sedentary for a day or two and ramping it up by extra hard bodybuilding type workouts for a day or two.  I would think that meaningful data would next to instantaneous on the meters so any form of long range experiment would be unnecessary, a day or two at most with a return to baseline for few days between tests.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 27, 2008, 07:34:38 am
PS.  On a more serious note...  An AA composition test would be rather pointless.  However testing the lower limits of this 58% thing would be easy and somewhat revealing.  I see two possibilities, one there is no lower limit and two there IS one.  Assuming there is a lower limit, I would think that it would be showing the test subject's (you)  ACTUAL protein requirements, for that point in time anyway.  This could be further tested by going sedentary for a day or two and ramping it up by extra hard bodybuilding type workouts for a day or two.  I would think that meaningful data would next to instantaneous on the meters so any form of long range experiment would be unnecessary, a day or two at most with a return to baseline for few days between tests.

Erasmus,
Not sure exactly what you mean by this, nor am I sure that anything conclusive related to the body's use of protein could really be measured effectively by the simple tools I have available.

First, I believe that the protein I eat is digested, broken down into amino acids, and then circulated throughout the body via the blood stream.  As the amino acids flow around and through the various tissues, any specific amino acids needed at the cellular level will be pulled out of the bloodstream and used by the cells for repairs, cellular division, or whatever cells may do with the various amino acids.  I would expect the amount of amino acids used directly by tissues to be relatively small and even if it doubled (due to damage caused by exercise or whatever means) I doubt that it would be enough to measure via the tests I have at my disposal.

Any amino acids not used by the various body tissues will ultimately be circulated through the liver where some portion (and here I suspect that it is only certain specific amino acids) is converted to glucose.

Part of my reasoning here is that damaged tissue is broken down by the body and the protein is recycled.  Also, the body can easily sacrifice its own lean muscle mass that is not seen as important (read seldom used) to help provide the necessary building blocks to repair and build tissues that are seen as more important.  In my case, jogging uses lower body muscles more than upper body muscles so the upper body of runners tend to atrophy and waste away as the lower body muscles become more toned - hence runner's physique.

There are swings in BG that I occasionally encounter that can't be explained by my food intake and/or activity patterns, and BG is something that I can directly measure.  How could I possibly draw any useful conclusions about protein utilization when I have no way to directly measure it, and must infer any conclusions from BG readings which are heavily influenced by the breakdown of body fat, absolute grams of protein consumed (and probably type of protein consumed), absolute grams of fat consumed, amount of activity, muscle uptake of glucose vs fatty acids vs ketones, and a host of complex biochemical reactions that I know nothing about nor can I measure?   As an example, sometimes after jogging my BG rises 8 points and sometimes it falls 10 points ( I take 3 readings to make sure that the reading aren't just a bad test strip etc).  Since I eat the same food everyday, the same amount everyday, at the same time of day everyday, and jog at the same time of day, I've been unable to come up with any useful explanation to account for this relatively simple observation.  I've also tried to vary the number of days off between jogging from 1 to 3 days and unfortunately the rise and/or fall of BG from a jogging session seems to have no correlation to the rest period between periods of activity.   

At this point the only thing I can tell you for sure is that after a meal, BG does seem to consistently rise over about a 3 hour period, and the amount of the rise seems to be consistent with the general amount of protein I consume - more protein in the meal the higher BG rises.  But be aware, I notice this effect when the amount of protein is significantly different from the norm.  In other words, it became noticeable when I consumed about 3 times the normal amount of protein, (200+g vs 70g).  A change of 20-30g does not produce a consistent measurable change in BG.

Unless you can think of a protocol that will account for all the metabolic interactions that can influence BG so as to be able to extract and isolate the amount of BG contributed by gluconeogenesis, trying to equate BG readings to anything more specific than general observations seems a hopless task to me. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 27, 2008, 11:17:48 pm
I'm embarrassed to find in post in another thread that I have offended at least one member of this forum, and if one person is offended and willing to state so, I'm sure that others have been offended also.  This is one of the best forums I've ever had the pleasrue to be be a member of, and I certainly don't want to do or say anything that would reflect poorly on it.

I tend to be very analytical and state my point of view rather bluntly, but also try to support my ideas with facts and direct observations.  I do this for two reasons: 1) to get feed back from people who feel that the facts that I've presented don't support the conclusions I've drawn, and 2) to try to help people understand that they should test their own ideas and think things through for themselves rather than just repeat what others say or believe.  This is why you will constantly see me challenge people with requests for any direct evidence to support their claims.

I welcome debate, and other's ideas, however, if I feel that there is a flaw in their logic, I'm going to point it out and present my evidence.  On the other hand, I'm also willing to accept what I dish out.  I don't take offence at sharp comments directed towards me or my ideas.  I just consider them as part of the give and take of the discussion, and dissenting comments often drive me to review my own logic and thought processes.

I apologize to everyone who feels that I treated them poorly or with disrespect.  This certainly was not my intent.  I would take it as a personal favor that anytime anyone feels that I've gotten out of line, please let me know, either by private e-mail, or as a direct reply to the offending post.  I can get a bit over the top at times and I need honest feed back to bring me back down to earth.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on August 28, 2008, 12:06:43 am
I tend to be very analytical and state my point of view rather bluntly, but also try to support my ideas with facts and direct observations.  I do this for two reasons: 1) to get feed back from people who feel that the facts that I've presented don't support the conclusions I've drawn, and 2) to try to help people understand that they should test their own ideas and think things through for themselves rather than just repeat what others say or believe.  This is why you will constantly see me challenge people with requests for any direct evidence to support their claims.

I welcome debate, and other's ideas, however, if I feel that there is a flaw in their logic, I'm going to point it out and present my evidence.  On the other hand, I'm also willing to accept what I dish out.  I don't take offence at sharp comments directed towards me or my ideas.  I just consider them as part of the give and take of the discussion, and dissenting comments often drive me to review my own logic and thought processes.

I have seen no personal attacks or hostility towards anyone in any of your remarks, Lex.  Debating ideas is the most worthwhile course of action we can take, imho.  If we continue to assume, then we rob ourselves of the chance to LEARN.  Keep doing what you are doing.  I feel that we have a very intelligent group here, and hopefully strong words in support of ideas are not going to result in hurt feelings.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ronbo on August 28, 2008, 12:35:03 am
I appreciate your candor and your comments are always rooted in your personal experience. We are all searching for the best health, and your dedication to documenting in minute detail is a tribute to your unselfish desire for the truth.
Insecure people are always offended by the truth.
And let's face it, the internet is packed with people eager to give their opinion on subjects on which they know absolutely nothing.

OK...I did want to ask you about your recent reduction in portion size. I am getting ready to take the plunge and give this is a shot [Metaphor Alert]. So would you mind reviewing your new formula of stew meat/pet blend/suet. What quantities of each, etc. (I don't want to piss Slankers off by being unsure of how much of each I need)
Also, would you suggest starting at 80/20 or ramping up to 80/20 by starting at a higher protien amount.

In my case, even though I have been zero or extremely low carb for about 2 weeks now, my BG is still very high. I am thinking that I am getting too much protein and it's converting against me.

P.S. Do you get a discount on test strips? If only we could wash them off and use them again!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 28, 2008, 02:21:52 am
I appreciate your candor and your comments are always rooted in your personal experience. We are all searching for the best health, and your dedication to documenting in minute detail is a tribute to your unselfish desire for the truth.
Insecure people are always offended by the truth.
And let's face it, the internet is packed with people eager to give their opinion on subjects on which they know absolutely nothing.

I appreciate your support as well as Satya's (the previous post to yours).  Unfortunately, some of my writing can be a bit short and curt, and I must take ownership of that.

OK...I did want to ask you about your recent reduction in portion size. I am getting ready to take the plunge and give this is a shot [Metaphor Alert]. So would you mind reviewing your new formula of stew meat/pet blend/suet. What quantities of each, etc. (I don't want to piss Slankers off by being unsure of how much of each I need)
Also, would you suggest starting at 80/20 or ramping up to 80/20 by starting at a higher protein amount.

I think that portion size as a lot to do with age, level of activity and percentage of fat in the food.  I ate much more in my 20s & 30s than I do now in my late 50s though I find it easy to eat 2 lbs of food when fat content is 70% of calories or below but have trouble eating 1.5 lbs when fat content is 80% of calories or more.  I'd start off with about 2 lbs, maybe eaten in two meals 6 - 8 hours apart and go from there.  I only eat one meal but that is just my preference and on occasion I will eat a second meal, especially when I've been working hard and get hungry again.

My experiments have shown that you will gain and/or lose weight as calories vary, however, the base weight you will achieve at any caloric intake when eating mostly meat and fat will be far lower than when eating the same number of calories in carbs.  There also seems to be a max weight that you will achieve on meat and fat that won't be exceeded no matter how many calories you consume, and again, this is far lower than when eating carbs.

I eat Slankers Dog & Cat food mixed with Slankers course ground Chili Beef with added suet or beef fat.  There is a difference between suet and beef fat.  Suet is the flaky fat that forms around the internal organs like liver, kidney, and spleen to cushion them.  Beef fat is the fat that forms around and separates the muscle tissues and it tends to be more dense and usually has more connective tissue associated with it as well.  I like both and just tell Slankers to fill my order with whatever they have the most of at the moment.

The Dog & Cat food is not USDA inspected or approved so you eat this at your own risk.  It is made from the leftover organs and meats from their normal animals but also includes meat from animals that are to old to sell as top quality meat and so they don't pay to have them inspected.  All the processing is done at USDA inspected processing plants, using the same equipment as that used for the meat they sell for human consumption.  I'm not bothered by this at all but it may be an issue for others.

A package of Dog & Cat weighs about 1.5 lbs and tests at about 18% fat, and the Chili beef I purchase weighs a little over 2 lbs and the fat content varies anywhere from 14% to 20%.  If you just mix the two together without adding additional fat then the resulting mix is usually between 65% and 70% calories from fat and 30% to 35% protein.  If eating 1 kg (about 2 lbs) you will get an average of about 170g fat and 180g protein for a total of about 2300 calories.

If you mix in 300g additional fat (about 3/4 lb or 12 oz) to 1.5 lbs D&C plus 2 lbs regular ground beef (or the course ground chili beef) then the fat content is raised to about 28% to 30% and protein drops to between 14% and 16%.  Eating 1 kg of this mixture will provide about 300g fat and 140g protein and about 3400 calories.  This is the mix I'm currently eating and I just can't consume a full 1 kg - it's just too much food for my normal activity level.  Somewhere between 500g and 600g seems about right for me at my age and activity level.

I do add a bit of sea salt to the mix (about 1 rounded teaspoon (5-7ml)) to the whole amount which isn't enough to really even taste.  I had some leg cramps and they seemed to be helped by this small addition of salt.

In my case, even though I have been zero or extremely low carb for about 2 weeks now, my BG is still very high. I am thinking that I am getting too much protein and it's converting against me.

As you probably noted from a recent post I found that when I ate a large amount of protein in the form of ribeye steaks my BG increased dramatically.  There is a definite link between BG and protein.

P.S. Do you get a discount on test strips? If only we could wash them off and use them again!

No, I pay retail like everyone else.  I use a OneTouch Ultra 2 and pay about $1 each for test strips which I purchase 100 at a time. 100 strips lasts between 1 and 2 weeks depending on frequency of testing.  I test more often directly after making any sort of change.  I test less frequently as things stabilize just to assure that I'm still on track and nothing has changed dramatically.

As a final note, I don't obsess over any of this.  I do what seems to work.  Some question my use of salt.  Well, I'd prefer to eat a bit of salt rather than endure leg cramps in the middle of the nigh.  I used to drink distilled water, but was was convinced by arguments from others that this would have been unnatural and we most likely got a good bit of our minerals from lake and/or river water so I now drink tap water.  I encourage you to use what I'm doing as a starting point, but make your own observations and tests, and if you need to make a change then by all means do so - and report your findings so others can take advantage of what you've learned.

I've had to come to terms with my own mortality over the past several years as family members and dear friends have passed away.  I took care of the wife of a friend who lived to be 90, but was bed ridden and suffered severe dementia during her last 10 years.  Today I go for quality over quantity.  It's OK if I die tomorrow because today I feel great and have the ability to do whatever I want.  Life is short and though I'd much prefer to eat ice cream and pizza, I find my quality of life is far better and I can do much more eating the way that I do now. 

If I missed something or you need more detail, don't hesitate to ask,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on August 28, 2008, 06:32:30 am
Erasmus,
Not sure exactly what you mean by this, nor am I sure that anything conclusive related to the body's use of protein could really be measured effectively by the simple tools I have available.

First, I believe that the protein I eat is digested, broken down into amino acids, and then circulated throughout the body via the blood stream.  As the amino acids flow around and through the various tissues, any specific amino acids needed at the cellular level will be pulled out of the bloodstream and used by the cells for repairs, cellular division, or whatever cells may do with the various amino acids.  I would expect the amount of amino acids used directly by tissues to be relatively small and even if it doubled (due to damage caused by exercise or whatever means) I doubt that it would be enough to measure via the tests I have at my disposal.

Any amino acids not used by the various body tissues will ultimately be circulated through the liver where some portion (and here I suspect that it is only certain specific amino acids) is converted to glucose.

Part of my reasoning here is that damaged tissue is broken down by the body and the protein is recycled.  Also, the body can easily sacrifice its own lean muscle mass that is not seen as important (read seldom used) to help provide the necessary building blocks to repair and build tissues that are seen as more important.  In my case, jogging uses lower body muscles more than upper body muscles so the upper body of runners tend to atrophy and waste away as the lower body muscles become more toned - hence runner's physique.

There are swings in BG that I occasionally encounter that can't be explained by my food intake and/or activity patterns, and BG is something that I can directly measure.  How could I possibly draw any useful conclusions about protein utilization when I have no way to directly measure it, and must infer any conclusions from BG readings which are heavily influenced by the breakdown of body fat, absolute grams of protein consumed (and probably type of protein consumed), absolute grams of fat consumed, amount of activity, muscle uptake of glucose vs fatty acids vs ketones, and a host of complex biochemical reactions that I know nothing about nor can I measure?   As an example, sometimes after jogging my BG rises 8 points and sometimes it falls 10 points ( I take 3 readings to make sure that the reading aren't just a bad test strip etc).  Since I eat the same food everyday, the same amount everyday, at the same time of day everyday, and jog at the same time of day, I've been unable to come up with any useful explanation to account for this relatively simple observation.  I've also tried to vary the number of days off between jogging from 1 to 3 days and unfortunately the rise and/or fall of BG from a jogging session seems to have no correlation to the rest period between periods of activity.   

At this point the only thing I can tell you for sure is that after a meal, BG does seem to consistently rise over about a 3 hour period, and the amount of the rise seems to be consistent with the general amount of protein I consume - more protein in the meal the higher BG rises.  But be aware, I notice this effect when the amount of protein is significantly different from the norm.  In other words, it became noticeable when I consumed about 3 times the normal amount of protein, (200+g vs 70g).  A change of 20-30g does not produce a consistent measurable change in BG.

Unless you can think of a protocol that will account for all the metabolic interactions that can influence BG so as to be able to extract and isolate the amount of BG contributed by gluconeogenesis, trying to equate BG readings to anything more specific than general observations seems a hopless task to me. 

Lex

A day at 40g, 30g, or even 20g would show either the same rise in BG (or a proportional rise) and thus that protein is burned at or near the 58% regardless of the body's need to rebuild itself - OR - it would not show a rise in BG at some point thus showing the body's TRUE protein requirement.

But you bring up an interesting point.  Namely, what happens to all of those AAs that are freed up when protein reconstruction happens?  I mean, the protein may be damaged or no longer needed, but those AAs are quite sturdy and fully reusable.  In a steady state the only NEW protein requirement we should have is to replace what we shed.  I have a hard time thinking we flake off at a rate of 42% of 0.8g/Kg optimal weight.  That's assuming the common protein requirement number of 0.8g/Kg and the 58% GNG rate as written about and experienced by you.  Anyway in my case, my protein replacement need would be 25g/day.  That would be about 2 tablespoons of me casually being scattered about during the day.  Seems like a bit much.  Maybe not. We do lose quite a bit.  It really makes tracking with my dogs easy. :)

It's all a rather esoteric question.  Just musing on my part really. 

OTOH, if you did do such a test AND found that you could drop your postprandial BG rise, you could be in position to nearly guarantee that you would be shifted over to fat burning metabolism rather than a glucose one.  Unless your hormones are such that you start stripping your lean mass to keep you on the glucose path.  Who knows?

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ronbo on August 28, 2008, 07:19:54 am
Lex - Thanks for the quick reply.

I found these test strip links at prices better then $1 each, but I am not sure if they will work in your model 2 device. Hope this helps.

http://www.healthwarehouse.com/catalog/category/view/cat/52/id/4/?gclid=CLqTiJGJr5UCFRIcawod8Asejg

http://www.shavethis.com/onetoul50tes.html

http://www.amazon.com/One-Touch-Ultra-Strips-Count/dp/B000092YP2/ref=pd_sim_hpc_2   (Amazon $58!!)

http://www.diabetesnet.com/ishop/product_info.php?cPath=44&products_id=275

http://i-medica.com/index.php?target=products&product_id=29792
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on August 28, 2008, 10:01:12 am
I have seen no personal attacks or hostility towards anyone in any of your remarks, Lex.  Debating ideas is the most worthwhile course of action we can take, imho.  If we continue to assume, then we rob ourselves of the chance to LEARN.  Keep doing what you are doing.  I feel that we have a very intelligent group here, and hopefully strong words in support of ideas are not going to result in hurt feelings.
I agree with Satya on this, Lex.  :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 29, 2008, 01:06:48 am
Ronbo,
Thanks for the links.  I guess I really should try to get the supplies a little cheaper.  To be honest, I've really been rather lazy and just gone to the local pharmacy when I need strips as it is convienent.  I'll follow up on the links you've graciously provided and see what the overall savings will be (after adding in shipping etc).

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 29, 2008, 01:35:36 am
Dayrl,
People react differently to the same words.  I want people to know that I recognize this and that I understand that the vigorous way in which I defend my ideas as well as my direct challenges for objective data or personal experience to support ideas that differ from mine can cause some people to feel that their comments are unwelcome.

It is conflict and debate that help us to separate the truth from ideas that are accepted only because they are repeated so often without challenge.  I just want to make sure that people know that I am not personally attacking them, just challenging them to look beyond the pronouncements of the latest gurus, and ask them to draw their own conclusions from their personal experience as well as published research, while keeping a sharp eye out for bias.  Whenever I draw a conclusion, I always try to support that conclusion with information from as many sources as possible as well as my own personal experience.  I hope to encourage others to do the same as I challenge their opposing ideas.

Thanks for your support and for providing me an opportunity to give readers a better understanding of my thought processes.

Lex



 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on August 30, 2008, 09:58:21 pm
  I used to drink distilled water, but was was convinced by arguments from others that this would have been unnatural and we most likely got a good bit of our minerals from lake and/or river water so I now drink tap water. 


Jim McCanney, a respectable scientist, recommends filtering all water. His reasoning is:
" one listener wanted to know my opinion of distillation units for water ... first you will need a heat source (not always available in tough times) but second of all and more importantly ... when one distills liquids ALL liquids with vaporization temperatures below that of water are also distilled and end up in the final pot ... it turns out that MOST volatile poisons are in this category ... take iowa flooding for example with the chemical stew that is brewing there or with chemical byproducts of dead animals in the water ... guess what ... pretty much all those chemicals have lower vaporization temperatures than water so they will all end up in the end product ... not exactly what i want to drink for supper ... now look at ionizers and ozone cleaning techniques or how about ultra-violet water purification systems ... none of these will remove chemicals or other sludge ... so you may have some of the most bacteria free sludge on the planet out of these systems ... bon appetite !!! i have done a lot of research regarding water filters and what i sell is for a very good reason ..."
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/

I don't have to worry about what's added to the tap water, lucky to live on a lake in which all the wild critters are healthy, but I filter the water through one of the brand he sells because straight it tastes a bit too um, "liveley".



William
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 31, 2008, 01:31:47 am
Hi William,
McCanney is absolutely correct.  Normal distillation would include all contaminants with a boiling point lower than water.  Many years ago I built a fractionating tower as an experiment in distilling alcohol from wine and other fermeted substances.  It was only partially successful but did make very clear the problem of separating volatile substances with close boiling points.

My own system is really a mixed bed de-ionizer.  Minerals dissolved in water are in an "ionic" state which means that they have a weak electrical charge.  A de-ionizer has rosin beads that also have sort of a static electrical charge that attracts and holds onto the mineral ions - thus removing the minerals from the solution.  It works very well as my water starts out with about 900 parts per million of dissolved minerals and after passing through the de-ionizer there is less than 2 parts per million.  We originally got the de-ionizer to create "rain water" to water our orchids.  We started using it for drinking and cooking because it tasted so much better than the stuff straight from the tap.

De-ionization doesn't remove the volatile contaminants either as they don't convert to their ionic form when in solution with water.  After the water leaves the de-ionizer it passes through a carbon filter which through a mechanical surface tension action tends to hold onto the volatile contaminants and lets the water pass though. 

Finally, the water passes a UV lamp which tends to kill bacteria, parasites, and algae that may have made it through all the other stages.

All stages must be monitored and either "recharged" (in the case of the de-ionizer stage) or replaced (in the case of the particle filters and carbon filter stages) on a regular basis.

Using De-Ionization is much more efficient than Reverse Osmosis as all the water that passes through a DI system comes out the other end and is usable.  RO systems require constant back flusing to maintain efficiency and many of the cheaper systems discard 5 gallons of water for every gallon of clean water they produce.  RO systems also suffer from allowing volatile contaminants to pass through so the carbon filter is still necessary, though most biological contaminants (bacteria, algae, etc) can't get through the RO membrane so the UV lamp is unnecessary.

All systems have Plus and minuses.  If all my system was for was drinking water I would have opted for RO, but since we use many gallons for watering and misting delicate plants, DI made more sense.

Lex



 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on August 31, 2008, 02:13:09 am


Gluconeogenesis has been such a topic of interest for me. It's obvious that since you're not an Olymphic athlete or a bodybuilder, 80g or so of protein you've been eating will be all used for bodily repair and building new muscles. And as a matter of fact, rise in BG after your single meal proves that GNG do take place. The quetion for me is whether ALL protein goes through GNG or only the excess ones after the amount for repair works and muscle maintainence has been secured?

Lex, would you be interested in maybe spreading your meal to 2-3 times a day just for a week or even a day or two to see if there's still a measurable rise in BG? Maybe same amount of glucose will still be produced and that you'll see BG rise of 8 three times a day rather than 25 from one meal or some different result. Maybe there won't be any rise in BG in terms of numbers on the machine because the muscles will immediately soak up the glucose produced.

Now, I'm a fan of the idea of intermittent fasting and prefer to have a one or two bigger meal rather than three or even six 'mini meals', however, I've wondered if too much of protein in one sitting actually increases the amount of protein going through GNG.. I absoultely understand if you wouldn't be interested in changing your protocol and that you'll be sticking to your present plan. If so, would you at least share your opinion on GNG? Some say all protein consumed goes through it, some others say that only the excess will be turned to glucose, and yet others insist that even in the case of excessive protein intake, the body doesn't initiate GNG unless needed, that is, when BG falls below what it is to be maintained at. Your readings seem to suggest that GNG definitely do take place, however, I do not know if it's taking place because all protein goes through GNG anyways or because your body is in need of it.

My thanks and respect for you, Lex :)

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 01, 2008, 10:01:43 am
It's obvious that since you're not an Olympic athlete or a bodybuilder, 80g or so of protein you've been eating will be all used for bodily repair and building new muscles.

Not sure I agree with the above statement and the way the sentence is structured it may be that you intended to say the opposite - that since I don't engage in intense muscular activities that the 80g of protein WOULD NOT be needed for repairs or building new muscles.  If this is what you actually meant to say then I concur that this is probably likely.

And as a matter of fact, rise in BG after your single meal proves that GNG do take place.

This is one I struggle with.  It does seem that the rise in BG after a meal tracks loosely with the amount of protein eaten, but I often wonder if any significant BG is produced directly from dietary fat.  Here's what causes me to question this.  The accepted wisdom is that when body fat is broken down for energy the fatty acids must be transported to and from the fat cells in the form of triglycerides.  When the triglyceride is finally broken down, and the three fatty acids are released, there is a glycerol molecule left over which the liver converts to glucose and this raises BG - or so goes the theory.  Now this has me wondering if there is any significant glycerol associated with the fat we eat - especially when we eat it raw, just as it came from the animal.  If so, do we absorb this glycerol and if we do, then I would think that it must also be converted to glucose since glycerol is glycerol regardless of the source.  If the body converts one glycerol molecue to glucose then it should convert all glycerol molecules to glucose unless the glycerol molecule is combined with fatty acids again to form another triglyceride.

The question for me is whether ALL protein goes through GNG or only the excess ones after the amount for repair works and muscle maintenance has been secured?

Based on what I've observed, I have to believe that some portion of all protein eaten is converted to glucose.  Now my speculation is that only certain amino acids are converted and others are not - and then, only if they are not removed from the bloodstream by some other tissue to be used for building or repair, before finally making it to the liver where the conversion would take place.  If this is the case it would account for the remarkable consistency of the amount converted, be it 58% or whatever.  Of course I have no way of really testing this, but it makes sense to me.  A corollary to this would be that the overall percentage of protein converted to glucose would be highly dependent on the source of the protein.  The amino acid makeup of meat may be such that 58% of the amino acids are the type that the body can convert to glucose, however, protein from plant sources have wildly varying amino acid profiles and often some of the amino acids are missing altogether so the conversion rate would be completely different for each plant source.  Again this is just speculation and I don't have a way to prove this.

Lex, would you be interested in maybe spreading your meal to 2-3 times a day just for a week or even a day or two to see if there's still a measurable rise in BG? Maybe same amount of glucose will still be produced and that you'll see BG rise of 8 three times a day rather than 25 from one meal or some different result. Maybe there won't be any rise in BG in terms of numbers on the machine because the muscles will immediately soak up the glucose produced.

I have spread smaller meals through out the day in the past and there is still a rise in BG after eating, only it is smaller.  It does not track as an even division such as you suggest (eat three meals for a rise of 8 per meal for a total of 24, instead of single meal with a rise of 24).  The rise is smaller but widely variable even though the 3 meals are all the same size and spaced 6 hours apart.  One meal may show a rise of 8, another of 3, and the last of 18.  And the middle meal is not always the lowest, nor is the last always the highest.  As I've said before, I often get a 10 point rise in BG a couple of hours after getting up in the morning and I haven't eaten anything at all.  Bottom line here is that I've tried this and didn't have anything useful or consistent that I could report other than there is a general rise in BG after eating a meal consisting of protein and fat and the BG rise is loosely correlated with the amount of protein in the meal.  You will find this observation is several of my previous posts.

May I suggest an alternative to your test of maintaining normal food composition but divided into smaller portions and eaten throughout the day which I've already done - though not with any real rigor, and maybe try something a bit more radical like a day or two consisting of meals of fat only.  I would expect BG to rise and fall since it does so even when no food is eaten, but with no protein to provide the raw material for GNG, it would be interesting to see if there is any significant correlation between the fluctuations in BG with meals consisting of only fat.  This might shed some light on whether any portion of dietary fat is converted to glucose or is it only protein.

What do you think?

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on September 01, 2008, 01:18:21 pm


It sounds like a fantastic idea. Though I don't think a day or two of only eating fat would hurt, do it only if you're willing. I didn't find the taste of raw suet that appealing, so I don't really want to force you!

I didn't take account of glycerol component that could raise BG. I'm actually having trouble keeping my BG above certain level; maybe it has to do with the fact that I don't tend to eat high level of protein and that with my extremely low body fat, I don't have much stored TG to burn which will also could raise BG somewhat.

Now that you've got me interested on this 'fat fast' experiment, I can't wait to see the result.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on September 01, 2008, 10:12:58 pm



And I also believe that metabolizing fatty acids do create some glucose. Not all the fatty acids you consume will become ketone bodies but glycerol and such. To be honest, I'm not too much of an expert on this matter, however. You and Steffanson both consumed about 80-100g of protein a day which could translate to maxiumum of about 58g of glucose created although I'm not sure if this much will be created given that some of the dietary protein must have been used for bodily maintainance and both of you didn't wasn't constantly wasting away your LM. Brain needs about 40g of glucose when adapted to burning ketones, and there are few parts of the body that needs little bit of glucose as well. Maybe that 58g (possibly lower) of glucose was enough to take care of all that, but if Mary's theory is correct and that we need some higher amount of glucose to have fatty acids completely metabolized for energy, obviously we need little more than that and some that could be derived from breakdown of TG could certainly help out. Don't you think so?

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on September 01, 2008, 10:39:47 pm
There is a technique for restricting substances with a lower volatilization point than water. You have multiple collecting containers and only start collecting your final product when the temperature reaches and holds a steady 100 degrees Celsius. I would still prefer a good filter though.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 01, 2008, 10:59:48 pm
You and Steffanson both consumed about 80-100g of protein a day which could translate to maximum of about 58g of glucose created although I'm not sure if this much will be created given that some of the dietary protein must have been used for bodily maintenance and both of you didn't wasn't constantly wasting away your LM. Brain needs about 40g of glucose when adapted to burning ketones, and there are few parts of the body that needs little bit of glucose as well. Maybe that 58g (possibly lower) of glucose was enough to take care of all that, but if Mary's theory is correct and that we need some higher amount of glucose to have fatty acids completely metabolized for energy, obviously we need little more than that and some that could be derived from breakdown of TG could certainly help out. Don't you think so?

Not sure exactly what to think.  The best that I can do is observe and then comment on my observations.  

There really is no way for me to know if 58% of meat protein is converted into glucose.  My observations tell me that some is converted, but exactly how much is impossible to tell.  I've done some mathmatical gymnastics and included these in some of my posts.  They are interesting but hardly conclusive.  The systems that control things like BG are designed to meet the body's needs at any given moment and it is impossible to tell if the current reading is more influenced by external inputs like food and exercise, an internal breakdown of body fat or lean muscle mass, or a combination of both.

It's also not possible for me to know how much glucose the brain or other glucose dependent systems need -keto adapted or not.  And here I don't really have any way to observe what's going on at all.  Any comment would just be a wild guess and serve no real purpose.

My only tools are a digital bathroom scale, glucose meter, and Ketostix.  Even if these provided laboratory precision measurements, I still can't tell exactly what any tissue in the body is doing.  The best I can do is try to correlate food intake over time with general changes in body mass, blood glucose, and ketones in the urine.

I've got a couple of projects going that will take me most of the week to complete.  Once these are done I'll put together an experiment where I spend a day or two eating just fat.  I really don't look forward to this because a change like this means I have to measure BG every hour to get anything useful so my fingers really take a beating.  But I'm interested in what will happen, so I'll sacrifice my fingers in the interest of science.....

Lex  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 01, 2008, 11:20:45 pm
There is a technique for restricting substances with a lower volatilization point than water. You have multiple collecting containers and only start collecting your final product when the temperature reaches and holds a steady 100 degrees Celsius. I would still prefer a good filter though.

Kyle,
I've used that technique before, but also tried to build and use a fractionating tower.  Here you build a rather tall column where vapors from the heating vessels are injected.  The temperature is hotter where the vapor enters the column and lower at the opposite end.  As the vapors rise (or fall, depending on the design) through the column, the various substances will condense on the inside surface of the column where the temperature is just below their boiling point.  A sort of trough is attached to the inside walls of the column at points where the condensed vapors you desire can collect and be drawn off.  It was a fun project but I have to admit that getting things right and maintaining accurate and consistent temperatures was really difficult.  I built everything out of beakers and glass tubing so that I could see what was happening and the setup looked every bit like the laboratory of a mad scientist you might see in a B movie.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on September 04, 2008, 01:35:58 am
Lex, I'm a bit surprised to read that you drink DI water.  I find that the stuff "tastes" awful.  Do you add salts back to make it have whatever mineral balance you prefer?  This opens up, like a thousand questions.  :)

You continue to amaze me.  I thought I was extravagant to consider getting a magnetic stirring hotplate for the kitchen.  I haven't done it yet, but you really kind of shame me into doing it.  lol.

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 04, 2008, 02:43:35 pm
E-
DI water tastes the same as distilled water and I actually prefer it to our tap water, but Geoff and others convinced me that tap water was probably better for me since it does contain a considerable amount of minerals.  I now drink mostly tap water and save the DI water as a treat.  My wife always makes her coffee with DI water (I can't stand the stuff myself) and she does all of her cooking with DI water.  Other than that the orchids get most of it.

I never had a hot plate with a magnetic stirrer - sounds interesting.  We cook with induction rather than gas or normal electric heating elements.  With induction just the pan and its contents get hot.  You can actually spread newspaper over the heating element, put the pot on top, boil, fry or whatever, and then wad up the newpaper and throw the mess away - makes clean up a breeze.

Induction is also far more efficient than gas or regular electric.  I can bring 5 gallons of water to a rolling boil in 30 minutes and when I reduce or turn off the heat, it stops instantly just like a gas flame. It's far more controlable also.  You can place a chocolate bar in a pan, set the heat on low and leave it there all day and the chocolate will never overheat or burn - no double boiler needed.   You can set an exact temperature for doing things like rendering fat.  I set the temperature for 250 deg F and I can leave for the day and when I come back the fat is rendered and is exactly 250 deg.  Once you use induction you'll never go back to regular gas or electric again.

Here's a picture of our 2 inductions hobs. Yup, only two.  It's all we need - even when cooking for 50 or 60 people when we host family gatherings.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on September 04, 2008, 03:29:31 pm
Lex,

Only you could have outdone the Professor's ingenuity on Gilligan's Island. I'm convinced!  :)

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 04, 2008, 11:45:39 pm
Only you could have outdone the Professor's ingenuity on Gilligan's Island. I'm convinced!  :)

Well, the only issue with our high tech approach is that we have to get everyone that attends our gatherings to stir their coconuts so we can get enough power to run the stuff!

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on September 05, 2008, 04:12:20 am
Wow.  DI water and iron based cookware?  Don't you find the DI water a bit corrosive?  I figured you were cooking in glass, if for no other reason than someone that goes to the trouble of getting REALLY clean water would opt for REALLY clean cooking vessels. :)

With a top grade induction unit the advantage of the lab hotplate is mostly nullified.  But if you like to make sauces...  it's really cool to have that third hand do the stirring all the while being able to PRECISELY heat the stuff.

Myself, I've got gas.  Your chocolate thing requires my 1/4 inch slab of aluminum I keep around for such occasions.  ;)  I got you beat on the 5 gal water boil thing, but I gotta go outside to do it.  I've got a portable propane restaurant grade wok burner.  Now that's a party!  :)

Induction would be easier...

About the tap water. I thought Norwalk pulled it's water from the San Gabriel river aquifer.  That *should* be relatively clean and tasty.

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 05, 2008, 02:02:45 pm
E-
Cooking is now pretty much a moot point for me so I don't worry about it.  Most of our cookware is magnetic stainless made by Demeyre.  I think it's their Apollo line.

We started using induction in 1984 with a Chambers Magnawave cooktop.  My wife fell in love with it and we've be using induction ever since. Over the years I've used CookTek, Iwatani, Chambers, Sunpentown, GE, and Phasar.  Our current induction hobs are Gaggenau and they are by far the best but are pricey at about $3,000 USD per hob.

I've seen those propane flame throwers they use out doors for deep frying turkeys and the like.  They don't look as though safety is the first consideration in their design.  Considering my expertise (or lack thereof) I'd probably burn the house down if I tried to use one of those.  I much prefer the flameless approach of induction.

I understand from our water company that part of our water is well water, however, they are limited by how much they can pump per year and therefore rely on water from MWD and IID which comes from the Colorado River as well as the Owen's Valley to make up the difference.  It's really not all that bad tasting, but I've been drinking DI or distilled water for so many years that just about any tap water tastes bad to me.  My wife also says it makes a big difference in the taste of her coffee.  She much prefers the DI or distilled.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on September 05, 2008, 11:31:06 pm
I've seen those propane flame throwers they use out doors for deep frying turkeys and the like.  They don't look as though safety is the first consideration in their design.  Considering my expertise (or lack thereof) I'd probably burn the house down if I tried to use one of those.  I much prefer the flameless approach of induction.

Yeah, I was at a medieval recreationist event some years ago and I tripped on a turkey fryer that was at full temp ready for the bird.  It very nearly dumped on me.  Even without the turkey in it, some of the oil hit sloshed out.  The last thing I wanted to do that day was to explain to the ER docs WHY I was dressed up all medieval and boiled in oil.   ::)   

For all of you raw foodists I guess you can add this to your list why raw is better and cooked food is "dangerous".   ;D

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 06, 2008, 03:32:47 am
Yeah, I was at a medieval re-creationist event some years ago and I tripped on a turkey fryer that was at full temp ready for the bird.  It very nearly dumped on me.  Even without the turkey in it, some of the oil hit sloshed out.  The last thing I wanted to do that day was to explain to the ER docs WHY I was dressed up all medieval and boiled in oil.   ::)   

For all of you raw foodists I guess you can add this to your list why raw is better and cooked food is "dangerous".   ;D

This story is priceless.  I imagine the emergency room folks see all kinds of interesting things, however, like you, I sure wouldn't want to be their entertainment for the day.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 06, 2008, 04:28:29 am
I've had several requests to show exactly what I eat.  Here is the whole story.

Picture 1491 from left to right,
 
1 1/2 lbs package of Slankers Dog & Cat
3/4 lb coursely ground beef fat/suet
1 tsp salt
2 lb package of Slankers Chili beef

Picture 1492 everything in a large stainless steel bowl ready to mix

Picture 1493 after mixing

Picture 1494 divided into 3 equal portions in plastic containers to be stored in refigerator.

In this case the total weight was 2,060g so each package has about 685g or about 1 1/2 lbs.  If I were to divide into 4 portions each would be about 515g or about 1.1 lbs.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on September 06, 2008, 07:53:27 am
Looks delicious Lex! Mines very similar, I still add 3/4 tsp of azomite a day. Slightly more salt.
Mines tweaked with 200 grams of suet a day and higher protein seems better for me.

Anyone who says Raw Paleo is too time consuming/expensive/difficult need only look at our examples, It could not be any easier, especially if you live in the states, 3 days food in minutes.

I make mine daily for no reason other than I just got into a routine for now but I may change. I get my suet solid then I defrost it during the day, I add the suet and ground beef in my food processor with Azomite, Himalayan salt and maybe a chunk of organ meat.

My food processor is a Breville Ikon BFP650 with 900 watt motor. Its the one with a stainless steel facade so it looks cool in my kitchen. I've given it a real thrashing (sometimes I throw in semi frozen suet) since I've bought it and its going strong. I don't wash it either just keep the bowl in the fridge.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 06, 2008, 12:52:55 pm
Hi Andrew,
I used to prepare my food each day but then thought how silly it was to spend almost the same amount of time each day to mix a single meal worth of food when I could prepare several day's worth in the same amout of time.  The best part is that I only have to clean up the mess twice a week instead of every day.

I also use to thaw chunks of fat and grind it with a small hand grinder that clamped to the table at the time I prepared my food.  Now I grind all the fat at one time when I receive it (usually about 20 lbs at a time) and then freeze it in gallon sized Ziploc bags.  It takes about 15 minutes to grind all 20 lbs and then I only have to clean up that mess once a month or so.  I built my own power grinder for another project, and it will tear through whole chickens, bones and all, without missing a beat.    Motor is 1 1/2 horse power coupled to a #32 Choprite bolt down grinder.  Weighs about 100 lbs.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 07, 2008, 12:38:53 am
As those who follow my journal are aware, several weeks ago I was in a position where I was unable to eat my normal food and had to make do with typical cafeteria fare.  I experienced some unpleasant side effects from this in the form of large amounts of water retention even though I did my best to eat only protein and fat and consume no obvious carbs.

Two weeks ago my wife and I attended a summer family gathering and I decide to throw caution to the wind, eat all the forbidden foods, and see what would happen.  The results are rather instructive and should be given consideration before a person decides to commit to a zero carb lifestyle. 

The framework of the experiment was that I ate my normal meal during the day and then consumed a large amount of carbs in the evening between about 6pm and 9pm.  The next day I returned to my normal meat only fare.  Here’s what happened.

At 4pm I ate 1.5 lbs of raw meat and fat after which we headed off to attend the family gathering.
 
Between  6pm and 9pm I ate the following:
 
6oz of 7Up,
½ dozen cheese and cracker appetizers
3 pieces of thin crust pepperoni pizza
2 large chocolate chip cookies
1 small scoop vanilla ice cream
1 large slice of watermelon
½ cantaloupe

I found that the more I ate the more I wanted to eat of these foods.  My intention was to eat one piece of pizza, (after all I had already eaten a full portion of my normal food and really wasn’t all that hungry), but found myself going back for seconds and thirds.  Chocolate Chip Cookies are my favorite and I justified 2 as it was “only this one time and I deserve it”.  Probably my favorite thing in the world is ice cream and I would have loved more but they ran out.  Large plates of sliced melons were available all night long and I found myself picking up a piece every time I walked by them even though by this time I was pretty well stuffed – I still wanted more.  We finally left about 9pm and my binge was forced to an end.

By 10pm I noticed that I was very thirsty and just couldn’t get enough to drink.  I checked BG and it had risen in to the low 200s.  It might have gone higher but I didn’t start measuring until I got home. 

I went to bed about 11pm and woke up twice during the night from thirst and each time consumed 16 oz of water.  BG started to fall but this process was very slow.  It took almost 24 hours to get back down below 100.  My thirst continued for about 36 hours and during that time my weight increased by about 12 lbs, and my ankles, feet, and hands swelled up with edema.  I was very uncomfortable to say the least.
Even though I returned to my normal diet the next day, my thirst continued for about a day and half and I continued to gain weight during that period.  I’d say that I hit the peak at about 48 hours before things started to reverse.

On the 3rd day I started feeling better but I was really puffed up with fluid retention.  When I stood for long periods (working in my shop) fluid would pool in my lower legs, feet and ankles making them stiff and painful due to stretching of the skin.  I’d go to bed and throughout the night the fluid would redistribute more evenly throughout my body and I would wake up with my hands noticeably stiff and swollen, but legs and ankles less so.

After the 4th day I began to see a slow drop in weight and this continued at the rate of about one pound per day over the next week and a half until now I’m almost back to normal.

Of course I really have no idea of what is actually happening but here are the conclusions I’ve drawn from this experience:

My guess is that, after 3 years of zero carb, my body is no longer conditioned to handle large carb loads efficiently.  Insulin production is probably low and when BG was suddenly and unexpectedly driven very high, my body called for large amounts of water in an attempt to dilute BG to bring it down to safe levels.

I have had small amounts of carbs in the past, but in very small amounts, a single bite of something just to taste it as an example.  This might have amounted to 5g of carbs and this caused no detectable problem, but clearly large infusions of carbs are now a problem for me.

My previous experience with the cafeteria food suggests that since I experienced the same symptoms as with this current experiment, there must have been a significant amount of hidden carbs in what I was eating.  Maybe sugar in the sausage, lactose in the cheese, and eggs may have more available carbs than expected.  Also it took much longer for the edema to develop, though it was just as severe, so it seems that lower levels of carb intake over an extended period of time will exceed the body’s capacity to handle ever rising BG levels once the body has shut down those systems through adaptation to a zero carb diet.

It took several months for my body to adapt to zero carbs and during that time I was rather uncomfortable.  I think that if I were to decide to return to a high carb diet, I would face a similar period of adaptation back to where my body handled carbs efficiently again.  I think this is an important consideration for anyone contemplating adopting a zero carb lifestyle.  You should not make this decision lightly.

Don't take this to assume that I'm now sorry for being zero carb - nothing could be further from the truth.  My health has improved dramatically, and I have a much better quality of life.  I can do things today that I couldn't do as recently as 5 years ago, and at an age when most are taking more and more medications while at the same time having to reduce their activity levels, I'm off all meds but one, have reduced my single remaining medicaton to 1/4 the original amount, and increased my activity levels almost to what I was doing in my mid 30's.  The trade-off of now being forced to restrict my carb intake or suffer the rather unpleasant consequences is well worth it for me.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on September 07, 2008, 02:41:26 am
Very interesting little experiment, Lex.
Boy, you really pigged out!

I wonder how my body would react to a large amount of carbs, now that I only eat a bit of fruit each day. Right now has been the longest time since I've been raw that I haven't broken my diet at all. I used to get big cravings for certain foods, but now I crave meat!  :D
I'm sure one of these days I'll be breaking my diet for a social reason or something, so I guess we'll see then.


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 07, 2008, 03:22:45 am
I'm impressed, Lex. So many other online groups focus on opinions/studies etc., but you at least prefer to rely on your own experiences and measure them, regardless of others' opinions.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on September 07, 2008, 07:42:01 am
Thanks for the information I will be careful in indulging carbs but I will continue with zero carb until I reach 6 months then reevaluate.

It reminds me of of when I ate a pizza last year when a good mate come over,  I was on RVAF at the time and hadn't touched wheat for over a year. I passed out about an hour ofter finishing it,  I felt drugged it didn't feel like sleep. When I came out of it I was so exhausted I could hardly make it to bed.
I was so thirsty that night just kept getting up and drinking and drinking. Wheat is a drug for me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on September 07, 2008, 08:38:45 am
As those who follow my journal are aware, several weeks ago I was in a position where I was unable to eat my normal food and had to make do with typical cafeteria fare.  I experienced some unpleasant side effects from this in the form of large amounts of water retention even though I did my best to eat only protein and fat and consume no obvious carbs.

Two weeks ago my wife and I attended a summer family gathering and I decide to throw caution to the wind, eat all the forbidden foods, and see what would happen.  The results are rather instructive and should be given consideration before a person decides to commit to a zero carb lifestyle. 

The framework of the experiment was that I ate my normal meal during the day and then consumed a large amount of carbs in the evening between about 6pm and 9pm.  The next day I returned to my normal meat only fare.  Here’s what happened.

At 4pm I ate 1.5 lbs of raw meat and fat after which we headed off to attend the family gathering.
 
Between  6pm and 9pm I ate the following:
 
6oz of 7Up,
½ dozen cheese and cracker appetizers
3 pieces of thin crust pepperoni pizza
2 large chocolate chip cookies
1 small scoop vanilla ice cream
1 large slice of watermelon
½ cantaloupe

<snip>


I am actually a bit shocked that someone who has been eating such a pristine, zero carb diet would indulge in such obviously inerior fare to such an extent.  I can't imagine, personally, doing such a thing, and I am not 100% raw nor a carnivore eating the same basic diet day in, day out.  I never consume more than the occasional dairy or legume in terms of non paleo foods.  Eating junk food all night would definitely be a zinger to the body, as you experienced (now for the second time after the cafteria escapade).  But is there any real value in such an experiment of extremities?  It is - in my mind - much like lighting a match and sticking your hand over it.  Yes, it is going to hurt.  So why do it again?

I mean absolutely no disrespect.  And I do understand that we are all in our own realms of reality.  I just cannot imagine any constructive outcomes from such a romp in junk food land, especially one paved with a ton of processed wheat foods.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 07, 2008, 09:21:22 am
Satya,
What I did is what 99% of the "civilized" world does every day.  Ask the typical American to review what I ate at a "party" and they'd most likely think it standard fare and rather mild at that since no booze was consumed.

I had two things in mind when I did this.  First, I wanted to verify that the problem I experienced from the cafeteria food was probably caused by carbs even though I couldn't see that I was eating any.  By eating a bunch of carbs and getting the same reaction, I pretty much verified that this was the case.  The other possibility was some chemical that is common in restaurant food but not it homemade fare - like MSG or sulfite's - which can cause a similar reaction in some people.  I've now ruled out the MSG/chemical idea and can pin it on the carbs.

Second, I was warned by Mary on the Saturated Fat Forum that if I allowed my body to adapt to ketones as a primary fuel, that I'd have real problems eating the occasional high carb meal as the production of insulin and probably some important enzymes needed to handle carbs efficiently would shut down.  It appears that something of this sort actually happens and I've reported the results of this bit of extravagance to her.

I seldom take anyone's word for anything, especially when they really can't point to actual experience or a relatively unbiased study that supports their position.  This was an easy experiment to do, and in the grand scheme of things, relatively harmless, yet provided real information for real people to help them make more informed decisions on how best to live their lives.

Next up is the "all fat, all the time" experiment for Elli.  For this one it will be important to monitor BG very closely as the whole point is to see if there is any correlation between BG and meals comprised of only fat and no protein.  I'll be taking another week to allow my body to get back to normal and then start this one.  I don't expect this to have such lingering effects as the carb experiment did, but only time will tell.

Stay tuned,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 07, 2008, 11:15:22 am
Tyler,
I've found most formal studies and ALL opinions, (including my own  ;D ), heavily biased.  I like to think that the difference between me and the other guys is that I clearly state my bias, offer my opinions as opinions and not fact, and try to support the conclusions I draw with evidence from experiments that others can easily duplicate.

I also try to honestly report my failures as well as my successes. To portray the zero-carb lifestyle as a panacea would be dishonest. The carb loading experiment clearly shows that choosing a zero carb lifestyle has some significant trade-offs.  This is important information for someone considering such a radical change.  It has worked well for me, however, I think most people would be better served by a less radical approach like Low Carb or Very Low Carb.  They would probably get most, if not all, of the benefit, yet be able to handle the occasional carb overdose much better than I do with my commitment to zero carb.

The less radical approaches would certainly make it easier to fit into the occasion social situation and family gatherings.  Anyone who thinks this is unimportant just doesn't understand the powerful and important role that culture, community, and family play in our lives. 

Well, off my soap box and back to zero carb,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on September 08, 2008, 01:50:30 am
Well, Lex, you certainly are a brave trailblazer!  I do hope you suffer no adverse health reactions from any of your experiments.  You do our community a great service by your continued reports.  I guess as a gluten intolerant gal, I just can't imagine doing the crappy wheat products ever again. 

Oh, btw.  You mentioned that there were no preservatives or additives in the family gathering food.  Are you sure?  Was everything homemade with all-natural ingredients?  Food additives are everywhere in the SAD foods.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on September 08, 2008, 02:15:26 am
Yeah, I was about to ask the same as Satya.
I'm sure there must have been all sorts of artificial junk in what you ate the other night, like the cookies and the ice cream, unless they were all-natural. Even probably the pizza if it was frozen or delivered from a chain. How can you be sure it wasn't those that led to your problems?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2008, 02:23:33 am
Thanks for the information I will be careful in indulging carbs but I will continue with zero carb until I reach 6 months then reevaluate.

Andrew,
I'm very pleased to see that you understand that it takes a significant amount of time for the body to fully adapt to such a major change as zero carb.  I believe that my initial adaptation took almost a full year.  During that time I continued to lose weight and ketones remained high.  Once my weight stabilized, ketones also stabilized at the Trace level give or take.  Of course my ketones are now very high again since I went high fat and it will be interesting to see what happens over the long haul.  I've only been on the high fat protocol for 3 months, and if my previous experience is any indication it could take several more months before everything fully stabilizes again.

Based on my recent "cafeteria" experience and my carb loading adventure, be prepared to face another adaptation period should you decide to add a significant amount of carbs back into your diet.  My experience shows that a small piece of fruit or a bite or two of carbs now and then is not a problem as long as there is sufficient time between these small extravagances for the body to handle the glucose infusion.  The cafeteria experience demonstrated that adding carbs everyday, even in relatively small amounts, appears to allow glucose to accumulate faster than my body could deal with it.  It took a week or so, but these daily additional carbs seemed to cause glucose to built up in the tissues to a level that caused my body to take on large amounts of fluid in an effort to dilute it.  It also appears that my body has, over time, reduced its ability to produce sufficient insulin to handle these carb infusions.  I'm now wondering if my body regulates BG only by controlling how much is created via GNG, and no longer creates insulin at all?  Wish I could think of a way to test this idea.

Anyway, bottom line here is that just as my move to zero carb had some initial uncomfortable reactions, I think I've demonstrated that the same will occur if I were now to transition back to carbs.  The body will readjust, but it will take time.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2008, 03:05:54 am
Yeah, I was about to ask the same as Satya.
I'm sure there must have been all sorts of artificial junk in what you ate the other night, like the cookies and the ice cream, unless they were all-natural. Even probably the pizza if it was frozen or delivered from a chain. How can you be sure it wasn't those that led to your problems?

My wife and her family are first generation Greeks.  They were born and raised in a small village of about 60 families.  To this day they make or raise almost everything including their cheese, sausages, tomato paste, molasses, pasta, and bread etc.   In addition to what she makes, my wife raises her own onions, garlic, egg plants, broccoli, cabbage, cucumbers, potatoes, tomatoes (to eat fresh as well as make sauce and paste), carrots, celery, parsley, peas, several varieties of beans, as well as winter and summer squashes.  We don't have room to grow wheat, summer fruits, olive trees, or raise our own meat or I expect we'd be doing that also.

The pizza (including pepperoni, cheese, and tomato sauce), cookies, ice cream, etc were all homemade.  Some ingredients like tomatoes (for sauce), onions, garlic and the like we grew in our garden.  The meat, flour, cream, milk, chocolate, butter and sugar to make these goods were purchased, but these raw ingredients don't have anywhere near the levels of hormones, stabilizers, and preservatives that commercial pizza, ice cream and cookies have.  The dairy products we purchase are from a local dairy in Corona and they claim be be hormone and antibiotic free.  Flour products are from King Aurthur Mills and they claim to be unbleached and unbromated.

Could there be hidden chemicals that I'm unaware of?  Of course, but I think the more likely scenario is that the carbs caused the problem.  It is also highly unlikely that preservatives, stabilizers, or other such things caused the huge increase in BG that I experienced, nor, if they existed, would they be responsible for the fact that it took BG almost 24 hours to slowly decline to normal levels.  No, I think it much more likely that my body is no longer conditioned to handle a large influx of carbs - at least in the casino of life, that is where I'm placing my bet.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 08, 2008, 03:10:37 am
Well, all I can say is that merely including any preservatives at all, tends to induce similiar problems - raw, unprocessed  carbs are nowhere near as bad for me, in effect. But then, of course, I went into this diet with adrenal burnout, so this is hardly surprising.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on September 08, 2008, 03:13:23 am
My wife and her family are first generation Greeks.  They were born and raised in a small village of about 60 families.  To this day they make or raise almost everything including their cheese, sausages, tomato paste, molasses, pasta, and bread etc.   In addition to what she makes, my wife raises her own onions, garlic, egg plants, broccoli, cabbage, cucumbers, potatoes, tomatoes (to eat fresh as well as make sauce and paste), carrots, celery, parsley, peas, several varieties of beans, as well as winter and summer squashes.  We don't have room to grow wheat, summer fruits, olive trees, or raise our own meat or I expect we'd be doing that also.

The pizza (including pepperoni, cheese, and tomato sauce), cookies, ice cream, etc were all homemade.  Some ingredients like tomatoes (for sauce), onions, garlic and the like we grew in our garden.  The meat, flour, cream, milk, chocolate, butter and sugar to make these goods were purchased, but these raw ingredients don't have anywhere near the levels of hormones, stabilizers, and preservatives that commercial pizza, ice cream and cookies have.  The dairy products we purchase are from a local dairy in Corona and they claim be be hormone and antibiotic free.  Flour products are from King Aurthur Mills and they claim to be unbleached and unbromated.

Could there be hidden chemicals that I'm unaware of?  Of course, but I think the more likely scenario is that the carbs caused the problem.  It is also highly unlikely that preservatives, stabilizers, or other such things caused the huge increase in BG that I experienced, nor, if they existed, would they be responsible for the fact that it took BG almost 24 hours to slowly decline to normal levels.  No, I think it much more likely that my body is no longer conditioned to handle a large influx of carbs - at least in the casino of life, that is where I'm placing my bet.

Lex

Wow, that is all very interesting and neat as well, about your family.
I agree, that it is most likely the carbs that caused your symptoms (and your explanation as to why makes perfect sense)
I just wanted to ask!  :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2008, 03:26:22 am
Well, all I can say is that merely including any preservatives at all, tends to induce similiar problems - raw, unprocessed  carbs are nowhere near as bad for me, in effect. But then, of course, I went into this diet with adrenal burnout, so this is hardly surprising.

Tyler,
I tend to agree with you that some people are very sensitive or even highly allergic to these things which can cause similar reactions as mine and even death.  However, though I was beginning to experinece the slow decline in health that years of eating an inappropriate diet seems to bring about, I've never had any measurable reaction to the preservatives and other chemicals that are routinely put in our processed foods.  Of course I've been away from these things for several years now, so there is a possibility that I may have developed some type of intollerance, I just don't think that in this case it is the most reasonable explaination to account for my personal experinece.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on September 08, 2008, 05:04:23 am
The less radical approaches would certainly make it easier to fit into the occasion social situation and family gatherings.  Anyone who thinks this is unimportant just doesn't understand the powerful and important role that culture, community, and family play in our lives. 

Well, off my soap box and back to zero carb,

Lex

I would like to bring this quote of Lex in a different light (I do not agree with Charles on a few "topics" but this I do agree with!):

RE: Real life happens - And it's possible to survive

Real life? That wasn't real life. That was you giving in to an addiction that you have not shaken yet. There is so much more to life than food.

Oh, come one now. That happened well for you. That doesn't mean it would happen that way for anyone else. We're all insulin resistant to differing degress and we all have differing carb tolerances. It's possible that another person eating the same foods could gain 10 pounds. I have gained more than 2 pounds eating far less than what you did.

I'm glad you were able to return to your way of eating but this is a little much, don't you think?

Not only that, but this is about so much more than weight loss. Weight is minor compared to the other diseases of civilization. Carbs do their damage on the cellular level. It's impossible to know the effect of your binge on your cells and was therefore dangerous. The "little bit won't hurt" mentality has doomed many a dieter. Weight gain should be the last marker for health.

It's possible to be overweight and have a long healthy life. However, most of the other symptoms of metabolic syndrom are not at all as forgiving.

I realize my post came across as harsh and I take full responsiblity for that and I've apologized privately to Zyarah for the tone.

However, this was not the situation where a person is caught at an event and there is nothing to eat. She chose this particular situation and had no intention to find healthy alternatives.

For the record, I really don't have a problem with that. Some may not believe it, but it's really true. What I have a problem with is not looking at something for what it is. This was not an accidental "go off plan" type of thing or the situation where we find ourselves at a company picnic and there is nothing to eat and we're starving.

This situation was, "I knew this was coming up", "I chose to eat what was provided." It was a "real life" decision but it was not an accident. That's the part I took issue with. If I choose to eat carbohydrates then I will do just that but I will not come on here and label my choice, "life happens" because that would be inaccurate. I would call it, "I did what I wanted to do and now I'm getting back to work."

Food isn't something that just "happens" to us. We happen to food. If this is not your experience, then perhaps it should be.

No one is expecting perfection and readers of my posts know full well that I don't see things that way. In fact, I've written often that eating off plan is actually part of the plan. This is the only way for us to know that our particular plan really works. Your body will remember how good it felt when you ate healthy. When you eat unhealthy, your body lets you know and this keeps you from doing it again, simply because you don't want to go through the trouble of starting again.

As LindaSue posted, there were some healthy alternatives available there that she could have availed herself of but that was never her intent. If she would have just said, I ate what I wanted without concern for my diet because I wanted to, then I would have never commented because of course, that's her decision and her right to do that.

Just don't call it "real life happens" as if it was an unavoidable circumstance that should be excused. We have to be honest with ourselves about the choices we make and call them accordingly.

There is nothing wrong with someone choosing to eat pizza or anything else. Just don't look to justify your choice by saying "it could happen to anyone."

The other question I would like for you all to consider is the point that Con brought up and that is, what if you were sick (or at least perceived yourself to be sick)? If you were a diabetic and could only eat certain foods, would this change your opinion and your actions when eating within a group? No one has to answer this question, but it's worth it to ponder.

Should diabetics or heart patients only remain at home since they're abnormal and eat steak or can they actually be social within the societal context? Would those friends and relatives respond with contempt when the diabetic informed them they could not eat the prepared food?

I believe that if we perceive ourselves to be "normal" then the battle to manage our health is that much harder. I don't believe that I am normal, despite the way I look. It's because I feel I'm abnormal, that makes me choose what I do. This abnormality does not keep me from functioning within society or attending whatever social function I choose to.

Perception is a fair question because it is actually more likely that we will get diabetes or cancer than we will get fat. I read yesterday that 1 in 2 men will get cancer in their lifetime. Diabetics are far more likely to get cancer than non-diabetics. However, only 1 in 5 Americans are obese (my apologies to our international visitors -- I don't know your stats). As I've said many times, only the lucky ones get fat.

For myself, this rules the day and it's not about being snobbish or elite. It's about safeguarding my health and dealing with the likelihood that I'm contributing to my chances for a far worse fate than obesity.

This is the passion that I write with. It has absolutely nothing to do with any of your waistlines. I honestly don't care what any of you weigh. However, I do care that you are getting healthier and I want you to do know that our likelihood of manifesting other symptoms of the diseases of civilization is much higher than our chances of getting obese. That's the part that should make us hesitate when making the decisions concerning what we eat.

There is no right or wrong here but there is consequence and it extends beyond the scale.

I think we need to redefine the word "normal". Why is it that we "have" to have wedding cake at a wedding? I would think a bride could do whatever she wanted; after all, it is her day......What we need is to have more imagination. As our health improves I'm really looking forward to this grass-roots movement really making a change in our world. Imagine if everyone just went with the status quo. What kind of world would that be? None that I would want to live in, that's for sure. Despite my hyperinsulinemia, I feel as though I can go anywhere and do anything. In fact, I try to do just that.

Some of you speak of your "plan" as a death sentence. Because you're on "plan" you can't live. But you would agree that remaining off plan brings misery. It doesn't really matter what some people can or can't do, it really only matters what you can or can't do. If we are the ones with the issue, then it's up to us to determine how we actually live our lives.

Come on, folks. Let's use our imagination. I'm sure we can come up with better solutions than just A or B.

Maybe you should stop trying to explain and convince. I don't try to convince anyone of anything with the choices I make. I make choices for myself, not for others. Do you think I explain zero-carb to someone every day? I assure you, I do not. Most people could care less.

If your dbf's mother knew that you were diabetic and she was giving you sugar, do you think she would be happy to know that and you didn't even bother to tell her? This isn't about others, it's about you.

This situation will never improve for you unless you come to grips with the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with other people. The battle lies inside your mind and in your body. Nowhere else. When you have a pimple, you think everyone in the world is looking at it. The truth is, people notice but it's truly not a big deal. Many people in this world of ours require accomodations. People are used to that. It's unusual to find too many people not taking medicine or some kind.

Stop thinking that everyone besides you is so "normal." It's not normal for children to be obese and have diabetes. It's not normal for people to die of cancer and heart disease. It's only normal when you eat according to the way all other sick people eat.

It is indeed abnormal to buck the trend and go against the status quo, but you'll be much the better in the long run.

This is part and parcel of the problem. Why is food such an integral part of these "special occasions?" These psychological connections are directly related to diet and the narcotic nature of sugar is directly to blame. When we go to movies, sporting events, birthdays, holidays, promotions, afterwork socials, or just because someone decided to bless the office with a pan of cupcakes, there is always an excuse to eat unhealthy food. Drug users report the same connections to their activities. They need their drugs to "wake up" in the morning.

I am glad to report that I can attend "special occasions" without regard to what food will be served. It is purely irrelevant to me. I can freely enjoy the company, the conversation, the experience of being in the place, and I have possibilities to explore with all the free time. I feel no awkwardness at not eating unhealthy food as a lemming just following the crowd.



Lex don't you feel off in your mind and body; I could not rest at night after a SAD binge! The next day I would have high suger, which would make me " >:(", I would not be able to eat, I would not feel right with all that weight and my digestion would be in a mess. What about all that food that the body is not used to; do you think it can digest that?

No, I like peace of mind; life is all about cleaning up and finding our path - go of track, get on track!

It's not worth it; why can't we be with out having to eat our way threw social and normal days? The sheep eat grass at Christmas and in the rain.

Nicola

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on September 08, 2008, 07:38:59 am
Lex, I'm really glad you posted on this follow up experiment.  I was just about to ask about your insights on the whole caf ordeal. 

While I fully believe that you are correct to a point about carb adaption, I can't help but thing that another common item is salt.  Salt would account for the thirst and the fluid retention as well.  In fact probably more so as carb based fluid retention is should be in the muscle and liver due to glycogen but salt would raise all fluids. 

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on September 08, 2008, 09:08:26 am
It also appears that my body has, over time, reduced its ability to produce sufficient insulin to handle these carb infusions.  I'm now wondering if my body regulates BG only by controlling how much is created via GNG, and no longer creates insulin at all?  Wish I could think of a way to test this idea.


Lex

Good evening, Lex. Fascinating experiment! About the insulin, there are simple blood tests that would tell you your insulin levels. I could be wrong, but I think the only time a person would not make any insulin would be if they were Type 1.

And yes, Mary was right, it seems!  :D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2008, 01:15:38 pm
Nicola,
I'm not sure what that entire post from Charles was about - not enough context, however  I'm assuming that you disagree with my statement about the power of culture, community, and family and so does Charles. 

Certainly this pressure can be overcome, however, it takes a great amount of effort and few are up to the task.  We see this fact of life play out around us everyday.  Sure, there are a few who will choose to take a nontraditional path regardless of the immense pressures around them, however, the majority will be locked into the mores of culture, community, and family.  Tradition is powerful, and people cling to it for security.  This is an important point because the idea of "security" is so seductive that most people will trade their freedom for it. This pervades all aspects of our lives and is not specific to diet.

Charles is truly unique.  He clearly doesn't follow the crowd.  He is accurate in his statement that a social gathering doesn't mean a person has to break their personal dietary rules.  The reality is that most will, because the feeling of security and belonging is a powerful basic human need, and it takes heroic efforts to break away from the accepted norm. The truth is that food IS a major part of our culture and an important aspect of almost all social gatherings. Food is one of the elements that binds together and defines a culture. I feel tremendous pressure from my wife, family, and close friends.  They are always concerned that I will embarrass them by doing something socially unacceptable like eating raw meat at a social gathering.  I'm often not invited to such events because of this. 

You may not like the fact that gravity causes everything thrown into the air to fall back to the ground and others may agree with you, however, agree or disagree, it takes an enormous amount of energy to overcome the effects of gravity.  The same is true with culture, community, and family.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2008, 01:30:59 pm
While I fully believe that you are correct to a point about carb adaption, I can't help but thing that another common item is salt.  Salt would account for the thirst and the fluid retention as well.  In fact probably more so as carb based fluid retention is should be in the muscle and liver due to glycogen but salt would raise all fluids. 

E-
I thought salt would be a major contributor to the fluid retention also, however, I eat several meals out during the first week of the month and though they are always steaks, they are often loaded with salt.  I've seen no evidence of fluid retention caused by this. My meals for the rest of the month contain only a small amount of salt and there is little difference in my weight and no evidence of edema in hands, feet, or legs during the first week as compared to the rest of the month.

My experience just doesn't support the salt theory.  Also, I believe that several on this forum have tried a "saltwater flush".  My guess is that if you ask them they will tell you that even though they drank a large amount of water containing considerable salt, their bodies did not retain any measurable additional fluid.  I won't go so far as to say that salt doesn't cause some fluid retention, but I don't see any evidence of it.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2008, 01:59:59 pm
Good evening, Lex. Fascinating experiment! About the insulin, there are simple blood tests that would tell you your insulin levels. I could be wrong, but I think the only time a person would not make any insulin would be if they were Type 1.

And yes, Mary was right, it seems!  :D

Daryl,
A true test for insulin levels would require blood to be drawn processed in a lab - at least I don't know of any method of testing at home.  This would be very expensive to do any comprehensive testing so I'm pretty much limited to what I can measure at home and give my best interpretation of the results from that.

Of course I have no way of knowing what is really going on in my body.  My ability to measure biological functions is very limited.  I can however, observe BG, weight, fluid retention etc under the conditions I present to it - especially when these parameters make massive changes.  In this case I loaded carbs.  I observed that BG rose dramatically and then it took many hours for it to slowly drop, all the while I was driven to drink large amounts of water, much of which I retained.

A "normal" insulin response after a carb heavy meal should drive BG down below 120 within 3 hours at most.  In fact, this is the whole basis for the "Glucose Tollerance Test".  The fact that my BG went over 200 and then took almost 24 hours to drop below 120 is a clear indication that I'd fail a Glucose Tollerance Test and the diagnosis would be that I was an insulin dependent diabetic.

Can you think of any other explaination, (other than a significantly reduce insulin response), for the rapid rise in BG after carb loading, followed by a very slow decline in BG taking many hours, while experiencing intense thirst and retaining water. 

In my case, I would expect this condition to be reversible if I were to start including carbs in my diet again.  However, I'm sure it would take several weeks if not months.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on September 08, 2008, 08:53:54 pm
E-
I thought salt would be a major contributor to the fluid retention also, however, I eat several meals out during the first week of the month and though they are always steaks, they are often loaded with salt.  I've seen no evidence of fluid retention caused by this. My meals for the rest of the month contain only a small amount of salt and there is little difference in my weight and no evidence of edema in hands, feet, or legs during the first week as compared to the rest of the month.

My experience just doesn't support the salt theory.  Also, I believe that several on this forum have tried a "saltwater flush".  My guess is that if you ask them they will tell you that even though they drank a large amount of water containing considerable salt, their bodies did not retain any measurable additional fluid.  I won't go so far as to say that salt doesn't cause some fluid retention, but I don't see any evidence of it.

Lex

I did that flush and noticed the water in my colon (that was not a nice feeling), my legs did hold on to water and it took a few days to repair this!

Now I am drinking this Himalayan sole (2 tsp in a glace of alkaline ionized water) once a day and I have notice less thirst and I think it will be doing good taking salt this way (not with a meal - letting it work threw the day on IF). This salt is a healthy salt and up to now it does not bother me.

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on September 08, 2008, 10:35:52 pm
I think there are way too many variables to pinpoint the cause of the problems, notably the edema.  Erasmus brought up the possibility of salt, and there is also the possibility of gluten intolerance as a cause of this as it is a symptom of it.  There were too many funky foods eaten at one sitting to say it was just carbs.  Natural or not, Neolithic foods cause a vast array of problems not found in Paleo carb foods.  You'd have to try only fruit one day.  Only crackers another.  Only cheese another.  That is the only way to get accurate results of just what is causing what.

I disagree that food pressures are so great that we have to cave into them to be "social."  I say this as the mother of an adult on the autistic spectrum.  DS cannot eat gluten or dairy.  Doing the former will cause neurological problems; the latter will result in severe constipation.  We have absolutely no problems going to social functions and having a blast with friends or family.  I always make sure he has food to eat, and sometimes he might not get as much to eat as usual, but he will not ingest the offending foods.  It's not worth it for him to ever indulge, and he remains firm on this for his own health.  Do we have to suffer ill health to fit in?  No.  If you had celiac disease, you would probably forgo the wheat at a party.  Same with peanut allergy.  For me, I will eat any paleo foods, cooked or raw at gatherings.  But gluten and dairy in particular are bad news with my northern European ancestry.  I just don't dare eat wheat ever, though I can get away with some cheese once a month.  Some people never drink alcohol, yet they can enjoy a party just as much as those who imbibe.  So there are many instances where it is totally inappropriate to cave into eating foods we don't normally eat.  But, of course, we each make the choices we do in the skin we occupy.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 08, 2008, 10:42:52 pm
The trouble is that if we eat raw food at a gathering, our hosts will get annoyed at having to specially provide you with raw-friendly fare. Almost all such gatherings will involve foods which are highly-processed, to a large extent, and, as Lex said, cooked-food is so part of our culture that it looks rude if you sugest alternatives - let's face it, even vegetarians get looked down on for insisting on plant-food only at parties, it's only those who are highly allergic who are tolerated, in this regard.

Of course, my solution is much simpler, I just don't eat and claim to be "on a diet". That's usually considered OK.

So, I tend to agree with Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2008, 10:46:55 pm
I did that flush and noticed the water in my colon (that was not a nice feeling), my legs did hold on to water and it took a few days to repair this!

I'm really surprised by this.  I've done the saltwater flush several times in the past and didn't notice any fluid retention at all.  I suppose this just highlights the fact that each of us can react differently to the same situation.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2008, 11:34:55 pm
I think there are way too many variables to pinpoint the cause of the problems, notably the edema.  Erasmus brought up the possibility of salt, and there is also the possibility of gluten intolerance as a cause of this as it is a symptom of it.  There were too many funky foods eaten at one sitting to say it was just carbs.  Natural or not, Neolithic foods cause a vast array of problems not found in Paleo carb foods.  You'd have to try only fruit one day.  Only crackers another.  Only cheese another.  That is the only way to get accurate results of just what is causing what.

Can't argue with the fact that this experiment was not closely controlled, however, I stand by my assertion that it is the carbs causing the problem.  As noted in a previous post neither salt nor any other chemical additive has given me problems in the past, and on occasion I consume a large amount of salt and it doesn't cause the symptoms I experienced from eating carbs.   I ate gluten based foods for 50 years with no sign of intolerance, and in the cafeteria escapade I could see no sign of wheat or any other grain in the food I was eating - Cheese, yes (lactose); bacon & sausage, yes (likely to contain sugar); eggs, yes (known to have some carb content) - but no grains or plant based carbs were observable.

I disagree that food pressures are so great that we have to cave into them to be "social."  I say this as the mother of an adult on the autistic spectrum.  DS cannot eat gluten or dairy.  Doing the former will cause neurological problems; the latter will result in severe constipation.  We have absolutely no problems going to social functions and having a blast with friends or family.  I always make sure he has food to eat, and sometimes he might not get as much to eat as usual, but he will not ingest the offending foods.  It's not worth it for him to ever indulge, and he remains firm on this for his own health.  Do we have to suffer ill health to fit in?  No.  If you had celiac disease, you would probably forgo the wheat at a party.  Same with peanut allergy.  For me, I will eat any paleo foods, cooked or raw at gatherings.  But gluten and dairy in particular are bad news with my northern European ancestry.  I just don't dare eat wheat ever, though I can get away with some cheese once a month.  Some people never drink alcohol, yet they can enjoy a party just as much as those who imbibe.  So there are many instances where it is totally inappropriate to cave into eating foods we don't normally eat.  But, of course, we each make the choices we do in the skin we occupy.

Can't really argue with you here either.  "Special needs" will easily override culture, community, and family. And, in fact, cause people to "rally around the cause".  In my case, I often explain that I'm severely diabetic and therefore can't eat the culturally acceptable foods.  This almost always elicits sympathy and a knowing nod, and puts me squarely in the Special Needs category as diabetes is so common these days, and everyone knows the dietary limitations imposed by diabetes.  Where I get into social problems is that eating RAW meat is not seen as a requirement in a diabetic diet.  This means that I can use my self proclaimed Special Needs status to refuse high carb foods, and this is quite acceptable, however, I must eat my raw food before going to the social function because eating raw meat is not one of the accepted special needs of a diabetic.

I also know a family that has an epileptic child and they control it with a very strict ketogenic diet (95%fat).  They take the child's food with them and, of course, this special need is greeted with sympathy and understanding.  Again, the food is "cooked" and or prepared in a socially accepted manner so even though the diet is quite restrictive, what foods are allowed are prepared in a socially acceptable way.

None of this negates the immense influence that culture, community, and family has over our lives - especially when there is no "special need" to override it.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on September 09, 2008, 03:09:50 am
I agree with Lex about the social nature of foods and feeding.  I have been often labeled as "high maintenance" when I opted simply not to eat.  This was always without complaint on my part.  People always felt obligated to adjust to my "needs" even though I was VERY CLEAR that they should do no such thing. So even asking for NOTHING is a burden to a lot of people.  In fact nothing is the one thing I'm not allowed to have on my birthday here in the office.  Goofy. 

On to the carb consequences that Lex reports.  I absolutely believe everything Lex reports.  Still, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the severity of his reactions when going off the reservation.  While there are most certainly confounding factors, it seems to me he has covered most of them to make his claim that is primarily due to what is essentially a bad diabetic reaction.  It's rather disturbing.  And his warning should listened to.  There more than a few of us out there that are VERY LOW carb, but not Lex's ZERO carb.  I wonder if we (the VLCers)  are holding on to sufficient carb processing reserve to avoid Lex's reactions.  Or at least his severity. At 8 months in, I suspect I am still too early to test that out.  But Jeff, who I believe is lurking about, has been VLC for long enough I think to make a valid test of it.  Of course the LA County fair is on right now, it would be real easy for me to a carb out just see where I stand right now, funnel cake and deep fried snickers, for science you understand.  ;D 

Lex,
  I make you an offer, just to help eliminate the salt thing completely for MY mind, my girlfriend and I would be happy to have you and your wife as our guests to dinner at Greenfields Brazilian BBQ in West Covina.  Any time that fits your dietary experiments is fine, preferably after the fair later in October or even in November.  Besides what what would be I'm sure a stimulating and informative dinner conversation, I really want to see a skinny guy put a real hurt on the "all you can eat" experience.  ;D

Lex,
 I also think you are wrong about how long it would take adapt to carbs to avoid your symptoms.  We keto adapt at least most of the way in as little as a week.  Sure it takes quite a bit longer to FULLY adapt, but I shouldn't think full adaption would be needed to deal with the carbs adequately.  It doesn't quite make sense in a paleo world where I'm certain we would have seasonal carb ups well in advance of what you did.  In temperate climate there would be periodic fruit explosions where I'm sure we would have eaten till we popped.  It's a lot easier to hunt fruit.  Perhaps in those climates we have also supplemented hunting with various tubers and such thus keeping us ready for the seasonal sugar fest.  I don't know.   Of course there is also the BG rise that you get while on meat only.  That would make it seem that you are at least a bit in the game of processing carbs.  Lots of questions still unanswered.  I'm sure there are lots questions left unasked. 

At least for now, it seems the best course for the zerocarber is to periodically (such period, yet to be determined) have sufficient carbs to keep the metabolism ready to successfully handle the occasion social event.  Assuming of course it doesn't knock you off the wagon that is.

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on September 09, 2008, 03:43:39 am
The trouble is that if we eat raw food at a gathering, our hosts will get annoyed at having to specially provide you with raw-friendly fare. Almost all such gatherings will involve foods which are highly-processed, to a large extent, and, as Lex said, cooked-food is so part of our culture that it looks rude if you sugest alternatives - let's face it, even vegetarians get looked down on for insisting on plant-food only at parties, it's only those who are highly allergic who are tolerated, in this regard.

Of course, my solution is much simpler, I just don't eat and claim to be "on a diet". That's usually considered OK.

So, I tend to agree with Lex.

But Tyler, saying no to food because of your "I am on a diet" claim does not constitute caving into social pressures regarding food.  Hey, claiming religious fasting would work too.

How I handle this situation every time is to offer to bring food and drink to help out the host(ess).  Of course, it doesn't hurt that I am also gluten intolerant and claim "allergy" issues to avoid offending anyone.  And I am not afraid of some cooked meat and salads, which are usually always present unless your host is a veghead.  Perhaps I am fortunate that I have never felt pressure to eat obviously highly-processed junk food in social settings, whether they are made with organic sucanant, organic whole wheat or their conventional counterparts.  But then, everyone who knows me knows that I am independent and a bit eccentric anyway.  Lex's problems tell me that it ain't worth it to go off the wagon and pig out on foods that you are not used to consuming regularly, especially if you are a zero carber.  (IOW, I agree with Lex too.)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 09, 2008, 03:54:14 am
But Tyler, saying no to food because of your "I am on a diet" claim does not constitute caving into social pressures regarding food.  Hey, claiming religious fasting would work too.

How I handle this situation every time is to offer to bring food and drink to help out the host(ess).  Of course, it doesn't hurt that I am also gluten intolerant and claim "allergy" issues to avoid offending anyone.  And I am not afraid of some cooked meat and salads, which are usually always present unless your host is a veghead.  Perhaps I am fortunate that I have never felt pressure to eat obviously highly-processed junk food in social settings, whether they are made with organic sucanant, organic whole wheat or their conventional counterparts.  But then, everyone who knows me knows that I am independent and a bit eccentric anyway.  Lex's problems tell me that it ain't worth it to go off the wagon and pig out on foods that you are not used to consuming regularly, especially if you are a zero carber.  (IOW, I agree with Lex too.)

Sorry, I should have made clear that I do have to eat cooked when I get visits from acquaintances, the odd Christmas party, certain special occasions etc. Other than that, I'm able to get away with sashimi restaurants or not eating. BUt one has to be careful. I could probably get away with eating a wild hare carcass in a more wacky setting like California or Hawaii(judging from reports), but here in the UK, it's not a good idea to be too eccentric, in this regard.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on September 09, 2008, 04:36:15 am
But one has to be careful. I could probably get away with eating a wild hare carcass in a more wacky setting like California or Hawaii(judging from reports), but here in the UK, it's not a good idea to be too eccentric, in this regard.

Tyler, I must say that the idea of watching you eat a whole, wild hare sans fur would be a bit over the top, even in my book (and I am a nut from CA).  However, I am sure that the pleasure of your company would make the dead bunny fade from my mind in no time.  Well, unless we started discussing the proper bolting techniques of it or something.  ;)

Here in the US, I think the focus on food has gone to an extreme in some circles.  In some settings, it seems that unhealthy, obese gluttons are more interested in having company for their miserable eating habits than truly nurturing guests with fine food and hospitailty.  These folks are easily offended because refusal to partake of the feast is seen as an indictment of their lifestyle.  And this has to be handled very carefully, imo.  It IS really sad to witness really destructive behavior with food or drink in a friend or family member.  What to do?  Enable them by gorging out and risk becoming dysfunctional about lunch too?  Or stand back and appear snobbishly aloof?  It is these situations that I try to avoid like the plague, unless the group of people is large enough to blend in more readily.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 09, 2008, 08:37:39 am
I make you an offer, just to help eliminate the salt thing completely for MY mind, my girlfriend and I would be happy to have you and your wife as our guests to dinner at Greenfields Brazilian BBQ in West Covina.  Any time that fits your dietary experiments is fine, preferably after the fair later in October or even in November.  Besides what what would be I'm sure a stimulating and informative dinner conversation, I really want to see a skinny guy put a real hurt on the "all you can eat" experience.  ;D

E-
I've eaten at Greenfields, Roda Vida (no longer in business), and Amazon (in Fullerton) and all their food is quite salty.  May I offer an alternative?  I'll take you and your wife to Wood Ranch.  I think their steaks are better than Ruth Chris, Gulliver's, Morton's, or any other high-end steak house.  Last time I went I had two 16oz ribeyes, and a full rack of Baby Back ribs.  I was a major topic of conversation among the staff at that visit. No one had ever eaten that much food before, much less all meat.  One of the issues with the Brazilian BBQs is that I can't order the meat rare.  At best it's medium well.  I much prefer my beef as rare as possible.

I also think you are wrong about how long it would take adapt to carbs to avoid your symptoms.  We keto adapt at least most of the way in as little as a week.  Sure it takes quite a bit longer to FULLY adapt, but I shouldn't think full adaption would be needed to deal with the carbs adequately.  It doesn't quite make sense in a paleo world where I'm certain we would have seasonal carb ups well in advance of what you did.  In temperate climate there would be periodic fruit explosions where I'm sure we would have eaten till we popped.  It's a lot easier to hunt fruit.  Perhaps in those climates we have also supplemented hunting with various tubers and such thus keeping us ready for the seasonal sugar fest.  I don't know.   Of course there is also the BG rise that you get while on meat only.  That would make it seem that you are at least a bit in the game of processing carbs.  Lots of questions still unanswered.  I'm sure there are lots questions left unasked. 

I'm no longer convinced that paleo humans ate as much plant material as we've been lead to believe.  Take a look at this link: http://www.biblelife.org/woman7700.htm  and 7,000 years was not all that long ago.  I have no idea if there is anything further on this subject, however, it is interesting that the idea that humans have always included significant amounts of plant foods, especially seasonal fruits, in their diet, is seldom challenged.  If the information in the above link is accurate, then maybe we are really top level carnivores and not omnivores at all. 

Think about our pets.  Today we routinely feed our dogs and cats commercial pet food that is comprised mostly of grains.  Because they've eaten grain based food from the time they were weaned, know no other food, often reject raw meat in favor of the more familiar grain based food, and don't immediately die from eating a diet of grains, does this prove that dogs and cats are vegetarians?    How is this different from the environment that we humans are raised in today?  We grow up eating grain based foods from the time we are weaned, we don't know anything else, and we pass the same dietary aberrations on to our children generation after generation after generation.

I'm well aware that cats and dogs occasionally chew on grass, but if you observe their feces, you'll find that it passes through undigested.  The total amount of grass consumed is such a small part of their diet that is is almost unmeasurable in terms of volume or weight and truly infinitesimal as percent of calories.

At least for now, it seems the best course for the zerocarber is to periodically (such period, yet to be determined) have sufficient carbs to keep the metabolism ready to successfully handle the occasion social event.  Assuming of course it doesn't knock you off the wagon that is.

If we reject the premise that humans are omnivores, and adopt the idea that we may have evolved as top level carnivores, then why would we want to eat carbs at all, unless our meat supply were to disappear and it becomes a matter of survival?  Food for thought.....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on September 10, 2008, 04:09:30 am
I've eaten at Greenfields, Roda Vida (no longer in business), and Amazon (in Fullerton) and all their food is quite salty.  May I offer an alternative?  I'll take you and your wife to Wood Ranch.  I think their steaks are better than Ruth Chris, Gulliver's, Morton's, or any other high-end steak house.  Last time I went I had two 16oz ribeyes, and a full rack of Baby Back ribs.  I was a major topic of conversation among the staff at that visit. No one had ever eaten that much food before, much less all meat.  One of the issues with the Brazilian BBQs is that I can't order the meat rare.  At best it's medium well.  I much prefer my beef as rare as possible.

A valid point about the well-doneness.  Being a BBQ fan, I forgot about that point.  Though you can get to med-rare if you limit yourself to the larger hunks of meat and have the servers bring the spit to you before they would normally put it back on the fire.  But enough of that silliness, better that Ruths Chris you say?  I think I could forgo the salt experiment. :)  I'm sure I could talk the GF into a steak outing.  At the very least it would stop her from pestering me for yet more steak.  You see we only eat it 3 or 4 times a week.  I'll get back to you when the schedule lightens up.  It would seem the GF will be out of commission due to a surgery late this month.  Nothing serious, just annoying.


I'm no longer convinced that paleo humans ate as much plant material as we've been lead to believe.  Take a look at this link: http://www.biblelife.org/woman7700.htm  and 7,000 years was not all that long ago.  I have no idea if there is anything further on this subject, however, it is interesting that the idea that humans have always included significant amounts of plant foods, especially seasonal fruits, in their diet, is seldom challenged.  If the information in the above link is accurate, then maybe we are really top level carnivores and not omnivores at all. 

I have no doubt that we are top level carnivores.  But by the same token, I have no doubt that we ate whatever we could.  This would in part explain why we exist everywhere.  In the wild, most animals eat whatever they can just to survive.  Plants, I suspect specifically tubers, would have provided survival rations when game was sparse.  Then there is the whole sweet tooth thing.  Nature is not one to be frivolous.  Of this is all conjecture.  Just like all the other "experts".

Think about our pets.  Today we routinely feed our dogs and cats commercial pet food that is comprised mostly of grains.  Because they've eaten grain based food from the time they were weaned, know no other food, often reject raw meat in favor of the more familiar grain based food, and don't immediately die from eating a diet of grains, does this prove that dogs and cats are vegetarians?    How is this different from the environment that we humans are raised in today?  We grow up eating grain based foods from the time we are weaned, we don't know anything else, and we pass the same dietary aberrations on to our children generation after generation after generation.

I'm well aware that cats and dogs occasionally chew on grass, but if you observe their feces, you'll find that it passes through undigested.  The total amount of grass consumed is such a small part of their diet that is is almost unmeasurable in terms of volume or weight and truly infinitesimal as percent of calories.

I feed my dogs raw meat.  My GF really enjoys the uh... sound of bones being crunched. :)  They are absolutely healthier and happier on raw.  They would probably be even better off if I were to use Slankers and the like.  But I go through 4 pounds of food a day, they'll make due on commercial critters. 

Like most raw food feeders, I am very well acquainted feces.  So much so that I pay attention to the stuff I find on our walks.  Coyote scat often contains berry seeds when the are available.  And "theBear" not withstanding, canids are more carnivore than we are.  Does it amount to a lot of calories? No.  But it does show that carnivores will eat what they can.  Why wouldn't we?

If we reject the premise that humans are omnivores, and adopt the idea that we may have evolved as top level carnivores, then why would we want to eat carbs at all, unless our meat supply were to disappear and it becomes a matter of survival?  Food for thought.....

I hate the term omnivore.  It's a silly thing.  If you go out into the woods a look around, nearly everything you see is edible by something.  And yet 99% of all of that "food" is completely inedible to us.  1% is hardly "omni" in my book.  Nope, we are carnivores plain and simple. 

As to why we should eat carbs?  In a vacuum we shouldn't.  But we don't live in a vacuum as you pointed out.  All I was saying was that if we want to go with the flow socially, then it might be best to keep our bodies in a state that the occasional social gathering doesn't make us pay the price for good week afterward.  Your symptoms were hardly mild.  And as bad as you felt on the outside I'm sure the inside was taking a beating as well.  The real questions are, "how much is enough?" and "is that too much to be worth it?".  As for the first, I have no idea.  The second, well that's a personal call.

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 10, 2008, 04:51:34 am
E-
All thoughts well reasoned.

I did a major project for a kennel and dog trainer who wanted to convert their dogs to raw foods.  Great success.  Unfortunately, this is not the norm for the average pet owner who think's they're doing right by purchasing pet chow at the market or the latest designer food for their animals.

Yup, social pressure can be intense, and it is probably a good reason for most people to include a small amount of carbs in their normal diet.  I was just playing the devil's advocate and pushing a few buttons to see where it would lead.

I seldom eat steaks (once or twice a month), but when I do, I want really good ones.  Just my opinion of course, but Wood Ranch is tops.

Let me know if/when you'd like to get together.  Anytime is fine with me.  You're also welcome to drop by just to meet and chat anytime.  I'm usually home working on some project or other.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 13, 2008, 07:05:45 am
I'm reproducing a post from Kristelle's Journal as well as my reply as it goes to the heart of the experiment that I'm performing and some observations that I haven't made in print before.  On Kristelle's journal I did not "quote" all of her intital post as it was available directly above my response, but I'm doing so here so that readers will have the full context of my comments.

Ok well...I just realized where I went wrong all this time and I've been zero-carbing mostly for about 1 year now. I was eating too much fat! I had mentioned that earlier in my journal but did not give it enough time. Now, it's crystal clear.

Since reducing my fat intake to about 60-65% (and that seems to be even a little too much right now), I feel like a new person. In other words, I feel amazing. My problems had nothing to do with cooking, nothing at all and my theory was wrong. I'm still struggling a little with abdominal cramps, some bloating but overall, I can't complain. If the indigestion persists in the following days, I plan to reduce fat intake even further.

Interestingly, my ketones have reduced. And thinking back, when protein was higher and fat lower, my weight was less. The more fat I ate, the heavier I became. No doubt about this. That's strange considering protein supposedly converts to glucose to a greater extent than fat because if that were the case, shouldn't I be gaining weight on more protein instead?? I personally don't believe in protein gluconeogenesis, doesn't hold up in my own experience and Charles, from http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/index.php had some interesting things to say about this today...

"Francis Benedict's study from 1915 was on a subject who fasted for 31 days. This study remains the most complete of all balance studies in spite of many inadequate analytical methods. He demonstrated that for the first 5 or 6 days of fasting, a small component to the fuel of respiration was provided by carbohydrate and then none at all. After that, it was all about fat and protein. Fat contributed 85% and protein 10%. Benedict remarked that fat was the most abundant and and possibly expendable.

Many problems were unexplained and the general belief in gluconeogenesis was directly under fire. The brain supposedly requires 120-130 grams of glucose daily, although the IOM report that Taubes cited says that really only 100 grams are required. The extra 30 was set as a precaution. Everyone agrees that ketones can provide 75 grams, but they dispute is over the last 25 grams.

Total carbohydrate stores are barely adequate for 1 day's supply for cerebral function and gluconeogenesis must provide this amount. However, data shows that gluconeogenesis falls far short. Nitrogen (protein) excretion in several days decreases to 10 grams per day and in more prolonged fasting, it decreases to levels approaching 3 grams per day.

We all know of people who have fasted considerable longer than 7 days.

This renders impossible rendering more than several grams of glucose even if all amino acids were glucose producing.

The body doesn't use up the limited supply of protein it has making glucose for those tissues that need it which means that the brain has to be using something else. The 100 grams of glucose requirement is more a belief than it is science since it obviously has not been shown in rigorous testing.

Let's put this gluconeogensis from too much protein idea to rest. If you are gaining weight on your zero-carb diet, it has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of protein you're eating. Protein conversion is too expensive and can be toxic since that results in more nitrogen which would build ammonia in the blood and kill you. I was under the impression that the muscles didn't use ketones but indeed they do. They use more than what reserchers thought.

The next problem that is equally frustrating to researchers is the very one that MAC and I were discussing just the other day. What is the signal that mobilizes just the quantity of free fatty acid needed by the liver and carcass from fat tissue and likewise, what is the signal to muscle which directs mobilization of muscle protein as amino acid into the blood to be removed by liver (and kidney) during gluconoeogenesis? In other words, when the liver "goes after the muscles" to get protein, what gets rid of the nitrogen that's left over?

There are two schools of thought. The first is that insulin (its level) is the primary mediator (not surprising) and some think it is something in the brain which signals the release of peripheral fuel using neural pathways via the central nervous system. This means that the only time that the body would convert protein for energy would be if there were no fat or ketones available, so one would have to be fasting for more than nine months before this would occur. Again, the Bear is very astute.

The researchers tend to equate fasting and diabetes because in one case, insulin is low. In the other case, insulin is not effective due to the high level. This makes a huge difference to me, but the researchers seem to think they are somehow equivalent. The Bear also noted that these two cases were in no way similar.

Taubes provided David Kipnis's studies showing how fat tissue is exquisitely sensitive to insulin and we know that insulin fascilitates release of free fatty acids in response to the changing levels. The Randle cycle, which describes the glucose-fatty acid metabolism informs us how insulin levels effect the release of free fatty acids. This is well-known to all of us zero-carbers because we have no dietary glucose (or very little) and our fatty acids are not inhibited from circulating by insulin. Yet we all know that if we provide a glucose load, the fatty acids will decrease in circulation and the majority of the glucose will be stored.

Another note I found interesting, was that Benedict determined that if a man has enough fatty acids at the start, he may survive a fasting period of 6 to 9 months and probably even longer. At the end of 30 days of fasting, fat provides 90 percent of calories and protein only provides 10%. On an 8 day fast, fat provides 86% and protein provides 14%. On a 40-day fast, fat provides 95-97% and protein only provides 3%. The subjects on the 40-day fast were all obese.

For a man to survive a fast, protein conservation is critical, particularly in a primeval setting where maintaining muscle mass would be necessary. This is why we zero-carbers don't have to live in the gym. If we go once or twice per week, we are not in danger of losing our muscle mass. One-third to one-half loss of total body nitrogen is barely compatible with survival. This is the same for all the animals in the kingdom.

This leaves open the question as to what fuel supplies the gluconogenic precursor to provide the brain its necessary fuel. The probable answer is that the brain gradually decreases its utilization of glucose and uses ketones and hydroxybutyrate to become the most important fuels.

In conclusion, the question of how much the brain needs really depends on the state of the body at the time and the availability of peripheral fuels just as it does with regard to weight management. Insulin is the primary regulator of most of these processes so when contemplating your zero-carb regimen, it's important and prudent to focus on insulin first. If you do this, you will enjoy great health regardless of weight loss."

Very interesting Kristelle.  Your experience is the same as mine.  I did feel consistently better at the 65% fat level.  I also had to cut my food consumption down significantly or I gained weight.  If you will remember, it was not uncommon for me to eat 2 lbs of food per day at 65% fat.  With my current experiment at 80+% fat I'm only eating 600g or less to maintain the same weight - and even then, trying to get that much high fat food down is a struggle.

What I started out to prove or disprove was Taubes contention that if no carbs were in the diet, then you could not gain weight.  This is clearly not the case as both you and I have demonstrated.  We have shown that all else being equal, more fat, more weight gain.  I also must temper this a bit by stating that the amount of weight gain from eating excess fat is far less than when consuming the same amount of calories as carbs, but a high fat low protein diet will cause weight gain.

I'm not sure that I go along with your ideas on GNG.  My direct experience clearly demonstrates that the larger the ratio of protein I eat in a meal, the higher my blood glucose rises after the meal - the glucose has to be coming from somewhere.  You seem to base your conclusions on the fact that when you eat a higher ratio of protein you loose weight, yet if the GNG theory were correct, the higher glucose levels from GNG should cause weight gain.  Maybe it is this basic assumption that is in error.

My experience does confirm that BG rises more after a high protein meal which to me supports the idea that GNG does occur, but my experience also shows that with a very high fat intake of 80% or more, where BG doesn't rise nearly as high as when I my fat intake is 65% or so, I gain weight.  This makes me question the basic assumption that it is only excess BG that causes the body to store fat.  If this assumption is not true, (and both our experiences seem to support that it is not true), then it's back to the drawing board, for all the rest of your conclusions are based on this one assumption being true.

Bottom line is, we've demonstrated Taubes basic assertion - no dietary carbs - no fat storage, to be untrue.  This throws suspicion on the underlying assumption that it is only excess BG that causes fat storage and/or that fat is only stored when insulin is high.  This is one reason that the experiment that I proposed with Elli, to eat only fat for a couple of meals and measure BG, Ketones and whatever else I could, is so interesting to me.

Hmmm, another thought just occurred to me.  Taubes actually stated that it was Alpha Glycerol Phosphate (AGP) that allowed the creation of triglycerides which is the way that the body mobilizes fat to move it into and out of storage.  He stated that a primary source of AGP was through the metabolism of BG in the presence of insulin and therefore reasoned that no carbs = low BG = low insulin = low ability to store fat.

But another thing we know is that the AGP molecule is the hub around which a triglyceride molecule is formed and therefore when we release body fat it is in the form of triglycerides.  Once the fatty acids are released from the triglyceride molecule the AGP is again available to pick up more fatty acids and create a new triglyceride.  Now if our body is using the fatty acids as fuel then the AGP probably won't find free fatty acids so when it makes it to the liver it will be converted to glucose.

But what about the dietary fat we eat.  Is it in the form of triglycerides?  and if it is, then doesn't the dietary fat itself provide its own AGP to create the necessary conditions for storage as body fat without the need for carbs, glucose, or insulin?  This idea seems to explain my observations, and would also validate Taubes theory because Taubes only stated that the storage of body fat needed AGP.  If the necessary AGP is part of the dietary fat itself, then this may allow fat to be stored as well.  This does not disprove the theory that excess glucose in the presence of insulin will create AGP causing fat storage, only that this is not the only source for AGP.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on September 13, 2008, 08:08:02 am
Lex, I have a question for you...

with the added organs included in Slanker's D+C food, do you ever eat any additional organs? Or do you find that the amount in your D+C is enough?
I'm seriously considering getting some of the D+C to save on costs
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on September 13, 2008, 09:42:48 am
Lex,

Have you ever eaten just muscle meat (no organs) that you are sure was "untouched" (no spices, no additives, no sugar, no sauce), like at a restaurant and seen a rise in blood glucose thereafter? Because I know that in your mix, you have organ meats, a source of glucose (glycogen). 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 13, 2008, 10:12:04 am
with the added organs included in Slanker's D+C food, do you ever eat any additional organs? Or do you find that the amount in your D+C is enough?
I'm seriously considering getting some of the D+C to save on costs

Keith,
I seldom eat individual organs.  The main reason is that I believe that variety is critical to success.  Individual organs each have their own flavor and intensity.  I found that, just like everyone else, I often chose what I liked the taste of rather than assuring that I got a broad mix. 

There is a popular theory that says taste is driven from the body's nutritional needs, and what I like the taste of most likely has the nutrients my body requires at the moment.  I think this is so much hogwash.  I much prefer the taste chocolate chip cookies and ice cream to just about anything else.  Does this mean that my body needs chocolate chips?  When these were a big part of my diet they sure tasted good but most of the time I felt terrible.

D&C works for me.  It is made from a wide varitey of grass fed meats including organs, and it is inexpensive.  The only issue that some have is that it does not have the USDA inspector's stamp of approval.  Well, neither does meat we hunt for ourselves, and most of the cases of e-coli and salmonella come from USDA inspected meat and produce.  Nuf said....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on September 13, 2008, 10:20:04 am
Thanks for the response Lex.
It seems like with the variety of organs they use in the mix (liver, kidney, and spleen) that it would be enough variety. I'm not sure how much organ meat they put in there (they say it's just a little) but if you're eating it every day then it probably adds up to be enough organs, huh?


And yeah, I couldn't care less about the USDA stamp or whatever.  ;D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 13, 2008, 10:29:01 am
Have you ever eaten just muscle meat (no organs) that you are sure was "untouched" (no spices, no additives, no sugar, no sauce), like at a restaurant and seen a rise in blood glucose thereafter?

Yes.  Every month I have 2 and sometimes 3 formal lunches scheduled with friends and old co-workers.  We always eat at a steakhouse and I always order 2 lbs of ribeye steak cooked as rare as they will make it with no seasoning.  On these few days per month this becomes my one meal for that day.  Since I've been on the 80+% fat diet, it is on these "steak days" that BG spikes highest, consistently 10+ points higher within 3 hours after eating than when eating my high fat rations.  Ribeye steaks are usually 60% to 65% calories from fat.

Also,  When I was consistently eating a 65% to 70% calories from fat (30%-35% protein) diet, my average BG was around 105.  When I converted to 80+% calories from fat (15% - 20% protein) average BG dropped to around 90.  That's a drop of 15 points, and yet I gained weight.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on September 13, 2008, 01:26:33 pm
Aren't ribeyes fattier than that?
According to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl,
fat is 74% of calories and that's when it's trimmed to 0' fat.

Also, the weight gain from increased fat intake strangely feels to me like water weight. Perhaps, ketosis (or too many ketones in the body) affects water distribution or retention...speculation on my part.

From http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/16

"Amino acids derived from protein are converted to glucose through gluconeogenesis. In 1915, Janney reported that 3.5 g of glucose were produced from 6.25 g of ingested meat protein [11]. Thus, theoretically and actually, for every 100 g protein ingested, 56 g of glucose can be produced. For other proteins the range of glucose produced was 50–84 g.

However, in 1924, Dr. MacLean in England gave 250 g meat, which contains ~50 g protein to a subject with type 2 diabetes whose fasting glucose concentration was ~280 mg/dl [12]. Following ingestion of the beef, the glucose concentration remained stable for the 5 hours of the study. When the subject was given 25 g glucose on a separate occasion, the amount of glucose that theoretically could have been produced from the 50 g protein in the 250 g meat, the glucose concentration increased to nearly 600 mg/dl.

With this [12] and other information [13-18], several years ago, we determined the glucose and insulin responses to 50 g of protein given in the form of lean beef to 8 normal subjects [19] and 7 subjects with type 2 diabetes [20]. When normal subjects ingested the 50 g protein, the plasma glucose concentration remained stable during the 4 hours of the study. When subjects with type 2 diabetes ingested 50 g protein, not only was the glucose stable, it actually decreased (Figure 2).


Figure 2. Glucose (left panel) and insulin (right panel) response to 50 g protein, given in the form of very lean beef to 8 normal subjects (bottom, broken lines) and 7 subjects with type 2 diabetes (top, solid lines).

In normal subjects there was a modest increase in insulin concentration. However, when subjects with type 2 diabetes ingested protein, the insulin concentration increased markedly (Figure 2).

In normal subjects, the insulin increase was only 30% of that to 50 g glucose [19], but in people with type 2 diabetes, it was equal, i.e. 100% [20]. In addition, ingestion of 50 g beef protein had very little effect on glucose production either in normal subjects [21] or in people with type 2 diabetes [22].

The studies cited above were single meal studies testing the effect of dietary protein alone. From these and other studies we concluded that in people with type 2 diabetes, dietary protein is a potent insulin secretagogue. In addition, protein does not increase blood glucose. Protein actually decreases blood glucose, even though amino acids derived from digestion of the protein can be used for gluconeogenesis. Subsequently we demonstrated that dietary protein acts synergistically with ingested glucose to increase insulin secretion and reduce the blood glucose response to the ingested glucose in people with type 2 diabetes [20,23].

In order to determine the effect of substituting protein for carbohydrate in mixed meals over an extended period of time we designed a study in which we increased the protein content of the diet from 15% in the control diet to 30% in the test diet, i.e. we doubled the protein content of the diet [24]. To accommodate the increase in protein, we decreased the carbohydrate content from 55% in the control diet to 40% in the test diet. Since 56 g of glucose could be produced from each 100 g protein ingested [11], the carbohydrate in the diet, plus the glucose produced from the additional protein, would represent a potential carbohydrate content of 48%. The fat content was 30% in both groups. Twelve people with untreated type 2 diabetes were randomized in a crossover design in which they were on each diet for 5 weeks with a washout period in between. The diets were isocaloric, the subjects were weight stable, and all food was provided.

The plasma glucose concentrations during the 24-hour period at the end of the 5 weeks on the control diet, or 5 weeks on the high protein diet, are shown in Figure 3. The blood sampling was started at 8 am. Breakfast, lunch, dinner and snack are shown on the X-axis. The differences appear modest. However, when these data are integrated over 24 hours, using the fasting glucose concentration as baseline, the integrated glucose area actually was reduced by 38% on the high protein diet (Figure 4).


Figure 3. Plasma glucose response in 12 subjects with type 2 diabetes. The response to the control diet (15% protein) is shown in the top, dotted red line. The response to the test diet (30% protein) is shown in the bottom, solid black line).

Figure 4. Net 24-hour integrated glucose (left) and insulin area responses (right) to ingestion of a 15% protein (red bar) or 30% protein (black bar) diet in 12 subjects with type 2 diabetes.

In spite of the lower integrated glucose area, the integrated insulin area response was increased by 18% when compared to the control (15% protein) diet results.

Most importantly, with the 30% protein diet, the % total glycohemoglobin (%tGHb) decreased from 8.1 to 7.3 (? = 0.8) (Figure 5). It decreased from 8.0 to 7.7% during the control (15% protein) diet (? = 0.3). The difference was statistically significant by week 2.


Figure 5. % total glycohemoglobin response to a 15% protein diet, (top, broken red line) and a 30% protein diet (bottom, solid black line) in 12 people with type 2 diabetes.

In summary, increasing dietary protein from 15% to 30% of total food energy at the expense of carbohydrate resulted in an increased integrated insulin concentration, a decreased 24 hour integrated glucose concentration, and a decreased %tGHb.

These data were presented in 2004 at the Kingsbrook Conference on Nutritional and Metabolic Aspects of Low Carbohydrate Diets [25], and an adaptation of that presentation was later published [26]."

From http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-1-6.pdf

"This lack of increase in blood glucose concentration following
the ingestion of protein was confirmed by Conn
and Newburgh in 1936 [3]. These investigators fed a relatively
enormous amount of beef, i.e. 1.3 pounds of beef,
which is the equivalent of ~136 g of protein and which
should yield 68 g of glucose, to a normal subject with a
fasting blood glucose of 65 mg/dl and to a subject with
diabetes whose fasting blood glucose concentration was
150 mg/dl. In neither case was there an increase in blood
glucose concentration over the 8 hours of this study. However,
when the same subjects were given 68 g of glucose,
there clearly was an increase in glucose concentration in
both cases.
That ingested protein did not raise the blood glucose was
largely ignored, in spite of this evidence in the scientific
literature. Indeed, in his textbook in 1945 [4], Dr. Joslin,
one of the most influential diabetologists at that time, was
still counseling dietitians and patients to consider 56% of
dietary protein as if it were carbohydrate."

From http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/3/1040

"As expected, when the subjects ingested only water (fasting controls) there was a gradual decrease in serum glucose concentration over the 8 h of the study (33). When the subjects ingested 50 g beef protein there was a small initial and transient increase in glucose, but by 2.5 h the glucose concentration had decreased and continued to decrease until the end of the study. Over the last 5.5 h, the concentration was slightly less than when only water was ingested (Fig. 1)."

"As indicated previously, it has been reported several times that protein ingestion does not raise the circulating glucose concentration or raises it only modestly (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). The reason for this has been unclear.

In 1971, it was suggested that protein ingestion did not raise the circulating glucose concentration because an increased production and release of glucose from the liver was balanced by an increased uptake and utilization of glucose by peripheral tissues (34). The mechanism proposed was that an increased circulating glucagon concentration, resulting from the ingestion of protein, would stimulate glucose production from amino acids in the liver. The increased insulin concentration resulting from the ingestion of protein then would stimulate peripheral tissues, primarily skeletal muscle, to remove the glucose produced and to store it as glycogen (34). The latter is a well known effect of high concentrations of insulin. However, using direct hepatic vein catheterization techniques, a significant increase in glucose production in the splanchnic bed after protein ingestion could not be demonstrated either in dogs (35) or in humans (36). "



 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 13, 2008, 05:21:44 pm
Thanks for the response Lex.
It seems like with the variety of organs they use in the mix (liver, kidney, and spleen) that it would be enough variety. I'm not sure how much organ meat they put in there (they say it's just a little) but if you're eating it every day then it probably adds up to be enough organs, huh?


And yeah, I couldn't care less about the USDA stamp or whatever.  ;D


So Lex just eats liver, kidney and spleen, and no other organs?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on September 13, 2008, 07:13:46 pm
Are you asking me? Umm, well, those are the organs they add to the D+C mix, and Lex just said that he seldom eats any other organs, so I guess so  ???
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on September 14, 2008, 05:27:06 am



So Lex, are you ready for a heroic experiment yet ;D?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 14, 2008, 11:02:27 am
Kristelle,
Lots of facts from lots of sources, what I'm interested in is the conclusions YOU'VE drawn from reading these studies.  I want to know the reasoning that lead you to your conclusions.  I'm interested in whether you have performed your own experiments and have well documented data that supports your findings.  This way I can attempt to duplicate what you've done and see if I get similar results.

I'm fine with facts, but I'm not sure of the point you are attempting to make unless you tell me what it is, and then demonstrate step by step the reasoning you used to explain how the data (and/or studies) you've presented have lead you to that specific conclusion.  Most powerful of all is when you define and present the results of your own well documented experiment.  What I find interesting is when you can demonstrate how published facts have lead you to a novel and interesting conclusion that is not mentioned in the studies, or the results of some personal experimentation that demonstrates that what you've read or a conclusion you've drawn is accurate (or not). 

Published studies I can get from Google or a text book, and as is evident in my journal, I often find that results from my own experiments are at odds with published studies as well as my own theories and expectations.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 14, 2008, 11:04:48 am
So Lex just eats liver, kidney and spleen, and no other organs?

Tyler,
As I understand it, Slanker's Dog & Cat food has a bit of every part of the cow in it except the moo.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 14, 2008, 11:37:28 am
So Lex, are you ready for a heroic experiment yet ;D?

Elli,
Still trying to get my arms around this one.  The experiment itself is not physically difficult, however, I'm not sure if the short duration will really tell us much.  I never do an experiment unless I have a clear understanding of what I'm trying to prove or disprove.  Mary Massung has provided me with some results of experiments she's done on fat metabolism and I'm studying her work to see if there is something there that I can leverage.

Another interesting idea poped into my head when I read a post in Kristelle's journal where she gained weight from eating a very high fat diet.  I've experienced similar results since I went 80/20 fat/protein. Others haven't experience this same result, however, they consume much of their fat from plant sources.  That got me to thinking that plant based fats and animal based fats may be metabolized differently by our bodies, due not to the differences in the molecular chains of the free fatty acids themselves, but from the makeup of the complex moleclues like triglycerides that animals use to bind, transport, and store fatty acids, and plants don't.  The idea that Alpha Glycerol Phosphate may be present in dietary animal fat but not dietary fat from plant sources might account for why you can gain weight on a very high fat low protein diet when no carbs are consumed if the fat is animal based.  It's all a bit of a puzzler at this point.

I'm intrigued with this but have a bit of research to do before I define the scope of the experiment.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on September 14, 2008, 09:13:27 pm
Lex, I am following people on meat&fat and water reporting that Kristelle may be right about high fat!

How do you feel in your body and your metabolism and with what do you feel best (mind and body);

1). the way you did eat (raw, lower fat)
2). the way you are eating now (raw, high fat)
3). on those days that you eat steak (a little cooked)
4). when you could not eat your menu (eggs, bacon, cheese, fruit...)

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 14, 2008, 11:12:11 pm
Lex, I am following people on meat&fat and water reporting that Kristelle may be right about high fat!

Nicola, Could you be a little more specific by what you mean by Kristelle being right about high fat?  I'm not sure what you are referring too.  She has stated she feels much better when she eats a diet containing less fat and feels that a very high fat diet has contributed to weight gain.  My findings are similar to hers.  Is this what you mean?


How do you feel in your body and your metabolism and with what do you feel best (mind and body);

1). the way you did eat (raw, lower fat)
2). the way you are eating now (raw, high fat)
3). on those days that you eat steak (a little cooked)
4). when you could not eat your menu (eggs, bacon, cheese, fruit...)

Not exactly sure what you are looking for here but I'll do my best to answer.

1.  I think I felt best when eating the lower fat diet with 60% to 70% of calories as fat.

2.  I'm now eating 80+% of calories as fat.  This has caused weight gain unless I eat about 1/2 the amount of food I did on the lower fat protocol.  I don't feel bad, but I do feel a bit more sluggish - not as energetic.

3.  I don't see much difference in the way I feel on a day-to-day basis regardless of what I eat on any specific day.  One meal in a ten day period that is lower fat doesn't seem to have much effect on how I feel, but I can measure a difference in the way that blood glucose behaves on the day that I eat the lower fat steak.  BG rises higher on the days that I eat a lower fat meal.  I also find I can eat much more food and this could be part of the reason that BG goes higher.  I can easily eat a full 1,000g of lower fat steak, but have difficulty eating more than 600g of the higher fat meat mix.

4.  When eating foods other than meat/fat/water, like during the week where I ate mostly cafeteria style breakfast foods, I didn't notice much difference for the first 2 or 3 days.  On about the fourth day I started feeling puffy and bloated.  My feet and ankles started to swell up and my hands were puffy and stiff in the morning upon arising.  Energy also dropped dramatically.  Again, I didn't feel much difference either mentally or physically after just one or two meals.  It took several days of these other foods before I really started to feel the effects. 

Another interesting thing is that I had already been eating the high fat diet protocol for almost 3 months and as mentioned above, I haven't felt as energetic as before moving to higher fat.  However, eating the eggs, cheese, bacon, and sausage as my main food for a full week really made me feel terrible and I was glad to get back to the high fat meat mix.

As you can probably tell, I'm looking forward to the end of my 4 month commitment so I can return to my lower fat protocol.

Let me know if I missed anything,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on September 15, 2008, 12:04:41 am
I posted those articles because they are at odds with your and others' experiences with meat eating. Because I wanted to know if you had any explanation for why that might be...I'm confused. Maybe there is an alternative explanation for why BG increases following protein intake, maybe something else is making it go up but the simple and most obvious explanation is...protein!

I remember during my high-fat days eating high fat macadamia nuts or avocados very occasionally. I would get the exact same symptoms as I would with animal fats, especially the abdominal aches and bloating. I thought it was due to the fiber but to me, the symptoms resembled more those of eating excess fat.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 15, 2008, 01:29:23 am
I posted those articles because they are at odds with your and others' experiences with meat eating. Because I wanted to know if you had any explanation for why that might be...I'm confused. Maybe there is an alternative explanation for why BG increases following protein intake, maybe something else is making it go up but the simple and most obvious explanation is...protein!

No other explaination except protein in my case as the only things in my diet are protein, fat, and water.  I guess there is a minimal amount of carbs in the form of glycogen and other forms of glucose in the meat, however, there are no plant sources of carbs and the meat mix is consistent.  Also, the rise in BG is more pronounced when eating steak which has much less fat than my normal mix, and it doesn't have any organ content that might have a larger hidden glucose content.

Maybe my all-fat-all-the-time experiment will reveal something once I figure out how to approach it.

lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on September 15, 2008, 01:55:18 am
It might be a matter of too little protein, as opposed to too much fat that is causing the weight gain and sluggishness in Lex and Kristelle.  The body needs a certain amount everyday, and I can't help but think about vegetarians who gain weight on a lower protein diet when I read about this.  If it is a matter of not enough protein mass in the diet per day, Gary Taubes may still be somewhat be correct that high fat won't cause weight gain; well, with the caveat that adequate protein must be consumed.  It might be a worthwhile experiment.

Lex, do take care if you attempt a fat fast for any length of time.  Even the Atkins fat fast had 10% protein, iirc.  I hope you go back to the lower fat protocol first for a time to prepare for all fat eating.

BTW, how is your exercise program coming along?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 15, 2008, 03:58:13 am
It might be a matter of too little protein, as opposed to too much fat that is causing the weight gain and sluggishness in Lex and Kristelle.  The body needs a certain amount everyday, and I can't help but think about vegetarians who gain weight on a lower protein diet when I read about this. 

I don't think it is a matter of too little protein because, even though I may eat more food (hence more protein), the sluggishness and weight gain just get worse, especially over time.  To me, it seems related to the total amount of fat consumed.  When I reduced total food consumed, weight dropped again and energy did increase but not to the levels of lower fat days, so there may be a minimum level of protein necessary to maintain energy which I'm not getting with the reduce amount of food.

If it is a matter of not enough protein mass in the diet per day, Gary Taubes may still be somewhat be correct that high fat won't cause weight gain; well, with the caveat that adequate protein must be consumed.  It might be a worthwhile experiment.

I went back and checked what Taubes actually said and it wasn't that high fat would not cause weight gain, but that a lack of Alpha Glycerol Phosphate (a primary source of which is the metabolism of BG in the presence of insulin) would interfere with the ability to create triglycerides which are required to transport and store body fat and therefore weight gain would not occur.

If the dietary fat itself contained Alpha Glycerol Phosphate, then the body could use it to create the triglycerides necessary to transport and store body fat and you could gain weight.  It may also be that the digestive process is not an efficient way for AGP to enter the system so the weight gain only seems to occur when very large amounts of fat are consumed.  Another interesting idea is that Alpha Glycerol Phosphate would only be present in animal fat and not in plant based fats.  I know of several people who consume a large percentage of their diets as plant oils and fats and do not gain weight, however they don't seem to maintain robust health without added carbs in their diet either.

Lex, do take care if you attempt a fat fast for any length of time.  Even the Atkins fat fast had 10% protein, iirc.  I hope you go back to the lower fat protocol first for a time to prepare for all fat eating.

Still working on an approach for this test.  Based on the evidence from Kristelle that her experience confirms my experience, I need to decide exactly what I'm testing and how to go about it.

BTW, how is your exercise program coming along?

Actually very well (considering that I detest jogging).  I took a litttle over a week off, felt guilty, and when I went back out it was very easy.  I think a big part of it was that my knees and ankels got a good rest.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on September 15, 2008, 06:41:52 am
Lex, what is your protein intake currently?  If you are jogging with some pep, then perhaps you are getting enough of it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 15, 2008, 08:21:36 am
Lex, what is your protein intake currently?  If you are jogging with some pep, then perhaps you are getting enough of it.

Between 80 and 90 grams per day.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 15, 2008, 10:13:09 pm
I posted those articles because they are at odds with your and others' experiences with meat eating. Because I wanted to know if you had any explanation for why that might be...I'm confused. Maybe there is an alternative explanation for why BG increases following protein intake, maybe something else is making it go up but the simple and most obvious explanation is...protein!

Kristelle,
I notice from your posts that you mention monitoring ketones, but don't remember seeing any comments regarding your BG levels.  Do you routinely measure your blood glucose levels?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on September 16, 2008, 12:20:20 am
No, I don't measure my BG levels. Just ketones.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 16, 2008, 01:36:07 am
Kristelle,
BG meters are very inexpensive - often free.  The test strips are not free but for a few dollars you could test the rise in BG from protein yourself.  You could easily settle the question for youself with your own personal observations rather than agonizing over all the conflicting information on the subject.

I've never claimed to know what's going on in my body, however, I have my own personal experience and BG measurements to support the observations that I've reported.  To me it doesn't matter how many studies you reference that claim this rise in BG doesn't happen.  My own measurements show it does - at least under the conditions that my measurements were made.  Remember, I eat no carbs.  Most of the studies you referenced had the participants consuming at least 40% of calories from carbs.  My conditions are significantly different from the studies and therefore it may be comparing apples to oranges, and this could easily account for the significant difference in results.

In your own case, it matters what happens under YOUR dietary conditions - not the conditions of some 3rd party study (unless you precisely follow the dietary rules of that study).  The only meaningful information for you is to make your own measurements and then document your findings AND the conditions underwhich you made the measurements.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Kristelle on September 16, 2008, 07:42:02 am
I agree Lex. If I end up measuring my BG levels, I will be sure to report back. ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Jeff on September 19, 2008, 10:46:38 pm
Quote
But Jeff, who I believe is lurking about, has been VLC for long enough I think to make a valid test of it.

E., how did you know I've been lurking about?   Indeed, I have been.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Jeff on September 19, 2008, 11:06:46 pm
Quote
I went back and checked what Taubes actually said and it wasn't that high fat would not cause weight gain, but that a lack of Alpha Glycerol Phosphate (a primary source of which is the metabolism of BG in the presence of insulin) would interfere with the ability to create triglycerides which are required to transport and store body fat and therefore weight gain would not occur.

If the dietary fat itself contained Alpha Glycerol Phosphate, then the body could use it to create the triglycerides necessary to transport and store body fat and you could gain weight.  It may also be that the digestive process is not an efficient way for AGP to enter the system so the weight gain only seems to occur when very large amounts of fat are consumed.  Another interesting idea is that Alpha Glycerol Phosphate would only be present in animal fat and not in plant based fats.  I know of several people who consume a large percentage of their diets as plant oils and fats and do not gain weight, however they don't seem to maintain robust health without added carbs in their diet either.
Hi Lex.  I believe Taubes also said that the AGP came from glucose metabolism inside the fat cell.  It will not be transported there.  Triglycerides cannot be stored as body fat......they are too large to pass through the adipose cell wall.  Fatty acids may well enter the fat cell, but if there is no AGP inside the fat cell, triglycerides cannot be formed and the fatty acids will be released back into the bloodstream.

Both you and Kristelle have reported gaining weight on zero carb, very high fat.  So if Taubes is correct, you must be creating glucose and this glucose must be finding it's way into the fat cell.  As you know, I have personally eaten a very high fat diet with 1000 extra calories per day and did not gain weight.  So apparently glucose was not getting into my fat cells.  So the question is, why is this different for me than it is for you and Kristelle?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on September 20, 2008, 02:34:20 am

E., how did you know I've been lurking about?   Indeed, I have been.

Because this is WAY too interesting and informative a thread for you let go by.

OK, actually I just lost track of all places I keep seeing you and assumed you were here too.  ;D

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Jeff on September 20, 2008, 02:46:47 am
Because this is WAY too interesting and informative a thread for you let go by.

OK, actually I just lost track of all places I keep seeing you and assumed you were here too.  ;D

-E
Yeah, I'm everywhere!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 20, 2008, 06:46:31 am
Hi Jeff!  You're welcome to lurk here any time.

Taubes states on page 387 of GCBC That.....

"Some triglycerides in our fat tissue come from the fat in our diet.  The rest come from carbohydrates, from a process known as de novo lipogenesis, Latin for 'the new createion of fat'"

He goes on to state that lipogenesis can take place in the liver or the fat tissue itself, and that Glycerol Phosphate must be present to bind the fatty acids into a triglyceride or they can't be stored.  Fat is also stored in the form of triglycerides in the fat cells and not as free fatty acids.

Most of Taubes' illustrations are based on glucose metabolism in support of his point that carbs are the main contributor to excess body fat, however, he makes it clear that dietary animal fat is in the form of triglycerides so by consuming it we provide a source for Glycerol Phosphate that is not directly related to glucose metabolism.

This would lead me to conclude that it is possible to gain weight if the diet is extremely high in fat for an extended period of time which is exactly what I experienced.  There is also evidence from epileptic children put on an extremely high fat diet, (85% to 95% calories as fat), that research has found that this extreme level of fat is necessary for the children to continue normal weight gain.

My experience was that weight gain was slow.  It took several weeks before I noticed it.  I also found that cutting dietary fat back down to my original 65% range caused weight to start dropping again.  Activity levels also played a significant role.  As I increased my exercise, (jogging), it took higher dietary fat levels to maintain the increased weight.

Another clue in Taubes book is that apparently AGP can be burned directly as fuel in some cells.  It may be that it is the AGP in the dietary fat that is providing the mechanism to add body fat, but since AGP is also a primary fuel source, it must exceed some threshhold before there is a sufficient surplus to allow the formation of additional adipose tissue.  This would explain why I didn't gain weight when fat was 65% of calories, but did gain weight when fat was increased to over 80% of calories. 

If AGP can be directly used as fuel it would also explain why weight started to fall when a very modest amount of exercise was added.  It wasn't because there was a dramatic increase in burning calories, but rather the specific burning of excess AGP released from dietary fat, making it unavailable to contribute to creating new, or maintaining existing, body fat.  If there is any truth to this idea then it supports the "calories don't count" theory.

Of course all of this is just speculation, but the pieces do seem to fit - at least within the boundaries of my limited level of knowledge.  Any thoughts on my mental meanderings? 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on September 21, 2008, 11:19:49 am

Actually very well (considering that I detest jogging).  I took a litttle over a week off, felt guilty, and when I went back out it was very easy.  I think a big part of it was that my knees and ankels got a good rest.

Lex,

Just catching up here. This has been my experience as well but don't know whether to attribute it to high fat, zero carb, or raw paleo in general. At any rate I've experience a huge difference in maintaining fitness after going long periods of laziness, especially re cardio.

I really like not having to eat a lot but I'm really thinking about lowering my fat intake to see if I lose more weight. My suet eating has become such a habit now. It's like chewing gum now. I'll miss it and will be hard to break.

You mentioned that it's still a struggle sometimes to eat even your reduced amount of high-fat meals. When you're done, you might want to try a spell of eating only till sated and see if you feel as good as you did on lower fat. That would answer the question if it's just too much food that is keeping you from feeling as good as you were on your previous diet.

Craig

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on September 21, 2008, 11:23:01 am

E., how did you know I've been lurking about?   Indeed, I have been.

Hi Jeff,

And a welcome lurker you are.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 21, 2008, 12:09:15 pm
You mentioned that it's still a struggle sometimes to eat even your reduced amount of high-fat meals. When you're done, you might want to try a spell of eating only till sated and see if you feel as good as you did on lower fat. That would answer the question if it's just too much food that is keeping you from feeling as good as you were on your previous diet.

Hi Craig!  Glad you're back, I missed you.  You kinda dropped out of sight and I got a bit worried.  Satya and Tyler said you were fine, just very busy.

I've tried eating just until satisfied and that is usually around 400g of food.  Then I often get hungry within 4 to 6 hours and have to eat again and an additional 200g to 250g fills me up and I'm good to go until the next day.  Unfortunately, doing this doesn't add that missing "spark".  I just seem to have both a mental and physical edge when fat is between 60% and 70% of calories that is missing when fat is 80% or more of calories.

I'm really looking forward to the end of this month when I will transition back to my old protocol. 

Lex   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Jeff on September 21, 2008, 11:24:07 pm
Hi Jeff,

And a welcome lurker you are.

Craig
Hi, Craig.  It's great to be here.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 25, 2008, 11:06:03 pm
After a short layoff from jogging a few weeks ago I was dreading my next session, but knew that I had to get back to it.  What surprised me was how easy it was.  I even improved my time slightly (about 1 min per mile) and felt great for the entire 4 miles. 

The bloom was off the rose 2 days later when I went out again.  This time I started out great but within a little more than a mile I felt like I was slogging though quicksand.  The same thing happened again 2 days after that.  This got me to wondering why I felt so good after almost a week off, but was dragging when jogging consistently every 2 days.

I decided to try varying the time between jogs to see if that made any significant difference.  Here's what I discovered.


It seems that it does take time for my body to recover.  I'm sure that some of this has to do with my age - especially in the area of sore knees and ankles.  The longer between jogging sessions the less pain I experience to the point that jogging every 3rd day is quite comfortable.

There does seem to be some sort of storage of energy as well.  When the period between jogging sessions is 3 days or longer, I have much more energy as evidenced by my more consistent stride length and much improved time.  This energy storage may also have an age element to it.  I'm sure that a younger person processes and stores energy much more efficiently than someone my age.  Recovery time would be much less for someone in their 20s or 30s compared to me in my mid to late 50s, but my guess is that regardless of age, some energy recovery period would be required.

I don't remember having this extended energy recovery requirement when eating a high carbohydrate diet.  Of course I was much younger then (early 30s), but I could easily run 10 miles every other day at the brisk clip of 6:30 to 7:00 per mile.  I was also riding my bicycle 23 miles each way to work and back every day for a round trip of almost 50 miles per day in addition to running.  During this time it was not unusual for me to drink over 1 gallon of soft drinks every day - usually in the late after noon after getting home from work and/or completing my 10 mile run.  The soft drinks alone would have provided a huge carbohydrate load.

My experience at this point seems to support the idea that eating an all meat diet extends the energy recovery period between work sessions as compared to eating a diet high in carbohydrates.  There was a recovery period when eating carbs as well - just much shorter, and of course I was much younger so who knows for sure.  I have no idea if dietary fat levels play any significant role in this and I'll be doing this same test again after I've transitioned back to a lower fat protocol in a couple of weeks.

Have any of you younger folks who have transitioned to mostly meat found that your recover period between intense periods of activity has been affected by your dietary change? 

Lex

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on September 25, 2008, 11:35:51 pm
Find a Field of grass. Always jog on grass when going for more than a mile and especially every day.
Our ancestors always have the answers. The reason why the could walk and run around bare footed is because they were on grass, mud etc. If they were on cement they would have had knee problems for sure. Even if you have really cushioned shoes, jog on grass. Its fine to walk on cement with cushioned shoes. i walked every where bar foot once even on cement. I developed knee pains. i went back to my shoes and healed quickly. When walking places I try to walk on grass as much as possible, even though my shoes are well cushioned.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 26, 2008, 04:23:21 am
Lex, I am much older than you, and never did jog, and have a supposedly deadly form of heart arrhythmia. I get the same feeling of legs full of lead when I do too much physical activity (and it takes very little), then it's usually followed by a bout of heart arrhythmia.

Experience of those who run the Boston marathon is that they must drink water full of electrolytes, I add dried seawater to my drinking water first for this (Celtic salt) and avoid the heavy clumsy leg feeling and heart problem.

See Angelo's posts on the rawpaleodiet yahoo group, he does extreme sport - European style bicycle in Italy, and he finds it necessary to do carb loading to maintain his endurance.

Clearly, we are running out of some nutrient, probably magnesium and potassium from the experience of those who have heart rhythm disturbances, and I bet this is a message from the heart for you too, except you don't get the heart palpitations.

The mystery is why we have reduced stores of minerals and/or energy, and what to do about it.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on September 26, 2008, 07:32:32 am
Have any of you younger folks who have transitioned to mostly meat found that your recover period between intense periods of activity has been affected by your dietary change? 

I have no personal experience to add here. But it seems you could test this out very easily by using the much advertised glycogen reloading window and having a "sports drink".  I would think that a single test would be enough to know based on your rather dramatic decline in jogging ability, assuming it is due to "fuel" that is.

Charles over at Jimmy Moore's forum doesn't seem to have your issue though.  He eats the same as you except that he cooks it.  He is, I think, a good 10 to 15 years younger than you.  He runs half-marathons.  I'm not a member over there so I can't post, but I'm sure there are more than few that read this thread that CAN post your question over there to get his response.  Maybe even that Jeff guy who is everywhere.  ;)

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on September 26, 2008, 11:39:22 am
I haven't found a difference in recovery period - just that I can go much longer between workouts without loosing my level of fitness. On SAD, if I went a week without jogging, I could feel the loss of conditioning. Now, I can go longer than two weeks and come right back to where I left off. I can run everyday and feel like I can go on indefinitely but usually only do cardio for about an hour. I always feel like I have more energy afterwards.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on September 26, 2008, 01:09:45 pm
Hey Lex

I'm starting to get fitter but I have been struggling with recovery especially after a hard training session (above anaerobic threshold). If I try and repeat my performance within the next two days I just do not have 'the legs' and I'm 30 yrs. I think your 3 days recovery time could be accurate.

I will start to train aerobically and see if there is a difference in recovery time.

Sully, most barefoot runners prefer concrete and bitumen, including myself. Once you  run correctly without heel strike there is not much strain on the body and actually helps my leg problems. My running shoes have no cushioning and zero arch support.



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on September 26, 2008, 01:30:19 pm
I struggled with anaerobic lifting in the beginning quite a bit but it's worked itself out and I don't get as sore as easily - except for my lower back but I believe that is related to previous injuries.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Jeff on September 26, 2008, 11:29:45 pm
I have no personal experience to add here. But it seems you could test this out very easily by using the much advertised glycogen reloading window and having a "sports drink".  I would think that a single test would be enough to know based on your rather dramatic decline in jogging ability, assuming it is due to "fuel" that is.

Charles over at Jimmy Moore's forum doesn't seem to have your issue though.  He eats the same as you except that he cooks it.  He is, I think, a good 10 to 15 years younger than you.  He runs half-marathons.  I'm not a member over there so I can't post, but I'm sure there are more than few that read this thread that CAN post your question over there to get his response.  Maybe even that Jeff guy who is everywhere.  ;)

-E
Yes, Charles confirms that the recovery time is longer on zero carb meat and water.  But at the same time, he finds that less exercise is required to maintain fitness.  Charles only runs twice per week.  He doesn't jog.  I believe he does mostly interval work.  He also lifts twice per week, but he has been running alot of races lately, so he has not lifted for several weeks in a row.  He found that even after going several weeks without lifting, there was no loss of strength.  Charles is in his early 40's.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Erasmus on September 27, 2008, 06:20:40 am
Yes, Charles confirms that the recovery time is longer on zero carb meat and water.  But at the same time, he finds that less exercise is required to maintain fitness.  Charles only runs twice per week.  He doesn't jog.  I believe he does mostly interval work.  He also lifts twice per week, but he has been running alot of races lately, so he has not lifted for several weeks in a row.  He found that even after going several weeks without lifting, there was no loss of strength.  Charles is in his early 40's.

Yeah, no sooner than I posted, I popped over and saw those posts.  However I believe his point is more about muscle rebuild and over training rather than one of fuel.  Of course it really doesn't matter WHY you need to wait 3 days if 3 days is what you need to wait.  The only valid reason to find out for sure is if you wanted to optimize your training.  In this case (Lex's) and in fact most cases the training is for general conditioning so "optimizing" is not needed.  And, I suspect, optimizing is probably bad as it most likely comes at the expense of something else, the general health.  Probably.  ;)

-E
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 28, 2008, 12:05:00 am
Find a Field of grass. Always jog on grass when going for more than a mile and especially every day.
Our ancestors always have the answers. The reason why the could walk and run around bare footed is because they were on grass, mud etc. If they were on cement they would have had knee problems for sure. Even if you have really cushioned shoes, jog on grass. Its fine to walk on cement with cushioned shoes. i walked every where bar foot once even on cement. I developed knee pains. i went back to my shoes and healed quickly. When walking places I try to walk on grass as much as possible, even though my shoes are well cushioned.

Hi Sully,
I wish it were that easy.  I've found that as I've gotten older the pits, divits, and gopher holes in grass are worse than an even hard dirt track or cement sidewalk.  20 years ago I could take these things in stride.  Now, my joints are not as flexible and forgiving as they once were and it is very easy to twist and strain the various joints on uneven surfaces - especially when I can't see imperfections.

My favorite running surface is a rubberized asphalt, but these are expensive to install and maintain so most of the local schools don't have them, and the ones that do, don't open their tracks to the public.  My choice is either deal with the jarring of joints when running on a smooth hard surface, or risk twisting my knee or ankle and possibly tearing ligaments by running on an uneven but cushioned surface like grass.

It seems that everything is a compromise,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 28, 2008, 12:17:53 am
Experience of those who run the Boston marathon is that they must drink water full of electrolytes, I add dried seawater to my drinking water first for this (Celtic salt) and avoid the heavy clumsy leg feeling and heart problem.

See Angelo's posts on the rawpaleodiet yahoo group, he does extreme sport - European style bicycle in Italy, and he finds it necessary to do carb loading to maintain his endurance.

Clearly, we are running out of some nutrient, probably magnesium and potassium from the experience of those who have heart rhythm disturbances, and I bet this is a message from the heart for you too, except you don't get the heart palpitations.

The mystery is why we have reduced stores of minerals and/or energy, and what to do about it.

Hi William,
I'm not sure that I'm running out of any specific vitamin or mineral.  I find that I have great endurance for constant but low intensity work.  It is only when jogging or running intervals (ie high intensity activities) that I need an extended recovery period.  I have tried supplementing  with various things and I haven't found anything that shortens the recovery period.  Since I eat zero carb, my body must manufacture glucose (and hence glycogen) from protein, and even protein is limited on the high fat diet I'm currently eating.  This makes me suspect that it is a glycogen storage issue, but of course I really have no idea.  It will be interesting to compare recovery times when I return to a diet higher in protein and lower in fat.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 28, 2008, 12:30:00 am
I'm starting to get fitter but I have been struggling with recovery especially after a hard training session (above anaerobic threshold). If I try and repeat my performance within the next two days I just do not have 'the legs' and I'm 30 yrs. I think your 3 days recovery time could be accurate.

Andrew, Your experience, (and other zero carbers on other forums) seem to support mine.  My guess is that it is a glycogen storage issue, and since we have to manufacture our glycogen from protein the process is inefficient at best.  In a previous post I pointed out that this extended recovery time only seems to apply to "intense" activities like running.  I have no problems with prolonged but less intense activities like digging sprinkler trenches.

Another thing I find is that being well hydrated is critical.  I don't dare start jogging if I'm the least bit thirsty or I'll barely make it a mile or two.  I do best if I drink a quart of water within an hour or so of exercising.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 28, 2008, 12:34:25 am
I struggled with anaerobic lifting in the beginning quite a bit but it's worked itself out and I don't get as sore as easily - except for my lower back but I believe that is related to previous injuries.

Craig,
I don't find that I get sore, and fortunately I've never had any back problems (and don't want any!).  I haven't done any weight training but probably should add at least some body weight stuff like pushups and pullups to help even things out.  As it is, my only exercise is jogging and this is a bit lopslided, favoring the legs and lower body.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 28, 2008, 12:51:05 am
E- & Jeff,
I follow along with Charles' adventure when I get time, but don't check in consistenly.  I'm not a member of that forum either so can't post.  Charles has done some amazing things.  I just wish that he would do more metebolic testing like BG, ketones, and the like.  It would make evaluating his findings a bit easier.

As an example, after I jog 4 miles, I find that BG tends to drop and stay low (mid 70s low 80s), for many hours until I eat my next meal.  Since I jog in the evening and my meals are late afternoon, this period is often 16 hours or longer.

BG does go up significanly after eating my first meal but then drops back into the mid 80s the following day.  If I don't jog that day, then after the second meal BG will stabilze a bit higher maybe high 80s, low 90s.  It will remain in this area until I jog again and the process starts over.  This rapid fall in BG after jogging has me wondering if I've depleted glycogen stores and my body is only producing whatever BG is necessary to glucose dependent systems.  The incremental rise over a 3 day period as I eat my meals has me wondering if BG is being stored as glycogen over the 3 day period and as stores increase less BG is being converted to glycogen allowing BG to rise over time.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on September 29, 2008, 09:52:12 pm
Hi Sully,
I wish it were that easy.  I've found that as I've gotten older the pits, divits, and gopher holes in grass are worse than an even hard dirt track or cement sidewalk.  20 years ago I could take these things in stride.  Now, my joints are not as flexible and forgiving as they once were and it is very easy to twist and strain the various joints on uneven surfaces - especially when I can't see imperfections.

My favorite running surface is a rubberized asphalt, but these are expensive to install and maintain so most of the local schools don't have them, and the ones that do, don't open their tracks to the public.  My choice is either deal with the jarring of joints when running on a smooth hard surface, or risk twisting my knee or ankle and possibly tearing ligaments by running on an uneven but cushioned surface like grass.

It seems that everything is a compromise,

Lex
Try cricuit weight training. It hits your cardio and builds muscle. No wear and tear on the joints. You don't necessarily need weights. You could do push ups, free weight squats, pull ups etc. Cricuit training is just moving to one workout to another without rest. It only take about 10 to 15 minutes a day.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 30, 2008, 03:07:44 am
Try cricuit weight training. It hits your cardio and builds muscle. No wear and tear on the joints. You don't necessarily need weights. You could do push ups, free weight squats, pull ups etc. Cricuit training is just moving to one workout to another without rest. It only take about 10 to 15 minutes a day.

I hadn't considered circuit training as I think of it in regards to weight lifting.  Any suggestions as to a "routine" I could do using body weight exercises like squats, pushups, pullups etc. and would this replace jogging or just supplement it.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on September 30, 2008, 09:43:57 pm
I hadn't considered circuit training as I think of it in regards to weight lifting.  Any suggestions as to a "routine" I could do using body weight exercises like squats, pushups, pullups etc. and would this replace jogging or just supplement it.

Lex
It could replace jogging, or it could be jogging. You could jog for 1 minute, then sprint for a while, then walk a bit, then jog, then sprint, and repeat the process. Do as many reps as you can.

Hear is another thing you can do.   Do 10 pushups, then jump rope for 50 reps, then do 5 pull ups, or do some squats and repeat process and continue to each exercise with no breaks. You can do each exercise by reps or you can time it. For example, for the push ups you can have 10 seconds to do as many as you can, then go to jump ropeing for 30 seconds as many as you can as fast as you can, then move to squats and etc.
So you can do it by reps or time it with a stop watch or somthing.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 01, 2008, 12:33:06 am
It could replace jogging, or it could be jogging. You could jog for 1 minute, then sprint for a while, then walk a bit, then jog, then sprint, and repeat the process. Do as many reps as you can.

This would still focus mainly on lower body as all of these are just variations on running/jogging.  Not sure this would add much value to what I'm already doing.

Hear is another thing you can do.   Do 10 pushups, then jump rope for 50 reps, then do 5 pull ups, or do some squats and repeat process and continue to each exercise with no breaks. You can do each exercise by reps or you can time it. For example, for the push ups you can have 10 seconds to do as many as you can, then go to jump ropeing for 30 seconds as many as you can as fast as you can, then move to squats and etc.  So you can do it by reps or time it with a stop watch or somthing.

This idea is a bit more interesting.  Keep moving quickly from exercise to exercise to keep heart rate up, but vary the exercises such that all areas of the body are worked.  I'll investigate this a bit further.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on October 01, 2008, 12:40:49 am
I wish your training well.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on October 03, 2008, 12:07:05 am
E- & Jeff,
I follow along with Charles' adventure when I get time, but don't check in consistenly.  I'm not a member of that forum either so can't post.  Charles has done some amazing things.  I just wish that he would do more metebolic testing like BG, ketones, and the like.  It would make evaluating his findings a bit easier.

As an example, after I jog 4 miles, I find that BG tends to drop and stay low (mid 70s low 80s), for many hours until I eat my next meal.  Since I jog in the evening and my meals are late afternoon, this period is often 16 hours or longer.

BG does go up significanly after eating my first meal but then drops back into the mid 80s the following day.  If I don't jog that day, then after the second meal BG will stabilze a bit higher maybe high 80s, low 90s.  It will remain in this area until I jog again and the process starts over.  This rapid fall in BG after jogging has me wondering if I've depleted glycogen stores and my body is only producing whatever BG is necessary to glucose dependent systems.  The incremental rise over a 3 day period as I eat my meals has me wondering if BG is being stored as glycogen over the 3 day period and as stores increase less BG is being converted to glycogen allowing BG to rise over time.

Lex

Lex,

I think it must be glycogen stores. I don't use them so long as I stay aerobic but you appear to still be using them. Sorry but I'm behind. Are you doing interval such as sprinting then jogging and so on? Satya says that the same amount of calories are burned at the same distance whether it be from walking, jogging, or sprinting. Maybe you should do a brisk walk at the same distance and see if your BG still goes down. If it goes down, you must still be burning glucose even aerobically. If it doesn't, you're probably going anaerobic during your jogs.

I know, so many experiments and one guinea pig! I really would like to see you try this though, for just a day, and see the results.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ronbo on October 17, 2008, 08:47:42 am
Where did everybody go??

No posts from Lex since the 30th??

Is he OK?? (Are you OK Lex??)

RJ
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on October 17, 2008, 10:42:28 am
Where did everybody go??

No posts from Lex since the 30th??

Is he OK?? (Are you OK Lex??)

RJ

I've been wondering myself. He is missed.  :'(

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 24, 2008, 11:37:09 am
Sorry folks.  I'm back, but only for a moment.  Was on vacation for 3 weeks then returned this Monday, Dental appointment for me and the missus Tuesday, and yesterday (Wednesday), I had a colonoscopy.  Still trying to catch my breath.  Will be leaving again Nov 1 and will be gone for 2 - 3 weeks.

Things are going well.  The longer I'm eating raw meat the more my health improves.  Last week I did transition back to the lower fat diet.  Calories from fat are now in the 65% range rather than 80%.  I do find that I want more food.  Eating 80% calories as fat it was all I could do to get down 650 grams of food.  I now eat about 900 grams (2 lbs) and I've actually lost 3 lbs of weight.  It is clear that if the fat is high enough that you will gain weight even when eating zero carb - at least that is my experience.  My energy also seems a bit higher on the lower fat protocol so this is what I will stick with. 

I set out to prove Taubes statement that it takes Glycerol Phosphate to store body fat and the primary source for GP is from eating carbs, therefore if you don't eat carbs you can't gain weight - or so went my interpretation of Taubes statement.  Experience has now shown that extremely high fat - 85%+ - will cause weight gain.  At least it did in my case.  So what gives?

After a bit of study and reasoning it seems that animal fats are also in the triglyceride form and therefore carry Glycerol Phosphate with them when eaten.  Much of the Glycerol Phosphate is broken down into glucose during digestion, but if enough fat is eaten, then there is a surplus that can recombine with Free Fatty Acids to create new triglycerides that can be stored as body fat.  Hence weight gain.  Even under my worst case where I was trying to eat 2 lbs of the high fat food each day I only gained about 10 additional lbs so it takes a lot more dietary fat to create additional body fat than it does carbs.  Once I cut the food intake to a more manageable 650 grams my weight did drop back to the 160-162 range.

Now that I'm eating 65% fat my body weight has dropped to 155 but since it has only been a little over 1 week I'm sure it is not stable and may rise again or even fall futher.  Time will tell and I'll report.

BG was averaging in the mid 80s and now it is back to the mid 90s - again unstable so we'll see where it finally settles down.

Ketones were always maxed out at level 4 on the 80% fat protocol.  Since returning to 65% fat they have dropped to Level 1 with an occasional dip to Trace level or a peak of level 2.

Resting heart rate has continued to slowly improve and a week ago it reached a low of 49.  It will be interesting to see if this lower level holds with the increase in protein and reduction in fat or if heart rate will increase.

The colonoscopy was ordered by my doctor.  It is apparently recommend for anyone over 50 and he was also very concerned that my diet of raw red meat would spell real trouble.  Both my doctor and the Gastro Specialist that performed the procedure admonished me that it was vitally important to colon health to eat lots of fiber in the form of whole grains, fresh fruits, and vegetables etc. and to eat little red meat.  With my diet of raw red meat I was just asking for colon cancer.

They performed the procedure and when I woke up they said they couldn't believe how healthy my colon was.  They told my wife that my colon was amazingly healthy and more representative of someone in their 20s. They further stated that there was little chance that I would ever get colon cancer and they were recommending to my doctor that it would not be necessary to ever repeat this procedure.  Amazing.

They also took BP at the hospital and it was 108/63.

All in all I'm thrilled with where I am and will continue with this raw meat adventure until there is evidence that I need to change something.  Glad to answer any questions.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: rawlion on October 24, 2008, 03:34:12 pm
Really fantastic results! Congratulations!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on October 24, 2008, 04:18:04 pm
Wow, the colon of somebody in their 20's!!! Well done

and your 'numbers' are amazing. Have you thought more about cross training? Weights?

Cheers

Andrew


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: igibike on October 24, 2008, 05:51:46 pm
Congratulation, Lex  ;) ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: xylothrill on October 24, 2008, 06:34:14 pm
Great news Lex,

I was starting to get worried about you. Thought we may have killed you with all this suggested experimentation.  :D Glad to have you back.

I read somewhere that roughage actually causes minute scarring that accumulates over time and is the reason people can't absorb as much nutrients as they get older.

I don't know what to make of you. You're a different animal than I am.  Just do what feels best for you. I don't feel any different when I eat more protein and less fat I just get hungrier and eat more. I like not having to eat as much. It's kind of like when I quit smoking. After about two months off cigarettes, I realized how much thinking about cigarettes stressed me out. It's very liberating.

Congrats on your superb health! If you keep this up, it's a possibility that you've only lived half your live so far.

Craig
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on October 24, 2008, 07:42:52 pm
Hey there Lex! Good to see you back, and those colonoscopy results are amazing!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on October 25, 2008, 04:37:20 am
Lex, I am sooo glad that all is well - when people don't post on any of the forums I fear that "things are not as they used to be"...

To know that your colon is in good form is worth more than any marathon that people estimate as being a successful, happy and healthy life!

Did you eat your own food on holiday and have you kept up the exercise?

Please look in Charles own forum (he left the other one because "zero carb" does not sell any Atkins bars that Jimmy is trying to flog):

http://zerocarbage.com/index.php

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 25, 2008, 06:40:03 am
The colonoscopy was ordered by my doctor.  It is apparently recommend for anyone over 50 and he was also very concerned that my diet of raw red meat would spell real trouble.  Both my doctor and the Gastro Specialist that performed the procedure admonished me that it was vitally important to colon health to eat lots of fiber in the form of whole grains, fresh fruits, and vegetables etc. and to eat little red meat.  With my diet of raw red meat I was just asking for colon cancer.

They performed the procedure and when I woke up they said they couldn't believe how healthy my colon was.  They told my wife that my colon was amazingly healthy and more representative of someone in their 20s. They further stated that there was little chance that I would ever get colon cancer and they were recommending to my doctor that it would not be necessary to ever repeat this procedure.  Amazing.

Hi Lex,

I think your doctor needs to update his education by reading this book: FIBER MENACE (The fiber myth debunked)

http://tinyurl.com/fibermenace

WHAT IS SO MENACING ABOUT FIBER?

You probably believe fiber prevents colon and breast cancer, lowers cholesterol, reduces the risk of heart disease, regulates blood sugar, wards off diabetes, curbs the appetite, induces weight loss, cleanses the colon, arrests diarrhea, and unplugs constipation. Tragically, none of this is true!

In fact, fiber-rich foods and fiber supplements are either the primary cause of most of these conditions, or major contributors. Please watch my investigative report (or read the transcript) to learn the truth. If you consume fiber for any health reasons, the next 14 minutes will turn your life and health around...

http://tinyurl.com/fibermenace

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51D0bigh0eL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_AA219_PIsitb-sticker-dp-arrow,TopRight,-24,-23_SH20_OU01_.jpg)

Video http://blip.tv/play/gdQZ0eJcif03
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on October 25, 2008, 07:09:31 am
But Edwin, don't you eat a good bit of fiber-rich fruit?
Is it not enough to be harmful?

I've been struggling with constipation, and the past few days I've added more plant foods in my diet, and my digestion is much better than it was with less plant foods.
I also found out that I do not do well with bananas, but I do well with oranges (despite it being said on this board that citrus fruits are more neolithic than grains?)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 25, 2008, 07:32:54 am
My personal experience with raw fruitarian is it is the fastest and easiest bowel moving experience I have ever had.

This is what the author of Fiber Menace has to say about your question regarding fruits and fiber:

Quote
http://www.fibermenace.com/fibermenace/fm_transcript.html

Rest assured, I am not on a crusade to kill off all traces of fiber in favor of another extreme. In fact, the very first chapter of Fiber Menace opens with the following sentence [link]:

“If you consume minor quantities of fiber from natural, unprocessed food, there isn't anything wrong with it…”

My beef, as I said, is with too much processed fiber and the resulting digestive, metabolic, and cardiovascular disorders.

So if anyone tells you, that my book or my recommendations are extreme or not mainstream, it's a lie...

And consider this undeniable fact: The people of Japan enjoy the highest longevity in the world. And guess what? The traditional Japanese diet - based around fish, sea food, and white rice - is practically fiber-free…

My teacher barefoot herbalist mh warns against fiber from vegetables; and when he teaches orange juice fasting he makes it clear you get rid of the fiber, just keep the juice.  Aajonus Vonderplanitz says juice your vegetables, discard the fiber.  David Wolfe suggests juicing vegetables.

We know in raw paleo teachings that it is FAT that helps move our bowels.  I read that somewhere, I just can't seem to remember the link.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: boxcarguy07 on October 25, 2008, 07:47:32 am
Yes, I remember reading a post of yours that went something like
"Fat makes you move.
Fruit makes you move"

I tried adding more fat in the form of beef fat each day to my diet, but it did not help with my digestion.
Eating more plants has though.
I really think people's digestive systems are built for more or less plant food, depending on the person.
For instance, Nicola sometimes talks about runny stools from raw meat. Never ever the case with me, in fact quite the opposite.

I don't know about juicing... I've never done it, but it doesn't appeal to me on different levels. Of course, paleo man wouldn't have juiced anything.
I just know that I've been eating more plants lately (namely pears, apples, oranges, and spinach) and I've been having regular bowel movements of a decent size rather than slow, hard, small stools every two or three days.


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: JustAnotherExplorer on October 25, 2008, 08:56:10 am
I remain fascinated, as always, Lex, and am glad to hear that you're doing well.  When you do return here's a question for your consideration.  I understand that you sometimes (maybe twice a month, if I recall correctly) dine out and consume a cooked, very rare, steak or two.  Do you notice any differences, physiological, digestive, energetic or what have you upon consuming these in lieu of the raw meat?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: coconinoz on October 25, 2008, 11:38:02 am

good to hear from you, lex, & congratulations

apologies, as well, for interrupting the flow of your crisp discourse as follows:

in my own experience only (not that i know of anyone else doing this), i never ever suffer from constipation if i do the circadian water drinking in the am, 4-8 cups; it washes my digestive tract from mouth to anus & works like a charm for me

please note that this is just a note in cyberspace for the sake of exercising my fingers; i am not a licensed nutritionist or health care provider > i do not suggest or advise anything to anyone

good night

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Jeff on October 25, 2008, 12:08:23 pm
Lex, great news about your colonoscopy and all the other "numbers".  I'm due for my turning 50 colonoscopy in a couple of years.  I hope mine goes as well as yours.  But then, I know of no reason why it shouldn't.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 25, 2008, 03:28:19 pm
I understand that you sometimes (maybe twice a month, if I recall correctly) dine out and consume a cooked, very rare, steak or two.  Do you notice any differences, physiological, digestive, energetic or what have you upon consuming these in lieu of the raw meat?

My dining out is only a couple of times per month so I really don't see much of a change in anything.  What I eat out is also very close to my normal diet.  It is red meat and cooking is minimal.  It is also only one slightly cooked meal in between many raw meals, all of which are some type of red meat.  The only time I had a problem was when I was at a seminar and didn't take food with me.  I ended up eating cafeteria food for a full week (mostly breakfast like eggs, bacon, sausage etc) while trying my best to stick with my zero carb approach.  This did not go well.  My ankles swelled to triple their normal size and I felt terrible.  It took about 2 weeks to recover.

Did you eat your own food on holiday and have you kept up the exercise?

Yup, this time I arranged to have a refrigerator in my room and took all my food with me.  I learned my lesson last time out.  It was also much cheaper.  My food costs were less than $10 USD per day where most everyone else was spending that much or more on just lunch.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 25, 2008, 03:44:18 pm
An interesting note on the constipation issue.  I had this when I first converted to all raw meat and it took about 6 - 8 months for everything to normalize.  The final result was small very firm stools that were quick and easy to eliminate.  There was seldom any thing on the tissue.

I did notice on the high fat protocol - especially if I exceeded 80% fat - that stools became very pasty and less well formed and good bit of tissue was required to clean up. The volume was also significantly more.  I'd estimate at least 50% more.  I was going to comment on this earlier but forgot.  I wonder if this indicates that not all the fat was being digested and some was left in the stools.  This may account for some of those calories that seem to magically disappear when eating a high fat diet.

After returning to my lower fat protocol, stools are once again beginning to firm up and I expect that over time I'll return to the small firm stools I had before starting the experiment.

Lex


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ronbo on October 27, 2008, 09:32:13 am
Lex -

Glad all is well with you.

For those of us following along at home, can you give us your current Slankers breakdown to achieve the 65/35 blend you're doing now?



Thanks
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on October 28, 2008, 12:30:34 am
My dining out is only a couple of times per month so I really don't see much of a change in anything.  What I eat out is also very close to my normal diet.  It is red meat and cooking is minimal.  It is also only one slightly cooked meal in between many raw meals, all of which are some type of red meat.  The only time I had a problem was when I was at a seminar and didn't take food with me.  I ended up eating cafeteria food for a full week (mostly breakfast like eggs, bacon, sausage etc) while trying my best to stick with my zero carb approach.  This did not go well.  My ankles swelled to triple their normal size and I felt terrible.  It took about 2 weeks to recover.



Lex
I went to chicago this weekend and didin't bring any food, so I ran into similar problems. We went to old country buffet I had rare steak, cooked pork, fish with butter, chicken with skin. I resisted everything else. The next day (sunday) we had sandwhiches, I only ate the cheese and fruit and avoided th bread. At night I was hungry and couldn't resist junk food. I feel ok today though.


One thing to note......I seem to be sweating more today when very active. Maybe the junk food causes me to sweat more. I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 29, 2008, 02:28:11 pm
For those of us following along at home, can you give us your current Slankers breakdown to achieve the 65/35 blend you're doing now?

Ronbo,
The mix is pretty simple:

One 1 1/2 lb package of Dog & Cat
One 2 lb package of Chili beef
1/4 lb ground suet

The Dog & Cat averages about 18% (68% calories) fat by weight just as it comes.  The ground beef, both regular and chili grind, are leaner and measure about 12% (56% calories from fat).  The extra 1/4 lb suet adds about 4% fat to the 2 lb chili beef which brings the total to about 16%.  This gives a final fat content of between 65% and 67% of calories.

Just mixing the D&C and the chili beef without adding the extra fat measures an average of about 60% calories from fat.  This is plenty high in fat so you really don't need to add the extra suet.  I do it because I have it available.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 29, 2008, 02:35:10 pm
Sully,
I did the Chicago thing last spring.  Cold and windy.  I had my pemmican which saved me a whole bunch of money, and also ate at Morton's Steak House a couple of times.  Morton's has great steaks but very very expensive.  I certainly couldn't afford to eat there very often.  As I remember my 2 ribeye steaks came in at about $80 USD.  Quite a difference from my normal daily fare which costs me about $8 USD.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ronbo on October 30, 2008, 02:19:40 am
Ronbo,
The mix is pretty simple:

One 1 1/2 lb package of Dog & Cat
One 2 lb package of Chili beef
1/4 lb ground suet

The Dog & Cat averages about 18% (68% calories) fat by weight just as it comes.  The ground beef, both regular and chili grind, are leaner and measure about 12% (56% calories from fat).  The extra 1/4 lb suet adds about 4% fat to the 2 lb chili beef which brings the total to about 16%.  This gives a final fat content of between 65% and 67% of calories.

Just mixing the D&C and the chili beef without adding the extra fat measures an average of about 60% calories from fat.  This is plenty high in fat so you really don't need to add the extra suet.  I do it because I have it available.

Lex

How many portions does that yield??
Since dropping the fat level, how has that changed your daily intake?? Have your hunger/satiety levels changed??

Thanks!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 01, 2008, 09:03:20 am
How many portions does that yield??
Since dropping the fat level, how has that changed your daily intake?? Have your hunger/satiety levels changed??

This recipe yeilds 2 servings of about 850 to 900 grams each.  I know that the package weights don't add up to this but the 2 lb chili beef is often over weight by 60 to 90 grams.

On the higher fat protocol I was eating about 650 grams per day to maintain the same satiety level.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on November 04, 2008, 01:52:43 am
Sully,
I did the Chicago thing last spring.  Cold and windy.  I had my pemmican which saved me a whole bunch of money, and also ate at Morton's Steak House a couple of times.  Morton's has great steaks but very very expensive.  I certainly couldn't afford to eat there very often.  As I remember my 2 ribeye steaks came in at about $80 USD.  Quite a difference from my normal daily fare which costs me about $8 USD.

Lex
When I recieved my dehydrator, I opened the package and found only trays in there. They made it seem like I was getting a dehydrator. I contacted the lady and she said I could send it back, but I would have to pay for the shiping. I said forget it, the cost of shipping wouldn't even make it worth it.

Dry meat would be great, only if I had a dehydrator. next yime I'll just bring a cooler. Water frozen in a bottle seems to last longer than ice by itself.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 05, 2008, 11:50:24 am
I'll be leaving Thursday night and will be gone for a week or so .  I don't take a PC with me so will be out of touch until I return.  Should be back around Monday the 17th of Nov.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 08, 2009, 02:03:47 am
I got a private note from one of the members of this forum and was asked to respond to some questions.  I thought others might be interested and so I asked permission to post to my Journal. 
 
I'll do my best to answer your questions, but remember that anything I say is just my opinion.  What I do and think are based on my experience and observations, but it really is nothing more than my attempt at answering the same questions that you struggle with.

1. Do you believe raw meat and fat is any better or even ideal for
the body? Does cooking make food "healthy"? Why do animals stay
healthy with raw meat and humans "need" to cook meat?


Yes, I have come to believe, that for me, fatty meat should make up the majority of my diet.  I'm not convinced that humans "need" cooked meat, but I'm not overly concerned with some cooking.  I do eat most of my meat raw, but several times per month I do enjoy a steak cooked rare - for me it is a treat.  I also believe that our paleo ancestors probably ate some carbs but they would have been very limited.  I expect that they ate fruit when it was in season and this would have caused them to gain weight in the late summer and early fall in preparation for winter.  I believe that they probably only ate green plants as "medicine" when they became ill as most wild green plants contain chemicals that can help with pain (as an example the common willow is the source for aspirin), as a poultice for drawing out infections, etc.
 
I avoid all grains, beans, potatoes and other sources of starch and most dairy with the exception of butter, as I don't believe these are foods we are designed to eat.  I really don't believe butter is a food our ancestors would have eaten, but I think it is a better source of fat than oils from plants and it is available everywhere including restaurants when eating out and I need more fat than is available on the meat being served.
 
2. Should I eat Argentine beef (grass fed they have a longer life)
or  French/Swiss (grain fed; they have a short life)?


I prefer grassfed meats as this is the natural food for the animal. Grain is not a normal food for beef, bison, elk, or deer and since I'm trying to eat what I think is my natural diet, the foods I eat should have eaten their natural diet as well.  I do eat grainfed meat when eating out several times per month but this is usually only 3 or 4 meals total and should make little difference.  It's what we do everyday that has the most impact on our health.  If I only had grain fed meats available then I would eat them and add some Omega3 back into my diet in the form of fish oil. 
 
I eat mostly red meat from grass-fed animals (bison, deer, beef, etc) as I believe that it is the saturated fat in these animals that our bodies need.  I'm not wild about lamb, chicken, duck, turkey, or pork though I will eat them on occasion. I seldom eat fish - maybe 1 or 2 times per year.  When I eat these it is usually at family gatherings and they are fully cooked (Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving, etc).  I only eat small amounts and often eat my normal ration of raw beef before going to the family gathering and then eating a small portion of cooked meat, salad, and fruit to be polite.
 
3. Is this causing a double ditox (raw food + plus this water)? It is
not just like water that you drink so could you have a look at this
and tell me what you feel about it?


I really don't believe in long term detox.  I followed the diet gurus for many years and my health just got worse and worse as I ate a totally vegan diet.  The gurus kept telling me that my declining health was detox - what nonsense.  Our bodies do have to adapt each time we make a major change to our diet and this might make us feel ill, but this should be over in just a few weeks.  Any illness that seems to be caused by the diet change that continues for the long term or gets worse rather than better over time is not detox.  There is some other problem that is the root cause and it should be looked into very carefully as there is clearly something amiss.
 
Here's what I believe:  Our diet has a major impact on our health.  If we eat a poor diet then our health will suffer.  We will get degenerative diseases like diabetes, colitis, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, etc.  If we change our habits soon enough then the body will recover over time.  If we wait too long then it is possible that permanent damage was done and we will not be fully restored to health - though our health will improve to the best level it can.  As an example of this I had the beginnings of diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, balding, and an enlarged prostate.  Every one of these problems has improved but not everything is "cured".  My hair has stopped falling out but what I lost was damaged to the point that it will not return.  My prostate has not gotten worse and I've actually been able to reduce the medication that I take, but again, proper diet may have prevented the problem in the first place but now that I have it, diet will not totally cure it.  I believe the same is true for cancer and other aggressive diseases.  Proper diet can reduce (but not totally eliminate) our chance of getting cancer, but once we have it diet alone will not cure it.  There are sound biological reasons for this and it would take a good bit to explain my reasoning.  If you are interested I'll be happy to go over it in another note.
 
4. Why does my brother's girlfriend and many others not do well with
fat (she needs to vomit) and "need" rice/potatoes and vegetables with
lean meat? My mother and father eat this normal diet and claim to be
in best health too.


My experience seems to point to several different things at work here.  Our bodies adapt as best as possible to the current environment regardless of whether it is good or bad.  Our bodies must make enzymes and chemicals to properly break down the food we eat and it will stop making those enzymes and chemicals that it doesn't need.  I know that when I went all-meat it took my body a while to adapt. It had to stop making the digestive chemicals for starch and make new and different ones for fat.  I had bouts of diahrea and then constipation as my body adapted to my new way of eating.  It took about 8 to 12 weeks before I started feeling really normal again. 
 
There is also the issue of intestinal bacteria.  Eating starches like rice/potatoes/bread etc feed huge colonies of yeast, bacteria, and fungus in our intestines.  When we stop eating the starchy foods these colonies start to die off and as large amounts of them rapidly decompose they can create toxins (this is true detox).  In a person eating a starch based diet, I've read that 80% of  their fecal material is really bacteria, yeast, and fungus that have grown and multiplied on the sugars from the starch they eat at each meal.  I have no idea if this is true but it makes sense to me.  I do know that fecal bulk is much larger when eating starch based diet than when eating a meat/fat based diet and this bulk has to come from somewhere.
 
Bottom line is that converting from a starch based diet to a meat and fat based diet requires many biological changes to occur.  Many of these changes cause bloating, gas, diarrhea, constipation, and a general feeling of low energy.  Of course eating starch again would stop the die-off of the intestinal bacteria and stop the body from changing the digestive chemicals and enzymes so you would immediately feel better. This would make you think you "need" the starch and sugars.   However, if you stick with the diet change, the body will adapt to the new meat and fat based diet and then you will feel ill if you try to go back to starch.  Then you will "need" meat and fat.  Hope this makes sense. 
 
When people ask me what I recommend they eat I tell them to make most of their diet (90%) meat and fat and then 10%  fresh fruit and vegetables.  For the most part try to cut out all grains and starches, simple sugars like honey, dairy (except butter), beans, and vegetable based oils. Don't overdo the fruits and veggies. As an example:
 
I'd eat 2 meals per day of meat and fat and I'd eat until I was fully satisfied.  Then in the evening I'd have a small or medium sized piece of fruit that is in season, or a small glass of wine, or a small salad, maybe 1 cup of raw greens and vegetables like lettuce, celery, spinach, cucumber, tomato, avocado, chard, onions, peppers, etc.  Water should be your main drink.  I'd eat the meat and fat raw or cooked as rare as possible.  I'd choose grassfed meats if available but eat grainfed meats and supplement with about 30 grams (1 oz) per day of fish oil to get the Omega3 fatty acids missing in the grain fed meats if that is all that was available.   
 
Anyway, that's it.  Be sensible and do the best you can and be sure to eat a bit of what you enjoy (even if it is the occasional chocolate chip cookie) - just don't over do it.
 
I know the advice seems out of line with what I'm personally doing but remember that I started the "all-meat-all-the-time" diet just to see what would happen.  It has worked out well so I've pretty much stuck with it.  I do have a piece of fresh fruit on occasion and have been known to sneak a favorite cookie at the family Christmas gathering.  98% of the time I do my best to stick with my grassfed meat and fat and as a result I feel great. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: JaX on January 08, 2009, 04:24:02 am
Very informative post.. Thanks!

Although I do disagree with you on 2 issues.

First of all I think everyone needs to realize that what works perfectly well for their own body may not suit someone else at all. This is the principle of Metabolic Typing, which has some truth to it - even though I don't agree with the book The Metabolic Typing Diet and I think the "diet" which is outlined has flaws, and it doesn't focus on raw. Though the principle of biochemical individuality, the fact that individuals thrive on different ratios between the macro nutrients, does have some evolutionary sense to it. I don't mean that some people were born to be high carb/low fat fruitarians, but some people might have ancestors, from the recent hundred generations back or more, who mostly lived in tropical or subtropical climates, where some wild fruit would be available much of the year. This is just an example. Or take the long-living Japanese who have a diet of low fat, but high in carb and protein and do very well. I don't know exactly how the Japnese diet evolved over time, but most of the traditional/cultural foods (Japanese cuisine) are based on what was available, what grows in the soil in that country, where many generations have lived and presumably evolved... An example of this would be how Japan is one of the most lactose intolerant countries (I think more than 95% of Asians are lactose intolerant).

There are people who report doing horribly on an all-meat zero-carb diet, no matter how much they stick to it, it just doesn't agree with them -- have their intestines been permanently damaged by a diet low in meat from their past? Saying that is exactly as the raw vegan saying you weren't breastfed long enough and THAT'S why your raw vegan diet isn't working.

And there are also people who do (or seem to be doing) very well on a raw vegan diet. While I believe everyone needs a little meat/fish in their diet, I still know of people who do a lot better on this diet than I ever did. Their body must be excellent at converting sugars from the fruits to fat, or slowing down the metabolic rate, because they don't look thin and don't loose as much weight as I did when I tried this diet. And what about those raw vegan athletes who can run and do exercise after more than 1 year on a raw vegan diet? I was so tired I had trouble doing basic stuff after trying a semi-raw vegan diet for just a couple of months. This just shows how some people utilize carbs better than others and how there are a biochemical and metabolic difference between individuals. I don't recommend raw vegan for anyone, but some people might just do wonderful on more than 1 small piece of fruit per week. Some people might be able to handle vegetables more effectively than others. And of course, all of this might change over time, as metabolism doesn't just depend on genetics, but also depends on your environment, activity level, current health level, injuries, aging... The metabolism changes over time, requiring - for some people - a constant fine-tuning of their diet.

This is also why two people react so differently to the same food or the same drug.. And then later on the same person might get another, completely different, reaction from the same food/drug.

It seems as though as you have found out what foods work for you. Great! Don't fix something that isn't broke


Second issue I disagree with you about is that you don't believe diet can cure cancer (or even be the major protective factor). If diet is defined as what you eat, then think about this for a second. You go to the doctor and you are diagnosed with some disease. You then ask the doctor if what you EAT has any importance. Most doctors will say "no, not at all.. but EAT these pills to get better". I hope you see the paradox here. Diet is the most protective factor against diseases including cancer. Most studies of genetic inheritance are ridiculous, because the most common way used to study familial inheritance is by looking at families/generations who have lived or are living together. And if people live together (parents and children) then they have the same diet, approximately the same exposure to chemicals, air pollutants, often same attitudes towards health and so on... No surprise it's going to create the same problems. An oversimplified example: A mom has a digestive disorder such as irritable bowel. She gets medical treatment at her doctor. She feeds her children the same diet as she has eaten for years, which is what caused/is causing her the digestive problems. The children develop the same problems over the years, and when the children go to the doctor they get the same diagnosis. The doctor several families like this, and reports it on to some statistic institute, which conclude that the genetic inheritance factor for disease X is 40%.

I'm not dismissing all diseases that are believed to have a genetic (inherited) factor involved, and certainly there are cancers, especially those presenting themselves in childhood or youth, which can be due to a genetic mutation (or a combination between an inherited genetic weakness and environmental factors). Genetic diseases USUALLY express themselves at birth or during growth, just as all other inherited features.

There are the numerous examples of people who had cancer and found a cleansing protocol or a diet which fit their own body in such a way that they managed to cure themselves, without any medical treatment. Nutritional therapy is far superior than conventional medical procedure of burning cutting and toxifying. Maybe in the case of a tumor surgery is a good idea but radiation or chemotherapy should not be decided on easily.
The problem is many people are not willing to experiment or go to extremes such as trying all sorts of juices/cleanses.. They keep living the same life as before they got the disease, eating the same foods, living in the same environment...

Think about the studies done in the lab where researchers give rats or other animals a few milligrams of a certain substance, such as a pesticide, and see a significant number of them developing tumors. The banned pesticide DDT is an example. Just because the same experiments aren't done on humans doesn't mean that the same knowledge doesn't apply to us. Very small quantities of toxic substances can be very harmful. Diet is a huge factor in protecting against cancer and other illnesses. Just switching from conventional produce to organic produce would be a plus for many especially those eating lots of fruits and veggies (which are often contaminated w/ pesticides).

If a person suddenly switched to a diet high where the majority of calories come from white bread, he or she would probably develop diabetes with time. Diabetes as a condition raises the risk for several cancers by a lot. If the person kept eating that way without treatment, several other illnesses would probably arise. Another proof that diet is very correlated to cancer and other diseases.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on January 08, 2009, 08:16:01 pm
Re above post:- One thing that certainly influences a person's diet is one's parents' diets(even the father's), even before one is born. For example, the children of alcoholic fathers can often develop health-problems/congenital problems as a result, Conversely, a Raw Vegan might well thrive for a bit longer than other Raw Vegans simply because his/her parents led a much healthier life, diet/exercise-wise than the parents of those other Raw Vegans. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 10, 2009, 07:32:00 am
JaX,
Glad you found the posting useful.  I don't believe in metabolic typing at all.  I do believe that we all fundamentally need the same nutrients.  Aside from that, I also believe that each of us has a different tollerance for the newer, less optimal foods based on the geographical region our ancestors came from.  As an example, dairy may not be an optimal food, however, Northern Europeans who would have added these foods to their diets as their primary food of meat became more scarse, would tollerate dairy much better than say an Asian who added rice as their supplemental food.

The idea here is that natural selection would have selected out those who did poorly on the regional supplemental foods and encouraged the survival of those tollerated the new foods better.  Since each geographical region had to choose a different supplemental food that was appropriate to the region, we see the different tollerances for different foods (wheat, rice, dairy, eggs, etc) based on race or geography. 

That said, I do not believe that our basic DNA has changed enough to make these newer foods "better" for any of these groups than the original foods we evolved on over millions of years as these new foods are very recent additons to our diets.

My experience is that those who seem to be doing well on a vegan diet are in most cases rather young.  I did very well on an all vegan diet in my 20s and early 30s and during that time the smell of cooking meat made me neausous.  At the time I would have insisted that vegan was the way to go.  Unfortunately, as I got older, my teeth crumbled, my bones became weak, I had severe headaches, my fasting blood sugar rose, my blood pressure rose, triglycerides went off the charts, and my joints began to hurt.  It took courage for me to move away from the vegan diet as I'd had so many years where I was convinced that it was the true way.

I also have a neighbor who is from the area in India that is all vegetarian.  He is in his 70s and is in terrible shape as is his wife.  I really don't expect him to live much longer but his culture is such that there is no way he would be willing to change.

As for diet's effect on diseases:  I do believe that diet plays a major protective role in many diseases including cancer, but has little effect other than supporting a strong immune system when it comes to bacterial infections and viruses.  Most wild animals eat their natural diet and yet are often wiped out be viral plagues.

The degnerative diseases like diabetes, arthritis, Crohn's disease, lupus, heart disease, cancer, and etc., I firmly believe that diet will protect you from getting these diseases for the most part, but once you have them, a change to a better diet my suppress the symptoms but you will not be cured.  In otherwords, today's "healthy" person can eat cake, cookies, sodas, and other concentrated simple carbohydrates with wild abandon and not suffer measurable consequenses in medical terms.  If you have continued this practice until you destroy the insulin producing cells in your pancreas, then a diet of zero or very low carbs may allow you to lead a "normal" life without medication, however you are not "cured" as you can never again eat large amounts of simple carbs without paying immediate consequences and even possible death.

Cancer is special case.  In most cases agressive cancer cells can't efficiently metabolize fatty acids or ketones and must rely on blood glucose to survive and multiply.  Keeping blood glucose low by eating a paleo type diet will create an environment that discourages the formation of cancer cells but will not entirely eliminate them.  Our immune system should do the rest assuming that we don't overwhelm it. This indicates to me that diet can play a prevenative role but DNA is funny stuff and an occasional "enemy" cell will breach the castle walls.  This can happen as a random mutation when cells divide and it's just part of being a living carbon based life form.  Fortunately these are rather rare but can and do occur.

Eating a high carb diet on the other hand, will create an environment of constant high blood glucose which is conducive to the formation and growth of cancer cells.  As we age and our systems weaken, our immune systems can be overwhelmed by the number of cancer cells being created and the chances become much greater that the disease will take hold and flourish. 

Most agressive cancer cells do require blood glucose to survive, but so do other cells in our bodies.  This creates the issue such that even though a low carb diet would probably have prevented the formation of the cancer to begin with, once you have it, diet alone will probably not cure it.  This is because other cells in the body require glucose so the body must continue to make it.  The cancer cells will pull some out but the body will just make more to assure that there is enough for the systems in the body that need it.  Over all glucose will be lowered and maybe the growth of the cancer will be slowed, but the change in diet has not taken away any vital nutrient that the cancer cells need and nothing toxic to cancer cells has been added.  Therefore, diet alone will probably not cure cancer.

There are cancer remissions for a variety of reasons - most of them not well understood.  I suppose that if you had an otherwise very strong immune system and you dropped blood glucose by changing your diet, then it's possible that the immune system would then be able to handle the cancer - especially if it is small and localized.  Unfortuantely, this is the exception and not the rule but it does happen.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: JaX on January 21, 2009, 07:17:32 am
lex,

thanks for your response. Again, I agree with you.. on most points! lol. It's true: Just because some populations have mutated a gene that causes them to produce the lactase enzyme into adulthood, doesn't mean their body has the ability to fully digest and utilize milk. Other populations might have had grains in their diet for more generations, thus being able to digest it better, but not meaning that their pancreas can handle it if grains fill most of the diet.

Genetic changes to be able to digest completely new foods take much more than 10,000 years to evolve/mutate.

But just as some people are SLIGHTLY better at digesting grains because of many of their ancestors ate them, other people, such as those living in the tropics, might favorably handle more fruits (carbs) in their diet, than people living in other climates (they might actually NEED more carbs). I still maintain that belief.

Why does the length of the intestines differ between people and it isn't always related to weight/height?... Eskimos have evolved shorter stature to conserve heat better.. Africans are taller and slimmer, by genetics, to be able to get rid of excess heat... I think the length (and shape) of the digestive system has, in the same manner, evolved according to the factors/foods in different climates.. (Though as I said in my previous post there is a limit to this, since I don't think anyone is adapted to the extent that they can get all of their calories from sweet fruit).

Otherwise lex I'm with you on the other things you mention.. AND I'm extremely happy and grateful that you are a rare pioneer in this "field" of health who has taken the time and energy to test/experiment/research, and, most importantly, report to those who are searching for solutions, in all honesty, what your results are. Please keep researching/testing and keep us posted! Keep the world informed!

Not many people have the guts or motivation to take blood glucose tests or other measurements of health to see how their diet is going and then to post it all online for the world to see. I'm really happy with everything you have reported, and it's really great that you talk about both the positive and the negative of whatever you have tried (or are trying). Have you thought about making a website where you gather all the information, your knowledge and wisdom, and give advice to newbies? Not that writing on this forum isn't enough, but if you gathered a lot of the information on a site where you list it in a more organized way, maybe more people would find it and read through it... Either way, as long as you keep us updated here it's all good.

You say that you were a vegan for 10-20-? years? I'd actually like to hear more about your experience with vegetarianism. How was your health as a raw vegan and how did it change when you switched to raw paleo? Did you change your diet all at once? What was your diet like as a vegan? Did you actually do well on the vegan diet for 10+ years (no health issues)? anything healthwise you find positive about vegetariansim?

I don't think I could ever last so long on a vegetarian diet.. I tried for a couple of months eating mostly vegetables/fruits and very little fish and eggs and I did horribly..

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 23, 2009, 01:19:20 am
JaX,
I've described much of what I've been through in my posts in this and other forums.  Rather than rehash everything again I refer you to my short bio that Satya posted here:

http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/lex-rooker/

In addition to what is stated there, I was on the vegan diet for so long that I've had just about every negative effect there is: Failure To Thrive syndrome, loss of enamel on teeth, large mood swings, almost total loss of sex drive, no joy in living, constant hunger, perpetual colds and flu, insomnia, constant runny/watery stools, feeling cold all the time, constant debilitating migraine headaches that would send me into a dark room with a heating pad over my face wishing I would just die and get it overwith 4 to 5 times per month, and on and on.

But I stuck with it because the gurus said that the vegetarian and/or fruitarian diet was the "Pure and Prefect Diet" for humans.  All my problems were attributed to "detox".   If you believe in detox then I was in a perpetual state of detox for almost 20 years.  I even did a 31 day water fast to try to clear out those horrible toxins once and for all.  I went from 180 lbs to 90 lbs and almost died.  It took me over 2 years to recover and who knows what permanent damage was done. To this day I still have an irregular EKG from this experience.

Lest you think that I just didn't do the vegan thing correctly I assure you that I studied every thing I could get my hands on to make sure I was doing the "right" thing.  Diet for a Small Planet by Lappe was one of my holy texts on combining various vegetable protein sources to assure I had "complete" proteins.  I sprouted grains, beans, and peas, and ate them raw.  I grew wheat grass by the bushel and drank a quart of green juices per day.  I studied all the texts on food combining to assure that I ate compatible foods at each meal.  In short, my whole life revolved around food.  I doubt that there was even one minute during the day that I wasn't thinking about food.  I was always hungry no matter how much I ate - and I was eating all the time.  I was also constantly cold and had to wear a sweater even when the temperature was in the 80s.

I finally gave up the vegan lifestyle and started following Pritikin which allowed about 1/4 lb of meat at 2 meals per day.  This probably saved my life.  Many of my symptoms were relieved and I started to feel better.  Around 1999 or 2000 I ran across Neanderthin by Ray Audette and the rest is history.  I found a webset call "Beyond Veg" (  http://www.beyondveg.com/  ) and after reading a rather long interview with Ward Nicholson, realized that I had really done a number on myself.  You can find that interview here:

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml

I then found Geoff Purcell's Yahoo group,  The Magic Bus, and several others.  What I read on these sites gave me courage to completely reverse direction and here I am today.

Hope this helps.  If there is something specific you'd like to know just ask.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: JaX on January 23, 2009, 07:24:08 pm
It looks like you have really tried it all.

The things you mentioned that you tried (wheat grass, sprouts, vegetable juices), do you find they have any place in a raw paleo diet? in combination with a mostly-meat diet, can they be helpful at providing health/energy?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on January 23, 2009, 09:49:34 pm
Hmm, got a lot of reading to do to catch up here! Hope all is well, Lex  :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: JaX on January 23, 2009, 10:29:17 pm
Oh I also wanted to ask you do you feel any differences in psychology/mood when zero carb? And if you ever go off-diet and have some carbs, how does it impact you?

I'm really wondering how zero carbers do if they eat some fruit or sweet juice or a potato on an occasion. I read somewhere in one of your posts that you sometimes have a little fruit when eating with your family. can it be digested easily or does it give you digestive complications after having been zc for so long? other problems if you have carbs? Do you think you'd be able to digest grain if you had some?

I'm considering going zc but I don't want to end up not being able to eat carbs at some occasions... And I don't want my pancreas to be stressed out or my BG to spike like crazy if I have some carbs ocasionally..

How long time on ZC do you think it takes until the pancreas "shuts down" and you have to build your carb tolerance back up? Would eating some carbs once or twice a week keep the insulin production of the pancreas "ready" and some carb digesting bacteria in the colon?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 23, 2009, 11:40:49 pm
The things you mentioned that you tried (wheat grass, sprouts, vegetable juices), do you find they have any place in a raw paleo diet? in combination with a mostly-meat diet, can they be helpful at providing health/energy?

On the contrary, I found that green juices caused bloating, light headedness (probably from the large amounts of monsacaraides), and very loose and smelly bowel movements.  I will never go back to these again.  Wana buy a juicer? ;D 

Oh I also wanted to ask you do you feel any differences in psychology/mood when zero carb?

My mood used to swing wildly from high euphoria to depressive lows - rather a roller coaster - often several times within one day.  Since going VLC and ZC I no longer have the huge peaks and valleys and my mood is consistently upbeat with a zest for life.  I really look forward to getting up in the morning and hitting the day running.

And if you ever go off-diet and have some carbs, how does it impact you?

I seldom eat carbs as once I start I don't want to stop.  As an example I might decide to eat an orange but then end up eating 4 or 5 of them, and that's after I've eaten all I can hold of my normal raw meat.  I also find that eating any significant amount of carbs causes a large and quick gain in weight.  My guess is that this would be normal in our natural environment as fruits would be available in the late summer - early fall and the weight gain from eating  them and satifying our sweet tooth would set us up for the winter ahead.  Of course the problem in modern life is that sweets are available to us year around.

I'm really wondering how zero carbers do if they eat some fruit or sweet juice or a potato on an occasion. I read somewhere in one of your posts that you sometimes have a little fruit when eating with your family. can it be digested easily or does it give you digestive complications after having been zc for so long? other problems if you have carbs? Do you think you'd be able to digest grain if you had some?

I've had no problems with eating carbs with the exception of the addictive quality of them and over eating them once started and then the associated weight gain.  Because of this I just stay away from carbs except for 2 or 3 major family gatherings per year (Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc). Even then I only eat fruits and stay completely away from the cakes, cookies, pies, potatoes, breads and the like as I believe that these are not our natural foods.

I'm considering going zc but I don't want to end up not being able to eat carbs at some occasions... And I don't want my pancreas to be stressed out or my BG to spike like crazy if I have some carbs ocasionally..

Sorry to dissapoint you but even if you are not ZC you are stressing out your pancreas and your BG is spiking like crazy.  Why do you think type 2 diabetes is such a problem these days.  We are stressing our pancreas at every meal we eat day in and day out all year long.

How long time on ZC do you think it takes until the pancreas "shuts down" and you have to build your carb tolerance back up? Would eating some carbs once or twice a week keep the insulin production of the pancreas "ready" and some carb digesting bacteria in the colon?

I don't think the pancreas ever "shuts down" and what you call "carb tolerance" is really insulin resistance which is a bad thing.  Not sure why you would want this.  As I mentioned above, I believe we were designed to crave carbs when they were available and our bodies naturally put on weight to prepare us for the lean times.  The problem today is that there are no lean times and carbs have become the foundation of our diet rather than a late season treat that is cut short when winter arrives.

Intestinal bacteria adjust rather quickly.  You may experience a bit of bloating, gas, etc if you only eat one carb loaded meal, but if you persist eating any significant carbs the bacteria in your gut will accomodate within 2 or 3 days.

I feel great living an nearly ZC lifestyle and I never again want to go back to the health problems and misery I suffered for so many years following SAD and/or the Vegan life style.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on February 01, 2009, 11:09:59 pm

Good to hear back from you and that you're your pleasant self as usual :)

Are you back to the usual ratio or still trying out 80:20? I guess it's different
from everybody's physical needs. Just wanted to hear about your amazing
experiment. Keep in touch with the forum, Lex!

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 02, 2009, 12:23:52 am
Hi Elli,
Back to my original plan which is around 70% calories as fat.  I have found that in the cooler weather of winter (in southern California you can't really call it cold), I naturally seem to want a bit more fat than in the warmer summer months.  Meals vary between 65% and 80% calories as fat with most in the 70% range.

Feel very good and none of the problems I experienced on SAD/Vegan diets has returned.  I expect slow physical degeneration as I get older, but the obvious stuff like high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and the migraine headaches have completely disappeared.

Zero Carb seems to be working very well for me so I'll continue eating just meat and fat until some problem shows up, or it can be demonstrated that a different approach is better.   My current diet is pretty simple:  I eat when I'm hungry, I then eat meat and fat until I'm satisfied, I drink when I'm thirsty, and then I drink only water - that's it.  It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on February 02, 2009, 06:40:03 am


Good to hear that. I don't really think it's the ratio that matters. 20% of 1000 kcal diet and 4000 kcal diet is tremendously different in terms of grams of protein although they're both 20%. It's the absolute value that matters more, I suppose. And it's probably that on average people found that 80:20 ratio is what happened to be working nicely for them.

As long as you feel great (and your test values validate so), whatever you are doing seems to be very best for you. I've always enjoyed discussing with you since you don't get overly emotional about things nor put your ideas before the facts. I tend to over analyze things and my desire to understand everything has done more harm than good in terms of my health, unfortunately. I'm hoping that it will eventually improve and you're a wonderful inspiration for sure. Have a good day :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 02, 2009, 01:06:00 pm
I tend to over analyze things and my desire to understand everything has done more harm than good in terms of my health, unfortunately.

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one.  It was all that analysis and following the gurus that led me down the vegan path and got me into real trouble in the first place.  Now I'm more inclined to let my body tell me when things are working, and pay attention when by body tells me they are not.  My tests and research are more geared to testing the theories and trying to understand WHY things are working (or not) rather than blindly following someone else's theories and taking their word as gospel.  It is amazing how willing I was to turn over responsibility for my health to someone else (guru or doctor), and follow their advise (for 20 years no less!) even though it clearly wasn't working.  Oh well, live and learn.....

All my best to you,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: DameonWolf on February 03, 2009, 12:32:42 pm
Hey Lex, I'm aware you've posted tons of tests you've gotten on your self. Have you gotten a nutrient test done too see how all your levels are?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 04, 2009, 12:12:04 am
Hi Dameon,
I'm not sure what a "nutrient test" is.  I have posted my annual blood tests which show some mineral levels and they are right in the middle of the preferred range.  Could you expand on the nutrient test you're talking about and where I would get this done?  My doctor has never mentioned anything like this.

Thanks,
Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: DameonWolf on February 04, 2009, 03:18:19 am
Well I remember for the longest time my sister was struggling with her health especially her cognitive health, and she kept getting blood work done and it never concluded any thing. It wasn't until one doctor recommended she get a test for nutrients specifically B12. Turns out she had been B12 deficient for years and they gave her the usual shot and all her problems went away. From my understanding there are tests out there that will confirm whether you're deficient or not in every nutrient. I could be mistaken though, some thing along the lines of Spectracell's? This has become more of a question on my part. How would you figure out if you're deficient or not in the following things:


Vitamin A
Vitamin C
Vitamin D
Vitamin E
Vitamin K
Thiamin
Riboflavin
Niacin
Vitamin B6
Folate
Food Folate
Folic Acid
Vitamin B12
Pantothenic Acid
Choline
Betaine
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Copper
Manganese
Selenium
Fatty Acids

I'm aware the general tests you get cover some of these things, but I'm pretty positive they leave a lot of these out.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 04, 2009, 08:46:58 am
Another issue is what does "deficient" mean.  With the boondoggle of the government's Food Pyramid showing that carbohydrates are the foundation of health and other fiascos related to Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for specific nutrients, who's to say what's normal - my doctor who suffers from gout and type 2 diabetes?

I would like to have a reasonable idea of how to interpret the results of any test I take before hand.  After many years of misery following traditional medical advice, I've become rather jaded.   For the time being I prefer to go by how I feel.  It may be true that my eating habits will ultimately give me a fatal heart attach, but right now I feel wonderful and I'm able to do the things I love to do - without the aid of a power chair, stair lift, wheel chair, or hospital bed.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on February 04, 2009, 08:54:16 am
Lex, you just keep on truckin'!  I am moving closer and closer to less and less plant food.  I am doing it!  And it's reading journals like yours that just inspire me further along the path.  So much fear and misinformation out there, that a girl can get pretty confused.  You speak common sense that is just so lacking in our complex, bureaucratic world! 

Thank you.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: DameonWolf on February 04, 2009, 09:09:50 am
Another issue is what does "deficient" mean.  With the boondoggle of the government's Food Pyramid showing that carbohydrates are the foundation of health and other fiascos related to Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for specific nutrients, who's to say what's normal - my doctor who suffers from gout and type 2 diabetes?

I would like to have a reasonable idea of how to interpret the results of any test I take before hand.  After many years of misery following traditional medical advice, I've become rather jaded.   For the time being I prefer to go by how I feel.  It may be true that my eating habits will ultimately give me a fatal heart attach, but right now I feel wonderful and I'm able to do the things I love to do - without the aid of a power chair, stair lift, wheel chair, or hospital bed.

Lex



That's the type of response I love to hear! Good on you man. I too am skeptical around the validity of a lot of this concrete medical science. I was just wondering because whether you like it or not, people see your story and talk about it. And since you disarm peoples points about bad blood pressure ext ext, the next thing they want to know about is mineral deficiency. lol, in other words I've been telling people your story and they don't believe it, and of course they want to see nutrient levels or some thing along those lines. I understand though that this isn't for them it's for you. I respect that a lot, your case is just phenomenal that's all.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 04, 2009, 09:31:22 am
Dameon,
If you look at the tone of most of what I present it is just a documentation of my personal experience.  I make no effort to convince anyone of anything.  I learned a long time ago that trying to convince people that my beliefs were the only true and correct beliefs was a waste of time.  It was also embarrassing when I discovered that something that I was championing (like the vegan lifestyle) turned out to exaserbate the very problems I was trying to cure.   

Another bit of wisdom I picked up from a friend and mentor is the idea that you can't save people from themselves.  Like it or not, people make their own decisions and it is often counter to what I would do.  What I know for sure is that all of us will suffer the consequences of the decisions and choices we make.  I try to openly document the results of my dietary choices (good and bad) in a way that others can duplicate what I've done should they choose to try it for themselves.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 04, 2009, 09:36:17 am
Thanks for the kind words Satya.  Hopefully others find my experiences and thoughts useful as well. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: JaX on February 18, 2009, 04:14:44 am
Quote
I tend to over analyze things and my desire to understand everything has done more harm than good in terms of my health, unfortunately.
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one.  It was all that analysis and following the gurus that led me down the vegan path and got me into real trouble in the first place.  Now I'm more inclined to let my body tell me when things are working, and pay attention when by body tells me they are not.  My tests and research are more geared to testing the theories and trying to understand WHY things are working (or not) rather than blindly following someone else's theories and taking their word as gospel.  It is amazing how willing I was to turn over responsibility for my health to
someone else (guru or doctor), and follow their advise (for 20 years no less!) even though it clearly wasn't working.  Oh well, live and learn.....

All my best to you,

Lex

It's a long path to discover truth in today's world. I also went through a lot and hope my body hasn't suffered too much in the process.. All the times I thought "well, if a little of this vegetable juice is good for you, then A LOT must be VERY good for you"... Do I feel better now than I did on SAD? I started having major health issues on SAD when I began eating too much grains and other not so optimal foods so YES I do feel better.. Maybe if I went directly from SAD to a BALANCED Raw Paleo w/ low or zero carb it would have been better for my body overall, to not keep it guessing every few weeks with a new change to my diet. But it's impossible now to know what would have been better.. At least trying all these things made me open minded enough to go for raw meat! I don't think I would have jumped from SAD to eating raw meat, I just wouldn't  have seen that as more healthy.  I guess I should have just listened to my body and not exaggerated when with things when I was FEELING that things weren't going well.. All the times I thought nausea/feeling bad/deprived/tired was detox...

I have actually come to realize that MEAT is the only food that it's almost impossible to exaggerate with. It's a neutral food that doesn't cause any specific effect. On the other hand, every plant, fruit, herb has some special property (some herbs being good for the liver, others for the stomach, etc etc) so it's easy to exaggerate w/ them since they also have secondary effects. Cutting out carbs also takes your focus away from food since it controls hunger, which I think leads to less exaggeration.

Most of the times when I exaggerated was when traveled and where only factory farmed meats were available.. I would then choose to go for whatever fruit and veggies were available, which really led to blood sugar problems.
 


The positive thing I try to keep in mind though is that the body regenerates more than 90% of all cells in just one year. So if you eat the foods that will support you for one year, most of the effects of the last years torture should heal (depending on the regeneration speed of the specific organ/body part).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 18, 2009, 06:00:28 am
Seeker,
I'm a firm believer in incremental change.  It allows us to evaluate things as we go along if we are willing to open our minds and critically analyze what we are doing and the results.  It also allows us to become mentally adjusted to options that are so foreign to our thinking that we would otherwise not consider them - like eating raw meat.  I've found that few of us (including me) will make a change based on facts alone.  First we must discover the idea, then convince ourselves that it is proper, and finally we are able to apply it.  This mental adjustment process takes time.

Sure, I wish I'd discovered this long ago, (though not sure I would have had the wisdom to implement it if I had), and expect that I would have avoided many health issues if I had.  Unfortunately I had many lessons that I needed to learn along the way and so my path was a rather crooked one.  Glad to say I'm here now and still learning from those like you who are following a similar path.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 16, 2009, 11:37:42 am
I've been corresponding with Nicola off the forum and she has asked that I post some of the information that we exchanged.  Our discussion started off with Nicola sending me a posting related to insulin and fatty acids before and after exercise from Charles's Zero Carb forum.  In this posting Charles went into great detail on cellular metabolism, fatty acid mobilization, and a host of related minutia.  Here's my reply to Nicola regarding all the scientific mumbo jumbo in Charles' post:

It is human nature to want to complicate things.  It is very difficult to simplify - it goes against our core nature.  We want to know all the "technical" details of whatever subject captures our attention at the moment. If there is a problem we always seem to look for the most complex and convoluted solution.  I suppose this makes us feel smart or intelligent.  When I was younger I worked as an Electronic Technician supporting a research and development team.  I took great pride in my complicated solutions to the problems we faced - after all, I was brilliant, and my solutions proved it!  Even some of the Engineers were impressed.  I would spend hours working to solve complex problems related to things that, in truth, we didn't need to do at all! - what a waste of time.
 
In the beginning I approached my diet with the same scientific zeal.  I monitored cholesterol, kept my fat intake low, ate a very high carb vegan diet, spent hours with a calculator balancing amino acids using combinations of grains (rice, wheat, millet, buckwheat, etc) to assure that I was getting "complete" proteins.  I sprouted grains, legumes, sunflower & alfalfa seeds.  I made Essene Bread.  The book "Diet For A Small Planet" was my bible.  I avoided saturated fat like the plague, and consumed nut, grain, and flax seed oils.  My whole life and being revolved around eating.  I was always hungry.  I was always cold.  I had migraine after migraine headache.  I had terrible acne.  My teeth started loosing their enamel, and my general health was slowly but steadily declining yet I continued on this path for almost 20 years because all the published "scientific" research into human metabolism and gurus like Pritikin said this was the Holy Grail.  It could be proven scientifically that carbohydrates were "clean" burning in our systems and fats and protein from meat left large amounts of "toxic" waste that caused every disease known to man including heart disease and cancer.
 
Well, after I almost died from malnutrition I figured that I needed another approach.  I started questioning why I needed a calculator and a complex food combining formula to get proper nutrition - which seemed not to be so proper after all.   Then I did a bit of looking at what I was eating and discovered that none of the grains, legumes, or other foods that were the foundation of my diet even existed as recently as 10,000 years ago.  I went into wilderness areas to try to live "naturally" and found that there were very few sources of edible carbohydrates, and what was available was very seasonal and only available for a couple of months out of the year.
 
Over time I ran across the Paleo Diet theory and this seemed to make sense in context with what I had discovered about the "real" world.  Meat was  universally available all over the world all the time - unless it had been wiped out by over population or foolish government policies.  I discovered that many of the "studies" supporting all that "scientific" mumbo jumbo about cholesterol and fats being bad, and carbs being our best food was untrue - the actual data in the studies didn't support that at all.  In fact quite the opposite.  It was government and special interests that produced totally fictitious and biased reports supposedly based on the studies that turned meat into a villain.
 
I was still brain washed into believing that I needed to eat lots of fruits and vegetables for the "fiber".  There was also a belief that Paleo Man ate a diet high in fiber and this is what made him so healthy.  It never occurred to me that my own experience trying to live off the land didn't support this at all.  I found few edible green plants that could be consumed in any significant quantities, and what I did find were bitter, fibrous, and almost impossible to chew.  Wild fruits were small, sour, and only available for a short time during the year.  No way this could have been 40% - 60% of a Hunter-Gatherer's diet - 5% to 10% seems more realistic based on my experience.  Anyway, I ate about 2 gallons (8 liters) of green salad every day and then added about 8 oz (250 g) of lean meat - (remember saturated fat is bad so I was careful to trim as much fat off as possible).  In short, I was still trying to apply all that "scientific" thinking to a Paleo diet.  Doing complex routines of juicing, trimming fat, and making sure I got lots of fiber (at least 30 g per day).  Yup, I had that calculator busy all the time making sure all the complex ratios and fiber were correct.  My health improved but was still not great.
 
It finally hit me that Paleo man would not need a calculator, would not have eaten all those fruits and vegetables (maybe a few when in season), and diet would have simply been mostly meat.  I threw away the calculator and changed my diet to 3 meals per day of  8 oz cooked meat at each meal, a small salad (maybe 2 cups) at lunch and a piece of fruit after my dinner meal.  This simplified things considerably and my health started improving rapidly.  I stuck with this way of eating for about 2 years and over that period of time my headaches went away, my weight dropped, and I started feeling great.
 
I then found Geoff's RAF forum on Yahoo.  It was here that I ran across Steffanson's work and decided to try a meat-only diet just to see if what Steffanson said was actually true.  It was at this time that I reasoned that no other animal eats its food cooked so why should I.  I started cooking my meat less and less until finally it was raw.  I also figured that since I was trying to eat a simple and "natural" diet, then I should do my best to make sure that the meat I ate came from animals that had eaten their natural diet - hence grass fed.  I also determined that red meat would have been the most abundant and easily available to our ancestors who's only tools were sticks and stones.  Large animals could be wounded and then followed until they fell.  Birds and fish, on the other hand were much more difficult to capture without modern technology and the amount of meat they provided for the effort involved in capturing them makes me believe that they didn't make up a significant portion of a Paleo diet.  Therefore I based my diet around red meat.
 
It was a little hard at first because I was still convinced that all the vitamins and minerals I needed were in fruits and vegetables, but I embarked on the adventrue with stern warnings from my doctor that I would surely suffer from scurvy, pellagra, or some other dreaded deficiency disease.  I'm glad to say that my fears were unfounded, and it worked out better than I had ever hoped.  My health improved even futher.  I did start monitoring blood glucose and ketones based on Mary Massung's work in the Yahoo Saturated Fat Forum, but finally abandoned that as being rather a waste of time.  Our ancestors didn't monitor any of this stuff and the fact that you and I are here today says they were successful without all the scientific stuff.  I still worried over proper fat/protein ratios and did my "high fat vs low fat" experiment only to find that this too was a waste of time.  Why force myself to eat more fat than I wanted?  Why force myself to eat more lean than I wanted?  It made more sense to let my hunger tell me how much fat or lean to eat.  Yes, I could monitor Blood Glucose and urine ketones during the experiment but so what?  Even my doctor has no clue as to what is "normal" for someone eating an all meat diet.   
 
Other than through what I eat I have no way to control what the mitochondria in my cells are doing and I have no way of testing this anyway.  I can't monitor or control how fatty acids move in my body.  I have no way to know what's happening to all those calories I'm eating when I don't gain weight.  I can't directly measure insulin levels. So what's the point?  Speculation on any of this takes time away from working on clocks, making furniture for my daughter, hiking, and a host of other activities I love to do.  I've simplified my diet and life style by following the wisdom of my body:
 
I eat meat and fat in a ratio that satisfies my hunger.
I eat whenever I'm hungry (usually once per day, but more often when working hard)
I eat until I'm satisfied
I drink only water
I drink whenever I'm thirsty
I drink until I'm satisfied.
 
That's it.  I feel wonderful.  I have energy to do the things I want to do.  I spend zero time with a calculator, BG meter, or worrying over cellular metabolism.  As long as I continue to feel good I will continue with this simple approach.  Going Zero Carb started out as an experiment and it seems to be working well for me, however, I would have no problem adding a small salad or piece of fruit to my diet now and then as a treat or as permanent additions if my body tells me it's necessary.
 
Lex


This email was followed by a response from Charles telling me to read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes and then I'd understand the importance of cellular metabolism.  Here's my response:

Charles,
I've read Gary Taubes book, Wolfgang Lutz's book, Raymond Aduette's book, Steffannson's books, Lyle McDonald's books, Barry Sears' books, Pritikin's books, Atkin's books, Edae's books, Tobe's books and too many others to count.  All were labeled revolutionary when they were released and all represent a relatively narrow and biased view of the available information at a specific point in history.  Over time some have been proven wholly and blatantly inaccurate, others partially accurate, and still others full of omissions and half truths.  Time will award Taubes' contribution its rightful place among the greats, near greats, also rans, and scallywags.
 
I don't feel that theories related to cellular level metabolism add much practical value to everyday life.  Such research provides volumes of data but no wisdom.  Much of the data is of little value as we have no Rosetta Stone that allows us to accurately interpret its meaning.   My approach is to copy, to the best of my ability, what those who have been successful before me have done.   In every discipline there is a common thread woven throughout the lives of all who have had a measure of success in that discipline.  Isolating this golden thread from the fleece often reveals a simple and universal truth, that if followed, will achieve the desired results.  In the case of diet, no amount of biochemistry can alter that truth - it can only confirm it, bit by bit.  Unfortunately, none of the minutia of scientific data contain the wisdom necessary for the successful implementation of a comprehensive and practical dietary approach.  Wisdom comes from our body's innate intelligence and centuries of trial and error - not an electron microscope.
 
My time on this earth is limited, so I prefer to follow the wisdom of my body and those who've gone before.  I expect science to catch up and confirm its innate truth (assuming the political climate allows) long after I'm dead and gone.  The way things are going scientists and politicians may still be arguing about this for millennia to come.

Lex


Hope some of you find this useful in understanding my approach to diet and life in general.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: akaikumo on March 16, 2009, 03:22:37 pm
Certainly useful.

I've been fascinated recently while reading about cellular respiration and carbs and fats and protein. I've been considering continuing to study biology and chemistry to understand how it relates to RPD.

But..

Like you've said, I think that focusing on all the science of it is relatively meaningless in my personal life. Logic dictates that we eat what our paleo ancestors ate, and we have a good idea of what that was. The health improvements speak for themselves, and our bodies are very capable of telling us what they need and what they don't.

I hope that someday science will unravel why RPD helps us the way it does; but I highly doubt that will be within my lifetime, and I'm only 20.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on March 16, 2009, 06:16:01 pm
It is extremely unlikely that a rawpalaeodiet would ever be vindicated scientifically. First of all, food-producing companies have a vested interest in ensuring that foods have as long a shelf-life as possible so as to make more money, so they will never fund studies favouring unprocessed foods. Governments also have a vested interest in the politically correct balanced diet, so are highly unlikely to label grains as being dangerous, since grainfed meat is such a staple, nowadays, and they wouldn't want to harm the grain industry etc.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on March 16, 2009, 06:17:56 pm
Lex, the 40-60% figure you give is not standard Palaeo theory AFAIK. Most, if not all, cooked palaeodieters cite a figure of only 35% plant food in a palaeo diet. The only times I've heard higher figures given was from vegetarian-leaning types.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on March 16, 2009, 10:10:41 pm
Lex, you are brilliant!  And I think you should work this new message into your testimonial, because you have added some very important ideas that are not presently in the story. 

Also, I agree that we can get lost in a wonderland of minutia, and there are so many more worthwhile pursuits in life (like remodelling the bathroom with my husband).  My life is loads easier now that I have gotten my whole crew at least low carb, all paleo.  The time wasted on cooking exotic meals and stressing over various numbers just is not worth it, imo.  And is this worrying not what the "health" providers want?  They want us to worry and tweak things and spend ever more resources.  Is it not a form of prison that they wish to confine us in?  Breaking away from this micromanaged approach to health is true freedom.  It is a journey, and many people perhaps just don't see that we shouldn't need all this "health care," nor constantly worry about how much this or that we need in our diet.  We have been fed it so much via the media, that many just can't see beyond it ... unless, of course, they shut off the TV for a few years.

Interesting that when Barry Groves joined the forum there was much fanfare, yet he admits that he is not zero carb.  Not a big deal, but other newbies get a thrashing if they don't toe the party line just so.  At least that is what I have seen there in my limited reading. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 17, 2009, 02:46:26 am
Lex, the 40-60% figure you give is not standard Palaeo theory AFAIK. Most, if not all, cooked palaeodieters cite a figure of only 35% plant food in a palaeo diet. The only times I've heard higher figures given was from vegetarian-leaning types.

You are right of course, Tyler.  Remember my background for 20 years was vegan so my reading was slanted heavily in that direction.  The numbers I gave are probably heavily biased by the vegan influence.  Statistics related to a controversial subject like diet seem to vary wildly depending on the bias of the person reporting the statistic.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 17, 2009, 02:53:04 am
Lex, you are brilliant!  And I think you should work this new message into your testimonial, because you have added some very important ideas that are not presently in the story. 

I'm already busy 25 hours out of a 24 hour day, but I'll see if I can't find another hour to update my bio.  Of course then it will have to be posted and I haven't had much luck in that department of late.

Interesting that when Barry Groves joined the forum there was much fanfare, yet he admits that he is not zero carb.  Not a big deal, but other newbies get a thrashing if they don't toe the party line just so.  At least that is what I have seen there in my limited reading. 

Yes, Charles and his followers have made it clear that my ideas and real world experience are not welcome.  I post very little to his forum and what posts I do make, I make sure they tow the party line.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on March 17, 2009, 03:49:17 am
So you're no longer doing BG and ketone analysis? Interesting we got to see the last of your scientific meddling into your diet on this journal. Words of wisdom, I've been trying to apply them (common thread among successful individuals in all disciplines) to a lot of things in my life. The trick is to NOT overcomplicate, and the difficulty in that trick is the relative nature of the word "over."
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on March 17, 2009, 06:27:24 am
Yes, Charles and his followers have made it clear that my ideas and real world experience are not welcome.  I post very little to his forum and what posts I do make, I make sure they tow the party line.

Lex

That's strange. What views of yours did they disagree with, out of interest?  Was it merely your being mostly raw that annoyed them? It's funny, I'd thought that Charles behaved rather well when another yahoo group owner started behaving rather badly in various exchanges with him, some time back. Well, can't be helped.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 17, 2009, 11:53:53 am
That's strange. What views of yours did they disagree with, out of interest?  Was it merely your being mostly raw that annoyed them? It's funny, I'd thought that Charles behaved rather well when another yahoo group owner started behaving rather badly in various exchanges with him, some time back. Well, can't be helped.

Tyler,
I've had a couple of rather poor experiences on Charles forum, and I learned my lesson fairly quickly.  Most issues revolve around my stating my direct experience on some subject that is counter to what Charles preaches.   On one occasion they were talking about long term fasting and I pointed out that I almost died from a 31 day fast, dropping from 180 lbs to 90 lbs, and as it was it took many years to fully recover.  Here's the exchange which is typical when Charles disagrees:

Lex Wrote:
Charles I assure you that it would not be possible for a person of normal weight to last 90 days much less 9 months with no food or water. As it was I went from 180 lbs to around 90 lbs in 31 days.


Charles Replied:
Fortunately for me, I don't have to rely on your assurances. This information was printed in the 1915 fasting study by Benedict, which is still the most authoritative study on the subject and here's another:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article...id=2495396

If you want to know what happens when healthy people fast, you can also download the fasting study on this forum and we've covered fasting in great detail in another thread which you can also find via search. Taubes source on healthy people fasting and lasting 9 months or longer comes from Drenick of UCLA who provides the best science on fasting in modern times.


What is interesting is that if you follow the link he provides you find a one paragraph summary of a 384 day fasting experiment that does make is appear that the person maintained normal weight for the entire period.  However, if you actually read the study you find that the subject was grossly obese with a starting weight of over 450 lbs, was feed large amounts of supplements through the duration of the fast, and was allowed to drink as much water as he wanted - and at the end of 384 day he attained normal weight.

Rather than embarrass Charles and point out this out on the forum I sent him a private note.  He didn't have the courtesy to respond.  This type of exchange is typical if you aren't preaching the party line, and others have earned similar rebukes from Charles as well.  I am now very careful of what I post on that forum, and now seldom post at all.

The above is just a very short quote out of a rather lengthy thread.  If you are interested in reading the whole thing to see the context here's a link to the thread.

http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/showthread.php?tid=1281&page=1

My initial post is on page 1 and I think I finally gave up on page 3 or 4 and slunk silently into the background.  BTW, if you think I was out of line or disrespectful in any way please let me know as this was not my intent.  I tried to make clear what was my opinion and when I stated what I thought was fact I tried to provide a reference.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on March 17, 2009, 06:34:01 pm
I see what you mean. Mind you, I've known other group owners who've resorted to using personal insults  in almost every post, so Charles is quite tame by comparison.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 17, 2009, 11:21:11 pm
I see what you mean. Mind you, I've known other group owners who've resorted to using personal insults  in almost every post, so Charles is quite tame by comparison.

Tyler,
Charles certainly wasn't abusive or anything like that, but it was pretty clear that my input was not welcome - especially since this seemed to happen every time I posted something.  Life is much to short to spend time and effort where it is not wanted.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 17, 2009, 11:31:23 pm
Glenn01 asked me if I ever got tired of eating the same thing every day.  I thought others might be interested in this as well so I'm posting my reply:

When I first started the total carnivorous diet I did miss the variety.  What I learned was that the variety of foods was necessary when I really wasn't hungry.  As an example I found it easy to eat a salad until I was "full", and then immediately eat a quart of ice cream.  The reality is that I wasn't hungry when I ate the ice cream, I was driven by the different taste.
 
The same goes for eating 3 meals per day.  Breakfast foods are different from lunch foods which are different again from what I would normally eat for dinner.  Each meal is driven by taste or variety, not hunger.  How many times have you said "It's lunch time, what do I feel for today?"   If you have to ask what you feel for then you must not really be hungry.
 
When I converted to a "mono diet", where I was eating the exact same thing at every meal, my food intake began to be driven by hunger rather than taste or variety.  In the beginning I found that I'd look at the clock, saw it was lunch time and thought, "I really don't feel like eating that food I have in the refrigerator, but a hamburger and fries sure sounds good".  I then would have to admit to myself that I must not really be hungry so I wouldn't eat.  Usually by 4 or 5 in the afternoon I'd suddenly notice that I was really hungry and that raw meat in the fridge was looking pretty good.  I would then eat my meal.
 
It took about a year for me to break the "taste" habit and go by hunger alone.  Now I seldom think about food unless I'm really hungry.  I don't get up in the morning thinking about what to have for breakfast.  I no longer start thinking about lunch at 10 am trying to decide what I "feel" for today.  Same goes for dinner.  Now I get up in the morning and start working.  Sometime in the late afternoon I notice I'm hungry and I sit down to eat.    I eat until I'm satisfied and don't think about food again until I actually get hungry again which is usually the next day.
 
Most of the time I only eat once per day, but on occasion I'll be doing a lot of physical work like digging trenches for sprinkler systems and then I may get hungry around noon.  I'll eat my normal amount of food and then go back to work.  Then in the evening around 6pm I may find I'm hungry again and I'll eat whatever is necessary to satisfy that hunger - usually around an additional pound of food.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on March 17, 2009, 11:44:17 pm

Charles certainly wasn't abusive or anything like that, but it was pretty clear that my input was not welcome - especially since this seemed to happen every time I posted something.  Life is much to short to spend time and effort where it is not wanted.


I hear ya, Lex.  At least you are not the only one he has singled out in this way.  I also think that life is too short to follow the thinking of any one person (health guru or otherwise).  Life is extremely complex, and information on the effects of fasting cannot be boiled down to a fasting study from 1915 and applied to everyone.  Besides, I believe it's pretty well documented that most animals will die without water for prolonged periods.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 18, 2009, 12:31:25 am
So you're no longer doing BG and ketone analysis? Interesting we got to see the last of your scientific meddling into your diet on this journal.

I finally figured out that trying to "control" things was silly.  Our ancestors didn't control BG, Cholesterol, or anything else.  They ate their food and lived their life.   I also realized that I had no way to interrpret the data I was gathering.  If BG was 85 or 105 who knows what that means for someone eating a totally carnivorous diet?  My doctor is concerned because I have ketones in my urine at all times, again, so what?  He has no experince to tell him if this is "normal" for someone eating as I do.  The medical community has no idea if my cholesterol level and hdl/ldl ratio is good or bad as they have zero experience with someone like me.

I can do my best to take objective measurements and publish them for others to compare with, but other than that it is pretty much a waste of time (and besides, my fingers were pretty much shredded).


Words of wisdom, I've been trying to apply them (common thread among successful individuals in all disciplines) to a lot of things in my life. The trick is to NOT overcomplicate, and the difficulty in that trick is the relative nature of the word "over."

To "not overcomplicate" still implies that it is more complex than necessary. The real trick is finding the simplest solution and then sticking with it.  I've found that the basic principles of success are usually simple, the problem is making yourself consistently apply them.  We are easily lured away from the simple, boring, and repetative success principles by the glitz and glitter of the latest fad or technology.  I am not immune to this problem either and must remain constantly vigilant to avoid unproductive distractions.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Tom G. on March 18, 2009, 11:47:10 am
 Hi Lex.

  'Just wanted to say hi, and thanks for all you have done through your experiments and documented material. I have downloaded your Pemmican manual for future reference, in case I ever run into someone that wants to make it. It is very complete, and if one were to make it as per your instructions, they should be able to avoid the many mistakes and trials that we have gone through ourselves.

   Tom
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 18, 2009, 01:17:10 pm
Thanks for the kind words Tom.  If you can think of anything that would improve the manual please let me know. Fresh eyes viewing from afar often see things that I don't. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on March 18, 2009, 03:32:14 pm
my thoughts are the same...what ever you seem to say!


The pemmican manual is good although you'll still stuff it up about half a dozen times before you get it right.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: primaD on March 18, 2009, 03:56:37 pm
Quote
Glenn01 asked me if I ever got tired of eating the same thing every day.  I thought others might be interested in this as well so I'm posting my reply:
I do agree with your thoughts regarding eating when the body desires variety and eating when the body is hungry.  I also would rather not eat until I'm very hungry rather than eat raw meat at times  However I wouldn't eat the same thing at every meal on purpose.  If I have to then whatever but I am going to eat variety.  For me, the 100% RAF lifestyle means eating food in the way that it is meant to be eaten.  RAW.  That's it for me.  Food is supposed to be eaten raw, that's the only thing that matters to me.  Other than that, if it tastes good and I don't die from eating it then down the hatch it goes.  ;D  I try to keep things as simple as possible.  If I were in the wild, that's the only thing that would matter to me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on March 18, 2009, 09:26:56 pm
Yesterday, 17th March I was on my way to Germany (I rid on the bicycle track over to Waldshut for my Argentine beef - it takes me about 3 hours, sun was shining and the farmers were out manuring  -v) and had a nice suprise in my letter-box; a parcel from Lex with some pemmican and jerky! I had a sniff and will save it for the Easter holidays ;)

When I am on my bicycle my mind starts working (well it works all the time but when you are active this is different); because Lex has a similar story to me I can connect better to his words. We make up our "understanding" of life as we go on. Well, things happen when we eat and our body try to cope with it! Medicine as many words and a lot takes place in our body. Adrenal fatigue (low cortisol) leeds to low stomach acid, which means bad digestion, which means undigested matter leakage into the body and attacked by antibodies = food sensitivities/allergies. O.k. I eat raw meat because I believe this is digested and healthy? Why are people on both raw or cooked meat either having problems or not? We always find medical terms for "maldigestion" but what is the point in taking raw adrenals or modern medicin to cope with what should do the job right in the first place?

Lex, you have eaten cooked meat for a time, you have eaten raw meat for a long time and you have eaten pemmican for day's/week's. All those forms MUST be different on the body/digestion and elimination. If we should be eating raw, like all animals too then as you say vegetation could be a problem. You have learnt to understand your own body/digestion and elimination. Is the raw meat and fat the one you understand best - does it differ from cooked meat and dried meat?

I don't quite understand the fill (eating) - digestion - elimination (what to expect because this changes like the weather and this must be the resolt of eating, drinking and activity)! I don't like to tell my body to get on with it all the time because it has to cope with what I do.

I can not put up with the word "detox" because if raw meat and fat is best the whole story should be human right until elimination!

Sorry to bother you on your 25 hour day but you have done it all and your feet our on the ground.

Nicola


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 19, 2009, 02:12:37 am
Nicola,
I think what you are asking is why, if some specific food, say raw meat, is the proper thing for us to eat, then why do we (and so many others) have different experiences with it - sometimes good, sometimes not so good.

I've thought about this a good bit myself and have come to what I believe is a reasonable explanation.  Just a theory of course, but the idea seems to hold true in other areas of the natural world.

I've always loved plants and came very close (but not quite ;D) ) to getting a degree in Ornamental Horticulture.  I love the natural form that plants take.  It is fascinating to watch the form of a tree develop from seedling through maturity.  Stick with me here, there is a point, albeit a long one.

When we plant a tree seed in its natural environment, the seed sprouts when conditions are right, and depending on the type of tree, a tap root is sent down in search of water.  If things go well, the tap root will reach the underground water source before a cycle of drought sets in and the tree survives - often for hundreds of years.

Now take the same tree seed and plant it in a commercial nursery setting.  First the seed is planted in a tray until it spouts.  It is then transferred over time to larger and larger containers, until, at some point, it is sold.  The proud owner takes it home, often to an area and/or climate that is not natural for that tree species.  He plants it in his garden and cares for it by watering it 3 times a week with sprinklers as he waters is lawn.  The tree appears to be doing fine.

Then drought strikes.  The water company rations water and now the garden must fend for itself.  We expect the grass and flowers to die because they have such shallow roots, but what about that big tree in the corner?  Well there is a good chance it will die as well.  You see it never developed a tap root to reach the water table.  The original seedling tap root was destroyed by growing the tree in a container.  Then by watering it constantly through out its life there was no need to develop a new tap root as there was plenty of water on the surface.  In sort, the tree was not allowed to develop naturally.  This is why, when a fruit orchard is abandoned and irrigation stopped, most of the trees die.  They never developed their natural tap root system to reach subterranean water.

Now it is possible to condition a tree like this to survive during drought.  You must alternate shallow and deep irrigation cycles, withholding water after the deep cycles to encourage the tree to sink its roots deeper.  This process can take several years, and it causes a lot of stress to the tree, but it can be done.

What does all this have to do with us and diet?  Well, my thinking is that we are often fed incorrect foods from the time we are born, (just like the tree in the nursery).  Our bodies do their best to adapt to the unnatural environment.  Enzymes appropriate to the foods we are eating become dominant.  Bacteria in our digestive tracts develop to feast on the large carb load we consume.  The large mass of waste products created (fiber anyone) distends and weakens our colons.  Our muscles and other body systems become used to large amounts of blood glucose always being present.  In other words, like the tree in the corner of the yard, we've created a totally unnatural environment for our bodies for most of our lives.

Then we suddenly decide that what we are doing is not right, and embark on a new path that is completely opposite from what we were doing before.  No longer are we going to eat cooked starches, we're now going to eat nothing but meat and  we're going to eat it raw!  To our bodies this is creates an environment similar to our corner tree suddenly experiencing drought.  The enzymes our bodies are making are suddenly inappropriate for the new food we are eating.  The large amount of bacteria in our digestive tracts that are dependant on carbs and fiber to survive start to die off, creating toxins in the process.  The massive fiber load disappears from the digestive tract as the meat and fat leave little waste so there is nothing to push the dying bacteria through.  First we become constipated and then the toxin load causes diarrhea.  We are stressed just like we stressed the tree to cause it to extend its root system, and this causes us to worry that our new diet is not the correct one after all because we're having all these horrible problems.

Well, like adapting the tree to again be able to survive in normal water/drought cycles (which is its true natural state), it will take time for our bodies to adapt to the new foods, even though they are actually our proper foods.  Our bodies must shut down production of enzymes for digesting carbs and create new enzymes for digesting fat and protein.  Our intestinal flora must change from fermentive bacteria to putrefactive bacteria.  Our colons must shrink and adapt as best they can to the much smaller load of waste products.  Our muscles and other body systems must adapt to using fat and ketones instead of glucose for fuel.  Like forcing the tree to deepen it's root structure after its tap root was destroyed, this may take a considerable amount of time and involve a lot of stress.  I've been at it for 5 or 6 years now (3 of them meat only), and I'm still seeing changes.  Also, like the tree, we'll never have a proper "tap root" as we weren't allowed to develop properly from the beginning.  We can get much better, but probably never reach true 'normal'.  For instance, once we've stretched our colons from years of consuming a heavy fiber and carb load, they will never shrink back to the size they should be.  Better? - yes.  Best? - no.

Anyway, this has been my experience and there are many examples of initially raising something outside its natural environment and then requiring much attention and time to readapt it to survive on its own in natural conditions.  Our bodies are no different.

Thoughts?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on March 19, 2009, 07:05:46 am
Well you sent me the pimmecan, then I have the picture of the raw beef (organs) and fat (suet, muscle fat, marrow) that I have been eating for over a year now and I have been checking how people get on with cooked meat. It all takes time but some people become bloated, have cramps, runny stooles and all kinds of signals.

When I look at pemmican or raw meat it's all liquid and any extra fat is more liquid (cooked meat is the same; it only gives me a lump feeling plus I don't like the idea of eating cooked meat or fat) then we top it up with water. It is then the elimination which kind of puzzels me.

You ate essener bread; I ate it because I am bload typ A and I believed that fiber and bread was healthy. Well it was to much of a good thing and I ended up in hospital for a week.

Delfuego's and children are eating pemmican and drinking lots of water with the food (not any salt); digestion and elimination is o.k.. This did not work with cooked meat and fat. Raw meat and fat was o.k. but did not help with the Lyme illness (I read this is connected with adrenal fatigue!!!!). It's all liquid, little to no fiber yet digestion and health are affected. What we eat, the amount of water we drink must all affect the whole picture.

Geoff mentioned feeling dehydrated on zerocarb. Others feel no need to drink or drink very little. Some eat cooked because raw gives them diarrhoea. Others eat raw and call diarrhoea detox...Zerocarb members have undigested food in the elimination on both raw and cooked meat...this is why I asked about salt because the problem is adrenals/stomach acid which should be put right with the right food which is???Raw/cooked???

I go to a very kind butcher for my fat and marrow; he has a dog but he feeds him cooked meat because he get diarrhoea from raw meat and raw marrow.

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on March 19, 2009, 08:03:54 am
When I eat pemmican I get musical stomach.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on March 24, 2009, 03:37:53 am
Yes, Charles and his followers have made it clear that my ideas and real world experience are not welcome.  I post very little to his forum and what posts I do make, I make sure they tow the party line.

Lex
Lex, I hate that. I've seen some instances of very rigid thinking over there, and a resistance to thinking that doesn't fall into line, at times.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 24, 2009, 01:00:36 pm
Lex, I hate that. I've seen some instances of very rigid thinking over there, and a resistance to thinking that doesn't fall into line, at times.

Hi Daryl,
Charles owns that forum and I respect his right to run it any way he wishes.  Some will fit well into the culture he has built and others will not.  I would not want Charles to change what he does to accommodate me or anyone else.  It is the differences that provide interest and choice.  If I insisted that every forum that I am a member of accommodate everything I want then they would essentially all be the same and there would be little difference between them - boring.  The variety is good for everyone.  Every forum is a reflection of the personality of it's creator and that is as it should be.  If our points of disagreement are too great, I can always choose not to participate.

The truth is that running a forum is far more work than I'm willing to take on.  I'm grateful to the considerable commitment others make to do so, and therefore willing to live within whatever boundaries they set.  The owners and moderators of this forum have been exceptionally open to discussion and debate of many different ideas and that's why I choose to call this forum home.

Lex     
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: JaX on March 28, 2009, 08:00:57 am
Lex, How high do you generally keep your organ meats (%-weight wise of total meat consumption)?

Is it just the regular heart/liver/kidney/tongue you use, or do you also eat pancreas/lungs/other special organs occasionally?

I'm wondering because I really don't crave organ meats ever, even though I've pushed myself to eating them enough to overcome my disgust for them (when I first started eating organs they tasted horrible, now I can eat them but they still don't taste good). I'm at 90% muscle meats 10% organs.. You think it's necessary to eat more organ, or is  (mostly) all  muscle meat fine?

Often I've also noted I burp a lot after eating things like liver/kidney... Have a taste of like eggs in my mouth.. I don't think it digests as well as muscle meats, but it could be that the problem lies in the quality of the organ meats I am getting (which are organic, but not 100% grassfed)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on March 28, 2009, 08:23:02 am
Just a quick answer Seeker I think Lex uses a mixture of the Slanker's dog and cat food mix which is muscle and organs and mixes that with the course ground chili meat and suet. Somewhere in this thread he gives the exact proportions if you want to look for it. I'm not sure if anyone knows exactly how much organ is part of the dog and cat food mix though.

But I'm where you are with organs. I've gotten over the outright disgust of them by forcing myself to eat them, but I still don't like them.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 28, 2009, 10:12:02 am
Lex, How high do you generally keep your organ meats (%-weight wise of total meat consumption)?

Seeker,
Kyle is spot on with his reply.  I mix Slankers Dog & Cat food with their course ground Chili Meat.  The D&C is probably about 25%-30% organ meats and that includes heart, tongue, and everything else.  There is not a lot of any one thing in it. 

My normal mix is 1.5 lbs D&C (1 package) to 2.0 lbs ground beef (1 package) and about 1/2 lb of ground suet.  If organ meats comprised 1/3 of the D&C this would be about 8 oz (0.5 lb) per 1.5 lb package. 

1.5 lb D&C
2.0 lb Ground Beef
0.5 lb Suet
----------
4.0 lbs total weight

0.5 lb(offal) divided by 4.0 lbs total weight = 12.5% offal or organ meats.

This is my best guess based on conversations with Ted Slanker, and even if you double this amount it isn't all that much.  To be honest, I'm no longer convinced that we require a large intake of organ meats.  There are many who don't eat them at all and are doing exceptionally well.  I've become accustomed to the taste and now prefer my mix to straight ground muscle meats, however, I'm not a real fan of straight kidney/liver/spleen/etc and never purchase them or eat them individually - just as part of the Pet food in my mix.

When I make pemmican I do not include them either.  My pemmican is just plain lean muscle meat mixed with fat and no seasonings.  I find that dehydrating the meat creates a more concentrated flavor that develops as you chew it.

Hope this helps,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on March 29, 2009, 08:53:05 pm
Lex, you specifically mention avoiding raw carbs and avoiding raw dairy but never mention raw eggs. Do you still eat raw eggs or have you given them up as well?

Secondly, do you ever use raw condiments for your raw(or cooked) meals, these days, such as raw mustard, raw garlic, raw pepper or whatever?  If you don't, is this because you're afraid that even such small amounts might pull you out of the zero-carb-phase/ketosis-range etc.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 30, 2009, 01:50:07 am
Lex, you specifically mention avoiding raw carbs and avoiding raw dairy but never mention raw eggs. Do you still eat raw eggs or have you given them up as well?

Tyler,
I've never really eaten raw eggs.  I just don't like them.  I do eat lightly scrambled eggs once or twice a year when on vacation.  It's one of those things I do to be sociable with others I'm traveling with (my wife enjoys vacationing with her sisters and extended family so when we travel it is usually as a group of 6 to 10 adults).  I find that when I eat much in the way of cooked breakfast foods (eggs, bacon, sausage, etc) I will start to retain large amounts of water and my legs, feet, and ankles will swell up with edema.  Therefore I ususally avoid them except on rare occasions.
 
Secondly, do you ever use raw condiments for your raw(or cooked) meals, these days, such as raw mustard, raw garlic, raw pepper or whatever?  If you don't, is this because you're afraid that even such small amounts might pull you out of the zero-carb-phase/ketosis-range etc.

I seldom use any condiments with the exception of a bit of salt and maybe some pepper or a light sprinkle of garlic powder for a little change of pace.  It has nothing whatever to do with being zero carb or maintaining ketosis - I just don't need them and actually prefer my food without  seasoning for the most part.  The Pet food in my meat mixture gives plenty of flavor, and since the pet food mix is different for each batch the flavor varies a good bit which keeps things interesting.  I used to love Mexican Salsas made from peppers, onions, tomatoes, cilantro, and garlic, and would load it on everything I ate, but now I find I no longer want it at all, and actually find myself avoiding it.

I've even given up seasoning my jerky for the most part.  I now find that the concentrated flavor of the dehydrated meat is enough.  I still make a batch with the salt/pepper/garlic powder now and again, but my wife and son are the ones who eat most of the seasoned stuff.

I've found that red meat and fat seem best overall.  I can eat my fill of red meat and I'm satisfied for the day.  Chicken, fish, sea food, etc are not nearly as satisfying and I find that I get hungry again very soon when I eat them (sort of the Paleo version of Chinese food ;D ).  If stuck with chicken, fish, or the like for any length of time I find I start to crave red meat and especially the fat from red meat animals.

I essentially have little or no variety in my meals at all, and what is remarkable is that I no longer desire any.  I eat much like you would feed your dog or cat - the same food every day, red meat and fat, and I relish it.  Maybe 2 or 3 times per month I eat a rare rib-eye steak at a restruant when out with friends, or eat pemmican as my primary food when traveling, but that's about it.

Probably more than you wanted to know.....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on March 30, 2009, 03:10:38 am
Well, you do seem to have some variety in that your  cat/dogfood raw organ-mixture seems to vary continuously.

My experience is much the same as yours re rarely using  raw condiments any more. However, given that I'm constantly asked questions by newbies about how to prepare raw meats, what spices to add etc. ,I've decided to do a bit more research into the whole business of raw-food preparation, so I'm better able to answer such questions in future.(though I've been referring any jerky/pemmican-related questions to you and your online pamphlets/PDFs, as you're the resident expert re those subjects.Hope you don't mind).

As regards raw seafood/fowl etc. , I don't have the same experience. If I'm eating raw wild mallard duck, for example, I feel quite full afterwards. Same goes for raw oysters. I do find that some raw seafood such as the raw prawns aren't as filling in the long-term, but that may just be due to lower nutritional status(being farmed?). Indeed the lower the nutritional value of the food, such as cooked food, the less they satisfy my appetite, so that I often feel the need to eat more, then.

Re cooked-food/carbs:- So, which has the worst effect on you? Raw organic fruit or veg, or cooked(and processed) animal foods such as a piece of smoked, preservative-filled meat, say?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 30, 2009, 06:47:10 am
I've been referring any jerky/pemmican-related questions to you and your online pamphlets/PDFs, as you're the resident expert re those subjects. Hope you don't mind.

Don't mind at all. 

Re cooked-food/carbs:- So, which has the worst effect on you? Raw organic fruit or veg, or cooked(and processed) animal foods such as a piece of smoked, preservative-filled meat, say?

I don't seem to have any immediate problems with cooked bacon, sausage, or eggs on the rare occaions I eat them (usually while on vacation) unless I eat them several days in a row and then severe edema is the result. I'm pretty sure the edema is caused by the chemicals and preservatives because I do eat a rare cooked rib-eye steak 2 or 3 times a month without noticable problem.  The last time this happened was when I was on a 3 week vacation last May and I had breakfast with my wife and family every morning. My feet and ankles swelled to double their size, I couldn't get my shoes on, and the skin was stretched to the point of discomfort.  The edema doesn't happen with just one meal - only after several closely spaced meals. I'm sure even one meal must cause some water retention it's just not enough to be noticable.

I think the last time I had a piece of fruit was Christmas 2 years ago and then it was only one small orange. I didn't experince any physical problem but I found that, like potato chips, it was very difficult to eat just one, so I just decided to eliminate them ( and the temptation) all together.  Haven't had any fruit since. 

I haven't had a green veggie of any kind for so long I can't remember.  No dairy other than butter for several years as well so I have no clue here either.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Elli on April 02, 2009, 10:28:22 am
I loved when you said..

I finally figured out that trying to "control" things was silly.  Our ancestors didn't control BG, Cholesterol, or anything else.  They ate their food and lived their life.   I also realized that I had no way to interrpret the data I was gathering.  If BG was 85 or 105 who knows what that means for someone eating a totally carnivorous diet?  My doctor is concerned because I have ketones in my urine at all times, again, so what?  He has no experince to tell him if this is "normal" for someone eating as I do.  The medical community has no idea if my cholesterol level and hdl/ldl ratio is good or bad as they have zero experience with someone like me.


It's true that many can benefit from controlled way of eating but that's only because what they were eating in the first place was not healthy to begin with. I'm trying hard to let go of all that control I was putting on myself and really live my life. And one day I will.

I've downloaded your pemmican manual and read it many times over. It's rather unfortunate that my current circumstances don't allow me to make my own batch because I'm so intrigued by the whole process. I'm so curious about it's flavour and how it would affect me. I might ask USWellnessMeats if they would ship some to Canada but I guess they wouldn't. Everytime I hear the word pemmican, it reminds of you and I wish so badly that I could try it.

Take care, Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on April 02, 2009, 09:31:51 pm
I might ask USWellnessMeats if they would ship some to Canada but I guess they wouldn't.

I just called USWellnessMeats, and you are right, they won't ship to Canada. She said NAFTA requires so much paperwork that it delays too much.

What a pity.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 01, 2009, 07:26:34 pm
...my thinking is that we are often fed incorrect foods from the time we are born, (just like the tree in the nursery).  Our bodies do their best to adapt to the unnatural environment.  Enzymes appropriate to the foods we are eating become dominant.  Bacteria in our digestive tracts develop to feast on the large carb load we consume.  The large mass of waste products created (fiber anyone) distends and weakens our colons.  Our muscles and other body systems become used to large amounts of blood glucose always being present.  In other words, like the tree in the corner of the yard, we've created a totally unnatural environment for our bodies for most of our lives.

Then we suddenly decide that what we are doing is not right, and embark on a new path that is completely opposite from what we were doing before.  No longer are we going to eat cooked starches, we're now going to eat nothing but meat and  we're going to eat it raw!  To our bodies this is creates an environment similar to our corner tree suddenly experiencing drought.  The enzymes our bodies are making are suddenly inappropriate for the new food we are eating.  The large amount of bacteria in our digestive tracts that are dependant on carbs and fiber to survive start to die off, creating toxins in the process.  ...
Yes, and a study I heard about recently even confirmed that which bacteria dominate our guts changes depending on what we eat, and the bacteria that are there signal the brain to desire more of the foods that those bacteria eat. So if we eat lots of white flour pizza, we feed refined-carb-loving bacteria, who multiply and send signals to the brain for more refined carbs.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on May 04, 2009, 07:32:00 am
If someone could find the link to that study or journal article I'd be very interested.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: atanas on May 11, 2009, 03:26:33 am
Lex,
I read the whole journal and I am very fascinated from your journey, your thinking and the way you express yourself through your writings. First of all I want to wish you good luck and thank you for sharing all the valuable information and ideas with us. I am new in the "carnivore" WOE and I have a few observations/questions based on what I read so far. I would appreciate any insight or ideas:

1. I noticed that when you first went "higher fat-lower protein", you initially lost weight (160-155); still though after a few weeks on the diet you claim that higher fat ratios might cause you to gain weight. Did I interpret that correct?
2. I have also noticed that you believe there is some kind of association/relation between calories and weight gain? Do you have anything new to add here? or maybe expand your rationale a little bit further?
3. When you went on a trip and you had to dine on the breakfast buffet at the hotel, you gained 9-10 pounds. I know that sometimes bacons and processed-meats contained small amounts of glucose. Do you think that this might have been the reason you ended up with a weight gain?

atanas
P.S I really liked the pemmican manual!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on May 11, 2009, 04:51:58 am
This is an extract from a privat message I had from you Lex (about mental issues):


It does take time for our body to adapted to ZC. I'd say it was about 2 years before bowl movements and my general digestion became what I'd call normal. I still get loose bowls, (not really diarrhea) when I switch to pemmican when traveling. After a few days I'm back to normal. This happens again when I switch back to my normal raw meat when I get home.

When and what do you drink (RO-water, mineral water, tap water) when traveling vs. when you are at home (or in your shop)?
Do you feel any difference with the kind of water you drink and could the kind of water and amount affect your bowls (just a thought!)?

Do you drink threw out the day, whilst eating, after eating? Does your activity level influence your hydration? Does the pemmican influence your hydration vs. raw meat and fat? Do you ever feel bloated on either? Which of the two feels better?

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on May 11, 2009, 05:34:02 am
Nicola, your new avatar is beautiful!  You inspire me to eat meat + fat + water only.  No summer fruit for me this year!!!

Hi Lex, I hope you will update your journal soon with your latest adventures.  Be well.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 11, 2009, 11:30:48 am
If someone could find the link to that study or journal article I'd be very interested.

I'm not sure what study Phil is referencing, but I've read similar theories in the past and I'm pretty skeptical.  The stuff I read was poorly done and the documentation was practically nonexistent.  All they really had were some "extrapolated" guesses based on subjective comments about "feelings" after eating various foods.

I also have not found this to be true for me.  My cravings for various foods lasted long after intestinal bacteria would would have changed. 

I too would be interested if Phil had something a bit more scientific on the subject.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 11, 2009, 11:56:06 am
Hi Nicola,
First I'm going to ask you to do me a favor when you quote me or anyone else from a different source where you must cut-n-paste.  After you paste, please highlight and select the text and then either bold, italic, or underline it.  This will clearly set it apart from your comments or questions.  Sometimes it is very difficult to tell where the quote stops and your words begin.

When and what do you drink (RO-water, mineral water, tap water) when traveling vs. when you are at home (or in your shop)?
Do you feel any difference with the kind of water you drink and could the kind of water and amount affect your bowls (just a thought!)?

I now pretty much drink tap water at home and the cheapest bottled water when traveling.  Our city water comes from a deep well so it has a pretty high mineral content.  The bottled water is just convenient when traveling.  Once in a while we'll have a party and we always provide bottled water which I drink as well.  I've never noticed any difference from drinking water from different sources.

Do you drink threw out the day, whilst eating, after eating? Does your activity level influence your hydration? Does the pemmican influence your hydration vs. raw meat and fat? Do you ever feel bloated on either? Which of the two feels better?

I drink whenever I'm thirsty.  Usually have 1/2 liter shortly after I arise in the morning, maybe another 1/2 liter midday, and then 1 to 2 liters after eating - all driven by thirst. 

My thirst is very dependent on activity level as well as temperature.  On hot days when I'm working hard I may drink 12 liters or more, on cool days when I'm just lying around I may only drink a liter or two total for the day. 

Pemmican is also a factor.  I require about 50% more water after eating a meal of pemmican than when eating a meal of raw meat and fat even though the nutritional content is about the same.

I do notice a change when going from raw meat to pemmican and back.  Each change may cause a bit of gas or bloating but this only lasts for a day or so and then I'm fine until I change my primary food again.

I actually prefer my raw meat and fat over pemmican.  Pemmican is wonderful when traveling and serves a very important function, but to me there is just no substitute for completely raw meat and fat.

BTW, I agree with Satya, your new avatar is stunning.   Whatever you are doing seems to be working....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 11, 2009, 12:20:47 pm
Welcome aboard Atanas!

1. I noticed that when you first went "higher fat-lower protein", you initially lost weight (160-155); still though after a few weeks on the diet you claim that higher fat ratios might cause you to gain weight. Did I interpret that correct?

This is correct.  The initial changed caused a short term loss in weight followed by a very slow but continued weight gain until I had exceeded my original weight by 10 lbs and then it seemed to stabilize at this new higher level.

2. I have also noticed that you believe there is some kind of association/relation between calories and weight gain? Do you have anything new to add here? or maybe expand your rationale a little bit further?

I really have no idea whether calories are involved or not.  I suspect that it has more to do with the large increase in dietary fat in triglyceride form supplying enough additional Alph-Glycerol-Phosphate for the body to create new triglycerides of its own for storage as body fat.  This is just pure speculation of course and may be total nonsense, but this idea would seem to reconcile weight gain in the absence of insulin and glucose, and would support Taubes research as well.  It is also interesting that children on a Zero Carb ketogenic diet for epilepsy must consume 85% to 90% calories as fat to grow and achieve normal weight gain while on this therapy.

3. When you went on a trip and you had to dine on the breakfast buffet at the hotel, you gained 9-10 pounds. I know that sometimes bacon and processed-meats contained small amounts of glucose. Do you think that this might have been the reason you ended up with a weight gain?

I really have no clue about this.  I only have experience itself.  There is no way to know what was in the foods served at the breakfast buffets.  I can tell you I was very surprised (and annoyed) by the massive edema caused by eating these foods.  I thought I was doing great as I was maintaining very close to ZC even if there was a small amount of sugar in the sausages and bacon.  It also could have been the sulfates, nitrates, or a host of other junk normally found it processed foods.

I've solved the problem by relying on pemmican when traveling.  I do enjoy a rare steak on occasion so will eat a meal once a week or so at a steakhouse when traveling. All the other meals are pemmican and water (sounds like prison food doesn't it), and I feel great - problem solved.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on May 13, 2009, 07:18:03 pm
Hi Lex, in reply to Andrey on the thread "Mental / Emotional / Moral Transition you mentioned the following:

I'm also not "married" to Zero Carb.  If I find that it is creating unforeseen problems in the future, I'll change whatever is necessary to plug the hole.


Have you ever thought what kind of problems (you have had a few a long the way) could force you to alter your form of Zero Carb and which would these steps be?

2 meals a day? Cut out the organs? More fat / Less fat? Cooked food? Cooked meat? Pemmican? Eggs? Fish? Potatoes? Vegetables? Fruit? Fiber? Exercise?

What are your thoughts when people say meat and fat slowes down metabolism?

If you could start all over again how would you eat (knowing what you know now) and how would you feed your children?


Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 14, 2009, 08:13:14 am
I'm not sure what study Phil is referencing, but I've read similar theories in the past and I'm pretty skeptical.  The stuff I read was poorly done and the documentation was practically nonexistent.  All they really had were some "extrapolated" guesses based on subjective comments about "feelings" after eating various foods.

I also have not found this to be true for me.  My cravings for various foods lasted long after intestinal bacteria would would have changed. 

I too would be interested if Phil had something a bit more scientific on the subject.

Lex

The only reason I mentioned the study I had heard reported, was because it seemed to support everything you said, so I didn't think it would be controversial. I'm not particularly interested in defending the study, as it doesn't hold much relevance for me beyond scientific curiosity and further confirmation of the good sense of eating a meat/organ/fat-based diet--which I didn't really need anyway--but if you're interested, here are some links:

Our Germs, Ourselves (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0330/070-our-germs.html)

A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043404?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

I don't recall anything about "feelings" mentioned in the reports on this study.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 16, 2009, 09:17:25 am
Lex, how often do you have to brush your teeth on your raw meat/fat/organ diet?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 16, 2009, 01:42:43 pm
Lex, how often do you have to brush your teeth on your raw meat/fat/organ diet?

Uh ho, I'm going to get into trouble now.  The truth is that I never brush my teeth anymore.  I just use plain water in a WaterPic in the morning after my shower and that's it.  The WaterPic flushes the gunk out of the gums and from between the teeth.  I've always had calculus build up on my teeth and it doesn't seem to matter if I brush or not, the build up is about the same either way so why bother.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 16, 2009, 02:04:16 pm
Hi Lex, in reply to Andrey on the thread "Mental / Emotional / Moral Transition you mentioned the following:

I'm also not "married" to Zero Carb.  If I find that it is creating unforeseen problems in the future, I'll change whatever is necessary to plug the hole.


Have you ever thought what kind of problems (you have had a few a long the way) could force you to alter your form of Zero Carb and which would these steps be?

Well, If I started showing signs of a deficiency disease like Scurvy, or if my blood tests were completely out of line, I'd start to look into what was causing the problem and make whatever changes were necessary.

2 meals a day? Cut out the organs? More fat / Less fat? Cooked food? Cooked meat? Pemmican? Eggs? Fish? Potatoes? Vegetables? Fruit? Fiber? Exercise?

I'd probably stick with the raw meat as I'm eating it today and add a small amount of fruits or vegetables like a small apple OR a small dinner salad each day.  I'm not convinced that we were meant to be zero carb, it's just that it's working so well for me right now that I'm sticking with it.  My guess is that in our natural environment we ate some fruits in the late summer/early fall which caused us to gain weight (similar to every other animal), to prepare us for the winter months when food is scarce.  This would have been seasonal but it could be the carbs are important.  Only time will tell if I develop any diet related problems, but so far all is well.

What are your thoughts when people say meat and fat slowes down metabolism?

I don't worry about stuff like this and never think about it at all.  My weight is stable and close to what it was in my mid 20s, I feel great and that is what counts as far as I'm concerned.  What speed my metabolism is running is irrelevent to me.  I have no way to measure it anyway so who cares.

If you could start all over again how would you eat (knowing what you know now) and how would you feed your children?

I think I'd urge my family to go Very Low Carb followiing Paleo guidelines (no grains, beans, dairy etc).  90% to 95% meat and fat with a small amount (5% to 10%) of fruit and some vegetables.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 16, 2009, 07:43:51 pm
Uh ho, I'm going to get into trouble now.  The truth is that I never brush my teeth anymore.  I just use plain water in a WaterPic in the morning after my shower and that's it.  The WaterPic flushes the gunk out of the gums and from between the teeth.  I've always had calculus build up on my teeth and it doesn't seem to matter if I brush or not, the build up is about the same either way so why bother.

Lex
Aha! Caught ya!  ;)  One of the interesting facts about Stone Agers is that their dental remains show very low rates of caries despite not having tooth brushes or dental floss to clean their teeth and gums with. They likely used twigs and perhaps leaves or hide rags. My own calculus builds up mainly where my teeth are malaligned, so I think proper alignment had a lot to do with it. I do notice that I have less white crud on my teeth and gums the closer to zero carb I go, my teeth are whiter, my gums less inflamed, and an exposed root is no longer painful.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: akaikumo on May 17, 2009, 04:42:19 am
I suspect the dental improvements and not needing to brush have to do with the fact most bacteria feed off of carbs--if you're not eating them, there's nothing for them to feed off of, which means they don't multiply and don't create acid that destroys your teeth.

I'm looking forward to that improvement--I have horrible demineralization from drinking 3 sodas a day for about 4 years.  -X
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 17, 2009, 10:11:20 am
I still brush, but then I'm still eating some carbs. I do plan to try mostly raw, near-zero carb soon though, once it's convenient, since I do seem to do very well on meat and fat and my ability to digest fat is improving. I've noticed that raw meat is tasting better to me and now when I start to eat beef jerky or raw meat my mouth starts salivating an amazing amount. Makes me feel like a wolf.  ;D  The biggest problem will likely be the social turn-off factor. My girlfriend gets disgusted just from my mention of eating raw meat.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on May 17, 2009, 01:00:16 pm
Lex, so you eat raw meat, don't exercise and now your telling us you don't brush or floss... ;D


Phil, it took me about a year or two more to digest fat properly...zero carb was the key I feel for me the first couple of months zero carb were tough though with my body/gut flora/fauna adapting. Once you get past that your fine.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 17, 2009, 03:24:29 pm
Lex, so you eat raw meat, don't exercise and now your telling us you don't brush or floss... ;D

Tis true.  Don't tell my dentist.  He's convinced that my improved dental health is from finally following his advice to brush and floss twice a day.  I just don't have the heart to tell him the truth.

Phil, it took me about a year or two more to digest fat properly...zero carb was the key I feel for me the first couple of months zero carb were tough though with my body/gut flora/fauna adapting. Once you get past that your fine.

My experience is the same.  It takes far longer than 8 weeks to fully adapt to a major dietary change like Zero Carb.   I'd say it took me 18 to 24 months before everything was stable once I went ZC.  People who try ZC and fail because they haven't overcome all their problems in 6 to 8 weeks just don't understand that this is not an overnight thing.  It truly does require a long term commitment in addition to the total change in lifestyle with the attendant social issues.  Well worth it as far as I'm concerned, but others may feel differently.

Lex

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on May 17, 2009, 10:56:20 pm
I feel like anyone that cannot go at least 6 months on a carb-free diet would not have survive during the Paleolithic, when plant foods were scarcer due to colder global climate. 

Lex, have you or anyone ever noticed strange reactions to plant foods on rare occasion when you consume them?  I am finding that my tongue gets swollen parts and it feels like its burned when I eat vegetables.  I had a social event last night where I ate 1/3 cup of carrots, turnip and daikon radish cooked.  This morning, I suffer the mouth reaction.  This is obviously an allergic reaction, so I feel like I can now avoid such situations in the future by saying I am allergic.  But it's really weird, and I am wondering if anyone else has experience with it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 18, 2009, 12:12:38 am
Lex, have you or anyone ever noticed strange reactions to plant foods on rare occasion when you consume them?  I am finding that my tongue gets swollen parts and it feels like its burned when I eat vegetables.  I had a social event last night where I ate 1/3 cup of carrots, turnip and daikon radish cooked.  This morning, I suffer the mouth reaction.  This is obviously an allergic reaction, so I feel like I can now avoid such situations in the future by saying I am allergic.  But it's really weird, and I am wondering if anyone else has experience with it.

I never eat any plant material now so I really don't know if I would have any sort of reaction.  I can't recall any other significant reaction in the past other than the horrible experince with edema from eat from the breakfast buffets while on vacation.  That wasn't plant material related but there sure was something in the eggs/bacon/sausage that my body just didn't like.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: JaX on May 18, 2009, 03:41:01 am
I don't worry about stuff like this and never think about it at all.  My weight is stable and close to what it was in my mid 20s, I feel great and that is what counts as far as I'm concerned.  What speed my metabolism is running is irrelevent to me.  I have no way to measure it anyway so who cares.

You can take your temperature each morning for a few days after you wake up while you still lie in bed. Then find the average.

Quote
Barnes developed a unique diagnostic test for thyroid function that became known as the "Barnes Basal Temperature Test". This test is performed by placing a thermometer in the armpit for 10 minutes immediately upon waking.[15] A measurement of 97.8 °F (36.6 °C) or below was considered by him to be highly indicative of hypothyroidism, especially when hypothyroid symptoms are present. A reading over 98.2 °F (36.8 °C) was indicative of hyperthyroidism, unless a patient had advanced arthritis, which Barnes claimed would falsely elevate the temperature due to muscle contractions.

It would be very interesting if you could test that and report it here since you are one of the few truly raw zero carbers. Not that the reading necessarily means anything for a RP.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 18, 2009, 12:36:54 pm
You can take your temperature each morning for a few days after you wake up while you still lie in bed. Then find the average.

It would be very interesting if you could test that and report it here since you are one of the few truly raw zero carbers. Not that the reading necessarily means anything for a RP.

This idea presents an interesting conundrum.  The rate of metabolism may have a direct influence on body temperature, but the inverse is also true - body temperature will drive metabolism.  If I raise my body's temperature by immersion in a hot bath for example, this will cause an increase in metabolism - even when all other parameters are the same. So, without keeping mean radiant temperature, air temperature, humidity, and body covering (clothes and blankets) the same, how could measuring body temperature tell us much that is meaningful about metabolism. 

Also, let's say I did measure my temperature and plot it daily, what does this tell me about my metabolism.  Without a true objective measurement of metabolism (oxygen consumption for example) to plot in conjunction with the temperature change, how will I know if the temperature is truly correlating with metabolism, and I still don't know whether temperature is driving metabolism or metabolism is driving temperature or to what extent.

Seems a bit chicken and eggish to me with little in useful information to be gained other than my average morning temperature upon awakening, and this information in and of itself doesn't seem overly useful.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on May 18, 2009, 08:46:31 pm
Lex don't you notice a sweet taste in your mouth? When I drink water, ride my bicycle, go swimming and even when it's time to eat I have this sweet taste in my mouth. I know when I ate other meats than beef and fat this taste changed according to the kind of meat and fat I ate (horse meat was way to sweet after a time).

You also explained once that food is a liquid in the small intestines so if you eat just meat and fat this liquid moves threw to the big intestines and now comes what my mother told me: "your stools are the result of your diet/life style" and my father "I would feel uncomfortable (I think he was referring to no roughage/fiber) on meat and fat. Well last year I can remember that on most days I had a real lot of liquid (when I say a lot, then that's what I mean) coming out of me (always when I was doing things like running, rebounding) and this year I have very little stools (some more loose than others (water or fat could play a role) and am wondering what this has to do with putting on a little weight? Why would the bowls empty themselves out for over a year and then slow down? Did you experience any thing like this - you mentioned your bowls being in a good state; was this after taking something to clean them up?

Like when you experience difficult situations and try to make up a picture to understand them and this picture changes as the situation subsides/changes only to wait till the "unknown" comes back - if it doesn't my next thought is "is this normal" or "was the other normal". Your messages, thoughts, pictures have always been a grate help to get mind back into perspective.

As I move threw life I constantly have to adjust - drinking water can sometimes be in the way and not seem right; it's kind of a stomach - brain feeling!

Nicola

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on May 19, 2009, 12:19:38 am

You also explained once that food is a liquid in the small intestines so if you eat just meat and fat this liquid moves threw to the big intestines



And in the large intestine the water is normally extracted from the contents of the large bowel and returned to the bloodstream in a healthy body.

William
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 19, 2009, 12:33:53 am
Nicola,
I guess I'm a bit less sensitive to taste than you are.  I never noticed any taste in my mouth other than what I'm eating, when I'm eating it.

It took about 2 years for my bowels to fully adjust to my all meat diet.   Now after several years they are pretty consistent - firm and well formed - but will change if I really gorge on fat.  When I over do the fat, say 85% of calories or more, then my stools will be soft and pasty rather than firm.

I don't take any supplements, remedies, or cleansers of anykind, and haven't for over 10 years now.  I just eat a consistent diet of red meat with about 70% of calories from fat and over time everything has adjusted on it's own.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 25, 2009, 08:24:03 pm
Thanks much for all the info and help you've provided, Lex. A fairly conventional Paleo diet in which I ate only foods OK'd by both NeanderThin and The Paleo Diet (except that I ate more fatty meats and eggs than The Paleo Diet recommended) produced incredible improvements for me some years ago, but then I had been gradually experiencing some return of symptoms. I eliminated questionable foods like nightshades, winter squashes, sugary juices and the occasional cola drink cheat and that helped significantly, but figured I needed to also increase my healthy animal fat and raw meat consumption further and cut back further on carbs. Your and Del Fuego's posts inspired me to get going on that and the additional improvements have been dramatic.

Interestingly, just months after I cut out nightshades Dr. Cordain reported research results from his team that implicated tomatoes and potatoes--both nightshades--in leaky gut syndrome and autoimmune disease. It's looking more and more like nightshades are not Paleo and raw meats/organs/fats and insects were probably the foundation of the Paleo diet.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on May 26, 2009, 03:54:02 am
Lex, been as you are healthy now have you ever tryed just eating meat and fat to appetite - no fix numbers? You may eat more or less. Perhaps riding to your shop or even going for a cool swimm before eating makes a difference in your body/mind relationship. Some journals are interesting when people connect physical activity as well as other aspects in life and going from there - trusting yourself!

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 26, 2009, 04:09:37 am
PaleoPhil,
Glad I have helped in some small way.  I agree that most plant foods are probably not our best choices.  I do believe that we did eat some fruits on a seasonal basis, but the overall amount would have been a very small part of our diet.  I'm still Zero Carb and doing well so I'll stick with this for the forseeable future.

Nicola,
I always eat until completely satisfied.  I do measure out my food, but sometimes I don't finish it, and other times I'll go back for more.  It all depends on my activity level and the percentage of fat in my mix.  I'd say that my intake varies from 1 3/4 lbs to 3 lbs.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 29, 2009, 10:47:25 am
I went to the Dermatologist today for a checkup.  Since my late 30's I've suffered from precancerous lesions on my face, shoulders, upper back, neck, etc.  The dermatologists seemed to feel that such an early occurrence of this problem (most people get it in their 60's) was due to the radiation treatments I received for cystic acne when I was a teenager.

I've gone every 6 months or so for many years and each time they usually find about a dozen or so scaly patches that need to be frozen off with liquid nitrogen.  I usually come out the the dermatologist's office with little patches of frost bite all over my upper body, and they take a couple of weeks to scab over and heal.

About 3 years ago, after starting the Zero Carb phase of my dietary adventure, my visits to the dermatologist took a decided turn for the better.  They started finding fewer and fewer spots to freeze off.  About 2 years ago one session they didn't find anything, and 6 months later they only found one. 

This was my first visit in about 18 months and I was prepared for the worst.  I stripped down to my shorts and they went over me with a fine tooth comb.  Didn't find a thing - not one lesion or scaly patch.  They commented that I was in terrific shape and they wished all their other patients would take as good care of themselves as I do.

People often ask me if I've noticed improvement in my skin.  I usually hesitate to say much as I'm almost 60 so comparing my skin with someone who's decades younger is not very usefull.  In this case, I have the stamp of approval from Greene Dermatology Clinic, and they say my skin is in amazing condition for my age.

What was also interesting was that one of the doctors commented on the fact that for my age my body had very little fat, and muscle tone was more like someone 20 to 30 years younger.  He wanted to know what my fitness routine was.  It blew him away when I told him I didn't have one - never went to the gym or did any exercise other than walk to the market or post office on occasion. ( no, I didn't tell him about my diet.  They have all these charts around the office pushing fruits and veggies so you get all those antioxidants to keep you in good health.  I've found when I mention that the plant stuff doesn't work but raw meat does, their eyes glaze over and they tune out - so I no longer bother)

So there you have it. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Rob on May 29, 2009, 11:08:59 am
That is awesome Lex, and very motivating to hear about. I'm zero-carb now too and feel so much better in regards to my skin and my insides.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on May 29, 2009, 11:55:05 am
That's great news. If raw all meat does that to your skin imagine whats going on on the inside.

Good work on not bringing up you diet, waste of time. I would be curious to see how you would go doing weights but you seem to busy with retirement!

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on May 29, 2009, 11:58:59 am
Awesome testimonial.
Keep em coming Lex.
Teach them dermatologists to learn real healing.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 30, 2009, 12:34:59 am
Thanks to all for the encouraging comments.

Andrew, I've never really done the weight lifting thing.  It always seemed to me to be a lot like moving a pile of rocks from one place to another and then back again.  In fact, even less useful in that the way the muscles are used in weight lifting, it often creates an imbalance between muscle pairs and significant injuries result from just doing everyday tasks like mowing the lawn or taking out the trash. 

I once had a guy working for me that was a major gym rat.  He was in his early 30s and looked beautiful - sculpted and cut.  We had occasion to reorganize our office which required moving desks and filing cabinets around.  I figured it would be no problem with someone so muscular.  Well, on the second desk he pulled a muscle in his back and that was all she wrote.  He was off from work for 2 weeks recovering.  Those six-pack abs looked fabulous, but were rather useless when it came to doing anything useful.  Us 98 lb weaklings and overweight out of shape slobs ended up doing the work without further incident.

Lex

 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on May 30, 2009, 01:40:21 am

Getting to that gym rat level requires extreme dedication and chemical help. The only way I could get like that is with steroids and carbs. Building muscle is difficult.

I lift weights so I feel good and enjoy my sports more. A friend of mine is also a gym rat, I played three games ping pong against him and the guy was puffing (I was shocked!)

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 30, 2009, 05:55:48 am
...

What was also interesting was that one of the doctors commented on the fact that for my age my body had very little fat, and muscle tone was more like someone 20 to 30 years younger.  He wanted to know what my fitness routine was.  It blew him away when I told him I didn't have one - never went to the gym or did any exercise other than walk to the market or post office on occasion. ( no, I didn't tell him about my diet.  They have all these charts around the office pushing fruits and veggies so you get all those antioxidants to keep you in good health.  I've found when I mention that the plant stuff doesn't work but raw meat does, their eyes glaze over and they tune out - so I no longer bother)

So there you have it. 

Lex
Fantabuloso Lex! Actually, since you've got the attention of these folks they might find you a bit credible. You wouldn't have to say raw meat--that turns people off--you could say "ancestral diet" like I do, or low carb or something. But I don't blame you for not wanting to get grief over it. Besides, the more people that find out about it, the more they'll drive up the prices of meats for the rest of us. The really interested ones will find this site, like I eventually did through a long trail.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ioanna on June 04, 2009, 08:31:43 am
Lex, that's amazing!... I'm very happy for you!!

Thanks for sharing, your experiences are very inspiring.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 17, 2009, 05:08:51 am
Lex, what is the minimum size chest freezer for storing Slanker's meats that you recommend? I have a very small apartment, so I'm leaning towards about 3+ cubic feet.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Cosmo on June 26, 2009, 11:42:42 pm

What was also interesting was that one of the doctors commented on the fact that for my age my body had very little fat, and muscle tone was more like someone 20 to 30 years younger. 

Hi, Lex!
Thanks for sharing your great news with us, it's very inspiring to read about your amazing results. I'm about to start my own little experiment with zero-carb approach. I hope it will be a success, fingers crossed,
Best wishes.
Cosmo
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 27, 2009, 11:21:28 am
Hi, Lex!
Thanks for sharing your great news with us, it's very inspiring to read about your amazing results. I'm about to start my own little experiment with zero-carb approach. I hope it will be a success, fingers crossed,
Best wishes.
Cosmo

My only suggestion is to keep your fat intake at a moderate level.  I find 80% to high and recommed you start with 65% to 70% and go from there.  Other than that I wish you all the best on your adventure.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 27, 2009, 09:55:46 pm
Everything in my own personal experience has confirmed what Lex has said. Even though my diet isn't as strict as his (I eat more carbs and cooked foods than he--closer to Tyler's diet), as I've moved toward more raw and lightly cooked meat/fat/organs and less carbs I've already seen the last tiny remnants of acne clear up (although I still need to take some zinc at this point to achieve that--I acquired zinc deficiency from years of eating wheat and other modern foods), as well as most of the dead/dry skin, my teeth are firming and much whiter and my gums are healthier--with less bleeding. My skin is now amazingly smooth and soft.

Eating any significant amount of high-carb foods (such as dried fruits or sugary fruit juices) rapidly brings the dead/dry skin and crud on my teeth back. Whereas meats, fats and fish sometimes produce mildly euphoric highs of well being (not crazy-zany highs, as no doubt vegetarian detractors would allege). However, I do continue to eat berries, bananas and greens, mainly for the potassium (as I acquired potassium deficiency from a prescription med I used to take).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on July 07, 2009, 04:47:08 pm
Hi Lex,

I'm all psyched up to experiment with your style of eating.  Just beef.  I have a good fresh source.  I'll try the fresh never frozen beef first up to 2-3 days in the refrigerator then buy a new batch.  Will also get liver and bone marrow.

My only hangover is the structured water thing.  So what I will do is get reverse osmosis water + some freshly squeezed kalamansi in the water just to give it structure.  Think about it like squeezing half a lemon in a tall glass of water just to give it structure.

So it's basically structured water + beef for me, will do it for 1 week.  Hopefully the best beef I can get is almost as good as the beef you get.  I'm sure its different since our Philippine beef grows on a tropical climate.

So this is an *almost* pure beef approach.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 08, 2009, 12:16:36 am
GS,
It will be interesting to see how you fare.  I expect you will have some minor issues due to reducing carbs so quickly, but if you stick it out I think you'll be pleased with the results.

We are often lead to believe that our bodies adapt fully within just 6 to 8 weeks.  I have not found this to be true.  Some things are apparent within a short period, but the changes our body must make to fully adapt to a predominently meat and fat diet takes 12 to 18 months.

As I remember you suffer from some skin issues.  I used to have minor rash breakouts on my upper chest area and also would get scabby patches in the 'bald spot' area of my head.  These skin problems did not go away right away.  It took almost 3 years before I suddenly realized that these problems were now a thing of the past.  What caused them and why they took to long to respond, I have no idea.  Just be aware that you probably won't see much change in one or two weeks.

I have no idea what 'structured' water is.  I have found plain tap water quite satisfactory.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 08, 2009, 05:32:22 am
Hi Lex,

I'm all psyched up to experiment with your style of eating.  Just beef.
You know he eats organs and fat too, right?

I'm getting closer to Lex's WOE too. I still have a stockpile of nuts that I got on discount to finish off, though, and I haven't gotten a freezer yet.

Quote
My only hangover is the structured water thing.  So what I will do is get reverse osmosis water + some freshly squeezed kalamansi in the water just to give it structure.  Think about it like squeezing half a lemon in a tall glass of water just to give it structure.
You know that there's no minerals in water that's treated via reverse osmosis, yes?

I've been drinking tap water, but the faucet and pipes are old, so the water has a metallic taste. I'm thinking of getting a carbon filter myself to encourage me to drink more water and avoid the temptation of juice and other beverages.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ioanna on July 08, 2009, 07:53:01 am
Lex, you're so open with own experiences and so thorough, detailed, and patient in answering questions that I'm learning tons from you... thanks for that!

GS, I'm looking forward to your 'all beef' experience!  keep us posted!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on July 13, 2009, 10:41:55 pm

You know that there's no minerals in water that's treated via reverse osmosis, yes?

I've been drinking tap water, but the faucet and pipes are old, so the water has a metallic taste. I'm thinking of getting a carbon filter myself to encourage me to drink more water and avoid the temptation of juice and other beverages.

I tried special waters for years, including a machine that sparates acid from alkaline; did no apparent good.

Presently I'm using a ceramic/carbon filter from Professor Jim McCanney MS with water from the lake before my house, so it tastes good and I don't desire juice. For those on municipal water supplies, there is an addition that filters out the fluorides that make people apathetic.
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/DoultonWaterFilterInformationSub-Page.HTM
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/SecWebOrderPg.htm
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 14, 2009, 06:09:59 am
Thanks William
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cjb on July 14, 2009, 07:36:59 pm
Hi Lex,

I can't figure out how to PM you and my computer annoyingly does not work with entourage.  There's some sort of problem that won't allow me to send it.  It just says sending and never does.  Can you check my latest post about candida?  Thank you very much!
cbj
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 15, 2009, 11:18:00 am
I have some pH urinalysis test paper left over from my days working in a health store, so I measured the acidity of my urine, out of curiosity, now that I am eating mostly meats and fats. Whereas on standard Paleo it was a bit alkaline, on meats & fats it is very acidic--just one step less acidic than the most acidic measure. Yet my teeth are firming, which requires plenty of absorbable calcium to be present in the body fluids and a good calcium balance, and is suggestive of increasing bone density.

Lex, you mentioned that you were skeptical of the alkaline/acidifying balance theory of nutrition and bone density. Do you have anything more to add to the below excerpts to explain why I seem to have increased bone density with acidic urine and why acidic urine is not a problem?


Thanks to xylothrill for posting these links about a year ago:

http://www.powerofmeat.com/High_Protein_Diets.htm

The claim that animal protein intake causes calcium loss from the bones is another popular nutritional myth that has no backing in nutritional science. The studies that supposedly showed protein to cause calcium loss in the urine were NOT done with real, whole foods, but with isolated amino acids and fractionated protein powders (3).

When studies were done with people eating meat with its fat, NO calcium loss was detected in the urine, even over a long period of time (3). Other studies have confirmed that meat eating does not affect calcium balance (4) and that protein promotes stronger bones (5). Furthermore, the saturated fats that many experts believe are so evil are actually required for proper calcium deposition in the bones (6).

....

Many experts attempt to explain how meat supposedly "acidifies" the blood, leading to greater mineral loss in the urine is also incorrect. Theoretically, the sulfur and phosphorus in meat can form an acid when placed in water, but that does not mean that is what happens in the body.

Actually, meat provides complete proteins and vitamin D (if the fat or skin is eaten), both of which are needed to maintain proper acid-alkaline balance in the body. Furthermore, in a diet that includes enough magnesium and vitamin B6 and restricts simple sugars, one has little to fear from kidney stones (12).

Animal foods like beef, poultry, and lamb are good sources of both nutrients as any food and nutrient content table will show. It also goes without saying that high protein/fat and low-carbohydrate diets are devoid of sugar.


From: http://www.powerofmeat.com/High_Protein_Diets.htm

Quote
Protein powders are the culprit proteins

What is significant in the various studies of protein intake and bone density is that the studies which purported to show protein intake caused calcium loss were not conducted with real foods but with isolated amino acids and fractionated protein powders of the sort used by low-carb dieters and athletes. The reason why these amino acids and fat-free protein powders caused calcium loss while the fat meat diet did not is because protein, calcium, and minerals require the fat-soluble vitamins A and D for their assimilation and utilisation by the body. When protein is consumed without these factors it upsets the normal biochemistry of the body and mineral loss results.[xviii] True vitamin A and full-complex vitamin D are only found in animal fats. Furthermore, saturated fats that are present with meat are essential for proper calcium deposition in the bones.[xix] It should be no surprise, therefore that vegan diets have been shown to place women at the greatest risk for osteoporosis.[xx] [xxi]

From: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/osteoporosis.html


Lex Rooker wrote at http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/lex%27s-journal/msg2126/#msg2126:

"based on x-rays my bone density has increased over the last 5 years and more than 3 of those years have been meat and fat only.  Milk is supposed to be loaded with calcium, however, most of the people that I know with bone density issues are heavy consumers of dairy products - at their doctor’s insistence - yet their bones continue to deteriorate.  Greens measure rich in calcium when tested with reagents in the laboratory, the question becomes, is this calcium available to the body - or are there anti-nutrients that block its absorption.  What role does blood glucose and insulin play in the proper absorption of nutrients?  By the way, my bone integrity was confirmed by an orthopedist.  I broke my finger a little over a year ago (compound fracture).  It healed in record time and after 8 weeks when he normally puts people with my injury in therapy, he was amazed to find that I already had 90% movement back and the break was completely healed."
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 15, 2009, 11:16:23 pm
Phil,
I find it interesting that advertisers of supplements have convinced us that urine PH mirrors blood and/or tissue PH.  Of course this isn't true at all.  Our bodies must maintain a very narrow PH range around 7.4 or serious problems result.  No matter what you eat or how acidic or alkaline your urine is, your blood will maintain a PH of 7.4 +- .05.  I have no idea what causes the urine or saliva to vary its PH, but it clearly doesn't have anything to do with the PH of the blood or tissues.

There is all kinds of speculation as to how the body maintains this very narrow range.  The conventional wisdom is that when PH falls (goes acidic) then calcium is pulled from the bones to offset the acidity.  It is also said that this is shown by an acidic urine or saliva.  I think this is all nonsense.  It sounds good but doesn't make sense if thought through. If calcium were truly being pulled from the bones to neutralize the acid, then how could the urine or saliva possibly be acidic - it was neutralized.

 My urine consistently runs very acidic with a PH of 5.0 to 5.5 and my bone density does not seem to have deteriorated over the last 4 years and as I noted in my previous post on the subject, my dental health has improved significantly.

I have an annual physical coming up and I'll ask my doctor for a bone density test this year.  I have an HMO so it may require approval, but if they allow it, I'll post the results.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 16, 2009, 07:49:32 am
Phil,
...The conventional wisdom is that when PH falls (goes acidic) then calcium is pulled from the bones to offset the acidity.  It is also said that this is shown by an acidic urine or saliva.  I think this is all nonsense.  It sounds good but doesn't make sense if thought through. If calcium were truly being pulled from the bones to neutralize the acid, then how could the urine or saliva possibly be acidic - it was neutralized.
Quote
Excellent point. Why didn't I think of that? You are obviously have a better baloney detector than I. My thinking had been that just enough bone was being leached to keep the urine at around 6.5 or so. But now that I see that human carnivore urine runs at 5.0-5.5, that excuse seems very far fetched indeed. If bone truly were being leached away you would have disappeared by now. :D

Quote
My urine consistently runs very acidic with a PH of 5.0 to 5.5 and my bone density does not seem to have deteriorated over the last 4 years and as I noted in my previous post on the subject, my dental health has improved significantly.
My urine has been in precisely the same range the past couple of days, so my guess is that's the norm for human carnivores.

Quote
I have an annual physical coming up and I'll ask my doctor for a bone density test this year.  I have an HMO so it may require approval, but if they allow it, I'll post the results.
Well, I guess you can justify it to yourself from a medical perspective to check, just to be safe, since you are a pioneer, as well as to validate that your current health therapy (nutrition) is fairly optimal.

If you ever get a urinalysis done, maybe your doc would order a bone scan on that basis alone, if he accepts the acid/alkaline theory--but it's pretty controversial even in conventional circles, so I don't know if he would. My guess is he would just lecture you about eating more greens.

Given our knowledge via Paleo nutrition that even the so-called "normal" vital stats used by the labs are suboptimal, it's ironic that the healthcare reformers argue that doctors perform too many tests. That's probably true for expensive tests designed to see if someone should get surgery (like CT scans and x-rays), but there are many relatively inexpensive prevention-oriented tests that doctors should be ordering at every patient visit until health is optimized (for example: nonfasting blood glucose, HDL and triglycerides, nutrient levels). Of course, if they already embraced Paleo nutrition, the docs would only need to run the tests every once in a while to try to motivate their patients into starting or maintaining a Paleo nutrition program.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 16, 2009, 02:42:15 pm
Phil,
I get a full Metabolic Panel, CBC, TSH, PSA, Lipids, A1c, and urinalysis every year.  You can see the results in the first entry in my journal.  As far as blood tests and other similar stuff, my doctor is glad to do whatever I ask.  It only gets sticky if it is something out of the norm where there is no evidence of a problem, and then the HMO may question it.

I try to post the results of all my lab work every year as well as any issues I'm facing and my overall progress (or decline :().  This lets people see the long term effects of my way of eating - good or bad - and they can hopefully make better decisions for their own life.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on July 16, 2009, 03:10:10 pm
I'll be checking in to see how you go and I'm especially interested to see where your at with bone density. Maybe we could chip in if your declined. There's more than a few interested people.


I try to post the results of all my lab work every year as well as any issues I'm facing and my overall progress (or decline :().  This lets people see the long term effects of my way of eating - good or bad - and they can hopefully make better decisions for their own life.

Lex

I suspect your on the right track.


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 16, 2009, 10:08:38 pm
Phil,
I get a full Metabolic Panel, CBC, TSH, PSA, Lipids, A1c, and urinalysis every year. ....
Lex
Oh yeah, I forgot about that sorry. And thanks for sharing your results, findings and analyses. You're providing a very valuable service to us.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 17, 2009, 07:46:24 am
It is July and time for my annual physical which I had 2 days ago.  I got the results of the blood test today and they are attached below as a PDF file.
My doctor just shook his head when he saw them.  All the dire problems he predicted just have not materialized.  Most everything is pretty much the same but some items beg comment.

Blood Lipids (Cholesterol and Triglycerides)

Initially (about 5 years ago) my total cholesterol was up around 250.  Unfortunately the labs from this time period are not available.  I then started ZC in ernest in Decenber of 2005 but didn't get my next physical and blood test until July of 2007.  My 2007 labs are posted in the first entry of this journal and you will see that after about 18 months total cholesterol had dropped a bit to 237.  My July 2008 blood work, also posted in the first entry of this journal, shows that after 30 months total cholesterol had dropped to 189.  This year after 42 months total cholesterol dropped again and is now 175.  So I've had a 75 point drop over about 4 year period eating nothing but meat and fat.

Triglycerides were initially up around 500 but had dropped into the upper 40s by the 2007 test and were 52 in the 2008 and 50 in the current 2009 test so this seems to have stabilized.

Blood Glucose

Initially fasting BG was in the 135-140 range.  By 2007 BG had dropped to 111 and for both the 2008 and current 2009 test is 97 and 99 respectively.  It appears that BG has also pretty much stabilized, though at a higher level than expected.  One would think that BG would fall dramatically into the lower ranges of the 70s and 80s since I’m not eating any carbs but it seems that this is not the case.  My assumption is that my body has converted as many systems as possible to using fatty acids as their primary fuel.  The body seems to convert a certain portion of all protein eaten and probably any excess glycerol in the fat consumed into BG and since there are few tissues that require it, it BG tends to rise.  My guess is that at some trigger point a small amount of insulin is released causing the excess BG to be stored as body fat which is then burned as fatty acids between meals.  Is this idea correct?  Who knows – it’s just a guess. 

A1c
This is supposed to be a test that shows a general average of BG levels over a 2 to 3 month period.  This is the first year I’ve been given an A1c test.  The level came out 6.0% which is surprising since this supposedly relates to an average BG level of 135 mg/dl or so.  I keep a careful watch on my BG and over the past year I don’t think it has ever risen above 105 and it seldom drops below 90.  My guess is that A1c is not a very good predictor when BG is extremely stable.  Anyway, I’ll continue to ask for this test in the future just to see where it goes.  I do wish I had asked for this test in previous years as it would have been interesting to see if the levels had changed much.

PSA
Due to my BPH issue I keep a sharp watch on PSA.  In 2004 it was 4.1 and my doctor wanted to follow up with a biopsy which I declined.  Just too many horror stories of men that were doing just fine until they got their prostates punctured a dozen times for a biopsy and then it was a rapid down hill ride to a prostectomy.  Needless to say I want to avoid this at all cost.  In my 2007 blood test which was the next test where PSA was run after 2004, my PSA was 0.6.  In 2008 it went to 1.5 and this year it is 1.6.  I expect the 0.6 was an anomaly since I started at 4.1 but I’m very pleased with my current levels as these too seem to have stabilized.  The symptoms of early stage BPH still persist but they have not worsened by any measurable amount since I started ZC and seem to have actually improved a bit, but nothing dramatic. 

One thing seems clear.  It takes time for many of the changes the body makes when there is a major change in dietary protocol.  As you can see, cholesterol is still dropping after 4 years.  Most of the others took about 2 years before they reached a stable level.  The idea that we are fully adapted and the body has made all the adjustments it is going too after 8 weeks of ZC just doesn’t hold up based on actual lab results.

I’m extremely pleased with where this adventure has taken me and will continue forging ahead for the foreseeable future as the lifestyle and way of eating have certainly proved beneficial.

BTW - I did ask for a comprehensive bone density test which was submitted to my HMO for approval.  If that materializes I will post the results.  Keep your fingers crossed.

Glad to answer any questions,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: phatdave on July 17, 2009, 08:20:11 am
that all sounds very positive to me lex, another point for raw 'grass fed' animal fat i think.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 17, 2009, 08:49:55 am
Congrats Lex! I would also contribute toward the cost of your bone density test. If it's a DEXA scan you want, I read that those range around $200 - $300 for cash customers. We might be able to cut that down to size here if we raised some funds.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on July 17, 2009, 06:13:45 pm
Lex,

That's encouraging!

Have you already tried to reduce your protein intake (keeping fat intake constant) to see if your BG and A1c lower ?

After several years on a zero carb diet, your body may needs less carbs ?

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 18, 2009, 08:00:38 am
Have you already tried to reduce your protein intake (keeping fat intake constant) to see if your BG and A1c lower ?

Hmmmm, you can't lower protein and keep fat constant without significantly altering calorie intake.  Based on my experiments, (and at this point in time) total calories seem to have a greater affect on my BG than the fat/protein ratio.

After several years on a zero carb diet, your body may needs less carbs ?

I think you meant to say less glucose? Anyway, I'm sure this is true and is probably what is causing BG to seem elevated.  Glucose can come from protein OR fat and from either diet or breakdown of body tissues (as when fasting).

Protein seems to be turned into BG as some relatively consistent rate - maybe 58%?  Fat is eaten and stored in the triglyceride form which contains a molecule of glycerol.  When the fat is broken down (either by digestion or breaking down body fat), and, if the fatty acids are used as the primary fuel for the body, then the glycerol will remain free as there won't be surplus fatty acids to create a new triglyceride.  The surplus glycerol will also be converted to glucose.  It takes 2 glycerol molecules to make on molecule of glucose so this means that about 10% -12% of the fat will potentially be converted to glucose as well.

Since my body needs little BG, the glucose just collects in the blood until it reaches some trigger level where insulin will be released to cause the excess BG to be converted to fatty acids and either burned as fuel or stored as body fat.  Speculation, but from what I think I know about this stuff, this idea seems reasonable.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 18, 2009, 01:58:09 pm
I've been told that my request for a DEXA Scan bone density test has been approved so I'll call for an appointment next week.  I have no idea what the wait time is for the test but will post the results when they are available.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Danny on July 18, 2009, 10:31:39 pm
Good stuff Lex,

Does your HMO pay for other hormone panels (testosterone, estrogen, free t3, t4)? That stuff would be really interesting to have over the course of 4 years.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 18, 2009, 10:42:24 pm
Good news, Lex. I predict excellent results for you. Have you had any scans done in the past?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 19, 2009, 12:20:27 am
Does your HMO pay for other hormone panels (testosterone, estrogen, free t3, t4)? That stuff would be really interesting to have over the course of 4 years.

Danny,  I've had Testosterone and t4 done in the past and both were just fine.  I asked for a full thyroid panel this time but it was denied.  My TSH is good and I have no symptoms so they said no.  I didn't ask for a Testosterone as libido is fine and there seemed no point - especially since I have no test from 5 years ago to compare with.

Good news, Lex. I predict excellent results for you. Have you had any scans done in the past?

No, I've never had a DEXA scan before.  I was able to convince them to do it this time because there are no real symptoms of weak bones (until they snap) and they think I'm eating such a goofy diety that the doctor felt it was good insurance.  My guess is that if this turns out well, they won't authorize another one for several years.

Lex



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on July 19, 2009, 01:18:30 pm
Hmmmm, you can't lower protein and keep fat constant without significantly altering calorie intake.  Based on my experiments, (and at this point in time) total calories seem to have a greater affect on my BG than the fat/protein ratio.

I think you meant to say less glucose? Anyway, I'm sure this is true and is probably what is causing BG to seem elevated.  Glucose can come from protein OR fat and from either diet or breakdown of body tissues (as when fasting).

Protein seems to be turned into BG as some relatively consistent rate - maybe 58%?  Fat is eaten and stored in the triglyceride form which contains a molecule of glycerol.  When the fat is broken down (either by digestion or breaking down body fat), and, if the fatty acids are used as the primary fuel for the body, then the glycerol will remain free as there won't be surplus fatty acids to create a new triglyceride.  The surplus glycerol will also be converted to glucose.  It takes 2 glycerol molecules to make on molecule of glucose so this means that about 10% -12% of the fat will potentially be converted to glucose as well.

Since my body needs little BG, the glucose just collects in the blood until it reaches some trigger level where insulin will be released to cause the excess BG to be converted to fatty acids and either burned as fuel or stored as body fat.  Speculation, but from what I think I know about this stuff, this idea seems reasonable.

Lex


BG fluctuations are probably what one should avoid first, but I find ironic that fasting BG and HbA1c are high on a zerocarb diet (compared to a standard diet) !
The trigger level where insulin is released seems to be higher on a zerocarb diet, which is a good thing if insulin should be minimized.

As for Glycosylated hemoglobin, one explanation could be that on a zc diet, the red blood cell life span is increased?

It would be interesting to see the same blood tests with a vlc and lc diets.

(previous post : glucose, not carbs of course)


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: rafonly on July 20, 2009, 12:54:32 am

lex's age may be over 50...

you can read abut this here:
http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/ (http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/)

{the 2 posts at the top, which are the most recent, + their comments}

food 4 thought

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 21, 2009, 11:41:06 pm
Great news, my DEXA bone density scan has been approved.  Unfortunately the best appointment I can get is August 20 so it will be a week or so after that before I get the results.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: phatdave on July 22, 2009, 08:09:19 am
Do you tell all these people, ie your doctors etc about your diet Lex? I remember you said you didn't tell your dentist. I definately would, i think i would reval in their reactions! (maybe that shows me as being slightly immature!)

But seriously they might find it fascinating.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 22, 2009, 10:14:32 am
Dave,
I did tell my doctor exactly what I was going to do back about 4 years ago when I first started making major changes to my diet and lifestyle.  He warned me of all the doom and gloom that I was headed for - stuff like scurvy (and other nutritional deficiency diseases), risk of parasites, increased cholesterol (which was already high by current standards), and blood pressure increases.  Of course none of this has happened and each year my lab tests seem to improve, much to my doctor's dismay.

Now I go see him for my annual tests and he just shakes his head like my situation is some unique anomoly that magically works for me but would never work for the general population.  Then he candidly admits that he just loves all the foods I won't eat and he's not willing to give them up.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on July 22, 2009, 10:26:04 am
I would be fascinated if I was your Dr.

Coming to the conclusion your a anomaly is such a human thing to think.

I remember this post from way back when

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/lex's-journal/msg2002/#msg2002 (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/lex's-journal/msg2002/#msg2002)

''blood PH... amino acids and fatty acids, when consumed in excess, make the blood PH go down, and the body may dump calcium from the bones into the blood stream to compensate. Since leafy greens are rich in calcium, it might be vital to add them to help buffer your PH and spare your bones. Basically, by eating grass-fed meat, you are eating animals that did in fact have alkaline diet, bur you are inverting your PH by eating the animals rather than the leafy greens. I recommend a bone scan periodically too, to make sure you are not dissolving your vertebra and setting yourself up for crippling injuries or fractures."

We should find out how important leafy greens are in mineralization and if your vertebra is weak or not. Can't wait to see the results!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: yon yonson on July 22, 2009, 10:29:45 am
yeah, i don't plan on going to the doctor anytime soon, but if i end up going for some reason, im definitely telling him of my diet and will be excited to see his reaction. i think everyone on this diet should be telling their doctors. it'd be a good way to gain at least some credibility with the medical community by putting our health on display.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on July 23, 2009, 12:41:09 am
yeah, i don't plan on going to the doctor anytime soon, but if i end up going for some reason, im definitely telling him of my diet and will be excited to see his reaction. i think everyone on this diet should be telling their doctors. it'd be a good way to gain at least some credibility with the medical community by putting our health on display.

I predict that your doctor will react the same - at best - as Lex's doctor, and you will gain no credibility. He will think you a freak.

I have enough experience of the medical community that it has lost all credibility with me. The only doctors that are worth a fart in a windstorm are surgeons, and then only for emergencies like broken bones. IMHO
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 23, 2009, 12:43:16 am
''blood PH... amino acids and fatty acids, when consumed in excess, make the blood PH go down, and the body may dump calcium from the bones into the blood stream to compensate. Since leafy greens are rich in calcium, it might be vital to add them to help buffer your PH and spare your bones. Basically, by eating grass-fed meat, you are eating animals that did in fact have alkaline diet, bur you are inverting your PH by eating the animals rather than the leafy greens. I recommend a bone scan periodically too, to make sure you are not dissolving your vertebra and setting yourself up for crippling injuries or fractures."

This quote did indeed come from my Journal but it was made by Cheryl.  I considered it to be politically correct nonsense but who knows.  I suppose the bone scan will provide some clue.  The only problem is that we won't be able to compare "like with like".  In this case I only have the comments of my dentist to indicate that my jaw bones were less dense than they are now.  

Lex  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on July 23, 2009, 06:31:26 am
This quote did indeed come from my Journal but it was made by Cheryl.  I considered it to be politically correct nonsense but who knows.  I suppose the bone scan will provide some clue.  The only problem is that we won't be able to compare "like with like".  In this case I only have the comments of my dentist to indicate that my jaw bones were less dense than they are now.  

Lex  

CherylJosie predicted your bones would turn to mush without leafy greens.   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on July 23, 2009, 07:12:52 am
 I considered it to be politically correct nonsense but who knows.  

    My bones got stronger from RAF and celery, that's about all I was eating when and leading up to when it happened.  Does Cheryl consider celery a green when she says that?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on July 25, 2009, 09:25:09 pm
Hey Lex,

I am not so shore about raw meat vs. cooked meat again - did you catch this on the zerocarb forum:

I've read up on this, and it seems that Dr. Beaumont concluded that "minuteness of division and tenderness" (of the food) in addition to cooking said food helped increase ease of digestion. Raw foods, in short, digest more poorly than cooked foods.

From Catching Fire: "When Beaumont introduced boiled beef and raw beef at noon, the boiled beef was gone by 2 P.M. But the piece of raw, salted, lean beef of the same size was only slighted macerated on the surface, while its general texture remained firm and intact."



and this is what the pemmican familiy has to say about raw meat:

Technically, pemmican isn't a raw food. The meat portion is but the fat portion is not. We've experimented with eating raw meat ala the family in the video but we couldn't do it. We became angry, isolated, frustrated and basically CRAZY! My oldest boy developed autistic symptoms! My wife sat around crying and I became an angry SOB. Enough was enough. We had MUCH better luck when we tried eating our meat cooked to medium, but, of course, our best attempt thus far has been pemmican.

I shudder when I think of our raw experiment. Bacteria can alter human behaviour drastically. This is why pemmican is such a wonder food!


Thoughts?

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 25, 2009, 09:31:27 pm
Heh heh, you've argued for raw at the zero carb forum and for ZC here. Not quite my style, but good for you, Nicola. You have the spunk to keep the pot stirring and the conversations going. I do like to ask a lot of questions too, which can get me into trouble sometimes, so I've never had a problem with people who do question the standard view as long as it's done respectfully, as you seem to.

I find I also digest pemmican better than pure raw meat and fat. However, I suspect that if I had been raised since infancy on lots of raw meat and fat, such as with the Inuit, that there would be no significant difference.

I also suspect that healthier GI systems do better at fighting off bad bacteria, which is a small part of the reason I decided to transition gradually to raw--to possibly give my GI tract a chance to strengthen before I go all the way.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 26, 2009, 04:30:57 am
I've read up on this, and it seems that Dr. Beaumont concluded that "minuteness of division and tenderness" (of the food) in addition to cooking said food helped increase ease of digestion. Raw foods, in short, digest more poorly than cooked foods.

From Catching Fire: "When Beaumont introduced boiled beef and raw beef at noon, the boiled beef was gone by 2 P.M. But the piece of raw, salted, lean beef of the same size was only slighted macerated on the surface, while its general texture remained firm and intact."

No other animal cooks its food.  For millions of years we didn’t cook our food either.  Many plant foods are almost totally indigestible unless they are first broken down by cooking.  This may be why, as game became more scarce, and we started substituting plant based foods, we learned to cook them.  I no longer eat much in the way of plant foods so this is not an issue for me, however, when I was eating raw vegan, I can tell you that many of the plant foods I ate raw did not digest well – if at all.

‘Speed’ of digestion or the digestibility of ‘raw salted beef’ doesn’t matter to me at all.  Why would be believe that very rapid digestion is better?  Beaumont made an observation regarding time, but you can’t conclude from the observation which time is correct or ideal.  If we accept the premise that we are best equipped to eat and digest meat and fat, AND that for most of our evolutionary period we ate it raw, THEN however long raw meat and fat take to digest is the ‘correct’ time. 

and this is what the pemmican family has to say about raw meat:

Technically, pemmican isn't a raw food. The meat portion is but the fat portion is not. We've experimented with eating raw meat ala the family in the video but we couldn't do it. We became angry, isolated, frustrated and basically CRAZY! My oldest boy developed autistic symptoms! My wife sat around crying and I became an angry SOB. Enough was enough. We had MUCH better luck when we tried eating our meat cooked to medium, but, of course, our best attempt thus far has been pemmican.

I think this is a bit overstated.  I know hundreds of families that eat all kinds of different diets and I’ve never seen anything as melodramatic as this.  Is this anything like your experience?  I won’t go so far as to say that it is not true, however, I’m very skeptical.  I think they should sell this story to television and turn it into a soap opera or one of those new reality shows.  Also, if I remember correctly, this is the same family that insists that they are ‘rendering’ fat at a temperature of 104F which can’t be done without breaking several laws of physics.

I shudder when I think of our raw experiment. Bacteria can alter human behaviour drastically. This is why pemmican is such a wonder food!

Pemmican is a second rate food.  It is not magical. We evolved to eat our food raw.  I do eat pemmican but only when traveling and my normal raw food is not available.  Our bodies REQUIRE bacteria to be healthy.  Believing that pemmican is some sort of ‘perfect’ food is utter nonsense.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 27, 2009, 10:08:07 am
I've been meaning to ask you Lex, other than gaining weight on cooked meats (which would be a plus for me), what downsides do you experience when you eat cooked meats at this point? I searched your journal and bio and didn't find anything more.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 27, 2009, 02:54:27 pm
I've been meaning to ask you Lex, other than gaining weight on cooked meats (which would be a plus for me), what downsides do you experience when you eat cooked meats at this point? I searched your journal and bio and didn't find anything more.

To be honest, I can't really say that I have any problems with cooked meat other than I no longer like it.  I do eat a rare steak once or twice a month when out with friends, and on the major holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmans, and New Years day)  I'll eat a small portion of the well cooked meat (ususally prime rib or a Turkey) served at the family gatherings.  Other than that I've eaten exclusively raw for about 4 years now.

I did have a really bad experience when at a seminar about a year and a half ago.  I was a captive audience and had to do my best on the meals served.  Lunch and diner were usually mostly bread and pasta as these are cheap, so I lived mostly on breakfast foods, eggs, bacon, sausage, etc.  After 5 full days of this I had a very bad case of edema.  My legs, feet, and ankles swelled up to over double their normal size and the skin was stretched to the point of pain.  It took several weeks for everything to return to normal once I got home and returned to eating my normal raw fare.

I made my decision to eat raw meat because no other animal eats its food cooked.  It made no sense that we should cook ours.  I now only eat cooked meat in social situations that require it, like eating in restruants or at family gatherings.  I then ask them to prepare it as rare as possible.  This is only a total of a dozen times per year or so, so it has little impact on my overall diet.  On the occasions when I know the meat will be well done, I eat my normal raw food before I go and then eat a small portion of the cooked meat to be polite.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 28, 2009, 09:04:05 am
To be honest, I can't really say that I have any problems with cooked meat other than I no longer like it.  ....
I think this is probably one of the biggest factors in why humans didn't cook a lot of their meats/fish until 10 - 100 Kyr BP. Nearly every scientist and most diet gurus assume that Stone Agers would have preferred the taste of cooked meat and been able to digest it more easily, but I suspect that the opposite was true in both cases, based on the experience of people like you. As with most things that have to do with diet and lifestyle, if you follow the view that's opposite of the majority modern opinion, you'll rarely go wrong.

I can, however, imagine Stone Agers smoking meats, as it does add a nice flavor and variety and preserve it a bit longer; and drying meats, which concentrates the flavor and preserves it for a while.

Like you, I think most of the early cooking would have been of difficult-to-digest plant foods.

Based on your experience and mine, in contrast to the devastating effects that a raw fruitarian diet has on humans and chimps, I suspect that the majority of the benefits we're getting come from eating meat/fat/organs, and that eating it raw optimizes it a bit more. Plus, it's also more convenient and we get more value for our money because we get more nutrients out of the meat and don't cook away some of the fat.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on July 28, 2009, 09:32:49 am
To be honest, I can't really say that I have any problems with cooked meat other than I no longer like it. 
Lex

I find when your truly hungry raw meat tastes amazing...but when your over eating or eating 3 times a day cooked food becomes more appealing because cooked or carby foods affect your true hunger and can over ride your natural stop.

After not eating for 24 hours and being physically active what sort of ravenous self respecting caveman's going to stand around cooking food? Maybe once he's had his full he may start to play around with cooking a bit
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ioanna on July 28, 2009, 10:31:54 am
Eating raw red meat was definitely an adjustment at first, but it's only been almost 3 months now and a cooked steak looks ruined to me!  Why would someone with a lifetime of eating raw meat want to cook it?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 28, 2009, 10:37:34 am
I find when your truly hungry raw meat tastes amazing...but when your over eating or eating 3 times a day cooked food becomes more appealing ...
I've found at least one exception to that for me--at least so far. Raw venison sausage and raw ground venison meat always taste much better to me than cooked, even if I eat it 3x a day. They even have a very good mouth feel--especially the ground venison--whereas raw ground beef still does not.

At this point, the well done bison burgers in the cafeteria at work taste absolutely destroyed--even if I drench them in the only non-dairy fat available there--olive oil. It does seem to be that the more one goes ZC and raw, the better it tends to taste over time, and the worse heavily cooked foods taste--at least so far for me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 28, 2009, 12:21:57 pm
...but when your over eating or eating 3 times a day cooked food becomes more appealing because cooked or carby foods affect your true hunger and can over ride your natural stop.

To me cooked meat is tough, rubbery, and bland unless it is highly seasoned with salt and spices.  For me it is the seasonings that cause me to over eat - not the cooking itself.  I find that I prefer cooked meat seasoned and then I do tend to over eat.   I find I prefer raw meat without seasoning and my hunger is satisfied without stuffing myself - there's just a point that I don't want any more.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 30, 2009, 12:46:40 am
I received a note from another raw meat eater on another forum stating that when he eats a food mix of Slanker Dog and Cat food, Ground beef, and fat, he soon experiences a very loose and smelly bowel movement.

Unfortunatley I've noticed the exact same thing since Slankers changed processing plants.  They used to use Kilgor and now they use Four Star.  I've spent the last few weeks tracing down the problem and find that is is caused by the Dog and Cat food.  If I leave the D & C out and just eat the regular meat everything is fine.  If I add even a small amount of D&C to the mix (4 oz D&C to 2 lbs Chili meat) the problem reoccurs.

It appears that the D&C is now contaminated in some way - probably with an unfriendly bacteria.

Since the D&C is not USDA inspected and approved for human consumption there is little that I can do.  Slankers has made it clear that their pet food is not for human consumption and if I chose to eat it, that is my problem.

What I have found out is that Four Star is a much larger processor than Kilgor and so they may have separate facilities and equipment for the non-inspected products.  This means they wouldn't have to follow USDA health standards in that part of the plant as the equipment is never used for products that require inspection.  Just speculation but certainly a possibility.

It looks like I'll be eating just the regular ground meat and fat products as the loose bowl problem is very annoying.  This will also give me the opportunity to see just how important organ meats are to health.  I’ve been eating the D&C just to make sure I get a good variety of organ meats.  However, other long term zero carb raw meat eaters have eaten only muscle meats and experienced no problems whatsoever.  I’ll be leaving the organ meats out of my diet for the next 6 months to 1 year and we’ll see how I feel and how my lab results change.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 30, 2009, 06:45:14 am
Why not buy equivalent amounts of Slanker's organ meats and grind them into your mix? Too much work?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 30, 2009, 06:48:28 am
E-
I thought salt would be a major contributor to the fluid retention also, however, I eat several meals out during the first week of the month and though they are always steaks, they are often loaded with salt.  I've seen no evidence of fluid retention caused by this. My meals for the rest of the month contain only a small amount of salt and there is little difference in my weight and no evidence of edema in hands, feet, or legs during the first week as compared to the rest of the month.
...
So you think you would get edema if you regularly cooked your grassfed meats?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 30, 2009, 06:58:14 am
So you think you would get edema if you regularly cooked your grassfed meats?

No I don't think so and I don't think I ever said so.  I only know that I got a bad case of edema from eating bacon, eggs, and sausage as my only food for an entire week from the breakfast buffet at a seminar I attended.  These are all highly processed foods with tons of chemicals.  Cooking is the least of their problems.

Why not buy equivalent amounts of Slanker's organ meats and grind them into your mix? Too much work?

I could do this but it is a lot of work and I'd prefer not to do it if I don't have too.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on July 30, 2009, 07:15:44 am
  Lex in regards to your earlier post re. needs for organ meats, you might want to try to eat according to taste desire.  I continuously go in and out of wanting different organs.  If it doesn't taste good or appeal to me, then I don't include it.  It's interesting, when it's on my plate, and when I 'want' it,  my fork goes to it all by itself, as it seems.  Very interesting to witness, and then to notice the appeasement in the mouth. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on July 30, 2009, 09:53:16 am
Bummer about Slanker's changing it up on you. I found the easiest way for me to do the diet is to cut up muscle and fat into bite size pieces for the majority of my meals, and then occasionally, usually on the weekends, thaw out an organ and eat bite size pieces of that for a few meals until it's gone. I don't think organs are necessary to stay alive and relatively healthy in the long term, but I think people would be better off including organs once in a while.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on July 30, 2009, 08:12:44 pm
I received a note from another raw meat eater on another forum stating that when he eats a food mix of Slanker Dog and Cat food, Ground beef, and fat, he soon experiences a very loose and smelly bowel movement.

Lex

I understand that this raw meat mix causes this kind of reaction in your bowels (it triggers the movement) - it's not that it goes threw you? Charles mentioned the same from just eating raw/underdone meat...loose and smelly bowel movement. Perhaps it's nothing to do with bacteria?

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: primavera on July 30, 2009, 11:18:42 pm
That's too bad.  My dad was thinking of buying d&c for himself, but I showed him your post and not anymore.  However, my dogs seem to be doing great on it! ???
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on July 31, 2009, 12:02:30 am
My speculation as to why Charles has ‘problems’ with raw is two-fold.  First, he eats Wall mart meat, from animals which aren’t healthy to begin with.  I suggested to him to simply go to a feedyard and use his senses to judge how healthy the animals are that he is eating.  The whole animal, and not just its intestines, is full of the garbage from which it eats.  Then it is butchered and processed in meat processing plants which sees hundreds of other similarly toxic animals every day.  The likelihood for bacterial contamination is almost certain.  Charles also eats a lot of ground beef.  Another source of potential contamination.  For who knows what went into the mixture, and from how many contaminated ‘cutting boards,’ and or mixers etc….  Then as I have posted before, I have had the enlightening experience of having gone through a cleansing when I started to eat raw tuna several times a week, and not just an occasional eating out at a sushi bar.  What happened was that for over a month I passed copious amounts of mucous filled runny stools, three times a day.  Literally cups of mucous, stringy material.  I thought my intestines were falling apart and were passing into the toilet.  I had eaten from the age of four, canned tuna at least three to four times a week.  My body was heavily built from the cells of heat damaged, canned tuna.  When given a chance, by eating raw fresh tuna, my body exchanged raw healthy ‘cells’ for the damaged cooked ‘cells,’ or, it cleansed itself.  Normally people think of fruit and vegetable juices as nature’s cleansers.  But many, including myself, believe that raw proteins are far more aggressive or effective at ‘cleansing’ the body.  I would have quickly stopped with eating raw tuna had I not had the support of the Instincto group in France to calm me down when I would call them, telling me that indeed it will pass, and everything will normalize; that everything will be fine.  So I understand how most can’t or won’t go through this experience. For we want to think that this particular something or other is causing the problem, when it actually exists inside of us.
   And then there’s the thought that one could start slowly eating say a teaspoon of raw the first day, and increasing and or substituting more raw for cooked each day.  This might help one more gently ease into a raw diet and not experience all the reactions at once.  But I don’t know, I haven’t tried it.  I went raw overnight in the early seventies.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 31, 2009, 11:50:53 pm
That's too bad.  My dad was thinking of buying d&c for himself, but I showed him your post and not anymore.  However, my dogs seem to be doing great on it! ???

Rather interesting situation.  I had about 4 days of food mix (the one with the 4oz D&C per pound of regular ground meat), so I decided to finish this off rather than waste it.  For the last two days I haven't experienced the loose bowel problem at all.  Not sure what's going on now.  The mix is from the same batch of D&C that was causing the issue before so I have no idea why the problem should go away unless it is a stronger immune system response or something.  We'll see.   I think I'll continue with the lighter mix of D&C and monitor what happens.

As I've written before, I'm no longer convinced that organ meats are critical to maintianing health, but have continued with my mix of pet food and regular ground meat as 'insurance'.  I'll plod along with a lighter mix of D&C and if all goes well, I'll ramp back up to the heavier mixture and see what happens.  Will report what I find in my journal along the way.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on August 01, 2009, 02:42:09 am
Just a thought...different areas have different microorganisms around.

I know that from certain belgian abbey ales...they just let them ferment with whatever yeast and bacteria are around rather than adding things.

Could be a case of adjusting to something slightly different?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 08, 2009, 06:47:32 am
Lex, I continue to have some nice, moderately euphoric highs after eating lightly during the day and then having a big meal of raw meat, tallow and water at night. Did you experience this? If so, how long did it continue?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on August 08, 2009, 02:28:50 pm
Hey Lex, Just read through about almost all your journal. I found it very fascinating, informative and learned quite a bit and now have a bit of a man crush on you. Thats said I have a few questions and comments about it.

On your 31 day distilled water fast you said you lost 84 pounds which is around 2.75 a day. The fasting studies Ive seen show a weight loss around 3/4 -1 lb a day if memory serves me correct. This would mean you lost 3-4 times as much weight. Even though you kept quite active during the fast it seems like this alone would not make up for the difference. Is there something to the distilled water that causes you to lose an absurd amount of water weight?

You also say how you believe that it might be the case that certain amino acids are always converted to glucose. Ive read just the very basics of biochem but I do remember a small part on dna- that when it transcribes its code on the ribosomes it breaks down the sequence into three nucleotides (AGT, CTA, for example). From these nucleotides it would determine which of the 20 amino acids to pick to add to the protein. Every single amino acid is mapped to a certain three letter sequence of the code. From this I would guess that all amino acids are indeed used when dna gets transcribed to create proteins. Surely some are used more than others and that possibly each amino acid would have a relative frequency of conversion not an absolute 0 or 1. Then again I dont know much...

Also, if you could, give us more insight on Del Fuegos (from the ZC board) all pemmican diet? I think you only briefly mentioned that we do need bacteria. If you read his posts it seems like he has turned his family into some sort of borderline demigods. He seems to have extreme amounts of sensitivity to small changes in diets. He claims to notice differences in energy and mood with different ratios of fat and just general preparedness of the pemmican. He also said that when he switched to an all raw meat diet his entire family started getting angry and their overall seemed like a nightmare of an experience.

all i got for now - keep up the tremendous work
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: halotek on August 09, 2009, 07:19:39 am
First off, just wanted to say how impressed I am with this journal.  I came to this site thinking there was going to be some crack-science going on -- but you are very candid with your medical results, and that is such a benefit to everyone.

I am extremely interested in trying to somewhat figure out the puzzle of what constitutes sufficient vitamin and mineral intake for man.  Because you are basically eating a diet that is 100% animal products (which don't really have anti-nutrients in them) I'm sure your vitamin intake is more than sufficient (with one caveat).  For people who eat cereal grains with phytic acid, they even have to worry about minerals being directly leached out of their body.  Mineral intake on your diet is a little more tricky though-- I'm glad your getting a comprehensive bone scan, I'm interested to see if you can maintain calcium balance with such low intake.  With a diet so low in anti-nutrients, you probably just don't need as many minerals.

The caveat I have is with vitamin c intake.  I'm sure you are trying as hard as you can to do this diet without vitamin supplementation, but it just seems that humans need to get a decent amount of this nutrient.  All humans are in a catch 22, to get vitamin c you have to eat foods that are potentially damaging (such as fruit and veggies).  I looked through your tests to see if I could find your uric acid level-- I'd like to know that.  Higher than usual uric acid levels are usually caused by fructose (which you don't eat), or by eating high purine foods (sometimes), or by very low vitamin c intake.  I have this nagging feeling that your A1c test would even benefit from increased vitamin c intake-- because vitamin c can protect many types of molecules from oxidation.

I'd also like to ask you why you think it is that you really don't think you can tolerate up to 50grams of some type of carbohydrate a day?  If it really is the case that 57% of your protein gets converted to glucose-- why not just find some type of carbohydrate that you can tolerate to fill in.  I would also say that your high A1c level may be due to the amount of protein in your diet-- coupled with low vitamin c intake-- and the lack of protective compounds (which are actually toxins) in plant materials.  Protein requirements are almost certainly lower with additional carbohydrates in a diet.  We are really making strides in understanding why have "some" plant compounds are so benficial to us.  The hormetic effects of plant compounds really seem to shine.  The act of processing the toxins in the plants or fruits is what makes us stronger-- having a diet so devoid in toxins (such as a 100% meat diet)  deprives the body of this hormetic benefit (I'm not saying to eat a lot of plants-- just a little!)

Lastly, going back to mineral arguments-- do you think your potassium levels are ok on a diet that is so low in plant materials?

btw-- I wouldn't give up the organ meat component of your diet if you have next to non-existant plant foods-- because then you really would start to miss out on folate, vitamin a-- and others.

thanks for this forum!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 09, 2009, 09:53:48 am
Lex, I continue to have some nice, moderately euphoric highs after eating lightly during the day and then having a big meal of raw meat, tallow and water at night. Did you experience this? If so, how long did it continue?

Phil,
Yes, I started getting an overall feeling of well-being and it has pretty much continued.  I wouldn't call it a euphoric high but just an overall sense of contentment.  I also used to be prone to rollercoaster highs and lows - often within the same day.  Those evened out and I must say that I pretty much feel great all the time.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 09, 2009, 10:19:30 am
On your 31 day distilled water fast you said you lost 84 pounds which is around 2.75 a day. The fasting studies Ive seen show a weight loss around 3/4 -1 lb a day if memory serves me correct. This would mean you lost 3-4 times as much weight. Even though you kept quite active during the fast it seems like this alone would not make up for the difference. Is there something to the distilled water that causes you to lose an absurd amount of water weight?

Paleo D,
Weight loss was rapid in the very beginning but then slowed to 1/2 lb per day during the last couple of weeks.  It was so long ago that I just don't remember the details.  What I remember most was that I lost so much muscle mass that it took me 2 or 3 years to recover and then I'm not sure how much permanent damage was done.

You also say how you believe that it might be the case that certain amino acids are always converted to glucose. Ive read just the very basics of biochem but I do remember a small part on dna- that when it transcribes its code on the ribosomes it breaks down the sequence into three nucleotides (AGT, CTA, for example). From these nucleotides it would determine which of the 20 amino acids to pick to add to the protein. Every single amino acid is mapped to a certain three letter sequence of the code. From this I would guess that all amino acids are indeed used when dna gets transcribed to create proteins. Surely some are used more than others and that possibly each amino acid would have a relative frequency of conversion not an absolute 0 or 1. Then again I don't know much...

This idea is just a guess.  My experiments and BG measurements seem to point in the direction that a very consistent amount of protein is converted to glucose.  My personal belief is that the body is very consistent in what it does.  In other words, it doesn't measure BG and then convert dietary protein to BG only if it is low.  Instead I believe that dietary protein is metabolized into amino acids.  These amino acids float around in our blood as sort of a 'soup' mix which is pumped to all parts of the body.  If there is a specific need for a specific amino acid by a cell or group of tissues, then as the soup flows through that area, enough of that amino acid will be pulled out of the blood to satisfy the immediate requirement.  Ultimately all the soup will pumped through the liver and any amino acids that make it to the liver could then be converted to glucose.  Since it is clear that the conversion runs around 50 to 60 percent, it makes sense that only certain surplus amino acids are converted and others are not.  This is my theory and it may be accurate or pure baloney - your call.  It is just an attempt to explain my observation and whether it is true or not really doesn't make much difference.  The body is going to do what it wants regardless of what we believe or think we know.

Also, if you could, give us more insight on Del Fuegos (from the ZC board) all pemmican diet? I think you only briefly mentioned that we do need bacteria. If you read his posts it seems like he has turned his family into some sort of borderline demigods. He seems to have extreme amounts of sensitivity to small changes in diets. He claims to notice differences in energy and mood with different ratios of fat and just general preparedness of the pemmican. He also said that when he switched to an all raw meat diet his entire family started getting angry and their overall seemed like a nightmare of an experience.

I've followed Delfeugo fairly closely and have seen the same things as you.  I have no explanation for it as I know of no one else that has experienced anything similar.  Your guess is as good as (and probably better) than mine.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ioanna on August 09, 2009, 10:45:26 am
Lex or PaleoPhil (or anyone else who feels this... Wodgina?):

Is this feeling of 'well being' or 'euphoria' something physiologic or a mental state?

Lex, a lot of gurus speak highly of the cleansing/rejuvenating properties of a fast.  Are you in complete disagreement?  Do you think any of the beginning days of your fast may have been helpful, but the prolongation was too much burden? Do you remember fighting the urge to eat?  or what you broke your fast with?...fat?  Sorry, probably it was too long ago, but just thought I'd ask.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 09, 2009, 11:32:10 am
I am extremely interested in trying to somewhat figure out the puzzle of what constitutes sufficient vitamin and mineral intake for man.  Because you are basically eating a diet that is 100% animal products (which don't really have anti-nutrients in them) I'm sure your vitamin intake is more than sufficient (with one caveat).  For people who eat cereal grains with phytic acid, they even have to worry about minerals being directly leached out of their body.  Mineral intake on your diet is a little more tricky though-- I'm glad your getting a comprehensive bone scan, I'm interested to see if you can maintain calcium balance with such low intake.  With a diet so low in anti-nutrients, you probably just don't need as many minerals.

Bone scan is scheduled for August 20 and I'll post results as soon as I get them.

The caveat I have is with vitamin c intake.  I'm sure you are trying as hard as you can to do this diet without vitamin supplementation, but it just seems that humans need to get a decent amount of this nutrient.  All humans are in a catch 22, to get vitamin c you have to eat foods that are potentially damaging (such as fruit and veggies).  I looked through your tests to see if I could find your uric acid level-- I'd like to know that.  Higher than usual uric acid levels are usually caused by fructose (which you don't eat), or by eating high purine foods (sometimes), or by very low vitamin c intake.  I have this nagging feeling that your A1c test would even benefit from increased vitamin c intake-- because vitamin c can protect many types of molecules from oxidation.

My doctor had the same concerns as you.  After 3 years he's thrown in the towel.  Vitamin C deficiency shows itself within weeks and death occurs within a couple of months of the onset of symptoms.  If I were going to get scurvy I'd have been dead long ago.  I take no supplements and my blood tests show no deficiencies in the elements that are measured.  You are free to look at them. They are all posted as pdf files attached to the first entry of this journal.

There has been some speculation in the scientific world as to why humans don't experience vitamin C deficiency when eating a fresh meat diet.  One theory that I've heard is that Vitamin C does its antioxidant work by contributing an electron to neutralize charged free radicals.  It just so happens that uric acid is even a better electron donor than Vitamin C and therefore has better antioxidant properties than Vitamin C.  Is this true?,  I have no idea and I'm not sure anyone else does either.  What I am sure of is that I haven't eaten any fruits, vegetables, or carbs of any kind in about 4 years and my health just keeps improving. 

I'd also like to ask you why you think it is that you really don't think you can tolerate up to 50grams of some type of carbohydrate a day?  If it really is the case that 57% of your protein gets converted to glucose-- why not just find some type of carbohydrate that you can tolerate to fill in. 


I can easily tolerate 50 grams of carbohydrate a day but if I don't need it, and my health is much better than when I was eating carbs, then why would I do this?  Second, you seem to think that dietary protein is converted to glucose only because there is no carb source.  I don't think this way.  I think there is evidence that 50 to 60 percent of all protein eaten is converted to glucose regardless of whether we eat carbs or not. (Look at my previous post to Paleo D for my reasoning.)  Why on earth would I want to add carbs just to add to the glucose load my body must handle?

I would also say that your high A1c level may be due to the amount of protein in your diet-- coupled with low vitamin c intake-- and the lack of protective compounds (which are actually toxins) in plant materials. 

What evidence do you have for these statements?  I have much better health than when I was eating plant materials with all those 'protective compounds', and I certainly am not showing any signs of nutritional deficiency.  I would change in a heartbeat if things weren't working, but they are working wonderfully well, and have been for several years now.

Protein requirements are almost certainly lower with additional carbohydrates in a diet. 

Again, how do you know this with so much certainty?  I know of no objective studies that come to this conclusion.

We are really making strides in understanding why have "some" plant compounds are so beneficial to us.  The hormetic effects of plant compounds really seem to shine.  The act of processing the toxins in the plants or fruits is what makes us stronger-- having a diet so devoid in toxins (such as a 100% meat diet)  deprives the body of this hormetic benefit (I'm not saying to eat a lot of plants-- just a little!)

Sounds like pure nonsense to me.  You are correct that we are now discovering all sorts of hormonal effects of plant compounds and the majority of them are bad.  What could possibly make you believe that processing toxins from plant materials is what makes us stronger?  What studies can you produce that support such a statement?

Lastly, going back to mineral arguments-- do you think your potassium levels are ok on a diet that is so low in plant materials?

You can see my blood potassium, calcium, and other mineral levels in my annual blood tests posted in the first entry of this log.  They all show normal and for the most part right down the middle of the acceptable range.

btw-- I wouldn't give up the organ meat component of your diet if you have next to nonexistent plant foods-- because then you really would start to miss out on folate, vitamin a-- and others.

How do you know this?  I know others that have eaten an exclusive muscle-meat-only diet for over 4 years and they show no deficiencies of any kind. 

All of the concerns you've brought up were voiced by my personal doctor as well.  All of his gloom and doom predictions have not come true.  I have no idea why I show no nutritional deficiencies on such a restricted diet of raw red meat and fat, but I don't.  I assure you that if I did, I'd change things in a hurry.  You see, I'm not about doing what doctors and diet gurus think is right, I'm all about what actually works.  Raw red meat, fat, and zero carb intake has been working very well for me for over 3 years.  Based on that 'real' evidence, I'll stick with it for the foreseeable future, and let others like yourself worry over things that might be problems, but aren't.

thanks for this forum!

I'm just a member and individual contributor.  The people that deserve the real thanks are the admins and moderators.  They are the ones that keep things going and without them this forum would not exist.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 09, 2009, 11:34:52 am
Is this feeling of 'well being' or 'euphoria' something physiologic or a mental state?

For me I refer to it as a mental state.

Lex, a lot of gurus speak highly of the cleansing/rejuvenating properties of a fast.  Are you in complete disagreement?  Do you think any of the beginning days of your fast may have been helpful, but the prolongation was too much burden? Do you remember fighting the urge to eat?  or what you broke your fast with?...fat?  Sorry, probably it was too long ago, but just thought I'd ask.

It was my belief in the gurus cleansing nonsense that convinced me that I needed to to this 'cleansing' fast.  I now believe that it is total nonsense.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on August 09, 2009, 04:56:21 pm
How do you know this?  I know others that have eaten an exclusive muscle-meat-only diet for over 4 years and they show no deficiencies of any kind. 
Lex

That statement re 4 years isn't all that significant when one considers that certain deficiencies in a raw vegan diet often take years, even decades, to appear, in terms of symptoms(even b12-related issues).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on August 09, 2009, 10:22:45 pm
Lex or PaleoPhil (or anyone else who feels this... Wodgina?):

Is this feeling of 'well being' or 'euphoria' something physiologic or a mental state?

Lex, a lot of gurus speak highly of the cleansing/rejuvenating properties of a fast.  Are you in complete disagreement?  Do you think any of the beginning days of your fast may have been helpful, but the prolongation was too much burden? Do you remember fighting the urge to eat?  or what you broke your fast with?...fat?  Sorry, probably it was too long ago, but just thought I'd ask.

I think that the feeling of 'well being' or 'euphoria' is a mental and emotional result of physiologic state. "You are what you eat", and "Love your neighbour as yourself", "one hand washes the other", "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" ad nauseum.

So what's a "fast"?
www.healself.org works because it's what we do every day on raw zero carb, we can call it intermittent fasting, but some don't see it as fasting. Breaking the daily fast ("breakfast"!  ;)  )  in the evening or whenever with raw fat meat is the perfect way to fast.
The point Dr. Bernarr tries to make is that if you are seriously hungry, you a not fasting, you are starving, and starvation is bad, results in muscle wasting as Lex notes.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 10, 2009, 12:00:05 am
I am a very rational/scientific-type person, very modern in that sense (though I have tried to learn more about the more sacred/spiritual thinking of the past, since it probably played an important role in the evolution of human societies over at least the first 2.5 million years of human existence--not something that can be easily poo-pooed), so my responses will tend to be along those lines. I hope none of the following offends spiritual people and they may wish to skip my post if they fear it will.

The following is speculation on my part, so I'm not claiming that any of it is fact and you should take it with a grain of salt.

Lex or PaleoPhil (or anyone else who feels this... Wodgina?):

Is this feeling of 'well being' or 'euphoria' something physiologic or a mental state?
I'm not sure what the difference is between those two, and scientists have been debating for decades over how much of mental state is physiological/chemical/hormonal/etc., so I'll let them figure that out. First I'll try to explain what I meant by euphoria. Euphoria and well-being are synonyms, with euphoria generally being seen as being an enhanced state of well-being beyond the everyday norm. The Greek word euphoria literally means well-bearing, which is translated into "well being" in English. Wikipedia states: "Euphoria is medically recognized as an emotional and mental state defined as a sense of great elation and well-being." It is safer to use the term "well being," because euphoria has also become associated with the drug-induced highs that have become increasingly common and accentuated in modern society in recent centuries, but for me, "well being" didn't seem to sufficiently convey the positive feeling I experienced that exceeded anything I had felt in my prior 40 years of eating modern foods.

All I know is that it was entirely unexpected when it first happened, it took me by surprise, puzzled me, and involved no conscious effort on my part. In other words, I didn't say to myself, "Oh isn't it wonderful how healthy I'm eating, I feel so good about myself, I think I'll adopt a positive mental attitude and meditate and try to reach a higher plane of consciousness, etc." It was more like, "Let's try this WOE that others report works so well and the science seems to back, hmmm, this is a fascinating positive sensation that seems to be welling up from deep inside my gut and washing over my body, what the devil is this? Am I really experiencing this or is this some sort of coincidence or delusion--let me check with others. Well, what do you know, multiple other people report the same sorts of euphoric/good-well-being/etc.-type sensations, so there appears to be some sort of 'real' cause and effect going on here. Fascinating. This is worthy of further study and seems to confirm that I am on the right dietary track."

Lex also seems to be a very rational/scientific type of person (coincidentally, he was an engineer and I started out on an engineering track in college, though I switched to business), so when he reports similar phenomena, I take his reports very seriously. He comes across as an honest, no-nonsense sort of person who wouldn't make up stuff or be easily prone to supernatural whimsy.

Whatever it is, for me it seems to emanate more from the primordial brain (the gut) and the body than the second cranial brain, and my cranial brain seems to be a beneficiary of its effects rather than the source of them. I don't take drugs or even consume much caffeine and I am not the sort of person who is prone to having or reporting mind/consciousness-altering or supernatural experiences (when a teacher asked my high school English class who had encountered ghosts, I was one of only 3 out of about 30 students who didn't raise their hands--it is a vivid memory because I was shocked at how many thought they had had experiences with ghosts). However, this experience has made me more interested in the spiritual reports and practices of traditional peoples and I have gradually incorporated more sacred-type language into my own discourse on "sacred" matters, because I now take them more seriously and think there may more of a physiological/physical/chemical/hormonal/call-it-what-you-will basis to much of it than I realized.

It sounds like Lex's positive sensations moderated over the years and I suspect that mine probably will as well. I think that part of it involves deficiencies in minerals and other nutrients that when filled most optimally by fresh flesh--perhaps especially raw meat and fat--result in positive biofeedback from the body, which would encourage mammals like us to eat more of that healthy flesh and thus better ensure our survival and thus may be an evolutionary adaptation.

My experience seems to confirm this. For example, when I first ate a large amount of wild salmon in the early days of adopting a NeanderThin-type diet, I experienced the greatest feelings of euphoria/well-being and they were lessened on later eating of similar quantities of wild salmon. Also, they seem to be greatest when I've gone the longest without eating or after having done some cheating and then return to the foods I do best on, suggesting that my nutrients have depleted more and are now being replenished more greatly than usual.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ioanna on August 10, 2009, 12:56:13 am
Quote
The point Dr. Bernarr tries to make is that if you are seriously hungry, you a not fasting, you are starving, and starvation is bad, results in muscle wasting as Lex notes.

To be honest, I don't really think I know how to identify 'hunger'.  I've been eating solely to avoid pain.  I just kind of know when my insides will rebel.  Following this I've been eating mostly twice a day for a few years now, though sometimes I only eat once, and sometimes not at all, sometimes nothing for a few days.  I don't know if I am hungry/starving... If my stomach is unsettled I won't eat.  Within in a small range, my weight hardly changes no matter what I do... lift, cardio, eat a ton, eat not at all... doesn't much matter, so that's not a good index for me. I don't really get myself at all.  I especially don't get, though I'm glad for the successes there, Charles' forum that I've recently been lurking on.  When I first went to meat/fat only, I cooked the fat (intentionally and unintentionally)... and I bloated/puffed up so much!  Back to raw fat and I was back to normal in a day.  There are so many testimonials there (they're mostly cooked) of people doing extremely well for themselves. Relatively, I feel like some extraordinary sensitive freak sometimes.

Anyway, that's why I was wondering if Lex felt 'hunger' during the 30 day fast.  Maybe his mindset did not allow him  to feel? Maybe he ignored?   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 10, 2009, 01:26:44 am
... and I bloated/puffed up so much!  Back to raw fat and I was back to normal in a day.  ...
Interesting. Lex experienced edema after eating cooked foods--I believe they were served by a hotel at a convention or something like that. What is it about cooking meats that could cause bloating or edema, I wonder?

I've only experienced minor symptoms after eating too much cooked meats myself (tiny acne outbreaks, constipation and feeling less great), though I'm not fully raw yet, so maybe my symptoms will become more pronounced when I'm eating more raw.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ioanna on August 10, 2009, 01:54:40 am
I only cooked the fat, not the lean.  I can feel cooked meat sitting in my stomach, but other than that I'm not sure how it affects me really.  Raw lean appealed to me, but not raw fat.. I think because it was always too cold.  Now I just put in my dehydrator set at 85 and gets mushy and I like it.   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 10, 2009, 02:28:10 am
...Now I just put in my dehydrator set at 85 and gets mushy and I like it.   
Interesting idea. I've also been lightly melting fat on the fry pan without heating it to cooking temps.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ioanna on August 10, 2009, 03:26:22 am
Raw Rob gave me the idea.  A cold meal is so detestful to me, while a warm/room temp is so pleasant.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on August 10, 2009, 07:19:00 am
A few days ago I jerked an ox heart, too lazy to cut the fat off it.
Just broke the fat off before grinding the jerky, and had not the usual unpleasant reaction to raw fat when I ate it with supper.
Dried 5 days at 95F.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 10, 2009, 11:01:25 am
After reading your journal a second time, I'm a little confused about something. You said that the 80% fat regimen caused you to gain weight. Yet your last numbers (did I miss any?) show that you actually lost a little weight and all your other numbers improved except urine ketones.

Quote
                 68%F/32%P  80%F/20%P  80%F/20%P       80%F/20%P         80%F/20%P
                    Baseline   21 Days       42 Days       70 Days          84 Days

BG Daily Avg        106        94              92                 87                 88
BG Hi/Low Range     90/120     92/103        80/100           71/98          72/109
BG rise after meal  25         10               6                 12                 25
Urine Ketones       0-Trace    SM/Lg        Trace/Mod         Large+       Large/Large+
Resting Heart Rt    58         63              60                 59                  59
Weight              162        159            165               160                 155
BMI                 21.4       21.0           21.8              21.1                20.4
BP                  110/70     105/67        98/63            103/65           106/67
%Body Fat(calipers) 11.0       12.3           13.9               10.8                9.5
Caliper A/C/T       10/6/11    12/8/11       14/9/13          8/6/12            7/5/10

However, you said you had less energy on 80% fat and that it was a struggle to finish your meals, so it sounds like the 68% regimen is more doable for you. Maybe somewhere in between (72-75% fat) would work?


Lex wrote:
Quote
Around 1999 or 2000 I ran across Neanderthin by Ray Audette and the rest is history.  I found a webset call "Beyond Veg" (  http://www.beyondveg.com/  )
It's pretty neat that I had the same early influences, except in reverse order. I found beyondveg.com, which led me to Neanderthin as well as Boyd Eaton and Loren Cordain. When some of my symptoms started to relapse, I decided to follow through on Ray Audette's comments about raw meat actually being the best food, and how he only lightly seared his steaks and ate jerky and pemmican (likely heated below what are considered "cooking" temperatures). So I searched for advice on pemmican and raw meat and found DelFuego and your posts at other forums, which I was very impressed with and inspired by. Your posts at other forums then lead me to this one, which is my favorite forum so far.


Lex wrote:
Quote
My favorite running surface is a rubberized asphalt, but these are expensive to install and maintain so most of the local schools don't have them, and the ones that do, don't open their tracks to the public.  My choice is either deal with the jarring of joints when running on a smooth hard surface, or risk twisting my knee or ankle and possibly tearing ligaments by running on an uneven but cushioned surface like grass. ...
Lex, I suspect that if you run barefoot or in barefoot-type shoes, that you will be less prone to twist joints or tear ligaments, and your calf, arch and toe muscles may strengthen, further reducing the chances of injury. Standard shoes seem to immobilize muscles and joints, causing atrophy, and cause poor body mechanics, both of which increase the risk of injury.

As Sully suggested, our ancestors and the people still living the old ways [nearly] always have the answers. When they seem to be wrong, I erase my assumptions, start from a blank slate, and then re-examine what our ancestors did and what HGs said in recent times. Like you, it used to be easy for me to twist my joints on grass, or even a flat surface for that matter. I have been wearing Vivobarefoot shoes for some months now and find that my muscles and ligaments seem to be gradually strengthening and my formerly weak joints are less prone to twisting, which they did easily before. I think going ZC and mostly raw has also helped and it is a confounding factor, but I think the barefoot-type shoes have also helped. I know that my feet are more sore after a day of wearing Rockport shoes (conventional "comfortable" shoes) than they are after wearing barefoot-type shoes.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on August 10, 2009, 06:23:04 pm
How do you feel about walking or running on hard surfaces in barefoot shoes all the time instead of grass etc?

My current thinking is to wear mbts or similar some of the time (when I can afford to replace my knackered pair!) then thin soled deck shoes the rest. That way it may even out the benefits and harm of each approach.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 10, 2009, 08:32:52 pm
I currently can't imagine going barefoot all the time, certainly not at work where it's not allowed. As far as going barefoot when exercising, even when running on pavement, I'm not sure what I'll do there. Some people do regularly run barefoot on pavement, but pavement is a modern innovation and not something our bodies are designed for, so the long-term consequences are uncertain. I think I'd like to run barefoot in a race some day to freak people out (I like doing that ;) ), but I don't think I'd want to make a habit of it. We'll see, I'm open minded about it.

I've found that it doesn't pay to walk barefoot indoors in my apartment (too cramped, with too many things to stub my toes on :) ). So currently I wear Vivobarefoot shoes and moccasins indoors and on gravel and pavement outdoors. Any time there is grass, sand or dirt to walk on outdoors I try to go barefoot.

My feet and skin are super-sensitive, so other people could probably be more daring than me. When I was eating lots of modern foods and carbs, my bare feet were sensitive even to grass! I learned that this is a common symptom among people with autism, which like the gluten sensitive enteropathy I suffered from is an autoimmune disorder with neural effects. Now I find tough grass and smooth stones to feel good on my bare feet--like a massage. Pointy gravel and pavement are still tough on them.

Of course, most people would claim it was all in my head (and before I learned better, at times I suspected similar causes for some other people's health symptoms--in part because my father drilled into me that anyone can improve their health if they just adopt a positive attitude--so if they don't improve it's their own fault; in other words--blaming the victim) and I just needed an attitude adjustment, but the truth is that walking on grass barefooted really did use to feel unpleasant to me and no longer does, despite no conscious change in mental attitude. It just happened organically and effortlessly when I changed my diet. This is something that Americans especially seem to have trouble accepting, because our culture is all about individual effort and achievement and positive mental attitude and blaming problems on individual character or moral defects, which organic changes from diet doesn't fit into.

The current approach of the medical community is backwards: it's atrophy-centered. When people's muscles are weak or joints are sore they say to immobilize them and rest--even lie down--when in reality they need more exercise and muscle strengthening (and improved diet to tighten and strengthen the connective tissues). When they have flat feet due to weak arches they add in arch supports, which immobilize the arch muscles and connective tissues, causing further atrophying. One needs to be careful about exercising weakened muscles and start out slowly, but immobilizing them is not the answer. My father learned this back in the 1960s in exercise physiology classes. Somehow that knowledge has been lost.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: halotek on August 11, 2009, 07:44:28 am

My doctor had the same concerns as you.  After 3 years he's thrown in the towel.  Vitamin C deficiency shows itself within weeks and death occurs within a couple of months of the onset of symptoms.  If I were going to get scurvy I'd have been dead long ago.  I take no supplements and my blood tests show no deficiencies in the elements that are measured.  You are free to look at them. They are all posted as pdf files attached to the first entry of this journal.


Just because you don't have deficiency-- doesn't mean you are getting an optimal amount-- over time your body will show the wear and tear-- just like there are healthy vegans for years before they start deteriorating. I don't believe your elevated A1c is just genetic.  There is probably a combination of food or nutrients that would help to bring this down.  I think vitamin c is one of them.


There has been some speculation in the scientific world as to why humans don't experience vitamin C deficiency when eating a fresh meat diet.  One theory that I've heard is that Vitamin C does its antioxidant work by contributing an electron to neutralize charged free radicals.  It just so happens that uric acid is even a better electron donor than Vitamin C and therefore has better antioxidant properties than Vitamin C.  Is this true?,  I have no idea and I'm not sure anyone else does either.  What I am sure of is that I haven't eaten any fruits, vegetables, or carbs of any kind in about 4 years and my health just keeps improving. 

I don't buy into the argument that Uric acid is safe-- I can give you tons of pub med articles showing the uric acid is a contributor to inflammation and other dangers.  Once again- I'd like to know your level - it's curiously missing from your tests.  I feel that our genetic ancestors had raised uric acid levels to deal with the drop of vitamin c in our diet.  It's a double whammy, we lost the ability to produce vitamin c because our primate ancestors ate so much of it.  And when we started to roam the savannah, our vitamin c intake dropped and our uric acid levels raised to protect us.  As long as our primate ancestors lived long enough to reproduce- that was all that mattered.  As thinking humans, we should try to come up with a diet scenario that is optimal for longevity.  I feel like humans have a need for vitamin c that is greater than the trace amounts you get in muscle tissue--  Remember, all carnivores produce there own vitamin c.
 
I can easily tolerate 50 grams of carbohydrate a day but if I don't need it, and my health is much better than when I was eating carbs, then why would I do this?  Second, you seem to think that dietary protein is converted to glucose only because there is no carb source.  I don't think this way.  I think there is evidence that 50 to 60 percent of all protein eaten is converted to glucose regardless of whether we eat carbs or not. (Look at my previous post to Paleo D for my reasoning.)  Why on earth would I want to add carbs just to add to the glucose load my body must handle?

Once again-- there are tons of articles on pub med showing the protein-sparring effects of carbohydrates.  Even if I eat a high fat diet myself-- I just don't trust having high ketones all the time-- I suspect that you feel better on a higher protein diet because your body does not need to produce them with the higher-conversion of protein to glycogen-- I just ask, why not just eat a few carbs-- rather then having my liver convert them from protein. And overall, stay out of ketosis.

What evidence do you have for these statements?  I have much better health than when I was eating plant materials with all those 'protective compounds', and I certainly am not showing any signs of nutritional deficiency.  I would change in a heartbeat if things weren't working, but they are working wonderfully well, and have been for several years now.

Plant materials work by stimulating phase I/II reactions in the body-- it may just be the our livers need to be taxed from time to time to keep working well-- possibly like exercise.  Compounds like Resveratrol  or Turmeric work because of a hormetic response--

Again, how do you know this with so much certainty?  I know of no objective studies that come to this conclusion.

Have you missed the last 30 years of research on plant compounds and there effects on they have on the body?  Almost all of them are toxins to some degree- I am not saying to have lots of them- just some - and definitely not zero.

Sounds like pure nonsense to me.  You are correct that we are now discovering all sorts of hormonal effects of plant compounds and the majority of them are bad.  What could possibly make you believe that processing toxins from plant materials is what makes us stronger?  What studies can you produce that support such a statement?

Just look at pub med for studies on Resveratrol, turmeric, or even green tea compounds.  All of them are plant defenses- and are slightly toxic- but look to all the articles that show benefit from slight consumption.

You can see my blood potassium, calcium, and other mineral levels in my annual blood tests posted in the first entry of this log.  They all show normal and for the most part right down the middle of the acceptable range.

Your bone scan done now-- and possibly in 5 or 10 years down the road will show what is going on here.

How do you know this?  I know others that have eaten an exclusive muscle-meat-only diet for over 4 years and they show no deficiencies of any kind. 

I feel that you should be eating organ meats because carnivores instinctively know that they need to obtain vitamins from them.  In fact, most carnivores go after the stomach first-- and there is usually half digested plant material in them.  Over time, I think your body would miss the vitamin a, the folate, and the multitude of other compounds found in foods such as liver.  No other carnivore eats only flesh and fat.  It may be another situation where it takes years to show problems-- just has it can take years for vegans to show problems.  And it may be that we need some compounds from plant material to be optimal for the long term.

All of the concerns you've brought up were voiced by my personal doctor as well.  All of his gloom and doom predictions have not come true.  I have no idea why I show no nutritional deficiencies on such a restricted diet of raw red meat and fat, but I don't.  I assure you that if I did, I'd change things in a hurry.  You see, I'm not about doing what doctors and diet gurus think is right, I'm all about what actually works.  Raw red meat, fat, and zero carb intake has been working very well for me for over 3 years.  Based on that 'real' evidence, I'll stick with it for the foreseeable future, and let others like yourself worry over things that might be problems, but aren't.

I hope you stay healthy.  I'll be extremely interested to see what happens 5/10/20 years down the road. I feel that humans do have very small mineral requirements-- which is why we can almost eat just about anything for the first 30 years of life and still be healthy and reproduce-- I'm hedging my bet with the thought that if i don't eat organ meats.  I'd want to make sure I'm getting the loss of nutrients from some other type of food or substance.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 11, 2009, 11:20:41 pm
Anyway, that's why I was wondering if Lex felt 'hunger' during the 30 day fast.  Maybe his mindset did not allow him  to feel? Maybe he ignored?   

For the first several days I was hungry.  After that I didn't feel hungry at all.  However, once I started eating again I was ravenous for days.

Interesting. Lex experienced edema after eating cooked foods--I believe they were served by a hotel at a convention or something like that. What is it about cooking meats that could cause bloating or edema, I wonder?

I wouldn't be to quick to attribute my edema to cooking alone.  All the meats I ate that week were processed (sausage, bacon, ham etc) and full of chemicals.  I ate large amounts of these meats as they were the only ones available to me.  I also ate 5 or 6 scrambled eggs everyday which were scrambled with a commmercial cooking oil which I expect was plant based (soy, canola, coconut or the like).  Far too many variables to lay the blame for my bout of edema on cooking.


Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 12, 2009, 12:15:25 am
halotek

You are free to believe and feel anyway you wish.  Based on my personal experience I've come to suspect that many of the 'normal' ranges for the various medical tests are really abnormal and based on a society eating an improper diet for many generations.  My doctor admits that he has no idea what the A1c, blood glucose, triglyceride, or any other level should be for a person eating an all meat diet.  He also has no idea (nor do I) if eating an all meat diet is good or bad.  What we both can agree on is that I feel great and I'm able to do things again that I had been unable to do for many years.

Why would I want to look on Pub Med to studies done on people who eat completely differently from me?  There are many studies that show vitamin C as being critical yet I don't consume any and I have no problems.  Studies that show that people eating lots of grains and processed foods and meats get scurvy mean nothing to a person who eats raw meat and fat and doesn't get scurvy. 

My son-in-law is a doctor and he suffers from gout (uric acid crystals in the joints and tissues).  He believes as you do, takes supplements, eats lots of fruits, and veggies yet suffers painfully for weeks at a time.  I eat no fruits and veggies and have no symptoms of gout whatever.  I have no idea what my uric acid levels are and I really don’t care as I don’t have any problems.  It’s my son-in-law, eating the way you suggest, has gout – apparently his gout didn’t read those Pub Med studies…..

I’ve come from the vegan background and know what poor health is all about.  I didn’t need any studies to tell me this.  My teeth were loose, my cholesterol was high, my triglycerides were high, my blood pressure was high, my blood glucose was high, my joints were arthritic, and I had constant killer migraine headaches.  All these problems have disappeared while eating an all meat diet.

I also believe we are all ‘deteriorating’, as you call it, all the time.  We are all heading inexorably towards death.  Most people are concerned with living a long life.  I care very little about living a long life.  I much prefer to live an active and productive life doing the things I want to do. I don't care to live to be 90 but be unable to do what I want to do for the last 20 or 30 years of my life - what good is that?  I'm only 58 but if I were to die tomorrow that is just fine with me because I feel great today and can do whatever I want to do.  I have little interest in riding around in my ‘free’ power chair or having to use a ‘stair lift’ to get to my bedroom.

I'm also not married to what I'm doing.  If a ZC diet stops meeting my needs I'll look for something better.  I’ll let you read the Pub Med studies and take the supplements.  I have no interest in doing either one.  I much prefer to be out in my shop doing the things I love to do.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 12, 2009, 05:45:13 am
Satya was rooting around and found this gem.  According to recent studies increased levels of uric acid are not caused by red meat as once thought, but by fructose - which, if I'm not mistaken, is found in copious quantities in fruit. But wait, according to halotek, studies performed over the past 30 years and Pub Med say that fruit and toxic plant compounds are the cure. What a quandry this puts me in.  I no longer know who to believe, Pub Med pushing the traditional party line, or the more recent analysis comming from the blogosphere like Dr William Davis of the Heart Scan Blog, or Peter of Hyperlipid fame - both of whom nail fructose as something to avoid like the plague, Vitamin C and other magic plant based compounds not withstanding.

I guess I'll just stick with my own independent observations and give credit to whatever source supports my own findings at the moment.  Saves me a lot of unnecessary research and frees up a good bit of time to do more interesting things. Anyway, here's the link and the relevent quote from the blog post: 


http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/fructose-is-coronary-risk-factor.html
"Increases uric acid--No longer is red meat the cause for increased uric acid; fructose has taken its place. Uric acid may act as an independent coronary risk factor and increases high blood pressure and kidney disease."

So there you have it,
Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on August 12, 2009, 11:48:11 am
I passed Satya's find to a naturopath friend, and here's some of what she had to say:
"Wondering if this is fructose (found in fruit, veg's and wheat) causing a problem with uric acid or is it the synthetic HFCS (high fructose corn syrup)?"

It had better be the latter, as I've just finished the annual cherry eating, now doing the peaches.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 12, 2009, 12:09:58 pm
William,
The bad news is that fructose is fructose regardless of the source and it causes many metabolic problems, gout being just one of them.  Peter has several posts specifically on fructose with links to the associated articles and studies.  Here's a link to one of them:

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Fructose%20and%20gout%20%282%29

Just look down the list of subjects on the right side of the screen and you'll find a wealth of information on a variety of diet related topics.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on August 12, 2009, 10:27:34 pm
Peter doesn't differentiate between whole fruit and synthetic extract.

All the studies on the evils of red meat studied the effect of cooked meat; same difference.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 12, 2009, 10:42:19 pm
Peter doesn't differentiate between whole fruit and synthetic extract.

All the studies on the evils of red meat studied the effect of cooked meat; same difference.

I read through the whole series of blog posts and what I got was that he was initially discussing the evils of manufactured high fructose corn syrup, but then in future posts he stated that the source didn't matter as fructose was fructose, whether from corn syrup or a peach, and the body metabolized it the same way causing the same problems.  Did I miss something?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on August 12, 2009, 11:33:27 pm
No, you didn't miss anything from his writing.
He writes that fructose is fructose, regardless of source. I cannot agree because I ate corn syrup and was very sick, and I ate cherries and was well.

This is another example of Word when we need something else. For instance "lipids" "protein" and other invisible stuff, none lof which do we eat. Great for confusion and mystifying and all that.
I once went into a liquor store, and asked for alcohol. (I do think like that) You can imagine the look I got.
What I wanted was a bottle of alcohol like the stuff I bought in Mexico which had in bright red letters on the label ALCOHOL, or even the same stuff called Everclear in the U.S.A.

A biochemist named Hulda Regehr Clark wrote books of which half described the bad result of eating food that is polluted with traces of poisons. I've never read that anyone else noticed; instead they rave on about the other half - the electronic medicine, and GS has been deceived the same way.

So it's not the food that's bad, it's the poison, and the naturopath made that point when she called it synthetic.
We call it "not paleo" and there are endless attempts to define what that is.

"Before you would speak with me, let us define our words" said Plato or Aristotle. Good idea, wonder if he ever managed it.
 


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 13, 2009, 06:54:35 am
No, you didn't miss anything from his writing.
He writes that fructose is fructose, regardless of source. I cannot agree because I ate corn syrup and was very sick, and I ate cherries and was well.

Did you ever stop to think that there is a considerable difference between consuming concentrated fructose with nothing to moderate its absorption and consuming fructose that is diluted and/or captured in a cellular matrix from which it must be extracted before absorption can occur?

I've had several instances over my life time where I ate a concentrated food element and had a disagreeable reaction, yet when eating the exact same element in a much diluted form or where absorption was moderated by a cellular structure or being combined with other foods, I was fine.

We also see this same problem when taking medications.  Many medications will cause problems if taken on an empty stomach, but are just fine when consumed with food to moderate their rate of digestion.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 13, 2009, 07:09:27 am
Your A1c and blood glucose numbers are probably the worst things that your critics can point to, but even they are not quite at levels that indicate diabetes, and diagnosis is usually not made on just the basis of one A1c reading anyway. It will be interesting to see what your future A1c numbers are. If they go down I would not be concerned. If they stay at the current level or go up, that would raise questions.


BTW, how did you run across Ray Audette's book Neanderthin?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: halotek on August 13, 2009, 12:59:58 pm
Higher than usual uric acid levels are usually caused by fructose (which you don't eat), or by eating high purine foods (sometimes), or by very low vitamin c intake.  I have this nagging feeling that your A1c test would even benefit from increased vitamin c intake-- because vitamin c can protect many types of molecules from oxidation.

If you look back, this is what i posted originally.  For you to say that nobody understands what good lab values are for you -- that's not exactly true.  Even you would probably agree that blood glucose readings in the 150s+ <----- if you had them, would probably not be good.  As would also be the case with trig values in the 400s+ <---- just can not be good.

Why is it so had to conceive that A1c values in the 6% range can possibly be bad (especially over time)-- when other people have values in the 4% range.  Remember, this is a direct measure of red blood cell glycation.

Btw, I agree with you that your "diet" might conceivably be the best diet for robust health "for the moment"-  glycation reactions might be a slight side effect of having the strongest most robust body possible.  This might also be why you feel so well on it.  And, as you said, longevity is not really your concern.  I have always thought this to be the case on a high protein diet.  Which is also why low protein diets have shown increases in longevity in lab studies on other animals.

It's entirely possible that vitamin c might slow down reactions in your body-- which might lead to a little less robust body-- but at the same time, lead to greater longevity (who knows).

What I do know however, is that just about every know animal out there produces its own vitamin c-- we are anomaly.

The best reason why I'd love for you to take vitamin c though-- is because you are taking no other vitamin and eating like a carnivore--  I'm just so curious how it would effect you-- and like I mentioned, it would almost certainly bring down your A1c score.

I'm not out here to try to fight you on topics lex-- I just want to understand the human body.

I'm not advocating tons and tons of plant foods- in fact, I think that we should minimize eating anti-nutrients as much as possible-- as most of these come from plants.  But it is possible that an addition of some plant foods (our body's may remodel itself stronger).  Just like exercise increases inflammation at first-- later, it actually promotes anti-inflammatory behavior in the body.  You just don't want to exercise too much or take it too many plant foods.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Rob on August 13, 2009, 01:32:35 pm
Hey Halotek,

Lex has been eating a mix of organs in his food. (Although I know he was thinking of doing away with the practice as of late.) Anyway, I think he's probably been getting a lot of vitamin C from that. I myself am on a carnivorous diet, and I eat lamb livers and sweetbreads everyday. (just a few small pieces)

Also, Nicola had a post on here a while that discussed sugar and vitamin C competing with eachother to be absorbed by the body. Perhaps we don't need as much vitamin C since it doesn't have to compete with sugar in our bodies? I don't know.

Here's an interesting excerpt from Weston A. Price's "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," which I am reading right now: 

"When I asked an old Indian, through an interpreter, why the Indians did not get scurvy he replied promptly that that was a white man's disease. I asked whether it was possible for the Indians to get scurvy. He replied that it was, but said that the Indians know how to prevent it and the white man does not. When asked why he did not tell the white man how, his reply was that the white man knew too much to ask the Indian anything. I then asked him if he would tell me. He said he would if the chief said he might. He went to see the chief and returned in about an hour, saying that the chief said he could tell me because I was a friend of the Indians and had come to tell the Indians not to eat the food in the white man's store. He took me by the hand and led me to a log where we both sat down. He then described how when the Indian kills a moose he opens it up and at the back of the moose just above the kidney there are what he described as two small balls in the fat. These he said the Indian would take and cut up into as many pieces as there were little and big Indians in the family and each one would eat his piece. They would eat also the walls of the second stomach. By eating these parts of the animal the Indians would keep free from scurvy, which is due to the lack of vitamin C. The Indians were getting vitamin C from the adrenal glands and organs. Modern science has very recently discovered that the adrenal glands are the richest sources of vitamin C in all animal or plant tissues."
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 14, 2009, 06:18:43 am
...Btw, I agree with you that your "diet" might conceivably be the best diet for robust health "for the moment"-  glycation reactions might be a slight side effect of having the strongest most robust body possible.  This might also be why you feel so well on it.  And, as you said, longevity is not really your concern.  I have always thought this to be the case on a high protein diet.  Which is also why low protein diets have shown increases in longevity in lab studies on other animals.

It's entirely possible that vitamin c might slow down reactions in your body-- which might lead to a little less robust body-- but at the same time, lead to greater longevity (who knows).
I've never understood the general obsession with longevity. When I was suffering from chronic health problems, I wasn't thinking about how to extend my life even further so I could suffer from these symptoms for an even longer stretch of time at a more advanced, severe stage. I was interested in treating the underlying illness and healing the body, not ignoring the causes and extending lifespan using unnatural means like ingestion of plant antinutrients, medicines or machines.

Did you read Lex's bio or my journal? If so, surely you can understand why we are thrilled that our health issues have improved dramatically and are less concerned about MAYBE living a few extra months or years at some point in the distant future.

Promises, promises. It reminds me of the Jimmy Cliff lyric, except that "when I die" would be replaced with "when I'm old":

"Well they tell me of a pie up in the sky
Waiting for me when I die
But between the day you're born and when you die
They never seem to hear even your cry...."

I'd rather live a happy, healthy life than a miserable life dependent on extensive supplements, drugs or life support, probably burdening society as well as my own physical and mental well being.

Quote
What I do know however, is that just about every know animal out there produces its own vitamin c-- we are anomaly.
So you're saying that every known animal except humans produces its own vitamin c? Are there any exceptions to this? It sounds like you are saying that we should all consume vitamin c because you are very sure that humans are the only ones that don't produce it--more sure about this than anything else you've been saying, yes?

Quote
The best reason why I'd love for you to take vitamin c though-- is because you are taking no other vitamin and eating like a carnivore--  I'm just so curious how it would effect you-- and like I mentioned, it would almost certainly bring down your A1c score.
This raises the question--why do you care what Lex eats? Isn't that his business?

Quote
I'm not out here to try to fight you on topics lex-- I just want to understand the human body.
So does this mean you want Lex to experiment with carbs so that you can understand the human body better? If so, why not ask him? He might even consider the request, or give an explanation as to why he is not interested.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 14, 2009, 07:15:03 am
Your A1c and blood glucose numbers are probably the worst things that your critics can point to, but even they are not quite at levels that indicate diabetes, and diagnosis is usually not made on just the basis of one A1c reading anyway. It will be interesting to see what your future A1c numbers are. If they go down I would not be concerned. If they stay at the current level or go up, that would raise questions.

I’m not sure what A1c is really measuring.  I’ve been told that it reflects an average BG level over about a 3 month period.  This “average” is based on people eating high carb diets with large fluctuations in BG levels several times per day.  I don’t think this accurately reflects someone with a BG level as consistent as mine.  I’ve been measuring my BG (often hourly) for several years and for the past 2 years I don’t think my BG has ever exceeded 110 – even after a meal.  My A1c level was 6% which corresponds to an average BG level over the last 3 months in excess of 135, which I know is not true.

Based on hundreds of BG measurements my average for the last 2 years has been right at 98-99.  If A1c were a true average I would expect an A1c level of about 5.0%   Anyway, I don’t plan on making changes to my diet based on a test parameter that I’m not sure is relevant to my situation.

BTW, how did you run across Ray Audette's book Neanderthin?

I think I ran across it mentioned on some website in the mid to late ‘90s if I remember correctly.  I then found it in a local bookstore.  I think it is out of print now which is disappointing.


Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: halotek on August 14, 2009, 07:32:55 am
So you're saying that every known animal except humans produces its own vitamin c? Are there any exceptions to this? It sounds like you are saying that we should all consume vitamin c because you are very sure that humans are the only ones that don't produce it--more sure about this than anything else you've been saying, yes?

If you go by wiki "Vitamin C or L-ascorbic acid is an essential nutrient for humans, a large number of higher primate species, a small number of other mammalian species (notably guinea pigs and bats), a few species of birds, and some fish."  I bet a could back this up from other sources if I look.  This is good enough for me.  As it stands, humans are in a small group of animals that do not produce vitamin c.

By no means am I looking for Lex to increase his carb intake.  At this point in time-- I'm only interested in seeing if at some point- if he'd consider adding some vitamin c in supplemental form to see if it changes his lab values or well-being.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 14, 2009, 07:34:07 am
...Based on hundreds of BG measurements my average for the last 2 years has been right at 98-99.  If A1c were a true average I would expect an A1c level of about 5.0%   Anyway, I don’t plan on making changes to my diet based on a test parameter that I’m not sure is relevant to my situation.
Dang! I can't catch you on anything! ;) You are a fountain of experience and knowledge that I've learned quite a bit from--thanks again.

Did you catch my questions on your experiment--such as what you thought of your lowered blood glucose numbers (but also higher ketones) on a higher fat diet and whether you thought that somewhere in between (say 73% fat) might lower BG without raising ketone excretion and therefore maybe be more optimal for you, based on the data (assuming you felt good at that level)?

Quote
I think I ran across it mentioned on some website in the mid to late ‘90s if I remember correctly.  I then found it in a local bookstore.  I think it is out of print now which is disappointing.
It is still available used online to anyone who wants it. It has become something of a classic and is actually selling better today on Amazon than it did on 11/22/06. The price of a new edition has risen to $145.52 as of right now.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 14, 2009, 08:34:24 am
If you look back, this is what i posted originally.  For you to say that nobody understands what good lab values are for you -- that's not exactly true.  Even you would probably agree that blood glucose readings in the 150s+ <----- if you had them, would probably not be good.  As would also be the case with trig values in the 400s+ <---- just can not be good.

Certainly there are values that we know are not good, however, I’m not convinced that the “normal” values that are based on the “normal” population living a lifestyle that is completely different from mine should in every case constitute normal for me.  Everyone that I know that eats a Zero Carb diet ends up with a very stable BG that is usually right around 100.  Is this good?  Who knows, I certainly don’t.  What I do know is that this is what it is, and I feel great.

Why is it so had to conceive that A1c values in the 6% range can possibly be bad (especially over time)-- when other people have values in the 4% range.  Remember, this is a direct measure of red blood cell glycation.

Did you every stop to think that maybe the lower values of A1c are caused by very low BG levels driven by huge infusions of insulin after eating a carb heavy meal?  Here’s my reasoning:

When eating carbs, glucose spikes quickly and the pancreas responds with a large shot of insulin to control it.  The refined sugars we eat creates a rapid and massive BG spike that causes the body to overestimate the actual sugar content so it over shoots with more insulin than needed. This forces BG to rapidly fall to an artificially low level for extended periods of time.  Of course, if it gets to low then fat and muscle will be sacrificed (and/or you'll crave a snack) to bring the level back up.  Our modern solution is to eat a candy bar or drink a soft drink which zooms BG back up and the process starts over.  This creates a yo-yo effect, and, I expect, a very skewed ‘average’ which could quite easily lead to a skewed A1c level (whatever that is).
 
When eating fat and protein, glucose climbs in a gentle curve over several hours.  The pancreas still releases some insulin but not in the panic mode as there is no large spike to make it think the body is in trouble.  This gentle rise in BG with the associated slow release of insulin to control it, would keep BG in a very stable and narrow range at the high end of the 'normal' scale - right at the edge of where insulin release is triggered.
 
Anyway, this is my theory and I'm sticking to it, unless you have a better one…..

Btw, I agree with you that your "diet" might conceivably be the best diet for robust health "for the moment"-  glycation reactions might be a slight side effect of having the strongest most robust body possible.  This might also be why you feel so well on it.  And, as you said, longevity is not really your concern.  I have always thought this to be the case on a high protein diet.  Which is also why low protein diets have shown increases in longevity in lab studies on other animals.

I know of no studies that show ‘low protein’ diets showing increases in lifespan.  What has been shown is that very low calorie diets have demonstrated statistically measurable increases in lifespan – independent of the makeup of the diet.  Also, were these studies you are referencing based on putting carnivores on a low protein diet?  You see, I believe humans are first and foremost top level carnivores and only eat plant material as a survival tactic.  And how was the overall energy and health of the animals in the studies.  Long life is of little value if you don’t have the health, energy, or will to live.  I know a lot of emaciated vegetarians with major health problems – I used to be one of them.

It's entirely possible that vitamin c might slow down reactions in your body-- which might lead to a little less robust body-- but at the same time, lead to greater longevity (who knows).

On this point I just don’t care.  What I’m doing is working very well for me so I have no interest in changing anything.

What I do know however, is that just about every know animal out there produces its own vitamin c-- we are anomaly.

This may be what is so…. But it is also, so what?  As far as I’m concerned it is not relevant to my situation as my doctor can find no sign of vitamin C or any other dietary deficiency.

The best reason why I'd love for you to take vitamin c though-- is because you are taking no other vitamin and eating like a carnivore--  I'm just so curious how it would effect you-- and like I mentioned, it would almost certainly bring down your A1c score.

This is not a project that interests me.  If it interests you then I suggest that you do your own experiments in this area and report your findings to the group.  We may all find it instructive and I know you will learn a lot more than from reading studies of the longevity of animals eating a low protein diet.

I'm not out here to try to fight you on topics lex-- I just want to understand the human body.

Nor am I fighting you.  I have learned much about MY human body through actually living various different lifestyles over the last 58 years.    I have come to my own conclusions as to what works and what doesn’t, and I’ve reported my observations as objectively as possible here on this forum.  In my journal and other postings I’ve plainly stated my beliefs and the tests I’ve made as well as the reasoning I used to arrive at these beliefs.

If you truly want to understand how YOUR human body works, then run your own tests and present your own findings and the reasoning behind them so we can all benefit from your experience.  This way you will learn far more about yourself than you ever imagined, and in areas you never dreamed of.


I'm not advocating tons and tons of plant foods- in fact, I think that we should minimize eating anti-nutrients as much as possible-- as most of these come from plants.  But it is possible that an addition of some plant foods (our body's may remodel itself stronger).  Just like exercise increases inflammation at first-- later, it actually promotes anti-inflammatory behavior in the body.  You just don't want to exercise too much or take it too many plant foods.

Well if YOU think we should minimize eating anti-nutrient filled plant foods as much as possible, then why on earth should I start eating them because YOU think it might, maybe, could be, possible that it could produce some unforeseen benefit – but then again maybe not.  This isn’t a very persuasive argument.  I think I’ll pass and continue doing the things that I find successful. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 14, 2009, 08:44:38 am
Did you catch my questions on your experiment--such as what you thought of your lowered blood glucose numbers (but also higher ketones) on a higher fat diet and whether you thought that somewhere in between (say 73% fat) might lower BG without raising ketone excretion and therefore maybe be more optimal for you, based on the data (assuming you felt good at that level)?

If you've paid attention to my normal model, I do what makes me feel best rather than trying to control some arbitrary lab number.  My best guess is that I'm eating around 70% calories as fat as that is where I seem to do best.  BG is still hanging right around 100 mg/dl and seldom moves more than a few points up or down from this number.  I have no interest in trying to maniupulate BG, I just eat what seems to satisfy me and then objectively measure what my body does with it.

It is still available used online to anyone who wants it. It has become something of a classic and is actually selling better today on Amazon than it did on 11/22/06. The price of a new edition has risen to $145.52 as of right now.

Yeah, I'm aware of the inflated price.  I've purchased several used copies over the last few years to hand out to friends and others who are interested.  I seldom get them back but I console myself into thinking that it may have had some positive impact in their lives.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 14, 2009, 08:56:23 am
If you go by wiki "Vitamin C or L-ascorbic acid is an essential nutrient for humans, a large number of higher primate species, a small number of other mammalian species (notably guinea pigs and bats), a few species of birds, and some fish."  I bet a could back this up from other sources if I look.  This is good enough for me.  As it stands, humans are in a small group of animals that do not produce vitamin c.

I guess I just don't get the point of this.  There are many things our bodies don't produce.  There are many amino acids, many vitamins, all of the minerals, oxygen and even water.  We must consume these on a regular basis or our health suffers.  This is true for every life form, though each may have different requirements.  So what?  As long as the requirement is met, the organism will flourish.

You seem to be of the belief that because we don't manufacture vitamin C then we must take a supplement or we will be deficient.  Why?  No other animal takes supplements in its natural environment to meet its nutritional requirements, and neither did humans for millions of years and yet we prospered.  The whole argument is silly. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 14, 2009, 09:12:14 am
If you've paid attention to my normal model, I do what makes me feel best rather than trying to control some arbitrary lab number.  My best guess is that I'm eating around 70% calories as fat as that is where I seem to do best.
Right, I meant if you felt equally good at a slightly higher fat level, but if you feel better at 70%, then I would stay there too, because--as you've explained--how you've felt has turned out to be a better long-term health indicator than conventional assumptions about what good lab numbers are. I do feel kind of silly for asking it, because I should have guessed that you've already figured out at what level you feel best at and should have remembered how pointless aiming for lab numbers can be--it's a hard habit to break. As a retired engineer I'll bet it was hard for you to give up on the conventional lab numbers too.

Quote
BG is still hanging right around 100 mg/dl and seldom moves more than a few points up or down from this number.
Fascinating. I had no idea that zero carb BG averages were that high. I'll have to get out my meter at some point and test my own. My doctor may have a fit!  :P

So the usual fasting BG #'s for non-diabetics recommended by Bernstein and others down in the 80s may be too LOW, due to excessive production of insulin at some point during the day, and the body's barometer of what's "normal" getting out of whack? I would assume he would counter that insulin doesn't get produced at those low levels, so one should keep them down there as much as possible. This is still fuzzy to me. Can you explain in simple terms why he would be wrong on that? Could his analysis be skewed by dealing solely with people who eat at least some carbs? Is he allowing for higher-than-healthy post-prandial and random BG levels to get the fasting BG down to the 80s? Do you know the average post-prandial BG levels for zero carbers vs. carb eaters?

Quote
You see, I believe humans are first and foremost top level carnivores and only eat plant material as a survival tactic.
I never thought I'd say this, but I am increasingly coming to agree with you on this. Heck, right on this forum I repeated the old assumption that humans are omnivores. I'm not 100% sure, but it's my best educated guess at this point that humans were originally indeed top level carnivores who only ate plants when they had to. Every one of your claims that I've checked out has turned out to be supported by evidence--much of it that I had never heard of before. And my own experience certainly matches it.

...and it explains why the studies have not found any benefit from consuming antioxidant supplements--something that used to confound me. I also couldn't understand why very few of my customers benefited from any supplements other than minerals--which was my experience as well. This would explain so many mysteries that have confounded humans for thousands of years! Brilliant stuff!

This bodes poorly for the human race. Even conventional Paleo diets like Dr. Cordain's could not come close to feeding the world. What appears to be our natural carnivorous diet would feed far fewer.

As a corollary to your carnivore hypothesis Lex, I now suspect that the prime task of human females was to hunt small game and assist with low-risk tasks in harvesting large game, like "herding"/funneling animals to the hunters and butchering, rather than gathering plants.

What do you think of the hypothesis of homonids, beginning to transform into super-hunters (meaning well beyond chimp abilities) around Austrolopithecus, coming to the fore with homo erectus, and becoming highly advanced with archaic homo sapiens, increasingly becoming super-predators and super-exterminators of megafauna, who had not adapted to intelligent, cooperating, tool-using primates hunting them as their primary food, and thus lacked fear of them and were easy prey, leading to the extinction of the majority of the megafauna? Instead of "Man the Hunter," it seems to be "Man the Carnivorous Super-predator." Have you expounded on this somewhere already?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 14, 2009, 09:35:18 am
OK, now that I have been sufficiently spanked by Lex's superior knowledge ;) , I'll add some tasty knowledge tidbits to his brilliant reply to Halotek's suggestion of taking vitamin c supplements because humans are claimed by some to be an "anomaly" in not producing them. These infobits are not really necessary after his excellent point, but I find them interesting. Maybe others will too.

If you go by wiki "Vitamin C or L-ascorbic acid is an essential nutrient for humans, a large number of higher primate species, a small number of other mammalian species (notably guinea pigs and bats), a few species of birds, and some fish."  I bet a could back this up from other sources if I look.  This is good enough for me.  As it stands, humans are in a small group of animals that do not produce vitamin c.

You're getting closer. The view that just a handful or a very small number of species don't produce their own vitamin c has expanded as actual research has been done on the matter. According to Elwood S. McCluskey, PhD, "what has the study of many more taxa done? 1) It has greatly enriched our picture: rather than the long-held view that vitamin C is required in the diet of guinea pig, monkeys and man, we now see that it is required also by bats, at least some fish, and many birds [at least 16 species--which I believe is more than "a few"]; and on the other hand, not by all primates. Further, animals which make their own do so in different organs: the kidney, especially reptiles and birds; or the liver, especially mammals and perching birds." And to those species you can add insects and invertebrates, according to veterinary student D.S. Gillespie (see http://www.jstor.org/pss/20094480; see also http://www.labmeeting.com/paper/14113840/gupta-1972-incapability-of-l-ascorbic-acid-synthesis-by-insects). Since insect species vastly outnumber mammalian species, perhaps ascorbic acid synthesis is the anomaly?

OK, so your and my research has revealed that quite a diversity of species don't produce their own vitamin c, including "a large number of higher primate species" as well as other vertebrates and all insects and invertebrates. Now let's focus in on one of the more interesting of them. Tarsiers are reportedly one of the types of primates that don't produce their own vitamin c. They were once grouped with the strepsirrhines, but after DNA testing were recently reclassified with the Haplorrhines--the suborder that includes humans. Are you aware of the type of diet that tarsiers eat?

Quote
By no means am I looking for Lex to increase his carb intake.  At this point in time-- I'm only interested in seeing if at some point- if he'd consider adding some vitamin c in supplemental form to see if it changes his lab values or well-being.
OK, and if it does, what then? In other words, what's the purpose of your experiment on Lex?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 14, 2009, 11:36:26 am
So the usual fasting BG #'s for non-diabetics recommended by Bernstein and others down in the 80s may be too LOW, due to excessive production of insulin at some point during the day, and the body's barometer of what's "normal" getting out of whack? I would assume he would counter that insulin doesn't get produced at those low levels, so one should keep them down there as much as possible. This is still fuzzy to me. Can you explain in simple terms why he would be wrong on that? Could his analysis be skewed by dealing solely with people who eat at least some carbs? Is he allowing for higher-than-healthy post-prandial and random BG levels to get the fasting BG down to the 80s? Do you know the average post-prandial BG levels for zero carbers vs. carb eaters?

Here’s what I believe is going on and why “healthy” carb eaters would have a lower “fasting” BG.  This is the world according to Lex and may be pure baloney so reader beware.

Remember that there is a ‘satisfactory’ range for most things.  For blood PH the range is very tight – a range of about 7.35 to 7.45 – and the body will do whatever is necessary to keep PH in this range.  For BG it is a much broader range – somewhere between 65 mg/dl to 110 mg/dl.  As long as the BG levels are in the proper range the body will not do anything to raise or lower them other than the ongoing natural consumption of BG by the various BG dependent tissues.

Another variable is the digestion time of the food we eat.  Simple and refined carbs digest in minutes and cause rapid spikes in BG, where fat and protein take hours to digest and are converted to BG at a much slower but sustained rate.

If BG falls too low then the body will initiate hunger and/or start sacrificing fat and muscle to bring the level back up.  It will not create more than necessary as this would destroy tissue unnecessarily.  An example might be when fasting.  Only the amount of tissue necessary to sustain the body is sacrificed.  This process of mobilizing tissue is a slow process so little insulin would be produced and BG would hover in the lower ranges with the body just adding to it as necessary to sustain BG just above the lower limit.

When we eat slowly metabolized foods like meat and fat, BG rises slowly as some amino acids as well as some of the glycerol from the fat are converted to BG by the liver.  This is a very slow process and even though the food is gone from the stomach in a couple of hours, the slow conversion can sustain a slow manufacturing of glucose by the liver for many hours after a meal.  As BG rises, it will reach the upper limit and then small amounts of insulin will be released to keep it just below that level.  I find that 10 to 15 hours after eating my BG will then slowly fall until it reaches its low for the day, usually just before I eat my next meal.

In conjunction with the meat/fat scenario above, most of the tissues are using fatty acids rather than glucose.  Now the body is calling on fat reserves between meals to provide fatty acids for muscles and other tissues that on a high carb diet would call for glucose.  In the fat adapted person, the glucose isn’t needed and becomes somewhat of a waste product.  The fat is mobilized from the fat cells as a triglyceride.  When the triglyceride hits the liver, it is broken apart into 3 fatty acids and 1 glycerol molecule.  The fatty acids are released into the bloodstream where they are consumed by fat adapted tissue.  The glycerol, having no extra free fatty acids available to make up a new triglyceride, is converted to glucose (two glycerol molecules can be turned into one glucose molecule in the liver).  This is new glucose that is released into the bloodstream and as there are few tissues in a fat adapted person to use this glucose, as BG rises to the upper limit, insulin is released to cause the conversion of glucose back into fatty acids.  Again this will keep BG just below the upper level.

Finally we come to the high carb eater. Since most of the carbs we eat are refined and simple sugars, our bodies are not geared to the speed at which they are metabolized and released into the blood stream so the body overreacts by dumping more insulin than necessary because it thinks the rapid spike will last a long time.  After all, all the other glucose producing mechanisms in the body do so over long periods and the body doesn’t know that the rapid rise will be short so it dumps insulin as though the spike will be sustained (relatively speaking).  This over reaction causes BG to plummet to the low end of the scale and since carbs are metabolized quickly, there is nothing to raise it back up so it stays low.  This is aided by the fact that muscle and other tissues are not fully fat adapted so will use glucose as their primary fuel if available so any glycerol or protein that is converted to glucose over the long term is rapidly consumed again keeping BG at the lower levels.  If it gets too low then we are driven by discomfort, headaches, hunger etc to consume carbs to bring the level back up and if food is not forthcoming, the body will sacrifice fat and muscle tissue to create glucose.

In this case, fat is mobilized again in the form of triglycerides, and when they get to the liver they are torn apart into 3 fatty acids and a glycerol molecule.  Now comes the difference.  In the case of the carb eater, his body is demanding glucose, not fatty acids for fuel, so the liver will convert the glycerol into glucose and throw the fatty acids away in the form of ketones which are eliminated through urine, sweat, and breath.  Since it takes 2 glycerols to make one glucose, two triglycerides are consumed and 6 fatty acids are thrown away for each molecule of glucose produced.  This is why non fat adapted people loose weight rapidly.  Their fat is being consumed to get at the glycerol to create glucose and 3/4s of the energy from the triglycerides (6 fatty acids) is being discarded.  Only the minimum amount of tissue will be consumed as the body thinks it is starving so BG is again held to the lower end of the range.  In effect, the high carb eater will have huge spikes of BG but they are short in duration (as long as the pancreas can produce enough insulin) so the body’s reaction will force BG to the low end for most of the day. 

If this keeps up the body will slowly start converting tissues to efficiently use fatty acids and weight loss will slow.  If we are fasting (not eating food) but have been eating a high carb diet then BG will remain in the lower range.  If we are changing the type of food we eat then as the body becomes more efficient at using fatty acids rather than glucose as fuel, weight loss slows and then turns around and we start gaining weight again and BG will remain in the higher ranges because it is not needed by most body tissues. 

Hope this made sense.  If not ask questions and I’ll do my best to make it more clear.

This bodes poorly for the human race. Even conventional Paleo diets like Dr. Cordain's could not come close to feeding the world. What appears to be our natural carnivorous diet would feed far fewer.

I believe this is correct.  Our planet could not sustain anything like it’s current population if we were eating our natural diet.  I’m sure that this is what has driven our species to eat carbs in the first place.  We had depleted our normal food supply and we had to find a new one or we would go through the natural cycles of population based on the available food supply like all other animals in nature do.

What do you think of the hypothesis of homonids, beginning to transform into super-hunters (meaning well beyond chimp abilities) around Austrolopithecus, coming to the fore with homo erectus, and becoming highly advanced with archaic homo sapiens, increasingly becoming super-predators and super-exterminators of megafauna, who had not adapted to intelligent, cooperating, tool-using primates hunting them as their primary food, and thus lacked fear of them and were easy prey, leading to the extinction of the majority of the megafauna? Instead of "Man the Hunter," it seems to be "Man the Carnivorous Super-predator." Have you expounded on this somewhere already?

I really have no interest in this area so your guess is as good as mine – and probably better.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on August 14, 2009, 03:54:45 pm
I don't think it's necessarily a problem. If you imagine the current state of the world, then everyone suddenly demanding meat, then obviously there's not enough. However, this assumes that the scenario will develop linearly.

The poor third worlders aren't gonna be experimenting with diet anytime soon, unfortunately they have to eat what they can get. By the time they get to the point we're at then who knows what technological changes will have happened in the west.

Also, if there was a massive demand for healthy meat, then science would probably come up with something to fill the gap.

That's how I justify myself to vegetarians on the offensive anyway.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 14, 2009, 07:26:28 pm
The poor third worlders aren't gonna be experimenting with diet anytime soon, unfortunately they have to eat what they can get. ...
That's basically what I meant--most people will not have the option to become carnivorous, even if they want to, and even if only 5 or 10% of the world switches to carnivore over the next 20 years, it would dramatically drive up the prices of the meats they choose to eat. The prices of choice meats like wild salmon have been escalating dramatically over the years as it is.

Quote
Also, if there was a massive demand for healthy meat, then science would probably come up with something to fill the gap.
Like what, cloned cattle?

Quote
That's how I justify myself to vegetarians on the offensive anyway.
This is why I appreciate the vegetarians and am not interested in converting them. They help ensure that meat will remain affordable for me. They are sacrificing their health for us. In the longer run, though, that is only a good thing if they also procreate less and reduce their numbers over time, so that the world can gradually turn back the clock--moving to organic small-farming, then pastoralism and horticulture, then permaculture, then hunting and gathering.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 15, 2009, 01:36:47 am
One point that I may not have been clear in my dissertation on the variations of BG levels in my previous post is the fact that BG often climbs in zero carb eaters even when they haven’t eaten anything for many hours. The observtions that I site are accurate, but the rest is my reasoning and seems to be supported by my own experience and the experience of others.  It's up to you to decide for yourself if it rings true for you.

I often awake in the morning and immediately measure my BG which is usually in the mid 80s. Since I eat in the mid to late afternoon, it has been 15 hours or more since my last meal.  I’ll then take my shower and start my day’s activities.  An hour or so after becoming active I find my BG has risen well into the 90s and often near 100.  Since I haven’t eaten anything, what causes the rise in BG?

I believe that my body is now well adapted to using fatty acids as its primary fuel for most tissues.  While sleeping there was little activity and the body went into repair and recover mode.  My meal had been digested and anything that was going to be converted to BG had done so long ago.  Most tissues were consuming free fatty acids so these were probably fairly low, and the few tissues that were consuming BG had lowered BG from the upper level of the BG range around 100 to around 86.

Now I start activity.  Muscles and other tissues are suddenly calling for fuel, which in this case is fatty acids.  The best source for fatty acids is in stored body fat.  Triglycerides are mobilized from the fat cells and sent to the liver where they are broken down into 3 fatty acids and 1 glycerol molecule.  The fatty acids are released into the bloodstream to provide fuel which leaves free glycerol hanging around.  Since there are no spare fatty acids for the glycerol to combine with to make new triglycerides, the liver converts the excess glycerol into glucose and releases it into the bloodstream.  Since most of my tissues are now using fatty acids as their primary fuel, there are few tissues calling for glucose so BG slowly starts to rise.  It will continue to rise until it reaches the upper limit at which point insulin will be released to keep it just below the upper limit of its normal range. 

So, when body fat (or dietary fat for that matter) is metabolized to free up the fatty acids as the primary fuel source, excess glycerol remains and the only way the body can get rid of it is to either create new triglycerides to store as body fat or convert it to glucose which the body doesn’t need – causing BG to rise.

Contrast this with someone conditioned to eating carbs.  During their sleep glucose was consumed and fatty acids were stored causing both low fatty acids level as well as low BG levels in the early morning.  Once they start activity, their tissues start calling for fuel, but in this case the preferred fuel is glucose, not fatty acids.  Two things can happen.  Fat can be mobilized, sent to the liver and broken down into fatty acids and glycerol but in this case only the glycerol is used to create glucose and the fatty acids are discarded.  In this case the increased activity will consume the glucose for fuel so fasting BG levels will remain relatively low (in the 70s to 80s).  Fatty acids will rise and when they reach their upper range, the liver will convert excess fatty acids to ketones which will be eliminated via urine, sweat, and breath.

The second option the body has if the activity level consumes more glucose than can be created through fat metabolism (which is a very inefficient way to create glucose), the body will start to sacrifice lean muscle mass.  Protein can be converted by the liver into glucose at a much faster rate and is more efficient (58% for protein vs 12% for fat).  Again, the body will only sacrifice the minimum tissue necessary to meet the body’s need for fuel so BG will remain in the lower range.

Hope this helps explain why a person that is fat adapted and eats ZC will have a consistently higher fasting BG level than someone who’s healthy and their body is using glucose as it’s primary fuel.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Tom G. on August 15, 2009, 01:58:16 am
  Lex. Didn't the "Bear" also say that his blood glucose level was consistently around 100, and that this was normal for him? He was catching a lot of flack from people saying it should be far lower.

  One of the problems I do see in the medical field regarding test results, is that they are based on the assumption that carbs are a large part of our diets. Looking up the nutritional contents of meat, it shows to be seriously lacking, or at virtually zero levels in about a half dozen important vitamins, nutrients, and minerals.

  Stefansson wrote from experience that a diet of fresh meat always solved the problem of scurvy, yet it has little or no vitamin C. Other explorers still had problems with scurvy, despite consuming limes or other fruits and vegetables. This was due to their diet consisting of mainly high refined carbs and salted cooked meat.


  Tom
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on August 15, 2009, 02:11:59 am
Just anote:- Raw meat contains plenty of vitamin C(especially raw liver, but even raw muscle-meat). However, vitamin C is easily destroyed by heat. As a result, because virtually everyone eats only cooked meats, everyone mistakenly assumes that ALL meats don't have vitamin C.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 15, 2009, 05:37:39 am
Tom,
Not sure about the Bear, but I do know several other ZC'ers that have been surprised by the fact that their BG started rising about 18 months to 2 years after going ZC.  In every case BG stabilized right around 100.  Their BG also behaves like mine in that it rises and falls under similar circumstances.  This makes me believe that this is normal for the human animal when dietary carbs are severely restricted.  This is not to say that ZC is the best possible dietary protocol for humans.  The truth is, I have no idea if ZC is really a prudent lifestyle or not, only that it seems to be working well for me at this time.

Tyler,
I'm sure your information is correct, yet there is not one mention of vitamin C in any official publication related to the nutritional qualities of meat.  I know that vitamin C is destroyed by heat and virtually everyone cooks their meat, but vegetables list vitamin C levels and most people eat them cooked as well, so what's the difference?  I've never understood why the vitamin C content of meat has been totally ignored.

Even the conjecture by some researchers that uric acid is playing a significant role in replacing vitamin C in those eating a carnivorous diet leads to the assumption that the researchers themselves believe that there is no significant vitamin C in meat otherwise why would they even contemplate an alter ego for it.  I guess it's just one of life's little mysteries.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 15, 2009, 08:31:01 am
...Hope this helps explain why a person that is fat adapted and eats ZC will have a consistently higher fasting BG level than someone who’s healthy and their body is using glucose as it’s primary fuel.

Lex
Thanks, Lex. Glad I found this out from you before measuring my BG and wondering why it had risen or having my doctor freak out on me and not have an answer.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: primavera on August 15, 2009, 11:04:39 pm
Lex, how's it going with the D&C?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 15, 2009, 11:55:45 pm
Lex, how's it going with the D&C?

Still adding it to my mix and have had no further problems.  The loose bowel problem seemed to last for a couple of weeks and then just disappeared.  No idea what caused it or why it went away.  Same D&C from the same batch and same order.  Who knows?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 16, 2009, 07:21:53 am
Tyler,
I'm sure your information is correct, yet there is not one mention of vitamin C in any official publication related to the nutritional qualities of meat.  I know that vitamin C is destroyed by heat and virtually everyone cooks their meat, but vegetables list vitamin C levels and most people eat them cooked as well, so what's the difference?  I've never understood why the vitamin C content of meat has been totally ignored.

Even the conjecture by some researchers that uric acid is playing a significant role in replacing vitamin C in those eating a carnivorous diet leads to the assumption that the researchers themselves believe that there is no significant vitamin C in meat otherwise why would they even contemplate an alter ego for it.  I guess it's just one of life's little mysteries.
Scurvy still does seem to be a mystery. Does an all-cooked-meat Stefansson diet cure it because of small amounts of vitamin C in the cooked meat or hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine from collagen in the connective tissues of the meat or uric acid produced by eating meat or low levels of glucose in the diet or some combination?

I found the following:

"I'm not buying into the whole hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine preventing scurvy thing. How come carnivores aren't included in lists of animals that don't synthesize vitamin c? Who eats more raw collagen than a carnivore? How come carnivores make vitamin c?

...

Here's a study I found that includes vitamin c levels found in various arctic meats.

Vitamin C in the Diet of Inuit Hunters From the northwest territories, http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic32-2-135.pdf

...."

--teaser, http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=359020&page=3


"Glucose prevents vitamin C from getting absorbed so I think a low carb diet would help you utilize the C you eat a lot better." --Nancy LC
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: invisible on August 16, 2009, 09:10:35 am
"I'm not buying into the whole hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine preventing scurvy thing. How come carnivores aren't included in lists of animals that don't synthesize vitamin c? Who eats more raw collagen than a carnivore? How come carnivores make vitamin c?

Carnivores which produce vitamin C can develop scurvy if fed carb/grain filled low fat diets so clearly vitamin C alone will not prevent scurvy entirely. Scurvy is common for dogs, less common for cats.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 16, 2009, 01:08:21 pm
Today it is common for dogs and cats to be diagnosed with diabetes.  I imagine it's the grain based dog and cat chow that are at the root of the problem.  Years ago I thought it was so wonderful that pet food companies made such healthy and complete food for animals and just couldn't understand why there wasn't a 'people chow'.  Over the years I've finally figured out that pet chow isn't so wonderful - it's just cheap to make and can be sold at a huge profit.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 16, 2009, 08:07:44 pm
But it's scientifically formulated!  ;D

One major pet food company briefly got it right years ago and came out with a grain-free brand of dog food years ago; I think it was the Alpo brand. Their slogan was "Not one speck of grain." I remember being puzzled by this. Why should one speck of grain be a problem? Isn't grain healthy for dogs--other dog food companies talk about the healthy grains they put in their dog food. I didn't own a dog, so I didn't look into it further. I was not the only one who was puzzled. Comedians like David Letterman and Saturday Night Live ridiculed the commercial. I still remember what Letterman said, because I found it funny at the time: "One speck of grain? My dog Bob roots through garbage! He doesn't care about one speck of grain." Now that I understand celiac disease, gluten intolerance and diabetes better, I understand what that one speck of grain was about. That's all it takes to trigger symptoms in pets and people who are particularly sensitive.

Unfortunately, Alpo abandoned the brand, which must have been more expensive than their cheap grain-based chows and which was ahead of its time. Today there are multiple grain-free chows (such as the Evo brand) sold by small, premium pet food companies and they seem to be profitable.

Unfortunately, there are also such atrocities as pasta flavor dog food and vegan cat food. One vegan cat food maker has the temerity to call itself "Evolution Diet Pet Food Corporation." Anyone who would feed a cat a vegan diet should be fined for cruel animal abuse and not allowed to keep pets. If many people are so misguided as to feed obligate carnivores vegan diets, it's no surprise that they don't recognize that we ourselves are opportunistic carnivores.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 17, 2009, 11:40:12 pm
It seems I was pretty close in my speculation that higher fasting blood glucose is normal for those following VLC and ZC dietary protocols.  Peter, of Hyperlipid fame, has 6 posts on the subject.  He doesn’t go into the biochemistry behind this rise, but simply states the reason as “physiological insulin resistance” which is just another way of saying that most body tissues are using fatty acids as their primary fuel when available and rejecting glucose. It appears that this same phenomenon occurs in mice when they eat a high fat low carb diet. 

Another interesting factoid about mice was that when ‘wild’ mice were given the ability to choose the food they ate, they chose 82% calories as fat, 12%-13% calories as protein, and 5%-6% calories as carbohydrate.  For a human eating 2,500 calories per day, this would be the same as eating 650 grams of meat that was 35% fat by weight, and about 30 grams of carbs per day. 

Converting 30 grams of carbs into raw fruit is about 225 grams (1/2 lb) per day of most fruits and berries. Mellons you can eat about 400 grams and concentrated fruits like fresh figs or bananas only about 150 grams.

As a salad of fresh greens and non-sweet fruits like tomatoes, cucumbers, broccoli, onions, etc, you can eat roughly 500 grams ( 1 ¼ lbs) to get the equivalent 30 grams of carbs.

Here’s the links to Peter’s 6 posts on physiological insulin resistance.  Recommended reading.

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Physiological%20insulin%20resistance%20%281%29
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Physiological%20insulin%20resistance%20%282%29%3B%20Dawn%20Phenomenon
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Physiological%20insulin%20resistance%20%283%29%3B%20Clarification%20of%20FBG
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Physiological%20insulin%20resistance%20%284%29%3B%20Alzheimers
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Physiological%20insulin%20resistance%20%285%29%20The%20wild%20type%20mice
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Physiological%20insulin%20resistance%20%286%29%20The%20Terminator

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on August 18, 2009, 01:32:33 am
Sounds like your one fruit a day or small salad protocal has something to it there Lex. Do you think at that level of carbs it wouldn't make a difference to go to zero?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 18, 2009, 06:43:04 am
... Another interesting factoid about mice was that when ‘wild’ mice were given the ability to choose the food they ate, they chose 82% calories as fat, 12%-13% calories as protein, and 5%-6% calories as carbohydrate. ...
That's good news. It lends further support to the experiences of you, William, me and others, as well as the research of Phinney, Rosedale and Groves and the traditional Greenland Inuit diet. I believe the Phinney, Rosedale, Inuit and William's diets all have around 80% fat by calories, to which we can now add the mouse diet. I estimate my own has reached around 75% fat by calories, with only benefits as I increase the fat levels.

The evidence is mounting. It looks like Halotek may want to consider increasing his fat intake, rather than have Lex decrease his.

Quote
Converting 30 grams of carbs into raw fruit is about 225 grams (1/2 lb) per day of most fruits and berries. Mellons you can eat about 400 grams and concentrated fruits like fresh figs or bananas only about 150 grams.

As a salad of fresh greens and non-sweet fruits like tomatoes, cucumbers, broccoli, onions, etc, you can eat roughly 500 grams ( 1 ¼ lbs) to get the equivalent 30 grams of carbs.
FYI: I don't recommend bananas or tomatoes for anyone, even people who can handle carbs, based on the research I've posted elsewhere. Dried fruits like figs are also highly suspect, due to their sugariness. Berries are probably a better option.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on August 18, 2009, 07:54:56 am
Dried fruits like figs are also highly suspect, due to their sugariness.

Figs, like any other fruit, start out fresh and have to be dried to be dry.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 18, 2009, 09:51:14 am
I've never seen figs sold in any form other than dried. If you can get fresh figs, that would be better.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 18, 2009, 10:07:00 am
Dried fruit is the single worst food you can eat, in my experience. It's a terrible, terrible food masquerading as a "healthy" food.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 18, 2009, 10:18:16 am
Yeah, dried fruit was bad for me too. It certainly contributed to my dental problems.

Lex, when you eat butter at restaurants, how is it used? I'm thinking that when you have to eat fried foods at restaurants you ask for eggs and meat to be fried in butter.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 18, 2009, 01:24:28 pm
Sounds like your one fruit a day or small salad protocal has something to it there Lex. Do you think at that level of carbs it wouldn't make a difference to go to zero?

Peter (Hyperlipid) says that he notices no differenced between Zero Carb and Very Low Carb (30 - 50 grams carbs per day).  Both seem to have a similar effect on blood glucose levels and all other health parameters.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 18, 2009, 01:36:03 pm
Lex, when you eat butter at restaurants, how is it used? I'm thinking that when you have to eat fried foods at restaurants you ask for eggs and meat to be fried in butter.

I only use butter on my steak at the table when all they have are lean cuts of steak available.  If they have a good fatty ribeye then I pass on the butter as well. This seldom happens anymore as I seldom eat at restruants that don't serve good meat unless I'm out to dinner with family or friends and don't have a choice.  If I know the food will not be to my liking (wedding receptions, baptisms, funerals, etc) I'll eat before I go and then just eat whatever small amount of meat is served at the function.  I leave the potato, veggies, bread, and wine to those who enjoy them.

I almost never eat eggs except on the rare occasion of a breakfast when on vacation (maybe once or twice per year).  Then I just eat the eggs as they are served in the all-you-can-eat buffet.  Not ideal, but it is only one or two meals per year.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 20, 2009, 04:34:38 am
It appears that my conjecture on gaining weight and putting on body fat while on a Zero Carb or Very Low Carb diet is not all there is to the story, and may even be just incidental in the whole weight gain issue on a ZC/VLC diet.  Most of my ideas have been based on excess glucose created from protein and/or the left over glycerol from fat metabolism.  Seems there’s another metabolic pathway at work here.  An enzyme called ASP (Acylation Stimulating Protein).  This little jewel has the ability to directly store fat in the fat cells completely bypassing the glucose and insulin pathways. 

On a zero carb diet, excess fatty acids not immediately needed for energy will be directly stored in the fat cells through ASP.  This stored fat will then be called upon as the body needs energy and is mobilized out of the fat cells through Hormone Sensitive Lipase (HSL) which will only allow body fat metabolism if insulin, a hormone, is low, hence ‘hormone sensitive’.

As long as the total fat stored is equal to the total fat consumed, body fat will not accumulate.  However, if, on average, less energy is needed than was stored, not all fat stored by ASP from the ZC meals will be remobilized by HSL and body fat will rise. 

There’s a lot going on here and the assumption is that the body is efficiently handling fatty acids (totally adapted), and the person is eating a ZC or VLC dietary protocol.  Here’s a link from Peter’s blog that gets to the nitty gritty:

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Weight%20loss%20when%20it%27s%20hard%201.

I guess the bottom line is, that in the long term, energy IN must equal energy OUT or you will either gain or loose weight regardless of what you eat or where the energy came from.  So calories (unfortunately) still count.  As I’ve said, there’s no ‘magic’ in ZC (darn it).

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 20, 2009, 05:27:50 am
... As I’ve said, there’s no ‘magic’ in ZC (darn it).

The link didn't work for me.

Most ZCers seem to agree that it's possible to add muscle weight on ZC. The controversy comes in with whether it's possible to add body fat weight. I think it is and I actually think this is a good thing in nature, else how would animals, including humans still living in nature, store up body fat in preparation for the lean times of late winter and early spring? The ability to store body fat appears to be an important survival mechanism in nature--not as crucial in humans, but still valuable.

This only becomes a problem in the wealthy areas of the modern world, where ZC foods can be overabundant. Luckily for those trying to lose weight, it appears to be very difficult (though not impossible) for most people to add fat weight on ZC--much more so than on high-carb. This is not so lucky for me, as I am trying to gain weight.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dextery on August 20, 2009, 06:46:53 pm
Paleo Phil

Mark Sisson, writer of Primal Blueprint, has Mark's Daily Apple website. He has written a pretty good article for hard gainers.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gain-weight-build-muscle/
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 21, 2009, 06:36:30 am
The link didn't work for me.

The period at the end of the link is part of the link but this board thinks it's the end of the sentence not part of the link.  You'll have to click the link then add the period at the end of the URL to get the text.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 21, 2009, 09:43:13 am
Paleo Phil

Mark Sisson, writer of Primal Blueprint, has Mark's Daily Apple website. He has written a pretty good article for hard gainers.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gain-weight-build-muscle/
Thanks. I've read one or two articles at his site before but missed that one. His suggestion for hardgainers to eat a dozen eggs a day got me thinking more positively about raw eggs again. I researched them and posted my findings in another thread (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/palatable-and-safe-raw-food/msg15723/#msg15723) and am feeling even better about them now.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2009, 12:23:58 am
In the last few weeks I was urged to take vitamin C supplements as the requester believed that it was some sort of magic bullet that would lower my A1c levels.  I'm not a big fan of supplementation, especially when there is no evidence of any deficiency.  I was also urged to read PubMed in an effort to convince me that plant nutrients and supplements were of great value.

Well, here's a study from PubMed that comes to the conclusion that "Vitamin C supplementation decreases training efficiency because it prevents some cellular adaptations to exercise."  Now this doesn't mean that it wouldn't lower my A1c level as suggested, but at what cost?   I haven't read the full study, however, the summary certainly doesn't present a very rosy picture.  At the very least, it appears that even with supposedly benign supplements like vitamin C there are trade-offs.  Here's the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175748

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 24, 2009, 02:05:26 am
Yes, and if I recall correctly, a study that looked at combined vitamin C and E as a possible preventer of cancer found that instead it INCREASED cancer risk. The counter to that was that supplements used were synthetic, rather than natural, and I used to accept that as the likely reason--but now I'm thinking that plant-based C and E supplements might have the same negative effects, given that the accumulating evidence indicates that homo sapiens are naturally much more carnivorous than herbivorous.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: halotek on August 24, 2009, 04:04:02 am
I am familiar with the study you've quoted Lex.  There is usually going to be trade-offs with nutrients or actions.  Exercise has well known trade-offs --- there is the acute inflammation during and following exercise that is usually followed by anti-inflammatory aftereffects. 

The human body remarkable conserves vitamin c.  If you have good glutathione production-- which I'm sure you do-- you recycle the vitamin c you have floating throughout your body.   Plant compounds do this-- but this is also accomplished by consuming vitamin c.

It's only have you consume 0 fruit and 0 vegetables (usually) that i suggested you'd try a small amount of vitamin c -- 100mg or so-- and see how you'd feel.  The vitamin c dosages in those studies are in the order or 500mg to 1000mg (too much in my opinion).

I stand by my statement that I feel that a small amount of plant matter acts to benefit our body by a hormetic response.  I recommended vitamin c because I felt like you were more likely to take that rather than small amounts of plant matter <--------- which I think would be even healthier for the body than the vitamin c supplement.  And top off your already excellent health stats.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 24, 2009, 08:43:24 am
I used to have these same views that you've shared, halotek, and even sold supplements as an employee in a health store. However, I was not impressed with the results of the vitamin products on myself or my customers (minerals, in contrast, did seem to produce generally good results). It was a very eye-opening experience for me, as I had been a life-long believer in vitamins (my mother subscribed to Prevention and advocated vitamins long before they became really popular). I have also not been impressed with the studies.

Lex's advice, in contrast, has produced miraculous results for me. Why should I give up what has been working for me and return to something that did not? It makes no sense to me and I don't know how you can recommend that in good conscience for either Lex or me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: halotek on August 24, 2009, 11:48:30 am
PaleoPhil l-- I completely understand how you feel on the subject.  In fact, the only supplements I ever consider taking are iodine, little bit of fermented cod liver oil, and once in a blue moon, vitamin k2 (because I don't like to eat organs-- and k2 has been showing great benefits in fighting heart disease and also for certain cancers)

I think people have taken my argument for vitamin c out of hand-- I just made a conjecture that Lex's A1c values would improve with a little bit of vitamin c--  that might of even turned out to be false.

What I would argue for without question-- is going from a 0 carb diet with 0 fruits and 0 veggies-- to a diet that is almost 100% animal products with a little fruit and veggies to bring carb intake to 30-50 grams a day.  This would also allow the body to benefit from the different micronutrients contained in plant material.  That would be better than supplementing vitamin c in my mind.  Because lex has said before that he is not willing to injest the plant matter-- i just threw it out there that he might "consider" a little bit of c.

Especially because Lex is very open and frank about his prostate issues- i just don't see how he could completely ignore the idea of a little raw plant material when there have been many studies done to show plant chemical benefits in this area.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 24, 2009, 12:17:32 pm
OK, thanks for the input, Halotek and I appreciate your politeness. I wasn't familiar with the prostate angle. Perhaps you could shed some light on that. Don't you find the fact that his prostate has been improving to be at all reassuring?

I find Lex's responses to your other concerns to be very convincing and reassuring, don't you? He has spoken on multiple occasions about the inadequacies of the obsession with mysterious micronutrients that are supposedly missing from a carnivorous diet, yet fail to produce any actual negative symptoms. I suspect that there is more profit motive behind the promotion of vitamins than real health benefit (though I do find minerals to have some real positive effects--yet even there, raw meat also seems to do the trick). Have Lex's brilliant posts had no impact on you at all?

What would you do in my position, when everything that Lex has told me has turned out to work for me, versus nothing that you have said has had any benefit for me? Who would you believe?

And, BTW, I share your frustration in trying to prove him wrong on anything. I have tried myself and also failed miserably. ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: halotek on August 24, 2009, 01:08:07 pm
PaleoPhil, Lex has constantly said it again and again-- what works for him-- works for him.  I can say 100% for me that I do best on a diet that mostly grass fed beef with small amount of veggies/fruit/fermented yogurt thrown in the mix.   That works for "me".  My biomarkers are also good (I am 29 however, and most people have good biomarkers at this age).  This may be also why I'm not moved to tears when Lex utters anything-- but when the science backs up his ideas or has an interesting comment, I will read and listen!  He has some conjectures-- and so do I-- hopefully will both understand more by having these talks.

Where Lex and I differ

1:  I don't have an A1c in the range of 6%-- which may or not be of concern.

2:  I don't suffer prostate issues and have to take medication to correct the situation.

3:  He believes that a 100% raw meat diet is superior to one that includes any type of plant material-- even if it has very small amounts of it!

Baring gross genetic malfunction of your body-- if you are consuming the diet that is best for you-- I believe you should have minimal if any health problems (even if you had problems on poor diets in the past).  Lex is content on taking a prostate medication-- I'm content on consuming some vegetable products-- this is where we differ.  Either his diet is causing his prostate to have these issues-- or he is missing some kind of compound that might help his situation (which I believe is some veggie products).  I don't belive his situation is genetic alone.  If it is-- then I'd concede I'm wrong.

Once again, I applaud Lex about being open on all his vital stats-- this allows us to have these kinds of discussions in the first place.  I'm not going anywhere-- and I'm not frustrated.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2009, 03:11:53 pm
...- and see how you'd feel. 

halotek, the above phrase sums up the entire problem for me.  I already feel great.  I've taken vitamin C in the past (as well as many other supplements) and none of them made one bit of difference in how I "felt".  Now I don't take any supplements and feel wonderful. 

I also have no way to measure what's going on at the cellular level, and free radicals and anti oxidants have absolutely no objectively measurable effect on how I "feel" over the short term of days, months, or even years.  It takes decades for this type of damage to accumulate to the point that it becomes visible or can be felt, and even then there's often no way to prove a direct cause and effect relationship to any given nutritional element (or lack thereof). It would be a whole different story if I were showing some signs of nutritional deficiency, but since I'm not, I have no symptoms for a supplement to cure.

I have no idea if my body is recycling vitamin C or not, and there is no way for me to objectively test whether your conjecture on this point is correct or not. But what difference does it make as long as my body's needs are being met?  My experience suggests that if the body's needs are being met supplements will have no effect, or in the worst case a negative one.

Sorry, I'm just not excited about vitamin supplements, herbal remedies, or magic elixirs.  I've taken many of them over the years and from my experience all they did was lighten my wallet.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2009, 04:23:46 pm
Where Lex and I differ

1:  I don't have an A1c in the range of 6%-- which may or not be of concern.

2:  I don't suffer prostate issues and have to take medication to correct the situation.

3:  He believes that a 100% raw meat diet is superior to one that includes any type of plant material-- even if it has very small amounts of it!

I've never had an A1c test before so have no idea where the baseline on this particular parameter was.  For all I know it could be much improved, especially since 5 years ago my fasting BG was over 140 and it is now consistently around 100.

The prostate issues developed over the many years that I was a committed vegan as did all of my health issues.  I ate nothing but plant based foods - mostly huge salads and copious amounts of ‘fresh’ fruit with some grains and a bit of dairy. I also drank huge quantities of green juices and took many supplements. Initially my BPH was rapidly getting worse, but since I went Zero Carb, there has been little measurable change in about 4 years.  The fact that it has stabilized has amazed my doctor as this is totally opposite of his predictions.  I'd love to reverse this condition and had high hopes that the dietary changes I've made would do the trick.  Alas, this has not been the case. The best I've been able to do is halt the progression or significantly slow it down.  One thing I do know, vitamin C is not the answer - neither is vitamin E, CoQ10, plant sterols, or any other supplement I've tried.

I have never said that a 100% raw meat diet is superior to one that includes plant material - only that this approach has worked well for me for the past 4 years or so.  If you will read my journal and other posts, you'll find that I always state that there is no 'magic' in an all meat diet.  I recommend that most people would be better served with a VLC diet that includes a piece of fruit or a small salad each day.  I ate this way myself for a couple of years before trying the zero carb route, and gained most of the health benefits I currently enjoy from eating that way.  I may return to this protocol in the future if I find that an all meat diet is no longer meeting my needs. At this point, however, I’m pleased with the simplicity and incremental improvements I’ve gained eating an all raw red meat diet and so will stick with it for the foreseeable future.  This doesn’t mean that I believe a 100% raw meat diet is superior to one that includes plant material as I have no idea if it is superior or not, only that I’m very happy with the benefits and trade-offs of my current way of eating.

As you state, I’m almost exactly twice your age.  When I was 29 I didn’t have any health problems either, ran 10 miles every other day (at a 6 min/mile pace), drank Dr Pepper by the gallon, ate ice cream by the quart, and was proud to be saving the planet by living a vegetarian lifestyle.  I grew wheatgrass, made rejuvalac, sprouted seeds, grains, beans, and legumes, made nut butters, fermented cheeses, and sauerkraut.  After 20 years of this foolishness I was rewarded with weak bones, loose teeth, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, constant migraine headaches, elevated cholesterol levels with a horrible HDL/LDL ratio, triglycerides off the charts, and a host of other problems including BPH.  All of this has improved dramatically since going raw paleo and especially since adopting a high fat raw red meat diet.

I know that you are very sure of yourself and your beliefs as was I when I was your age.   It will be interesting to see where you are and how your beliefs have changed 29 years from now.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: halotek on August 25, 2009, 01:10:07 am
Overall-- I think were on the same page Lex-- my ideas change over time to support what I think leads to best knowledge we have on health.

My comment to use vitamin c was a suggestion-- in no ways did I say 100% that it would make things better for sure--  especially because I've never tolerated vitamin c supplements as well, I was only suggestioning to try very small amounts (such as 100mg or less)-- but like I said-- I feel that a "little bit of plant material might be better, especially a little of fruit" --  and I know that while it doesn't work for you at the moment, you do recommend it for others.

I'm sure that as time passes, more research will come out to support certain biomarkers-- and I hope we have a better idea of what the optimal range for biomarkers are.  Or if it is really bad or not that A1c is raised.

Feeling good every day is not the only marker for health-- I'm sure you'd agree with me on that-- I've seen vegans feel good for years before there health went down the tubes.

Everything that we are discussing is only possible because you'd done a great job of showing your stats-- hopefully, over time this will lead to a better understanding of what stat values are of importance.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 25, 2009, 06:01:11 am
halotek, the above phrase sums up the entire problem for me.  I already feel great.  I've taken vitamin C in the past (as well as many other supplements) and none of them made one bit of difference in how I "felt".  Now I don't take any supplements and feel wonderful. 
I had the same unimpressive experience with natural vitamin supplements like vitamin C, which I used for years. How many years must one try something before people accept that you tried it?

I used to ask my customers to let me know whenever a supplement helped them. Very few ever reported noticeable benefits from vitamins like vitamin C other than just a vague feeling that they were doing better or had more energy. In contrast, significantly more people reported improvements in physical symptoms from taking minerals (including me).

Halotek, Lex has explained multiple times that his prostate problems have been improving on a carnivorous diet, whereas supplements did not improve his symptoms (same for me, BTW). My prostate problems cleared up completely by adopting a VLC Paleo diet, whereas I tried every supplement in the book to treat it and none of them made one bit of difference (except to lighten my wallet)--and I sold the dang things, for Pete's sake. Did you have prostate problems that improved with vitamins? If not, then I find Lex's and my evidence to be much more convincing--especially since diet already did the job for me and I no longer have any prostate problems to treat with supplements.

Working in the supplement industry opened my eyes to the level of quackery and fraud that exists in it. There were only a handful of supplements and natural treatments that produced actual significant benefits for my customers. Most just bought the stuff because others had told them that they are beneficial, or they saw some news item or ad that promoted them or saw a doctor pushing them on Oprah. Most of the products were a waste of money, which is the main reason I got out of that industry.

So you see, it's not that Lex and I are unwilling to try it--it's that we've "been there, done that."
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 25, 2009, 07:31:47 am
Halotek,
I used to be very focused on the biochemistry behind everything until I discovered, that for the most part, we really don't know all that much.  What we think we know today may change dramatically tomorrow.  Look at all the dietary theories, supported by science, that have proved totally wrong.  Our current government backed Food Pyramid is just one example of a total disaster, yet the best minds in nutritional science testified before Congress that it was the Holy Grail to America's future health.

So much of what is published, even on PubMed, is really theoretical educated guesses.  Data from study after study has been misinterpreted - sometimes due to our lack of understanding, and other times due to profit motives. 

Our ancestors managed to do well enough such that both you and I are here today to discuss this topic, and they did it without any study or understanding of science or biochemistry at all.  They ate their food, had their children, and lived their lives. 

Sometimes the simplest approach is best.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: halotek on August 25, 2009, 08:21:09 am
I agree with what you say Lex about keeping things simple, but I still want to know if something I'm consuming is dangerous or not.  Or if I'm consuming a diet that is nutritionally complete.

An example-- I definitely don't want to consume rapeseed oil like many Indian peoples had done for a couple thousand years-- they never questioned it because everyone used it.  Doesn't stop the fact that it is a toxic oil.

We know that fructose is dangerous, that seed oils are dangerous, and that grains are dangerous.

Most of my questions also pertain to things I want to figure out-- like I wanna know if I really need to balance out the zinc in my grass fed bef with sources of copper (which would have to come from plant foods if i didn't consume organ meats).  I feel that once I get a good idea of nutrient interactions, I'll have a better of what I think is nutritionally complete.

There still is a lot of questions!

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 25, 2009, 08:26:53 am
...Our ancestors managed to do well enough such that both you and I are here today to discuss this topic, and they did it without any study or understanding of science or biochemistry at all.  They ate their food, had their children, and lived their lives. 
Yes, you hit an important point there. When there is disagreement between the scientists and the old ways of our ancestors and the remaining HGs on fundamental questions like diet, the old ways generally prove best. When you think you've figured out a better way of eating, exercising, supplementing or using natural treatments, check again, because you probably haven't.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on August 25, 2009, 10:04:10 am
Peter (Hyperlipid) says that he notices no differenced between Zero Carb and Very Low Carb (30 - 50 grams carbs per day).  Both seem to have a similar effect on blood glucose levels and all other health parameters.

Lex

How do you think it would compare to eat 60-100 grams of carbs every other day rather than 30-50 per day? How long is the cycle that matters, a 24 hour day?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 26, 2009, 11:42:35 am
How do you think it would compare to eat 60-100 grams of carbs every other day rather than 30-50 per day? How long is the cycle that matters, a 24 hour day?

Hi Kyle,  From what I understand, the idea is to keep any rise in BG as low as possible so as to keep any insulin response as minimal as possible.  The larger amount of carbs consumed in the shorter period of time (one day) might trigger a higher insulin response than the same amount of carbs spread over the longer period of 2 days.  Of course the insulin spike would be intermittent by occurring every other day and whether this would make any difference I would have no idea.

Also, to be honest, compared to the many hundreds of grams of carbs eaten in a normal SAD diet, 60 to 100 grams would be considered very low carb.  In the book "Life Without Bread" Lutz recommends a daily carb intake of 75g or less and he got phenomenal long term results.  If I were you, young and in good health, I'd just go ahead and eat my 60 to 100 grams of carbs and enjoy myself.  What good is sticking to some artificially determined low level of some nutrient if it makes your life miserable or socially uncomfortable?  Let's face it, none of us knows if what we are doing is 'correct' or not.  The human body has a very large tolerance and can accept a very wide input of different macro nutrients (fat, protein, carbs).  If eating 100 grams of carbs per day is a sin, then it is certainly a very minor one and I think St Peter will still allow you through the Pearly Gates when the time comes.  ;)   If I hadn’t spent over 20 years eating nothing but carbs, I seriously doubt that I would have had the problems that have driven me to try the rather dull and mundane zero carb lifestyle.

You are young, don't become old and end up regretting unnecessarily ridged rules you made in your life due to some arbitrary dietary dogma.  You will become old, infirm, and die no matter what you eat.  The trick is to live and enjoy life to its fullest.  And make sure that the definition of “enjoyment” and "fullest" is your definition and not someone else’s. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dextery on August 26, 2009, 12:26:23 pm
A nice posting by an MD regarding making glucose from fat in ZC.    http://www.paleonu.com/   
Not Raw Paleo but a validation of ZC/VLC from one member of the medical community who found the light after hearing a Taubes interview on his car radio.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on August 26, 2009, 06:09:42 pm
You will become old, infirm, and die no matter what you eat. 

Not proven.

I am probably the oldest on this forum, and I become less infirm, even to the point that it feels like I am finally escaping the "valley of the shadow of death".

Raw paleo did not do it, then I went on a strict pemmican-and-egg yolk diet and the symptoms of ischemic heart disease and back injury disappeared.
Symptoms of nameless diseases also disappeared.

It really looks like Bear is right; carbs are poison.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 27, 2009, 01:43:15 am
You will become old, infirm, and die no matter what you eat. 

Not proven.

William,
I hope that age reversal and living forever works out for you.  If it does, you'll be the first, and I'll be first in line to copy whatever it is you are doing!

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 27, 2009, 01:49:37 am
A nice posting by an MD regarding making glucose from fat in ZC.    http://www.paleonu.com/   
Not Raw Paleo but a validation of ZC/VLC from one member of the medical community who found the light after hearing a Taubes interview on his car radio.

Yes, a very good blog.  I've made several postings in the "Testimonial/Q&A" section and Dr Harris has always been kind enough to provide a thoughtful answer to my questions.

Another blog you might enjoy is Spark of Reason.  You can find it here:  http://sparkofreason.blogspot.com/  Dave has a PHD in Physics and his posts are incredibly detailed.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on August 27, 2009, 03:03:22 am
William,
I hope that age reversal and living forever works out for you.  If it does, you'll be the first, and I'll be first in line to copy whatever it is you are doing!

Lex

Not really interested in living forever, but there are those sasquatch/bigfoot/yeti stories - maybe they are the ultimate result of raw zero carb?  :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: razmatazz on August 27, 2009, 03:16:16 am
Hi Kyle,  From what I understand, the idea is to keep any rise in BG as low as possible so as to keep any insulin response as minimal as possible.  The larger amount of carbs consumed in the shorter period of time (one day) might trigger a higher insulin response than the same amount of carbs spread over the longer period of 2 days.  Of course the insulin spike would be intermittent by occurring every other day and whether this would make any difference I would have no idea.

Also, to be honest, compared to the many hundreds of grams of carbs eaten in a normal SAD diet, 60 to 100 grams would be considered very low carb.  In the book "Life Without Bread" Lutz recommends a daily carb intake of 75g or less and he got phenomenal long term results.  If I were you, young and in good health, I'd just go ahead and eat my 60 to 100 grams of carbs and enjoy myself.  What good is sticking to some artificially determined low level of some nutrient if it makes your life miserable or socially uncomfortable?  Let's face it, none of us knows if what we are doing is 'correct' or not.  The human body has a very large tolerance and can accept a very wide input of different macro nutrients (fat, protein, carbs).  If eating 100 grams of carbs per day is a sin, then it is certainly a very minor one and I think St Peter will still allow you through the Pearly Gates when the time comes.  ;)   If I hadn’t spent over 20 years eating nothing but carbs, I seriously doubt that I would have had the problems that have driven me to try the rather dull and mundane zero carb lifestyle.

You are young, don't become old and end up regretting unnecessarily ridged rules you made in your life due to some arbitrary dietary dogma.  You will become old, infirm, and die no matter what you eat.  The trick is to live and enjoy life to its fullest.  And make sure that the definition of “enjoyment” and "fullest" is your definition and not someone else’s. 

Lex



i liked this post. You are so right. Plus there are many indigenous groups in the world who consume a fair amount of carbs yet remain in perfectly good health.

i'm only 18 and have no health problems..sometimes compromises have to be made in order to have fun with other people, and when I'm happy, it's worth it to me if I have to eat something unhealthy.As long as i'm doing everything right 90% of the time, I don't feel I have to worry about the remaining 10%. The human body is an amazing thing, sometimes people don't give it enough credit.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 31, 2009, 03:27:31 am
Yes, a very good blog.  I've made several postings in the "Testimonial/Q&A" section and Dr Harris has always been kind enough to provide a thoughtful answer to my questions.
BTW, when Dr. Harris noticed that he was getting a bunch of hits from people coming from our site (I was one of those people), he proceeded to vilify our WOE and our alleged way of thinking and reasons for eating this way, despite admitting he hadn't read more than a few posts here. I was surprised that he would attack his own readers without even asking them any questions to determine what our ACTUAL reasoning. If you have a good relationship with him, perhaps he would ask you some questions about RPD and you could put his fears to rest about us being essentially anti-science fanatical lunatics?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 31, 2009, 06:16:29 am
Phil,
Dr Harris has actually told me that he has been reading my journal and complemented me on it.  From my interactions with him, he doesn't feel that turning diet into a religious experience is either necessary or wise.  He is looking at things from the standpoint of a medical doctor and what is actually necessary to achieve results based on biochemistry rather than archeology.  From his point of view there are certain tenents of a paleo diet (no neolithic foods) that are the core foundation, and as long as that criteria is met he's fine with just about whatever someone wants to do.

He is biased heavily towards getting most of his calories from dairy fat (cream and butter) and even seems to support coconut oil as a second rate but acceptable fat source.

I did read his post regarding raw paleo and I didn't find it objectionable or inflamitory.  He stated his beliefs and gave his reasons.  I also feel he's being a bit protective of what he's trying to do and would probably discount ANY site other than his or those resources that he draws from.

Just my take on it,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 31, 2009, 11:32:32 am
Phil,
Much of what I said is MY feeling about Dr Harris posts and his communications with me.  I used the word religious (I don't think he did) because, quite frankely, I couldn't think of a better one that expressed the feeling that I got from him.

The bottom line is that it is his blog.  I don't think he specifically trashed us or our forum.  He has his take on paleolithic nutrition and how best to apply it in our modern world, and I have mine.  I think there is plenty of room for all our opinions.  The wonderful thing about the way the web works is that we can choose to associate with those of like mind and avoid those that we find objectionable.

I personally like his blog and will continue to follow along,

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on August 31, 2009, 10:03:18 pm
The word "religion" means "link with the past" and it is surely what we do here. It does not mean churchy/priestly/missionary BS, which I think is the usual objection to what people think is religion.
The word "science" comes from the sci and psy, refers to the use of the mind or psyche, and is what JC did; note that He was a healer and recommended "Eat nothing that is heated with more than the fire of the body" - (Essene Gospels). Which we also do, and Dr. Harris doesn't.
If he shared my sense of humour, you could tell him he sins. :D Better not. :(
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 31, 2009, 10:54:04 pm
William,
I meant the term religion in the sense of “a zealous adherence to a specific dogma”.  I know that in my younger days, dynamite wouldn’t have blasted me from my firmly held belief in the vegetarian lifestyle. I was a true believer and refused to budge from my cherished beliefs even when it was clear they weren't working. Even worse, I took every opportunity to preach the gospel, and convince all who would listen that I had found the true way.  Unfortunately it turned out to be the true way to self destruction.  

Today I’m not so sure of myself.  I now question everything.  I no longer adhere to a specific belief because I “know it is right”.  I stick with it only as long as it continues to work.  I’m constantly looking for, and evaluating, differing opinions in an effort to find those nuggets of truth buried in the noise.  Had I continued to listen only to those with whom I agreed, I’d have missed many opportunities to learn and grow.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on August 31, 2009, 11:47:51 pm
William,
I meant the term religion in the sense of “a zealous adherence to a specific dogma”.


Yes, that's how it is used today, however I am a nitpicker and have a talent for literacy, love etymology, so try make sense of this confusing world by learning the true meaning of words. It works! Um, for me, anyway. So what others call religion is what I call faith, can be comforting to be certain of stuff, as in a book title "The Comfortable Pew".

Quote
Today I’m not so sure of myself.  I now question everything.  I no longer adhere to a specific belief because I “know it is right”.  I stick with it only as long as it continues to work.  I’m constantly looking for, and evaluating, differing opinions in an effort to find those nuggets of truth buried in the noise.  Had I continued to listen only to those with whom I agreed, I’d have missed many opportunities to learn and grow.


Me too, except I never was much of a believer. I've thought of experimentally not-believing in the force of gravity but chickened out - suppose it worked?

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: razmatazz on September 01, 2009, 04:31:10 am
I like Dr Harris blog too, I think his main gripe with "rawists" is that some seem to be pretty fundamental and he believes the notion that ANY cooking whatsoever is bad/toxic to be incorrect. I don't think this is far off, because in my opinion eating rare steaks as opoosed to raw is not as bad as say, eating lots of grains or lots of high sugar fruits. He himself states that he eats his meat "almost raw" but he dislikes the fact that some people state that ANY cooking is wrong/bad/toxic/will make you weak and diseased, etc.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on September 01, 2009, 12:43:27 pm
I like Dr Harris blog too, I think his main gripe with "rawists" is that some seem to be pretty fundamental and he believes the notion that ANY cooking whatsoever is bad/toxic to be incorrect.

My main gripe with people who think that there is nothing wrong with a little cooked meat (or little bit of whatever) is that they forget to look at the long term scope of things. For every molecule of meat that is cooked, it is altered/damaged to some degree. There is no avoiding this. For this one meal, you will likely see nothing wrong with the body that has eaten the cooked meat. But if we were to look at someone who eats cooked meat for 40 years in a row this little bit of cooked meat might eventually add up to something highly significant. If you can imagine a billion people where half of them are eating cooked meat and the other half raw it becomes easier to visualize the impact of cooked meat. Which group are you going to wager your own money to have better health over their lifetimes?

So, even though the chance that one individual suffers because of a little cooked meat over a short time frame is extraordinarily low does not make it the right choice over an entire lifetime.  The same goes for people that consume small amounts of grain-fed meat or HFCS. Each small addition will increase the probability (whatever and however small that may be) that something deleterious to your health will happen. This is assuming raw grass-fed meat is superior, which could just as easily be false, but you get the point.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 01, 2009, 12:48:36 pm
I've thought of experimentally not-believing in the force of gravity but chickened out - suppose it worked?

William,
While I was in boot camp in 1969 three people dove off the 3rd story balcony of my barracks.    I believe they were on LSD.  None of us was ever sure if they thought they were diving into a swimming pool or that they could fly.  Regardless, I don't recommend it.  As I remember, it made quite a mess.

Razmatazz,
I think you've probably hit the nail on the head as far as Dr Harris goes.  I started out eating raw for two reasons: 1) As an adventure to see if I could do it and survive, and 2) no other animal needs to cook it's food so why should I.  I continue to eat mostly raw because over the years I've come to prefer it that way, not because I think cooking is evil or toxic.  I do eat out about 3 times per month and thoroughly enjoy the occasional rare cooked ribeye steak.  I also eat meat that has been cooked well done when that is all that is available.  I'm squarely in the camp of making the best choice I can in each situation.  If that means eating well done meat at a family gathering then so be it.  It beats the soda, cookies, and potato chips that everyone else is loading up on.  Also, if the only thing available is a very lean steak I'll slather it with butter to raise the fat to my liking.  Butter is inexpensive and always available for the asking. To my way of thinking, butter fat is far better than no fat at all, and it beats the socks off plant based oils.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 01, 2009, 04:50:59 pm
My main gripe with people who think that there is nothing wrong with a little cooked meat (or little bit of whatever) is that they forget to look at the long term scope of things. For every molecule of meat that is cooked, it is altered/damaged to some degree. There is no avoiding this. For this one meal, you will likely see nothing wrong with the body that has eaten the cooked meat. But if we were to look at someone who eats cooked meat for 40 years in a row this little bit of cooked meat might eventually add up to something highly significant. If you can imagine a billion people where half of them are eating cooked meat and the other half raw it becomes easier to visualize the impact of cooked meat. Which group are you going to wager your own money to have better health over their lifetimes?

So, even though the chance that one individual suffers because of a little cooked meat over a short time frame is extraordinarily low does not make it the right choice over an entire lifetime.  The same goes for people that consume small amounts of grain-fed meat or HFCS. Each small addition will increase the probability (whatever and however small that may be) that something deleterious to your health will happen. This is assuming raw grass-fed meat is superior, which could just as easily be false, but you get the point.

That's exactly my viewpoint. People often claim that a "little cooking" is OK or whatever, but they don't take into account the long-term possibilities. For example, eating only lightly-cooked meats and no raw meats is bound to cause problems in the long-term as the levels of cooking-derived toxins such as AGEs start to build up over the decades. (I also wonder if perhaps cooked diets might increase the chance of birth-defects appearing due to epigenetic factors etc.No data as yet, but it would be most interesting to find out.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on September 01, 2009, 06:04:11 pm
I agree with what you're saying, but for me I think I have to balance it out with making a lifetime plan I can stick to. I'm trying to tighten up more and more as I get into it, but realistically I'm gonna be stuck somewhere and eat out sometime.

I think I have to accept modern life and compromise to some extent...otherwise there's no peace worrying about all the things that are harming you. But to be fair there's a lot of benefits to modern life...if you can do raw paleo as well it's not too shabby at all.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: razmatazz on September 01, 2009, 09:24:07 pm
Lex - your reasons for eating raw are pretty much the same as mine..
If I have to eat lightly cooked or even fully cooked meat I don't sweat it...worry and stress would cause far more health problems than a little cooked meat here and there
ditto on the butter too lol

Tyler -I'm fully aware of your stance on cooked meat, but just wanted to point out re AGES, that these are actually natural and occur in the body over time regardless of what one eats, that is why the body has evolved mechanisms to deal witih them, plus not all the AGEs in cooked meat are absorbed, so i bet the effects of AGEs consumed with lightly cooked meat here and there  would be negligible. I don;t know about other heat created toxins, but just wanted to mention that...
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 01, 2009, 10:20:59 pm
but just wanted to point out re AGES, that these are actually natural and occur in the body over time regardless of what one eats

I read that AGEs are created in the absence of an enzyme. Does not seem natural to me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 01, 2009, 11:55:28 pm
It seems there is a good bit of hand wringing over AGES.  I think I'm on board with the idea that AGES that are internally created by our bodies from excess glucose is probably not a good thing as it might cause some long term damage.  What is far less certain, at least to me, is the idea that AGES consumed in the diet are harmful.  Our digestive systems are designed to break down food to its basic elements of sugars and amino acids.  I'm not totally convinced that a molecule of protein linked to a molecule of glucose is not broken down to its component parts as well.  I've read scientific papers that seem to favor both sides of the issue.

I also know many people that are well into their 90's, in good health, and have eaten cooked food all their lives.  This makes me believe that our bodies don't necessarily behave as the science in the lab predicts.  For now, I'm going to accept the fact that we just don't understand all we think we know about the subject and get on with life - following what I deem prudent dietary principals, but not obsessing over minutiae.  We're all headed for the Pearly Gates no matter what we eat, and I expect that if our worst sin is eating a bit of cooked food on occasion, we'll still be admitted as souls in good standing.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 02, 2009, 02:53:45 am

Tyler -I'm fully aware of your stance on cooked meat, but just wanted to point out re AGES, that these are actually natural and occur in the body over time regardless of what one eats, that is why the body has evolved mechanisms to deal witih them, plus not all the AGEs in cooked meat are absorbed, so i bet the effects of AGEs consumed with lightly cooked meat here and there  would be negligible. I don;t know about other heat created toxins, but just wanted to mention that...

First off, the natural amounts of AGEs in the body are tiny by comparison to the load of toxins found in cooked foods.Secondly, I'm well aware that not all the AGEs found in cooked foods are absorbed, it's claimed, for now, to be 30%, but that's plenty already(especially when you consider that there are also AGEs in raw foods from unhealthy animals(eg:- grainfed meats). And there are now enough studies done on animals and humans to show inflammation etc. being directly caused by AGEs and other heat-created toxins like PAHs, so that it's very difficult to argue they don't have any effect.So eating lightly-cooked food would be comparable to smoking a cigarette every now and then, while eating moderately-cooked food would be equivalent to smoking several regularly. (it's a good analogy as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, created via cooking, are also byproducts of smoking cigarettes).

Re smoking:- The longevity issue is irrelevant as Winston Churchill managed to live till 90 despite smoking cigars heavily(though suffering long-term ill-health for decades like Roosevelt). Longevity appears to be a lot more to do with issues like will-power rather than diet.

I'm not trying to make people feel guilty about eating cooked foods. We all have to make practical compromises re healthy living  for social reasons , here and there. What I object to is when people know it's unhealthy to eat such cooked foods, so they try to convince themselves and others that eating cooked food is supposedly healthy. I suppose, on a psychological level, people don't like the notion of eating something that is unhealthy as it sounds a bit foolish, so they try to justify their actions by claiming that cooked food is healthy.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 02, 2009, 07:41:33 am
I finally got the results of my DEXA scan.  Considering that I was a devout vegan for 20 years, and dental x-rays from 6 or 7 years ago showed that my deteriorating dental health was due in large part to loss of bone density, I’m pretty happy with the results.

Age: 58   Gender: M   Height: 73 inches   Weight: 165 pounds

Region              BDM    Young Adult%   T Score     Age Matched%     Z Score
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L1-L4              1.212             99%              -0.1              104%            +0.4
Neck                0.976             91%              -0.7              103%            +0.2
Ward               0.805             84%              -1.2              103%            +0.2
Trochanter     0.858             92%              -0.7                98%            -0.2
Total               1.009             93%              -0.3              101%              0.0

Studies were performed using a Lunar DPX IQ.  Technical quality of the scans were excellent with no artifacts. According to the World Health Organization guidelines, the patient is classified as NORMAL.  Based on these results, a followup exam is recommended in two to three years.


This is my first DEXA scan so this becomes the base line.  At this point I really don’t know much about them and the best my doctor could do was read the report which indicates that everything is normal – whatever that means.  If anyone can provide a more comprehensive analysis it would be greatly appreciated.

Actual report is attached below,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 02, 2009, 10:44:01 am
Congrats, Lex! Well I hope that satisfies some of the critics, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: rawlion on September 02, 2009, 05:36:43 pm
T-Score Numbers
Your Dexa report will have a series of numbers. The most important is the T-score. A T-score between +1 and -1 is considered normal. A T-score between -1 and -2.5 indicates that you are beginning to lose bone density. This is the beginning stage of osteoporosis, called osteopenia. A T-score of -2.5 or lower confirms that you have osteoporosis. Scores of -3.8 or more is considered severe osteoporosis.

Z-Score Numbers
Your Z-score is a comparison of your bone density to what is normal for someone your same age and body size. The Z-scores is not used to diagnose osteoporosis in those over age 50. Among older adults, low bone mineral density is common, so Z-scores can be misleading. An older person might have a "normal" Z-score but still be at high risk for breaking a bone. Z-scores are be more helpful in younger men, premenopausal women and children. A Z-score above -2.0 is normal

And some further information:

http://lesann.tripod.com/dexa%20scans.htm

Basically, impressive results!

Yuri
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 02, 2009, 11:49:57 pm
Well I hope that satisfies some of the critics, but I doubt it.

Ever since I disclosed that my urine pH was consistently running around 5.0 to 5.5, (acidic), I've been warned by many concerned do-gooder's that this is a sure sign that my blood is also very acidic and that my body is certainly sacrificing massive amounts of minerals from my bones to neutralize the acidity. It won't be long, they warn, before my bones crumble to dust and I’ll be a formless quivering mass of protoplasm.    

Well, I’ve been eating this way for almost 4 years now.  I check urine pH and ketones every morning.  Ph is almost always around 5.0, but occasionally will rise to 5.5.  One would think that if the theory that urine pH reflects blood pH, and that bone minerals are sacrificed to keep blood pH under control were true, then surely my DEXA scan would show a significant level of abnormality.

Though I’m not qualified to comment on the actual numerical results of my DEXA scan, the fact that it returned as NORMAL, and actually showed slightly higher than normal bone density for someone in my age group, would seem to me to disprove the "acidic urine equals acidic blood" theory, or at least shows that, in my case, bone minerals have not been sacrificed under these conditions.

I also think that those who are concerned that a diet of mostly meat and fat is deficient in calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous can put those fears to rest as well.  If this were true, I doubt that the body could maintain bone integrity over such a long period.  One thing I’ve come to accept, is that nothing in our bodies is static.  Fats are constantly moving in and out of fat cells, protein is constantly being broken down and rebuilt, and minerals are moving in and out of bone structure.  If there was a deficiency of any necessary element for building and maintaining healthy bones, then minerals that naturally moved out of the bones would not be replaced and bone integrity would suffer over time.  Based on my test results, this concern seems unwarranted as well.

This is my current thinking based on what little I know, and the above may be total nonsense, however, I’m betting my life on the assumption that it's fairly close to the mark.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 03, 2009, 01:35:15 am
The Inuit used piss to tan their animal skins; with that pH, you can now do the same.   ;)
Their women chewed the skins after soaking, so a wifely opinion should be sought.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 03, 2009, 07:38:07 am
It won't be long, they warn, before my bones crumble to dust and I’ll be a formless quivering mass of protoplasm.
Quote
Cool! If you turn into a quivering, talking blob can I put you in a jar and show my friends?

Quote
Well, I’ve been eating this way for almost 4 years now.  I check urine pH and ketones every morning.
BTW, are your ketones staying around zero now that your fat level is back down a bit?

Quote
Ph is almost always around 5.0, but occasionally will rise to 5.5.  One would think that if the theory that urine pH reflects blood pH, and that bone minerals are sacrificed to keep blood pH under control were true, then surely my DEXA scan would show a significant level of abnormality.
Yeah, it will be even more convincing when you get your next scan and it doesn't show BD decline.

Quote
I also think that those who are concerned that a diet of mostly meat and fat is deficient in calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous can put those fears to rest as well.
Yeah, my potassium and zinc deficiencies actually improved dramatically and rapidly on a carnivorous, mostly raw diet.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on September 04, 2009, 03:52:13 am
Congratulations on the results Lex!!!  That's great news.

I have been waiting anxiously for your results on this ever since you mentioned it.  I even put it on my calendar!!  :)  I think, as always, you have added further very valuable information to the discussion.  I now look forward greatly to your next results for comparison (in 2-3yrs time!) as, of course, these will provide the definitive evidence.

Keep up the great work!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dextery on September 04, 2009, 12:22:23 pm
Ever since I disclosed that my urine pH was consistently running around 5.0 to 5.5, (acidic), I've been warned by many concerned do-gooder's that this is a sure sign that my blood is also very acidic and that my body is certainly sacrificing massive amounts of minerals from my bones to neutralize the acidity. It won't be long, they warn, before my bones crumble to dust and I’ll be a formless quivering mass of protoplasm.    

Add Professor Loren Cordain to those who would say your bones are mineralized by your acidic diet.
http://thepaleodiet.com/nutritional_tools/acid.shtml

Bone health is substantially dependent on dietary acid/base balance.  All foods upon digestion ultimately must report to the kidney as either acid or base.  When the diet yields a net acid load (such as low-carb fad diets that restrict consumption of fruits and vegetables), the acid must be buffered by the alkaline stores of base in the body.  Calcium salts in the bones represent the largest store of alkaline base in the body and are depleted and eliminated in the urine when the diet produces a net acid load.  The highest acid-producing foods are hard cheeses, cereal grains, salted foods, meats, and legumes, whereas the only alkaline, base-producing foods are fruits and vegetables.  Because the average American diet is overloaded with grains, cheeses, salted processed foods, and fatty meats at the expense of fruits and vegetables, it produces a net acid load and promotes bone mineralization.  By replacing hard cheeses, cereal grains, and processed foods with plenty of green vegetables and fruits, the body comes back into acid/base balance which brings us also back into calcium balance.  The goal is to avoid a net acid load on your kidneys.

Your Dexa scan must be bogus.  The experts know that you must maintain your urine at 7.2 ph so you will be in calcium balance to prevent osteoporosis.
I am also looking forward to your next DEXA scan in a couple of years to see if the good Professor is proven correct!

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: invisible on September 04, 2009, 12:39:40 pm
If that person's blog bothered me then I would sought out my life's priorities. There is no need to feel an allegiance to a raw diet. I don't consider myself the 'raw crowd'. My diet doesn't define me. In my opinion, diet should just be instinctive - the less you think about diet the better. It's beneficial to visit forums like this to read about people's experience on the diet (such as this excellent thread by lex) and learn new information, food sources etc but to engage in completely pointless arguments over really irrelevant comments is not productive. I've got a job with work, friends to talk to, women to chase, music to listen to, and my health to maintain...who cares what this man writes. I read his blog, I disagreed, gave a quick comment and moved on.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 04, 2009, 01:51:57 pm
Phil,

Remember it took most of us a long time to get where we are.  It's an incremental process.  We all have cultural and environmental biases and these are difficult to overcome.  Most can't do it at all.  My dietary odyssey has lasted 35 years and through half a dozen incarnations, each of which I was convinced was the Holy Grail at the time. Such is the nature of the human animal.  

The fact that most of us here on this forum have found that our health improved even more when we dropped dairy and stopped cooking is just not where Dr Harris is today.  He may change this view over time and he may not.  Too me it makes no difference one way or the other.  Like the rest of us, Dr Harris must find his own way at his own pace.  I for one, appreciate his willingness to share his thoughts and beliefs through his blog.  He brings a seasoned medical perspective that I find valuable.  

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 05, 2009, 05:57:12 am
The fact that most of us here on this forum have found that our health improved even more when we dropped dairy and stopped cooking is just not where Dr Harris is today.  He may change this view over time and he may not.  Too me it makes no difference one way or the other.  Like the rest of us, Dr Harris must find his own way at his own pace.  I for one, appreciate his willingness to share his thoughts and beliefs through his blog.  He brings a seasoned medical perspective that I find valuable.  

Lex
It never made any difference to my own choices either. However, maybe it's my new carnivorous diet, but I'm less apt to let people walk all over me these days. I don't get as angry as I used to on carbs, but I don't passively take an ass-whipping either. Charles has expounded about this with some very intriguing thoughts at the ZC forum. He seems to agree with me that meat eaters tend to be more calm and peaceful overall, but more openly aggressive when provoked, rather than passive-aggressive. It may be overreaching, but I think there's something to this. Of course, you're an exception to this, as you seem to be pacific at all times, even when Dr. Harris verbally bashes you, along with all other raw dieters, about the head, neck, face and chest. So be it. Perhaps your demeanor is a better refutation of his allegations that any scientific counter-arguments.

An interesting aside--when Raw in Florida--who I still suspect was a troll who just popped in to lecture us (but he's free to rebut that)--called me a douche bag, in the old high-carb days that would have bothered me. On my carnivore diet, I laughed. Quite a change. This diet seems to be improving my personality as well as my physical health. So, no, Harris' remarks didn't bother me personally that much (though the weaselly insinuations of raw dieters being anti-science is perhaps the worst insult he could have chosen, from my perspective--far, far worse than douche-bag--since I love science and consider myself more pro-science than him), but if he wants a fight, I'll give it to him.

Based on your recommendation and his earlier, more scientific posts that I enjoyed, and the lack of umbrage by others here, I am willing to write this one off as a momentary error on his part. We are all human, after all. I suspect he read one or two strident posts here, was dumbfounded and took out his frustrations at his blog.

Also, I googled his name and found that his practice indeed IS in one of the top dairy states (Wisconsin--the flippin' cheese-head state!). So I can understand his bizarre, anti-scientific rantings when it comes to dairy. They appear to be based on career survival, rather than science. I predict he will NEVER change his mind on dairy and am willing to bet money on that. I have found it futile to discuss dietary matters with anyone who has an economic interest in a particular food(s), so I won't bother to challenge him on it. I can also understand his not advocating raw meats, as that would also likely kill his career.

When he's not talking about dairy, he sticks more to the science. So I'll just ignore his bogus dairy spewings and continue to enjoy his other posts.

Besides, like I said at the outset, we already have enough enemies and don't need to provoke any more to attack us further. I never bothered to post at his blog (it would only give him more hits anyway) and I'm hoping that over time he'll see we're quite reasonable and decide to leave us alone. Even if he continues to rant against us, it will probably only increase our membership. As Tyler pointed out, any advertising is generally good advertising (with some rare exceptions).

When I was following an Audette-Cordain style diet and questioned the necessity of raw-meat diets like William was following, I don't recall ever engaging in the sort of broad-brush allegations that Dr. Harris did and I think I was pretty polite to William (he can correct me if I err). Even though I disagreed strongly with William's views on evolution, I strongly defended his right to claim to be a Paleo dieter against others who claimed that was impossible. And I still say Harris' post was bogus spew interspersed with a few reasonable points. Heh, heh.  -d  But I do like his more reasonable comments that followed.

And yeah, yeah, I know, I'm still overly wordy, but I'm hoping that will improve on a raw carnivore diet too! ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 05, 2009, 12:11:46 pm
Of course, you're an exception to this, as you seem to be pacific at all times, ......

Phil, this one made me smile and probably has Tyler & GS in uncontrolled fits of laughter.  I've certainly had my share of spirited discussions (most would probably call them heated arguements) here on this forum.  Nope, just like everyone else, when I get a bee in my bonnet, it just has to run its course - I'm no differernt than anyone else.  Its easy to keep a cool head when you are outside looking in.  It's a far different matter when your own ideas are at the center of the discussion.

Very hard to escape being human.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2009, 08:26:43 am
Finally we have a clue as to what causes most of us to have heart palpitations, generally increased heart rate, and on occasion, a minor increase in blood pressure, when we first adopt a high fat very low carb diet.

David posted this in part on the PaNu blog:

…..I have been intrigued with the idea of VLC & paleo for a while now and decided to give it a go - just finished 10th day.
A month ago my blood pressure was 121/71 and pulse 45. At the weekend I used the same blood pressure monitor - to my astonishment it was 135/81, pulse 62……


Needless to say he was a bit perplexed as all of us have been when we jumped on board the Paleo Express.  We’ve all been sold on the idea that VLC/Paleo is the perfect diet and if this is the case then why on earth would our vital signs run amok the moment we jump in with both feet.  Well it seems there's an answer. Dr Harris responded with this tidbit:

David
Your body is elaborating epinephrine to keep your blood sugar regulated. As your metabolism gets better at using fatty acids and ketone bodies, your pulse rate will return to baseline.


Well, those of us that have stuck it out know that our pulse rate does eventually return to baseline, the palpitations go way, and blood pressure usually drops well below our starting point (especially if it was above ‘normal’ when we started).  At least now we have an idea what caused the issues in the first place and I think we can safely say that if you are experiencing these symptoms then you are not yet fully keto adapted.

Dr Harris also confirmed that as we become keto adapted the ketones levels of in our urine will drop as well since ketones will now be used as a primary fuel source and there will be fewer available to spill over into the urine.

I’ve stated for some time now that I believed these issues are a normal part of adapting to the high fat very low carb way of eating.  Glad that there’s a medical explanation for what’s going on.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 08, 2009, 10:51:18 am
Interesting. I found these:


Epinephrine's ketogenic effect in humans is mediated principally by lipolysis
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/263/2/E250
We conclude that epinephrine's ketogenic effect in humans is primarily the result of its lipolytic effect, is accompanied by a significantly increased rate of ketone body interconversion, is manifest largely as an increase in plasma beta-hydroxybutyrate appearance at high plasma epinephrine values, and is not limited by portal insulin at post-absorptive levels.


Effect of epinephrine on glucose metabolism in humans: contribution of the liver
R. S. Sherwin and L. Sacca
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/247/2/E157
Epinephrine causes a prompt increase in blood glucose concentration in the postabsorptive state.


Effects of epinephrine infusion on leucine and alanine kinetics in humans
J. M. Miles, S. L. Nissen, J. E. Gerich and M. W. Haymond
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/247/2/E166?ck=nck
Infusion of epinephrine in humans increases glucose production and decreases plasma concentrations of some essential amino acids....
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: halotek on September 09, 2009, 06:43:13 am
Lex, did you ever reach a point where you didn't have spill over ketones on an 80%fat/20% protein diet?  Seems, like you were on that for a while, but your urine ketones stayed high, correct?  You had given yourself more than 2weeks to adapt, is that also correct?  Was it only when you up'd protein that your urine ketones went back down?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on September 09, 2009, 12:20:54 pm
Lex, was wondering if you do anything else to optimize your health besides the way of eating that you follow.

For instance, do you sleep on the floor, walk/run barefoot, squat while you defecate???

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 09, 2009, 01:34:36 pm
Lex, did you ever reach a point where you didn't have spill over ketones on an 80%fat/20% protein diet?  Seems, like you were on that for a while, but your urine ketones stayed high, correct?  You had given yourself more than 2weeks to adapt, is that also correct?  Was it only when you up'd protein that your urine ketones went back down?

Hi Halotek,
When on an 85%+ fat as calories diet I never did drop down to low levels of ketones.  They were always level 4+ (160 or greater) and I remained on the high fat diet for about 5 months.  As you state, it was when I upped the protein at the end of the experiment (or maybe more importantly, dropped the fat) that ketones dropped back down to trace or between zero and trace.  Since I went all meat/fat I always spill some ketones.  It's just a matter of how much.  65% - 70% calories as fat and urine ketones generally run between zero and trace.  Remember that I usually keep total calories close to 2,200 or so.  This means that as fat drops protein rises and visa versa.  I've never done an experiment where I held protien constant and then varied fat (which would also vary calories).  This might be interesting to try.  I'll give it some thought.  When I was eating high fat, protein came in at about 85 grams per day and ketones were consistently very high.  When eating the lower fat rations, protein is about 145 grams per day and ketones are consistently low.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 09, 2009, 02:00:44 pm
For instance, do you sleep on the floor, walk/run barefoot, squat while you defecate???

Let's see, I sleep on a latex foam mattress. When I was a teenager I would sleep on the floor in a sleeping bag.  Don't ask me why, it was just my thing at the time.  When I moved away from home my parents bought me a regular spring mattress.  I had that for about 30 years until the springs broke through and I was forced to replace it.  When I purchased the new mattress, I tried all the latest stuff - water beds, air mattress (Select Comfort), Tempurepedic, etc and I settled on a plain latex foam mattress as being the best all around choice for me.

I walk 8 to 12 miles per week and wear tennis shoes.  I do go barefoot most of the time when home, but streets are so full of broken glass that it's just not practical to walk any distance without shoes.  I tried it once and had to stop twice in 4 miles to remove glass shards - not fun.  If I lived by the beach I suppose I'd be barefoot all the time.  Unfortunately I'm landlocked so barefoot is usually not a great option when away from home.

I try to get about 30 to 40 minutes of full sun exposure (just wearing gym shorts) every day.  Since I don't take any supplements, I feel this is important to create vitamin D.  I've read that most of us are very deficient in vitamin D since we spend most of our time in doors and when outside are usually fully clothed.

Yes I do squat to defecate.  I started this 30 years ago after reading a book on colon health and it just seemed so logical that I took up the practice.  I keep a 9" high folding stool in every bathroom in the house and usually carry one with me when I travel.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 09, 2009, 07:03:38 pm
I keep a 9" high folding stool in every bathroom in the house and usually carry one with me when I travel.

What's the stool for?
I'm guessing that it's to elevate feet so as to duplicate the squatting position with common toilets?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on September 10, 2009, 01:15:05 am
Finally we have a clue as to what causes most of us to have heart palpitations, generally increased heart rate, and on occasion, a minor increase in blood pressure, when we first adopt a high fat very low carb diet.

David posted this in part on the PaNu blog:

…..I have been intrigued with the idea of VLC & paleo for a while now and decided to give it a go - just finished 10th day.
A month ago my blood pressure was 121/71 and pulse 45. At the weekend I used the same blood pressure monitor - to my astonishment it was 135/81, pulse 62……


Needless to say he was a bit perplexed as all of us have been when we jumped on board the Paleo Express.  We’ve all been sold on the idea that VLC/Paleo is the perfect diet and if this is the case then why on earth would our vital signs run amok the moment we jump in with both feet.  Well it seems there's an answer. Dr Harris responded with this tidbit:

David
Your body is elaborating epinephrine to keep your blood sugar regulated. As your metabolism gets better at using fatty acids and ketone bodies, your pulse rate will return to baseline.


Well, those of us that have stuck it out know that our pulse rate does eventually return to baseline, the palpitations go way, and blood pressure usually drops well below our starting point (especially if it was above ‘normal’ when we started).  At least now we have an idea what caused the issues in the first place and I think we can safely say that if you are experiencing these symptoms then you are not yet fully keto adapted.

Dr Harris also confirmed that as we become keto adapted the ketones levels of in our urine will drop as well since ketones will now be used as a primary fuel source and there will be fewer available to spill over into the urine.

I’ve stated for some time now that I believed these issues are a normal part of adapting to the high fat very low carb way of eating.  Glad that there’s a medical explanation for what’s going on.

Lex


I find strange that on a high carb diet, my body did not produce epinephrine (no palpitation) despite an unmanaged blood glucose (hypoglycemia), and that after 9 months on a high fat/zerocarb diet, my body produces epinephrine (palpitations) although my blood sugar is steady.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 10, 2009, 06:21:05 am
What's the stool for?
I'm guessing that it's to elevate feet so as to duplicate the squatting position with common toilets?

Yup, that's what it's for.  Most toilets are about 15" - 16" to the top of the seat.  Raising the feet about 9" - 10" just about perfectly duplicates a full squat.  It also has a side benefit in keeping you more flexible.  It forces you into a full range of motion of your legs.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 10, 2009, 06:42:57 am
I find strange that on a high carb diet, my body did not produce epinephrine (no palpitation) despite an unmanaged blood glucose (hypoglycemia), and that after 9 months on a high fat/zerocarb diet, my body produces epinephrine (palpitations) although my blood sugar is steady.

If my understanding is correct, the hormone epinephrine plays a role in keeping blood sugar constant during the months that it takes for muscle tissue to dramatically increase cellular mitochondria which is necessary to efficiently use nonesterified fatty acids (free fatty acids that are not in triglyceride form) rather than glucose.  The body communicates its needs through hormones.  On a VLC or ZC diet, there is little free glucose and signals must be sent to the liver to create more glucose from protein than would normally be required until the majority of the tissues are keto/fat adapted.  One of the side effects of epinephrine is increased pulse rate, palpitations, and a slight rise in blood pressure.  Once the body is adpated to using fat as its primary fuel, the epinephrine is no longer needed as the extra glucose is no longer needed and the symptoms disappear.

When you are eating lots of carbs there is no need for the epinephrine to signal the creation of extra glucose as the issue is one of removing excess glucose from the carbs eaten and the muscles and other tissues have more than they need.  Even when eating carbs, if epinephrine is released for some reason - fear, excitement, and the flight or fight response for example - the side effects are still the same, increased pulse rate, palpitations (you feel your heart pounding in your chest), and a rise in blood pressure.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 10, 2009, 04:11:05 pm
Lex, you keep on mentioning a claim that ketosis induces production of extra mitochondria but do you have a study showing this?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 11, 2009, 12:12:34 pm
Lex, you keep on mentioning a claim that ketosis induces production of extra mitochondria but do you have a study showing this?

Tyler, here's some PubMed links discussing proliferation of mitochondria on a ketogenic diet.  These links came from the PaNu blog.  I believe that this subject is covered in Peter's Hyperlipid blog as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19049599?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18582445?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19168117?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16807920?

I personally have only read the short extracts so have little in the way of details.  I'm happy to rely on Peter's and Dr Harris's statements based on these studies.  They have the education and background to understand them better than I can, and they translate the core ideas into layman's terms in their blogs.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 11, 2009, 04:58:22 pm
Thanks, Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 11, 2009, 09:45:24 pm
Omega 3 fats, resveratrol and intense CV training have been identified as increasing the number of mitochondria:

Polyunsaturated fatty acids of marine origin [EPA and DHA] upregulate mitochondrial biogenesis and induce ?-oxidation in white fat.
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20053209661

Resveratrol induces mitochondrial biogenesis in endothelial cells
http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/00368.2009v1

"intense cardio training adds mitochondria to fast-twitch muscle fibers and changes them from pure fast-twitch to fast-twitch oxidative which improves the rate at which you can burn fat." --John Parillo, Nutrition & Fitness Q&A with John Parrillo, Thursday, December 30, 1999 2 p.m. EST http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/99/parrillo1230.htm
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 12, 2009, 12:28:01 am
Thanks for adding some more fuel to the mitochondria fire.  I know that I've read this information in multiple places over the years, but I seldom mark references for this kind of stuff and therefore have trouble finding it again.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 12, 2009, 05:49:12 am
Mitochondria are fascinating. Did you know that have their own DNA, without them we could not get energy from food, and that scientists hypothesize that mitochondria are descended from primordial bacteria? So they are like little parasitical organisms inside our very cells that we could not survive without. Because of this and many other unusual facts about human biology (such as that we have more DNA from bacteria and other organisms within our bodies--particularly the large intestine--than our own human DNA), scientists are increasingly coming to view human beings as communities of cooperating (as well as pathogenic) organisms, rather than singular, isolated individuals (though, this does not mean the end result does not produce an individual personality, which is a separate subject). On the surface it sounds like it runs counter to the orientation of American culture and religious tradition and will likely anger a lot of people the more the scientists discuss this in public. I can imagine misguided accusations about a hidden communist agenda and the like due to oversimplifications and misunderstandings of it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 12, 2009, 08:21:56 am
On the surface it sounds like it runs counter to the orientation of American culture and religious tradition and will likely anger a lot of people the more the scientists discuss this in public. I can imagine misguided accusations about a hidden communist agenda and the like due to oversimplifications and misunderstandings of it.

It agrees with pre-Christian European culture and theology/worldview/weltanschauung though (the nine worlds). Yes, that would anger a lot of people, including those who insist that we are wiser than our ancestors
Probably accusations of pagan as well as communist agenda.  ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 14, 2009, 04:49:32 am
Lex, you might be interested in Ron Hoggan's and my conjectures re: stimulation of CCK and secretin as a possible partial explanation for increased bone density from diets high in meat and animal fat:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A2=ind0909&L=paleofood&D=1&T=0&O=D&X=05FF7F1A1104143215&Y=the411%40fastmail.fm&P=57420

Other factors I can think of are observations of low excretion of calcium by carnivorous Inuit and increased growth hormone from meats and fish and optimal sodium-potassium ratio--both of which Wiley Long wrote about in the latest edition of The Paleo Diet Update newsletter (www.thepaleodiet.com).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 14, 2009, 05:26:43 am
Lex, you might be interested in Ron Hoggan's and my conjectures re: stimulation of CCK and secretin as a possible partial explanation for increased bone density from diets high in meat and animal fat:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A2=ind0909&L=paleofood&D=1&T=0&O=D&X=05FF7F1A1104143215&Y=the411%40fastmail.fm&P=57420

Hi Phil,
Sorry but I can't access the link as it is requesting a login ID and password.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 14, 2009, 11:24:00 am
Sorry about the link, Lex. I've attempted to summarize what I learned from both Ron and other sources here:

"Fat-rich, acidic chyme entering the duodenum triggers the release of cholecystokinin, a hormone produced in the intestinal wall that decreases gastric motility.

The acid in chyme also triggers release of secretin, another hormone. Secretin and cholecystokinin stimulate the release of pancreatic juice that contains bicarbonate, which buffers the effects of gastric acid, and digestive enzymes." --Diane S. Aschenbrenner and Samantha J. Venable, Drug Therapy in Nursing, 2008

Digesting foods that are rich in fats and are acidifying (such as fatty meats or meats with fat--not to be confused with "acidic" foods like citrus fruits that are actually alkaline) triggers buffering secretions of alkaline bile and bicarbonate in the duodenum that raise the ph so that lipase, which requires an alkaline pH to work, can break down the fats.

Therefore, a LOW fat diet that is acidified (such as diets high in grains and low-fat dairy), does not trigger the release of as much bile and bicarbonate, so the body compensates to lower the pH of the duodenum by acquiring calcium, presumably from extracellular fluids. To maintain calcium homeostasis in whatever extracellular fluid the calcium is taken from (http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/esp/2001_saladin/folder_structure/su/m2/s6/sum2s6_1.htm), the body then leaches calcium from the bones to restore calcium levels.

The alkaline hypothesis then says that eating alkaline foods like greens can provide an alternative buffer to the leaching of bones. My guess, however, is that this buffer may be incomplete in many people--which would explain why an alkaline diet with moderate fat may have been insufficient to stop my apparent bone loss (as evidenced by loosening teeth and diminishing jaw bone density on x-rays), but a high fat carnivorous diet succeeded. Apparently, a high fat diet allows the body's own buffering processes, which may be more efficient and effective than ingesting buffers, to kick in more fully.

The sensitivity of the trigger for release of bile and bicarbonate for different people may vary. For some, a little added buffering from ingesting greens may be sufficient to avoid problems. For others, such as people with celiac disease or gluten intolerance, and apparently me, such modest measures may be dangerously insufficient. Perhaps for you and me and Ron Hoggan, we may need to ingest higher levels of fat and acidifying foods to trigger production of the CCK and secretin?

Other potential factors are that growth hormone deficiency contributes to bone density loss (Rosén T, Johannsson G, Johansson J, Bengtsson B. 1995. Consequences of Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults and the Benefits and Risks of Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Treatment. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from Karger Hormone Research. Website: http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&amp;ArtikelNr=000184245&Ausgabe=241187&ProduktNr=224036), tests on Inuit people (as reported in The Paleo Diet) suggest that carnivorous-type diets result in much less calcium excreted than in the SAD.

In addition, I had these references in my files that indicate that animal protein improves calcium balance, whereas certain plant proteins, like soy protein, promote negative calcium balance:

> Herta Spencer, et al, "Do Protein and Phosphorus Cause Calcium Loss?" American Institute of Nutrition, 1988:657-660 http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/6/657 ("a diet low in protein and phosphorus may have adverse effects on calcium balance in the elderly. Studies with adults suggest that high protein foods do not cause calcium loss.")
> Spencer, Herta, et al, Federation Proceedings, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Nov 1986, 45:12:2758-2762
> Spencer, Herta and Lois Kramer, "Further studies of the effect of a high protein diet as meat on calcium metabolism", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, June 1983 37 (6):924-929 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/6/924 ("These long- and short-term studies have confirmed our previous results that a high protein intake, given as meat, does not lead to hypercalciuria and does not induce calcium loss.")
> Fallon, Sally, and Mary G Enig, PhD, "Dem Bones-Do High Protein Diets Cause Bone Loss?" Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation Health Journal, 1996, 20:2:1-4, also posted at http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtbones.html
> Hunt J. R., Gallagher S. K., Johnson L. K., Lykken G. I. High- versus low-meat diets: effects on zinc absorption, iron status, and calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc balance in postmenopausal women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995; 62:621-632 ("high meat consumption increases zinc retention without compromising calcium status"; note--zinc aids in the absorption of calcium into bones)
> Pannemans D.L.E., Schaafsma G., Westerterp K. R. Calcium excretion, apparent calcium absorption and calcium balance in young and elderly subjects: influence of protein intake. Br. J. Nutr. 1997; 77:721-729 ("Ca excretion in faeces (as a percentage of Ca intake) was lower during the higher protein intake")
> Barzel US. The skeleton as an ion exchange: implications for the role of acid-base imbalance in the genesis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 1995; 10: 1431-36) ("When purified protein supplements [meaning soy - see Kaneko K, et al. Urinary calcium and calcium balance in young women affected by high protein diet of soy protein isolate and adding sulfur-containing amino acids and/or potassium.] are added to diets, calcium balance usually becomes more negative, suggesting that bone may be affected. However when increased protein is added as foods, particularly meat or dairy products, decreased calcium balance is not always seen (Hunt et al. 1995), especially in young healthy people (Pannemans et al. 1997). This is due to other components of protein-containing foods that have also been shown to alter the urinary excretion of calcium and thus potentially calcium balance. These include phosphate (Remer and Manz 1994, Spencer et al. 1988), sulfate (Remer and Manz 1994) and potassium (Sebastian et al. 1994), as well as calcium (Heaney 1993).")

I'm not sure why animal proteins and soy proteins would have opposite effects on calcium balance. Perhaps there's something about meat proteins that better triggers secretin than plant proteins?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 15, 2009, 12:47:53 am
Very interesting Phil.  The idea that the foods eaten would determine the action taken by the body to deal effectively with them seems correct.  I have no doubt that the body uses a different mix of digestive fluids depending on what was eaten.  I'm not nearly as sure that you and I are "different" in our basic dietary requirements than anyone else.  Because others aren't as sensitive or don't show outward symptoms of problems as readily as we do doesn't mean their requirements are different.  I also believe that dietary issues more often than not, manifest themselves in a way that seems unrelated to diet such as allergies, asthma, balding, scaly skin patches, etc.

There is a huge difference in amino acid profile of plant proteins vs animal proteins.  Plant proteins are also often overwhelmed by the associated carbohydrate load.  It is perfectly reasonable to me that the body would respond differently to these two protein sources.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 15, 2009, 06:58:54 am
Hi Phil,
Sorry but I can't access the link as it is requesting a login ID and password.

Lex

This one works without login:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A1=ind0909&L=paleofood

and the thread title is:
Re: Great blog post about saturated fats
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 15, 2009, 07:32:13 am
...There is a huge difference in amino acid profile of plant proteins vs animal proteins.  Plant proteins are also often overwhelmed by the associated carbohydrate load.  It is perfectly reasonable to me that the body would respond differently to these two protein sources.

Lex
Yes, both excellent points. Ron Hoggan at the other Paleo forum is a very decent and smart fellow who is co-writing a book that will likely cover this subject. So please do let either me or him know if you think of anything else, and he will wish to cite you if he uses any of your thoughts, if you don't mind.

--------

Thanks for the link, William. You're quite helpful, as usual. I don't suppose I'll ever be able to repay you, Lex, DelFuego and Ray Audette for helping guide and motivate me to get going on trying this carnivorous RPD dietary approach, and teaching me how to put it into effect, with your positive success stories and thoughts.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 15, 2009, 07:53:45 am
No thanks needed, Phil.
Just my attempt to return some of the help that I think saved my life.

Passing it on.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 15, 2009, 08:13:55 am
Yeah, pay it forward, as the newfangled saying goes.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 18, 2009, 12:54:08 pm
Due to an elevated HBA1c of 6% I've decided to drop protein intake to 85g and raise fat to 210g. I'm currently eating 600 grams of food (that's 1.3 lbs) in one meal per day with total calories around 2,200.  I find this to be more than enough. I will have another HBA1c test done in December or January to see if glycation products drop.  I can say that in one month BG has dropped from an average of 100 to around 85 so I expect A1c will show improvement as well.

The reason I'm doing this is that A1c and blood levels of vitamin D seem to be more closely linked to death from heart and artery disease than HDL and LDL.  From what I've read, people with low levels of Vit D and an A1c level of 7% have a 19% chance of dying over a 12 month period.  People with adequate levels of Vit D and a 5% A1c level the mortality rate drops to 3% in a 12 month period.  Vitamin D also plays a critical role in maintaining bone density.

Sooooooo, I'm back on the high fat protocol but with a twist.  This time I'm controlling protein and by extension the opportunity for gluconeogenisis of excess protein, and just making up the lost calories from fat.  Current diet is about 85% of calories from fat. If I find that I start to gain weight, I'll simply drop the fat level but leave the protein constant at 85g.

In addition, I'm stripping down to gym shorts and getting as close to full body sun exposure as possible for about 45 minutes during mid day. This is how our body is designed to manufacture its own vitamin D which I prefer over taking supplements.  I will have to increase the exposure time during the winter due to the lower intensity of the sun.  I'll be requesting a vitamin D level test, (serum 25 (OH) D), at my December/January visit to the doc as well.  My goal is a serum Vit D level above 50 ng/dl.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 18, 2009, 01:03:33 pm
I can say that in one month BG has dropped from an average of 100 to around 85 so I expect A1c will show improvement as well.
But didn't you indicate that around 100 is normal for VLCers?

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 18, 2009, 01:18:32 pm
But didn't you indicate that around 100 is normal for VLCers?

I've said that 100 mg/dl seems to be 'normal' for most people that have been eating VLC or ZC for any significant amount of time.  So far my experience has shown that this is almost totally dependent on the amount of protein consumed.  BG dropped when I did my initial high fat experiment and it has dropped again now that I've returned to a high fat protocol.  Is this good or bad? Who knows - but it is what it is.

Based on the more recent studies of the effects of elevated HBA1c levels, it seems prudent to see if this can be kept at 5.5% or below.  My current experiment is designed to see if the higher fat protocol will accomplish this.  Unfortunately I didn't have HBA1c levels done before and after my initial high fat adventure or we might already know the answer to this question.  Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say.....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: razmatazz on September 19, 2009, 03:36:42 am
just read this http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/search?q=zero+carb (http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/search?q=zero+carb) on how excess protein can result in higher blood glucose levels...pretty interesting
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Danny on September 19, 2009, 04:12:08 am
Hey Lex,

As you know I'm very excited about your experiment. Can you take me through your line of thought when you settled on 85 grams of protein?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 19, 2009, 07:23:42 am
Lex, do you see any potential problems with my current excretion of low-to-moderate (15-40 mg/dl) levels of ketones?

I experienced something similar to your edema experience after you ate some hotel breakfast foods. After drinking more mead than usual two nights ago, I experienced a slight bit of swelling and significant pain in my ankles and feet the next afternoon. A similar amount of mead a couple weeks ago did not produce this side effect, or if it did, I did not notice it. This pain was too strong to not notice it, though perhaps I wrote it off to other reasons last time. This sounds like the diet-induced edema you experienced. Your thoughts?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 19, 2009, 11:23:31 pm
Lex, do you see any potential problems with my current excretion of low-to-moderate (15-40 mg/dl) levels of ketones?

I experienced something similar to your edema experience after you ate some hotel breakfast foods. After drinking more mead than usual two nights ago, I experienced a slight bit of swelling and significant pain in my ankles and feet the next afternoon. A similar amount of mead a couple weeks ago did not produce this side effect, or if it did, I did not notice it. This pain was too strong to not notice it, though perhaps I wrote it off to other reasons last time. This sounds like the diet-induced edema you experienced. Your thoughts?

I'd drink water instead of mead.  This way I avoid the problem altogether.  Same choice I made with the hotel breakfast foods - I now avoid them like the plague.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 19, 2009, 11:30:30 pm
As you know I'm very excited about your experiment. Can you take me through your line of thought when you settled on 85 grams of protein?

It wasn't rocket science.  I just took my weight at 160 lbs and divided by 2.2 to convert to kilograms.  Then multiplied by 1.2 too get the grams of protein I should need (85 to 90).  This disregards any conversion of protein to glucose so I may be at risk of some muscle sacrifice but we'll see.  It's part of the experiement.  Some "experts" believe that 0.9 grams of protein per Kg of body weight is enough which would work out to 65g of protein but I decided to be a bit more conservative and use 1.2 grams of protein per kg of body weight as I know that some will be converted to glucose.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 20, 2009, 12:05:06 am
just read this http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/search?q=zero+carb (http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/search?q=zero+carb) on how excess protein can result in higher blood glucose levels...pretty interesting

This post puts a biochemical process behind the practical experience of those of us that have been VLC or ZC for an extended period of time.  He does provide a link to a site that calculates protein need. I found, using the calculator, that I was previously consuming almost exactly what the calculator's recommended 145g protein/150g fat, and still my BG was around 100 and A1c was at 6%.  Having since dropped protein to 85g and raised fat to 200g my BG has dropped to an average of about 85.  Now the question is whether 85g-90g of protein is enough to support my body's protein requirement without sacrificing muscle tissue.  Only time will tell.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 20, 2009, 12:27:33 am
I'd drink water instead of mead.  This way I avoid the problem altogether.  Same choice I made with the hotel breakfast foods - I now avoid them like the plague.

Lex
Heh, heh, yes, from a purely medical standpoint I should avoid mead and don't consider it a healthy food. I've been experimenting with it to see if I could tolerate it during social occasions as an alternative to the beer and wine that are usually offered, since those have had much worse effects on me. Given the results of this latest experiment, it looks like I'll at least have to limit mead and may give up on it as well. I hope I didn't give anyone the impression that I thought it was actually healthy--as I never viewed it that way. I'm not a purist and was trying to meet society part way and appear less of a "fanatic" to others, but I won't do it if it harms my health significantly. Ironically, even such half measures are not nearly enough to satisfy many people, so I recognize that I can't please everyone and I'm not trying to do that either.

I was interested in your thoughts on why certain foods caused edema, or edema-like effects in both of us and why my sensitivity to "unhealthy" foods seems to be increasing (and the same thing happened when I first cut out gluten and dairy, BTW). I have some guesses of my own, but I'm interested in your perspective.

I'd also like your take on urinary ketones. As I recall from your journal, in the past when you increased fats your BG went down to 85, just like now, but your urinary ketones went up. Since you've decided to increase your fat intake, I take it that you don't see excretion of some excess ketones as being a serious issue? Some people claim that it indicates ketosis and lack of full adaptation to a ketogenic diet, though I haven't found evidence that small excesses of ketones has actually harmed someone's health and you've been eating this way long enough that adaptation should have come about by now, I would think.

I cut back on my fats after developing overly sweet saliva--which I figured was from excess ketones or other byproducts of fat consumption, as I really enjoy fat now and was eating more than in the past. The saliva sweetness went away and my urinary ketones dropped from 15-40 to 5 (trace). Since I currently don't get "stops" when eating fats, I use the first signs of sweetness in my saliva as my sign that I'm going overboard on fat.

Thanks again for all your help.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 20, 2009, 12:43:12 am
Less adaptation towards alcohol does seem a common ZC feature - unsurprising as I believe the alcohol works like carbohydrates re digestion?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 20, 2009, 02:51:39 am
Lex, re: your toilet stools. Did you buy or make them? If you bought them, where did you get them?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 20, 2009, 05:18:06 am
Lex, re: your toilet stools. Did you buy or make them? If you bought them, where did you get them?

Mine are E-Z Fold Step Stools by B&R.  I have one white and one black and paid $9.99 each.  Here's a link on Amazon but you can find them much cheaper at camping stores, and other retail outlets so look around.

http://www.amazon.com/E-Z-Fold-9-Inch-Step-Stool/dp/B000VBH9ES/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1253394800&sr=8-1
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 20, 2009, 07:06:43 am
It wasn't rocket science.  I just took my weight at 160 lbs and divided by 2.2 to convert to kilograms.  Then multiplied by 1.2 too get the grams of protein I should need (85 to 90).  This disregards any conversion of protein to glucose so I may be at risk of some muscle sacrifice but we'll see.  It's part of the experiement.  Some "experts" believe that 0.9 grams of protein per Kg of body weight is enough which would work out to 65g of protein but I decided to be a bit more conservative and use 1.2 grams of protein per kg of body weight as I know that some will be converted to glucose.

Lex

This agrees with Phinney's work as reported on the paleofood list --:
Re: Was Pemmican cure, Now Protein to Fat Ratio

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 07:58:11


1) Please see this excerpt from Phinney's review "Ketogenic Diets and 
Physical Performance":

"The third dietary factor potentially affecting physical performance 
is adjusting protein intake to bring it within the optimum 
therapeutic window for human metabolism. The studies noted herein 
[13-15,20] demonstrate effective preservation of lean body mass and 
physical performance when protein is in the range of 1.2 – 1.7 g/kg 
reference body weight daily, provided in the context of adequate 
minerals. Picking the mid-range value of 1.5 g/kg-d, for adults with 
reference weights ranging from 60–80 kg, this translates into total 
daily protein intakes 90 to 120 g/d. This number is also consistent 
with the protein intake reported in the Bellevue study [9]. When 
expressed in the context of total daily energy expenditures of 2000–
3000 kcal/d, about 15% of ones daily energy expenditure (or intake if 
the diet is eucaloric) needs to be provided as protein.

The effects of reducing daily protein intake to below 1.2 g/kg 
reference weight during a ketogenic diet include progressive loss of 
functional lean tissue and thus loss of physical performance, as 
demonstrated by Davis et al [21]. In this study, subjects given 
protein at 1.1 g/kg-d experienced a significant reduction in VO2max 
over a 3 month period on a ketogenic diet, whereas subjects given 1.5 
g/kg-d maintained VO2max.

At the other end of the spectrum, higher protein intakes have the 
potential for negative side-effects if intake of this nutrient 
exceeds 25% of daily energy expenditure. One concern with higher 
levels of protein intake is the suppression of ketogenesis relative 
to an equi-caloric amount of fat (assuming that ketones are a 
beneficial adaptation to whole body fuel homeostasis). In addition, 
Stefansson describes a malady known by the Inuit as rabbit malaise 
[8]. This problem would occur in the early spring when very lean 
rabbits were the only available game, when people might be tempted to 
eat too much protein in the absence of an alternative source of 
dietary fat. The symptoms were reported to occur within a week, and 
included headache and lassitude. Such symptoms are not uncommon among 
people who casually undertake a 'low carbohydrate, high protein' diet."


2) Also, Ron Rosedale in his book recommending a "high fat, low 
nonfiber carbohydrate, moderate protein diet," has charts that start 
on page 207 to help you figure out daily protein requirements.   
Basically, for those who are not overweight, the number is half your 
weight.  There are a few more calculations involved for the 
overweight -- but the gist is the same as Phinney above.

Here's a quote from the book:

"The fact that protein is essential for life... doesn't mean that you 
can eat it in unlimited quantities.  When you eat more protein than 
your body needs to replace and repair body parts, excess protein is 
largely converted  into glucose and burned as fuel.  It turns you 
into a sugar maker and sugar burner!  This is not desirable or healthy."
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: djr_81 on September 20, 2009, 08:59:24 am
I cut back on my fats after developing overly sweet saliva--which I figured was from excess ketones or other byproducts of fat consumption, as I really enjoy fat now and was eating more than in the past. The saliva sweetness went away and my urinary ketones dropped from 15-40 to 5 (trace). Since I currently don't get "stops" when eating fats, I use the first signs of sweetness in my saliva as my sign that I'm going overboard on fat.

I kept mine at the same level and at times ate even more than I was eating when we made the "sweet saliva"/ketone connections a couple weeks ago. My sweetness has pretty much disappeared (I will occasionally notice it but very infrequently). Maybe you were just not keto-adapted enough to use up what you were bringing in?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on September 21, 2009, 12:58:39 am
My HbA1C was higher during my high fruit/veg days (5.8%) than today as a carnivore (5.5%). However, my FBG was lower (0.75) than today (0.95).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 21, 2009, 07:19:19 am
I kept mine at the same level and at times ate even more than I was eating when we made the "sweet saliva"/ketone connections a couple weeks ago. My sweetness has pretty much disappeared (I will occasionally notice it but very infrequently). Maybe you were just not keto-adapted enough to use up what you were bringing in?
I still get the overly sweet saliva if I eat too much fat and I don't care for it. So I keep my fat levels low enough to avoid it, while still well above the minimum level to avoid protein starvation.

My urinary ketones seem to range from zero at 60% fat up to 30-35 mg/dl at around 80-85% fat. I don't know whether urinary ketones means any harm is occurring or not.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 23, 2009, 12:07:59 am
Dr. Kurt Harris (PaNu blog) is a radiologist by profession and was kind enough to provide an analysis of my recent DEXA bone density scan.  The analysis is very thorough, providing a good bit of background information, and is well worth reading just to gain a better understanding of bone density testing in general.  Here's the link:

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/9/22/bone-density-assessment.html

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on September 23, 2009, 02:10:25 am
Lex, good to see Dr Harris' evaluation of your bone tests, and that they are outstanding. I'll also watch with interest your test with the lower protein.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on September 23, 2009, 09:11:54 am
Lex, re: your toilet stools. Did you buy or make them?

This made me lol
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on September 23, 2009, 09:24:03 pm
This made me lol
LOL to!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Craig Magnon on September 24, 2009, 05:10:54 am
Here's an apt article while on the topic of toilet stools:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/squat-poop/ (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/squat-poop/)

It links this product called Nature's Platform:

http://www.naturesplatform.com/index.html (http://www.naturesplatform.com/index.html)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on September 25, 2009, 01:07:06 am
Lex, What does your family think of your lifestyle? How about friends/neighbors? Have any of them changed their diets because of you? Do you ever go out of your way to try and help others who are struggling with their health?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 25, 2009, 05:06:17 am
Paleo D,
Well, my family and friends think I’m nuts (a nice nuts but nuts just the same).  They’ve accepted that I will do what I want to do and there is not much they can do about it.  What concerns my wife most is that I will embarrass her in front of her friends, so I keep my lifestyle low key.   None have changed their diets, mostly for the reasons outlined below.

I’m not an evangelist for the raw paleo movement.  What I do, I do because it works for me. As for helping others, I never bring up my diet to anyone, even if they are ill, unless they ask me first.  I’ve found that most people are very happy in their misery.  They love to talk about their poor health, and are proud of all the medications they are taking – it’s like a badge of honor. Few are interested in changing as they will lose all the attention they get from being in poor health, and that is a price they are not willing to pay.

I’m also not interested in giving advice though I’m happy to answer questions about my personal experiences and what seems to be working for me.  You see, I spent 20 years as a dedicated vegan, totally convinced I was on the correct path.  I preached the vegan gospel to anyone who would listen, and unfortunately some people took my advice.  They reaped the same reward of declining health that I did.  Today, I’m not nearly so sure of myself.  The most I’m willing to do is tell people what I’m doing, and the results I’m achieving.  I then suggest they do their own due diligence and see if their experience and/or conclusions are consistent with mine.  That is what this Journal is all about.  I hope that you and other readers are finding value in it.

Glad to answer any questions,

Lex


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 25, 2009, 07:49:46 am
.... I’ve found that most people are very happy in their misery.  They love to talk about their poor health, and are proud of all the medications they are taking – it’s like a badge of honor.
Yes, I've noticed the same thing. Many people love to go on and on about their health problems (especially the elderly--Florida is full of elderly people complaining about chronic ailments), especially when they see I'm a good listener. If they ask me about my health and I reply honestly about my improvements it seems to irritate many of them. I think they want to hear that someone else is sharing their misery. If I let them know that there is hope for alleviating their suffering, they tend not to be interested or even get annoyed. Like you, I don't push nutrition info on anyone, but if someone goes on and on about their ailments, letting them know about possible help does at least get them to stop complaining.

One person occasionally even asks me what the causes are of her health problems, and the solutions, but she doesn't really mean it, because if I start talking about possible solutions she just gets angry. I think that she too just wants to be consoled.

When people say that I cured them or talk about "Phil's diet" that helped them, I say, no, it's not my diet. I didn't invent it--it goes back thousands of years, and I didn't cure you, I just gave you some info and you helped yourself.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: invisible on September 25, 2009, 03:57:52 pm
One person occasionally even asks me what the causes are of her health problems, and the solutions, but she doesn't really mean it, because if I start talking about possible solutions she just gets angry. I think that she too just wants to be consoled.

Absolutely agree. Many people I think they don't want the solution to their health problems to be so simple. Food is entertainment, it's social etc. Some people will not give these up for anything.

I also think it's possible people feel offended when discussing that their ill-health may be diet related, as if it is implying they brought this poor health upon themselves. They like to complain about it, but like to be told there is nothing that can be done and there was nothing that could had prevented it - they just had bad luck.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on September 26, 2009, 01:48:46 pm
Sometimes people don't know they're doing it though. It's two confilcting processes in their mind...sometimes they're trying their best to be healthy from their perspective but there's more powerful processes keeping them where they are.

I agree it can be frustrating if someone you care about won't make changes. I think 'dammit if you're not going to try what I say try something else...but do something' People don't allow themself the possibility of change.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 26, 2009, 10:50:00 pm
I also think it's possible people feel offended when discussing that their ill-health may be diet related, as if it is implying they brought this poor health upon themselves. They like to complain about it, but like to be told there is nothing that can be done and there was nothing that could had prevented it - they just had bad luck.
Yes, good point. I think that was part of the reason for her negative response.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 26, 2009, 10:53:51 pm
I agree it can be frustrating if someone you care about won't make changes. I think 'dammit if you're not going to try what I say try something else...but do something' People don't allow themself the possibility of change.
Yes, I told her there's three basic options I know of: drugs, surgery or nutritional therapy. I got frustrated and said something along the lines of "If you're unwilling to try any of them, then please stop asking me what to do and complaining about it."
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 26, 2009, 11:07:33 pm
All I know is, raw just seemed like the natural thing to do next when I was in my early 20s. I was busy helping my ex-wife to find weight loss methods.  We stumbled on juice fasting, which worked really well for that. I just kept going more and more raw. After reading Price's book I felt that eating raw animal products, at least raw fish and shellfish (and maybe raw dairy, I haven't made up my mind 100% about dairy yet) just seems like a no-brainer. I can't speak for others.  They have no willpower.  In many cases, they also lack motivation.  Finally, they are ignorant as well.  I used to try to save  the world, almost as an automatic response, without really thinking about it.  I'm starting to realize that I can't, and that it will just have to save itself, pretty much. :) Other people are going to have to find willpower, motivation, and knowledge pretty much on their own, without me. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 27, 2009, 03:15:55 am
Luckily I realized early on that trying to save the world was an impossible and futile task. Some people I helped continue to ask me to do things like make documentaries and write to celebrities (like Michael Fox, who has Parkinson's) and the like. I suggest to them that if they feel that strongly about it that they do it themselves (which they never do, of course), but I warn them that they will likely not make enough money to pay for the documentary and celebrities will consider them kooks. I suggest they consider how they would have reacted, before they learned about Paleo, if they were a celebrity with an illness and some stranger had written them a letter telling them they should adopt a radical diet. If it even managed to reach the celebrity it would probably be discarded after he/she read the first few lines. I focus on my closest relatives and friends and only offer health info when they ask for it or I already know that they would be interested.

I did create a blog at a friend's urging, and thought of trying to promote it to help more people, but decided instead to use it mainly as a site to direct people to who specifically ask for info, and for my own reference. I don't feel I know enough at this point to be broadcasting to the world anyway.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on September 29, 2009, 12:07:45 am
After reading GCBC, subsequently dropping carbs and seeing nearly every aspect of my life change in some manner for the better, I have endured a sort of internal struggle about how to dispense of this new information. I have yet to take serious action but have had a number of different ideas, some quite radical to get the word out. I realize that GCBC was my first book/anything on nutrition and I have fallen for it hard, but I have done an enormous amount of other research outside this book and am now fine with any biases I still have.  I also felt extremely fortunate to come across this information, like I did nothing to deserve it. Why should I reap all the benefits of this diet by nothing more than luck, when there are others that would surely benefit if they could just read the same information?

I have yet to go out of my way to impose my diet on anyone that is struggling though I have talked about my diet to nearly everyone. Its hard not to since so many social situations involve food. I keep it simple and focus on the evils of refined carbohydrates, which is easy enough for everyone to get behind. Even though a good chunk of people think I've got a little crazy in me, I think I've found that there is much more fascination and almost no one except my parents have expressed much concern, only that I get the occasional blood test. Perhaps this is because I hang around people 24-30 years old.  I've gotten several of my friends to try raw steak and even got one to crave the stuff to the point where we'd make an early morning run just for that. Its also extremely easy to convince them that it is fine since literally no one has any clue or even seemingly an ounce of quality information outside of what they were taught in health class in 7th grade.

But my real struggle is with those that are suffering. One of my Dad's closest friends died last week from complications with diabetes at 55. He was quite overweight and taking insulin shots multiple times per day. He was very friendly and would talk to me for ages about different business ideas he had in mind for me and my brother. I never once brought up my diet that if I were a betting man(actually I am a betting man but thats another story..) would put at least 50-1 that it would have extended his life indefinitely. I don't actually feel bad, for some reason Im not sure of, but its a strange feeling to know that there is something out there that I am so sure will work to save lives. Perhaps my assumptions are wrong about the probability of this diet working, but I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and if you want to bet against me go right ahead.

I really would love to see a carnivorous diet be open discussion to the public. From all the crazy ideas I've had, which have had me contemplating chaining myself up outside the NIH eating nothing but raw steaks to actually studying for the mcat just to have a face to face with real doctors, I think I've settled on something. Cancer patients seem to be the most likely to try something radical to save their lives. I mean, they literally have a sitting clock counting down to their last breath, why wouldnt they want to try something so simple as a change in diet?  There was that time magazine article not too long ago that gave the all-meat diet its first mainstream exposure with very positive results. Apparently, there are more clinical trials going on right now testing the same thing. I think that it could be possible to gain some momentum working specifically with cancer patients, since they are most likely to change their diets.  If the carnivorous community could rally behind this one thing we might really have something that is ready to spread.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on September 29, 2009, 01:25:11 am
you might like to check out Ron Rosedale Md site.  There are those out there doing maybe just what you'd like to do.  I have spoken at length with him. Great guy!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 29, 2009, 02:27:00 am
What's the URL for the website?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 29, 2009, 04:42:20 am
What's the URL for the website?

http://www.drrosedale.com/
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 29, 2009, 05:00:43 am
Thank you brother William.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Chester on October 03, 2009, 09:50:50 am
Hello Lex, I've got a question for you. Since earlier in your journal you stated that you read that approximately 58% of eaten protein will be converted into glucose aren't you certain that your current intake of of 85 grams protein will not be enough to meet your body's needs?
Or are you hoping that eating such a low amount of protein your body may be more likely to stop using glucose and converting protein to glucose for some of its energy? I'm asking this because if you could get your body to stop converting the protein so all of the protein went to repairing your body many good things would come from that. For instance many people on this diet would only need to eat about half the current amount of meat that they eat now which would be easier on the body plus it would of course cost less. Also it would keep your blood glucose lower. So do you think its possible to stop the conversion of protein to glucose or is that something that will always happen?
Edit:oh man I got stuck with the 666th post >D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 03, 2009, 11:18:33 am
Hi Chester,
Boy have you hit a hot subject.  I really have no idea and I’ve been asking all the experts the same question.  There seems to be two major camps that feel they have the science behind them.  Camp #1 thinks that some portion of all protein eaten will turn into glucose regardless of whatever else is eaten in the diet.  Camp #2 believes just as strongly that protein is converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis ONLY when blood glucose or glycogen stores are low, AND only if no carbs are consumed as carb consumption supposedly halts gluconeogenesis in its tracks.

At this point in the debate I’m a solid member of camp #1 as my experience clearly shows that the greater the percentage of protein in my diet the higher blood glucose rises up to around 100 mg/dl where it then levels off.  At this point, by reducing my protein intake from 150g/day to 85-90g/day my blood glucose has dropped to around 85 mg/dl, which is a significant improvement.

As for whether I’m getting enough protein?  Who knows?  I’m 58 so I’m not competing for an Olympic record.  I’m pretty excited if I can wrestle my trash cans to the curb on trash day without throwing my back out in the process.  For a younger person looking for performance and building muscle mass through weight lifting etc it may be important, but to me, keeping blood glucose and glycation products as measured by HbA1c levels low is more of a priority.  Since my experiments seem to support the idea that some portion of protein is always converted to glucose the question boils down to how much and then is there sufficient protein (amino acids) left for lean tissue building and repair.  Not sure how to know so the best I can do is go by how I feel and my ability to perform my normal tasks and so far all seems well in that department.

I’m going to stick with the 85-90g protein until the first of the year and then get my HbA1c tested as well as my 25 (OH) D3 levels.  I’ll decide where to go from there once the test results are back.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on October 03, 2009, 12:55:20 pm

    Ron Rosedale writes about this very thing.  You might like to look at his opinions.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Chester on October 03, 2009, 08:36:14 pm
I guess I was sort of preaching to the quire with that last post. And Van thanks for "introducing" me to Ron Rosedale so far what I have read from him is interesting.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on October 03, 2009, 10:37:26 pm
  Your welcome.  I have spent a couple of hours talking on the phone with him.  He really is a real person.  Very kind.  I think he would find Lex and his questions fascinating, and would love for the two of them to brainstorm together.  And of course I would learn, as I think we all would, from that exchange. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 03, 2009, 11:32:25 pm
Heh, my own rule is to avoid devotion to any "guru," but Lex almost inspires me to cast aside that rule, ironically in part because he wisely goes out of his way to dissuade people from making of him a guru.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on October 04, 2009, 12:58:53 am
I agree, but it's the brainstorming aspect that I would love to witness.  I ran an R&D lab for years,  and from brainstorming collectively, greats things were invented or at least discovered.  Also both Lex and Ron seem to be after the truth, regardless of what it is.  That's rare.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 05, 2009, 12:43:42 am
I've read some of Dr. Rosedale's work and there is very little on his list of nutritional foods that I would eat.  His appeal seems more directed at the healthfood crowd that frequents places like Whole Foods Market, Mother's, and other upscale food emporiums.

Lex   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on October 05, 2009, 09:43:43 am
  I agree, as regards to his diet list. But I do believe he is trying to help a general populace.   That in particular is one of the items that I think he would find fascinating about your diet. 
Specifically that your fat intake comes predominately from beef fat, rather than the other listed fat sources, many from plant sources.    He is very much into lab testing.  Thus it is my bet he would love to run some tests with you.  Yours and my diet is almost identical.  But you have been following it pretty much day to day for I think five years?   That should be long enough to gain some valid markers off of.  I am also interested to see if he would like to do some testing with Charles.  For Charles has many times thrown out the challenge of putting his health against any one else's.   I would be happy to contact him and make the suggestion;  that is Lex, if you would be interested in participating.    He does follow his own diet.  He might learn something from you? 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 05, 2009, 10:47:03 am
Van,
I've been poked and prodded by the best over the years so what's a few more needle sticks in the name of science.  Sounds like a worthy cause.  I'm game if he is.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on October 05, 2009, 08:14:12 pm
   Great,  I'll let you know what he says.  I am contacting him soon to see if he can help with an older woman I met who's facing amputation above her knee.  She's had three artificial knees, all of which have failed due to a fungus which supposedly eats away the cement that was to bond the prosthesis to the inside of the bone.  Her legs are ballooned/swollen.  Her doctors are giving up in trying to cure the fungus with drugs.  She approached me in a toy store with my daughter from having seen me walk with my carbon leg.   I'll write back when I get the word,  thanks Lex.    Van
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 06, 2009, 06:59:10 am
Van,
I've been poked and prodded by the best over the years so what's a few more needle sticks in the name of science.  Sounds like a worthy cause.  I'm game if he is.

Lex
Oh cool, can I stick some needles in you too? All in the name of science, of course. ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 06, 2009, 11:26:01 am
Oh cool, can I stick some needles in you too? All in the name of science, of course. ;)

With all the finger sticks I do on my own I sometimes feel like a pin cushion.  You may as well join in the fun - ummm I mean science.....errr research, that's it research!

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 06, 2009, 11:40:04 am
Heh, heh. I made a voodoo doll of you and I'm sticking pins in you now, can you feel it?  -d
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: richard on October 06, 2009, 02:51:13 pm
   I am also interested to see if he would like to do some testing with Charles.  For Charles has many times thrown out the challenge of putting his health against any one else's.   I would be happy to contact him and make the suggestion;  that is Lex, if you would be interested in participating.    He does follow his own diet.  He might learn something from you? 

I would love to see this.  Charles claims that grass fed vs grain fed doesn't matter, yet has never tested grassfed and compared measurable results and is unwilling to get labtests to measure his results. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: phatdave on October 06, 2009, 10:04:56 pm
what was the conclusion of lex's high fat 80-20 experiment? I find it fascinating reading this whole journal, but I'm curious.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 06, 2009, 11:11:11 pm
what was the conclusion of lex's high fat 80-20 experiment? I find it fascinating reading this whole journal, but I'm curious.

Dave,
Here's a link to the post where I ended my initial high fat experiment and returned to about 65% fat.

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/lex's-journal/msg6654/#msg6654

Still working on my current low protein experiment (which means high fat to keep calories constant).  The original experiment was to test Taubes theory.  This experiment is an attempt to lower HbA1c levels.  So far BG has dropped about 15 points (from 100 to 85) so I have high hopes that HbA1c levels will follow this downward trend.  Next blood test will be in January and I'll have HbA1c levels checked as well as 25(OH)D3 levels.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on October 07, 2009, 01:11:09 am
Charles claims that grass fed vs grain fed doesn't matter, yet has never tested grassfed and compared measurable results and is unwilling to get labtests to measure his results. 

Not exactly. He said that grass fed is probably better than grain fed, but grain fed is good enough to be healthy.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 07, 2009, 02:21:02 am
Not exactly. He said that grass fed is probably better than grain fed, but grain fed is good enough to be healthy.

I suppose we'll see how Charles fares in the long term.  I'm surprised that he doesn't get regular blood tests.  It is the annual blood tests that demonstrate the effectiveness, (and the problems) with the dietary choices I've made.  Without blood tests I would never have known that my HbA1c was a bit high. 

Many people look and feel great right before they die from a heart attack or stroke.  Things like high blood pressure, electrolyte, and hormal problems often can't be detected by how you feel.  Also, we are very good at fooling ourselves when we do feel a bit 'off'.  We attribute it to anything other than what we believe in.  I for one would rather have real facts.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: richard on October 09, 2009, 07:56:49 am
Lex, would you consider getting your omega-3 index and omega-6:omega-3 ratio tested?
I would be very curious to see what the results are.

Why leave the grass fed vs grain fed debate a mystery.  We have the technology to determine the truth.

This is available as a finger prick home test kit for $149.95 @  http://www.genesmart.com/pages/omega_3_index_heart_health_test/105.php


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 09, 2009, 05:07:53 pm
PP was saying that I might have got Charles statements wrong. I had merely quoted from you saying that Charles had confirmed that it took him  abit longer to recover after physical exertion. The relevant statement of your was :- "Yes, Charles confirms that the recovery time is longer on zero carb meat and water. " Out of interest, could you please provide me with the link to Charles' comment re this on the zerocarbage.com forum. Thanks.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 10, 2009, 03:00:12 am
PP was saying that I might have got Charles statements wrong. I had merely quoted from you saying that Charles had confirmed that it took him  abit longer to recover after physical exertion. The relevant statement of your was :- "Yes, Charles confirms that the recovery time is longer on zero carb meat and water. " Out of interest, could you please provide me with the link to Charles' comment re this on the zerocarbage.com forum. Thanks.

Tyler,
I don't remember making that statement about Charles.  I think Jeff did and that was over a year ago.  I have no idea what he was referencing.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 10, 2009, 06:09:40 am
Lex, would you consider getting your omega-3 index and omega-6:omega-3 ratio tested?
I would be very curious to see what the results are. This is available as a finger prick home test kit for $149.95 @  http://www.genesmart.com/pages/omega_3_index_heart_health_test/105.php

Richard, I saw this on the HeartScan blog and looked into it (and the vitamine D3 test as well).  Unfortunately, I live in california and I can't request the test without going to a doctor and getting a prescription, and I'm not sure, but the results might have to be sent directly to the prescribing physician as well.  Royal pain.  Anyway, now that I know a test like this exists, I'll add it to my request list when I next visit my primary care doctor in late December or early January.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 10, 2009, 05:44:41 pm
Tyler,
I don't remember making that statement about Charles.  I think Jeff did and that was over a year ago.  I have no idea what he was referencing.

Lex

Ah, yes, you're right, it was jeff.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 10, 2009, 10:23:24 pm
Tyler, I'm trying to avoid classifying either your or Charles' comments on his recovery, performance, etc. as "wrong" or "right" and I'm trying to stay out of any potential disputes between you two, so I'll just post what I have from my own notes on this and you can decide for yourself (and I recommend asking him questions directly to get the answers straight from the horse's mouth--preferably via private message to avoid potentially causing a ruckus in their public forum). Just in case I should ever decide to get into more serious athletic pursuits I saved this post of Geoff's to investigate later:

Quote
Subject:    Re: Pemmican rules!
From:   Geoffrey Purcell
Reply-To:   Paleolithic Eating Support List
Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:57:57 +0100

I heard from (raw) ZC circles that Charles has admitted that it takes longer for him to recover, on a ZC diet by comparison to a higher-carb-diet, before he can resume his sporting-activity. Can't remember the explanation offered, something to do with glycogen.

Geoff

Your post reminded me about it, and I thought I remembered Charles posting something about this too, so I asked him about it:
Quote
http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/showthread.php?tid=37&pid=120414#pid120414
 09-29-2009, 07:37 AM
Post: #1889
   Charles Offline
Forum Administration
*******
Administrators    Posts: 12,338
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 21
RE: Charles's Running Journal

   <<(09-28-2009 09:48 PM)PaleoPhil Wrote:  I think in the past you mentioned that your recovery rate is slower on ZC than it was on carbs, but I may be confusing you with someone else. Is that the case now? I don't notice any slower recovery myself on ZC, but I don't exercise to the degree you do.>>


No, my recovery time is not slow at all. I'm just more attuned to what my body needs. As the Bear mentioned, it takes two days after strenuous activity to repair and build the muscle so as long as you factor in the proper recovery, you're fine. My comment was more related to the fact that carb eaters seem to be able to do more back to back stuff than ZC people, which in no way affects performance. That just means they can practice a little more. This leads to overtraining and injury, which I never seem to have.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on October 14, 2009, 11:11:41 am
Lex don't you notice a sweet taste in your mouth? When I drink water, ride my bicycle, go swimming and even when it's time to eat I have this sweet taste in my mouth. I know when I ate other meats than beef and fat this taste changed according to the kind of meat and fat I ate (horse meat was way to sweet after a time).

You also explained once that food is a liquid in the small intestines so if you eat just meat and fat this liquid moves threw to the big intestines

    I'm eating more carbs now, and much fewer eggs, but no one knew the answer at the time.  Eggs and or water always drew a sweet taste coming from my mouth.  What is that?

    Maybe related, maybe not, my first taste of cooked vegetable (eggplant) made a lot of (plain non smelly in any way) water come out of me.  No problem, but very strange.  Absolutely not necessary.  I don't need eggplant.  Would that be the water from the small intestine?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 14, 2009, 11:32:25 am
    I'm eating more carbs now, and much fewer eggs, but no one knew the answer at the time.  Eggs and or water always drew a sweet taste coming from my mouth.  What is that?

    Maybe related, maybe not, my first taste of cooked vegetable (eggplant) made a lot of (plain non smelly in any way) water come out of me.  No problem, but very strange.  Absolutely not necessary.  I don't need eggplant.  Would that be the water from the small intestine?
I found that when my saliva, fat-rich foods like suet, tallow, or raw eggs, and water tasted sweet to me I was excreting significant ketones. I reduced my fat intake and the sweetness and ketones went away.

Eggplant would not be my first choice of plant food, as it's a nightshade and nightshades have been linked to arthritis, multiple sclerosis and food allergies and intolerances. When I eliminated nightshades my health improved significantly. It also contains a lot of water, which could be related to your symptom, I suppose.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 23, 2009, 08:39:12 am
Lex, I increased my fat intake level to help lubricate the GI tract, but that increased my urinary ketones back up to around 40 mg/dl. Do you think there's any reason to be concerned about that level of ketones?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 24, 2009, 12:24:38 am
Lex, I increased my fat intake level to help lubricate the GI tract, but that increased my urinary ketones back up to around 40 mg/dl. Do you think there's any reason to be concerned about that level of ketones?

Phil,
Your urinary ketones are much lower than mine.  When eating 75% to 80% calories as fat, I consistently run between 80 and 160 mg/dl, and much higher when I eat 85/90% calories as fat.  My results have been nothing but positive.  Since the keto strips only measure as high as 160, and ketones are measured as the amount in a specific volume, I measure the higher rate by diluting my urine with distilled water by a ratio like 2:1, 4:1, 10:1 etc, until the reading is again within the measuring limits of the test strips. I then just multiply the test strip reading by the ratio, (2, 4, 10, etc) I've measured over 500 when I was doing my super high fat diet experiment and still had no issue that I was aware of.

Lex   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 26, 2009, 11:18:21 am
OK, so I take it that the talk on the Net about high urinary ketones being bad is misguided. However, doesn't your saliva get sickeningly sweet when your ketone levels get high?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 26, 2009, 11:46:28 am
OK, so I take it that the talk on the Net about high urinary ketones being bad is misguided. However, doesn't your saliva get sickeningly sweet when your ketone levels get high?

I haven't noticed any sweetness for 2 or 3 years now.  Either I'm used to it or over time some type of adpatation has taken place.

I think you are correct that most of the babble on the net is misguided.  Extreme ketogenic diets are used to control severe cases of epilepsy and in this case the diet is usually at least 90% to 95% fat which is garuanteed to generate very high levels of ketones.  Patients stay on this diet for years.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 27, 2009, 08:11:44 am
Interesting. I've been upping my fat intake again and haven't noticed the oversweet saliva so far. I hope I've adapted. Thanks.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Guittarman03 on October 30, 2009, 01:38:57 pm
Hey Lex, just got a quick question for you.

You do a lot of tracking of different nutrient/bio/chemicals in your body for the purpose of exploring better health.  I like the idea of getting vit D from sunlight, I'm sure it's generally good for us (reference from another post you made earlier).  You seem to be fairly rigorous in doing regular tests and chaning small variables.

Have you ever considered light-moderate amounts of simple exercise 3-5 days a week to see if  your health improves any?  I wouldn't be surprised if some of the different things you track and are trying to improve, got better.  From a paleo standpoint, it would make sense that our bodies would be ideally tuned for a good bit of movement, especially if we were zero or near zero carb.

-Jason
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 31, 2009, 09:10:33 am
Hey Lex, just got a quick question for you.

You do a lot of tracking of different nutrient/bio/chemicals in your body for the purpose of exploring better health.  I like the idea of getting vit D from sunlight, I'm sure it's generally good for us (reference from another post you made earlier).  You seem to be fairly rigorous in doing regular tests and chaning small variables.

Have you ever considered light-moderate amounts of simple exercise 3-5 days a week to see if  your health improves any?  I wouldn't be surprised if some of the different things you track and are trying to improve, got better.  From a paleo standpoint, it would make sense that our bodies would be ideally tuned for a good bit of movement, especially if we were zero or near zero carb.

-Jason

Jason,
I decided a few months ago to work on upping my sunlight exposure in an effort to boost Vitamin D levels (first test will be in late Dec or early Jan).  I started by 'sun bathing' but soon thought that laying around on a beach towel was not an efficient use of time and decided that doing light exercise in gym shorts would be a better approach.

To that end, I now walk (in as few clothes as public decency allows) for about 1 hour per day.  Sometimes when the spirit moves me I may jog a bit but the point is regular gentle exercise while getting as close to full body sun exposure as possible.

I’ve also dropped protein levels and this too has had a beneficial effect on blood glucose levels.  We’ll see if HbA1c improves and where 25 (OH) D3 levels are in a couple of months.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: DeadRamones on October 31, 2009, 07:42:41 pm
Lex,

I appreciate what you're doing for us.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 01, 2009, 12:57:36 am
I appreciate what you're doing for us.

Glad to do it.  I've learned a lot since I started this so to be honest it's a rather selfish endevor.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Warrior Woman on November 04, 2009, 08:57:38 am
Lex
Thanks for what you are doing. It is a shame that there isnt a medical/scientific group that could help/sponsor you in some way! With what you are willing to do, going the extra mile, it would be very cool to have some way to offer you testing for free! But of course they would probably want you to sign away your rights to talk freely about it.....

I recently had my blood work done and received the 30 second "you have high cholesterol and need to go on a cholesterol lowering diet. Come back in 4 weeks to retest your blood and maybe prescribe something" I did call them and tried to have an educated conversation with the person on the other end (not the doctor). In frustration I had them fax it to me. Although the overall number is a bit high, my HDL is high, tri's are low and right there on the paperwork it says 'LOWER THAN AVERAGE' rick for heart disease...... sigh

What scared and bothered me most was that my A1c is 6%. No one said a FRIGGIN WORD about that!!

I have dabbled in the VLC/ZC world. I know I need to get my act together. With seeing that number for my A1c and a LONG list of other symptoms that may be the onset of celiac and/or diabetes I am scared poop-less. Being that auto-immune runs in the family, I want/need to act on this NOW!

My question is what tests would you recommend that I get from the doctor? He will pretty much write a prescription for anything I ask for. That is one of the reasons I go to him!  >D

Sorry for the long story for a quick question....
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: DeadRamones on November 05, 2009, 05:02:49 am
My question is what tests would you recommend that I get from the doctor?

Lex if you don't mind answering in addition the that;

Any recommendations for at home test as well? Stuff you don't need to send to a lab. I already have a glucose monitor I check every other week or so.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on November 06, 2009, 02:46:58 am
Lex, do you mind going into more detail about your hair loss and when it stopped? How soon did you notice that it was stopping? Have you noticed any new growth? Also, other zc'ers have noticed new hair growth elsewhere- have you experienced this as well? Thanks again.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 06, 2009, 08:36:55 am
I grew significant chest hair for the first time in my life at age 45 after going carnivore. The hairloss on my head slowed down but it hasn't stopped yet.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 06, 2009, 01:59:43 pm
What scared and bothered me most was that my A1c is 6%. No one said a FRIGGIN WORD about that!!

I had the same problem with HbA1c as mine was 6.0% as well.  If you're reading this journal then you know that I've lowered my protein intake and raised my fat intake which has dropped BG by about 15 points.  I'll be having another HbA1c test in early January to see if this change in diet has had any significant effect.

My question is what tests would you recommend that I get from the doctor? He will pretty much write a prescription for anything I ask for. That is one of the reasons I go to him! 

Attched to the very first post in this journal are my past 3 (or is is 4 now), blood tests.  You can see exactly what I have tested.  This last test I added HbA1c as the previous tests didn't have that.  Future annual tests (done in July) will include HbA1c as well as 25 (OH) D3, vitamin D levels, and I'd like to include an Omega-3 Index test as well which shows the ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6 fatty acids in our own tissues, but not sure it is available from the medical center I use. 

Hope this helps,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 06, 2009, 02:11:25 pm
My question is what tests would you recommend that I get from the doctor?

Lex if you don't mind answering in addition the that;

Any recommendations for at home test as well? Stuff you don't need to send to a lab. I already have a glucose monitor I check every other week or so.

I routinely measure Blood Glucose with a BG meter, Urinary Ketones with Ketostix, and Urine pH with wide spectrum pH paper. 

I also have some Bayer Multistix 10 SG Urinalysis reagent strips that I use occasionally that check urine for Glucose, Bilirubion, Ketones, Specific Gravity, Blood, pH, Portein, Urobilinogen, Nitrite, and Leukocytes.  The strips are very expensive at about $1.25 each and I had to purchase 100.  I got them when I did my first high fat experiment just to see if anything unusual was happening in the urine.  Every test I've made with them shows normal except for ketones (usually high) and pH (usually low at 5.0 to 5.5 which is acidic), so I wouldn't recommed you spend the money on them.

Other than this I don't know of much that we can test for without access to a lab.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 06, 2009, 02:23:04 pm
Lex, do you mind going into more detail about your hair loss and when it stopped? How soon did you notice that it was stopping? Have you noticed any new growth? Also, other zc'ers have noticed new hair growth elsewhere- have you experienced this as well? Thanks again.

I started noticing that I was losing my hair at about age 35 and most of it was completely gone on the top of my head by age 50.  I didn't pay much attention as at my age plumage is not all that important to me, but one day, after being mostly ZC for about 3 years or so, I was looking in the mirror and noticed that I had a bit more hair on the top of my head than I had previously remembered.  Some had certainly grown back, but I expect that most of the follicles were damaged for so long that they couldn't regenerate.

Danny (on this forum and ZIOH as well) was losing his hair and he said that the rate of loss either stopped or slowed so much that he can't detect it any more, and that was within just a few months of changing his diet to ZC (or pemmican, I'm not sure which) if I remember correctly.  You might PM him on ZIOH to get the details.

Best I can do as unfortunately I'm still quite follically challenged,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 07, 2009, 06:32:29 am
I also have an inexpensive home blood pressure / heart rate wrist device (it's not extremely accurate, but gives a ballpark idea) and a digital bathroom weight scale that also gives body fat %, body water %, muscle % and bone mass %, etc.

My fasting blood glucose got down to 72 and the random 81 when I first went standard cooked Paleo, though they were gradually creeping up (in retrospect, I had been gradually eating more so-called "Paleo"--according to conventional Paleo dieters--carbs like raw fruits, cooked squashes and all-natural, unsweetened, organic fruit juices), but didn't measure at a level that troubled any physician, so the only odd numbers I've gotten are the ketones and urine pH and bilirubin. As I understand it, bilirubin tends to run high among low carb dieters (in the months before the test I had dramatically reduced my carbs).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 09, 2009, 06:05:09 am
Lex, Yuri reports getting kidney stones and gout when going ZC, and he found this: "uric acid stones have occasionally been found in epileptic children following the ketogenic diet. This appears to be related to high levels of urinary ketones, low urinary pH and fluid restriction in these patients." (The ketogenic diet: a complete guide for the dieter and practitioner, by Lyle McDonald, 2000)

The strange thing is, Yuri reports a neutral urinary pH.

Dr. Harris suggested in his blog comments to a reader who gets gout when eating a LC, high-protein diet that high levels of fat help avoid protein excess while still avoiding gout-causing fructose. This seems to be another confirmation, along with your a1c levels, that high levels of fat are important on a ZC diet.

What are your thoughts on this?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 10, 2009, 04:03:41 am
Phil,
My response today is totally different than what it would have been 3 days ago as I just suffered through my first kidney stone and spent several hours in the emergency room of my local hospital.  The pain is unbelievable.  The CT Scan showed several stones and lots of calcification in the urinary tract area.  I’ll be seeing my doctor and an urologist over the next week or so to get the official take on the situation.

As to the cause being a meat centric diet?.... I’m not totally convinced.  My father suffered from kidney stones for over 20 years with a major attack occurring every couple of years. He ate what would be considered a very conservative diet of unsweetened whole wheat cereal for breakfast, sandwich for lunch, a typical dinner of meat, vegetable, salad, and starch (potatoes/rice/pasta).  Desert was a handful of almonds, raisins, a few dates or fresh fruit when in season.

My son-in-law is an MD in his mid 40s.  He suffers from kidney stones as well as gout and he eats a similar diet to my dad's but with a lot more fruit and veggies.

My guess is that my issue is more related to not drinking enough water.  With BPH you tend to drink only as much as will just quench your thirst so that you spend less time at the urinal.  One of the things I measure daily is my urine Specific Gravity which tells how concentrated it is.  It always measures 1.030+ which is very dense and I expect is what causes the calcium and other salts to precipitate out and form stones – much like water pipes becoming clogged over the years in areas of very hard water.  The doctors in the emergency commented on the overly concentrated urine stating that it showed constant chronic mild dehydration. My father suffered from mild BPH and I expect that keeping fluid intake low to reduce trips to the restroom were a major contributor to his problems as well.

Anyway we’ll see how things progress.  At this time I’ll be making no changes to the way I eat other than to add significantly more water in an attempt to reduce urine Specific Gravity to 1.010 or thereabouts.  Will report on what the Doc’s say when I get more info.  May also check in with Dr Harris and get is take on it.

More on this as it develops,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on November 10, 2009, 04:25:08 am
  Hi Lex,  thanks for reporting the good and the bad.  Of course we are all concerned. Kinda of like the one sheep that made it back to tell what happened.    Been meaning to write back to you; haven't been able to talk to Ron Rosedale yet.  An email stating that he and his son have been busy in India working on diabetes there.  Hopefully will make direct contact, and we'll see what comes of it.  Best of luck in the next days.  Gotta go, going over to the kitchen to get a glass of water.  Van
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ys on November 10, 2009, 04:32:19 am
This is very interesting.

Since upping my meat and fat intake I also noticed my urine looks and feels more concentrated. I consume much less water than before simply because I am not thirsty.

And the thing is I do not feel that I am dehydrated at all.  Even when exercising.

So this is interesting development as I'm sure none of us would like to get those stones.

Thanks for the update.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on November 10, 2009, 05:03:56 am
Hi Lex, thank you very much for your journal.

When on a standard diet I suffered repeatedly from calcium based kidney stones. Besides not drinking enough water a possible cause may also be some trouble with the parathyroid glands secreting to much parathormon. This hormon is involved in blood calcium balance. In principle doctors are trained to check it. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on November 10, 2009, 05:51:27 am
Hey Lex, what do you think is the main cause of hair loss of follicle damage? I noticed a few years back when I was on raw vegan that my hair line seems a bit far back. I didn't notice until during the Summer I buzzed my hair very short. I tried looking back at older pictures, and from what I can tell my hair line has been relatively far back for a long time. It seems the same. Now I'm psyching myself out all the time, thinking I'm losing my hair. Stuff like finding hair in the shower. But then I think back to when I was much younger, high school or earlier, and I used to find hair in the shower then. It's one of those pernicious thoughts that sticks with you once you get it in your head. I'd like to avoid going bald if I can through diet. My personal thoughts on baldness is that it's a combo of genetics and diet, some will not lose hair even with the worst diet, but all can keep their hair with proper diet.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 10, 2009, 07:12:31 am
Van – Thanks for the concern and no hurry regarding Ron Rosedale.  I don’t plan on going anywhere – gotta stay close to the emergency room you know…..    :D

Ys – I’ve never felt dehydrated either but when urine is very dark yellow and especially dark yellow brown the medical folks insist that it is a sign of dehydration.  And you are correct, you want to avoid kidney stones at all costs.  They may not kill you but the pain is so intense and relentless that you’ll probably wish you were dead just to get it done and over with.  They gave me one of their IV pain killers and it didn't do anything.  They ended up giving me morphine (on top of the original pain killer) and even that didn't knock it completely out - just barely made it tollerable.  This from a guy who has had dental work done without novocaine.

Alphargruis – no idea yet what type of stones I have.  I understand there are several different types.   My doctor is pretty thorough so if there are tests that can be run I expect he’ll run them.

Kyle – you are talking to the wrong guy on hair loss as I’m rather follicly challenged with my hairline having receded to meet my bald spot.  Diet? Genetic? Both?  Your guess is as good as mine.  I can say that after starting this dietary adventure that what few sprigs of hair (think Homer Simpson) were left on top did get a little thicker and have stabilized, but it certainly isn’t lush plumage by any stretch of the imagination.  I can say that my finger and toenails have become very tough and flexible rather than hard and brittle.  They no longer crack, split, or break - which makes it easier to pick up that hair in the bottom of the shower or sink. ;) 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on November 10, 2009, 07:28:09 am
Haha thanks Lex, I'll keep tabs on my own hairline and be sure to let everyone know if it moves forward or backward. And get well soon, sorry to hear about your painful problem.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on November 10, 2009, 07:28:22 am
I'm really sorry to hear about the kidney stones, and this appears to be your only set back in the last 5 years?  Perhaps this is wishful thinking but could this be the last phase of detox?

Also, were there any signs that the kidney stones were coming, or did they come out of nowhere? Its really strange that you are dehydrated and not thirsty at the same time. Best of luck on the recovery.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 10, 2009, 07:58:37 am
Sorry to hear about your horrific emergency room experience Lex!  I hope the problem doesn't reoccur and that you make a quick recovery.  If anybody can make positive of this experience Lex then we can be sure it is you and that you will gain further useful knowledge for yourself and the rest of us.

Personally, I will be keen to hear further about any outcomes or deductions.  I've been zc for around 3 months now and don't drink a great deal of water either.  Just a little concerned now!!   ???

Take care,

Michael
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 10, 2009, 08:31:00 am
Paleo D – The kidney stones hit out of the blue.  No warning whatsoever.  And when it hit is was from zero to 100 on the pain scale in about 3 minutes.  I don’t believe in Detox except in the very first few weeks of a dietary conversion as the old bacteria die off and are slowly replaced by new bacteria appropriate for the new foods you are eating.  I could be wrong, but at this point I have no evidence that kidney stones have much at all to do with toxic substances other than those that the kidneys are designed to remove from our blood to keep us alive.  There seems to be a lot of evidence that if the urine is too concentrated some of the minerals can crystallize out of solution causing the stones to form. 

Michael – Thanks, I’ll take all the sympathy I can get.  Unfortunately, the CT Scan showed lots of calcification and stones.  I expect they started building 6 – 7 years ago when I was first diagnosed with BPH and followed the advice to reduce fluid intake to a minimum, especially at night, to keep restroom visits to a minimum.  If the overly concentrated urine theory is correct, this was exactly the wrong thing to do as I assure you I’d much rather get up several times during the night than endure the pain of passing a stone.

I’ll provide an update on this subject once I have the official medical prognosis.

BTW, this is exactly why I try not to provide advice and go to great lengths to tell both the good and the bad so that people can make their own informed decisions.  For all I know this condition could be an unintended consequence of the diet I’m eating. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dextery on November 10, 2009, 09:34:56 am
In reading about your recent kidney stone problem, I did a search on www.bing.com for kidney stones and among the many pages I read, lack of water intake and consumption of meat beyond the needs of the body keeps popping up.  There is just tons of information about stones.

Nowhere did I read anything about zero carbs or high fat being implicated...

Your experience certainly has opened my eyes to the need to hydrate adequately.  I also have noticed since
starting paleo eating that my thirst level has diminished.  Going to rectify that...even if I do have to make
the numerous nightly trips to the bathroom.....that we both have been avoiding.

The content of the stones seem to dictate the treatment.

Thanks for being a laboratory of one.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 10, 2009, 09:47:35 am
Aha, well sorry you had to be the guinea pig, but thanks for sharing this info, Lex. Your honesty about bad experiences makes your reports more reliable than the gurus who claim to be fit but are obviously flabby, ashen, etc. and is part of the reason I like your journal and is why I reported my recent mysterious episode of diarrhea, despite the embarrassment.

I have a history of calcium oxalate kidney stones and UTIs myself on the SAD and near-vegetarian diets, so this is good to know. I don't want to repeat that pain again. When I was following a nutritionist's recommended diet (lots of fruits and veggies, whole grains, soy powder, tofu burgers, etc.) my urine was often deep brown and syrupy, no matter how much water I drank at my urologist's bidding (I never drank so much water in my life and could literally hear the water sloshing around in my gut as I walked--yet my urine remained too dark, according to my urologist). My urologist got angry when I tentatively asked about possible dietary factors beyond water. Yet, a few weeks after I later eliminated gluten from my diet my urine became as clear as water (it later became light, bright yellow, on avg).

I did notice that when I went ZC that I became less thirsty instead of more so like other people reported, and as I increased the rawness of my diet I became even less thirsty. When my urine got a bit deeper in color recently on fully raw than it had been on cooked VLC, and occasionally very bubbly (indicating high protein), I forced myself to drink some more water and then increased my fat intake (I had cut back on fat when I got overly sweet saliva, but discovered through your help that that was a temporary phenomenon) and it returned to its earlier appearance. I thought I might just be being paranoid because of my history, but it looks like I should be cautious.

It's interesting that some of the ketogenic dieters in the report were apparently drinking insufficient fluids too. Maybe there's something about ketogenic diets that reduces thirst to insufficient levels in people with systems that are not functioning properly in some unknown way.

I was puzzled that I was drinking less water as a carnivore than as an omnivore, since canines drink lots of water in the wild after eating. I figured that maybe the extra water in the raw meat was sufficient to hydrate me, but now I wonder. Maybe you and I have some malfunction in our system that's causing the normal dehydration signals to not work properly, so that our instincts are not reliable for us? It sounds like it's more of an issue for you so far, but I'll be even more watchful for signs of dehydration now. I'll also try to be careful not to let my protein intake level get too high, given Dr. Harris' warning about that, and may try to increase my magnesium intake a bit more.

If these measures don't keep my urine light then I may consider trying some plant foods again sooner than I intended (I wanted to get my dental and scalp health in more optimal shape first). But first I'll be interested to see what you find out from your investigations and I'll try to do some more research on nephrolithiasis and related matters myself. In the past I got dark urine, UTI's and brief, minor genitourinary pains before I developed stones (unfortunately, neither my doctors nor I recognized the early warning signals), so I'm hoping that means I won't get stones out of the blue like you did. If my urinalysis is abnormal at my next doctor's visit I think I'll ask for a CT scan check for stones to be on the safe side. They can hide in the kidneys without producing much in the way of symptoms until they dislodge, as you experienced.

What do you use to measure specific gravity--those Multistix? Maybe they're a good investment after all. Do you know what the composition of your stones was?

Like Dextery said, and given Dr. Harris' advice and my experience, I think the protein aspect of meat can contribute to certain kidney stones, whereas fat seems to help. It's possible that yours had been developing for a long time, but I think dehydration can cause them to develop fairly rapidly--but I need to refresh my memory on these things by reading up on it again. Interestingly, I discovered at the MayoClinic site that high doses of vitamin D can increase the concentration of calcium or oxalate in the urine. I don't recall hearing that one before.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ioanna on November 10, 2009, 10:36:33 am
Lex,  I hope you are feeling a ton better real soon!

My mom just went through this same thing.  While passing the stones (over about a 7-day period) she craved about 2 gallons of water each day.  Her diet is a 'healthy SAD' if that makes sense... low fat, lots of grains, salads, fruits, lean chicken, etc. and a once a week splurge on ben and jerry's and/or a fine chocolate.

I still have every confidence in your diet, I just hope you never have to experience this again! 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 10, 2009, 11:04:12 am
Ioanna - I too, still have confidence in what I'm doing since there are many who are following all different sorts of dietary protocols and they end up with the same problems, often compounded with other issues like diabetes, arthritis, gout, lupus, & etc.  So far kidney stones are my only issue and I'll be looking for a way to keep track of what's going on in this area at my annual physical if my medical plan will pay for something like an annual CT Scan.  We'll see.

Phil - Yes, I use the Bayer Multistix 10 SG's.  They are not all that accurate, but certainly close enough to know if you are in the ball park.  I'll be looking for a better solution for measuring Specific Gravity and will report here what I come up with.  Actually wondering if a TDS (Total Disolved Solids) meter might work as well.  It would be a totally different scale but should give similar information as the more disolved solids the higher the specific gravity.  Again, we'll see.

I don't know if there is any other way to tell if there are kidney stones other than a CT Scan or similar.  I'll ask when I see the doc tomorrow.

My thirst diminished when I went ZC as well but felt it was a benefit as it helped mitigate the BPH symptoms.  As you can imagine I'm rethinking this strategy and have started consuming 5 or 6 - 16oz glasses of water per day.  At times I'm hitting the restroom every hour so will have to come to terms with the best way to manage this.

I'll be keeping the rest of my diet the same - about 80% calories from fat, 20% of calories from protein, and 95% raw (cooked when eating out).

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 10, 2009, 11:16:43 am
Wow! What a shock.  I just received a call from the Emergency Room physician.  He went out of his way today to follow up with a hospital staff urologist to better interpret the CT Scan.  It seems I passed a 3.8mm stone (from the left kidney) and that there is a larger stone in the right kidney but not currently in a position to cause problems.  There is a good bit of calcification in the lower pelvic area but it is outside the urinary tract.  He says this is not unusual for people my age and I don’t seem to be better or worse than most – pretty average as far as overall calcification goes.

I have a doctor’s appointment tomorrow morning but don’t expect to get much more than a referral to an urologist.  I’ll be presenting my dilemma of low fluid intake/reduced BPH symptoms but high likelihood of kidney stones, vs high fluid intake and up every hour to urinate, but with reduced likelihood of kidney stones.  Not happy with either of these choices and hope there is an acceptable 3rd option.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 10, 2009, 11:38:27 am
With the multiple stones and your low fluid intake history, I do suspect that dehydration was a key factor and that they accumulated over a fair amount of time, but I'm no doctor, so take it with a grain of salt as always. My guess is that they'll want to do a lithotripsy on the remaining stone.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Danny on November 10, 2009, 01:12:04 pm
Holy shit Lex! I just caught up with this thread. I'm sorry to hear the bad news. It's too late to call, but I hope everything is cool. Keep us updated!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on November 10, 2009, 10:02:02 pm
Lex, you know how I go on about water! Well I had been drinking ionized water for more than 2 years. A few months ago I got to know a man like you; he went "nuts" on water and has developed his own water purifier. He told me in grate detail why the minerals (and all the rest) should be removed to hydrathe the body (mineralwater dehydrates the body). I know you have some kind of system built in your house (natural, hydrating instalment?).

What this man is manufacturing is his own kind of "Nimbus" (this system is sold in the USA and other countrys).

The Truth About Reversosmosis:

Myth #3 - Reverse Osmosis Removes Healthy Minerals from Water
Truth: Reverse Osmosis removes inorganic minerals which are UNHEALTHY.
RO systems do remove minerals from tap water. However, we humans get the vast majority of our minerals from the foods we eat, not from drinking water. For example, 1 glass of orange juice has the same amount of minerals as 30 gallons of tap water. Try drinking that for your morning breakfast!

Another thing they don't mention is the type of minerals found in water. Tap water contains only inorganic minerals which cannot be properly absorbed by our bodies. Human beings need organic minerals which are only available from living organisms like plants and vegetables and are easily absorbed by our systems. The inorganic minerals found in water has little to no benefits to people and in fact are actually detrimental to our health.

It is estimated that over a 60-year lifespan, a person drinking tap or mineral water will be ingesting about 200 to 300 pounds of rock that their body cannot use. (These are the so-called "healthy minerals" that RO detractors complain are being taken out of the water!) While most of these minerals will be eliminated, some will be stored in our tissues becoming toxic. The primary culprits are calcium salts and over time they can cause gallstones, kidney stones, bone & joint calcification, arthritis, and hardening and blocking our arteries.

"What the human body cannot utilize or excrete, it must store. Consequently, the inorganic salts (inorganic minerals) are stored and in time take their toll in the form of hardening of the arteries, stones within the kidneys, urethras, gall bladder, joints and an etiologic factor in enlargement of the adipose cell (fat cell). To be one hundred percent healthy, the human body must be free of inorganic minerals."
Paul C. Bragg, N.D., Ph.D.
World Renowned Nutritionist, Pioneer in America's Wellness movement



http://www.squidoo.com/reverse-osmosis-water-truth-safe


I often think of you

Nicola

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 10, 2009, 11:40:17 pm
With the multiple stones and your low fluid intake history, I do suspect that dehydration was a key factor and that they accumulated over a fair amount of time, but I'm no doctor, so take it with a grain of salt as always. My guess is that they'll want to do a lithotripsy on the remaining stone.

Phil - you are way ahead of me on this stuff.  I had to look up lithotripsy to find out what you were talking about.  To be honest, I would have much preferred to stay in the dark on this subject, but now I'm afraid I'm going to have to learn more than I ever wanted to know about the subject.

Nicola - I have a comercial water deionizer system.  It removes all inorganic minerals from the water and makes what is essentially distilled water.  I have no idea if this is good or bad.  I think that it would be unnatural for us to drink distilled or purified water as there is no place that it would be available in our natural environment with the exception of rain water.  The water from all rivers, wells, lakes, and such are full of dissolved minerals.  It may be true that our bodies can't use these minerals, about that I have no idea, however I certainly believe that our bodies have the ability to deal with them by either using or removing them, or we would have perished long ago.  No other animal that I'm aware of requires purified water, and they often gather around muddy watering holes to drink.  You can't get much more mineralized than mud.

Danny - It was a painful surprise to me as well.  Will keep you posted on what the doctors think caused it.  My guess at this point is that I wasn't drinking enough water.  We'll see.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: DeadRamones on November 11, 2009, 12:06:27 am
This might be of some help with the whole natural water thing. http://www.findaspring.com/ (http://www.findaspring.com/)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: livingthelife on November 11, 2009, 12:47:00 am
I have a comercial water deionizer system.  It removes all inorganic minerals from the water and makes what is essentially distilled water.

If you start with distilled water you can reconstitute it any way you like, or not at all, depending on your needs.

I start with distilled spring water (feeling that the spring water is purer than tap water to begin with). I steep raw organic seaweed in the water for about an hour before drinking - no heat, room temp. Best would be many rapid passes through the seaweed or "whatever" you are using to reconstitute.

I like the seaweed for several reasons, but that may not be right for you. One reason is that it makes the water "slippery" which soothes the esophagus (I've had reflux). It also does add some minerals, but not as much as sea salt or tap water or regular spring water, etc. (as per my "boil residue test"). I suspect that the minerals are in a more usable form in the seaweed as opposed to merely suspended/dissolved. I want minerals for teeth and bones - as do you, I'm sure, just not for kidney stones!   

This isn't a scientific recommendation by any means.

I hope you're soon feeling better.

Bottoms up!   :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal: My 2 cents on kidney stones cure in 1 day
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 11, 2009, 03:21:24 am
Hi Lex,

Here's my 2 cents on how to cure kidney stones in 1 day, no surgery, no strange herbs
http://www.curemanual.com/diseases-and-tweaks/kidney-stones
(raw lemon juice... very easy, very paleo)

I have known people to go on water melon only fasts for kidney cleansing.

And of course www.barefootherbalistmh.com has 6 week kidney cleansing herbs. (I have done this)

You know my position on water intake, I agree with Aajonus regarding water should be from food, we are not drinking animals... 2nd choice is already what you got, distilled water.

Always wishing you the best.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 11, 2009, 10:06:03 am
Phil - you are way ahead of me on this stuff.
Only because I went through it myself in the past. After my last stone my doctor said I would likely get stones again, as nearly everyone who gets them once gets them multiple times (and often worse each time, which was pretty much the case for me), and I had already had a few bouts in the past, but I haven't had a single stone since I eliminated gluten more than 5 years ago, so I'm hoping I'll beat the odds and I'm hoping you'll be able to avoid new big stones.

Quote
Nicola - I have a comercial water deionizer system.  It removes all inorganic minerals from the water and makes what is essentially distilled water.  I have no idea if this is good or bad.
My guess is bad, because of osmosis. When drinking mineral-stripped water, I imagine it might leach a tiny amount of minerals out of the body's fluids, via osmosis. How significant the effect is, I don't know.

Quote
The water from all rivers, wells, lakes, and such are full of dissolved minerals.
Yup

Quote
It may be true that our bodies can't use these minerals
Nope. At least not according to the small number of studies I found. They all found benefits to mineral water.

Quote
No other animal that I'm aware of requires purified water, and they often gather around muddy watering holes to drink.  You can't get much more mineralized than mud.
Yup
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 11, 2009, 10:56:33 am
Went to the Doc's this morning.  He took all the information that the Emergency Room gave me upon release, ordered the obligitory followup blood and urine tests and said he wanted a chance to see the TC Scan and read the entire report before going any further.  At 1pm he called me at home to tell me that he was looking at the digital CT Scan and the offical report from the radiologist.

There were only two stones, both small, in the 3mm range.  One stone on the left side was in the duct work heading for the bladder and causing me great misery. That stone seems to have passed through my system and is now gone. The other stone is on the right side and apparently not in a position to cause any problems.  It is also too small for any of the normal procedures to be effective.  Soooooooo, at this point no medical action will be taken.  I will be asking for followup CT Scans to keep track of this issue as I feel it is important to know what is going on with the stone that is currently there and find out if others are forming.

A lot of home remedies abound for kidney stones and I thank you all for your sincere suggestions, but I think I’m going to focus on prevention rather than magic elixir cures – especially since most of these are aimed at expediting the passing of the stone rather than fixing the conditions that caused them to form in the first place.

For the immediate future I’ll be sticking with my standard diet of 80% calories from fat, 20% calories from protein with the only change being to raise my water intake to try to keep urine Specific Gravity below 1.020, and getting periodic CT Scans to see if more stones form or my existing stone reduces in size.  It is important to me to know if my meat based dietary protocol is creating an environment that is conducive to forming kidney stones.  I think this approach is more useful than taking the ‘cure of the day’ after it’s too late. 

In talking to my doctor, the general feeling is that these homeopathic cures speed stone movement, and hence “cure” the immediate problem by dramatically increasing fluid intake, thereby increasing hydraulic pressure to push the stone through the ducts, be it through eating something like watermelon, or some other juice like lemon, orange, water (distilled or otherwise), or even Coke Classic.  The acidic nature of the fluid doesn’t seem to translate to dissolving the stones – especially since my urine is already highly acidic at a pH of 5.0.

I’m also pleased to report that Doc was kind enough to order the 25-hydroxy Vitamin D test so I should have the results of that in a few days, and will post when I receive them.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 11, 2009, 01:48:56 pm
Well that's good news and potentially not so great. The good news is it sounds like your calcification is relatively minor, though you're still waiting on your doc's additional analysis. The bad news is that remaining stone is not treatable so you might end up passing it and if it gets lodged somewhere or comes out the wrong way (ie, width-wise), depending on its shape, it could be painful like the first one. But maybe you'll get lucky.

I don't know much about dissolving stones through home remedies. Acidic juices are purported to help with that, but it didn't work for me and it sounds like your doctor's not convinced of the merit of that either. I'll let you know if I see anything that doesn't look like quackery.

I do still have my kidney stone prevention info from when I got them chronically. It was only when I cut out gluten that I got any results, though I think that water probably would have helped if I hadn't been eating "healthy whole grains."

For calcium oxalate stones, some of the other preventatives that were suggested to me or found in the past or recently and make some sense to me are (this is meant to give you possible leads, not to be prescriptive):
> increase dietary magnesium (to help absorb calcium and prevent free calcium accumulation in the body fluids)
> increase dietary calcium but avoid calcium supplements (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=1887); poorly absorbed calcium can actually contribute to calcium oxalate stone formation, but well-absorbed dietary calcium, such as from mineral water, appears to help
> increase dietary potassium
> drink lots of mineral water (http://www.mgwater.com/kdneystn.shtml)--since some mineral waters contain magnesium and potassium and some also contain calcium, in apparently highly absorbable form, this helps out with the three above tips as well as hydration

The tips that make less sense to me now include:
> limit vitamin D intake: I found this in my old notes as well as online; it seems counter-intuitive and doesn't seem to have as much support as increasing magnesium and limiting protein. The one study I found involved people taking megadoses of calcium in addition to small doses of vitamin D--I suspect the megadoses of probably poorly absorbed calcium more than the vitamin D (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2006-aug.shtml).
> some said to limit fish due to oxalate content, but others disagreed (interestingly, fermenting fish reduces its oxalate content)
> and other obviously bogus advice like eating lots of whole grains

Other recommendations that you are already doing are high zinc intake and limit protein and vitamin C intake (some people have allegedly gotten kidney stones from taking megadoses of vitamin C), and you're avoiding high-oxalate plant foods, of course
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Tom G. on November 11, 2009, 03:51:26 pm
 Sorry to hear about this Lex. I know someone that has had a life long problem with stones. He has been restricting meat for the last few years, but it hasn't helped. It seems in his case, it is hereditary. His father also had lots of problems with stones. I wish I could give some sort of advice. I have read some info in the past, but various articles seem to conflict with each other. Drinking lots of water is mentioned a lot. Who knows for sure?


  Tom
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on November 11, 2009, 05:00:08 pm
Only because I went through it myself in the past. After my last stone my doctor said I would likely get stones again, as nearly everyone who gets them once gets them multiple times (and often worse each time, which was pretty much the case for me), and I had already had a few bouts in the past, but I haven't had a single stone since I eliminated gluten more than 5 years ago, so I'm hoping I'll beat the odds and I'm hoping you'll be able to avoid new big stones.

I can confirm that gluten or more generally grains are major culprits in calcium oxalate and/or phosphate kidney stone formation.  I got rid of a long standing problem with such stone formation by elimination of these "foods" 11 years ago. Dairy elimination one year before didn't work.

Lex, since you don't eat grains this cause cannot be invoked in your case.
 
Yet something's puzzling me in this respect. If someone eats grainfed beef or meats or even not exclusively grassfed meat one may imagine that some of the grain originating poisons could be retained in the meat and fat and possibly result in adverse effects on kidney function too. In particular when on a meat and fat only diet.     
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 12, 2009, 07:54:49 am
Yet something's puzzling me in this respect. If someone eats grainfed beef or meats or even not exclusively grassfed meat one may imagine that some of the grain originating poisons could be retained in the meat and fat and possibly result in adverse effects on kidney function too. In particular when on a meat and fat only diet.   

alphagruis - I doubt that this would be an issue for me as I only eat grain fed meats about once per month when eating out.  The rest of the time it is raw grass fed meats.

Tom G. - My dad suffered from kidney stones as well later in life and though this may smack of a hereditary link, my dad also suffered from BPH (probably hereditary in my case), and therefore reduced his fluid intake to help manage the situation.  Kidney stones may be created as a byproduct of BPH driven by fluid restriction rather than dna.  I'm upping fluids but keeping everything else the same to see what happens over time.

Phil - I've found most of the same information that you have - much of it seems like total nonsense combined with wishful thinking.  Since I do have a known stone of known size, and a willing doctor, I should be able to track what's going on with that stone every year with my normal lab work.  Unfortunately these things don't form or dissolve instantly with a change in diet, but we should see something over time.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 12, 2009, 10:21:54 am
What was the other calcification in the pelvis that was reported to you? Was it a phlebolith? They are reportedly considered benign and not generally treated, although they can be associated with venous hypertension and I'll bet they are much less common in HG's than moderners.

BTW, calcification is one of the hallmarks of the diseases of civilization, if you weren't already aware.

Good luck.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 12, 2009, 01:44:11 pm
What was the other calcification in the pelvis that was reported to you? Was it a phlebolith?

No clue, and not sure it would do me any good to know if these calcium deposits have an official name as I'm not sure there is anything I could do about it anyway.  What I do have is a baseline CT Scan that can be compared with future scans which might be valuable for noting changes in these deposits (be they phleboliths or arthritis or whatever) as well as changes in the currently identified kidney stones.

I also have to be practical and realistic about what my change in lifestyle can accomplish.  Since I have personally spent more than half my expected lifespan eating food that I now believe is totally unfit for human consumption, is it any wonder that I would have many battle scars throughout my body to prove it.  I'm sure there is much damage that could have been prevented, but now that it is there, can never be fully repaired - regardless of what I do.  I must live with the cards I've pulled from the deck, and must now play out my self dealt hand to the best of my ability.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: popeye on November 12, 2009, 05:15:44 pm
No clue, and not sure it would do me any good to know if these calcium deposits have an official name as I'm not sure there is anything I could do about it anyway.  What I do have is a baseline CT Scan that can be compared with future scans which might be valuable for noting changes in these deposits (be they phleboliths or arthritis or whatever) as well as changes in the currently identified kidney stones.

I also have to be practical and realistic about what my change in lifestyle can accomplish.  Since I have personally spent more than half my expected lifespan eating food that I now believe is totally unfit for human consumption, is it any wonder that I would have many battle scars throughout my body to prove it.  I'm sure there is much damage that could have been prevented, but now that it is there, can never be fully repaired - regardless of what I do.  I must live with the cards I've pulled from the deck, and must now play out my self dealt hand to the best of my ability.

Lex

I totally agree, Lex.  I am amazed at how much better you have become just through dietary change.  That alone is miraculous, even if it hasn't resulted in "perfect health."  I do hope you never have to deal with another kidney stone, though.  I don't even want to think about how unpleasant passing a rock through your urethra is.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 13, 2009, 09:06:54 am
No clue, and not sure it would do me any good to know if these calcium deposits have an official name as I'm not sure there is anything I could do about it anyway.
I enjoy studying willing guinea pigs such as yourself, regardless of whether it helps you or not (sorry :D ). Basically, I enjoy connecting the dots. It's all in the name of science, so I hope you don't mind. Based on your past history of 145/95 blood pressure and the pelvic calcification, my best guess is that it's a phlebolith caused by past venous hypertension that caused trauma to the vein wall, possibly further exacerbated by inflammation from your immune system attacking your body's own protein cells (autoimmune dysfunction--which is also a likely major factor in skin cancer, which you also have a history of). I think that calcium deposits may basically be the body's way of protecting damaged tissues from further inflammation and damage.

I would also guess that your calcifications are not limited to the reported two kidney stones and pelvic calcification. Rather, I would bet that you have other tiny calcifications in your body that your physician either deemed too insignificant to report to you, or that were not captured by your scan. Although, I don't know whether existing calcifications can be diminished by proper diet. That's one reason why I'm looking forward to your future scan results.

Also, given your history of peripheral edema, and possible hypertension and phlebolith, and likely multi-symptomatic autoimmune dysfunction I would speculate that your veins have/had somewhat weak walls and you may have had one or more of poor circulation, chronically cold hands or hot feet, venous insufficiency, stasis dermatitis, spider veins, varicose veins, easy bruising, easy flushing in the nose or face, burst capillaries, bloodshot eyes, etc.

Quote
I also have to be practical and realistic about what my change in lifestyle can accomplish.
Very wise. I also maintain a general rule of maintaining low expectations while never ruling out the possibility of seemingly "miraculous" results. Most people do not experience complete healing of all past damage. However, when it comes to evolutionary/ancestral nutrition and medicine, nearly every time I have thought to myself something along the lines of "that's impossible," I have turned out to be wrong. So I try to keep a very open mind.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dextery on November 14, 2009, 01:08:16 pm
Lex,
Dr T  (Nephrologist) has some good kidney stone information at http://nephropal.blogspot.com/search/label/kidney%20stones

Read the entries in reverse order...oldest to newest.

You may be able to lick that one remaining stone.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 14, 2009, 09:11:12 pm
Quote
I also have to be practical and realistic about what my change in lifestyle can accomplish.

Oh, don't feel so glum Lex. 

I came from so bad a shape everything nowadays seems up and up.

You will solve this with flying colors.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 15, 2009, 10:10:17 am
Based on your past history of 145/95 blood pressure and the pelvic calcification, my best guess is that it's a phlebolith caused by past venous hypertension that caused trauma to the vein wall, possibly further exacerbated by inflammation from your immune system attacking your body's own protein cells (autoimmune dysfunction--which is also a likely major factor in skin cancer, which you also have a history of). I think that calcium deposits may basically be the body's way of protecting damaged tissues from further inflammation and damage.

I would also guess that your calcifications are not limited to the reported two kidney stones and pelvic calcification. Rather, I would bet that you have other tiny calcifications in your body that your physician either deemed too insignificant to report to you, or that were not captured by your scan. Although, I don't know whether existing calcifications can be diminished by proper diet. That's one reason why I'm looking forward to your future scan results.

Also, given your history of peripheral edema, and possible hypertension and phlebolith, and likely multi-symptomatic autoimmune dysfunction I would speculate that your veins have/had somewhat weak walls and you may have had one or more of poor circulation, chronically cold hands or hot feet, venous insufficiency, stasis dermatitis, spider veins, varicose veins, easy bruising, easy flushing in the nose or face, burst capillaries, bloodshot eyes, etc.

Boy Phil, given your analysis it is clear my situation is rather hopeless.  But then again life itself is hopeless as the end result is always the same.  I don’t seem to have many of the symptoms of all that mumbo jumbo you describe above, but even if I did, so what?  None of it, with the exception of the passing of the kidney stone itself, has given me any problem or kept me from doing anything that I’ve wanted to do.  Why on earth would I want to waste even one minute of precious time worrying and agonizing over stuff I can do little or nothing about.  I find it far more enjoyable to spend my time fixing antique clocks so that they will run another 100 years. 

Lex,
Dr T  (Nephrologist) has some good kidney stone information at http://nephropal.blogspot.com/search/label/kidney%20stones 
Read the entries in reverse order...oldest to newest. You may be able to lick that one remaining stone.

Dextery, I’ll give this a look and see if it makes sense to me.

Oh, don't feel so glum Lex.  I came from so bad a shape everything nowadays seems up and up. You will solve this with flying colors.

GS – I wasn’t at all glum until I read PaleoPhil’s post above and discovered just what terrible shape I’m in.  I ran 3 miles last night and spent all day today working in my shop.  Apparently this was a grave error and will probably hasten my untimely departure from this earthly existence.  I’m now convinced, based on Phil’s analysis, that my best approach is to head immediately for bed with a hotwater bottle to keep my hands and feet warm and wait for the inevitable.  At least now if I stop posting suddenly, you’ll know what happened – those weak veins, burst capillaries, and autoimmune issues did me in.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 15, 2009, 10:29:16 am
Boy Phil, given your analysis it is clear my situation is rather hopeless.  But then again life itself is hopeless as the end result is always the same.  I don’t seem to have many of the symptoms of all that mumbo jumbo you describe above, but even if I did, so what?  None of it, with the exception of the passing of the kidney stone itself, has given me any problem or kept me from doing anything that I’ve wanted to do.  Why on earth would I want to waste even one minute of precious time worrying and agonizing over stuff I can do little or nothing about.  I find it far more enjoyable to spend my time fixing antique clocks so that they will run another 100 years. 
LOL  ;D, that's not the impression I meant to give and I didn't mean to suggest you had all those things. I was thinking possibly one or two. Most of those issues are minor anyway and worrying about anything, no matter how dire, doesn't help, so I try to avoid doing it ever. One of my hobbies happens to be learning about nutritional and medical science, which I became fascinated with when I discovered the benefits of Paleo diets and realized the astounding implications for these and countless other fields and aspects of life. It has the potential to turn many of society's assumptions on their head and revolutionize nearly everything--yet at the same time it will produce enormous resistance and conflict. It should be fascinating to watch everything develop. I wish I was younger so I could watch more of it and have participated in it from an early age.

I'm still a rank amateur in all this, but one of the things I've noticed is that the diseases and disorders of civilization and their direct and associated symptoms rarely come in ones or twos--they tend to come in bunches. But everyone is different and I'm glad you don't have any of those symptoms and that you have a fun hobby of your own.

Cheers,
Phil
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 15, 2009, 12:12:28 pm
Phil,
Glad you took my response in good humor, but I’m truly interested in finding out what point you were trying to make.

In your original post you speculated on a whole litany of possible symptoms and conditions that may be attendant to those reveled by my CT Scan, but to what end? What was the point?  Even if I had one or more of the symptoms listed, I found nothing in your post to help me deal with any of the issues, or make my life better.

Thoughts?

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 15, 2009, 04:26:01 pm
You could try the many other variants of paleo diet.
fruits and vegs are just waiting for you.
Maybe it is time to shift gears.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on November 15, 2009, 09:19:16 pm
You could try the many other variants of paleo diet.
fruits and vegs are just waiting for you.
Maybe it is time to shift gears.

Well you still seam to be looking for "the right" balance - with your fruits and vegs, fat and meat...

I believe that on the times I was stuck on 120 lbs to 123 lbs it was due to an overactive bowel moving thing, too short transit times, maybe the lower gut didn't feel “solid” enough. Some creaking and croaking… this was stabilized by lessening the bowel movement reflex caused by too much bowel activating fruit and too much animal fat.

Once I figured out the trick to stabilizing my gut with medicinal doses of Bieler’s soup and some fully cooked pork and just having 1 fruit serving a day and choosing the non bowel activating fruits and monitoring the amount of raw fat I eat that it does not exceed my sudden poop activating dose, my gut has felt solid. I passed on this knowledge to my 8 year old boy and has him listening to his own gut and to eat things that keep his gut solid and his poop solid.


http://www.myhealthblog.org/2009/11/14/ive-gained-weight-some-5-to-8-pounds/

I have a solid gut but raw meat and fat plus water does not seem to allow for solid poop; I feel their is just to much liquid and I still don't know, if that raw meat and fat is just kind of a hit or miss?

PaNu Blog (Dr. Harris) on plants:

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/11/10/plants-and-plant-compounds-are-not-essential-or-magic.html


Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on November 15, 2009, 10:26:36 pm
I feel their is just to much liquid and I still don't know, if that raw meat and fat is just kind of a hit or miss?

At our present state of knowledge, it looks like pure fat meat & water is the perfect diet; however it seems obvious that none of us are getting this.

A well fed aurochs might be the right source, but lacking a time machine we choose as carefully as we can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heck_cattle
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 16, 2009, 02:11:02 am
Lex  asked me to post a couple PM's I sent to him, because they might be useful to others. I'm a little embarrassed to do so, because I don't want to come across as thinking I've got special insights or abilities or anything--once you realize that a Paleo-type diet is most biologically appropriate for humans and that nutritional deficiencies and immune system malfunction are factors in many chronic diseases, much of this is stuff is pretty obvious and may be already to most of you (and it still puzzles me why this stuff isn't obvious to more scientists and physicians)--but Lex asked me to do it, so here are the combined PM's with some minor edits:

<<Lex  

I hope you weren't offended by it. It's part of the way I discovered the underlying causes of my own health issues. It might not be of any use to you, because most of your issues have either resolved or are greatly improved, and it was mostly out of intellectual scientific curiosity on my part, but I also thought it might produce some new insights for you, because it did for me.

Years ago I had numerous mysterious symptoms that were not considered concerning by the physicians, but they were baffled by them and offered little in the way of explanation. Eventually they got serious enough that both they and I were concerned, but they still had no answers. Luckily, the Internet came along and when I investigated a couple of my health issues and their symptoms I noticed that there were underlying connections. When I investigated a third I found still more connections. When I looked into all my symptoms I found a host of connections pointing to autoimmunity, nutritional deficiencies and diet.

To make a long story short, I moved and got a new primary care physician who was from Russia and practiced a more holistic approach to medicine than American physicians and when I briefly described my findings and inquired about diet and underlying causes he gave me the courage to try an elimination diet instead of getting angry at the questions [as other physicians had before when I inquired about these subjects--apparently very touchy ones for many physicians]. It worked brilliantly--far better than I had expected (because I had largely bought into what my teachers and physicians had been telling me for years--that searching for underlying causes and real cures instead of treating symptoms is a waste of time, that nutrition has nothing to do with most medical problems, that there was no cure for most of my health issues and I would just have to accept that I would be taking drugs and getting chiropractic adjustments the rest of my life, that nutritional supplements/"foodlements" only produce expensive urine, and that prescription drugs are the only truly effective, scientifically-tested treatments).

I found that the approach that had worked for me of looking for commonalities between all symptoms, no matter how minor, benign or seemingly unimportant, also worked for some friends and relatives. I taught some of these principles to my father, who had a degree in exercise physiology and knew more about biology and medicine than I did. My father and I were actually able to diagnose some conditions of friends and relatives that their doctors were baffled by and/or were able to make suggestions that dramatically improved their health. This was rather exciting for both of us and I wondered if this approach could form the basis of a new form of medicine superior to the current reductionist allopathic model. From my experience with the Internet I knew that if I could imagine something someone was probably already doing it, so I did some searching and found that there are indeed existing medical models that incorporate much or all of this (functional medicine, evolutionary medicine and naturopathy).

This approach doesn't always produce new insights, but it produced the most rewarding results of my life--largely healing most of my health issues and those of my father, sister, nephews and about a dozen or so other people, so I got hooked by it and find it hard to resist investigating other people's health issues. ...

BTW, my mother recently reminded me, that years ago our family doctor of my childhood practiced medicine using more of this wholistic/functional approach than today's physicians, so it is in part a return to an older way of practicing Western medicine. Back in 1950s to early 1970s Vermont, there weren't as many fancy drugs or tests and rural Vermonters didn't have a lot of money. So "Doc" Stannard used to do a lot of examining of the patient and asking of a lot of questions, rather than lots of tests and trying of various drugs. He would do intricate things like look at a patient's fingernails to check for signs of disease or deficiency that doctors today never do. Today's physicians would scoff at checking fingernails and asking lots of questions and getting to know the patients as a waste of time. Yet by doing so, Doc Standard was sometimes able to cure the problem without having to use any drug. Of course, today's physicians have little incentive to not use drugs.

In other nations around the world that are not wealthy and don't have a lot of drugs and medical tests, such as Russia, where my most helpful physician came from, these older techniques are still used out of necessity.>>
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on November 16, 2009, 05:19:28 am
He would do intricate things like look at a patient's fingernails to check for signs of disease or deficiency that doctors today never do.

I would like to find why I have a permanently cracked fingernail, but have found no internet source for this. Anyone know of such?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 16, 2009, 05:24:27 am
Interesting post Phil and good work on helping others with your learning.

I took a similar approach myself in the early days when I first started struggling with health problems 15yrs ago but, I must admit, I don't tend to give advice anymore as found that it falls too frequently on deaf ears.  The domination of modern allopathic medicine has most spellbound and, those that aren't, I find are either fooled into following some questionable 'alternative' practices such as herbal medicine, homeopathy, kinesiology etc or are brainwashed by the dogma of politically correct nutrition.  Essentially, people find their own path and so I only offer to help those that seek it and show genuine interest in helping themselves.

The work of many physicians here in the UK seems - on the surface at least - to, similarly, revolve around lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical giants.  It's a great shame that the personal attention as you described is no longer utilised.  I think this is an inevitable result of the intolerable pressures put on modern doctors, however.  The caseloads are so high at most UK GP surgeries that appointments are allocated just 7 minutes, i think (I never go myself!).  Not much time for building a patient relationship or detailed observation/discussion based diagnosis unfortunately!  I certainly don't revile all of modern medicine and think that it does have much to offer and many keen and able proponents in the likes of Dr Harris et al.  It's the demand placed upon it and the entire structure, perhaps, that requires urgent revolution!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 16, 2009, 09:35:37 am
I would like to find why I have a permanently cracked fingernail, but have found no internet source for this. Anyone know of such?
Please take this as a starting point, if anything, rather than final answers, as well as with a grain of salt. I don't know if any of the following would work, as I don't have experience with a non-healing cracked nail.

CrackING/splitting nails are supposed to suggest nutritional deficiency in protein, minerals, essential fatty acids like omega 3s, or vitamins like A and Bs, and/or dehydration. So there are a lot of possible factors. If you have a nail that cracked from being damaged in nails that aren't prone to splitting, yet it won't heal, that's a bit more puzzling.

If it were me and I wanted to try getting rid of that cracked nail and there were no functional medicine practitioners or others in my area who would test my nutrient levels, I would do a search on a bunch of my remaining symptoms, no matter how small, and possibly a few that I had in the past that I thought were resolved but might not be fully resolved, and see if there are any nutritional deficiencies that are common to them. Then I would make sure my diet had plentiful sources of those nutrients. If I didn't want to eat foods rich in those nutrients or found it hard to eat enough of the nutrients, then I would try foodlements like Dr. Ron's.

I would also try putting a good skin lotion like Pure Life Coconut and Mango lotion or Aloe and Vitamin E regenerative cream (http://www.purelifesoap.com/products.html), or a mineral-rich one like Awakening Hands (http://www.awakeningskincare.com/skincare/category/ingredients), or pure vitamin E oil, then put a bandaid on it so it won't snag on something and hope it heals.

Interesting post Phil and good work on helping others with your learning.

I took a similar approach myself in the early days when I first started struggling with health problems 15yrs ago but, I must admit, I don't tend to give advice anymore as found that it falls too frequently on deaf ears.
Thanks Michael, and I take your approach too. I only give advice where it's wanted or where the person is very close and is at least semi-interested. My best friend was resistant at first to my suggestions, but she kept asking for advice, so I kept giving it to her and eventually, despite her protestations and making fun of me, she tried cutting out wheat products and that helped her health quite a bit. Now she's even started to cut back on starchy plaintains.

My father tends to be a more aggressive proponent of the diet, and I think people are a bit more willing to listen to him, because he is older, looks like a smart guy, and is a pretty persuasive talker. So sometimes he refers people to me. He thinks I should be telling the world about this stuff, but I doubt many would listen to me, and I also warn him that if they did listen and large numbers started eating the foods we eat like grassfed meats and fats and organs, those items would become prohibitively expensive. Somewhat of a catch-22. My sister wanted me to write to celebrities like Michael J. Fox (who has Parkinson's) to let them know. :D I told her she could do it if she wants, but Mr. Fox wouldn't listen to either of us. After she tried to convince some regular folks, I think she realizes now that most people won't listen to us, and certainly not celebrities.

Quote
case loads are so high at most UK GP surgeries that appointments are allocated just 7 minutes, i think (I never go myself!).
I don't know about surgeries, but the average not-too-intensive outpatient visit here is supposed to last about 10 to 15 minutes, and a new patient visit for a patient with a chronic illness will tend around 30 to 60 minutes. Contrast this with Dr. Bernstein, the famous American diabetes doc, who spends multiple hours with his new patients (I believe he can do this because they pay him directly instead of using insurance companies or Medicare, but I'm not sure).

Quote
I certainly don't revile all of modern medicine and think that it does have much to offer and many keen and able proponents in the likes of Dr Harris et al.  It's the demand placed upon it and the entire structure, perhaps, that requires urgent revolution!
I agree, and Dr. Bernstein seems much better than avg too. My cousin's sons have fared well with their diabetes because of Bernstein's advice. Unfortunately, I don't see the demand slackening any time soon, and I don't think any of the current proposals in the U.S. Congress are going to revolutionize healthcare for the better. I hope I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 16, 2009, 11:40:12 am
Thanks for posting the PM's Phil.  I think the respones shows their value.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on November 16, 2009, 04:28:39 pm

CrackING/splitting nails are supposed to suggest nutritional deficiency in protein, minerals, essential fatty acids like omega 3s, or vitamins like A and Bs, and/or dehydration. So there are a lot of possible factors. If you have a nail that cracked from being damaged in nails that aren't prone to splitting, yet it won't heal, that's a bit more puzzling.

It indicates nutritional imbalance, whether deficiency or excess, like many symptoms.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on November 16, 2009, 05:53:36 pm

I took a similar approach myself in the early days when I first started struggling with health problems 15yrs ago but, I must admit, I don't tend to give advice anymore as found that it falls too frequently on deaf ears.  The domination of modern allopathic medicine has most spellbound and, those that aren't, I find are either fooled into following some questionable 'alternative' practices such as herbal medicine, homeopathy, kinesiology etc or are brainwashed by the dogma of politically correct nutrition.  Essentially, people find their own path and so I only offer to help those that seek it and show genuine interest in helping themselves.

I have to take issue with the above comments. A lot of those "questionable" practices are actually less harmful and less invasive than modern medicine and some of them do work, even if they're not as effective, overall, as a raw, palaeolithic diet. For example, c. 1 year or two before I went rawpalaeo, I went into a big supplement phase and while virtually all the processed supplements were a disaster for me(my body failed to absorb the processed vitamins and minerals and heated herbal extracts and  the like), I did have some limited success with the occasional raw herbs(preferably plucked from wild areas). I also had particular success with the homeopathic tablets related to my symptoms(and those Bach Flower Remedies) - trouble was that while those effects were real, they were never long-term, indicating that AV was right in stating that homeopathy only temporarily removed  the symptoms but did not provide a permanent cure.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 17, 2009, 12:51:53 am
Quote
I have to take issue with the above comments
I was wholly expecting a few members to take issue with those particularly comments Tyler!   :)  Of course, I was stating only my own opinion based upon my own experiences.  Many others, I appreciate, have had different experiences.

After being considered myself, very much, an advocate of alternative medicine in the past I now see little value in it.  In fact, often I think it causes more harm (despite the hippocratic oath!) by wasting the time, energy and resources of people in great need.  I hate to think how much money and time I have wasted on homeopathy, acupuncture, kinesiology, herbal medicine, reiki, cranial sacral therapy, supplements, politically correct nurition etc etc.  My time and money would have been far better spent learning about raw paleolithic nutrition!  Fortunately, I eventually stumbled across this (by way of your much loathed Weston Price!)  ;) about 12yrs ago.  Others are not so fortunate.

Yes, I think there's a place for some of these things.  They do serve as a crutch to the many people not following a diet correct for the human body - whether by real or placebo effect.  The providers of these products and services are also usually very well-meaning, kind and gentle people.  Many of my best friends swear by or actually practice in these areas themselves!

For a homo sapien sapien following a correct diet and lifestyle - I see no need or benefit for MOST of them.

Phil - I had to laugh at your sister's desire to rescue poor M.J.Fox   ;D  I remember feeling similar desires towards some of my heroes in the early days.  Even now I'm not totally immune.  I would've loved to help my biggest hero - Sir Bobby Robson - beat his cancer once and for all!  As well as recognising the fact that, as you said, they would not listen it's also worth bearing in mind that many of these people are quite content with their own fate.  They don't necessarily want or need saving.  Bobby (if you guys even know of him in the US), in particular I think, has demonstrated tremendous courage, humility and acceptance.  He's fought incredibly hard overcoming cancer on numerous occasions but in the end he knew when he was beaten.  He'd led a life of such rich fulfillment, such honour and had given so much love to so many people that he was ready to accept his fate.  I think it's important to remember that sometimes as it can be so easy to get caught up in the fight and want to convert, save and rescue everybody.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 17, 2009, 04:00:32 am
Michael,
After reading Tyler's post, it seemed that he started out disagreeing with your premise, but ended up demonstrating through his own experience that you were spot on.  I, too, have come to believe that most alternative medicine is based on wishful thinking and the effects are temporary at best.  If this weren't the case, most of us would be on the alternative medicine web sites and taking magic elixir's rather than here on this fourm.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 17, 2009, 05:08:21 am
Good observation Lex.  I agree that his comments did more to affirm my own premise rather than invalidate it.  I think I understood the point to which Tyler alluded however.  As I subsequently stated, I believe it has it's place but for those of us following a correct diet and lifestyle - my own view, also, is that it offers nothing.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on November 17, 2009, 05:17:15 am
It"s likely that many alternative medicines such as homeopathy or kinesiology just do work temporarily by the well known placebo effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Herbal medicine has real effects but certainly can't really cure illness originating in inappropriate diets.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 17, 2009, 05:49:15 am
I agree alphagruis.  See my earlier post.
 
Quote
They do serve as a crutch to the many people not following a diet correct for the human body - whether by real or placebo effect.

I, too, believe herbal medicine, particularly, is one of the better ones.  I have friends with degrees in herbal medicine and, in the distant past, have been on short-courses learning about and concocting different remedies from local wild plants.  But, in my view, just another crutch for the ill-fed.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 17, 2009, 08:24:43 am
I agree, Lex. I used to work in a health food/supplement/remedy store. The only products my customers regularly mentioned benefits from were minerals (commonly deficient in modern diets), flaxseed oil (we didn't have fish oil) and meal, senna for constipation, and one or two others that are slipping my mind right now. Most of the customers continued to have symptoms but kept taking the products with the hope they would work in the long run.

To consider minerals, even processed ones, "expensive urine," yet believe that quack remedies like homeopathy and Bach flower remedies work significantly is baffling to me. Getting one's nutrients from food is optimal, and taking minerals risks throwing other minerals out of balance, but minerals clearly have effects and have been proven to have them in clinically controlled studies and are used by physicians to treat patients. Physicians would laugh at homeopathy and Back remedies, and for good reason, in this case. I only had a handful of customers claim that the homeopathic or flower remedies actually resolved a problem of theirs, and it was mainly for ailments that normally resolve on their own anyway (which is why the homeopathic remedies that are supposed to treat or prevent temporary problems like flu are the most popular). I tried some homeopathic and flower remedies for kicks and they had absolutely zero effect, despite my following the intricate instructions of the homeopathic expert to the letter (I suspect they make the instructions complex so they can claim you didn't follow them when the product fails). Homeopathic remedies are also more processed than many vitamin/mineral supplements and even contain lactose from dairy (albeit in tiny amounts).

Nassim Taleb explained why homeopathic remedies actually produced better results than standard medicine until recent decades--standard medicine was actually doing net harm! Homeopathic remedies were good because they kept you from going to the doctor, or worse, the hospital.   :D

Even though only a couple of my customers praised the herbal products we had, including dried herbs (except for really powerful herbs like senna for constipation--though I don't recommend it for long-term use), I think there is something to them, because wild animals use them medicinally. I doubt wild animals would use them if there wasn't some sort of real benefit. I think the reason they don't tend to work for most people is the ill effects of the modern diet overwhelm their benefits for most people.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on November 17, 2009, 05:09:01 pm
I agree alphagruis.  See my earlier post.

Ah sorry  Michael. I overlooked the end of your sentence.

 
I, too, believe herbal medicine, particularly, is one of the better ones.  I have friends with degrees in herbal medicine and, in the distant past, have been on short-courses learning about and concocting different remedies from local wild plants.  But, in my view, just another crutch for the ill-fed.


Very true. Herbal medicine, as mainstream modern medicine basically provide drugs in the form of pills, drops etc that at best alleviate some of the adverse effects of an inappropriate way of life.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on November 17, 2009, 06:08:12 pm
Michael,
After reading Tyler's post, it seemed that he started out disagreeing with your premise, but ended up demonstrating through his own experience that you were spot on.  I, too, have come to believe that most alternative medicine is based on wishful thinking and the effects are temporary at best.  If this weren't the case, most of us would be on the alternative medicine web sites and taking magic elixir's rather than here on this fourm.

Lex

Absolute nonsense. What I actually meant to say was that herbal medicine and homeopathy had limited, partial success when combined with a cooked diet. However, such remedies would have much greater effect when combined with a rawpalaeo diet. For example, that kidney stone you mentioned(which you got despite being rawpalaeo) could have been sorted out with 1 of these herbs, taken in addition:-

"Juniper berries .
Uva ursi
Dandelion Leaf
 Horsetail, and Parsley Root and Leaf "

The simple fact is that carnivores eating raw diets in the wild also have need for herbal medicine from time to time, so it is logical that we should use them too. Indeed, technically, I still use raw herbs from time to time(more so in the last year or so), though I really refer to them as raw foods/spices(ie things like cayenne pepper, garlic, garlic leaves(yum!).


 

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on November 18, 2009, 04:34:32 am
Absolute nonsense. What I actually meant to say was that herbal medicine and homeopathy had limited, partial success when combined with a cooked diet. However, such remedies would have much greater effect when combined with a rawpalaeo diet. For example, that kidney stone you mentioned(which you got despite being rawpalaeo) could have been sorted out with 1 of these herbs, taken in addition:-

"Juniper berries .
Uva ursi
Dandelion Leaf
 Horsetail, and Parsley Root and Leaf "

The simple fact is that carnivores eating raw diets in the wild also have need for herbal medicine from time to time, so it is logical that we should use them too. Indeed, technically, I still use raw herbs from time to time(more so in the last year or so), though I really refer to them as raw foods/spices(ie things like cayenne pepper, garlic, garlic leaves(yum!).


 


I found this video of red wolves (i think) eating berries. Don't know if its set up or not.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TmuYTb6ynbg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TmuYTb6ynbg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 18, 2009, 11:21:51 am
[Edit: off-topic stuff removed]
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 18, 2009, 12:17:10 pm
If you want to discuss herbal remedies please do it in another thread.  I have zero interest in lending any support to the subject.  It is not what my journal is about.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 19, 2009, 02:00:06 am
I think I should probably bring a little more clarity to my rather blunt statement regarding discussing herbal remedies in my journal.  I got a PM from PaleoPhil and I think the response I sent would be useful here as well.

My journal is about what I'm doing, the problems I'm facing, the things I find useful, and the things I believe in.  My experience with herbal remedies and magic potions has not been good.  In my experience many cause more harm than good.  I know that some actually work like, sweeteners, diuretics, and laxatives, but they only treat the symptoms, often creating dependency, and don't address the underlying cause.  I much prefer to get over my addiction to sugar, not feed it with herbal substitutes, and live my life in a way that doesn't require that I become dependent on herbal remedies to support natural body functions.

I also had a dear friend that died from drinking a popular herbal tea in the 1970's that was touted as a miracle cancer preventative and cure.  He didn't have cancer, but believed in the power of herbs to prevent illness.  The herb destroyed his kidneys and he died a miserable and very painful death.  After hundreds of people died from this "completely safe and natural" herbal tea it was finally made illegal.

I understand that when I tell people of a problem that I’m having, well-wishers will rush to tell me about how I can cure it with an herbal remedy.  I’m fine with this as I can ignore it or comment on the fact that I choose not to use such remedies and why.  However, I feel that an ongoing discussion of stuff that I don’t believe in is inappropriate in my journal.

Hope everyone understands,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on November 19, 2009, 02:43:06 am
    I understand, as best I can, never having gone a long period on just meat, fat, organs and water.  I read your entries.  I admire how well you express yourself, in comparison how others express themselves who are not on raw zc.  You could ask my household.  I don't ignore your journal as anything negative.  I just have nothing from personal experience to add, and not sure if I should go around back patting.  If I were you I would definitely do zc no herbs.  I don't like using herbs anyway.  Easy to utilize raw natural protein and fats give me a more healthful feeling as well, over fruit, vegetables, green juices or medicinal herbs.  I would do what you're doing and more possibly will in maybe fifteen years, if I feel I need it then.  For my age and gender, I'm pretty sure I need carbs at least half the year until then.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on November 19, 2009, 07:26:16 am

I understand that when I tell people of a problem that I’m having, well-wishers will rush to tell me about how I can cure it with an herbal remedy.  I’m fine with this as I can ignore it or comment on the fact that I choose not to use such remedies and why.  However, I feel that an ongoing discussion of stuff that I don’t believe in is inappropriate in my journal.

Hope everyone understands,

Lex


  Well said.
Traditional cures - eye of newt, toe of frog, dragon's blood, ear of chicken (?) - were not herbal. :D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on November 19, 2009, 07:36:41 am
    I heard in TCM they use bear gall as a remedy, and roaches.  People even call them Chinese herbs.  Where can I get eye of newt?  I think I have seen newts.  Maybe that's a place to start, setting a trap or just grabbing a newt.  What in a person can eye of newt help?  Just kidding.  I'm fine with four footed furry animals for now.  Not sure if I was amphibians and such in my diet.  I guess if I ever live in a more amphibious or other hot climate in the future I will have ideas now for the change in my menu.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on November 19, 2009, 11:59:25 am
  I thought of this while driving home today.  Animals eat all kinds of things we wouldn't eat, like rotten, beyond high meat, diseased animals,  and can't eat all that we would; availability.  It's possible that they turn to herbs to combat either over eating, or under eating due to lack of prey.  But I wonder if given choices like we have on a daily basis like organs, fat, meat, bone marrow, etc. would they be found turning to herbs and like the wolves previously shown here, berries?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 19, 2009, 12:47:15 pm
Guys, remember--Lex just said he doesn't want herb discussions in his journal.

Lex, based on the appearance of my urine, I figured I was still drinking insufficient water, so I searched for how much traditional Inuit drink and found this:

The Inuit drink "large quantities of water (5 to 6 litres per day), characteristic of the protein-rich diet that triggers renal elimination of the products of catabolism." Consuming the Inedible: Neglected Dimensions by Jeremy MacClancy, p. 123

That's about 10.5 to 12.5 pints of water a day! Do you have any thoughts on how much water raw carnivorous humans should drink per day?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on November 19, 2009, 06:08:40 pm
5 to 6 litres a day? I seriously doubt this. There's a condition called hyponatraemia or some such where one can die from drinking too much water, and 5 to 6 litres sounds way too much for health.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 19, 2009, 11:24:38 pm
Phil and Tyler,

My urine Specific Gravity was very high, about 1.055.  Normal is considered anything below 1.030.  Sea water is between 1.020 and 1.025 so you can see that my urine was almost double that - probably not good.  The recomended starting point for drinking water was 16 oz every couple of hours plus additional water at meals as thirst demands.  This has me drinking about 3 to 4 litres per day (about a US gallon).  I was drinking about 1 to 1 1/2 litres before.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 19, 2009, 11:50:33 pm
Lex - Thanks for providing that information.

Based on your experiences, I think I also need to up my water intake.  I'm VLC/verging on ZC and I'm drinking similar amounts to your original quantity - 1 to 1 1/2 litres.  In fact, probably less quite frequently!  I also use celtic sea salt with my meals which I'm conscious you do not.  In hope of avoiding any future kidney stone episodes I will try increasing my water intake.

Would you mind telling me how you measure your urine Specific Gravity?  I will search your journal for mention of it but, if you haven't mentioned it before, I would appreciate further information so that I could monitor my own.  Is there a specific instrument you use?  My only concerns with this VLC/ZC way of eating are kidney stones, acidosis, losing calcium from bones etc.  Your recent bone scan helped greatly in alleviating these fears but the kidney stone episode has given me further cause for concern.

I hope you're now fully recovered btw.

Phil - 5 to 6 litres per day for the inuit?!  Wow!  I'm not sure I could reach those levels.  I recall drinking one 5 litre bottle of mineral water a day back in my vegetarian days and it actually felt like it was doing me alot of harm - besides the seemingly constant urgency for passing it straight back out again!!  :)  I think Tyler has a point on that one.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on November 20, 2009, 01:59:10 am
- 5 to 6 litres per day for the inuit?!  Wow!  I'm not sure I could reach those levels.  I recall drinking one 5 litre bottle of mineral water a day back in my vegetarian days and it actually felt like it was doing me alot of harm - besides the seemingly constant urgency for passing it straight back out again

    I wonder how many calories are used to warm that much ice cold water to body temperature living in the cold.  I'm sure it's no problem.  Since I've been eating high (raw animal) fat I'm started to enjoy very cold baths and drinking cold water for the first time.  I used to hate cold water (not that I drink a whole lot).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dextery on November 20, 2009, 05:40:20 am
Since starting my journey to heath fitness, I have been drinking half my pounds of body weight in ounces.  I got that rule of thumb somewhere...I don't remember where.  It seems to work for me. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 20, 2009, 11:02:03 am
... Phil - 5 to 6 litres per day for the inuit?!  Wow!  I'm not sure I could reach those levels.  I recall drinking one 5 litre bottle of mineral water a day back in my vegetarian days and it actually felt like it was doing me alot of harm - besides the seemingly constant urgency for passing it straight back out again!!  :)  I think Tyler has a point on that one.

I can't imagine consuming that much myself (and I hope no one thought I was advocating it). When I drank lots of water, per my physicians' advice, for chronic kidney stones in the past it was unpleasant and didn't work. I was hoping that someone would provide a counter-source that said that carnivorous-oriented Inuits don't consume that much water, or that they do so for non-health reasons, or that it doesn't apply to someone on my somewhat different diet, because I wouldn't want to have to do it to optimize a carnivorous diet.

Since Lex and William are drinking around 3-4 liters per day, whereas I think I'm only up to 2-2.5, I think I'll shoot for their figure, and see how I do.

If the Inuit drank 5-6 liters a day, I wonder why their privates didn't freeze with all that pissing in the Arctic?  :D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on November 20, 2009, 11:28:19 am
If the Inuit drank 5-6 liters a day, I wonder why their privates didn't freeze with all that pissing in the Arctic?  :D

    Maybe rather than urinating much, the freezing cold air took a lot of foggy moisture from their mouths with every breath.  Each breath in of that cold air, their bodies had to expend moisture to make its oxygen usable/the cold air tolerable.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on November 20, 2009, 02:35:20 pm
    Maybe rather than urinating much, the freezing cold air took a lot of foggy moisture from their mouths with every breath.  Each breath in of that cold air, their bodies had to expend moisture to make its oxygen usable/the cold air tolerable.

Right on! That dry cold air must be warmed and humidified before it hits the bronchi. I remember the snap crackle and pop of nose hairs freezing on every inbreath, and all that ice on the mustache isn't snot, it's just frozen breath.
This is why the long European nose is more suitable for very cold places than short noses.

Siberian Asia was recently tropical, see the reports on the vegetation found in the teeth of the frozen mammoths, so it would make sense that Inuit came from there with their tropic-adapted short noses.

Interesting date is by Velikovsky and McCanney, that the pole shift from southern Canada to the Arctic ocean took place only 3,700 years ago. This is the only explanation for the frozen mammoths that makes sense.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on November 21, 2009, 09:19:02 pm
Since Lex and William are drinking around 3-4 liters per day, whereas I think I'm only up to 2-2.5, I think I'll shoot for their figure, and see how I do.


Lex, how do you feel with all that water? Doesn't most of the water land in the intestines? Doesn't this cause liquid discharges and a bloated feeling?

Nicola

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Danny on November 22, 2009, 10:41:56 am
I can't imagine consuming that much myself (and I hope no one thought I was advocating it). When I drank lots of water, per my physicians' advice, for chronic kidney stones in the past it was unpleasant and didn't work. I was hoping that someone would provide a counter-source that said that carnivorous-oriented Inuits don't consume that much water, or that they do so for non-health reasons, or that it doesn't apply to someone on my somewhat different diet, because I wouldn't want to have to do it to optimize a carnivorous diet.

Since Lex and William are drinking around 3-4 liters per day, whereas I think I'm only up to 2-2.5, I think I'll shoot for their figure, and see how I do.

If the Inuit drank 5-6 liters a day, I wonder why their privates didn't freeze with all that pissing in the Arctic?  :D

That is a ton of water, I figure I drink less than 2 liters a day. I'm never thirsty until after I consume dinner.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 22, 2009, 03:05:04 pm
Lex, how do you feel with all that water? Doesn't most of the water land in the intestines? Doesn't this cause liquid discharges and a bloated feeling?

I really don't like drinking this much water as I'm just not thirsty.  I must force myself to do it.  It hasn't caused any problems other than having to pee more frequently, but I find that it is annoying to have to constantly keep to a schedule or I just won't drink enough.  I now try to drink 16 oz (1/2 litre) every 2 to 3 hours all throughout the day.

Danny, My experience is about the same as yours.  I prettly much was only thirsty after meals and probably drank only 1 to 1.5 litres per day.  The only time I drank more was when I was working in the hot sun and then I drank a lot but most of it was lost in sweat rather than as urine.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on November 22, 2009, 09:00:57 pm
I really don't like drinking this much water as I'm just not thirsty.  I must force myself to do it.  It hasn't caused any problems other than having to pee more frequently, but I find that it is annoying to have to constantly keep to a schedule or I just won't drink enough.  I now try to drink 16 oz (1/2 litre) every 2 to 3 hours all throughout the day.

Danny, My experience is about the same as yours.  I prettly much was only thirsty after meals and probably drank only 1 to 1.5 litres per day.  The only time I drank more was when I was working in the hot sun and then I drank a lot but most of it was lost in sweat rather than as urine.

Lex

Well I get bloated and because I go swimming, rid, and run (in the morning, first thing) I can feel more water in my intestines. Water in the morning seems to work out better than after eating raw meat and fat - I don't like to drink for quite a while after eating! I can not understand why one should drown down water (that does not even feel good) just like once I have eaten then that's it. Not natural to feel seasick.

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 22, 2009, 10:50:04 pm
I am on raw omnivore and I do not like drinking plain water.
I think drinking anything more than 2 liters of plain water is insane unless you are a laborer like a construction worker.

I am concerned about drinking too much water. 
When is it too much plain water when on zero carb?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 23, 2009, 02:40:49 am
I am concerned about drinking too much water. 
When is it too much plain water when on zero carb?

I suppose the real question is when is it too much water period.  People have died by drinking over doing it on water.  We have a famous case here in California where a couple of radio personalities on a Sacramento radio station thought it would be fun (and harmless) to have a water drinking competition.  Two people died.

In my case I'm convinced that 1 to 1.5 litres per day is on the low side and probably contributed to my kidney stone formation but of course that's just a theory and I can't prove it one way or the other.  On the other hand, I'm sure that 5 or 6 litres per day (unless doing hard work in a warm environment) is probably over doing it.  I expect something between these two extremes is reasonable.  Right now I'm pushing the high side at 3 - 4 litres per day to assure that my urine is very dilute to see if maybe the remaining stone will start to dissolve.  I'll keep at this rate for a year or so and see what the next CT scan looks like.  I'll then decide what other steps - if any - I'm going to take.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dextery on November 23, 2009, 03:12:12 am
A couple of water posts:

http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/

http://www.lowcarb.org/water1.html
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 23, 2009, 06:40:44 am
I suppose the real question is when is it too much water period.  People have died by drinking over doing it on water.  We have a famous case here in California where a couple of radio personalities on a Sacramento radio station thought it would be fun (and harmless) to have a water drinking competition.  Two people died.

In my case I'm convinced that 1 to 1.5 litres per day is on the low side and probably contributed to my kidney stone formation but of course that's just a theory and I can't prove it one way or the other.  On the other hand, I'm sure that 5 or 6 litres per day (unless doing hard work in a warm environment) is probably over doing it.  I expect something between these two extremes is reasonable.  Right now I'm pushing the high side at 3 - 4 litres per day to assure that my urine is very dilute to see if maybe the remaining stone will start to dissolve.  I'll keep at this rate for a year or so and see what the next CT scan looks like.  I'll then decide what other steps - if any - I'm going to take.

Lex

Lex, in one of my studies regarding re-hydration, it seems we can only utilize so much water during a certain period of time.  So frequency is better than just one bulk drinking (drink every 30 mins).  The water cure by batmanghelj uses salt.  Don't know how salt fits into zero carb.

see http://www.watercure2.org/ and try to adapt it to zero carb
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 23, 2009, 10:23:38 am
Lex, I found a research article that said the Inuit sweated a lot (which I find amazing in the Arctic). This could account for the 5-6 liter figure, though I still find that unbelievably high. Just 2.5 or more liters a day seems to stretch my bladder painfully--especially if I don't get enough out before sleeping.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on November 23, 2009, 12:05:26 pm
    Maybe it never gets to the bladder.  Perhaps anorak, inner pants, outer pants, inner gloves, outer gloves, caribou amauti and  sealskin kamik caused massive perspiration often enough?     
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 23, 2009, 12:32:19 pm
The links provided by Dextery and GS seem to support the need for extra water - especially when on a VLC or ZC diet.  They also seem to support the link of lack of water to kidney stones but they don't give much detail. The recommended minimum seems to be about 2 litres or 1/2 gallon of water per day, and the goal seems to be to eliminate about 1.5 litres of urine per day.  I'm drinking at least 3 litres and elimating a little over 1.5 litres per day so I'm in the ballpark.

Thanks for the info,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on November 23, 2009, 02:28:11 pm
Lex, in one of my studies regarding re-hydration, it seems we can only utilize so much water during a certain period of time.  So frequency is better than just one bulk drinking (drink every 30 mins).  The water cure by batmanghelj uses salt.  Don't know how salt fits into zero carb.


It is an electrolyte, and prevents excessive dilution of the blood. Dilute the blood too much and die - this is what killed the marathon runners, and others I guess.
I've found it necessary to add a little dried seawater to my drinking water when doing sweaty work in summer.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on November 24, 2009, 01:36:24 am
And what if water was the most valuable nutrient in fruits and veggies ?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on November 24, 2009, 03:20:08 am
    I recall eating fruits and veggies for just that reason as a teen, when I was thirsty. 

    I also gave it to my pets for same.  I gave them water, but they preferred these foods and abstained from the fresh water each day.  I did not think to give them raw meat though.  If I had those same pets again, I would try it. I may have done them wrong by this.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 24, 2009, 05:42:12 am
I'm still not convinced we should be drinking these vast quantities of water.  I've been trying to up my intake but it doesn't feel right if I'm really having to force myself to do it!  Surely we need to be relying on our instincts here a little?!  I haven't looked at those Dextery links yet but will do so when I get a chance.

Lex, in one of my studies regarding re-hydration, it seems we can only utilize so much water during a certain period of time.  So frequency is better than just one bulk drinking (drink every 30 mins).  The water cure by batmanghelj uses salt.  Don't know how salt fits into zero carb.

I'm still currently using salt, gs, on my vlc regime.  I read batmanghelj's books a long time ago too and do add a pinch of celtic salt to my water flask.  I find that I do much better when I do this compared to when I don't.  But, much of what we do, of course, depends upon the unique state of our bodies and, having previously suffered from adrenal insufficiency, salt retention is/has been an issue for me personally.

Lex, I found a research article that said the Inuit sweated a lot (which I find amazing in the Arctic). This could account for the 5-6 liter figure, though I still find that unbelievably high. Just 2.5 or more liters a day seems to stretch my bladder painfully--especially if I don't get enough out before sleeping.
I seem to recall reading that much of the sweating was done in their igloos with the internal temperatures becoming sufficiently hot.  Likewise, I'm really struggling to up my intake and am still only managing to drink 1-1.5 ltrs per day.

They also seem to support the link of lack of water to kidney stones but they don't give much detail.
I recently came across a wonderful article on insulin resistance by Dr Ron Rosedale MD  http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/insulin-resistance-the-real-culprit (http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/insulin-resistance-the-real-culprit).  I don't know if it's ever been discussed here before but it seems to contain some great information clearly presented.  A highly recommended read even if some of his dietary conclusions leave a little to be desired.
The point that I found relevant to this particular discussion was this:
Quote
The medical profession just assume a Calcium supplement has a homing device and it knows to go into your bone. What happens if you high levels of insulin and you take a bunch of calcium? Most of it is just going to go out in your urine. You would be lucky if that were the case because that part which doesn’t does not have the instructions to go to your bone because the anabolic hormones aren’t working. This is first of all because of insulin, then because of the IGF’s from growth hormone, also testosterone and progesterone, they are all controlled by insulin and when they are insulin resistant they can’t listen to any of the anabolic hormones. So your body doesn’t know how to build tissue anymore, so some of the calcium may end up in your bone, but a good deal of it will end up everywhere else. Metastatic calcifications, including in your arteries.

Lex, I'm sure you've already considered this but perhaps the development of your stones took place during previous inappropriate diets and are only being shifted now by the body as it's given the nutrients and conditions to repair itself?  The water factor could be a total red herring?!  I think the above discussion (particularly when read in context of the whole article) gives a clue to what the root cause of the stone development may have been initially.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on November 24, 2009, 06:01:23 am
I also am appreciate Rosedale's writings.  He also highly recommends that we eat at least two meals, preferably three meals a day to spread out or intake of protein, which he believes is harmful if eaten in excess. He believes our bodies only have a certain need at any one time to repair and rebuild.  Excesses have to be processed out of the body and also raise insulin levels.   I know when I eat 'too' much protein, my urine turns dark.  It appears to be a good indicator.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 24, 2009, 06:09:52 am
How much protein does he consider excessive?  How much are you currently consuming van?  I am resticting my protein to 80-100g per day split over 2 meals which seems to be working well.  I'm trying to consume 80-85% calories from fat.  My urine's not excessively dark despite only consuming 1 - 1.5ltrs of water per day.

Do you have any recommended links to other works by Rosedale?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 24, 2009, 07:20:09 am
Lex, another article you may find interesting and relevant regarding your kidney stones can be found here:
http://www.greenpasture.org/community/?q=node/135 (http://www.greenpasture.org/community/?q=node/135)

An extract of which includes:
Quote
It may be, then, that an extreme imbalance between vitamins A and D leads to the synthesis of abnormally high amounts of MGP. If there is enough vitamin K to activate all of the MGP, it will help protect the soft tissues from calcification. If, instead, the vitamin K cannot keep up with the level of MGP being produced and the pool of vitamin K becomes depleted, soft tissue calcification ensues.

I just came across this browsing the Green Pastures website and thought of you.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on November 24, 2009, 08:02:37 am
He talks about eating a piece of protein the size of your palm.  I usually eat twice a day the amount that fills an eight oz cup, plus fat, and several tablespoons of ground bone.   Ron's book is available.  but you have to get past all the supplements he reccomends. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 24, 2009, 09:01:27 am
Lex, another article you may find interesting and relevant regarding your kidney stones can be found here:
http://www.greenpasture.org/community/?q=node/135 (http://www.greenpasture.org/community/?q=node/135)

An extract of which includes:
I just came across this browsing the Green Pastures website and thought of you.

Interesting article, but since I don't take supplements, not sure what to do with the information.  I've been trying to get about 1 hour's sun exposure per day to raise vitamin D levels.  I eat grass-fed meats which should have good vitamin A levels.  I'm clueless on vitamin K so will have to look into that a bit more.

MGP and the rest of the alphabet soup mentioned in the article is pretty meaningless to me as well.  Without significant lab support and researchers that know what they are doing, I see little meaningful action that I could take.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on November 24, 2009, 09:54:39 am


Do you have any recommended links to other works by Rosedale?

http://www.drrosedale.com/
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ys on November 24, 2009, 11:09:30 am
Here is very detailed information about K2 as well as food sources.
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamin-k2.html  from good old weston price

It does talk about how K2 reverses calcification.  But only in arteries.  I do not remember if it applies to kidneys.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 24, 2009, 11:56:02 am
I'm still not convinced we should be drinking these vast quantities of water.  I've been trying to up my intake but it doesn't feel right if I'm really having to force myself to do it! 
It's been difficult for me to increase it much further than I was already doing too. Anything over 2.5 liters seems to result in an overload on my bladder, though if I spaced it out more evenly over the day it might not--but that's difficult to manage on workdays.

Quote
I'm still currently using salt, gs, on my vlc regime. 
Interestingly, an Inuit study population had the lowest levels of chlorides ever measured, the lowest dietary intakes of sodium chloride ever measured, and the highest sensitivity to tasting salt ever measured among any population. The scientists couldn't find any negative effects from the low chloride levels in their bodily fluids or the extremely low dietary intakes of salt. They had unusually high magnesium levels.

Quote
I seem to recall reading that much of the sweating was done in their igloos with the internal temperatures becoming sufficiently hot.  Likewise, I'm really struggling to up my intake and am still only managing to drink 1-1.5 ltrs per day.
Interesting. I wonder if they did a sweat-lodge sort of thing and if that enabled them to drink more water and thus keep their uric and oxalic acid levels low despite heavy consumption of meat? I should probably do more reading on the Inuit--not for re-enactment, but because they followed a near-ZC/carnivore WOE for much longer than I have, and thus I might learn some more from their experience.

Quote
Lex, I'm sure you've already considered this but perhaps the development of your stones took place during previous inappropriate diets and are only being shifted now by the body as it's given the nutrients and conditions to repair itself?  The water factor could be a total red herring?!  I think the above discussion (particularly when read in context of the whole article) gives a clue to what the root cause of the stone development may have been initially.

Possible, and I am open-minded as usual, but then there's also Yuri's experience with uric acid stones on ZC and the deepening color and increased bubbling of my urine since going carnivore. On the other hand, I did find a report that the urine of the Inuits in one study was apparently notably yellow in color--apparently more so than avg. So I'm also not convinced that clear urine is a necessary sign of good health, as I've seen some vegans claim, and a somewhat deeper-than-avg color is probably OK. But I try to be a bit more careful than the avg person, given my history of chronic UTI's and kidney stones. I don't want to experience the pain of stones again if I can avoid it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 24, 2009, 05:51:23 pm
Hi Lex,

How about variety in your diet?  I remember that you are on a pure grass fed raw beef diet.

How about adding variety?  Other raw animals?

I just believe in the need for variety at times.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 24, 2009, 07:26:38 pm
http://www.drrosedale.com/

Thanks for that William!   ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 24, 2009, 07:34:24 pm
Interesting article, but since I don't take supplements, not sure what to do with the information.  I've been trying to get about 1 hour's sun exposure per day to raise vitamin D levels.  I eat grass-fed meats which should have good vitamin A levels.  I'm clueless on vitamin K so will have to look into that a bit more.

MGP and the rest of the alphabet soup mentioned in the article is pretty meaningless to me as well.  Without significant lab support and researchers that know what they are doing, I see little meaningful action that I could take.

Lex

I suppose I meant it as a point of information for you Lex to, perhaps, help further realise that deficiencies and/or inbalances in A,D,K may have been a factor in the development of your stones at some point pre- or post- paleo.  In addition, this could act to remind you to bolster your efforts in ensuring you're obtaining these elements in whatever natural form you choose (organs, sun exposure, etc).  I think Phil has linked to some useful Vit K information elsewhere.  The WAPF nourished magazine also has some detailed information on this along with natural food sources.  I certainly wouldn't advocate supplements beyond Blue Ice FCLO or drowning in the world of alphabet soup.  Like any information, take from it what is useful to you.

Good luck on your journey Lex!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 25, 2009, 03:28:40 am
I just got the results of my recent 25(OH)D3 test.

VITAMIN D, 1,25(OH)2, TOTAL     64 pg/mL      Reference Range:  18-72


According to a couple of entries in PubMed, the mean average for 1,25(OH)2 is 41.2 +/-12.1.  Looks like I'm at the upper end of the range which is probably a good thing.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on November 25, 2009, 04:41:22 am
  I forget Lex,  do you supplement with D3, besides your new sun tan regime?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sam on November 25, 2009, 08:12:58 am
Lex, I think your doctor ordered the wrong test. It looks like it was a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D test instead of the 25(OH)D test.

See http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/deficiency/am-i-vitamin-d-deficient.shtml for more information on the different tests.

Your units should be ng/ml, not pg/ml.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 25, 2009, 08:35:58 am
  I forget Lex,  do you supplement with D3, besides your new sun tan regime?

No just 1 hour of sunlight exposure an average of 5 days per week.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 25, 2009, 08:45:47 am
Lex, I think your doctor ordered the wrong test. It looks like it was a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D test instead of the 25(OH)D test.

See http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/deficiency/am-i-vitamin-d-deficient.shtml for more information on the different tests.

Your units should be ng/ml, not pg/ml.

The results I got back were for 1,25 (OH)2 TOTAL.  The test was ordered from a pulldown menu on the medical group's computer system.  I watched as he selected the 25(OH)D test and there was only one shown on the list.  I'm scheduled to go back for a recheck on the kidney stone in a couple of weeks.  Will investigate futher.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 25, 2009, 09:00:00 am
I just got the results of my recent 25(OH)D3 test.

VITAMIN D, 1,25(OH)2, TOTAL     64 pg/mL      Reference Range:  18-72


According to a couple of entries in PubMed, the mean average for 1,25(OH)2 is 41.2 +/-12.1.  Looks like I'm at the upper end of the range which is probably a good thing.

Lex
Ooooo, very nice! Congrats.

FYI: Wikipedia says ng/mL too... "Serum levels of calcidiol (25-hydroxy-vitamin D) are typically used to diagnose vitamin D overdose. In healthy individuals, calcidiol levels are normally between 32 to 70 ng/mL (80 to 175 nmol/L)...."
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dextery on November 25, 2009, 09:37:25 am
www.grassrootshealth.net has a $40 blood spot mail in test.  To get the $40 test, have to sign up to have 8 done over 4 years...every six months.  If your copay is close to the $40...might be worth it.  Mail in the spot of blood and get the results online.  And it is the D3 test...the correct one.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 25, 2009, 08:23:06 pm
I just got the results of my recent 25(OH)D3 test.
VITAMIN D, 1,25(OH)2, TOTAL     64 pg/mL      Reference Range:  18-72
According to a couple of entries in PubMed, the mean average for 1,25(OH)2 is 41.2 +/-12.1.  Looks like I'm at the upper end of the range which is probably a good thing.
Lex

Seemingly further superb results Lex!  Well done.  We're all extremely lucky to have you here providing this critical information.  I, for one, am most grateful.  Thanks.  Do you have any other tests in the pipeline?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 26, 2009, 01:25:48 am
www.grassrootshealth.net has a $40 blood spot mail in test.  To get the $40 test, have to sign up to have 8 done over 4 years...every six months.  If your copay is close to the $40...might be worth it.  Mail in the spot of blood and get the results online.  And it is the D3 test...the correct one.

I'd gladly pay to have the tests done but unfortuantely it is illegal in California for any lab to perform a test for an individual without a medical doctor's prescription.  Most doctors here will not write such a prescription as they and their clinic won't profiit from it.  I've looked into several of the out of state labs and all require authorization from my doctor to perform the test.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 26, 2009, 05:00:25 am
I'd gladly pay to have the tests done but unfortuantely it is illegal in California for any lab to perform a test for an individual without a medical doctor's prescription.  Most doctors here will not write such a prescription as they and their clinic won't profiit from it.  I've looked into several of the out of state labs and all require authorization from my doctor to perform the test.

Lex

That piece of news about California is just so Orwellian. How about giving your blood samples to other countries labs?  Mexico is near.

In my country labs don't care as long as you are paying. And independent labs are cheaper than hospital labs by 50%.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: raw on November 26, 2009, 07:23:43 am
lex, you are my motivation. i'm convincing my mom into paleo diet and your journal is my tool. you are my nutrition guru. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 26, 2009, 01:30:28 pm
lex, you are my motivation. i'm convincing my mom into paleo diet and your journal is my tool. you are my nutrition guru. 

Raw,
Please don't look at me as a guru as that is the last thing I want to be. Gurus have all the answers, but if you've read this journal it creates far more questions than answers.  The best I can hope to do is provide inspiration and give an accurate account of both the good and the bad issues I've faced during this dietary adventure.  My goal is to give people the best information possible so that they can make their own decisions and not need a guru.

The best advice I can give is don't blindly accept what someone says (guru or not).  Learn everything you can, make your own tests when possible, and come to your own conclusions.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 26, 2009, 01:54:06 pm
Something that I've been meaning to post about for a while is the positive effect that the daily sun exposure seems to have had on my dental health.

For many years I've had to go to the dentist 3 or 4 times per year to remove the heavy tartar and calculus build up - especially on the back of my lower front teeth. It was like cement and built up very quickly. Over the last few months the build up has dropped virtually to zero.  Where I used to be able to use a dental tool and pull chunks of calcified tartar off the backs of my lower teeth every few days, I now have almost none at all. (Maybe it all went to my kidneys.  ??? ) It is true that I increased dietary fat over the past few months as well, but I don't think that accounts for the reductions in calculus build up as I did the high fat thing for many months in the recent past and it had no effect on the build up of tartar on my teeth.  The only new change is the added sun exposure.

I have no idea if this could be an effect of increased vitamin D levels, but it is a very noticable (and welcome) change and the only thing I've done differently in in the last 3 months (that I haven't done before) is work on my tan for an hour every day.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 27, 2009, 01:57:48 am
I'd gladly pay to have the tests done but unfortuantely it is illegal in California for any lab to perform a test for an individual without a medical doctor's prescription.  Most doctors here will not write such a prescription as they and their clinic won't profiit from it.  I've looked into several of the out of state labs and all require authorization from my doctor to perform the test.

Lex

My God?!  That's amazing!  Whatever happened to the 'Land of the Free'?!  How can they possibly justify that in respect of human rights law?

Over the last few months the build up has dropped virtually to zero...I have no idea if this could be an effect of increased vitamin D levels, but it is a very noticable (and welcome) change and the only thing I've done differently in in the last 3 months (that I haven't done before) is work on my tan for an hour every day.

Lex

Potentially another trailblazing discovery, Lex, which could prove pivotal in discovering more about the cause of calculus, the systems involved in it's development and the tools for avoidance.  This just highlights further how important it is to introduce and remove foods/practices singularly and slowly for the determination of causality as you always take great care in doing.  I do believe that your adherence to this approach and your testing & documenting of everything is proving highly valuable in the present and will prove even more critical in the longer term.

What are your own reflections on this latest development?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 27, 2009, 02:38:18 am
My God?!  That's amazing!  Whatever happened to the 'Land of the Free'?!  How can they possibly justify that in respect of human rights law?

Just wait until the Federal Government takes over health care here in the US.  There is a good chance that they will make any and all private lab work illegal just as it is in some other countries where there is socialized medicine.

Potentially another trailblazing discovery, Lex, which could prove pivotal in discovering more about the cause of calculus, the systems involved in it's development and the tools for avoidance.

What are your own reflections on this latest development?

I wish I had something useful to add but I don't.  The best I can offer is the observation that calculus has been significanly reduced, along with the speculation that it must have something to do with the sun exposure as that is the only change I've made.  I can draw a further conclusion that if it is the sun exposure then it must be related to vitamin D in some way as that is the only thing that would be affected by the sun.  Other than that I'm cluleless.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 27, 2009, 04:32:02 am
Just wait until the Federal Government takes over health care here in the US.  There is a good chance that they will make any and all private lab work illegal just as it is in some other countries where there is socialized medicine.

I don't really follow US politics closely.  Is that on the agenda?!  Is the existing privatised system being replaced?  That's big news if so which I somehow missed?!  :o  As I'm sure you know, we have a National Health Service here in the UK which was setup by the socialist labour government in the post-WW2 welfare-state reforms.  It's not without it's major flaws but, in theory at least, provides free medical care to all.  As far as I'm aware, private lab work is not illegal here in the UK as a consequence of this.  Have the US proposed such a development as part of their healthcare reforms?

I wish I had something useful to add but I don't.  The best I can offer is the observation that calculus has been significanly reduced, along with the speculation that it must have something to do with the sun exposure as that is the only change I've made.  I can draw a further conclusion that if it is the sun exposure then it must be related to vitamin D in some way as that is the only thing that would be affected by the sun.  Other than that I'm cluleless.

I hope I'm not doing a Paleo Phil number on you here Lex  ;) but I'm just interested in how these various component factors fit together.  I've just googled Calculus.  One study abstract from the Journal of Dental Research shows:
Quote
The crystalline components of human dental calculus were investigated using microbeam x-ray diffraction analysis. Hydroxyapatite and octacalcium phosphate were most frequently found in that portion having porous and zonal structure. In the portion of the homogeneous illustration showing high calcification, whitlockite is a main component. Brushite was unexpectedly rare, and no calcite was detected in any portion of human dental calculus. The mechanism of the formation of dental calculus being considered in this paper is that octacalcium phosphate or brushite is formed during the initial stage of calcification of dental plaque, and is gradually hydrolyzed and transformed into hydroxyapatite and/or whitlockite.

I wonder if there is a link between i) the calcium build-up on your teeth  ii) the kidney stones (calcium deposits?)  iii) night cramps (Ca/Mg deficiency or inbalance) ?

It seems to me that there may have been a historical root problem related to Vitamin D deficiency as this is involved in the metabolism of these minerals.  Your observations following your sun exposure would strengthen this hypothesis I believe.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ys on November 27, 2009, 04:43:13 am
I also have buildup behind lower teeth, I have gum recession there and it builds up pretty nicely.  The dentist said the build up does not come from food, but from the saliva.  The salivary glands are just behind lower teeth and the calcium from saliva gets deposited right there.

So, could it be that Vitamin D affect calcium saturation in the saliva?  Appears to be the case.

Unfortunately there is not much sun in the Midwest this time of year, so no outside tanning for us.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 27, 2009, 05:08:06 am
I also have buildup behind lower teeth, I have gum recession there and it builds up pretty nicely.  The dentist said the build up does not come from food, but from the saliva.  The salivary glands are just behind lower teeth and the calcium from saliva gets deposited right there.

So, could it be that Vitamin D affect calcium saturation in the saliva?  Appears to be the case.

Unfortunately there is not much sun in the Midwest this time of year, so no outside tanning for us.

The case builds!
Lex, did you have other adequate sources of vitamin D at any point such as Blue Ice cod liver oil?
I've been taking Blue Ice for many months but still get vast amounts of calculus build up and have receding gums.  Perhaps there's an issue with utilisation of this supplemented Vitamin D which has been overridden by Lex by going straight to THE source - the sun?

Likewise ys, we have little sun here at this time of year and when we do it's simply too cold for a cold intolerant individual like myself to venture out semi-naked!  Perhaps we just need to push the boundaries a little.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 27, 2009, 06:37:04 am
Sorry Lex.  I seem to be dominating your journal at the moment but I just wanted to post this information that I just came across from Bee Wilder (of Candida fame) in case it was useful.  I'm not sure what her sources are for this information but, if valid, it's good to know.

Quote
In order to achieve optimal levels of vitamin D from the sun, 85% of body surface needs exposure to prime midday sun (10:00 AM to 2:00 PM). About 100-200 IUs of vitamin D are produced for each 5 percent of body surface exposed.

Light skinned people need 10-20 minutes of exposure, while dark skinned people need 90-120 minutes. It takes about 24 hours for UV-B-stimulated vitamin D to show up as maximum levels of vitamin D in the blood. Please note that natural body oils are critical to this absorption process. Because the body needs 30-60 minutes to absorb these vitamin D containing oils, it is best to delay showering, bathing, or swimming in a chlorinated pool for one hour after exposure.

Chris Masterjohn also has some more detailed information on Vitamin D here: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Vitamin-D.html (http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Vitamin-D.html)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on November 27, 2009, 09:42:52 am
I definitely notice that I have less plaque on my teeth when I am supplementing with Vitamin D-3.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: raw on November 27, 2009, 01:57:51 pm
I definitely notice that I have less plaque on my teeth when I am supplementing with Vitamin D-3.
can you please tell me which company's vit D3 you use? i'm not in big about taking supplements, but certain time, it becomes necessary i guess. thanks.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on November 27, 2009, 09:57:15 pm
Hey Lex

Why did you take up the sunbathing routine? do you wear a shirt? do you work outside or just bathe? are you craving sunlight?...ha ha so many questions!

Our paleo ancestors would of spent enormous amounts of hours a day in the sun, without much clothing. Even 1 hour a day seems pretty low compared to what we would of experienced ( up to 8 hours, everyday!)

This year  I've shown complete disregard to the deadly cancer causing rays of the sun and have actively exposed myself for 3+ hours a day. I've been doing this because I crave sunlight more than ever this year, interestingly I'm experiencing my first completely free hayfever/eczema  spring of my life.


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on November 27, 2009, 10:28:04 pm
Hey Lex

Why did you take up the sunbathing routine? do you wear a shirt? do you work outside or just bathe? are you craving sunlight?...

... have actively exposed myself for 3+ hours a day. I've been doing this because I crave sunlight more than ever this year, interestingly I'm experiencing my first completely free hayfever/eczema  spring of my life.

    Weeks/months I stayed away from all starch, greens, seaweeds, legumes, grains, nuts, dairy and meat completely, I craved sun.  I don't think I've ever craved sun otherwise.  Could it be consuming lots of water makes us crave sun?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on November 27, 2009, 10:59:19 pm
can you please tell me which company's vit D3 you use? i'm not in big about taking supplements, but certain time, it becomes necessary i guess. thanks.

I use the Now Brand.  I've really only tested Carlson's and Now brands, and Carlson's definitely does not work. I think it's important to use a softgel or a liquid, because I've read that the number one thing that clogs up city wastewater systems is undigested vitamin and mineral supplement pills.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 28, 2009, 01:13:32 am
I don't really follow US politics closely.  Is that on the agenda?!  Is the existing privatised system being replaced?  That's big news if so which I somehow missed?!  :o  As I'm sure you know, we have a National Health Service here in the UK which was setup by the socialist labour government in the post-WW2 welfare-state reforms.  It's not without it's major flaws but, in theory at least, provides free medical care to all.  As far as I'm aware, private lab work is not illegal here in the UK as a consequence of this.  Have the US proposed such a development as part of their healthcare reforms?

Yup major broughhaha here in the US as the Democratic Party (similar to your Labour Party) have full control of the government and are desparately trying to bring about a much more socialist agenda - free health care for all just being part of the mess.  Of course 'free' means a cost of 2.5 trillion dollars and a signifiant tax increase across the board for everyone.  They are also moving in a direction to make any private health care options illegal.  This wouldn't happen in the very short term but is in the long range plans.  As an example, in one of the current Bills under consideration, you may keep your private health care insurance until there is any change in the insurance either in the policy itself or even in the premium paid at which time you must move over to the government plan.  Also, if you don't have any insurance, either public or private (which you must prove each year when you file your tax return) you must pay a hefty fine with possible jail time.  It's a real mess.

I wonder if there is a link between i) the calcium build-up on your teeth  ii) the kidney stones (calcium deposits?)  iii) night cramps (Ca/Mg deficiency or inbalance) ?

I have no clue here.  Interesting that the calcium build-up on my teeth seemed  to be reduced,  but then I end up with kidney stones.  It is true that the kidney stones could be something other than calcium, (uric acid is a possibility), but since I wasn’t able to capture the stone (at least up to now) we don’t know.  Don’t have any idea about the night cramps as I didn’t keep any records as to when they went away.

It seems to me that there may have been a historical root problem related to Vitamin D deficiency as this is involved in the metabolism of these minerals.  Your observations following your sun exposure would strengthen this hypothesis I believe.

It seems to but then again, maybe not.  Just not enough information to make a solid link.

The dentist said the build up does not come from food, but from the saliva. 

All the dentists I’ve had over the years have told me the same thing.  They also said it was “body chemistry” and there wasn’t anything I could do about it.  I’m now beginning to question whether this is the case.

So, could it be that Vitamin D affect calcium saturation in the saliva?  Appears to be the case.

This is my speculation based on the limited data I have, but it is purely speculation.  By posting this, my hope is that others will try supplements or sun exposure and see if either of these (or both) bring about similar changes.

Lex, did you have other adequate sources of vitamin D at any point such as Blue Ice cod liver oil?

Nope.  No supplements and I’ve been pretty much an urban troglodyte for the past 30 years, spending most of my time indoors chained to a desk under fluorescent lighting.  Also, my dermatologist has insisted for many years that I avoid sun exposure at all costs due to skin cancer fears.  Wide brimmed hats, sun screen, long sleeved shirts etc. – especially in summer.  I’m now questioning the wisdom of this advice.

Why did you take up the sunbathing routine? do you wear a shirt? do you work outside or just bathe? are you craving sunlight?...ha ha so many questions!

I started looking a vitamin D and the best way to get it based on what I’ve been reading on Dr Harris PaNu blog, Peter’s Hyperlipid blog, and the Health Scan blog.  The case seemed pretty strong that we are very vit D deficient and since I didn’t want to take supplements I decided to throw caution to the wind and get real sun exposure.  I wear only gym shorts.  I usually walk for an hour, but if I have yard would to do will I now make sure I’m appropriately dressed (undressed?)

Our paleo ancestors would of spent enormous amounts of hours a day in the sun, without much clothing. Even 1 hour a day seems pretty low compared to what we would of experienced ( up to 8 hours, everyday!)

I think you are quite correct on this point, but I do have a life ( and interests) that are more suitable to indoors than out ( I refuse to move my lathe and milling machine out in the yard to turn into piles of rust).  My compromise is to take a 1 hour walk everyday wearing as few clothes as possible (basically just gym shorts) to get as much skin exposure as possible.

…… interestingly I'm experiencing my first completely free hayfever/eczema  spring of my life.

My experience is similar.  Many small annoying issues that weren’t directly affected by diet alone seem to have greatly improved.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 28, 2009, 07:54:06 am
...This is my speculation based on the limited data I have, but it is purely speculation.  By posting this, my hope is that others will try supplements or sun exposure and see if either of these (or both) bring about similar changes.
I'm one step ahead of you. I started supplementing with cod liver oil a month or two ago and after reading the sources you did I recently added some straight vitamin D (along with K2 and bone meal) to bring it up to 5000 IUs without overloading on vitamin A. I also eat raw eggs and I'm hoping to add more raw liver and shellfish into my diet as I get used to it, so that I can eventually take just cod liver oil.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on November 28, 2009, 06:14:37 pm

All the dentists I’ve had over the years have told me the same thing.  They also said it was “body chemistry” and there wasn’t anything I could do about it.  I’m now beginning to question whether this is the case.


The "body chemistry, one can't do anything about" the dentists invoke to explain the formation of tartar is in IMO most likely just a matter of poisoned biochemistry brought about by standard cooked food. When I switched on 100% raw paleo diet the phenomenon disappeared almost completely, independant of any apparent change in vitamin D status (neither supplementation nor change in sun exposure). Yet this change took about 4 years on RPD, probably the time needed for the organism to get rid of its poisoning. So the dentist's statement is indeed quite mistaken for people on more appropriate RPDs.


Nope.  No supplements and I’ve been pretty much an urban troglodyte for the past 30 years, spending most of my time indoors chained to a desk under fluorescent lighting.  Also, my dermatologist has insisted for many years that I avoid sun exposure at all costs due to skin cancer fears.  Wide brimmed hats, sun screen, long sleeved shirts etc. – especially in summer.  I’m now questioning the wisdom of this advice.


Here again the dermatologist's advice to avoid sun exposure is most likely wisdom for a large fraction of people on standard diets but utterly wrong or nonsense for people on RPD for a couple of years or so. Sun induced skin cancer is largely the result of skin biochemistry poisonig due to inappropriate neolithic cooked foods. Once on RPD for a few years my resistance to sun exposure and burn increased drastically and I can now feel quite precisely when exposure is enough and should be stopped. It is apparent that vitamin D synthesis as well as overall skin reaction to sun exposure may be quite perturbed in people on SAD.   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 29, 2009, 04:57:24 am
Yup major broughhaha here in the US as the Democratic Party (similar to your Labour Party) have full control of the government and are desparately trying to bring about a much more socialist agenda - free health care for all just being part of the mess.  Of course 'free' means a cost of 2.5 trillion dollars and a signifiant tax increase across the board for everyone.  They are also moving in a direction to make any private health care options illegal.  This wouldn't happen in the very short term but is in the long range plans.  As an example, in one of the current Bills under consideration, you may keep your private health care insurance until there is any change in the insurance either in the policy itself or even in the premium paid at which time you must move over to the government plan.  Also, if you don't have any insurance, either public or private (which you must prove each year when you file your tax return) you must pay a hefty fine with possible jail time.  It's a real mess.

This big news obviously passed me by.  That's amazing!  Is there uproar or do the majority (of sickly SAD eaters!) think it's a good idea?  I hope it's run a little better than our NHS which has proven financially crippling.  Funny enough, our system seems to be heading in the opposite direction with increasing participation of the private sector.

Quote
All the dentists I’ve had over the years have told me the same thing.  They also said it was “body chemistry” and there wasn’t anything I could do about it.  I’m now beginning to question whether this is the case.
This is my speculation based on the limited data I have, but it is purely speculation.  By posting this, my hope is that others will try supplements or sun exposure and see if either of these (or both) bring about similar changes.

My sun exposure is extremely limited and has been for the last few years.  I am regularly taking Blue Ice FCLO and will make a point of exposing my skin for at least an hour per day as you are Lex - come the spring of course!  I'll report back any noticeable effects.


Quote
Nope.  No supplements and I’ve been pretty much an urban troglodyte for the past 30 years, spending most of my time indoors chained to a desk under fluorescent lighting.  Also, my dermatologist has insisted for many years that I avoid sun exposure at all costs due to skin cancer fears.  Wide brimmed hats, sun screen, long sleeved shirts etc. – especially in summer.  I’m now questioning the wisdom of this advice.

ha ha  :)  You've certainly been testing the boundaries of limited Vitamin D intake then Lex!  Do I recall correctly that you've suffered from skin cancers or lesions repeatedly in the past?  Interestingly, I've spent much of my working life in air-conditioned, fluorescent-lit offices too but I've also had periods when I've spent lots of time exposing my skin outdoors (long periods travelling Americas and Europe, local cycling/hiking, various construction jobs).  Pre RAF - my Vit D must have always been poor too as I never ate liver, CLO etc and spent years as a  vegetarian/vegan.  I've had my fair share of skin cancers.  I used to slather suncream on in my youth but 15 years ago came to the conclusion that those toxic chemicals help cause skin cancer!  I don't burn as easily as I used to and this will hopefully continue improving as the years pass on my VLC/ZC RPD diet.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 29, 2009, 09:28:25 am
...I used to slather suncream on in my youth but 15 years ago came to the conclusion that those toxic chemicals help cause skin cancer! ...

Yes, that's what studies have found. Ironic, isn't it? I have known of people who constantly stayed covered with hats, long sleeves, and sun block and still got skin cancer, and now it makes more sense.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 29, 2009, 12:55:31 pm
Yet this change took about 4 years on RPD, probably the time needed for the organism to get rid of its poisoning.

I'm glad to see that my experience that many changes take months or years is supported by your experience as well.  So many people are looking for instant results.  My thought is that it took us years of abusing our bodies to get them into such a mess, it will certainly take a good bit of time to reverse the damage - assuming it can be reversed.

Michael - The sentiment on government run health care here in the US is running about 60% against, but the politicians are hell bent on pushing it through anyway.  I think they see it as increasing their long term political power and they are willing to do anything to push it through.

I've suffered with the pre-cancerous lesions for many years, but they have actually gotten better since I've gone VLC/ZC and my last to visits to the dermatologist there were none.  He did, however, comment on my obvious tan and warned me that I needed to stay out of the sun.  I mentioned the need for vit D and he said that 10 min sun exposure per week was more than enough.  He also failed to notice that all that sun exposure that I was getting resulted in zero pre-cancerous lesions - go figure.

Phil - One of the things I noticed was that people who got skin cancer often got it in places where there was little sun exposure, like on the small of the back below the belt line.  No one has been able to give me a satisfactory explaination as to why this is so, and makes me question the conventional wisdom.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 29, 2009, 09:18:24 pm
Yes, that's what studies have found. Ironic, isn't it? I have known of people who constantly stayed covered with hats, long sleeves, and sun block and still got skin cancer, and now it makes more sense.

I'm glad to hear, at least, that studies are now proving this to be the case.  I used to have a real hard time persuading people that the chemical soup they bathed their skin in was going to promote rather than protect against skin cancer!  Of course, I don't try to persuade anyone of anything anymore!  :)  My experiences are the same PaleoPhil.  I've known many people who, like Lex, have spent most of their lives covered up and avoiding the sun only to end up with skin cancer issues.  On the flip side, particularly when I used to do alot of outdoor construction work, I've known many people who spent virtually all day every day in the bright sun throughout the year wearing little more than a pair of shorts.  These builders and outdoor workers are the strongest, healthiest people I've known and all have had wonderful physiques with blemish and cancer free tanned skin.  Interestingly, their diets in the main were considered awful by conventional standards at the time - eggs, bacon, meat, butter, sheeps blood etc.  Little in the way of fruit/veg and limited grains & dairy.  And to think I used to try to convert them to my healthy vegetarian ways!!   :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 29, 2009, 09:29:22 pm
There is one part of the body that I wonder about whether it should be covered--which is the scalp. Stone Agers didn't tend to go bald, so I wonder if that area is more sensitive to the sun and therefore more prone to damage. I do know several people who have skin cancers on their scalp. Since dermatologists say that most of the skin damage is done in youth but the scalp was covered with hair in youth, that tells me the damage occurred later in life with balding, despite the apparent fact that such later-life damage is rare.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPat on November 30, 2009, 05:01:47 am
Interesting that the calcium build-up on my teeth seemed  to be reduced,  but then I end up with kidney stones.

Lex, Peter at HyperLipid actually discusses this in his latest post.  He thinks that high-carb diets result in many people having asymptomatic kidney stones...asymptomatic, because they are too large to enter the urethra.

But correct the diet and they begin to dissolve, eventually shrinking to the point where they will fit into the urethra, thus becoming symptomatic (causing excruciating pain.)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 30, 2009, 05:32:21 am
Yes, and he also discusses hyperglycaemia and muscle cramps--all issues that Lex had at one time or another.

November 27, 2009
A brief discussion of ketosis
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/


Dr. Harris added an interesting comment and also mentioned still being in ketosis, like you:

"I think the stone issue is most likely a phenomenon of dissolution and mobilization into the ureter, but it could be dehydration related to decreased meal frequency and lack of thirst formerly stimulated by bagels and potato chips.

I find myself sort of stuck in ketosis. ...."


Whereas I seem to have come out of ketosis after 3.5 months. Fascinating stuff. Ketosis is certainly one of the more mysterious aspects of VLC/ZC.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on November 30, 2009, 06:35:25 am
There is one part of the body that I wonder about whether it should be covered--which is the scalp. Stone Agers didn't tend to go bald, so I wonder if that area is more sensitive to the sun and therefore more prone to damage. I do know several people who have skin cancers on their scalp. Since dermatologists say that most of the skin damage is done in youth but the scalp was covered with hair in youth, that tells me the damage occurred later in life with balding, despite the apparent fact that such later-life damage is rare.

I agree that covering the head with a hat - particularly if balding or close shaven - may be a wise precaution.  The scalp is obviously much less exposed in it's lifetime due to a full head of hair in addition to being very thin and prone to easy burning.  With burning supposedly being one of the factors influencing later cancers and lesions it would make sense to take greater care.  Having said that, I don't personally know of anyone who's had skin cancer on the scalp but know many on the face, neck and torso.  I feel that Lex's point is also relevant:
Quote

Phil - One of the things I noticed was that people who got skin cancer often got it in places where there was little sun exposure, like on the small of the back below the belt line.  No one has been able to give me a satisfactory explaination as to why this is so, and makes me question the conventional wisdom.

I've suffered with the pre-cancerous lesions for many years, but they have actually gotten better since I've gone VLC/ZC and my last to visits to the dermatologist there were none.  He did, however, comment on my obvious tan and warned me that I needed to stay out of the sun.  I mentioned the need for vit D and he said that 10 min sun exposure per week was more than enough.  He also failed to notice that all that sun exposure that I was getting resulted in zero pre-cancerous lesions - go figure.

ha ha  :)  That's representative of the average GPs powers of observation and logic!?  Great news about the sudden absence of lesions Lex!

Lex, Peter at HyperLipid actually discusses this in his latest post.  He thinks that high-carb diets result in many people having asymptomatic kidney stones...asymptomatic, because they are too large to enter the urethra.

But correct the diet and they begin to dissolve, eventually shrinking to the point where they will fit into the urethra, thus becoming symptomatic (causing excruciating pain.)

That's very interesting PaleoPat.  Peter certainly seems to know what he's talking about too so I would consider his views seriously.  That would also make perfect sense.  A little disconcerting for many of us current RPDers who were previously high-carb SADers though!!   ???

Whereas I seem to have come out of ketosis after 3.5 months. Fascinating stuff. Ketosis is certainly one of the more mysterious aspects of VLC/ZC.

I'm going to buy some Multistix this week and start testing my own state of ketosis etc.  I agree that this is all extremely interesting.  I clearly need to spend more time reading Hyperlipid too!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 30, 2009, 06:58:38 am
...I'm going to buy some Multistix this week and start testing my own state of ketosis etc.  I agree that this is all extremely interesting.  I clearly need to spend more time reading Hyperlipid too!
I did a bit of searching on them and they apparently vary in level of quality (accuracy). The Ketostix I have are much cheaper, but only provide the one ketones test, so I've got Multistix on my wish list.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on November 30, 2009, 10:37:06 am
There is one part of the body that I wonder about whether it should be covered--which is the scalp.
Well I guess the scalp can be conditioned. I think the egyptions did this by shaving there heads and conditioned their scalps tolerance by this. My legs and arm pretty much never burn in the sun. But my neck, shoulders, scalp (shaved head) and face has in the past. Perhaps these areas weekness to sun is because most non dark skinned people have naturally long hair (if not cut)to cover and shade these areas.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on November 30, 2009, 05:44:35 pm
Most skin cancers are fairly harmless. It's mainly melanomas which you need to worry about and most specialists will check the soles of your feet first for these cancers! Since when do they get exposed to sunlight!

Think about all those dodgy flip flops that you wear and the rubber and plastics. I got told walking bare foot on asphalt causes melanomas from a friend who recently had a checkup with a specialist. Forget the sun there's other factors at play here.



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on December 01, 2009, 03:31:44 am

I'm glad to see that my experience that many changes take months or years is supported by your experience as well.  So many people are looking for instant results.  My thought is that it took us years of abusing our bodies to get them into such a mess, it will certainly take a good bit of time to reverse the damage - assuming it can be reversed.


I agree heartedly, Lex. This actually makes sense from a scientific point of view. We cannot expect that the damage brought about by tens of years of agressive diets can be merely reversed within a few weeks or months. And it is also likely that every damage may not be reversed at least not in our own lifetime but will possibly need several generations to heal as in Pottenger's cat experiment.

Yet there are now more and more compelling reasons and available experiences to believe that it is really worth to stay patiently on RPD. And so many ailments are in fact at least allieviated already after a few months. Quite rewarding.

These "scientific" considerations mean also that there is not necessarily a causal relationship between a given recent improvement or change in health and what has been done just during the weeks or even months before. A more or less sudden improvement might well be the global result of a healing process that took several years of RPD and other changes in lifestyle to mature and succeed.

Similarly it is indeed not unlikely that your recent elimination of kidney stones is actually a good sign with no serious reason to worry about rather than a bad sign indicating something's wrong with your diet. The poisoning that led to their formation might well originate in your inappropriate diets before switching to RPD and all the years since were necessary for the organism to heal and finally begin to eliminate the stones. Hopefully.

Yet, just an hypothesis, of course. There is so much we don't really know or understand that one has to be cautious.

   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 01, 2009, 07:39:14 am
Most skin cancers are fairly harmless. It's mainly melanomas which you need to worry about and most specialists will check the soles of your feet first for these cancers! Since when do they get exposed to sunlight!

Think about all those dodgy flip flops that you wear and the rubber and plastics. I got told walking bare foot on asphalt causes melanomas from a friend who recently had a checkup with a specialist. Forget the sun there's other factors at play here.

True, but I know someone who uses that reasoning to not protect his bald scalp at all, despite the fact that he already has precancerous lesions on it and is not on a full RPD diet. He excuses it by saying his dermatologist told him that most sun-related skin cancer comes from sun burns in youth (so it's OK for him to get lots of sun today, he figures). Except that he had hair as a kid and didn't burn his scalp. He only burned his scalp after he went bald in adulthood, and it's coincidentally where he gets the most sun and the only place he has the precancerous lesions. So I wouldn't rule out sun as a factor among people who have skin that has been damaged by diet and is deficient in vitamin D and other important nutrients. I think that non-RPDers should probably limit their bald-scalp exposure to reasonable levels, especially when they already have pre-cancerous lesions. And yes, I knew about the commonness of skin cancers on non-sun-exposed areas. I actually work with dermatologists, among other physicians. I also know that most of the precancerous lesions and melanomas I've seen have been on sun-exposed areas (on SAD dieters, of course). The nose, face, shoulders and trunk are common areas to get them. I would say the most common area of all is probably the face, including:

Cheek, external
Chin
Eyebrow
Forehead
Nose, external
Temple

...though I haven't checked the stats.

Also, the people who don't change their diet like Lex did continue to get more of those precancerous lesions for the rest of their life, and have to keep going in and getting them removed, and often develop melanomas later in life.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on December 01, 2009, 08:00:29 am
It's mainly melanomas which you need to worry about and most specialists will check the soles of your feet first for these cancers! Since when do they get exposed to sunlight!

Think about all those dodgy flip flops that you wear and the rubber and plastics.

    It's not that I don't agree, as the soles of my feet get sore when in man-made material shoes, so it does make me wonder. 

    I am curious though, as people do lie out at the beach.  Their soles could get some sunlight.  People with dark skin often have just as light skinned soles of their feet as people with light skin.  Are their any studies that show one race getting their melanoma on the soles of their feet a higher percentage of the time than another race?  Bob Marley was pretty dark skinned.  I heard what killed him was a melanoma that started on his toe.  Does anyone here know if this was the top of his toe or another part of it?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 01, 2009, 09:01:07 am
Lex, Peter at HyperLipid actually discusses this in his latest post.  He thinks that high-carb diets result in many people having asymptomatic kidney stones...asymptomatic, because they are too large to enter the urethra.

But correct the diet and they begin to dissolve, eventually shrinking to the point where they will fit into the urethra, thus becoming symptomatic (causing excruciating pain.)

I have direct experience (which I'd prefer not to repeat) with the excruciating pain.  I read Peter's post and he seemed to put forth several possible causes.  Of all of them the reduced fluid intake seems to fit with the experience of many of the people I know who have suffered from kidney stones.  Children on a ketogenic diet for epilepsy seem to have them in greater numbers than average and part of their regime is to reduce water and fluid intake.  Us older males who reduce fluid intake to help manage enlarging prostates also have kidney stones in higher numbers.  The idea that constant ketosis itself is a major contributing factor doesn’t quite ring true with me as almost everyone that I know that suffers from them eats a high carb diet and therefore are not in ketosis.  Of course I’ve been shown to be wrong several times before so take my arguments with a grain of salt.


Alphagruis – what you say certainly makes good sense.  Let’s hope you and PaleoPat are correct about the kidney stones and that the two that I have will be the last.


Whereas I seem to have come out of ketosis after 3.5 months. Fascinating stuff. Ketosis is certainly one of the more mysterious aspects of VLC/ZC.

For me this seems dependent on the amount of fat I eat and the amount of water I drink.  More fat and/or less water the greater the amount of ketones in the urine.  Less fat and/or more water and I get lower ketone readings.  The actual amount of ketones for any given level of fat intake may be the same, but Ketostix measures the amount of ketones in a specific volume of fluid (mg/dl).  Drinking more water dilutes this so your ketone reading will be lower as the volume of urine increases even though total ketones produced in a day might be the same.

Assuming a somewhat restricted water intake (urine is always dark yellow):
Eating 60%-65% calories as fat I usually see a trace amount of ketones.  Eating 65% -75% calories as fat and I usually see trace and up to level 1.  Eating anything above 80% and ketones are usually in the range of level 2 or 3.  When eating 85%-90% calories as fat ketones were always level 4 or maxed at level 5.

When I increased water intake to 3+ liters per day, even very high fat intake of 80%-85% gives a reading of Trace to level 1 on the Ketostix and urine is very pale yellow to almost clear.  However, urine volume has increased about 4 - 5 fold which would drop my previous level 4-5 reading down to Trace/Level 1 as the urine is now very dilute.

I think this accounts for why there is so much variability of urinary ketone levels.  We are measuring a ratio of ketones to fluid volume, not the total amount of ketones actually produced.  This also makes it almost useless to try to compare ketone levels of one person with another without also knowing something like the specific gravity of the urine samples that are being compared so we can correct for the difference in density or concentration.

Lex


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 01, 2009, 10:16:48 am
I have direct experience (which I'd prefer not to repeat) with the excruciating pain.  I read Peter's post and he seemed to put forth several possible causes.  Of all of them the reduced fluid intake seems to fit with the experience of many of the people I know who have suffered from kidney stones.  Children on a ketogenic diet for epilepsy seem to have them in greater numbers than average and part of their regime is to reduce water and fluid intake. 
Yes, and I think I recall that some of the ketogenic children who got stones in the study Yuri posted were consuming less fluid than average, right? Fluid intake is the one factor that has popped up consistently in our investigations. You're probably charting a wise course by consuming more fluids. Better to be safe than sorry.

Quote
For me this seems dependent on the amount of fat I eat and the amount of water I drink.  More fat and/or less water the greater the amount of ketones in the urine.  Less fat and/or more water and I get lower ketone readings.  The actual amount of ketones for any given level of fat intake may be the same, but Ketostix measures the amount of ketones in a specific volume of fluid (mg/dl).  Drinking more water dilutes this so your ketone reading will be lower as the volume of urine increases even though total ketones produced in a day might be the same.
Thanks for the info. I did increase my water intake some, so that could explain my drop in urinary ketones.

Quote
When I increased water intake to 3+ liters per day, even very high fat intake of 80%-85% gives a reading of Trace to level 1 on the Ketostix and urine is very pale yellow to almost clear.  However, urine volume has increased about 4 - 5 fold which would drop my previous level 4-5 reading down to Trace/Level 1 as the urine is now very dilute.
I wonder if dilution of ketones in body fluids is a benefit that might help explain why wolves and traditional Inuits have apparently developed the adaptation of consuming a lot of water? I wonder what, if anything, the benefit of diluted ketones might be?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 01, 2009, 01:38:09 pm
Thanks for the info. I did increase my water intake some, so that could explain my drop in urinary ketones.
I wonder if dilution of ketones in body fluids is a benefit that might help explain why wolves and traditional Inuits have apparently developed the adaptation of consuming a lot of water? I wonder what, if anything, the benefit of diluted ketones might be?

I have no idea if there is any benefit at all as far as ketones go.  I do hope that increased water intake will solve the kidney stone problem as they are much more painful than ketones!

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on December 06, 2009, 05:52:53 am
Most skin cancers are fairly harmless. It's mainly melanomas which you need to worry about and most specialists will check the soles of your feet first for these cancers! Since when do they get exposed to sunlight!

Think about all those dodgy flip flops that you wear and the rubber and plastics. I got told walking bare foot on asphalt causes melanomas from a friend who recently had a checkup with a specialist. Forget the sun there's other factors at play here.

I think that's a really interesting point Andrew.  My partners father died 4 years ago from a skin cancer which spread.  He was the biggest, toughest gorilla of a man you could ever meet.  He was a builder and a grafter and had spent his entire life working all day every day exposed in endless sunshine (and rain of course!) with no use of protective creams etc.  His workboots always had huge holes in them and, as a concrete layer, he spent most of his time exposing his feet to wet and dry cement.  Where did his cancer originate?  That's right - on the soles of his feet!!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on December 06, 2009, 05:56:38 am
Bob Marley was pretty dark skinned.  I heard what killed him was a melanoma that started on his toe.  Does anyone here know if this was the top of his toe or another part of it?

I seem to recall that Bob's problems began when he sustained a football injury to his toe which then spread a cancer throughout his body.  How this could possibly result in cancer I have no idea!  I'm not sure which part of his toe is was either I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on December 06, 2009, 06:07:10 am
For me this seems dependent on the amount of fat I eat and the amount of water I drink.  More fat and/or less water the greater the amount of ketones in the urine.  Less fat and/or more water and I get lower ketone readings.  The actual amount of ketones for any given level of fat intake may be the same, but Ketostix measures the amount of ketones in a specific volume of fluid (mg/dl).  Drinking more water dilutes this so your ketone reading will be lower as the volume of urine increases even though total ketones produced in a day might be the same.

Assuming a somewhat restricted water intake (urine is always dark yellow):
Eating 60%-65% calories as fat I usually see a trace amount of ketones.  Eating 65% -75% calories as fat and I usually see trace and up to level 1.  Eating anything above 80% and ketones are usually in the range of level 2 or 3.  When eating 85%-90% calories as fat ketones were always level 4 or maxed at level 5.

When I increased water intake to 3+ liters per day, even very high fat intake of 80%-85% gives a reading of Trace to level 1 on the Ketostix and urine is very pale yellow to almost clear.  However, urine volume has increased about 4 - 5 fold which would drop my previous level 4-5 reading down to Trace/Level 1 as the urine is now very dilute.

I think this accounts for why there is so much variability of urinary ketone levels.  We are measuring a ratio of ketones to fluid volume, not the total amount of ketones actually produced.  This also makes it almost useless to try to compare ketone levels of one person with another without also knowing something like the specific gravity of the urine samples that are being compared so we can correct for the difference in density or concentration.

Lex

Brilliant information there Lex, thanks.  I'm hoping to get some MultiStix soon and start monitoring these levels myself so that's really useful information to bear in mind.  I'm currently consuming 80-85% calories by fat but am only managing to drink 1-2 litres of water per day so I'll be interested in my ketone levels.  Have you kept a record of your specific gravity along with your ketone and water consumption levels for comparisons?  If so, it may prove interesting for yourself, PaleoPhil and I to log these stats as it may show up some useful patterns?

BTW, Sorry for filling your journal with 3 separate posts rather than compiling my replies into one!!   :D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on December 06, 2009, 07:39:54 am
I seem to recall that Bob's problems began when he sustained a football injury to his toe which then spread a cancer throughout his body.  How this could possibly result in cancer I have no idea!  I'm not sure which part of his toe is was either I'm afraid.

I think he assumed it was an old football injury and didn't get it treated. He found out eventually and refused treatment? from what I remember.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on December 06, 2009, 07:45:22 am
I think he assumed it was an old football injury and didn't get it treated. He found out eventually and refused treatment? from what I remember.

Yes, that's probably a more likely scenario.  A great shame and a great loss all the same!   -[
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 06, 2009, 08:03:11 am
I think he assumed it was an old football injury and didn't get it treated. He found out eventually and refused treatment? from what I remember.



Yes, his Rastafarian beliefs prevented him from seeking Western medical treatment, is what I've read.  It's tragic.  He was so young, and had already made so much great music.   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on December 06, 2009, 09:14:50 pm
No just 1 hour of sunlight exposure an average of 5 days per week.

Lex

What about your meat?

http://www.healthyfood.co.nz/articles/2007/february/beef-and-lamb-good-for-your-bones

Nicola
Title: how about hot water?
Post by: rafonly on December 15, 2009, 04:07:34 am



you may want to try hot water esp. 1st thing in the am -- neither boiled or scalding, though
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 15, 2009, 08:38:05 am
What about your meat?

http://www.healthyfood.co.nz/articles/2007/february/beef-and-lamb-good-for-your-bones

Nicola
Wow, excellent find, Nicola! So apparently, when the 250HD3 in meats (and I'm guessing seafood too) is added to the regular D3, you get a total that may fill a day's requirements if you eat 2 to 4 times what the avg American does (which I do). That may confirm Peter of Hyperlipid's hypothesis that meats/seafood can provide sufficient vitamin D in absence of sunlight, which could explain why Arctic peoples didn't develop D3 deficiency diseases despite the long winter seasons with little or no sun.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: raw on December 16, 2009, 12:12:07 am
WOW! great info about vit D3. i'm still wondering a little bit of question of skin color, different races might be a factor. people who have darker skin, they do very well living in tropical country, because of lots of sun. darker skin needs more sun to get enough amount of Vit D than lighter skin. if we want to get that from eating raw meat, than darker colored people need to eat more raw animal food to get the enough amount of vit D3? ??? 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 16, 2009, 01:15:12 am
Nicola - Interesting.  Not sure that food sources will totally repalce sun exposure for most of us.  My own experience has been that I've been eating nothing but raw grass fed beef for several years now, yet I've seen significant changes when I added a full hour of sun exposure per day.

Rafonly - could you expand on the hot water comment a bit.  Not sure what you think it will do, and also I don't get what the difference would be between drinking the water cold or hot.  Water is water.  No matter if you drink it cold or hot it will rapidly be brought to body temperature before it is absorbed.

Phil - As stated above, I've seen a significant difference since I added some sun exposure.  It could be possible that we get enough Vit D from food, but from my personal experience, I don't think eating beef will do the trick.  Maybe sea food is a richer source.

Raw - I think you are correct.  Skin color makes a big difference.  Darker skin reqiring more exposure to achieve the same result.  I also believe that as my skin tans, I'll need to increase sun exposure to get the same effect.  That is why I try for a minimum of 1 hour per day.  Theory says I get all I need in about 20 minutes, however, I now have a nice tan and feel that 1 hour is a safer bet.

Lex

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on December 16, 2009, 03:41:29 am

Raw - I think you are correct.  Skin color makes a big difference.  Darker skin reqiring more exposure to achieve the same result.  I also believe that as my skin tans, I'll need to increase sun exposure to get the same effect.  That is why I try for a minimum of 1 hour per day.  Theory says I get all I need in about 20 minutes, however, I now have a nice tan and feel that 1 hour is a safer bet.

Lex

Maybe our skin tans only once we've got enough vit D. This vitamin is stored by our organism in the liver for later use.

Maybe also sun exposure has other yet unknown beneficial health effects, besides vit D synthesis.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: jessica on December 16, 2009, 09:31:42 am
Maybe also sun exposure has other yet unknown beneficial health effects, besides vit D synthesis.

sitting in the warmth of the sun should be proof enough of its importance to ones health and livelihood
i have read that it is important to have sun exposure(not direct anytime other then dusk or dawn! ambient otherwise) to your eyes because it can stimulate the release of positive chemicals into your brain.  i dont know, there is a whole culture behind sun staring, i did a bit this morning, not blind yet 
i definitely try to get an hour or more of sun a day and will strip down in the field behind work to sunbathe on my lunchbreak
i always feel recharged and more mentally happy when done with a sun bathing session!  maybe this is not just from the sun but from being outside (and in pleasant weather) in general
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: raw on December 24, 2009, 12:13:41 am
hi lex, my toddler is on paleolithic diet for couple of months now. he doesn't consume any kind of grains, legumes. but he does consume little fruits ( once a week), and only some green juice in the morning. he does not want to drink enough water . so, i get fear of developing kidney stones which is related of high fat and protein diet. i need  opinion. thanks.  -[
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on December 24, 2009, 03:22:27 am
I notice that when I cheat with cooked meat (social occasions) I drink much more water after. I think that this is normal - others have said as much, so your son is probably OK.
Aajonus Vonderplanitz noted the same thing, no liquid at all for him other than the green juice IIRC.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 24, 2009, 07:05:55 am
hi lex, my toddler is on paleolithic diet for couple of months now. he doesn't consume any kind of grains, legumes. but he does consume little fruits ( once a week), and only some green juice in the morning. he does not want to drink enough water . so, i get fear of developing kidney stones which is related of high fat and protein diet. i need  opinion. thanks.  -[

I really don't have much advice on this subject (other than to dump the green juice, yuck - horrible stuff and full of anti-nutrients), as I clearly have suffered this miserable fate.  However, there might be a small ray of sunshine peaking through the dark clouds.  It may well be that kidney stones are just another manifestation of metabolic syndrome along with diabetes, arthritis, etc. 

There seems to be some evidence that my stones could well have formed several years ago and become too large to cause problems.  Once I changed to a paleo lifestyle the stones started to dissolve and as they shrank in size they became loose and once they were small enough to enter a ureter they caused great pain as they passed into the bladder.  Peter talks about this in his Hyperlipid Blog here:

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/10/there-have-been-comments-from-two.html

I wasn’t overly sure this could be true, however, when I had the problem with my first kidney stone on November 11th of this year, they did a CAT scan and found that I had another stone of almost identical size in the other kidney.  The initial stone took 4 days of misery and pain to work its way through.  Just last Sunday the stone in the other kidney decided to seek greener pastures and started its painful trip towards the bladder.  This second stone though very painful, passed in about 12 hours rather than 96, and the pain was not nearly as bad.  This makes me believe that this second stone had grown smaller over time since it passed far more quickly and with significantly less pain.

Sooooo, I’d dump the green drink crap, allow a little fresh fruit as a treat (remember that things like tomatoes and cucumbers are fruits as well), stop worrying about kidney stones, and get on with enjoying life.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 24, 2009, 08:05:58 am
That's good news; were you able to save the stone this time?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 24, 2009, 11:55:22 am
That's good news; were you able to save the stone this time?

Nope.  Elusive little suckers.  Actually, I have no evidence that either has left the bladder, but hope springs eternal.

Thinking about asking for a CT scan late next year to see if anything else has developed.  If something new has formed then we know it's the current conditions causing it.  If not, then there is a chance that these truly were old stones that dissolved.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: moises on December 25, 2009, 06:42:36 am
Hi Lex,

I have read the forum rules, and, as I understand them, I am free to post here. I mention this because I am a zero-carber but not a raw foodist. I am posting to your journal to get some clarification from you.

First, some personal background. I have been ZC for more than 6 months. In that time, I was eating almost only cooked meat and water. I had eggs a few times when traveling. More recently, I added coconut oil, to test whether its purported antimicrobial properties would improve my digestion. The 6 months before that I was VLC with no grain, dairy, or legumes, with the tiny exception of a few tastes of 100% cacao mixed with coconut. Before that, I've been low-carb for about 20 years.

My whole life I was underweight, so that puts me in a separate category from the start. Also, from my teenage years on I had digestive issues, which would now be termed Irritable Bowel Syndrom (IBS) with the primary symptoms being diarrhea and burping. Until a couple of decades ago, I rarely ate any meat, maybe a serving once a month. About 20 years ago I found that eating meat helped control my diarrhea, enabled me to gain weight, mostly in the form of muscle, and gave me more energy overall.

The reason I am posting to your forum is that I recently got a blood test that gave me my HBA1c measurement. To my knowledge, I've never had that measured before. I am 54 years old. At first, I didn't even look at the A1c result, since, unlike my cholesterol and Friedewald-calculated LDL, it was not outside the reference range. But a few days later I did examine my A1c measurement and noticed that it was 5.9% with a reference range of 4-6.

I wondered how I could be so close to the upper limit of the range when I had been on what is basically an all-meat diet for the prior 6 months. I started Googling and your posts here had the most relevance to my situation.

I have not yet made it through your entire corpus here, I have only gone backwards from today to 8/11/09. But I seem to detect 2 points of view in your writings with regard to A1c, and I wonder if you are interested in taking the time to clarify them. Note, I am not accusing you of being self-contradictory (not that that would be a capital crime), but you do seem to have different emphases at different times and I am wondering if your views have evolved or if you were merely putting the emphasis on different things at different times.

In one of your earlier posts, you write

Quote
Did you every stop to think that maybe the lower values of A1c are caused by very low BG levels driven by huge infusions of insulin after eating a carb heavy meal?  Here’s my reasoning:

When eating carbs, glucose spikes quickly and the pancreas responds with a large shot of insulin to control it.  The refined sugars we eat creates a rapid and massive BG spike that causes the body to overestimate the actual sugar content so it over shoots with more insulin than needed. This forces BG to rapidly fall to an artificially low level for extended periods of time.  Of course, if it gets to low then fat and muscle will be sacrificed (and/or you'll crave a snack) to bring the level back up.  Our modern solution is to eat a candy bar or drink a soft drink which zooms BG back up and the process starts over.  This creates a yo-yo effect, and, I expect, a very skewed ‘average’ which could quite easily lead to a skewed A1c level (whatever that is).
 
When eating fat and protein, glucose climbs in a gentle curve over several hours.  The pancreas still releases some insulin but not in the panic mode as there is no large spike to make it think the body is in trouble.  This gentle rise in BG with the associated slow release of insulin to control it, would keep BG in a very stable and narrow range at the high end of the 'normal' scale - right at the edge of where insulin release is triggered.

I'll call this the Lab Value Fetishization position. This critique is similar to Taubes's critique of cholesterol readings. It's something we can measure, so let's measure it and investigate how these measurements correlate with other things we can measure. But, it's not telling us anything of fundamental worth about our true health. Thus, people can have low A1c values and sub-200 cholesterol readings and drop dead tomorrow from cardiovascular disease.

The other viewpoint that you seem to be advocating more recently is that A1c values are important signs of our underlying well-being, and should be examined, and, if possible, responded to when too high. Accordingly, you have been upping your fat-protein ratio in order to lessen the amount of protein available for conversion to glucose.

Let's call this the A1c Essentialism position, because it affirms that A1c tells us something essential about our health. Recently, I read you citing studies that show that people with higher A1c and lower Vitamin D have much higher probabilities of dying in the next 12 months.

It seems as if you have abandoned the Lab Value Fetishization position for the Essentialist position. Do you agree? If you do, suppose there were a carb-eater with healthy Vitamin D levels and 4.8% A1c measurements. Do you think she's better off than a zero-carber with 6% A1c and healthy Vitamin D?

Please note, I am not asking you for advice. I end up following my gut, both literally and figuratively. My biggest concern is digestive health. So far, ZC has not brought me digestive health, but I am not ready to abandon it quite yet. But the ultimate arbiter, as far as I am concerned, of any diet or lifestyle, is how it affects my digestion. But, although I am not asking for you to advise me, I respect the care and thought you put into your postings. So I am genuinely curious how your approach the issues I raise. Thanks.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 25, 2009, 09:48:42 am
The reason I am posting to your forum is that I recently got a blood test that gave me my HBA1c measurement. To my knowledge, I've never had that measured before. I am 54 years old. At first, I didn't even look at the A1c result, since, unlike my cholesterol and Friedewald-calculated LDL, it was not outside the reference range. But a few days later I did examine my A1c measurement and noticed that it was 5.9% with a reference range of 4-6.

I wondered how I could be so close to the upper limit of the range when I had been on what is basically an all-meat diet for the prior 6 months. I started Googling and your posts here had the most relevance to my situation.

Rather a surprise isn’t it?  I had the same reaction as I, too, had never paid any attention to HbA1c levels and just assumed that they would be low since I was eating just meat and fat.  Mine came in at 6.0%.

I'll call this the Lab Value Fetishization position. This critique is similar to Taubes's critique of cholesterol readings. It's something we can measure, so let's measure it and investigate how these measurements correlate with other things we can measure. But, it's not telling us anything of fundamental worth about our true health. Thus, people can have low A1c values and sub-200 cholesterol readings and drop dead tomorrow from cardiovascular disease.

Yup, probably most of the agonizing we do over diet and lifestyle is a total waste of time but I do find some of it interesting.  My Journal started out to follow my experiences in testing Taubes’s theory that without carbs we wouldn’t gain weight.  I found out that this is not true. 

Yes, I do measure things that I can such as ketones, BG, body fat, weight, etc, and then try to correlate them with what I’m doing.  I’ve found that much of what I believed to be true was mostly non-sense and I’ve learned much along the way.  Unlike most people I don’t measure things in an attempt to control the outcome.  Instead, I make a change and then simply observe how that affects the measurements.

If I’ve learned anything, it’s that no one really knows what any given parameter should be.  The best they can do is tell me what is considered “normal” for a population that suffers from obesity, auto-immune, and degenerative diseases.  Therefore, I look to see how my measurements differ from the “norm”, but don’t try to make them conform to any ‘ideal’ since no one knows what that is – especially for someone eating Paleolithic or Zero Carb diets (which clearly aren’t normal).

The other viewpoint that you seem to be advocating more recently is that A1c values are important signs of our underlying well-being, and should be examined, and, if possible, responded to when too high. Accordingly, you have been upping your fat-protein ratio in order to lessen the amount of protein available for conversion to glucose. 

Let's call this the A1c Essentialism position, because it affirms that A1c tells us something essential about our health. Recently, I read you citing studies that show that people with higher A1c and lower Vitamin D have much higher probabilities of dying in the next 12 months.

It seems as if you have abandoned the Lab Value Fetishization position for the Essentialist position. Do you agree?

I don’t see that I’m doing anything different than when I tested Taubes’s idea of no carbs no weight gain.  I read that there was a high correlation between HbA1c levels as well as Vitamin D with death rates and overall health.  I found this interesting – especially in the light of my own raised A1c levels.  I have no way of testing the increased death rate caused by elevated A1c levels, but since my A1c levels seemed at the high end, I thought it would be interesting to see if changing the fat/protein ratio would have an effect on these levels.  To this end, I raised fat, lowered protein, and kept calories the same.  Early next year I will see if A1c levels were measurably affected.  The results are purely academic as no one, especially me, has any clue if A1c levels are indicative of anything at all, especially since I eat differently than the general population. 

One thing I think I can say, based on my personal experience and now supported by your experience as well, people eating a high fat ZC diet often have A1c levels in the upper range.  I find this information useful to pass on to others who panic over such stuff.  I referenced the studies you mention as back ground for what got me interested in this in the first place.

If you do, suppose there were a carb-eater with healthy Vitamin D levels and 4.8% A1c measurements. Do you think she's better off than a zero-carber with 6% A1c and healthy Vitamin D?

Who knows?  We’re in uncharted territory.  The best I can do is a bit of research, set up the occasional experiment, make observations, and then report my findings.  You’ll have to draw your own conclusions.  By the way, if it weren’t for my Lab Value Fetishizations as you call them, I wouldn’t have anything to report, and we wouldn’t be having this exchange of ideas.

So far, ZC has not brought me digestive health, but I am not ready to abandon it quite yet. But the ultimate arbiter, as far as I am concerned, of any diet or lifestyle, is how it affects my digestion.

I’ve repeated over and over that there is no magic in ZC.  It is just another dietary protocol, and as such, has trade-offs just like everything else.  I’ve stuck with it to see if such a radical diet would solve my problem with BPH.  It hasn’t, but there have been many other positive aspects so I stick with it.  My guess is that VLC would be just as effective and I may revert to that in the future if I ever feel that ZC is not serving my best interests.

But, although I am not asking for you to advise me, I respect the care and thought you put into your postings. So I am genuinely curious how your approach the issues I raise. Thanks.

I’m doing what interests me and attempting to report on my research and observations in a way that others may find of value.

I hope I covered all the bases.  If not, don’t hesitate to ask for clarification where I missed the mark.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 25, 2009, 10:14:56 am
... The best they can do is tell me what is considered “normal” for a population that suffers from obesity, auto-immune, and degenerative diseases.  Therefore, I look to see how my measurements differ from the “norm”, but don’t try to make them conform to any ‘ideal’ since no one knows what that is – especially for someone eating Paleolithic or Zero Carb diets (which clearly aren’t normal).
...
A somewhat better, though still imperfect, measure of the truly natural "norm," is the limited data we have from HG populations, who are less afflicted by "diseases of civilization" than Americans. I put more weight in the range of HG data than the avg American data, though neither is a "perfect" measure (and perfection is a vain goal anyway). Of particular relevance to people like you and me would be the data from VLC HG populations like the Inuit.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: moises on December 25, 2009, 08:30:51 pm
Hi Lex,

Thanks for taking the time to provide a detailed reply. I do appreciate the enormous effort you've put into this forum to educate and encourage others. I am still working my way through all your posts. The signal-to-noise ratio is brilliantly high.

Your responses to my questions strike me as quite reasonable.

I eat grass-fed meat only occasionally. I do not plan on going 100% grass-fed anytime in the near future. I have taken O3 fish oil many times prior to going ZC. I am considering adding a few servings of sardines each week to see if that has any effect on my A1c.

Your posts have also prompted me to think in another direction. If A1c is supposedly providing a 2-3 month average of blood glucose levels, then perhaps I should follow your lead, by a blood glucose monitor, and chart the dynamics of my blood glucose. I know there are supposed to be correlations between blood glucose levels and A1c readings. So, I can see if they apply to my particular situation.

Again, thanks for being so generous in sharing your time and your knowledge.

moises
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on December 26, 2009, 12:01:10 am
Lex, you used to (years ago) do all kinds of "healthy things" and a while back you mentioned that your intestines are just fine after having a colonscopy (on your meat diet); I take it you had to clean them with salts?

When I read threw the following sight

http://www.webspirit.com/kahuna/produkte/oxypowder.htm

(I know it's not paleo and they are making money) but what goes threw your head - we can't possibly be not full of "it" even on raw or perhaps even more so?

At the end they even mention some words about kidnee stones...

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 26, 2009, 01:47:46 am
Lex, you used to (years ago) do all kinds of "healthy things" and a while back you mentioned that your intestines are just fine after having a colonscopy (on your meat diet); I take it you had to clean them with salts?

I just did a couple of saltwater flushes.  1 tablespoon (15ml) of salt mixed with 1 quart (1 litre) of water.  Mix well and drink all of it quickly.  I did this the morning and again in the evening of the day before the exam, and didn’t eat anything from the time I started until the exam was over.

The point of this exercise is to completely empty the colon so that the doctor isn’t trying to look at the colon walls through a slug of fecal material.  It has nothing whatever to do with removing toxins or any of the other alternative medicine stuff.

When I read threw the following sight

http://www.webspirit.com/kahuna/produkte/oxypowder.htm

(I know it's not paleo and they are making money) but what goes threw your head - we can't possibly be not full of "it" even on raw or perhaps even more so?

Since I don’t believe in the ‘toxic colon’ theory, I find products like this a waste of time and money.  Based on the active ingredients (magnesium oxide), it is nothing but very expensive Milk of Magnesia dressed up with a lot of fancy advertising.  I personally have no use for such products.  They are very irritating to the bowls and you can become dependent on them.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 26, 2009, 02:10:54 am
I am considering adding a few servings of sardines each week to see if that has any effect on my A1c.

I doubt that this will create much of a measurable effect.  A few sardines a week are insignificant compared to what our natural diet would have contained which is between 25% and 50% of all fats being in the Omega 3 family, but go for it and prove it for yourself.

If A1c is supposedly providing a 2-3 month average of blood glucose levels, then perhaps I should follow your lead, by a blood glucose monitor, and chart the dynamics of my blood glucose. I know there are supposed to be correlations between blood glucose levels and A1c readings. So, I can see if they apply to my particular situation.

As I understand it, HbA1c is a measure of blood glycation products.  This is the effect of a molecule of glucose permanently attaching itself to a blood cell.  The higher the average level of glucose in the blood, the more glycation products will result over a given time period.  Since blood cells have a life span of about 90 days, the amount of glycation products in the blood at any given time will provide a rough estimate of the average amount of blood glucose levels over a 90 day time period.

What I find interesting is that an HbA1c level of 6.0% is supposedly equivalent to an average BG level of about 130 mg/dl.  Yet having kept careful records of my BG levels over many months, it seldom went above 110 (after meals, with only one meal per day) and averaged right around 100.  The difference between my case and the ‘normal’ population, is that my BG is very steady at 100 mg/dl where most people have violent swings in BG several times per day as they eat 3 high carb meals as well as carb loaded snacks.  Whether my very stable BG is what throws the official correlation tables of A1c to average BG off I have no idea.  Maybe my experiment will shed a bit more light on the subject.

Lex     
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dextery on December 26, 2009, 03:33:26 am
With HbA1c being a measure of BG over a couple of months and if we accept an elevated level being an indicator of probability of death, then are we talking strictly cardiac problems or are there other diseases that A1c indicates?

Dr. William Davis at The Heart Scan Blog talks extensively about the dangers of too many small dense LDL particles in the blood...a predictor of heart disease.

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/to-track-small-ldl-track-blood-sugar.html  in this post Dr Davis talks about
using measurements of BG as being a rough way to determine the particle count of small dense LDL in the blood.  Higher BG correlates to higher levels of small dense LDL particles which is a marker for a cardiac event.....a direct at home inexpensive method to evaluate one's diet and can assist in determining the affect of any specific food on BG and therefore small dense LDL particles.
Whereas, A1c levels usually are much more expensive and may not provide any more information than BG testing. And direct testing of LDL particle size by NMR, VAP is also expensive.

Does A1c provide us any useful information other than satisfy curiosity of each of our readings....that the reading falls within the acceptable
reference ranges of the mainstream medical establishment?

And with your average BG readings hovering around 100 all the time because you don't consume any carbs, why worry about A1c?  And by extention your
small dense LDL should be less than 10% of total LDL.  The remainder are all large, fluffy non irritating particles.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 26, 2009, 04:20:47 am
Dextery,

I have no clue as to whether A1c, dense LDL, (or any other measurement for that matter) provides much in the way of useful information.

As for worrying about A1c levels, I don't.  I just thought it would be interesting to see if changing the fat to protein ratio of the food I eat would influence this measurement.  Just another tiny piece of a puzzle that is far too large to slove in my lifetime.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: moises on December 26, 2009, 12:54:37 pm
Dr. William Davis at The Heart Scan Blog talks extensively about the dangers of too many small dense LDL particles in the blood...a predictor of heart disease. . . . And direct testing of LDL particle size by NMR, VAP is also expensive.

Does A1c provide us any useful information other than satisfy curiosity of each of our readings....that the reading falls within the acceptable
reference ranges of the mainstream medical establishment?

And with your average BG readings hovering around 100 all the time because you don't consume any carbs, why worry about A1c?  And by extention your
small dense LDL should be less than 10% of total LDL.  The remainder are all large, fluffy non irritating particles.
For anyone who is looking for data, I had the LDL subfractions tested about a year ago, on my own. My doctor still wants me to take statins and has no interest in learning about the LDL subfractions. My test showed that I was pattern A. If you search the literature, there is some evidence that you do not need to take the expensive NMR or VAP tests. You can (using the units in typical US lab results) divide your triglycerides by your HDL. If the ratio is less than 3.8, you probably have the light, fluffy, Pattern A LDL.  http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002914905022149 (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002914905022149)

It's not clear to me how A1c correlates with LDL subfraction measurements and why one should be given greater weight.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on December 26, 2009, 10:05:59 pm
I just did a couple of saltwater flushes.  1 tablespoon (15ml) of salt mixed with 1 quart (1 litre) of water.  Mix well and drink all of it quickly.  I did this the morning and again in the evening of the day before the exam, and didn’t eat anything from the time I started until the exam was over.

Since I don’t believe in the ‘toxic colon’ theory, I find products like this a waste of time and money.  Based on the active ingredients (magnesium oxide), it is nothing but very expensive Milk of Magnesia dressed up with a lot of fancy advertising.  I personally have no use for such products.  They are very irritating to the bowls and you can become dependent on them.

Lex

Did you take plain salt - they talk about taking about 7 days to clean things up and then you still need to take it every 2 days...other people also seem to find a lot comes out of our system when they have some kind of "detox".

They also say that this product is not milk of magnesia; I looked up magnesium and yes, it seems to be quite an important mineral - also in preventing kidnee stones.

http://www.diagnose-me.com/treat/T29226.html

No mention of meat being a good sauce of magnesium - and on top of that we need magnesium for good digestion.

What do you think?

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 27, 2009, 01:49:25 am
Did you take plain salt - they talk about taking about 7 days to clean things up and then you still need to take it every 2 days...other people also seem to find a lot comes out of our system when they have some kind of "detox".

Just plain cheap salt.  Salt is salt.  You can spend lots of money on designer salt but it is still sodium chloride.  I don't believe in 'detox'.  I think it is mostly nonsense.  This comes from spending years of listening to gurus who told me that all my problems were due to detox and that I needed to follow their advice and take their remedies.  After years of faithfully doing what I was told, with little in the way of measurable results, I’ve come to believe it is all nonsense.  The problems cleared up when I started eating the right foods.

They also say that this product is not milk of magnesia; I looked up magnesium and yes, it seems to be quite an important mineral - also in preventing kidney stones.

Lots of other minerals are important as well.  It is the form in which we consume them that makes the difference.  The type of magnesium in their product is in a form that causes irritation to the bowls.  This is not a good thing.  They can say what they wish about their product and technically it may be true, but that doesn’t make it less of a poison to the body.  Milk of magnesia is a liquid product containing a form of magnesium that irritates the bowls causing them to contract to try to get rid of the poison.  Their product contains a form of magnesium that has exactly the same effect.  The fact that it is in a pill rather than liquid form may technically allow them to say it is not milk of magnesia, but the effect on the body is exactly the same.

They also say that their magnesium is ‘ozonated’ which they state is a powerful form of oxygen.  Oxygen is stable when two molecules are connected together as in the form we breath which is O2.  Ozone is three molecules of oxygen that are connected together and it’s call O3.  O3 is very unstable and starts to quickly turn back into O2.  You can’t store it as within hours of putting it in a bottle most of it has broken back down to O2.  They try to make you believe that there is something magic about their ozonated magnesium.  It is all advertising hype and nonsense.

As an example we create ozone and immediately bubble it through water to kill bacteria because ozone is a very powerful oxidizer like bleach.  We then bottle the ‘purified’ water and within a very short time there is no more ozone in it at all.  All the ozone has broken down and turned back into plain old O2 which is what makes up the air we breath.  They would have to manufacture their product and ship it to you within minutes for it to arrive at your home and still contain any ozone or O3.  Besides, our bodies are not designed to used ozone and it is harmful to us if we breath it in any concentration.  It would be like breathing the fumes from a bleach bottle – not healthy.



No mention of meat being a good source of magnesium - and on top of that we need magnesium for good digestion. 

Meat contains approximately the same amount of magnesium as it does calcium, and I think we’ve pretty much demonstrated that the calcium is sufficient to meet our needs.  Therefore I’m confident that the magnesium is also in a form that is available to our bodies and in sufficient quantity to meet our needs.

There are no magic cures or potions.  I stopped wasting my time looking for them long ago.  I found that the most powerful thing I can do for my health is to eat the proper foods.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: klowcarb on December 27, 2009, 10:32:49 am
Hey, Lex! It's Katelyn from ZIOH. I just wanted to drop by and say hello.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on December 27, 2009, 09:39:02 pm

Meat contains approximately the same amount of magnesium as it does calcium, and I think we’ve pretty much demonstrated that the calcium is sufficient to meet our needs.  Therefore I’m confident that the magnesium is also in a form that is available to our bodies and in sufficient quantity to meet our needs.

There are no magic cures or potions.  I stopped wasting my time looking for them long ago.  I found that the most powerful thing I can do for my health is to eat the proper foods.

Lex


Lex, I didn't know that meat had much magnesium (they do not mention meat) - so because quite a few eating meat and fat have trouble and believe this is all part of healthy "detox" I kind of think I am in trouble too. My thoughts are that the body is not getting the right tools...Carlos posted this and as you can see - a big difference to eating ground beef:

http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/showthread.php?tid=2900

Sorry also that I didn't send the English text of this "oxy powder" - I know it's all about money but it sounds good to kind of clean up; kind of human nature...

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 27, 2009, 11:27:13 pm
Hey, Lex! It's Katelyn from ZIOH. I just wanted to drop by and say hello.

Hi Katelyn, welcome aboard.  We have a rather eclectic group here, and certainly no shortage of opinions.  Hope you enjoy this forum as much as I do.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 28, 2009, 12:29:26 am
Nicola,
Our bodies must make adjustments when moving from one major food type to another.  As an example, when eating carbs our cells can use the glucose directly for energy in a simple fermentive process very similar to the way yeast and bacteria use glucose.  However, when eating mostly fat for energy our cells must go through a much more complex process of converting fatty acids into energy and this requires mitochondria in the cells to make the conversion.

In our modern culture most of us have spent our lives eating mostly carbs so our cells only have the minimum number of mitochondria necessary to carry out specialized functions for the cell but not enough to efficiently metabolize fatty acids to provide all the energy the cells need from fat alone.  The cells must create more mitochondria to efficiently use the fat as a primary energy source and this takes time as mitochondria are very much like small living cells within our larger living cells.

During the weeks that it takes the mitochondria to build up to sufficient levels, we will feel a lack of energy, be a bit sluggish, and will most likely lose a good bit of weight as our bodies are not using the fuel we are giving it very efficiently. The gurus will call this sluggishness DETOX.  But there is nothing toxic about it.  It is simply the body taking time in adapting to more efficiently use a different food source.  Of course the gurus claim the lack of energy is due to detox and this gives them an opportunity to sell you all kinds of remedies.  Over time, the body adapts and you start to feel much better (which would have happened without the detox cures). The then gurus claim success and the detox myth is perpetuated.

This is just one example and there are may others.  The body is complex and adaptive, but it takes time, and charlatans will use this as an opportunity to sell you things you don’t need to solve problems that don’t exist.

You see, detox is perfect for this purpose.  There is no medical test for it because it doesn’t exist (except for heavy metal poisoning like lead or mercury, but that is not what we are talking about).  It is totally fabricated nonsense that can be adjusted to fit whatever symptoms a person is complaining about.  And, you can shift the problem around to different parts of the body, (liver, colon, spleen, kidney, thyroid, etc) to keep selling more worthless remedies.  The Internet and Health Food Stores are full of this junk. 

“I feel tired and run down” 
“Oh, you clearly have symptoms of detox – we have a wonderful cure for that!  Step right over here…..”

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on December 28, 2009, 09:39:44 pm
Can you just rub past the thread about drinking water - it's not easy to know what the hell to do. Between what was mentioned from some members in your journal about drinking more water and now this other thread and no extra water...and then needing coconuts to have a bowel movement...oh, I wish life was easy!

Nicola

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on December 28, 2009, 09:56:41 pm
But life was]/i] easy in the paleolithic - that's why we try to copy it.

How about seeing the human body as a constant-loss system; it follows that we must replace the lost minerals/electrolytes/nutrients with the same kind of stuff.
Pemmican does that for me, unless I do sweaty work, then I add dried seawater to drinking water to replace lost electrolytes.
You might be losing sweat while swimming.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on December 28, 2009, 10:34:47 pm
But life was]/i] easy in the paleolithic - that's why we try to copy it.

How about seeing the human body as a constant-loss system; it follows that we must replace the lost minerals/electrolytes/nutrients with the same kind of stuff.
Pemmican does that for me, unless I do sweaty work, then I add dried seawater to drinking water to replace lost electrolytes.
You might be losing sweat while swimming.

I never sweat - only when I start to worry that I shouldn't be drinking water or not...I do notice that water can make me sick many hours after eating meat and fat (in the night); that's why I don't eat at night.

I still wonder if I need magnesium - but then again how? Can I get seawater in Switzerland?

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Willeke on December 29, 2009, 01:41:09 am
Quote
Our bodies must make adjustments when moving from one major food type to another.  As an example, when eating carbs our cells can use the glucose directly for energy in a simple fermentive process very similar to the way yeast and bacteria use glucose.  However, when eating mostly fat for energy our cells must go through a much more complex process of converting fatty acids into energy and this requires mitochondria in the cells to make the conversion.

In our modern culture most of us have spent our lives eating mostly carbs so our cells only have the minimum number of mitochondria necessary to carry out specialized functions for the cell but not enough to efficiently metabolize fatty acids to provide all the energy the cells need from fat alone.  The cells must create more mitochondria to efficiently use the fat as a primary energy source and this takes time as mitochondria are very much like small living cells within our larger living cells.
 

Hi Lex! Yes, I'm reading here, too <g>.
I was surprised when I read this, for that seems to be the explanation of what dr Atkins called "the golden shot", i.e. that the first time you start LC, it work MUCH better than the second, the third and so on time...

It would explain a LOT to me, like why I don't lose weight quicker now, I simply have too many of those mitochondria left from my previous LC and ZC adventures...!  It doens't matter, I will still stay ZC and mostly pemmican, too, but I like understanding these things. Thanks!!!  (Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick here..?)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on December 29, 2009, 02:59:44 am


You see, detox is perfect for this purpose.  There is no medical test for it because it doesn’t exist (except for heavy metal poisoning like lead or mercury, but that is not what we are talking about).  It is totally fabricated nonsense that can be adjusted to fit whatever symptoms a person is complaining about.  And, you can shift the problem around to different parts of the body, (liver, colon, spleen, kidney, thyroid, etc) to keep selling more worthless remedies.  The Internet and Health Food Stores are full of this junk. 

“I feel tired and run down” 
“Oh, you clearly have symptoms of detox – we have a wonderful cure for that!  Step right over here…..”



I agree that the concept of "detox" is indeed invoked systematically by all the gurus as the cause if any adverse effects suddenly happen or something goes wrong or deteriorates for those people who stubornly follow their dietary guidelines for years. Much easier for the gurus to "expain away" the problem in this manner than to possibly question the pertinence of their dietary guidelines themselves...

Yet I don't agree that "detox" doesn't merely exist at all, Lex. Things are not that simple unfortunately. Most likely your recent elimination of kidney stones are just another example of "detox" that takes place years after the beginning of a more appropriate diet.   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on December 29, 2009, 04:09:13 am
I agree with the latest comment,  think the main point is that it's really hard not to let the mind jump in and intervene with the perpetual logic that something needs to be purchased to complete the detox, that there is a magic bullet out there.  The mind is pretty  tricky, real tricky
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on December 29, 2009, 06:16:40 am

I still wonder if I need magnesium - but then again how? Can I get seawater in Switzerland?


Those clever French have made it possible to get dried seawater everywhere - it is called Celtic salt or, in Quebec, Le Paludier.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 29, 2009, 08:56:15 am
Yet I don't agree that "detox" doesn't merely exist at all, Lex. Things are not that simple unfortunately. Most likely your recent elimination of kidney stones are just another example of "detox" that takes place years after the beginning of a more appropriate diet. 

I suppose it depends on what you are calling detox.  The truth is, the body is in a constant state of detox.  This function is being continually performed by liver, kidney, lungs, and skin etc.  Without it, we would quickly die.  I just don't believe that we store massive amounts of toxins that require herbal remedies and magic elixirs to rectify.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 29, 2009, 09:00:39 am
I never sweat - only when I start to worry that I shouldn't be drinking water or not...I do notice that water can make me sick many hours after eating meat and fat (in the night); that's why I don't eat at night.

I still wonder if I need magnesium - but then again how? Can I get seawater in Switzerland?

Nicola
Other than worry I don't notice you reporting many symptoms of magnesium deficiency, Nicola. So if you do have it, it's probably not severe and you certainly wouldn't need the mega-dose of that Oxypowder product on a regular basis. That megadosage suggests to me that it is only designed to be used occasionally and purely as a laxative rather than a nutrient deficiency replacer.

Lex is right. I used to sell detox products along with lots of other "natural" remedies at a vitamin/health-food shop. I checked out the ingredients on all of them and they all had at least one laxative ingredient (the most common being psyllium seed, senna and magnesium). So the word "detox" seems to be added to these products just so they can charge more than products labeled as "laxatives." As a matter of fact, several of the detox products had nearly or exactly the same ingredients as cheap laxative products, with the only difference being the name and the price. One trick that supplement/herbal companies use is to take an active ingredient, like senna, and then add a bunch of herbs to it that have fancy names, claim it is some sort of special "formula" and then charge a lot more for it. Another is to claim they use a special process on the product, like the "ozonation" of the oxypowder product, which is bogus, as Lex pointed out.

As others have said, there is no magic bullet. Mg seems to help me a little, but it's not dramatic, and I'm hoping that as I adapt to this diet, I'll eventually be able to do without it. I think I'll probably continue to need some cod liver oil or straight-D3 supplements, only because I don't get much sunlight, but my basic goal is to whittle my supplements/foodlements/replacements down to as little as possible. I see them as a second-to-last resort (with Px meds being the last resort) for as long as diet alone doesn't quite do it for me (but the improvements I experienced on days I was taking no supplements tells me my diet is on the right track).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 29, 2009, 09:02:16 am
It would explain a LOT to me, like why I don't lose weight quicker now, I simply have too many of those mitochondria left from my previous LC and ZC adventures...!  It doens't matter, I will still stay ZC and mostly pemmican, too, but I like understanding these things. Thanks!!!  (Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick here..?)

Yup, sounds like you got it.  This is the reason that weight loss stops after an extended period of ZC/VLC.  Unfortunately, calories do count, and once you are adapted, you must again reduce energy intake to below energy expenditure if you want to continue weight loss.  

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 29, 2009, 09:04:37 am
Nicola,

Looks like others have stepped in an offered suggestions as well.  Not much I can add.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 29, 2009, 09:17:23 am
I just don't believe that we store massive amounts of toxins that require herbal remedies and magic elixirs to rectify.

Lex

People who have died (or nearly died) of heavy metal poisoning would probably disagree. I'm not saying that you've got to have this or that remedy in a general sense.  What I AM saying is that it isn't as simple as "ZC, all the time, nothing but the ZC". There's a time for certain herbs, man.  Even carnivores occasionally snack on certains grasses or herbs. 

What you are missing, Lex, is that an extreme approach, like what you are doing, is rarely safe or workable, long-term, for everyone. The Universe just isn't that simple, I think.

I support your experimentation, but be aware that I am looking at you, and your theories, with a very skeptical eye.  I definitely am glad you're doing what you're doing.  Someone needs to, if for no other reason than to say to people "here's what can and has happened on long-term all-meat ZC."  That data is valuable.  However, I think your theorizing is less useful than the raw anecdotal data, at least to me. Theorize away, just be aware that theory can be proven wrong...even the parts that you thought was "for certain".

But, if you would prefer not to hear my criticisms, say so, and I'll simply think my thoughts more quietly.  Please don't take my silence for agreement, though.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 29, 2009, 12:29:53 pm
People who have died (or nearly died) of heavy metal poisoning would probably disagree. I'm not saying that you've got to have this or that remedy in a general sense. 

Apparently you didn’t read all my recent posts on this subject.  I explicitly excluded heavy metal poisoning from my comments.  Here’s the quote:

Quote
You see, detox is perfect for this purpose.  There is no medical test for it because it doesn’t exist (except for heavy metal poisoning like lead or mercury, but that is not what we are talking about).

What I AM saying is that it isn't as simple as "ZC, all the time, nothing but the ZC". There's a time for certain herbs, man.  Even carnivores occasionally snack on certains grasses or herbs.

What you are missing, Lex, is that an extreme approach, like what you are doing, is rarely safe or workable, long-term, for everyone. The Universe just isn't that simple, I think.

Again, apparently you haven’t read much of my journal.  If you had, you’d know that my ZC started as an experiment and that I decided to stick with it long term to see if it would help with my BPH issue.  I also recommend VLC to anyone who asks for my opinion as I did VLC before trying ZC and have come to believe that there is little practical difference between the two as far as overall benefits are concerned – and there may be significant advantages to VLC.

I support your experimentation, but be aware that I am looking at you, and your theories, with a very skeptical eye.  I definitely am glad you're doing what you're doing.  Someone needs to, if for no other reason than to say to people "here's what can and has happened on long-term all-meat ZC."  That data is valuable.  However, I think your theorizing is less useful than the raw anecdotal data, at least to me. Theorize away, just be aware that theory can be proven wrong...even the parts that you thought was "for certain".

Each of us is allowed to evaluate what is useful and what isn’t.  We each get to create our own theories from the information we have before us.  No one is stopping you from doing your own experiments, gathering your own data, and expressing your own ideas.  But of course if you do that, you open yourself to being criticized just as you are criticizing me.  What is interesting is that your criticisms of me are based on other peoples ideas and theories which you’ve chosen to accept as true.  Most of my ideas are based on my own experiments and experience.

But, if you would prefer not to hear my criticisms, say so, and I'll simply think my thoughts more quietly.  Please don't take my silence for agreement, though.

You are free to challenge anything I write.  I have come to many wrong conclusions and accept this as part of the learning process.  I only ask that you target specific issues where you come to a different conclusion than I do, provide your alternate theory, as well as your reasoning as to how you arrived at your conclusions.  This way the readers of my journal and I can effectively evaluate your arguments and respond if we so choose.

Spirited debate is what forums are all about,

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 29, 2009, 01:07:01 pm
What is interesting is that your criticisms of me are based on other peoples ideas and theories which you’ve chosen to accept as true. 


They are?  I thought I'd been experimenting with raw diets for a little over 9 years now.  Pardon me. LOL

I admit, I do use multiple anecdotal data from people's personal stories from forum interactions.  I've been doing that for years.  What I also do is yell, scream, and holler when my experiences differ from the group consensus.  Hence, my skewering of vegans, particularly fruitarians.  Lex, I've got to say, I think I'm a little quicker to find the truth than you, at least as far as diet goes.  To be fair, I don't think I'm as quick as Geoff, but I'm not too terribly far behind, I hope.  I'm fine with the fact that you are slogging through ZC, though.  The data you are providing is very valuable, and I wish like all get out that the cooked ZCers would do mostly-to-all-raw like you and then post their blood work and stories, too.  I'm very far from convinced that ZC is for everyone, but I do think that, short-term (weeks or months or maybe even years) it can be a true lifesaver for some people, particularly those who have overdone the carbs for years. I think for some people , particularly some who tend to diabetes, that it can/should be a permanent dietary choice.  Having said that, I think some people simply need more carbs to be at their best (and by carbs, I mean fruit, mainly).  Certainly not everyone.

I am definitely interested to see how your kidney and other stone situation pans out, long-term.  That is very useful data, and I read every word.   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 30, 2009, 02:23:08 am
They are?  I thought I'd been experimenting with raw diets for a little over 9 years now.  Pardon me. LOL

I've been experimenting with diets both raw and cooked in an attempt to solve my health issues for about 40 years and counting. I have years of data that I've collected showing how what I eat affects BG, Ketones, urine PH and Specfic Gravity, weight, body fat, and other parameters that I can measure.  I still don't feel I understand much, but I'm pleased with what progress I've made and enjoy the challenge. That you've been able to figure everything out in such a short time shows that you are way ahead of me.  Maybe we could compare the data you've collected with mine to good advantage.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 31, 2009, 10:27:27 am
I've been experimenting with diets both raw and cooked in an attempt to solve my health issues for about 40 years and counting. I have years of data that I've collected showing how what I eat affects BG, Ketones, urine PH and Specfic Gravity, weight, body fat, and other parameters that I can measure.  I still don't feel I understand much, but I'm pleased with what progress I've made and enjoy the challenge. That you've been able to figure everything out in such a short time shows that you are way ahead of me.  Maybe we could compare the data you've collected with mine to good advantage.

Lex

My path isn't that interesting, relative to yours.  You really are doing something fairly unique.  You could replace my story with Geoff's or Edwin's, pretty much, they're all fairly interchangeable.  We all eat very nearly 100% raw, we all eat raw meat, raw fish, and raw fruit.  When a topic that I have specific and/or unusual experience with pops up in discussion, I often bring up my specific knowledge then.  Otherwise, I leave the floor open for someone doing treading the path less taken, like you are. That's my basic method right now, anyway. :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 01, 2010, 01:34:35 am
My path isn't that interesting, relative to yours.  You really are doing something fairly unique. 

All of us have chosen our path through life and have our own story to tell.  All are interesting and appear unique to other people.  It is our over familiarity with our own path that makes it seem dull and uninteresting to us.

You could replace my story with Geoff's or Edwin's, pretty much, they're all fairly interchangeable.  We all eat very nearly 100% raw, we all eat raw meat, raw fish, and raw fruit. 

There is very little new and all stories are similar including mine.  It is the minutia and detail that we reveal in telling our stories that make them interesting.  If I were to recount my story as you have yours above, leaving out the little details, mine would be even less compelling than yours.  Your story is “We all eat very nearly 100% raw, we all eat raw meat, raw fish, and raw fruit.”   Mine would be “I eat 100% raw meat”.  Certainly not a page turner.

When a topic that I have specific and/or unusual experience with pops up in discussion, I often bring up my specific knowledge then.  Otherwise, I leave the floor open for someone doing treading the path less taken, like you are.

You are always welcome to post when you feel you have something to add to the conversation.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 01, 2010, 07:40:25 am
Lex, do you avoid seafood to minimize the variables in your experiment?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 01, 2010, 09:42:28 am
Lex, do you avoid seafood to minimize the variables in your experiment?

No, I just don't think there is a lot of evidence that paleo man ate a lot of sea food.  In fact there seems to be evidence to the contrary.  I also find that fish and poultry don't satisfy my hunger as well as red meat and fat.  Sort of like Chineese food.  I eat fish until I'm stuffed to the gills and 2 hours later I'm starving.  Not nearly enough fat.  In

Our paleo ancestors evolved on the African Savanna with herds of grass eating animals not sea food.  North American Natives depended on elk, deer, and bison and not sea food.  We seem to think that because one small group, the Inuits, have a diet heavy in fish, that this indicates that this should be our primary food.  To me, the Inuits have little choice.  Their environmnet doesn't support grass fed animals.  This is humans adapting to their local environments and doesn't make sea food an optimum choice - for the Inuits it's the only choice.  They also depend heavily on blubber and seal fat, without which I doubt they would be as successful as they are.  Last I checked blubber and seal fat were in short supply at the local supermarket.

I'm heavily bisased towards red meat and fat.  I don't do well on the non-red meats.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on January 01, 2010, 06:19:52 pm
We seem to think that because one small group, the Inuits, have a diet heavy in fish, that this indicates that this should be our primary food.  To me, the Inuits have little choice.  Their environmnet doesn't support grass fed animals.  This is humans adapting to their local environments and doesn't make sea food an optimum choice - for the Inuits it's the only choice.  They also depend heavily on blubber and seal fat, without which I doubt they would be as successful as they are.  Last I checked blubber and seal fat were in short supply at the local supermarket.

I'm heavily bisased towards red meat and fat.  I don't do well on the non-red meats.

Lex

I think that the first year of Stefanssons acquaintance with the Inuit was anomalous, in that normally they would be feasting on caribou, but were starving because the caribou did not come.
There were caribou there in my time, and fish would have been dog food in a good year.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on January 01, 2010, 06:42:41 pm
I think that the first year of Stefanssons acquaintance with the Inuit was anomalous, in that normally they would be feasting on caribou, but were starving because the caribou did not come.
There were caribou there in my time, and fish would have been dog food in a good year.

For the Inupiat people, fish was/is a very important food : http://www.westonaprice.org/The-Fish-That-We-Eat-by-Anore-Jones.html
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on January 01, 2010, 06:49:30 pm
I also find that fish and poultry don't satisfy my hunger as well as red meat and fat.  Sort of like Chineese food.  I eat fish until I'm stuffed to the gills and 2 hours later I'm starving.  Not nearly enough fat. 

Did you try fatty fish (herring, mackerel, sardines, etc.), roe and fatty seafood like crabs ?
I find them very satisfying...
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on January 01, 2010, 10:04:37 pm
Lex, thank's for giving Danny a lift - it's interesting to have others eating your mix!

http://www.carnivorehealth.com/main/2009/12/21/a-gift-from-lex.html

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on January 01, 2010, 11:24:02 pm
No, I just don't think there is a lot of evidence that paleo man ate a lot of sea food.  In fact there seems to be evidence to the contrary. 

We have found fish vertebra from fresh and salt water in many prehistoric sites.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: carnivore on January 01, 2010, 11:39:21 pm
I think that the first year of Stefanssons acquaintance with the Inuit was anomalous, in that normally they would be feasting on caribou, but were starving because the caribou did not come.
There were caribou there in my time, and fish would have been dog food in a good year.

The high level of the nitrogen-15 isotope in the bones of the inuits clearly indicate their high consumption of marine mammals.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: bleeding on January 04, 2010, 12:04:16 am
Hey Lex - here's a theory about your HBA1c

When a regular diet-eater eats, their liver gets the bulk of the insulin spike and processes the bulk of the incoming glucose.     Most of their body is not exposed to a high glucose level OR to as high an insulin level as the liver is.

BUT the rest of the body does get the insulin later, after the liver's mopped up most of (or a large fraction of) the glucose.

Your muscles, from the palmitic acid & ketones, are highly insulin resistant (a good thing in your case - the muscle doesn't WANT to be insulin sensitive).  The "normal-dieter" 's muscles are  nowhere near as insulin resistant as yours, so glucose that does make it into their blood is reduced quickly by the insulin's effects on muscle and adipose tissue.  

Most of their body "sees"  on average less glucose than yours does - it's their liver that's getting kicked in their shorts.  

In your body the liver's being spared the huge glucose, fructose and insulin spikes, BUT more proteins are being exposed to a higher average level of glucose for longer periods than the "normal" - diet eater.

If you have any science geek friends they could probably run a simulation that will show this; your whole-body "area under the curve" is a little bit higher.

For the average person, "area under curve" for the liver is disproportionately high, but whole-body "area under the curve" is lower.  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 06, 2010, 01:03:47 am
bleeding,
Interesting ideas about HbA1c.  Not sure what the practical implications are howerver.  If HbA1c is a true indication of total glycation products, and we want to keep these products low, then maybe the effects of eating ZC is counter productive.  It seems to be sort of a catch-22.  If we eat a normal high carb diet then over time we get pathological insulin resistance and HbA1c rises.  If we eat ZC then we get physiolgical insulin resistance and HbA1c rises.  Wonder if this supports the idea that LC or VLC is the better approach?

Thoughts?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 06, 2010, 01:19:13 am
Kidney Stone update:

Over the weekend I had significant blood in my urine to the point that on occasion it was quite dark red.  There wasn’t any pain so I figured that I could wait and see my doctor on Monday which I did.  He took X-rays and found the following:

The original kidney stone on the left side has moved all the way into the bladder and is happily mucking about causing minor discomfort and bleeding.  It seems to be biding its time (the doctor calls it the ‘honeymoon period’), waiting for just the right moment to cause maximum misery as it makes its final exit.   I can hardly wait.

The stone on the right side has only moved about 1/3 of the distance from its original position on its way to the bladder.  This explains the shortened time frame of only about 12 hours of pain in mid December when it made its initial move.  It has a long way to go on its way to the bladder so there is much more fun in store. Again, I can hardly wait.

It seems that this could go on for months as these little imps work their way out.  The annoying part is that intense pain could strike at any moment with no warning and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.  The bleeding also sets the stage for infections so whenever there is obvious blood in the urine my doctor recommends that I come in and get an anti-biotic so the situation is not compounded by a bladder and/or kidney infection.

More on this as it develops,

Lex


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on January 06, 2010, 04:15:59 am
  Lex, sorry to hear that.  Isn't there an ultrasonic something or other that can 'blast' apart the stones.  I think I heard of someone using that technique once?  Best of luck
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: bleeding on January 06, 2010, 04:18:26 am
I would think zero carb is better.   Like Moshe Feldenkrais used to say (in a completely different context) - it gets better when you use your whole body.    Just as a general principle, spreading the "damage" out over the whole body instead of limiting it to the liver.    We don't see the glycation effects on the liver because the standard tests don't measure that.  

I thought your guess that you're eating some of this material (HBA1c) was right on the money.  

The whole thing reminds me of a hyperlipid post a little while ago where Peter wrote that when you eat a high fat meal you absorb your dead gut bacteria's gram negative proteins.  If you eat a high carb meal you absorb none of the gram negative dead residue.  

Well, the residue is "bad" for you - not as bad as if you had a gram negative bacterial infection, but still bad.

Turns out your immune system uses the digested gram negative material to gauge what's happening in your gut.  On high carb the immune system is denied this information.  


bleeding,
Interesting ideas about HbA1c.  Not sure what the practical implications are howerver.  If HbA1c is a true indication of total glycation products, and we want to keep these products low, then maybe the effects of eating ZC is counter productive.  It seems to be sort of a catch-22.  If we eat a normal high carb diet then over time we get pathological insulin resistance and HbA1c rises.  If we eat ZC then we get physiolgical insulin resistance and HbA1c rises.  Wonder if this supports the idea that LC or VLC is the better approach?

Thoughts?

Lex

I bet in the end it's just like ketosis - if you're diabetic it's something to watch closely.  If you're not diabetic it's interesting information, but nothing to fuss over.  

One reason high-carb eaters are insulin resistant is the constant high levels of insulin make the muscles reduce the number of insulin receptors.  The opposite is likely true for you.

I believe if you ate carbs again you would have about a week of hardship because some of your digestive and other carbohydrate-handling enzymes have down-regulated.   After a week your insulin resistance would disappear quickly (doesn't take long for the palmitic acid and ketones to get flushed out of the blood)   and you would be extremely insulin sensitive.   Your pancreas has probably had a great vacation too, having to put out a small fraction of the "normal" output.  

The low-fat dieter is insulin resistant for a long time to come.  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on January 06, 2010, 07:29:24 am
Really sorry to hear about the impending pain. Maybe you can have some painkillers on hand this time to make it better??

Also, I have some other questions. Do you ever get tired of eating ground beef? I ask this because I am particularly not fond of the texture and enjoy the non-ground muscle meats much better.

What cuts did you eat before going ground beef? How did you transition to ground beef? What percentage of the time do you eat your gb + animal food mix?

Why do you eat ground beef over non-ground? Is there any advantage over non-ground?

Do you ever eat bison, lamb, or other game?

How much do you trust slankers? Their prices seem to be 20-50% below the other grass-fed places I've seen which makes me a bit nervous. How much meat do you buy at one time? And lastly, how much are you worried about freezing meat for an extended amount of time?  Thanks for the time as always.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 06, 2010, 08:18:43 am
Lex, Did they give you any idea how much calcification you have in your kidneys? It sounds like they first thought there were just two stones, but now see that there are more. Have you seen your kidney image to see if you can see how calcified it is? The hospital gave me an xray image film when I had some small kidney stones years ago, to give to my urologist.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 06, 2010, 11:12:07 am
Lex, Did they give you any idea how much calcification you have in your kidneys? It sounds like they first thought there were just two stones, but now see that there are more. Have you seen your kidney image to see if you can see how calcified it is? The hospital gave me an xray image film when I had some small kidney stones years ago, to give to my urologist.  

Just two stones. They said nothing about additional calcification of the kidneys.

 Lex, sorry to hear that.  Isn't there an ultrasonic something or other that can 'blast' apart the stones.  I think I heard of someone using that technique once?  Best of luck

Apparently there is an ultrasonic intervention that can be taken if the stones are of sufficient size.  Mine are in the 3mm range (1/8") and are far to small for ultrasonic to have any effect.  There is an option where they can insert an catheter and manually crush the stones in the bladder, but they only do this as a last resort as the procedure is expensive and rather invasive.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 06, 2010, 11:44:56 am
Really sorry to hear about the impending pain. Maybe you can have some painkillers on hand this time to make it better??

Nothing but morphine will even touch the pain and I have to go to a hospital to get that.  I do have Vicodin, but don’t bother taking it as it does nothing.  Pretty much I’m forced to tough it out unless I want to go to the emergency room.

Also, I have some other questions. Do you ever get tired of eating ground beef? I ask this because I am particularly not fond of the texture and enjoy the non-ground muscle meats much better.

Initially I found ground beef rather boring, but once I actually got hungry, ground beef tasted wonderful.  Most of us eat by the clock, not because we are hungry.  How often do you ask yourself “hmmm, what do I feel for for lunch”.  If you ask yourself this type of question then you are not hungry.

What cuts did you eat before going ground beef? How did you transition to ground beef? What percentage of the time do you eat your gb + animal food mix?

I pretty much chose ground beef at the start.  It was inexpensive and just as nutritious as the more pricy cuts of steaks and roasts.  Why pay $12 to $20 per pound of food when you can get the exact same nutrition for $5/lb?  I do often order the course Chili ground meat for a little more texture, but at this point it really doesn’t matter as I’m not choosey when I get hungry.

I eat my ground meat and pet food mix almost everyday.  In other words I eat just like you would feed your dog or cat – the same thing every day.  This only changes on the 2 or 3 days per month when I eat out and then I order a ribeye steak blu.

Why do you eat ground beef over non-ground? Is there any advantage over non-ground?

Just price and I’m cheap.  My total food cost for a month is about $300 USD


Do you ever eat bison, lamb, or other game?

On occasion I’ll eat bison, deer, or elk.  I’m not a fan of lamb, I just don’t like it as well.  I also don’t really like chicken or fish as they just don’t satisfy my hunger.  Beef is least expensive so that is what I eat about 90% of the time.

How much do you trust slankers? Their prices seem to be 20-50% below the other grass-fed places I've seen which makes me a bit nervous.

Yes, I trust Slankers.  Everything Ted has ever told me I was able to verify from other sources.  This is not the case with some of the other suppliers I’ve dealt with.  Ted is a bit course around the edges, but he is honest as the day is long and will tell you what he believes to be the truth even if he knows it will loose a sale.

How much meat do you buy at one time?

I always purchase a full box which is 60 – 65 lbs.  This lasts me about 1 month.  It takes 4 days to ship to me so in the summer they have to add more dry ice to the package so there is a little less meat.  In the winter I get the full 65 lbs.

And lastly, how much are you worried about freezing meat for an extended amount of time? 

I don’t worry about my meat being frozen at all.  I prefer it frozen.  It allows me to have several months worth of food on hand.  Life is always a trade-off.  My guess is that meat that was frozen a few hours after slaughter is no more deteriorated than “fresh” meat that has been rotting and breaking down at warmer temperatures for several days.  Frozen meat makes my life simpler and I can spend my time on other things of interest like fixing antique clocks.

If I missed something don’t hesitate to follow up with more questions,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: bleeding on January 06, 2010, 12:06:05 pm
I donate blood, and every time I take the swab off to watch the blood flowing out ... just my morbid curiosity.

So I have no problem with bleeding, but ...  I cannot imagine red urine.  Makes me shudder.  I would NOT have waited "because there was no pain".   You're a tough nut, Lex.

"stone" conjures up something with smooth surfaces.  Is this a bad assumption on my part?   do these actually have sharp edges  and needles?

"stone" would never make me think of  of bleeding ... not like the way they describe gout,  "crystal in your joint"

Just two stones. They said nothing about additional calcification of the kidneys.

Apparently there is an ultrasonic intervention that can be taken if the stones are of sufficient size.  Mine are in the 3mm range (1/8") and are far to small for ultrasonic to have any effect.  There is an option where they can insert an catheter and manually crush the stones in the bladder, but they only do this as a last resort as the procedure is expensive and rather invasive.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 06, 2010, 01:30:49 pm
   You're a tough nut, Lex.


That was my thought, too.  I think a lot of the really serious raw Paleo folks are pretty tough.  You have to kind of be tough to have the guts to try raw meat if you didn't grow up eating it.  You also have to be pretty tough to endure all the verbal abuse and rejection that people heap on us for eating this way.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 06, 2010, 03:59:01 pm
Kidney Stone update:

Over the weekend I had significant blood in my urine to the point that on occasion it was quite dark red.  There wasn’t any pain so I figured that I could wait and see my doctor on Monday which I did.  He took X-rays and found the following:

The original kidney stone on the left side has moved all the way into the bladder and is happily mucking about causing minor discomfort and bleeding.  It seems to be biding its time (the doctor calls it the ‘honeymoon period’), waiting for just the right moment to cause maximum misery as it makes its final exit.   I can hardly wait.

The stone on the right side has only moved about 1/3 of the distance from its original position on its way to the bladder.  This explains the shortened time frame of only about 12 hours of pain in mid December when it made its initial move.  It has a long way to go on its way to the bladder so there is much more fun in store. Again, I can hardly wait.

It seems that this could go on for months as these little imps work their way out.  The annoying part is that intense pain could strike at any moment with no warning and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.  The bleeding also sets the stage for infections so whenever there is obvious blood in the urine my doctor recommends that I come in and get an anti-biotic so the situation is not compounded by a bladder and/or kidney infection.

More on this as it develops,

Lex




Lex, I know you are aware of the "alternative" ways of getting rid of these little buggers immediately like the lemon cure, etc.  Why not get rid of these stones pronto?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: majormark on January 06, 2010, 05:25:35 pm
goodsamaritan,

What is the best alternative way to get read of them? Chanca Piedra, lemon ?

I also experienced very small stones some time ago but I took some pills to make me urinate a lot (I did not know that alternatives existed). Not sure if they actually helped but since I did not feel the slight pain after a while I assumed it cleared out and did not bother to actually check for it. I'm asking in case I get those again.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 06, 2010, 05:40:15 pm
goodsamaritan,

What is the best alternative way to get read of them? Chanca Piedra, lemon ?

I also experienced very small stones some time ago but I took some pills to make me urinate a lot (I did not know that alternatives existed). Not sure if they actually helped but since I did not feel the slight pain after a while I assumed it cleared out and did not bother to actually check for it. I'm asking in case I get those again.

Thanks.

I think it's better if you send me a PM or you open a new thread in the health section.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on January 06, 2010, 07:02:45 pm
Nothing but morphine will even touch the pain and I have to go to a hospital to get that.  I do have Vicodin, but don’t bother taking it as it does nothing.  Pretty much I’m forced to tough it out unless I want to go to the emergency room.

Yes only morphine is capable to allieviate the pain.

There is however a natural way that helped me repeatedly to get some release and rest when I expelled my kidney stones . It's just a fairly hot (above 40 °C) bath that relaxes all the organs under stress (uretera, bladder, uretra) and favors the progression of the stones with less pain.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on January 06, 2010, 07:28:24 pm

"stone" conjures up something with smooth surfaces.  Is this a bad assumption on my part?   do these actually have sharp edges  and needles?

"stone" would never make me think of  of bleeding ... not like the way they describe gout,  "crystal in your joint"


Yes, kidney stones can have very sharp edges, sometimes like a razor.

As the stone tools of our paleo ancestors  :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on January 06, 2010, 07:36:34 pm
Lex, I know you are aware of the "alternative" ways of getting rid of these little buggers immediately like the lemon cure, etc.  Why not get rid of these stones pronto?


When I experienced my kidney stones I tried many cures, essentially everything I could find out (lemon and many other plants). Yet nothing, absolutely nothing worked in my case.

Except switching on RPD.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on January 06, 2010, 08:48:05 pm

I don’t worry about my meat being frozen at all.  I prefer it frozen.  It allows me to have several months worth of food on hand.  Life is always a trade-off.  My guess is that meat that was frozen a few hours after slaughter is no more deteriorated than “fresh” meat that has been rotting and breaking down at warmer temperatures for several days.  Frozen meat makes my life simpler and I can spend my time on other things of interest like fixing antique clocks.

How much freezer space have you? I've found it awkward to have only 10 cu. ft.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 07, 2010, 07:38:48 am
Lex, I know you are aware of the "alternative" ways of getting rid of these little buggers immediately like the lemon cure, etc.  Why not get rid of these stones pronto?

GS, years ago I tried the "lemon cure" and cranberry juice and other recommended remedies for kidney stones and none of them worked at all. The only thing that helped me was eliminating gluten and adopting a conventional cooked Paleo diet. I went from having chronic kidney stones and urine that was frequently brown or oily or blood-spotted or particle-filled to crystal clear. Gradually it became hay-colored. Now that I eat raw carnivore, my urine is yellow and bubbly, but so far no brown, oily, blood-spotted or particle-filled urine.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 07, 2010, 10:26:46 am
Lex, I know you are aware of the "alternative" ways of getting rid of these little buggers immediately like the lemon cure, etc.  Why not get rid of these stones pronto?

Tried several and none worked.  Did the lemon cure, Celery seed cure, Coke & asparagus cure, cranberry cure, and a couple of others.  Believe me, when you are in the kind of pain these things cause you'll try anything hoping for a miracle. Unfortunately, no miracle happened and there was no change to the size or position of the stones.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 07, 2010, 10:35:26 am
Yes only morphine is capable to allieviate the pain.

There is however a natural way that helped me repeatedly to get some release and rest when I expelled my kidney stones . It's just a fairly hot (above 40 °C) bath that relaxes all the organs under stress (uretera, bladder, uretra) and favors the progression of the stones with less pain.

Very interesting.  I also found that a very hot bath or shower was the only thing other than morphine that had any effect.  The hot water does seem to relax everything and though I can't say it speeds things up, under some circumstances it does seem to reduce the pain temporarily.  It doesn't work every time though.  If the pain is very intense, indicating to me a very narrow area that the stone is passing through, then nothing but morphine will work and even that won't eliminate all the pain - just makes it tollerable.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 07, 2010, 10:44:17 am
"stone" conjures up something with smooth surfaces.  Is this a bad assumption on my part?   do these actually have sharp edges  and needles?

The stone is more like an open crystal structure with sharp points and small needle like projections.  It scrapes its way through ureters and urethera shredding tissue along the way.  The only way I can describe the pain is to think of very slowly ripping your stomach open with the point of an ice pick while continuosly pouring alcohol on the wound.  The pain is relentless and can continue at an intense level for hours at a time.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 07, 2010, 10:52:01 am
How much freezer space have you? I've found it awkward to have only 10 cu. ft.

I have a 7 cu ft chest freezer that is dedicated to storing my meat and can easily store 3 to 4 months worth of food.  That's somewhere between 180 and 240 lbs.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on January 07, 2010, 09:16:50 pm
I just did a couple of saltwater flushes.  1 tablespoon (15ml) of salt mixed with 1 quart (1 litre) of water.  Mix well and drink all of it quickly.  I did this the morning and again in the evening of the day before the exam, and didn’t eat anything from the time I started until the exam was over.

Lex

Lex, I had a go at this (only I used rocksalt because that's what I happen to have) and only had an output of some brown water (I expected to have a lot come out - I have experienced that eating meat and fat does kind of "line" the colon more than we would like to believe) in the morning. You did it again in the evening - did this have a different affect or did you have the same kind of result as in the morning?

Did you drink more during the day and did you feel bloated in any why after or during the following days?

How's the running going?

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 08, 2010, 08:22:13 am
Tried several and none worked.  Did the lemon cure, Celery seed cure, Coke & asparagus cure, cranberry cure, and a couple of others.  ...
I doubt you'll try it again, but to further warn others I'll note that the Coke & asparagus cure is particularly bogus, as the phosphoric acid in colas has been linked to the creation of kidney stones (see http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=232972 and
http://www.doctoryourself.com/kidney.html, for example).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 08, 2010, 09:41:15 am
Lex, I had a go at this (only I used rocksalt because that's what I happen to have) and only had an output of some brown water (I expected to have a lot come out - I have experienced that eating meat and fat does kind of "line" the colon more than we would like to believe) in the morning. You did it again in the evening - did this have a different affect or did you have the same kind of result as in the morning?

I used plain salt (not iodized salt).  For it to work, the salt concentration must be pretty high, at least 15 ml (1 tablespoon) per litre (quart).

I have no evidence that there is anything sticking to the sides or lining the colon.  I wonder how you know that this is happening to you since it would take a colonoscopy to see it.  I’ve had a colonoscopy while eating only meat and fat and there was no evidence of anything sticking to my colon or lining it.  In fact, the opposite was true.  My colon was clean and smooth.

Did you drink more during the day and did you feel bloated in any why after or during the following days?

Gosh, I really don’t remember drinking more or less or whether I felt bloated or not.  At the time I was much more concerned about the medical procedure.


How's the running going?

I run now and then but not regularly.  I try to walk 10 – 12 miles (15-20 km) per week while getting as close to full body sun exposure as public modesty will allow.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 08, 2010, 09:56:39 am
I doubt you'll try it again, but to further warn others I'll note that the Coke & asparagus cure is particularly bogus, as the phosphoric acid in colas has been linked to the creation of kidney stones (see http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=232972 and
http://www.doctoryourself.com/kidney.html, for example).

I found the Coke and asparagus cure rather amusing, especially when reading the "why it works" section of the documentation.  The theory is that since phosphoric acid will dissolve calcium based stuff like bones and teeth, then it should dissolve calcium based kidney stones as well, right?  Well, it is true that if you put bone or a tooth (or a calcium based kidney stone) into a jar filled with Coke it will soften and dissolve them.  The problem comes with the idea that the phosphoric acid will be directly absorbed from the stomach into the blood and then go to the kidneys and dissolve the calcium based kidney stones.  If this were to actually happen we'd quickly die from low blood ph.  Just as our stomach acid is neutralized in the digestion process, any acidic food is neutralized as well.  Like most magic cures, they sound good to the uninformed, but fall apart under close scrutiny.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: majormark on January 08, 2010, 06:11:31 pm
^ I imagine it could work if they could find a way to perforate the tract and poor the stuff in directly over the stone. Should be possible, at least in my mind, but maybe the stone would need to sit in the solution for a while in order to start dissolving significantly.
The last option is surgery, of course.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on January 08, 2010, 08:42:41 pm
I have no evidence that there is anything sticking to the sides or lining the colon.  I wonder how you know that this is happening to you since it would take a colonoscopy to see it.  I’ve had a colonoscopy while eating only meat and fat and there was no evidence of anything sticking to my colon or lining it.  In fact, the opposite was true.  My colon was clean and smooth.

Quote
Well if meat eaters should have a discharge then it must come from somewhere! I did the same as you once in the morning (had a little runny discharge from this) and once in the evening (nothing happend). By the end of the day I got heavy legs from holding back all the water (salt)! I was glad to eat again the next day; still puffy - I must be a total failure - if I ever have a discharge it is runny and doing this NcNcleans didn't make me feel exactly energetic and light -\

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 09, 2010, 03:36:44 am
^ I imagine it could work if they could find a way to perforate the tract and poor the stuff in directly over the stone. Should be possible, at least in my mind, but maybe the stone would need to sit in the solution for a while in order to start dissolving significantly.
The last option is surgery, of course.

As I remember we did an experiment in 6th grade science class where we put a tooth in a glass of Coca Cola.  After a week about half of it was dissolved.  That's a long time to hold it.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 09, 2010, 03:59:34 am
Nicola,
Not sure that what is quoted demonstrates that something is permanently sticking to the sides of the colon.  There will always be a small amount of material that is not expelled, just as there is a small amount of toothpaste left in the tube that just can't be squeezed out but could be washed away if water were run through the tube.  This doesn't mean that there is a thick layer of build up of material that coats the colon and can only be removed by magic herbal remedies. 

Think about getting mud, dirt, or grease on your hands.  As much as you'd like, you can't remove all of it by squeezing your hands together.  Due to the irregular surfaces, there will always be a small amount that will stick.  If you add more, it doesn't build up, you're still able to remove all but that last amount.  Same with the toothpaste tube.  You can add more toothpaste to the tube and again squeeze all but the last bit out.  It doesn't build up.

The more liquid something is, the thinner the remaining layer.  So in the case of dirty hands, the toothpaste tube, or your colon, if you thin the material with water, some will dissolve and flow away, but no matter what you do, some residual will always remain.  Even pouring water over a vertical surface will leave that surface wet with a layer of water.  Pouring more water over the vertical surface does not create a build up.  The amount remaining is determined by physical properties like surface tension, adhesion, capillary action, viscosity, etc of the material as well as the properties of the surface that the material is on.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 09, 2010, 06:01:26 am
Lex,

Alphagruis has some successful experience eliminating kidney stones...

During the period 1984-1999 I've repeatedly expelled kidney stones and experienced numerous episodes of nephretic colics. As shown by regular scans ( every 6-12 months) new stones formed systematically...

The stones stopped in 1999 after I had changed my diet to raw paleo in december 1998. Six months after beginning raw paleo the scans showed that no new stones had formed for the first time after 15 years...

I'm stone-free ever since. :)

Very impressive





Maybe you can have a chat with him to find out how he did it?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 09, 2010, 06:15:05 am
Lex,

Alphagruis has some successful experience eliminating kidney stones...

Maybe you can have a chat with him to find out how he did it?

Good thought, maybe he'll commment.  Alphagruis?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on January 09, 2010, 06:24:43 pm
Hi Lex,

I hope that Phatdave doesn't mind me quoting our recent personal mail exchange.

Hi Alphagruis,

Can a person avoid kidney stones eating VLC? Is ZC the culprit, or some other factor?

Thank you, I choose not to rehash this in Lex's thread to save his worrying over them - if indeed a man such as he does worry!

David


Hi David,

Frankly I don't know and probably nobody does. We have to experiment, I'm afraid, with the accompanying risks. What I have observed on myself is that after 15 years of painful kidney stones  I could get rid of them (no new ones formed) in 1999 after only about 6 months on RPD. This was a very impressive experience and I am still deeply impressed.

My diet was strictly raw but rather omnivore though with a substantial quantity of food of animal origin. So I cannot seriously conclude from my medium to low carb experience what happens with ZC or VLC. 

Yet my gut feeling is that if the diet is strictly raw, as is Lex's one, ZC or VLC is probably not the culprit as one might expect from some observations with cooked ZC or VLC diets. My guess is that stone formation is rather a matter of heat generated toxins that perturb the kidney function.

As I said in Lex's journal the stones might well have formed before his ZC diet and  it is only now once a few years on his more appropriate diet that he has recovered sufficiently for his organism to undertake the painful elimination of these "old" stones.

I'm fairly confident and think that Lex can stay on his diet with little risk. Provided  he checks (as he does) with periodic scans that no new stones or calcifications form anywhere in the forthcoming months. If unfortunately new stones formed he will know it rapidly and can then still safely take action.

I recovered from a much worse kidney stone history, without RPD I would have died many years ago. 

As you do I also choose to not make him worry unnecessarily about this. He is indeed a tough guy and I am deeply impressed by his journal and posts.

Gérard 


As you can see my experience is essentially that in my case 6 months on an omnivore raw paleo diet brought to an end a long history of extremely painful nephretic colics. It's just a fact and we have to be cautious in drawing any conclusions from it, except for sure that the standard european or american diet is just crap.

As I said I really think that in your case as long as there is no evidence of formation of new stones there is probably nothing to seriously worry about. You'll "just" have to manage the pending pain when expelling the already existing stones. 

I am wondering: Wasn't there ever any evidence of kidneys stones in medical images taken before you went on RPD? Well I know one can usually see only what one is looking for.
 

 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 10, 2010, 02:22:34 am
As I said I really think that in your case as long as there is no evidence of formation of new stones there is probably nothing to seriously worry about.

It is on my list to add a scan for kidney stones to my annual physical and lab tests.

You'll "just" have to manage the pending pain when expelling the already existing stones. 

Oh Boy, I can hardly wait! ;)  Unfortunately, neither of my current stones has passed yet so there is still much more fun to come.  One is in the bladder awaiting some inopportune time to make its exit, and the other one is still working its way from the kidney to the bladder.  Both stones are about 3mm.

I am wondering: Wasn't there ever any evidence of kidneys stones in medical images taken before you went on RPD? Well I know one can usually see only what one is looking for.

No clue whatsoever, but then I haven’t had a CT scan or x-ray of the lower abdomen area for longer than I can remember.  I think the last time I had one was in the military about 40 years ago.  I did have a DEXA scan a few months ago to check bone density, but my understanding is that the resolution of this scan is not sufficient to detect things like kidney stones or tissue calcification.

Lex
 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on January 10, 2010, 04:00:48 am

Oh Boy, I can hardly wait! ;)  Unfortunately, neither of my current stones has passed yet so there is still much more fun to come.  One is in the bladder awaiting some inopportune time to make its exit, and the other one is still working its way from the kidney to the bladder.  Both stones are about 3mm.


Lex
  

According to my experience the stone that is already in the bladder should be expelled with essentially no pain at all. A stone 3mm in diameter passes easily through the urethra. As far as I can remember I passed even bigger ones (4mm) without pain. The phenomenon is very rapid, nothing to do with the terrible painful lengthy progression from kidney to bladder in uretera.

It is even quite amusing:  :)

In my case what happened usually was that on the happy day the stone made his decision to quit the bladder during a pee there is first no unusual feeling. The stream of urine first rushes out as usual, but then suddenly it is interrupted for a very short while when the stone engages into the urethra and there is a clear "feeling of pressure build up". Once the pressure is sufficient, one suddenly "feels" the stone rushing out and the pee stream happily resumes. When peeing inside in standard water clo one gets additional fun when one hears a nice "bling" at the stone's impact on the ceramic.

I miss those happy days  ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 10, 2010, 06:27:40 am
According to my experience the stone that is already in the bladder should be expelled with essentially no pain at all. A stone 3mm in diameter passes easily through the urethra. As far as I can remember I passed even bigger ones (4mm) without pain. The phenomenon is very rapid, nothing to do with the terrible painful lengthy progression from kidney to bladder in uretera. 

I can only hope that this will be the case for me as well.  With symptoms of BPH, there is a restriction at the prostate.  In my case there is normally very little pressure and I must totally relax to release urine.  My doctor says that I may experinece the interrupted stream and then I'll have to drink a large a mount of water to create the necessary pressure in the bladder to expel the stone.  He expects that, in my case, the process may take awhile and that I'll most likely be rather uncomfortable (from being unable to urinate if nothing else) until the stone finally releases. I'll give the details here as things progress.

Thanks for sharing your experinece.  It's reassuring that the stone's final trip will be somewhat less tramatic than its initial voyage.  I still have a stone lodged up in the kidney area on the right side.  It has already moved a couple of inches.  It is really frustrating knowing that such intense pain can strike at anytime and without warning.  Will be glad when this saga is over.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: bleeding on January 10, 2010, 12:45:04 pm
The stone is more like an open crystal structure with sharp points and small needle like projections.  It scrapes its way through ureters and urethera shredding tissue along the way.  The only way I can describe the pain is to think of very slowly ripping your stomach open with the point of an ice pick while continuosly pouring alcohol on the wound.  The pain is relentless and can continue at an intense level for hours at a time.

Lex
boy oh boy.  Thanks for the technical info, and my pupils shrunk to near zero, and most of my scrotum and penis retracted completely into my abdomen in sympathetic pain (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/Smileys/yarex2/dev.gif)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on January 16, 2010, 01:20:08 am
boy oh boy.  Thanks for the technical info, and my pupils shrunk to near zero, and most of my scrotum and penis retracted completely into my abdomen in sympathetic pain (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/Smileys/yarex2/dev.gif)

LOL! Same here. I've passed one stone a few years ago, I don't wish that on anyone.

Lex, how have your BG readings been? Still seeing an improvement with the higher fat/lower protein mix?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 16, 2010, 06:44:29 am
Lex, how have your BG readings been? Still seeing an improvement with the higher fat/lower protein mix?

BG readings have been consistently about 10 points lower.  It will be interesting to see if this has any significant effect on my HbA1c level.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on January 18, 2010, 05:09:04 am
I believe the A1c will indeed be lower, Lex. When do you get it done?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 18, 2010, 09:22:16 am
I believe the A1c will indeed be lower, Lex. When do you get it done?

I was going to have it done this month but now will probably wait until my next annual lab tests which I usually do in July.  It's not really a priority and I've already spent way too much time at the doctor's with my kidney stones and associated complications (blood in urine and bladder infection).

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on January 31, 2010, 09:50:05 pm
Lex are you sure zero carb is the cause or is it that zero carb helps them dissolve enough so they can travel and cause pain?

Could kidney stones be caused buy not getting enough sun and your recent regime of sun exposure has dissolved the stones and dislodged them?

Thanks

PS They sound absolutely horrific, supposedly child birth is a picnic compared



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on January 31, 2010, 10:00:21 pm
Lex, I started to take cold pressed krilloil - a thought the extra omega 3 would be a good thing...

What do you think of "Brian Peskin's" PEO pdf?

http://www.brianpeskin.com/PEOstheDifference.pdf

http://www.brianpeskin.com/lectures-recap.html

Nicola


I found this (could't go swimming because of all the snow on the roads...had to come home again and find out more about this subject):

http://li14-183.members.linode.com/knowyourfats/peskin-and-efas.html


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicola on February 21, 2010, 09:01:26 pm
Sorry about my last question - I am just taking the krilloil and getting on with life; I tend to question things even if I try to keep things simple!

Check this out if you find time; it's an interesting discussion about vitamin D

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=408245

Nicola
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 22, 2010, 12:47:15 am
Lex are you sure zero carb is the cause or is it that zero carb helps them dissolve enough so they can travel and cause pain?
Could kidney stones be caused buy not getting enough sun and your recent regime of sun exposure has dissolved the stones and dislodged them?

There is much evidence that zero carb (ketogenic diets) can be the cause of kidney stones and are not their cure.  Children with epilepsy are often put on ketogenic diets and they develop kidney stones at a much greater rate than those who eat enough carbs to remain out of ketosis.  I doubt that sun exposure has much to do with it but of course I don't really know.  Since there was no lab work done to check for stones before I started this dietary adventure, we have no baseline to compare with.  One thing that is common to my case as well as many others, is that I wasn't drinking a lot of fluids so urine output was low and the specific gravity of the urine was high.  This is also the case with those on a ketogenic diet for epilepsy, their fluid intake is low as well so this may be the real key.

Dexter sent me an emial with an article stating that children on a ketogenic diet for epilepsy were having great success by adding potassium citrate to every meal.  This seems to keep the stones from forming.  What the mechanism is I have no idea as the article didn't say.

PS They sound absolutely horrific, supposedly child birth is a picnic compared

The pain is unbelievable.  What makes it so bad is that it is relentless.  It goes on for hours at a time with no let up, and the pain is so intense that even morphine just dulls the pain and makes it tollerable.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on February 22, 2010, 12:56:03 am
remain out of ketosis
There's nothing wrong with ketosis. Ketonemia is good - prolonged ketonuria is bad.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on February 22, 2010, 04:20:50 am
There is much evidence that zero carb (ketogenic diets) can be the cause of kidney stones and are not their cure. 

IIRC all those on ketogenic diets eat cooked meat, so their finding that they cause kidney stones is not relevant to you.
A very different diet, too different to be useful.  IMHO

Supplementation with potassium citrate is revealing, in that on a raw diet we need no such supplements.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on February 22, 2010, 04:33:03 am
There's nothing wrong with ketosis. Ketonemia is good - prolonged ketonuria is bad.

If I'm not long ZC, could ketonuria be why I have pain from dryness/cracking in my bottom lip? If it was, then that should decrease as I use more of the ketones? I don't feel particularly thirsty but still have this problem.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 22, 2010, 04:37:48 am
I have my doubts whether kidneys stones can be prevented on raw meat and fat/ZC diet just by adding a couple teaspoons of honey a day.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on February 22, 2010, 04:44:46 am
If I'm not long ZC, could ketonuria be why I have pain from dryness/cracking in my bottom lip?

    My bottom lip used to crack too.  This was eons ago.  It used to bleed, just Winter dryness.  Is ketonuria what does this?  I was not a big eater.  I think I just needed fats in my case.  It pretty much stopped happening when I got more in control of exactly what I ate.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on February 22, 2010, 05:14:11 am
I have my doubts whether kidneys stones can be prevented on raw meat and fat/ZC diet just by adding a couple teaspoons of honey a day.

There is no evidence that kidney stones are caused by a raw fat & meat diet. IIRC

Honey??
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 22, 2010, 05:32:32 am
honey are a source of carbs right? Doesnt lex accuse his kidney stone formation due to zero-carb?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on February 22, 2010, 05:37:49 am
honey are a source of carbs right? Doesnt lex accuse his kidney stone formation due to zero-carb?

    Lex has expressed before that he wants to stay zero-carb and that it's the best diet out of all the very many health and restrictive diets for him, after all his experience.

    He has also expressed before that he doesn't want people battling on his journal about non-zero carb, as he has no want of that.  He's also said he considers honey the same as a snicker's bar.

    PS You didn't even say raw honey, let alone unheated.  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 22, 2010, 05:56:50 am
Well if one compares honey to a snickers bar then i guess i can compare meat to whey protein. Didint he say somehwere between pages 90-99 that it was caused by zero-carb? Your mind can get in the way of true health very easily. Judge the health of food not by the mind but with the effects it produces on you.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 22, 2010, 06:37:05 am
I think I saw lex somewhere write that he chooses not to eat any eggs because he believes paleo man did not eat them often only seasonally. This is what i mean when ones mind can get in the way of true health.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on February 22, 2010, 06:47:42 am
I think I saw lex somewhere write that he chooses not to eat any eggs because he believes paleo man did not eat them often only seasonally. This is what i mean when ones mind can get in the way of true health.
 
    Yeah, and Lex doesn't eat dinosaurs.  I eat buffalo, fish, eggs, lots of foods.  If he likes beef and its organs, that's his choice.  I think it's a money thing too.  This diet can wind up being the most expensive thing in your life, not that eggs are overly expensive.  In farmers markets they can be $8.00/doz when I checked a year ago.  Are you eating any eggs?  We went out the other night with a friend and he said he's eaten turtle eggs, and that they taste phenomenal.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 22, 2010, 06:51:14 am
Yes i eat eggs, although i dont know if i should be discarding the egg white or not.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on February 22, 2010, 06:53:37 am
Yes i eat eggs, although i dont know if i should be discarding the egg white or not.

    Are you eating the whites now?

Your mind can get in the way of true health very easily. Judge the health of food not by the mind but with the effects it produces on you.

    I agree.  I continued being vegan and believing it was the best for everything for incredibly long.  Lex is older, I tend to think in his case he has more of a grasp of what's good for him than most people.  He keeps up with his bloodwork and check-ups too, and it seems generally he gets healthier.  I'm assuming you're younger than I am and still younger that when I started RAF.  Of course age doesn't mean everything or much in all cases.  I just think after a couple decades more experience you may try zero-carb too.  You haven't tried that.  Have you?  And I do know you are trying to help him, that's very nice.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 22, 2010, 07:18:56 am
when i was eating eggs i ate them whole.I am on this raw food diet journey because the other option left for me is eating canned soups,microwavable dinners, fast food etc. Although this was somewhat what i was rasied on(not totally)and I was very healthy on it, I know that it probably wont work for the long-term.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on February 22, 2010, 07:26:32 am
RawZi are you ZC?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 22, 2010, 10:16:38 am
Nicola,
I followed the links you provided and believe that most of it is just a sales pitch.  I’m also not so sure that there is any significant difference between the fats he recommends and what he calls ‘derivatives’.  By Peskin’s definition almost everything we eat is torn down and turned into derivatives by our digestion process which our bodies then use as building blocks for cells and as fuel.  He may well be correct, but if these special fats are not available in the proper proportions in my everyday food, then there is something fishy going on (pun intended).  Since his proprietary magic blend contains flax seed and coconut oils, I tend to think it’s mostly nonsense.  These would not have been available to paleo man.

IIRC all those on ketogenic diets eat cooked meat, so their finding that they cause kidney stones is not relevant to you.
A very different diet, too different to be useful.  IMHO

Supplementation with potassium citrate is revealing, in that on a raw diet we need no such supplements.

Interesting that you should come to this conclusion since I've been eating raw meat for over 4 years now and developed kidney stones.  I agree that we shouldn't need supplements to lead a healthy life, however, I don't assume that my current ZC dietary protocol is in any way the best approach, it is just the approach I'm following at the moment.  My current thinking is that raw VLC with a few carbs (30g-50g/day) coming from a bit of green plant material and/or tart or non sweet fruits is probably a sounder overall approach.

There's nothing wrong with ketosis. Ketonemia is good - prolonged ketonuria is bad.

How would you propose to know that you are in ketonemia unless ketonuria is present at some level for you to measure?  Any peer reviewed studies you can point to that support your statement?

I have my doubts whether kidneys stones can be prevented on raw meat and fat/ZC diet just by adding a couple teaspoons of honey a day.

I don't think I've ever suggested this.  In fact, I believe that honey of any type is no better or worse than other refined sugars.  Just because bees did the refining doesn't make it any more fit for human consumption.  My carb source of choice would be wild tart fruits like berries, or nonsweet fruits like tomatoes and cucumbers, with the occasional small amount of green plant material thrown in for color.

If you've read anything at all about what I believe is the main contributor to kidney stone formation, then you should know it is reduced fluid intake causing urine with a very high specific gravity which is conducive to allowing minerals to precipitate out and form stones.  Like growing sugar or salt crystals in a super saturated solution. Low fluid intake seems to be present in almost all the cases I've been able to research.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 22, 2010, 10:21:22 am
I admit, i am too lazy to go find what you wrote about. SO why did you add carbs back in your diet?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 22, 2010, 10:28:32 am
I admit, i am too lazy to go find what you wrote about. SO why did you add carbs back in your diet?

When did I say that I added carbs back into my diet? 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 22, 2010, 10:29:47 am
oh sorry i thought you said you ate berries and cucumbers.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 22, 2010, 10:55:16 am
I agree.  I continued being vegan and believing it was the best for everything for incredibly long.  Lex is older, I tend to think in his case he has more of a grasp of what's good for him than most people.  He keeps up with his bloodwork and check-ups too, and it seems generally he gets healthier.  I'm assuming you're younger than I am and still younger that when I started RAF.  Of course age doesn't mean everything or much in all cases.  I just think after a couple decades more experience you may try zero-carb too.  You haven't tried that.  Have you?  And I do know you are trying to help him, that's very nice.

RawZi,
It took me many years but I finally figured out that a person in their 20s can eat just about anything and still appear to perform well.  I have a nephew who is 23 and he thinks he's doing just fine on french fries, twinkies, soda, and candy bars (for energy!), with the occasional Big Mac or Quarter Pounder w/cheese to round out the food groups.  He's a wrestler in college and wins a fair share of his matches.  He's already losing his teeth but insists that it's not caused by his diet because he says he feels great.  His father has eaten almost exactly the same way all his life and is now 61.  Not only are his teeth all gone, but his knees, hips, and ankles are pretty much gone as well - to the point that surgery is no longer an option - there's just not enough bone left to work with. His whole body is a wreck. The doctors have led him to believe that his problems are genetic even though no one else anywhere in his family tree suffers from anything like this.  His son is also insisting that because he otherwise feels good, the fact that he's losing his teeth and heading down the same path as his father must be genetic as well.  Of course the doctors have no idea that they only eat whole packages of Oreo cookies, ½ dozen candy bars, Twinkies and several litres of soda all day long and maybe eat a chili dog or Big Mac with a large order of fries once a day.

In short, as we age, we are much less resilient and what we eat has a more profound effect on us.  As such, I’ve learned not to listen to closely to the claims of the 20 and 30 something’s when they proclaim that they’ve found the Holy Grail of diets or that diet doesn’t matter and you can eat anything you want and be healthy.  Better to wait 20 years and see how it turns out in the long term – especially when there is precious little documentation other than their claims to support their beliefs.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 22, 2010, 10:56:38 am
oh sorry i thought you said you ate berries and cucumbers.

I can't find that I said that anywhere.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 22, 2010, 10:59:37 am
"My carb source of choice would be wild tart fruits like berries, or nonsweet fruits like tomatoes and cucumbers, with the occasional small amount of green plant material thrown in for color." I thought you were actually eating this
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 22, 2010, 11:11:47 am
"My carb source of choice would be wild tart fruits like berries, or nonsweet fruits like tomatoes and cucumbers, with the occasional small amount of green plant material thrown in for color." I thought you were actually eating this

I suppose the key words here are "would be". I also figure that this sentence

"I agree that we shouldn't need supplements to lead a healthy life, however, I don't assume that my current ZC dietary protocol is in any way the best approach, it is just the approach I'm following at the moment."
 
in the same posting was clear and to the point.  Actually this is why I seldom give advice.  People tend see what they want to see, not what is written.  I tend to do this myself.  I suppose it is human nature.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on February 22, 2010, 11:40:55 am
Interesting that you should come to this conclusion since I've been eating raw meat for over 4 years now and developed kidney stones.  I agree that we shouldn't need supplements to lead a healthy life, however, I don't assume that my current ZC dietary protocol is in any way the best approach, it is just the approach I'm following at the moment.  My current thinking is that raw VLC with a few carbs (30g-50g/day) coming from a bit of  is probably a sounder overall approach.

/my bad. I had thought that you were not sure when the stones were developed.
Some years ago I read that in Britain, people did not get surgery for gallstones (the National Health scheme would not pay), but instead were told to drink a special kind of tea which dissolved the stones. AFAIK it worked.
Maybe the potassium citrate can do something similar.
When I still had heart arrhythmia, I took potassium gluconate when it got bad. It is supposed to support electrolyte mineral balance and nerve conduction. I still have most of the 1 lb. jar of the pure powder.
I don't know what else it is good for.

Green plant material and/or tart or non sweet fruits smells like herbal medicine to me, so I would get advice from a competent person before choosing.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 22, 2010, 11:52:19 am
I have been thinking along the same lines as you, Lex. My plan all along was to eventually re-introduce some berries and greens into my diet. I still consider that part of a facultatively carnivorous primate diet. Right now I've been eating some dried kelp with my meat, fat, eggs, organs, etc. I figured that maybe the Mg and iodine in kelp might help and Satya's warnings about iodine deficiency motivated me to get started on the greens experiment. Can't say that I notice any difference, positive or negative, though, but maybe it adds a margin of safety to avoid problems like kidney stones. At least it made my lady friend happy. Now she has hope that maybe I haven't gone quite as crazy as she thought. :D

I don't recommend tomatoes or any other nightshade though, based not just on my experience and the anecdotes of numerous other people, but some recent research by Cordain's team and biological explanations (lectins causing leaky gut, which then leads to other problems, etc.) as well. Cordain doesn't go so far as to recommend that everyone avoid them, but I think that people like you and me with a history of chronic health problems should err on the side of caution and eschew them. I think the old view that nightshades were poisonous has an element of truth in it--not literally poisonous for most people, but potentially harmful in the long run.

Originally I was going to wait for berry season to try some fruit, but I got a head start when I ran very low on fat. My first experiment with fruit re-introduction went sour though (pardon the pun), when I developed a nasty canker sore. I suspect that it was caused by the small amount of pineapple-which is very acidic--that I included in my small bowl of berries and grapes. I guessed that the pineapple wasn't a good idea, but I have a hard time resisting it because I love the taste of raw, fresh pineapple, and I thought that 4 or 5 chunks would be safe--wrong!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on February 22, 2010, 12:31:19 pm
Originally I was going to wait for berry season to try some fruit, but I got a head start when I ran very low on fat. My first experiment with fruit re-introduction went sour though (pardon the pun), when I developed a nasty canker sore. I suspect that it was caused by the small amount of pineapple-which is very acidic--that I included in my small bowl of berries and grapes. I guessed that the pineapple wasn't a good idea, but I have a hard time resisting it because I love the taste of raw, fresh pineapple, and I thought that 4 or 5 chunks would be safe--wrong!

    I couldn't eat oranges or pineapple, my son couldn't eat pineapple or kiwi.  We find those foods edible with raw butter.  Maybe you can take tart berries and make an akutaq - ???? - a-goo-duk (Eskimo frozen dessert).  It's made with whipped seal fat.  I've made a makeshift akutaq with fat, berries and fish.  It was good, but nothing like its Western counterpart.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: KD on February 22, 2010, 01:23:54 pm
I was shopping around for a coconut product on this site (primal diet proponents) and came across this woman's horrible story

http://www.naturesjuicecoop.com/story_renee.php

it mentions she tried lithotripsy (crushing of kidney stones with sonic waves), but apparently that didn't work well enough because the next couple of pages or so are filled with abhorent medical abuse. The end of the story is that Primal Diet solved all her problems, and unfortunately doesn't mention much about any other specifics with the stones. The only thought I had was that the vegetable juices could be one overlooked factor, being much more hydrating than water, and perhaps cleaning the blood somewhat as to avoid the beginnings of deposits forming. This of course is just my uneducated guess and realize juice is frowned upon. Perhaps carbonated mineral water might be another asset.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 22, 2010, 01:58:09 pm
   I couldn't eat oranges or pineapple, my son couldn't eat pineapple or kiwi.  We find those foods edible with raw butter.  Maybe you can take tart berries and make an akutaq - ???? - a-goo-duk (Eskimo frozen dessert).  It's made with whipped seal fat.  I've made a makeshift akutaq with fat, berries and fish.  It was good, but nothing like its Western counterpart.
Good idea, RawZi. I can mix blueberries with beef tallow (and water if necessary).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on February 22, 2010, 02:40:53 pm
Yes i eat eggs, although i dont know if i should be discarding the egg white or not.
Yes, you should. Raw white contains enzyme inhibitors and avidin so it's better to avoid it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on February 22, 2010, 03:04:27 pm
How would you propose to know that you are in ketonemia unless ketonuria is present at some level for you to measure?  Any peer reviewed studies you can point to that support your statement?
Ketonemia means that you've got ketones in your bloodstream. The way to measure the level of it is with blood test.
Ketonuria, on the other hand, describes the buildup and excretion of keton bodies in the urine, which occurs due to the accumulation of ketones in the kidney. The degree of ketonuria can be measured by the use of Ketostix.
You can be on low-carb diet, consume 50-100 g of carbs, use ketones to fuel many cells, but you'll not see any excretion of ketones bodies in you urine.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on February 22, 2010, 08:54:42 pm
There is much evidence that zero carb (ketogenic diets) can be the cause of kidney stones and are not their cure.  Children with epilepsy are often put on ketogenic diets and they develop kidney stones at a much greater rate than those who eat enough carbs to remain out of ketosis.  I doubt that sun exposure has much to do with it but of course I don't really know.  Since there was no lab work done to check for stones before I started this dietary adventure, we have no baseline to compare with.  One thing that is common to my case as well as many others, is that I wasn't drinking a lot of fluids so urine output was low and the specific gravity of the urine was high.  This is also the case with those on a ketogenic diet for epilepsy, their fluid intake is low as well so this may be the real key.


I have a real problem with this "evidence" you claim regarding kids developing kidney stones on ketogenic diets. I've read the summaries of the studies that you've read and IIRC only about 2-6% of the kids get kidney stones at sometime during the study. I even think I saw a line somewhere stating that this isn't even statistically significant when you compare this to the percentage of epileptic kids getting kidney stones period on any diet.

Also, and probably the biggest factor of all is that these kids are most likely fed one of the worst abominations of a ketogenic diet that anyone could concoct. I have not seen the actual breakdown of food that they eat only the macronutrient content but I have seen a short news story about ketogenic diets on the news and this is what I gather - These scientists love polyunsaturates and still are hugely phobic of the natural fats. They feed these kids cups of  canola oil to go along with there most likely well done meats, crispy bacon, etc.. IMO there is no comparison and this is exactly the reason success with these diets for these kids is so low and not the 90+% they would easily achieve if they lightly cooked pasture fed beef with real animal fats.

Also worhty mentioning is the very high likelyhood that these kids cheat and some probably cheat a lot. Dr. Eades just wrote a piece on people cheating, even in metabollic ward studies.

Have you considered this?

Quote

Dexter sent me an emial with an article stating that children on a ketogenic diet for epilepsy were having great success by adding potassium citrate to every meal.  This seems to keep the stones from forming.  What the mechanism is I have no idea as the article didn't say.

I posted the links to the diets below and potassium citrate was mentioned as something that worked well.

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/health/food-poisoning-again/msg27288/#msg27288
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 23, 2010, 01:30:24 am
/my bad. I had thought that you were not sure when the stones were developed.

You are correct, I don’t know when the stones developed.  However, I don’t assume that they pre-existed and that my diet is curing them either.  There is absolutely no evidence of this. In fact, with my very dense urine, bordering on dehydration, there is more evidence to support that the stones formed under these conditions. Maybe as time goes on and I have a chance to monitor the stones further we’ll know more.  But you see, I’ve changed the conditions by consuming more water, so nothing I do now will be definitive.

Some years ago I read that in Britain, people did not get surgery for gallstones (the National Health scheme would not pay), but instead were told to drink a special kind of tea which dissolved the stones. AFAIK it worked.

I’ve tried every cure in the book including all the teas, juices, and stuff and x-rays show that none of it works.  Potassium citrate is supposed to keep the stones from developing.  As far as I know there is no evidence that they dissolve existing stones
 
Green plant material and/or tart or non sweet fruits smells like herbal medicine to me, so I would get advice from a competent person before choosing.

Nothing at all to do with herbal medicine and everything to do with what I have come to believe early man most likely ate. I would not be eating these things to ‘cure’ any condition, but rather as a part of a complete diet when such foods are in season.  I would remain primarily a carnivore with maybe 5% of calories coming from plant sources.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on February 23, 2010, 02:08:28 am
...  I would remain primarily a carnivore with maybe 5% of calories coming from plant sources.

    aajonus says something about 5% carbohydrates too.  I hope you eating 5% plant matter in the manner you described (in season foods only) will give you more improved health.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 23, 2010, 05:14:00 am
Did you develop kidney stones while being raw vegan lex? If not then that might say something to outsiders.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on February 23, 2010, 05:32:33 am
Did you develop kidney stones while being raw vegan lex? If not then that might say something to outsiders.

    Yeah.  If that was the case, we might know he doesn't have lupus now.  I've never had kidney stones that I know of, but I have normal range specific gravity now.  Vegan and raw vegan I always had lower than normal range specific gravity.  When I had lupus (I was vegan no RAF no AF), I had low specific gravity.  Lex says high specific gravity causes kidney stones.  I know the stones are painful, but I would prefer my kidneys function.  My kidneys are supposed to filter toxins to the outside of my body.  My toxins were staying in me when I was vegan.  Now toxins come out if they are there, and excess non-usable material comes out too, so I don't need an overload of antibodies, which RAFs got rid of for me.  So yes, I bet veganism might prevent kidney stones, but who knows the whole overview?  Things I'm sure are likely more complicated.

    Are you participating on raw vegan forums too?  I am.  Never stopped.  Just stopped the "one".  Never said I'm vegan.  I just speak what pertains.

    Maybe you'll help us all understand that Lex should not be eating raw meat.  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 23, 2010, 05:44:22 am
I have never been raw vegan up until i quit the RPD in the effort to help my kidneys. As a outsider (not specifically me), one might think that RPD can possibly be deterimental to kidneys by looking at yuri's and lex's journal.Who knows, maybe lex's theory of kidneys stones being caused by not drinking enough water might be wrong. Im just saying, beginners might have apprehensions going raw paleo if they see yuri and lex developing kidneys stones.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 23, 2010, 05:46:31 am
I meant not quiting RPD but quiting eating raw meats (probably temporarily).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 23, 2010, 01:14:06 pm
Did you develop kidney stones while being raw vegan lex? If not then that might say something to outsiders.

I have no previous history of any stones.  My first occurance was in November of 2009 after 4 years of pretty much raw zero carb.

As a outsider (not specifically me), one might think that RPD can possibly be deterimental to kidneys by looking at yuri's and lex's journal.... Im just saying, beginners might have apprehensions going raw paleo if they see yuri and lex developing kidneys stones.

I'm not sure that my development of kidney stones, (or Yuri's for that matter), has anything to do with RPD and everything to do with Zero Carb and low liquid intake.  Zero Carb and RPD are not the same thing.  Zero Carb is far more restrictive than RPD where would certainly include plant materials in the diet.  I do not worship at the alter of Zero Carb.  It is just an experiment which has had mostly positive outcomes with the exception of my BPH which didn't improve much and the development of kidney stones.  The truth is that I got most of the heatlh benenfits I enjoy today on my previous raw paleo VLC diet which I will probably return too in the future.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on February 23, 2010, 02:51:42 pm
I meant not quiting RPD but quiting eating raw meats (probably temporarily).
Why? Eating raw meats doesn't lead to kidney stones.  ZC is the culprit. It's so simply proven in the biochemistry.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: pc701 on February 23, 2010, 03:26:54 pm
Because i suspect too much animal foods or protein can be trouble for some people. I will add some slowly and starting in small amounts.Again, i feel very good right now on this raw vegan diet, need less sleep, energy is the same if not better.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on February 23, 2010, 05:35:28 pm
Lex, given that you do  eat some cooked foods at times, (predominantly pemmican?) couldn't that be the issue re kidney stones rather than ZC as such? I mean kidney stones are such a common side-effect of cooked ketogenic diets, after all.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on February 23, 2010, 06:32:08 pm
Because i suspect too much animal foods or protein can be trouble for some people. 
Nobody tells that we must eat a lot of protein. On rawpaleodiet you can eat less protein and more plant foods if you like.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on February 23, 2010, 09:49:42 pm
You are correct, I don’t know when the stones developed.  However, I don’t assume that they pre-existed and that my diet is curing them either.  There is absolutely no evidence of this. In fact, with my very dense urine, bordering on dehydration, there is more evidence to support that the stones formed under these conditions. Maybe as time goes on and I have a chance to monitor the stones further we’ll know more.  But you see, I’ve changed the conditions by consuming more water, so nothing I do now will be definitive.


Thanks again for your open-minded and cautious comments, analysis and reports.  

It would be of great interest to know what chemicals your kidneys stones are made of.

If made of uric acid they might indeed have formed recently since it is one of the 2 nitrogen containing waste products our body must get rid of when gluconeogenesis from amino acids and amino acid oxidation is intense as in LC diets. Such stones should be easily seen with ultrasound scans but not with X-rays.

If made of calcium oxalate or phosphate (as mine ) they are easily seen in both X-ray and ultrasound scans. In this case they might be ancient and perhaps a result of former gluten rich grain eating.

They may however be more recent too because of kidney overtaxing with nitrogen containing waste from LC diet, namely urea and uric acid, and subsequent higher density urine.

Heavy concentrations of urea maybe favors a higher osmolarity of urine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea

Quote

The handling of urea by the kidneys is a vital part of human metabolism. Besides its role as carrier of waste nitrogen, urea also plays a role in the countercurrent exchange system of the nephrons, that allows for reabsorption of water and critical ions from the excreted urine. Urea is reabsorbed in the inner medullary collecting ducts of the nephrons,[4] thus raising the osmolarity in the medullary interstitium surrounding the thin ascending limb of the loop of Henle, which in turn causes water to be reabsorbed. By action of the urea transporter 2, some of this reabsorbed urea will eventually flow back into the thin ascending limb of the tubule, through the collecting ducts, and into the excreted urine.
This mechanism, which is controlled by the antidiuretic hormone, allows the body to create hyperosmotic urine, that has a higher concentration of dissolved substances than the blood plasma. This mechanism is important to prevent the loss of water, to maintain blood pressure, and to maintain a suitable concentration of sodium ions in the blood plasma.


 

  

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: bleeding on February 24, 2010, 06:00:41 am
Now this is very interesting.

Does anyone here have a chemistry background & can tell us if fatty acid oxidation produces any citrate, as compared with carbohydrate oxidation?

from my failing memory of biochem classes, almost all the cycles that end in ATP appear to use citrate, but is more citrate made by the body, if it's on one diet or another?

  Dexter sent me an emial with an article stating that children on a ketogenic diet for epilepsy were having great success by adding potassium citrate to every meal.  This seems to keep the stones from forming.  What the mechanism is I have no idea as the article didn't say.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: bleeding on February 24, 2010, 06:15:14 am
  see what they want to see, not what is written.  I tend to do this myself.  I suppose it is human nature


It's far worse, more generalized and pervasive than just reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 25, 2010, 07:42:01 am
Lex, given that you do  eat some cooked foods at times, (predominantly pemmican?) couldn't that be the issue re kidney stones rather than ZC as such? I mean kidney stones are such a common side-effect of cooked ketogenic diets, after all.

Lets see, I eat about 2 cooked steak meals per month (cooked extra rare) and I eat maybe 10 meals per year of pemmican.  That's a total of 22 meals that are slightly cooked per year.  If that is what is causing the kidney stones then not having kidney stones should be a very rare exception as 99.99% of the population eats far more cooked food than I do so everyone should have kidney stones - probably world wide.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 25, 2010, 07:50:18 am
If made of calcium oxalate or phosphate (as mine ) they are easily seen in both X-ray and ultrasound scans. In this case they might be ancient and perhaps a result of former gluten rich grain eating.

They may however be more recent too because of kidney overtaxing with nitrogen containing waste from LC diet, namely urea and uric acid, and subsequent higher density urine.

Heavy concentrations of urea maybe favors a higher osmolarity of urine.

My stones are calcium as they show up very nicely on x-rays.  Don't know exact composition as I've never passed one.  My urine had a very high specific gravity at well over 1.05 (as high as my test strips read, normal is 1.01 to 1.03), and highly acidic with a pH of 4.5 to 5.5.  Drinking more water has lessened reduce the both the acidity and specific gravity significantly.  pH now runs 6.0 - 6.5 and SG runs between 1.015 and 1.025.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on February 25, 2010, 04:18:03 pm
My stones are calcium as they show up very nicely on x-rays.  Don't know exact composition as I've never passed one.  My urine had a very high specific gravity at well over 1.05 (as high as my test strips read, normal is 1.01 to 1.03), and highly acidic with a pH of 4.5 to 5.5.  Drinking more water has lessened reduce the both the acidity and specific gravity significantly.  pH now runs 6.0 - 6.5 and SG runs between 1.015 and 1.025.

Lex

Thanks, Lex, for this valuable information. At this stage one cannot rule out that there are different (bad) ways to get calcium based stones: gluten and cooked grain based diets or possibly ZC diets with a too low water intake + probably specific genetic backgrounds.

In my case (gluten based diet) drinking more water didn't help at all.

In your case ( possibly, ZC diet with too high density urine) it is likely that drinking more water may indeed fix the problem, because excretion of more important quantities of urea and uric acid due to ZC seems to favor high urine density on the one hand and meat and fat contain much less water than fruit and vegetables.

I've bought the Siemens sticks you referred to in order to compare your data with mine. I eat some fruit and vegetables ( about 30% presently) and drink less than 1 liter of water/day. My PH is about 6 (first urine in the morning) and around 7-7.5 otherwise. My urine density is typically about 1.015 in spite of the fairly low water intake possibly because of the water supply due to plant foods.



 

 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on April 10, 2010, 11:25:30 am
I haven't posted much as have been very busy of late.  We hosted the family Easter bash this year which is a big to-do as my wife's family is very large.  Not unusual to have 50 to 80 people crammed in our little tract home at various times during the day.  Also had an opportunity to spend a couple of weeks preparing for, and then co-teaching a basic clock repair class - two more of these later this year.  Had a couple from Hong Kong drop by to get the jerky and pemmican treatment first hand as well as a demo for a couple of Scout Troops and some one-on-ones with local folks that visit this and other forums I frequent. 

People are pushing me to do a full lenght video on the pemmican process and I've been researching that project as well.  Since I have no video equipment and am cluless on how to go about writing and producing it, it will be quite a challenge if I decide to go through with it. Something I'm sure the modern 3rd grader has no problem with, but a bit intimidating for an old codger like me.  Unfortunately my children are grown and long gone (youngest is 40) so I'll have to see if I can find a willing 3rd grader in the neighborhood to show me what to do.

I was also contacted by Joanne Nelson about doing a video interview for her blog.  She's back east and I'm on the Left Coast and am a bit of a luddite when it comes to video technology so that project was put on hold.  She contacted me again a couple of weeks ago and asked if I would be willing to do an audio interview.  I couldn't think of a reasonable excuse to get out of that one so said "sure!".

We talked for well over an hour and she has spent a good bit of time trying to edit the result down to something worth listening too.  You can find the results here:

http://joanneunleashed.com/2010/04/lex-rooker-talks-about-his-rawall-meat-diet-and-relief-from-migraines/

Feel free to visit her blog and take a listen.  The worst that will happen is that your ears will fall off from the sound of my voice which I'm told is somewhere between a rusty gate hinge and fingernails on a blackboard (the editing job itself has sent Joanne into therapy).

Will be going on vacation for the next couple of weeks in an effort to wind down from all the activities (not to mention getting my voice back) so will be out of touch for awhile again.

Next big event is my annual lab work which is due in mid July.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: djr_81 on April 10, 2010, 11:47:38 am
Stop in and speak to the local high school AV club. They have all of the equipment and I'm sure someone would help you make the video. They might even do it as a group if you made a donation to the school (or club) for the help. :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on April 10, 2010, 01:08:33 pm
...  Unfortunately my children are grown and long gone (youngest is 40) so I'll have to see if I can find a willing 3rd grader in the neighborhood to show me what to do.

I was also contacted by Joanne Nelson about doing a video interview for her blog.  She's back east and I'm on the Left Coast and am a bit of a luddite when it comes to video technology so that project was put on hold.  She contacted me again a couple of weeks ago and asked if I would be willing to do an audio interview.  I couldn't think of a reasonable excuse to get out of that one so said "sure!".

We talked for well over an hour and she has spent a good bit of time trying to edit the result down to something worth listening too.  You can find the results here:

http://joanneunleashed.com/2010/04/lex-rooker-talks-about-his-rawall-meat-diet-and-relief-from-migraines/

Feel free to visit her blog and take a listen.  ...

    Will there be MP3s available of it?  Wow.  :)

    How old were you when you started having kids?  11?  LOL (I get questions like that over here all too often)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on April 10, 2010, 11:50:14 pm
    Will there be MP3s available of it?  Wow.  :)
I have no idea, you'll have to ask Joanne.  She recorded the interview through a 3rd party 'meet-me confrence' system and then added her own magic to it.  I have no idea what format it is in or whether it can be downloaded.

   
How old were you when you started having kids?  11?  LOL (I get questions like that over here all too often)
My wife stole me from the crib.  The kids are hers from a previous marriage and as she had to have them C-section, by the time I came along the risk of having another one was not worth it.  C-sections were not the art-form they are today back in the 1960's and 70's, and my wife has a vertical scar on her lower abdomin about 6" long and wider than your thumb to prove it. Anyway, I married a complete family.  My son was 11, my daughter was 6, my wife was 32, and I was 25 if memory serves.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on April 12, 2010, 09:38:16 am
The interview was excellent and you sounded great and healthy, nothing at all how you described it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: bleeding on April 24, 2010, 09:00:37 am
I don't know why but I expected you would speak with a faster tempo but you have a very pleasant, calmingly paced voice, Rex.   

    We talked for well over an hour and she has spent a good bit of time trying to edit the result down to something worth listening too.  You can find the results here:

http://joanneunleashed.com/2010/04/lex-rooker-talks-about-his-rawall-meat-diet-and-relief-from-migraines/

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: bleeding on April 24, 2010, 09:03:25 am
Another forum I'm on had this discussion - it was claimed that if you use firefox there are addons that will let you download the mp3 that's "behind" a flash application.

net video hunter and flashgot were mentioned 

    Will there be MP3s available of it?  Wow.  :)

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: djr_81 on April 24, 2010, 06:56:41 pm
Another forum I'm on had this discussion - it was claimed that if you use firefox there are addons that will let you download the mp3 that's "behind" a flash application.

net video hunter and flashgot were mentioned 

I've got Firefox and use Downloadhelper.
That doesn't matter though; I just downloaded and then re-uploaded to Rapidshare for those who want the file by just clicking a link. Here's the link (http://rapidshare.com/files/379560352/rookerl.mp3 (http://rapidshare.com/files/379560352/rookerl.mp3)). I made it available to free users too (it just takes a bit longer to download).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Joanne Unleashed on April 25, 2010, 03:38:23 am
I'd be happy to make the MP3 downloadable. I don't know how to do it. I was happy just being able to embed an audio player. Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 02, 2010, 09:23:54 am
Lex, in the past you explained that if you throw away the cracklings from tallow made at low temps like Delfuego's, then you lose out on some amino acids, because they won't release from the fat's cellular structure. In light of this and for kicks I tried making a low-temp batch (I don't remember the exact temp at the "Warm" setting I used on my crock pot, but I think it was around 170 degrees F) in which I kept the cracklings in it. At first it was actually a little tastier than regular tallow, because the craclings added a bacon-like flavor, though the flavor declined over time--yet it has lasted a few months so far with no mold. Is this a potential solution for people like Delfuego who wish to render at low temps and don't mind making a new batch on a monthly or shorter basis?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 23, 2010, 05:52:32 am
Lex, It has been about 10 months since I went near-ZC and I still have chronic constipation. Some weeks after starting ZC this improved greatly, but within a few more weeks it started worsening again. It's still better than it was (I would no longer classify it as IBS-C with D, like it used to be), but not fully resolved or improving. Do you have any tips on this for myself and others who have not experienced complete resolution of constipation within 8-12 weeks like you reported here: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/lex%27s-journal/msg8899/#msg8899? Also, do you have any tips on how to consume more water?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: 00nightstorm on June 13, 2010, 09:16:11 am
Lex, awesome journal...  Is it possible that your stones were formed many years ago and have only now been dislodged and are wreaking havoc?  In other words, is it possible that your current diet is not to blame but your previous one is?

Paleophil, I am having constipation after 5 months also.  It seems I did not have this problem for a couple months earlier this year and the only difference I can think of is I was eating a lot of salt on my meat.  I am going to try adding in 1 gram of salt a day to my diet and see if my digestion improves.  If that doesn't work then I think I am giving up on zero carb and I am going to try a little raw Sauerkraut every morning.  I have awesome digestion when eating fruit but I just can't handle the other extreme side effects.  I don't want anything to do with sugar.  Maybe sauerkraut is my holy grail. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 13, 2010, 10:47:30 pm
Lex, awesome journal...  Is it possible that your stones were formed many years ago and have only now been dislodged and are wreaking havoc?  In other words, is it possible that your current diet is not to blame but your previous one is?
That's one possibility, but other ZCers have also reported kidney stones or urinary tract infections (which can be caused by kidney stones) and a study found that a ketogenic diet was associated with a high rate of kidney stones in subjects that were chronically dehydrated (though the ketogenic diet in that study was not exactly what any of us are eating), and Lex reported that he had been drinking very little water before he got the kidney stones and his specific gravity numbers suggested significant dehydration. All this has been discussed in the forum before, so if you do a lot of searching and reading of past threads you should find more info.

Quote
Paleophil, I am having constipation after 5 months also.  It seems I did not have this problem for a couple months earlier this year and the only difference I can think of is I was eating a lot of salt on my meat.  I am going to try adding in 1 gram of salt a day to my diet and see if my digestion improves.  If that doesn't work then I think I am giving up on zero carb and I am going to try a little raw Sauerkraut every morning.....
Dr. Jay Wortman does recommend adding salt for carnivores to avoid constipation, which I have reported elsewhere and I think I supplied a link. I have been trying to remember to add salt, but I often forget, because I'm not a big fan of it. I do include salt-rich kelp in my diet. So far, no noticeable improvements from the salt or kelp, even when I tried ingesting large amounts by drinking salt dissolved into hot water or tea.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on June 14, 2010, 12:33:37 am
Phil, you may try cassias fistula (at least half an hour before eating something else). But do not suck more than a few small disks the first day - no more tan 4 or 5 - otherwise... ??? Then you can double the amount every day till their taste becomes bad.

 (http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/Fabaceae/Cassia_fistula.jpg)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on June 17, 2010, 09:39:44 am
yeah,  I agree,  Instinctive peoples use them alot.  I have too.  they also cleanse, what ever that means.  Don't do too many or will really relieve your symptoms.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 30, 2010, 06:16:09 am
It’s July and time for my annual lab tests and a bit of an update.  (Moderator-Will you please post a copy of the attached labs to the first entry of this journal so people can easily compare them – thanks)

I’ve been eating the same food as always, (Slankers ground beef mixed with a bit of their pet food to get some organ meats), however, I’ve been adding a considerable amount of fat to get the fat content consistently up above 80% of calories.  I order the “High Fat” ground meat when Slankers has it available to get as much raw fat as possible, but the added fat is rendered.  I render it for convenience of storage and because I do lots of pemmican demo’s and need the rendered fat anyway.  The purists among you will probably be annoyed, but I’m all about convenience and living the best possible life in the real modern world rather than somehow trying to copy the exact food and lifestyle of 500,000 year old ancestors.  So, rendered fat it is – at least for the time being.

Some of you know Danny Roddy and Kamali.  They both live near me and we went together on some fat in the late spring and had a rendering party at my house where we rendered about 350 lbs of raw fat on a Saturday (it was a very long day….).  We each ended up with about 100 lbs rendered fat and went our separate ways.  Since then I’ve rendered another 150 lbs to cover both my needs for the rest of the year as well as a huge pemmican demo for three Boy Scout troops coming up next month.  I also send out about 100 lbs of pemmican samples each year all over the world. Suffice it to say that I go through a lot of fat and trying to store it raw would require lots and lots of space which I just don’t have.

Back to eating:  My mix is still the same at 4 lbs of ground beef mixed with 1.5 lbs of pet food.  I divide this into 650 gram packages (about 1 ½ lbs) and then add 100 grams or so of rendered fat to each 650 gram package when I’m ready to eat it.  This comes out to about 2,300 calories per day with about 85% of calories from fat. 

I’ve gained about 10 lbs on this very high fat diet but weight has stabilized at about 168.

No problems with kidney stones since the last bout in January or early February.  I started with two stones and both are still lurking just waiting for a chance to bring great misery at the most inopportune time.  One stone has passed into the bladder and it is still there.  The other stone is still up in the kidney area.  Neither seem to have changed in size as best as can be told from the x-rays though we would need a CT scan to get an accurate picture and I’ve decided not to bother unless or until they start to move again.  Just not excited about exposing myself to unnecessary radiation.

Lab Tests:
Most things are right down the middle as they have been on previous tests.

Fasting Glucose is still running right at 100 (this time it was 98, last year it was 99).  Interesting that the long term very high fat diet has not dropped fasting BG levels.

HbA1c did drop from 6.0% to 5.8%.  Not sure if this is statistically significant, but it did drop slightly and this may be due to higher fat and lower protein consumption.

Total Cholesterol rose from 185 last year to 190 this year.  Not sure that this is significant since 5 or 6 years ago it was well over 250.  Needless to say I’m happy with 190 and my doctor is amazed considering my very high fat diet.  He predicted I’d be dead by now from clogged arteries eating the way I do.  Don’t know about the arteries, but I can say that Total Cholesterol has dropped rather dramatically since I started this adventure.

HDL is good at 66 and LDL not bad at 108. 
HDL/LDL ratio is 66/108=0.61
LDL/HDL ratio is 108/66=1.64
Total Cholesterol/HDL Ratio is 190/66= 2.9
All of this seems to be in the very low risk category of popular medical opinion, whatever that is worth.
 
PSA test did rise from 1.5 last year to 2.2 this year.  At my age they don’t wring their hands and panic until it is above 4.  I’m not overly excited with the trend, but stuck with the cards I’ve been dealt.  It could be that the prostate problem could have been avoided if I’d started this earlier, but too late now.  I’ve become a firm believer that some things can be avoided by good diet, but once out of whack diet alone won’t fix it. 

I did ask for a 25 Hydroxy D3 test as well but didn’t get it with these results. Will have to follow up with the doc to see it was left out in error or if the insurance denied it. 

Lex



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on July 30, 2010, 07:31:42 am
Lex, How have you been?  :)
Have you ever tried bison back fat. Very good raw, the texture not to dry, not to wet. I take it out of the freezer and can cut on it without thawing. Now that's quality fat! I got mine from www.northstarbison.com. I am sure Slankers might have some.

I just thought is would be ideal for adding extra fat to your meals. Just a thought.  ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ioanna on July 30, 2010, 10:43:31 am
wow, I didn't know they sell adrenal.. isn't that hard to find?? I've never seen anyway. 

I didn't see the bison back fat?

Lex, great to hear from you!  but so much rendered fat?  Well, to each his own, it doesn't quite work for me, and you're obviously doing fantastic!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on July 30, 2010, 12:06:32 pm
I didn't see the bison back fat?

Oh, sorry. You got to call them to get it. It's not on the website for north star bison.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 30, 2010, 12:27:14 pm
Hi Sully,
I’ve tried bison fat and it is very good.  It’s just that I’m in a comfortable routine where I don’t have to think much about diet and eating.  I call in my monthly order to Slankers and then can spend the rest of my time doing other things that interest me.  I seldom give a thought to food.  I have a lot going with pemmican & jerky demos, community volunteer projects, repairing and restoring antique clocks and a host of other things.  Seems like I’ve always got someone over working on one project or another – either mine or theirs.

Ioanna,
Hope you are doing well.   I’ve found that rendered fat works well for me – at least it has for the past year or so.  Much more convenient to store and use than raw fat which must be kept frozen.  I can render a year’s worth in an afternoon and store it in 5 gallon buckets which hold about 35 - 40 lbs.  At 100g per day a 5 gal bucket lasts about 5 months.  If I weren’t giving so much of it away, 100 lbs (after rendering) would easily cover my personal needs for a year.  What with pemmican demos and samples I use almost 3 times that much each year.

I’m happy with my lab results and see no need to change what I’m doing for the foreseeable future. I’ll continue to eat the way most people feed their pets.  It’s easy and I feel great.  I spend a total of 30 minutes or less a day preparing and eating my food.  Cost is also reasonable at less than $10 USD per day.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on July 30, 2010, 04:15:08 pm

No problems with kidney stones since the last bout in January or early February.  I started with two stones and both are still lurking just waiting for a chance to bring great misery at the most inopportune time.  One stone has passed into the bladder and it is still there.  The other stone is still up in the kidney area.  Neither seem to have changed in size as best as can be told from the x-rays though we would need a CT scan to get an accurate picture and I’ve decided not to bother unless or until they start to move again.  Just not excited about exposing myself to unnecessary radiation.



When I had my kidney stones problem ordinary X-rays invariably showed a clear-cut increase in stone size over a period of 6 months. So your data are very encouraging and it seems unlikely that your diet has a responsibility or adverse effect in this respect. If I were in your shoes I wouldn't bother too and avoid as much as possible further X-rays of the stones. Ultrasound imaging might be an alternative harmless technique to keep an eye on them. Mine were eventually easily visible and followed in this way by a skilled radiologist. 

What is also very amazing is that your blood lipid profile is very similar to mine (HDL 65, LDL 110, Total cholesterol 180) although I eat markedly less fat of animal origin and a substantial part of plant foods.

Thanks for sharing so openly you experience.     
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Savage on July 30, 2010, 04:29:20 pm
Good to have you back Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 30, 2010, 10:52:52 pm
Alphagruis,
The stones in my x-rays are rather fuzzy (at least to my eyes) so it’s difficult to judge size.  My doctor isn’t overly excited about them but then he’s 75 years old and doesn’t get excited about much of anything.  The fact that the stones can be seen in an x-rays shows that there’s definitely calcium involved.  Other than that I don’t have much to report about them.

Savage,
Never left, just very busy with other things.  Since I retired I seem to be going full tilt from sun up to sun down.  I’ve been asked to come back to work at my old job and they’ve offered a very attractive wage, but I’m so busy and having so much fun that I’ve turned them down.

I do check into the forum once in a while but not everyday.  I do answer PM’s promptly as I’m notified by e-mail when I get one.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 01, 2010, 02:10:26 am
Great to hear that you're still doing well, Lex. Some of the more vocal carb proponents were starting to use your absence as an excuse to imply that you might not be, but my guess was it had more to do with your busy-ness and I could see by your profile that you were still sometimes reading the forum.

Have you managed to stay well hydrated? That's something that I think I still need a little work on, but I don't tend to get thirsty so I tend to forget to drink as much water as I would need to get my SG to good levels. I wonder if that would also help a bit with my continued constipation. How long did your constipation last after you went carnivore and are you thirst-deficient like I seem to be (and was before I went raw carnivore)? Raw carnivory at first appeared to exacerbate my thirst deficiency, but it seems like my thirst for and enjoyment of water is gradually increasing--especially when I haven't eaten much plant foods (I've been experimenting with greens, local berries and other plant foods recently) for a while.

....  I’ve found that rendered fat works well for me – at least it has for the past year or so.  Much more convenient to store and use than raw fat which must be kept frozen. ... I can render a year’s worth in an afternoon and store it in 5 gallon buckets which hold about 35 - 40 lbs.  At 100g per day a 5 gal bucket lasts about 5 months.
Actually, I've found that suet lasts more than 5 months just stuck in paper bags on a shelf. There is a concern about oxidation, however, so I usually buy in small enough quantities (at $1.70 - $1.90 /lb.) so that I don't have to store it for very long, but I stuck some on a higher shelf and didn't eat it to see how long it would last. It seems to last forever. Interestingly, suet tastes better to me when it has been aired out for more than a few days and it tastes worst if it's been in loose plastic that was not vacuum-packed, has some moisture in it, and is stored this way in the fridge for more than a day or two.

What do you think of KGH's and Alphagruis' argument to eat a small amount of carbs so the body doesn't have to convert protein into carbs in a less efficient manner?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 01, 2010, 01:59:58 pm
Hi Phil,
Yup, very busy with doing things I enjoy.  For me, eating the way I do is a means to having the energy and health to do what I want and not the end in itself.  My food intake is so simplified that there is very little that I can add to what I’ve already said.  I get my annual checkup and the numbers continue to support this simple lifestyle as well.

I do drink considerably more water now than in the past.  I try to keep my intake up in the 3 liter/day level.  I have the same problem as you in that I’m not thirsty most of the time, but the thought of kidney stones mucking about in my urinary tract is plenty of incentive to keep me at the water trough a bit longer.

The last suet I purchased was about $1.30/lb which I thought was a pretty good deal.  Rendering it just makes it very easy to store and there is nothing to cut or chop when I want some.  Just scoop, mix and eat.

I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that our bodies will convert a good bit of all the protein we eat into glucose whether we eat carbs or not.  There are several entries in my journal showing my BG measurements and the associated calcs that seem to support this.  If others have actual experimental data that conflicts with the data I have, I’d be interested to see it.  I spent a good bit of effort in setting up experiments where I varied protein levels with and without added carbs while tracking BG every ½ hour.  I also ran each protocol for a full week and then compared the BG curves.  All seemed to indicate that between 55 and 60 percent of all protein eaten ultimately turned to glucose.  When carbs were added the BG peaks just went higher than with protein alone, and the rise was consistent with what would be expected for the amount of carbs eaten.  The rise in BG caused by added carbs was also much shorter duration and superimposed over the much longer broader rise in BG caused by protein.

To be honest, I’ve pretty much come not to care much about it anymore.  My body does whatever it does with what I eat, and as long as I continue to feel great, if it wants to create glucose out of protein (or not) it’s OK with me.  I trust that my body will do the right thing regardless of what nonsense I’ve chosen to believe or disbelieve.  From what I’ve been able to glean from my most careful observations is that my body really doesn’t care what I think.   It’s what I do (or don’t do) that causes it so much trouble….

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 01, 2010, 07:05:12 pm

I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that our bodies will convert a good bit of all the protein we eat into glucose whether we eat carbs or not.  There are several entries in my journal showing my BG measurements and the associated calcs that seem to support this.  If others have actual experimental data that conflicts with the data I have, I’d be interested to see it.  


 According to well known standard biochemistry, amino acids cannot be stored or excreted. So any dietary excess that is not used to synthetize our own proteins and enzymes is actually converted into metabolic precursors (such as pyruvate, oxaloacetate or alpha-cetoglutarate) of glucose, fatty acids and cetonic bodies . If there is no carbs intake from diet, part of these precursors ends up in the form of glucose otherwise one might expect that the excess of amino acids rather ends up in the form of fatty acids. At any rate in all cases the amino acids must initially be deaminated and the nitrogen excreted in the form of urea. In terms of nitrogen waste excretion this means that only the total protein excess intake matters independent of carbs intake.

So the point re a minimal carbs intake is that it permits in principle to reduce the excess of protein intake and thus nitrogen waste excretion on the one hand and on the other hand has (again in principle) a better energetic efficiency because endogenic synthesis of glucose ( the path from pyruvate to glucose in gluconeogenesis) needs a priori extra energy in the form of ATP's and thus production of extra reactive oxygen species. Yet maybe glucose can be essentially obtained from glycerol in fats or merely from pyruvate end metabolite in glycolysis and close a cycle. Moreover some of us have trouble with carbs digestion and maybe carbs digestion needs more energy than protein digestion and this might well offset the above mentioned drawbacks.

So we can hardly conclude now and certainly have to rely on more experiments such as yours, Lex.        
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 02, 2010, 12:01:09 am
alphargruis,
I suppose that the key is in your wording like “one might expect” and “in principal”.  Truth be told I don’t know and I don’t know anyone who does know, and for all practical purposes it doesn’t matter much in my daily life.

I have no evidence that there is some health penalty paid when protein is converted to glucose.  Neither do I have any evidence that there is some health advantage gained (or penalty paid) by eating a few carbs.  The body has several metabolic paths that it uses depending on the conditions it is facing.  How do we know that one is better than another from a practical daily living standpoint?  And, why on earth would I make dietary decisions based on trying to control something that I admittedly know very little about (from the standpoint that I don’t know if one metabolic pathway is truly better than another), and I can’t measure anyway.

What I can measure is in my lab results and each year they seem to get better.  On top of that I feel great.  Whatever metabolic pathway my body is using seems to be working well for me in “reality”, so in “principal” I see no reason to change.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Paleo Donk on August 02, 2010, 01:19:09 am
Hello Lex,

I must admit that I love your attitude towards diet and wish I had more simple non-convoluted thoughts you seem to possess and am most happy about your statement about spending your time doing things you love. This is no doubt I believe a key to your health and vitality.

Unfortunately for me, I am obsessed over smaller details and don't really feel settled at all with my decisions with regards to dieting. One of the more troubling issues I have come across while on this diet is at what level protein begins to become toxic (or at least sub-optimal) to the body. There is a great thread on the dirty carnivore forum about health problems found in the Inuit.

http://forum.dirtycarnivore.com/index.php/topic,304.0.html

Since the Inuit did appear to possibly suffer from some bone health issues, one connection can be made is regards to the protein level in their diet as higher levels of protein intake have, as even studied in some controlled trials have shown to decrease calcium balance.

Quote
Mean calcium balance decreased from 8mg to -62mg per day when the protein intake was increased; the difference was highly significant (P <0.001).
The diets differed in protein content from 48g to 142g per day. I have uncovered quite a few more studies like this one that show similar results. It is no doubt that protein becomes acutely toxic at some level - I believe beginning in the 250-300g per day as this is where nitrogen excretion capabilities of the body seem to be maximized.

There is no way to tell the protein intakes of these pre-contact eskimos but it does really make me wonder if some of them were consuming protein well in excess. For me, excess protein(as the case where significant carbohydrate is in the diet) is the level just above where nitrogen balance takes place, which from studies is remarkably low - perhaps in the 30-50g per day range. As Alphagruis likes to point out, humans do not have the enzyme uricase as do other mammals to help reuse nitrogen end products.

Clearly there is much to the story and I will be experimenting with low-protein diets or intermittent protein consumption in the future to test this. Perhaps humankind had to turn to more plant sources and higher protein once the megafauna died out and the earth warmed.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 02, 2010, 01:30:19 am
Lex

I agree with your comment.

Since Phil mentioned it I recalled my point in your journal but it was not initially (in an other thread) addressed to you nor was it  intended to dissuade any ZC from staying on his diet. It was initially a response to some outrageous claims of other ZCs.

I appreciate very much you approach and journal and my personal present guess is that there are probably very different (in terms of carbs intake or otherwise) "healthy" diets.

Paleo Donk

It would be of interest to find out whether or not the minimum protein requirement is indeed increased in ZC as compared to a diet that provides the minimum glucose required directly in diet.      
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 02, 2010, 01:46:25 am
My food intake is so simplified that there is very little that I can add to what I’ve already said.  I get my annual checkup and the numbers continue to support this simple lifestyle as well.
Unfortunately, my improvements have still not been as comprehensive as yours. I still have daily constipation (it improved for a couple weeks on raw ZC and then gradually relapsed, though without the other IBS-type problems I used to get), mild dehydration, mild residual toe cramps that are held at bay with low daily doses of potassium, and what most people consider underweight (currently 133 lbs at 5’11”, a narrow frame and what people tell me is an “emaciated” appearance except for a small amount of belly flab—aka “skinny fat”—however, it is about the weight that I was at in my 20s and 30s). I suspect that increasing my intake of organs and water to levels closer to yours might help some.

Quote
I try to keep my intake up in the 3 liter/day level.
I find that my bladder gets painfully bloated before I reach that point and I have to interrupt work and home life frequently with urgent runs to the bathroom. Does the bladder eventually expand to handle this intake or did you have no problem with it from the start?

Quote
I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that our bodies will convert a good bit of all the protein we eat into glucose whether we eat carbs or not. ....
Yes, KGH, Alphagruis and the others acknowledge that, but they claim that the conversion is inefficient and that this is somehow bad.

This question seems unresolved, so I searched KGH’s blog and here is my paraphrasing of his reasons I found for eating around 50g of carbs/day, if you or anyone else has time to look at them:

KGH’s reasons for including at least 5% calories as carbs in the diet that I’ve found:
1.   The body uses 50 g/day carbs (about 10% of total calories) regardless of what you eat
2.   Kwasneiwski’s Optimal Diet recommends a minimum of 5% carbs (and 10% protein) because “you need the glucose anyway so why not eat it straight away” to minimize the “metabolic work” your body needs to do (making your body convert protein to carbs is less efficient, and therefore apparently more metabolically taxing than eating carbs)?
3.   Even Dr. Bernstein recommends 30g carbs/day for diabetics (in a “6-12-12” plan representing the number of carbs eaten at each meal). [Note: However, according to a secondary source, Dr. Bernstein doesn’t claim that any carbs are needed, but just includes them to err on the side of caution.]
4.   Carbs are “the phylogenetically oldest fuel”
5.   “there is no reason to think there is any benefit to eating less than 10%” of total calories as carbs and “there is no advantage to purposely converting your extra protein to glucose”
6.   The excess protein you eat is either inefficiently converted to carbs or is converted into body fat, so eat carbs to provide a safety margin that avoids these two issues
7.   “all protein does not get converted to glucose” (so some apparently gets converted into fat and/or excreted)
8.   People whose BG “levels are still in the 100s after meals and between meals, and not just in the AM … may have some IR going on.” [Note: however, Lex’s BG levels dropped when he increased his % fat intake, if I understand correctly.]
9.   “Paleolithic man had a varied diet so modern man should be able to as well.“ [However, this sounds close to “food re-enactment.” As he has argued in the past, just because Paleo man ate something doesn’t make it optimally healthy.]
10.   Alphagruis adds: avoiding nitrogen waste excretion from converting protein into glucose, which he presumably believes has a potentially deleterious health effect

So it looks like KGH’s argument for eating 50 g/day of carbs boils down to that it reduces the metabolic work your body does so it can instead do more tissue repair and Alphagruis adds that nitrogen waste excretion is reduced. The question is, how do we know that either of these things have benefits in the real world? Based on KGH’s points, it sounds like we should expect that most people will have improved muscle development by including this level of carbs, with the exception being people with IR who may not respond well to carb intake. Based on Alphagruis’ point, it sounds like we should expect increased strain on the kidneys by not including some carbs in the diet and we should look for azotemia (abnormally high levels of nitrogen-containing compounds) and symptoms like:

> Decreased or absent urine output (oliguria or anuria).
> Fatigue
> Asterixis
> Decreased alertness
> Confusion
> Pale skin color
> Tachycardia (rapid pulse)
> Dry mouth (xerostomia)
> Thirst, swelling (edema, anasarca)
> Orthostatic blood pressure (rises or falls, significantly depending on position)
> Uremic frost

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azotemia

Like Lex, I put more stock in real-world experience than in potential textbook problems from converting proteins into carbs, but my health is not yet as optimized as his, so I'm still somewhat interested in where this question might lead.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on August 02, 2010, 05:05:04 am
Yup, very busy with doing things I enjoy.  For me, eating the way I do is a means to having the energy and health to do what I want and not the end in itself.....To be honest, I’ve pretty much come not to care much about it anymore....I trust that my body will do the right thing regardless of what nonsense I’ve chosen to believe or disbelieve.

That's wonderful to hear Lex!  These are profound statements that many of us should perhaps take to heart - myself included.  I suspect it hasn't always been that way for you considering the long, meandering dietary journey you've taken to get where you are now (as have many of us here) and I wonder if this new meditative state of contentment is a reflection of the state of health you have now attained after much hard work and dedication?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 02, 2010, 05:16:03 am
Yet maybe glucose can be essentially obtained from glycerol in fats or merely from pyruvate end metabolite in glycolysis and close a cycle.       

That sounds interesting. Could you maybe explain this in more detail? So glycerol can be converted in glucose, but only under certain circumstances?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 02, 2010, 05:35:25 am

It would be of interest to find out whether or not the minimum protein requirement is indeed increased in ZC as compared to a diet that provides the minimum glucose required directly in diet.      

After my dentist had discovered the hardened caries in my mouth, another dentist advised me to avoid eating sugar. So I made an experiment and tried to avoid eating fruit. The result was that I began to feel dizzy and that I lacked energy. Furthermore, I really had to force myself NOT to eat fruit because the fruits smelled awesome, even when distant. So I began to eat fruit again without restraining myself anymore and the dizziness problems disappeared. Later i understood that it was not possible to eat much protein with my rawvegan diet. Therefore, no protein was left that could have been converted into glucose.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on August 02, 2010, 05:38:36 am
Nice summarisation Phil. 

Thank you for the explanation alphagruis.

I feel these are issues of extreme importance.  Science, it appears, does not yet provide conclusive answers.

Do I understand you correctly, alphagruis, that the main benefit to attaining a minimal level of carbohydrate consumption is largely because it's a more efficient energetic conversion?  Excess nitrogen waste is an issue with converting protein to glucose but ONLY when there exists an excess level of protein consumed relevant to the bodies needs? 

Quote
Yet maybe glucose can be essentially obtained from glycerol in fats or merely from pyruvate end metabolite in glycolysis and close a cycle.

As Hanna also just mentioned, could you elaborate further on the potential and circumstances under which glycerol is converted to glucose?  Are you supposing that this process could essentially eradicate the requirement for the alleged minimal levels of dietary carbohydrate?

As a member whose opinion is greatly respected by myself and others on this forum - What are you own personal conclusions/suppositions based on all of evidence at this point alphagruis?

Without wishing to engage in 'paleo re-enactment' - If one supposes a figure of 50-100g of dietary carbohydrate (as has been mentioned) is required where do you suppose these were obtained in the pre-cooking paleolithic era?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: King Salmon on August 02, 2010, 05:41:47 am
Wow Phil.I didn't know you were that thin.Lex has said in previous posts,that increasing fat intake will increase weight.Have you tried that?


I'd also be willing to bet that a lot of us here were "meat deprived" for a long time prior to RPD.So,we probably could live on meat alone for quite a long time with great benefits.However,after 10-20 years of meat only?Who knows?Let's ask Lex when he turns 70-80 ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 02, 2010, 07:05:35 am
Wow Phil.I didn't know you were that thin.Lex has said in previous posts,that increasing fat intake will increase weight.Have you tried that?

....
Yes, though I don't measure and I find fats very satiating, so it could be I'm not eating as much of it as I should. It seems like I have less appetite for fat lately, so I should probably start measuring out portions again.

There's something to be said for results in the here-and-now too as versus future potential results. If I feel better from raw meat and fat and worse when I include small amounts of fruit, honey or tubers, should I bother to include the latter based on some hypothetical future result? I think Lex and Katelyn have a good point that it doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, it is true that some people didn't notice problems until years down the road, so I take that into consideration as well. I found a base of food that I do well on and I'm experimenting and learning to see if there's any other potentially beneficial foods I can handle well.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 02, 2010, 09:35:58 am
Paleo D
I suppose a good bit of my attitude comes from age.  Over the years I’ve discovered that I’m going to get old no matter what I eat or how much (or what kind of) exercise I do.  Seems to be some built in biological thing.  Eating the way I do has also contributed considerably to how good I feel most of the time. I no longer feel sluggish, the emotional highs and lows have leveled out, and the horrible migraine headaches I suffered with for 40 years have gone completely.  Can’t remember the last time I had one.

Not sure what the consequences are of a negative calcium balance.  What does that mean to my overall real world health.  I’ve had a DEXA scan and passed with flying colors.  Bone density has also increased in my jaw enough to be easily seen in dental x-rays.  Blood levels of calcium are smack dab in the middle of the normal range.  If that is the result of a negative calcium balance from over consuming protein in the absence of carbs then apparently that is something I want to continue to do.  There might be studies showing high protein consumption affects calcium balance but what is the real world effect on our overall health.  Just as the doctors feared that low Vit C levels in meat would quickly lead to scurvy, it just hasn’t happened, and no one can satisfactorily explain why.  Either there is more Vit C than people think or something else is going on.  Same with calcium balance.  It was predicted that I’d lose bone density through a variety of mechanism (negative calcium balance, leaching of the bones to off-set my acidic diet etc).  In fact the opposite has happened. 

I no longer obsess over studies that lead to theories not in line with my actual results.  Reality trumps theory in my book.  I’m convinced that the researchers don’t understand all they know about the subject.  I’m also convinced that I don’t have to understand the bio-molecular workings of my body at the cellular level to live an active and productive life.  Maybe it comes down to finally achieving some wisdom along with all that knowledge I have rattling around in my head.

Alphargruis,
I don’t think there is any magic in ZC.  I do think you can over do the carbs and I also think there are some carb sources that are not good food, but other than that I have nothing against them.  A small salad and/or a piece of fruit everyday is probably beneficial and enjoyable as well.  I’ve tried to add this back into my diet but just don’t enjoy it (with the exception of a hand full of cherries or a few grapes a couple of times per year).  I’m fairly close to ZC because that is now what I prefer, not because of any ideological bent.  I started ZC as an adventure and only continue it because I now enjoy eating this way.  If my health were to suffer I’d make a change in a heartbeat. 

Phil,
There are lots of “reasons”, “beliefs” and dare I say a bit of religion when it comes to diet.  KGH et al are free to believe what they wish and I get to believe what I wish.  And just because we believe something, doesn’t make it a correct belief.  In stead I’ll say I’m happy with my results and I know Kurt is thrilled with his.  That’s all that counts.  The diversity of opinion is what fuels our forums and makes things interesting.  One thing I can say is that I have not experienced any of the symptoms you listed with the exception of rapid heart beat and that was transitory.

Michael,
You are correct that I, too, suffer from the occasional bout of zealotry even to this day.  However, I do my best to objectively think things through and I constantly compare my beliefs against real world experience and observations.  I’m amazed how often my most cherished beliefs are struck down when subjected to the light of reality.  So many years wasted blindly following the whims of gurus who knew little more than I did, or clinging to studies and theories that sounded good but weren’t supported by even the most casual observation of the reality around me.

Hanna,
Fat is stored in the form of triglycerides.  A triglyceride is three fatty acid molecules attached to one glycerol molecule.  When fat is broken down, (either through digestion of dietary fat or mobilized from our own fat tissue) the three fatty acid molecules are released and the glycerol molecule is freed.  The glycerol molecule is then free to recombine with another three fatty acids to create another triglyceride, or, it can combine with another free glycerol molecule and be turned into a single molecule of glucose.  For the most part, all this takes place in the liver, but there is some evidence that under certain conditions triglycerides can be formed directly in the fat tissue itself through hormonal and enzyme action, thus bypassing the liver.  As far as I know, the conversion of glycerol into glucose is only done in the liver, but most of this is new science so who knows what we’ll find in the future.

As for your dizziness, this is a common symptom when transitioning from a glucose based metabolism to a fatty acid based metabolism.  The body has been conditioned to use carbs as it’s main fuel and must go through a great deal of effort to reconfigure to efficiently burn fatty acids as its primary fuel.  Of course you were craving fruit.  Every cell and system in your body was screaming for glucose.  The only way to get through this is just to power through it.  Like a drug addict, if you soothe the withdrawal symptoms by supplying the drug, you’ll only prevent or delay the transition.

To efficiently burn fatty acids requires a significant increase of mitochondria at the cellular level.  Yes, mitochondria are there for the basic functioning of the cell, but not enough to allow the cell to efficiently use only fatty acids as its primary fuel source. Glucose metabolism is a “fermentive” process (like yeast fermenting sugar into alcohol) and doesn’t involve mitochondria.   Mitochondria are small cells within the larger cells and they divide and multiply just like the larger host cell of which they are an integral part.  Increasing mitochondria is not an over night process and takes significant time.  In my case, I was over the worst of the transition issues within about 3 months, but my own measurement of Blood Glucose and urine Ketones as well as my annual lab tests, showed that significant changes were still occurring after one year.  If you look at my lab tests from 2007 to present you’ll see ongoing incremental improvement even though my basic diet has remained the same for that entire time.

   
Michael (again)
The idea that consuming some minimum level of carbs is a good thing because it is some how more efficient is just that, an idea, a theory.  It sounds good, but I know of no studies or peer reviewed work that demonstrates that one metabolic pathway is better than another.  They are just different and each meets a specific need of the body under specific conditions.  For years science has told us that red meat and fat causes heart disease and we’ve recently come to question that medical wisdom.  I expect that even if we find some truth in the “carbs are more efficient” theory, there will be much more to the story than first thought.

As for the conversion of glycerol into glucose, it doesn’t account for much glucose as it takes two glycerol molecules to make one molecule of glucose.  In the process 6 fatty acids are freed up, and if not used, thrown away.  This is one of the reasons that people who have been large carb eaters lose so much weight in the first few weeks on a low carb diet.  As explained in my response to Hanna above, in the first few weeks of transition the cells are all screaming for glucose as they can’t efficiently use fatty acids due to lack of mitochondria.  Since dietary carbs are being restricted, large amounts of body fat are mobilized to get at the glycerol to make glucose.  The fatty acids can’t be used and are thrown away by conversion to ketones and excreted through sweat, breath, urine, etc.  This means that as much as 75% of the energy consumed as well as broken down from our own fat stores is discarded.  Much of the dietary fat goes undigested as well.  No wonder we lose weight rapidly.

Over time the cellular mitochondria increase to the point where the cells can efficiently use the fatty acids for fuel.  Urinary ketones will drop dramatically as the fatty acids are now being burned as fuel and not discarded.  And, horrors upon horrors weight loss will stop and even reverse and suddenly calories count again since the body is now efficiently using the fat that is being consumed.  Even worse, if you now start to consume a high level of carbs again, weight will increase rapidly as the fat will be consumed as the primary fuel and the massive rise in Blood Glucose caused by the carbs will be quickly converted to body fat and stored to get it out of the way.

As for paleo use of carbs, your guess is as good as mine.  I wasn’t there, but I do believe we have a ‘sweet tooth’ for a reason.  Seasonal carbs in the form of tart berries and fruits would probably be our source for carbs and since we were using fat as our primary fuel (assuming you believe our primary diet was meat and fat) the carbs eaten in the summer months would quickly fatten us up as our bodies cleared the excessive BG from our systems and this excess weight would prepare us for the lean winter months – that’s my theory anyway, and I’m sticking to it…. Until a better one comes along…..

Phil (again)
Yup, it can take years for things to develop and change, both for the better or the worse.  That is why I get my annual lab work done.  I expect that deficiencies and other problems will show up in the various lab tests long before I notice them affecting me physically.

Wheew, I think I covered everything,
Lex

 

 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 02, 2010, 01:53:29 pm
Hi Lex,
Thank you for your explanations. I already used fat as my primary fuel at that time. I ate little fruit, no honey, no or very few cashews and no other food high in carbs, i. e. no more than 100g sugar per day on average, as far as I remember. But it was impossible to cancel fruit/carbs (almost) completely, while eating raw-VEGAN.

Michael,
I think that Wrangham could be right and homo erectus cooked already nearly 2 million years ago.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: majormark on August 02, 2010, 04:46:43 pm
Lex,

What about the notion that alcohol can help with fat digestion? What do you think about that?

Is it possible that we also consumed carbs to help break down fat?

Aajonus claims that this is one of the reasons to eat fruits (carbs).

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on August 02, 2010, 05:15:51 pm
vegetable & meat don't go together..
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 02, 2010, 09:47:47 pm
2010 July PDF results of Lex now attached on page 1 of this thread on the very first post for convenience.

Best wishes all.

Thanks for sharing Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 02, 2010, 10:18:15 pm
Hanna, Michael,

As to the glycerol to glucose conversion Lex answered your question and I can't see anything I could add. As he points out this is probably only a minor source of glucose in ZC.

The conversion of amino acids or other metabolites to glucose costs typically 11 ATPs , the cells energy "currency", per glucose molecule ( in case of amino acids). The potential problem with this is not so much the energy expenditure by itself but the fact that the production of the relevant energy in the form ATPs is additional mitochondrial activity (the energy factories of the cells) and thus production of additional reactive oxygen species and in turn additional oxidant stress which is thought to be involved in ageing and wear of cell components. In principle this additional stress is not present when the relevant glucose is obtained directly from diet. As I pointed out before this assumes however that digestion of plant carbs and digestion of fatty meat are comparable in terms of energetic costs and related oxidant stress which is possibly not the case.

Excess nitrogen waste is produced whenever amino acids are converted into glucose, fat or ketonic bodies. And this happens whenever there is an excess of amino acids with respect to the needs of body repair and protein synthesis. So if an excess of protein must indeed be provided by the ZC diet to meet minimal glucose requirements by means of gluconeogenesis from amino acids there is an additional production of nitrogen waste and thus an additional excretion load on kidneys as compared to a situation where the minimal glucose is obtained directly from a diet with the minimal carbs and correspondingly less protein intake. Notice however that if protein intake is the same in this diet as in ZC, nitrogen waste is the same, the only difference being that the excess protein is rather stored in form of fat than glucose.    

Moreover there is the fact I became only aware of recently that there exists according to standard biochemistry knowledge a metabolic pathway that converts pyruvate back to glucose. Pyruvate is a degradation product of glucose in glycolysis, the fermentation process that permits to get part of the energy available in glucose in its initial anaerobic degradation process. Of course the back conversion of pyruvate to glucose also needs energy in the form of ATPs as with gluconeogenesis from amino acids but there is now no production of additional nitrogen waste in this process. Maybe this pathway plays indeed a major role in gluconeogenesis in ZC conditions. In this way glucose could in fact be regenerated indefinitely in a closed cycle with no need of dietary intake at all and no disadvantage in terms of additional nitrogen waste. The energy needed to regenerate the glucose would come from fat oxidation in mitochondria.

So it seem possible from a biochemical point of view that ZC does not necessarily produce additional nitrogen waste but we don't know yet for sure.  

  
 

        
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 03, 2010, 01:20:42 am
Thanks Goodsamaritan!

Hanna,
How can you possibly know that your body is using fat as its primary fuel source – especially when eating raw Vegan.  The fact that you can’t cancel carbs and are driven to eat them is compelling evidence to the contrary.  Your own evidence shows that your body is glucose driven.  To change it would require that you reduce carbs below 30g/day for several months.  This would be difficult if not impossible on a vegan diet since by definition it is carb based.  We humans have an infinite capacity to rationalize reality to fit what we wish to believe. 


Majormark,
I know nothing about alcohol as I don’t consume it.  I have nothing against it, we just never had alcohol in our house when I was growing up and I never developed a taste for it.  As a teenager I tried drinking with the guys on Friday nights etc but hated the feeling of being out of control so alcohol has just never been part of my life.

Do carbs help break down fat?  No clue.  I have no evidence that carbs are necessary to break down fats.  What peer reviewed evidence does Aajonus provide to support his claims?  Anyone (including me) can claim anything they wish, that doesn’t make it true.  I no longer blindly accept the pontifications of gurus without solid evidence to back it up.


Miles,
How do you know that vegetables and meat don’t go together?  I know that this is the conventional wisdom of the food combining crowd, but I know of no verifiable evidence that this is true.  We have been eating mixed meals for thousands of years and I don’t know of any specific health issue that can be attributed to eating vegetables with meat. I think there is plenty of evidence that over consuming carbs in general, and especially grains, can cause long term health issues, but I’ve seen nothing that supports the food combining theory.  My guess is that it is mostly nonsense like much of the ‘Natural Hygiene’ dogma.

Alphargruis,
Why would we need to be concerned with the “ATP” cost of creating glucose from amino acids?  Every function our body performs has an energy cost.  How do we know that energy accounting at the micro metabolic level is a valid way to determine anything useful?  A specific function may have a high energy cost, but it may lower the overall energy cost to the organism as a whole.  Another function may have a lower initial energy cost but create metabolites that are used far less efficiently and therefore have a much higher overall energy cost.  We have no way of knowing.  I also don’t know of any real world evidence that shows that more damage from oxidative stress is caused by one metabolic function as opposed to another.

As for the fact that nitrogen waste is created when amino acids are converted to glucose, so what?   Nitrogen causing kidney damage has been a favorite theory for years, but it never seems to actually occur in reality – unless of course, the kidneys were already damaged by something else.  A meat and fat diet alone has never been shown to cause the predicted damage.

Not sure what value is to be gained from agonizing over obscure metabolic pathways or that fact that every one of these pathways requires energy to function.  If my body wishes to convert pyruvate into glucose it’s fine with me.  If it decides not to convert pyruvate into glucose that is fine with me also.  I can’t force it to do this nor can I prevent it.  I can’t even tell when it is doing it, or measure how much it has done.  My body is much smarter about these things than I am, so I spend zero time worrying about it.

It is a fool’s errand to make decisions based on trying to force a theoretical outcome of some parameter that we know little or nothing useful about.  For years now we’ve controlled cholesterol through both diet and medication.  We are now able to achieve the theoretical numbers but the patients die from heart disease anyway.  What makes the theories of metabolic energy costs, oxidative stress, kidney damage from nitrogen loads, and all the rest any different?  It’s chasing rainbows.  You may wish to bury yourself in the latest micro metabolic theories, but I prefer to spend what precious time I have left on pursuits that have more immediate tangible benefits.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: King Salmon on August 03, 2010, 02:37:24 am
Majormark/Miles/Lex,  Majormark wrote a post reflecting that AV recomends eating fruits to help digest meats.Then Miles wrote that veggies don't go with meat.
From my experience,those thoughts are backwards.
             Meats with veggies are fine.Meats with fruits are not.

This is from my experience and makes the most sense to me.

Lex,of course on a mono-diet,food combining is a non-issue.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: majormark on August 03, 2010, 04:02:20 am
King Salmon,
I wrote about fruits helping with fat digestion (AV's view), not about meat.

Anyway, I don't think they are essential for fat digestion unless a person is unhealthy and lacks enzymes or some other thing.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 03, 2010, 04:26:32 am
Majormark,
I seriously doubt that fruit is essential for digestion at all.  To me the whole idea that I have to eat one type of food in order to properly digest another type of food is total nonsense.  There is absolutely no evidence to support this except, of course, for the pronouncement of a self proclaimed guru who can’t provide any peer reviewed evidence to back up his claims.  My personal experience is certainly counter to this idea.

King Salmon,
I was into the food combining gig hook, line, and sinker for about 20 years.  My belief, based on all that I read from the likes of Bragg, Sheldon, Wigmore, Walker, Ehret, Carrington, et al, was that food combining principals were critical to maintaining optimal health.  After abandoning food combining, sprouting, juicing, and all the other claptrap of the Natural Hygiene movement, (because of declining health), my health improved considerably – even when eating copious amounts of watermelon with my fat laden steak.  I’ve come to the conclusion that all the hoopla made over food combining is just that, hoopla.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on August 03, 2010, 05:23:39 am
Lex and alphagruis,

Thank you both for sharing your exhaustive experiences, understandings and rationale as well as the detailed explanations of current scientific knowledge.  I, for one, greatly appreciate your efforts.
Lex, particularly, thank you for sharing your hard-fought wisdom.

I believe the truth is always found in simplicity and it's so easy to get caught up in the details of our modern scientific approach.  I think science has a valid place, indeed, holds a critical position in helping attain knowledge and determine our thinking and direction.  But, like obsessively focusing on the minute details of musical theory, we must always remain conscious that in doing so the music is not lost.

I remain very interested in the science and theories and have no doubt that I will continue to experiment myself.  But, I do recognise the importance of not dwelling on theories and think Lex makes some very important points.  Personally, I will continue, until irrefutably convinced otherwise, to base my own dietary choices on my own experiences and the simple basis of what foods were likely to be available in the paleolithic era before the advent of cooking.  Primarily meats, fats, organs, other animal parts along with small quantities of eggs, fish/seafood, berries and limited vegetation.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 03, 2010, 05:37:13 am
Alpha, thank you for answering our question!

Lex, what´s your definition of "primary fuel source"?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: King Salmon on August 03, 2010, 06:17:59 am
Majormark,it's ok.I was referring to animal foods(meat) which contain fat(same thing really).I'm assuming you were talking about animal fat.No biggie.


Lex,I appreciate your experience.And since this is your journal,I don't want to bug you with this too much,but we'll just have to agree to disagree ;)

I have saved myself from upset stomachs and unhappy trips to the bathroom by using food combining.I'm not going to eat watermelon/bananas...or whatever sweet fruits with my animal foods just because you didn't seem to have any problems with it.I'll stick to cucumbers and radishes,thanks :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 03, 2010, 01:13:03 pm
Michael,
Every other animal on earth manages to survive and prosper without knowing the scientific workings of their bodies.  They eat biologically appropriate foods and live their lives.  It’s humans that want to eat plastic and cardboard and then find scientific solutions to their health problems.

Hanna,
A primary fuel source is what the cell will choose first for it’s energy source if available.  It will choose other fuels only if the primary source is not available.

King Salmon,
Don’t go away mad.  The idea is to get you to thoroughly think through your positions rather than blindly accept what you are told by the ‘experts’.  Even peer reviewed studies must be evaluated carefully as the results are often different that the official reports would make you think.

Lex   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 03, 2010, 03:25:43 pm
Lex, Michael,

You're mistaken if you believe that I dwell heavily on any theory or put too much weight on my point. As I said before and as usual only long term experiments may finally tell us for sure whether discarding all plant food from our diet is finally detrimental, advantageous or merely neutral  in terms of health and longevity. I think my previous post clearly emphasized that.

Meanwhile we will certainly agree on the fact that ZC is an extreme restrictive diet and that our paleo ancestors or wild animals didn't worry about eating or not eating carbs since they didn't know what it means. The simple idea of ZC is already a modern product of scientific knowledge and actually based on much dietary reasonings or theories. As I recalled recently in my comments on instincto guru claims there is no meaningful experiment that does not need theory to formulate it and this applies to the ZC experiment too.

One cannot on the one hand heavily invoke various theoretical concepts such as the well known increase in mitochondial activity and efficiency observed under carbs restriction or starvation that support one's present views or beliefs and on the other just ignore or dismiss other as well known theoretical knowledge that seems to not support them or merely somewhat question them.

I'm curious to find out how an organism on ZC might work actually and meet his minimal glucose needs. In this respect, Lex, I did not "bury in the latest micro metabolic theories" but just recall some since long well know basic facts from biochemistry and of relevance to ZC. This is fundamental undisputed knowledge in biology that applies to all animal organisms and has nothing to do with various mainstream medical stances such as the cholesterol crap.

 In other words I just recalled what the biochemical constraints actually are and what are a priori the consequences of ZC systematic neoglucogenesis, namely an increased energy cost and related metabolic load and possibly, depending on which biochemical pathway in gluconeogenesis is actually dominant, an increased amount of nitrogen waste to get rid off.

I thought I had also clearly stated before that this is not necessarily detrimental or might be completely negligible or better might even be amply couterbalanced by other now unknown advantages of ZC. So I make this very clear once more here just to emphasize that we agree in this respect.

Where we don't apparently agree is that we therefore just can ignore my point. IMO it desserves to be kept in mind because we just don't know yet and there might be other unknown disadvantages rather than advantages of ZC that enhance rather than offset the possible detrimental effects I put forward.

And also because, due to some economy principle apparently at work in nature, I feel that increased energy cost and metabolic load and rate might be of concern. There is now a large body of very serious knowledge that comes from calorie restriction experiments on various animals ranging from worms and insects to primates and man. These experiments invariably show undisputable usually spectacular positive effects in terms of various heath parameters and longevity associated with basal metabolic rate decrease. Less calories dissipated per unit time seems always better.    

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 04, 2010, 05:11:39 am
Quote
A primary fuel source is what the cell will choose first for it’s energy source if available.  It will choose other fuels only if the primary source is not available.

How do you / I know what your / my cells choose first for their energy source if available?

Quote
How can you possibly know that your body is using fat as its primary fuel source – especially when eating raw Vegan.  The fact that you can’t cancel carbs and are driven to eat them is compelling evidence to the contrary.  Your own evidence shows that your body is glucose driven.  To change it would require that you reduce carbs below 30g/day for several months.  This would be difficult if not impossible on a vegan diet since by definition it is carb based.

Lex, my definition of veganism seems to be different from yours. If you are really interested in my former or current diet (which I don´t believe is the case ;)), would you please look into my previous posts. Here they are:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/?action=profile;u=1130;sa=showPosts
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on August 04, 2010, 05:46:18 am
alphagruis,

I hope you don't think I ignore your point and, if I may say, I don't think Lex is ignoring your point either.  In fact, I think we are all thinking in the same way on this and do actually agree.  I believe that you did state your case clearly and the points you have re-affirmed were already understood if, perhaps, not acknowledged. 

Your contribution to the discussion is absolutely vital and the learned points you have raised, I think, are being kept in mind - either at the forefront or back of depending on the individual.

Whilst your point is not being ignored, however, we must each continue with our own lives and make our dietary choices daily.  Lex wisely adheres to a comprehensive program of lab tests which, I believe, simultaneously allows him to monitor the possible impact of the scientific possibilities you outline so succinctly.  I am very keen to begin a similar program.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 04, 2010, 08:06:25 am
Alphagruis,
I really don’t dispute much of what you say.  Only that there often seems to be an implied judgment that one thing is more desirable than another.

The energy cost of a function may be well known. I also feel that for the most part it is irrelevant.  That one metabolic function consumes more or less energy than another may be true, however, the energy cost doesn’t determine the desirability of one function over another – it’s just the energy cost.  The real question is which has the greater overall benefit to the organism.

I remember when a friend of mine was going to open up a new store.  He had the choice of a small shop with low rent or a mall location at 6 times the rent.  I suggested that the lower cost option would certainly be preferred.  He countered that the foot traffic in the higher priced mall was 10 times that of the lower rent location and that the typical mall customer better fit his “ideal customer” profile.  He expected to make far more profit from the higher priced location even though is costs were significantly more.  The cost might be 6x more but he expected more than 10x the profit and as it turned out, such were his results.

I guess what I’m saying is that biological constraints may not be an accurate indication of the overall efficacy of a metabolic function or process.  At least I’m not willing to make such judgments.

You are quite correct that I often give technical replies to my understanding of how a metabolic process works.  What I try like the devil to avoid is passing judgment on whether the process is good or bad.  Truth is I have no way of knowing.  I don’t even say that ZC is good or bad, only that what I am currently doing is giving ME the results that I desire.  Whether something different would give similar or even better results I do not know and the best I can do is offer that others evaluate the published data as objectively as possible and then see if their own experience is in line with the data. 

Yup calorie restriction does indeed seem to work in terms of longevity, but longevity is not my personal goal.  There are many side effects to the severe calorie restriction necessary to significantly extend life, and for me, a long life is of little value if what I must give up to attain it causes my quality of life to suffer.  Others, like yourself, may have different priorities and that is your choice. However, neither your choices or mine are good or bad in and of themselves, they are just our personal choices. 

Less calories dissipated per unit time is better only if it achieves the results you desire, and for me, the most important thing is the quality of life.  It’s the quality of the journey that counts, not the length. The destination is the same for everyone.  I’m not willing to make the sacrifices demanded by calorie restriction to live longer.  I prefer to live better rather than longer, and as such I have little interest in artificial calorie restriction protocols, but that’s my choice.

So I guess we agree on much of the science, we just have different ideas about its practical value.  Much of the science you quote may be dead-on accurate, but it does nothing to help me improve the quality of my daily life.

Lex

 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 04, 2010, 12:19:42 pm
How do you / I know what your / my cells choose first for their energy source if available?

I don't know, however, your description of how you feel when you exclude carbs from your diet is a major clue.  I've also been there, done that, and know that reducing carbs low enough in your diet to switch to a fat based metabolism is difficult at best and few are able to do it.  Most have the same experience as you and give up, insisting that their body requirements are different than others that are successful and they NEED carbs.  100g of carbs per day is huge, and my experience and that of many others as well, show that your body just won't switch to using fatty acids as its primary fuel without severely reduce carb intake for an extended period of time.

Kata Strong and Mary Massung did much work in this area.  They found that carbs had to be reduced below 30g per day for an extended period (weeks or months depending on how many carbs were included in the diet) to cause the body to switch from a glucose based metabolism to a fat based metabolism.  During the transition there is a massive craving for carbs, and in my case, lab tests and houly BG measurements showed my body was still adapting to a fat based diet with zero plant based carbs after a year or 18 months.  I could be very wrong, but what you've said in your posts tells me that your metabolism is still glucose based and not fat based.

Another interesting tidbit is that those of us that have transitioned to a fat based metabolism tend to appear to be insulin resistant as our pancreas is no longer poised to produce massive amounts of insulin after a meal heavy in carbs.  Our blood sugars also tend to be very steady, right around 100, regardless of when we take the measurement, before eating, after eating, or overnight fasting.  I have detailed records of how my BG curve has changed over the last 5 years of eating ZC.  Others that have committed to ZC for extended periods find that their experience is the same.  One of your posts indicates that your BG is in the mid 70s.  This would not be the case if your metabolism was fat based.  BG would rise into the 90s and stay in the upper range as your body would not be using it.  Little BG would be produced and very slowly.  Small amounts of insulin would be released to keep it stable, but since the BG rise is very gentle when no carbs are eaten, insulin doesn’t over shoot.  A low fasting BG indicates that high carb intake at meals creates a rapid rise in BG causing insulin to overshoot and then BG plummets to the low end and stays there until your next meal. 

Lex, my definition of veganism seems to be different from yours. If you are really interested in my former or current diet (which I don´t believe is the case ;)), would you please look into my previous posts. Here they are:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/?action=profile;u=1130;sa=showPosts

Veganism to me is a plant based diet.  If you are primarily eating foods that come from plants then you are eating far more carbs than would allow your body to transition to a fat based metabolism. It has nothing to do with how much fat you eat, but only how many carbs.  From the various foods you mention in your posts you eat loads of carbs.  You could add a gallon of fat to what you are currently eating every day and your body still wouldn’t transition to a fat based metabolism.

Why?  Because the carbs you eat cause BG to rise rapidly.  The body senses this rapid rise and detects danger as high BG will harm us.  It reacts in various ways and by various hormones such as insulin, to cause the body and its cells to quickly sweep the excess glucose from the blood.  As much as possible is forced into the cells to be used as fuel and the rest is converted to fat and stored.

What happened to that gallon of fat you ate with the carbs? Well, high levels of fatty acids are not dangerous to the body so they are allowed to float around until they can be stored or eliminated.  There is also evidence that much of it won’t even be digested as it is rejected when blood levels of fatty acids are high. The body’s cells will reject the fatty acids as fuel because their priority is to get rid of the dangerous levels of BG and are overloaded with glucose from the carbs you ate.  Dealing with the glucose has to be the body’s first priority or we will go into a coma and die.

I mean no disrespect.  Each of us is on our own path and must find our own way.  I always tell people what I believe based on many years of experience and much failure.  Over the years I’ve fooled myself into believing as much nonsense as everyone else and probably more.  I’d even venture to say that most of what I think I know and understand now is so much nonsense as well.  I certainly don’t have all the answers, and many of the answers I have are probably wrong.  Therefore, I do my best to tell you exactly what I’m doing, show you the lab tests, hazard a guess or two about what I THINK is going on, and then let you make up your own mind on the subject.

Hope this helps,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on August 04, 2010, 08:48:03 pm
Quote
They found that carbs had to be reduced below 30g per day for an extended period (weeks or months depending on how many carbs were included in the diet) to cause the body to switch from a glucose based metabolism to a fat based metabolism.

Hey Lex. That's an interesting titbit. Do you recall how it took to switch for different levels?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 05, 2010, 12:32:00 am
Hi Lex,

You seem to think that sugar is a kind of poison. Why? Is there any evidence that sugar is detrimental even in moderate quantities? And if it is not natural or at least not healthy to eat, for example, 100g sugar per day, then why is there sugar in mother´s milk? The sugar will cause the BG of the baby to "overshoot" and make it sick. And where do you think did the paleolithic hunters and gatheres find so much animal fat? Wild animals are usually lean and if our ancestors had adapted to a diet consisting exclusively of animal food then we should be able to live on lean meat without a high proportion of fat.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 05, 2010, 01:47:35 am
Michael, Lex,

I fairly agree with your latest comments.

My natural tendency is to discuss things from a pure impersonal technical point of view because I'm just curious and have fun with this and have myself apparently no serious health problems anymore . If there seems to be judgments in terms of good or bad it's really unintentional. While this approach might be helpful it may also sometimes be confusing here because this forum is first a means for people to get advice in order to improve their health rather than a tribune for a scientific debate.

In fact I'm as reluctant as you are to give any specific advice except the general raw paleo one and readily agree with you that my point about biochemistry is by now of little help in making a decision as to the quantity of plant food to include in our diet .

I really think that we all have to make many decisions in our life whose consequences and long term pertinence cannot be foreseen. And even if re diet we'll probably essentially know what to do in future, science even tells us that in general this uncertainty will always remain in most of our important decisions. We must live with this and accept the risks. In your very wise  non ideologic approach to ZC there is essentially no risk in my opinion. If I personally eat more or less plant foods depending on season it is not because I have as yet evidence that it's "better" but simply it so happens that I always did so , never had apparently trouble with them, was never vegan, and so was never urged to discard them.

Such decisions indeed depend among other things on our personal goals in life. As you I think that to have fun in our lifetime is more important than longevity. Now from a pure scientific point of view, and I have fun with science ;), the calorie restriction experiments are of high interest.



    
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 05, 2010, 05:49:10 am
Hi Lex again,

Quote
What happened to that gallon of fat you ate with the carbs? Well, high levels of fatty acids are not dangerous to the body so they are allowed to float around until they can be stored or eliminated.  There is also evidence that much of it won’t even be digested as it is rejected when blood levels of fatty acids are high.

That´s interesting. What kind of evidence is this? Are there studies on this subject?

Quote
The body’s cells will reject the fatty acids as fuel because their priority is to get rid of the dangerous levels of BG and are overloaded with glucose from the carbs you ate.  Dealing with the glucose has to be the body’s first priority or we will go into a coma and die.

BTW, Doen´t this imply that certain food combining rules make sense?  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 05, 2010, 03:02:15 pm
Hi Lex,

You seem to think that sugar is a kind of poison. Why? Is there any evidence that sugar is detrimental even in moderate quantities?

IMO glucose cannot by itself be termed as a "poison" since we have normally about 90-100 mg/dl of it in our blood and our organism does everything it can to maintain this concentration as constant as possible whatever the diet. The question is rather whether a diet which routinely provides (even raw natural) foods rich in sugar is detrimental. It is not unlikely as attested by the fact that humans have a more or less sweet tooth reflecting the fact that highly sweet foods were normally rare before neolithic revolution. Chemically pure sugar on the other hand is certainly not an appropriate food too. Also dietary sugar may be indispensable in mother's milk during the rapid growth of a baby and detrimental in high amounts in adulthood.
  

I suggest reading this about the fuels used by animal organisms.

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/08366/index.htm

This might not be the whole story but is an important basis everybody here in this forum should be aware of.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 05, 2010, 05:31:17 pm
Alpha, Lex, of course I meant dietary sugar contained in fruit etc. BTW, it would make no sense for humans to have a "sweet tooth" if dietary sugar in any significant amounts could only be detrimental and would better be replaced by protein. Carnivores like lions and cats don´t have a "sweet tooth". There must be a reason why humans have a sweet tooth.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on August 05, 2010, 07:39:08 pm
How do you know they don't have a sweet tooth? Are you a Lion?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: majormark on August 05, 2010, 07:45:35 pm
I suggest reading this about the fuels used by animal organisms.

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/08366/index.htm

This might not be the whole story but is an important basis everybody here in this forum should be aware of.

In the article about ATP there is this statement:

"Skeletal muscle converts chemical energy to mechanical energy with high efficiency (only 30 - 50% waste)."

What does that mean? What is the chemical energy composed of? What is that 50% waste?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 05, 2010, 08:34:00 pm
How do you know they don't have a sweet tooth? Are you a Lion?

This is a scientifically proven fact:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-cats-cannot-taste-sweets
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 05, 2010, 08:59:05 pm
Alpha, Lex, of course I meant dietary sugar contained in fruit etc. BTW, it would make no sense for humans to have a "sweet tooth" if dietary sugar in any significant amounts could only be detrimental and would better be replaced by protein. Carnivores like lions and cats don´t have a "sweet tooth". There must be a reason why humans have a sweet tooth.

I'm not so sure that carnivores don't have some sweet tooth. Dogs for instance usually eagerly eat a piece of refined sugar or sweet fruit. A lion or other carnivores in the wild just have normally little opportunity to eat sweet food and more importantly they have been trained by their mother or father to just hunt and eat preys and make a living in this way rather than climb on trees and eat fruit . A tropism for sugar seems to be a common basic phylogenetic feature of all animal cells as strongly suggested by underlying biochemistry. In other words it seems to me that carnivore's "dietary culture" just doesn't usually include fruit (but there are well known exceptions such as foxes) and thus they are not initially attracted to sweet taste just because they are not used to it as we usually do not like or refrain from eating a new food that does not belong to our dietary culture .

Now, I agree, Hanna, BTW during their long evolutionnary path without relying on any sweet foot some carnivores such cats may have lost the ability to detect sugar with their taste buds but their brain and muscles still use glucose.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: 00nightstorm on August 05, 2010, 09:04:04 pm
Alpha, Lex, of course I meant dietary sugar contained in fruit etc. BTW, it would make no sense for humans to have a "sweet tooth" if dietary sugar in any significant amounts could only be detrimental and would better be replaced by protein. Carnivores like lions and cats don´t have a "sweet tooth". There must be a reason why humans have a sweet tooth.

There is a lot of talk about reclassifying sugar as a drug.  Any drug ingested over a period of time will cause the body to become dependent on it to a certain degree.  Someone who snorts cocaine every day and then suddenly stops will feel intense cravings for cocaine.  The same applies to your "sweet tooth" theory.  It has been stated time and again that the longer you abstain from sugar the less you crave it.  There are actually a lot of foods that people crave that are not good for them and not all of them have sugar in them.  Its kind of like asking, "Why do I crave white rice with soy sauce if I'm not supposed to eat it".
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on August 05, 2010, 09:22:51 pm
How do you know they don't have a sweet tooth? Are you a Lion?
I don’t have a lion at home to experiment, but I tried to give honey, apples, bananas, figs, dates to my cat: he’s not interested at all, no way. ;D But he likes avocado, pre-chewed walnuts and almonds, a bit of durian… and of course mice, birds, meat, fish, eggs, insects. 

I'm not so sure that carnivores don't have some sweet tooth. Dogs for instance usually eagerly eat a piece of refined sugar or sweet fruit. A lion or other carnivores in the wild just have normally little opportunity to eat sweet food and more importantly they have been trained by their mother or father to just hunt and eat preys and make a living in this way rather than climb on trees and eat fruit . A tropism for sugar seems to be a common basic phylogenetic feature of all animal cells as strongly suggested by underlying biochemistry. In other words it seems to me that carnivore's "dietary culture" just doesn't usually include fruit (but there are well known exceptions such as foxes) and thus they are not initially attracted to sweet taste just because they are not used to it as we usually do not like or refrain from eating a new food that does not belong to our dietary culture .   

My cat was separated very young from a pet’s junk food eating mother and never had the opportunity to learn hunting nor to eat anything else than his mother’s milk. He nevertheless hunts mice, birds, lizards and insects. He’s very found of climbing trees, for fun or for hunting birds… not for eating fruits. Is it because fruits don’t belong to his dietary culture? How does he know that on the contrary, eggs, insects, meat and fish belong to cat’s dietary culture? ;D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on August 05, 2010, 09:34:43 pm
Its kind of like asking, "Why do I crave white rice with soy sauce if I'm not supposed to eat it".

Is there a wilderness area where white rice with soy sauce grows naturally? Perhaps there was some during the paleolithic era?  l)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 05, 2010, 09:52:21 pm
In the article about ATP there is this statement:

"Skeletal muscle converts chemical energy to mechanical energy with high efficiency (only 30 - 50% waste)."

What does that mean? What is the chemical energy composed of? What is that 50% waste?


Yes, muscles are formidable engines from a thermodynamics point of view with an efficiency of 50 to 70% much better than a car or an airplane engine. This means that they are capable to convert up to 70% of the chemical energy stored in glucose or fatty acid molecules into useful work as a car engine converts about 40% of chemical energy in gasoline into useful work. Glucose, fat or gasoline have a high content of useful chemical energy stored in the chemical bonds of their molecules in the form or electromagnetic and kinetic energy of the particles, electrons and nuclei they are made of. This energy is released when such molecules undergo rearrangement of their atomic components and reaction  with oxygen to end up eventually in the form of carbon dioxide and water. In a car engine this takes place violently in a chaotic combustion as opposed to the much softer low temperature way of energy release involved in the complex cleverly coupled chains of enzymatic reactions in living cells that avoids the transient conversion of the relevant energy into heat at high temperature as in internal combustion engines. This feature in turn permits the higher efficiency of muscles because it evades the limitation in thermal engine efficiency of the second law of thermodynamics.
In both case the energy wasted is always in the form of "dissipation" to heat tranferred by the living organism or the car engine to their environment.        
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 07, 2010, 12:06:42 am
Hey Lex. That's an interesting titbit. Do you recall how it took to switch for different levels?

Josh,
It actually took many months, and after more than 4 years, changes are still going on as evidenced by my lab tests.  The changes are not as big, but there changes none the less.

As an example, the conventional wisdom is that we are fully keto-adpated (fully switched to a fat based metabolism) within 6 to 8 weeks.  Conventional wisdom also stated that urinary ketones will always be extremely high when eating a VLC or ZC diet and BG will be low.  What actually happened to me (and everyone else that I know that has stuck with VLC or ZC for 18 months or longer), is that physical performance starts to return and we begin to feel better after 6 to 12 weeks.  However, ketones remain (level 3-4) high showing that we are still discarding lots of fatty acids.  BG is low as many tissues still have not made the switch and are sweeping glucose from the bloodstream.  Weight loss will continue as the body sacrifices tissue (mostly fat but a small amount of muscle as well) in an effort to maintain BG at an acceptable level.  You will also probably have intense cravings for carbs.

After about 9 - 12 months weight loss will stabilize as more tissues convert to using fatty acids and the glucose produced from the protein eaten is enough to fulfill the body’s glucose needs.  Urinary ketones will begin to drop but will still be at moderate levels (2-3) as more fatty acids are used as fuel and less are discarded.  BG begins to fluctuate a bit more as the is an occasional excess so it no longer stays at the lower levels, but will rise slowly after meals into the upper normal range (around 100 – 110) and then slowly decline until it reaches its lowest level in the morning before your first meal of the day.  Your weight will have bottomed out (BMI may drop to 18 or even a bit lower) and will start to rise very slowly.  You will no longer crave carbs but if you eat them the cravings will return with a vengeance, and your body’s transition will be dramatically slowed or halted altogether.

In the 12 – 18 month range most of the body’s systems have fully converted to use fatty acids as their primary fuel so there will be few fatty acids to discard.  Urinary ketones will be present, but in trace amounts.  Ketones may rise to level ONE after a very fat laden meal but will be at Trace or below almost all the time.  BG will rise and stay in the upper “normal” range almost all the time.  Mine seldom varies more than a couple of points from 100 mg/dl no matter when it is measured.  Calories will start to count again and you will put on weight if you overeat significantly, but the weight gain will be much less than when consuming the same amount of energy in carbs. 

While all this is going on you will see continuing incremental changes in lab tests.  Triglycerides will improve dramatically, Cholesterol will drop if it is high or rise if it is low.  The ratio of HLD to LDL will improve from year to year.  BG will stabilize and become almost rock solid around 100, and will body weight stabilize as well.  Usually at a BMI around 21-22.  From a practical daily living point of view, you will find that your endurance for long moderate energy expenditures has increased dramatically (you can run at a moderate pace long distances), however, your ability to perform very intense work like maximum level weight lifting will have degraded.

This has been my experience and verified by dozens of others who have taken the VLC or ZC path and stuck with it for the long haul.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 07, 2010, 12:13:55 am
Is there a wilderness area where white rice with soy sauce grows naturally? Perhaps there was some during the paleolithic era?  l)

Of course, it's very near the place where they harvest Twinkies and there is a natural spring of ice cold Diet Coke just off the side of the road.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 07, 2010, 01:49:33 am
 
That´s interesting. What kind of evidence is this? Are there studies on this subject?
Lots of info on this.  Pub Med, Hyperlipid, PaNu, and a host of other sites and blogs.

 
BTW, Doen´t this imply that certain food combining rules make sense? 

No.  Classical food combining is about efficiency of digestion.  It has nothing to do with how the body handles glucose and fatty acids at the cellular level.

You seem to think that sugar is a kind of poison. Why? Is there any evidence that sugar is detrimental even in moderate quantities?

I suppose this depends on your definition of “moderate”.    And, yes, I’d say that the body handles excess Blood Glucose as a poison.  It does everything it can to lower it.  If it gets out of hand it will cause death.  This does not mean that we don’t require some BG, nor does it suggest that all consumption of carbs is bad.  Only that excess BG is detrimental to health.

And if it is not natural or at least not healthy to eat, for example, 100g sugar per day, then why is there sugar in mother´s milk? The sugar will cause the BG of the baby to "overshoot" and make it sick.

Amazing assumptions here.  There is a significant difference in the nutritional requirements and metabolism of an infant vs an adult.  Mother’s milk has moderate sugars and is high in fat. Both are necessary for rapid growth of an infant.  However, no other animal continues to consume mother’s milk after weaning which occurs at a rather early age.  There are sugars in the milk of carnivores (lion’s, cat’s, dog’s) and all other mammal’s milk.  However, after weaning it is no longer necessary, and probably detrimental – especially in the large quantities we consume today.  With the rapid growth and cell division going on in an infant, you would want to force huge amounts of energy into the cells as it would be rapidly consumed.  In an adult this is not the case.   

And where do you think did the paleolithic hunters and gatheres find so much animal fat? Wild animals are usually lean and if our ancestors had adapted to a diet consisting exclusively of animal food then we should be able to live on lean meat without a high proportion of fat.

The idea that I like best is that early man started out as a scavenger.  Lion’s & Tiger’s, & Bears (Oh My!), would make a kill, and eat most of the flesh along and other scavengers like dogs and vultures would pretty much pick the bones clean.  Then along came a human who picked up the bones and cranial cavity (head), took it back to camp and proceeded to use tools (rocks and sticks) to break open the bones and head to get at the food that the other animals couldn’t easily get too.  Brains and bone marrow are almost pure fat and very nutritious.  Is this theory correct?  Who knows, but the bones found at various sites seems to support the idea.  Remember that archeological digs show that humans were in very small bands widely scattered about.  The food model required to feed a small tribe or two is completely different than feeding 4 million people packed into the area of the city of Los Angeles.  We converted to agriculture for the vary reason that as our numbers grew, our normal food sources were not enough to sustain our growing population.  This does not mean that the newer food sources are optimal, as evidenced by high rates of degenerative diseases not related to bacteria or other pathogens.

All of the above not withstanding, I’ve never said that the path you have chosen is wrong – only that I believe your assumption that your body is keto-adapted and burning fat as its primary fuel is incorrect.  This is based on my personal experience and the experience of dozens of others that have taken the VLC/ZC path.  I’ve also never stated that the path I’ve chosen to follow is better than yours – only that I’m happy with the results I’m getting and for now, at least, have no plans to change direction.  I’ve also posted information about exactly what I do in great detail.  I openly post all my lab tests, and discuss the good and bad things that have happened to me along the way.  My hope is that others can use this information as guide posts for their journey as well as to help them make the decisions as to what direction to take or whether to embark on the journey at all.

If you are pleased with your results, by all means continue with what you are doing.  It’s what works for you that counts.  What I think is irrelevant. 

Lex



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 07, 2010, 04:08:38 am

 Is it because fruits don’t belong to his dietary culture? How does he know that on the contrary, eggs, insects, meat and fish belong to cat’s dietary culture? ;D


The answer is very simple: God, sorry instinct tells him  ;D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 07, 2010, 04:54:31 am

Amazing assumptions here.  There is a significant difference in the nutritional requirements and metabolism of an infant vs an adult.  Mother’s milk has moderate sugars and is high in fat. Both are necessary for rapid growth of an infant.  However, no other animal continues to consume mother’s milk after weaning which occurs at a rather early age.  There are sugars in the milk of carnivores (lion’s, cat’s, dog’s) and all other mammal’s milk.  However, after weaning it is no longer necessary, and probably detrimental – especially in the large quantities we consume today.  With the rapid growth and cell division going on in an infant, you would want to force huge amounts of energy into the cells as it would be rapidly consumed.  In an adult this is not the case.    


It is indeed remarkable that this makes also sense from a biochemical point of view. Glucose seems indeed to be the best and prefered fuel for rapidly growing tissues or proliferating cells such as cancer cells or yeasts in wine fermentation. This is apparently related to the fact that anaerobic glycolysis only extracts a part of the available energy in glucose and thus ends up in a precursor of building materials for new cells. Rapidly growing tissue therefore needs a lot of glucose that ends up in building materials after only a very limited anaerobic degradation by fermentation rather than just energy after complete oxidation. Complete oxidation of glucose or fat would yield more energy but no such building materials since it ends up in carbon dioxide and water i.e. waste for animal cells. Fat cannot be fermented in this way and provide the relevant materials and  thus is a fuel that yields a lot of energy and is best in slow cell regeneration or replacement as in a non pregnant grown up active animal.    
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on August 07, 2010, 06:15:27 am
Lex, thanks for the answer. Can I just check..when you say ketone levels 3-4 etc I think you mean the levels on the ketostix? I have 6 Levels:

Negative
Trace 0.5 mmmol/L
Slight 1.5
Medium 4
Strong 8
           16

So when you say levels 3-4 you mean 8-16 mmol/L etc. ?

Thanks a lot, Josh
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: KD on August 07, 2010, 07:58:39 am

Since this type of thing seems to be dismissed or left out here, I'm glad you make alot of the disclaimers about transition. People seem to be so hung up with doing the opposite of 'CW' that they rarely criticize the 'CW' among the avant-garde paleos of the blogosphere and the instant euphoric promises of raw. I do have some questions however if you don't mind this current intelligent Q & A in your journal.

1.) if people are doing a low carb diet that includes high fats as you say but too many carbs to initiate fat burning, then wouldn't they be doubly screwed in performance and energy? Other than whatever advantage of their diet (raw, paleo, organic wild grass-fed etc... and staying away from obvious junk) wouldn't they generally feel fatigued if they were not getting enough glucose of a typical athletic person that burns glucose? People like Mark Sisson etc... claim to have high energy on diets that are neither raw or truly LC never mind VLC. I don't know too much about KGH, but from what I gather, even at '5%' carbs and with the amount of protein he must be above the 30 g range. I believe (hopefully I am correct) that alphagruis recommends getting the required brain glucose from the diet itself which is above this limit, so if one had this goal would it make less sense to eat fats and expect energy? I have heard of some competitive ultra-marathoners who are 'low-carb' but increase their carbs somewhat during races, but I am assuming there is still much less glucose than the carb loading sugar-gel crowd. It seems like you are saying there is no in between, or at the very least, everyone that is not strict VLC or ZC has likely never experienced keto-adaptation whatsoever. Is it possible that once one had gone from 4-18 months of never going above 30 g that they could be better adapted to larger amounts of carbs (not digestive wise, but just in this fuel process) or at least switch back to a default easier? If not wouldn't traditional hunter societies had a difficult time introducing carbs seasonally without massive energy shifts?

2.) I think what Paleo Donk was trying to convey was that since excess protein converts to glucose, wouldn't VLC'er and potentially some ZC'ers that were eating tons of muscle meat also get in ranges of glucose ( I guess not carbs technically) that are too high? I don't know exactly in numbers the conversions of protein to glucose. I'm assuming not 1:1 ?

3.) What do you mean by maximum level weight lifting, do you mean competitively? or compared to what it might be for the same individual on a diet that was not keto-adapted i.e. higher carb'ed? I guess to be clear, do you think a diet under 30g and say over 70% fat is adequate for building strength at say an amateur 'natural' level?

4.) I'm a bit confused by the time frames with weight loss etc...As there seems to be some folks here that don't have the same problem, wouldn't this have to do alot with tissue damage, whether the person was eating raw or cooked meats, their lifestyle etc..? I know you came from years of various raw diets, but were alot of others coming from a standard diet onto a cooked ZC or VLC diet? There are many here who claim to eat ZC or VLC and very little of this process is spoken about unfortunately. Would it be claimed that these people are just avoiding this inevitable breakdown if they are not experiencing it?

thanks
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: King Salmon on August 07, 2010, 09:32:59 am
wow,so much good stuff here.Lex,are we keeping you busy enough?
One thing thing I've noticed from this forum and another ZC forum,is that, there doesn't seem to be a ton of "satisfied customers".Digestive issues,fatigue/energy issues,weight issues...etc are all over the place.On top of all that,there seems to be a ton of confusion as to what to eat and how much(reminds me of SAD dieters).It's interesting but a little sad as well.I mean,bears,lions,sharks aren't confused.I guess humans love to think,analyze and ponder themselves to death.

After all that,the ones who seem to be satisfied with positive results are doing completely different things:from mostly raw ZC(Lex),to mostly pemmican(Delfuego),to raw omnivore(Sully),to mostly cooked ZC(Charles).So,now what? ;)

p.s. please excuse any inaccuracies,I'm simplifying to provide specific examples.Feel free to correct me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 07, 2010, 10:40:51 am
KD,
I wish I had all the answers but sadly I don’t and neither does anyone else.  Most of your concerns seem to be around athletic performance and since I never was an athlete I can’t really say.  I’m also a few months shy of my 60th birthday so peak performance is not something I’ve worried over for a long time.  I’m far more concerned with getting out of bed every morning and/or getting the trash cans to the curb on trash day without throwing my back out or otherwise injuring myself.

Q1: There is a big difference as to how the body responds to everyday energy demands and how it responds to maximal effort type activities.  I have no experience in this area so really can’t comment beyond my general observation that most people that I talk too say that if they convert to a fat based metabolism they increase endurance but sacrifice brute strength.  Though I’ve never been a weight lifter or especially strong, I can say that on my current diet I can easily run long distances even though I’m not a distance runner and don’t train, but flag rather quickly doing high intensity wind sprints.  Is there a middle ground?  Lyle McDonald seems to think so.  He champion’s a Cyclic Ketogenic Diet for athletes and feels that this provides the best of both worlds. I’ve read his work and it seems to make sense in context with my experience.  It’s just way to complex and adds nothing of value to the kind of lifestyle that I want, however, it may be just the ticket for you.  Just do a Google search on Lyle McDonald and you’ll find everything you need.

Q2:  Well I thought this way too, but found that there seems to be more to the problem than would first appear.  My experience has been that my BG hangs right at 100 no matter what I do.  My doctor was a bit concerned because BG seemed high, especially when not eating any carbs, but we reasoned out what we THINK is happening.  I eat about 100g protein and 225g fat per day.  This provides about 2,400 calories with 83% of calories from fat.  If 60% of the protein was being converted to glucose, this is still only 60 grams and yet my BG is always at 100.  I tried reducing fat and doubling the protein to see if BG would rise, yet BG stayed rock solid at 100.

Here’s what we think is going on.  My body uses fatty acids as its primary fuel.  Most tissues are rejecting glucose in favor of fatty acids.  There are a few tissues that need glucose but their demands are very small, and the conversion of protein as well as the conversion of the glycerol in the fat triglycerides in my diet provides far more glucose than my body needs.   Since most all this surplus glucose must be manufactured from non carb sources, there is no massive BG spike when I eat.  Instead, proteins and triglycerides are slowly broken down in the liver over several hours and the glucose created is gently and slowly released into the blood stream.  Since there is no large fast BG “spike” from carbs, my body responds to the slow rise in glucose by releasing insulin very slowly to just counteract the gentle rise – hence BG stays stable at the high end of the “normal” range.  With BG in the high range the body thinks there is plenty of food so it makes no effort to conserve energy.  This same effect causes people following a VLC/ZC diet protocol to appear to be diabetic or insulin resistant when given a glucose tolerance test because their pancreas is no longer primed to pump out huge amounts of insulin several times per day to deal with massive BG spikes.  If we start eating carbs again, the insulin response will return after about 3 days of high carb input.  Most of this information can be found on Peter’s Hyperlipid Blog.

Heavy carb eaters often have the opposite BG curve – their’s hovers at the lower end of the range.  Using the same reasoning as above, a carb eater consumes a meal high in carbs with a very large gylcemic index (rate that the carbs are converted to glucose) when compared to protein and glycerol conversion.  The glucose spike is large and rapid.  The body is not designed to efficiently respond to large rapid BG peaks as blood circulation takes time so the effect of insulin is not detected instantly.  This causes the body to overshoot the glucose spike with too much insulin and BG plummets.  If it goes too low then the body will start releasing glycogen stores and/or sacrificing tissue to be converted by into glucose to keep BG levels in a safe range.  BG will now stay at the lower end of the normal range as the body will only release glycogen or convert tissue as necessary to maintain a minimum level.  It doesn’t know what caused the low BG and will reserve energy stores in case food is scarce.  It’s job is to conserve energy and you’ve fooled it into thinking times are lean and you are starving. You will also most likely crave something sweet which the body has learned will get you to drink a sugar drink or eat a candy bar and, if you do, the whole yo-yo starts over.  BG spikes, insulin dumps and overshoots, BG rapidly falls, body reverses and starts releasing stores to keep BG up, and you crave something sweet.

Q3:  The issue is intensity vs endurance.  It seems that muscles do respond to glucose and fatty acids differently.  Glucose fueled cells seem to be able to provide greater intensity (lift heavier weights, wind sprints, etc) where fat fueled cells seem to be able to sustain moderately high energy output (running, moving moderate weights for long periods).  Phinney did a good bit of work on this as well as McDonald mentioned above.  I don’t lift weights or do any other exercise for the sake of exercise as I feel it is a waste of time.  I prefer to spend my time in my shop making and repairing things, so if you want to know how diet affects athletic performance you’ll have to go somewhere else.

Q4: Time frames will vary with the individual as well as what dietary protocol they choose to follow.  There are as many variables as there are individuals.  People will often say that they are doing something that they are not truly doing and that just makes more noise to filter from the data – not an easy task.  People may not knowingly lie to you, but they may lack experience or knowledge to the point where they believe something that is not necessarily true, and provide inaccurate information.

I’m by no means perfect and if you’ve read my journal you’ve found that more than once I’ve had to admit that some of my carefully reasoned ideas were total nonsense.  Today I think I’m doing much better than I have in the past.  Now I’m convinced that only half of what I say is totally wrong and the other half is just ordinary drivel.  This is a significant improvement as not long ago half of what I said was totally wrong and the other half was pure drivel.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 07, 2010, 11:38:16 am
King Salmon,
I understand your frustration.  I’ll do my best to help give you some tools to evaluate some of the claims.

Lex (that’s me!) is doing raw ZC now and for a little over 4 years.  I have nothing against carbs and will eat the occasional hand full of cherries now and again as I do love them.  I’m not a purist and will eat cooked food when out on the town or with family on holiday gatherings.  When people ask me for suggestions I recommend that they eat mostly meat and fat and supplement with a small green salad and/or a piece of fruit every day as a snack.  I ate this way before going ZC and to be honest I see little difference in health benefits either way.  I’ve stuck with ZC in an effort to reverse my BPH, and though it hasn’t gotten worse, it hasn’t been magically cured over the last 4 years either.

Today I eat 100g of lean meat mixed with 225g of rendered fat every day.  That comes to about 2,400 calories 83% of which come from fat.

Delfuego and his family eat pemmican.  I believe he makes his as 35% dried lean meat and 65% fat.  The ratio of fat to lean is almost identical to what I eat as about 80% of his calories come from fat.  His actual intake of protein and total calories will depend on how much he eats, but his fat to lean ratio is almost identical to mine.  Pemmican is made with red meat that has been dried at a very low temperature so that for all intense and purposes it is raw – it’s just dry raw meat.  This means that for all practical purposes what Delfuego and I eat is pretty much identical.  I do add a bit of organ meats in the form of Slankers pet food to my mix, but then Delfuego was experimenting with drying organ meats and adding them to his pemmican as well.  Bottom line – our food is the same.

Sully is very young. He can eat anything and feel great.  In fact, probably the more carbs he consumes the better he feels assuming he’s still doing intense workouts.  Carbs seem to provide explosive power – especially in the young.  The young want bigger, stronger, faster and they evaluate everything they do (including diet) by this criteria.  Fats provide endurance which many young don’t have the patience for. Also, most active young people can eat just about anything and feel great.  When I was young I could eat just about anything, have lots of energy and was skinny as a rail.  However, as I aged I found that problems started to occur and that I didn’t feel my best when eating certain foods and I also started to put on weight.  On occasion I’ll pick up a diet book by a young MD author trying to make a name for himself.  His recommendations are often right in line with what I thought worked at his age as well.  I’ve learned to give a bit more weight to those who are a little more mature (polite speak for old).  We have to hit much closer to the mark to maintain good health.

Charles in charge.  Charles is relatively young and was leading a very poor lifestyle.  He made significant changes that had a profound effect on his life and health.  His changes are rather recent and his health has improved so dramatically that he feels he’s found the holy grail.  As he continues to age, he will discover that some of what appears to be working perfectly now, will not continue to work quite so well.  And, if he is as smart as I think he is, he’ll change and adapt just as I have been forced to do.  You see, just as Sully represents me when I was 20 something, Charles is just me a little further down the road.

I guess what I’m saying is that you need to look at the age of the person, as a young body can tolerate far more abuse than an old one and appear to thrive.  You also need to evaluate where they are on the path as some will put on ideological blinders and stop progressing as they can’t (or won’t) let go of some cherished belief (the died in the wool vegan, fer instance).  Others will just not want to keep putting in the effort, and still others will be blown about from one theory to the next like leaves in the wind hoping for the miracle that will never come.

I’m no more immune to these problems than the next guy.  I think I’ve fallen for every diet and lifestyle gambit there is.  So far I’ve lived to tell about it.  And, be aware that my counsel is probably just about worth what you’ve paid for it….   

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: KD on August 07, 2010, 12:25:09 pm
I try to follow those blogs and things you mentioned ( I know of Lyle's stuff, but I should investigate further), it just gets too complicated or time-heavy for me sometimes to keep up. I appreciate the digest version.

I can see that most of my comments seemed performance related but it was more to get ahold of the concepts of fat adaptation and so forth with a more 'outward' example. I can understand the language you are using but I couldn't pose a question that way.

It just seems to me that alot of people get benefit from being on LC (over 30 g for sure) approaches, - especially raw - and I was curious if you thought that benefit was mostly due to the leaving out of crap->increase of nutrients and/or the standard detox or healing nature of the food - and that at that point the carb level (over 30) didn't matter much. Based on what you had written it would seem that if someone was burning glucose as fuel and not fat, one would think it quite pointless to then eat so little carbs thus have much of the issues you mentioned with the carb curve but with low resources. They would be avoiding excessive sugar in the diet, but they wouldn't exactly be using the large quantities of fat consumed efficiently or apparently much at all. My point (I guess) was that if someone COULD perform on this type of LC diet, they must be getting some energy from the fats consumed even if they wern't fully ketogenic ? I do agree that performance really is a tough indicator of these complex internal things, as the body seems to have its own functioning (as in making do) mechanisms regardless of what we throw at it sometimes. I tend to tend to think the Sisson's and Co. - if not from  being 'young' - more or less comes from a life lacking health problems (for whatever reason - the lucky bastards).

Not being similarly lucky, after several bouts of raw and RAF, On VLC I have found my adaptation (if that is even the correct word yet) was slow (from what I had read in other sources as you mentioned) in that I felt like solid shit for 4 months strait (although I felt pretty bad before beginning the diet). Now it already seems like my energy and strength has shifted to being above average for at least 2 months strait. I would choose health over any kind of strength or movement, but I am hoping to still salvage all three. I've never been one to measure BG or other factors too closely even though I do get regular medical bloodwork for a variety of past concerns. I noticed 3-4 months ago my BG was around 106 (which I thought was bad for consuming almost no carbs) and my most recent this week was down to 94. I'm unaware of how long the overnight fasting period is supposed to last, but since my last meal was RAF as usual I guess it digests quickly and returns quite normal during the night sometime, although possibility if I had a full 12 hrs (got the labs at 7:30AM and have been eating late) it might have been even lower? just a hypothetical. I guess I could get some ketostix and get a better gauge on how I'm processing things, but similarly the way I feel and my medical tests seem sufficient right now.

I’m by no means perfect and if you’ve read my journal you’ve found that more than once I’ve had to admit that some of my carefully reasoned ideas were total nonsense.  Today I think I’m doing much better than I have in the past.  Now I’m convinced that only half of what I say is totally wrong and the other half is just ordinary drivel.  This is a significant improvement as not long ago half of what I said was totally wrong and the other half was pure drivel.

Haha, I seem to have the impulse to majorly disagree with alot of things in these forums lately so I tend to keep my mouth shut now, as can never really say for certain if my ideas are any less derivative of some other equally ridiculous concept of other origin...that and I specifically made sure I had no internet cable in my new apartment!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: King Salmon on August 07, 2010, 12:32:50 pm
Thanks Lex,but one more thing.Delfuego said that he and his wife did ok on raw meat for a while and then had problems.So,they switched to seared meat,which was also ok for a while.Then had problems with that.Finally,when they switched to pemmican,the red sea parted.What's the deal with that? I mean,if you and delfuego are essentially eating the same thing,why such a big contrast in his 3 different results?

In other words,why does he find pemmican such an "improvement" over raw and/or seared/cooked?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: klowcarb on August 07, 2010, 08:05:10 pm
Thanks Lex,but one more thing.Delfuego said that he and his wife did ok on raw meat for a while and then had problems.So,they switched to seared meat,which was also ok for a while.Then had problems with that.Finally,when they switched to pemmican,the red sea parted.What's the deal with that? I mean,if you and delfuego are essentially eating the same thing,why such a big contrast in his 3 different results?

In other words,why does he find pemmican such an "improvement" over raw and/or seared/cooked?

Why don't you ask Delfuego, KS? How is Lex supposed to know Delfuego's inner motivation?

Re: working out on ZC/VLC. Maybe it depends on your health background and your inner motivation. My strength in lifting has only continued to increase since I went ZC. I started lifting in 2004 and went ZC in March 2009, so it has been 1.5 years of ZC for me (raw and cooked meat and eggs). I gain strength progressively (not size however--I'm tiny by genetics). I don't do endurance as I don't think that is great for a lean, muscular body, but I do do high resistance SS cardio and I hike and snowshoe, which are anaerobic. I do most of my cario fasted and have great energy for it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: klowcarb on August 07, 2010, 08:07:35 pm
I had a rather quick adaptation to ZC. My only problem comes when I don't take in enough calories for my lifestyle. I use Fitday to make sure I get at least 1gm. protein per my body weight and extra for repair, and then the rest is fat. About 62-72% fat and rest protein.  I find on ZC that I don't need to work out as much to keep very defined and strong. At 29 I am in the best shape of my life due to ZC, strength-training, no chronic cardio and fasting.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: King Salmon on August 08, 2010, 01:18:49 pm
K,I would, but I'm not ZC.Therefore, I don't qualify for membership at that site.I tried to post as a guest and the site wouldn't let me.Maybe there's a way to do it, but I couldn't figure it out.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on August 08, 2010, 03:36:18 pm
What site is this Delfuego guy on, ZIOH?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on August 08, 2010, 06:25:32 pm
What site is this Delfuego guy on, ZIOH?
Yes, ZIOH. Perhaps even dirtycarnivore as well?

I would be cautious re anything DelFuego says. In the past, he's made some very dubious claims.

As for the raw meats issue, many people such as myself have experienced minor, temporary detox issues after transitioning from cooked to raw. I , for example, experienced c.3 days of extremely frequent diarrhea when I first transitioned but it then went away, just as happens with other RVAFers. DelFuego obviously didn't stick to the raw-eating for long enough to ever detox properly, and I'm sure he was still eating cooked-meats while eating some of those raw meats, and that commonly leads to digestive issues, as cooked and raw require different types of digestive processes.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 08, 2010, 11:41:38 pm
Now from a pure scientific point of view, and I have fun with science ;), the calorie restriction experiments are of high interest.
    

Alpha,
Re calorie restriction: If someone lives in a colder climate, then he needs more calories than someone who lives  in a warmer climate. Right? (Although I don´t know HOW MUCH more calories one needs if one lives in a cold climate compared with a warm climate...) Does this mean that if someone wants to age as slowly as possible, then he should live in a warm or, even better, in a hot climate?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: King Salmon on August 09, 2010, 03:13:19 am
Tyler,that makes sense.For example,Charles seemed to have given up on raw when, as he says, "the squirts" didn't stop after the better part of a year.So,he switched to cooked.

In Delfuego's case,he prefers pemmican over raw and cooked.But,if he's made dubious claims,then I don't know.It's difficult enough to trust/believe some people on internet forums as it is.

I just don't see how someone can feed 4 people every day on pemmican.Camping or travelling,sure,no problem.I'm surprised he hasn't started a pemmican only forum.....oops,I better shut up....hehe -X

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 09, 2010, 03:57:01 pm
Alpha,
Re calorie restriction: If someone lives in a colder climate, then he needs more calories than someone who lives  in a warmer climate. Right? (Although I don´t know HOW MUCH more calories one needs if one lives in a cold climate compared with a warm climate...) Does this mean that if someone wants to age as slowly as possible, then he should live in a warm or, even better, in a hot climate?

Hanna, This is as yet a minor detail or effect, I don't know the answer and I guess nobody knows. Roy Walford, a scientist involved in these CR investigations, on the other hand also argued in his books that a lower temperature of the organism's environment might a priori have positive effects on longevity or health.

It is essential to realise that the aim of CR is not to eat the absolute minimum possible of calories but rather to undergo a progressive training of the organism that eventually makes him to function properly with substantially less calories than conventional ordinary ad libitum eating people are expected to need from conventional wisdom. In other words it is a dietary manipulation intended to increase the efficiency with which the organism uses its food. This increase in efficiency needs several years of adaptation and is very well  documented in an observed decrease of basal metabolic rate and for instance the increased efficiency of mitochondria energy conversion and acompanying reduction of electron transport chain losses.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on August 09, 2010, 05:10:46 pm
Tyler,that makes sense.For example,Charles seemed to have given up on raw when, as he says, "the squirts" didn't stop after the better part of a year.So,he switched to cooked.
You see, it's bizarre claims like this that make Charles statements deeply questionable. RVAFers generally only experience things like diarrhea for a very short period(a few days) while transitioning to raw. They might get an occasional detox(not usually diarrhea but perhaps mild flu-like symptoms) once every so often(every few months in my own case), but that's it. The only way Charles could get the squirts for a whole year would be if he was continuing to eat sizeable amounts of cooked meats along with the raw meats, or if he ate raw liver all the time(that's the only raw animal food that produces liquid-like stools, though it's not really diarrhea as such).So, Charles is not being too honest, clearly, re such claims.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on August 09, 2010, 06:18:50 pm
RVAFers generally only experience things like diarrhea for a very short period(a few days) while transitioning to raw. They might get an occasional detox(not usually diarrhea but perhaps mild flu-like symptoms) once every so often(every few months in my own case), but that's it.

    Mine lasted close to a month, but absolutely no flu-like symptoms.  I had health conditions prior that kind of felt like flu sometimes all the time for months and more.  RAF took the symptoms away.  Never had the runs since, except two times eating adrenal I got a strong detox that limited itself to an hour.  Raw eggs sometimes make me go, but not bad, it's fine.  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: djr_81 on August 09, 2010, 08:01:04 pm
You see, it's bizarre claims like this that make Charles statements deeply questionable. RVAFers generally only experience things like diarrhea for a very short period(a few days) while transitioning to raw. They might get an occasional detox(not usually diarrhea but perhaps mild flu-like symptoms) once every so often(every few months in my own case), but that's it. The only way Charles could get the squirts for a whole year would be if he was continuing to eat sizeable amounts of cooked meats along with the raw meats, or if he ate raw liver all the time(that's the only raw animal food that produces liquid-like stools, though it's not really diarrhea as such).So, Charles is not being too honest, clearly, re such claims.
I didn't have it quite that bad but did have plenty of problems when eating grain-finished in the beginning. If Charles was eating grain-finished, and had issues with it, I could see it being possible but agree it's still highly unlikely.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on August 09, 2010, 10:04:49 pm
You see, it's bizarre claims like this that make Charles statements deeply questionable. RVAFers generally only experience things like diarrhea for a very short period(a few days) while transitioning to raw. They might get an occasional detox(not usually diarrhea but perhaps mild flu-like symptoms) once every so often(every few months in my own case), but that's it. The only way Charles could get the squirts for a whole year would be if he was continuing to eat sizeable amounts of cooked meats along with the raw meats, or if he ate raw liver all the time(that's the only raw animal food that produces liquid-like stools, though it's not really diarrhea as such).So, Charles is not being too honest, clearly, re such claims.

Good points Tyler!  It would be interesting to have a forum poll to see just how common and long-lasting these kind of initial symptoms are among the group?  It certainly doesn't reflect my own experiences either.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 09, 2010, 11:19:06 pm
Alpha,
Thanks, that seems to be a useful link.

Quote
on the other hand also argued in his books that a lower temperature of the organism's environment might a priori have positive effects on longevity or health.

But when the temperature of the environment is lower, one needs MORE calories (or a higher proportion of protein) to maintain body temperature?


This is an article that (tries to?) debunk calorie restriction. What do you think about this?

http://www.livescience.com/health/090127-bad-calorie-restriction.html

Quote
Yet all along there have been cracks in this longevity theory. Yes, many species of animals in the laboratory live longer when on a caloric-restricted diet. The big exception, though, is the housefly, which dies faster when starved. So one question to ask is whether you are more like a fruit fly or a housefly?
Also, while some laboratory mice can live longer on a restricted diet, the progeny of wild-caught mice reap little to no benefit from fewer calories. This led scientists to think that maybe the animals gaining the most extra years from calorie restriction are those animals bred to study calorie restriction.

A team led by Raj Sohal of the University of Southern California's School of Pharmacy tested the diet on two types of mice: mice bred to be fat on a normal diet and mice bred to be lean. Only the chubby variety of mice, albeit lean in this study, lived longer on the caloric-restricted diet. The naturally lean mice forwent all that delicious cheese for naught.

(...)

The most significant finding from this study, however, is that the diet lowered the metabolic rates of both types of mice. The leading theory has been that a slower metabolic rate—and the subsequent lower rate of oxygen consumption and lower rate of free-radical production—was the cause for the increased longevity. This theory is now up in the air.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 10, 2010, 01:06:12 am
To All,
Sorry taking so long to respond.  Gone for the weekend.  Had guests in from Australia and had to give them the nickel tour.  Charged them 25 cents for it so it wasn’t a total loss.

Josh,
Yup referring to the Ketostix scale. 

Negative - None
Trace – 5 mg/dl
Level_1 – 15 mg/dl Small
Level_2 _ 40 mg/dl Moderate
Level_3 _ 80 mg/dl Large
Level_4 _ 160 mg/dl Maximum utmost


King Salmon
There are so many variables that it is impossible to say what drives me, Delfuego, or anyone else for that matter.  Each of us has a different definition for the work “problems”.  This makes effective communication devilishly difficult.  We each have a picture in our heads of what we are trying to convey, but the best we can do is try to paint that picture in the reader’s head through the words we use.  Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don’t.

KD,
I have no idea whatever about why some people do better on one thing than another.  I’m sure it is a bit of everything you mention, less junk, more nutrients, easier digestion etc.

I’m sure we get some energy from fats, protein, and carbs.  The question is what is the primary energy source used at the cellular level.  If you suddenly change your diet and start depriving the body of the primary fuel used at the cellular level then the body will go to heroic efforts to create it until it can fully adapt and efficiently use the new fuel source. (the key word here is “efficiently”) This is why massive amounts of weight are lost when one moves from a carb based diet to a fat based diet.  The body is temporarily sacrificing huge amounts of dietary as well as body fat to get at the glycerol to create glucose.  However, once the body adapts to using fatty acids more efficiently as it’s primary fuel, then weight loss stops and even reverses.   

Luck as little to do with adaptation to a new fuel source.  It just takes time.  As I’ve stated, it took the better part of a year before I felt mostly back to normal and then 18 months to 2 years before things fully settled down to a normal routine.  All the while I could see changes in my daily BG and Ketone measurements as well as major changes in my formal lab tests.  As evidenced by my current lab tests the changes are still occurring after 4-5 years, though much more slowly.

BG at the high end of the range seems to be normal for those on VLC/ZC diet.  106 would be about right a couple of hours after eating.  95-100 would be the “fasting” level 10 – 12 hours from your last meal.  Each of us is slightly different and home BG meters are not all that accurate.  If you are within 5 points or so either way, then you are well within the accuracy level of the meter.  Don’t obsess over BG if the fasting level is below 110.  Don’t obsess over BG is an hour or so after eating it rises to 120 or so.  Your home BG meter and the associated strips are lucky to be accurate to +- 20 points.  Just take sequential readings from the same blood sample and you’ll often see 10 points or more difference.  These meters are wonderful for telling you when you are in trouble (BG above 200), they are not so good as a laboratory standard.

Some of this boils down to expectations.  When you started this adventure what were you looking for, and were your expectations reasonable?  Much of how you feel is based on how you think.  We can go from bored to excited in a heartbeat.  The truth is, this isn’t what I’m looking for.  When my body is working well I don’t notice it at all and I’m totally able to focus on the activity I’m doing.  When there is a “real” problem, then my attention is diverted away from what I’m doing and focuses on the pain or discomfort.

When I don’t notice my body, my breathing, my heartbeat, my stomach, my bowels, my joints, my head, or any other part, then I’m probably doing just fine.  This is different than having some ‘expectation’ and then constantly analyzing micro feelings to see if these expectations are being met.  It’s all about living life and doing things rather than focusing on how I feel from moment to moment.

On the Calorie Restriction Posts:
Great discussion.  I gave it a shot and read all of Walfords work but just couldn’t do it.  I was cold all the time – I mean freezing.  Needed a sweater in the summer.  Totally lost my libido.  I think the observation that we must “train” the body to get along on calorie restriction, then it probably isn’t something I want to do.  In paleo times if we were calorie restricted it was due to lack of available food, not choice.

Lex





Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: King Salmon on August 10, 2010, 01:10:23 am
Lex,some info I saw on Wikipedia in regards to Ketogenic diet and kidney stones:

 Long-term use of the ketogenic diet in children increases the risk of retarded growth, bone fractures, and kidney stones. Supplements are necessary to counter the dietary deficiency of many micronutrients.[4]

About 1 in 20 children on the ketogenic diet will develop kidney stones (compared with one in several thousand for the general population). A class of anticonvulsants known as carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (topiramate, zonisamide) are known to increase the risk of kidney stones, but the combination of these anticonvulsants and the ketogenic diet does not appear to elevate the risk above that of the diet alone.[35] The stones are treatable and do not justify discontinuation of the diet.[35] Johns Hopkins Hospital now gives oral potassium citrate supplements to all ketogenic diet patients, resulting in a sevenfold decrease in the incidence of kidney stones.[36] However, this empiric usage has not been tested in a prospective controlled trial.[7] Kidney stone formation (nephrolithiasis) is associated with the diet for four reasons:[35]

Excess calcium in the urine (hypercalciuria) occurs due to increased bone demineralisation with acidosis. Bones are mainly composed of calcium phosphate. The phosphate reacts with the acid, and the calcium is excreted by the kidneys.[35]
Hypocitraturia: the urine has an abnormally low concentration of citrate, which normally helps to dissolve free calcium.[35]
The urine has a low pH, which stops uric acid from dissolving, leading to crystals that act as a nidus for calcium stone formation.[35]
Many institutions traditionally restricted the water intake of patients on the diet to 80% of normal daily needs;[35] this practice is no longer encouraged.[4]  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 10, 2010, 02:24:22 am


But when the temperature of the environment is lower, one needs MORE calories (or a higher proportion of protein) to maintain body temperature?


Yes but there are other effects that might well offset this. I don't remember precisely what they are but you could find out by reading Walfords books or works.


This is an article that (tries to?) debunk calorie restriction. What do you think about this?

http://www.livescience.com/health/090127-bad-calorie-restriction.html


Well, mice are the species that has been most tinkered on by genetic engineering and so one should not wonder that specific strains are not responsive to CR (in terms of longevity but there are other health parameters). Please read the original abstract and cautious wording

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/jn.108.100313v1

and compare with the comments of the so-called "debunker".

There is also this article which discusses possible reasons why that specific strain of mice did not respond:

Mechanisms of Ageing and Development
Volume 131, Issue 2, February 2010, Pages 111-118

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/ibes/speakman/pdf_docs/319.pdf

  As compared to this exception the litterature supporting the CR paradigm is overwhelming and undisputable. And unlike the debunker's claims it is not a theory, the mechanisms at work are not claimed to be seriously identified, it's just a fact by now.

Yet as Lex points out CR on a more or less standard western diet is probably very difficult to follow by willful humans and bad nutrition and related deficiencies are major risks. I never tried it and probably were unable to do it. But in my case raw paleo led after many years spontaneously to a de facto CR without any suffering or frustration. I estimate my CR to be in the modest 10-15% range when compared to the 2150 cal I'm expected to need according to my age, body size, sex, activity etc...
It's however a mean value because there are days I eat more or less depending on my activities. I believe also that some kind of intermittent fasting was the rule rather than the exception during paleotimes.    
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: KD on August 10, 2010, 11:04:06 pm
Some of this boils down to expectations.  When you started this adventure what were you looking for, and were your expectations reasonable?  Much of how you feel is based on how you think.  We can go from bored to excited in a heartbeat.  The truth is, this isn’t what I’m looking for.  When my body is working well I don’t notice it at all and I’m totally able to focus on the activity I’m doing.  When there is a “real” problem, then my attention is diverted away from what I’m doing and focuses on the pain or discomfort.

Lex,

Thanks again for the thorough responses. Both BG readings were the results of lab tests. Never had any home systems. I was examining some of the options for readers and ketostix and such recently and seemed to intuitively agree that - that kind of micromanaging wouldn't be the best thing for me.

I guess my main curiosity in analyzing others on a spectrum of LC or just plain paleo diets (raw or cooked) and how they 'get' energy is the thought that there might be diets better suited for a variety of goals. I guess this is an obvious statement. But I'm generally not the type to want to do the 'absolute most' if alternatives have their own progression and success. I don't do a VLC diet because all the theories make the most sence per se, but that when I add carbs to this system things do not work out. For me this goes beyond energy lows or fat gain or other such things but some kind of internal battle of sorts that seems to be deteroriating or at least non productive. Of course there are theories as to how to 'fix' this situation, one being the VLC approach itself, and others arguing that approach is non-productive or could be modifyfied by other methods, supplements, therapies etc...

I guess many VLC or ZC folks don't really have specific goals about eating carbs in the future, I'd probably say its one of my few other than just feeling well and avoiding acute symptoms.

On the positive, I have the little things here and there but for the most part things are pretty easy breezy these days. I guess if I've survived many months of the :high end of crap: to the now :med -> high end of normal: I wonder where I place in that 18 mo. scale. but that sounds like something to be optimistic about, as I'd rather not go through my umpeenth weightloss/wait-out period on raw. Ironically or not, at certain moments feeling well and in the moment usually makes me not appreciate all that these decisions have brought me but in my new found health ponder about going out and getting a beer or a cooked meal with nice girl sometime OR experimenting with Lyle's program or other such things.

hmm.hopefully some of this is relevant to others than myself...
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 11, 2010, 01:36:38 am
King Salmon,
I’m aware of  the ketogenic diet studies and have discussed them in this journal as well.  This is also why I had a DEXA SCAN to see if my diet might be causing havoc with my bones.  Came through the scan with flying colors.  The scan was also analyzed by Kurt Harris on his PaNu blog.  Kurt is a radiologist of some renown and I was nice of him to take the time to review my tests.  You can find his comments on his blog.

Will have another DEXA SCAN next year to monitor changes.  I think my insurance will only pay for them every 2 years unless a problem is detected.

KD,
I don’t spend much time analyzing other people.  They have different goals, and I also find that most people say one thing and do another – often without realizing it.  Or rationalize their behavior to fit what they wish to believe.  One person came to me and said that ZC wasn’t working for them.  It took a bit of time and prying but I finally discovered that they were eating a pint of ice cream every evening.  They rationalized that ice cream is very high in fat and that offsets any carbs that might be in it.  

The words we use are also very misleading or ill defined.  I’ve said that I eat a hand full of cherries on occasion as I love them.  How big is a handful and how often is occasionally?  For me a handful is about 1 cup and occasionally is twice a year.  For others it might be a pint and once a week.  Still others will tell you it’s one cup a couple of times per year but actually eat a pint or more every day while cherries are in season as they wish to keep up appearances.  We have no way of knowing.

Bottom line: Be a bit skeptical of everything you read.  None of what we are doing is in a laboratory or overseen by some official process to assure compliance, and few will post regular lab tests to support their claims.

I do what I do for me and the life I wish to lead.  I try to post details to provide as much clarity as possible.  I also post my ongoing results.  I post the good and the bad as I have no specific belief, diet, or protocol to protect.  If what I’m doing starts causing problems or no longer meets my needs I’ll change in a heartbeat.  I do what I do, not because I believe it is the only true and correct path, I do it because it allows me to feel well enough to do the things I want to do.  For me, diet is a means to an end, not the goal in itself.

I also try to keep my expectations reasonable.  I’ll be 60 in January.  Age alone has reduced my physical performance.  I can no longer run 10 miles every other day at a 6:30 pace or the 100 yard dash in 11+ seconds.  Injuries take weeks instead of days to heal.  Tissues aren’t as flexible as they were when I was 20 and straining a joint and tendons is far more likely now than 30 or 40 years ago.  Our physical performance will degrade as we age regardless of what we eat.   The best I can do is live a lifestyle that leverages whatever capacity I have to the highest possible level.  This also includes my mental state.  If I’m depressed or bored, then my physical state is a mute point as I won’t do anything anyway.  So far what I’m doing is meeting my needs and I really spend very little time thinking about it.

Lex



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 11, 2010, 06:00:44 pm
I estimate my CR to be in the modest 10-15% range when compared to the 2150 cal I'm expected to need according to my age, body size, sex, activity etc...
  

And how much meat do you eat, if you try to estimate? I feel so much better if I eat as much meat (including fish etc.) as possible; I think that I still don´t eat sufficient meat.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 12, 2010, 01:59:43 pm
And how much meat do you eat, if you try to estimate? I feel so much better if I eat as much meat (including fish etc.) as possible; I think that I still don´t eat sufficient meat.

Well, Hanna, some details here. http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/common-criticisms-directed-at-paleo-diet-proponents/msg24080/#msg24080

 My diet is actually very flexible depending on season.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on August 13, 2010, 10:31:09 pm
Hi Alpha,
Roughly estimated, how many gramms are these 70-80% meat?
Do you eat just the meat, even if it is lean, or do you add extra fat?
Do you prefer your meat (how long?) aged? Do you grind it (or season or the like)?

Since you eat so much meat, you probably don´t need any tropical food? If I eat much fatty fish, I am entirely satisfied and euphorically happy.  Especially mackerel can be very fatty, it can contain up to 35% fat in the autumn.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: alphagruis on August 15, 2010, 02:30:19 pm
Hanna,

It's not 70% meat but food of animal origin ( as fish, shellfish (scallops, shrimps and crabs my favorites), eggs etc) and on average. If it's fatty meat such as boar or lamb it corresponds to about 100g muscle and 150g fat or so but again this is an average that came out from an estimation during 2008-2009 by means of the CR software CRON-o-meter. I however rarely eat much more lean meat or muscle at once.

I don't grind meat, no do I season it but not because I think it's better in any respect ;), simply because it's simpler and less time consuming. I've got more interesting things to do. I occasionally mix fat from one animal with muscle from another without any problem.

I eat the stuff at all ageing states from fresh to several months except beef because the muscle becomes rapidly stone hard in the fairly dry atmosphere I age it.

 I don't need any tropical fruit of course though I appreciate them occasionally. But I eat a substantial amount of fruit mostly of local origin and during season.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on August 31, 2010, 02:17:42 pm
I think I've read as much KGH-thought as anyone else.  My read of his reasons for consuming that amount of carbs is:

1.  He damn well enjoys them. As in, dark chocolate.

2.  He believes that paleolithic eating is 95% about what poisons must be avoided.  In his intro to his 12 recommended steps, he outright states that the first 2, just by themselves, cover 80% of the benefit.


3. Charles would say that KGH has un-resolved dietary addictions.   I say that Charles has an un-resolved addiction to running half-marathons.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 02, 2010, 01:00:03 am
Alan,
We each are highly biased.  It is our nature to go to great lengths to rationalize reality when it doesn’t support our biases and beliefs.  I should know, I spent 20+ years trying to convince myself (and anyone who would listen) that the vegan lifestyle was the true way, even though the evidence was clear that it was not meeting my needs (gum disease, high blood pressure, rising blood sugar, migraine headaches, etc).

The truth is that I don’t know if my current ZC approach is good or bad, only that it seems to be working well for me at this time.  There have been a few problems as evidenced by my bout with kidney stones, and I’ve tried to report both the good and the bad as objectively as possible and let others draw their own conclusions.

I no longer try to convince myself or others that what I’m doing is correct.  I’m now far more concerned about actual results, and I’ll change what I’m doing in a heartbeat if there is evidence that my current course needs correction.

Yes, I still have my biases and beliefs like everyone else, but I do my best not to let them cloud my judgment or reporting.  I also try to make it very clear when I’m reporting what I believe to be objective facts as opposed to my opinion.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: brwr on September 07, 2010, 05:35:39 am
I am on page 40 of this thread.  I have tried to open your manual on pemmican and get a blank page.  Any suggestions on how to download the manual?  Have you discussed how to eat what you a eating, but with it cooked?  I aim to start with cooked food and slowly introduce raw.  I am on a low carb diet, but have trouble getting enough fat, so I eat too much protein.  When we make meat loaf most of the fat is in the pan.  I am looking for suggestions on how to eat this fat.

I too, have been down may roads in the diet world, and have read most of the books you have referenced and have come to a similar conclusion.  At 69 years old I am in OK health, but wish to be all I can be.

Thank you for being you and sharing yourself.  A quote of mine that "There is no predicting how long it may take for the obvious to become apparent", seems to apply to the world of diet experts.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: djr_81 on September 07, 2010, 06:58:49 am
I am on page 40 of this thread.  I have tried to open your manual on pemmican and get a blank page.  Any suggestions on how to download the manual? 
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/display-your-culinary-creations/lex%27s-$10-beef-jerky-maker-and-recipes/ (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/display-your-culinary-creations/lex%27s-$10-beef-jerky-maker-and-recipes/)
 ;) :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2010, 12:01:46 am
Hi Bob,

My Jerky and Pemmican manuals are no longer hosted on this forum.  You can find them here:  

http://www.traditionaltx.us/recipes.htm

Love the quote – think I’ll steal it if it is OK with you.  Another bit of wisdom I’m partial too is that it is human nature to complicate things, but it is in the ability to simplify that true genius resides.

I’m no genius.  I hate to admit how much pleasure I took in creating complex dietary rules and calculating “complete” proteins from vegetable sources.  I was never without my scientific calculator and smug in the knowledge that I was on the cutting edge of dietary evolution.   Unfortunately, all that brilliant and complicated analysis ruined my health.

Today I don’t use a calculator unless I’m doing an experiment.  Everything has been reduced to as simple as possible.  I eat once per day and I eat the same thing every day (grass fed ground meat, grass fed pet food to get a variety of organ meats, and a good measure of fat).  I really have nothing against cooked food and have chosen to eat mostly raw only because it seems to make sense to me as no other animal cooks its food – it’s a personal choice, not a religious issue.  It also simplifies preparation.  My added fat is cooked as I render it for storage.  This allows me to store 150 - 200 lbs of fat in 5 gal buckets without refrigeration and I only have to spend 1 day per year rendering.  Everything else is raw.  When ready to eat I just melt the fat and stir it into my ground meat mixture.   I used to eat raw fat but storing it and then grinding and adding to my food mixture took a lot of time and freezer space.  I live in the modern world and so added the bit of technology (rendering) for convenience.  I’m sure there will be howls of protest that rendering is somehow going to kill me, but my goal isn’t to live long, it is to live well.  I consider raw meat mixed with rendered fat an acceptable compromise and figure it is far better than Big Mac’s, Twinkies, French Fries, and soft drinks which seems to be the dietary standard of the day.

When eating out I always order rib eye steaks extra rare (blu) with a side of melted butter.  I cut off a bit of steak, dip it in the butter and chow down.  At first eating this much fat was difficult as I would gag on it.  Years as a vegetarian had made me fat averse and it took a couple of years to fully get over it.  Now I crave fat and have no problem eating it alone.  If I want more fat than I was able to eat as part of my meal, I’ll just melt what I want and drink it.  I’ve also been known to melt a ½ lb of fat and put some diced meat in it and then eat it with a spoon like soup.  You might try this with bacon.  Dice ¼ to ½ lb of bacon very fine, fry it until it is done the way you like it, then put the bacon and the melted fat into a small bowl and eat the whole think like soup. You might try cracking an egg into it just before you take it off the stove and stir until you have it scrambled for a little variety of texture, but the whole thing should be swimming in fat.

As for meatloaf, I’d just cut the meatloaf and then spoon the melted fat over it and chow down.  I like mine drenched in fat so I’d probably add more melted butter or rendered fat as well.

Eat cooked or eat raw, it is up to you.  As you progress your tastes will change and you may well find that fancy recipes and cooking are unnecessary complications that you no longer need.

Hope this helps,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 08, 2010, 07:43:46 am
"it is human nature to complicate things, but it is in the ability to simplify that true genius resides."

Did you coin that, Lex, or did someone else?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2010, 11:15:04 am
"it is human nature to complicate things, but it is in the ability to simplify that true genius resides."

Did you coin that, Lex, or did someone else?

I came up with that about 15 years ago and would like to think it is original, but since there is very little new under the sun I expect that others have come up with something very similar - probably many times.  There are a lot of people a lot smarter than I am out there....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 08, 2010, 12:01:59 pm
I came up with that about 15 years ago and would like to think it is original, but since there is very little new under the sun I expect that others have come up with something very similar - probably many times.
I Googled it and couldn't find anything similar; surprising, given that it is so good. I agree with it, so the key part goes in my signature. I had to hack down poor Nassim Taleb's quote to fit it.

Quote
 There are a lot of people a lot smarter than I am out there....

Lex
Just six. I checked.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: brwr on September 09, 2010, 06:03:51 am
Feel free to use the quote.  I came up with it when I was a design engineer.  I seemed to has a flair for the obvious, but I could never predicate how long it would take for the system (organization) to see.  To many toes that felt stepped on.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 10, 2010, 12:51:10 pm
Feel free to use the quote.  I came up with it when I was a design engineer.  I seemed to has a flair for the obvious, but I could never predicate how long it would take for the system (organization) to see.  To many toes that felt stepped on.

My corporate experience was similar, but it seems that polititians have taken things to the extreme.  They shout the obvious one day and then deny it exists the next.  At least when the corporate big wigs finally acknowledged something they dealt with it like grown ups.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: brwr on September 11, 2010, 09:31:23 am
I am up to page 78 in your blog, reading about the amount of water people drink.  Just want to let you know that I had serious problems with several kidney stones when I was 19 years old.  The Dr. said drink a gallon of water every day, no matter what.  I have been doing that for over 50 years now and so far no more kidney stones.  I would feel a spasm/pain coming on and would lay down because I would pass out from the pain.  After 50 years I still shutter when I think of the pain.  I pee every hour or so during the day and 3 or so times a night.  A real hassle, but nothing compared to the horror of KSs.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 11, 2010, 01:28:58 pm
Bob,
Yup, I think the key to kidney stones is fluid intake.  I'm probably drinking close to a gallon of water per day and haven't had another attack either.  I agree with you that the extra trips to the bathroom are well worth it considering the alternative.  Someone who hasn't experienced the pain for themselves has no idea just how intense it is.  Once you've felt it, you'll never forget it, and will do anything to avoid it ever happening again.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Stephanie07 on September 11, 2010, 04:29:53 pm
Water is really important for our body as much a possible we should drink more than 8 glasses of water a day, especially during hot weather.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 11, 2010, 05:01:52 pm
Water is really important for our body as much a possible we should drink more than 8 glasses of water a day, especially during hot weather.
I disagree. I can get by on much less, without issues.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 11, 2010, 08:31:27 pm
Water is really important for our body as much a possible we should drink more than 8 glasses of water a day, especially during hot weather.

I disagree. I can get by on much less, without issues.

This Stephanie07 is a spammer who just wants to sell Krill Oil.  It is not on raw paleo diet.  It just makes comments on various posts to sell Krill Oil. 

Sorry for the trouble Lex, this spammer will be taken cared off soon enough.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 11, 2010, 11:10:20 pm
Hi GS,
The spammer doesn’t really seem to be an issue in this case.  Her comment was valid as was Tyler’s response.  Just glad you Admins and Moderators are there to keep things from getting out of hand.

As for water, I suppose there are many variables at work.  In my case, I found I really didn’t want much water and seemed to be doing quite nicely thank you… that is, until the kidney stones struck.  I must admit that this rocked my world a bit.

In researching the issue, the only common denominator that I could find was low fluid intake, as people on all sorts of dietary protocols seemed to suffer the affliction.  In the three cases of which I’m intimately familiar, (me, my dad, and my son-in-law), all eat completely different diets, but all had very reduced fluid intake (on another note, son-in-law eats lots of fruits and suffers from bouts of gout as well).

My very low carb intake may be a contributing factor as well since there is some evidence of higher incidents of kidney stones in those on the very high ketogenic diet used to control epilepsy.  However, fluid intake is often controlled in these diets as well, so the combination of the two, (low carb and low fluid intake), may be the one-two punch that puts you down for the count.

As I’ve posted in the past, I’ve kept my diet the same with the exception of increased water intake to 3-4 liters per day and so far the kidney stones have not reoccurred.  Doesn’t mean they aren’t lurking, ready to create havoc some time in the future, but I have my fingers crossed that the increased fluid intake will keep them at bay.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 11, 2010, 11:24:04 pm
My 2 cents about the water issue is about the usable water issue.
My guess about myself is that my body utilizes only 20% or less of plain old water.
But my body seems to make more efficient use of raw fruit and raw veggies water content.
Somehow the water in raw fruit and raw vegs are more efficiently utilized by my body.

So when I'm stuck with plain old water I have to drink a lot of it.
Like you said, you consume a gallon of plain water a day.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 11, 2010, 11:57:40 pm
...on another note, son-in-law eats lots of fruits and suffers from bouts of gout as well....
That's interesting, Lex, as fructose has been one of the key factors implicated in gout, but even people who implicate fructose like Dr. Lustig have assumed that fruit is OK. On the other hand, some traditional peoples avoid gout while eating plenty of fruit, so I suspect it's a combination of factors and that your son-in-law probably eats modern foods along with the fruit.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 12, 2010, 07:02:11 am
I was just reminded that my pemmican and jerky manuals are posted on the Dirty Carnivore forum as is my short bio.  Good folks there and highly recommend you add the site to your list of regular places to visit.  Here’s the links:

http://www.dirtycarnivore.com/snacks.html

http://www.dirtycarnivore.com/Lex.html

This, (RawPaleo), is my home forum, and though I'm a member of dirtycarnivore and follow those threads that interest me, my Journal and 99% of my posts are here.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 12, 2010, 07:36:06 am
GS,
I’ve always assumed that my body was using 100% of the water I drink as long as it goes in my mouth and exits as urine.  There is more urine output when I drink straight water as there is no glucose, salt or other nutrient that tends to cause my body to retain a portion of the water to maintain proper nutrient dilution and fluid balance.

I’ve read where every gram of glucose requires the body to retain 6 grams of water for the body to maintain proper fluid balance.  When drinking sugar laden fruit juices, much of the fluid must be retained to offset the sugar in the juice.  If this is true, and you are convinced that less urine produced equals better efficiency, then you are correct that the juice you are drinking is being “efficiently used”  as the body tries to offset the sugar by retaining much of the water.  To me, drinking fruit juice is much like drinking sea water.  Much of the water is not available as it is bound up in maintaining proper fluid balance.  In my case, all the water is available to wash and cleans the system as it is free water with little mineral or nutrient concentrations that must be diluted in the body.

The effect of water storage from glucose is one of the reasons that VLC and LC diets like Atkins are so effective so quickly.  With no carbs in the diet, glucose levels drop dramatically and the water needed to maintain fluid balance is rapidly released.

Bottom line is that I believe that my body is using 100% of the water I drink.  It’s just that more of it is available to wash and cleans the body as it is absorbed through the stomach and then passed out the kidneys.   I guess it all depends on what you believe is the proper role for water and your definition of efficiency.

Phil,
As is true with all body functions and systems, everything is interconnected and any given symptom is most likely created by a confluence of many factors – especially metabolic disorders like gout, diabetes, kidney stones, arthritis, and a host of others.

Since changing any one of a number of things could bring relief (even if temporary), it makes fertile ground for patent medicine cures and snake oil salesmen.  

Lex  
 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 12, 2010, 07:46:19 am
...As is true with all body functions and systems, everything is interconnected and any given symptom is most likely created by a confluence of many factors – especially metabolic disorders like gout, diabetes, kidney stones, arthritis, and a host of others.
Yes, and I think this is why your point about simplicity is an important one. Nassim Taleb and others have also talked about unknown risks increasing when humans introduce new elements not found in nature, such as juicing fruits instead of eating them whole.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 15, 2010, 01:45:27 am
I received a private e-mail asking about my current fat intake as a percentage of calories.  After reading my reply I thought others on this forum might be interested as well so here it is.

I don't measure stuff when I'm not doing an experiment so I hit the kitchen with scale in hand and put together a typical meal, then ran the numbers.  
 
My normal mix of Slankers pet food and ground beef comes out to about 19% protein and 15% fat by weight.  My daily meal starts with 500g of this mixture.  This works out to 95g protein and 75g fat so the initial protein/fat ratio by calories is about 35/65.  Total calorie count is about 1,050. I then add about 175g of rendered beef fat to this mix.  This gives me 95g protein and 250g of fat.  The protein/fat ratio by calories for this is 15/85.   Total calorie count is about 2,630.
I've found that the longer I stick to this way of eating the more I prefer the higher fat content, so much so, that if I eat out, I often come home and eat a 100g of rendered fat to top off the meal.  The two 16oz ribeye steaks that I normally order just don't have enough fat to satisfy me.
 
Calorie intake has increased from around 1900 to the current 2600 and the result is that I've put on some weight.  I used to weigh between 155 and 160.  My weight is now stable between 165 and 170.  An interesting observation is that the 10 lb increase seems to have been distributed fairly evenly over most of my body rather than added as belly fat.  Waist, hips, and chest have all increased about 3/4 inch.  I do notice that I fill out my shirts and pants a bit more, but have not had to increase the size.  I still wear a 32/33 waist pant and a medium shirt.
 
Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Michael on September 15, 2010, 02:21:02 am
Thanks for sharing that information Lex.  That will be invaluable as ever I'm sure!

Glad to read you're doing well and are in a good place with regard to simplifying your diet to allow enjoyment of the important things in life!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Taste Sense on September 17, 2010, 02:15:29 am
Lex,

Great journal! I've been following it with much interest. I just did the math and was surprised to find out that you eat so little raw protein each day - just under 4 ounces!? I've been struggling with eating raw steaks for a while now, and wonder whether I was gobbling just too much for me, like a pound at a time, and not getting enough fat. I would get severe stomach pains from raw and hence had to resort to cooking. I think I have no or very little stomach acid as I get no burn feeling in my chest irregardless of the amount of intake of HCI pills. On the other hand, I react horribly to carbs: fruit - toothache and hunger, vegetables and grains - tired and sleepy. So zeroing in on carbs seems like an appropriate undertaking for me. But cooking meat is effort, requires spices, gives off odor, and is unappreciated by this community due to toxins - AGEs, PAH's, amines, etc. Anyway I gonna give it a try and eat less raw protein and twice as much fat. How do you add rendered fat to mix? Do you melt it first or something? Cause it is hard and not very tasty. Also you seem to have upped your fat intake all the way to 85% by calories. Any future plans to go any higher or lower?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 17, 2010, 01:20:56 pm
TS,
I have never worried about all the alphabet soup, AGE’s, PAh’s, Amines, free radicals and all the others.  Lots of theories that they cause problems but it’s all just theories that sound good and the lab tests don’t seem to translate well outside the lab.  There’s now even a theory that free radicals are necessary for our bodies to function properly.  Can’t measure any of this stuff so I just don’t waste any time worrying over it.

I melt the rendered fat and mix it into my normal ground meat mix.  The amount of fat I eat varies from 75% of calories to about 85% of calories.  I just scoop, melt, and stir and don’t spend much time making accurate measurements when I’m not doing an experiment.  I’ve developed a feel for about how much fat I need to add to satisfy my hunger.  I spend very little time thinking about, preparing, and eating food – maybe 30 minutes per day.  The other 23 hours and 30 minutes are focused on living my life and doing things I enjoy.

I have no current plans to make any formal changes to my diet.  Fat content will vary a little each day based on what I feel for, but my core diet remains pretty much unchanged: ground grass fed beef mixed with a little Slankers pet food and rendered fat ‘till it looks right. 

Sometimes I don’t melt the fat and just kneed it into the meat.  A bit different texture but when you are truly hungry, it tastes just fine.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: brwr on September 22, 2010, 04:09:15 am

"I recall someone once said, with regards to NASA, "when failure is not an option, success becomes very expensive." "   I just ran across this sentence on the web.  After reading all 114 pages of Lex's  journal with his ups & downs, the many BG tests, physicals, KSs, etc. this sentence seemed appropriate.  Keep up the good work Lex.




Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 22, 2010, 09:59:39 am
Admission by Gary Taubes that he was wrong about carbs being required to store fat

Lex, if I understand correctly, your journal experiment was inspired as a test of Gary Taubes' hypothesis that people can't add body fat from eating fat in the absence of carbs and that calories are therefore irrelevant on ZC. Gary Taubes revealed in the interview below that this hypothesis wasn't stated explicitly in his book, but that he did propose it in his old lectures (before he revised them).  Although he did write in his book, "Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity" and "carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity." Based on the interview, I think he still believes these points, as he apparently sees fat as much less of a factor than carbs.

Taubes has at least partially recanted his hypothesis, though he claims that the exception of glycogenolysis (the degradation of glycogen) and probably the production of insulin from excess protein intake (http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/11/3938) [and the one previously mentioned in this forum--gluconeogenesis ("the generation of glucose from non-carbohydrate carbon substrates such as lactate, glycerol, and glucogenic amino acids." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis)--and who knows what else]. You apparently found that your experimental results disproved the hypothesis. Gary even mentioned that some bloggers had refuted it, and who knows, maybe you were one of the people he was referring to.

In my opinion you've basically been vindicated, though Gary apparently learned of his error from some scientists some time ago, according to him, and I suspect that there is more to this than Gary has discussed, including more beyond what I've added with a little searching.

A (Cooked) High Fat Diet Can Cause Obesity and Atherosclerosis

Alpha glycerol 3 phosphate enables the storage of triglycerides in fat tissue. Both carbs and the glycerolneogenesis of dietary fats can produce Alpha glycerol 3 phosphate. Thus gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis can cause body fat gain and dietary fat can provide the raw material for gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis. A high-fat diet in mice produced the liver lipid metabolites hepatic triacylglycerol and diacylglycerol (Study reveals trigger for insulin resistance in liver, potential drug targets, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/27763.php).

A (cooked) high fat diet can cause hepatic insulin resistance. Hepatic insulin resistance "is sufficient to produce dyslipidemia and susceptibility to atherosclerosis (http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(07)00368-3). Hepatic insulin resistance also causes "an increased rate of production of glucose, due to gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis." (Arner,P. 2002. Insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes: role of fatty acids. Diabetes Metab Res. Rev. 18 Suppl 2:S5-S9.) And thus the circle is complete.

Gary Taubes basically admitted to it here (though he includes some defensive language, but after this excerpt he makes some rather astounding and candid concessions that may lose him hundreds or even thousands of potential readers:

41:05 [He made a mistake in his lectures, not in his book. In his older lectures he] talked about glycerol 3 phosphate (alpha glycerol phosphate) being raid?-limiting and that you need carbs to provide the glycerol 3 phosphate to store triglycerides in the fat tissue, so therefore the more carbs you have the more fat you store, which turned out to be wrong. Glycerolneogenesis [sic; glyceroneogenesis] can produce glycerol 3 phosphate.

45:56 [However:] "Insulin so fundamentally determines fat accumulation, that it doesn't really matter. … The more carbs, the more alpha glycerol 3 phosphate, the more fat you can store. That's all still true, but you can store fat without the carbs and in fact you have to be able to store fat without the carbs, because you're constantly recycling fat and you release more fat into your bloodstream than you're gonna burn in any one period of time [Plus, as I pointed out some time ago, not being able to make fat from fat would have made life for Arctic peoples very difficult if not impossible]. So much of the fat that you release into the bloodstream is fatty acids, [which] end up back in your fat tissue being stored again as fat. So you have to be able to do it. … And I always knew you had to be able to do it, but somehow, in the lectures, <pphhh> it got a little skewed…."

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/2403/the-return-of-gary-taubes-episode-401/

Gary seems exhausted and depressed in the interview. I felt bad for him while listening and still do thinking about it. No doubt he's been put through the wringer due to the firestorm that his controversial views ignited and the way the LC thing has taken over his life. [I empathize with Gary and I'm not looking for an argument with any of his defenders, though if anyone has corrections to make or info to add, please let me know. Thanks.]

Things seem to be tilting the raw Paleo way lately, what with Stephan Guyenet and Dr. Davis writing about AGE's and now Gary Taubes publicly admitting that (cooked) fat intake can create body fat.

I threw this together, so I've probably made errors and feel free to correct them.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 24, 2010, 11:39:57 am
Phil,
Yes, my original objective was to test the hypothesis (implied in his book and rather plainly stated in his lectures), that if you didn’t consume carbs that you couldn’t/wouldn’t gain weight.  My direct experience showed this to be incorrect, and after many months of data I felt secure that I could openly state that eating a Zero Carb diet would not stop weight gain, and further, that once your body was fully adapted to using fatty acids as its primary fuel, calories would indeed count again.

For those of us with an open mind and a willingness to accept as fact, data that do not support our current beliefs, revelations such as this are merely another learning opportunity and at most may cause us to make a minor course adjustment.  For those that treat diet as a religion, and hold Gary Taubes (and others) as their high priests, admissions like this can be earth shattering.  Taubes’ experience is the very reason that I have no wish to be given guru status.  I applaud Taubes initial purpose which was to question the very foundations upon which modern dietary theory is built.  He never claimed that he was a scientist or that everything he said was gospel – only that his research showed fundamental flaws in our modern approach to diet, and that maybe we should reevaluate some of our core dietary beliefs.  Just because one statement or idea he put forth in a lecture was found wanting, it in no way reduces the validity and value of the firestorm he single handedly set in motion.

Yes, my own tests showed flaws in one of Gary’s assumptions (or at least my interpretation of it), but as far as I’m concerned, he’s a hero for formally taking on the establishment.  The face of Helen of Troy is said to have launched a thousand ships, and my guess is that Taubes work has launched as many or more dietary studies – many in an effort to prove him wrong.  To me it’s not about whether he’s right or wrong on any given point, it’s the fact that he’s been a major catalyst for change that is important.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: a87.pal on September 30, 2010, 12:17:16 am
Hi Lex,

I'm experimenting with a diet change inspired by you and was wondering how long you have been consistently consuming tallow?

I have a large, perhaps unreasonable fear, that consuming high quantities of cooked fats and hormones puts unnecessary stress and confusion on the body.

Also, I'm curious why you switched away from mixing in the suet/back fat raw.

Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: masterducky on September 30, 2010, 12:46:59 am
Let me add one word to Lex's and PaleoPhil's last posts.

So maybe the experience shows that we can gain weight also on a zero carb diet with a great fat ratio
but lets not forget about the argument that fat doesnt seem to raise insulin levels as carbs do.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 30, 2010, 09:17:09 am
I'm experimenting with a diet change inspired by you and was wondering how long you have been consistently consuming tallow?

Well over a year. 

I have a large, perhaps unreasonable fear, that consuming high quantities of cooked fats and hormones puts unnecessary stress and confusion on the body.

What hormones?  The meat and fat I get isn’t raised with hormones.  I’ve also found little difference between using rendered fat and raw suet other than convenience.  Rendered fat is much easier to store and use than raw suet.

Also, I'm curious why you switched away from mixing in the suet/back fat raw.

I live in a modern world and take advantage of those things that make my life easier.  I store my meat in a freezer and/or refrigerator, I render my fat to save freezer space, I’ll pop frozen meat in the microwave for 30 seconds to thaw it if I forget to take it out early enough, etc, etc, etc.  I’m not a purist.  There is no such thing as the perfect diet.  I’m into what works and I don’t want to spend any more time on eating than necessary.  I have more important things to do - like take a nap…..

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 01, 2010, 08:30:15 am
Calorie intake has increased from around 1900 to the current 2600 and the result is that I've put on some weight.  I used to weigh between 155 and 160.  My weight is now stable between 165 and 170.  .... An interesting observation is that the 10 lb increase seems to have been distributed fairly evenly over most of my body rather than added as belly fat.  Waist, hips, and chest have all increased about 3/4 inch.
Hi Lex, my understanding from the past is that you went from 160 to 180 lbs. on ZC when you didn't restrict your calories and that much of the 20 lbs was body fat, then you restricted your calories and dropped back to 160, and that this is your evidence that you can add significant body fat on ZC and that dieting is therefore not "all about the carbs/insulin". A skeptic pointed out this above quote of yours and I can imagine where some might go with it: since the weight you have since added is well distributed, maybe it is healthy fat and maybe it's impossible for you to become overweight or obese or develop excess fat in unhealthy depots (like the visceral fat, the belly, love handles, breasts and front of the neck) on a ZC diet. Do you wish to respond to this potential argument?

Thanks,
Phil
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 01, 2010, 09:05:43 am
... since the weight you have since added is well distributed, maybe it is healthy fat and maybe it's impossible for you to become overweight or obese or develop excess fat in unhealthy depots (like the visceral fat, the belly, love handles, breasts and front of the neck) on a ZC diet. Do you wish to respond to this potential argument?

Just reporting on what's happening.  Since I have no idea what my body is doing internally, why it is doing it, and no way to measure it, there is nothing to defend or argue over. I have no way of knowing if the weight gain is good or bad - it just is.  No matter what I say there will be those that wring their hands and agonize over stuff like this.  Nothing I can do about it.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 01, 2010, 09:16:44 am
That's fine. I would think a fat caliper would be one way to measure it, but if you're not interested, that's fine. If I were in your shoes I probably wouldn't bother to try to prove it further either.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 02, 2010, 11:32:46 pm
That's fine. I would think a fat caliper would be one way to measure it, but if you're not interested, that's fine. If I were in your shoes I probably wouldn't bother to try to prove it further either.

Not sure what would be the point.  What is good body fat?  What is bad body fat?  Who made the decision, the same people that have gotten it wrong on the food pyramid, the cholesterol hype, and a host of other dietary matters?   We're cautioned about pear shaped bodies as being unhealthy and told that an apple shape wards off heart disease, yet everyone, regardless of their shape will die and I can find no significant statistical difference in death rates. We are told that over weight and high cholesterol (over 200) put you at risk of an early demise from heart disease, yet people who are rail thin with cholesterol levels of 125 die from massive heart attacks early in life while those with levels of 275 and 50 lbs overweight live well into their 80's.  You either believe the stuff the mainstream press and the modern medical establishment publishes or you don't. I'm in the latter camp.  In fact, my personal experience has led me to question just about everything regardless of the source.

Not sure why you would think caliper readings would show something different than a tape measure.  They are both measuring devices, one in inches, the other in millimeters.  The tape measure records the total gain in diameter where the caliper measures the gain in thickness of one spot.  They both tell the same story, just in a different way.

The tape measure says that waist, hips, and chest all increased about ¾” in diameter.  Caliper readings show similarly equal increases in fat in all areas (abdomen, chest, thigh, etc).   At 155-160 average caliper readings were Ab-7.5 Chest-6.5, Thigh 11.
At 165-170 the readings are Ab-12, Chest-10.5, Thigh-17.  Therefore the caliper measurements increased about 60% in all areas.  Not sure that this tells us anything useful other than confirming that body fat increased as calorie intake increased.  Is the fat good or bad - who knows?  I guess there is one conclusion that we can draw.  Even on a ZC diet calories do count, but I think I’ve made this point several times before.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 03, 2010, 05:46:19 am
Not sure what would be the point.
There seems to be a lot of interest in the subject and your experiment increased my curiosity, so I guess you could say that you're to blame for my questions. ;) Beyond general curiosity, the point would be that there is a wrinkle remaining in the discussion. While Taubes now admits that it's possible to add body fat from eating fat, he basically said in the Jimmy Moore interview that he doesn't think it's an important factor. He still considers it so insignificant that he decided not to include discussion of glyceroneogenesis or other methods of adding body fat without carbs in his upcoming book (given the intensity of the online debate on this subject, I'm surprised that he's not going to address it in his book). So while he has made a concession, it seems the discussion/debate is not fully resolved and if you're still interested in putting Taubes' hypothesis to the test, then this question remains (at least in the eyes of Taubes).

Quote
We're cautioned about pear shaped bodies as being unhealthy and told that an apple shape wards off heart disease, ....
I thought it was allegedly the other way around (http://nephropal.blogspot.com/2010/05/sex-and-omega-3-highly-conserved-nsfw.html), at least as far as females are concerned, with pear-shaped women being less prone to heart disease than apple-shaped, and hourglass-shaped even less prone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_body_shape#Social_and_health_issues), and maybe that's what you meant?

I agree that not all body fat is necessarily unhealthy and am much less phobic about body-fat as well as dietary fat than most people. There is even a consensus that mitochondria-rich brown fat is "healthy" in the sense of promoting fat burning and thermal regulation. Mitochondria are also known to provide other health and performance benefits, some of which you have discussed before.

Quote
In fact, my personal experience has led me to question just about everything regardless of the source.
Same here. Question everything is one of my mantras, which is one of the reasons your writings attracted me to this forum.

Quote
Not sure why you would think caliper readings would show something different than a tape measure.
I didn't mean to imply that. You said you had "no way to measure it" and caliper just came to mind, as it's something that's frequently mentioned. If a tape measure is equally good or better, than that's fine too--whatever works, if anything. Of course, both caliper and tape measure readings are not direct measures of what is going on inside the body, but maybe they might give us some clues in the way that acne signals that there are certain inflammatory processes going on inside the body--or maybe not. Perhaps there are other better measures. You've provided data on quite a few health metrics and the sense I get is that you remain healthy overall even when you add body fat on your very low carb diet. One difficulty we face in your experiment is that it wouldn't be ethically responsible for us to ask you to see how much body fat you can add on ZC, even if you were up to the task, given the lack of survival need for body fat in modern society, the extra cost of the additional food intake required, the hypothetical risks (even though no actual risk factors have presented themselves yet), and the potential cosmetic and social issues.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: klowcarb on October 03, 2010, 06:17:09 am
I get my body fat taken every 8 weeks with callipers. I do find them superior to any other method. But bodybuilding is my hobby; I could see how others would not be interested.

I don't see why it matters to experiment with how much fat you can put on with ZC. The point of ZC is that we don't need carbohydrates for energy or health, and that without them, it is easier to maintain or become lean. It is not a guarantee. No one living naturally and respecting their hunger would starve themselves or stuff  themselves. I happen to use Fitday to track calories to make sure I get ENOUGH for my active lifestyle and my hobby of strenght-training, but I believe that once fat-adapted, as I am after 18 months of pure ZC, I could naturally control my intake to some extent.

The problems I have seen with those trying to go ZC have not been with ZC, but with the person. They eat too much protein, or they eat too often and not when really hungry. They eat junk ZC foods like pemmican (yes, I said it)--overcooked, lifeless meat and think that is all they need. They fear eggs or grassfed butter for dairy will make them "fat." They think they can eat medium muscle meat only. They want to eat tons and sit on their asses. They eat tons of bacon and supermarket meat and think that is what ZC is about.

Sorry to hoard your journal, Lex, but I get sick (reading other forums--why do I bother??) of the anti-ZC furor that comes and goes. I am not genetically Inuit--I'm Italian and Irish, but I'm doing just fine. I have tons of energy. My lifts and muscle have increased-I have independent corroboration from a trainer I hire to take my BF analysis and measurements. I am not sick or fatigued. I have no cravings. In short, I am thriving. But I am not dabbling in ZC and I take it seriously.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 03, 2010, 06:48:17 am
I don't want to get into a broader debate on the merits of ZC for all here in Lex's thread, Katelyn. It would likely hijack the thread and I think I have a good grasp of your views on it already. I'd like to stick to Lex's experiment and his thoughts on it and related issues. I'm also limiting my discussion of the broader issues relating to failure of some to lose excess body fat or improve health on ZC to the Dirty Carnivore forum right now, because it's too confusing and redundant trying to participate in two separate discussions of the same topic at the same time. Congrats on your success.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: klowcarb on October 03, 2010, 08:58:26 am
I hope you didn't take that as in insult, PaleoPhil...you know I think you are great. I would love, of course, to follow the discussions on Dirty Carnivore, but as you probably know, I am not welcome there because I actually believe ZCers don't need to eat seaweed.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 03, 2010, 10:59:10 am
No insult taken. Thanks, Katelyn. Yes, I know. The topic is complex. If I learn significant new info on it, I'll try to summarize what I learn in this forum in the future. Right now I'm still in the learning phase on it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 03, 2010, 01:14:58 pm
Phil & Katelyn,
I generally agree with Katelyn’s take on the subject of over eating on ZC.  Not sure there is any value whatever in purposely trying to gain as much weight as possible under any circumstances.  I have clearly shown that in my case, once I fully adapted to my new lifestyle, I again put on weight if I ate more than necessary and this is supported by the experience of others as well.  Not sure what remains unresolved regarding Taubes’.  The implication that you can’t gain weight if you don’t eat carbs has been proven to be false – at least to my satisfaction, and apparently Taubes’ satisfaction as well.  Not sure what else we need to know to live full and productive lives.  I may be going out on a limb here, but I’m willing to state that regardless of the dietary protocol, once your body has fully adapted to it, if you consistently take in more food than your body needs, you will gain weight. 

I probably mixed up the apple/pear/banana/kumquat and whatever other body shapes there are supposed to be, mostly because I care very little about it.  I’ve come to trust that if I eat a biologically appropriate diet my body will assume the biologically appropriate shape and I won’t have to waste even one minute of my time agonizing over it.  Now here’s the rub with the above statement:  just what is a biologically appropriate diet?  I must admit that have no idea, however, I’ve had great success eating raw red meat and fat as my primary food and all the research that I’ve been able to find seems to point to this being our paleo ancestor’s primary dietary protocol for several hundreds of thousands of years and this is good enough for me at this time.  That said, I assure you that if there is a significant change to my health and wellbeing that appears to be diet related I’ll change what I’m doing in a heartbeat.

As far as the color of my fat, I have no idea and I have no wish to do surgery on myself to find out.  Again, if I’m eating the right foods then I trust that my body will make whatever type or color of fat it needs.  If my body fat is brown, white, or some other color I’m fine with it. I’m not at all prejudiced against fat of any color, and I don’t think that knowing the color of my body fat would enhance my life in any meaningful way.

I also agree with Katelyn that eating just pemmican or any muscle meat based diet might be problematic in the long run.  This is why I continue to eat a good measure of mixed organ meats in the form of Slanker’s pet food as part of my daily food mix, and only eat pemmican when fresh meats that meet my criteria are unavailable.  Pemmican is a marvelous food when fresh meat is scarce, but I suspect it has its problems if you attempt to eat it to the total exclusion of fresh meat.  Do we need organ meats?  I have no idea.  All I know is that what I’m doing has served me well for these many years and I have no interest in changing something that is working well just to see if I can create a problem.

As to the complexity of the issues, I think we make them far more complex than necessary.  After all, our ancestors for millions of years before us did well enough without modern science to get us here.  I also don’t know of any other animal in its natural habitat that finds choosing what to eat such a problem.  It is only humans which seem to lose their way and “learn” to make inappropriate but politically correct choices as they achieve higher and higher levels of formal education.   I’ve found my greatest challenge is to unlearn all the garbage that I was taught and try to rediscover what it means to be human.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on October 04, 2010, 07:31:36 pm
I’ve had great success eating raw red meat and fat as my primary food and all the research that I’ve been able to find seems to point to this being our paleo ancestor’s primary dietary protocol for several hundreds of thousands of years

To which research do you refer? Didn´t (and don´t) the hunters and gatherers eat mainly plant food, including roots, tubers etc.?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on October 04, 2010, 11:05:16 pm
banana/kumquat

<lol'd
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Cinna on October 05, 2010, 02:11:34 am
I’ve found my greatest challenge is to unlearn all the garbage that I was taught and try to rediscover what it means to be human.

I, too, Lex. Thank you!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: a87.pal on October 07, 2010, 01:11:07 am
Hi Lex,

After reading more of your posts, I am taking to your philosophy (at least how I read it) on eating to be active, and not spending all of one's time thinking and planning/preparing a "perfect" diet. So I can understand why use tallow and frozen meat and occasionally the microwave.

Realizing this, I am a bit curious why you would spend extra time to mix in slankers ground beef into the pet food. Adding in the ground beef seems to be unnecessary when you have access to tallow, unless you are trying to reduce the percentage of organs in your diet.

If you are trying to reduce this percentage, I am curious to know how you decided on the particular ratios.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 07, 2010, 02:15:20 am
After reading more of your posts, I am taking to your philosophy (at least how I read it) on eating to be active, and not spending all of one's time thinking and planning/preparing a "perfect" diet.

Bravo!  Living rich full and interesting lives is what it’s all about.  Eating is just a small but necessary part of this.  Think of your life as a journey.  Like taking a journey in your car, you must stop occasionally for fuel, but fuel stops are not the point of the trip.  So many of us become so obsessed with fueling the vehicle that we totally miss the joys of the journey.

Realizing this, I am a bit curious why you would spend extra time to mix in slankers ground beef into the pet food. Adding in the ground beef seems to be unnecessary when you have access to tallow, unless you are trying to reduce the percentage of organs in your diet. If you are trying to reduce this percentage, I am curious to know how you decided on the particular ratios.

Unlike many on this forum, I don’t believe that our diet consisted of just organ meats and that we killed animals to eat the liver and let everything else rot.  Makes no sense.  Way too much effort expended for the small gain.  I pretty much believe that like the pig processor, we ate everything but the squeal.

I started mixing the pet food into the ground muscle meat because the taste of the pet food was more than I could tolerate at the time.  Now I enjoy it but still feel that we should eat a wide variety of animal parts rather in the proportions that they exist in the animal.  I have no idea if this is right or wrong, good or bad, but mixing the pet food with plain ground meat and then adding more fat has worked so well over the last 5 years or so that I have no inclination to change.

I spend very little time preparing my meals.  Once every 2 weeks I thaw enough ground meat and pet food to last 2 weeks or so and once mixed I repackage into single servings (one serving per day) in very cheap ZipLoc sandwich bags.  This whole process takes about 1 hour.  I then refreeze and pull out one package each day to thaw for my afternoon meal.  When it’s time to eat I add in extra fat depending on how I feel that day.  One day I may raise the fat content to 60% of calories, another day I’ll make it 85% of calories – or anywhere in between.  It all depends on what I’m doing, and how much fat I’m craving.  If I’m working in the garden taking out overgrown plants with a pick and shovel, I’ll want far more fat than if I spend the day lying on the couch reading a book.  My daily meal prep takes about 10 min and then I spend about 20 min. eating.

Counting my initial prep time, daily prep time, and the time to eat the meals, I spend maybe a maximum of 35 - 40 min a day fussing with food.  

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ThatWasJustYourLife84 on October 07, 2010, 10:58:23 am
Gluconeogenesis only occurs in two instances:
1) when reducing carbs all the while keeping protein high enough (and not eating enough dietary fat) such that cells in the body can still get all the glucose they need from dietary protein. The body will never break down bodily protein in such a situation. If insufficient dietary protein is eaten for glucose needs, then ketones begin to form. 
2) in starvation, when body fat reserves are used up and protein needs to be broken down to provide glucose to critical systems allowing us to stay alive for somewhat longer.

Since you are in ketosis, I believe that BG increase is due to glycerol conversion to glucose. You do not have sufficient protein to provide glucose. BG rises for several hours after your meal because of glucose needs, perhaps increased after a meal so more glycerol is converted to glucose. That's all. 

This is flat out incorrect, and I'm living proof.

At 250 grams of fat daily, and about 80-85 grams of protein my glucose levels rose too high, and fell way too low at 5 hours post-prandial just like it used to on a high carb diet.

Just not quite as dramatically.

I'm experimenting with the same level of protein and a lower level of fat ironically. I'm theorizing that I was actually eating too much fat, but have no way to qualify that. Not sure what too much fat would do.

I do know that I've gained quite a bit of weight eating the 250 grams of fat and 80-85g of protein, which completely annihilates the theory that you can eat as much fat as you want on a low/zero carb diet as well.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 07, 2010, 11:27:38 am
Unlike many on this forum, I don’t believe that our diet consisted of just organ meats and that we killed animals to eat the liver and let everything else rot. .....
Who believes that? This is the first I've heard of someone advocating a liver-only or organ-only or even organ-and-fat-only diet. I get the feeling that you didn't write quite what you meant. Otherwise I'm puzzled.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 07, 2010, 11:17:00 pm
Who believes that? This is the first I've heard of someone advocating a liver-only or organ-only or even organ-and-fat-only diet. I get the feeling that you didn't write quite what you meant. Otherwise I'm puzzled.

More people than you might think believe this.  It's been discussed on this forum several times in the past.  One of the main tenants of the believers is that we depleted the large game population because we would bring down large animals just to get the organs and leave the rest of the animal to the scavengers.  This meant that early humans were killing numbers of animals far in excess of other carnivores as we were only consuming select parts of each animal rather than the whole.

I've never believed this but others insist that there is incontrovertible evidence of it.  To me it makes no sense that we would spend hours/days/weeks on bringing down an animal only to rob a few select parts and let the rest of our hard work be consumed by the buzzards.  Besides, just look around you, humans will eat anything…..

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: klowcarb on October 08, 2010, 02:07:12 am
I'm with Lex. Everytime I mention ZC on any other forum, all I hear is that ZC can only be healthy if "you eat tons of organ meat." I enjoy gizzards and hearts but HATE liver. I do eat a lot of eggs. But I mostly eat grassfed muscle meat and eggs and butter, and I've never been more energetic and had the best body composition in my life. Would that be a sign of illness? When I look at my Fitday micronutrients, I hit just about everything, including Vitamin A, copper, iron, etc. without organs. I suspect that hunter-gatherers ate them because they didn't waste food in general, not that they had special properties.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on October 08, 2010, 02:27:31 am
More people than you might think believe this.  It's been discussed on this forum several times in the past.  One of the main tenants of the believers is that we depleted the large game population because we would bring down large animals just to get the organs and leave the rest of the animal to the scavengers.  This meant that early humans were killing numbers of animals far in excess of other carnivores as we were only consuming select parts of each animal rather than the whole.

I've never believed this but others insist that there is incontrovertible evidence of it.  To me it makes no sense that we would spend hours/days/weeks on bringing down an animal only to rob a few select parts and let the rest of our hard work be consumed by the buzzards.  Besides, just look around you, humans will eat anything…..

Lex

I would guess they ate everything pretty much. Unless it was toxic like polar bear liver. They prob ate some prized organs first fresh, but most of their protein likely came from muscle meat. Followed by organs.
I can eat muscle meat everyday to my fill with fat, can't do that with organs like heart and liver on a daily basis. They taste good, but my body has a very very clear STOP signal.

As far as hunting making mammoths extinct.
Climate might have made it hard for woolly mammoths. Why aren't elephants extinct in Africa too then? I am guessing because climate didn't change as much near the equator.

Interesting topic.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Viola on October 08, 2010, 03:08:08 am
Sully!
 You are very athletic, you're agile like a monkey  ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: yuli on October 08, 2010, 04:38:36 am
I can eat muscle meat everyday to my fill with fat, can't do that with organs like heart and liver on a daily basis. They taste good, but my body has a very very clear STOP signal.

I feel similar, raw liver to me is like the cake of meats (by the way I never liked cooked liver yuk)...when I eat the raw liver there is a point where I get almost drunk/high off of it and thats my stop signal. However when I don't have my liver when I want some I am grumpy-wumpy!

klowcarb - have you tried raw liver as a pose to cooked (they are like night and day)? I have to say though raw liver is VERY sweet to me (sweeter then some fruits I eat) so if you are 100% ZC perhaps thats why you don't like it...your tastebuds have completely unlearned the tolerance for any sweet taste (not that its bad just saying  :P )
 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 08, 2010, 05:36:20 am
More people than you might think believe this.  It's been discussed on this forum several times in the past.  One of the main tenants of the believers is that we depleted the large game population because we would bring down large animals just to get the organs and leave the rest of the animal to the scavengers.  This meant that early humans were killing numbers of animals far in excess of other carnivores as we were only consuming select parts of each animal rather than the whole.

I've never believed this but others insist that there is incontrovertible evidence of it.  To me it makes no sense that we would spend hours/days/weeks on bringing down an animal only to rob a few select parts and let the rest of our hard work be consumed by the buzzards.  Besides, just look around you, humans will eat anything…..
I wasn't aware that any took that view to quite that extreme of arguing that Stone Agers and/or proto-humans ate just the organs, but I'll take your word for it, as you have been a credible source. I think my uneducated guess lies in-between that view and yours. I think that humans may have preferentially selected both fats and organs, like wolves and some other carnivores, at least during the time of megafauna plenty and competitor scarcity known as the Carnivore Guild--though the extent of this practice may have varied between Neanderthals and H. sapiens and between different H. sapien groups. It's merely speculation on my part--I do not consider any of the hypotheses re: animal extinction or past diets to have incontrovertible evidence--based in part on the fact that even today hunter gatherers all around the world apparently prefer fat and organs to lean meats and multiple Paleo and ZC dieters (though certainly not all) have reported coming to like fat and organs more (as well as lighter-cooked meats), the more they eat flesh. As always, I'm open to all credible evidence from any angle on the subject.

I see these scientific controversies as more questions than answers, fun puzzles to try to solve, rather than platforms to build debating artillery upon. One question that occurs to me is whether, like wolves, the prime hunter-warriors of Stone Age societies got first dibs on a carcass and selected the fat and organs, and whether they had the most mates and thus the most offspring, and whether this could have influenced genetic and epigenetic human preference for these parts at all.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on October 08, 2010, 07:24:17 am
@ Viola, thanks

Should this be created into a new topic?
Perhaps we can call it "organs or muscle"

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: klowcarb on October 08, 2010, 08:24:53 am
Yuli, the only way I ever ate liver was to cut up raw beef liver into tiny slivers and soak in lemon juice and bolt. So unenjoyable to me. Eggs have tons of Vitamin A, and that was the only reason I was incorporating liver at all.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 08, 2010, 11:36:05 am
Sully!
 You are very athletic, you're agile like a monkey  ;)

Ah to be young.  Enjoy it while you can Sully.  I assure you that things will start to sag a bit by the time you are 60 - an age which doesn't even exist for you yet.  The sad part is, that though you can't yet comprehend 60, (no one in their 20's can), when you get there, the best you will be able to do is fondly remember what it was to be 20.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on October 08, 2010, 12:31:17 pm
Ah to be young.  Enjoy it while you can Sully.  I assure you that things will start to sag a bit by the time you are 60 - an age which doesn't even exist for you yet.  The sad part is, that though you can't yet comprehend 60, (no one in their 20's can), when you get there, the best you will be able to do is fondly remember what it was to be 20.

Lex
The journey of life... With age comes wisdom and understanding, even though the body isn't once what it was.
 age 47 Randy Couture A better fighter now than when he was 20.
http://mmajunkie.com/dyn/images/fighters/randy-couture-12.jpg

You can still grow and learn even at the ripest of ages ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 09, 2010, 02:14:42 am
The journey of life... With age comes wisdom and understanding, even though the body isn't once what it was.
 age 47 Randy Couture A better fighter now than when he was 20.
http://mmajunkie.com/dyn/images/fighters/randy-couture-12.jpg

You can still grow and learn even at the ripest of ages ;)

Sully, you never cease to amaze me - wise beyond your years.....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on October 09, 2010, 03:44:30 am
Sully, you never cease to amaze me - wise beyond your years.....

Lex
Thanks, but I am lucky, very lucky. I could have been a different person than I am today. Amazing how things can turn out.

Edit: I am excited about the years to come. Many good things will happen. I can just feel it. :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: klowcarb on October 09, 2010, 03:46:29 am
I assure you that things will start to sag a bit by the time you are 60 - an age which doesn't even exist for you yet.  The sad part is, that though you can't yet comprehend 60, (no one in their 20's can), when you get there, the best you will be able to do is fondly remember what it was to be 20.

Most of our experience of aging comes from viewing SAD eaters. I cannot imagine someone who is raw paleo or raw/raw ZC, eating not junk foods and doing strength-training (not endless cardio) will really deteriorate excepting injury.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 09, 2010, 06:12:11 am
Most of our experience of aging comes from viewing SAD eaters. I cannot imagine someone who is raw paleo or raw/raw ZC, eating not junk foods and doing strength-training (not endless cardio) will really deteriorate excepting injury.

Hmmm, did you ever look around you.  There is no lifeform that doesn't deteriorate with age.  With the billions and billions of people that have inhabited this planet over the eons, all of them eating different and varied diets of every description, not one has escaped the slow inexorable deterioration of age.  However, I suppose that no one has eaten exactly the same way as you and you may indeed have hit the sweet spot and will never age. But, based on my real world experience, I'll be placing my bets to the contrary.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 11, 2010, 02:30:54 am
I started mixing the pet food into the ground muscle meat because the taste of the pet food was more than I could tolerate at the time.  Now I enjoy it but still feel that we should eat a wide variety of animal parts rather in the proportions that they exist in the animal.  I have no idea if this is right or wrong, good or bad, but mixing the pet food with plain ground meat and then adding more fat has worked so well over the last 5 years or so that I have no inclination to change. ....
I follow you on the organs, Lex, but regarding fat, don't you eat a higher proportion of fat than that found in the whole carcass of a land mammal, perhaps even a mammoth? Do you view fats as an exception to your whole-carcass-proportions rule?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 11, 2010, 03:38:30 am
I follow you on the organs, Lex, but regarding fat, don't you eat a higher proportion of fat than that found in the whole carcass of a land mammal, perhaps even a mammoth? Do you view fats as an exception to your whole-carcass-proportions rule?

Not at all.  I consider being able to consistently eat 80% of calories from fat as a pure luxury which might only have been available to our paleo ancestors in the late summer or early fall when the animals were fattened for the coming winter.  My own guess is that we probably do fine on 50% of calories from fat and maybe even 40%.  I know several weight lifters that are at the 50% level and have been so for many months and they are doing just fine.

50% of calories from fat represents ground meat with fat at 9.5% by weight
40% of calories from fat represents ground meat with fat at 7% by weight

Rabbits (from whence the term rabbit starvation comes) can have fat less than 4% in the winter months which is getting total calories from fat down in the 20% range.

From my perspective, I live like a king, eating rich foods all year ‘round.  This too, may have its problems as our fat and calorie intake would certainly be cyclical in a natural environment.  It could well be that the human animal does best when fat and calories vary by the seasons.  Maybe we need a bit of calorie deprivation (starvation?) in the late winter to clean things up so to speak. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on October 11, 2010, 04:02:57 am
If they were scavengers as well as hunters and food was abundant, then could they not have eaten whatever they wanted by moving on to another carcass?

Not that I'm saying they could always get what they wanted, but the idea of using the whole carcass implies scarcity. Do you think the winters were a problem?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 11, 2010, 04:59:00 am
Not at all.  I consider being able to consistently eat 80% of calories from fat as a pure luxury which might only have been available to our paleo ancestors in the late summer or early fall when the animals were fattened for the coming winter.  My own guess is that we probably do fine on 50% of calories from fat and maybe even 40%.  I know several weight lifters that are at the 50% level and have been so for many months and they are doing just fine.
Lex, what are you including in your assumption that 40-50% calories as fat might be fine in the way of rough proportions of proteins and/or carbs (recognizing that you aren't claiming one specific ideal ratio)?

Yes Josh, thanks for the reminder re: scavenging. Adding scavenging to hunting raises the overall fat proportion of the diet, because sometimes the carcasses would have been defleshed but still provided brains and marrow.

Bearslayer reported an interesting experiment at the Dirty Carnivore forum http://forum.dirtycarnivore.com/index.php/topic,823.msg34910.html#msg34910 where he ate nothing but rabbit, including the organs and brain (kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, blood, tongue, eyes and brain), and didn't develop rabbit starvation, though he did lose body fat, so it's possible he could have developed rabbit starvation if he kept at it.

Fitday shows that even a domestically raised cottontail rabbit has a very low fat, high protein profile:
  
Calories      
584
      
Fat  
11.8 g
      
Protein  
111.5 g

He wrote: "it seems that rabbit provides about 75-80% calories from protein and 20-25% from fat. And we don't know if organs are calculated in or not. I suspect not."

And at the end of the experiment he wrote: "I officially ended my rabbit starvation experiment.  I decided not to kill any more rabbits and keep the rest of them for breeding. This experiment certainly brought a different light in my understanding of zero carb diet.
 
I have lost 7 lb in 8 days. Current weight 172.2 lb

My body fat dropped from 12.5% to 9.2% (from 7.5 mm to 4 mm). If I was 1 year younger the same measurement would mean 8.1%, if I was 10 years younger it would be 6%, so who knows..

My lean body mass stayed the same 156 (approx.) lb and my total BF mass went from 22.38 lb to 15.82 lb. It appears that all of the lost weight was body fat. I feel it and I see it. My definition is sharper and my lower abs are finally coming out. My jeans are looser, my stomach feels tighter.

I felt low on energy only first 2-3 days. I was hungrier during experiment. I ate 2.51 lb of cooked rabbit meat per day on average. According to http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/lamb-veal-and-game-products/4647/2 that equals to 2,245 calories, 61% of which are protein calories and 39% are fat calories (approximately). My daily protein consumption was about 340g. I did not notice any muscle gain or loss. I drank water and coffee, no cream or half-half. My activity level was low to moderate. I did not note any discomfort or any negative symptoms. I believe that body utilized its own fat reserves along with dietary protein whenever dietary fat is not available in needed amounts to cover its energy needs. I am certain that at some point the body would stop burning its fat reserves and it would use dietary protein only for as long as there is enough of it supplied. To confirm that, I would have to continue until this happens. I liked the diet and I did not have cravings for fat. I did not note any other pros or cons. I believe I could continue for much longer would I had enough rabbits. I wanted to eat skinless home raised chicken for a few days but wasting its skin just isn’t me. I also killed a goat but its meat turned out to be very fat and cannot be compared with lean rabbit meat . I plan on stocking the rabbits for a few months to generate enough supply to repeat rabbit-only diet for 3-4 weeks.  

Based on what I have observed on my very own body I believe that by lowering dietary fat I proactively lower my own body fat. Individual results may obviously vary. At this point I am not sure if I want to believe in rabbit starvation. Longer experiment would tell. But for now, let the summer begin."
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on October 11, 2010, 05:37:19 am
I spend very little time preparing my meals.  Once every 2 weeks I thaw enough ground meat and pet food to last 2 weeks or so and once mixed I repackage into single servings (one serving per day) in very cheap ZipLoc sandwich bags.  This whole process takes about 1 hour.  I then refreeze and pull out one package each day to thaw for my afternoon meal.  When it’s time to eat I add in extra fat depending on how I feel that day.  ...  It all depends on what I’m doing, and how much fat I’m craving.  If I’m working in the garden taking out overgrown plants with a pick and shovel, I’ll want far more fat than if I spend the day lying on the couch reading a book.  My daily meal prep takes about 10 min and then I spend about 20 min. eating.

Counting my initial prep time, daily prep time, and the time to eat the meals, I spend maybe a maximum of 35 - 40 min a day fussing with food.

    It sounds pretty quick and nutritious.  I'm tempted to follow suit.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 11, 2010, 07:13:52 am
Lex, I watched the Taubes lecture Youtube video again and noticed that at 1:13:55 he admitted that Edgar Gordon was "a little bit wrong today, but, trivially" about the quote he listed in his presentation:

"It may be stated categorically that the storage of fat, and therefore the production and maintenance of obesity, cannot take place unless glucose is being metabolized. Since glucose cannot be used by most tissues without the presence of insulin, it also may be stated categorically that obesity is impossible in the absence of adequate tissue concentrations of insulin.... Thus an abundant supply of carbohydrate food exerts a powerful influence in directing the stream of glucose metabolism into lipogenesis, whereas a relatively low carbohydrate intake tends to minimize the storage of fat."

So it looks like Gary's position basically hasn't changed, he has mainly explained a bit more about how Gordan was wrong. On the other hand, at 1:19:20 he said "Insulin levels in obese women are [solely] determined by the carbohydrate content of the diet, not total calories", inserting "solely" between "are" and "determined" in this quote of Kipnis, so he appears to have slightly contradicted himself here by using "solely". I think that this and other seemingly contradictory statements he has made have contributed to the confusion and controversy. I hope that some day in the future he tries to better clarify what he meant then and now and I wish him luck in it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on October 11, 2010, 02:03:51 pm
Hi Lex,

But what about the hunters and gatherers in Africa? In Africa they have (and had) only lean meat at their disposal. If we take for granted that homo sapiens came from Africa and that our genetics has not changed much since then, we should (also) be adapted to a nutrition that does not provide much animal fat.

I found this about the bushmen´s diet: http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3f.shtml#san%20bushmen
Obviously they eat many nuts (mongono nuts).

Quote
A distinguishing characteristic of the diet of the !Kung is the superabundance of the mongongo nut, which is a very high-fat food (at 80% fat), and which constitutes over 1/3 of their diet.

In the savannah, where our ancestors evolved, nuts can be found. Bushmen eat a high-fat diet, but get most of their calories from plants.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on October 11, 2010, 02:18:54 pm
But what about the hunters and gatherers in Africa? In Africa they have (and had) only lean meat at their disposal.
That's not true.
There are also fatty animals in Africa - hippopotamus, elephant, rhinoceros, cape buffalo, etc.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on October 11, 2010, 02:50:30 pm
What´s your source, Hannibal? Why should these animals be fatty? AFAIK only animals living in a cold climate have a thick layer of fat.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on October 11, 2010, 03:07:06 pm
And doesn´t the existence of "rabbit starvation" show that we are NOT adapted to an all-meat diet? True carnivores won´t suffer from rabbit starvation when they eat only lean meat.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on October 11, 2010, 03:07:18 pm
What´s your source, Hannibal? Why should these animals be fat?
They are fatty, or at least most of them.
Look at them, read about them. :)
Quote
AFAIK only animals living in a cold climate have a thick layer of fat.
No, that's not true.
It depends on the animal - caribou from North Canada is much more leaner than hippo from Central Africa.
On the same grazing there are goats which are very lean and sheep that are fatty, regardless of the climate.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on October 11, 2010, 03:21:18 pm
It depends on the animal - caribou from North Canada is much more leaner than hippo from Central Africa.
Hippos have much meat but not much fat!
Here is a German text about hippos showing this:

"Jedenfalls ist der Eiweißanteil (Muskelfleisch) gegenüber dem Fettanteil höher als bei anderen Säugetieren."

Translation: The proportion of protein (muscel meat) compared with the proportion of fat is higher than in other mammals.
http://www.world-of-animals.de/Tierlexikon/Tierart_Flusspferde.html
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on October 11, 2010, 03:24:15 pm
Hippos have much meat but not much fat!
Read this - http://www.whozoo.org/Intro98/herrick/sethherr.htm
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on October 11, 2010, 07:12:06 pm
 l) Important is the PROPORTION of fat, compared with the PROPORTION of protein. The proportion of fat is low in hippos, according to the link I posted.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on October 11, 2010, 07:51:22 pm
l) Important is the PROPORTION of fat, compared with the PROPORTION of protein. The proportion of fat is low in hippos, according to the link I posted.
Ok, I understand.
But it isn't compulsory to eat all the protein, is it?
You can give it to dogs.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 12, 2010, 12:21:43 am
Lex, what are you including in your assumption that 40-50% calories as fat might be fine in the way of rough proportions of proteins and/or carbs (recognizing that you aren't claiming one specific ideal ratio)?

I’m including exactly what was in the statement I made, no more, no less.

As for Taubes lecture, it is a lecture and doesn’t impact my life in any way.  People are allowed to believe and say what they wish.  This is true for Taubes, for me, and for you as well.  This doesn’t mean that any of our beliefs are correct.  You are free to test the correctness of any statement made by any person just as I tested my understanding of Taubes’ original statement and found it wanting.  I have no need to pursue the subject any further.

But what about the hunters and gatherers in Africa? In Africa they have (and had) only lean meat at their disposal. If we take for granted that homo sapiens came from Africa and that our genetics has not changed much since then, we should (also) be adapted to a nutrition that does not provide much animal fat.

You may take anything you wish for granted.  That is up to you.  There is no doubt that we are able accommodate a wide range of fat content in our food.  Animal fat varies by the season and our dietary needs must be met by the average low levels or our species would have died out long ago. 

In the savannah, where our ancestors evolved, nuts can be found. Bushmen eat a high-fat diet, but get most of their calories from plants.

If you wish to eat nuts then eat nuts, and if you wish to get most of your calories from plants then by all means do so.  It is your life and you get to do whatever you wish.  Have a ball.

And doesn´t the existence of "rabbit starvation" show that we are NOT adapted to an all-meat diet? True carnivores won´t suffer from rabbit starvation when they eat only lean meat.

It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking and about.  Those of us that have carnivores as pets (dogs and cats come to mind), know that if we feed our animals too lean a diet they will become ill just as humans do. 

Your choice to believe that only animals living in cold weather have significant fat also shows that you have very little grasp of reality.  Look around you.  Humans are animals and some of the most obese cultures live in tropical climates.  Other animal species are equally as variable as related to fat and climate.

Important is the PROPORTION of fat, compared with the PROPORTION of protein.

Please tell us what is important about it.  As far as I know, as long as our minimum need for dietary fat is being met, the actual proportion of fat to lean is immaterial.  Do you have a peer reviewed study that indicates otherwise?

I know of no instance of protein poisoning from eating the meat of any large grass eating game from any continent.  However, if you choose to believe this to be a problem, then by all means stop eating the meat of all those African animals that you feel are too lean.  As for me, I’m very fortunate in that I order my meat from Slankers in Texas.  They have wisely chosen to zealously defend their customer’s health by not offering excessively lean meat from African animals.

I feel this whole discussion of how lean animals are (or aren’t) is rather pointless.  Humans, just as all other animals, can accept a rather wide range of maco nutrient ratios within their normal food source. These ratios vary significantly, from animal to animal, and season to season.  If we couldn’t accommodate these variations then we would have died out as a species long ago.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 12, 2010, 10:18:03 am
I have no need to pursue the subject any further.
That's fine, thanks again for your time.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 12, 2010, 03:32:07 pm
That's fine, thanks again for your time.

Please don't go away mad Phil.  It's just that I have no control over what others do or say.  In the case of Taubes, I've tested the theory in question and found to my own satisfaction that his theory (as I understood it) was incorrect.  If he chooses to continue championing it, that's up to him.  Any time spent agonizing over it is nonproductive and takes away time and energy that I can put to better use in other areas of my life.  Stuff like this can become an energy sink that feeds on itself to the point of becoming all consuming if you let it.

Eating properly is important to me for practical, not philosophical or academic reasons.  I want to eat well so that I have the health and energy to do the things I want to do.  I have little interest in debating aspects of diet and lifestyle that have no impact on making my life better. I could care less about how fat is metabolized at the cellular level, but I do care if eating a fat based diet improves my health in a measurable way so that I can more actively pursue my other interests.

Yes, I do tests and experiments, but they are based on testing the practical implementation of promising theories or ideas into my day-to-day life to see if the expected improvement or goal can be realized.  For me to be interested in it, the results must be measurable.   I have little interest in debating theories that can’t be tested or have little or no practical value in daily life.  Knowing if I will gain weight if I over eat on a fat based diet is useful to me and I can measure it.  Trying to figure out how my body metabolizes fat at the cellular level does not improve my daily life, nor do I have a way to monitor or measure the process, so for me, debating an issue like this is totally unproductive.

The same goes for debating the relative leanness of animals on the African Savannah (or elsewhere for that matter).  It is a total waste of time.  We know that if we don’t get enough fat that we will become ill.  We also know that to cure the illness we must either increase our fat intake or add carbs to our diet.  Spending time trying to determine the precise level of fat intake required to avoid protein poisoning is not very useful since in the real world we have no way to measure fat content without some rather sophisticated technology which is usually not available under the conditions where rabbit starvation would likely occur.  Also, the symptoms are easy to recognize and easy to cure – which from a practical day-to-day living standpoint is all I need to know.

My journal is about how I live my life, the decisions I’ve made, how and why I made them, and the practical results I’ve achieved – both good and bad.  I offer my experiences in an effort to help others avoid the mistakes I’ve made or leverage some good result I’ve achieved without having to reinvent the wheel.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 12, 2010, 07:12:25 pm
Please don't go away mad Phil.
I wasn't mad and I understood your reasons the first time. I'm a simple man. I generally mean by my words the simplest and most benign possible meaning. I meant literally what I wrote. I know you want to focus on practical stuff and don't want your journal to get too far off track, so I try to honor that.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on October 13, 2010, 03:42:32 am
Lex,

do you have any inclination to voluntarily eat less food, to try to lose the 10 lbs that you re-gained up as your body became EXTREMELY efficient at handling a high-fat diet?

I am currently trying to cut back on the amount of protein I ingest, because I did experience the same phenomenon.

I have zero experience with the Slacker's products.   But my experience with my butcher's "fat" trimmings is, they contain a very high (compared to what a non-veterinary-anatomist might have naively expected) content of connective tissue. Which is protein.

Anyone who thinks that they can receive a pure-fat product from any working butcher without having paid for a VERY LARGE AMOUNT of tedious hand-labor, doesn't have both feet on the ground.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 13, 2010, 10:17:50 am
do you have any inclination to voluntarily eat less food, to try to lose the 10 lbs that you re-gained up as your body became EXTREMELY efficient at handling a high-fat diet?

I’ve done this several times.  It is not difficult, (at least for me), as my relatively high fat intake is very satisfying, even when I reduce the fat content of my meals to reduce calories.

For me it is the overall calorie content of the meals that drives my weight up, not the protein content.  In my case, this is controlled by the amount of fat I add at each meal.  I’m eating 2,500 calories per day.  If I drop that down to 1,800 I’ll lose the 10 lbs in a few weeks.

I have zero experience with the Slacker's products.   But my experience with my butcher's "fat" trimmings is, they contain a very high (compared to what a non-veterinary-anatomist might have naively expected) content of connective tissue. Which is protein.

Slankers products are probably the same as your butcher – especially if you order ‘fat trimmings’ or ‘beef fat’.  Since trimmings come from around the muscles and between the skin and body, there is a lot of connective tissue associated with it.  I order Suet which is fat from the internal cavity that cushions the kidneys and other organs.  This fat tends to come in large chunks with relatively little connective tissue as compared to trimmings.  When rendered, trimmings can yield as low as 60% pure fat and sometimes even less, the rest being connective tissue and water.  I’ve had Suet yield as high as 85% fat.  Since I render over 100 lbs of fat at a time, my numbers are fairly accurate.

Anyone who thinks that they can receive a pure-fat product from any working butcher without having paid for a VERY LARGE AMOUNT of tedious hand-labor, doesn't have both feet on the ground.

As I stated above I use mostly suet as there is more fat and less connective tissue, but when I eat the fat raw (rather than rendering it) I actually like the connective tissue.  It gives me something to chew on.  Connective tissue in cooked meat used to make me gag.  Not so with raw.  Over the last few years I’ve come to prefer some connective tissue in my meat and that is another advantage of adding the pet food to my mix. In addition to it’s organ meat content, it has more connective tissue in it than plain ground muscle meat. It gives my teeth and jaw some work to do.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on October 13, 2010, 11:31:10 am
What I had been getting was gigantic packages of the very stuff (all his trimmings) you describe.  My attempts to convince the butcher to charge me 300%-400% more in order to get the selection I wanted were turned down several times.

I'm not yet retired and I live in a military Quarters.  The totality of the situation has convinced me to stop buying the beef trimmings and to substitute clarified butter.

For the past few weeks, I've been eating approximately 1 lb of el-cheapo (raw) ground beef, heavily slathered with clarified butter; once per day in the evening.

I get mine from a Mexican bodega here in San Diego.  I imagine it's the same stuff that is sold in Walmart as 73-27.   What bothers me is that I'm starting to think that there actually is not that amount of fat in there. I think they are counting anything that started as a beef trimming, as "fat".   The connective tissue is as white as fat; without a jeweler's loupe I don't think I could tell the difference between the two....  and so far, I haven't worked up the motivation to do THAT.

I apologize to the community for such character weakness.....
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 13, 2010, 01:06:18 pm
I get mine from a Mexican bodega here in San Diego.

Alan,
San Diego is not all that far from where I live.  Maybe 2 - 2 1/2 hours.  Come on up and I'll give you several chunks of suet and if you'd like some rendered fat (I consider it a better choice than clarified butter), I have a couple of hundered pounds so could probably spare a couple of months worth for you without a problem.

Infinitenexus and his lovely wife were just here last Saturday and I think they found the trip worth while.  He is in the military as well and drove down for the day from Fort Ord. We spent the day talking, eating jerky, and making pemmican.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on October 14, 2010, 02:54:11 am
Quote from: Hanna on Yesterday at 02:07:06 AM
And doesn´t the existence of "rabbit starvation" show that we are NOT adapted to an all-meat diet? True carnivores won´t suffer from rabbit starvation when they eat only lean meat.

It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking and about.  Those of us that have carnivores as pets (dogs and cats come to mind), know that if we feed our animals too lean a diet they will become ill just as humans do.

I referred to wild carnivores eating other wild animals in nature. Lions, for example, certainly eat lean meat in nature, but don´t starve because of that.

Quote
Your choice to believe that only animals living in cold weather have significant fat also shows that you have very little grasp of reality.  Look around you.  Humans are animals and some of the most obese cultures live in tropical climates.  Other animal species are equally as variable as related to fat and climate.

I referred to WILD animals, because hunters usually hunt native wild animals and not cows. These "obese cultures" in the tropics certainly eat neolithic food. Do you know any hunter-gatherer culture that is obese?

Quote
Quote from: Hanna on Yesterday at 06:12:06 AM
Important is the PROPORTION of fat, compared with the PROPORTION of protein.

Please tell us what is important about it.  As far as I know, as long as our minimum need for dietary fat is being met, the actual proportion of fat to lean is immaterial.

You wrote:

"...still feel that we should eat a wide variety of animal parts rather in the proportions that they exist in the animal."

If you eat in this way, you won´t meet your minimum need of fat when eating/hunting lean animals. Wild animals are usually lean, except some animals living in a cold climate.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on October 14, 2010, 03:12:26 am
what modern hunter-gatherers do, and what their health situation is, is irrelevant, as their societies don't accurately reflect life in the paleolithic with its quasi-infinite resources of fat herbivore animals. 

Agriculturalists have pushed these modern hg's  into exceptionally marginalized circumstances.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on October 14, 2010, 03:23:42 am
Lex, thank you for the gracious and generous offer.   Guys who live in housing on a base can accept such offers.  I live in a ship's stateroom; my mini-bar type refrigerator can't even  hold a gallon container of milk.

For the next few years,  my sustenance philosophy will be heavily dependent upon Dr KGH's  "panu" teaching that 90% of the required effort is satisified by NOT eating items known to be slow-acting poisons.

I do eat my beef raw, for practical/logistical reasons.  It does work for me and I don't plan to change that.

Having noted that,  I don't yet feel convinced that cooking is harmful.... what is your reading of the evidences?

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on October 14, 2010, 03:25:19 am
I referred to wild carnivores eating other wild animals in nature. Lions, for example, certainly eat lean meat in nature, but don´t starve because of that.  
Lions are the cats and cats...
Quote
The cat also needs proportionally more protein in its diet compared to other mammals - one reason is that certain liver enzymes that break down proteins are always functional (they are turned "on" and "off" in other animals) and so cats use some energy from protein just to fuel this process. Other mammals use most of their protein for growth and body maintenance. While an adult dog's protein requirement will drop to about one third of its requirements as a growing puppy, the kitten only needs about one-and-a-half times the protein of an adult cat because the adult level is still relatively high.
(...)
All animals have a metabolic requirement for glucose. Carnivores, such as the cat, convert glucogenic amino acids and glycerol to glucose for the maintenance of blood glucose, and therefore, have no established dietary requirement for carbohydrates.
Because cats have adapted to diets high in protein and low in carbohydrate, continuous activity of amino acid catabolic enzymes provides a continuous source of carbon skeletons for glucose or energy production and nitrogen for synthesis of dispensable amino acids and other nitrogenous compounds. This continuous metabolic state causes the cat to catabolize a substantial amount of protein after each meal, regardless of its protein content.
(...)
In the cat's liver, gluconeogenic amino acids in the diet are deaminated and converted to glucose for the maintenance of blood glucose levels. The cat has evolved to maintain normal blood glucose levels and health on a carbohydrate-free diet, a capacity inherited from her desert-dwelling ancestors. This ability is related to its different pattern of gluconeogenesis. In most animals, maximal gluconeogenesis for the maintenance of blood glucose levels occurs during the postabsorptive state, when dietary soluble carbohydrate is no longer available. However, carnivorous species, such as the cat, are similar to ruminant species in that they maintain a constant state of gluconeogenesis - the immediate use of gluconeogenic amino acids for the maintenance of blood glucose levels (these mechanisms are turned "on" and "off" in other animals).
http://maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 15, 2010, 01:19:13 pm
Lex, thank you for the gracious and generous offer.   Guys who live in housing on a base can accept such offers.  I live in a ship's stateroom; my mini-bar type refrigerator can't even  hold a gallon container of milk.

I’m somewhat familiar with conditions on a ship.  My son just retired after 20 years in the Navy.  This is why I offered some rendered fat.  No refrigeration is required, and it doesn’t take much space.  If you would like 15 or 20 lbs you are welcome to come on up and pick it up.  15 lbs takes up the space of a cube that is 9”x9”x9”.

Having noted that,  I don't yet feel convinced that cooking is harmful.... what is your reading of the evidences?

I generally think that raw is better, and choose that when available.  But I live in the modern world and therefore take advantage of the convenience of things like occasionally eating in restaurants, or choosing to render my fat to make storage more convenient.  For me it is a matter of scale.  Many eat a steady diet of Big Mac’s, French fries, soft drinks, pizza, candy bars, cakes, and cookies, and I for one consider cooked meat and rendered fat to be health foods by comparison. 

Lex

 


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicole_German on October 15, 2010, 02:42:49 pm
Hey Lex,
I just wanted to express my thanks to you for all the tipps you were giving me when I first started out the ZC adventure. But what I want to thank you most for is the post a couple pages before where you expressed why you don't wprry about any scientific things that do nothing for you in everyday life! This reminded me why I actually love ZC so much now: I have never felt better in my life, stable enrgy throughout the day, calm and focused mind, sound sleep. During the past couple months I was trying to reintroduce veggies and especially greens becuase I did get concerned about calcium etc. and all teh people telling me that I need the stufffor the vitamins. Yet wheneve I ate veggies my nose woud clogg uo and my tummy bloat and the pains were not nice.
So basically I wanted to thank you for expressing your thought and opinions in that journal! Thanks for reminding me that when I feel really good all the time (like on ZC) then I should probably simply go on doing what I do and stop obsessing over details...
Nicole
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 15, 2010, 03:26:42 pm
I referred to wild carnivores eating other wild animals in nature. Lions, for example, certainly eat lean meat in nature, but don´t starve because of that.

I referred to WILD animals, because hunters usually hunt native wild animals and not cows. These "obese cultures" in the tropics certainly eat neolithic food. Do you know any hunter-gatherer culture that is obese?

You wrote:

"...still feel that we should eat a wide variety of animal parts rather in the proportions that they exist in the animal."

If you eat in this way, you won´t meet your minimum need of fat when eating/hunting lean animals. Wild animals are usually lean, except some animals living in a cold climate.

Hanna,
I’m having trouble understanding the point of your posts.  The fat content of animals in Africa, or the fact that some modern Hunter Gatherer group eats nuts and plants, has nothing whatever to do with me and the lifestyle choices I’ve made.

If you are challenging what I’m doing, and want me to respond to the contrary opinions of others, I have no interest in doing so.  I don’t care if Wikipedia or the guru’s on other websites see things differently than I do.  That is their prerogative and I have no interest in either defending my point of view or criticizing theirs.  My journal is about what I’m doing and how well it is working for me. I’m driven by real results, not untested theories, and I have 5 years of lab tests to back me up.

If you have a specific question or comment about my personal experiences as related in my journal, feel free to post them and I’ll do my best to respond.  However, if you wish to discuss other subjects, they belong in another thread.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 15, 2010, 03:34:21 pm
So basically I wanted to thank you for expressing your thought and opinions in that journal! Thanks for reminding me that when I feel really good all the time (like on ZC) then I should probably simply go on doing what I do and stop obsessing over details...
Nicole

You are quite welcome.  Our modern world is so overloaded with information that sometimes it helps to have someone focus our attention on what's truly important.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Nicole_German on October 15, 2010, 09:44:00 pm
You are quite welcome.  Our modern world is so overloaded with information that sometimes it helps to have someone focus our attention on what's truly important.

Lex
True! I was so busy trying to figure out what % of fat I need to eat at some point during my journey becuase there was lots of talk about that on DCF and ZIOH (and also here) - I totally forgot that I have been feeling well, without knowing what % of fat I actually eat...So now your last posts have reminded me, to simply listen to my body again and let my mind be occupied with other things than food -and have a more joyful life again! ;)
Nicole
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on October 18, 2010, 04:01:11 am

If you are challenging what I’m doing,

No, of course not. Your nutritional experiment is interesting and the results seem to be amazing. I just wondered at this statement you made above:

Quote
and all the research that I’ve been able to find seems to point to this being our paleo ancestor’s primary dietary protocol for several hundreds of thousands of years

This made me curious!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: KD on October 18, 2010, 09:25:46 pm
Someone lent me their netflix acct, and I just randomly stumbled upon a BBC series on this very subject

http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/Walking-with-Cavemen/60027006?strackid=1d0a36daa26780e1_7_srl&strkid=906376710_7_0&trkid=438381

[it is free on the watch now for those with an account.]

its a bit hard to watch at first, the special effects and costumes are bit of a mixed bag. The re-enactments being a bit Planet Of The Apes, but with some pretty cool traditional stop animations, and some neat renderings of prehistoric animals. Anyway it sort of surprised me over time with its information and charm.

It presents the argument that the first species that even remotely resembled humans came up in the African plains, period. Prior to the shifting the planet, and the creation of the Himalaya (cool animation) and so forth Africa was indeed tropical but there was no species apparently that had any human characteristics close enough to be considered according to this documentary. On the plain among the species already far removed were a variety of competing ape-man like creatures, some indeed eating almost entirely vegetation, and others that ate some meat and mostly meat. It discusses the corresponding differences in anatomy and stomach structure ( I have no idea how they know this stuff but whatever). It depicts some very sloth-like humanoids eating bamboo (remember it is the plains), and a variety of not-so-sharp gatherers (there is a great honeycomb scene here), then shifts to discussions of the species that would actually become our ancestors while the others died out.

apparently, it sees two defining traits of how we became more human. The first was the increase in brain size from mild scavenging of meat, as has been discussed elsewhere. What came of that was then an awareness that despite our natural lack of prowess or talent for hunting (pointed out by vegetarian and vegan amateur theorists) AS apes (no claws etc...) our increasing intelligence alone allowed us to do things like charge lions as a group of flailing screaming crazies so that it would give up its carcass. Also we became intelligent enough to look up and follow vultures to fallen prey, being of the first to understand these things intellectually and not just on instinct. The second development after that was of course how Lex points out, that the variety of things to be scavenged - like bone marrow - provided an excellent evolutionary feed-back loop for creating tools to do so, which then became tools for hunting.

four stars.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 18, 2010, 09:53:59 pm
Actually, even chimps have been shown to be excellent hunters - they hunt monkeys in groups for example. And the out of africa hypothesis is just creationist hogwash, anyway. Evidence re intermixture with neanderthals  is already damning as it is.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: KD on October 18, 2010, 10:11:32 pm
Actually, even chimps have been shown to be excellent hunters - they hunt monkeys in groups for example. And the out of africa hypothesis is just creationist hogwash, anyway. Evidence re intermixture with neanderthals  is already damning as it is.

yeah, i'm aware of that. I think I posted a video on chimps hunting awhile back. I was just setting the stage for the critics, as obviously our innate hunting abilities are part of who we are, albeit less apparent than in lions and other such animals. I think maybe you should think about viewing the program, as the time periods given are in the millions of years. Since I was not there, I cannot confirm its accuracy, but I believe that whether these concepts are true or false they were illustrated quite well.  I've never seen such coverage particularly in a mainstream context, so its far from hogwash that many others believe at least.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ForTheHunt on October 18, 2010, 10:34:11 pm
Lex, I'm experimenting with the primal diet now, so my diet is mainly meat and milk with a tablespoon of honey per day.

And so far I feel really great, but am constipated as hell since I've cut out fruit.

I can feel there is plenty of stuff down there, but it's not moving out. Mainly because there's no 'pushing agent', i.e. like fruit.

Did you ever experience this? Do you think the constipation is a transitional thing and will eventually go away?

thanks
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 19, 2010, 12:03:47 am
It discusses the corresponding differences in anatomy and stomach structure ( I have no idea how they know this stuff but whatever).   

And therein lays the rub.  No one knows.  Most of this stuff is just a guess – some of it rather uneducated.  As such, the best we can do is research and evaluate the evidence for ourselves and make up our own minds as to what to believe and how best to live our lives.

My own belief is that we ate meat and fat as much as possible and resorted to other foods when meat was scarce.  Since we have a sweet tooth, and eating carbs causes huge insulin spikes and a resulting rapid weight gain, I believe that we ate whatever fruits were available in the late summer/early fall and the added body fat prepared us for the lean winter months.  Over the winter we would use this extra body fat and come spring we would have lost all the extra weight and the cycle would start over again.  The key here is that it was a cycle which we see in many other animals as well.  Carbs for us would have been limited by seasonal availability so our consumption would have naturally been limited, and the extra body fat taken care of by the next phase in the cycle.  Our problem today is that we eat carbs as our primary food all year around and then can’t understand why we get obese and have health problems.  Our modern food distribution systems have corrupted the natural seasonal cycles as well as providing an overabundance of food requiring no labor to procure it.  Grains, of course are another matter altogether.  We’d of had no way of consuming these at all.

Again, all this is pure speculation on my part, and just my person belief. It may have no relationship whatever to reality.  You get to make up your own mind.

And so far I feel really great, but am constipated as hell since I've cut out fruit. I can feel there is plenty of stuff down there, but it's not moving out. Mainly because there's no 'pushing agent', i.e. like fruit.  Did you ever experience this? Do you think the constipation is a transitional thing and will eventually go away? 

I did have a bit of constipation for the first several months but it slowly got better and then finally went away.  I handled the problem initially by using one of those squeeze type enema  syringes.  http://www.enemasupply.com/faulrecsyr8o.html   I’d use it when it just seemed nothing else would get things moving.  I found that only one squeeze was usually necessary.  This is not a full enema where you use a quart of water or more.  The syringe just adds about 6oz of water which seemed to be plenty to do the trick.  It did two things.  It provided an immediate expansion of the lower colon which triggered a bowel movement, and it loosened up anything that was hard and causing a blockage.

Over time my colon adapted to the smaller volume of fecal material.  I also started including more fat in my diet.  The additional fat kept things loose and pasty so that they could pass easily.  If you try to eat a low fiber diet with too little fat you’ll find that your stools will become hard and difficult to pass – especially if you are in the transition states and your intestinal bacteria have not changed – long before excess protein becomes a problem.

Part of the cause of this issue is that the intestinal flora must change completely and this takes time.  I’ve posted details of this elsewhere in my journal and won’t repeat it here.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ForTheHunt on October 19, 2010, 01:07:28 am
And therein lays the rub.  No one knows.  Most of this stuff is just a guess – some of it rather uneducated.  As such, the best we can do is research and evaluate the evidence for ourselves and make up our own minds as to what to believe and how best to live our lives.

My own belief is that we ate meat and fat as much as possible and resorted to other foods when meat was scarce.  Since we have a sweet tooth, and eating carbs causes huge insulin spikes and a resulting rapid weight gain, I believe that we ate whatever fruits were available in the late summer/early fall and the added body fat prepared us for the lean winter months.  Over the winter we would use this extra body fat and come spring we would have lost all the extra weight and the cycle would start over again.  The key here is that it was a cycle which we see in many other animals as well.  Carbs for us would have been limited by seasonal availability so our consumption would have naturally been limited, and the extra body fat taken care of by the next phase in the cycle.  Our problem today is that we eat carbs as our primary food all year around and then can’t understand why we get obese and have health problems.  Our modern food distribution systems have corrupted the natural seasonal cycles as well as providing an overabundance of food requiring no labor to procure it.  Grains, of course are another matter altogether.  We’d of had no way of consuming these at all.

Again, all this is pure speculation on my part, and just my person belief. It may have no relationship whatever to reality.  You get to make up your own mind.

I did have a bit of constipation for the first several months but it slowly got better and then finally went away.  I handled the problem initially by using one of those squeeze type enema  syringes.  http://www.enemasupply.com/faulrecsyr8o.html   I’d use it when it just seemed nothing else would get things moving.  I found that only one squeeze was usually necessary.  This is not a full enema where you use a quart of water or more.  The syringe just adds about 6oz of water which seemed to be plenty to do the trick.  It did two things.  It provided an immediate expansion of the lower colon which triggered a bowel movement, and it loosened up anything that was hard and causing a blockage.

Over time my colon adapted to the smaller volume of fecal material.  I also started including more fat in my diet.  The additional fat kept things loose and pasty so that they could pass easily.  If you try to eat a low fiber diet with too little fat you’ll find that your stools will become hard and difficult to pass – especially if you are in the transition states and your intestinal bacteria have not changed – long before excess protein becomes a problem.

Part of the cause of this issue is that the intestinal flora must change completely and this takes time.  I’ve posted details of this elsewhere in my journal and won’t repeat it here.

Lex



I understand, thanks very much.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on October 19, 2010, 02:14:04 am
 :) Thanks KD for the summary.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ForTheHunt on October 19, 2010, 02:29:50 am
One more thing Lex, could you share with me your experience with raw milk?

I'm drinking a lot of raw milk these days and it's going down quite nicely. But raw milk has a LOT of opposition on these boards so it has me slightly worried that I might wake up one day with problems.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on October 19, 2010, 03:36:29 am
Wild animals are usually lean, except some animals living in a cold climate.

Fat animals in warm climates include
Hippo, Elephant, I am sure wild boar can be fatty, bears (India)

Grazing animals: zebra, water buffalo, etc. body fat varies with season. During certain times (rainy season I believe) of lush greens herbivores get very fat in warm climates.
Same with temperate climates like Wisconsin. During fall the animals are at their fattest from feasting all summer.


Sources of fat to seek out on animal, bone marrow, brain, suet, back fat (camel, bison etc.), muscle fat, tongue etc.

Perhaps excess fat from an animal could be stored much longer than excess flesh, and used in times when animals were lean. Who knows, even foxes bury food to eat later.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on October 19, 2010, 04:07:10 am
Who knows, even foxes bury food to eat later.
Definitely. Foxes do like carrion very much. :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 19, 2010, 10:17:00 am
Hi Lex, since you've had fuller success than me, I'd like to try to experiment with coming as close to your mix as possible using grassfed ground beef and suet/lard. I also eat liver, lamb, pork and other foods, but for simplicity I'll restrict the figures to these two foods and assume the same total calories as what you eat. What would the grams of 100% grassfed beef and 100% grassfed suet come out to in order to achieve 80% of calories as fat? I misplaced my figures on how the % of calories as fat in 100% grassfed beef. Is it 60%? Thanks.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 19, 2010, 02:02:19 pm
One more thing Lex, could you share with me your experience with raw milk?

I'm drinking a lot of raw milk these days and it's going down quite nicely. But raw milk has a LOT of opposition on these boards so it has me slightly worried that I might wake up one day with problems.

My experience with milk, raw or otherwise, has not been good.  I'm not lactose intollerant, but as a teenager I had cystic acne and it continued well into my late 20's.  The dermatologists insisted that diet had nothing whatever to do with it, and I was on antibotics for years trying to control it.  Then someone suggested that I quit consuming dairy, and within a few weeks the acne cleared up and never returned.  Then I noticed other improvements as well.  I had always suffered from a post nasel drip and that went away, and my constant sinus congestion disappeared as well.  The first thing I suggest to people having health problems of any kind is to quit consuming dairy products.  No other mamal consistently consumes milk after it is weaned.  Why would we expect humans be different?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 19, 2010, 02:11:17 pm
Hi Lex, since you've had fuller success than me, I'd like to try to experiment with coming as close to your mix as possible using grassfed ground beef and suet/lard. I also eat liver, lamb, pork and other foods, but for simplicity I'll restrict the figures to these two foods and assume the same total calories as what you eat. What would the grams of 100% grassfed beef and 100% grassfed suet come out to in order to achieve 80% of calories as fat? I misplaced my figures on how the % of calories as fat in 100% grassfed beef. Is it 60%? Thanks.

Depending on the type of fat the grams of pure fat in raw fat can vary anywhere from 60% at the low end to 85% at the high end.  I usually split the difference and just figure 70%-75%.  100 grams of raw fat would have around 70 - 75 grams of fat with the rest water and connective tissue.

I tend to think much of my success is from the pet food I mix into the ground meat.  The pet food contains a wide variety of organ meats as well as muscle cuts that can't be sold.  I'd guess that the total mixed organ content of my daily meal is only around 10-12% but it seems to be enough, and that is the only thing that I consistently do that is differnet than most other people.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on October 19, 2010, 03:02:23 pm
 100 grams of raw fat would have around 70 - 75 grams of fat with the rest water and connective tissue.
You mean suet?
It has 94% of fat - http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3478/2 (beef one)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ForTheHunt on October 19, 2010, 08:39:15 pm
My experience with milk, raw or otherwise, has not been good.  I'm not lactose intollerant, but as a teenager I had cystic acne and it continued well into my late 20's.  The dermatologists insisted that diet had nothing whatever to do with it, and I was on antibotics for years trying to control it.  Then someone suggested that I quit consuming dairy, and within a few weeks the acne cleared up and never returned.  Then I noticed other improvements as well.  I had always suffered from a post nasel drip and that went away, and my constant sinus congestion disappeared as well.  The first thing I suggest to people having health problems of any kind is to quit consuming dairy products.  No other mamal consistently consumes milk after it is weaned.  Why would we expect humans be different?

Lex

Thanks appreciate your input.

I was never a heavy consumer of dairy as a kid and as a teenager I stopped all together. So it was definitely not the cause of my problems.

But well, evolution. Man evolved to speak and think multidimensionally, unlike other mammals, aswell as evolved to eat meat, so I wouldn't be shocked that my lineage, evolved to eat dairy. Seeing as it was a bunch of herders.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 20, 2010, 11:36:37 am
You mean suet?
It has 94% of fat - http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3478/2 (beef one)

My numbers come from actual measurements.  I've never achieved a yeild of 94% fat from suet.  85% is about the max I've ever gotten.  In the real world there is connective tissue and a good bit of water in the fat.  Often in the world of nutritional analysis the water content is disregarded as it contributes no calories.  However, a yeild of 94% fat vs connective tissue and protein sounds about right based on my measurements.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 20, 2010, 11:54:54 am
Man evolved to speak and think multidimensionally, unlike other mammals, aswell as evolved to eat meat, so I wouldn't be shocked that my lineage, evolved to eat dairy. Seeing as it was a bunch of herders.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the people of your lineage who were highly allergic to milk might have been selected out of your cultural population through a failure to thrive if milk became a significant food for them as they transitioned into the neolithic era.  They would not have "evolved" to eat dairy as there is not nearly enough time for such a major evolutionary step to have taken place. In other words, their basic DNA would not have changed.

I'm in a similar condition as you.  My culture consumed dairy and we tollerated it well enough to continue to procreate new generations, however, my grandfather, father, and I all suffered excess mucus and acne.  Tollerance of a food does not indicate that it should be a major part of your diet.  We tollerate modern processed foods to the point that we can still procreate, however, as we age we pay a high price for eating these inappropriate foods.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 20, 2010, 05:31:59 pm
That is the point. As long as one is able to grow old enough to father children, despite a dairy allergy,  one can pass on the inability to handle dairy continuously, especially after the Neolithic when natural selection became worthless in effect.

I do have deep suspicions re some peoples' assertions that because they come from some traditional dairy-eating population that they too must be adapted. Part of my ancestry is Scandinavian, for example, yet I and many of my relatives have varying degrees of allery towards dairy.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 25, 2010, 12:00:13 pm
OK, so here's your numbers, as I understand them, Lex:

2500 total calories / day
80% calories as fat = 2000 cals (includes a small amount of carbs from liver)
20% calories as protein = 500 cals

Meat + organs mix 500 g, with organs representing around 12% of the mix by mass
Suet 175 g

Do you know what that would translate into in grams in terms of a mix of GF beef and suet?:

100% grassfed beef ? g
Suet ? g

Thanks
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 26, 2010, 10:33:07 am
My last batch of suet was a bit overly damp and some of it didn't dry quite well enough, so I rendered it into tallow. I also rendered the local pastured marrow fat because it also wasn't great quality--frozen and not 100% grassfed. When I started eating the tallow I was quickly reminded of one of the top reasons I stopped eating tallow--it gives me unpleasant burps and the higher the temp I render the tallow at, the more burps I get. I rarely burp unless I consume tallow or other heated fats like lard, or coffee or acidic fruits.

Danny Roddy also mentioned that he was burping a lot when he was eating lots of pemmican. Do you get any burping from pemmican, Lex?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 27, 2010, 12:45:47 am
Danny Roddy also mentioned that he was burping a lot when he was eating lots of pemmican. Do you get any burping from pemmican, Lex?

I don't eat much pemmican but can't remember that I've had any such problem when eating pemmican for a week or so during a vacation.

Do you know what that would translate into in grams in terms of a mix of GF beef and suet?:

100% grassfed beef ? g
Suet ? g 

I have a commercial fat analyzer for testing the fat content of ground meats.  I use this to find out exactly how much fat is in my daily meals when I’m doing an experiment.  When not doing an experiment, I just add fat until I find the meal is satisfying and call it good.  Once in a while I’ll pull out the analyzer and check to see what a meal actually measures, but for the most part I just let my body tell my what it wants.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on October 30, 2010, 03:39:29 am
i'm reading through  the various published patents on fat-content measurement;   and looking through the operator's manual of the FA73, i'm skeptical that a $900 device could do better than +/-  5% accuracy.    Yes,  i know that all the supermarkets and food establishments use it.  That doesn't negate my statement.  The real labs are using pulsed-NMR machines which start at about $20K.  The American Association of Oil Chemists are the folks who write standards.


The good news is, it should be relatively simple to make up calibration batches by combining clarified  butter with a pure protein like pureed microwaved egg white

I repeat my statement that butcher's "fat" trimmings are full of proteinaceous connective tissue.  The trimmings i am getting seemed to run about a third (by volume) or more, of protein. By weight it would be an even higher percentage.


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 30, 2010, 12:55:33 pm
i'm reading through  the various published patents on fat-content measurement;   and looking through the operator's manual of the FA73, i'm skeptical that a $900 device could do better than +/-  5% accuracy.    Yes,  i know that all the supermarkets and food establishments use it.  That doesn't negate my statement.  The real labs are using pulsed-NMR machines which start at about $20K.  The American Association of Oil Chemists are the folks who write standards.

From a practical standpoint what difference does it make.  5% is plenty good enough for my purposes and far more accurate than having no measuring tool at all.  Assume I calculate that I'm consuming 250g fat per day.  Over a six month period I would consume a total of 100 lbs of fat.  5% represents an error of 12.5 grams per day or a total of 5 lbs of fat over the 6 month period which I think is rather insignificant.  If you think it is important then by all means get yourself a pulsed -NMR machine or whatever.  I'm quite happy with my FA73.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 31, 2010, 09:22:16 am
Lex wrote: "My normal mix of Slankers pet food and ground beef comes out to about 19% protein and 15% fat by weight.  My daily meal starts with 500g of this mixture.  This works out to 95g protein and 75g fat so the initial protein/fat ratio by calories is about 35/65.  Total calorie count is about 1,050. I then add about 175g of rendered beef fat to this mix.  This gives me 95g protein and 250g of fat.  The protein/fat ratio by calories for this is 15/85.   Total calorie count is about 2,630."

Hardwick Beef said they target their ground beef at 15% fat, so that's about the same as your beef/organ mix. You said suet contains about 85% fat, so if I eat raw instead of rendered suet, then I need to increase the mass from 175 g to 206 g.

So this is what I come up with as a mix to match your intakes at 2630 calories, correct?

Raw 100% grassfed beef at 15% of mass as fat: 500 g
Raw suet: 206 g
Total calories: 2,630
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 31, 2010, 09:40:58 am
So this is what I come up with as a mix to match your intakes at 2630 calories, correct?

Raw 100% grassfed beef at 15% of mass as fat: 500 g
Raw suet: 206 g
Total calories: 2,630

You'll probably gain weight on this so be prepared to lower either the fat content or your total food intake if you don't want the extra body mass.  Also, I said that I thought one important aspect of what I'm doing is including the pet food in my mixture so as to get a good variety of organ meats and other offal - maybe 10%-12% of the total weight of my daily food.  If you aren't including something similar then I'm not sure you'll achieve the results that I have.  The pet food is the only real difference between what I'm doing and what other ZC folks who have been less successful have tried.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 31, 2010, 09:49:36 am
I don't think I'm ready to go whole hog with the Slanker's deal yet, so I'll try to approximate. I could do 10% of intake by weight as liver, which would add some additional fat, carbs and nutrients:

Ground beef 430 g
Liver 70 g
Raw suet 206 g
Total weight 706 g
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Coatue on November 07, 2010, 02:08:31 pm
When going ZC, would it be safe to go : 1/2 pound lean muscle meat, 1lb mix of organ meats, and 2/3lb fat as the main meal? I'm trying to avoid becoming to thin and developing kidney stones. I read in the book Primal body-Primal Mind that 45-55 grams of protein was sufficient for an olympic body builder and the excessive protein is just as bad as eating excessive carbs. So please help me find the a good balance.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on November 08, 2010, 12:54:10 am
olympic body builder

?

Olympic Weight Lifter/Mr. Olympia Body Builder?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: KD on November 08, 2010, 01:27:55 am
?

Olympic Weight Lifter/Mr. Olympia Body Builder?

I think he is saying that at least Nora. G's opinion is that even the people that one would think would require massive protein consumption, do not.

When going ZC, would it be safe to go : 1/2 pound lean muscle meat, 1lb mix of organ meats, and 2/3lb fat as the main meal? I'm trying to avoid becoming to thin and developing kidney stones. I read in the book Primal body-Primal Mind that 45-55 grams of protein was sufficient for an olympic body builder and the excessive protein is just as bad as eating excessive carbs. So please help me find the a good balance.

have you actually eaten this meal? I would say try eating this way first and see if its even doable. the organs will contribute protein of course as well, probably going over Nora's levels at least. - whether that is at all important
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 08, 2010, 02:17:33 pm
When going ZC, would it be safe to go : 1/2 pound lean muscle meat, 1lb mix of organ meats, and 2/3lb fat as the main meal? I'm trying to avoid becoming to thin and developing kidney stones. I read in the book Primal body-Primal Mind that 45-55 grams of protein was sufficient for an olympic body builder and the excessive protein is just as bad as eating excessive carbs. So please help me find the a good balance.

I’m sure this would be safe as would eating 1 lb lean muscle meat, ½ lb mix of organ meats and 1/3 lb fat – or, 1 1//2 lb lean muscle meat and no fat, or just 2 lbs of organ meats, or even 1 lb of just fat.  Eat what satisfies you.  Some days you’ll feel for more fat, other days less.  Whether organ meats are needed or not is a subject of debate.  I’ve had success adding a bit (1/4 lb) of pet food to my daily mix.  The pet food isn’t all organ meats, but a mixture of all the waste meats that can’t be sold as well as organ meats.  I’d be surprised if organ meats made up even 10% of my total mix. This paleo thing is not complex.  If it were, then paleo man could not have survived.

It is true that I got kidney stones.  No way to tell if they were present before I started this dietary adventure or if they were caused by it.  My research seemed to indicate that a common issue with those suffering from kidney stones was low fluid intake.  I’ve increased my fluid intake and had no more problems – at least so far.

So how does the author of Primal body-Primal Mind know that 45-55 grams of protein on a ZC diet is sufficient?, and if this is only related to Olympic  body builders, what else are they eating to compensate for the low protein intake?  Under what conditions (other than Rabbit Starvation) is excessive protein a problem and what evidence is there to support this?  What is the definition of “excessive carbs”?  I have no idea what a good balance is.  I eat meat and fat, and drink water until I’m satisfied – is that a good balance?

No need to answer these questions – just want you to do a bit of critical thinking about the things you read, and understand that statements like “excessive carbs” or “excessive protein”, or “balanced diet” are all totally meaningless unless they are specifically defined.  Whether you are eating sufficient protein has to do with the ratios of your total macro nutrient intake, and unless you know the specifics of the dietary protocol being referenced, these numbers are meaningless as well.  If you are not eating plant based carbs then you’ll need to eat enough protein to supply your blood glucose needs as well as your protein needs.

My protein intake varies between 75g and 200g per day.  My fat intake varies in a similar manner.  My carb intake is very low and is usually limited to what few carbs there are in meat, but then my blood glucose levels are rather high at 100 mg/dl – almost all of it being manufactured from the protein I eat.

Lex


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on November 10, 2010, 04:09:25 am
I am 100% convinced that eliminating gluten grains improved my quality-of-life immensely.

I've also mostly stopped eating plants, but - speaking in a kind of objective way -I can't honestly say that it's done any observable good except in eliminating most flatus.

It may be a horrible mistake, or it may be the gift of longer life - but I don't SEE or FEEL any change, except the flatus nuisance being gone.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 10, 2010, 01:07:40 pm
I am 100% convinced that eliminating gluten grains improved my quality-of-life immensely.

I’ve had a similar experience.  I got about 90% of the benefits by just going paleo – lightly cooked meat with a small salad (about 1 cup) and maybe a piece of fruit as a snack every day.  I did the ZC thing as an adventure and it has worked well enough that I’ve stuck with it.  It even appears that my BPH is finally showing some improvement as after 5 years on raw ZC I’ve been able to cut my medication for this issue in half.  Whether the improvement is from ZC or would have eventually occurred from my original paleo protocol we’ll never know.

I've also mostly stopped eating plants, but - speaking in a kind of objective way -I can't honestly say that it's done any observable good except in eliminating most flatus.

This sounds like a benefit to me.

It may be a horrible mistake, or it may be the gift of longer life - but I don't SEE or FEEL any change, except the flatus nuisance being gone.

It’s all about what is important to you.  Long life is not important to me.  I want a high quality life.  What good is long life if for the last years you are physically or mentally incapacitated and are unable to do the things you want to do.  It is OK with me if I die tomorrow because I’m able to do everything I want to do today.

I’m not married to this or any other dietary protocol.  If problems start to develop and they seem to be related to diet, I’ll change in a heartbeat.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on November 10, 2010, 09:56:19 pm
Quote
I got about 90% of the benefits by just going paleo – lightly cooked meat with a small salad (about 1 cup) and maybe a piece of fruit as a snack every day

That's interesting...in your opinion do you think you would have got the improvements that have gradually come over time if you stuck to this diet?

(I know it's hard to say, but I'm still interested in what you think)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on November 10, 2010, 11:16:14 pm
My reason for asking is that say if you could get 90% of the benefits this way...I find raw paleo probably 80% harder to stick to at the moment...not harder to eat, but just in terms of preparation, fitting in with work, travelling etc. So it's food for thought.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: KD on November 10, 2010, 11:57:37 pm
My reason for asking is that say if you could get 90% of the benefits this way...I find raw paleo probably 80% harder to stick to at the moment...not harder to eat, but just in terms of preparation, fitting in with work, travelling etc. So it's food for thought.

being around alot of fairly vibrant conventional paleo dieters lately I have these similar thoughts sometimes..here is my take.

before I had joined this forum I had done RAF previously and had done also pretty limited raw vegan diets also for many years. Anyway, just prior I was researching very high fat/keto type diets again and started doing what I could transitioning back in eating a very strict cooked paleo type diet. This included just grassfed or wild meats/fish eggs and vegetables. The problem with eating this way for me was there was no real source of energy on this diet as I found truly cooked (never experimented with rendered) fats to be disgusting and hard to come by without taking the same preparations you speak of on raw - bumming around farmers markets or Slankers or whatever. Basically to me it seemd to require the same effort of anything I have done previously, and with all the cooking (even just limited to once a day) was a pain i the ass. Also, while I could theoretically go out and have a steak at a restaurant or a tuna salad at work or something..this not only wasn't very filling but for whatever reason never really benefited my social life and was pretty much as affected as on raw/required the same kind of effort into shopping or being around my house and pretty much the same or more level or prep or control etc...I had some benefits just from getting off whatever even conventionally healthy diet I was back eating, but I doubt it would have been sustainable improvement long term per my issues at least. If anything its easier for me just to bring a mason jar to work than some container with hard boiled eggs or something. Seems to be somewhat of a freak-show to most any way you slice it. I think some flexibly is good but I don't feel like any truly health diet is going to fit all that well into mainstream societies assumptions.

I've been sampling a bunch of different raw foods and even cooked meats and veg here and there with no major drawbacks with the idea that being able to go out have some steak, a drink, or eat fruit - or other foods that usually I do not eat - when traveling is important to my long-term health, so I I totally agree with your logic though, but not sure if the numbers you listed would be the same for me as far as ease.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on November 12, 2010, 04:15:17 am
"I find raw paleo probably 80% harder to stick to at the moment...not harder to eat, but just in terms of preparation"


i find the opposite.   i'm somewhat skeptical of claims of benefits of raw-foods; nontheless,  i eat almost all food raw because i can buy it and it eat, without producing more than one dirty spoon to be washed up.

i guess this confession blows my chances of getting a date with Ms RawFoodSOS.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 14, 2010, 05:57:41 am
That's interesting...in your opinion do you think you would have got the improvements that have gradually come over time if you stuck to this diet?

(I know it's hard to say, but I'm still interested in what you think)

Josh/Alan/KD,
Just no way of knowing.  I've noticed a lot of small benefits like better digestion, less gas, seemingly more even energy throughout the day, however, I really can't say that these would not have occurred with my previous lightly cooked VLC diet protocol over this same 5 year period.  Unlike you, I've found the simplicity of eating the way that I do rather liberating.  You see, I don’t fix food every meal or every day.  I thaw and mix enough food for 10 days to 2 weeks.  I repackage in single day packages and refreeze.  Each day I eat one package and take out the next package to thaw overnight in the refrigerator.  That’s it.

It takes about 45 minutes to mix up 15 or 20 lbs of raw meat and repackage it in ZipLoc sandwich bags, and then I only have to do this once every 10 days or so.  If I’m going to be out and about for the day I just take a plastic container and a spoon along with a thawed package of raw meat and I’m set for the day.  By the time I’m ready to eat, the meat is room temperature which is the way I like it and I just chow down wherever I am.

When traveling away from home, I take a Lunch Cooler and put 3-4 days worth of food in it.  It stays cool enough for at least 3 days and if I’m going to be gone longer, then I either make up the difference with pemmican or I treat myself to a couple of extra rare rib-eye’s at a primo steak house like Morton’s, Ruth Chris, or Wood Ranch etc.  My total time spent preparing food and eating it is probably less than 30-45 minutes per day and that includes the original prep time once every 10 days or so.  Most people spend more time than that agonizing over which fast food joint they’re going to go to for lunch.

My daily routine is super simple.  I’m up around 6am.  I shower, shave, and dress.  I pull out my thawed meat and set it in a dish on the counter (or a plastic container if I’m going to be in the car all day), and let my food start to warm up.  I take a frozen package of food out of the freezer and put it in the fridge for the next day.  I then start my day’s activities.  Between noon and 2pm I start to get hungry and when I come to a convenient stopping point in my work I grab my food and a spoon and eat.  This takes maybe 20 minutes.  I then go back to work and pick up where I left off.  I work until 6pm – 7pm, then come the house and watch a bit of news or a TV program with my wife.  I then read for a couple of hours and hit the sack around 10-11pm.  Next day I do it all over again.

If I’m low on food, before going to bed I’ll pull out all the fixin’s for anther 10 days or so and let them thaw over night.  In the morning after dressing, I’ll mix up my food and repackage which takes about 45 minutes.  I keep two packages out (one for the current day and one for the next day and freeze the rest.  From there it’s back to the normal routine.

Hope this helps.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on November 17, 2010, 11:29:08 am
today,  i ate my first pet-food/ground-beef mix.

i bought this "Happy n' Healthy" branded cat food at Whole Food Market in La Jolla  (yep, Merchant Marine has moved me here for awhile).  Ingredients listed as: beef heart, organic chicken, beef kidney, beef liver.

sad to say, the stuff has quite a bit of bone chips in it.  i'm sure those are ok for my metabolism, and maybe excellent for my metabolism....   i just don't like to chaw down on bone chips.

i look forward to the day when i am settled down as much as Lex and can develop a routine with a standardized set of suppliers who deliver to me at a fixed address.

since i'm holding a stockpile of jars of ghee that was (ounce-for-ounce) expensive ,and since ghee,  unlike un-refined beef "fat trimmings", is actually all fat, i slobered some of that into the mix as well.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 18, 2010, 11:49:54 pm
today,  i ate my first pet-food/ground-beef mix.

i bought this "Happy n' Healthy" branded cat food at Whole Food Market in La Jolla  (yep, Merchant Marine has moved me here for awhile).  Ingredients listed as: beef heart, organic chicken, beef kidney, beef liver.

sad to say, the stuff has quite a bit of bone chips in it.  i'm sure those are ok for my metabolism, and maybe excellent for my metabolism....   i just don't like to chaw down on bone chips. 

I've tried several of the commercial raw pet foods as well.  Most are imported and based on lamb, but some are mixed as the one you tried.  They all seem to have a great number of bone chips in them so I assume this is on purpose – either to discourage people from eating it, or it is considered an important nutritional element for dogs and cats.  A bone chip now and then is not a problem for me and I find this occasionally in the Slankers pet food, but most of the commercial stuff is just full of bone chips and I find it difficult to eat so I stick with Slankers.

As offered before, you are welcome to drop by anytime as you are only an hour and a half or so away from where I live.  Just give me a heads-up so I’ll be sure to be home.

Lex



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on November 19, 2010, 08:04:52 pm
Lex, thanks. Yes I can see that if you have all the elements in place it could be very easy. Not to bitch about my life, because I have access to a lot of good raw food, but it seems like there's always something to make it complicated and I get caught somewhere without food or time to make it. I think what I need is to get the jerky drier working and make loads of pemmican when I have a bit of free time.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on November 21, 2010, 11:08:57 am
>> They all seem to have a great number of bone chips in them so I assume this is on purpose – either to discourage people from
>>  eating it, or it is considered an important nutritional element for dogs and cats


On the third hand, we have the possibility that they do it because bone chips are cheaper than actual flesh; and because they can get away with it.

they can get away with it because all the Cinna-flavored sweethearts out there, pay a lot of attention to labels....   but don't go so far as to TASTE anything labeled cat food.....
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: yuli on November 21, 2010, 10:16:21 pm
On the third hand, we have the possibility that they do it because bone chips are cheaper than actual flesh; and because they can get away with it.

Yeah they do it to save money. Predators like cats hardly even eat bone, they use blood for calcium.
And without blood the best calcium/mineral supplement for them is eggshells ground btw.
I wouldn't feed my cats a bunch of bone chips either...
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on November 23, 2010, 01:05:26 pm
>>>>   I wouldn't feed my cats a bunch of bone chips


yeah, i know how cats are.... they're all cuddly loving on you....   then they beg to go outdoors, and they run over to the neighbor lady,
and they start serenading her with pitiful meows and looks that melt a Canadian glacier....  to convince the neighborlady that you are
starving them to death.  Then she feeds them nicer stuff than you feed yourself.

And how do I know all of this?  Well, they say it takes a rat to recognize a rat.

I love your cats day and night Yuli, but now that you've.....  let the cat out of the bag?    that there's no bonechips
in their food, they better EAT IT ALL and EAT QUICK.   Because I am perfectly willing to take candy from the baby's mouth, as it were.....
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on November 30, 2010, 12:48:16 am
just stumbled across the prior discussion of hominids eating only, or at least preferring organ meats in the downed prey animals

assuming that there is any evidence that such is true (an open question), if it IS true, we don't have to resort to any sort of  inplausible "instinctive knowledge of nutrition" arguments to explain it.

we can merely note that uncooked muscles are very fibrous.  In a wild animal, the muscles would be all that much tougher to chew on,  than from modern cultivated animals which are typically harvested in what amounts to late childhood.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on November 30, 2010, 01:56:50 am
 In palaeo times, however, raw muscle-meats would not have been able to be refrigerated so tribesmen would have likely waited, anyway, until those meats became aged enough to deal with easily.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: dsohei on November 30, 2010, 06:41:56 am
and they had better stronger healthier jaws and teeth than we do now. jaws and grip strength are 2 bio-markers of true health.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on November 30, 2010, 07:42:32 am
>>>   they had better stronger healthier jaws and teeth than we do now


just to make sure that some junior moderator once again accuses me of being arrogant - and from some sort of devotion to the (misguided?) belief that  Lex's journal deserves to have posts which exhibit a higher standard of journalism (than places designed for the unwashed masses to roam freely)..... 

i think i will request to see some EVIDENCE that Grok had stronger jaws than i do.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on December 05, 2010, 05:11:14 am
Uncooked muscle's not always that bad anyway. I've had wild venison chunks that were pretty soft and easy to eat. Maybe they just would have went for the softer parts.

e.g. The female African lion eats the organs, the male eats the hindquarters.

Agree that meat would always be high to some extent in that kind of weather.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on December 05, 2010, 04:57:39 pm
I haven't had any trouble eating any of the muscle I've had... Of course they were talking about big wild animals, but I doubt you/Josh have/has tried them either?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on December 05, 2010, 07:30:44 pm
I was talking about UK wild deer. I don't know when they kill the deer, but they can get fairly big.

Even if a bigger animal was a bit tougher, you could still eat the softer bits of muscle if you weren't desperate.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on December 05, 2010, 10:51:29 pm
You said that 'uncooked muscle's not always that bad anyway'. I was saying that in my experience, it's never been bad(difficult to eat).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on December 05, 2010, 11:11:44 pm
Well casserole beef can be a bit chewy. I wouldn't want to eat a lot of the kind I get with nothing else.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: achillezzz on December 17, 2010, 01:39:17 am
and they had better stronger healthier jaws and teeth than we do now. jaws and grip strength are 2 bio-markers of true health.

explain please I want to know more about this.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 18, 2010, 03:31:25 am
We seem to be getting a bit far afield from the purpose of my journal but some comment may be appropriate as Hanna asked my opinion on 'fresh' meat and Tyler had an interesting comment a few posts back.  Here's my reply to Hanna:

When it comes to fresh killed meat, it is only fresh killed for a very short time. It starts to decompose immediately and in warm weather, is well on its way to rotting within hours.  If you think about it, most of the time we’d be eating our meat at some level of decomposition and very little of it would be fresh as refrigeration and preservation techniques are modern inventions.  In our natural environment, without technology, we would kill an animal, eat what we could, (maybe a few pounds), and the rest would be eaten over several days or weeks.  Anything eaten after the first day would certainly be rotting.

As I’ve continued this adventure, I’ve actually come to like my meat more on the ripe side. Not to the point of being gooey and slimy, but dark in color and with the distinctive smell that would have had my mother trashing it or feeding it to the dogs. In the summer it even has a bit of a sour taste as it decomposes and ferments in the heat of the afternoon.  Fresh red meat is really bland and tasteless.  I can eat it, but it is boring.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on December 19, 2010, 11:40:01 am
>>   I’ve actually come to like my meat more on the ripe side

Please correct me if my memory is becoming as bad as my social skills, but your description of your normal home food routine, layed out a very careful compliance with the hygiene requirements of the fresh-meat cold chain.



I would also mention that typical paleolithic human hunter-gatherer bands were large enough to eat quite a bit of even a large animal, within hours.

we know that many paleo bands preferred and treasured older, larger animals with plenty of fat deposits and meat.... but I think that predators typically end up eating a large percentage of juvenile (=skinny) and sickly (=skinny) herbivores.

The North American Great Plains Indians apparently had evolved a real assembly-line process of quickly processing fresh meat into packaged pemmican.

Apropos of pemmican making....   does rendering  bovine fat occur at a low enough (isn't 104 F the "magic number?) temperature to qualify as a "raw" food?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: rawcarni on December 19, 2010, 08:42:31 pm
Lex,
I have a question: I know from hunting experience that mammals as deer, red deer etc. are quite lean, so wouldn't it make sense that our anchestors ate way more lean than say 80% calories from fat? I just find it hard to imagine that they would go for the fat after a kill and leave some of the leaner meats behind?
Thanks
Nicole
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Taste Sense on December 19, 2010, 09:26:51 pm
I am kind of naturally transitioning onto an all red meat diet anyway and have a question for Lex. Do you get bad breath from rotten meats?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 20, 2010, 01:31:58 am
>>   I’ve actually come to like my meat more on the ripe side

Please correct me if my memory is becoming as bad as my social skills, but your description of your normal home food routine, layed out a very careful compliance with the hygiene requirements of the fresh-meat cold chain.

What the heck is “the hygiene requirements of the fresh-meat cold chain”?  Never heard of it.  I do thaw, mix, repackage, and then refreeze my food when I receive a shipment.  This is because I get a month or more of food at a time and if left in the fridge it would be mostly goo after a couple of weeks.  I often take out 5 days worth of food and let it thaw in the fridge.  Each day I take a thawed package and leave it out to warm up for most of the day.  By the 4th and 5th days, the packages in the fridge are dark and have an off smell.  After they’ve sat out in the warm weather (especially in summer) for 6-8 hours they are bubbly and sour tasting.

I would also mention that typical paleolithic human hunter-gatherer bands were large enough to eat quite a bit of even a large animal, within hours.

we know that many paleo bands preferred and treasured older, larger animals with plenty of fat deposits and meat.... but I think that predators typically end up eating a large percentage of juvenile (=skinny) and sickly (=skinny) herbivores.

And we know this how?  I don’t know of anyone who was around 100,000 to ½ a million years ago and I know of no literature describing day-to-day paleo life that has survived from that period either.  The modern literature on the subject is just speculation, and based on the poor track record of the “experts”, I’m not willing to accept their wishful thinking as fact, and therefore I don’t claim to know anything about the daily life of our paleo ancestors at all.

The North American Great Plains Indians apparently had evolved a real assembly-line process of quickly processing fresh meat into packaged pemmican.

Apropos of pemmican making....   does rendering  bovine fat occur at a low enough (isn't 104 F the "magic number?) temperature to qualify as a "raw" food?

I know of no “magic number”, whatever that is, but I do know that you can’t render fat at 104 F.  104 F won’t even melt the more saturated fatty acids.  You must render fat at a temperature above the point of boiling water.  Of course you can melt fat at any temperature you wish, but melting is not rendering.

Making pemmican is a lot of work and requires time and technology.  I find it simpler to just eat my food raw and spend the time I save working on clocks, playing the piano, watching TV, or a host of other more interesting activities.  Pemmican is a great emergency food, but I only eat it when raw foods are not convenient or available.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 20, 2010, 01:59:25 am
Lex,
I have a question: I know from hunting experience that mammals as deer, red deer etc. are quite lean, so wouldn't it make sense that our ancestors ate way more lean than say 80% calories from fat? I just find it hard to imagine that they would go for the fat after a kill and leave some of the leaner meats behind?
Thanks
Nicole

I can’t argue with you here – especially if you are talking about the normal muscle meat cuts that have become the norm for our modern diets.  The only thing I’d add is that there seems to be some evidence that our ancestors raised the fat content of their diets by eating the organs, the brains, and cracking the bones to eat the marrow, all of which are high in fat.

The average fat content of the muscle meat of wild deer is about 4% which is about 30% of calories from fat.  Adding in the fat content of the total animal I think I read it comes to more like 10% to 12% and this raises calories from fat to between 50% and 55%, which, as you point out is far less than 80%.  Remember that the 80% number is something made up by gurus and experts that really don’t know anything about it at all.  It’s all just speculation.  I find that I do very well on 60-65 percent of calories from fat but have come to love the taste of fat as I’ve adapted to this diet so often eat more like 80%.  I can do this because in our modern world this level of fat is available.  In the natural wild environment I’d be limited to what is in the animal, but the craving of fat would drive me to find every ounce of fat possible – hence cracking the bones to get at the marrow.

Our modern food processing is a major problem.  I’m sure that we ate fruits in the late summer which allowed us quickly put on weight to prepare us for winter.  The carbs themselves are not a problem, it’s the fact that they are now available all year around and have been made the center of our diet that gets us in trouble.

To be honest, the same could go for fat.  We crave fat because we need it and wild animals (our normal food) are low in fat, so we are driven to scavenge every ounce.  However, in today’s world, lots of fat is available and therefore we can eat as much as we want.  This might actually be a problem.  We’re driven to eat fat because it is scarce in our normal food supply, but if allowed to eat our fill day in and day out, it might cause long term problems as well.  Maybe levels of 50% calories from fat are what we really need, supplemented by a few carbs in the late summer to boost weight for the winter months.  Something to think about…..

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 20, 2010, 02:06:09 am
I am kind of naturally transitioning onto an all red meat diet anyway and have a question for Lex. Do you get bad breath from rotten meats?

Not that I'm aware of.  I don't eat overly rotten meat, on a regular basis.  My normal food is only in the early stages of decomposition.  I'm sure that there is some issue with breath shortly after eating, but no one has said anything indicating that I have a general problem in that area.  Hmmmmm, maybe that's why no one hangs around much.....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hannibal on December 20, 2010, 02:17:59 am
  Hmmmmm, maybe that's why no one hangs around much.....
That could be true.
But dogs hang around, aren't they? ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: rawcarni on December 20, 2010, 02:48:13 am
I find that I do very well on 60-65 percent of calories from fat but have come to love the taste of fat as I’ve adapted to this diet so often eat more like 80%.  I can do this because in our modern world this level of fat is available.  In the natural wild environment I’d be limited to what is in the animal, but the craving of fat would drive me to find every ounce of fat possible – hence cracking the bones to get at the marrow.

 Maybe levels of 50% calories from fat are what we really need, supplemented by a few carbs in the late summer to boost weight for the winter months.  Something to think about…..

Lex

I was just wondering if it would be "safe" so to say to eat a lesser% of fat, as I have been eating about 60-70% (guestimate) for quite some time - now I have read about the higher fat% being supposedely "better" in the long run. So I tried it, sarting eating 70/30 GB only for couple days, but I found that when I eat 70/30 GB my heart starts to race and I feel a rather strong pulsing sensation in my stomach-I wondered if I should simply try eating that high fat a little longer and see if that will change or if I should simply go back eating more lean
Thanks
Nicole
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on December 20, 2010, 05:07:35 am
>>>   I know of no “magic number”, whatever that is


    Tyler (owner of this board) and many other card-carrying-raw-true-believers apparently have chosen 104 F  as the maximum temperature above which they draw a "has been cooked" line in the sand.

In general,  I enjoy and almost prefer the taste of cooked beef.  However, in my personal meal preparation, i can't seem to work up the motivation to do it and its attendant cleanup. I buy raw ground beef a serving at a time, and eat it out of the package
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: achillezzz on December 20, 2010, 05:33:33 am
>>>   I know of no “magic number”, whatever that is


    Tyler (owner of this board) and many other card-carrying-raw-true-believers apparently have chosen 104 F  as the maximum temperature above which they draw a "has been cooked" line in the sand.

In general,  I enjoy and almost prefer the taste of cooked beef.  However, in my personal meal preparation, i can't seem to work up the motivation to do it and its attendant cleanup. I buy raw ground beef a serving at a time, and eat it out of the package

is your ground beef grassfed?
You know that ground beef, when you buy it prepared there is a little risk of contimination? better make it yourself  ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: yuli on December 20, 2010, 06:36:10 am
... when you buy it prepared there is a little risk of contimination? better make it yourself  ;)

sure but not everyone has the space or money to get a good meat grinder...
I eat both grassfed/finished AND factory pre-ground beef completely raw, or half-raw burger patty (cooked hot outside and slightly warm raw inside)... never had a problem with any of it...
There is also risk of your vegetables and fruits being contaminated, everything has a small risk...even going outside you may be hit by a car.
By the way if you get it from a clean professional butcher shop its ground on the day you buy it, and they do clean their grinder as its expensive equipment (like an espresso/cappuccino machine in a cofeeshop), they also wear gloves to handle the meat...so its a pretty small risk.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on December 20, 2010, 08:04:31 am
>>>   I know of no “magic number”, whatever that is


    Tyler (owner of this board) and many other card-carrying-raw-true-believers apparently have chosen 104 F  as the maximum temperature above which they draw a "has been cooked" line in the sand.

   First I am not the owner, and the 104 degrees fahrenheit is more or less a rough figure. Some rawists think the figure should be higher, but 104 degrees is the one guaranteeing no destruction of enzymes(except perhaps in raw honey).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on December 20, 2010, 08:07:42 am
Conscious passive contamination from cleaning chemicals is the one to be concerned about, as well as intentional adding of preservatives. In my town there are two butchers, one smells of chemicals, all their meat smells and tastes of chemicals, everything, it's horrible. The other one to me doesn't smell of anything and all their stuff is good.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: yuli on December 20, 2010, 08:21:11 am
Well then buy from a professional butcher that knows their shit, their meat should not taste like chemicals...its true though I got a few times meat I didn't want to eat cause it had a weird taste, but that was very rare. Most of the ground red meat I get tastes amazing, especially the grassfed one, the organic grain-fed and the ground bison. The ground meat should not taste any different from the whole pieces.
By the way if I had a butcher that smelled like chemicals I wouldn't even get whole meat cuts from them either...if they have chemicals on their grinder then they have the chemicals on their knives, counters and cutting boards too.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on December 20, 2010, 08:25:41 am
Yeah, chemicals everywhere in that one butcher... I don't get anything from there, only a few times at the beginning, and I didn't eat much of any of what I bought. I didn't even know about the other butcher at that time. I went to that butcher after trying to eat raw the machine-sealed mass-packed supermarket beef mince which I'd been eating on cooked paleo, to find by taste/smell that it's got horrible chemicals in it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 20, 2010, 09:03:09 am
I was just wondering if it would be "safe" so to say to eat a lesser% of fat, as I have been eating about 60-70% (guestimate) for quite some time - now I have read about the higher fat% being supposedely "better" in the long run.

What would make higher fat better?  Better than what?  Yes, it is possible to have too low a fat intake but in our modern world this is probably next to impossible when eating meat from commercial sources.  Now if you were out in the woods in the winter with only ultra lean rabbit meat to eat, then you might have a problem unless you consumed some carbs as well.  If the meat contains 10% or more of fat by weight, then I doubt that you’ll have any problem at all.

So I tried it, sarting eating 70/30 GB only for couple days, but I found that when I eat 70/30 GB my heart starts to race and I feel a rather strong pulsing sensation in my stomach-I wondered if I should simply try eating that high fat a little longer and see if that will change or if I should simply go back eating more lean

Many of us, me included, experienced heart palpitations and high pulse rates when suddenly switching to very high fat diets.  This is normal.  Normal from the standpoint that it seems to happen to most people under these conditions.  However, this may actually point out that maybe eating exceptionally high fat diets ( just because we can) is not necessarily normal.  That maybe our craving for high fat works in the natural world where ultra high fat is not available in the wild animals we’d be eating, driving us to get every ounce of fat available from very lean animals, but may work to our disadvantage in the modern world were we have all the fat we want at our fingertips.  I feel the same way about our sweet tooth.  It drives us to eat carbs in the late summer when fruits are ripe so that we put on weight to get us through the winter, but causes us problems in the supermarket where fruit (not to mention fruit pies, twinkies, cupcakes, candy bars, and soft drinks) are available 24x7x365 with no natural restrictions.

Anyway, if you stick with the high fat long enough (months), the palpitations will go away and you’ll feel fine.  The question you have to wrestle with is if you believe that maybe your body is telling you something about consistently eating an ultra high fat diet and maybe you should listen to it?  Or all the guru’s on this website are smarter than your body and you should listen to them instead.  Your call,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 20, 2010, 09:07:31 am
That could be true.
But dogs hang around, don't they? ;)

Come to think of it, dogs seem to find me irrestable.  I chalked it up to my wonderful personality.  Maybe I should rethink my position... ;D

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 20, 2010, 09:18:27 am
>>>   I know of no “magic number”, whatever that is


 .......many card-carrying-raw-true-believers apparently have chosen 104 F  as the maximum temperature above which they draw a "has been cooked" line in the sand.

Each of us gets to choose what we wish to believe, and then we use the infinite capacity of the human mind to rationalize conflicting reality to fit our chosen beliefs.  Can't tell you how many times I've fallen into this trap.  Objective critical thinking is hard work.  Probably why so few practice it.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: miles on December 20, 2010, 09:43:43 am
Lex you're great, I just wanted to say.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: rawcarni on December 20, 2010, 01:55:43 pm
Lex you're great, I just wanted to say.
Ditto!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: rawcarni on December 26, 2010, 08:20:07 pm
Hey Lex,
I just wanted to ask: I think you are not taking any supplements at all do you?
Thanks
Nicole
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 31, 2010, 03:09:50 pm
Hey Lex,
I just wanted to ask: I think you are not taking any supplements at all do you?
Thanks
Nicole

Sorry, I've been busy with family and other commitments over the holiday.  Haven't spent much time on line.

No I don't take any supplements.  I do add a little salt to my diet but nothing in the way of magic powders, nostrums, or elixirs.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: achillezzz on December 31, 2010, 11:08:54 pm
Lex for how long you been into raw paleo?
all this time did you have any thing related to raw meat like parasites/worms some losen stools something?
And why dont you exercise?

 :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on January 01, 2011, 12:57:09 am
Lex, I'm curious if you have enough time could you say something about those people you mentioned who are eating up to 50% calories from protein?

How long they did it, what success they had, how their experience differed from yours. That kind of thing.

I'm very curious now about lower ratios of fat.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 02, 2011, 03:18:48 am
Lex for how long you been into raw paleo?
all this time did you have any thing related to raw meat like parasites/worms some losen stools something?
And why dont you exercise?

You might want to read through my journal.  All the questions you ask are covered several times.  The short answers:

I've been paleo about 6-7 years, with the first couple of years eating meat cooked medium rare and eating a small salad and/or piece of fruit each day.  I've been raw Zero Carb for a bit over 4 years now (started in mid 2006).  It has been working well for me so I'm sticking with it for the foreseeable future.  If I see evidence of problems I'll change in a heartbeat to whatever I think will remedy the problem.  I'm not doing this because I think it is right, I'm doing it because it seems to be meeting my needs.

I've never had any evidence of parasites.  Loose stools (along with bouts of constipation) happened on and off for the first year as I adapted to the all meat diet.  After that things settled down.  Loose stools don't necessarily mean you have parasites.

I don't exercise for the sake of exercise because I'm far too busy doing things I like to do.  I have no interest in wasting what little time I have on this earth in a gym lifting iron weights that serve no useful purpose other than to exaggerate muscles in a way that they would never be used in our natural environment.  I do walk/jog/run to the store, bank, post office, etc when time permits, but it is always with a useful purpose like picking up groceries, mailing a package, or the like.  I wear a backpack to carry things and the round trip is about 4 miles.  I spend most of my time in my shop making furniture, working on restoring antique clocks, or dozens of other projects.  I also have Boy Scout troops, church youth groups, and various individuals over to work on a variety of projects from jerky and pemmican to Eagle Scout projects, to community projects.  I’m often crawling under houses to rewire or re plumb neighbors, relatives, and friend’s homes, and dozens of other things.  In short, I’m very busy and have no interest in wasting my time with activities like “exercise” that accomplish nothing but to eat up precious time and if a gym is involved, to take money that I could put to better use.

Lex


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 02, 2011, 03:35:02 am
Lex, I'm curious if you have enough time could you say something about those people you mentioned who are eating up to 50% calories from protein?

How long they did it, what success they had, how their experience differed from yours. That kind of thing.

I'm very curious now about lower ratios of fat.

Sorry Josh, I don’t have anything to say about what others are doing, however, much of my journal covers my own experience with changing fat/lean ratios.  The bottom line is that I’ve not experienced any problems.  The lowest fat content I’ve consistently eaten is 55% of calories from fat and I did great.  This is about 11%-12% fat by weight which is what Slankers regular ground beef has right out of the package.  I’ve also eaten 85% of calories from fat for an extended period and did just as well on that.  BG curves were slightly different with higher protein creating slightly higher swings after meals, and I did put on some weight with the higher fat (higher calorie) intake, but other than that, I feel very good at either extreme and everything in between.  Why don’t you try your own experiment and let us know how it goes for you?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on January 02, 2011, 09:45:52 pm
Thanks, I missed that bit. I would love to experiment, but I hate needles. You've given me more confidence to give it a go for a while though.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 10, 2011, 02:06:43 am
I sometimes use lard or tallow for convenience (I don't have to chop it and I can eat it faster when I'm in a rush, and the local market even sells lard for the same price as the raw pork leaf fat it's made from--because raw pork fat and suet and lard are all priced at the "miscellaneous meat" items price because they haven't bothered to create separate prices for them in their database) and I notice that I don't feel as good when I eat these instead of raw suet--especially if I eat only the heated versions for several days in a row. I was surprised by the degree of difference. I also noticed that the longer I ate mostly raw fats, the more that tallow and lard started tasting burnt to me (though this diminishes again the longer I eat the heated versions). I'm wondering if you've noticed either of these phenomena, Lex?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 11, 2011, 12:35:10 am
.....I notice that I don't feel as good when I eat these instead of raw suet--especially if I eat only the heated versions for several days in a row. I was surprised by the degree of difference. I also noticed that the longer I ate mostly raw fats, the more that tallow and lard started tasting burnt to me (though this diminishes again the longer I eat the heated versions). I'm wondering if you've noticed either of these phenomena, Lex?

Can't say that I have.  I guess I'm too busy doing other things to pay much attention...

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 19, 2011, 11:51:18 am
I'll be leaving tomorrow to teach an antique clock repair class.  Should be back by Tuesday of next week.  I don't have a laptop and my cell phone doesn't have an internet browser or even a camera.  How's that for being disconnected.  I'll have to actually communicate with people face to face!

Anyway, don't be offended if I don't respond to postings or e-mail - I'm unplugged.....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on January 20, 2011, 02:12:12 pm
as a clock repairman, what is your personal criterion for deciding when a clock needs to be adjusted for running slow/fast?





by the way:

   http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-3TVNH8Y-M&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=55bdbc73441c3e19da61e97498413cbe
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 26, 2011, 12:11:37 am
as a clock repairman, what is your personal criterion for deciding when a clock needs to be adjusted for running slow/fast?

I usually don't see a clock until it stops and then it often needs a good bit of work to get it going again.  If you clean a mechanical clock every 10 years or so, it will last many years (often well over 100) and probably will never require any serious repairs.  The problem is that the cost of having a professional clean and service a clock is expensive so most people won't do it.  If you are the least bit handy you can learn do it yourself with just a bit of training and I teach these basic classes.  The classes are held at various places around the country and are sponsored by local chapters of the National Watch and Clock Collector's association (NAWCC).  I assist teaching at the Local Chapter 190 in Ventura California and we will be holding 6 or 7 classes this year.  The class that just ended had people from Idaho and Washington State as well as local folks from California.

Interesing link but not sure what it means in practical terms.  I suppose that higher protein provides for higher and faster BG spike which might provide a faster feeling of satifaction, but I wonder about long term satiety.  With higher fat meals I'm satisfed for about 24 hours, but with higher protien meals I may eat a bit less at a meal as I'm satified faster, but I get hungry again much sooner.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on January 31, 2011, 11:18:12 pm
well, not to pin you down to a number that you will prefer to retract during your Presidential campaign, but what do you feel is the needed level of accuracy in run-rate for a household clock?

in other words:  here's a mechanical clock in the Lex household.   Lex noticed that it was gaining XX minutes a day; he felt compelled to break out the jeweller's screwdriver set and dig in.

what is the value of XX ?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 02, 2011, 12:23:50 pm
As with anything, the value of XX depends on the clock.  An old American Kitchen clock might be doing really good to maintain 2 to 3 minutes per week.  A jeweler's regulator maybe 5 to 15 seconds a month.  For most mechanical clocks I try for 1 minute or 2 per month. Unfortunately, if they are way off expectations it usually means it's time to tear them down and rebuild them.  Most of the time they are really dirty and usually several of the bearings ( called bushings in clocks) are worn and need replacing.  Spring wound clocks often need the springs replaced as the springs tend to loose their springyness over time and the clock runs slow or won't run a full week.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ILM on April 04, 2011, 06:36:36 am
... This is why I continue to eat a good measure of mixed organ meats in the form of Slanker’s pet food as part of my daily food mix, and only eat pemmican when fresh meats that meet my criteria are unavailable.  Pemmican is a marvelous food when fresh meat is scarce, but I suspect it has its problems if you attempt to eat it to the total exclusion of fresh meat.  Do we need organ meats?  I have no idea.  All I know is that what I’m doing has served me well for these many years and I have no interest in changing something that is working well just to see if I can create a problem.

....

Lex


Hi Lex! I joined this forum on the strength of your posts. Last Sunday, I spent half a day.... reading your posts. I've read about 80 pages of this thread, and understand what you do, how you do, what ratios you do, and the results from your experimentation.

Its been an insanely valuable read and I applaud and respect your dedication to critical thinking. I get a thrill from doing the same thing.

So, without further ado, I'd like to ask you to clarify the portion on the pemmican above. I made quite a bit, and learned that my use of bacon fat as the "binder" was too high in Omega 6's and so that cancelled that. I have yet to source good tallow/suet.

In the meantime, I've begun to acquaint my taste buds with rawer meat in the drive to become a raw food eater. In Africa, they make "biltong" which is meat that is prepared with vinegar, salt, spices like coriander and salt, and then dried through various measures. The meat lasts a long time, and is simply delicious. I douse my "biltong" - thinly cut strips of beef - with a splash of vinegar to give some flavor, and then after one hour, start drying it.

One chap (Phil I believe) wrote that no breakdown of meat enzymes can occur if the temp is lower than 104degF. With the above drive to raw meat, I've taken to "cooking"  - or more accurately - "drying" my meat with temps under that over several days.

With your take on pemmican perhaps not being suited long term, I'd like to know why - and what your take is on my meat prep. I'd appreciate it!

Best, ILM
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on April 05, 2011, 02:09:19 am
With your take on pemmican perhaps not being suited long term, I'd like to know why –

Hmmmmm, really no magic here.  I consider pemmican an emergency food, a compact food for travel, and a food that can be stored for use during lean times like winter.  This is how it was used by the Cree Indians who invented the stuff.  I don’t think it was ever meant as a sole source of nutrition, but then that is just my opinion. 

Further, I like to include some organ meats in my diet.  Whether this is strictly necessary I have no idea, but it works well for me.  Others that have tried a ZC diet without organ meats seem to fail.  Since I don’t know all the circumstances for individual cases the best I can do is speculate that organ meats provide some necessary elements to the diet that is missing if only muscle meats are eaten.  That said, organ meats don’t work well in pemmican.  They cause the pemmican to spoil rapidly which defeats the primary purpose of pemmican and that is long term storage.

There are some that have tried a pemmican-only diet long term and they claim success (Delfeugo on ZIOH comes to mind), but, then again, I don’t know the specific circumstances.  One person that I do know about is Danny Roddy.  He ate a pemmican-only diet for two years.  At first things seemed to improve, but over the long term he got strange rashes on his legs and I believe some cravings.  I’ve never gotten any symptoms of any kind eating mostly raw meat with organ meats included through the pet food in my mix.  Is it the small amount of organ meats I eat that make everything work?  I have no idea, but I’ll continue eating them.  Why mess with success?

and what your take is on my meat prep. I'd appreciate it!

Your prep seems fine but is more work than I wish to do for daily meals.  I want to spend as little time as possible messing with food.  This is probably another reason I don’t eat much pemmican.  Way too much prep time.  Here’s what I do:

My prep is very simple.  I order all my meat from Slankers Grass Fed Meats in Texas.  I purchase their 2 lb packages of regular ground meat as well as their regular pet food.  Once a year I get about 300 lbs of grass fed suet from a local source near San Fransisco.  They don’t ship so I have to drive up there to get it.  I render most of it so that it can be stored without refrigeration.  I then use the fat to make pemmican (most of which I send out as samples) and also add to my meat mixture to raise the fat content to about 70-75 percent of calories.

Every 10-12 days I thaw 12 lbs of ground beef and 4 ½ lbs of pet food.  I mix these together in a large stainless steel bowl along with about ½ lb of rendered fat. Once everything is mixed well I repackage the mix in 1 ½ packages using Ziploc sandwich bags.  This makes 10 – 12 servings.  I leave a couple out in the refrigerator and refreeze the rest.  Each day I take a package from the refrigerator and set it on the counter to warm up for my daily meal, and take one package from the freezer and place it in the refrigerator to thaw for the next day.

My whole prep time is about 45 minutes once every 10 days to make the daily food packages.  Everything else is just moving packages from the freezer to the refrigerator and from the refrigerator to the counter.  Total prep time for each meal works out to about 5 minutes per day.

Hope this helps,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on April 05, 2011, 02:16:02 am
ILM. Re:biltong...if you're worried about homemade raw jerky tasting weird, don't be. If you make jerky with a bit of salt and pepper it tastes nice and beefy. As good as biltong, but different.

If you haven't tried it I would.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: klowcarb on April 08, 2011, 03:27:22 am
Hmmmmm, really no magic here.  I consider pemmican an emergency food, a compact food for travel, and a food that can be stored for use during lean times like winter.  This is how it was used by the Cree Indians who invented the stuff.  I don’t think it was ever meant as a sole source of nutrition, but then that is just my opinion. 

Completely agree. Frankly, I see pemmican as dead food...all the nutrients are dried out. I completely agree on a nutrient dense ZC diet. I include organs, coconut oil, grassfed butter and tons of eggs with my grassfed beef.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ILM on April 09, 2011, 07:34:40 am
Completely agree. Frankly, I see pemmican as dead food...all the nutrients are dried out.

If done at low heat (as it should be), do you have some proof available that the pemmican has all the nutrients dried out?


ILM. Re:biltong.... As good as biltong, but different.

If you haven't tried it I would.


:D Sorry mate, as someone who has had probably 50 pounds of biltong in my life, the jerky simply doesn't come close.

Having said that, I am using my oven on reallllly low heat to dry out strips of meat that I've put in vinegar overnite, and then spiced up the next day. Tasty!


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ILM on April 09, 2011, 07:39:58 am

There are some that have tried a pemmican-only diet long term and they claim success (Delfeugo on ZIOH comes to mind), but, then again, I don’t know the specific circumstances.  One person that I do know about is Danny Roddy.  He ate a pemmican-only diet for two years.  At first things seemed to improve, but over the long term he got strange rashes on his legs and I believe some cravings.  I’ve never gotten any symptoms of any kind eating mostly raw meat with organ meats included through the pet food in my mix.  Is it the small amount of organ meats I eat that make everything work?  I have no idea, but I’ll continue eating them.  Why mess with success?

Absolutely - no reason to mess with success. However, I also know that Danny Roddy chose to eat more pemmican (only) and all his symptoms (including the bruise/ rashes) disappeared quickly.



Your prep seems fine but is more work than I wish to do for daily meals.  I want to spend as little time as possible messing with food.  This is probably another reason I don’t eat much pemmican.  

Hope this helps,

Lex


Sure does Lex - thanks again. However, I was more concerned with your view on the nutritional quality of the meat that I am prepping. (The post is just above this one for reference)

Your insights there would be most appreciated.

Thanks, ILM
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 09, 2011, 07:45:48 am
:D Sorry mate, as someone who has had probably 50 pounds of biltong in my life, the jerky simply doesn't come close.

Having said that, I am using my oven on reallllly low heat to dry out strips of meat that I've put in vinegar overnite, and then spiced up the next day. Tasty!
That's enticing, as I love the taste of plain beef jerky. What's your biltong recipe and method?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ILM on April 09, 2011, 07:53:26 am
That's enticing, as I love the taste of plain beef jerky. What's your biltong recipe and method?

Yes, the mere thought has me salivating as I sit and type this  :D

If you google "how to make biltong" - you will come across several sites dedicated to making the heavenly stuff.

Some insights:

a) The box is similar to Lex's pemmican making box.

b) Experiment with different flavours of vinegar (my fave is malt)

c) Experiment for personal preferences in terms of time in marinating the meat in the vinegar. If you love fish&chips, leave it overnight for sure at a minimum

d) The magical spice - bar none - is course ground up roasted coriander.


Here's one website. I never use the bicarb and never find the mould to be a problem where I live (ymmv)

http://www.dudeworld.com.au/HOWTO.BILTONG.HTML
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 09, 2011, 09:05:38 am
Thanks. That guy's pretty funny!  :D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Ioanna on April 09, 2011, 09:10:29 am
a clothes rack and fly screen, hmmmm...  :D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on April 12, 2011, 12:54:04 am
Absolutely - no reason to mess with success. However, I also know that Danny Roddy chose to eat more pemmican (only) and all his symptoms (including the bruise/ rashes) disappeared quickly.

Actually this is not true.  Danny and I get together on a regular basis and he battled the rashes even while eating only pemmican.  We discussed the problem several times.  So, a diet of pemmican is not the cure for whatever was causing that particular problem. 


Sure does Lex - thanks again. However, I was more concerned with your view on the nutritional quality of the meat that I am prepping. (The post is just above this one for reference)

I really have no idea about the nutritional quality of the meat except that it appears to be just another form of jerky made with muscle meats.  To me it is not the quality of the biltong (or jerky, or other dried meat), but the missing organ meats that are the problem if this to be the major part of your diet.  Dried muscle meats are all about the same nutrition wise as long as they are dried at about the same temperature.  The seasonings have little effect in my experience, but then again, this is only my experience and I have no authoritative study to back it up.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ILM on April 12, 2011, 03:12:12 am
Actually this is not true.  Danny and I get together on a regular basis and he battled the rashes even while eating only pemmican.  We discussed the problem several times.  So, a diet of pemmican is not the cure for whatever was causing that particular problem. 

Oh wow. I was directed to his site by Mark Sisson (Marks Daily Apple) and there was apparently a post there on his own site where he said that he cured the problem by eating more pemmican. Crikey - what to believe! Thanks for setting the record straight.


I really have no idea about the nutritional quality of the meat except that it appears to be just another form of jerky made with muscle meats.  To me it is not the quality of the biltong (or jerky, or other dried meat), but the missing organ meats that are the problem if this to be the major part of your diet.  Dried muscle meats are all about the same nutrition wise as long as they are dried at about the same temperature.  The seasonings have little effect in my experience, but then again, this is only my experience and I have no authoritative study to back it up.

Lex

Thanks Lex - this makes complete sense to me. I'll have to see what I can do about learning more about the organ meats nutritional qualities - as well as the dried muscle meats. Will post something here if I find anything of value. Appreciate your input.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 12, 2011, 06:25:03 am
Oh wow. I was directed to his site by Mark Sisson (Marks Daily Apple)
Hmmmph! You mean Mark didn't direct you to Lex, the world's leading expert on pemmican who taught Danny about it? ;)

Quote
and there was apparently a post there on his own site where he said that he cured the problem by eating more pemmican.
Yes, it's here: http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2009/11/27/dry-fasting-its-gnarly-effects.html?currentPage=2 Later on he added cooked tubers to his diet, per Matt Stone's writings, and reported experiencing improvement in his cold tolerance: http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2010/7/14/i-used-to-think-matt-stone-was-a-douche-i-was-wrong.html. Most recently he's been experimenting with refined sugar, per Ray Peat's writings.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on April 15, 2011, 01:07:03 am
I watch what people do and pay less attention to what they say.  Often things change from a person's initial statements or reactions but they never go on record to correct what they said previously.  Their purpose is not to mislead, it's just that they have moved on and their focus is elsewhere.  However, their ongoing postings often give the game away if you pay attention.  If a pemmican only diet was meeting Danny's needs then why would he be making so many changes?  I know Danny personally and he is a very rational person.  He doesn't make changes based on whim, he's trying to find something that works well for him.  Pemmican did help him clear up many of his health issues, but there were some things that just didn't respond as he had hoped and so he's mixing things up a bit to see if he can get further improvement.  I certainly don't fault him for that.  I'm all about what works, and if what I'm doing stops meeting my needs I'll change in a heartbeat.

Looking at what at a person does over the long term often gives you a far more accurate picture than what they say in each posting.  I also pay attention to what is missing from a persons posts.  Sometimes as much or more information is conveyed by what is not said than what is put on public display.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ILM on April 15, 2011, 01:38:57 am
Great post Lex - and its an outlook that I personally espouse too.

Unfortunately, the internet is not a complete window into one's doings, and I think your unique position in knowing Danny allows you to have a better insight than those of us just reading from a distance - with broken links and half the information.

Really enjoyed what you had to write - and I too, would never fault someone who is sincerely trying to work out what works best for them.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 21, 2011, 07:43:23 pm
I agree, Lex.

I thought of you when I read this:

"Maybe I have been reading too much into those descriptions, but it seems to me that one distinctive feature of many adults in hunter-gatherer populations, when compared with adults in urban populations, is that the hunter-gatherers are a lot less obsessed with food.

Interestingly, this seems to be a common characteristic of physically active children. They want to play, and eating is often an afterthought, an interruption of play. Sedentary children, who play indoors, can and often want to eat while they play."
- Ned Kock, http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/05/intermittent-fasting-as-form-of.html
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on April 28, 2011, 11:49:14 am
Phil,
I spend as little time as possible eating and almost no time thinking about food.  I spend my time doing other things that I'm passionate about.  Sometimes I'm so involved with what I'm doing that I forget to eat.  I remember when I was a kid and we had the big holiday gatherings.  I really didn't like them because it interrupted my routine.  I longed go out and play with my friends, but instead had to sit around all day waiting for a big meal of food that I didn't really like.  I suppose I've now come full circle as for the Easter holiday I was forced to spend the entire day doing nothing while waiting for a huge dinner I wasn't going to eat.  The festivities started around noon with chips and dip, tons of finger foods, and lots of soft drinks for the kids and booze for the adults.  It worked up to a massive dinner with lots of pasta, grain based dishes, and over cooked meats.  This was followed by about 20 different deserts of puddings, pies, cookies, cakes, and a variety of fruits.  I ate my normal food before going and ate none of the food or drink that was provided at the party.  The whole ordeal took about 10 hours and I longed to go out to my shop and play.

Second childhood?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: larrymagee on April 28, 2011, 12:53:30 pm
Hi Lex - I'm posting here, now, because I'm trying out eating only raw again.  I think I read in your journal that you add rendered fat to your Slankers mix.  Is that right?  I was wondering why not just add raw fat.  Is it a taste thing?

Regards,
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on April 28, 2011, 11:43:38 pm
Hi Larry, and welcome.
I use rendered fat for convenience.  I can render and store large amounts of fat without refrigeration.  This saves lots of time and mess as I don't have to grind fresh fat every time I make my food mix.  I just thaw my meat, mix in the additional rendered fat, portion out into ziploc bags, and I'm done.  No mess, no fuss.  Would raw fat be better?  Maybe, maybe not, who knows for sure.  All I can say is that what I'm doing is very successful and seems to be meeting my needs.   

I render fat over one weekend once a year at which time I render between 150 and 200 lbs for my own use and often another 200-300 lbs for others.  I hold a rendering party and others that are interested come over and we render away.  I have 3 induction hobs with 60 qt stainless steel pots that I set up in my garage, each of which can render 50 lbs of fat every 4 hours.   I then store the rendered fat in 12 to 24 quart plastic containers that I put into insulated ice chests and store in the garage.  The ice chests protect the fat from excess heat, light, and moisture.  I use the fat for my own consumption as well as making pemmican to send out as samples.  Last year I sent out over 100 lbs of pemmican samples all over the world.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on April 29, 2011, 04:09:37 am
Dear Lex,

do you see any difference regarding digestion between raw beef fat (suet) and cooked/rendered beef fat (tallow)?

Years ago, when I was following a predominantly cooked paleo diet I noticed that my digestion was much better when I was eating only cooked fat. Raw beef fat often caused liquid stools. Today I believe that only raw fats from grain fed animals give me problems.

Cooked animals fat also increased the stool diameter to 'normal' levels (like when eating carbs).

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: larrymagee on April 29, 2011, 09:07:31 pm
Hi Larry, and welcome.
I use rendered fat for convenience.  I can render and store large amounts of fat without refrigeration.  This saves lots of time and mess as I don't have to grind fresh fat every time I make my food mix. 
Lex

Thanks, Lex.  I find the question of 100% raw or not to be very interesting.  I would think that eating a lightly seared, thick steak where 99% of it is still raw is about the same as eating your mix that includes a little cooked fat.  But I do seem to feel different when it is totally raw (I get full on less and don't get hungry as soon; I feel clearer mentally, + it seems to digest better most of the time).  It's hard to comprehend why that would be.  Maybe it's that the taste of cooked triggers an insulin release.

The dietary leukocytosis theory that showed cooked food causing a rise in white blood cells doesn't explain the difference between 100% and 99% raw because Dr. Paul Kouchakoff, who came up with the theory in the 30's, tested and concluded that eating raw along with cooked didn't raise the white blood cell count (back to our seared steak being = to raw). 

 Maybe the living microorganisms on the surface of the raw steak come into play.   Maybe it's all in my head that there is any difference between raw and lightly seared at all.

Food for thought (pun intended).   

Have a great weekend.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ILM on April 29, 2011, 09:20:46 pm
..... I hold a rendering party and others that are interested come over and we render away.  I have 3 induction hobs with 60 qt stainless steel pots that I set up in my garage, each of which can render 50 lbs of fat every 4 hours.   I then store the rendered fat in 12 to 24 quart plastic containers that I put into insulated ice chests and store in the garage.  The ice chests protect the fat from excess heat, light, and moisture.  I use the fat for my own consumption as well as making pemmican to send out as samples.  Last year I sent out over 100 lbs of pemmican samples all over the world.

Lex

If a "fat rendering party" doesn't fly in the face of conventional wisdom and the old "low fat, high carbs" dogma, then I'm not sure what does!  :D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ILM on May 13, 2011, 12:16:10 am
Hey Lex,

Finally! I managed to source 2kgs of "beef rib fat" offcuts from a friend of mine at the meat shop. I was toying with an experiment: eat 80/20 fat/protein for a week and see how I feel. If its all good, continue for another week, etc.

So, I'd like to ask you for your informed opinion on beef rib fat - is it good stuff, or utter crap, or somewhere in between? I noticed that 1 ounce (30grams) of beef fat weighs in at circa 260cals, so it should be pretty easy to calculate.

My experiment is to see if I can lose those last few %'s of extraneous body fat. After reading your entire experiment, there's no question that I'll be adding my daily exercise too.

Thoughts good Sir?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 14, 2011, 08:37:39 am
Hey Lex,

Finally! I managed to source 2kgs of "beef rib fat" offcuts from a friend of mine at the meat shop. I was toying with an experiment: eat 80/20 fat/protein for a week and see how I feel. If its all good, continue for another week, etc.

So, I'd like to ask you for your informed opinion on beef rib fat - is it good stuff, or utter crap, or somewhere in between? I noticed that 1 ounce (30grams) of beef fat weighs in at circa 260cals, so it should be pretty easy to calculate.

When eating fresh fat I really don’t have any personal preference.  I usually purchase suet because I render and use the fat for pemmican. 

My experiment is to see if I can lose those last few %'s of extraneous body fat. After reading your entire experiment, there's no question that I'll be adding my daily exercise too.

Thoughts good Sir? 

You may be disappointed in the long term because once your body is fully adapted to using fatty acids for fuel then calories count again and there’s a good chance you’ll gain weight if you don’t reduce the amount you eat when you raise the fat content.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ILM on May 15, 2011, 07:12:52 am
Thanks Lex,

I did the mix at 80/20 - and I replicated your experience: I felt lethargic within 40mins of eating the mix. I felt literally awful and queasy for the next 6hrs. Whats interesting is that I only ate one meal the whole day, without desire to eat again.

Not such a fun thing to do. I reckon caloric value was below daily maintenance level. Interesting one day experience.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on May 16, 2011, 07:19:29 am
Hey Lex, I listened to that interview you did with joanneunleashed.com.
It might be old news to some. It was a pretty cool interview, very truthful and honest. Thanks for doing it, it means a lot to me and others. I found it on facebook, someone posted it. I posted it on my page as well.

Is that the first audio interview you did?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on May 16, 2011, 07:20:38 am
Last year I sent out over 100 lbs of pemmican samples all over the world.

Lex
Amazing!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 17, 2011, 08:44:39 am
Thanks Lex,

I did the mix at 80/20 - and I replicated your experience: I felt lethargic within 40mins of eating the mix. I felt literally awful and queasy for the next 6hrs. Whats interesting is that I only ate one meal the whole day, without desire to eat again.

Not such a fun thing to do. I reckon caloric value was below daily maintenance level. Interesting one day experience.

One day doesn't tell you much.  If you really want to understand how your body will feel you'll need to do this for several months and let your body adapt to the higher fat levels over time.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 17, 2011, 08:50:48 am
Hi Sully, You're looking amazing as usual.  Ah, to be young.....

I did the interview with Joanne and was pretty pleased with it.  She wanted to do a full Skype Video interview but I don't have the equipment for that and my internet connection is rather slow so she had to settle for audio only.  I'm glad people are finding it valuable.  I try to be honest and state the good as well as the bad.  This way people can better make up their own minds. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on May 17, 2011, 01:31:20 pm
Hi Sully, You're looking amazing as usual.  Ah, to be young.....

I did the interview with Joanne and was pretty pleased with it.  She wanted to do a full Skype Video interview but I don't have the equipment for that and my internet connection is rather slow so she had to settle for audio only.  I'm glad people are finding it valuable.  I try to be honest and state the good as well as the bad.  This way people can better make up their own minds. 

Lex
Thanks Lex.

Yeah, Joanne seemed like a very nice person, too bad you couldn't get a video interview. Lex, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your honesty (in the interview and here on the forum). You are truly are an inspiration to me. Your honesty is a breath of fresh air my friend, and your story is amazing. Lots of appreciation for what you have done. Hah, even though it was a selfish journey like you once stated, just trying to better yourself with diet to achieve your own goals. But in the end you are helping a lot of people.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 17, 2011, 06:46:10 pm
hear, hear
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on May 21, 2011, 08:55:48 pm
One day doesn't tell you much.  If you really want to understand how your body will feel you'll need to do this for several months and let your body adapt to the higher fat levels over time.

Lex,

may I ask you this question again:

Do you see any difference regarding digestion between raw beef fat (suet) and cooked/rendered beef fat (tallow)? Frequency, stool diameter etc...

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 23, 2011, 10:45:07 am
Do you see any difference regarding digestion between raw beef fat (suet) and cooked/rendered beef fat (tallow)? Frequency, stool diameter etc...

Nothing significant that I've noticed.  Sometimes if there is a large amount of connective tissue in the fat some of the raw fat won't get fully digested, but if it is well ground and/or chewed then everything seems to digest well - cooked or raw.  Can't say that stool diameter changes much with cooked or raw either, however, if I eat very high fat meals (80% of calories or above) then stools are soft and mushy, lower fat meals (60%-70% of calories) and stools are firm and well formed.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wetroof on May 27, 2011, 12:08:59 pm
Hi Lex, I was reading the guide you wrote on making a jerky drier. I noticed you said that your brought the meat for less than 3 dollars a pound at Costco. I think Costco probably only sells grain fed.  So, you do not use grass fed meat to make the jerky?

Why not?

I ask you this, because I am placing an order with Slankers, and getting 2 "eye of round roasts". This roast is 6 dollars a pound however. expensive compared to what I could get at Costco. And I have to wonder if the diet (grass vs grain) affects the nutritional quality of the muscle meat. I hear all the time it affects the fat. I assume the same with the muscle cells, but your guide has confused me. because it says you use meat from Costco.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 27, 2011, 01:07:37 pm
Hi Lex, I was reading the guide you wrote on making a jerky drier. I noticed you said that your brought the meat for less than 3 dollars a pound at Costco. I think Costco probably only sells grain fed.  So, you do not use grass fed meat to make the jerky?
Why not?

I ask you this, because I am placing an order with Slankers, and getting 2 "eye of round roasts". This roast is 6 dollars a pound however. expensive compared to what I could get at Costco. And I have to wonder if the diet (grass vs grain) affects the nutritional quality of the muscle meat. I hear all the time it affects the fat. I assume the same with the muscle cells, but your guide has confused me. because it says you use meat from Costco.

The jerky and pemmican manuals were written for a very wide audience, not just paleo folks.  The jerky manual in particular was originally written for the Boy Scouts and I’ve done dozens of presentations for Boy Scout troops and church youth groups.  Most of these people just want good inexpensive jerky and care little about whether it is grass-fed or not.

The pemmican manual has a wide appeal to campers, hikers, and backpackers who want a nutritious dense calorie source.  It has also become popular with folks who want to take their dog backpacking as a single food serves both the hiker and dog, and the dog can often carry its own food.  Again, this audience doesn’t care if the meat is grass-fed.

When giving demos I always use the cheapest source of meat I can find and Costco usually fills the bill.  For my personal use and the samples I send out to those interested in maintaining a paleo lifestyle, I use grass-fed meat.  I’m only set up to dry a maximum of about 40 lbs of meat at a time so I prefer to purchase my lean meat when I need it as I have very little room to store fresh or frozen meat.

I always use grass-fed fat for both as I usually render 200 to 300 pounds of fat at one time because I can render it all over one weekend, and once properly rendered it is easily stored without refrigeration. This way I only have to do this once a year.  I can usually find grass fed suet locally for about the same price as grain fed fat when purchasing in bulk.  The only hitch for local fat is that I usually have to drive to the supplier to pick it up.  In California I’ve found that Marin Sun Farms in the San Francisco area is a very good supplier but it means an all day trip up and back from where I live in Los Angeles as they won’t ship. This is fine for a fat run once a year, but not reasonable for small amounts of lean meat.   I purchase almost all my lean grass-fed meat from Slankers because their prices are competitive, their meat is very high quality, and they ship to my door for a very reasonable price.

If you are only going to use jerky as an afternoon treat like you would a candy bar, or pemmican as a supplemental food a few times a year when traveling or on vacation, Costco meat will probably do you just fine.  However, if you intend to make jerky or pemmican a major part of your diet, then I'd go grass fed.  It's what you eat most of the time that matters, not the occasional deviation when your normal food is unavailable or you want a tasty treat.  A stick or two of grain fed jerky as an afternoon treat won't have much impact if your main meal was 2,500 to 3,000 calories of grass fed meat and fat. 

Hope this makes sense,

Lex  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on May 27, 2011, 02:42:09 pm
Nothing significant that I've noticed.  Sometimes if there is a large amount of connective tissue in the fat some of the raw fat won't get fully digested, but if it is well ground and/or chewed then everything seems to digest well - cooked or raw.  Can't say that stool diameter changes much with cooked or raw either, however, if I eat very high fat meals (80% of calories or above) then stools are soft and mushy, lower fat meals (60%-70% of calories) and stools are firm and well formed.

Thank you, Lex.

I hope to see some videos from you soon!
People can learn a lot from your amazing "health food" history.

Have you got rid of the rest of your kidney stones?

Best wishes

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wetroof on May 28, 2011, 01:55:50 am
Hi Lex thank you for the response. I just felt like I needed confirmation that you think grass fed muscle meat is superior to grain fed. But I believe this myself so I'm not sure why I had to ask you. I guess to confirm--and now I understand your guide is for a wide audience, not people eating a "paleo" diet necessarily.

Quote
In California I’ve found that Marin Sun Farms in the San Francisco area is a very good supplier but it means an all day trip up and back from where I live in Los Angeles as they won’t ship. This is fine for a fat run once a year, but not reasonable for small amounts of lean meat
I was wondering what your SF source for the grass fed fat was, because I live in San Francisco, and now you have told me. Thanks.






Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 28, 2011, 03:54:40 am
Have you got rid of the rest of your kidney stones?

I really don't know.  My doctor hesitates to do unnecessary x-rays so don't know if there are stones lying in wait to make my life miserable, or if the extra water I drink has solved the problem.  I think January of 2010 was the last incident.  I suppose time will tell.  I can tell you that I'm not looking forward to another bout.  They are very painful - to the point of causing muscle spasms and involuntary vomiting.  Wouldn't wish kidney stones on anyone.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 28, 2011, 04:08:23 am
I was wondering what your SF source for the grass fed fat was, because I live in San Francisco, and now you have told me.

Really good people at Marin Sun Farms.  Their main store is out on the peninsula at Point Reyes Station on Highway 1.

10905 Highway 1
Point Reyes Station, CA 94956
(415) 663-8997

I usually take Sir Francis Drake Blvd from San Rafael out to where it dead ends into Hwy 1.  Turn right and its about 3 miles or so to the store.  It is an unbelievably beautiful drive.  Since I want a large amount of fat, I call several days ahead and tell them how much I want and they have it ready when I get there.  They also have rendered fat but I prefer to render my own as this way I have control of the process.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 30, 2011, 07:51:14 am
Lex, I have a thin, 2-inch thick, mattress now. My fitted sheets don't work well with it. What do you use for the underlayer sheet on your mattress?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 30, 2011, 12:22:34 pm
Lex, I have a thin, 2-inch thick, mattress now. My fitted sheets don't work well with it. What do you use for the underlayer sheet on your mattress?

Sounds like my Japanese tatami mat days in my mid teens.  I dumped all my bedroom furnishings, stripped up the carpet and put down tatami mats.  Sat on traditional pillows and slept on a thin bed roll which I rolled up every morning and stowed in a plain wooden chest (like a small trunk) which was the only permanent fixture in my room. In the winter I added extra blankets, both under and on top, as my room often fell below freezing during the night. All my clothes were either hanging or on open shelves in my small closet.  A rather austere existence, but I thought I was cool.  My parents thought I was nuts.

In my late teens the water bed was all the rage so I dumped the tatami mats and bed roll and got a king sized water bed.  Took up most of my room.  Learned the hard way that it had to be heated.  The first night it was very warm, probably 90F, which was not unusual for the San Joaquin Valley in summer.  I filled my new bed with slightly warm water and laid down on the bed.  It was wonderful and felt slightly cool.  I drifted off to sleep thinking I'd found heaven.  At 3am I awoke with teeth chattering and shivering.  I'd never been so cold.  The water bed had sucked all the heat out of my body.  I ran down stairs and turned on the floor furnace and stood over it for about an hour trying to warm up.  My dad heard me and came down and saw me shaking and shivering, standing over the heater on a 90F night and just shook his head and went back up to bed.  Needless to say, I installed a heater for my water bed the next day.  My dad was not amused when he got the next electric bill.  He called the local electric company and them install a meter on my water bed heater and made me pay for the cost of keeping my bed warm enough to sleep in.

Alas, when I got married I sold out to the establishment and more traditional bedding.  Today I sleep in relative luxury on a latex foam mattress with regular fitted sheets, and a prime goose down comforter in the cooler months. Probably the antithesis of Paleo, but one must make sacrifices to maintain domestic bliss - not to mention that I sleep like a baby in such warmth and comfort.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on May 30, 2011, 12:54:52 pm
That was hilarious!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 30, 2011, 09:39:46 pm
A rather austere existence, but I thought I was cool.  My parents thought I was nuts.
Just a matter of social context. In Japan you would probably have fit right in, except that with their futons they apparently tend to use luxurious comforters, which you are now using.

I've noticed that Western mattresses have been getting thicker and thicker over the years. What was a normal mattress in my youth would now be largely regarded as unacceptably thin.

Somehow I had gotten the idea that your latex mattress was much thinner than the usual. I remember the water bed craze and was briefly tempted by it myself until I tested them out in the store and saw the prices. Thanks for the funny story.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on May 31, 2011, 12:26:54 am
Yes, my mattress is about 15 inches thick.  I have no idea why. I'd guess I only sink down an inch or two at most.  The other 13 inches are pretty much wasted.  I guess like the fashion industry, the bedding industry has found that by making unnecessary changes chic, they can create demand.  After all, if you can no longer purchase sheets to fit your old bed you'll have to purchase new ones - unless you use plain flat sheets, and few have a clue how to do that anymore.  Come to think of it, I doubt that a common flat sheet would be large enough to wrap around one of these new behemoths.  As it is, I have trouble tucking in one of my old a blankets at the foot of the bed and still have it reach above my waist when lying down.  I think it is a conspiracy foisted on us by big business. I'm sure that one of the big conglomerate's figured out that if their bedding group made the mattress thicker, their linen group would benefit by supplying sheets and blankets, and their ladder group would benefit by making step stools so dogs and people could climb into bed. Clearly we need more government regulation in the bedding industry.  This would raise the cost so no one could afford a mattress and we'd all be back to tatami mats and bed rolls.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 31, 2011, 11:22:03 am
LOL I think you may be right Lex, because I don't understand what the extra thickness is supposed to do either. They sometimes even add another mini mattress on top of the already enormously thick mattresses now--basically a built-in mattress topper. My sister has one like that. If the topper is more comfortable than the mattress, it also raises the question of why don't they just make the mattress out of the topper material? They could make it thick enough that there wouldn't be an issue with sinking to the springs. In spite of having the topper, the mattress below it is still hugely thick. I think it may be a way of creating mattress envy--"The neighbor's mattress is thicker than mine and has a topper thing too, while mine is thinner and simpler...how humiliating!"

Quote
we'd all be back to tatami mats and bed rolls.
That would be cool, and a way for them to sell still more bedding and then start the whole cycle over again. :) As you may know, when tatami mats were first developed they were luxury beds. Most folks slept on some straw thrown on the dirt floor at the time.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alan on June 01, 2011, 01:33:51 pm
No one admires you more than I do, Lex, and a large part of the reason is because you stick with a program that works for you rather than follow new fads.

Having said that, I wonder if you still follow the action in other paleo-centric boards.  Three in particular, which seem highly devoted to following the evidence-trail  no matter what the cost in shattered  comfortable-armchairs-in-fashionable-echo-chambers, are:

    donmatesz.blogspot.com
    wholehealthsource.blogspot.com
    carbsanity.blogspot.com

At these three, there are recent iconoclastic discussions.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 02, 2011, 01:33:35 am
Hi Alan,
No, I seldom follow blogs or spend much time on line at all.  I'm far to busy doing the things I love to do.  I do check my journal every couple of days so respond to comments, and I do follow up on articles and blog postings that others point out to me, but I spend no time at all reading blogs or searching for information.  Life is way to short to waste it staring at a computer.  I'd rather be in my shop building things, teaching clock repair classes, giving presentations to youth groups, having dinner with friends or a whole host of other activities.

For me, the point of eating well is to maintain the best health I can, for as long as I can, so that I can continue to do the things I want to do.  I'm at peace with myself and the dietary choices I've made, so have no reason to spend time searching for other alternatives.  There is no perfect lifestyle or diet, and to spend time searching for a some dietary Holy Grail is a waste of precious time, that once gone, can never be retrieved.

I am now 60 years old.  If all goes well, I may make it into my 80's as no male member of my family has lived past 85, (my dad died at 79 and the autopsy showed no clear cause of death - he just died).  Rather than spend my time trying to see if I can extend my life an additional few years, I prefer to live the life I have to the fullest right now.  In any case, regardless of how long I live, the first 10 years of the rest of my life (60 - 70) will be a whole lot better than then following 10 years (70-80), and I refuse to waste them trying to live a few scant years longer as each succeeding year will be of ever lower quality.  For me it is quality over quantity.  If I die tomorrow it is OK with me because I'm physically able to do everything I want to do today.  Regardless of what we eat or the lifestyle we live, our lives are limited and I want to make the most of what little time I have left.  

I did look at the blogs you listed and they seem about the norm of what's going on in the field.  All are expressing opinions, often stated as fact, about things they know little or nothing about.  What isn't opinion is useless speculation on the meaning of things no one (including the researchers) really understands.  I have no better knowledge or insight than these well meaning bloggers so my comments or participation would add no value, and spending time reading these opinions and speculations doesn't add to my quality of life.

Hope this helps,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 23, 2011, 05:02:16 am
Hi Lex,

Someone who developed a high PSA on a cooked Paleo-type diet (with some modern foods) relatively high in meats (it was the only negative symptom--all his other results were positive) asked me for suggestions. High PSA is about the only thing that didn't resolve for you, as I understand it. Don Matesz said that a low-fat, plant-rich diet lowers PSA and I did read that somewhere else before. What are your thoughts on this?

Also, I'll understand if you don't want to get into the theoretical, yet given the relatively rare perspective you have from eating nearly the same thing every day, as I understand it, your input would be interesting on Art De Vany's views on randomly varying intakes of types of foods and quantities (such as via intermittent fasting) to take advantage of hypothetical advantages from employing power laws and living in tune with the fractal character of nature (including that of human bodies). Are you familiar with it and do you have any thoughts on it?  
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 25, 2011, 12:31:14 am
Someone who developed a high PSA on a cooked Paleo-type diet (with some modern foods) relatively high in meats (it was the only negative symptom--all his other results were positive) asked me for suggestions. High PSA is about the only thing that didn't resolve for you, as I understand it. Don Matesz said that a low-fat, plant-rich diet lowers PSA and I did read that somewhere else before. What are your thoughts on this?

Wish I had a solution.  Unfortunately my BPH symptoms haven’t gone away, even when eating totally raw so I doubt that cooking would have any effect one way or the other.  I can say that the progression has slowed way down, and that’s a good thing. But it hasn’t gone away.  My guess is that prostate growth is a normal thing. Possibly eating inappropriate foods will speed the process and that is why modern males seem to start having problems earlier in life. Eating a more natural diet may slow the process such that if we’d eaten properly all our lives, few of us would live long enough to experience a problem.  If this idea is anywhere near the truth, then once you are experiencing a problem, just changing diet will not cure or stop it, but just slow it down significantly.  This is what my experience has been.
Same goes for baldness, cancer, and several other issues.  Once these things have occurred their progression might be slowed but they seldom can be totally reversed by diet alone.

Also, I'll understand if you don't want to get into the theoretical, yet given the relatively rare perspective you have from eating nearly the same thing every day, as I understand it, your input would be interesting on Art De Vany's views on randomly varying intakes of types of foods and quantities (such as via intermittent fasting) to take advantage of hypothetical advantages from employing power laws and living in tune with the fractal character of nature (including that of human bodies). Are you familiar with it and do you have any thoughts on it? 

I have seen no evidence, either in my own experience or in peer reviewed studies, that there is any significant advantage to this.  I think it is clear that the body will become accustomed to and adapt to whatever becomes habitual, however, I’m not sure that there is any evidence that this is a problem.  I know Art and many years ago spent time at the gym with him.  His premise of randomizing his workouts is probably a good one if continued progress in body building is the goal.  Once the body becomes accustomed to a specific set of exercises in a specific order, it will adapt to the point where it can perform these exercises efficiently and then “progress”, (from the body builders standpoint), will slow.  Also, Lyle McDonald has done a lot of work in the area of ketogenic diets for body builders.  He found that cycling in and out of ketosis, more or less simulating the chaotic natural environment of intermittent food availability without sacrificing caloric intake, worked better at promoting muscle growth in body builders than did a consistent normal diet or consistent ketogenic diet. 

What is seldom discussed is the fact that body building for the sake of muscle growth is unnatural and therefore the body must be tricked into making it happen.   I’ve seen nothing showing any significant advantage to the chaotic approach in diet or exercise for the average person that is not interested in promoting excess muscle growth.  The body is designed to adapt to a person’s normal environment with some spare reserve for fight or flight in case of danger.  It takes much continued and constant effort to exceed this, and once the effort is stopped, the body quickly reverts back to a more normal state.

Just my two cents, others my see it differently,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 25, 2011, 05:14:23 am
Thanks Lex. BTW, do you have any Native American ancestry that you're aware of, and if you don't mind my asking, what is your basic ancestry?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on June 25, 2011, 09:23:07 am
Thanks Lex. BTW, do you have any Native American ancestry that you're aware of, and if you don't mind my asking, what is your basic ancestry?

No Native American that I'm aware of.  I think my family hails mostly from Europe with the most direct links being Welsh and Scottish.  My maternal grandmother was a Hughes (of the Howard Hughes lineage) and her mother was a Melton.  My aunt on my fathers side has some ancestry information going back to 1603 but I've never seen it.  I think she once told me that there's an Italian in the mix somewhere but it's all rather sketchy.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 27, 2011, 06:18:50 am
Interesting coincidence--according to one Web source the name Hughes is an Irish name that originated in county Roscommon and most of my Irish ancestors were from Cavan county, not far from Roscommon http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/geography/counties.html and like you I fare well on a diet that's low in carbs and high in animal foods. It could be nothing more than coincidence, of course.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Max on July 05, 2011, 12:21:02 pm
Hey Lex,

First off you are an inspiration to us all!  I am hoping I will heal myself the way you have on the RPD. I've been eating raw for a few months really solid. I've seen many benefits. But I always intended to try RZC.  I started RZC two days ago.  I feel OK. Energy down a little.  I think organs will be important on RZC but I find them mostly unpalatable.  I ate 1/3 pound of raw beef kidney yesterday and I couldn't stomach more than a few bites today.  I put in an order to slankers of mostly pet food to get the nutrients from organs in a hopefully more acceptable form (taste wise).

I was wondering are you still eating the slankers pet food?

If so what is your current mix? And how much do you eat?

How long did it take you to like the taste?

Thanks,
-Max
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 18, 2011, 09:52:21 am
First off you are an inspiration to us all!  I am hoping I will heal myself the way you have on the RPD. I've been eating raw for a few months really solid. I've seen many benefits. But I always intended to try RZC.  I started RZC two days ago.  I feel OK. Energy down a little.

I’m always amused when someone does something for a few days and then says their energy is down or up or whatever.  My energy follows my mood.  If I’m bored my energy is down, if I’m excited, my energy is up.  Energy is almost always due to my mental state and has little or nothing to do with what I just ate – unless I hated the food and then we're back to a mental condition.

 
I think organs will be important on RZC but I find them mostly unpalatable.  I ate 1/3 pound of raw beef kidney yesterday and I couldn't stomach more than a few bites today. 

I don’t care much for organ meats plain either.  I expect that if that was all there was to eat I’d soon learn to love them, but I’m spoiled and choose to camouflage my organ meats behind some plain ground muscle meat.  I still get some flavor of the organ meats but I’m never faced with a lump of something that makes me want to gag.

I put in an order to slankers of mostly pet food to get the nutrients from organs in a hopefully more acceptable form (taste wise).

In the beginning I tried eating slankers pet food plain but that was too much for me to handle so I started mixing it with muscle meat.  First I mixed 6 to 1, then 4 to 1 and now somewhere between 2 and 3 to 1.  I now find plain ground meat has no flavor and is very boring so I’ve come to enjoy the flavor of the organ meats, but I still prefer them well diluted.

I was wondering are you still eating the slankers pet food?

Yes, I still eat slanker pet food but they now have a “Primal Ground Meat” mix that has some organ meats added and it has been properly inspected and sold for human consumption.  I may give this a try and see how I like it on my next order. 

If so what is your current mix? And how much do you eat?

I use a 2 or 3 to 1 mix as explained above(the larger number being plain ground meat), but I also add enough fat (either fresh or rendered) to bring the fat content up to about 70% of calories from fat.  I eat between 1 ½ and 2 lbs a day on most days.  Some days a little less, and if I’m working hard maybe half again more.  Remember, I’m 60 and my energy needs are small in comparison to someone, say in their 20s or 30s.  Someone who is very active and in their 20s may need double what I eat.  I remember reading the Journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition.  It was a real revelation to find that the crew members that were rowing the boat upstream often ate 9 lbs of fresh meat per day.

How long did it take you to like the taste?

On some things I still don’t like the taste or the consistency, and I imagine that has a lot to do with how I was brought up.  It took a couple of years before I actually preferred the taste of my organ mix to plain ground meat.  I still don’t like the pet food plain.  I much prefer it diluted with some muscle meat.
I do what I have to do to be able to stick to this way of eating.  If I were forced to eat raw kidneys, liver, spleen or tripe by themselves, I’d be eating Big Macs today as I just wouldn’t have been able to stick with it.  Nothing is more difficult than going well out of your way to eat something you intensely dislike every day when there is such wonderful and tasty junk food more easily available.

There is no perfect diet, or if there is, no one knows what it is. There is also no magic in Zero Carb. I'm not even convinced that light cooking is all that bad.  I choose to eat raw on principal rather than on any hard evidence that all cooking is bad.  No other animal cooks its food so I decided there was no reason that the human animal needed to cook its food.  People eat cooked food all the time and live well into their 90s - often in relatively good health.  I'm more convinced that there are foods we should avoid that we never evolved to eat and this is more important to me than the cooking vs raw debate, or the full zero carb debate.  To me it is much better to eat lightly cooked meat rather than raw grains.

I do believe that there are better choices when it comes to our health than today’s SAD or especially junk food.  If you eat mostly red meat and fat, even if it is lightly cooked, and maybe a small green salad and/or a small serving of fruit each day, and cut out the beans, grains, dairy, and refined carbs you’d probably get 95% of the benefit of what I’m doing and maybe even 100%.  One thing’s for sure, you’d be way ahead of the folks eating Big Macs, Fries, and guzzling soft drinks by the gallon.

What I'm trying to say is that you don't have to be a zealot when it comes to your diet.  You'll benefit much if you just stop eating manufactured foods and foods that humans are not designed to eat at all.  Unless you are suffering from some major disease, I doubt that lightly cooking the good foods you do eat would be much of a problem.  You'll also find it much easier to get along socially which can be very important if you are young.

What I did when I first went paleo (the lightly cooked version) 7 or 8 years ago, I just told people that I was diabetic and allergic to grains and dairy and so my diet was pretty much limited to meat, green vegetables, and some fruit.  Rather than get funny looks, everyone sympathized and went out of their way to accomodate my unfortunate health conditions.

Had I told them that grains and dairy were evil and that I must eat only raw meat, the respone would be that I'm a total nut case (which is probably true, but I'm a nice nut).  Yes, I did choose raw ZC but then I did that because I had severe health conditions that drove me to give this a try.  To be honest, I have no idea if raw ZC has had any significant benefit over what I would have gotten had I just stuck to my orginial lightly cooked paleo version.  I do know that I got some improvement, but it was very minor and it might have been just time that did the trick and not the conversion to Raw ZC.  I only stick with it because it has been fairly successful for me and now I find it simple and convenient. Also, at my age I don't have to fit in socially, though when on the rare occasions I must eat at someone else's house, I eat small amounts of whatever they serve (even if it is pasta) and never complain or lecture them.

Hope this helps, and sorry I didn't answer sooner.  I've been so busy with other things in my life that I just forgot to check my journal.  For me diet is about feeling good enough to do the things I want to do, not obsessing over things that probably don't matter anyway.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 18, 2011, 10:34:13 am
... There is no perfect diet, or if there is, no one knows what it is. There is also no magic in Zero Carb. I'm not even convinced that light cooking is all that bad.  I choose to eat raw on principal rather than on any hard evidence that all cooking is bad.  No other animal cooks its food so I decided there was no reason that the human animal needed to cook its food.  People eat cooked food all the time and live well into their 90s - often in relatively good health.  I'm more convinced that there are foods we should avoid that we never evovled to eat and this is more important to me than the cooking vs raw debate, or the full zero carb debate.  To me it is much better to eat lightly cooked meat rather than raw grains. ...
I agree. Not everyone here is a 100% raw purist, despite what our critics sometimes claim, and when critics ask why this should be called a raw forum if less than 100% raw is considered OK, my response would be that no other Paleo-type forum that I'm aware of covers raw foods, particularly raw animal foods, in any depth, so there's really no other forum to go to for that information. Plus there are incredibly valuable contributors here like Lex. Lex's journal alone is reason enough to spend time here and it is what initially drew me here, not 100% raw purism and one doesn't need to become a 100% raw purist to benefit from raw foods and a raw food forum. The notion that one must divide everything into discrete absolute binary categories of 100% this vs. 100% that never appealed to me.

Conventional Paleo forums like http://www.cavemanforum.com/ tend to focus heavily on cooked foods, including modern cooking techniques (such as frying bacon to a crisp and frying foods in butter, lard, tallow and oils and claiming that it's healthy), and tend to treat discussion of raw animal foods with some derision, though GoodSamaritan shares rawist info there and puts up a fight when challenged or attacked. I'm not into fighting the coctivores myself. I find it a generally futile exercise. People generally believe what they want to believe and seek confirmation for eating their favorite yummy foods. If they can find a single study or guru saying that crispy bacon is OK, that seems to be enough and they don't seem to care if it's not really Paleo or traditional, nor do they seem to care how many studies show contrary results or how many people here report poor results from heavily cooked foods or how much scientific explanation there is about potential damage to the metabolism or other biological systems.

There are the exceptions, of course, so people who tried cooked Paleo gradually filter in here and even some of the "experts" in the Paleo/ancestral field are moving in the direction of acknowledging the benefits of low-cooked and raw foods, such as Stephan Guyenet, PhD, Dr. William Davis, and Dr. Michael Eades with his low-slow Sous Vide cooker. When Stephan discussed his increasing interest in low-slow-cooked and raw foods on The Healthy Skeptic show, one of the hosts even joked that "Aajonus [Vonderplanitz] was right all along." When the responses to eating most or all animal foods raw start to change from ridicule and even anger to lighthearted joking and partial acknowledgement, you know the atmosphere is changing.

Curiously, there seems to be something of a double standard. No one seems to ask why a conventional cooked Paleo forum like http://www.cavemanforum.com should be considered Paleo when it accepts less than 100% adherence to Paleo within its tent. Even all the raw vegan forums I've seen accept what they call "high raw" within their approaches and the definition of "high raw" varies from as little as 70% of foods consumed raw. Fundamentally, people go where they are made welcome and where they get something out of the experience.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 18, 2011, 12:12:34 pm
Well said Phil

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Max on July 19, 2011, 02:02:15 am
Thank you Lex,

Thank you for your well thought out, comprehensive answers to my questions.  And thank you PaleoPhil as well, for your interesting observations about what it means to be paleo.

It is a difficult WOE to stick to for me socially and taste wise, but I feel I want to give this diet a chance, and myself a chance to heal.  I have come very far already and feel that I need to take this WOE all the way.  For me that means trying 100% Raw ZC, with organs, for a time and seeing how my body feels.  I read a good quote, "No discipline solves no problems.  Some discipline solves some problems.  Total discipline solves all problems."  I have lived, for most of my life, in a quite undisciplined manner.  That way of living has gotten me nowhere.  I dropped out of school, was in great debt and also managed to injure myself and end up in chronic pain.  Step by painstaking step, I am getting better.  Raw Paleo is key for my health and key for developing the discipline that I need to not only get my life back on track, but to also thrive and succeed.

It is a difficult daily struggle for me.  Eating raw foods.  Doing rehab exercises for my injury.  Some days getting out of bed is a struggle.  I don't know any secret to make any of this easier, all I can do is try my hardest.

-Max
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on July 19, 2011, 02:30:57 am
I want to add a note of caution. Most RPDers find that they (usually, not always) recover from some or most of their symptoms within several months, but it usually takes c. 2-3 years for serious conditions to become completely cured in all respects. So don't expect instant miracles. Plus, most RVAFers find that they need to make substantial changes to their diet in order to become truly healthy, such as removing all raw dairy/raw veggie juice from their diet, or going RZC or raw omnivore, or some other rarer method such as never eating ground meats, however raw etc.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 19, 2011, 11:29:38 am
You are very welcome Max.  I've found that much of what Tyler said is true as well.  Just removing Grains, Dairy, Beans/Legumes etc can make a world of difference in a year or less, but your body will be making measurable adjustments for several years.  This is why I can't tell you for sure that raw ZC has done any more for me that if I had just stuck with my lightly cooked Paleo lifestyle of 85% meat and fat with a small amount of green salad and fresh fruit each day.  There were continuing changes when I went to RZC but they were very slow and minor compared to the rapid gains I made just switching to lightly cooked paleo.  This makes me think that what little improvement I did get from RZC might just be from the long term changes that would have happened anyway had I just stuck with my original protocol.  One think I can tell you, lightly cooked paleo is much easier socially than RZC.  Also, if I find that RZC stops working for me for some reason, I'll add the salad and fruit back in in a heartbeat to see if that resolves the issue.

You must also accept that some things may never get better no matter what you do.  For many health issues I think there is a point of no return.  You may be able to significantly slow further damage but you can't regain what was lost.  Hair loss is a good example.  Once follicles have died you can't get them back.  I'm also finding that my enlarged prostate has not gotten better.  The rate of enlargement seems to have stopped or at least slowed down significantly, but it has not reversed, even on raw ZC.

None of this is magic and results take time.  When you make a change, stick with it for at least 6 months and then evaluate where you are and decide if you need to make a change.  Changing things every week is a total waste of time.  Your body won't have time to adjust to anything and you will have learned nothing about what works and what doesn't work.  When you do make a change, make small incremental changes based on solid reasoning rather than whim or the pronouncement of some guru.  Again, stick with each change for six months and evaluate again.  Just repeat this over and over and within a couple of years you will have learned much about how your body works and what it needs for you to feel your best.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Tom G. on July 20, 2011, 11:09:00 pm
  Hi Lex. I always look forward to reading your logical posts.

    Tom
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 23, 2011, 01:50:44 pm
Thanks for the kind words Tom,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: zeno on August 02, 2011, 06:10:07 am
Dear Lex,

What are the repercussions of not eating large amounts of fat on a low-carb diet? I only eat meat and drink water but do not measure the ratios of each. Sometimes I will eat more of one than the other and visa versa. Is it possible that I am stretching out the process of ketosis? Or, rather, hurting myself in the long-run?

I noticed that since beginning to each raw meat, the benefits have seemed to subsided since I began cutting out all carbs. I feel sluggish at times and feel weaker than I did before.

Although I'm disciplined enough to eat just meat, the idea of measuring out ratios of fat to protein seems too painstaking. Although my RZC foray hasn't lasted 6 months, I'm tempted to introducing carbs back into my diet. The idea of only eating meat is slightly driving me crazy. I'd like to have a more broad diet.

Do you have any words of wisdom or advice to offer before I decide to transition back to including other foods into my diet?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: zeno on August 04, 2011, 02:58:37 am
After doing some searching, I found the answer to some of my questions in your post in the thread below:

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/anyone-have-years-worth-of-zc-carnivorous/10/

This thread was also insightful:

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/overeating/

Sometimes when thinking constantly about what one is eating, that one can't help but worry or stress when energy levels are sub-par or a problem arises. In a desperate attempt to find a solution to my problems and calm my stress I felt impelled to ask for your guidance. Thank you for providing meticulously detailed information regarding your experience. You truly are a savior to all these people on this board looking for answers in uncharted territory.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 19, 2011, 07:12:50 pm
Quote from: Lex
"At this point in the debate I’m a solid member of camp #1 as my experience clearly shows that the greater the percentage of protein in my diet the higher blood glucose rises up to around 100 mg/dl where it then levels off.  At this point, by reducing my protein intake from 150g/day to 85-90g/day my blood glucose has dropped to around 85 mg/dl, which is a significant improvement." http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/lex's-journal/msg17996/#msg17996
Lex, how has your blood sugar been?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2011, 04:07:00 am
Juzeza,
Glad you found your answers in my journal and thank you for taking the time to read it rather than re-ask questions that I've answered mulitple times.  Also, I suggest that you search the forum for answers to see what others think.  Then, if you still have a question, by all means ask it.  This way you will be well informed from multiple points of view and you can judge my opinion in context with others.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2011, 04:11:48 am
Phil,
My blood glucose reading continues to hover around 100.  After eating it may go up to 110 - 120 if my meal was relatively high in protein, and it may drop into the mid 90's at times, but overall it stays between 100 and 105.

I'm working on getting my annual blood tests.  Had a screw up with insurance due to the hyseteria over Obama Care.  Once I'm notified that I'm coverd again, I'll be making an appointment for my annual physical and we'll have this years results.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 01, 2011, 05:41:06 am
I finally got my 2011 Lab test completed. 

They are pretty much the same except for total cholesterol rising from 190 to 207.  Triglycerides were amazingly low at 43.

I guess I'll continue this adventure for another year.  No reason to mess with success.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 01, 2011, 06:27:51 am
Your A1c seems to be around where it was before, IIRC. I take it you've decided not to be concerned about that?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 01, 2011, 07:49:11 am
Your A1c seems to be around where it was before, IIRC. I take it you've decided not to be concerned about that?

Since reference A1c levels are determined from population averages, and my lifestyle is anything but average, there is little health related information that can be extracted from the number.    It is at the high end of the range, but then my blood glucose averages right around 100 all the time which is also at the high end of the normal fasting range.

The doctors might conclude that I'm borderline diabetic, but the difference is that most people with fasting BG levels like mine would have their BG shoot way up after a meal.  Mine stays steady all day within plus or minus 5 points and only rises 15 to 20 points after a meal.  My doctor has never see anyone with such a steady BG reading.  Look at all my Labs, BG has consistently been within +-1 point.

I have no interest in trying to control any of my lab numbers as no one knows what they should be for a person living a similar lifestyle to mine.  All I do is observe them and post them for others to study and compare to their own.

What I do find fascinating, is that most of my lab numbers are far better than the norm for my age group of 60+, and I'm not taking any medication to control them.  By age 60, most people are on Metformin, Blood Pressure medication, and cholesterol lowering drugs.   Based on the amount of red meat and fat that I consume, conventional wisdom would expect all my numbers to be off the charts in the negative direction.  Clearly, my annual labs tell a different story.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 01, 2011, 08:52:45 am
You're cutting into the drug companies' profits, Lex. How could you be so uncaring?  ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on September 01, 2011, 09:21:20 am
I've included the 2011 results in Lex's front page for anyone who would like to compare.

Please let me know if 2011 results do not come up.

Wodg.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on September 01, 2011, 03:34:15 pm
Triglycerides were amazingly low at 43.

    
Quote from: Lab Report2011_08
46 mg/dl

    46 but still amazingly low, which we all know is of the utmost importance in lipid tests.  My total lipid panel is similar, I'm very happy with it.  Did your doctor try to offer you a way to lower your blood cholesterol?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 01, 2011, 11:54:07 pm
   
    46 but still amazingly low, which we all know is of the utmost importance in lipid tests.  My total lipid panel is similar, I'm very happy with it.  Did your doctor try to offer you a way to lower your blood cholesterol?

Sorry about that.  I was comparing all my lab tests and discovered that my current lab test and my original test in 2007 after starting this adventure had trigs in the 40s.  When I went to write my post I guess the lowest one, 43, just stuck in my mind.  Chalk it up to a Senior Moment.

Oh yes, the doctors have suggested that I take Vitorin or Lippitor as a "preventative measure, (along with half a dozen immunizations for whooping cough, tetanus, Pneumonia, chicken pox, flu, and a host of others).  They insist that now that I'm 60 I'm at great risk of dying from heart disease, stroke, or a complication from some other disease.  I point out that the statistics show that there is a 100% chance that I will die of something as I get older regardless of the medical profession's (or politician's) best efforts or intentions. 

As for the Vitorin and Lipitor, I ask them for statistics that show that these drugs lower the overall death rate rather than just from heart attack and stroke.  To me, dying from drug caused liver failure or other side effect rather than heart disease is a poor trade-off.  So far they haven't been able to show that these drugs do anything except trade one problem for another.

Lex   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on September 02, 2011, 03:13:05 am
....
As for the Vitorin and Lipitor, I ask them for statistics that show that these drugs lower the overall death rate rather than just from heart attack and stroke.  To me, dying from drug caused liver failure or other side effect rather than heart disease is a poor trade-off.  So far they haven't been able to show that these drugs do anything except trade one problem for another.
Lex   

Heey Lex, that sounds a little bit pessimistic...

You are just 60 years young!

We all hope that you will be a happy and healthy living example pro raw paleo vlc/zc for AT LEAST the next 40 years.

Think of Wolfgang Lutz (author of 'Living without bread'). He reached 97 years, even with lots of cooked grain fed pork...

One serious question: How do you FEEL nowadays?
(I think, that's very important beside all lab tests etc.)

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 02, 2011, 06:09:04 am
As for the Vitorin and Lipitor, I ask them for statistics that show that these drugs lower the overall death rate rather than just from heart attack and stroke.  To me, dying from drug caused liver failure or other side effect rather than heart disease is a poor trade-off.  So far they haven't been able to show that these drugs do anything except trade one problem for another.
You are depriving the Big Pharma execs of their boat payments!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 03, 2011, 01:29:14 pm
One serious question: How do you FEEL nowadays?
(I think, that's very important beside all lab tests etc.)

I feel very good, and I keep pretty busy. RawKyle was here for the Ancestral Health Symposium and stayed with us for several days.  He should be able to confirm that my health is good, and that I've got more things on my to-do list than I'll every have time to accomplish.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on September 04, 2011, 04:47:10 pm
I feel very good, and I keep pretty busy. ..

Lex

Excellent!  :-)

Lex, if I go raw ZC, I'm not able to gain weight, no matter how much raw animal fat I eat. It seems that most of the fat is just transformed into body heat. I sweat like CRAZY, especially during the night. I think that this shows that my body is not fat adapted enough, right?

I would like to learn more about "keto adaption", mitochondrial energy production, the transition, symptoms and all other relevant aspects.

Could you please recommend me books, papers or internet resources?

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 06, 2011, 11:40:08 am
Excellent!  :-)

Lex, if I go raw ZC, I'm not able to gain weight, no matter how much raw animal fat I eat. It seems that most of the fat is just transformed into body heat. I sweat like CRAZY, especially during the night. I think that this shows that my body is not fat adapted enough, right?

I would like to learn more about "keto adaption", mitochondrial energy production, the transition, symptoms and all other relevant aspects.

Could you please recommend me books, papers or internet resources?

Löwenherz 

Hi Lowenherz,
I went through the same issues.  It took almost a year before I noticed that I was no longer overly warm and throwing the covers off at night.  I do sleep with less covers overall than I did when eating vegan (as a vegan I was always cold), but I'm no longer uncomforatably warm.  And, I'm seldom cold.  I now tollerate both heat and cold better.

I really don't have any recommendations for books etc.  Most of what I got was from PubMed (some of which I had to pay for), and other random reading around the net.  I also used to have a very extensive library of health related books (over 500) that I'd collected over almost 40 years, but dumped them as few had much in the way of varified data.

I'm also not convinced that total raw ZC is the way to go.  It seems to be working for me, but then I'm 60 and my energy needs are different from someone in their 20's or 30's.  My guess is that carbs are not evil if eaten in moderation and you avoid non paleo carbs like grains, dairy, and legumes.   Do you have a specific reason for wanting to go total ZC?  If not, then have a salad and a piece of fruit along with your meat and fat and enjoy life.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on September 08, 2011, 03:50:45 am
...   Do you have a specific reason for wanting to go total ZC?  If not, then have a salad and a piece of fruit along with your meat and fat and enjoy life.

Lex

Thank you, Lex.

High fruit consumption in the past caused massive damage to my skin, teeth, gums, joints etc. On raw ZC I see some amazing healing effects (on gums and joints for example) that are inhibited by carbs, even by small amounts of so called healthy fruits. I'm not sure anymore if fruits are better than candy. Furthermore, the older I get the more my body rejects carbs. That let me thought about ZC again. My last raw ZC attempts all ended very unsuccessful (cooked ZC was easier), to say the least. But today I'm pretty sure that all problems have been caused by raw grain fed meat from diseased animals.

Has Owsley Stanley inspired you to go ZC?

Best wishes

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 09, 2011, 01:08:40 am
Has Owsley Stanley inspired you to go ZC?

No, it wasn't Owsley Stanley.  In fact, I'd never heard of him when I started ZC.  I had turned 50 and my vegan lifestly was beginning to really take its toll.  I was looking for solutions other than drugs to deal with high blood pressure, rising blood sugar, rising cholesterol, enlarging prostate, loosening teeth, and a waistline that had expanded to 40".  My vegan lifestyle was driven by trying to control major migraine headaches, as all the guru's and medical wisdom of the day said it was meat and fat that was the primary cause of all our ills.

Anyway, veganism wasn't working, headaches were as bad as ever (suffered with them for over 40 years) and I needed to find another solution.  I ran across Ray Auddett's book, Neanderthin, (around 1999 or 2000) and was surpried to find that Ray was basically suffering from everything that I had and had cured himself through diet.  I then found the Beyond Veg web site and got more information.  I transistioned to a cooked paleo lifestyle and things got better remarkably quickly.

A few years later ran accross Jeff Purcell's RVAF Yahoo Group right about the time it started.  Jeff is an amazing person and did a lot of work, providing links to resources all over the web that were related to RVAF.  One of the links was Steffannson's story.  I was facinated and wondered if eating only meat was actually possible.  I decided to try it and the rest is pretty much history and recounted here in my Journal.

One thing I have learned is that ZC is not the Holy Grail.  It is just another dietary protocol with its own benefits and drawbacks.  It has worked well for me, but it hasn't solved all my health problems.  I still suffer from BPH, hairloss stopped but didn't reverse, and age continues to takes it relentless toll. 

Before going total ZC I was eating mostly meat and fat with a small salad or a piece of fruit (one or the other but not both) each day.  I got most of the health benefits I enjoy today from eating that way.  There were small gains after going ZC but I can't tell you that they wouldn't have happened anyway if I'd just stuck to my orginial protocol.  When you've abused your body for 20-30 years with a totally inappropriate lifestyle, it takes many years to reverse the damage and some things are irreversible.  When I switched to ZC I was still seeing improvement from the VLC protocol I was following, so my guess is that ZC may have made a small difference but I don't think it is much.  Who knows, it may even have delayed things or made no difference at all.  All I can say is that I feel good, and hesitate to change what is currently working.  I assure you that if I notice problems, I'll change back to VLC in a heartbeat.

One final thought.  Many have tried ZC and failed.  My ZC protocol is rather strict and I eat a food mixture that most people would not find enjoyable.  My food mix contains all parts of the animal as it contains a good bit of all the leftovers that are ground up and sold as pet food.  I mix this with regular ground meat.  It tastes and smells rather strong.  I think my success is found in the variety of organ meats and offal that is in the food I eat and not that it is ZC.  Those that try to eat mostly muscle meats even when combined with a few limited organ meats tend not to be successful in the long term.  In effect, my mix contains bits and pieces of the whole animal, not just muscle meat and the common organs like kidney, heart, and liver.

Lex


Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 09, 2011, 05:39:08 am
Lex,
Have you tried Slanker's Primal Ground Beef mix (ground beef mixed with beef trim, beef liver trimmed, beef heart trimmed, beef spleen trimmed and beef kidneys http://www.texasgrassfedbeef.com/beef_cuts_and_prices.htm )?

(BTW, it's "Geoff").
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 10, 2011, 10:02:39 am
Lex,
Have you tried Slanker's Primal Ground Beef mix (ground beef mixed with beef trim, beef liver trimmed, beef heart trimmed, beef spleen trimmed and beef kidneys http://www.texasgrassfedbeef.com/beef_cuts_and_prices.htm )?

Yes, I just substituted the Primal Ground Beef for the pet food on my last order.  It is OK but I think I will go back to the pet food next time.  The primal mix is not as strong tasting so most would probably like it better, but it is very finely ground and I much prefer the bone chips, chewy bits, and texture of the pet food.

(BTW, it's "Geoff").

I knew that.... must have been a senior moment.  Or maybe it's the way I eat......

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on September 10, 2011, 10:14:31 pm
What do you think of someone's chances if they can't get the organ mix?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 11, 2011, 12:55:31 am
What do you think of someone's chances if they can't get the organ mix?

I wish I knew.  All I can say is that I've been very successful eating the pet food as part of my food mix and others that have attempted ZC eating mostly muscle meat have experienced problems over the long term.

All you can do is give it a try and see how it goes for you.  If I was unable to purchase organ mix, I'd get as wide a variety of organ meats as I could find and grind my own mix which I would then add to my daily food just as I do now.  At a minimum I'd look for tripe, brain, liver, kidney, pancreas, spleen, and heart.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on September 11, 2011, 09:04:08 am
I was eating a few organs before, but it's gonna be hard now. I appreciate the reply anyway. Maybe I will try Dr Ron's freeze dried pills.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 13, 2011, 12:03:53 am
I was eating a few organs before, but it's gonna be hard now. I appreciate the reply anyway. Maybe I will try Dr Ron's freeze dried pills.

Who knows, you may not have any problem at all.  I'm just passing along my observations and personal experience.  If you do start to experience problems then you'll have information that may help point to a solution.

If I was in a situation where I couldn't get a variety of organ meats or make my own mix, and I started to have problems, then my 3rd option would be to go VLC and add a small salad or a piece of fruit to my daily food intake with the expectation that these would add the missing elements.  As long as you keep the total carb load low, say below 75g/day, you'd probably be fine.  I think Lutz put his patients on less than 72g/day and they very well.  Just choose your carbs wisely, nix the grains, beans, and dairy, and keep the intake of sugary fruits fairly low.  Focus more on the non-sweet fruits like cucumbers, summer squashes, tomatoes, and other salad type greens and vegetables.  I'll bet you'll do great.

You can always return to ZC or whatever other protocol you prefer when conditions permit.  Remember, there is no perfect diet.  ZC is not perfect and there is no logical reason to try to force yourself to maintain it when living conditions make it impossible.  Just make the best food choices that you can based on wherever you are and don't worry about it.  A couple of years on VLC or even LC aren't going to make much difference over a 80+ year lifespan.  The human animal is rather adaptable, and we tend to do pretty well even when condtions are not optimal.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on September 13, 2011, 12:17:04 am
Thanks a lot for that info. It seems to make sense to eat salad and get more variety of foods for less carb intake so I'll do that, and thanks for the perspective.

I just saw Lowenherz's question.

Quote
I would like to learn more about "keto adaption", mitochondrial energy production, the transition, symptoms and all other relevant aspects.

If I may, you might find Lyle McDonald's books useful. 'The Ketogenic Diet' mainly as well as 'Ultimate Diet 2.0' and 'A guide to flexible dieting'

Bear in mind that he doesn't believe in longer term adaptions to ketosis over time, and recommends bagels etc for carbs...however especially in the first book there is a lot of info.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 13, 2011, 06:18:45 am
@Lex - Speaking of dairy, what do you think about the commonly made point that milk, along with honey and fruit, is one of the few foods made to be food for animals (though infant animals of different species, of course) and therefore is not loaded with antinutrients and should be safe to eat, with some arguing that butter (preferably from pastured cows and raw and maybe cultured) is a particularly excellent food?

@Josh - Lyle M. recommends bagels? That's a bit surprising. Bagels with pasteurized cream cheese seem to be one of the world's unhealthiest foods (along with donuts, pizza, cookies, cakes, pastries, candy, ice cream, etc.). Did he say why he recommends them?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on September 13, 2011, 10:06:26 am
Quote
Lyle M. recommends bagels? .......Did he say why he recommends them?

He believes in wheat and starchy carbs, so a wholewheat bagel would be right on target. He also allows a little 'cheat foods' like candy or whatever you want etc on the carb up day, which I can see the point of as it may be psychologically healthy if not physically, especially with his flexible dieting system which could help a lot of people.

As I said before, one of the difficulties for me of the raw paleo diet is the all or nothingness it leads to.

In any case, he is dealing with losing weight and doesn't believe in 'healthy eating' in the way a lot of use would see it, but still has a lot of clearly presented information on ketogenic diets.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 13, 2011, 11:22:46 am
I don't see it as all or nothing for everyone so much as mostly avoiding the worst foods on the planet and going stricter where necessary (such as in my case, I've found). Wheat is my worst of all foods, based on my experience (I'm not saying that's the case for everyone). Anyone who broadly advocates wheat products without major caveats about traditional processing, gluten sensitivity and so on generally goes in my dust bin of history. Been there and done the whole wheat route. Major disaster for me. I can't read everything, so weeding out those who are big on wheat without warnings is one of my filters, though I do make some exceptions if there's some topic in particular I'm interested in, and I have read some of Lyle's stuff. Does he give any such warnings?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on September 13, 2011, 12:27:39 pm
No, Lyle is nothing to do with paleo dieting, he's on a different planet so no warnings. I just think his book the ketogenic diet has the best information for the layman that I've seen. I'm not saying follow his plan.

You still have to bear in mind that it's all taken from short term studies, so he doesn't accept what Lex says about longer term adaptions etc. but worth a read imo.

Regarding all or nothing, there are little ways that we can 'cheat', eat cooked meat or a little candy without too many problems. But say for example if I ate a whole cooked meal with rice for example, adapted to paleo my gut would feel really crappy, it would throw me right out of whack. For me this is an issue with the diet as I feel it's psychologically healthy to relax, have a night off drinking with friends (70g carb per pint), get a meal out. I feel there is a lot of value in this for people on some kind of controlled diet who are not paleo, but unfortunately not really available if you want the best health in future.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 13, 2011, 01:24:09 pm
Josh,
I've read Lyle McDonalds work and have the two books you mentioned on my bookshelf.  I also recommend them when I think it is appropriate. Lowenherz question was regarding studies on mitochondria and cellular adaptation (at least I think that's what he was asking) and though I haven't looked at Lyle's books lately, I don't remember that he covered that much.  He was more into cycling the ketogenic diet for weight lifting and sports performance.  I'll have to look when I get time.

Phil,
My problem with dairy is with the milk proteins and milk sugars.  Many people are intollerant to these as our bodies stop manufacturing the enzymes to properly digest them once we are weaned.  This is true for many animals.  Milk works well for them until they are weaned and then they become intollerant.  Some of us are able to delay this intollerance by continuing to drink milk well beyond the weaning stage.  Just because we can do this doesn't seem to me to make it optimal.  Once  past the age of 3 I just don't believe that every body needs milk, and I think that there is a good bit of evidence that the opposite is true.

As for butter, as long as your talking pure fat I suppose butter works.  I eat it on occasion when eating out becuase most of the meat available is too lean and butter is the most available fat.  It's one of those "make the best choice you can" situations and I'd prefer the extra fat even if it is butter rather than overly lean meat which just doesn't satisfy.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on September 13, 2011, 04:27:19 pm
No I don't think he covers cellular adaption. I took it to mean he wanted general info on ketosis as well.

I brought up longer term adaptions to ketogenic diets on Lyle's forum, and he weighed in to say people like you are wrong about long term changes. He doesn't seem to believe in anything beyond the initial 2 week period of brain fog etc going into a keto diet.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 13, 2011, 06:18:57 pm
No, Lyle is nothing to do with paleo dieting, he's on a different planet so no warnings.
Yes, I know he's not Paleo. I asked because there are a lot of nonPaleo experts now who are familiar with the harm that gluten grains cause, such as Dr. William Davis, who just published a big-selling, highly-rated book called Wheat Belly (http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-Health).

Quote
You still have to bear in mind that it's all taken from short term studies, so he doesn't accept what Lex says about longer term adaptions etc. but worth a read imo.
Yes, you jarred my memory--I do remember skimming Lyle's paper, I think after having read Lex mention it quite a while ago. Unfortunately, I don't remember much of it now, other than the principle of cycling between ketogenic and carby days, IIRC. This is something I do myself for a number of reasons.

Quote
Regarding all or nothing, there are little ways that we can 'cheat', eat cooked meat or a little candy without too many problems. But say for example if I ate a whole cooked meal with rice for example, adapted to paleo my gut would feel really crappy, it would throw me right out of whack. For me this is an issue with the diet as I feel it's psychologically healthy to relax, have a night off drinking with friends (70g carb per pint), get a meal out. I feel there is a lot of value in this for people on some kind of controlled diet who are not paleo, but unfortunately not really available if you want the best health in future.
If drinking alcohol and eating nonPaleo foods enable you to improve your social life and have no negative effects on you, then by all means, go ahead. No one's stopping you and you don't have to justify it to anyone. I do the same, but I must admit that I feel less good when I do it and I don't recommend that anyone emulate what I'm doing. Perhaps you'll agree that just because you and I seem to be able to get away with it doesn't mean that everyone can? Over the years I've noticed many more people fail because of cheating and self-justification than because of excessive strictness, so there can be problems in either direction.

Of course, it isn't always necessary to eat non-Paleo when eating out or to drink alcohol to have a good time. There are infinite options. Like you said, it's not a matter of all or nothing.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on September 14, 2011, 10:10:27 am
Well for me it doesn't seem to work out that I can have a few drinks or a normal meal, then get back to raw paleo. Something about the gut. It will probably throw me out for a few days. Which is a shame, but look at all the good things about the diet.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 14, 2011, 06:10:16 pm
I wouldn't stress over not being able to cheat much. Dr. Harris wrote a good article on the broader subject and this quote is particularly salient:

Quote
... planning for "cheat days" makes just as much sense as a weekly Marlboro red for ex-smokers or the odd line of coke once in a while after you have left Hazelden.

- Kurt G. Harris, M.D. in Archevore
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/p-nu/201104/smoking-candy-cigarettes
That makes sense to me. I don't plan cheat days, but I do sometimes cheat when circumstances make it so that it seems that the cheating would cause less aggravation than the consequences of not cheating. When I cheat, though, it's generally pretty limited and it has to be something I enjoy--I'm not about to eat the toxic foods that taste mediocre or worse. So when eating at relatives' homes or restaurants I might have some cooked soup that contains potatoes or rice, or cooked marinated roast beef with mango chutney and rice, or a dark chocolate bar or black coffee, but I'll skip the bread, pasta, pie, sandwiches, etc. and I'll limit portions.

I drink whiskey instead of beer and thus avoid the gluten and liquid carbs of beer. I generally dilute it with plenty of water or drink a small bit of stronger mix. I'll sometimes have some dry white whine or dry mead. These beverages still have some minor negative effects on me, so I only drink them occasionally on weekends and limit the intake per sitting and if I start to get tempted to drink more I'll forego them completely for a while. Have you tried whiskey, say with water and maybe a little lemon, or gluten-free sorghum beer or dry white whine or dry mead? Overall, I think it's probably best to avoid the stuff completely, but for those who choose not to give up alcohol, my guess is that gluten-free versions would be preferable, health-wise. Tyler reported that he fares well with "real ale," which is apparently raw. I've never seen it myself and it doesn't sound gluten-free, but the point is that people experiment and find what works for them.

What do you mean by a "normal meal"? Is real food--meats, fish, fruits, veggies/roots, tubers edible raw (including legume tubers edible raw, BTW) and nuts, either raw or cooked using traditional, less-toxin-producing methods--not normal?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: raw on September 14, 2011, 11:23:18 pm

"My problem with dairy is with the milk proteins and milk sugars.  Many people are intollerant to these as our bodies stop manufacturing the enzymes to properly digest them once we are weaned.  This is true for many animals.  Milk works well for them until they are weaned and then they become intollerant.  Some of us are able to delay this intollerance by continuing to drink milk well beyond the weaning stage.  Just because we can do this doesn't seem to me to make it optimal.  Once  past the age of 3 I just don't believe that every body needs milk, and I think that there is a good bit of evidence that the opposite is true.

As for butter, as long as your talking pure fat I suppose butter works.  I eat it on occasion when eating out becuase most of the meat available is too lean and butter is the most available fat.  It's one of those "make the best choice you can" situations and I'd prefer the extra fat even if it is butter rather than overly lean meat which just doesn't satisfy."

Lex

I feel the same way about milk. But people who suffer mental illness or other kind of illness, they get poison from milk casein. Even raw milk has them. So we should be careful of drinking milk. I like to consume some fresh raw butter for extra fat than consuming milk. But definitely, that raw milk fat even doesn't work for my son. He likes and also he shows more improvement on raw meat fat, brain, marrows, tongue...etc.

I am not discouraging to consume raw milk. Raw milk and in general, milk products are delicious. People who suffer diabetics, raw milk works like magic for them
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 15, 2011, 12:18:48 pm
Josh,
People have a right to believe whatever they wish.  I like to have some real evidence to back up my beliefs and I think that my experiements as well as my lab work show that changes occur over long periods.  My cholesterol is a great example.  It started at 250+ and within 24 months had fallen to about 175.  Over the last 3 years it has slowly crept up to where it is now 207 if I remember correctly.  That's about 10 points per year.  I haven't changed anything I'm doing over that time yet cholesterol is still changing.  First a rapid drop and then a slow rise.

My weight followed a similar pattern.  It went from 215 or so and quickly dropped to a low of 148 over about an 18 month period.  It then slowly started to climb and is now around 160 where it is fairly stable as long as I don't over eat.  The weight gain has taken 3 years but for the first 18 months I could eat thousands of calories a day and I still lost weight.  Again, a rapid drop over the short term and then a slow rise, which would continue if I over eat and I have no doubt that I could be back to 200 if I wasn't careful.

It took about 18 months for urinary ketones to stabilize.  They rose rapidly and stayed high through the period of weight loss.  When I started gaining weight ketones dropped to between zero and trace and have stayted at this level ever since.

I'm not the only one who has experienced this.  Charles Washington of ZIOH fame thought I was wrong as well - untill he hit the 2 year mark or so and suddenly he started gaining weight again.  He was rather shocked as he had been telling people that this was impossible as long as you ate ZC.

There is much evidence that our bodies are continually adapting and when you make a radical dietary change, it can take months or years for all the effects to manifest themselves.  Lyle may not know this becasue none of the research he has done has allowed a stable dietary protocol over several year's period.  His studies are in weeks and months, and he's constantlhy cycling from high carb to low carb every few days.  Under these conditions he's probably right.  Any change that's going to show up will do so in the first couple of weeks.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 15, 2011, 12:34:25 pm
I am not discouraging to consume raw milk. Raw milk and in general, milk products are delicious. People who suffer diabetics, raw milk works like magic for them.

Many things are delicious, (I especially like chocolate chip cookies) but that doesn't make them good food for humans.  My guess is that if diabetics opted for water instead of milk the effect might be even more magical.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 15, 2011, 07:25:56 pm
Yes, and Kurt Harris has added beverage restriction to his protocol, limiting beverages to water-based ones:

Quote
1. Eliminate sugar (including fruit juices and sports drinks) and all caloric drinks, including milk. Drink water, tea or coffee.
http://www.archevore.com/get-started/
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 15, 2011, 09:55:49 pm

My weight followed a similar pattern.  It went from 215 or so and quickly dropped to a low of 148 over about an 18 month period.  It then slowly started to climb and is now around 160 where it is fairly stable as long as I don't over eat.  The weight gain has taken 3 years but for the first 18 months I could eat thousands of calories a day and I still lost weight.  Again, a rapid drop over the short term and then a slow rise, which would continue if I over eat and I have no doubt that I could be back to 200 if I wasn't careful.



Fascinating. I had no idea that was even possible. Good to know.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Josh on September 15, 2011, 10:41:17 pm
@Lex yes my experience fwiw has always made me think you're right. For me so far it has been a similar experience to altitude adaption, gradually getting more energy. I think there are not many long term studies on high fat diets and as he has no interest in looking at the Inuit or Paleo angle, just draws his own conclusions.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerVo on September 18, 2011, 10:58:28 am
hat do you usually eat? I know the ratio, but what are you eating to get the fat/protein?

I don't think I've seen what your meal plan looks like, but if you've written it already I'd appreciate it if someone would link me to the post.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 19, 2011, 10:18:15 am
What do you usually eat? I know the ratio, but what are you eating to get the fat/protein?

I don't think I've seen what your meal plan looks like, but if you've written it already I'd appreciate it if someone would link me to the post.

Tyler,  you can start here: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/lex's-journal/msg4377/#msg4377

Today I usually use rendered fat instead of fresh fat and I often mix 1 1/2 lbs pet food to 4 lbs regular ground beef, but the pictures should give you a pretty good idea.  I use rendered fat as it doesn't require freezer space.  I only have a 7 cuft freezer so space is limited and I'd prefer to use it for the lean meat and pet food rather than for the fat.  It is not ideal but is a resonable compromise that I'm willing to live with.

There are other postings throughout my journal that describe various variations.  I know it is tedious, but if you are really interested in what I'm doing and why, you may wish to read through my journal.  I expect it will answers many of your questions and will surely give you food for thought.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 11, 2011, 01:19:22 pm
I got the following note from a member of another forum.  I thought readers of my journal might be interested so I’m duplicating it here along with my reply.

Quote from: Dextery

Hi Lex,
I see you are still alive!
You may not have been keeping up with the latest Bru Ha Ha in the paleo world here on Jimmy Moore’s page. Lots of knives. http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/is-there-any-such-thing-as-safe-starches-on-a-low-carb-diet/11809 (http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/is-there-any-such-thing-as-safe-starches-on-a-low-carb-diet/11809)
Jimmy asked for comments about Paul Jamanet’s Safe starches in low carb and each expert...so to speak...offered their take. One was Kurt Harris who is in the camp of...... ok on safe starches and you can’t really survive well without them. I asked him about you and your carnivory. He replied as follows:
•   
•   
•   
    Dextery  4 hours ago in reply to Kurt Harris

•   How do you explain Lex Rooker being a total carnivore for the last four years eating a diet composed of 85% fat and 15% protein and zero carbs? He seems to be thriving without safe starches. You know his Dexa Scan is fine. And his lipids are fine. Lex does not appear to be deprived of glucose at all. His ketones are doing just fine.
•   Flag
•   LikeReplyReply
•   
    Kurt Harris  1 hour ago in reply to Dextery

•   How do you explain people surviving for years on vegan diets, even though it will kill you in the long run? It is not impossible that a person could go from the SAD to meat and water and get healthier, yet meat and water is the not the optimal diet or even a very good one. Look at Danny Roddy's experience. He was a protege of Lex Rooker and got scurvy...

Lex-
Did Danny actually get scurvy or was that a rumor created by Sisson? Is it true or not? I could not find anything on Danny’s site. Did KGH misstate the facts?
Hope everything is fine in the clock repairing business.
Thanks
Dextery

Hi Dextery,
Sorry for the late reply. I've been out of town teaching a 1 week antique clock repair class. Just got back a couple of hours ago.

I spend almost zero time on the forums arguing over diet. What I'm doing seems to be working well for me at this time so I have no reason to look for an alternative. I really don't want to get dragged into discussions over "Safe Starches" or any other bit of dietary esoterica, as there is no way to tell what is safe and what isn't. Every self-proclaimed guru seems to be able to make the case that whatever they've chosen to eat is safe, or good, or optimal, or whatever. As for me, the best I can do is say that what I'm currently doing seems to be working but if I start to have problems I'll change in a heartbeat.

I have dinner with Danny on occasion and he's never mentioned scurvy to me, but that doesn't mean much. We usually talk about other things when we get together. One thing I can say is that Danny has never been shy about pointing out both the good and the bad of his dietary adventures on his blog so if he didn't mention it there then there is a better than even chance that it is just a rumor.

Dr. Harris isn't the only one that tends to assume that because Danny and I enjoy each other’s company on occasion, and we often agree in principal on the subject of diet, that Danny, (and others like him), are doing what I'm doing and it is not working for them. This is just not true. Danny has never done what I'm doing. He decided to try his own experiment with eating nothing but pemmican made from dehydrated muscle meat and rendered fat. He and I often discussed that this might lead to problems over the long term, and he did finally terminate the experiment as he wasn't getting the results he expected. Was scurvy an issue there? I have no idea. All I know is that after eating nothing but pemmican for more than one year, he gave it up because it wasn't meeting his needs.

In my case, I eat all parts of the animal in the form of Slanker's pet food. It is very strong tasting and as far as I know there are very few souls brave enough to eat the way that I do. Those that try it don't last very long as they can't tolerate the taste. I've been eating this way for about 5 years now with no signs of problems. I attribute my success to the pet food - not the fact that I eat zero carb. My own experience shows that when I'm away from home and not able to eat my normal daily mix for an extended period of time, I start seeing signs of problems brewing. When I return to my mix everything goes back to normal.

I also allow my food to sit out at room temperature for several hours before eating it. It becomes rather sour tasting, sometimes with a bit of a fizz to it - especially on very warm days, indicating to me that it is teaming with bacteria. It could well be that the bacteria are producing the vitamins or other nutrients that are in short supply in fresh raw meat. I just know that in paleo times there was no refrigeration and that much of the food we would have eaten would be swarming with bacteria. Who's to say that rotting meat teaming with bacteria isn't a vital part of our diet? I have no way of knowing, but it seems to make sense to me so I try my best to emulate what our natural environment would be like without all the modern food preservation techniques.

As you can see, my diet and lifestyle are far from just a simple zero carb, meat-only, diet. My food is a complex mixture of all parts of the animal and the exact make-up of this mixture changes with every order based on what went into the mix at that time. Every order of pet food is different. I also let my food ferment for several hours and sometimes overnight so that it is teaming with bacteria.

When I stop eating this mix and just eat a normal zero carb diet of fresh muscle meats I soon begin to notice little things cropping up, so I return to my tried and true mix and all is well again. I also don't know of anyone else that eats exactly the way I do, so just because others agree with me in principal, the devil, as always, is in the details. Very few are willing to deal in details. They want a quick magic cure-all that requires little thought and delights their taste buds.

Lex


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: raw on October 11, 2011, 01:40:33 pm
My husband eats almost 2/3 lbs of muscle meat, combining with fresh liver, kidney fats, kidney, heart, brains and egg yolks. I put his meal on the table for over night and he eats them in the morning before he goes to work. Basically this is the only meal he eats for the day. At night, he eats some fruits sometimes. But he feels full most of the time for 24 hrs.

My son eats almost all parts of entire animal. I never bought the pet food like Lex, but definitely could save tremendous money on that while my farmer is making his fortune selling me eyes, thyroids, stomach and all other things.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 11, 2011, 07:14:43 pm
One thing I can say is that Danny has never been shy about pointing out both the good and the bad of his dietary adventures on his blog so if he didn't mention it there then there is a better than even chance that it is just a rumor.
He did talk about the red spots he got on his legs, and IIRC, I think he showed an image of it which looked much like what Mel of ZIOH experienced on an all-pemmican diet. Mel reported his issue was diagnosed as folic acid deficiency and which produces scurvy-like symptoms. Danny didn't report getting his issue diagnosed. Instead, he changed his diet and it resolved.

Quote
... I also don't know of anyone else that eats exactly the way I do, so just because others agree with me in principal, the devil, as always, is in the details. Very few are willing to deal in details. They want a quick magic cure-all that requires little thought and delights their taste buds.
I've seen that phenomenon with Stefansson and zero carbers assuming that because some Inuit people ate mostly meat that an all muscle-meat and water diet should be OK, and writing off raw foods, traditional cooking techniques, organs, stomach contents and other fermented foods, seaweeds, seasonal berries and other aspects of traditional Inuit diets as unimportant. That never made sense to me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 12, 2011, 07:16:29 am
P.S., it looks like Danny deleted the blog post about what he termed "petechiae" on his legs when he was on an all-pemmican diet, but if someone's interested they could try asking him about it via email. I have found him very helpful and friendly.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on October 12, 2011, 05:37:54 pm
... My own experience shows that when I'm away from home and not able to eat my normal daily mix for an extended period of time, I start seeing signs of problems brewing. When I return to my mix everything goes back to normal.
...
When I stop eating this mix and just eat a normal zero carb diet of fresh muscle meats I soon begin to notice little things cropping up, so I return to my tried and true mix and all is well again.

Hi Lex,

could you please describe these problems you get on a muscle meat + fat only zc diet?

I would like to find out which key elements are missing in muscle meat and fat.

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 13, 2011, 12:55:28 am
Nothing major, just small things that I used to consider normal but have found dissappear if I eat my normal food.  Things like cold sores, small patches of eczema, edema in hands and/or feet.

These things don't happen over night or by eating one or two odd meals.  They start to occur if I eat improperly over a couple of weeks or longer.  I don't get all of them at once.  Edema (swelling of feet and ankles, or puffy fingers) is usually the first thing to show up, followed by itchy patches of skin, and finally the occasionall cold sore though these don't always happen.  I've had this happen several times when I've been traveling for an extended period and my normal food is not available.  During these times I just eat the best choice of food available to me at the time which is usually grain fed meats, eggs and the like.  The fat I eat when traveling is butter as it is the only acceptable fat that is always available when eating out.  Also most of this stuff is cooked, though if I have the opportunity I ask for it rare.

Hope this helps,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on October 13, 2011, 04:31:32 pm
Yeah definitely Lex, a few days ago I went out to eat with a friend I haven't seen in a while. Was a Chinese buffet we chose. He knows how I eat hah. They had some salmon and other fish in butter and oysters, and crayfish ( I lucked out haha) I don't mind a rare steak or salmon in butter, to eat with some friends/family once in a while.

I would imagine you bring rendered fat or pemmican with you on trips. I guess eating out is another story though.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on October 14, 2011, 03:55:20 am
Nothing major, just small things that I used to consider normal but have found dissappear if I eat my normal food.  Things like cold sores, small patches of eczema, edema in hands and/or feet.
..

Thanks Lex!

During my last zero carb muscle meat experiment (fatty lamb only) I got small skin eczemas on the left side of my face. From my personal experience (without any proof from lab tests) I would say that a raw low carb diet consisting of some fruit plus fatty muscle meats plus some seafood every now and then is nutrient sufficient. I have done this in the last years for many months non-stop without any problems. Recently I lost the taste for nearly all organs. Today I got some raw grass-fed beef liver that tasted really toxic to me. Beef tongue is ok, but all other.. Muscle meat tastes fantastic every single day. Organ meats are usually dirt cheap, for me that makes sense.

There are some reports in the paleo sphere about folic acid deficiencies on zc muscle meat diets. Maybe this is the key factor? In this case liver would be a must on all zc diets.

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 14, 2011, 08:45:26 am
Yes, I do think liver and other organs are a must on an all-meat diet, though technically this would mean that it's not truly zero carb, which is one reason why Zero Carbers tend to claim that liver is not important, as it doesn't fit with their dogma, plus liver is not generally popular with Americans.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 14, 2011, 11:00:41 am
My guess is that if you don't eat organ meats on a regular basis then some fruit and/or green plant food is necessary to good health.  All carnivores that I'm aware of eat the entire animal.  If we choose to be carnivorous, then we must do likewise.

This also supports my contention that when the Cree Natives put dried berries in their pemmican it wasn't to please the whiteman's pallet.  They did it because pemmican is made from muscle meats and muscle meats alone will not support good health.  Of course this is pure speculation on my part, but if you've ever added the small amount of fruit (5%-10% by weight) to pemmican you'd know that there is very little taste difference between pemmican with fruit and pemmican without.  No one would choose to add fruit to pemmican for the taste as the fat and dehydrated meat just overpower it.  It's not at all like adding dry fruit to a bland grain based bar.  Native Americans were also very efficient.  Their traditions evolved over many centuries and the work was so time consuming that I doubt that they would add an extra step or ingredient to a process unless it was necessary.   Why would they spend the time to harvest, dry, and grind berries to be added to pemmican if it wasn't critical to the process.  I've made pemmican both ways and I can assure you that adding 5%-10% dry strawberry or blueberry powder to pemmican doesn't transform it into a fruity tasting Pop-Tart. 

Records indicate that pemmican was used as a base and eaten with other foods and also eaten alone.  My guess is that the pemmican without fruit was probably used when other foods were available to supplement, and the pemmican with fruit was used when it was the only food eaten.

Danny Roddy tried eating a pemmican-only diet for over a year, but his results were disappointing over the long term.  It might be interesting to re-run the experiment only this time add a small amount of dehydrated fruit to the pemmican.  The fruit would need to be a high nutrition low sugar fruit like strawberries, saskatoon berries, blue berries, etc.  Might even be able to use commercial super food supplements like Super Reds Formula from Purity Products.  It's worth thinking about.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on October 14, 2011, 11:30:14 am
Wow interesting insight Lex. I agree completely.

 It seems some semi sweet fruit like berries actually helps me when I only have muscle meat over long periods. It seems, just cause you don't need much of a certain nutrient, doesn't mean you don't need it at all.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: raw on October 15, 2011, 01:14:48 pm
I get the prove  on only eating the whole animal. Basically, you don't need to consume anything extra, like fruits or veggies... no need of them. My four yrs old cries for to eat raw meat. It likes he almost forgets about the other fruits to eat, even I grow them in my garden. He eats fruits sometimes once a week or every two three days, depends on his mood. But he absolutely likes meat organs, bone marrows, brain and tongue...etc. Now I am feeding my husband also enough organs with muscle meat and he is also behaving almost like my son.  Of course, one meal 7 am in the morning, gives him the energy for entire day for almost 24 hrs. His co-workers think that he is very cheap to buy lunch or probably he is starving himself to save money.  One raw vegan guy (by birth he is raw vegan), he carries entire kitchen with him everyday in his office while my husband works with him and eats nothing...
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sully on October 15, 2011, 03:31:55 pm
One raw vegan guy (by birth he is raw vegan), he carries entire kitchen with him everyday in his office while my husband works with him and eats nothing...
That's how I am. I don't eat frequently at all. If I work at night I eat on my break. But even then I go without until I get home. It's easy for me to fast as long as I had enough meat the day prior. I am working 9am to 4pm, I go without and still I am not hungry sometimes even when I get home. And my job is very physical.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: zeno on December 13, 2011, 12:34:47 am
Dear Lex,

Pardon the redundancy, but I have two simple questions: as of now are you still mainly relying on Slanker'spet food product as your meat source?

In the past you've made it clear that you don't believe in cooking your food but I remember that you claimed to rendering your fat. Do you still eat rendered fat?

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on December 13, 2011, 06:11:39 am
Hello Lex and friends. When I first joined this forum I read your entire journal Lex - every last word - even the ones that had to be repeated.  ;)  It took me weeks some days reading all day non-stop. More recently when you spoke to the issue of not expecting the same results if people didn't do exactly what you do, I appreciated that a great deal. I thank you for making your journey and sharing it with us in your journal in such a down to earth common-sense manner. It's so refreshing to come across someone who comments on what they do that works for them without pontificating about how everyone else ought to be doing it.   

In an attempt to add some value to your journal I thought that I would add some information I learned about Slankers that might be of interest.

Their Primal Ground Beef mix is different from their Pet Food in more ways than is apparent. The primal is so fine-ground that it is almost buttery - but that is the superficial part. The fact that it is inspected and ground at the same facility as all their human-grade meats whereas the pet food is not inspected and ground at a different facility might also be only superficial -- but what is not superficial is the content of the mix. The primal ground beef is around 60% organ and 40% beef trim whereas the pet food is only 10% organ and the high organ pet food is only 20% organ. Also, there are only 4 organs used in the primal mix whereas the pet food has those organs, but occasionally - more diversity. The primal food stays more stable, it is usually pretty much the same from batch to batch whereas the Pet food changes every batch depending on what's available for it.

My husband and I like the primal mix a great deal because of the fine grind and the taste.  But, if you are planning on trying to do an all meat diet with more variety to get closer to the experience of eating a whole animal - then you would need to eat the pet food - according to my understanding. The pet food is very chunky and (especially when it ferments like you do with it Lex) it indeed might not be to some people's taste. My husband even tried cooking it rare as soon as it defrosted and I smothered it with egg yolks and sauces and still could not tolerate it. We're just can't seem to tolerate real whole natural foods like you can Lex! ;D The pet food we reserve for our little doggie carnivores. There is supposed to be no bone in either the primal or the pet mix.

If you are looking to get more fat without rendering -- the chili meat does have chunks of fat in it but they also have a high fat ground beef mix that is 30% fat (they achieve this by adding back fat to the mix - they rarely have any back fat to sell on its own). They also have marrow bones - but they are cut in such a way that is not easy to get the raw marrow out raw. You have to dig it out with a long, thin knife. It takes effort - but is worth it as it is delicious - but if you have a source that will cut it shorter - I would stick with that. The "soft" bones for your dogs are not actually soft btw. My dogs do not have good teeth so that was a waste. They are not very useful for broth either. You're better off with the marrow bones for that.

Here are some other hints. The meat comes in very bad bags that leak from all parts (what a mess our first defrost was!)  I have to put the bags flat in a large glass container or standing propped up with paper towels in a smaller bowl to defrost it. Also, even though I live in Texas (and it's the coldest part of the year here) the meat was partially defrosted when it arrived (probably from being on the UPS truck where heat can build). You have to be ready to defrost it all right away or be ok with re-freezing it. The suet is in a massive chunk so the only way to deal with it is to defrost and re-freeze or render it or share it with lots of others (maybe the birds?). They seem to have times where things are not available or shipping will take awhile. My first order took a week to get to me because of Thanksgiving and my last order they were out of Pet food because of Deer season - so you have to think ahead with them it seems (or at least I do). If you live in Texas or places close to Slankers it is cheaper to order over the phone for shipping than the internet prices. You might want to compare the two before you order. They also have discounts if you buy larger quantity - which is easy for us with the dogs which makes them quite reasonably priced. The bad side could be all the packaging - but I'm saving all the insulation to insulate a place for our feral cats to stay warm. If you can recycle it into a new use then there's no downside to that.

The Primal mix is a good find if you cannot tolerate organs on their own and don't want to have to try to grind and mix (like me). Granted, Slankers is not organic, but on a relative basis they are pretty into doing things in more of a more natural way than you will find most places.

I am going to try to find an even more local source for a farmer and processing plant to grind up an entire animal for us in the spring. Even grinding up an old ewe and having to pick it up far away I found was going to be a couple of dollars a pound more than Slankers. I will keep on searching for more local sources of whole ground animal - but I'm very happy to have found this source thanks to Lex here.

Hope that's of use to someone.
Thanks again Lex!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on December 13, 2011, 10:43:15 am
Also, there are only 4 organs used in the primal mix whereas the pet food has those organs, but occasionally - more diversity.

Hi Dorothy,

thanks for your report!
Which organ meats do they use in the primal mix?

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on December 13, 2011, 11:32:04 am
Hi Dorothy,

thanks for your report!
Which organ meats do they use in the primal mix?

Löwenherz


You're welcome. :D

The organs in the primal ground are liver, heart, spleen and kidneys.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 24, 2011, 11:19:42 am
Pardon the redundancy, but I have two simple questions: as of now are you still mainly relying on Slanker'spet food product as your meat source?

Yes, I still use Slankers pet food as my main ORGAN meat source.  I mix it with a good bit of Slankers regular ground beef.  I tried their primal mix, but missed the chewy bits and occasional bone chips that are in the pet food.  The primal mix also tastes rather bland whereas the pet food is a bit more robust and each batch is different depending on what went into the mix.

In the past you've made it clear that you don't believe in cooking your food but I remember that you claimed to rendering your fat. Do you still eat rendered fat?

I'm not sure I said that I don't believe in cooking my food.  I think what I said was that no other animal cooks its food and therefore, it seems reasonable that we shouldn't cook ours either.  That said, yes I do render my fat for two reasons:
1) it is much easier to store as once rendered it doesn't require refrigeration, and 2) I make a good bit of pemmican to send as samples as well as for demonstrations to Scout Troops, Church Youth Groups, Hiking Clubs, and the like.  At the demos I render a couple of pounds so that people can see what to do, but supply pre-rendered fat for making the bulk of the pemmican.  I render about 150 lbs of fat a year, and do it all over one weekend in June or July.

Other than that, I eat out several times per month and usually eat lightly cooked food on these occasions.  It is my custom to order ribeye steaks extra rare when available, but will settle for whatever is the most paleo friendly thing on the menu if necessary.  On occasion I'm stuck with Caesar Salmon Salad or other such fare and in that case I order 3 servings of the salmon on the salad, a 1/2 cup melted butter to get some fat, and leave the green stuff in the bowl for the dishwasher.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 24, 2011, 11:48:29 am
Thanks for such a wonderful post Dorothy.  I'm so glad you found my journal of value.  I do try to accurately report my experiences and then it is up to others to decide for themselves what they wish to do.

I've tried Slankers Primal Mix and found it to pasty and bland for my taste.  I'm so used to the pet food with the chewy chunks and occasional bone chips that the finely ground stuff they make for humans seems boring.

I used to order the chili meat on a regular basis but for the past couple of years have just settled on the regular ground beef for convenience.  I'm much more about working in my shop or doing other things I enjoy than spending hours agonizing over food, so I keep things very simple and consistent.  I doubt if I spend more than 30 - 45 minutes per day total on food including prep time and time to eat.

You are certainly right about the cheap bags they pack the meat in.  I usually set my meat out over night in 9x13x2 glass baking dishes and let it defrost.  When I mix everything I just poor the liquid back into the mix.

I wish you all the best on your dietary adventure.  If I can help in any way don't hesitate to ask.  I try to check my journal every few days and respond to posts, but often times I'm away from home for several days at a time teaching antique clock repair classes or giving Jerky / pemmican demos and I'm probably the only person left on earth that doesn't carry internet access around in their pocket whereever they go.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: zeno on December 25, 2011, 08:33:02 am
Yes, I still use Slankers pet food as my main ORGAN meat source.  I mix it with a good bit of Slankers regular ground beef.

I'm surprised you enjoy the pre-frozen meat. It just doesn't do me any good and doesn't taste all that good either in my opinion...

I think what I said was that no other animal cooks its food and therefore, it seems reasonable that we shouldn't cook ours either. 

Ha-ha--I beg your pardon. Now that I recall, I believe you said that exact statement.

Lex, perhaps you can help me to understand fat to lean meat ratios in a low-carbohydrate diet. When people are asked how much they eat of fat relative to lean meat, they often answer somewhere around 80%. Does this mean that one would be eating 80% fat by weight or caloric content? This is something I've never understood.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 25, 2011, 02:24:02 pm
I'm surprised you enjoy the pre-frozen meat. It just doesn't do me any good and doesn't taste all that good either in my opinion...

To be honest, none of this food tastes like chocolate chip cookies no matter where it comes from, but it should be pretty clear that I don't spend much time on taste or fancy presentation.  I eat to satisfy my hunger and nutritional needs and that's about it.  It's sort of the barefoot approach to eating - basic in the extreme.

Lex, perhaps you can help me to understand fat to lean meat ratios in a low-carbohydrate diet. When people are asked how much they eat of fat relative to lean meat, they often answer somewhere around 80%. Does this mean that one would be eating 80% fat by weight or caloric content? This is something I've never understood. 

We usually mean 80% of calories from fat.  This equates to about 30% fat by weight.  I personally stay in the region of 70% to 75% of calories from fat (about 20% to 25% of fat by weight)most of the time.  When I get upwards of 80% of calories from fat or above, I find that a lot of the fat is not digested and it is eliminated as soft pasty stools that float.  With too much fat in the diet, a bowel movement is akin to squeezing a tube of toothpaste.  Since the fat is not digested, it is calories wasted so why eat it.

Remember that I'm eating ALL the fat in my meat because I eat it raw.  Most people purchase ground beef with 30% fat (and therefore 80% of calories from fat) because it is the cheapest, but then they cook it until much of the fat is rendered out and they eat the cooked meat and throw the fat away.  Meat cooked medium to well done can lose 75%-95% of its fat content.  If you throw the fat away, the cooked meat might only contain between 15% to 35% of calories from fat.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: zeno on December 27, 2011, 01:52:08 am
We usually mean 80% of calories from fat.  This equates to about 30% fat by weight. 

Wow. So your diet doesn't require as much fat as I originally thought it would. I thought the ratio of fat to lean meat was determined by weight so that if you were to eat a pound of meat it would be 80% fat and 20% lean (approximately).

I believe you stated that you are eating 2,000 calories worth of food per day. Is that true? How much does 2,000 calories of meat weigh?                                                                                                                   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 27, 2011, 05:53:51 am
I believe you stated that you are eating 2,000 calories worth of food per day. Is that true? How much does 2,000 calories of meat weigh? 

Assuming that my meat contains about 25% fat by weight (about 76% of calories from fat), I usually eat between 1 1/2 to 2 lbs per day.  This would have the following breakdown:
                                                         
                                                          1 1/2 lbs               1 3/4 lbs                  2lbs
Total Calories                                1,995                     2,325                     2,658
Grams Protein                                  107                       125                          143
Grams Fat                                          170                       198                          227

My guess is that I average somewhere between 1 1/2 and 1 3/4 lbs per day unless I'm doing a lot of physical labor and then I'll eat 2 lbs or maybe even a bit more.  95% of the time I only eat one meal per day at around 2pm and I eat until I'm satisfied.  When digging trenches for sprinkler systems or other physical work I'll often eat a second meal around 6pm because I am hungry again, and again I eat until I'm satified, but this time it only takes about 1/2 - 3/4 lb of food to satify me.

When eating out I always order 2 ribeye steaks (usually 1 lb each) extra rare.  Since these don't have as much fat I can eat more.   

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on December 28, 2011, 09:45:50 am
So Lex - do you have a sense on a typical day how many of your calories (the percentage of your diet) come from your rendered fat?

Lex - I love how you keep your food in proper perspective to your overall life and goals. It sounds like you have a greater mission and occupation with your rendering that serves others.  :D  For those not so inclined (and doing this just for themselves like my husband and I are) it is quite easy to keep a Slankers order very high in fat and have it all raw if someone wishes to.

Slankers sells big hunks of suet that arrive frozen. These are probably what you use for your rendering right Lex? If you take this hunk and break it apart while still frozen you can take a section and with a very sharp knife slice it on the edges to make crumbled suet or slice it very thin for mincing into tiny bits. I was surprised at how easy it was. I mistakenly thought it had to be defrosted - but it's much easier to handle when still frozen. You can mix this with your chunky pet meat so that you have all raw fat with your meal as it gets soft and mixes in as it defrosts or you can take slices, put them in a glass container, put them in the freezer and just take out a slice and put it in your mouth to chew on (which I think is delicious and I prefer to do). If you have cats or dogs or certain species of birds as pets - they would love it if you share! I'm much more popular in the animal kingdom when I have suet.  ;)

Slankers also sells marrow bones - but it's not nearly as simple and is certainly is not as economical. I have to admit though that my favorite way to add fat to ground meat is still with egg yolks from my chickens. yum.

The primal mix is also much higher in fat content because it is so high in organ meat. Also, their regular ground comes in a high fat version and a low fat version. I think the high fat is about 30% fat and the low fat is 10% if I remember right. That I'd imagine would have to be taken into consideration. Which one do you order Lex? If I remember you used to order the chili meat. That one was way too chunky for our initiated and untrained tastes. It is much like the pet food in it's chunkiness. It did have big chunks of fat in it so I bet it was pretty high fat. I don't know what percentage fat the chili mix is compared to the other mixes... do you know Lex? Figuring out the percentages and calories can't be easy... at least for someone mathematically challenged like me!  ;)

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on December 28, 2011, 04:00:20 pm
  If you have cats or dogs or certain species of birds as pets - they would love it if you share!

    Do you have a cat that likes suet? I haven't tried it on mine. One of my cats seems to dislike all fats, except liver.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 29, 2011, 02:10:47 pm
So Lex - do you have a sense on a typical day how many of your calories (the percentage of your diet) come from your rendered fat?

Probably 45% of calories comes from rendered fat.

Slankers sells big hunks of suet that arrive frozen. These are probably what you use for your rendering right Lex?

When I render fat I do about 150 lbs of fat at a time.  Slankers can't provide that amount of fat.  Our forum and others like it have created a large demand for fat and Slankers has a tough time keeping up.  For rendered fat I purchase locally from Marin Sun Farms in the San Francisco area.  They have very good grass fed beef and can also supply large amounts of fat.  The problem is that they don't ship - you have to pick it up at one of their retail locations.  Since I reneder only once a year, it pays me to drive 300 miles to get the fat.  For day to day meat, I perfer to order from Slankers, because they will ship.  Driving 300 miles to get a month or two worth of meat is not cost effective, and I don't have storage space for more.  This is one reason that I render fat.  I can store it without refrigeration. 

If you take this hunk and break it apart while still frozen you can take a section and with a very sharp knife slice it on the edges to make crumbled suet or slice it very thin for mincing into tiny bits. I was surprised at how easy it was. I mistakenly thought it had to be defrosted - but it's much easier to handle when still frozen.

I used to do this but I just don't have the storage room.  Space is limited and I have a very small freezer (7cu.ft.) that I use for my food.   Storing frozen fat takes up a good amount of space.  Messing with frozen fat also takes up a lot of time when preparing meals.  I prefer to spend my time doing the things I love to do like working in my shop or playing with my grand daughter. 

Slankers also sells marrow bones - but it's not nearly as simple and is certainly is not as economical. I have to admit though that my favorite way to add fat to ground meat is still with egg yolks from my chickens. yum.

I don't use marrow bones except on special occasions because they take too much time away from my other interests.  I spend very little time in food preparation - maybe 45 minutes every 10 days or so when I prepare my mix and divide it into daily portions.  I eat very few eggs.  Maybe 3 or 4 times a year when traveling and sausage and eggs are the only thing that even remotely resembles paleo on the menu. Eggs would be very seasonal in our natural environment and even then finding eggs with yolks would be difficult.  Most eggs in the wild would be well on their way to becoming birds, and they would only be available about 6 to 8 weeks out of the year.  Therefore I don't make them a significant part of my diet.

The primal mix is also much higher in fat content because it is so high in organ meat.

I've tried the primal mix but prefer the pet food.  The primal mix is ground too fine and is like paste to me.  I like the chewy chunks,  bits of bone, and other textures in the pet food.  It is also very bland tasting compared to the pet food.

Also, their regular ground comes in a high fat version and a low fat version. I think the high fat is about 30% fat and the low fat is 10% if I remember right. That I'd imagine would have to be taken into consideration. Which one do you order Lex? If I remember you used to order the chili meat.

I order all of the above as the mood suits me and depending on what Slankers has in stock when I order.  Sometimes they are out of one thing or another and I have to substitue something else.  My normal order is the regular ground beef as I prefer to pay the high price for lean meat and add my own less expensive local fat (usually rendered but sometimes fresh).  Second is the chili meat and last is the high fat stuff.  I don't want to pay $5+/lb for fat just because they mixed it into the ground meat.  I pay a little over $1 per lb for my local fat.

I don't know what percentage fat the chili mix is compared to the other mixes... do you know Lex?

Everytime I've tested the chili meat it comes in with about the same fat content as the regular ground beef which is between 10% and 12% by weight.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on January 07, 2012, 01:58:38 am
Thanks so much for responding Lex... and Happy New Year to you.

Ah - the beauty of diversity! My husband and I only like the primal meat from Slankers because instead of "pasty" we think it's "buttery". ;) The other meats have the consistency to us of, well, dog food! lol  I'm sure the chunkier food is more natural and that our taste buds have been adulterated from a lifetime of pastiness.  ;D  I think it's great that we have the choice. Again, though, for doing what you do Lex eating the whole animal in the pet food might be necessary anyway -  so primal is probably not even an alternative choice. You sometimes get brains and adrenals and all the other parts - whereas with the primal I never get those. It also seems that my relationship with food is quite different than yours Lex. I have a lovely kitchen in which I greatly enjoy being creative and spending time and sitting down to an attractive meal prepared with love is one of my great joys in life. I have other interests and hobbies too - but I consider food to be one of my hobbies. I don't feel like it detracts, but adds to my life. I also delight in sharing food with others that I love. That's one of the reason why I enjoy sharing food with my pets so much now that we are getting deliveries from Slankers. Sitting outside with the dogs, cats and chickens all around eating the same thing I eat in a circle tickles me silly. And yes RawZi - the cats go NUTS for the raw suet! So do the chickens and the dogs. We all sit around chewing on it together. I don't eat anywhere near the amounts that you do Lex of the suet and especially with all the sharing you do with the scouts and groups and how generous you are with other paleos. One package of suet only takes 5 minutes to prepare with an extremely sharp knife and lasts a very, very long time for me even sharing it with my pets so it takes little room in the freezer. 

I can totally understand Lex how food is not for others what it is for me and I can deeply appreciate how you have made it work so well for you within your set of priorities. What you've done is a thing of beauty - making your food fit into and support your life the way you have. I've wondered something through your journal though ........ I have wondered how your wife eats...... and if she shares your attitudes towards your food and if she shares your food with you. I have wondered if having seen the difference in you that your diet has made if she has joined you? What does she think about how you eat?

I'm not sure where I am that eggs would be so restricted in access. The last couple of months I haven't had eggs because no one is laying in winter (which only lasts a couple of months - but most of the year besides my chickens there are lots of animals laying eggs and they are easy to get. But besides that, I'm nowhere near as pristine an eater as you are Lex. I have learned a great deal from you that has changed the way I eat, but me eating as you do is not in the cards because I don't think it's best for me as an individual and my lifestyle and I'm not fighting any of the problems that you have so miraculously conquered through your all meat/organ/fat diet. You have come from a place of great infirmity and found health through extremity. I don't have your motivations -- but your example is important -- especially for those with similar motivations -- and I bet there are many!

Here's a thought - if you are eating 30% fat Lex - wouldn't eating the dog food mixed with the high fat meat be all that is necessary (albeit more expensive)? If one were to eat say one package of the high fat meat a day (which would seem more than sufficient for most people I would think - wouldn't it?) that would only be about a dollar a day more and then there would be no need for the buying of and rendering or slicing and mixing of suet or other fat. If someone has different priorities, considering the amount one will save with such a change of diet cutting out all other expensive foods, still, one could eat quite easily, all raw, for comparatively very little money.  One wouldn't even need to do much of anything except once a day defrost one package of high fat meat and less often a package of pet food. That would be the easiest way to eat using the least time and effort that I can think of - and I think it would meet your requirements of 30% fat right? Basically, for about a dollar a day you would be paying Slankers to get the back fat and mix it in your meals for you and have literally no driving expenses or time needed for preparation. To make sure I'm understood here - Lex - I know what you are doing is working great for you and those you help - this is just an idea for someone who might have even more time and ease restriction/desires and who wants their food to be 100% raw. It's just an idea that I'm putting out there just in case it is of interest to anyone. I'm not saying that I think it's imperative in general to eat everything all raw or anything like that. I just know for me that fat in particular is best raw for my own body. Maybe my liver isn't quite as strong or something? So for me, it's worth the extra work or extra expense to get my fats raw and so maybe others have the same concern....... hence the shared thoughts. It's nice that there is an easy alternative that fits your regime if someone wants to experiment with it.   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 07, 2012, 11:54:00 am
Dorothy,
First, no, my wife doesn't eat as I do.  She is Greek (born and raised in Greece in the mid 1940's) so food as a social thing is very important to her.  She suffers from diabetes, gall stones, very high triglycerides, cholesterol off the charts, blocked bile ducts (requiring medical intervention every couple of years), and rheumatoid arthritis that is slowly disfiguring the joints in her fingers.  She knows that she can control much of this with diet, but in her words "I eat what Greeks eat", and that's the end of that.  It is her life and she makes her choices just as I make my choices and we both must live with the consequences of our decisions.

We have a very high tech kitchen.  We cook on two $3,000 Gaggenau induction hobs.  We have a $7,000 Dacor convection oven and other nice toys.  We have a second full Bosh Stove in the garage (the "Dream Kitchen") as well as a second refrigerator and my freezer, which competes for space with my table saws, metal lathes, mills, and workbench etc.  Why all the kitchen stuff?  Well I'm famous for my Chocolate Chip, Coconut Macadamia Nut, and Oatmeal cookies and killer apple pies.  I've often baked 150 dozen cookies, and 30 apple pies over a weekend for charitable events.  I've also done dozens of wedding cakes, and my wife bakes bread regularly.  We host family gatherings several times per year and it is not unusual to have 50 people or more attend.  If we aren't hosting then another member of the family is (my wife has four sisters within a 30 minute drive or so, and yes, they have many of the same health problems as my wife), and all share cooking duties.  In short, even though I don't cook anything I eat, or eat anything I bake, our kitchen gets lots of use.  I'll be making a Pistachio Chocolate Swirl cake for my daughter's mother-in-law's birthday on Sunday. 

I don't recommend that anyone be as strict as I am.  I do so because of my age, my previous vegan lifestyle, and the health problems I created for myself.  For most people I recommend that they eat mostly red meat and fat, drink mainly water, and choose one or two of the following each day:  a small serving of vegetable, small salad, piece of fruit, or a small serving of a starchy root vegetable.  There is certainly no magic in Zero Carb and I'm not even sure Zero Carb is desirable or necessary for most people, and that includes me.  I just continue with it because it is working well for me at this time and it is simple and convenient.  I assure you that if I start to see problems of any kind I'll take my own advice and add in a few veggies, small salad, bit of fruit or the occasional starchy root.  If/when this occurs, I'll dutifully report it here.

As for Slankers high fat ground beef, I order it on occasion and find that it consistently measures out at about 18% fat which is still a little low.  Yes, I know that they say it is 22% but they don't actually test it.  They just add about 20 lbs of fat to every 100 lbs of lean meat and assume it will come in around 22%.  This is very simple to do at the packing house as it requires no skill or fancy measurements.  Here's how the numbers work out:

100 lbs of lean meat containing about 2% fat which is 2 lbs of actual fat.
add in 20 lbs of fat and your total weight is now 120 lbs.

Take the 22 lbs of fat (20 lbs you added and 2 lbs that were in the lean meat) and divide it by the total weight of 120 lbs and you end up with 18.3% fat by weight.  Surprise! this is almost exactly what I measure when I test it.

With the pet food coming it at 16-17% fat,  it is clear that I still have to add a good bit of fat to get to my normal average of about 25%.  If I'm going to have to add fat any way, why pay $5/lb for some of it just because they add it to the ground meat at the packing plant.  I may as well just purchase cheaper fat and add all the fat myself.  By saving that $1 per day, at the end of the month I have $30.  I can purchase about 30 lbs of local fat with $30 which, when combined with Slankers normal ground beef and pet food, is enough fat to meet my dietary needs for about 3 months.  This means that by April, my savings have paid for all the fat I will need for the entire year.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on January 07, 2012, 02:05:19 pm
Well - isn't it just sad that when they say 30% fat it doesn't mean 30% fat at all? So much for that idea!  l)  If you have to add fat then of course why bother paying extra? How do you measure the fat content Lex? It sounded so easy that it could be worth it - but so much for truth in advertising.  ;) I guess if someone is going to imitate you they must either render fat or add raw suet because there are no options with enough fat added to the ground meat and there's not enough in the pet food. I bet there is more fat in the primal though because of it's extremely high organ meat content. Did you measure the fat content of the primal blend by any chance?

That's some story about your kitchens and all your cooking Lex! I don't think I could do what you do. My kitchen is much more simple and geared towards my raw food tendencies. I had a counter put lower so that it would be easier to use my juicers and food processors and such and I have a warming drawer instead of a microwave. It still has all the basic cooking abilities - but I also have an adjacent room for my dehydrators, ferments,  tinctures and all that raw jazz. I do quite well with a very high percentage of vegetable, fruit and seed matter and can make some pretty yummy desert things - but I don't think I could do what you do making regular cookies and cakes for people. That takes some serious will power! Raw halvah, pies, raw healthy cookies etc. fine .. but those work for me so they are easy to share. It never ceases to amaze me how people can choose eating habits over being free of serious diseases.... but I've seen it so many times that I don't doubt what you say about your wife. We certainly do have to make our own choices and let others make their own choices and even when we decide to do the right thing for ourselves we have to figure out what that is! Kudos to you for figuring it out.  I have to admit that it's hard for me to witness people blowing up though. I still get sad when I watch family member suffer and die because they refuse to change even when the information is so close to them. At this age - it's happening way too often for comfort. Sigh. You do what you can right? Your journal reaches the WILLING.... and that's the first step..... willingness to try. Social and family pressures along with taboos is the first hurdle. Many equate food with culture. I eat like a Greek. I guess one could replace that with I eat like an American or I eat like whatever my family or friends eat like. Your maverick nature and example Lex might not have been able to break through to your wife's sense of self as connected to food, but sure seems to have influenced many others to try to help themselves. Your example of having the will to turn from those cookies even though they taste good to you and are right there and your family is eating them makes you into a model for others to attempt to emulate. I will imagine you in my mind's eye in your workshop with the smell of fresh cookies and you sticking to your guns the next time I have a tough food temptation in front of me.


 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on January 07, 2012, 06:03:47 pm
One thing I noticed whenever I visited Greece was the huge amount of cooked grease often  found on the various dishes.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on January 07, 2012, 08:52:45 pm
Hi Lex,

have you seen any changes in your PSA levels?

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 11, 2012, 03:54:34 am
Dorothy,
I use an FA73 commercial fat analyzer.  It is a small unit about 6" square and you put a precisely measured amount of meat in it and it cooks out the fat which drips into a small vial.  You then measure the height of the fat in the vial and it tells you how much fat is in the sample by % of weight.  This is the same unit that is used by meat markets and grocery stores to assure that they are meeting USDA standards when they label the fat content of their ground meat.  The device is very simple, but they charge over $500 for it.

I measured the Primal Beef and it came out in the 18%-19% range.

Tyler,
They love their olive oil.  My wife drenches everything in it.  It seems that if they don't add 2 cups of olive oil to every dish they don't think it is worth eating.  They also cook everything to death.  If there is the slightest bit of pink in the meat, many Greeks won't eat it.  I think the olive oil thing comes from being a poor country and needing calories to work hard in the fields all day (which no one does anymore).  They cook everything with lots of oil and then dredge slices of bread in it when eating.  It provides calories where meat is scarse.  I know my wife said it was a big deal that on Sunday they got to have chicken.  One chicken was divided between a family of 8.  Obviously no one got much.  The rest of the week was potatoes, greens, or squashes cooked in lots of olive oil and served with bread.

Lowenherz,

PSA levels have risen slowly over the past few years.  I remember 20 years ago when they were .5.  Now they are running 2 - 2.5.  Like everything else we measure, I'm not totally sure what it means, but at this point my doctor is not concerned.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on January 13, 2012, 02:42:29 am
..She suffers from diabetes, gall stones, very high triglycerides, cholesterol off the charts, blocked bile ducts (requiring medical intervention every couple of years), and rheumatoid arthritis that is slowly disfiguring the joints in her fingers.  She knows that she can control much of this with diet, but in her words "I eat what Greeks eat", and that's the end of that.  It is her life and she makes her choices just as I make my choices and we both must live with the consequences of our decisions.

Does your wife eat a lot of complex carbs?

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: zeno on January 14, 2012, 10:19:19 am
For most people I recommend that they eat mostly red meat and fat, drink mainly water, and choose one or two of the following each day:  a small serving of vegetable, small salad, piece of fruit, or a small serving of a starchy root vegetable. 

What starchy root vegetable would you recommend and what is your recommendation for the preparation? I'm under the impression that most starchy root vegetables (like potatoes) are harmful when eaten raw.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 16, 2012, 05:23:37 am
Does your wife eat a lot of complex carbs?

She eats lots of carbs both simple and complex.  Every meal is carb based, (pasta, rice, potatoes, bread etc.).  Loves her deserts: candy, cake, cookies, ice cream etc.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 16, 2012, 05:35:43 am
What starchy root vegetable would you recommend and what is your recommendation for the preparation? I'm under the impression that most starchy root vegetables (like potatoes) are harmful when eaten raw. 

I really don't have any recommendations as to what to choose to eat.  You'll have to decide that for yourself.  There are pros and conns for everything (including meat!).  As for cooking starches, I can verify that raw root starches are difficult to digest.  When I was a vegetarian I found that potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, sprouted grains, sprouted beans etc don't digest as well raw as when they are cooked.  I might even make the leap of intuition that it was the  inclusion of these plant foods to our diet that started the cooking revolution - but that is just a guess.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 04, 2012, 12:08:50 am
Trouble may be brewing in paradise as I'm begining to notice some relatively minor problems poping up.  Some may be due to just getting older, some may just be ongoing issues not related to diet, and some may be be attributable to my Zero Carb diet.  As they say on Fox News, I’ll report and you can decide.

As I’ve reported previously in this journal I suffer from BPH (enlarged prostate) and take an Alpha blocker (Doxasozin) to help make passing urine easier.  I’ve been taking 2mg/day for almost 10 years but have recently upped the dose to 4mg/day.  This would indicate that the problem is slowly getting worse so the ZC diet may have slowed the progress but it hasn’t  stopped it.  Not sure where to go from here on this issue.  May try some of the herbal remedies, but if I did so, I don’t think I could say that I was eating Zero Carb in good conscience.  The herbal remedies may be tablets of concentrated plant extracts, but this only means that if I were actually eating the plants themselves, I’d be eating a lot of them.  I’m currently looking at “The Prostate Formula” from Real Health Laboratories which has good reviews, as well as “Crila” which seems to be a relative newcomer to the field and is a plant extract from Vietnam.  Neither of these is a cure, but they may reduce the dependence on the more invasive Alpha blocker drugs.

Due to the BPH and associated urine retention I tend to suffer from bouts of prostatisis (inflamed prostate) and general bacterial urinary track infections.  The last episode was about 18 months ago and as is usual for this sort of thing I ended up in the emergency room on a weekend with a fever of 102+F and voiding small amounts of urine every 20 minutes or so, with the usual painful burning and the whole nine yards.  It was a slow day in the emergency room so I got the Full Monty treatment.  Started with a catheter to check urine output (this took 8 hours), IV antibiotics, CT scan to check to see if my old kidney stone problem had returned (it hadn’t), and finally a prescription for Cipro, and instructions to see my personal doctor within the next couple of days.  Good thing I followed up as my doctor took a urine sample to send to the lab for testing. Ended up being a Staph infection that was resistant to Cipro, (as well as most other common antibiotics), and by the time we got it under control, bladder, kidneys, and prostate were all involved.  Was on an 8 week regimen of an antibiotic cocktail that did the trick.  None of this seems to be associated with diet and since these things have been recurring every 2 to 5 years for the last 20 years (I’ve always been subject to infections and especially UTI’s) I didn’t report it here, but doing so now so that you have a complete picture and you can decide for yourself.

In late December/early January I had what appeared to be a budding UTI only this time it happened during a week day so I got to skip the visit to the emergency room.  Had some minor burning when urinating and the glans of the penis was inflamed around the opening.  Didn’t appear to involve the prostate, kidneys or bladder yet, and there was no fever, so I thought I’d caught it early and it would be relatively simple to deal with.  Went to the doc and he took the usual urine sample to send to the lab and prescribed the same cocktail of antibiotics that worked in the previous case to get things started – that was a Thursday.  The lab needs at least 48 hours to culture the samples so I set up an appointment to check back on the results on the following Monday.  By Monday I was in real trouble as the drugs hadn’t done a thing.  The lab reported that they were unable to get any growth on the sample so it didn’t appear to be a bacterial infection.  After much testing and handwringing it turned out to be a fungal yeast infection and had to be treated with Miconazole Nitrate as well as the antibiotic.  This seems to put to rest the idea that Zero Carb will prevent fungal and yeast infections as this is clearly not the case.  Another Myth busted.  Though diet clearly did not prevent this problem both my doctor and I don’t believe it to be the cause of it either, but again, you get to decide.

Now we get down to things that might be more relevant to diet.  Over the last 18 to 24 months I’ve noticed a very slow but steady weight gain.  I’m now up to 175 lbs which is considered lean and almost perfect for my 6’1” frame but is about 15 lbs heavier than my previous plateau at 160 lbs that had remained stable for several years.  I don’t weigh myself often so the way that I noticed this was that I had to consistently let out a belt notch or two.  Waist has now gone from 32” to 34”.  It has been almost 6 years now since I started this ZC adventure and there have been continual changes over that time.  Early on the changes were fast and dramatic.  Over time the changes are much smaller and slower but as you can see they are continuing.  This also puts another nail in the coffin of the belief that you can’t gain weight on Zero Carb.  This belief is just plain false.  I’m certainly not fat or overweight by any means, but the trend bothers me.  My belief is that my weight should be stable if I’m doing things right.  A steady increase of weight, no matter how slow, could become problematic over time so it may be time to look at making some changes.

My eyesight has also progressively gotten worse over the last few years.  Probably not caused by diet, but again, a ZC diet didn’t halt or prevent the problem.  Five years ago I needed reading glasses of +1.75 and no correction for distance.  Today I need reading glasses of +2.75 and though I still don’t correct for distance, I’m noticing problems, so will most likely need a small amount of distance correction in the near future as well. I expect this will become an issue when next I take the vision test to renew my driver’s license. 

Last but not least, I’ve been noticing allergy type symptoms.  This has manifested itself as sneezing several times during the day, coupled with a constant runny nose with minor sinus congestion.  We are in the middle of winter in Southern California and Pollen and other irritants are rather low.  This is also a fairly new development over the last 18-24 months, (hmmmm, seems to co-inside with the weight gain), as I’ve never had this in the past.  The nasal discharge is clear and watery and the doc says there’s no sign of a virus or bacterial infection.  The medical diagnosis is allergies.  To me, this is the most worrisome of the problems.  If all was well in Zero Carb land then suddenly being afflicted with allergies shouldn’t happen.

None of this is earth shattering, and by themselves, each of these problems is small, but taken together it may point to it being time to reevaluate my dietary protocol and look at making some changes. Annual labs are still good but they only test for the normal things like blood glucose, cholesterol, and due to my age and prostate issues, PSA. I had dinner with Danny Roddy last night and his research has lead him to believe that more hormal tests should be done - especially thyroid related levels. I get the T4-T3 and TSH done in my annual lab tests but Danny believes there are some stressor hormoes that need to be checked as well.  Not sure I buy into all the hormone replacement therapy stuff that is so derigueur these days, but it is a place to start looking, and other than giving up a bit of blood to the medical vampires, the testing should be fairly harmless.

More on this as it develops.

Lex



 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 04, 2012, 01:09:08 am
Things that pop into my mind:

If you have a skilled beam ray operator in your city, he may do a better job than the medical drugs.

I would use herbs instead of drugs. (olive leaf, oregano, etc.)

I would manipulate my body with high fat, high carb binges to jack up metabolism and speed up the healing process.  I don't see why you have to experiment with zero carb forever.  You can go back to zc once you are well.

Eyesight may be corrected by pinhole glasses.

I would look at distilling your own water.  Squeeze just a touch of orange for organic structure.  For better hydration than plain water.

Get a hulda clark book and check your home for pollution sources.  Things you put on your body, home pollution, etc.

If you have stopped having sex, you may try getting back in action, it's good exercise for the prostate.

There are prostate massage devices out there that work.

See a chiropractor, see an acupuncturist... get the highest levels of those experts as you can get.

You will need to repopulate your gut with probiotics.  Get a combination of different probiotics and overdose on them.  Include high meat.

a 3 day VCO detox will clear you of ALL fungal and yeast infections. You will like this, it is zero carb... with lemons and virgin coconut oil.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: achillezzz on February 04, 2012, 01:35:58 am
Goodsamaritan tell can you give me link to how to do this coconut oil lemon juice detox?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 04, 2012, 02:54:14 am
If you have a skilled beam ray operator in your city, he may do a better job than the medical drugs.

Talk about retro.  I didn’t know Rife machines were still around.  Was into that stuff in the 1960’s and didn’t find that it did anything at all.

I would use herbs instead of drugs. (olive leaf, oregano, etc.)
Not sure if herbal remedies are any safer than some of the more modern drugs.  A friend of mine died from kidney failure from drinking a popular herbal tea (since removed from the market) in the 1970’s.  I know that some of the popular concentrated prostate remedies have led to heart and other issues so will tread with caution here.  The medication I’m taking has a long track record of safety with few side effects, but I feel that it is worthwhile to review the herbal alternatives every few years to see if there is something I’d consider trying.  I have tried olive leaf and oregano in the past and they didn’t have any side effects, but they didn’t have any other measurable effects either so I stopped taking them.

I would manipulate my body with high fat, high carb binges to jack up metabolism and speed up the healing process.  I don't see why you have to experiment with zero carb forever.  You can go back to zc once you are well.

I’m not into binging or manipulation without careful thought and a clear objective.  I have no idea what I’d be healing since I don’t know the source of the problem.   My metabolism seems to be relatively high as it, so not sure there is anything to jack up.  I also have no way to directly measure my metabolism and not convinced that binging on carbs would do anything but create temporary metabolic havoc.  Just not willing to do this without a clear understanding of what I’m dealing with and a well thought out plan. 

Eyesight may be corrected by pinhole glasses.
There’s that retro thing again.  Pinhole glasses (I still have mine) were popular in the 1960’s  I think I got my pair at the same time I purchased Rena Taylor’s Hunza Book at Waton’s Healthfood Store in Visalia Circa 1964. They are worthless for presbyopia.

I would look at distilling your own water.  Squeeze just a touch of orange for organic structure.  For better hydration than plain water.

Did the water distilling thing years ago.  Today I use a more modern deionizer and filter system.  My water has less than 1ppm of anything measurable in it.  That is as good as or better than distilled water.  I can't think of anything more hydrating than water since by definition, only water can hydrate.  No clue what organic structure is, but it sounds impressive - and you say all it takes is a bit of orange juice?

Get a hulda clark book and check your home for pollution sources.  Things you put on your body, home pollution, etc.

Unfortunately Hulda Clark was run out of town in disgrace here in the US years ago.  It seems the Federal Trade Commission had trouble verifying her claims so she went to Mexico where actually having something with verifiable benefit is not necessary.  As I remember, her big thing was the Liver Flush and her magic multi frequency cure-all machines ( I think one was called the Zapper so you know that had to be good).  I think I culled her books from my personal health library in the 1990s.  Nothing she claimed could ever be verified by anyone else and since I got no benefit from her ideas I dumped the lot.

If you have stopped having sex, you may try getting back in action, it's good exercise for the prostate. There are prostate massage devices out there that work.

My doctor recommended trying prostate massage 7 or 8 years ago and I performed it regularly for over a year before it became clear that it wasn’t going to work in my case.  I understand that it can be helpful for some people but it didn’t work for me.

See a chiropractor, see an acupuncturist... get the highest levels of those experts as you can get.

Can’t tell you how much money I spent on chiropractors over the years, all to no avail.  They all found mis-alignments, that when corrected would put me in the peak of condition, but all I ever noticed was that my wallet got lighter while headaches and other issues persisted.  Never tried an acupuncturist.  The idea of being stuck with needles for no other purpose than to be stuck with needles never appealed to me.  I’ve had friends and family that went to acupuncturists over the years but all have given up on them with no long term resolution to their problems.

You will need to repopulate your gut with probiotics.  Get a combination of different probiotics and overdose on them.  Include high meat.

I do this during and after taking anti-biotics as these tend to rec havoc on the bacteria population of the digestive system, and taking a dose of probiotics speeds up the natural replenishment of intestinal flora.  I’ve noticed no other positive benefit from doing this and my experience has been that taking probiotics on a regular basis is a waste of time and money.  If taking probiotics had any material effect on the conditions I’m experiencing, I’ve taken them on enough occasions over the years to have noticed.  I’ve never noticed any change in my various health conditions from taking probiotics other than those related to the digestive system.  Once the gut flora is reestablished, taking further doses has had no measurable effect.

a 3 day VCO detox will clear you of ALL fungal and yeast infections. You will like this, it is zero carb... with lemons and virgin coconut oil.
Been there, done that (several times), it’s never worked when a medically verifiable infection was present.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Adora on February 04, 2012, 03:34:18 am
Lex you said you tried probiotics, did you try high meat. I have noticed that this is best done exactly a AV says. I have 2-3 small bites before eating anything else, chew well, swallow and rise my mouth with water, but I don't swallow the water or eat anything else for 10 mins.
     Also, is all of your food prefrozen? I notice a big difference in fresh.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: raw-al on February 04, 2012, 03:34:50 am
Re BEP Benign enlarged prostate, I had that issue years ago. I tried a large # of different things which helped somewhat, but in my case, what did the trick was I stopped drinking pasteurized milk. Instantly the problem was history. Raw milk is no problem for me. I am not suggesting that you do anything BTW, just that that is what worked for me.

I bought a zapper off of the web and it works like a charm on stubborn infections that I get from splinters from woodworking with cedar and (it's  long story) an infection that I got from kitesurfing and another infection on my nose. Zap it and next day it is gone.

It's essentially related to the beam ray, but is a very weak version that essentially doesn't penetrate further than the skin.

The jury is out on Hulda Clarke. I essentially think she is not playing with a full deck, but I am not sure. For instance she says to use plastic foodware. This is a very bad idea, considering the issues with the chemicals involved causing all kinds of problems such as messing up young girls causing younger puberty and there is speculation on it causing young boys to be space cadets and a host of other issues.

Beam ray machines. Like anything out there, there are good and bad ones. I have read of quite a few people who swear by them and seen video of them talking at length about them. I am still in the figuring out stage. I can see potential, but I want proof as they ain't cheap.

If they work as advertised they are worth the investment. I hope to get a chance to see one operate in the next few months. There are versions coming out that are approved by the FDA using a limited range of frequencies. The speculation is that the certification process is so difficult/expensive that the applicants decided to go for a limited range initially just for certification and possibly go for growth down the road.

Vision.

My wife and I discovered sungazing about 2.5 yrears ago. She was told by her eye doctor in February that she would need an operation for glaucoma, glasses for driving, at the next annual checkup and 3.5 diopter lenses.

We started sungazing according to HRM's method that July and at her next visit her glasses went back 10 years to 1.5 diopters, glaucoma gone, operation forgotten, in fact the doc had to measure everything twice as it didn't make sense. She is stable since and can read large print books.

Mine was around 1.2 diopters, but is now around 1.0, if I use them at all. I can read the newspaper and only use glasses when it is dark or I am tired.

There are a number of Ayurvedic solutions for prostate. I can't think of all of them right now as I am away from my library, but asparagus and dates (Medjool) come to mind immediately.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 04, 2012, 03:47:10 am
Lex you said you tried probiotics, did you try high meat. I have noticed that this is best done exactly a AV says. I have 2-3 small bites before eating anything else, chew well, swallow and rise my mouth with water, but I don't swallow the water or eat anything else for 10 mins.
     Also, is all of your food prefrozen? I notice a big difference in fresh.
Yes, I've done high meat and a most of the other natural methods of reestablishing intestinal flora.  They all work well for the intended purpose of reestablishing intestinal flora, but beyond that I've found no additional benefit.

All my food comes frozen.  I've tried fresh for extended periods to see if it made any measurable difference and I could find no difference at all.  To people that see a difference, I encourge you to do what works.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 04, 2012, 04:26:30 am
Re BEP Benign enlarged prostate, I had that issue years ago. I tried a large # of different things which helped somewhat, but in my case, what did the trick was I stopped drinking pasteurized milk. Instantly the problem was history. Raw milk is no problem for me. I am not suggesting that you do anything BTW, just that that is what worked for me.
Wish it were this simple for me.  I haven’t drunk milk of any kind for many years, so it can’t be a milk issue, pasteurized or otherwise.

I bought a zapper off of the web and it works like a charm on stubborn infections that I get from splinters from woodworking with cedar and (it's  long story) an infection that I got from kitesurfing and another infection on my nose. Zap it and next day it is gone.

It's essentially related to the beam ray, but is a very weak version that essentially doesn't penetrate further than the skin.
I did a lot of research on the Zapper and the Beam Ray 40 years ago.  Being a certified electronic genius  ;)  (I was building Tesla Coils when I was in the 7th grade), I decided to build my own.  My oscilloscope said my machines were doing exactly what they were supposed to do, but they had little or no measurable effect on the problems they were supposed to cure.  We had a healing practitioner come with his Beam Ray machine to our local Watson’s Healthfood Store.  I was excited to go see the real thing.  Many people lined up to get treatment but as I remember there weren't any objective measurable results.  At that point I came to the conclusion that it didn’t work as well as advertised and gave up on the project.  I’m glad that your experience is positive and if it works for you then by all means stick with it.

The jury is out on Hulda Clarke. I essentially think she is not playing with a full deck, but I am not sure. For instance she says to use plastic foodware. This is a very bad idea, considering the issues with the chemicals involved causing all kinds of problems such as messing up young girls causing younger puberty and there is speculation on it causing young boys to be space cadets and a host of other issues.
Apparently the US Government didn’t think she was playing with a full deck either.  I never found her ideas of any practical use.

Beam ray machines. Like anything out there, there are good and bad ones. I have read of quite a few people who swear by them and seen video of them talking at length about them. I am still in the figuring out stage. I can see potential, but I want proof as they ain't cheap.

If they work as advertised they are worth the investment. I hope to get a chance to see one operate in the next few months. There are versions coming out that are approved by the FDA using a limited range of frequencies. The speculation is that the certification process is so difficult/expensive that the applicants decided to go for a limited range initially just for certification and possibly go for growth down the road.
As I mentioned above, the test equipment showed that the one I built was doing exactly the same thing as the one the healing practitioner had, and to the best of my recollection neither of them did anything objectively measurable, good or bad, in relation to the human body.

My wife and I discovered sungazing about 2.5 years ago. She was told by her eye doctor in February that she would need an operation for glaucoma, glasses for driving, at the next annual checkup and 3.5 diopter lenses.

We started sungazing according to HRM's method that July and at her next visit her glasses went back 10 years to 1.5 diopters, glaucoma gone, operation forgotten, in fact the doc had to measure everything twice as it didn't make sense. She is stable since and can read large print books.

Mine was around 1.2 diopters, but is now around 1.0, if I use them at all. I can read the newspaper and only use glasses when it is dark or I am tired.
It is interesting that I had a similar experience when I went ZC.  My eye doctor had me at 2.5 and within a year of starting ZC I was back at 1.75.  Unfortunately the improvement was short lived and over the last few years my eyesight has slowly but steadily degraded again to 2.75.  Sungazing in various forms is not new to the Natural Hygiene world.  It has been around as long as I can remember.  If it works for you, great, keep it up.

There are a number of Ayurvedic solutions for prostate. I can't think of all of them right now as I am away from my library, but asparagus and dates (Medjool) come to mind immediately.
I’ve researched the asparagus solutions and many others as well, though I must admit that I’ve not heard of the Medjool date protocol.  None of the ones I tried had any measurable effect.  I may try the date thing if I decide to move on from ZC as I love Medjool dates.  I used to eat tons of them when I was a vegan, so if they were a remedy for BPH then one might reasonably wonder why I got this affliction in the first place.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on February 04, 2012, 05:12:57 am
I've got a friend who had prostate problems from a weight-gain supplement, he started a website http://prostatesecrets.com/prostate-vitamins.htm (http://prostatesecrets.com/prostate-vitamins.htm)   He uses several different herbs in his prostate formula.

Also, I've read that mango seed is good for prostate issues, although I've never tried it, since my prostate is fine.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 04, 2012, 05:21:28 am
I've got a friend who had prostate problems from a weight-gain supplement, he started a website http://prostatesecrets.com/prostate-vitamins.htm (http://prostatesecrets.com/prostate-vitamins.htm)   He uses several different herbs in his prostate formula.

Also, I've read that mango seed is good for prostate issues, although I've never tried it, since my prostate is fine.
Interesting site.  I'll add it to my list of products to investigate.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on February 04, 2012, 06:09:16 am
Lex - I can totally relate to the trip down memory lane. Oy.

Just because the government was after Hulda Clarke doesn't mean that she didn't know something because the government has a tendency to go after people that do know things. The thing that proves to me without a shadow of a doubt that she was a hoax is that she died of cancer when she wrote book after book on how to cure and prevent it and the zapper she created was supposed to cure it.

Just because one person you knew died because of an herbal remedy pales in comparison with how many people die in the US from completely preventable modern medical mistakes (it's the third highest cause of death in the US the Journal of Modern Medicine says) - and you don't shun all modern medicine - and it doesn't mean you will die or even get bad results from herbs - but it also doesn't mean that just any herb will help. Saw Palmetto has been proven double blind testing to have a better affect at helping some prostate problems than drugs without the side-affects. 

Your weight gain I don't see as problem until it becomes one. Getting to be an ideal weight if anything could be a beneficial sign.

Here is a suggestion for your UTI. My mother was allergic to many antibiotics and got so many serious UTI's that the doctor told me to find an alternative or just take her home to die because there was nothing to be done. What I found was a solution that was amazingly simple for many forms of infection. The bacteria feed off of sugars so when they get to the urethra they will imbibed in it to eat the sugars there. D-mannose is a form of sugar that is found in cranberries that is not digested by humans and is sent out the urine. If you take d-mannose the bacteria won't embed because they will be too busy eating the sugar in your urine. You'd have to eat too many cranberries to get the same effect - but that's why people suggest cranberries for UTIs. This was the only thing that could prevent my mother's UTIs. UTIs come part and parcel with prostate problems. I hope that the above will at least help with some forms of infection for you.

The big question is whether or not a diet NOT preventing the progression of disease or symptoms of advancing years is an indicator that you should be changing your diet or not. It seems like this diet has helped you with some of those symptoms like the diabetes and that also has to be taken into consideration. I will be very interested in reading your decision and if you change your diet what you will change about it.

Wishing you all the best with this leg of your journey Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 04, 2012, 07:36:22 am
Thanks so much for your kind thoughts Dorothy.

I agree that there is much incompetence in modern medicine, and herbal remedies have their place.  Done the Saw Palmetto thing and it doesn't help me.  Unfortunately, most of these remedies are most effective in the early stages of the problem.  It appears that I'm past the point where most herbal remedies will do much except reduce the amount of prescription medication that I must take, but I feel that is worth further investigation just the same.

I'm not sure what ideal weight is.  I also prefer to be proactive rather than wait until I have to purchase a new wardrobe before I take some action.  I spent 30 years waiting until conventional wisdom indicated there was a problem before taking action and it makes me sad to think how much better my life could have been so much sooner had I been more proactive.

It is also important that I communicate these trends that I'm seeing to others.  There is no one else that I know of that has done what I'm doing for such an extended period of time.  So many of the guru's out there say one thing but then do another because they've built a following on a particular idea and when it fails them, they change their personal habits, but continue to preach the broken protocol to others.  My idea was to be brutally honest and report my actual experiences, good or bad, and identify the various stages that people can expect to go through if they follow a similar path.  I don't preach that my path is correct, I just report what's happening along the way, providing information so others can make informed decisions about their own lives.

Thanks for the tip on d-mannose.  I'm definitely going to look into it as UTI's are not pleasant and there may come a time when the bacteria have become resistant to all the antibiotics and then I'm really in trouble.  Again, I'll report on this if I decide to take this supplement and let people decide for themselves if it should be treated as a medication or as a super plant food that breaks the Zero Carb label of my dietary protocol.

There is no question that TylerDurden and his original RVAF Yahoo Group changed my life for the better so many years ago.  I'm deeply indebted to him for this.  It is all about having the best quality of life possible every moment of the time.  People need to know that there is no magic bullet.  No matter what we eat, drink, or do, we will age, become infirm and die.  As of the 27th of January I turned 61, and I'm able to do a lot of things that others of my age can't do.  None the less, as each year passes there are more and more items added to the list of things that I can no longer do.

This doesn't mean I'm going to remain static and wait for eternity to come.  With some of the trends I've identified, it may be worthwhile to investigate other ideas.  I've given this one a good run.  If I change something, I'll do it as I always have by deciding on the change, and then comparing the change with my previous results.  If, after a fair period of time the change isn't for the better, then I'll go back to what I was doing before.  If I see improvement in my quality of life I'll stay with the change.  What worked for me when I was 20 or 30 doesn't work at age 60.  We need to constantly be willing to change as conditions warrant.

The adventure continues,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 04, 2012, 08:27:44 am
When I was a vegetarian I found that potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, sprouted grains, sprouted beans etc don't digest as well raw as when they are cooked.
I find raw carrots and overnight-soaked raw sweet potatoes relatively easy to digest, and I'm someone with a history of GI issues. Raw carrots taste quite sweet to me now. Also, one of my Paleo nephews is a raw-carrot-aholic. They are like his candy. Granted, carrots of today are reportedly sweeter than their ancestors, but chimps have been observed digging up and chewing raw tubers (and spitting out the fiber, which is what the Bushmen do with the less easily digested tubers) and scientists have found evidence of raw tubers in the diets of human ancestors going back to at least Australopithecines. Even the inland Eskimos traditionally ate something called "Eskimo potato" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_potato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_potato))--don't tell the ZIOH folks. ;)

Quote
I might even make the leap of intuition that it was the  inclusion of these plant foods to our diet that started the cooking revolution - but that is just a guess.
The evidence indicates that some roots and tubers were already in the diet, but cooking made them more important and made more toxic ones available as foods.

Trouble may be brewing in paradise as I'm begining to notice some relatively minor problems poping up.  Some may be due to just getting older,
I've learned to become generally skeptical of that reason. I've seen every imagineable illness attributed to it and have found that many that are attributed to aging can be halted or even reversed.

Quote
As I’ve reported previously in this journal I suffer from BPH (enlarged prostate) and take an Alpha blocker (Doxasozin) to help make passing urine easier.  I’ve been taking 2mg/day for almost 10 years but have recently upped the dose to 4mg/day.  This would indicate that the problem is slowly getting worse so the ZC diet may have slowed the progress but it hasn’t  stopped it.  Not sure where to go from here on this issue.  May try some of the herbal remedies, but if I did so, I don’t think I could say that I was eating Zero Carb in good conscience.
I wouldn't remain wedded to ZC if your health is declining, though if it were me, my first step would be to go back to eating my fat raw, and forego the rendered fat for a while. I've noticed that I don't fare as well on rendered fat as I do on raw fat. However, that's no guarantee it would work for you, just trying to come up with some potential ideas to test.

Quote
The herbal remedies may be tablets of concentrated plant extracts, but this only means that if I were actually eating the plants themselves, I’d be eating a lot of them.
I don't think you have to eat a lot of plants to get the hormetic benefits. Instead, I think you could randomly eat occasional moderate amounts of very strong medicinal plants. My hunch is that very strong tasting and richly colored plants may have the most of what Native Americans call "medicine" (which is, paradoxically, often also "poison," aka biocides) and thus the greatest hormetic benefits--something along the lines of horseradish, sour cherries, tart wild berries, wild grapes, kale, sauerkraut, etc. (though not necessarily those specific foods--I would do some more research on which ones have the greatest potential for your specific issues)--and some scientists appear to share this view.

Quote
I’m currently looking at “The Prostate Formula” from Real Health Laboratories which has good reviews, as well as “Crila” which seems to be a relative newcomer to the field and is a plant extract from Vietnam.  Neither of these is a cure, but they may reduce the dependence on the more invasive Alpha blocker drugs.
FWIW, when I had prostate issues I tried various prostate supplements with no benefit whatsoever.

Your experience sounds like mine years ago. I was even put on a 9 month regimen of antibiotics, when the urologist decided it was time to really annhilate the bacteria to put an end to the chronic UTIs (the physicians and urologists also seemed puzzled that a male would have so many UTIs). That helped for a while but in the long run I think the loads of various antibiotics I was given caused more harm than benefit, and I think it's one reason I have such a low tolerance of carbs--gut dysbiosis. Dietary change cleared up all the chronic UTIs and chronic kidney stones for me.

I'm currently trying probiotics (raw fermented foods, not powder supplement probiotics, which never did me any good), and that might be something for you to consider as well. Oddly, the most benefit I've gotten so far is from raw fermented honey. Don't ask me to explain it. This is territory that no scientist has dared traverse, AFAIK. Raw fermented cod liver oil also seems to help a bit.

Anthony Colpo and other former VLCers are of the opinion that rather than rely on the crutch of VLC or ZC, it makes sense to try to ameliorate the underlying conditions that are causing the above-avg carb intolerance in the first place, and that seems sensible to me. FWIW, one thing Anthony found that improved his carb tolerance was lowering his ferritin level. Excessive ferritin stores can cause carb intolerance, apparently via insulin resistance. Again, these are just brainstorms, not necessarily right for you.

Quote
After much testing and handwringing it turned out to be a fungal yeast infection and had to be treated with Miconazole Nitrate as well as the antibiotic.  This seems to put to rest the idea that Zero Carb will prevent fungal and yeast infections as this is clearly not the case.  Another Myth busted.
That is my experience also, ZC did not resolve gut dysbiosis in me. I never intended to do ZC forever, but when my gut health started to relapse back towards the old poor level, it was a good motivator to end the ZC experiment.

Quote
Though diet clearly did not prevent this problem both my doctor and I don’t believe it to be the cause of it either, but again, you get to decide.
Most doctors don't have a frickin' clue (and like you I experienced little to no benefits from acupuncturists or chiropractors, though Chris Kresser is a chiropractor who actually gives seemingly sensible advice). I rely on them mainly for the tests they do. I find their advice generally worse than useless, with rare exceptions, and I should know, I review the notes of dozens of physicians and witness how futile their efforts are at helping people with chronic illnesses. They are much more effective at dealing with acute crises. The goal of every patient should be to eventually get off all the chronic medications that their physicians have prescribed.

Quote
This also puts another nail in the coffin of the belief that you can’t gain weight on Zero Carb.
Yup, I've seen many other folks report the same phenomenon. It seems the body eventually adapts to becoming an efficient fat utilizer and the brain increasingly recognizes animal fat as a marvelous source of calories and nutrients and people start gaining body fat again.

Quote
My belief is that my weight should be stable if I’m doing things right.
I suspect the same.

Quote
My eyesight has also progressively gotten worse over the last few years.
Could be age, but from snippets I've read here and there, it seems that hunter gatherers of years past had incredible, seemingly supernatural, vision that was not thought possible (see Peter McAllister, author of Manthropology http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-mcallister/pre-modern-man_b_836265.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-mcallister/pre-modern-man_b_836265.html)).

Quote
Probably not caused by diet, but again, a ZC diet didn’t halt or prevent the problem.  Five years ago I needed reading glasses of +1.75 and no correction for distance.  Today I need reading glasses of +2.75 and though I still don’t correct for distance, I’m noticing problems, so will most likely need a small amount of distance correction in the near future as well.
That does seem like more than age.

Quote
Last but not least, I’ve been noticing allergy type symptoms. This has manifested itself as sneezing several times during the day, coupled with a constant runny nose with minor sinus congestion.
Sounds like a red flag. I have yet to encounter a single report of a hunter gatherer living in the wild on a wild diet with any allergies. Doesn't mean it isn't possible, but it's much more likely due to a non-natural problem than simple age. My own allergies have gotten less and less with age, after I did dietary change. At this point, when I sneeze, it's an unusual rare event that surprises me. When I was eating SAD, during the late summers I used to sneeze like crazy every morning and have to go through about a third of a box of Kleenex.

Quote
If all was well in Zero Carb land then suddenly being afflicted with allergies shouldn’t happen.
Correct.

Quote
Not sure I buy into all the hormone replacement therapy stuff that is so derigueur these days, but it is a place to start looking, and other than giving up a bit of blood to the medical vampires, the testing should be fairly harmless.
Yup, when things are going sour, it's time to re-examine. You're one of the last extremely low carb Mohicans and it sounds like it may be time to try something a bit different. One thing I do recommend is making one change at a time and carefully noting the results, but that seems to be your standard approach anyway.

Quote
A friend of mine died from kidney failure from drinking a popular herbal tea (since removed from the market) in the 1970’s.  I know that some of the popular concentrated prostate remedies have led to heart and other issues so will tread with caution here.
My hunch is that one factor is that people are mistaking hormetic effects for purely good things. They figure if a small amount is good, then a ton must be better. That's not how hormesis works. The tea/supplement makers love it, though, because the tendency for folks to go to extremes means they can sell more product.
 
Quote
Just not willing to do this without a clear understanding of what I’m dealing with and a well thought out plan.
Might be a good time to consult with some of the other former VLC gurus, like Paul Jaminet, Kurt Harris, Stephan Guyenet, etc., or at least peruse their blogs.

You might also want to read up on bloggers who are into hormesis, like Todd Becker http://gettingstronger.org/ (http://gettingstronger.org/) and Stephan Guyenet and self-experimenters like Seth Roberts http://blog.sethroberts.net/, (http://blog.sethroberts.net/,) though you already know a lot about self-experimentation.

I don't know why you doubt the power of zappers. I don't use them on myself, but I do use them to fry the brains of unwitting passersby on my street. They really work!

Quote
People need to know that there is no magic bullet.  No matter what we eat, drink, or do, we will age, become infirm and die.
Right, but we can use the beam ray zappers to take some bastards with us!

Good luck. Please keep us informed.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 04, 2012, 08:51:08 am
2012 beam ray machines are far, far different from the old rife stuff.
Computer advances have skyrocketed from 50 years ago.
My suggestion is to find a beam ray OPERATOR, a skilled one.
I'm lucky to have one near enough.  I pay a token fee of some $50 per 4 hour session.
Saved us many times from serious stuff.
Try 1 or 2 sessions with a skilled operator may be a cheap trial with nothing to lose.

Hulda Clark's claim to brilliance is in POLLUTION AVOIDANCE.
She got the ball rolling on identifying home pollution, office, bedroom, car, personal pollution.
Best you take a look at that.
Her old book Cure for All Diseases is still in print.

You might wish to explore again eating plants and fruit to make up for what may be missing in 100% carnivorous, monotonous and frozen diet.

Go to the fruit stands, smell and taste what your instinct may tell you.  Iguana may know.

Plus there are many other animals in the ocean and on land out there with different nutritional profiles you may need.
 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: gc on February 04, 2012, 09:13:50 am
Hi,

I'm Glen and I've read this entire journal over the past week or so, and joined the forum based on its strength - you may say you do it for selfish reasons, Lex, but a selfish person could have written all this down on paper instead of putting it where people like me could read it. I thank you for your most unselfish act.

That said, I'd start checking out your environment. It's not your food that's causing the problems, as demonstrated over the past what, 6 years? 7? I would wonder what else has changed to cause your allergy-like symptoms. They COULD be just that - allergy symptoms. Have you changed fabric softener? Has the processing company that processes the D&C food been cleaning their equipment with benzene over the past year and a half? (Admittedly, this would be food carried, but not food caused).  Have you taken a break from the clocks lately to see if perhaps you've grown more sensitive over time to a cleaning product, or a particular type of oil, or glue?

Essentially, if it were me I'd work it like I believe you would by eliminating single items and seeing if any of that made a difference.. and I'd keep track of it. You're a far better scholar than I so you'd likely find it faster than me if it's environmental!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on February 04, 2012, 11:36:12 am
I love this, everyone coming or helping from their own angle.  Lex,  I can tell you that years ago I read a most interesting book by an old Italian Lady who raised dogs and fed them raw.  Made a believer of me.  Se went to great length to describe how often she had tried frozen meat for the the dogs over a good number of years.  Each time, the dogs failed in some fashion.  She was adamant over freezing.  Doesn't mean she didn't have her own ego centric beliefs that may or may not be true...  I can tell you that I gave up eating frozen fat when I had the chance to go from eating frozen to fresh and had an immense energy change.   
   Now to something more off the wall.  When I drank the milk from my goats  ( I live on the coast in N. Ca.) each fall when the grass would go brown, my nose would start running, or mucous, and then get a cold.  My unscientific conclusion is that milk or meat is only as healthy as the food animals are eating.  Look at the lush green knee high growth in May vs. Sept. and that's all the evidence I need.  Everything about the goats, their breath, the smell of their poop pellets, the sheen in their coats, etc. all were markedly better in May, than when they had mostly brown dried  grass to eat.  Now, to the punch line.  Texas is having an incredible draught. I was there earlier this year to look at a horse to buy, and boy was it dead back early in the summer.  I just saw on the news where ranchers are having to move their cows quite far to find pasture that's edible.  If you relate the goat story of eating green to eating dead brown grass, you may get the idea.  My guess is that all Slanker's cows are stressed in some fashion or another, and that things like GLA and other measurables are down substantially. 
   The other thing is that a few years ago I bought a bunch of fat from the Other rancher... he wet cures.  His fat came to me smelly and grey and he had no answer.  My point is that fat to these guys is in my opinion is a commodity, or a buy product, not something perishable, living,
and fresh.  Over the years of eating green grass grown cows,  I can tell you there's a huge difference in fats.  And once again not to even mention again freezing it. 
   Also, just a tid bit,  I buy my seaweed from Larch in Maine.  He hand harvests and dries his seaweed around 90 far.  Wonderful stuff.  I take a quarter pound of it, dry it completely in the freezer, and blend it with my powerful blender.  It almost turns into dust.  I keep that in the fridge in a small jar.  I eat a teaspoon each morning when I start to get hungry by itself to aid in more complete digestion.  I think this is a great way to get minerals some of the microbes of the sea. 
     

   Keep us informed as to what choices you make, and I'm sure you know we're all pulling for you.  And here's that selfish thing again;  hey if it doesn't work for you, what about the rest of us?   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on February 04, 2012, 12:26:53 pm
Lex - I live in Texas and what Van just said might be pivotal. It is only just recently that we got rains and Slankers was feeding not fresh green grass - but dried grass probably most of the summer during the horrific drought here. It can't be exaggerated - we're talking over 100 degrees for over three months with not ONE drop of rain. Many small farms went under completely. Slankers simply was not, was not capable of, no one was capable of, feeding fresh green grass to their cows this summer - because unless you were right near a water source - there was not one little tiny bit of green ANYWHERE. Driving through the countryside was eerie and disturbing. The trees dropped all their leaves and we lost countless trees. The chickens' yolks were no longer golden from the beta carotene in the grass.

Good call Van. What you say might be pivotal - I mean - JUST with the drought conditions alone.......  Lex - have you asked Slankers Lex exactly what they had to feed their cows this summer?

Like Phil my body really doesn't like heated fats. That might be part of it - but that would have been part of it over the last 6 years whereas the drought was just last summer. We're just starting to recover here.

You might have also tried the primal meat blend which does not have all the organs. That might have affected you too.

I've been experimenting with the frozen meat from Slankers for my dogs and when I can get it consistently - their skin problems reduce and their health increases. You should have seen the difference in my chickens! Maybe it would increase more if I could get whole animal ground up fresh all the time - but for me what keeps on coming to mind is the WHOLE RAW animal vs. freezing. I can't get fresh whole raw and I'd be surprised if many can. But harder than fresh is to get the whole animal. That's darn near impossible for the most part for the average shopper except through Slankers and maybe some local sources.

You have different things to consider in your calculations and evaluations Lex:
1. Changes to how the animals have been fed
2. Change in what you were ordering (primal vs. dog food)
3. Perhaps some changes in how the food was processed - maybe some additive or something.
4. Environmental changes.
5.  Cooking the fat.
6. Freezing

I put them in that order because I am trying to look at things in the view of what might have changed rather than what might have started to affect you after the long term.

 Phil sure had some good points. I don't think the hunter gatherers vision deteriorated like ours does - so no need for yours if you find the missing key.

Again - I wish you all the very best in trying to improve your situation and I thank you for keeping it honest and real. What you said about people not reporting their true continued results is spot on. Thank you for being someone we can trust to continue doing that.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: KD on February 04, 2012, 12:44:35 pm
Personally, I think Phil and GS were on point with more than a few things but i'll give my own (long) go.

Lets say the Inuit are in fact the heathy (known) model for human intake, and that if they were in a less harsh environment and had a nice computer and relaxing lifestyle and had whatever advantageous medicines or other treatments that exist as helpful (if they exist), that they would have had it even more made. We would have to account for the following:

- Inuits would have had some degree of supplemental plant foods part of the year and likely didn't skimp on them. Blueberries in blubber bowl anyone? Maybe the simple idea is that plants foods (possibly eaten in large amounts) at least part of the year is part of the program we are given here, and all months with no plant foods is not.

- Their intake of all wild foods is going to be vastly different than ours even if we today eat all wild food - type, quality, and pollution. Eating organ meats likely is a huge degree better than muscle meats and water, but it still might not actually mirror their complete intake of whole animal parts. These likely required some types of processing that are either known or lost in time. Also, that whatever people ate on the African plain ( and whether they ate seafood or not ) seafoods or other animals today that we have access to make up for more of these nutrients than ONE animal from 1-2 farms of the same grasses. What I see, is that even on 'ZC', there are simply alot of other non-significantly-carb contributing foods that are not being considered for much of any reason than what should be food, even if these things are known to hit certain nutrient needs.

- They were removed from many aspects of modern problems/poisons/also whatever AV shit one wants throw in that needs to be corrected - which may be a pro or a negative to long term VLC - unconfirmed. Possibly short term pro, long term negative.

- Many people have made a pretty simple observation/opinion about VLC in that it seems to work better for people who are overweight but not always as much for people that are consistently lean. Lets say that has any truth to it, dissecting that, if one is of the opinion that the way of nature is to fatten up on carbs over the summer to store for the winter, it can be seen as very likely that year after year of not having that process or excess fat might in itself be a problem. Gaining fat might be a natural or modern corrective response to something, added to the likelihood that Taubes is just flat out wrong. * Inuits tend to be fatties
( by our modern bias anyway - certainly not under 10% bf)

other stuff:

- LC is now widely reported to have tons of benefical effects on the immune system that may be short lived and then be a problem. The allergy thing is a flag generaly for low carbers because poor response to allergens generally go away when one goes on VLC but may return due to these same theories regarding VLC and the immune system. I've seen enough anecdotes to attach this to raw eating of any variety (so maybe that means its good! not ). It could be eating organs and raw food and way cleaner food than meatza every day discounts many of those issues, but perhaps not all. Just a few missing nutrients or not having those periodic glycogen boosts may esclate as larger problems than they conceptualy do on paper.

- compared to regular people not doing a bunch of harmful things in itself always has alot of advantages, couple that with a very convincing argument about our origins and the poor conceptual effects of sugar metabolism shows for a pretty good case. The thing I think which needs to be more commonly thought about in all this stuff is that missing some components that even "regular people" actually get, can be detrimental no matter how right in theory the idea is. This seems to be true for any kind of dietary exclusion, fruitarian to standard (not particularly low carb) paleo eating I imagine. What I learned from the vegan days is It really doesn't matter what people didn't do in the past because much of what we think about the past is likely wrong and its very easy to see people thriving while generally doing the opposite. When in the lurch with the pure ideas, It wasn't that I listened to the wrong people who had the wrong misconception about what our natural diet is, its that I lost touch with how I evaluated what was healthy or not as a complete package. This made me in turn give more signifigance to those ideas than they deserved. It seems like that isn't your problem, but perhaps making sure that some other system has to be as completely verifiable/logical as VLC is with our origins and others' perspective evidence...is . Sometimes you got to suck it up and make pinhole glasses - again, hocus pocus man, maybe eat some candy.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on February 05, 2012, 12:03:19 am
Lex,

thanks again for your detailed reports and your honesty.

Most raw foodists are not remotely able to discuss their own health problems that could be caused by their "special" diet (like me when I was a fresh new born raw vegan evangelist in the late 90's, for example).

You helped me to finally discard the raw zero carb idea.

I would like to mention two interesting things: During EVERY of my numerous (100%) raw zero carb experiments I got UTIs and fungal infections, beside countless other problems like irritability, heart problems, pain in my gi tract ect. At first I thought that grain fed meat was the cause. But later I found out that raw 100% grass fed beef can cause exactly the same problems including UTIs and fungal infections.

You are right, the theory that raw zero carb diets can reliably prevent fungal overgrowth is complete nonsense.

BUT why on earth did I never got UTIs and fungal infections during 100% COOKED zero carb diets? I still have no satisfying answer to this question. Even cooked grain fed zc carbs never caused UTIs and fungal infections (,but they caused MASSIVE oxidative stress in my body).

BTW: I always healed my UTIs with super low calorie zero fat raw vegan dietary excursions. Especially bitter greens like endives were tremendously helpful to get rid of this burning pain quickly. Fruits weren't nearly as useful. Robert Morse would say that acids from high amounts of protein are the clear cause. And ... perhaps ... he is right?

Best wishes

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on February 05, 2012, 12:04:30 am


Good call Van. What you say might be pivotal - I mean - JUST with the drought conditions alone.......  Lex - have you asked Slankers Lex exactly what they had to feed their cows this summer?



I think this is probably the crux of the issue, at least with the allergies and most of the other stuff. 

The cows' diet makes a HUGE difference, in my experience.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 05, 2012, 01:09:35 am
The draught story is interesting, but it doesn't seem to explain Lex's history of problems, which goes back 18 months, whereas the draught reportedly started a little over a year ago, correct? First let's try to get Lex's history right. Let's seek to understand before we seek to be understood. Is the following accurate about your history, Lex?

> Hx of kidney stones - are they still present? Increased water intake to try to prevent more developing.
> Prostatitis with a severe UTI: 18 months ago; treated with Cipro antibiotic, which resolved the acute symptoms.
> Recently (how long ago?) passing urine has become more difficult; had to increase dose of prostate-shrinking Alpha blocker drug as a result.
> UTI due to yeast infection: late December/early January; treated with Miconazole Nitrate antifungal as well as an antibiotic (the latter is odd if no bacteria were found--not atypical for physicians to prescribe antibiotics for no particular reason, though)
> Slow but steady weight gain of 15 lbs. and 2" increase in waist size over the last 18 to 24 months
> Progressive decrease in vision (presbyopia) over the last few years; had to increase reading glass strength from +1.75 to +2.75
> New symptoms over the last 18-24 months of sneezing several times during the day, coupled with a constant runny nose with minor sinus congestion; persists even in winter
> Annual labs (blood glucose, cholesterol, and PSA) are still good (unchanged?)

Other therapies tried without noticeable benefit:
Prostate massage, prostate supplements, olive leaf, oregano, Rife 'beam ray' machine, Hulda Clark's recommended therapies, pinhole glasses, distilled water, deionized and filtered water, chiropractic, probiotic supplements and high meat and "most of the other natural methods of reestablishing intestinal flora" (no benefit other than re-establishing flora), eating fresh meat instead of frozen.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: gc on February 05, 2012, 08:44:27 am
Quote
Other therapies tried without noticeable benefit:
Prostate massage, prostate supplements, olive leaf, oregano, Rife 'beam ray' machine, Hulda Clark's recommended therapies, pinhole glasses, distilled water, deionized and filtered water, chiropractic, probiotic supplements and high meat and "most of the other natural methods of reestablishing intestinal flora" (no benefit other than re-establishing flora), eating fresh meat instead of frozen.

That's why I'm wondering if there might be some type of slow poison in the environment. Diet doesn't necessarily correct for ingestion of poisons or absorption through the skin.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on February 05, 2012, 09:49:03 am
Phil--if that's the correct time frame, then you have a good point. I was wondering about that myself.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on February 05, 2012, 11:31:56 am
Phil - excellent point.

Remember when I tried ZC with grass-fed ground beef for just two days I told you that my kidneys hated it and it took me a couple of weeks to get over it? It was so clear to me that there was something really bad for my kidneys about doing that - I felt like some toxin was being produced.

But then Lex wrote about how it was so very important to eat the entire animal.

The thing that interests me is that for 4 years he was doing well and his kidney issues did not necessarily increase because that kidney stone he said could have been there the whole time and was just finally passing. His prostate problem also did not get better but also did not get worse until recently right? I must have missed it when he said he had a UTI 18 months ago though. That seems significant. What changed 24 months ago? Why didn't he have all these things during the first 4 years?

Before just assuming that the diet is not good for the urinary tract - first let's make sure something didn't change with the food! On that time line of yours I would like to know when Lex tried the primal blend without the whole animal included? For how long?

Also, the dog and cat food Slankers says changes batch to batch as to the ingredients they have on hand. Do they always use the entire animal or do they just put leftover parts and did the batches in any way change significantly generally about 2 years ago? Do they sometimes just not put in kidneys or some other organ? If they are doing much more business, do they then put much more or some things into their D&C? Did the processing plant change something? Did they change processing plants?

Also at what time did Lex start doing all that rendering instead of eating the fat raw?

I think some Sherlock Holmes kind of investigation might be in order and you made a most noble start.


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 05, 2012, 03:38:59 pm
Gosh, you all have me practically dead and buried!

The problems are very minor at this point and most people today wouldn't even notice them or would think they were normal.

The problem with Phil's time frame is that stuff like the prostate problem was preexisting and has slowly gotten worse over the last 10 years to the point that I finally had to up the meds.  In truth, the doctors were surprised that it took so long.  By this time many men are up to 8mg/day or have transitioned to a more potent drug than the one that I'm taking.  Others have been forced into surgery or must use catheters. 

I also pointed out that my eyesight was at +2.5 when I started this adventure 6+ years ago.  It then dropped a bit too +1.75 and has slowly climbed back up to +2.75.  From where I started this is only a +0.25 overall gain from the initial starting point in 6 years, again rather amazing from the eye docs perspective.

The UTI's have been with me for about 30 years (I started getting them in the 1980's) and usually rear their ugly heads every 2-5 years.  Neither the frequency of infection nor the intensity of the infections has changed much since I went to ZC.  In other words, ZC has had no measurable effect.

The Kidney stones were a new experience, but I've had no further problems since I increased my water intake.  If you remember, I had purposely decreased my water intake to help reduce the frequency of urination from the BPH.  This reduction in water intake happened to coinside with my starting ZC and I assume the acid urine (5.0-5.5 ph) created by ZC was a contributor but not the total cause for the stones.  I upped the fluid intake back to normal and have had no further problems other than having to use the bathroom a bit more often throughout the day.

The only real new issues are the slow weight gain and the minor allergy symptoms.  The weight gain can easily be controlled by purposely eating less, but to do that I would have to measure everything and go on a "diet".  The whole point of eating paleo is that we shouldn't have to diet to maintain our weight as the paleo lifestyle should take care of that for us.  All we should have to do is eat until we are satisfied - at least that is the theory.  The question now is, "is the theory correct?"

The allergy symptoms are more of a mystery and I thank everyone for their input.  I will take a look at everything, but as far as I know little or nothing has changed in my environment.  Of course I have no idea about the beef itself.  The only thing that really stands out might be the rendered fat as I've only been using this consistently for about 2 years.  Before that it was raw fat that I ordered monthly with the meat and ground and added myself.  I may go back to this and see if the problem clears up.  It might also be the Texas drought, and over that I have no control.

Slankers did change processors a couple of years ago as well, but I've heard of no other problems so doubt this would be the cause but will keep it in mind if all else fails.

I tried the primal beef for one month but didn't like it much.  It is ground very fine and has a pasty consistency.  It is totally missing the bone chips, connective tissue, and chewy bits that are in the pet food.  It also tastes very bland in comparison to the pet food.  I'm sure primal beef is a fine product but I prefer the roadkill aspect of the pet food.

My point in mentioning all the little niggly things with eyesight, BPH, UTI' & etc was to make it very clear to readers of this journal that ZC is not the is all, be all, end all, cure for everything that ails you.  It has helped tremendously with most of my issues but like everything else associated with us mere mortals here on planet earth, it is by no stretch of the imagination, perfect.

Danny Roddy has suggested that I expand my tests to include thyroid hormones, some stressor hormones, CO2, and lactic acid.  I'll probably start here and see what the tests look like before doing much else.  Will report results and my thoughts here as usual.

In the mean time, I'm still here and enjoying life, so don't go out and hire the professional mourners just yet.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on February 05, 2012, 07:27:58 pm
Given my own negative experience re RZC, I think it's a good idea if RZCers check their glandular activity(thyroid/adrenal etc.) every now and then.

As regards, the prostate issue, cooked animal fats have been regularly linked to prostate cancer:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8105097 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8105097)

Plus, I should add that I often get "allergic" reactions after eating cooked foods, especially cooked animal foods. These usually involve lots of mucus/snot coming out of my nose, and, sometimes, my throat. It's just detox, not allergy.

So removing rendered fat/cooked fat from your diet might be beneficial re the above.

You mentioned previously that you gained weight if you increased the proportion of fat in your diet. Perhaps if you reduced the percentage of fat in your ZC diet, you would regain a lower weight?  That said, I already have discovered data which suggests that women, in particular, benefit from increased fat-layers after menopause - perhaps men also benefit therefrom in old age?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 05, 2012, 09:00:34 pm
The problem with Phil's time frame is that stuff like the prostate problem was preexisting and has slowly gotten worse over the last 10 years to the point that I finally had to up the meds.
Yes, I knew that. I wasn't trying to give the impression that your history didn't extend back any further. I was focusing on the recent worsenings that you reported and noticed that they pre-dated the drought, so the drought doesn't seem a likely cause of most of the worsenings if they did start worsening 18-24 months ago like you reported.

Quote
I also pointed out that my eyesight was at +2.5 when I started this adventure 6+ years ago.  It then dropped a bit too +1.75 and has slowly climbed back up to +2.75.  From where I started this is only a +0.25 overall gain from the initial starting point in 6 years, again rather amazing from the eye docs perspective.
Yup, and maybe the relapse is just natural progression, but then again maybe not.

Quote
The UTI's have been with me for about 30 years (I started getting them in the 1980's) and usually rear their ugly heads every 2-5 years.  Neither the frequency of infection nor the intensity of the infections has changed much since I went to ZC.  In other words, ZC has had no measurable effect.
Yes, thanks for being honest about ZC not being the end-all and be-all as some folks at ZIOH seem to claim.

I wouldn't dismiss all hope of any improvement or the possibility that there might be other therapies beyond ZC and increased water intake. Consider that my chronic UTI's, chronic kidney stones and too-dark urine had been with me for 11 years. When I asked a urologist if diet might have anything to do with it, he got angry and nearly shouted that it had nothing at all to do with and that the only treatments were antibiotics and water and he said that it was likely that I would have recurrences of kidney stones throughout the rest of my life. After months of those treatments not helping much, I decided to search for other possible therapies and eventually came across gluten-free/casein-free diets and eventually Paleo diets. Cutting out gluten cleared up my urine within weeks and going Paleo and then raw Paleo helped more and I haven't had a UTI or kidney stone issue in the 11 years since eliminating gluten. If I had not questioned the urologist's opinion I likely would still suffer from chronic UTIs and kidney stones to this day. You've already eliminated gluten and eat Paleo and eat plenty of raw meats/organs, but perhaps there are other changes you could make or therapies you could try that might provide some benefit for you. It's at least theoretically plausible that you aren't quite doing currently what works best for you and you have said in the past that when ZC stops working for you, you'll consider change.

Quote
If you remember, I had purposely decreased my water intake to help reduce the frequency of urination from the BPH.  This reduction in water intake happened to coinside with my starting ZC and I assume the acid urine (5.0-5.5 ph) created by ZC was a contributor but not the total cause for the stones.  I upped the fluid intake back to normal and have had no further problems other than having to use the bathroom a bit more often throughout the day.
Yes, I already noted in your history that you upped your water intake. In my case, increasing water intake was not enough and that may not be the only available therapeutic option.

Quote
The only real new issues are the slow weight gain and the minor allergy symptoms.
Right, and issues that aren't improving or even are worsening are also of potential interest, so it was wise that you reported them to give a fuller picture.

Quote
The whole point of eating paleo is that we shouldn't have to diet to maintain our weight as the paleo lifestyle should take care of that for us.  All we should have to do is eat until we are satisfied - at least that is the theory.  The question now is, "is the theory correct?"
In my and other peoples' cases it appears to be. The question is, why isn't it true in your case? To figure that out, it seems that one area of potential explanation would be what are you doing differently from people for whom the theory appears to hold true, such as other  raw and cooked Paleo dieters, Stone Agers and hunter gatherers who don't/didn't appear to have much in the way of problems with chronic body fat gain, chronic allergy symptoms and so forth.

Quote
The only thing that really stands out might be the rendered fat as I've only been using this consistently for about 2 years.  Before that it was raw fat that I ordered monthly with the meat and ground and added myself.  I may go back to this and see if the problem clears up.
Yes, I knew that was relatively recent, which is why I mentioned it.  Like I said, that would probably be the first thing I would try, because it is a clear change you've made, it's relatively easy to change back, it's something you've done before and don't seem to mind doing, and it would put you on the same footing with most of the rest of us and thus better enable comparisons.

Quote
It might also be the Texas drought, and over that I have no control.
Have the symptoms worsened during the last 24 months (during the drought)? Trying a different meat source is another option.

Quote
My point in mentioning all the little niggly things with eyesight, BPH, UTI' & etc was to make it very clear to readers of this journal that ZC is not the is all, be all, end all, cure for everything that ails you.
Of course, but I used to assume that I was stuck with my chronic UTI's, kidney stones, allergies, worsening myopia and night vision, and other problems for the rest of my life and that it was all just a normal part of aging, but I eventually learned otherwise, so it may not pay to dismiss too quickly the possibility of improvement.

Quote
Danny Roddy has suggested that I expand my tests to include thyroid hormones, some stressor hormones, CO2, and lactic acid.  I'll probably start here and see what the tests look like before doing much else.  Will report results and my thoughts here as usual.
It can't hurt.

Quote
In the mean time, I'm still here and enjoying life, so don't go out and hire the professional mourners just yet.
Too late, already done.  ;D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 06, 2012, 02:32:19 am
Well I may have found the source of the runny nose/congestion problem.  My dad died of a blood clot and at my annual medical checkup in the summer of 2010 my doctor suggested that, due to this family history, I add a tablet of aspirin to my daily regimen.   Seemed harmless enough so I went ahead and did this.  This wasn’t  a medication to treat a current disease, but was more a preventive measure to reduce the risk of clotting and suffering the same fate as my father.  Since there was no pathology present, and nothing that seemed remotely related to diet, I didn’t report this in my journal.

In researching this runny nose problem I put everything on the suspect list – including this aspirin.  Just ran across this link this morning. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin-induced_asthma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin-induced_asthma)

It describes my symptoms almost perfectly, and my onset of symptoms seems to co-inside very closely with starting the aspirin regimen, at least as best as memory serves.

I didn’t take my daily dose this morning and will discontinue taking aspirin from this point forward.  I understand that it can take several days for aspirin to clear from the blood stream so we’ll see how things look in a week or so.  Let’s hope this does the trick.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on February 06, 2012, 04:32:31 am
Lex - it is only because we all have taken such a great interest in your journal and your progress that we show you so much concern. Just think of it as having many people that love you - maybe kind of like a celebrity does.  ;)

It's so funny to me that people that can be so careful about their health in so many ways will take drugs and not consider them to be drugs with serious side-affects. Aspirin has been linked to some nasty side-affects including internal bleeding of the stomach. Taking a drug to prevent things is a very strange way of looking at the world. Some women have their breasts cut off because breast cancer runs in their family even when they don't have cancer.

So glad you could figure that one out! Are there any other drugs you are taking that you didn't mention?

Phil - I like the way you are approaching things. So much of what we accept as aging or common discomforts don't have to be endured. Just because one is in better shape than most people in the same age bracket  - that doesn't mean that eyes have to go bad, weakness set in, bones get brittle ... on and on. Diabetes and heart disease are also considered a sign of aging in this country. My horrible UTI's went away when I changed my diet too.

Not wanting you to have to suffer anything that might be able to be changed no matter how minor Lex I hope you don't mind if we continue to offer well-intentioned ideas and thoughts for you?

With this in mind I'd like to ask you if are you still going out for your walks with little clothing on every day? Allergy symptoms in my husband when Cherimoya suggested he take vitamin D were dramatically reduced for him. If you stopped your walk that might have affects too.... or maybe just because it's winter. Do they check your vitamin D levels at your doctor visits?

The only reason I asked about the primal is because it does not include all the organs and that could have had an effect but you ate that such a short time that couldn't have had much of an effect. When you started to render however seems to correlate to some things right? That seems like another easy thing to experiment with.

Who needs doctors when you have all of us nurses and witch doctors looking out for you.  ;D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 06, 2012, 05:41:18 am
Most physicians tell their patients that increasingly painful and immobile joints is a natural or even inevitable part of aging. This 80 year old monk suggests otherwise:
80 year old shaolin monk doing gymnastics at the 2009 TCAAT Wushu tournament. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZZY7tSNqDI#)
Granted, it takes lots of practice to do what he does, but it shows what the human body is capable of.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 06, 2012, 06:04:35 am
Dorothy - I'm not cheering yet.  We'll see what happens over the next few days and weeks, but the aspirin seems to be the likely candidate at this point.  As for the internal bleeding, like everything else, this seems to be a bit overstated.  Yes, aspirin does thin and slow down the clotting of blood and that was the reason for taking it. Howevever, if you read the studies about internal beeding the test subjects were given huge doses of aspirin - like a dozen or up to 100 tablets a day.  I had a friend where I worked that ended up with uncontrolled bleeding attributed to NSAIDs.  He ended up in the hospital emergency room and almost died.  When I questioned him about how much he was taking it ended up to be 25, 500mg tablets per day, and he had been doing that for months.  That's 12 grams per day or 4 full tablespoon or 1/4 cup.  Now that's a lot of aspirin and a far cry from the single 325mg tablet I have been taking each day.

Aspirin is the only medication/supplement other than Doxasozin that I have been taking.  There are a few gurus out there that think aspirin is a wonderful addition to their daily regimen.  It looks like this will not be the case for me, but only time will tell the full story.

Yes, I still try to get 30 min to 1 hr of full body sun exposure at leat 5 days per week.  A little harder in the winter months but I've come to enjoy the quite time.  It takes me away from other activites that require more concentration and allows me time to let my mind wonder and think things through.  As a plus, I might even be getting some Vitamin D in the process.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on February 06, 2012, 07:34:23 am
I think I've read some different studies than you have about aspirin Lex - but I'd be hard pressed to find them (not enough motivation right now and it would take time). My Mom was hospitalized three times from trying low doses of NSAIDs for her arthritis - once almost bled to death internally. A change in diet took away her pain later. Low doses don't effect everyone the same. I'm really glad that you (holding my breath) were able to find the culprit.

In case anyone else is taking aspirin - there is such a nice alternative to aspirin. White willow herb is what aspirin is derived from. It has none of the side-affects and has lots of other good affects including fighting off cancerous cells with still having the blood thinning ability. There are also lots of other great foods that naturally thin the blood. Check it out.

I think your doctor wasn't seeing the whole picture Lex. If you have never had arteriosclerosis, all your lipid tests are fine and your tests for the viscosity of your blood are fine - why take anything or worry about it? You don't eat like the average American so your pancreas is probably going to keep on making the enzymes that keep the blood the right consistency. Why should you have to take preventatives for the diseases that the average American will get when you're not an average American? Also, because you are eating such a clean diet any drug might have more or different affects on you.

Drugs don't affect me like other people I think because of my diet. I have to be very careful.

Phil - I loved that video - except that darn CHAIR!  l)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on February 06, 2012, 02:58:57 pm
Low doses don't effect everyone the same. I'm really glad that you (holding my breath) were able to find the culprit.

In case anyone else is taking aspirin - there is such a nice alternative to aspirin. White willow herb is what aspirin is derived from. It has none of the side-affects and has lots of other good affects including fighting off cancerous cells with still having the blood thinning ability. There are also lots of other great foods that naturally thin the blood.

    Lex, I second what Dorothy wrote. I respect that you've had bad experiences with herbs, but they wanted me on vioxx and low dose aspirin. I didn't need that with my kidneys and heart.  I took my trusty feverfew, white willow and other natural supplement anti-inflammatories and they gave me no problem. I assume they would work on a raw meat and or zero carb diet too, but I have not tried that.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 06, 2012, 10:24:29 pm
Dorothy and RawZi,
At this point I think I'm a bit gun shy so will avoid the herbal repalcements for aspirin as well.  The active components in willow bark are the same as for aspirin just in lower doses.  If I'm sensitive to these things then why tempt the fate of the Gods, I'll just avoid them all together unless and until they are actually needed.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 06, 2012, 11:29:41 pm
People here are being diplomatic about western pharmaceutical drugs and docs.

I consider most of them here in my country to be the devil incarnate.
Why in my healing experience I have to save people from the western pharma drugs and surgery insanity.
(Most of the time making things worse and actually being the cause of hastened death.)
I've got a great team / network of real healers here in my country.

Just saying out of true concern for you, Lex.  I think whatever form of raw paleo diet you choose will always be sabotaged by drugs.

24 hour emergency room is all they're good for. (in the absence of anything else)

Aspirin is probably the worst thing people will ever take when they have Dengue Fever and suspect it's just a regular headache.  People bleed to death because of aspirin.

In the order of healing I go with:

Food (you'll need to eat more items than your zero carb mono meals)
Electrical, Energy healing
Herbs
...
...
... (absolutely last, probably if I'm not around to heal my family...)
Drugs

----------
We have other healers:

- Anthroposophic / Homeopathic / Western Med
- Traditional Chinese Medicine / Holistic / Acupuncture
- Chiropractor / Paleo Diet practitioner and health coach
- Energy, Electrical, healer
- Holistic Home Grown, Live in Healer
- Mystical Healers

Etc etc.
You may wish to get many opinions from other disciplines, other points of views.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on February 07, 2012, 12:10:01 pm
Dorothy and RawZi,
At this point I think I'm a bit gun shy so will avoid the herbal repalcements for aspirin as well.  The active components in willow bark are the same as for aspirin just in lower doses.  If I'm sensitive to these things then why tempt the fate of the Gods, I'll just avoid them all together unless and until they are actually needed.

Lex 

Lex - I think that is a wise choice. Again - why take something as a preventative - even an herb?

For others though that might not be using aspirin as a preventative - the thing about herbs is that they often have other active ingredients that counter-act any side-affects. When you take only one thing out of the herb and reproduce just that one thing chemically and put the chemical in a pill like big pharma does you often lose a great deal of complexity and healing aspects of the plant.

RawZi - nice - using the plants and foods of nature to feed and heal. :D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 08, 2012, 02:12:52 am
Well, the runny nose, sinus, and sneezing issue does seem to be directly correlated to the aspirin.  After stopping the aspirin for 2 full days the constant runny nose has reduced by about 75%, the sneezing has gone to 2 to 3 times per day instead of every hour or two, and the stuffy sinus has cleared.  Each day it has gotten better.  I expect I'll have some of this lingering for several weeks or months as my body clears out remnants that are stored in fat and other areas.

It appears that this was not related to diet so I'll continue on continuing on with what I have been doing as it has worked well for most other issues.  I do plan to get the hormone tests that Danny Roddy recommends and will report them here.  I want to give my body a couple of weeks to recover from the major part of the aspirin fiasco and then will submit the tests.  The tests are not cheap as the cost for the whole battery of tests is right around $1,000.  It will be interesting to see what they reveal.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 08, 2012, 05:18:34 am
Hi Lex, since you are in testing mode, how about considering this omega 3 test?

www.omega3test.com (http://www.omega3test.com) with 50% discount using offer code "slanker"

Interesting interview at http://www.oneradionetwork.com/diet-and-nutrition/ted-slanker-grassfed-meat-the-natural-foundation-for-the-perfect-diet-january-16-2012/ (http://www.oneradionetwork.com/diet-and-nutrition/ted-slanker-grassfed-meat-the-natural-foundation-for-the-perfect-diet-january-16-2012/)

at 21:00 minutes Mr. Slanker mentioned this offer.

You need a ratio below 4:1 (omega 6 : omega 3)

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 08, 2012, 08:01:59 am
Well, the runny nose, sinus, and sneezing issue does seem to be directly correlated to the aspirin.
Interesting, thanks for the report, Lex. Coincidentally, I listened to a radio interview of Ray Audette on Youtube last night in which Ray reported that when he takes a capsule/tablet with some corn starch in it, that tiny bit of corn starch gives him symptoms, which suggests that the symptom trigger for you could be either the filler or the active ingredient in the aspirin.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 08, 2012, 11:38:00 am
GS,
I'll see if the test can be included in the battery I'm considering at a reasonable cost.   The website link you provided wants $175+ for the test and as it is the labs for the hormone tests will run about $1,000.  I'm not sure I want to add another 20% to the cost and have to deal with another lab as well, but I'll look into it.

I don't know that I "need" a ratio below 4:1.  As far as I know, no one knows what the optimal blood ratio for Omega3 vs Omega6 should be.  The experts can't even agree on the ratio of free fatty acids (of any kind) to triglycerides, or the ratio of lipids to glucose.  How could they possibly provide any meaningful information on the ratio of the different fatty acids?  And what are the direct measurable consequences of a fatty acid ratio higher than 4:1?, or lower for that matter.    I don't think anyone knows.

This is true for all the hormone tests as well.  All of these things are either someones guess or an average of the "normal" population.  The supposed acceptable values also vary widely depending on what guru or medical expert is recommending them.  The view of the medical profession is often at odds with the Natural Healers.  The Natural Healers often don't agree amongst themselves, but usually insist the medical profession is wrong regardless of what it believes. 

The best I can do is eat in a way that seems reasonable to me, and then make my lab results available to those who are interested.   Each person will have to decide for themselves if the numbers provide any value or useful insight.  I, for one, never make changes based solely on lab results unless there is clear pathology present.  And therein lies the rub.  Which expert's definition of pathology for any given lab result is correct?   One thing I know for sure is that I don't know for sure - unless there is an obvious infection - and then the arguments begin all over again about treatment. 

We live in interesting times....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 08, 2012, 11:43:17 am
which suggests that the symptom trigger for you could be either the filler or the active ingredient in the aspirin.

Makes no difference to me which one it is.  I've stopped taking the darn things.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 08, 2012, 11:57:03 am
Understandable, just an interesting coincidence. I would do the same in your place, not that that should add any confidence to your chosen course of action.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 08, 2012, 12:02:30 pm
I would do the same in your place, not that that should add any confidence to your chosen course of action.

Phil, your input is always well reasoned and welcomed.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 08, 2012, 12:17:22 pm
Thanks. I used to take whatever drugs physicians recommended and not think much about it. When it became clear that that was counterproductive and as I learned more about long-term side effects, my bias shifted towards thinking that my goal should be to resolve underlying causes sufficiently to enable me to get off any and all chronic prescription/OTC drugs. As Angelo Coppola of Latest in Paleo says,  "Human beings are not broken by default."
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 09, 2012, 08:04:49 am
GS,
I'll see if the test can be included in the battery I'm considering at a reasonable cost.   The website link you provided wants $175+ for the test and as it is the labs for the hormone tests will run about $1,000.  I'm not sure I want to add another 20% to the cost and have to deal with another lab as well, but I'll look into it.

http://www.omega3test.com/ (http://www.omega3test.com/)

50% discount using offer code "slanker" = $ 87.50 :)

I think it has more to do with verifying that the mono meals beef you are eating has a good omega 3 to 6 ratio.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 09, 2012, 02:54:43 pm
I think it has more to do with verifying that the mono meals beef you are eating has a good omega 3 to 6 ratio.

I have no idea if the test would verify that or not.  I also have no idea what a good blood omega 3 to 6 ratio would be.  I'm hearing that now some experts are saying that Omega 3 is terrible and we should avoid it at all costs.  Who knows what's true.  Rather than focusing on Omega3 in my diet, I prefer to think in terms of eating animals that are eating their natural diet.  If they are eating their natural diet then their composition should provide good nutrition regardless of the ratios of the various nutrients.  Remember, I don't try to achieve any specific numbers in my lab tests.  I eat what I feel is a resonable diet and let the numbers fall where they may.

Will look into the test when I'm ready to take them.  May do the hormone thing first and add the omega 3 to my annual test in July if it is available through my healthcare provider.  We'll see.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on February 13, 2012, 03:42:27 pm
Lex, your environment has changed due to Fukushima, and in your area radioactive pollution exceeds maximum levels by something like five times.

"People need to know that there is no magic bullet."

There is a magic bullet! It is the iodine protocol:
http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/iprotocol.html (http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/iprotocol.html)

  "No matter what we eat, drink, or do, we will age, become infirm and die."

Iodine protocol cures prostate problem, improves eyesight and all your other symptoms. Potassium iodide is the recommended answer to radiation poisoning, which all of us in the northern hemisphere have.

Since you are so young,   you'll probably notice good effects within three weeks.
http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=815 (http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=815)
http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/IOD-05/IOD_05.html (http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/IOD-05/IOD_05.html)

Note GS's comment on electrical therapy - iodine does this from the inside, as it is the tool needed by your immune system.


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 14, 2012, 01:50:14 pm
There is a magic bullet! It is the iodine protocol:

Iodine protocol cures prostate problem, improves eyesight and all your other symptoms. Potassium iodide is the recommended answer to radiation poisoning, which all of us in the northern hemisphere have.

Since you are so young,   you'll probably notice good effects within three weeks.

If only it was that simple.  I’ve been chasing miracle cures like this for most of my life.  So far none have worked as advertised.  All have been long on promises and short on delivery. 

Maybe if I mix it with some of my previous miracle cureall's: Chlorine Dioxide, Colloidal Silver, Coral Calcium, Methylselenocysteine, and Slow Release Magnesium…..

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on February 14, 2012, 11:58:36 pm
I can't see it as a "miracle cure". Iodine deficiency is epidemic. It is real, and provable by urinalysis.

If you read enough of the literature, you can see that it is caused by deficiency, and  by modern pollution, including the outgassing of bromine from flame retardants in upholstery textiles in house and automobiles, fluorine in prescription medicines. You will also see that it is as logical and inevitable as the the clockworks that you know so well.

If you need support from a physician, there is a list here:
http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/ipractitioners.html (http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/ipractitioners.html)
Needed because allopathic physicians are trained to be hostile to this proven successful way. Proven since 1831.
No way this is in the same class as the snake oil you mentioned.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 15, 2012, 12:44:00 am
William may have something there about iodine deficiency and the deficiency of the soil the grass grows on and the cows you eat feed on.

I used to have organic tree iodine made by my herbalist teacher barefootherbalistmh.com (got lost in the flood, maybe I should order more).

It was good powerful stuff, non-toxic, unlike the chemical iodine.  It saved me once from red tide food poisoning when I ate dirty oysters. 

It's just possibilities and concepts, Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on February 15, 2012, 02:06:29 am
If only it was that simple.  I’ve been chasing miracle cures like this for most of my life.  So far none have worked as advertised.  All have been long on promises and short on delivery. 

Maybe if I mix it with some of my previous miracle cureall's: Chlorine Dioxide, Colloidal Silver, Coral Calcium, Methylselenocysteine, and Slow Release Magnesium…..

Lex

LOL!  Exactly my own experience. Supplements were all a dreadful waste of time for me. Well, except for homeopathic remedies which had  slight, short-term effect on certain symptoms, but which never had a permanent effect.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on February 15, 2012, 04:20:58 am
I will say that Lex avoids seafoods, which tend to be rich in iodine.

However, most cattle farmers supplement their cows with iodine.  Slankers probably does, too.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on February 15, 2012, 06:12:56 am
The problem with iodine supplementation is that too much is just as bad as too little. There was epidemic thyroid disease before iodine was added to salt - but not too long AFTER it was added the thyroid disease numbers increased to more than they were before they were added and continue so. I eat foods that have all the things that were suggested on that website William when I want them. Lex is eating the thyroids of the cows from Slankers because the whole cow goes into the mix. Thyroid gland is very high in iodine.

If Lex is very low in iodine it would probably show up on tsh blood tests because the thyroid really can't continue to function well without enough iodine. If iodine deficiency is at the core of the cause of his other symptoms (especially the prostate issues) then I would imagine that he would be deficient enough for it also to affect his thyroid function. Have you had your thyroid function tested with your checkups Lex?

Another thing that has to be taken into account here is that for the first 4 years all his numbers were improving, his symptoms were abating and his disease processes slowing down. Then the aspirin - which - if he had an allergy to it - could have been causing a general body wide reaction that could have put a big monkey wrench in all of the healing that was moving so nicely forward before he started taking it.

Before anything can be evaluated imho Lex is going to need to let this substance release from his body, get his immune system back to working on other things and get a new foundation from which to evaluate if anything else needs to be changed. None of us can make any assumptions. He found something that was causing a problem. It will take time to see if it was causing any others. For all we know his prostate and his UTIs might heal up on their own now that his immune system is not being taxed.

The most prudent thing to do is change one thing at a time and give it enough time to see what the affects will be before trying anything new in my opinion. Otherwise, you never really know what is having what affect.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 15, 2012, 01:34:39 pm
My lab tests taken in August of 2011 have TSH at 1.43.  No idea if this is good or bad.

Since I started this adventure my labs did rapidly improve (by normal medical standards) for the first couple of years but have been fairly steady for the last couple of years.  Since I have no idea what the numbers should be, I don't know that further improvement is needed.

What I can say is that in 6 years of eating paleo/zc my symptoms of BPH slowed down but they did not stop or reverse.  There was no measurable effect on my presbyopia or the frequency of UTI infections.  My hair loss did seem to stop but the hair I lost over the last 20 years didn't grow back.    Nothing else I have ever tried did anything to improve these issues either so I don't count these things as a failure.  In fact, I'm thrilled with the results I've achieved, and I will continue doing what I've been doing until there is clear evidence that I need to make a change.

The aspirin I was taking did seem to be the cause of the allergy type symptoms.  Since I stopped taking it all the symptoms have gone away.

William - Next time I see my doctor I'll discuss the iodine issue with him and what tests are available to prove or disprove your theory that I'm iodine deficient.  I have no interest in taking anything unless it is clear that there is a deficiency and that some intervention is needed.  I tried that already with the aspirin fiasco and didn't like the results.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RawZi on February 15, 2012, 01:45:56 pm
My lab tests taken in August of 2011 have TSH at 1.43.  No idea if this is good or bad.

    If it's between 0.5 to 4.95 it's considered normal. Sometimes doctors refuse to medicate till it hits 10.00.  I consider that between 1.0 and 2.0 is best when healthiest.  You can Google TSH numbers.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 15, 2012, 05:52:44 pm
Lex, ever considered adding ocean animals in your diet?

Lots of delicious stuff from the ocean:
- shrimp
- crab
- oysters
- clams
- fish
- sea urchin
- squid

Etc. etc.

If there is any iodine or any other mineral deficiency due to the depleted soil of your beef staple, then the ocean must be more nutritious.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on February 16, 2012, 01:38:00 am
Lex, if I remember right from reading your journal your blood sugars and your fat profiles improved a good deal which was a very important change in the right direction. Just the fact that your problems besides the sinus issue did not increase (which would be the norm) is impressive - especially while taking the aspirin which was a stress on your system. 

All of the side-affects of iodine deficiency relate to the thyroid gland. Since your thyroid levels seem normal and you don't seem to be demonstrating (from anything you have written so far in your journal) symptoms of thyroid disease, I highly doubt your doctor is going to be concerned - but it never hurts to ask.

William's suggestions about pumping up iodine in radioactive areas IS what scientists do to protect people by protecting the thyroid gland. But, most people are not eating as cleanly, simply and wholesomely as you do, nor eating the WHOLE animal. The thyroid gland from grass-fed beef might be a BETTER source of iodine than seafood and probably a much better source than supplements that probably are not as bio-available. The Slankers thyroid is probably a great source of iodine:

"The data reveals that sedimentary rocks are enhanced in iodine and that soils are concentrated even further.  Some soils are amazingly enriched, large areas of Texas average 20,000 ppb soil iodine. This is more than a 10-fold enrichment of the average regolith source material and almost a 70 fold increase over the average crustal content."
http://www.graystonelabs.com/IodinePaper.html (http://www.graystonelabs.com/IodinePaper.html)

If it aint broken, don't fix it.

And I say the same thing about your weight. One of the side-affects of a good diet is moving towards one's ideal weight. When someone is thin, finding the right diet for them, they will gain weight and stop gaining when the ideal weight is reached. The trend in itself is not a sign that something is wrong.

The only things that could be a concern at this point Lex - correct me if I'm wrong - are the prostate and UTIs - which have held stable. It will be very interesting to see how that goes now that you are off the aspirin. Aspirin can cause minerals and other nutrients to not be absorbed as well and from your reaction sounded like it was a strain on your immune system. You can't know all the side-affects that the aspirin had on you, so just removing the aspirin might open up the nutritional benefits from the food you are already eating.

Thanks for keeping us all posted.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 16, 2012, 04:18:24 am
Dorothy - as you point out, I'm trying to take a methodical and measured approach.  The aspirin fiasco didn't seem to have any other effect than the allergy symptoms.  There were no other changes that I noticed.  I'm guessing that I get a lot of stuff like thyroid in the pet food I eat.  If there is a secret to my success I'm laying odds that it is the pet food.

Rawzi - If what you say is true then apparently my TSH numbers look good.  I've heard others say that TSH should be below 1, but who knows for sure what is correct.

GS - I generally don't like seafoods but do eat them on rare occasions.  Shrimp, crab, lobster etc is rather tasteless and not overly appetizing to me.  Oysters, clams and other shell fish are good in chowder - which I haven't eaten for 7 or 8 years now - but just don't like them raw.  Squid and octopus have the consistency of chewing rubberbands or old Volkswagen fan belts - just not enjoyable to eat.  Never tried Sea Urchin but since I don't like much of the other stuff I doubt that I'll be head over heels for that either so won't be going out of my way to try it any time soon.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on February 16, 2012, 05:20:07 am
Raw sea urchin eggs and raw scallops really are quite different  from the rest. Much richer in taste.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on February 16, 2012, 07:12:58 am

All of the side-affects of iodine deficiency relate to the thyroid gland.


There are iodine receptors in every cell of your body.
Thyroid is so very important that it gets available iodine first, too bad for the prostate and other organs, which is where the problem is.

Lex, if there were another source of effective iodine than Iodoral or Lugol's, Magnascent/SSKI etc. then it would be known. After all, there are ~180 years of records of iodine supplementation.
There is a standard lab test for iodine deficiency, but I would be amazed if your doctor told you about it, or agreed to supplementation. Need to ask an iodine-literate physician.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 16, 2012, 02:42:53 pm
William,
Every cell has receptors for insulin, glucose, fatty acids, sodium, potassium, magnisum, calcium, iodine, and just about everything else.  I seriously doubt that I'm deficient in everything that cells have receptors for.

As I said, I'll discuss with my doctor to see what tests are available, but so far I have no reason to believe that I have any deficiencies in any nutrient or hormone.  I know you are passionate about this, but I just don't get hysterical over these kinds of things. 

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CitrusHigh on February 16, 2012, 03:23:10 pm
Doesn't slankers spray pesticides on their forage? That would seem like reason enough to quit eating their ware.

Here is a quote by Rogue Farmer on a thread re the subject...

"2,4-D is one of the two components of Agent Orange. Herbicides are mutagens. They may not kill grass or animals but they still have similar effects as does radiation. Radiation and herbicides are proven harmful, but cases of people dying from either are rare. Generally people don't handle uranium or wash their hands with herbicides either."
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on February 16, 2012, 07:08:24 pm
I think the body is pretty tough and eating what Lex eats is a thousand times better than most people. Plenty of people have lived thousands of kilometers from the nearest oceans and have never eaten seafood.

I thought Raw Paleo would make me into a age defying superman but alas....

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 17, 2012, 06:32:44 am
Doesn't slankers spray pesticides on their forage? That would seem like reason enough to quit eating their ware.

Here is a quote by Rogue Farmer on a thread re the subject...

"2,4-D is one of the two components of Agent Orange. Herbicides are mutagens. They may not kill grass or animals but they still have similar effects as does radiation. Radiation and herbicides are proven harmful, but cases of people dying from either are rare. Generally people don't handle uranium or wash their hands with herbicides either."

I really don't know and quite frankly don't much care.  These chemicals (and radiation) are everywhere in our environment and are unavoidable.  The same goes for massive amounts of pollution spewed daily from volcanos. I have no control over any of this so spend zero time worrying about it.  Life is way too short.

You can spend your time agonzing over global warming, herbicides, and radiation and after 3 score and 10 you're pretty much on borrowed time.  Or you can live life to the fullest everyday doing things that are interesting and bring joy to you and those around you, and after 3 score and 10 you are again pretty much on borrowed time.  I've chosen the latter approach.

I thought Raw Paleo would make me into a age defying superman but alas....

Good for you that you figured this out Andrew.  So many people spend their entire lives convinced that if they just eat the right foods, do the right exercises, and take all the right supplements that they will live forever in perfect health.  They are shocked when all too soon they are forced to face their own mortality and discover that they've wasted so much precious time - time that they can never get back.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on February 17, 2012, 06:42:43 am
I agree that a perfect diet can't solve all problems nor give us immortality or whatever. But I still think it gives us a much greater chance(never 100%, of course) of living to an uncomplicated old age, free from alzheimer's, parkinson's disease and many other horrors, while suffering less serious effects from arthritis etc. than those on mainstream diets. As I get older and find more and more of the older people I used to know suffering from very nasty health-problems in the last 10-15 years of their lives, I am increasingly grateful that I chose this diet.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on February 17, 2012, 08:41:06 am
Quote
I thought Raw Paleo would make me into a age defying superman but alas....

I'm still in the honeymoon stage.  42 years old. 4 years into RPD.  Best of health and feeling I've had of all time.  Most of my peers have tons of white hair... I look younger than my 31 year old brother, I feel like an age defying superman.

My Caucasian Jewish, martial artist friend, kung fu master, traditional chinese medicine healer, and master acupuncturist... 51 year old Sifu Jen Sam... His diet is almost raw paleo, he eats very little, but he's sculpted real good and is a sex machine.  And his idol is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen) . And he is following a good amount of the longevity and health teachings of that guy and other chinese masters and current global holistic teachings.  Seems to be working for him.

Of course we aren't 60+ like Lex.

Lex,

I do thank you for experimenting for us so we learn from your experience.

But I do feel going on a mono-beef-only diet is a mistake.  Putting your health at the mercy of the health of that single animal species or supplier?  There's a well reported drought there lately.

How about taking a vacation on a fishing village by the ocean?  I bet their super fresh caught raw sea food will put lots of smiles on you.

I have fond memories of my 80+ year old grandmother (SAD dieter) saying she didn't like sashimi nor eat sashimi.  We stayed overnight in a fishing village and I let her taste my freshly caught raw fish... she was amazed how delicious freshly caught raw fish was, she chowed down half of my foot long raw fish, without condiments!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on February 17, 2012, 12:16:03 pm


How about taking a vacation on a fishing village by the ocean?  I bet their super fresh caught raw sea food will put lots of smiles on you.



Agreed, agreed. It's worth trying different kinds of sashimi, especially the fatty body parts. If you don't notice an immediate boost in energy/mood/whatever, then probably you aren't deficient. 

In my experience, you don't have to eat a food every day or even every week for it to help you.  If you're deficient in something, eating that food that contains it a few times a month can really help.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 18, 2012, 01:33:48 am
How about taking a vacation on a fishing village by the ocean?  I bet their super fresh caught raw sea food will put lots of smiles on you.

I can’t think of anything less enjoyable.  I’m just not an ocean or sea shore kind of guy.  I live 15 minutes from the ocean and never go.  For my vacations I much prefer the piney woods.  I grew up hiking around Kings Canyon National Forest, Yosemite, and Mineral King.  Breathtakingly beautiful, and sure beats the smell of dead fish and rotting seaweed at the beach.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on February 18, 2012, 06:34:24 am
As the saying goes:- "the grass is always greener on the other side". I have noticed that most of the locals near my villa on the Italian coast never ever swim. If they go near the water at all, that's no more than a few times a year, and then they just put their toes in the water, at best. I guess I'm just glad that, outside the holiday period, I don't live in the mountains or by the sea.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on February 21, 2012, 12:45:38 pm
"We stayed overnight in a fishing village and I let her taste my freshly caught raw fish... she was amazed how delicious freshly caught raw fish was, she chowed down half of my foot long raw fish, without condiments!"

Sounds like heaven. I grew up by the ocean so I miss the ocean like you miss the forest Lex. I had a dream last night about being at the shore happy to be back home. We should trade. ;)

About the pesticides - well, yeah, if you have a choice. But it's darn HARD if not almost impossible to find an organic version of what Lex gets. A friend suggested to me that the processors don't throw away the waste but sell it for dog food etc. themselves - therefore getting HALF the cow for free from the farmers and then selling it. It's really hard to find processors that are willing to process the entire animal for you... I've been working on it talking to farmers. They often can't even get back the organs for THEMSELVES from an animal that is theirs. Or...... maybe it's just that it's out of the norm so takes more time and effort. Either way, it aint easy getting a ground up whole animal (especially with the consistency that Lex gets) from any other source and especially if one isn't buying the entire cow.

Again - so far we there is no indication that anything is broken - so why fix? I marvel at you Lex figuring out a way to get the lifestyle along with the health benefits that you have.

With that aspirin - you really can't tell if it had other effects with absorption or not because just like with diet - just because you aren't "sick" doesn't mean that a SAD diet isn't having internal affects that you aren't aware of. So...... I still wouldn't be surprised if you had some improvements that you weren't necessarily expecting after awhile being off that stuff.

I'm kinda glad that you don't want to experiment incorporating all sorts of new foods because you are such a great test case. The simplicity in the way that you are eating has broken to pieces all sorts of assumptions. No vitamin C deficiency, your bones are not crumbling, your intestines are fine. Now that the aspirin is gone I look forward to seeing how you progress over the next couple of months. As long as this way of eating feels right to you and you continue to feel good and better over time, I'm a grateful witness to your consistency.







Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on March 01, 2012, 01:18:55 pm
I have noticed that most of the locals near my villa on the Italian coast never ever swim. If they go near the water at all, that's no more than a few times a year, and then they just put their toes in the water, at best. I guess I'm just glad that, outside the holiday period, I don't live in the mountains or by the sea.
That's interesting. By coincidence, I don't think my grandparents on either side of the family ever went swimming in their lives. What's up with that? Did traditional people fear water or something, or were my grandparents exceptions? Could it have been fear of tuberculosis, or pollution, or a combination, or were people just too busy with farming or jobs to bother with swimming, or what?

I myself enjoy swimming, especially floating, which I'm pretty good at (I've even fallen asleep while floating on the water, without a floatation device and without submerging, not that I'm bragging or anything, it's one of the few things that I exceed the average in). It's also interesting that traditional Inuit did not know how to swim (likely due to the ice-cold temps of the Arctic Ocean), so that if they ever fell into the ocean from their kayaks or while stepping across gaps in ice, they would quickly drown. Yet I've seen videos of traditional Inuits stepping agilely across ice flows, betraying no fear. Astonishing.

To I hope make up for this terrible tangent in Lex's journal, I think we're overdue for some praise and thankfulness towards Lex. Thank you for continuing to post in this forum, Lex, and for sharing your honest and informative thoughts. Every now and again I must try to remember to thank you.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: gc on April 03, 2012, 10:57:45 am
Sounds like heaven. I grew up by the ocean so I miss the ocean like you miss the forest Lex.

And the meadows and the clean streams and the rocks....
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on April 07, 2012, 07:55:26 am
Lex, what are your thoughts on hormesis?

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/hormesis.html (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/hormesis.html)
http://coffeetheory.com/2012/03/15/why-i-practice-hormetism/ (http://coffeetheory.com/2012/03/15/why-i-practice-hormetism/)
http://gettingstronger.org/hormesis/ (http://gettingstronger.org/hormesis/)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on April 08, 2012, 06:44:49 am
Phil,
I really don't know anything about hormesis.  From the links you provided it seems that it includes many everyday things for which they have now found a cool sounding name.  I'm sure that I must practice it on occasion since it includes exercise, intermittant fasting, as well as eating small concentrations of things.  Heaven knows that this is true just by drinking the reconstituted sewage called tap water here in Los Angeles.  Our water is full of all kinds of junk - some measurabe, and some at the proverbial hormesis level. 

I feel great so it must be working, and now I have a cool sounding name for it!

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 14, 2012, 12:18:06 pm
I recently completed reading The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance by Volek and Phinney.  In the book they made the case for running your body on Ketones and Fatty Acids as its primary fuel rather than Carbohydrates.  They have done a good bit of work in determining the level of ketones in the blood necessary for the brain and other systems to switch from using carbs to ketones and fatty acids as their primary fuel.  The general breakdown is as follows:

Less than 0.6 mmol/L indicates a full glucose based metabolism
0.6 mmol/L -  1.5 mmol/L Nutritional Ketosis begins
1.5 mmol/L - 3.0 mmol/L Optimal blood ketone zone (most systems using ketones or fatty acids as fuel)
2.5 mmol/L - 4.0 mmol/L normal rise after heavy exercise
4.0 mmol/L- 10.0 mmol/L water fasting or starvation levels
10 mmol/L or over is considered ketoacidosis which is not a good thing.

Blood ketones can be measured like blood glucose you just need the right meter and test strips.  Not cheap.  The meter is about $20 USD, but the test strips are about $5 USD each.  After reading the book I was curious what my blood ketones would be so I took out a loan on the house and ordered a meter and 20 test strips.  They came in today's post at about 10 am.

According to the book blood ketones tend to be lower in the morning and then rise throughout the day depending on what you eat and your level of activity.  They are supposedly highest after exercise.  This morning I was feeling energetic so I went to our local High School track and did eight 100 yard wind sprints with about 2 minutes between them.  That was about 8 am.  The meter and test strips arrived at 10 am and I made the first test at about 10:30am.  The reading was 3.2 mmol/L which is about the middle of the Post Exercise range suggested by Phinney and Volek.

I ate my normal meal of around 2000 calories at 1pm with 75% - 80% of calories from fat.  I took another reading 7 hours after eating (8pm) and the reading was 2.7 mmol/L, towards the high end of the Optimal Ketone range.  Phinney and Volek state that there seems to be no benefit to increasing blood ketones beyond 3.0 mmol/L, and Volek states that he tries to maintain an average around 2.0 mmol/L.

Anyway, it seems that these two tests show that my blood ketone levels are right in line with the expectations as recounted in the book.  Ketones were definitely higher after exercise and my high fat diet has resting blood ketones in the high optimal range above 2.5 mmol/L.

According to Phinney and Volek I can manage ketones by continuing a high fat intake of 75% - 80% of calories and then either adding a few carbs or increasing protein intake.  All should be fine as long as ketones don't drop below 1.5 mmol/L or exceed 3.0 mmol/L.  Apparently when you get down around 1.5 mmol/L the brain and other systems will start switching back to glucose and there is no measurable benefit to maintaining a level above 3.0 mmol/L (at least from a performance perspective).

Obviously I don't have much of a track record here, but thought folks might be interested.  Just as my past experiments were aimed at testing Gary Taubes theory's,  these tests are to find out how my many years following this way of eating have effected blood ketones and to see if I can duplicate similar results to Phinney's and Volek's.  So far they are spot on, which is not surprising since the book is based on actual studies.

The book goes into great detail as to why urinary ketones don't correlate well to blood ketones and much other technical stuff so if you are interested in this subject I highly recommend the book.  If you are into physical perfomrance, they don't think that a cyclic ketogenic diet provides as much benefit as is hyped.  According to Phinney, actual tests showed that droping blood levels of ketones back into the glucose burning range casues the test subject to again require up to 2 weeks to get back to where they were from a performance standpoint.  In other words, they had to re-adapt.  Eating high carb meals every few days would keep you constantly in the adaptation phase and you would never reach peak performance - sort of the worst of both worlds.

Thoughts?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on July 14, 2012, 04:48:01 pm
Just a question (I'm not so familiar with the topic): don't ketones strain the liver, because  they have to be produced first there (whereas glucose is used directly by the cells)? I'm not sure how demanding the ketone production process is. My guess would be that it's pretty expensive because it's mainly used as a fallback solution, when there's lack of glucose.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on July 14, 2012, 07:47:30 pm
Hi Lex,

good to hear from you!

Thanks for the (always very) interesting info. I just ordered the book from Volek and Phinney. Regarding ketogenic diets, I believe that most people (inlcuding myself in the past) underestimate the process of adaptation.

BTW: How is everything? Please tell us more about your current physical and mental health status.

Best wishes

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 14, 2012, 10:53:21 pm
Just a question (I'm not so familiar with the topic): don't ketones strain the liver, because  they have to be produced first there (whereas glucose is used directly by the cells)? I'm not sure how demanding the ketone production process is. My guess would be that it's pretty expensive because it's mainly used as a fallback solution, when there's lack of glucose.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it.  The liver is always doing something.  If you are eating a high carb diet then it is converting lots of glucose into triglycerides for storage.  Which is more demanding, creating ketones from fat or triglycerides from glucose?  I have no idea.

I also find your assumption that creating ketones is a "fallback solution" implying that it is an abnormal condition, amusing.  Based on the catastrophe of our high carbohydrate diets as pushed by our government, (several orders of magnitude increase in, diabetes, auto immune diseases, massive over weight, heart disease, cancer, and all the other modern diseases), what makes you believe that having our bodies run on ketones instead of glucose is abnormal and for emergencies only?  Whether our bodies use ketones/fatty acids or glucose as the primary fuel is totally dependent on what you choose to eat.  A low carb diet creates a ketone/fatty acid based metabolism, and a moderate to high carb diet creates a glucose based metabolism. 

I ate a high carb diet for most of my life as I believed the government and other "health" gurus that carbs and glucose were what our bodies were designed to run on.  What I got for my belief system was a 40" waist at 220 lbs (I'm 6'1") for a BMI of 29 which is borderline obesity, high blood pressure 165/95, a fasting blood glucose level of 144, triglycerides of 500+, a cholesterol level of over 250, loss of bone mass with loosening teeth, arthritis in my hands and neck, and severe migraine headaches several times per month that would send me to a dark room in agony for 24 to 48 hours at a stretch.

I've been on a low carb diet with my body running on ketones and fatty acids for about 8 years now.  My weight dropped to 160 lbs with a 33 inch waist and a BMI of 21.  Blood pressure dropped to 106/65, blood glucose now stays right at 100 fasting or otherwise and seldom varies by more than 10 points either way.  Triglycerides have dropped ten fold into the 50's, cholesterol dropped to 180-190 range, arthritis totally disappeared as did my migraine headaches.  A DEXA scan and dental x-rays have shown that my bone density has increased significantly as well.  My teeth tightened and my average overall bone density has restored to about 95% of that of a 30 year old (I'm 61).

Needless to say, my belief system has changed.  I no longer believe that a glucose based metabolism is "normal".  My annual blood tests tell the story.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 14, 2012, 11:14:33 pm
BTW: How is everything? Please tell us more about your current physical and mental health status.

Löwenherz,
I'm doing well.  After so many years on my VLC diet there is now very little change and nothing much to report other than my annual blood tests.

After reading Phinney's book and getting the ketone meter I thought others might be interested in what my blood ketone levels are since I've been pretty much zero carb for so many years.  Took my 3rd reading this morning and it was 3.6 mmol/L which is high for a non-post exercise reading.  I expect that this shows that I could drop my fat intake and increase protein or add a few carbs to my diet without harm.  I'd normally make a second test to double check such a reading, but the test strips are so expensive that I'll just wait and make another test tomorrow morning and average the results over time.

One of the things that I like about the ketone reading is that ketones seem to vary in direct proportion to diet so I can actually see the effect of carbs and extra protein as a change in the level of ketones in the blood.  BG measurements don't allow this as the body will maintain a minimum BG level regardless of what you eat.  I've always wondered what the difference would be between eating 65% of calories from fat and eating 80% of calories from fat.  I now have a way to test this as ketone levels should vary in direct proportion to the percentage of fat in the diet.  It will be interesting to see how dramatic the variation is.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on July 15, 2012, 12:32:12 am
I also find your assumption that creating ketones is a "fallback solution" implying that it is an abnormal condition, amusing.  Based on the catastrophe of our high carbohydrate diets as pushed by our government, (several orders of magnitude increase in, diabetes, auto immune diseases, massive over weight, heart disease, cancer, and all the other modern diseases), what makes you believe that having our bodies run on ketones instead of glucose is abnormal and for emergencies only?  Whether our bodies use ketones/fatty acids or glucose as the primary fuel is totally dependent on what you choose to eat.  A low carb diet creates a ketone/fatty acid based metabolism, and a moderate to high carb diet creates a glucose based metabolism. 
There has to be a minimum amount of glucose in the blood. I'm not sure how to interpret that, it must mean that glucose is very important in the body (but certainly not in the amounts you get from high-carb diets).
I mean you can look at it like this as well: the body doesn't start producing ketones until all glucose is used up because high blood glucose is also bad and toxic and requires that it's converted to fat if glycogen is full, etc, and so it's more important for the body to prevent this from happening. In this sense it's the glucose metabolism that is an abnormal condition, not the ketones.

I'm glad that such a low carb has worked so great for you! In order to do low carb you've cut a lot of carb containing foods: how are you sure that you got healthier because of cutting the carbs in these foods, and not something else in them?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 15, 2012, 12:33:01 pm
There has to be a minimum amount of glucose in the blood. I'm not sure how to interpret that, it must mean that glucose is very important in the body (but certainly not in the amounts you get from high-carb diets).

Yes, there has to be some minimum amount of glucose in the blood but there is no requirement that this glucose come from dietary carbs.  The body will make all the glucose it needs from protein especially if most systems have converted to using ketones and fatty acids.  At that point glucose needs are very small.

I mean you can look at it like this as well: the body doesn't start producing ketones until all glucose is used up because high blood glucose is also bad and toxic and requires that it's converted to fat if glycogen is full, etc, and so it's more important for the body to prevent this from happening. In this sense it's the glucose metabolism that is an abnormal condition, not the ketones.

Not quite true from what I've read but close enough.  The body is always making some ketones even when glucose is high.  You are very right about the body needing to clear excess glucose quickly as high levels of BG can kill you just as high levels of ketones (ketoacidosis) can do the same.  They are just different sides of the metabolic coin but both seem to be related to insulin.

I'm glad that such a low carb diet has worked so great for you! In order to do low carb you've cut a lot of carb containing foods: how are you sure that you got healthier because of cutting the carbs in these foods, and not something else in them?

I'm not sure.  I only know that when I cut out the carb containing foods many of my health problems went away.  My guess is that it is a combination of several things.  Carbs driving insulin, hormone analogs in wheat and soy, excess dietary fiber, anti nutrients in plant foods, and improper fatty acid profiles from plant based fats might all be problematic.  To me it doesn't matter since I no longer consume much in the way of plant based foods, all of these potential problems are a moot point.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 15, 2012, 12:53:34 pm
Worked all day today installing cabinets for a friend.  No access to my regular food so had a couple of lettuce wrapped burgers at Carls Jr. sans all the dressings and other muck.  Just ate the over cooked meat - had the consistency of shoe leather - threw the rest away and called it good.  Really didn't need to eat at all, but since I was doing the work for free my friend insisted that he buy me lunch.  This happens very rarely, but when it does, I just make do the best I can in the situation and don't make a fuss.

Ketone reading this evening is 2.8 mmol/L.  Didn't get a chance to take a reading this morning before leaving to do the cabinet job.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 16, 2012, 01:29:06 am
Interesting report on ketones, Lex, thanks. I like how you test things instead of just making assumptions.

Speaking of ketones, I learned some interesting tidbits on it recently. You can check them out here, if you like:

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/ketones-from-fruits-bark-and-alcohol-say-what/msg96159/#msg96159 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/ketones-from-fruits-bark-and-alcohol-say-what/msg96159/#msg96159)

Have you ever had your CRP number checked? I didn't notice it in your lab reports.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 16, 2012, 07:22:17 am
Hi Phil,
No, I haven't had my CRP checked.  It's one of those tests that they perform if you have other risk factors but insurance won't pay for it if Cholesterol and Triglycerides are low etc.  I've had the same problem with the Vitamin D test.

My old doctor retired at 75 last year so I now have a new one.  I'll ask when I go in for my annual labs this month or early next month.

As for the Ketone tests, I'm doing the same thing I did with glucose monitoring.  I'm monitoring it and not trying to achieve some specific number.  I eat the way I eat and I'm letting the numbers fall where they may.  Later, I may make a change in my fat/protein ratio and see what happens to blood ketones, but again it will be to see what happens and not achieve some specific number.  That said, I have found Phinney's and Volek's work useful in that I can see that my readings are in line with the results of their studies.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 16, 2012, 10:36:12 am
This morning's ketone reading was 3.0 mmol/L
This evening's Ketone reading was 2.3 mmol/L

For me it seems, that I have a higher ketone reading in the morning than in the evening.  This is the opposite of what Phinney and Volek say to expect.  My guess is that it has to do with my only eating 1 meal per day, with that meal in the mid afternoon.  All of Phinney's and Volek's studies were done with 3 meals per day.  This is only a guess as I have no idea about the details of their studies and how their protocol(s) differ from mine.

It might also have to do with the activity level of the study participants. Phinney especially, studied athletes that expended high levels of energy throughout the day.  I'm busy, but my activity level is very low by comparison.  It doesn't take much effort or endurance to run a lathe, milling machine, table saw, or router.  Since high activity levels seem to raise blood ketones, this may be the reason that higher levels of ketones were seen with athletes in training in the evening.

All speculation of course.  I'm reporting my test results, those of you that have read Phinney's / Volek's book can draw your own conclusions.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 19, 2012, 01:12:06 pm
Only had 4 test strips left and used them yesterday and this morning.  I tested early in the morning when I got up, then went and did some exercise (wind sprints), test in the evening with the final test early this morning when I got up.

Upon arising ketones were 3.5 mmol/L
3 hours later after exercise ketones were 3.1 mmol/L
at 9pm ketones were 1.6 mmol/L
upon arising this morning ketones were 3.3 mmol/L

I'm guessing that ketones rise over night as I'm essentially fasting so my body goes into starvation mode and ketones rise.

I ordered 50 more test strips and they should be here sometime next week.  Unfortunately they don't carry them at local drug stores.  I imagine that call for them is low as they are so expensive.  I don't even think the place that I order them on line has them in stock.  I think they drop ship them from the manufacturer when they are ordered.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on July 21, 2012, 01:59:52 am
Löwenherz,
I'm doing well.  After so many years on my VLC diet there is now very little change and nothing much to report other than my annual blood tests.

That's great!

I just got the book from Volek and Phinney. It's a real jewel in the low carb universe.

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 21, 2012, 11:25:16 am
I just got the book from Volek and Phinney. It's a real jewel in the low carb universe.

I fully agree.  I've had several versions of Lyle McDonald's "Cyclic Ketogenic Diet" book which is long on complex instructions for weight lifters with many statements that seem to be supported by ancedotal evidence at best.  Volek and Phinney have actual solid research to support their positions.  I also like being able to measure my own blook ketones to see how they track with Volek and Phinney's work.  I don't think Lyle has any objective measurement methods other than percieved muscle bulking over time which is not what I care about.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 21, 2012, 11:47:36 am
I forgot to mention an interesting tid bit related to my first round of ketone testing.  I had a lot of work to do for a friend one day and I just didn't have time to eat.  I worked from about 6am to 10pm installing cabinets and counters at my friend's home and didn't stop for a meal.  I was busy and just forgot to eat.

I did measure ketones the night before (2.6 mmol/L) and in the morning when I awoke (3.2 mmol/L), but was so tired that I just took a shower and went to bed when I got home in the evening.  The next morning I again measured ketones when I awoke and they were 4.6 mmol/L, well into the fasting/starvation range according to Volek's and Phinney's book.  At this point I hadn't eaten anything for about 40 hours.

This seems to support my contention that my higher levels of ketones in the morning might be due to the 15+ hours without eating, whereas the lower ketone reading in the evening might be due to being only a few hours after my single large meal of the day and the glucose produced by the protein I eat causing reduced production of ketones.  This one instance certainly seemed to demonstrate that the longer I went without eating the higher my blood ketone levels.  According to Volek/Phinney the fasting/starvation response tends to start when ketones are above 3.0 mmol/L and top out somewhere above 5 mmol/L but below 10 mmol/L.  Anything at or above 10 mmol/L is considered ketoacidosis.  My high reading of 4.6 mmol/L is well into the fasting/starvation range but safely below ketoacidosis.   Also, my morning readings are often between 3.0 mmol/L and 3.6 mmol/L and this is considered the beginning of the fasting/starvation range.

I'll do a little more testing on this once I receive more test strips.  The on-line Pharmacy says "they're in the mail" so it shouldn't be too long.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Chris on July 25, 2012, 01:47:18 pm
Rumor has it that your eating "Dog Food", is that right? If it is, what are your sources?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 26, 2012, 12:28:53 am
Rumor has it that your eating "Dog Food", is that right? If it is, what are your sources?

Tis true, I eat dog food.  Rather rough stuff with chewy bits, occasional bone chips, and a rather strong taste with a smell to match.

It is Slanker's Pet food.  It is not meant for human consumption, it is not USDA inspected, and if you choose to eat it, you do so at your own risk.  It is made up of all the leftovers of things that normally can't be sold for a profit as well as the entire carcass of old animals, some of which have tumors and other problems.  Most people that try it can't tolerate it.  The taste is just too strong and the smell is not appealing.

If you are not a daring soul, then may I suggest Slanker's "Primal Beef".  It is made up of Liver, Kidney, Spleen, Heart, and a couple of other things mixed with their regular ground beef - something like 40% mixed organ meats with 60% ground meat.  Not as strong tasting or smelling and it is USDA inspected and meant for humans.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CitrusHigh on July 26, 2012, 01:00:19 am
lol fruitloops anyone?

You don't seem like a very happy person lex, why is that?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Chris on July 26, 2012, 02:54:19 am

If you are not a daring soul, then may I suggest Slanker's "Primal Beef".  It is made up of Liver, Kidney, Spleen, Heart, and a couple of other things mixed with their regular ground beef - something like 40% mixed organ meats with 60% ground meat.  Not as strong tasting or smelling and it is USDA inspected and meant for humans.

Lex

Thanks Lex for your recommendation and quick response. I think I'll try the "Primal Beef", at least for the time being. Thanks again.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on July 26, 2012, 02:54:32 am
lol fruitloops anyone?

You don't seem like a very happy person lex, why is that?


Chris, Thoth - you haven't read his journal obviously. It's really worth the read. I'd highly suggest it.

The man seems to me to be very happy. He tinkers in his shop all day making things, being creative and does exactly what he wants rather than what others say he should. How many people get to do exactly what they most want to be doing and what makes them the most happy whenever they want? He keeps his diet simple so that he can do things that make him happy instead.  He also spends time with his family which he obviously cares for deeply. He does things for his community including the boyscouts, gets together with his extended family and invites people interested in his way of eating to come and spend time with him. My impression from reading his entire journal is that he is quite happy.

Lex - maybe we should take a picture with you smiling in your shop for your avatar? 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Chris on July 26, 2012, 02:57:38 am

Chris, Thoth - you haven't read his journal obviously. It's really worth the read. I'd highly suggest it.


Thanks Dorothy, I plan on reading more regarding Lex in his Journal. Very interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CitrusHigh on July 26, 2012, 05:05:27 am
um thanks dorothy, think I'll stick with my own observations!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 26, 2012, 06:21:57 am
Lex - maybe we should take a picture with you smiling in your shop for your avatar?
Heh, I already suggested that he put a smiley photo in his avatar, but he didn't go for it.

um thanks dorothy, think I'll stick with my own observations!
Your loss. Lex's posts are some of the best in this forum, always have been, and many open-minded folks have reported learning a lot from him.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 26, 2012, 08:33:46 am
Dorothy - Phil is right.  He suggested long ago that I replace my avatar with a more up-beat look.  What he never seemed to understand is that I am smiling!  What you see is what you get.  Thanks for coming to my defense but it really isn't necessary.  Those who are interested will delve into my journal and the many other resources on this forum and from that will make up their own minds which is as it should be.  It makes little difference to me what people think.  I just report what I'm doing and let them decide for themselves.  If they find my point of view wanting, so be it.  I'm far too busy to worry about it.

Chris - Glad that you found my information useful.  I tend to trade-off between pet food and primal beef from one order to the next.  I think you'll be happy with the primal beef.  I do suggest that you mix the primal beef with more of the regular ground meat or the high fat ground beef. The primal beef is just a little heavy in organ meats and I find I do better with the mix I'll describe below.   All of Slanker's products are a bit low in fat for my needs.  Their regular ground meat is 10%-12% fat(50-55% of calories from fat, their high fat ground beef is 16%-17% fat(60-65% of calories from fat), the pet food comes in at around 16% fat as well.  I know they say the high fat is 22% fat but I've measured it many times with a commercial fat analyzer and it always comes in between 16%-17%. 

This has to do with the way they calculate the fat.  To make it easy on the processing plant they just take 100 lbs of beef and add 20 lbs of fat by weight and call it about 22% fat as they assume the lean meat had some fat in it as well.  The reality is that raw fat is only about 85% fat - the rest being water and connective tissue.  You also have the fact that adding 20 lbs to 100 does not give you 20% because you now have more than 100 lbs total weight.

yes 20 lbsfat / 100 lbs total weight = 20%

but

20 lbs fat / 120 lbs total weight = 16.66% and this is what you have with slankers.

I need 70%-80% of calories from fat as I only eat meat so I add additional fat to my mix.  Here's how I mix my normal meals:

1 -2lb package of high fat ground meat (standard package size)
1 - 1 1/2 lb package of primal ground meat or pet food (standard package size)
1/2 lb of ground suet.

This gives me about 4 lbs total.  I divide this into 2 or 3 equal meals.  Since I'm 60 I don't need as much food as a younger person so I normally divide it into 3 meals which makes my normal meal about 575g/day and between 1,850 and 1,950 calories.  If I'm working hard like digging sprinkler trenches all day, then I'll divide by two and eat about 900g/day at about 3,000 calories.  If you are between 15 and 30 years old and active you will probably need at least 900g (2 lbs) of this mix per day and possibly 1350g (3 lbs) at 4,500 calories to keep your weight up.

Thoth - I encourage you to draw your own conclusions.  I expect nothing less.  It is the reason for my journal.  Rather than tell people what to do or what to think (in other words play guru), I present what I've done, along with my results, and let you add that to your own experince so that you can come to your own conclusions.

Phil - thanks for the kind words as usual.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 26, 2012, 08:40:16 am
Got my ketone test strips yesterday.  Today I woke up and took a ketone reading.  It was 2.6 mmol/L.  I promptly went out and ran eight 100 yard wind sprints.  I then measured ketones again about 1/2 hour after exercise and they measured 1.8 mmol/L.  It seems my ketones tend to drop after exercise rather than rise.  This is the opposite of what Phinney and Volek suggest. 

Will require a bit more experimenting to make sure this single measurement isn't an anomaly.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CitrusHigh on July 26, 2012, 11:02:05 am
Cool, I took my first look at ya' journal there Lex and it didn't take long to track things.

The only interaction I had with you was your being kind of snippy with me for some innocuous comment I made. I still don't think you're my definition of happy, but that is of no consequence.

I realized though, our paths to R(V)AF were somewhat similar with our ignorant docs and I saw some other congruence as I skimmed them, actually to a silly degree. Where we diverge is that you do not believe in 'new age' nonsense whereas I have experienced it to (along with being true by and large, at least the core 'doctrine') simply be recycling or refreshing of universal, natural law that is thousands of years old ie since the dawn of recorded history and probably earlier and, eg hermetic principles. And of course I think you're lacking in balance in your pure carnivory, I think it's super silly to think that your 'natural diet' as you put it is purely meat, actually beyond that, really quite absurd, but you've been at this for some time, so I'm sure you've got what you feel are very good reasons and I'm not here to try and change that.

Everbody else can relax if they like, Lex is a big boy and can look after himself, my saying something doesn't make it so, though strictly speaking I try to limit my communique's to truth. I find plenty of wisdom in Lex's posts, and never accused him of otherwise, I simply made a comment based on my observation and experience. I would say Lex is maybe baseline, but happiness is a positive attribute, not a neutral one. He might be satisfied, but that is not the same as the blissful state I'm talking about. Still, came off as cranky in the few posts of his that I've read and so I mentioned it.

That you guys come to his defense is noteworthy, wonder what that is about...a little guru action maybe?

"oh no, we just respect him a lot and so we have to guard his honor"

But he's happy remember? My words aren't going to phase him then.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on July 26, 2012, 11:25:23 am
I shouldn't have interfered. Certainly I appreciate Lex that you need no defense.

Thoth - blissful is your definition of happy then? Oops. Can't say anything about that as I have met only a few people that were filled with bliss on a regular basis and none of them at this forum. 

For the record, I'm seriously into alternative therapies, don't eat at all like Lex and never will - I just have appreciated his experiments and the manner in which he has reported them and the comment that he was unhappy without any other context was incomprehensible to me.

Again, sorry for interfering.

Au Revoir



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: eveheart on July 26, 2012, 11:28:03 am
Got my ketone test strips yesterday.  Today I woke up and took a ketone reading.  It was 2.6 mmol/L.  I promptly went out and ran eight 100 yard wind sprints.  I then measured ketones again about 1/2 hour after exercise and they measured 1.8 mmol/L.  It seems my ketones tend to drop after exercise rather than rise.  This is the opposite of what Phinney and Volek suggest. 

Will require a bit more experimenting to make sure this single measurement isn't an anomaly.

I'm not an expert in Phinney and Volek's work, but your observation made me think of P&V's discussion of the accuracy of urine test strips vs. serum (blood) ketone levels vs. breath analysis for acetone. I think what P&V say is that urine testing is the least responsive and accurate, blood testing is costly and slow, and breath analysis is more instantaneously accurate if you have the right kind of meter. So, I wonder whether the urine test can reflect a rapid change in serum ketones due to your activity, or does the delay from serum to urine account for your contrary results. Is 1/2 hour the right amount of time for the "exercise" ketone level to show up in the urine? Ignore my comment if it makes no sense - biology is not my strong suit.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 26, 2012, 03:50:50 pm
Thoth,
I notice your Taoist leanings and respect them.  My library is filled with translations of Lao Tsu and Chuang Tsu, as well as works by  Merton, Watts, DT Suzuki and many others.  I've several rare translations that have taken me years to collect.

Sorry that I just can't get into the New Age mumbo jumbo.  I fell for that stuff years ago with Viktoris Kulvinskus "Life in the 21st Century" and other contemporary works of the time.  Today I see most of it as nonsense.

As far as snippy goes, I tell people bluntly what I believe.  Some take this as putting them down.  This is not the case.  What I believe is just that, it is a belief - that doesn't make it a correct belief.  I try to have supporting evidence for my belief system, but again, what I believe is no more correct than what others believe.  We each get to believe whatever we wish and we each will enjoy or suffer the consequences of our beliefs.

I've never stated that my diet or way of life is either "natural" or "balanced".  Only that it is working well for me at this time and meeting my needs.  The only thing natural that I insist on is that what I eat be available in nature and make sense (at least to me and my twisted way of thinking).  If I find that what I'm doing stops meeting my needs or creates some problem I assure you that I will make changes.  I'm about what works for me, not trying to achieve someone elses idea of what is natural and/or balanced.  Heaven knows our government's version of a "balanced diet" is a total disaster.

When it comes to happiness, I'm happy based on my definition of happiness which is more important to me than trying to meet your definition of happiness, whatever that may be.

Dorothy - I'm not scolding you.  Just want you to understand that I don't mind being criticised.  I read all posts and evaluate everything.  Sometimes the person making the comments is right and I find that I owe them a better explaination or possibly an apology.

As far as not eating the way that I do,  good for you.  The whole point of my journal is to give you information so that you can make up your own mind as to what you want to do.  The last thing I want is for people to blindly do what I do thinking it is somehow the right thing to do.  It might be and it might not.  I just know it is meeting my current needs and if what you are doing is meeting your needs then what more could you want?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 26, 2012, 04:03:31 pm
Eveheart,

The tests I'm making are serum blood ketone levels not urinary ketones.  P&V are correct about the expense.  Each ketone test strip is $5 USD.  (Normal BG test strips can be had for 25 to 50 cents each.)  Serum levels can be wildly different than urine levels.  I've had times when urine ketones only showed a trace but blood ketones were quite high at 3.8 mmol/L.

I find that blood ketones don't vary as wildly as blood glucose.  They might rise or fall 1 whole point over an hour's time where BG can fluctuate several hundred points in a matter of minutes.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CitrusHigh on July 26, 2012, 08:03:43 pm
I didn't pull the 'natural' thing out of thin air, that was taken directly from one of your posts that was caught in my skimmings. You designated your chosen WOE as what you perceived to be a 'natural diet' for your species. Couldn't point out the post to you but it was in regard to your prey eating their natural diet as well.

And your comment to me wasn't telling it like it was, it was simply dismissing it when it was a valid point. Something to do with radiation or pesticides, can't remember exactly, but you snapped at me a little about it even though it seemed to me a natural, genuine and harmless question/comment. That is irrelevant, but one source of my perception about'cha.

Also I'm not Taoist or anything else, I only try to live inside natural law and or subvert them with higher laws, but one thing I do not try to do is violate them. I like some taoist ideas because it 'is' what 'is', and that is part of universal, natural law. Hermetics is closer to what 'is', though that is simply the human manifestation or record of these laws, not necessary for the apprehension of what 'is'. Raw foods would fit in to natural law too, and cooking your food would violate it. There may be a lot of goofy shit in the new age movement, but it is based on what 'is', at least in this dimension.

Dorothy, try not to be so sensitive, everyone on this forum get's a little touchy now and then, and you have to admit you attracted wodg's comment because you did sound a little high and mighty with your post on the aurora suspect. We're all really lucky to have like minded people to communicate with and noone wants you to leave (well maybe wodg did mean it, but who cares, that's just one person). Every now and then someone like wodg will make a comment that this forum is getting this way or that, but that is a single individual's perception. In scanning lex's posts beginning way back at the very first one and going for about 40 or 50, he himself commented that he might not post here anymore because of this or that complaint, guess that didn't happen even if he doesn't spend much time active here. It's still a great forum, a great teaching and learning platform, new people are signing up each week, always fresh blood along with the regs. In spite of squabbles here and there, at the core we can  all relate, both from the unique eating habits alone and also corollary common interests, and new ideas.

When people criticize you or your words, first look at them and see if there is really something to it, it is good to better one'self even at the expense of the ego and the comment was made for a reason. If you can be honest with yourself, and still find no problem with your words, then you can happily assume the other is just being over sensitive, defensive, paranoid or has some other issue going on in their life that has nothing to do with you.

All the best and have a wonderful day the both of you!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on July 26, 2012, 10:10:13 pm
I disagree with Lex in batching everything into a box and calling it new age mumbo jumbo and all holistic, natural and "other than modern medical treatments" as nonsense. He lost one friend to an herb and he had bad experiences with other diets and treatments whereas I lost a family to modern medicine and at present understand that documented preventable mistreatment of patients by the medical establishment is the third cause of death in the United States and I have had some truly miraculous experiences with alternative medicine and herbalism. There is no use what-so-ever in my mind debating the subject with a man that has enough determination, stubborness, willpower - whatever you want to call it - to eat nothing but the same thing every day and to me doing so would only detract from what Lex does have to offer.

I prefer not to divert Lex's journal Thoth as being someone who read through every post I found posts not on subject or him having to repeat his answers to simple questions over and over again not only detracting from learning about his interesting experiment, but to consume extra time and therefore annoying.

As far as your reference to another thread, please, if you would like to discuss that either post at that thread as to not detract from this journal or even better pm directly. I'd be more than happy to discuss the comments of a moderator to me in more detail - but not here. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CitrusHigh on July 26, 2012, 11:03:14 pm
Lol life is really amazing! As I'm talking about our silly level of congruence, we hit the same number of 1,062 posts at the same time! This post will fix that, but still, little weird wouldnt you say?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 27, 2012, 12:47:41 am
Thoth,
Words like "natural" require context and definition.  This is what I attempted to do in my previous post.  Natural for me means that the food I eat would have been available in our normal environment without the use of technology beyond sticks and rocks.  Of course this definition fits plant foods as well as meat.  I have made a conscious choice to exclude plant based foods.  I make no claim that my personal choice is natural or even wise - only that what foods I do choose to eat are natural in the context that they would have been available throughout history to our species.  You get to make your own determination as to whether my specific choice to exclude most plant based foods is a wise one.

Dorothy,
Some discussions are a bit off topic and I'd prefer they not take place in my journal - especially when the discussion is unrelated to me or what I'm doing.  In this case, the discussion is not specific to my diet or experiments, but I think it is relevent in that it forces me to more clearly define my thinking and this helps people better understand where I'm coming from.

I've had many friends compromise their health, just as I did, by an unwavering belief in the Natural Hygiene and holistic movements.  On the other side of the coin, several of my health problems were caused by modern medicine so I have no love affair there either.  I expect that both approaches have their place.  I find that modern antibiotics are a blessing when I get a raging urinary tract infection that has the potential to destroy my kidneys and kill me.  Whereas a holistic approach may have the potential to avoid some of the problems in the first place - though I personally haven't found the holistic approach to be all that helpful.  I find the new age mumbo jumbo of crystal therapy, aroma therapy, colored light therapy, and all the rest to be total nonsense, but this is only my opinion.  You may have a different opinion and that is fine with me.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CitrusHigh on July 27, 2012, 01:20:29 am
Sure, and I'm not arguing that meats aren't part of a humans natural diet, I'd go far enough as to say they are pretty well essential in that context of a 'natural' diet, with other animal foods like dairy being a distant second. But plants really have to be a part of the diet and that's why (IMO) that you are experiencing health problems in the first place, even though you live on nutrient dense meats, the other problem is that slankers feeds toxins to their animals, but that's probably not so bad by itself if you were consuming raw vegetation, since you do not, you suffer the effect of the cause, a hermetic principle and on several levels you have essentially attracted your problems. Again, like you said, doesn't matter who thinks what, it's whatever you are content with, I just like not having major health problems, and my diet of quasi instincto RVAF with SAD bits here and there seems to accomplish that. Of course at 25 I'm fairly young and if I continue with the sad stuff, will probably end up experiencing some nasties like you have since my family is prone to kidney problems. Fortunately for me, I'm ever-upping the percentage of raw vs. garbage in my diet and I am the healthiest person I know, bar none. I put up with some congestion from coffee, a bit of unrefined sugar (fruits, honey, carbs, starches) and pastuerized dairy, but they make up like 10% or less of my entire diet and diminish each week as I find it easier and easier to stick with what I know to be congruent with natural law.

GC for example has followed your lead in eating only meats and is going to kill himself pretty soon because he think's since that's what you're doing it should work for him too. Only problem is, a couple heart attacks later, he's still rendering his fat and completely abstains from toxin-flushing vegetation and is on the fast track to the grave. Congrats, that is of course his own personal responsibility, you just get the honor of having contributed to it, albeit unwhittingly...sort of.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on July 27, 2012, 02:37:33 am
Dorothy,
Some discussions are a bit off topic and I'd prefer they not take place in my journal - especially when the discussion is unrelated to me or what I'm doing.  In this case, the discussion is not specific to my diet or experiments, but I think it is relevent in that it forces me to more clearly define my thinking and this helps people better understand where I'm coming from.

I've had many friends compromise their health, just as I did, by an unwavering belief in the Natural Hygiene and holistic movements.  On the other side of the coin, several of my health problems were caused by modern medicine so I have no love affair there either.  I expect that both approaches have their place.  I find that modern antibiotics are a blessing when I get a raging urinary tract infection that has the potential to destroy my kidneys and kill me.  Whereas a holistic approach may have the potential to avoid some of the problems in the first place - though I personally haven't found the holistic approach to be all that helpful.  I find the new age mumbo jumbo of crystal therapy, aroma therapy, colored light therapy, and all the rest to be total nonsense, but this is only my opinion.  You may have a different opinion and that is fine with me.

Lex

Being that this your journal Lex I want to respect your space here, as long as the topic is relevant to you, then I'm glad you are open to discussing it.

In many ways I think we are in agreement, that there can be benefit and harm and good from both a holistic and a "traditional" approach. The difference is that there is only one form of modern medicine and many different traditions, techniques and systems under the umbrella of "holistic" and lumping them all together is a little like lumping all diets together. In a very general way things like crystals, aroma therapy, colored lights etc. don't do much harm. They might stop someone from trying something else, but aren't going to do the same kind of harm generally as say, cutting out the wrong organ will. ;)  Also in a very general way it is my belief that holistic approaches do less harm. Herbs compared to prescriptions very rarely cause death or complications or even much in the way of side effects especially when given in the right dosage and form and even less if handled by someone with experience, whereas death by prescriptions is quite common when given by anMD in the right dosage. It is truly a question of discernment as to what approach is appropriate to an individual person with an individual problem.

Diet regimes are another matter entirely in my book. In a way, even though not the whole story by far, I am grateful to the likes of Kulvinskas for even suggesting that eating things raw can do some good because I never took his suggestions to their extreme. Is he responsible for the problems that you and your friends experienced delving into natural hygiene so long when it didn't work for you? I guess that is similar in a way to Thoth above talking about your experience eating nothing but Slankers and rendered meat is responsible for GCs heart attacks.

My personal view is that when one has an unswerving belief in any system of health or diet regardless of its effects on oneself or statistically - that is where the real problems can arise. That's why I respect your journal - because you are not suggesting to anyone else that what you are doing is right or good for them, just what you are doing for yourself and seems to be working for you.

You are a person with a specific medical history, sex, age, dna, lifestyle and personal goals and priorities. What you do won't work for me, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect your journey and your willingness to share it. What Kulvinskas said to do didn't work for me either (all sprouts - eck) but I still respect that he tried something new and made a suggestion of a different approach. I also happen to enjoy using crystals, oils and flower essences, homeopathy, herbalism, and a host of other "alternative" interests - I just make sure to evaluate them honestly and use them in a way that is beneficial for me and exclude any use that is not immediately beneficial.

I like how you say that the moment your diet doesn't work for you anymore according to your own criteria that you will change it. I feel the same way about all approaches to health too. To me it is all a question of taking personal responsibility. The moment one gives up their own will and ability to discern to a diet guru, doctor or shaman or whatever is when they open themselves up to becoming a victim.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 27, 2012, 09:06:09 am
Very nicely put Dorothy.   And by the way, what Kulvinskas preached didn't work for Kulvinskas either.  I spent a couple of years trying to achieve the utopia that he described only to find out that he wasn't following his own teachings.  This lead me to do a good bit of research on the various gurus that I held in high esteem and what I discovered was that many didn't follow their own teachings, and of those that did, a large percentage were in very poor health.  There were a few that lived into their 90's (Bragg and Walker come to mind), but by in large, most died rather early in their 50's and 60's and those that I had an opportunity to meet were rather frail.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CitrusHigh on July 27, 2012, 09:15:43 am
Whoah there,  I didn't say it was responsible for GC's heart attacks, I said he's had some, and now he's going to drive the nail in the coffin, that is all. He would benefit immensely from veggies, but thinks that for whatever reason, since this is what you do, somehow it's going to work for him, even though is circumstances are markedly different, and the only cultures in history who don't eat plants are those who do so by necessity because of environment. Again, gc's responsibility for his actions fall squarely on his own head, but anyone who tells you that you have not contributed to the decision is lying, because he's said so himself.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 27, 2012, 09:32:36 am
Lex, is this the Bragg you're referring to?
Quote
Until he died at a claimed age of 95, but believed to be actually 81, he claimed that every human being could live to 120 by following his regimen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bragg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bragg)
Looks like Bragg was one of the few people to lie about his age by increasing it instead of decreasing it. 81 is still impressive, though not the 120 that he claimed. I laugh whenever I see anyone who hasn't reached an age claim that they will and that anyone can by following their prescriptions. They would be more convincing if they reached the age first, and then told people how they did it, like nice this elder gentleman:
Mesa man, 110, credits health to 5 foods (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfAvTTGDSUQ#)

One thing I like about Lex is that he is more an anti-guru than just about anyone I've ever encountered. In his journal and elsewhere he frequently cautions that he's not advocating that anyone do what he's doing and doesn't tell people to eat this or that. He even suggests that most people might fare better by eating more fruits and veggies than he does. He just reports his experience and occasionally and cautiously discusses what he thinks might be generally healthy foods and such.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CitrusHigh on July 27, 2012, 09:35:21 am
Fair enough, I'll have to point that out to our mutual acquaintance, thanks Phil.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 27, 2012, 09:48:51 am
Cool.

I should mention that Bernando does eat some fish, which they rarely mention in the news stories (flesh foods are not politically correct with the libtards). Here are the foods I've seen Bernando report eating (mostly raw):

The 5 foods he claims are the secret to his health:
garlic
honey
cinnamon
chocolate
olive oil

Other foods he has reported eating:
fish--salmon, tuna (about 4 oz., three times a week)
soaked grains and beans
maybe lamb? (he said his father said it was OK)

Notice that he eats honey and chocolate--sugary foods that some dogmatic low carbers claim are pure poison. Notice also that his diet is nearly raw Paleo.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 27, 2012, 10:35:32 am
But plants really have to be a part of the diet and that's why (IMO) that you are experiencing health problems in the first place, even though you live on nutrient dense meats,…

Interesting statement considering that when I was eating a plant based diet I had far worse health problems.  In fact, all the problems I have started when I was eating a diet heavy in raw plant materials including raw juices.  Most problems, but not all, have gone away or gotten significantly better since I started eating a meat and fat based diet.  Two issues that haven’t responded well to diet is hair loss (my hair didn’t grow back when I changed my diet, and my enlarged prostate didn’t magically shrink back to normal size.  Other than that, things are far better and I have annual lab tests to support this.

… the other problem is that slankers feeds toxins to their animals, but that's probably not so bad by itself if you were consuming raw vegetation, since you do not, you suffer the effect of the cause, a hermetic principle and on several levels you have essentially attracted your problems.

I’ve been to the Slanker ranch and to my knowledge they do not feed their animals toxins.  They do treat animals when they are sick, but do not give meds to healthy animals.  The animals are pastured on grass only and are not given commercial supplements.

Again, like you said, doesn't matter who thinks what, it's whatever you are content with, I just like not having major health problems, and my diet of quasi instincto RVAF with SAD bits here and there seems to accomplish that. Of course at 25 I'm fairly young and if I continue with the sad stuff, will probably end up experiencing some nasties like you have since my family is prone to kidney problems. Fortunately for me, I'm ever-upping the percentage of raw vs. garbage in my diet and I am the healthiest person I know, bar none. I put up with some congestion from coffee, a bit of unrefined sugar (fruits, honey, carbs, starches) and pastuerized dairy, but they make up like 10% or less of my entire diet and diminish each week as I find it easier and easier to stick with what I know to be congruent with natural law.

I did have a single bout of kidney stones but can’t tell you if they were caused by my meat diet or were a residual from my plant based diet or were just due to low fluid intake.  I upped my fluid intake and have not had a recurrence.  My son-in-law is a heavy raw plant and fruit eater along with meat and is constantly suffering from kidney stones and gout. Go figure.

At 25 you are very young. Enjoy it while you can as it is mostly a slow slide downhill from there.  When I was your age I could eat anything I wanted, and as much as I wanted without problem.  I ran 10 miles at a 6:00 to 6:30 pace every other day.  I rode a bicycle 23 miles each way to work and back 5 days a week.  I assure you that I thought that my dietary and lifestyle choices were perfect and urged others to follow my lead.
 
I’m now 61 and things are very different.  Age and some of my lifestyle choices (which weren’t as perfect as I thought they were) have taken their toll as they will with you. This too, is a natural law and you can’t avoid it.  No matter what you eat, or what exercise you do, age will slowly take its toll. I can no longer do what I used to do at the level that I could when I was in my 20’s and 30’s, but I’m in far better shape than most people my age.  It will be interesting to see where you are when you are 60.

GC for example has followed your lead in eating only meats and is going to kill himself pretty soon because he think's since that's what you're doing it should work for him too. Only problem is, a couple heart attacks later, he's still rendering his fat and completely abstains from toxin-flushing vegetation and is on the fast track to the grave. Congrats, that is of course his own personal responsibility, you just get the honor of having contributed to it, albeit unwhittingly...sort of.

Isn't it annoying when, at 25, you’ve figured out the road to perfect health and no one will listen to you?  So, how would you respond if GC did exactly as YOU prescribe and his health continued to decline?  There is a strong possibility that this would be the case.  When I was your age I made the presumption that my diet was perfect and urged others that where having health problems to follow my lead.  In almost every case where the person did as I suggested, my recommendations had little effect and in some cases made things much worse.  You presume to know what is wrong with CG and how to fix it.  Over the years I’ve learned that I know very little about other people’s problems and even less about what they should do about them.  The best I can do is tell my own story and let others make their own decisions.  They will make wrong decisions just as I made wrong decisions, and you too, will find that many of your current ideas will not pass the test of time.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: CitrusHigh on July 27, 2012, 11:46:18 am
Absolutely Lex, as I said in an above post it's whatever you're content with, only that your diet is not fully natural in the context that you yourself used the term earlier.

Slankers feeds their animals toxins in the form of X-icides sprayed on their pasture, and I do believe that was the comment I made to you that you dismissed out of hand in what seemed to me an unnecessarily rude tone since I made the comment in a neutral fashion.

I don't know that I have the perfect diet, but I do know that there is no one that I know in person that is as healthy as I am. All I hear about is how sick everyone around me feels, even though I'm plugged in with tons of conscious eaters, people into raw foods of every shade and flavor (I'm excluding people here on this forum, I won't pretend to know how healthy people I have no direct 3D contact with are, and I'm sure there are people healthier and more robust than I here, though not necessarily as content with life), people who meditate, or live on supplements, or do yoga and this, that and the other.

I also know that I pretty well make my world, something most people don't seem to get at my age, or even older. Call it law of attraction or whatever you, but I know that I control my reality in a big way.

It should also be noted that I came to this way of eating at a young age of 20ish give or take a year. I didn't have a guru, I didn't have a mentor, nor did I have a single person in my life who I knew to eat this way, I was unaware of this forum and I basically went it alone. All I did was read a few paragraphs on the web, I think on Karl Loren's site, and it made so much sense and was so intuitively right that a couple weeks  after my initial exposure to the idea I dove in. And it's been a nonstop learn-athon ever since.  None of this is to boast, but if you're going to allude to the idea that I've naively 'figured it all out' in the sense that most young people think they know it all, this is to balance that notion. It has nothing to do with me being special, only that I was desperate for an answer, and was literally crying out to god for a cure to my health problems at the time. I'm eating pretty close to the way you are, so if you think that is working for you, imagine how much better it will work for someone who has started at such a young age. I was very sickly as a child, lots of colds, flus, stomach aches, then later terrible infections mostly above the shoulders, fatigue, depression, etc. Now I haven't been to the doctor or dentist in 5 yrs, I'm stronger, healthier and happier than I've ever been in my life and I have the signs to show for it, teeth remineralizing, shiny hair, supple skin and of course, plenty of energy work here on the farm and a couple other 'jobs'. The only difference is that I'm honoring the fact that plants are a natural part of most human diets.

So am I naive to think that I may have come upon something really special in my approach to eating, which is essentially the same as yours: Do what works for you, mostly raw organs and fat, and for me, raw plants as well, in greater or lesser quantities as my instincts and body tell me? Possibly, but I don't think so, if I am, it shouldn't take much longer for it to become apparent. (I just remembered I had a dream I was balding last night, relieving to find I still have a full head of hair!!)

I'm half with you on the containers and artifacts of the new age movement, the crystals, aromatherapy, etc. They may help someone to anchor and/or focus their beliefs in the possibility of healing or whatever their aim is, but it is the belief itself IMO that is doing the healing/etc., and eventually these kinds of things turn in to distractions and traps, when the abundance of energy in the universe is at your disposal if you'll only reach out and grab it with your thoughts, beliefs and actions, no crystals et al. needed.

We can end this discussion and get back to your regularly scheduled programming if you like, I've grown weary of this and it sounds like we are agreeing more than disagreeing anyway, I appreciate your time, presence and responses!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Chris on July 27, 2012, 12:12:11 pm
Life is a journey, we all have different paths. Some cross and some don't. It's the same thing with idea's, thoughts, and theory's. Everybody will react to different situations in different ways. I respect people like you Lex that put yourself out there for the World to see. You have every right, just like each and every one of us to voice his/her own opinions regarding any subject or topic we choose. No matter what anyone thinks. We all have little things each and every one of us can contribute to the world, or to this website. What some people fail to realize on this website (and others), is there are so many different roads and path's in the RPD. Some of us are more traditionalists while other's are much more loose in their interpretations. When I posted about the dog food. To be honest I was curious, and wanted to know more about it. I wanted to get more organ meats, marrow, and other nutritious fats into my diet. But, I was also open minded too. Maybe that's a trait that is slowly fading? Well, I'm glad I reached out, and I'm glad you decided to share some of your knowledge with me. Thank you again! Maybe the dog food is a little too much of a step for me at this stage. But, I learned about the "Primal Beef" package.  You know something, that was exactly what I was looking for. I appreciate you sharing that information with me. I took your information, and applied it to my own program to enhance it. I think we can learn so much from each other on this website, through our diets, choices, and experiences. I really enjoy being on this website, there are a lot of free thinkers here.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on July 28, 2012, 06:59:48 am
Thoth - Nuf said for now.  Only time will tell how well your beliefs and choices will serve you. 

Chris -  I'm pleased you've found something useful.  It is why I'm here - not to tell you what to do, but to tell you what I've done and the results, good and bad, so you can make your own informed decisions.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wetroof on August 01, 2012, 09:47:11 am
Lex, I admire your commitment to the diet.

I eat the pet-food from Marin-sun farms. the cost is 2.69 per lb! I learned about marin-sun farms from your journal.

I cook it though, and add onions, garlic and ginger powder, and red pepper because I never got around the smell/taste of it. And I put in about 1 ounce of butter and 1 ounce of tallow per lb.

the one thing I eat raw, is ground heart from marin-sun farms. that has a completely neutral taste, so i just heat it a bit and add butter and salt and pepper.

 I really dislike the smell and taste of tallow. I'm wondering if this is a certain genetic thing because I've heard varying opinions on the taste of tallow - and I just can't imagine anyone enjoying it.

On the guru topic, I have a favorite. Gurdjieff. my three favorite books are by gurdjieff or by his pupils. I read these in the last two years. Nothing I read previously can really compare to it.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 01, 2012, 10:31:53 am
Wetroof,

Thanks for the kind words.  Yes, Marin Sun Farms are good people.  I wish they were closer as I would purchase from them in a heartbeat, but since I'm about 7 hours away and they won't ship, I have to limit my purchases to bulk items.  I usually purchase once a year from MSF and then I pool with others in my area and we get 300 to 500 lbs of meat and fat.  That makes the trip worth while and spreads the cost of gas.  The only bad thing is driving to SF and back in one day.  Makes a very long trip.

If you don't like tallow then by all means get fresh suet, chop it up and add it to your mix.  I love fresh suet and eat it often - way better than rendered tallow.  The only reason I render fat is for the pemmican I make to send as samples ( I send out about 100 lbs of samples per year), and rendered fat doesn't take up freezer space.  Fresh suet is always preferable.   I also do several demos on pemmican making per year and need some fresh suet to render in the demo, but a lot more rendered fat so that each person can make some pemmican to take home.  Just no way 20 people can render fat all at once so I just render a small amount to show how it is done and use my pre-rendered tallow for everything else.

Now that Slankers can again provide enough suet to meet my needs (most of the time), I eat mostly fresh suet with my meals and save the rendered stuff for when I run out of fresh suet, or Slankers runs out and I have to make do.  Last time I purchased fresh suet from MSF it was less than $1.50/lb.  Much cheaper than Slankers, but then again, MSF won't ship.

I haven't tried MSF pet food but those that have tell me it is very good.  Most like it better than Slankers.

A suggestion for cooking your meals:  Warm your meat mixture (add your fresh ground/chopped suet to the mix) until it is a little warmer than room temperature.  I do this in the microwave about 20 seconds at a time stirring in between until the suet I've mixed in starts to become soft and pasty but the nothing is actually cooked - it's just lukewarm.  Spread your warm meat mixture in a pie pan or similar container so that it is about 1/2" thick.  Sprinkle with salt, pepper, garlic pwd etc, top with your melted butter.  Then place under the broiler for about 60 seconds give or take.  This will mimic a rare cooked steak.  You'll get a thin cooked layer on top with the raw/rare stuff underneath.  I've found that people who just can't eat totally raw mix actually enjoy it prepared this way.  You can vary the time under the broiler to make the cooked layer as thick or thin as you wish.  Try it, I think you'll like it.  It's a great way to transistion from fully cooked to mostly raw.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Joy2012 on August 01, 2012, 06:46:39 pm
  I'm eating pretty close to the way you are, so if you think that is working for you, imagine how much better it will work for someone who has started at such a young age. I was very sickly as a child, lots of colds, flus, stomach aches, then later terrible infections mostly above the shoulders, fatigue, depression, etc. Now I haven't been to the doctor or dentist in 5 yrs, I'm stronger, healthier and happier than I've ever been in my life and I have the signs to show for it, teeth remineralizing, shiny hair, supple skin and of course, plenty of energy work here on the farm and a couple other 'jobs'. The only difference is that I'm honoring the fact that plants are a natural part of most human diets.

Did you talk about the details of your diet in another post? I would like to read it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 02, 2012, 01:01:32 am
Joy,
My whole journal is about the details of what I eat, why I eat the way I do, and the long term measurable effects through my annual lab tests as well as short term measurments I can make like Blood Glucose and Blood Ketone levels.  I've been eating much the same way for about 8 years now.  I suggest you start at the beginning of my journal and work forward.  In a very short time I expect that most of your questions will be answered.

If, after you've read my journal, you have specific questions that you would like more detail on, feel free to ask.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Joy2012 on August 02, 2012, 01:43:37 am
Lex, I have read your entire journal--almost every post--upon the recommendation of many members on this forum, and I have benefited much from my reading. Thank you very much for sharing your experience.

My previous post was addresssed to Thoth. I am interested in knowing how he has incorporated plant foods into his RP diet. I do not want to take up space in your journal to talk about another member's diet, so I asked him if he could refer me to another thread which talked about his RP diet.

Thank you for your kindness in writing me a reply, though. :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wetroof on August 02, 2012, 03:07:45 pm
Okay Lex, I'm going to try suet again, as soon as I can get some. It's pretty awful in the initial stages of rendering, but who knows... probably much better than tallow, but that isn't really saying much.

I did have some smoked suet once. that was actually alright but it was smoked pretty well in terms of flavor.

I guess the reason I use tallow is because it is a rendered fat, and it can melt and mix in with the other flavors. Also, when I first started rendering I had in mind eating cooked meat - but now I really don't have much of preference.

I do my own rendering so it would be awesome to quit that. And I have a large amount left, but it doesn't expire, so that's fine.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on August 03, 2012, 03:10:22 am
I like frozen suet sliced thinly while still frozen and then refrozen in the easy to grab slices from a glass container. I just put a slice in my mouth as is and I think it's yummy - when I want/need fat that is. Nice and chewy. All my pets also love this - especially the chickens.

One day I have to take a picture of all of us animals (chickens, cats, dogs and humans) "chewing the fat" together. :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 19, 2012, 10:28:48 am
In Phinney’s and Volek’s book “The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance”, they discuss the science behind the necessity of including salt in a VLC/ZC diet.  I came to the conclusion that salt was necessary several years ago when I was suffering from night time leg cramps after being VLC/ZC for 18 to 24 months, but had nothing but my own experience to back it up.  (There are several entries about this early in my journal.)  Anyway, I’ve included a couple of grams of salt in my diet each day ever since and had no further problems, and Phinny/Volek have confirmed the wisdom of this practice with the science.

Phinney and Volek also suggest drinking a cup or two of beef or chicken broth everyday made from bouillon cubes or bouillon concentrate as a pleasant way to consume the extra sodium needed when following a VLC/ZC diet.  I decided to try this and did indeed find it a nice way to start the day.  Others have a cup of coffee and I have a cup of broth which also helps fit in socially.  I did find that most bouillon products are loaded with MSG but found a product called “Better Than Bouillon” that has no MSG and is made from meat rather than the usual mix of chemicals and flavorings.  It comes in glass jars and is a thick granular paste filled with small bits of meat.  Yes, it’s cooked, but is probably a minor sin compared to what most people consume.  Swanson’s Flavor Boost concentrate packet’s also seem to be a good choice but are much more expensive per serving.  I might consider these for convenience when traveling. 

I also recently ran across David Asprey’s BulletProof Coffee where he whips in a couple of ounces of grass-fed butter into his daily cup-o-joe.  I intensely dislike coffee, and try to avoid caffeine, but decided to try this with my morning broth.  It’s great!  David uses unsalted butter in his coffee, but I use the salted type because my whole reason for consuming the broth is to increase my salt intake.  I use KerryGold butter which is pretty expensive at $8 USD/lb (1/2 kilo), but seems to be very high quality and tastes wonderful.

Here’s how I make my morning drink:
I heat 10 oz (300ml) of water until very hot but not boiling and put it in a 16 oz (500ml) cup.

Next I add 1 rounded teaspoon (5 ml) of either the beef or chicken Better Than Bouillon paste, and 2 oz (56g) of KerryGold butter.  (I don’t melt the butter but just put in a ½ of a quarter lb stick just as it comes from the refrigerator)

I then mix everything with an immersion blender which makes a very smooth rich and buttery drink with a nice froth on top. 

This drink only has 1 carb (from the label on the bouillon jar) and 56g of fat. Calculates out to a bit over 450 calories per serving.  With KerryGold butter at $8/lb and I get 8 servings out of a lb of butter, and about 15 cents for the bouillon paste,  my cost is about $1.15/1.20 USD per serving. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 20, 2012, 01:19:29 am
Glad to hear of your success with salt supplementation, Lex. I researched salt some time ago and found that carnivores that consume fresh raw meat and blood from animals with sufficient salt levels don't need to supplement their diet with salt licks or springs:
"Wild herbivores, like deer, who eat a completely plant-based diet, have to supplement their diet with salt to get the sodium they need. These animals find salt in brine springs, or in natural outcroppings of salty rock, called salt licks. Wild carnivores, or animals that eat only meat, do not have to eat salt. Their sodium needs are met through the flesh and blood that they eat." taken from:-   http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/HumBio_p026.shtml (http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/HumBio_p026.shtml)

So humans that ate like carnivores probably didn't need much, if any, salt supplementation when wild game was plentiful. But as consumption of fresh, raw, salt-rich blood and bloody meat declined (including the modern practice in some nations like the USA of bleeding all meats) and mineral-depleting cereal grain intake increased, humans reportedly had to supplement their diets with more and more added salt:
"The history of the world according to salt is simple: animals wore paths to salt licks; men followed; trails became roads, and settlements grew beside them. When the human menu shifted from salt-rich game to cereals, more salt was needed to supplement the diet. But the underground deposits were beyond reach, and the salt sprinkled over the surface was insufficient. Scarcity kept the mineral precious. As civilization spread, salt became one of the world's principal trading commodities." (A Brief History of Salt (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925341,00.html#ixzz240ix4PEjhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925341,00.html#ixzz240itFFMe), Monday, Mar. 15, 1982)

The modern Western tendency to not eat blood, organs and cartilage may contribute to deficiencies in sodium and other nutrients: "It is the bones, blood, cartilage, etc. that contain many of the minerals that are needed by carnivorous animals. Humans who eat only the flesh of animals thus receive a diet very poor in sodium, calcium, sulfur, magnesium and iron." (Lesson 10 - The Role Of Minerals In Human Nutrition > 4. Mineral Deficiencies, http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/minerals/mineral-deficiencies.html (http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/minerals/mineral-deficiencies.html))

Research reveals a J/U-shaped curve that suggests health benefits from moderate salt consumption. (Salt and our Health, By Morton Satin, PhD,
March 26 2012, http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins-and-minerals/salt-and-our-health (http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins-and-minerals/salt-and-our-health))

Excessive restriction of salt may pose dangers: http://www.westonaprice.org/press/fda-warned-dangers-salt-restriction. (http://www.westonaprice.org/press/fda-warned-dangers-salt-restriction.)

Years ago my father was in Paris and greatly enjoyed the coq au vin he had been served at a gourmet restaurant. When he asked why the chef's coq au vin was so much richer, darker and tastier than American versions, the chef explained that the difference was that Americans bleed out their chickens and discard the blood, whereas the French didn't bleed them (and reserved and used the extra blood that did bleed out on its own--which is a tradition still practiced in France today, according to Clifford A. Wright in The Best Stews in the World: 300 Satisfying One-Dish Dinners, from Chilis and Gumbos to Curries and Cassoulet, 2012). Also, because American chefs don't thicken the stew with blood, they tend to use a roux that contains wheat flour to thicken it, which further depletes the body of iron, sodium and other minerals.

Here, Nenets add even more salt, lots of it, to fresh raw blood, to keep it liquid in the cold (and maybe also for taste or health benefit?):
Bruce Parry eats raw reindeer - Tribe - BBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YiQCVPESBo#ws)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 20, 2012, 01:09:47 pm
Phil,
I'm in full agreement with your post.  If I were able to reasonably get enough blood to add to my daily diet then supplementing with broth or extra salt would not be necessary.  Unfortunately fresh blood is difficult to find, and at this time and place in history it is not high on the list of socially acceptable foods.

I must live and get along in this modern world and I have chosen to compromise with broth and added salt to make my lifestyle easier for me to follow and less burdensome to friends, coworkers, and family who must regularly interact with me.  I stress the word "chosen" as it clearly is a choice and not something I'm forced into.  I certainly could spend my time searching out sources and disregard the feelings of those around me, but I feel the added benefit would be trivial in comparison to the drawbacks both in time and the social discomfort caused to others around me.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 21, 2012, 05:23:26 am
Unfortunately fresh blood is difficult to find, and at this time and place in history it is not high on the list of socially acceptable foods.
Yup and I supplement with some (unheated) sea salt and Great Lakes Gelatin myself. The impossibility of eating exactly like our Paleolithic ancestors in every way and the fact that raw Paleo doesn't cure all of everyone's pre-existing issues overnight makes absolute prohibitions for all against foodlements (supplements that are as close to foods as possible) unreasonable.

It would be nice if Americans would start to follow the example of France, Britain and even early American colonists and return blood to the cuisine, though. My local market briefly sold some English blood pudding but it unfortunately contained wheat. American cuisine has actually made some amazing strides in re-introducing some old foods in my lifetime. For example, in my youth in this dairy state, the only "cheeses" I saw were "American cheese," which was a product made usually from vegetable oil, Swiss cheese, provalone, and very mild to moderately sharp cheddar, all pasteurized. Now there are countless cheeses, including many raw ones.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 21, 2012, 07:13:09 am
Things have changed dramatically in my lifetime as well.  Most of the changes are neither good nor bad - things are just different.   I can say that we had far more personal freedom when I was a kid and I mourn the loss.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 21, 2012, 08:45:43 am
Oh sure, and I was tempted to also write about the increase in junk foods to balance out what I wrote about the return of some traditional foods, but I didn't want to go too far on a tangent on your journal. :) Every year thousands of newly invented food products are introduced and we could probably do well without any of them. Luckily, most of them don't survive long and the world is not nearly as wildly different as the futurists predicted decades ago that it would become.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 21, 2012, 12:20:19 pm
Every year thousands of newly invented food products are introduced and we could probably do well without any of them.
The same goes for new laws.
Luckily, most of them don't survive long and the world is not nearly as wildly different as the futurists predicted decades ago that it would become.

 Unfortunatley laws are not market driven and tend to last forever.  They are seldom repealed no matter how silly or oppressive.

As for new foods, I'm still waiting for the perfect nutrition "two pills and a glass of water and you're good for the day" meal which was expected as a by-product of the space race in the 1960s.  What we got instead was Tang orange flavored drink powder and the computer revolution.  Depending on your point of view each of these could be considered a blessing or a curse.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 04, 2012, 05:37:39 am
Lex, what is your take on the UCAN SuperStarch that Phinney and Volek have been advocating?

On the blood, organs, cartilage, bones and skin front (all foods that were part of Paleolithic diets that are not easy to eat in quantity today on a 100% raw Paleo diet, and made more easy to consume with some low-slow moist cooking, such as in a crockpot), since adding bone/joint/skin/etc. broths, Great Lakes Gelatin, and coconut meat to my diet, and adding back more raw eggs and suet, plus cutting down some on the recent increase in carby foods, my dental health has improved further. My dental hygienist said my gums and my dental carie of some 4 or 5 years are improved. I've noticed that the more I emphasize these elements, the more my teeth feel like they've just been polished by the dental hygienist--squeaky clean and smooth and pleasant to the tongue, just like in that old "Pearl Drops" ad.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on September 04, 2012, 07:34:24 pm

As for new foods, I'm still waiting for the perfect nutrition "two pills and a glass of water and you're good for the day" meal which was expected as a by-product of the space race in the 1960s.  What we got instead was Tang orange flavored drink powder and the computer revolution. 

Lex. I think I found it. These "perfect nutrition pills" you are speaking of. Don't laugh now, but that must be fishheads.
Fish heads, raw. Maybe pureed in a blender with water to a smoothie. I do this regularly and I can tell you it is almost... magic. If you start searching the nutrients in a fishhead.. you will get amazed. You can often get them for free too. The fish eyes are delicious to eat pure, tastes a bit like roe to me.
Now you can puree the whole raw fish too and choke it down. You should try it Lex.

@ Paleophil,
I love how you look at food.. it so similar to my view too. My teeth's are also in great shape now! It must be all the minerals in seafood too..
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alive on September 05, 2012, 04:01:55 pm
Thank you Inger,
I have just tried your fish head smoothie idea with some fermented greens, and the taste was OK :) The blue cod heads cost 50 cents each.
I would like to try freezing some, keep some in the fridge, and hanging in a cool place to compare results. Anything that could improve digestion and maybe reduce the wear and tear on the blender would be good!
Jason, our fish wholesaler, has agreed to collect & freeze 7 small bags of fish livers and kidneys a week. Everyone is saying good things about organ meats, and here we are mineral depleted in selenium and iodine so sea food is a plus. Jason is doing this for the labour cost, since normally they just bin the guts.
As it has been reported that broccoli RNA can continue to function in our blood stream, it seems reasonable to assume that raw liver and kidney would continue to perform some of their detox functions, and provide the ideal nutrients for the consumers own organs.
1 serving of raw kidney has 30% RDA of Vitamin C, 1 serving of cooked kidney has 0% etc etc = sounds sensible.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 06, 2012, 11:30:44 pm
Lex, what is your take on the UCAN SuperStarch that Phinney and Volek have been advocating?

Stuff like this comes along all the time.  Remember when aspartame was hailed as a new revolutionary ultra low calorie sweetener made from "natural" modified proteins?  Now it is linked to all kinds of problems.  Since there is no evidence that UCAN SuperStarch can be hunted or gathered, and significant evidence that it comes from a modern chemical factory I think I'll avoid it.

... just like in that old "Pearl Drops" ad.

Now you are dating yourself.  I remember those ads and actually used Pearl Drops back in the 70's.  Gave it up after it was clear that it was eroding the enamel off my teeth.

As for all the connective tissue and other stuff you are describing, I get lots of that in the pet food.  It's filled with chunks and chewy bits as well as the occasional bone shard - great stuff.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 07, 2012, 12:06:40 am
Inger,
I'm not a real fan of fish.  I don't find fish very satisfying.  For me, it's a bit like the old joke about Chinese food: eat until you are stuffed and two hours later you're hungry.  Just doesn't work well when eating only once a day.  If I eat a meal of fish I can eat until I just can't hold anymore and within 3 or 4 hours I'm hungry again.  When I eat red meat I can eat one meal until satisfied and I'm not hungry again until the next day.

Fish is very high in polyunsaturated fatty acids and very low in saturated fatty acids.  There is some evidence that large amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids can cause problems over time and that saturated fatty acids are a better fuel source for our bodies.  In other words, the fatty acid profile of fish is not optimal for humans.  Best evidence seems to show that humans evolved eating terrestrial red meat animals as our primary food source and that the fatty acid profile of grass-eating red meat animals is optimum for us.

I've done very well eating grass-eating red meat animals and my experience eating fish has not been all that great.  I do eat fish on occasion (once or twice a year), normally when eating out, but it does not make up a significant part of my diet.  Fish heads may be more nutritious than the muscle meat of the fish but the same can be said for eating the organs of red meat animals.  Unfortunately, fish heads still have the same poor fatty acid profile as the whole fish and therefore I will not make fish a significant part of my diet.  I don't hate fish, but I will always choose red meat over fish if it is available.  Fish is my food of last resort.

When faced with a choice I choose food in the following order:

Red meat grass-fed animals first
Red meat grain finished animals next
Pork next
Poultry next
Fish and eggs last

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 07, 2012, 02:34:13 am
*Corrected one of the above posts for 1 spelling mistake*
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Chris on September 07, 2012, 02:57:07 am
When faced with a choice I choose food in the following order:

Red meat grass-fed animals first
Red meat grain finished animals next
Pork next
Poultry next
Fish and eggs last

I agree with you on fish. I find it very unsatisfactory as far as curbing my appetite. I tend to eat a lot of it, when I do (which is very rare these days). But, it doesn't satisfy like you said. It digests way too fast for me at least. I find I have the same results with eggs. Poultry, doesn't have any interest with me due to the lack of quality pasture raised meat. Plus, it doesn't have the same nutrient profile as pasture raised red meat. So why bother. I haven't had pork yet. I haven't found any that are true pasture raised (fresh). I know I can find them online. But, I don't know if it's worth the bother to be quite honest with you.
I was a little surprised that you ranked grain finished meat second. I guess that show's how little interest you have with the following choices. I'm sure it would only be an option, if you had a limited supply of grass fed beef. Would that be the same for organ meat's also? I agree with you about keeping  things simple. I'm actually been 95+% Carnivore for going on three month's now. I seem to be getting stronger and stronger so far, and it's kept my appetite in check. I'm not too technical as some of the others on this site with keeping track of percentages. But, my body seems to function better with a high intake of animal fats. I try to get everything as fresh as I can. I'm currently avoiding frozen meats for now. What's your viewpoint on fresh vs. frozen? I read something on the site a about the advantages of fresh meats over frozen. I'm curious on what your intake or views are on the subject.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alive on September 07, 2012, 05:20:36 am
@Tyler - do we really care if you have corrected spelling - if you really feel the need to bother why post about it?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 07, 2012, 06:28:04 am
Since there is no evidence that UCAN SuperStarch can be hunted or gathered, and significant evidence that it comes from a modern chemical factory I think I'll avoid it.
I figured you would have something sensible to say about it.

Quote
Now you are dating yourself.  I remember those ads and actually used Pearl Drops back in the 70's.  Gave it up after it was clear that it was eroding the enamel off my teeth.
Maybe that's why the lady in the advertisement was licking her teeth and saying "Mmmmm"--she was enjoying consuming her own teeth. ;)

Quote
As for all the connective tissue and other stuff you are describing, I get lots of that in the pet food.  It's filled with chunks and chewy bits as well as the occasional bone shard - great stuff.
Thanks for the tip.

I find I enjoy raw fermented mint cod liver oil and stink fish quite a bit now, and I like it more and more the longer I eat it. The more rotted the fish, the better, as far as I'm concerned, though I still don't have a taste for Asian fermented fish sauce--what the Romans called garum and the English Worcestershire sauce (the modern variant is a pale imitation)--for some reason. One problem is, the true fermented Asian version I tried is too salty for me.

Stink fish/oil gives me this lovely burning sensation in my throat that's not really burning--it's impossible to describe. An Eskimo once asked a European something along the lines of "Why do you Kabloonak like stink cheese but not stink fish?" Well, here's a Kabloonak who does. The Eskimo fellow was a bit off the mark, though--some Swedes apparently still like Surströmming. Must try that some day.

The downside of stinkfish is, the other day I forgot that it smells very strong to most people and 99.99% of Americans can't stand the smell of it and I grossed out some visitors by stinking up my home before they arrived. Smells good to me--very mild. LOL

Satya also warned me that fermented seafood/oils contain too much oxidized PUFAs. I figure that an excess might be a problem, but I seem to be faring well on what I consider a reasonable amount. I guess I can be a guinea pig for you more sensible folk. If the stinkfish/oil, fish head/bone broths, sashimi and other fish I eat kills me, I'll let you and Ray Peat know.  ;) So far all I notice is improved dental health, a mild sense of wellbeing, and less constipation since including more of the seafoods I mentioned and less ground beef. I'm not claiming that stinkfish is a superfood or anything and wouldn't want anyone doing something just because I seem to be benefiting from it. Who knows, I may discover negative side effects down the road from evil PUFAs and maybe they're why Stefansson thought that the Inuits aged rapidly.

Thanks for the tip, Inger. You're brilliant as well as beautiful. The seafood manager is going to include some free salmon heads and bones in my next order.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 07, 2012, 12:07:55 pm
I was a little surprised that you ranked grain finished meat second. I guess that shows how little interest you have with the following choices. I'm sure it would only be an option, if you had a limited supply of grass fed beef. Would that be the same for organ meat's also?

I've found that red meat and fat from red meat animals beats all other meat sources.  I'll eat other meats on occasion if that's all that is available, but for me, red meat is king - even if I have to occasionally settle for grain-finished.

But, my body seems to function better with a high intake of animal fats.

My experience is exactly the same.  As long as most of the fat I eat is from red meat grass-fed animals I do very well.

I try to get everything as fresh as I can. I'm currently avoiding frozen meats for now. What's your viewpoint on fresh vs. frozen? I read something on the site a about the advantages of fresh meats over frozen. I'm curious on what your intake or views are on the subject. 

All my meat comes frozen.  I find it convenient for storage and can detect no difference as far as my body's ability to process and digest frozen meat vs fresh meat.  That's just my experience.  Others on this forum appear to be more sensitive and have a different take on the subject.  All I can suggest is that you give frozen meat a try and come to your own conclusions.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 07, 2012, 12:39:06 pm
Phil,
Since I'm not really into fish, I've never tried fermented fish oils.  From your description it doesn't sound real appetizing so I think I'll pass, at least for now.

What I do enjoy is a 12 oz (350ml) cup of hot butter broth in the morning.  I start with 10oz (300ml) of hot water.  I mix in a teaspoon (5ml) or so of concentrated beef or chicken broth extract paste. I then add 2-3oz (50g-75g) of grass-fed butter (straight from the refrigerator, you don't have to melt it first) and whip it into the broth with an immersion blender which can be done right in the cup.  The whole thing takes about 3 minutes to make.  Really nice way to start the day.  Others have coffee and I can join in socially with my cup of hot butter broth.

I use a product called "Better Than Bouillon" here in the US.  It is the only concentrated beef or chicken base that I've found that has zero MSG.  It does have a bit of other junk, but the main ingredients are meat and meat stock.  Most of the popular bouillon products are nothing but MSG with some food color and artificial flavors so if you want to try this read the labels

I use KerryGold grass-fed butter.  It is expensive but tastes wonderful.

You can also use coffee or tea as the base and just whip in the butter.  If you use coffee or tea as your base I suggest that you use unsalted butter.  I use salted butter in my broth because part of my reason for drinking the broth is to increase my salt intake.  My version is sort of a blend of Dave Asprey's idea for Bullet Proof Coffee, and Phinney & Volek's suggestion that VLC'ers and ZC'ers increase sodium intake by drinking one or two cups of meat broth everyday.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on September 07, 2012, 02:18:36 pm
That whipping results in a lot of AGEs as far as I know. I'd just stir it with a spoon, it will anyway melt.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 08, 2012, 05:46:24 am
Phil,
Since I'm not really into fish, I've never tried fermented fish oils.  From your description it doesn't sound real appetizing so I think I'll pass, at least for now.
LOL, understandable. I found it both tough to handle and strangely  appealing from the start, a la whiskey (the "water of life") and other strong, beloved sustenance, but it turns a lot of folks off, of course. Also strangely, I'm still not a big fan of butter, despite experimenting again with it recently, trying it with some warm French-press coffee in the morning, or mixing it into one of my homemade broths. I don't find it gives me as much of a taste or health kick and seems like Milquetoast in comparison to good 'ol stinkfish oil, though it's fattiness is mildly pleasant.

Despite the minor differences, it is interesting how similar your recent experiments are to mine. Butter and other animal fat, broth and salt are there in both cases. Except you tend to have more butter broth and red meat I tend to have more butter coffee and fish. I would actually prefer the red meat too, but I found it too constipating in my case. I never moved beyond that phase like you did, instead it just got progressively worse for me. Switching to emphasizing eggs, fish, organs and broths seems to have helped me. I do suspect that you're right about red meat being more of a natural food for humans than seafood, though, I'm just still too screwed up to take advantage of that, unfortunately.

Speaking of red meat, there's a bit of a backlash against it in the Paleo blogosphere recently due to concerns about ferratin overload. It's being blamed by Danny Roddy, Anthony Colpo, Chris Kresser and others for carb intolerance, insulin resistance, early mortality, etc. I know that doesn't bother you in the slightest, but did you tell me whether your ferretin levels have ever been tested and what they are? If you did, I apologize for forgetting. Personally, I don't notice any differences in carb tolerance and blood sugar if I eat fish vs. red meat, but maybe I'm just not paying enough attention?

Quote
I use a product called "Better Than Bouillon"
Heh, I tend to avoid any product that has "better than" in the name or advertising (maybe I've been spooked by "better than butter" products that turn out to be WAY worse ;) ). Currently I make my own broths, though I do use a gelatin product to add extra collagen to my broths, as connective tissue problems are one of my strongest negative historical health tendencies.

Quote
It is the only concentrated beef or chicken base that I've found that has zero MSG.
Cool.

Quote
Most of the popular bouillon products are nothing but MSG with some food color and artificial flavors so if you want to try this read the labels
Wow, thanks for the tip.

Quote
I use KerryGold grass-fed butter.  It is expensive but tastes wonderful.
I'm using a local product. I've found that Vermont has some of the highest quality food products in the USA. It's like Vermont is becoming the gourmet hippie state. Just wish they weren't so expensive.

Quote
You can also use coffee or tea as the base and just whip in the butter. If you use coffee or tea as your base I suggest that you use unsalted butter.  I use salted butter in my broth because part of my reason for drinking the broth is to increase my salt intake.  My version is sort of a blend of Dave Asprey's idea for Bullet Proof Coffee, and Phinney & Volek's suggestion that VLC'ers and ZC'ers increase sodium intake by drinking one or two cups of meat broth everyday.
Wow, what a coincidence. That's basically what I've been doing--I've been semi-participating in the Bulletproof butter-coffee experiment going on. Can't say I've noticed any difference so far, other than increased jitteriness (which he attributed to alfatoxin-contamination, but I've also noticed from his allegedly splendiferous coffee--interestingly, his is the greenest coffe I've seen, though he doesn't mention heat/temperatures), but it's been fun. I suspect that one reason I haven't noticed benefits following his protocol, is that I was already eating plenty of animal fat.

Slàinte mhath!

As for AGEs in butter, Chris Masterjohn has another take, FWIW (I have no idea how on-target it is, but I try to consider all the credible opinions): http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/10/is-butter-high-in-ages.html (http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/10/is-butter-high-in-ages.html)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2012, 01:03:00 pm
That whipping results in a lot of AGEs as far as I know. I'd just stir it with a spoon, it will anyway melt.

Hmmmm, If AGEs (Advanced Glycation End Products), are by definition created through the breakdown of sugars reacting with protein and amino acids, I'm unclear on how whipping pure fat into water can create them when neither sugar or protein is present. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2012, 02:12:41 pm
Phil,
I grew up in a household where no one drank coffee, tea, or alcoholic beverages.  I just never learned to like them so I don't drink them.  We drank milk, which I gave up years ago, water, and stuff like homemade lemonade in the hot summer months.  To this day I still drink mostly water and prefer water over everything else.  Even when I was drinking some fruit juices and soda years back, I had to dilute them with lots of water - usually at least 2 parts water to 1 part juice or soda.

Caffeine also seemed to play a role in the migraine headaches that I suffered for so many years that I avoided anything that contained caffeine and still avoid it today even though I haven't had a migraine for several years now.

As for the red meat controversy:  It gives the bloggers something to talk about.  Most will soon become bored and move on to the next hot topic chasing whatever seems fashionable at the moment.  All the bloggers you mentioned seem to cycle through topics at a rapid clip.  I guess I'm just to old and tired to try to keep up with the frantic pace.  Anyway, bottom line here is that "this too shall pass".... and we'll soon be on to something even more worrisome. 

I have no idea what my ferritin level is.  If it isn't in my annual labs then I haven't been tested for it.  I've never bothered to look. 

Seems that everyone has a different take on AGEs.  I can't see them, measure them, or even control them other than try not to eat them which would mean that I would probably starve to death, (which would have the positive effect of saving me from accelerated aging from AGEs!).  Our bodies make the darn things so we can't avoid them.  I've also never seen "Died from AGE overdose" on a death certificate.  I prefer to spend my time on things that I can control and that have a measurable effect on my daily life.  Sorry, but AGEs don't make my list of the top 10 things to worry about. Come to think of it, if butter made from fresh cream is so bad, wonder what the AGE content of your rotten stinking fish oil is?  You might be the first to officially die from AGE overdose!

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on September 08, 2012, 04:07:11 pm
Hmmmm, If AGEs (Advanced Glycation End Products), are by definition created through the breakdown of sugars reacting with protein and amino acids, I'm unclear on how whipping pure fat into water can create them when neither sugar or protein is present. 

Lex
There's certainly protein in butter, and somehow whipped butter, mayonnaise and similar whipped stuff have the most AGEs.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 08, 2012, 08:08:29 pm


As for the red meat controversy:  It gives the bloggers something to talk about.  Most will soon become bored and move on to the next hot topic chasing whatever seems fashionable at the moment.  All the bloggers you mentioned seem to cycle through topics at a rapid clip.  I guess I'm just to old and tired to try to keep up with the frantic pace.  Anyway, bottom line here is that "this too shall pass".... and we'll soon be on to something even more worrisome. 


This is pretty much my thought.  Keeping things in your diet simple, unprocessed, and Paleo is, I think, waaaay more important than worrying about the "toxin du jour".
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 08, 2012, 10:30:09 pm
... Come to think of it, if butter made from fresh cream is so bad, wonder what the AGE content of your rotten stinking fish oil is?  You might be the first to officially die from AGE overdose!
Heh, heh, yeah, if I die from it I'll let you know.  ;) As you can tell from my current consumption of both fermented CLO and pastured butter (experimentally), I'm not overly concerned about AGEs either. Not that I'm ruling out all possibility of harm from excess either. If there is harm from AGE overload, I suspect that the overall picture is highly complex, with many interacting and offsetting factors, such as glutathione. I looked for Chris Masterjohn's article on glutathione, but the WAPF site that hosts it is down, reportedly from being hacked.

I think the default starting position is little or no dairy and so the burden of proof is on making the positive case for adding dairy products to the Paleo template, but I also don't think that the fact that it was likely not a staple Paleolithic food means it cannot possibly be beneficial in any form to anyone today. It seems the case has yet to be proven sufficiently that any or all dairy (whether raw, fermented, pastured, just butter, etc.) is either "the perfect food" or "poison." So we're left with personal experimentation to find out what works for us as individuals, and I doubt that experimentation has to include sophisticated lab equipment or double-blind placebo controls to be useful.

This is pretty much my thought.  Keeping things in your diet simple, unprocessed, and Paleo is, I think, waaaay more important than worrying about the "toxin du jour".
That's how I've been playing it, though by coincidence I reduced my red meat intake recently anyway for other reasons than insulin sensitivity (though I increased my intake of beef fat, liver and bones), so if I happen to notice consistently improved blood glucose that seems to indicate better insulin sensitivity, I'll try to remember to report it, though there will be confounding factors (like how much of my BG levels and spikes are due to poor insulin sensitivity and how much due to natural, normal effects from eating relatively LC, effects from other foods like raw honey, which is supposed to improve insulin sensitivity, and so on).

Interestingly, despite all the hooplah about the benefits of lowering high ferretin levels, Danny Roddy reported that after giving blood to the max to get his levels down, he didn't notice any health benefits.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 08, 2012, 11:31:31 pm
There's certainly protein in butter, and somehow whipped butter, mayonnaise and similar whipped stuff have the most AGEs.

I just checked the label on my butter and there is no protein listed.  Nor is there any carbohydrate of any form listed.  My butter says 100% of calories from fat.

If you wish to spend your time worrying over AGEs be my guest, but I'd rather spend my limited time on other things. That's just my personal choice. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 09, 2012, 12:14:15 am
.... I suspect that the overall picture is highly complex, with many interacting and offsetting factors, such as glutathione.

...dairy (whether raw, fermented, pastured, just butter, etc.) is either "the perfect food" or "poison." So we're left with personal experimentation to find out what works for us as individuals, and I doubt that experimentation has to include sophisticated lab equipment or double-blind placebo controls to be useful..

How on earth did our species make it this far?  For hundreds of thousands of years we didn't know anything about AGEs, metabolic pathways, double blind testing or glutathione.  We ate whatever food was available in our natural environment and lived our lives.

As for dairy being a perfect food:  There is no such thing as a perfect food.  Since we're all going to die eventually I suppose you could make the case that everything we eat is poisonous to some extent, else how do you explain that we die?  (If I get the gist of the common theory of perfection the belief is that if we just find the perfect food and live in the perfect environment then we'll live forever.  Unfortunately there is no evidence to support this belief.)

...so if I happen to notice consistently improved blood glucose that seems to indicate better insulin sensitivity, I'll try to remember to report it, though there will be confounding factors (like how much of my BG levels and spikes are due to poor insulin sensitivity and how much due to natural, normal effects from eating relatively LC, effects from other foods like raw honey, which is supposed to improve insulin sensitivity, and so on).

And therein lies the rub.  How do you know what's really going on in our complex bodies, and if you could accurately measure it, on what basis do you decide what is good or bad? 

Interestingly, despite all the hooplah about the benefits of lowering high ferretin levels, Danny Roddy reported that after giving blood to the max to get his levels down, he didn't notice any health benefits.

This surprises you? 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Chris on September 09, 2012, 12:40:34 am
That whipping results in a lot of AGEs as far as I know. I'd just stir it with a spoon, it will anyway melt.

I found this info on the website below. The testing for AGES was flawed, check it out. The below quote was from the author. For a full accounting click on the link below.
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/10/is-butter-high-in-ages.html (http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/10/is-butter-high-in-ages.html)

"So what's the true CML content of butter as measured by mass spetrometry?  A study published last year showed that whole milk contains 40% more CML than butter.  Wow, big difference, huh? 

Which do you believe?  The immunoassays that say butter has 5,000 times more CML than whole milk?  Or the mass spectrometry that says whole milk, which has more precursors, has 40% more CML than butter?

The same study found that evaporation of milk increased AGEs 10-fold, and that evaporated milk and various types of bread crust all had about 10 times the AGE content of butter and over five times the AGE content of beef.  Boiling beef increased the AGE content 7-fold, while frying the beef increased the AGE content 15-fold.

In addition to more posts on honey, fructose, and fatty liver, expect lots more information on AGEs in the coming months.

In the meantime, enjoy your butter!  Yum. :)"
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on September 09, 2012, 02:52:10 am
I just checked the label on my butter and there is no protein listed.  Nor is there any carbohydrate of any form listed.  My butter says 100% of calories from fat.

If you wish to spend your time worrying over AGEs be my guest, but I'd rather spend my limited time on other things. That's just my personal choice. 
If it was pure fat then melting butter would result in pure liquid, not fat + some solid residue.

Let me put it in your philosophy: for hundreds of thousands of years people didn't have that machine to whip their food. They used a spoon or whatever else.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 09, 2012, 05:00:09 am
For hundreds of thousands of years we didn't know anything about AGEs, metabolic pathways, double blind testing or glutathione.  We ate whatever food was available in our natural environment and lived our lives.
Yup

Quote
As for dairy being a perfect food:  There is no such thing as a perfect food.
Yup

Quote
(If I get the gist of the common theory of perfection the belief is that if we just find the perfect food and live in the perfect environment then we'll live forever.
Some do seem to take it to that extreme--a recent variant of this is the Transhumanist movement. Some of them seem to believe that if we pop hundreds of vitamin/mineral pills and eat a healthy diet that we can live to be well over 100, by which time artificial bodies with sophisticated computer brains will be available to program our minds into, which will be the stepping stone onto immortal, formless energy beings. From what they say amongst themselves (but not so much to the mass media) it sounds like only the wealthiest elites will be able to afford the cybernetic bodies and then energy-being transformation, and the rest of the people will be vastly inferior serfs to be despised that can either be ignored, exploited or exterminated by the super-beings, at their whim. I may have some of the details wrong, but that's the rough sense I get from what I've read and heard from some leading Transhumanists.

Quote
And therein lies the rub.  How do you know what's really going on in our complex bodies, and if you could accurately measure it, on what basis do you decide what is good or bad?
Yeah, that's why I think the reductionist approach of trying to figure out how every molecule in our body works and interacts is largely a waste of time. Simple personal experimentation with real foods seems more fruitful, in general.

Quote
This surprises you?
No, not much, though others like Colpo have reported benefits. Different people reporting very different results seems like par for the course.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on September 09, 2012, 09:13:58 am
Yeah, that's why I think the reductionist approach of trying to figure out how every molecule in our body works and interacts is largely a waste of time. Simple personal experimentation with real foods seems more fruitful, in general.
You think trial and error is better? Come on, we have huge brains and can do better than that! ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 09, 2012, 10:30:05 am
a From what they say amongst themselves (but not so much to the mass media) it sounds like only the wealthiest elites will be able to afford the cybernetic bodies and then energy-being transformation, and the rest of the people will be vastly inferior serfs to be despised that can either be ignored, exploited or exterminated by the super-beings...

Actually, if Moore's Law continues for at least another 30-40 years or so, I would guess that even those technological advancements would trickle down to poor people in 3rd-world countries. Think about it, even very poor people in most of the world have televisions.  They got them 30-40 years later than people in the US, but they have them.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 09, 2012, 11:23:56 am
You think trial and error is better? Come on, we have huge brains and can do better than that! ;)

If you believe in Darwinism then that large brain you are so proud of was produced by genetic trial and error so this method does work. 

Let me put it in your philosophy: for hundreds of thousands of years people didn't have that machine to whip their food. They used a spoon or whatever else.

Yup, yer right but I'm not a purist.  I live in the modern world and I take advantage of many of the modern conveniences available to me.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on September 09, 2012, 03:35:09 pm
If you believe in Darwinism then that large brain you are so proud of was produced by genetic trial and error so this method does work. 
If you have millions of years yeah, it may work. But probably it won't, e.g. just think of all the other animals that didn't really become so smart and successful.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 09, 2012, 08:22:19 pm
You think trial and error is better? Come on, we have huge brains and can do better than that! ;)
If you've got a better method, feel free to share it.

Actually, if Moore's Law continues for at least another 30-40 years or so, I would guess that even those technological advancements would trickle down to poor people in 3rd-world countries.
A "trickle" doesn't sound like it would include everyone. Presumably cyborg technology would not trickle down to those with no money, nor those who don't wish to become cyborgs. The Transhumanists even have a term for those who will not become cyborgs: "Mostly Original Substrate Humans (MOSHs)." At any rate, I'm not convinced that Transhumanist Ray Kurzweil is going to live to 97 plus (so he can be alive in 2045, by which time he predicts the Singularity will have occurred that will enable a massive leap in technology) by popping "250 pills of nutritionals a day," like he claimed in his book, Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 09, 2012, 11:53:51 pm
If you have millions of years yeah, it may work. But probably it won't, e.g. just think of all the other animals that didn't really become so smart and successful.

I suppose this depends on your definition of smart and successful.  I'm not convinced that we are as smart and successful as we'd like to think we are.  Most of the problems we face today we've created ourselves, and we are forced to use much of that lauded brain power to try to figure out how to extricate us from the mess we've created.     

You are quite correct, no other animal has been smart or successful enough to artificially alter their environment enough to create the problems we have.  On the other hand, they seem to do better in their natural environment without tools and technology than we do. 

Only time will tell if we are ultimately smart enough to avoid extinction as have all previous species that rose to dominate their environment, or if our intelligence and success are the seeds of our destruction.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 10, 2012, 12:31:33 am
There's certainly protein in butter, and somehow whipped butter, mayonnaise and similar whipped stuff have the most AGEs.

In thinking this over I have two problems with hysteria over AGEs.

First, the fact that AGEs exist in the presence of pathology does not mean that the AGEs caused the pathology. Just as white blood cells accumulate around an infection does not mean that they caused the infection.  I have seen no research that shows that AGEs are the cause of any specific disease, only that they are present in both healthy and diseased tissues, often with higher concentrations in the diseased tissues.  This can also be said of white blood cells.

Second, what evidence do we have that the AGEs present in our bodies come predominantly from dietary sources?  Research seems to indicate that our bodies manufacture copious amounts of AGEs and free radicals through the basic metabolic processes of life.

Research also shows that every animal, regardless of their diet or environment, accumulates AGEs as they age.  In fact, AGE concentration is often used to determine the biological age of captured wild animals.  This indicates that there is a correlation with AGE concentration and age, but does not prove that AGEs cause aging or pathology.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 10, 2012, 12:45:43 am
And as Chris and I pointed out in this thread, the validity of the study finding high AGEs in butter has been questioned:

As for AGEs in butter, Chris Masterjohn has another take, FWIW (I have no idea how on-target it is, but I try to consider all the credible opinions): http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/10/is-butter-high-in-ages.html (http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/10/is-butter-high-in-ages.html)
And there's more:
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/10/trouble-with-measuring-ages-butter-and.html (http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/10/trouble-with-measuring-ages-butter-and.html)
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/10/where-do-most-ages-come-from-o.html (http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/10/where-do-most-ages-come-from-o.html)

And there's the problem of lack of much detailed knowledge about AGEs in general, which could mean they are either less or more of a problem than the current general consensus expects:

Glycation in food and metabolic transit of dietary AGEs
http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/031/1383/0311383.pdf (http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/031/1383/0311383.pdf)
"Above all, however, it has to be realized that the term ‘AGE’ comprises a large number of individual amino acid derivatives, of which only a minority have been identified and quantified either in foods or in vivo."

Second, what evidence do we have that the AGEs present in our bodies come predominantly from dietary sources? 
Re: that, there is this:

"the major part of AGEs measured in urine is of dietary origin. Similar results were observed for PD-effluates. This gives the preliminary indication that dietary AGEs might significantly contribute to the total AGE load of the human body. The kidney, as well as the peritoneal membrane, has to deal with a "continuous" exposure to dietary AGEs. Therefore, biologic effects of these exogenously formed compounds have to be considered, in addition to AGEs formed endogenously."
Henle T. AGEs in foods: do they play a role in uremia? Kidney Int 2003;63(suppl 84):S145-S147.
http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v63/n84s/full/4493792a.html (http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v63/n84s/full/4493792a.html)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 10, 2012, 11:44:00 am
If you've got a better method, feel free to share it.
A "trickle" doesn't sound like it would include everyone. Presumably cyborg technology would not trickle down to those with no money, nor those who don't wish to become cyborgs. The Transhumanists even have a term for those who will not become cyborgs: "Mostly Original Substrate Humans (MOSHs)." At any rate, I'm not convinced that Transhumanist Ray Kurzweil is going to live to 97 plus (so he can be alive in 2045, by which time he predicts the Singularity will have occurred that will enable a massive leap in technology) by popping "250 pills of nutritionals a day," like he claimed in his book, Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever.

I think upper-middle-class people in developed countries will have the ability to stop aging by 2035 or so, maybe even earlier.  Why?

Because computer components are going to being single-atom-sized in around 2025 or thereabouts, according to Moore's Law, if it continues.

If you can control single atoms, surely you will soon afterwards be able to control the chemical process inside cells, right?  Those processes are just atoms interacting.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 11, 2012, 06:33:27 am
I think upper-middle-class people in developed countries will have the ability to stop aging by 2035 or so, maybe even earlier.
Are we agreed then that cybernetic immortality won't be something that's free to all, if we even live to see anything like it? I'm old enough that it does bring to mind the World's Fair and futurist predictions of decades ago (which Lex may also remember) that we would all be flying around in Jetson air-cars, using robot-servants and getting our daily nutrition from a pill by now (and Lex has already commented on the latter). I would be more interested in a world that has more folks in it like Lex than has another gazillion whiz-bang gadgets.
Quote
Why?
Why what?

Quote
Because computer components are going to being single-atom-sized in around 2025 or thereabouts, according to Moore's Law, if it continues.

If you can control single atoms, surely you will soon afterwards be able to control the chemical process inside cells, right?  Those processes are just atoms interacting.
It wouldn't particularly surprise me. No offense intended, but I'm just not particularly excited by Kurzweil's fantasies of nerdvana. Not surprising, I suppose, as Star Trek conventions also don't appeal to me particularly and I'm probably older than the avg Internet user at this point. In my early youth, whiz-bang gadgets held some appeal for me, but the older I get, the less the excitement from synthetic novelties. I'll just try to make the best of whatever comes, not worry about that which I have no control over, and try to focus on what I can control. The Internet is pretty neat, even to an old-timer like me, so maybe there will be other new phenomena I find interesting.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 11, 2012, 07:00:16 am
Well, well, it looks like scientists are starting to come round, and perhaps the lack of fear of stinkfish/oil from me, the Inuit, Chuckchi, Nenets, Scandinavians, Sami, etc. was not so off-base:

Some Things Fishy: Oxidized Fish Oil Totally Benign!? Plus: The Inflammatory Side of EPA and Peroxide & Alkenal Levels in Commercial Fish and Vegetable Oils.
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2011/12/some-things-fishy-oxidized-fish-oil.html (http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2011/12/some-things-fishy-oxidized-fish-oil.html)

Maybe I won't be dying soon after all?  Surströmming anyone? ;D
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 11, 2012, 10:12:42 am
Are we agreed then that cybernetic immortality won't be something that's free to all, if we even live to see anything like it?

i think it'll take at least 10 years to go from "available" to "available to poor people in 3rd-world countries", and, honestly, maybe more like 15 or 20.  i think it will happen, though.

I'm not saying it will be awesome in every way, assuming it happens.  We might miss being analog creatures, to a certain degree.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 11, 2012, 11:38:48 am
"the major part of AGEs measured in urine is of dietary origin. Similar results were observed for PD-effluates. This gives the preliminary indication that dietary AGEs might significantly contribute to the total AGE load of the human body. The kidney, as well as the peritoneal membrane, has to deal with a "continuous" exposure to dietary AGEs. Therefore, biologic effects of these exogenously formed compounds have to be considered, in addition to AGEs formed endogenously."
Henle T. AGEs in foods: do they play a role in uremia? Kidney Int 2003;63(suppl 84):S145-S147.

So they are saying that the kidneys and liver are doing their job and removing waste products like AGEs?

Hmmm you mean the kidneys and peritoneal membrane have to deal with continuous exposure to dietary AGEs just like they have to deal with continuous exposure to everything else we consume? 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 11, 2012, 11:40:49 am
I'm not saying it will be awesome in every way, assuming it happens.  We might miss being analog creatures, to a certain degree.

Especially when the power is turned off....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Brad462 on September 12, 2012, 03:58:33 am
Hey Lex, do you still eat the groundbeef and organ mix from Slankers?  Just curious.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 12, 2012, 10:42:52 am
Hey Lex, do you still eat the groundbeef and organ mix from Slankers?  Just curious. 

Yup, doing pretty much the same as I always have.  On occasion I switch off between the pet food and the primal beef mix, but other than that everything else is the same.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alive on September 12, 2012, 11:29:00 am
Raw meat is the way to go since it has few AGE, while providing carnosine to disable any AGE already in your body, plus other amazing health benefits of health and life extension:

Carnosine Nature's pluripotent life extension agent
Quote
... Carnosine has the remarkable ability to rejuvenate cells approaching senescence, restoring normal appearance and extending cellular life span...

...The body is made up largely of proteins. Unfortunately, proteins tend to undergo destructive changes as we age, due largely to oxidation and interactions with sugars or aldehydes. These interrelated protein modifications include oxidation, carbonylation, cross-linking, glycation and advanced glycation endproduct (AGE) formation. They figure prominently not only in the processes of aging but also in its familiar signs such as skin aging, cataracts and neurodegeneration. Studies show that carnosine is effective against all these forms of protein modification...

...meat—the main dietary source of carnosine—...
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/jan2001_report_carnosine_1.html (http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/jan2001_report_carnosine_1.html)

From wikipedia
- carnosine is highly concentrated in muscle and brain tissues.
- A small 2002 study reported that carnosine improved socialization and receptive vocabulary in children with
autism.
- In animal models carnosine has been shown to retard cancer growth[19] and protect against alcohol-induced oxidative stress[20] as well as ethanol-induced chronic liver damage
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hotmail on September 17, 2012, 05:21:07 am
Hi Lex, been reading your journal on and off, I noted you had periods when you suffered increased weight on ZC,  can you let me know if this is a continuousness trend? i.e first one loses weight, then gains it on ZC? Did you manage to control its? If so, how?

Thanks and apologies for barging onto your journal!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 20, 2012, 10:32:32 am
Hi Lex, been reading your journal on and off, I noted you had periods when you suffered increased weight on ZC,  can you let me know if this is a continuousness trend? i.e first one loses weight, then gains it on ZC? Did you manage to control its? If so, how?

Early in the process of transitioning from a high carb diet to a VLC or ZC diet your body is not very efficient at using fatty acids for fuel.  Cells need high concentrations of mitochondria to use fatty acids as their primary fuel where mitochondria are not needed in as many numbers when using glucose as the primary fuel.  This means that the body is throwing away much of the energy from the fat that has taken the place of the carbs in the diet - so you lose weight.  This gives the appearance that you can eat as much as you want of fat and protein and still lose (or at least not gain) weight and therefore calories don't count when eating VLC or ZC.

Unfortunately this doesn't go on forever.  Once the body fully adapts to using fatty acids as its primary fuel source, the dietary fat can now be used more efficiently for fuel and you'll start to gain weight again.  To keep weight down you must start counting calories again.  This is not difficult as fat is very satisfying so if you only eat until satisfied you'll be fine.  If you insist on stuffing yourself just because you think you can, you'll gain weight.

Most people start to notice this around 1 year to 18 months after starting VLC or ZC.  It is also well documented in the Atkin's diet literature.  People start on Atkin's, lose weight rapidly during the first year or so, and then their weight loss slows or stops altogether, and they will gain weight again if they over eat.

There is no magic in VLC or ZC other than the fact that high levels of dietary fat will satisfy you so it is easier to eat less.  I've also found that if I over eat on highly saturated fat, that some of it passes through undigested making stools pasty, and of course that is energy that never becomes available to the body.

Generally I'm satisfied on 2,000 to 2,500 Kcal/day.  If I eat more than this I gain weight.  Not as much or as fast as when eating a high carb diet, but I will put on weight.

Hope this answers your question.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 20, 2012, 11:02:43 am
Finally got my annual labs completed.  Rather a heroic effort this year.  New doctor, new lab, and a couple of screw-ups requiring that I have blood drawn twice to get them completed.

Usually my blood is pulled in the early morning but this year my appointment was in the mid afternoon so blood was drawn at 3pm instead of 8 or 9 am.  This is just about the time I eat my daily meal and this is reflected in the lower blood glucose reading of 82.  My BG usually stays right around 100 for most of the day but does start to fall in the late afternoon before I eat.  So, if you're looking at all my previous labs and see BG at 98-99, that is because it was drawn first thing in the morning several hours before my meal.  This year it appears to be lower because it was drawn so close to meal time and it had been over 24 hours since my last meal.

Lipid panel remains about the same.  Total Cholesterol slightly over 200, HDL and LDL in the "good" range and Triglycerides very low at 59.

PSA is slowly rising at the rate of about 0.5 points per year.  Last year it was in the mid 2s this year it is just over 3.  This tells me that diet may be slowing prostate growth but it hasn't stopped it.  I'll have to start thinking about what approach to take when I get near the 4 mark and the doctor will want a biopsy.  This can be very destructive and cause even worse problems so not excited about doing it.  Will have to investigate alternatives.

No A1c test this year.  Doctor wouldn't perform it as he felt that based on my past history it wasn't necessary.

Paleo Phil asked about a C-Reactive protein test.  I managed to get this included as a one-time test this year just to set a reference point.   Looks good at less then 0.1 mg/dl

Every year I've tried to get a test for vitamin D and for some reason they either did the wrong test or didn't do the test at all.  This year all went well and I got the results, though it did take the second blood draw to get it done.  Vitamin D level was 51 ng/mL which seems pretty good since I don't take any supplements.  The test shows that all my vitamin D is endogenous (my body made it from sun exposure) as I don't take supplements and there is no measurable vitamin D2 which is the stuff they fortify dairy products with.

Labs are attached.  You'll notice that there are two different formats in this posting.  This is because there were two different blood draws and the second draw with the Vitamin D test and the CBC were handled differently than the first by my medical provider.

All in all very happy as my labs look great for someone 61 years old.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 20, 2012, 01:44:18 pm
PSA is slowly rising at the rate of about 0.5 points per year.  Last year it was in the mid 2s this year it is just over 3.  This tells me that diet may be slowing prostate growth but it hasn't stopped it.  I'll have to start thinking about what approach to take when I get near the 4 mark and the doctor will want a biopsy.  This can be very destructive and cause even worse problems so not excited about doing it.  Will have to investigate alternatives.

The only thing I know of that stops prostate growth is the iodine protocol:
   http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/iprotocol.html (http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/iprotocol.html)

- I no longer need to piss in the wee hours of the night after a year supplementing with Lugol's etc.
   http://www.iodoraliodinesupplements.com/ (http://www.iodoraliodinesupplements.com/)

BTW I am old enough (just barely) to be your father.   :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 20, 2012, 02:05:39 pm
Alternative to prostate problems:

Prostate massage, buy a prostate massage tool.

Regular emissions / ejaculations / sex. (once a week? once every 2 weeks? I don't know what's good at your age)

Eat oysters every 2 weeks.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 20, 2012, 10:51:09 pm
GS,
I've been doing the things you recommend for several years at the suggestion of my old doctor with the exception of eating oysters.  Just don't like the little buggers.  Either hasn't helped, or is part of what is slowing the rate of PSA increase.  No way to tell which.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 20, 2012, 11:01:37 pm
The only thing I know of that stops prostate growth is the iodine protocol:
   http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/iprotocol.html (http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/iprotocol.html)

- I no longer need to piss in the wee hours of the night after a year supplementing with Lugol's etc.
   http://www.iodoraliodinesupplements.com/ (http://www.iodoraliodinesupplements.com/)

William,
As I've stated before, I have little faith in most of this stuff.  I've never found that it made any difference at all.  That said,  I now have a track record of PSA rising at the rate of 0.5 points per year for the last several years.  It might be interesting to try your suggestion for a year and see if there is any change.  With the information from the previous labs, it would be easy to tell if there was a change in PSA rather than just anecdotal evidence of how I feel.

Since you've had success with the same issue do you have a specific product and/or protocol to suggest?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 22, 2012, 03:27:50 am
Yes, my protocol is based on that of www.breastcancerchoices.com (http://www.breastcancerchoices.com), modified for rzc, because it is the only form of iodine which is both harmless and has a proven  record of curing cancer.

It is Lugol's iodine first thing on waking, then again 6 hours later, started with 1 drop twice/day, increasing by one drop each week. The reason for the tiny starting dose of 6.25x2 mg is that ugly detox reactions can be provoked in those of our age if starting at the recommended 100 mg/day. (I'd be amazed if you are not full of bromine).

Lugol's is not legally sold in U.S.A., but a weaker form is sold by http://jcrows.com/, (http://jcrows.com/,) just double the dose. Iodoral works too, but co$t$, and should be taken with the supervision of a competent doc, if you choose that, there is a list of iodine-literate physicians at breastcancerchoices.com.

The rest of the protocol: 2- L-selenomethionine 200 mcg NOW brand (there is a balance of this with iodine, and if Se is not taken some have had thyroid problems)
                                             3-  Mag malate renew  AOR brand
                                             4-  tri-boron from twinlab
                                              5- Solution of dried seawater in drinking water, 1/2 tsp to 1 tsp/day. Celtic or Redmond's RealSalt.  I don't measure this, but go by taste. It makes my pemmican taste much better too.

I get the above from http://www.iherb.com/ (http://www.iherb.com/)  (also better-than-bouillon, thanks).

Do read the faq at: http://curezone.com/faq/c.asp?a=13,281,2962 (http://curezone.com/faq/c.asp?a=13,281,2962)

This protocol gives tools and weapons to the immune system. Reverse aging happens.   w00t
                                             
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 22, 2012, 01:33:39 pm
Thanks William.  I'll  look at getting the supplements you recommend and reading the information at the link you've provided.  It will be interesting to see if there is any effect to PSA and/or change in BPH symptoms a year from now.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on September 22, 2012, 05:48:15 pm
Lex, I would say William is so right about Iodine being one of the most important things. That is why I suggested seafood and mackerel head smoothie..lol.
You could eat lots of algae too. So much better than taking Iodine drops. Natural is always better. I drink algae water these days, just soak the algae in water and drink when thirsty. Excellent Iodine-source and lots of other minerals too.

Too sad you weren't eating the oysters your doctors suggested, they are the best superfood ever. You better eat lots of oysters every day and your prostate will be as it was when you was 20 yo.. ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hotmail on September 22, 2012, 06:33:10 pm
Every time I eat oysters I end up having an awful episode of  food poisoning,  really awful, the type that let you want to wish you are dead lol ,aren't oysters scavengers that will eat anything and everything, including all solution in the waters?   or do you get some kind of organic oysters?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 22, 2012, 07:45:23 pm
Every time I eat oysters I end up having an awful episode of  food poisoning,  really awful, the type that let you want to wish you are dead lol ,aren't oysters scavengers that will eat anything and everything, including all solution in the waters?   or do you get some kind of organic oysters?

Some people are just allergic to certain types of foods.  You are allergic to oysters, so do not eat them.  Eat something else.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 23, 2012, 03:08:15 am
Inger,
Just don't like sea food and oysters are towards the top of my yuck list along with mussels, shrimp, and lobster.  My doctor didn't recommend oysters or any other foods or supplements but he did recommend massage which I've done.  Hasn't made any difference from what I can tell.

I will work with William to determine a reasonable protocol for adding iodine and other necessary co-factors to my diet for the next year and we'll see what happens.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on September 24, 2012, 09:53:17 pm
Finally got my annual labs completed.

Hi Lex,

thank you very much for posting your new lab results. Looks really good! That's great. I would say that this is the most interesting and most detailed zero carb (plus raw) lifestyle journal on this planet, far better than any book about ketogenic diets.

BTW: It might be useful or more practical to stick the pdf-document to your first post of this journal where all other laboratory values from earlier years are located!?

Do you know your thyroid levels? As far as I can see they are not included in your test. Against the background of the recent "safe starches" and thyroid health discussions in low carb circles around Jimmy Moore, Nora Gedgaudas, Ron Rosedale etc. it would be very interesting to see your TSH and fT3 - levels. There is a widespread opinion amongst low carb doctors that long-term zero carbing causes hypothyroidism. Because you feel good I guess that you are definetely not hypothyroid. Your levels could clarify the question if the standard interpretation used by hospitals is wrong in a low carb context, as Ron Rosedale claims.

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 25, 2012, 06:47:48 am
Congrats on the overall good results, Lex.

RDW 15.9 (reference range 11.0 - 15.0 %)
MCV 89.5 (80.0 - 100.0 fl)

Lex, has your folate level ever been checked? High RDW with normal MCV can be caused by the beginning stages of a decrease in folic acid in the body (WHAT CAN CAUSE THE RED CELL DISTRIBUTION WIDTH TO BE TOO HIGH? http://www.medfriendly.com/redcelldistributionwidth.html (http://www.medfriendly.com/redcelldistributionwidth.html)). Interestingly, Danny Roddy, Mel of ZIOH and Todd of the Dirty Carnivore forum all reported experiencing scurvy-like folic acid deficiency symptoms, or even diagnosed folic acid deficiency (as I noted about Mel here - http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/lex's-journal/msg77597/#msg77597 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/lex's-journal/msg77597/#msg77597)) on all-pemmican diets (folic acid deficiency symptoms are quite similar to scurvy symptoms). You don't eat all pemmican, but you do eat some, as I understand it, and eat an all-meat diet.

Natural folate is much better than folic acid, and is best obtained from food. Natural folate is associated with reduced risk of high-grade prostate cancer (Folate intake and prostate cancer risk: a case-control study, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19838935 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19838935) and Figueiredo et al, Folic acid and risk of prostate cancer: results from a randomized clinical trial, http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/6/432.abstract (http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/6/432.abstract)), whereas high-dose synthetic folic acid supplements are associated with INCREASED risk of prostate cancer (http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20090310/folic-acid-may-raise-prostate-cancer-risk (http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20090310/folic-acid-may-raise-prostate-cancer-risk)).

Folate-rich foods like green vegetables, peanuts and beef liver
(http://www.livestrong.com/article/473845-what-is-high-rdw-and-low-ferritin/#ixzz27QaT1FXN (http://www.livestrong.com/article/473845-what-is-high-rdw-and-low-ferritin/#ixzz27QaT1FXN)), asparagus and spinach, and the nutrient diindolylmethane, found in crucifers like broccoli, kale, cabbage and cauliflower, have been connected to prostate cancer prevention (http://www.ehow.com/way_5626027_diet-lower-psa.html (http://www.ehow.com/way_5626027_diet-lower-psa.html)). Other foods high in folate include herbs, other legumes, nuts and seeds (http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/foods-high-in-folate-vitamin-B9.php (http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/foods-high-in-folate-vitamin-B9.php)).

On the other hand, these studies associated folate with higher PSA, but don't say whether the folate was from food or what:
- Collin et al, Associations of folate, vitamin B12, homocysteine, and folate-pathway polymorphisms with prostate-specific antigen velocity in men with localized prostate cancer, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20852008 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20852008)
- Folate, vitamin B12, and homocysteine and prostate cancer risk: surprise finding, http://psa-rising.com/eatingwell/vb12_folate04.html (http://psa-rising.com/eatingwell/vb12_folate04.html)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 25, 2012, 08:23:59 am
Symptoms of folic acid deficiency:
http://www.3fatchicks.com/8-symptoms-of-folic-acid-deficiency/ (http://www.3fatchicks.com/8-symptoms-of-folic-acid-deficiency/)
http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/folic-acid-deficiency-anemia-topic-overview (http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/folic-acid-deficiency-anemia-topic-overview)

I don't have any of them, and I eat a quack of a lot more pemmican than Lex. Quit eating liver, the only non-plant source of folic acid, months ago because it contains evil carbs.

Were the people mentioned eating grass-finished beef?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 25, 2012, 11:44:22 am
BTW: It might be useful or more practical to stick the pdf-document to your first post of this journal where all other laboratory values from earlier years are located!?

I PM'd GS and asked him to post the labs to the first Journal entry but apparently he never did it.  Is there a Moderator out there that can copy my lab pdf to the first entry with all the others?

Do you know your thyroid levels? As far as I can see they are not included in your test. Against the background of the recent "safe starches" and thyroid health discussions in low carb circles around Jimmy Moore, Nora Gedgaudas, Ron Rosedale etc. it would be very interesting to see your TSH and fT3 - levels. There is a widespread opinion amongst low carb doctors that long-term zero carbing causes hypothyroidism. Because you feel good I guess that you are definetely not hypothyroid. Your levels could clarify the question if the standard interpretation used by hospitals is wrong in a low carb context, as Ron Rosedale claims.

I think they did TSH and T3/T4 in previous labs and there was no problem.  Danny Roddy says they are the wrong tests but the only tests I can get are the ones my doctor approves.  With no symptoms the docs are reluctant to run expensive tests.  I looked at getting all the tests Danny Roddy recommeded and the full panel was over $1,000.  If I only went for the minimum tests it was still over $600.  Not sure it is worth the cost to do it out of pocket myself - again, since I'm not experienceing any outward problems.  There is the PSA/prostate problem but modern medicine doesn't seem to see a connection between thyroid and prostate issues.  As it was I had to talk like a Dutch Uncle to get the Vit D and C-Reactive Protein tests.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 25, 2012, 11:52:44 am
Phil,
Not sure if the RDW number is anything to worry about or not.  It is not astronomically high and at this point I'm more inclined to take the wait-but-monitor approach.  For me the PSA number is of more concern as I now have a clear track record over several years for that.

I do eat a good bit of liver as part of my daily food mix so if folate is the problem, and liver has folate, then I should be getting plenty of it.

BTW, what did you think of the CRP number?  Less than 0.1, which I guess is as low as they measure.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 25, 2012, 07:26:42 pm

Symptoms of folic acid deficiency:
http://www.3fatchicks.com/8-symptoms-of-folic-acid-deficiency/ (http://www.3fatchicks.com/8-symptoms-of-folic-acid-deficiency/)
http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/folic-acid-deficiency-anemia-topic-overview (http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/folic-acid-deficiency-anemia-topic-overview)

I don't have any of them, and I eat a quack of a lot more pemmican than Lex. Quit eating liver, the only non-plant source of folic acid, months ago because it contains evil carbs.

Were the people mentioned eating grass-finished beef?
It's only one possible factor in Lex's high RDW, low-normal MCV and gradually rising PSA. I'm not saying he definitely is folate deficient, just noticed a slight pattern.

With folic acid deficiency, "the signs are often subtle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate_deficiency. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate_deficiency.) All three of those fellows were slow to recognize that something was seriously wrong, and I came across two other cases of ZCers who developed folic acid deficiency symptoms that I forgot about:

Ken - http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/printthread.php?tid=2835&page=70 (http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/printthread.php?tid=2835&page=70)

Osprey101 - http://forum.dirtycarnivore.com/index.php/topic,105.msg96885.html#msg96885 (http://forum.dirtycarnivore.com/index.php/topic,105.msg96885.html#msg96885)

None of these were eating "evil carbs" and I think they were all avoiding liver. Lex's willingness to eat liver and other organs may actually be one reason why he has avoided the levels of deficiency and severity of symptoms they experienced.

I doubt any of them were eating grass-finished beef, which may be another factor in Lex's better results. Plus, I think at least two of them had a history of GI problems. Poor absorption of folic acid may have been another factor for them.

Phil,
Not sure if the RDW number is anything to worry about or not.  It is not astronomically high and at this point I'm more inclined to take the wait-but-monitor approach.  For me the PSA number is of more concern as I now have a clear track record over several years for that.
Yes, that makes sense. If the RDW worsens, that would be more concerning than a single slightly high measure.

Quote
I do eat a good bit of liver as part of my daily food mix so if folate is the problem, and liver has folate, then I should be getting plenty of it.
I vaguely recall Todd said in the Dirty Carnivore forum that he would have to eat a lot of liver to get enough folate without also eating other folate-containing foods like egg yolks, shellfish, greens and nuts/seeds and I recall being surprised thinking that was one data point that hinted that humans are more omnivorous than carnivorous.

Quote
BTW, what did you think of the CRP number?  Less than 0.1, which I guess is as low as they measure.
Ah yes. I forgot that if numbers are great, physicians don't say anything, instead of saying they're great (which would help people know they're on the right track. It's excellent.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on September 25, 2012, 10:23:24 pm
I think they did TSH and T3/T4 in previous labs and there was no problem.  Danny Roddy says they are the wrong tests but the only tests I can get are the ones my doctor approves.  With no symptoms the docs are reluctant to run expensive tests.  I looked at getting all the tests Danny Roddy recommeded and the full panel was over $1,000.
That's indeed expensive. Here is the summary of Ron Rosedales thoughts about VLC dieting and thyroid health:

"The lowering of free T3 is a sign of that adaptation, and, according to Paul Jaminet, when you follow his diet you prevent the lowering of free T3.  That is powerful indication that following a “safe starch” diet is preventing one from changing into a calorie restriction phenotype and preventing the genetic expression and adaptation to deeper maintenance and repair that equates to health and longevity that a very low carbohydrate, high-fat diet would otherwise allow the opportunity for."

Taken from his blog:

http://drrosedale.com/blog/2012/08/18/a-conclusion-to-the-safe-starch-debate-by-answering-four-questions/#more-1137 (http://drrosedale.com/blog/2012/08/18/a-conclusion-to-the-safe-starch-debate-by-answering-four-questions/#more-1137)

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on September 25, 2012, 10:48:56 pm
PP,

definetely, folate seems to be a key factor in all meat based vlc diets. A folate deficiency could even cause heart problems via elevated homocystein levels. Thanks for the reports and links. According to nutritiondata.com you would have to eat at least 140 grams of beef liver daily to reach the RDA of folate.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3468/2 (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3468/2)

Other organs like kidneys also contain folate but only relatively small amounts.

For me, this means that a meat, fat, organs plus greens VLC diet should be the 110% perfect nutritional approach. Hunter gatheres in Africa eat the fermented intestinal contents of ruminants, still today. Such wonderful compressed "salads" could be extremely high in folate.

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on September 26, 2012, 02:50:47 am
Hunter gatheres in Africa eat the fermented intestinal contents of ruminants, still today.

Which HGs, for example? Or where do you have this information from? Link?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on September 26, 2012, 03:25:00 am
Well, I don´t find any information about African hunters eating the stomach content of animals, just claims about the Inuit doing this.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 26, 2012, 06:04:23 am
Well, I don´t find any information about African hunters eating the stomach content of animals, just claims about the Inuit doing this.
Yup, multiple folk have reported that Inuit Eskimo eat stomach contents, and I saw a video documentary in which Inuit hunters dipped chunks of liver into caribou stomach contents. My guess is the practice would be more common among Arctic folks, for whom fermented greens would be more of a treat and more nutritionally important. It would presumably be less important for peoples who normally eat green veggies.

Quote
The Wealth of the Caribou
By Martha Taylor
http://www.nahanni.com/newsletter/archive/?page=14 (http://www.nahanni.com/newsletter/archive/?page=14)
"Every piece of flesh is edible and even the fermented stomach contents are consumed. Considered a delicacy, the contents are rich in plant nutrients required to stay healthy in an environment where plant life is not always available."

Did Eskimo/Inuit people really eat the stomach content of mammals?
http://www.arcticblast.polarhusky.com/eskimoicecream (http://www.arcticblast.polarhusky.com/eskimoicecream)
"Nirukkaq is the content of caribou stomach. When you butcher the caribou, carefully remove the stomach content and put them inside of a container. Freeze it until ready to be used. Thaw it out and clean the contents very carefully with kneading motions. Pieces of grass, leaves, lichen and lumps are removed. When smooth it is ready to eat. Why do you want to know? The inuit ate just about everything they got their hands on, often uncooked, as in the case above. The alga content of seal and other sea animals was thought to contain some of the very little nutrients taken directly from plants, during the time of year plant life was dormant."

nirukkaq: the contents of the first stomach (qisaruaq) of a ruminant (caribou, musk ox, etc.) (from nirijuq). (Ulirnaisigutiit: An Inuktitut-English Dictionary of Northern Quebec, Labrador and Eastern Arctic Dialects With an English-Inuktitut Index, May 1986)

Nunavut: Fauna and gourmet! snippets from the north
"The third dip is called nirukkaq. It requires special care. Nirukkaq is the contents of caribou stomach. Here is my Uncle Annowalk's recipe: The hunter, when butchering the caribou, carefully removes the stomach contents and puts them into a container. The contents are frozen until ready to be used. When the time comes, the contents are thawed and a process called siingijaijuq is begun. This involves cleaning the contents very carefully with kneading motions. Undesirables like pieces of grass, leaves, lichen or lumps are removed. When smooth, it is ready. Caribou meat is used for dipping." http://www.sacanada.org/topic/232-nunavut-fauna-en-gourmet/ (http://www.sacanada.org/topic/232-nunavut-fauna-en-gourmet/)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alive on September 26, 2012, 12:49:29 pm
According to the ND site to get the RDA of folate from broccoli would take 6 cups / 600 grams, suggesting it is a good idea for us to eat lots of greens.

Maybe this is one of the reasons hens are always eating grass ?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on September 27, 2012, 02:44:51 pm
If one wants to reach optimal fast, Seaweeds are the ultimate choise.
It has lots and lots of Iodine in its natural package (which means optimal absorption and assimilation) and Folate too...
Check here about Folate / Seaweeds;

http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-011112000000000000000-w.html?maxCount=123 (http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-011112000000000000000-w.html?maxCount=123)

(your body will not absorb Iodine if it is full of the other lighter Halides like Chlorine.. Fluoride..)

Quote
A narrow mind will be your most harmful thing you’ll ever own………….

Quote
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance.  It is the “illusion of knowledge”.  When you know better – you do better.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on September 27, 2012, 04:43:08 pm
Which HGs, for example? Or where do you have this information from? Link?

A friend of mine reported this. He goes hunting in Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia every year. Hunter gatherers and village people there eat some parts of the intestines of grazers, well cooked, however.

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 27, 2012, 09:08:19 pm
If one wants to reach optimal fast, Seaweeds are the ultimate choise.
It has lots and lots of Iodine in its natural package (which means optimal absorption and assimilation) and Folate too...

Not true. Been tried, didn't work. And seaweed is like a sponge in that it contains all the stuff we don't want, like arsenic, mercury etc.


Quote
(your body will not absorb Iodine if it is full of the other lighter Halides like Chlorine.. Fluoride..)

Lugol's (or Iodoral - Lugol's in pill form) iodine is the antidote to poisons such as chlorine and fluorine, but it needs large amounts not possible from seaweed to overwhelm the more electrically energetic halogens. See breastcancerchoices.com and the work of Abraham and
Brownstein who actually cured disease with iodine after doing extensive science.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 28, 2012, 11:42:56 am
OK, I’ve done a good bit of research (thank you for the links to get me started William), and have decided to try a basic iodine protocol for two main reasons:

1.   My PSA is rising and it is only a matter of time before my doctor and healthcare provider will want to do major intervention with powerful drugs with nasty side effects, and/or physical cutting and hacking, again with nasty side effects.  There seems to be some evidence that iodine supplementation at high levels can have a positive effect without long term side effects.

2.   In the research info there was some good indication that once the body has absorbed as much iodine as it can, it will discard the excess through the kidneys and urinary tract.  Since I have a well documented history of urinary tract infections, and iodine is well documented as an antibacterial agent, might the discarded iodine solve my UTI issues as well.

I’ll be following the same protocol that William says he’s following (William, let me know if I get something incorrect below), with a few minor changes.  In reading about starting iodine supplementation it seems that as iodine displaces other elements, these displaced elements (toxins?) can create some problems like rashes, headaches, etc.  The recommendation is that you slowly build up iodine intake over several months.  Also in my research I ran across a couple of people that just jumped in with both feet and toughed it out.  I’m an all or nothing type of person so I’ll be starting high.  The recommendation is 6mg or less per day for the first week, adding an additional 6mg/day each week until you reach 100mg/day.  I’m going to start at 50mg/day and move up from there to 100mg/day which seems to be where there is a solid measurable therapeutic effect.  At 50mg/day it is said to take 6 months to reach iodine saturation but at 100mg/day it might only take 6-8 weeks.  Things are rather fuzzy as there is really little actual objective research that I can find but lots of anecdotal evidence.  Anyway, my goal is to get to the therapeutic level as fast as possible.  If there are a few unpleasant side effects along the way, so be it.

Next, it appears that supplementation with several co-factors are critical to success.  Again, not much in the way of objective peer reviewed research, but the anecdotal evidence is rather strong.  I’ll be taking the following supplements:

50mg/day Iodine as 5% Lugol’s solution (split 25mg in morning butter drink & 25mg in water at main meal)

200mcg/day Selenium as L-Selenomethionine (at main meal)

400mg/day Magnesium as Magnesium Glycinate (at main meal)

2,000mg/day Vitamin C as Calcium Ascorbate Ester C (split morning and main meal)

100mg/day Riboflavin (B2) (at main meal)

500mg/day Niacin (B3) as inositol hexanicotinate (at main meal)

There are several forms of iodine and it appears that the body needs two different types to get full effect.  The thyroid gland needs potassium iodide, but most other organs and cells need elemental iodine.  There are two commercial sources for the appropriate mixture of these two forms of Iodine: Lugol’s Solution which is a liquid, and Iodoral which is a solid pill form of Lugol’s with the same proportions of elemental iodine to potassium iodide.  There is a good bit of debate of which form is better and from what I can determine there is no clear winner.  Some swear by Lugol’s and others Iodoral, but from a cost perspective old fashioned Lugol’s wins hand’s down at less than half the cost of Iodoral.  I’ll be using Lugol’s.

It also seems that Lugol’s works better when the liquid it is mixed with is acidic.  To accomplish this I’ll be adding a teaspoon of apple cider vinegar to my morning drink with Lugol’s as well as some vinegar to the water with Lugol’s that I’ll be consuming with my daily afternoon meal. 

The acidic water, magnesium, selenium, and high levels of Vit C seem to be critical to the success of the iodine protocol, at least from empirical and anecdotal evidence.  The need for the B vitamins is less clear.  Most people saw significant improvement without the B vitamins, but when they were added there was further improvement for some, especially those with Fibromyalgia.  In my case, I’m going for the whole enchilada and leaving no stone unturned.  I see little risk in adding the Bs and if the entire protocol with the B Vits gives me the best chance of improving my BPH and PSA levels then I’m going for it.  At my age I don’t have a lot of time to waste.

I received my order of Lugol’s and the other supplements today so I’ll be starting this mad hatter adventure tomorrow morning.  Will report as appropriate when something noteworthy happens or changes.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on September 28, 2012, 12:57:48 pm
Not true. Been tried, didn't work. And seaweed is like a sponge in that it contains all the stuff we don't want, like arsenic, mercury etc.


Lugol's (or Iodoral - Lugol's in pill form) iodine is the antidote to poisons such as chlorine and fluorine, but it needs large amounts not possible from seaweed to overwhelm the more electrically energetic halogens. See breastcancerchoices.com and the work of Abraham and
Brownstein who actually cured disease with iodine after doing extensive science.

William, that is intresting. You tried seaweeds and it did not work? Did you have a diet high in seafood too, at the same time? Because that is needed too, the nutrients in seafood + the seaweeds. Seafood all inclusive, eyes, skin..
If you did this, and it still does not worked.. it do might very well be that when one is very deficient, only Lugol's will do.
I do believe Lugol's and the like can do a lot of good too.

I do eat seaweeds from clean oceans, most of the time.

I am curious to see how Lex will do. I still relay on my (strong) intuitive feeling a heavy seafood diet + seaweed is superior to Iodine drops.
But each to his own.  ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 29, 2012, 12:27:02 am
We're off to a running start.  One of the simple measurements suggested is checking body temperature first thing upon arising in the morning.  According to the iodine gurus basal temperature should be 97.6 or above.  Mine was 96.5 this morning suggesting that my metabolism is running slow and is a good indication that I'm most likely iodine deficient - at least that's the theory.

Had my morning drink of 10 oz of hot chicken broth, 4oz grass-fed butter, 2 tsp apple cider vinegar, and 4 drops of 5% Lugol's solution (25mg iodine).  Also took 1,000 mg of Ester C suggested as a necessary iodine protocol co-factor.

Lunch will be my normal meat mix supplemented with the following:

16oz glass of water with 2 tsp apple cider vinegar, and 4 drops 5% Lugol's solution(25mg iodine).
200mcg selenium
400mg magnesium
100mg B2
500mg B3
1,000mg Ester C

This will be my basic routine for the rest of the year.  There will be some minor adjustments to the amount of the supplements as I increase iodine intake from 50mg/day to 100mg/day.  Not sure yet if I will just jump from 50mg/day to 100mg/day or if I will ramp up more slowly.  I'll wait and see how my body reacts to this current level and then go from there.  If I have severe detox (I hate this term) symptoms then I'll probably stay at 50mg until things calm down and then ramp up.  If I don't see any symptoms over the next week or so, then I'll most likely jump directly to 100mg/day.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 29, 2012, 05:37:51 am
Looks good, Lex.
I should add that I eat at least 4 raw egg yolks with the evening meal; this might be because they contain some folate (?) and supposedly lots of B vitamins - I haven't yet supplemented with B2 and B3, but might start.
Supported by Bear's words of wisdom, and is a substitute for the innards mix you get.

Suggest you consider doubling the selenomethionine if  you feel the need - I don't know how to calculate the balance with Lugol's.

I'm not sure about taking acid with Lugol's - there is a chemical reaction shown by it becoming colourless - I've always taken Lugol's alone, although some take it with food and still do OK.

Please keep in mind the salt flush just in case you get an ugly detox reaction - 1/2 tsp. Celtic/Redmond's in 1/2 glass water, followed by at least a pint of pure water. Daily salt dissolved in water at 1/2 to 1 tsp./day is part of my protocol, supposed to help the bromine through the kidneys.

I often drink 1/2 lemon or a splash of ACV squeezed into 1 cup water with a pinch of salt after supper.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 29, 2012, 05:47:26 am
William, that is interesting. You tried seaweeds and it did not work? Did you have a diet high in seafood too, at the same time? Because that is needed too, the nutrients in seafood + the seaweeds. Seafood all inclusive, eyes, skin..


20 years ago I used to always put some powdered seaweed in stew or soup, theoretically supplies needed nutrients, but it's impossible to get fresh and raw seafood where I now live.
I will not buy the available stuff, mostly from China and SE Asia.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on September 29, 2012, 07:18:30 pm
20 years ago I used to always put some powdered seaweed in stew or soup, theoretically supplies needed nutrients, but it's impossible to get fresh and raw seafood where I now live.
I will not buy the available stuff, mostly from China and SE Asia.

I see. For you it might indeed be better to use Lugols. I get fresh fish here (but I am not too religious about it beeing raw.. I eat some lightly cooked too at times and I do eat a can of smoked cod liver once in a while..lol.. I am still alive), and I get seaweeds from Europe (France).
I still wonder where the balance lies with win/loose.. when it comes to natural/any other form. I honestly do not know. Only experience will tell and if you had good experience with what you do it is much worth though. Thank you for sharing, William.
I would be happy to read more about your experiences for sure!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 30, 2012, 12:06:56 am
Day one is in the can.  Nothing momentous to report.  No side effects but it is early in the game.  I expect that it may take a few days for side effects to show up, if they are going too.  If all is well after a week or so, then I'll up the dose as the goal is to get to 100mg/day.

This morning's basal temp was 96.7

Up 4 times last night to use the restroom.  This depends on how much I drink in the hours before going to bed.  Since the kidney stone incident I decided that getting up every 2-3 hours to urinate was better than risking a kidney stone so I usually drink 32 oz (1 liter) of water a couple of hours before going to bed.  It will be interesting to see if this improves on the iodine protocol.

Urine is bright yellow from the B vitamins, but that was expected.

I'm looking for a less expensive source for Lugol's.  J.Crows is about $25 USD/ oz. (30ml) for their 5% solution.  There are a couple of chemical suppliers on the web that supply labs and they are selling 500ml (about 16oz) of 5% Lugol's for the same $25.  With the restrictions here in the US, I don't know if I'll be able to purchase from the chemical supply houses, but I think it is worth a call to find out.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on September 30, 2012, 12:51:38 am
If you have a traveling friend, a Mexican or Canadian source would do for Lugol's.

BTW good advice on supplementing is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t_6oprpjmDCMqwCXP_6BMf0Mbr9DivmOSALeJTjReuY/edit# (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t_6oprpjmDCMqwCXP_6BMf0Mbr9DivmOSALeJTjReuY/edit#)
or
http://tinyurl.com/Iodine-Supplements (http://tinyurl.com/Iodine-Supplements)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hanna on September 30, 2012, 04:44:52 am
A friend of mine reported this. He goes hunting in Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia every year. Hunter gatherers and village people there eat some parts of the intestines of grazers, well cooked, however.

Löwenherz


Interesting.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 30, 2012, 11:40:37 pm
GS was finally able to post my lab results to the first entry in my journal so it would be convienently availiable with all the others.  Apparently it wasn't a simple task as there was a limit to the number of attachements to any single post and my first journal entry was aleady at the limit.  GS fixed the problem and now my 2012 labs are in good company with all the previous labs. 

It seems that GS changed a at least one other parameter as well.  My journal used to have 167 pages but now shows only 66.  From what I can tell, there are now more posts per page which I think is an improvement.  It is much easier to scroll down a page than to constantly have to keep switching pages.  From what I can see I think GS has struck a good balance between number of pages and posts per page. 

Thanks GS!

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 01, 2012, 12:04:17 am
Made it through day 2 of the Iodine adventure without problem.  No signs of detox or other issues.

This morning's basal temperature was 97.2.  I think it is way to early to attribute this rise to iodine intake.  I find that my morning temperature varies depending on the room temperature and how well covered I am.  If I only have a sheet over me then temperature is often lower than if I have a light blanket - depending on room temperature of course.

I was up only 2 times last night.  Again I doubt that iodine had anything to do with this as on occasion I only get up once even though my average is 3-4.  It all depends on what I ate and how much I had to drink and how close my fluid intake was to bed time.

For basal temp and nightly trips to the restroom, it will be the long term average that counts as any given day may vary widely.  The big goal is to lower PSA and it will be next year at this time before we know how successful this has been.

Bright neon yellow urine from the the B vitamins.

Found some Lugol's solution for about 1/3 the price of J.Crows.  It seems that people that have saltwater aquariums use Lugol's to keep their coral healthy.  Kent Marine's 5% Lugol's has a street price of about $9 USD/oz (30ml).  It is clearly labled "Not for human consumption" but the listed ingredients are only distilled water, potassium iodide, and elemental iodine.  This is exactly the same as J.Crows.  The only thing I can think is that J.Crows probably uses USP pharmaceutical grade chemicals and Kent's may use an industrial grade which doesn't have such tight purity specifications.  Not sure how much this would matter as any impurities should be very small on the order of less than 0.1%.

Thoughts?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 01, 2012, 12:27:37 am
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, Herb Healers' Lugol's seems to be slightly cheaper than Kent Marine's (without considering shipping costs):

Lugol's Iodine (7%) - 1fl.oz.(29.5 ML.)   $9.75
Lugol's Iodine (15%) - 1 fl. oz. (29.5 ML.)   $16.25
Lugol's Iodine (2.2%) - 8 fl. OZ. $14.65
http://www.herbhealers.com/store/lugol-s-iodine-quick-order-form.html (http://www.herbhealers.com/store/lugol-s-iodine-quick-order-form.html)

Lex, I'm guessing that you won't want to confound your iodine experiment, but a high glutathione level reportedly also lowers PSA, fights prostate cancer and even reduces hair graying. I have info on it, if you're curious. One guy even claimed that a glutathione-promoting supplement reduced his PSA from 128 to 2.7 and cured his prostate cancer (http://www.cancercompass.com/profile/Wolfmont?tab=user-messages (http://www.cancercompass.com/profile/Wolfmont?tab=user-messages)).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on October 01, 2012, 02:44:08 am
Today while reading http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=815 (http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=815) I found a reason to not take iodine and vit. C together, it's at: http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=1991551 (http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=1991551)


"Dr. Jonathan Wright explains that iodine helps eliminate fibrocystic disease and ovarian cysts, in part, because of iodine’s interaction with estrogen. There are three estrogens in the human body and iodine helps to metabolize the two dangerous estrogens (estrone and 16-alphahydroxyestrone) into a neutral estrogen (estriol) thyroid hormone T3 (triiodothyronine) and then T3 to T2, are requiring or dependent on selenium. Selenium also plays a role in thyroid metabolism as part of a detoxifier known as glutathione peroxidase (GPX) that limits the excessive production of T4 by degrading hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) that is produced during the production of thyroid hormone. If GPX were not present to degrade H2O2, the levels of T4 would be excessively high. The degradation of H2O2 also protects the cells of the thyroid gland.

This oxidation-reduction reaction is the reason that Iodine and Vitamin C should not be taken together, Leave at least one hour between taking Iodine and any anti-oxidant supplements."

Note the mention of glutathione.
I don't know if pure carnivores need any vit. C, as there has been some research to the effect that there is another substance that our bodies use for the same effect. -Ref. another paleofood forum years ago.
I've thought that I feel the need for it because I smoke lots of tobacco.
For a good reason to smoke tobacco: https://jenniferlake.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/emf-killing-fields/ (https://jenniferlake.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/emf-killing-fields/)
"A note here about the campaign against tobacco is suggestive in the role of nicotine as a potent ‘agonist’ in the protection of nerve cell membranes against depolarization– in other words, nicotine (nicotinic acid) is radioprotective and highly sought after in pharmaceuticals today. Read more here: www.polioforever.wordpress.com/electromagnetism (http://www.polioforever.wordpress.com/electromagnetism) ."


Beware those supposedly Lugol's iodines that are other than 5% I and 10% KI and 85% distilled water (this proportion of I:KI is the definition of Lugol's).
There may be some trickery in the calculation, and AFAIK nobody is using them successfully.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 01, 2012, 04:18:48 am
Indeed, there's glutathione yet again. It truly does seem to be the "miracle antioxidant," much as I normally don't care for language like that. Thanks for the link, William.

Does the 5% Lugol's concentration matter much given that Lex is diluting it with "16oz glass of water with 2 tsp apple cider vinegar"?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 01, 2012, 11:04:05 am
Phil,
Thanks for the info on glutathione.  I'll check it out. 

The only value of 5% solution is that you need less of it to achieve the total amount of iodine intake you are shooting for.  Using 5% solution I need 4 drops in a glass of water twice a day.  With 2% I'd need 9 drops twice a day.

Since much of the cost of small bottles of iodine is the packaging, the 5% solution usually works out much cheaper per mg of iodine than than the weaker solutions.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 01, 2012, 11:49:30 am
William,
I read about the possible issue with taking Vit C at the same time as iodine, however, there is some controversy about this.  Some say that in theory you shouldn't do it.  Others say that they've seen no difference one way or the other in patients actually following the iodine protocol.

In my case, I have a butter broth drink in the morning followed by my afternoon meal about 8 hours later. These are the only two times that I can take supplements with food which all of the supplements, including the iodine, recommed.  If I separate the vitamin C, then I'd have to take it by itself.

Guess a little more research is in order,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 01, 2012, 07:23:11 pm
Phil,
Thanks for the info on glutathione.  I'll check it out. 

The only value of 5% solution is that you need less of it to achieve the total amount of iodine intake you are shooting for.  Using 5% solution I need 4 drops in a glass of water twice a day.  With 2% I'd need 9 drops twice a day.

Since much of the cost of small bottles of iodine is the packaging, the 5% solution usually works out much cheaper per mg of iodine than than the weaker solutions.

Lex
So wouldn't the 15% solution be the best deal, or would it be too risky because an accidental overdose (not diluting enough) would be too easy?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Raw Kyle on October 02, 2012, 01:45:18 am
I'd like to same something quick about glutathione, which is that I don't see how taking it directly leads to higher levels in the body. It is a tri-peptide and just about all of it should in theory be chewed up into the individual amino acids in the stomach before being absorbed. Some might get absorbed but tri-peptides in general don't absorb well, usually individual AAs and some di-peptides are the bulk of absorbed protein. Glutathione is a great thing to have in the body but I don't see how taking preformed supplements necessarily leads to having more in a direct fashion.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 02, 2012, 05:36:02 am
I'd like to same something quick about glutathione, which is that I don't see how taking it directly leads to higher levels in the body.
Quite right, it doesn't, which is why I considered warning Lex that one can't digest glutathione, only the precursors--cysteine, glutamic acid and glycine, but I decided not to flood Lex with info right off the bat, if he might not be interested. Since he does seem a bit interested, thanks for filling him in on it. If this were a general thread, I would have shared the info already.

Quote
Glutathione is a great thing to have in the body but I don't see how taking preformed supplements necessarily leads to having more in a direct fashion.
The supplements that promote glutathione usually do not containe glutathione  (and I wouldn't buy one that does) for the very reason you gave. The most popular ones, including the one the guy said cured his cancer, tend to contain cysteine-rich whey protein and cofactors.

BTW, I would suggest that Lex or anyone else looking to the possibility of consuming cysteine-rich foods or supplements to also check out Ray Peat's advice to balance cysteine and tryptophan with glycine (one of the other glutathione precursors)--and I would add glutamic acid (the other precursor, plus probably selenium, all preferably from food sources, at least at first--though Lex has already moved beyond me on that count with the Lugol's  :D ) such as from animal skin and the whites of eggs. I think eggs and small critters are the only food sources that contain all three glutathione precursors, presumably naturally in balance, if the egg-laying fowl and other critters are healthy and being fed a relatively natural diet.

The fact that eggs contain all the precursors within them causes me to suspect that they would be superior glutathione boosters to whey protein powders, especially when the eggs are consumed raw and the powders are cooked (as they often are).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 02, 2012, 05:57:11 am
Here's more info on the topic of glutathione and the prostate, most of which I looked up a while ago when a relative asked for advice re: high PSA levels. It's interesting that many of the foods that boost glutathione are foods that moderners avoid or don't eat much of. I didn't know about the iodine angle then, so that info has been helpful, though I did know about the reputed benefits of seafoods rich in selenium and iodine for glutathione levels and prostate issues, so it doesn't surprise me.

Glutathione from cysteine-rich whey protein lowers PSA and protects against prostate cancer:
> Bounous G. Whey protein concentrate (WPC) and glutathione modulation in cancer treatment. Anticancer Res 20: 4785-92,2000.
> Bounous G, Beer D. Anticancer Res. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2B):553-4. Molecular pathogenesis and prevention of prostate cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15160993?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15160993?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log)$=citationsensor
> Kent, Harper, and Bomser; Effect of whey protein isolate on intracellular glutathione and
oxidant-induced cell death in human prostate epithelial cells, Toxicology In Vitro, February, 2003, 17(1):27-33, http://www.angelfire.com/art/MJPPortfolio/protient/wpi_prostate.pdf (http://www.angelfire.com/art/MJPPortfolio/protient/wpi_prostate.pdf)

Selenium glycinate supplementation increases blood glutathione peroxidase activities and decreases prostate-specific antigen readings in middle-aged US men. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21419321 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21419321)

You can't digest glutathione, but you can digest the precursors and cofactors. The precursors of glutathione include cysteine, glycine and glutamic acid. Selenium, B vitamins, vitamin E, magnesium and Zinc are important cofactors (http://www.glutathionediseasecure.com/glutathione-cofactors.html (http://www.glutathionediseasecure.com/glutathione-cofactors.html)).

"Eggs contain cysteine, glycine and glutamic acid, all of which are the building blocks for [glutathione]." --Dane Miller, owner of "the world's first strength farm," Real and Raw Food Series #6: Eggs, http://www.garagestrength.com/?page_id=907&cpage=1 (http://www.garagestrength.com/?page_id=907&cpage=1)


Some foods rich in L-Cysteine:

Animal sources (the most bioavailable):
Fresh unprocessed animal foods [which probably does not include pemmican, at least not old pemmican], especially raw egg yolks, raw meats, raw yogurt and raw whey cheese

Plant sources (sulfurous veggies):
Asparagus
Avocado
Broccoli
Brussels sprouts
Curcumin (Turmeric)
Garlic
Onions
Spinach
Tomatoes

The cysteine in egg yolks is most bioavailable raw:

"To Cook, or Not to Cook? The Benefits of Raw Egg Yolks

Many people believe that the health benefits of egg yolks are greater when the yolks are consumed raw. Heat destroys enzymes, reduces the amounts of certain nutrients, and may make the amino acid cysteine less available, which is needed to synthesize the master antioxidant of the cell, glutathione.

Those who eat raw egg yolks report easier digestion, increased stamina, and resistance to illness — not to mention a quicker snack if they're on-the-go."

(The Incredible, Edible Egg Yolk, July, 2005, by Chris Masterjohn, http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Egg_Yolk.html (http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Egg_Yolk.html))

Some foods rich in glycine:

Gelatin (ex: Great Lakes kosher beef gelatin)
Skin of Pork (pigs feet and ears), Chicken (esp. feet), Turkey and Beef
Egg whites
Crustaceans: shrimp, crab
Whitefish
Seaweed
Mollusks: scallops
Seeds
Legumes

(Sources: http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000094000000000000000.html, (http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000094000000000000000.html,) http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/foods-high-in-vitamin.php?nutid=516, (http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/foods-high-in-vitamin.php?nutid=516,) http://beeblefitness.com/diet/search/nutrient_search/516/glycine/, (http://beeblefitness.com/diet/search/nutrient_search/516/glycine/,) [PDF]
Optimum Condition of Extracting Collagen from Chicken Feet - http://www.ajas.info/Editor/manuscript/upload/14-246.pdf, (http://www.ajas.info/Editor/manuscript/upload/14-246.pdf,) Cooking with Bones - http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cooking-with-bones/#axzz27xUhel84 (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cooking-with-bones/#axzz27xUhel84))

Some foods rich in glutamic acid:

Egg whites
Legumes
Chicken
Seeds
Whey cheese
Fish

(Sources: http://www.livestrong.com/article/261322-foods-high-in-glutamic-acid, (http://www.livestrong.com/article/261322-foods-high-in-glutamic-acid,) http://beeblefitness.com/diet/search/nutrient_search/515/glutamic-acid/, (http://beeblefitness.com/diet/search/nutrient_search/515/glutamic-acid/,) http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/foods-high-in-vitamin.php?nutid=515 (http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/foods-high-in-vitamin.php?nutid=515))


Some of the research connecting cysteine-rich foods to cancer therapy:

A placebo controlled clinical trial the health benefits of an undenatured whey protein isolate in cancer patients:
Antiox. & Redox Signaling. 2008. Feb;10:395-402. PMID:18158761.
Cysteine-Rich Protein Reverses Weight Loss in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy or Radiotherapy
Tozer RG, Tai P, Falconer W, Ducruet T, Karabadjian A, Bounous G, Molson JH, Dröge W.
“The patients treated with the cysteine-rich protein had a mean increase of 2.5% body weight, whereas casein-treated patients lost 2.6%”.

Anticancer Res. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2B):553-4.
Molecular pathogenesis and prevention of prostate cancer.
Bounous G, Beer D.
Source
Research and Development Department, Immunotec Research Ltd., Vaudreuil-Dorion, Quebec, Canada. jmolson@immunotec.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15160993?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15160993?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log)$=citationsensor

Abstract
Studies in laboratory animals indicate inhibition of chemically-induced carcinoma by cystine-rich diets enhancing the cysteine-GSH antioxidant system. The progression of carcinoma of the prostate is also inhibited by these diets, which were later found to raise the level of GSH in the prostate epithelium of man. New data presented at the July 13, 2003 meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research indicates that higher levels of total cysteine in plasma may predict a reduced risk for breast cancer. This prospective investigation was conducted among 32,000 women in the Nurses Health study. The previously reported prostate cancer data appears then not to be strictly gender-related as the antioxidant role of the cysteine-GSH system may also apply to breast cancer prevention.


SUCCESS STORIES:

Immunocal whey-cysteine supplement success story in curing prostate cancer and lowering PSA:
 
RE: Cancer, The day my life changed forever!
by Wolfmont on Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:00 AM
http://www.cancercompass.com/profile/Wolfmont?tab=user-messages (http://www.cancercompass.com/profile/Wolfmont?tab=user-messages)
"It was very traumatic when my doctor told me I had a 50% chance of survival. That was the day my life changed forever! I started taking better care of myself, exercising, eating high alkaline foods, since cancer cannot thrive in a high alkaline environment and of course taking HMS90 [aka Immunocal, www.immunotec.com (http://www.immunotec.com)] along with my hormone treatment. As a caregiver I will assume you know a little about the immune system and of course Glutathione. But if you do not I would seriously make it a priority to find out what it's all about. Within 3 months of taking HMS90 my PSA had gone down from 128 to 2.7. Even my Doctor at the Royal Victoria Hospital was very surprised at such a quick recovery!"

Immunocal Reduced His PSA Readings for Prostate Cancer
http://www.immune-health-solutions-for-you.com/immunocal-reduced-his-psa-readings-for-prostate-cancer.html (http://www.immune-health-solutions-for-you.com/immunocal-reduced-his-psa-readings-for-prostate-cancer.html)
"Can Immunocal help with reducing PSA readings in cases of prostate cancer?

Immunocal raises glutathione. Read how raising his glutathione helped a 68 year-old semi-retired doctor named Franklin here.

The following case study is taken from Dr. Jimmy Gutman's latest bestseller- "Glutathione - Your Key to Health", page 201:

"Franklin was a semi-retired general practitioner who at age 68 scored a PSA reading of over 8 micrograms/liter on a routine screening exam, suggesting a high possibility of prostate cancer. In continued tests, a urologist took a cystoscopic biopsy and confirmed the diagnosis. Four out of Franklin's six biopsy sites tested positive for high-grade tumor.

For personal and practical reasons, Franklin delayed aggressive treatment and opted to take 30 grams/day of a specially-prepared whey-protein isolate that raises glutathione levels.

Bimonthly PSA levels showed a gradual decline, his latest reading being 3.8 u/L. He is still being closely followed by his urologist, and his decision to undergo chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery will be deferred unless his PSA levels rise again."

Franklin took a whey-protein isolate named Immunocal, which raised his glutathione, and reduced his PSA readings. You can learn more about Immunocal and all the ways to raise glutathione here.

You can learn more about glutathione and cancer research here. http://www.immune-health-solutions-for-you.com/cancer-research.html (http://www.immune-health-solutions-for-you.com/cancer-research.html)"


High Glutathione and Cysteine Levels also Prevent Hair Graying:

"I have mentioned often that I have less gray hair now than I had at the age of 40. I have attributed that to my intake of Ultrathione, the source of glutathione in Guardian [an anti-aging supplement]. ...

The evolutionary hypothesis relating melanogenesis and oxidation states that GSH [Glutathione sulfhydry] and cysteine levels must be high for the animal to afford the high cost of melanogenesis. Greying occurs when there are low levels of GSH and cysteine." (Art DeVany, The Free Radical Theory of Graying, http://artdevanyonline.com/1/post/2012/09/the-free-radical-theory-of-graying.html (http://artdevanyonline.com/1/post/2012/09/the-free-radical-theory-of-graying.html))
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 02, 2012, 05:58:15 am
So wouldn't the 15% solution be the best deal, or would it be too risky because an accidental overdose (not diluting enough) would be too easy?

Yes the 15% would probably be the best deal as it contains 3 times more iodine than the 5% for only double the price.  Lugol's is actually very easy to make in any strength you want.  All you have to do is find a good source for elemental iodine. This was not a problem a few years ago, but now the US Gov tightly controls the sale of iodine in any form that has a concentration of over 2% because it is apparently used in making some street drug or other.  They limit the sale to 1oz (30ml) or less to private parties.

The link you provided looks like a very good deal - especially the 15% - and if I can't get the real cheap price from the chemical supply house then I'll probably start ordering from your suggested source as it will save a good bit of money.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 02, 2012, 06:09:28 am
...but now the US Gov tightly controls the sale of iodine in any form that has a concentration of over 2% because it is apparently used in making some street drug or other.
Ah yes, of course. I came across a mention of that, but ignored it, because I found I could still get both Lugol's and potassium iodide if I wanted them.

Quote
The link you provided looks like a very good deal - especially the 15% - and if I can't get the real cheap price from the chemical supply house then I'll probably start ordering from your suggested source as it will save a good bit of money.
Oh dear, now it occurs to me that if you make multiple larger-than-avg orders in the future from a chemical supply house, that that might trigger red lights for the DEA. Might not be worth the hassle. Just a thought.

I briefly worked in an herbal/supplement store and the police used to check in now and then and ask the owner who was ordering one or two things that are popular with illicit drug makers.

I'm considering using highly concentrated Lugol's myself after reading that it's supposed to work on sebaceous cysts. I have an old one I'd like to get rid of without surgery if I can.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 02, 2012, 06:13:49 am
Not sure where to go with the Immunocal/glutathione thing.  If I start taking Immunocal it will make the iodine test worthless, and if I were to continue with the iodine while taking Immunocal the iodine would make the Immunocal test worthless as well.  Just too many variables, and even if the results were good there would be no way to determine what protocol did what.

At this time I'm leaning towards continuing with the iodine protocol for at least 6 months and then possibly get an updated PSA test to see if there was any beneficial effect.  I'm also interested to see if there is any improvement in BPH symptoms from the iodine protocol alone.  If I see improvement then I may stick with the iodine protocol for a while and see where it leads.  If there is no improvement or things worsen, especially after 1 year, then Immunocal or something like it may be the next thing to try.

Thoughts?

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 02, 2012, 06:15:28 am
Not sure where to go with the Immunocal/glutathione thing.  If I start taking Immunocal it will make the iodine test worthless,
Yeah, that's what I figured. I was surprised you were interested at all. I was thinking of it more as something to consider trying in the future if the Lugol's doesn't work.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 02, 2012, 06:26:18 am
I was surprised you were interested at all.

When you are facing a condition that can easily turn into cancer, you tend to leave all options on the table.

For me, if cancer is ever diagnosed, if it appears to have been detected early and is well contained, then I'd probably opt for surgery but no chemo or radiation.  If it has clearly spread, then I'll bypass the surgery, put my affairs in order, and live the best I can for whatever time I have left.  It also depends on age.  If I'm in my mid 80s or older, I'll probably pass on the surgery regardless.  I've had several friends and family members that went the surgery route late in life and it wasn't pretty.  They often didn't heal well and their quality of life was poor at best.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 02, 2012, 06:39:49 am
When you are facing a condition that can easily turn into cancer, you tend to leave all options on the table.
Good point!

Quote
For me, if cancer is ever diagnosed, if it appears to have been detected early and is well contained, then I'd probably opt for surgery but no chemo or radiation. ...
Same here. We seem to be kindred spirits on a lot of stuff. The idea of spending my final days in a hospital, flooding my body with highly toxic crap, vomiting my guts out, losing what's left of my hair and withering away until I die, for some reason never appealed to me, even in my SAD days (easy to say when I don't have cancer, I know, but I've always been certain I would never do chemo, especially after the first time I saw a friend go through it--utter hell and a total waste). Everyone I know does chemo and refuses to try anything else first. They seem to be afraid to go against the advice of physicians. A massive error I made myself in the past. I've since learned that physicians are human like everyone else.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on October 02, 2012, 09:25:25 am
When you are facing a condition that can easily turn into cancer, you tend to leave all options on the table.

You almost certainly cannot get cancer.
You are doing what Otto Warburg recommended (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/02/03/otto_warburg_cancer_and_oxygen.htm (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/02/03/otto_warburg_cancer_and_oxygen.htm) and http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Loxygen2.htm (http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Loxygen2.htm)) and even if you didn't,
Lugol's causes apoptosis in cancer cells.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 02, 2012, 10:02:45 pm
You almost certainly cannot get cancer.
You are doing what Otto Warburg recommended (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/02/03/otto_warburg_cancer_and_oxygen.htm (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/02/03/otto_warburg_cancer_and_oxygen.htm) and http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Loxygen2.htm (http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Loxygen2.htm)) and even if you didn't, Lugol's causes apoptosis in cancer cells.

I wish I had as much faith as you, but experience causes me to believe that nothing related to the health and wellbeing of the human body is for certain.   The best we can hope for is to find ways to tip the odds in our favor.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 02, 2012, 10:27:34 pm
Day 3 and 4 of my Iodine protocol adventure have come and gone without much to report.  Still no detox symptoms.

Basal temp on day 3 was 97.4.  Today it was 97.1.  It does seem this temperature has risen from what I've measured at various times over the last few years which was normally in the low to mid 96.x range.  Interesting that at one time the health gurus had me convinced that a lower morning basal temperature was better.  I remember taking morning basal temperature when I was a vegetarian/vegan 20-30 years ago and was quite proud when it was in the low 95.x range.  I truly believed that this was a good thing.  Now I'm not so sure.  What I can say for sure is that I was cold all the time.  Glad to say that since going Paleo I've warmed up significantly.  We'll see what effect this new adventure has.

Up 4 times on night three and up 2 times last night (night four).  I seldom have nights where I only get up 2 times to pee, and when they do happen they are spaced a week or more appart.  To have two days close together like this is very rare for me these days.  I hope it signifies a trend in the right direction.  Time will tell.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 02, 2012, 11:40:23 pm
Hmm, I'm sceptical of the iodine protocol, but then almost all my alternative and conventional medicine approaches failed miserably pre-RPD diet. Still, if it works, that's great.Have you tried herbal medicine yet or homeopathy for this prostate(?) problem?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 03, 2012, 01:17:14 am
Hmm, I'm sceptical of the iodine protocol, but then almost all my alternative and conventional medicine approaches failed miserably pre-RPD diet. Still, if it works, that's great.Have you tried herbal medicine yet or homeopathy for this prostate(?) problem?

Hi Tyler,
I'm in the same camp as you are regarding alternative as well as most conventional medical interventions.  I've had no success at all with herbal or homeopathic remedies and I've tried several.  The Doxasozin (Alpha-Blocker) that I take does ease urination a bit, but it has no effect whatever on solving the core problem.  All it does is temporarily ease the symptoms.

My rising PSA has me seriously looking for a solution.  My doctor(s) say that this is just a normal part of male aging, but I'm not convinced.  I don't remember hearing much about enlarged prostate problems or prostate cancer in the 50s and 60s when I was growing up.  It was much like diabetes.  You occasionally heard about someone that suffered from the problem, but it was rare.  Now the medical profession is saying that 50% of men aged 45 now have symptoms of BPH and the general consensus is that every male, if they live long enough, will ultimately get prostate cancer, just as most people are expected to get Type II Diabetes.  It's now considered part of "normal" aging.

Just simple observation tends to make me believe something has changed in the last 50 years to make these problems so much more prevalent.  Diet seems to be a likely culprit so I changed my diet.  This helped a host of problems but, unfortunately, didn't solve the BPH/PSA problem.  There is now some evidence that iodine deficiency can be at the root of several aging problems.  Not that having sufficient iodine will let you live forever, but that iodine deficiency could be the source of some of these "quality of life" issues like BPH.

In reading information on the various blogs and news groups, it could be that iodine itself is not the problem, but some of the chemicals like other halides such as bromide have found their way into our modern daily lives in huge and unnatural proportions.  These chemicals supposedly displace iodine and disrupt normal cellular function especially in the thyroid, female breast tissue, ovaries, prostate, and testes causing swelling, fibroid, and other abnormal conditions as well as leading ultimately to cancer - at least that is the theory.

There is some evidence that if enough iodine is taken it will overwhelm and displace the other halides and the body will begin to repair the abnormal conditions they caused.  There is some research but most of what is available is anecdotal evidence.  Since I have one of the conditions that is supposedly caused by this bromide/halide problem, it seems reasonable to give the iodine protocol a try to see if there is any benefit.  All other interventions that I've tried, both homeopathic and medical have not worked and there seems little to lose in trying the iodine protocol. 

This also seemed like ripe fodder for my journal as I have several years of labs clearly showing the continual rise in PSA.  If the iodine protocol actually works, then this number should stop its advance and either hold steady or start to drop.  I think this is more useful than just the anecdotal evidence that is found on most blogs and news groups.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 03, 2012, 01:30:07 am
In slogging through the Iodine thread on Mark's Daily Apple Forum I ran across another minor condition that is supposedly caused by excess bromide and too little iodine - Cherry Angiomas.  These are small mole like spots that are bright red.  Most are about the size of the head of a pin or a little larger, but never much larger than about 3mm or so.  Some are flat and others are more three dimensional.  They seem to be caused by broken capillaries near the surface of the skin and, again, are considered a "normal" part of aging.

I have several of these small wonders on my chest, and there is now a theory that these will also go away over time through mega-doses of iodine supplementation.

Not an earth shattering condition, but I thought I'd add it to the list of things I'll be watching as I forge ahead with the iodine protocol.

Take a look at the Iodine thread on Mark's Daily Apple.  I think you'll find it interesting at the very least.  Here's the link:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread45205.html (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread45205.html)

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 03, 2012, 01:36:15 am
Well, if this works, that's fine. I hope that my own occasional intake of raw iodine-rich seafood will avoid this iodine-protocol issue, in a few decades. Sadly, I don't live too close to the coast, most of the time, these days.

I may come up with a few more suggestions later, if this doesn't work. In the meantime, I am most curious to see if this will work over the next few months/years.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 03, 2012, 07:36:21 am
I don't know if I have mentioned this to you but my teacher makes his own TREE IODINE supplements.  This iodine is herbal / organic / wild crafted instead of CHEMICAL.  Iodine from trees instead of the ocean.

We stock some at home.  And he is very much aware about the iodine deficiencies epidemic.

See http://www.barefootherbalistmh.com (http://www.barefootherbalistmh.com) ask him about it.  Ask him about his iodine book.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: LePatron7 on October 03, 2012, 08:41:43 am
There's some natural treatments for cancer.

Its my understanding that vitamin b17, a nutrient in apricot seeds cures cancer.

I'm sure there's other natural treatments too.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Bio-shell Avatar on October 03, 2012, 08:49:18 pm
good luck with your iodine protocol, lex!

i've started taking iodine (lugol's) about a year ago, taking 50mg/day in 3-4 doses for three months and then 12.5-25mg/day up till now. what you can expect early on are the detox symptoms from bromide (skin rashes, possibly nausea, weakness). i don't know what symptoms fluoride detoxification may cause, didn't experience any myself, but something you will definitely notice after a few days (pretty much everyone does) is increased energy, lifting of brain fog (if there is any to lift) and increased body temperature due to normalized thyroid function. since all glands require iodine to function properly and will cause various problems if iodine/iodide is missing and replaced by toxic halides i'm 99% convinced that any prostate issues you might have will be resolved with the iodine protocol. what helped me personally to accelerate the detoxification was upping my otherwise low (himalaya) salt intake to about 10-15g per day during the first few weeks so the chloride could replace the heavier halides fluoride and bromide which then got excreted faster. the chloride in non-toxic in these doses and can more easily replace bromide and fluoride than iodine itself so it helps in the beginning. eventually the body uses the chloride otherwise and iodine/iodide gets to the free receptors where it belongs.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on October 04, 2012, 12:04:04 am
2.   In the research info there was some good indication that once the body has absorbed as much iodine as it can, it will discard the excess through the kidneys and urinary tract.
Is it really safe to eat as much iodine from foods and supps as we want?

Here in Germany we have a huge debate about iodine enrichments and possible toxic side effects. You can find a lot of warnings against iodine overdosing. Even natural products like sea algaes must be labeled with big warning signs, prescribed by law. Some mineral supplements with iodine contents for cows that have been used for many years by beef stock farmers are now forbidden. Many scientist believe that too much iodine causes many severe health problems.

Iodine from natural sources is very different from artificial iodine that is used in supplements. Iodine in foods like fish is usually bound to sodium. But in supplements for humans and livestock feed they use potassium iodine which is much more reactive and potentially harmful.

Many websites, books and hundreds of articles are available about the so called iodine scam. Here is one example:

www.krank-durch-jod.ch (http://www.krank-durch-jod.ch)

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on October 04, 2012, 12:28:20 am
DaBoss - there are literally HUNDREDS of extremely effective natural cures for cancer. I spent about 5 years researching and experimenting with them full time and the apricot kernels is not the one I would choose for several reasons. There are much better alternatives.

After my experiences treating cancer I now fear the flu more than cancer.... and I'm not afraid of the flu - can't remember the last time I got it. ;)

With your diet Lex you have little to fear when it comes to cancer. A ketogenic diet literally starves out cancer cells. Cancer cells necessitate large amounts of sugar to grow into tumors. 

I am watching your experiment closely Lex because my husband also has an enlarged prostate. Just throwing something out to you in the mix just in case your iodine experiment doesn't get you the full result that you want: my husband used to get up at least 3 times a night to urinate. We started incline bed therapy (doesn't cost a penny and is extremely easy and is at the least harmless). Since then his night time visits have been steadily decreasing. He only gets up once a night now. There is scientific reasoning for the therapy to work that I won't get into here - there is a thread on the subject on the board. I think of inclining the bed as a way to try to re-enact more natural sleeping. In paleo times people didn't get a level out and make sure that their homes and beds were perfectly level to sleep on. We just found the flattest place we could which would in most times still have been on at least a little bit of an angle. Putting a body at exact level to sleep on is unnatural and shuts down kidney function at night - which can create or add to all sorts of problems - prostate problems being one of them.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on October 04, 2012, 12:31:35 am
You almost certainly cannot get cancer.
You are doing what Otto Warburg recommended

Cancer has many causes. Sugar is only one parameter, an important one, though.

Don't forget that Stanley Owsley aka 'The Bear' - a long-term zero carber - got cancer and heart disease. He believed that his cancer was caused by a viral infection, if I remember correctly.

BTW: The Bear avoided organ meats and plant food. I guess that he was extremely deficient in folates..

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on October 04, 2012, 01:09:08 am
I never heard of The Bear. I'm afraid that I can't speak to his case.

I didn't say sugar was the "cause" just that cancer cells can't survive without enough "food" -- a ketogenic diet is a cancer prevention and cure diet. If by a LONG SHOT Lex got cancer - it's pretty easy to treat naturally by adding other cancer cell killing foods and therapies. For most people the hardest part of treating their cancer is stopping feeding the cancers like crazy like they do in standard diets. Diet is not always enough on it's own, but it is the foundation to prevention and what other therapies need to be added to. Most natural therapies are added upon a "cancer diet" - like Lex's.   

My point is that it is unlikely that with Lex's diet he will get cancer in the first place because diet is one of the most common causes. If he did  get cancer though he would already have one of the hardest parts of naturally cancer treatment for most people down pat. He would only perhaps need to make small changes to his diet - expanding it - instead of restricting it - which often cancer patients find almost impossible to do for themselves even when faced with death. I can't even imagine that Lex would ever die of cancer if he were open to even a fraction of what I had to offer him as ideas for natural means of treatment. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 04, 2012, 01:20:09 pm
I don't know if I have mentioned this to you but my teacher makes his own TREE IODINE supplements.  This iodine is herbal / organic / wild crafted instead of CHEMICAL.  Iodine from trees instead of the ocean.

We stock some at home.  And he is very much aware about the iodine deficiencies epidemic.

See http://www.barefootherbalistmh.com (http://www.barefootherbalistmh.com) ask him about it.  Ask him about his iodine book.

GS, I'll look into this but from what I've read, if I have a deficiency that is severe enough to cause things like BPH, Fibroids, and other bad things, then none of the forms available from plant/animal sources in their natural state would be concentrated enough to do any good.  Many others have tried this approach and failed.  It seems that once most of your tissues are iodine sufficient then you may be able to sustain that condition from natural sources, but you just can't make up the huge deficit fast enough from these sources.  Remember, I'm taking 50milligrams/day and at that rate it could take up to a year to restore iodine levels.  Natural dietary sources are in micrograms which is 1,000 times less.  According to what I've read in the blogs and news groups, people taking less than 12mg/day seldom achieve success.

The protocol I'm trying is the one that most people have been successful with.  I will stick with that for at least 6 months and then re-evaluate based on symptoms and an updated PSA test.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 04, 2012, 01:34:12 pm
Dorothy, Löwenherz, Bio-shell Avatar, DaBoss88

Thanks for the ideas and concerns. Good food for thought.  There will always be debate on just about any subject.  The best I can do is research the subject, evaluate the trade-offs, and then make a decision.  At this point I'm thinking that iodine is far safer and will do much less damage than just about anything the medical profession has to offer.  I'm willing to take the risk and accept the consequences (good or bad) of my decisions.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 04, 2012, 01:46:54 pm
Day 5 came and went without incident.  No sign of detox symptoms

Basal temp was 97.4 this morning.

Was up 3 times last night.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 04, 2012, 11:19:23 pm
Day 6.  Still no detox symptoms.

Basal morning temp was 97.1

Up 3 times during the night.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on October 05, 2012, 03:56:16 am
I never heard of The Bear. I'm afraid that I can't speak to his case.

There is a treat for you: http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/about22.html (http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/about22.html)

I'd heard of his throat cancer - he ate mostly cooked meat, and sometimes ice cream.  Didn't know he had heart disease.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 05, 2012, 10:09:00 am
Lex, your excellent info on iodine and your symptoms and similar history have me wondering if I should gradually increase my own intake of iodine and selenium. I've been interested in iodine, selenium, the fat soluble vitamins (especially A, D and K) and minerals and have been eating more seafood, greens, kelp, kelp iodine drops, douglas fir spring tips tea, butter oil, butter and other potentially helpful foods, but after reading your journal and your cherry angioma symptom, I'm thinking that my iodine and selenium intake is probably still too little to make a difference and based on what you, William and Mario Renato Iwakura at Paul Jaminet's blog say, it sounds like Lugol's is more likely to work.

I don't have cherry angiomas, but I do have a small number of pink bumps on my thighs that I was never concerned about, but looked up after reading your journal. The closest match is keratosis pilaris, which is extremely common and has been linked to vitamin A deficiency. I have some other symptoms and long history that roughly, though not completely, correlate with hypothyroid. I take vitamin A via RF cod liver oil and liver with no effect on the bumps, but other people report that they had to take iodine to enable them to better absorb the vitamin A and only then clear their skin and solve other hypothyroid-like issues, and research supports the link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18214025. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18214025.)

Iodine deficiency might also help explain my lifelong carb intolerance symptoms (though it could be coincidence):

INFLUENCE OF DI-NITROPHENOL ON CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=540774 (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=540774)

However, Iwakura warns about the Risks of quickly going to high-dose iodine supplementation, instead of gradually building up to it:
Quote
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/nutrients/iodine-and-selenium/
How can the thyroid be made replete with iodine?

The best way, which we recommend in our book, is to supplement with iodine and gradually build up the dose over a four to six month period. Start below 1 mg/day, take that for a month, then double the dose. After a month, double the dose again. Continue doubling until you reach your desired maintenance dose; we recommend at least 3 mg/day (a quarter Iodoral tablet), with 12.5 mg/day a reasonable dose. Some people taking as much as 50 mg/day.

At 12.5 mg/day, it can take a year or more to become replete with iodine in all tissues and to fully drive out other halogens, such as bromine, from the body. This has great benefits for immune function. So, it is best to get started!

Risks of high-dose iodine supplementation

If a person’s thyroid gland is adapted for iodine scarcity and the person takes a large dose of (non-radioactive) iodine, the likely course of events is:

1.      Hyperthyroidism. The thyroid, aggressively scavenging for iodine to repair a deficiency of thyroid hormone, scoops up all the iodine and makes a large amount of thyroid hormone. The person develops symptoms of hyperthyroidism (too much thyroid hormone): anxiety, intolerance of heat, muscle aches, hyperactivity, irritability, hypoglycemia, elevated body temperature, palpitations, hair loss, difficulty sleeping.

2.      Wolff-Chaikoff effect. As thyroid hormone levels become too high, the body induces mechanisms for suppressing thyroid hormone production. Simply reducing TSH output is not effective to suppress thyroid hormone production if a very large iodine influx is received. Fortunately there is another mechanism for suppressing thyroid hormone formation, mediated by iodine itself: the formation of iodine-rich proteins (iodopeptides) in the thyroid that inhibt synthesis of the thyroid peroxidase (TPO) enzyme. Normally, this mechanism operates for a few days and wears off, restoring normal thyroid function. [3]

3.      Reactive hypothyroidism? Usually, everything will normally return to normal after a few days. But sometimes in previously iodine-deficient adults and more commonly in newborns and fetuses and some diseased persons, after very high doses of iodine the Wolff-Chaikoff effect can persist. In this case the early hyperthyroidism is followed by a period of hypothyroidism (too little thyroid hormone). This “hypothyroidism is transient and thyroid function returns to normal in 2 to 3 weeks after iodide withdrawal, but transient T4 replacement therapy may be required in some patients.” [3]

4.      Risk for lasting hypothyroidism. People who develop a reactive hypothyroidism following a large dose of iodine are at high risk for later development of persistent hypothyroidism. [3]

So most people will experience transient hyperthyroid symptoms for a few days and then do fine. Some will develop a reactive hypothyroidism lasting a few weeks and then be OK, save for an elevated risk of hypothyroidism later which may or may not be due to the reactive episode.
If you have a chance to peruse it, what do you think about the key points in the article?

I've also been taking cold showers, and that more than anything seems to have helped improved my circulation and cold tolerance, which Paleo and raw Paleo had already helped some--especially raw suet and RF CLO--but seemed to gradually backslide again towards the end of my relatively brief ZC-to-VLC food elimination trial that helped me determine which plant foods I can currently tolerate fairly well. Like Paul Jaminet, Anthony Colpo, Chris Kresser, Danny Roddy, Matt Stone and others, I'm interested in trying to resolve the underlying issues that contribute to my carb intolerance symptoms, rather than just hide those symptoms with VLC, and apparently cause or exacerbate other issues in the process. (YMMV)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Bio-shell Avatar on October 05, 2012, 07:31:26 pm
Is it really safe to eat as much iodine from foods and supps as we want?

Here in Germany we have a huge debate about iodine enrichments and possible toxic side effects. You can find a lot of warnings against iodine overdosing. Even natural products like sea algaes must be labeled with big warning signs, prescribed by law. Some mineral supplements with iodine contents for cows that have been used for many years by beef stock farmers are now forbidden. Many scientist believe that too much iodine causes many severe health problems.

Iodine from natural sources is very different from artificial iodine that is used in supplements. Iodine in foods like fish is usually bound to sodium. But in supplements for humans and livestock feed they use potassium iodine which is much more reactive and potentially harmful.

Many websites, books and hundreds of articles are available about the so called iodine scam. Here is one example:

www.krank-durch-jod.ch (http://www.krank-durch-jod.ch)

Löwenherz

being from germany i'm aware of the severe anti-iodine propaganda as well. there are several books that claim iodine is toxic. what all these people don't seem to get is that the symptoms that are caused by ingesting larger amounts (mg) of iodine are detox symptoms of bromide (and possibly fluoride and heavy metals). iodine does not cause any of these symptoms and they'll disappear after a while if iodine supplementation is continued.

@paleophil - re the article you posted. afaik thyroid hormone levels can't get too high, the body simply stops producing the hormone when it's not needed (just like with all other hormones). the only thing that can create problems is thyroid hormone supplementation because here the body can't control the amount, but not iodine supplementation. i think it's safe to start low to prevent the detox symptoms from getting too extreme in very toxic individuals but on the whole it's best to get the toxins out of the system as quickly as possible, hence the 50-100mg doses of iodine along with the salt protocol.

btw, back in the 19th and early 20th century people have been treated with doses as high as 1g or so per day for certain periods of time as a form of antibiotics and most didn't experience any adverse effects. also, nobel laureate albert szent-györgyi (who discovered vitamin c) is said to have taken several hundred mg of iodine a day and he lived to be 93.

from what i've read iodine up to 150mg per day is completely safe and any negative symptoms are signs of detoxification of toxic halides, not caused by iodine itself. what's interesting to note is that the japanese possibly have the highest iodine consumption of all people in the world due to their high seafood intake (approx. 12.5mg/day) and yet are among the nations with the lowest cancer rates (except for stomach cancer - i blame high tea consumption for that). the low cancer rate is particularly astonishing if you keep in mind that the japanese had two atomic bombs to deal with which would certainly have promoted increased cancer development given a lower iodine intake.

lex, i believe the reason why you don't experience detox symptoms is that thanks to your healthy diet your body can more easily deal with the toxic load. it's been proven often that external enzymes (from food or enzyme therapy) are plenty helpful with pretty much all conditions, reduce the severity as well as the duration. in your case i'd keep up the 50mg dose for 3 months and then cut down to a maintenance dose of 12.5g-25g for the rest of your life. i can only speak for myself but after a year of iodine supplementation like that there are absolutely no negative effects at all, quite the opposite.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 06, 2012, 10:54:37 am
However, Iwakura warns about the Risks of quickly going to high-dose iodine supplementation, instead of gradually building up to it:If you have a chance to peruse it, what do you think about the key points in the article?

Phil,
My comments on the article are just my thoughts as I have no actual facts.  There are always those that point out every possible issue that may arise and then sternly warn against taking unapproved actions.  I've read hundreds of pages of information from "professionals" and their stern warnings, to laymen like myself that took bold steps and had no problems at all, to still others that experienced issues but worked through them.  I took all of this into account before choosing the protocol I was going to follow and decided that the risk was acceptable.

I also considered that I had a well defined medical problem that could turn ugly.  Let's suppose it did turn into cancer.  Do you think those same professionals that are so concerned that I might suffer temporary hyper/hypo thyroid problems and caution me to spend months or years working up to an effective dose will warn me that the chemo and radiation treatments that they are pushing me to take are so toxic that they recommend that I work up slowly so that it takes a year before I'm at full dose?

From what I've read, it takes a 50mg-100mg dose of iodine over a period of several months to get the effects that I hope to achieve.  Some doctors that are on the iodine bandwagon are using doses as high as 300mg/a day to treat cancer.  I assure you, they didn't spend years working up to this dose starting from a few hundred micrograms.  If it takes a 100mg daily dose of iodine over several months to show a positive effect on BPH symptoms, then I want get to that dose as fast as possible and then remain there as long as necessary to either show beneficial effect or show that it didn't work. 

Do you remember all the warnings I was given about going ZC?  None of the horrible concequences that were predicited ever materialized.  Remember I'm all about what works.  There is no one forcing me to continue to do something that is creating worse problems.  If I encounter issues that I feel are a major problem then I'll make a change.  I just choose to wait until the problem occurs rather than worry over something that most likely won't happen.

Lex 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 06, 2012, 11:13:56 am
Bio-Shell,
Thanks for your input.  You stated my position better than I did.  I do hope that you are correct that my diet, though low in iodine, may also be low in halides and therefore I'm not experiencing any problems with starting at a relatively high dose.

I'm going to stick with 50mg/day for a month and then move to a higher dose.  I actually want to be at 100mg/day for at least 6 months to see if there is a positive change in my BPH symptoms.  I also plan on having my PSA checked again at 6 months or so to see if there is any movement there as well.

I will make my decision on when to drop the dose and what to drop down too depending on my actual results.  In reading Grizz's postings on Mark's Daily Apple, he was at 50mg and was having good results with his BPH (he's 69 so that gives me hope).  He then decided to drop to a 12.5mg daily dose (based on the Japanese dietary intake) and he noticed that some of his BPH symptoms started to return.  Needless to say, he upped the dose again.

Only time will tell where this adventure will lead.  I'm hopeful that iodine will have a beneficial effect on my BPH so that PSA drops and it would be great if I could drop the Doxasozin as well.  I'm also hopeful that high levels of iodine in my urine will stop the cycle of UTI's that I've been suffering for the last 30-40 years.  If it does, this alone may require that I remain on a higher daily dose just to keep iodine levels high in the urine to prevent UTI's.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 06, 2012, 11:40:54 am
Day 7 - It's been a full week now and still no detox symptoms from taking 50mg of iodine per day in the form of 8 drops of 5% Lugol's solution added to my daily drinking water, along with all the recommended supplements.

I usually take my morning temperature first thing when I get up and that is the temperature I report.  This morning I awoke at 4:30am as all I had was a sheet over me and the window over the bed was open and I was a little chilly.  The chill is what woke me up.  I decided to take my temperature and it was 96.4.  I pulled a light blanket over me and went back to sleep for 2 hours and woke up feeling comfortably warm about 6:30 which is when I normally get up.  I again took my temperature and this time it was 97.5, almost a full degree higher.  Now I'm wondering how much things like how well I'm covered and what the room temperature is effect my early morning temperature.  This might be a useless measurement.  Thoughts anyone?

Was up 4 times last night.

Also did a patch test.  This is admittedly not very accurate, but does apparently show in a general way how well saturated your body is with iodine.  The theory is that if the patch disappears within 4 hours then you are highly deficient, if it lasts 4- 8 hours then you are high-moderate deficient, if it lasts 8-12 hours then you are moderately deficient, 12-18 hours light to moderately deficient, and 18-24 hours you are lightly deficient, and anything over 24 hours means your tissues are probably pretty saturated.  Some think this test is totally useless but I thought I'd try it anyway and see what happens.

I put one drop of 5% Lugol's on my forearm and spread it around about the size of a quarter and let it dry.  This was about 4:30pm.  I went to bed 7 hours later at 11:30 and the patch had faded a lot but was still visible.  It was gone when I woke up at 4:30 to make a bathroom call and put on a blanket.  From the best I can tell with this first test I'm probably in the 8-12 hour range.  Wish I had done this before starting the protocol, but I didn't so I'll just have to go on from here.   

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 07, 2012, 12:52:40 am
i believe the reason why you don't experience detox symptoms is that thanks to your healthy diet your body can more easily deal with the toxic load.
That's a plausible hypothesis.

Do you remember all the warnings I was given about going ZC?  None of the horrible concequences that were predicited ever materialized.
Yes, and I'm not taking a position on your Lugol's protocol, just considering some different viewpoints with an open mind while considering embarking on a higher-dose iodine protocol myself.

It occurs to me that the ZC warnings did prove true for others, according to their reports, and they might have done better if they had done some more research first and listened to others like you instead of just Charles W. and included organs and raw foods in their diets. Commendably, it sounds like you took the precaution of researching the iodine protocol pretty thoroughly.

This morning I awoke at 4:30am as all I had was a sheet over me and the window over the bed was open and I was a little chilly.  The chill is what woke me up.  I decided to take my temperature and it was 96.4.  I pulled a light blanket over me and went back to sleep for 2 hours and woke up feeling comfortably warm about 6:30 which is when I normally get up.  I again took my temperature and this time it was 97.5, almost a full degree higher.  Now I'm wondering how much things like how well I'm covered and what the room temperature is effect my early morning temperature.  This might be a useless measurement.  Thoughts anyone?
Body temperatures vary during the day and are naturally at their lowest in the early morning while sleeping. Coincidentally, 4:30 AM is the low point on this chart:
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Body_Temp_Variation.png

Also, fasting lowers core body temperature, which may be part of the reason why body temp. is lowest in the early morning:
- in lab rats http://ep.physoc.org/content/69/3/541.full.pdf (http://ep.physoc.org/content/69/3/541.full.pdf)
- in humans http://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/2006/04/media-availability-low-calorie-diet-affects-aging-related-factors (http://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/2006/04/media-availability-low-calorie-diet-affects-aging-related-factors)

Incidentally, the second study talks about lower core body temperature being associated with greater longevity, which is probably one of the reasons for the claims you mentioned encountering before about lower body temperature being healthier. I think I read somewhere that higher body temp is associated with greater fertility, physical development and athletic prowess. If all these correlations are real, then the ideal body temperature depends on whether one's goals are maximum longevity or fertility/development or in-between.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 07, 2012, 12:18:51 pm
Day 8 no symptoms of detox or any other problems.

Up 3 times during the night.

Did a little experiementing with temperature.  I started the night just covered by a sheet.  When I woke up I took my temperature and then added a light blanket.  I alternated between sheet and blanket whenever I awoke.  I kept the window closed so that the room temperature was more stable and stayed between 70 and 75 degrees for the whole night.  The results were interesting.

Being up 3 times created 4 blanket on/ blanket off periods.  When the blanket was on my temperature was about 0.75 F higher than when it was off.  When the blanket was on I felt toasty warm and when I was just covered by a sheet I was comfortable but did feel noticably cooler.

Since I left the window closed the room didn't drop to as low a temp as it ususally does so I never got cold enough where the low temperature woke me up when only covered by a sheet.  By the same token, the room was cool enough that a light blanket didn't make me too warm either.

The lowest temperature that I measured for the night with only a sheet was 96.8 and the highest temperature I measured when covered by the light blanket was 97.9.  Regardless of the time of night I had a lower body temperature when only covered by a sheet than when covered by a blanket.  This makes me wonder about the validity of this measurement.  I've seen others suggest averaging 3 measurements taken about 2 hours apart during mid day as a better solution. 

Thoughts?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 07, 2012, 12:48:17 pm
It occurs to me that the ZC warnings did prove true for others, according to their reports, and they might have done better if they had done some more research first and listened to others like you instead of just Charles W. and included organs and raw foods in their diets. Commendably, it sounds like you took the precaution of researching the iodine protocol pretty thoroughly.

This is one of the reasons that I try very hard to be thorough in my descriptions of exactly what I'm doing.  It is also the reason that I don't try to prescribe for others.  There is really no way for me or them to know if they are actually doing what I'm doing, and it might be some seemingly insignificant little detail that makes me successful and them not so much.

I remember my Aunt called me up one time and asked for my recipe for carrot cake.  She had heard that it was really good and she had some special guests coming for dinner and wanted to impress them.  I gave her the recipe but was surprised when I didn't hear from her again.  Curious about how her dinner went,  I finally called her up and asked her if the cake was a success.  She said that it was very disappointing.  I was shocked.  Everyone loves my carrot cake and I expected her and her guests to like it as well.

After talking to her for a while she finally admitted that she didn't have as many eggs as the recipe called for so she substituted cornstarch mixed with water for the missing eggs.  Then she said she didn't have any raisins to make the raisin paste called for in the recipe so she used molasses instead.  Finally, she didn't have the cream cheese called for in the topping so she used cottage cheese.  Any one of these substitutions will create a significantly different cake both in taste and texture from the recipe I gave her.  I can just imagine how bad the result was with all three substitutions. 

The interesting thing is that in her mind she was convinced that she was following my recipe and it just wasn't that good!  I've found this to be true over and over.  People think that they are following my recommendations or doing exactly what I'm doing, but upon close examination, they've more often than not, made significant deviations - sometimes unconciously, and sometimes knowingly.  Regardless, they are usually convinced that they're following my protocol to the letter and it just doesn't work.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on October 07, 2012, 02:35:07 pm
Lex a CRP does not tell much at all. You need a HS CRP (high sensitive CRP). There you can see your grade of inflammation in your body, which is very important. Remember, cancer is about inflammation.... so if you are concerned about cancer risk, I would suggest to test your HS CRP.
Here the HS CRP test cost about 10€ more then CRP. I did it and mine was 0,22. One should try to be as close to 0 as possible.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on October 07, 2012, 04:27:18 pm
i can only speak for myself but after a year of iodine supplementation like that there are absolutely no negative effects at all, quite the opposite.

That's very interesting. Please tell us more about the positive outcome of your iodine supplementation. What have been the benefits?

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on October 07, 2012, 04:51:13 pm
From what I've read, it takes a 50mg-100mg dose of iodine over a period of several months to get the effects that I hope to achieve.  Some doctors that are on the iodine bandwagon are using doses as high as 300mg/a day to treat cancer.

To my surprise, today I found an old package of japanese Aonori seaweeds in a hidden corner of my kitchen.

The warning sign reads (translated):
"An excessive iodine supply can cause thyroid dysfunction. Therefore the German Society for nutrition (DGE) recommends not to exceed an average daily iodine intake of 0,2 mg. Therefore MAXIMUM daily dose of Aonori should be ca. 1 gram = 1 teaspoon."

LOL!

I have no clue which amounts of iodine could be problematic for us, low or high. But after reading your posts here I think that the above recommendation is far away from reality. Nevertheless the argumentation of the DGE somehow makes sense to me. They say that after eating very low levels of iodine for decades and generations as in some parts of the world our bodies have adapted to such low levels and that a sudden and very drastic increase causes problems.

Hmm... Saturated fats are devil, whole grains are health food and nuts are good for our brains!

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 07, 2012, 11:11:21 pm
Lex a CRP does not tell much at all. ...
Whatever it's efficacy, a recent study claimed that meat-heavy diets raise CRP levels, which has been used (even in Paleo circles) to criticize animal-food-heavy diets and promote instead a "low-glycemic" plant-based diet. So I found it fascinating that Lex's CRP is very low on an all-meat diet, as is my own on an animal-food-heavy diet. I suspect that the scientists who did the study are wrong on this, making some of the most common errors in science--jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence and ignoring potential confounding factors.

Quote
A high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP) test measures low levels of CRP using laser nephelometry. The test gives results in 25 minutes with a sensitivity down to 0.04 mg/L.
Normal concentration in healthy human serum is usually lower than 10 mg/L, slightly increasing with aging. Higher levels are found in late pregnant women, mild inflammation and viral infections (10–40 mg/L), active inflammation, bacterial infection (40–200 mg/L), severe bacterial infections and burns (>200 mg/L).[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-reactive_protein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-reactive_protein)
It looks like high-sensitivity CRP is just a more sensitive test of the same marker of inflammation (CRP), yes? Is there any evidence that CRP below 0.5, in the context of "good" HDL and triglyceride numbers, is a significant health problem, Inger?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 07, 2012, 11:39:52 pm
Hmm... Saturated fats are devil, whole grains are health food and nuts are good for our brains!

Yup, my point exactly.  The establishment's trackrecord hasn't been all that good.  I spent years following other people's advice and the results were poor at best.  Some of my own choices haven't been all that great either, but at least I'm in control and can decide for myself what is working and what isn't.

Inger, I'm more of a macro than a micro kind of guy.  If the macro test (the big picture) indicates that there is no problem then I see no reason to get into the weeds of the micro test in an effort to find things that aren't there.  My CRP test came in at less than 0.1.  This indicates very low levels of inflammation and I see little value in breaking it down any further.  I already have PSA tests and BPH symptoms (big picture items) that tell me there is an area of trouble brewing.  A CRP test at the micro levels doesn't add anymore useful information.

Phil, apparently the two of us are unique.  Or bodies just refuse to follow the dictates of current conventional medical wisdom.  I'd like to think that maybe someday the medical establishment will catch up with the greater wisdom of our amazing bodies.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on October 08, 2012, 12:34:54 am
It looks like high-sensitivity CRP is just a more sensitive test of the same marker of inflammation (CRP), yes? Is there any evidence that CRP below 0.5, in the context of "good" HDL and triglyceride numbers, is a significant health problem, Inger?

PaleoPhil, I researched this long ago but now I forgot how it exactly was. Stupid. So I dunno. I just know CRP is not much a help. My brother is eating a better SAD and he has CRP 0. So that looks to be not uncommon. When looking for disease we need to dig deeper to find the cause so we can change. Inflammation is what cancer is about very much. Low grade, chronic inflammation. That is why it is interesting to dig into it for sure. Or to me at least.
There is always so much to learn. I need to ditch a lot of "old" information and science and take in new all the time..huh!  :)
But you know.. I have come to like it.. it never gets boring that's for sure..lol

@ Lex... I see.. I just hope you are not falling into false assumptions, there is no inflammation going on because of your low CRP.. because there could very well be... and that would be so important to know for someone with cancer risk. And how one could lower the inflammation too.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 08, 2012, 02:10:44 am
@ Lex... I see.. I just hope you are not falling into false assumptions, there are no inflammation going on because of your low CRP.. because there could very well be... and that would be so important to know for someone with cancer risk. And how one could lower the inflammation too.

I assure you that I'm not falling into making false assumptions.  You see, I fully understand that my body is filled with inflammation.  Normal metabolic functions required for living create all sorts of inflammation.  Just breathing and processing oxygen creates large amounts of free radicals.  I could significantly slow the productions of free radicals if I stop breathing but the consequences of that would be to rapidly accelerate my death to occur in about 6 minutes.  Not a great trade-off in my estimation.  Therefore, I accept that things like free radicals and low levels of CRP inflammation exist, understand that there is little in the way of practical intervention that I can take, and spend my time pursuing more fruitful endeavors.

My goal is to have the best quality of life that I can while I'm here and my idea of quality is not spending what little time I have left on this earth agonizing over CRP, free radicals, AGES or the host of other minutiae that I have little or no control over.  Most of this stuff is theory and from what I can determine no one really knows what the practical implications are to everyday living.  I know what the current conventional wisdom is, but conventional wisdom hasn't had a real good trackrecord and it is a constantly moving target.

Assume I dedicate my time to trying to lower my already low CRP number, agonize over free radicals, and diligently track AGE consumption.  No matter how successful I am in these pursuits, I'm going to die, and I can't think of a bigger waste of the precious little time I have left on this earth.  I'd much rather spend my time doing things that bring joy to my life. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on October 08, 2012, 02:13:10 am
Whatever it's efficacy, a recent study claimed that meat-heavy diets raise CRP levels, which has been used (even in Paleo circles) to criticize animal-food-heavy diets and promote instead a "low-glycemic" plant-based diet.

Did they use grain-fed or grass-fed meats in this study? It makes a huge difference, regarding w6:w3 ratios and related inflammatory processes.

In 2005 I made an experiment and ate exclusively the cheapest of the cheapest grain-fed meats every day on a very low carb very high animal fat diet, including a lot of conventional pork. At that time I didn't know much about the massive negative consequences for our health from grain fed meats. Still influenced by Aajonus Vonderplanitz and Wolfgang Lutz, who both obviously never fully understood the enormous importance of w3:w6-ratios, I wanted to find out if grass-feeding is just new age gossip or not. After only six months I got GOUT, diagnosed by a doctor. I experienced gradually increasing pain in my joints, especially in the morning hours. Gout is an inflammatory condition. I couldn't believe it. So fast!? During my zero-carb experiments based on 100% grass-fed meats in the following years I noticed the EXACT opposite reaction in my body! Even with much higher amounts of protein. The pain disappeared and my joints completely healed. They felt better than ever before, even better than in childhood.

Just one thought on "healthy" grains..

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 08, 2012, 02:28:32 am
In 2005 I made an experiment and ate exclusively the cheapest of the cheapest grain-fed meats every day on a very low carb very high animal fat diet, including a lot of conventional pork. At that time I didn't know much about the massive negative consequences for our health from grain fed meats. Still influenced by Aajonus Vonderplanitz and Wolfgang Lutz, who both obviously never fully understood the enormous importance of w3:w6-ratios, I wanted to find out if grass-feeding is just new age gossip or not. After only six months I got GOUT, diagnosed by a doctor. I experienced gradually increasing pain in my joints, especially in the morning hours. Gout is an inflammatory condition. I couldn't believe it. So fast!? During my zero-carb experiments based on 100% grass-fed meats in the following years I noticed the EXACT opposite reaction in my body! Even with much higher amounts of protein. The pain disappeared and my joints completely healed. They felt better than ever before, even better than in childhood.

Thanks for telling us about this.  It is the kind of practical information that I and others can take real action on and see if we can achieve similar results.  Since my food intake is 95% grass-fed meats, and I've avoided all the expected problems associated with a high meat-low carb diet, I think our experiences support each other.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 08, 2012, 02:44:39 am
The above argument that the  info on AGEs is just theory is, of course, a load of old b*lls. The fact is that there are now tens of thousands of scientific studies on the inflammation caused by AGEs, so that no responsible, rational scientist could any longer deny that AGEs are a problem.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 08, 2012, 05:39:24 am
Inflammation is what cancer is about very much. Low grade, chronic inflammation.
I agree and I read up further on the difference between the CRP test and the hs-CRP test and confirmed that the hs-CRP test is just a more sensitive test of the exact same measure (CRP). I also found that Lex must have had the hs-CRP test, based on his result, as his result of 0.1 is too low to be detected without a hs-CRP test (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_crp_and_hs-crp#ixzz28e17bXaC (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_crp_and_hs-crp#ixzz28e17bXaC)).

Did they use grain-fed or grass-fed meats in this study? It makes a huge difference, regarding w6:w3 ratios and related inflammatory processes.
Yes, that was my point. The authors extrapolated conclusions based on unfounded assumptions that didn't consider questions like that.

---*---

Tyler, I understood what Lex meant by "theory" (ie, academic hypothesis based on rat studies and plasma AGE levels in humans) vs. "practical implications" (ie, accelerated aging or death of nondiabetic people eating real-world diets, like Lex).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 08, 2012, 06:49:36 am
Tyler, I understood what Lex meant by "theory" (ie, academic hypothesis based on rat studies and plasma AGE levels in humans) vs. "practical implications" (ie, accelerated aging or death of nondiabetic people eating real-world diets, like Lex).
The info linking AGEs to accelerated aging in humans is not "theory". Indeed, the scientific data on accelerated aging linked to  nondiabetic people eating real-world diets is  negligible by comparison.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 08, 2012, 07:56:31 am
The info linking AGEs to accelerated aging in humans is not "theory". Indeed, the scientific data on accelerated aging linked to  nondiabetic people eating real-world diets is  negligible by comparison.

Tyler,
I guess I was unclear.  Paleo Phil understood my meaning.

AGEs, free radicals, CRP,  etc. certainly have a scientific basis, and I never said that they didn't.  AGE damage to tendon tissue is often used to determine the chronological age of an animal in the wild.  I fully understand this.  The "practical implications" as Phil so eloquently put it, is that regardless of what we consume, AGE, free radical, and other damage will accumulate.  It is just part of being a carbon based lifeform that oxidizes its fuel to create energy.  I'm just not convinced that some dietary consumption of things like AGEs makes much difference. You of course may feel otherwise and that is fine with me.

I look at the situation much like the cholesterol hysteria over the last 40 years.  Scientists had us terrified to eat eggs, red meat, and other dietary sources of cholesterol as they were convinced that dietary cholesterol was what was raising blood cholesterol to pathological levels creating heart and artery disease.  We now know that this is not true. The problem is that it has taken us 40 years to figure this out and it's still mainstream thinking to shun cholesterol containing foods.

I place AGEs, free radicals, and other such compounds in the same category as cholesterol 30-40 years ago.  They are the "new" cholesterol bogey man.  We know they exist, we know tissue damage occurs, we may even know the biochemical mechanism by which the damage is created.  What we don't know is how much impact dietary sources of these compounds contribute to our overall aging and degeneration.  We do know that aging and degeneration will happen from AGEs, free radicals and the like even if we consume none of them in our diet.  Our body creates them as part of the life process and there is absolutely nothing you or I can do about that.  I'm not even sure that if I could, that I would do something about it.  I've seen the mess we've made of people's lives by artificially manipulating blood cholesterol levels and other things that we don't fully understand.

If you choose to believe that these things are important and you derive great joy from worrying over them, then by all means continue to enjoy yourself.  As for me, I find it tedious to dwell on things that I have little control over, especially when practical implications to my daily life are tenuous at best.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 08, 2012, 08:57:41 am
The "practical implications" as Phil so eloquently put it,
Lex, are you aware that you just complimented yourself, for I was quoting you? :)

Quote
is that regardless of what we consume, AGE, free radical, and other damage will accumulate.  It is just part of being a carbon based lifeform that oxidizes its fuel to create energy.  I'm just not convinced that some dietary consumption of things like AGEs makes much difference.
Since the topic has come up yet again and likely will again in the future if we don't address it more deeply, I may as well give it a shot. The most common question/criticism of concern about AGEs raised by cooking defenders is this one you've mentioned of wondering whether the diet contributes a significant or insignificant amount of (exogenous) AGEs in relation to overall AGEs in the body (endogenous + exogenous AGEs). This study (please forgive me if it has already been brought to your attention) suggests that diet does indeed contribute quite a bit (and maybe this is partly why Tyler seems to be up in arms?):

Quote
Henle T. AGEs in foods: do they play a role in uremia? Kidney Int 2003;63(suppl 84):S145-S147.
http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v63/n84s/full/4493792a.html (http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v63/n84s/full/4493792a.html)
"the major part of AGEs measured in urine is of dietary origin. Similar results were observed for PD-effluates. This gives the preliminary indication that dietary AGEs might significantly contribute to the total AGE load of the human body. The kidney, as well as the peritoneal membrane, has to deal with a "continuous" exposure to dietary AGEs. Therefore, biologic effects of these exogenously formed compounds have to be considered, in addition to AGEs formed endogenously."
Whether this has any serious health effects is, of course, still an open question in science, regardless of the opinions of you, Tyler or myself, but it seems that Tyler is right to the extent that current science does suggest that the dietary contribution to AGEs is very substantial. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to phase him in the slightest that not a single credible scientist agrees with him that eating all-raw is best, despite his past claim to consider the current scientific consensus as the default position. It seems like for Tyler the scientific consensus is only important if it matches his views, but maybe I'm missing something?

One potential offsetting factor is hormesis, which rarely gets factored into the equation. It runs counter to modern thinking to consider that small amounts of poison can actually be beneficial, though it does fit in somewhat with the philosophy behind homeopathy, which Tyler has expressed some positive sentiments about in the past. Is a potential "homeopathic-type" benefit from small amounts of AGEs not something to be considered, Tyler?

Based on my own experience with certain foods, such as coconut oil, I suspect that heating does have some significant negative effects on foods (whether due to AGEs or something else, or a combination), which in turn have negative health consequences, but my experience says nothing about your or Tyler's experience, of course. Certain types and degrees of cooking seem to have worse effects than others.

Quote
The problem is that it has taken us 40 years to figure this out and it's still mainstream thinking to shun cholesterol containing foods.
Yes, which is one example of why I am loathe to draw absolute conclusions prematurely. I see sciences as being more about asking questions and testing hypotheses than drawing absolute conclusions for all time. I see the latter as more the sphere of religion, politics and at times individual practical necessity.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 08, 2012, 10:27:55 am
Phil,
I'm aware of the quote regarding AGEs in urine.  It makes perfect sense that anything consumed will have to be handled by the kidneys, liver, and other organs as waste.  This is no different than any other waste products in the body.  This is what these organs are supposed to do. 

If you will notice the quote states that "dietary AGEs might significantly contribute to the total AGE load of the human body." - not that they DO contribute.  If they are being processed by the kidneys then they are being removed from the body in the urine.  Because they are being processed by the kidney then the kidney is exposed to these AGEs.  Does the study state that it can be conclusively proved that the kidney is damaged by the specific exposure of AGEs to the exclusion of all the other waste products that are continuously processed by the kidneys?

If dietary AGEs are removed from the body by the kidneys and other waste processing systems, what evidence do we have that dietary AGEs contribute significantly to any identifiable illness of the kidneys or otherwise?

Most studies I've seen are filled with weasle words like "might", "could" and "possible".  In fact the last sentence in the summary you quoted is as follows: 

"To date, however, no conclusive answers or recommendations can be given regarding a possible role of AGEs as uremic toxins in general, and of dietary AGEs in particular." 

I see nothing conclusive here.  Just speculation based on the fact that the kidneys are removing dietary AGEs from the blood stream and flushing them out of the body through the urine.  This seems like the kidneys are doing their job and that is a good thing.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 08, 2012, 10:50:16 am
As usual, Lex, I agree with everything you wrote. You almost make me superfluous, generally, which is actually comforting. The one perhaps slight different tilt I would add is that the default position should not be the current modern AGE-rich diet that includes cooking, but the ancient raw diet that all wild animals and ancient wild humans, consume(d). The case needs to be made for the innovation of cooking, not for the millions-of-years-old practice of eating raw foods.

That doesn't stop me from heating some of my foods, but it does cause me to question, now and then, why I bother. Nonetheless, like you, I don't worry much about a smattering of AGEs here and there, in part given that I probably consume far less than the avg. moderner.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 08, 2012, 02:40:04 pm
So far, intake of dietary AGEs absorbed into the body is estimated at 30% of the total of all dietary AGEs consumed. So it is a considerable amount. The natural amounts of AGEs created by various natural processes in the human body are tiny by comparison(the Maillard reaction producing AGEs via cooking creates tons more AGEs due to heating).

The claim re "would/should" etc. is just mere equivocation. After all, most scientific theories have studies using such words, even when the evidence is 99.99999999% certain, due to thousands of years of experimentation. Even the theory of evolution is not perfect either in all respects so needs the use of such words.

The argument that one cannot do anything about AGEs is, of course, nonsense. One can limit AGE-intake by eating diets that are  100% raw, or  by avoiding non-palaeo foods as they also stimulate AGE-creation, and also reduce AGEs in the body by doing lots of exercise and therefore reducing inflammation. One can also increase the quality of one's food by eating wild game/wild seafood instead of lower quality fare(AGEs, apparently, are in quite high amounts in intensively-farmed meats, even when raw). I also suspect, given the above data,  that  humans produce far lower amounts of naturally-occurring AGEs within their body as long as they are  particularly healthy(ie doing lots of exercise and eating a rawpalaeodiet).

There's now a general concensus among scientists that inflammation is linked to aging. Since AGEs are heavily involved in the inflammation process, it makes sense to reduce them.



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 08, 2012, 03:11:53 pm
All those weasel words are a case to case basis.  It's nice of Lex to do his experiments and let us know how it is going.

I know I personally can only take so much cooked food.  An entire day of cooked food  and I lose some of my super powers the next day.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 09, 2012, 08:45:07 am
Phil,
We're generally on the same page and often seem to complete the other's thoughts.  In my case that's very helpful as I often don't express my thoughts as well as I would like.

Tyler,
Unfortunately it has been shown that just because there is general consensus on something that doesn't make it true.  There has been general consensus on just about every medical boondoggle throughout history.  If anything, this forum is anti-consensus - and that is what makes it valuable.

GS,
I must not be as sensitive as many on this forum.  I eat a cooked steak meal as my only food about 3 days out of the month.  I've never felt any different on the cooked days from the days that I eat completely raw.  Maybe it's because I don't have super powers to start with so there's nothing to lose... 
Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 09, 2012, 12:25:27 pm
Nothing exceptional to report on the Iodine Protocol front. 

No identifiable detox symptoms.

Morning basal temp is running around 97.0 F give or take 0.75 depending on the room temperature and how well I'm covered.  Not sure this is telling me much.

Up 3 to 4 times per night which has been my norm so no change here

Since nothing is changing much at this point, I'll try to report once a week or so rather than everyday.  I'll also report if/when I make a change or something happens like a detox reaction.  The next planned change is to move from 50mg/day to 100mg/day.  I plan to do this in another 3 weeks.  That would be one month at the 50mg level then move to the 100mg/day level and stay there for the next 5 months.  Not sure yet if I'm going to jump straight to 100mg or do a couple of weeks or a month at an intermediate level of say 75mg/day.  Since I've had no toxic effects at the 50mg level, which is considered a very high level when first starting this protocol,  I'm leaning towards jumping directly to the 100mg level.

The adventure continues,

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Bio-shell Avatar on October 09, 2012, 08:35:12 pm
Also did a patch test.  This is admittedly not very accurate, but does apparently show in a general way how well saturated your body is with iodine.  The theory is that if the patch disappears within 4 hours then you are highly deficient, if it lasts 4- 8 hours then you are high-moderate deficient, if it lasts 8-12 hours then you are moderately deficient, 12-18 hours light to moderately deficient, and 18-24 hours you are lightly deficient, and anything over 24 hours means your tissues are probably pretty saturated.  Some think this test is totally useless but I thought I'd try it anyway and see what happens.

based on my own observations i'd say the patch test may be an indicator of iodine deficiency but i'm not convinced. it definitely disappears faster if iodine has been absent in the diet and stays longer after iodine has been put on the skin daily for a week or longer (on top of supplementation). i tried it in the beginning and stopped the topical application when the stains were still visible after a day. when i apply iodine topically these days (usually just a small patch once a week where i place my b12 shot) the spot has almost disappeared after half a day. that could either mean my daily 25mg iodine dose is too low or that there's a difference between tissue saturation if iodine is only ingested or both ingested and applied topically.

btw, in the beginning i took about 100mg iodine every now and then after the bromide detox symptoms had ceased and didn't notice any adverse effects. i'm quite sure you can safely up your intake to 100mg since you didn't even detox anything when you started (which is very unusual from what i've read).

That's very interesting. Please tell us more about the positive outcome of your iodine supplementation. What have been the benefits?
Löwenherz

i didn't have many issues to begin with and supplemented iodine together with a host of other things so i can't really pinpoint any long term benefits. however, something that i definitely noticed was more energy and alertness after a day or two of supplementation and some bromide detox symptoms (skin rashes mostly which disappeared after 2-3 days). it may also have increased my basal temperature somewhat although during that time i was still in a vegetarian/vegan period (mostly raw) and consequently always a little frosty.

[...]Nevertheless the argumentation of the DGE somehow makes sense to me. They say that after eating very low levels of iodine for decades and generations as in some parts of the world our bodies have adapted to such low levels and that a sudden and very drastic increase causes problems.
Löwenherz

the only problems it can cause is detoxification. of that i'm 100% certain. when i started taking lugol's i watched all videos and read everything i found about iodine supplementation incl. lots of feedback from others and all of them improved because of the increased iodine intake. the problem is that bromide is really insidious, it's in certain foods, drinks, in flame retardants (carpets, new cars, mattresses, you name it) and it WILL accumulate in the body if our iodine intake is too low. for almost everyone that has been the case for years or decades. it causes lots of problems that almost no doctor or health practitioner would attribute to bromide poisoning because most of them don't even know that it's a common toxin and occupies the iodine receptors everywhere in the body. not to mention fluoride or the heavy metals iodine helps to detox. imo iodine is one of the most important supplements besides magnesium, vitamin d (at our latitudes) and perhaps krill oil.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PhilB on October 09, 2012, 10:18:54 pm
Hi Lex,

Reading and following your developments on this forum, I would like to thank you for sharing this valuable information.

I have been taking 6 drops of Lugol's 5% for 5 days now and I'm noticing that my blood glucose appears to be affected. Before the Lugol's, it would usually be in the mid to high 90's in the afternoon, well after two of my three meals (keto / no carbs / 60% fat / 40% protein). But for three days now it has been in the 70's, dipping down to 67 today afternoon (Europe time).

Based on your observations on modifying your fat to protein ratios, I had attributed my relatively high blood glucose to my relatively high protein intake. While obviously too early to say, I'm beginning to wonder if the iodine may be affecting the amount of protein my body is converting to glucose. Or, if it could be causing glucose to be used or otherwise taken from the blood, through increased insulin sensitivity, perhaps.

I bring this up to see whether you might not be inclined to start monitoring your blood glucose again (assuming, of course, you currently aren't).

Philip
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 09, 2012, 11:53:47 pm
Not sure how long you intend to give the iodine protocol. But, if you run out of ideas, use of  raw apple cider vinegar(the best has "mother of vinegar" in it) might be an idea. Also, if you are drinking from the tap and the water's processed/chlorinated etc., you might consider trying alkaline mineral water. I don't need the latter right now as the city-district I'm in currently gets its water from the mountains. However, in London, I could tell there was a big difference between when I consumed London tapwater, and when I drank only alkaline mineral water.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 10, 2012, 07:42:40 am
Lex, by morning basal temp, do you mean armpit temp? Just want to make sure I understand you, thanks.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 10, 2012, 10:57:18 am
Lex, by morning basal temp, do you mean armpit temp? Just want to make sure I understand you, thanks.

I take normal oral temperature under the tongue.  Never understood the benefit of taking armpit temp.

I bring this up to see whether you might not be inclined to start monitoring your blood glucose again (assuming, of course, you currently aren't).

I hadn't thought of this.  I haven't measured my BG for a long time as it has been stable for so many years.  Since iodine is supposed to support an increased metabolism it probably makes sense to start measuring it again.

@Bio-shell - thanks for giving us more detail.  I was curious as were others. Information like this is helpful to those trying to decide if something like this is worthwhile for them.

@Tyler - I used to do the apple cider vinegar thing years ago.   Back in the 60s and 70s it was in vogue mostly started by Dr Jarvis in his book "Vermont Folk Medicine" published in the late 1950s I think.  As I remember he mentioned iodine as well, but that never caught on.   Natural Hygienist Paul Bragg picked up on the ACV thing and published a book dedicated to the subject as well has creating his own brand of ACV still available in health-food stores today.  During my vegetarian/vegan years I used to drink a quart of water mixed with apple cider vinegar and honey everyday.  I enjoyed it but can't say that I ever noticed any benefit from it.  I continued to drink it because all the gurus said it was the thing to do and I liked the taste.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 11, 2012, 12:59:54 pm
Since Phil asked the question about how I was measuring basal temperature, and he usually has a solid reason for such things I thought an experiment was in order.  This morning I took my temperature both at armpit and oral under the tongue.

Oral temperature was 97.04 and armpit was 97.01.  That is a difference of 0.03 deg F, or less than 1/2 of 1/10 of a degree.  To me this difference is insignificant so I'll continue to take my temperature orally as it is easier and takes less time for the temperature to stabilize.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Bio-shell Avatar on October 11, 2012, 08:32:12 pm
I have been taking 6 drops of Lugol's 5% for 5 days now and I'm noticing that my blood glucose appears to be affected. Before the Lugol's, it would usually be in the mid to high 90's in the afternoon, well after two of my three meals (keto / no carbs / 60% fat / 40% protein). But for three days now it has been in the 70's, dipping down to 67 today afternoon (Europe time).

Based on your observations on modifying your fat to protein ratios, I had attributed my relatively high blood glucose to my relatively high protein intake. While obviously too early to say, I'm beginning to wonder if the iodine may be affecting the amount of protein my body is converting to glucose. Or, if it could be causing glucose to be used or otherwise taken from the blood, through increased insulin sensitivity, perhaps.

i'm pretty sure it reduces blood sugar because it a) increases insulin sensitivity (possibly) and b) increases metabolic rate so more sugar is burned or rather, the available sugar is burned faster (very likely).

this could be the reason why many overweight people lose weight simply by taking lugol's. obesity is often caused by a sluggish thyroid because that inevitably decreases metabolic rate.

also, since there supposedly are iodine receptors on all cells of the body and several or all glands require certain amounts of iodine to function properly, the cells may get more sensitive to glucose when iodine occupies its receptors instead of bromide or fluoride and the entire endocrine system may also benefit from the higher iodine intake. the hormones then could help to improve the use of blood glucose, among other things.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 12, 2012, 12:06:57 am
i'm pretty sure it reduces blood sugar because it a) increases insulin sensitivity (possibly) and b) increases metabolic rate so more sugar is burned or rather, the available sugar is burned faster (very likely).

this could be the reason why many overweight people lose weight simply by taking lugol's. obesity is often caused by a sluggish thyroid because that inevitably decreases metabolic rate.

also, since there supposedly are iodine receptors on all cells of the body and several or all glands require certain amounts of iodine to function properly, the cells may get more sensitive to glucose when iodine occupies its receptors instead of bromide or fluoride and the entire endocrine system may also benefit from the higher iodine intake. the hormones then could help to improve the use of blood glucose, among other things.

Not sure how accurate any of this thinking is.  I've been monitoring my BG for the last couple of days and it has risen an average of about 10 points throughout the day.  Just had my labs completed before starting this iodine adventure and my fasting glucose was in the low 80s.  This year's labs were taken just before eating my daily meal which is why it was 10-15 points lower than other labs.  Normal morning fasting BG is usually right around 99-100, and BG stays around 100 most of the day except right before my daily meal at which point it drops 10 points or so, and then rises above 100 for a few hours directly after eating before dropping back to around 100 in the evening and stays there until the cycle starts over again.

Since PhilB suggested that I check BG a couple of days ago, with the expectation that it would probably drop a little, every time I've checked it over the last 2 days it has been 10 points or so higher than my previous normal. 

Evening of 10/9  - 113 mg/dl
Morning of 10/10 - 110 mg/dl
Evening of 10/10 -  111 mg/dl
Morning of 10/11 - 113/mg/dl

Can't say this is good or bad, only that this is what I'm measuring.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 12, 2012, 08:13:57 am
Since Phil asked the question about how I was measuring basal temperature, and he usually has a solid reason for such things I thought an experiment was in order.
Those who are big on taking temperatures and consuming iodine seem to insist on armpit temp for some reason. Like you, I mainly took my oral temp., because it was more convenient for me. Recently, I have experimented a bit and noticed that if I eat something cold or hot before taking my oral temp., it tends to skew the result, so maybe that's one reason they go with the armpit? If you do not eat anything for hours before taking your temp., it may not matter.

One of the few questions I occasionally ponder re: your experience, Lex, is that it seems that nature does not care much for consistency. It seems to more favor random variation, fractals, power laws, seasonality, feast and famine, and so forth, but I am rather ignorant on such matters.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on October 12, 2012, 08:47:09 am
In the hospitals they assume that the armpit readings will be a degree lower than oral.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 12, 2012, 09:27:38 am
In the hospitals they assume that the armpit readings will be a degree lower than oral.

This may be  because it takes much longer for the temperature to stabilize than when taken orally.  I get very close to the same temperature either way, but the oral method takes about 2 minutes before the temperature stops climbing and the armpit method may take 6-8 minutes. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 12, 2012, 09:40:49 am
One of the few questions I occasionally ponder re: your experience, Lex, is that it seems that nature does not care much for consistency. It seems to more favor random variation, fractals, power laws, seasonality, feast and famine, and so forth, but I am rather ignorant on such matters.

Can't say that I have anything other than observations and anecdotal evidence, but it does seem that cyclical or frequent but random stress creates a more robust entity.  In the plant world the ancient Bristlecone Pine lives at 12,000-14,000 ft in rocks and cracks and it tenuously survives for 4,000 years or longer.  Plants that have been pampered in a green house often die of shock when moved outdoors even in a mild climate. (I pursued a degree in Ornamental Horticulture for several years and had to study this stuff.)

My dad also echoed something similar when we were kids.  We used to have several pets and my dad would insist that they spend the night outdoors all year around.  He said that keeping the dogs, cats, and other critters indoors would compromise their health and shorten their life.  As an example, my grandfather came to live with us and brought his little lap dog (pekingese and pomeranian mix)  it was sickly with watery eyes, runny nose, and was taking heart and kidney medications.  My dad threw the dog outside and stopped the meds.  The dog got better and outlived granddad.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 13, 2012, 10:38:02 am
Can't say that I have anything other than observations and anecdotal evidence, but it does seem that cyclical or frequent but random stress creates a more robust entity.  In the plant world the ancient Bristlecone Pine lives at 12,000-14,000 ft in rocks and cracks and it tenuously survives for 4,000 years or longer.  Plants that have been pampered in a green house often die of shock when moved outdoors even in a mild climate. (I pursued a degree in Ornamental Horticulture for several years and had to study this stuff.)

My dad also echoed something similar when we were kids.  We used to have several pets and my dad would insist that they spend the night outdoors all year around.  He said that keeping the dogs, cats, and other critters indoors would compromise their health and shorten their life.  As an example, my grandfather came to live with us and brought his little lap dog (pekingese and pomeranian mix)  it was sickly with watery eyes, runny nose, and was taking heart and kidney medications.  My dad threw the dog outside and stopped the meds.  The dog got better and outlived granddad.

Lex

I think RAF in general create a more robust human, IME. 

As far as dogs and cats, they're probably eating insects and small mammals outside, so they're getting some fresh RAF that way. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 13, 2012, 10:50:52 pm
As far as dogs and cats, they're probably eating insects and small mammals outside, so they're getting some fresh RAF that way. 

From what I remember, our dogs didn't eat any small mamals or insects but of course the cats would get a mouse, rat, or gopher once in a while.  We had a couple of free range chickens and a duck that ran around the yard.  Had problems with snails until the chickens and duck wiped them out.  Got so we kids were importing snails from the neighbor's yards to keep the birds happy.  Needless to say, it didn't take long before the snail problem in our neighborhood was solved and there were no pesticides involved.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 13, 2012, 11:04:01 pm
Generally all is going well with the iodine experiment.  This week I got a blister on my index finger on the inside of the finger between the  second and 3'rd knuckle next to the 3rd finger.  There was no explanation for this other than it might be a detox reaction from the iodine.  I went to bed one night and when I woke up in the morning the blister was there and it was itching worse than a mosquito bite.  Very annoying.  The blister popped the same day and it has been red and tender for the last 3 days.  So far, that is the only thing out of the ordinary.

Basal temp was still 97 +- 0.5 degF all week so no change there.

Most nights I was up 3-4 times but twice this week I only got up once.

I also notice that the amount of urine released seems to be increasing.  Might be my imagination but I think I'll start measuring it to see if it is real or just wishful thinking.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on October 14, 2012, 07:11:13 pm
About temp.. the only way to take accurate temps is "down there".. ;)
I mean, serious.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 15, 2012, 12:07:58 pm
About temp.. the only way to take accurate temps is "down there".. ;)
I mean, serious.

I remember that when I was a kid.  I think they used to take babies and children's temps in the bum because the thermometers were glass filled with mercury and there was a great risk that we'd bite down on them and break them.  I suppose the digital age has significantly lessened this risk.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 15, 2012, 02:00:50 pm
Aren't the digital gun type in the ears the new high tech way to take the temperature?  How good are those?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ys on October 15, 2012, 08:41:36 pm
I have one of those non-contact infrared for generic purpose. It is off by few degrees but generally works well.  I think there are very precise models specifically for measuring body temp if $$$ are no issue.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 15, 2012, 08:42:35 pm
Aren't the digital gun type in the ears the new high tech way to take the temperature?  How good are those?

They are not quite as accurate, but they are a lot faster.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Hotmail on October 16, 2012, 02:36:47 pm
Sorry to barge in on your journal again, just wondered about something relating to iodine, though its not ideal, I have always used iodised sal with no problems.  When I use kelp+iodine tablets I get a swollen glands (think Saliva / its around my neck area I have difficulty in swallowing) and a bit of fever similar to flu symptoms, are those detox symptoms?   The elp tablets contains small doses of iodine like 1mg
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 16, 2012, 11:51:04 pm
Aren't the digital gun type in the ears the new high tech way to take the temperature?  How good are those?

My experience with the infrared type of thermometer has not shown them to be all that accurate.  I had a fever a year or so ago, and went to my medical provider's after hours clinic.  I had my trusty digital thermometer with me that showed 102.24 F (39.02 C).  The nurse stuck one of the infrared thermometers in my ear and came up with a reading of 100.7 F (38.16 C).  I asked the nurse to retake my temp with their oral digital thermometer and it read 102.21 F (39.00 C). 

Needless to say, I was less than impressed with the infrared thermometer.  It was much faster than the oral thermometers, but what good is a reading taken at lightening speed that is incorrect.  Maybe they have a Finnegan's Fudge Factor that they are supposed to add to the reading so that temperature from the ear coninsides with the oral thermometers, but the nurse didn't mention it.  In fact, she seemed surprised that my temp was so much higher than her new high tech device indicated.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 19, 2012, 01:03:04 pm
Well, no problems with the iodine experiment.  None of the predicted detox reactions with the exception of the one blister on my finger and I have no way to know if that was caused by the iodine protocol I'm following or something else.

There does seem to be a small increase in urine output which is encouraging, especially since it's so early in the game.  Nothing dramatic, only about an ounce (30ml), but it is something and hope springs eternal.

Basal temp is the same 97.0 plus or minus 0.5 deg F depending on room temp and how well I'm covered.

Still getting up 3 times/night and occasionally a 4th time.  Once in the last 5 days I only got up twice.

I'm encouraged enough with the lack of detox symptoms to move to 100mg of iodine per day.  I'm very busy tomorrow so I'll start the new higer dose on Saturday.

Lex   

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 22, 2012, 10:29:04 pm
Well, no problems with the iodine experiment.  None of the predicted detox reactions with the exception of the one blister on my finger and I have no way to know if that was caused by the iodine protocol I'm following or something else.

There does seem to be a small increase in urine output which is encouraging, especially since it's so early in the game.  Nothing dramatic, only about an ounce (30ml), but it is something and hope springs eternal.

Basal temp is the same 97.0 plus or minus 0.5 deg F depending on room temp and how well I'm covered.

Still getting up 3 times/night and occasionally a 4th time.  Once in the last 5 days I only got up twice.

I'm encouraged enough with the lack of detox symptoms to move to 100mg of iodine per day.  I'm very busy tomorrow so I'll start the new higer dose on Saturday.

Lex   



I'm fascinated.  I have a friend who used to purposely overdose on his homemade iodine tincture.  He ended up in the hospital with a very slight case of goiter, but he got all sorts of interesting health improvements along the way.  Everyone's body's different.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 23, 2012, 09:57:42 am
On Saturday I upped the dose to 100mg of iodine per day by adding 6 drops of 5% Lugol's solution to 16oz (500ml) of water 3 times per day - upon arising in the morning, with my daily afternoon meal, and a couple of hours before bedtime.  Accourding to Crow's, 1 drop of their 5% Lugol's contains 6.25mg iodine.  6 drops is 37.5mg taken 3 times per day is 112.5mg/day. 

I also take the recommended supplements.  As suggested by those who supposedly know, I take 1000mg Vit C in the morning, then 1000mg Vit C again with my afternoon meal.  The other supplements (400mg Magnesium, 200mg Selenium, Vit B2, Vit B3) are also taken with my single daily meal.  The only supplement that gets divided is the Vit C.

I've been so focused on the metabolic (body temp), and prostate issues that I failed to notice changes in my skin.  I've had flaky patches of skin and brown age spots on my hands, face and thighs have proliferated as I've gotten older, especially in the past 15 years or so.

The flaky patches have smoothed out and/or become much smaller to the point where they are almost gone.  They were easily felt on my forehead but now my forehead is noticeably smoother with almost no flaky areas.

The brown spots are still there but they have gotten lighter in color.  Where they were a dark brownish color, they are now several shades lighter and more of a medium tan.  I had two dark spots develop on my thighs - one on my outer left thigh and one on my inner right thigh over the past 8 years or so.  They are about 1/4"  (0.75cm) in diameter.  They started out as normal brown age spots, but over time the one on the outer left thigh changed character and became very rough and started to itch.  I had it removed about 3 years ago and lab tests on it came back as noncancerous. 

The remaining large brown spot on my inner right thigh started to go through the same change a few months ago.  It got somewhat darker in color and the texture changed so that it was easily felt by running a finger over it.  My doctor took a look at it at this year's physical and we decided to leave it alone for the time begin but figured it would probably need to be removed about the time I have my annual physical next year.

Well, noticed today that the texture has changed back to normal skin and I can no longer feel it with my fingers.  The color has also noticeably lightened back to what it was a couple of years ago.  This improvement has happened very quickly just over the last 4 weeks or so since I've been on the iodine protocol.

Generally, my skin feels much smoother and more supple.  Don't get me wrong, my skin is still that of someone that is 60 years old, with lines and wrinkles, it just feels smoother to the touch and the age spots are noticeably lighter in color.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Bio-shell Avatar on October 23, 2012, 08:26:41 pm
Not sure how accurate any of this thinking is.  I've been monitoring my BG for the last couple of days and it has risen an average of about 10 points throughout the day.  Just had my labs completed before starting this iodine adventure and my fasting glucose was in the low 80s.  This year's labs were taken just before eating my daily meal which is why it was 10-15 points lower than other labs.  Normal morning fasting BG is usually right around 99-100, and BG stays around 100 most of the day except right before my daily meal at which point it drops 10 points or so, and then rises above 100 for a few hours directly after eating before dropping back to around 100 in the evening and stays there until the cycle starts over again.

Since PhilB suggested that I check BG a couple of days ago, with the expectation that it would probably drop a little, every time I've checked it over the last 2 days it has been 10 points or so higher than my previous normal. 

Evening of 10/9  - 113 mg/dl
Morning of 10/10 - 110 mg/dl
Evening of 10/10 -  111 mg/dl
Morning of 10/11 - 113/mg/dl

Can't say this is good or bad, only that this is what I'm measuring.

Lex

that's strange, i'd have expected it to do decrease. then again, the body knows best so perhaps more glucose is kept in the blood because the cells have become more receptive to it. that would certainly be a good thing. almost everyone notices increased energy after a few days of iodine supplementation, and that energy has to come from somewhere (increased metabolism > increased bg is my guess).
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on October 27, 2012, 12:07:09 pm
Well this is fascinating, Lex.  I appreciate you being such a careful experimenter and documenter.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 28, 2012, 07:39:27 am
That's good news, Lex, and pretty suggestive that it's helping. I'm looking forward to my own Lugol's experiment.

I recommend photographing the spots if you can, if any are still significant. I experienced the same thing with some spots and "moles" I had, including some that were rough and larger and darker and have smoothed, shrunk and lightened over time, with some disappearing. Just telling people about this doesn't seem to impress them, but if I had photographed them while they were still fairly prominent, it might have been more impactful. The odd thing is, some people write it off as a normal aspect of aging. I'd never heard of spots/lesions disappearing due to aging until I reported it after changing my diet and I had never before experienced a single spot improving at all until I changed my diet. It seems too much to be coincidence, but it seemed like some people wanted to find any excuse to write it off.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on October 28, 2012, 04:48:16 pm
I've had flaky patches of skin and brown age spots on my hands, face and thighs have proliferated as I've gotten older, especially in the past 15 years or so.

I always get brown age spots quickly, especially on my face and arms, when I eat cooked fats or rancid raw fats like olive oil...
Unfortunately even raw frozen animal fats seem to be bad in this regard, but not as bad as cooked fats. Raw and fresh is always the best choice.

I guess that long-term cooked paleo dieter get much more age spots than long-term raw paleo dieter.

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 29, 2012, 03:32:15 am
I've been at the 100mg iodine per day level for several days and have had no noticiable effects from this change.

I'm still getting up 3-4 times per night.   

Basal temp might have climbed a fraction as it is now seems to be around 97.25 F plus or minus 0.5 degF.

BG is still running about 10 points higher.  This morning it was 109 mg/dl.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Adora on October 30, 2012, 03:14:11 am
Sleeping in a cold room is supposed to increase thyroid activity.  I have been working at this for months. It is slow for me. Sleeping outside you get a very cold night followed by much warmer ones. Body adjusts. I don't sleep well if I'm cold at all. I'm down to 2 light wool blankets and one heavy one but I have another heavy one in arms reach if the night is unusually cold and I have to work the next day. If I don't have to get up early and function, I tough it out but I'm toast the next day. Also, lack of quality sleep seems to make me much colder the following day.
    If you want to try sleeping "comfortably cool" you're morning basal may be screwed for weeks while you adjust but, for me it has been almost a year with slow improvements.  My dedication is also for a love of being outdoors in winter, without tons of clothing and sleeping gear.
   You may be more interested in clear and reproducible results. I suggest sticking to 1 method of taking temp. as long as you're not a mouth breather, oral should be fine. Make sure the battery is good on digital thermometer. You could get a 2nd of a similar type and check both to calibrate it.
    Have you considered painting lugol's on the skin around your prostate, then wearing dark underwear to bed, to keep sheets clean? Just wondering if it would have a more direct/ rapid effect on evening urination. You could also use a cheaper form of iodine for external application. Maybe a week's trial to see if there is a difference.
   I love your dedication to your experiments. Thanks for all your hard work in posting.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 30, 2012, 09:33:42 am
Adora,
I actually like to sleep on the cool side.  Especially my feet.  I can't stand my feet to be too warm.  Most of the time I sleep with only a sheet and even then I keep my feet uncovered.  This has driven my wife nuts for over 35 years.  I have the window over my bed open during most of the year and only close it during late fall and winter when the night time temps drop below 50F.  If it gets down into the low 60's or 50's I'll add a blanket but I still keep my feet uncovered unless it gets really cold. 

I haven't had any problem waking up due to temp.  Most of my problem is having to get up to urinate several times during the night.  Since this wakes me up about 3 times during the night, I'll adjust my covers at that time.  My normal routine is to get about 3 hours sleep when I first go to bed.  After that I'm usually up every 2 hours until morning.

There is some discussion in other groups about directly applying Lugol's to the prostate through suppositories.  No real feedback yet on how well this works.  I'll be staying with my original protocol of taking the Lugol's orally for at least 6 months and maybe up to a full year.  If I keep changing protocols then it is difficult to determine what, if anything, is working.  It has taken 60 years for my prostate to get into its current condition.  It may take a good bit of time to see any measurable results from the simple protocol that I'm following just as it took about 2 years for my body to adapt to my ZC diet.

I found a couple of US chemical companies that have 500ml (about 16 oz) of 5% Lugol's for around $25.  Unfortunately they can't sell it to me without a copy of my business license (I don't have one because I'm not a business), as well as several forms that must be filled out, notification to the US Department of Justice, and then a 21 day wait.  Supposedly this is saving us from some sort of illegal drug manufacturing.  What illegal drug is made with Lugol's I have no idea. 

The J. Crow company where I get my current supply is forced to sell 5% Lugol's in 30ml bottles to meet US Department of Justice requirements.  They sell 30ml for the same $25.  What is silly is that I can order as many 30ml bottles as I want, I just have to enter each one as a separate order and pay $25 for each order.  Doing it this way makes 500ml cost over $400.

Another member on this forum pointed me to a Canadian Pharmacy that sells 500ml of 5% Lugol's for $50 which includes shipping.  They will ship to the US but won't guarantee delivery as it may be confiscated by customs.  I take the risk but I've ordered it anyway. If it is delivered then I have a year's supply for the cost of about 2 months of the J. Crow stuff.  I have my fingers crossed.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 30, 2012, 09:43:57 am
What illegal drug is made with Lugol's I have no idea.
Google to the rescue: methamphetamine. :)

Just received my Lugol's today.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 30, 2012, 10:44:41 pm
Google to the rescue: methamphetamine. :)

Just received my Lugol's today.

Well, everything makes sense then. I'm sure that selling 5% Lugol's in 30ml bottles for $25 USD will completely stop all production of methamphetamine here in the US.  It must also be true that since they've made 5% Lugol's illegal here in the US then it will totally disappear from the black market and world markets as well.  Such laws have certainly worked well for the illegal drug market in general.  Since they've passed these laws and instituted the "war on drugs", illegal drug consumption has only increased about 30 fold here in the US.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 30, 2012, 10:48:01 pm
I'm rather surprised that I've had no identifiable detox reactions (other than one small blister on my left index finger and there is no way of knowing if that was caused by the iodine) .  All the stern warnings and handwringing on the iodine forums would make one think that severe detox reactions are a foregone conclusion.  All the suggested protocols work up to 50mg/day over about a 6 month period.  I started with 50mg for the first month and have been on 100mg for about a week now and have had no problems at all.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 30, 2012, 10:55:41 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/01/18/how-much-iodine-is-too-much/ (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/01/18/how-much-iodine-is-too-much/)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 31, 2012, 04:01:32 am
Interesting article Tyler.  It talked about micrograms and I'm taking milligrams, or 1,000 times more.  The author also came to the conclusion that they couldn't draw any conclusions.  Articles like this drive me nuts.  If they don't have anything to say then the least they can do is not say anything. 

Another thing that concerns me is that there is no mention of how long the studies ran.  It is quite possible that there is a short term reaction to high levels of iodine and that this resolves itself over time.  Remember that this is what happened with the low carb vs athletic performance studies.  When moving from a high carb diet to a low carb diet athletic performance dropped significantly for the first few weeks.  When this happened the researchers stopped the studies and declared that athletes needed a high carb diet for best performance.  Then along came Stephen Phinney who ran a longer term study and found that athletic performance returned over time as the body adapted to low carb intake. 

An example of this related to iodine is that in the initial stages of taking an iodine supplement, many people develop a rather nasty skin rash that can last for weeks.  In the past this has been diagnosed as an allergy to iodine, yet if iodine supplementation continues, over time the rash goes away and other health benefits start to appear - especially in women.  Things like fibroid cysts in the breasts and ovaries disappear.

You just can't take studies at face value.  You must evaluate them very carefully as the formal conclusions that are drawn may not be supported by the actual data in the study, or there may be significant flaws in the study's protocol, like a very short time frame.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Adora on October 31, 2012, 05:35:54 am
The stuff makes me crazy anxious. Normally I'm exceptionally calm. I tried 4 drops of my 2% lugols and struggled to sleep. Which is never a problem. I can use it topically and neither seaweed or fish does it. I'm cutting back on the chlorinated/fluoridated tap water. I drank the salt solution about 2am but it didn't help much.
    I've had the itchy skin too but, the anxiety is what I can stand so, I'm cutting it out again. I take insulin which has no galaxies that I know of but, is loaded with benzines. I think it may be related to my unpleasant detox. I'm glad you're not having any side effects but, not everybody gets off so easy.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on October 31, 2012, 06:36:02 am
Since they've passed these laws and instituted the "war on drugs", illegal drug consumption has only increased about 30 fold here in the US.
Yeah, I wish they would end this idiotic war on drugs soon. I suspect that most of the politicians know it's stupid but feel they can't oppose it without being seen as "soft on crime."

Portugal decriminalized drugs with stunning success. Contrary to the critics' warnings, drug use and addiction went DOWN instead of up, in part because people were no longer afraid to seek treatment for addiction, and drug-related crime also dropped ("Portugal drug law show results ten years on, experts say," http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9C6x99EnFVdFuXw_B8pvDRzLqcA (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9C6x99EnFVdFuXw_B8pvDRzLqcA)). One of the greatest services that Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party provide is to point out the self destructive stupidity of the war on drugs, which we can ill afford with the federal govt's massive debt.

We've now had three presidents in a row who have either smoked dope or snorted coke or both. When they do it, it's "experimenting." When ordinary folk do it, it's a crime worthy of jailtime. It's well past time to end the nonsense.

Quote
What is silly is that I can order as many 30ml bottles as I want, I just have to enter each one as a separate order and pay $25 for each order.  Doing it this way makes 500ml cost over $400.
Beware, having in the past dealt with laws and practices that aim to prevent money-laundering, my guess is that American sellers are required to report to the authorities when someone purchases more iodine than avg, including in small, frequent purchases. The worst that can happen is you might be investigated and they would see that you're innocent, but it could be a hassle. I'm not sure what you could do to avoid such hassle.

Things like fibroid cysts in the breasts and ovaries disappear.
Do you know what the mechanism behind this is?

I've had the itchy skin too but, the anxiety is what I can stand so, I'm cutting it out again.
Probably wise. The anxiety might offset any benefit you might get. 

I've started Lugol's therapy myself and will report any positive or negative results, though I'm not going to do frequent detailed reports like Lex, who is commendably providing us with a valuable free resource by making such an effort. I'm hoping it might help with my last stubborn sizable sebaceous cyst that hasn't shrunk like the others, but instead continued to slowly grow. I'll be using it topically as well as orally, as suggested by some Lugol's proponents who claimed it helped with their cysts.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 31, 2012, 12:34:45 pm
Do you know what the mechanism behind this is?

Not a clue.  The information that I have comes from the breast  cancer sites that William pointed me too.  I also had a confirmation from the nice lady in Canada that I ordered the 500ml of Lugol's from.  She said that if she takes Lugol's orally then she gets severe reactions in the form of rash and headaches.  However, she has put it on her stomach over the area of her ovaries and several cysts have disappeared.  The diagnosis of the cysts was from an ultrasound and after several months of topical applications of 5% Lugol's over the area they are no longer detectable with the ultrasound.  She's very happy and wished me well on my experiment.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 31, 2012, 01:01:20 pm
Not a clue.  The information that I have comes from the breast  cancer sites that William pointed me too.  I also had a confirmation from the nice lady in Canada that I ordered the 500ml of Lugol's from.  She said that if she takes Lugol's orally then she gets severe reactions in the form of rash and headaches.  However, she has put it on her stomach over the area of her ovaries and several cysts have disappeared.  The diagnosis of the cysts was from an ultrasound and after several months of topical applications of 5% Lugol's over the area they are no longer detectable with the ultrasound.  She's very happy and wished me well on my experiment.

Lex

Nice.  Thanks for sharing that.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on October 31, 2012, 08:41:24 pm
The stuff makes me crazy anxious.

You might be magnesium deficient, as Mg is supposed to make us calm.
As part of the protocol I take both the malate and the glycinate at least 400 mg/day. Seems to be working.
If you are not used to it, there can be a laxative effect.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Adora on October 31, 2012, 10:29:39 pm
I think I am Mg deficient. I just started to supplement. I may increase it and try again with drops in a few weeks. Thanks William. I didn't have trouble at first, it took about a month to have side effects.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on October 31, 2012, 11:38:18 pm
Do you eat dairy Adora?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Adora on November 02, 2012, 07:30:17 am
very little, I put it in some of my herbal teas
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dorothy on November 02, 2012, 07:38:04 am
ok - so the magnesium draw of dairy shouldn't be the cause then.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 05, 2012, 12:21:20 pm
I received my 500ml bottle of 5% Lugol's solution yesterday (Saturday) so I'm set for the year.  Cost including shipping was about $60 USD which is a bargin.   At the rate of 100mg/day, I'm going through the 30ml bottles at a fair clip of a bit over 1 per month.  The large bottle doesn't have an eye dropper so I'll just refill the small bottles as required.

Still no noticeable detox reactions from taking such large daily doses of iodine.  Makes me wonder why.  Most people seem to experience some sort of reaction - especially when they move to 100mg/day, but so far nothing of note in my case.  Maybe it is because I haven't eaten any bromated flour products for many years now and I've avoided fluoride in my water and toothpaste etc.  Flourides and bromides are the suspected culprits for most reported detox reactions.  Are these truly the cause?  I have no idea and no way to test the theory.  Just glad I'm not having any problems.

It has been a bit over a month since I started this adventure.  I have noticed some positive changes to skin tone and texture as well as some lightening of brown age spots.  It is interesting that not all age spots are affected.  Some are definitely getting lighter in color while others have remained unchanged.  Could it be that there are several different types or causes for age spots where some are positively affected by iodine intake (or caused by a lack of iodine?) while others have a different root cause?  Unfortunately no way to tell.

No miracle over night prostate cure yet.  Still getting up 3-4 times per night, but I can say that starting urination SEEMS easier and there also SEEMS to be less feelings of urgency throughout the day.  Flow seems to have increased slightly as well as the amount voided each time, but the improvement has been slight up to this point.  Some of this stuff goes in cycles where I have good periods and bad periods so I could just be in a good part of a cycle.  Only time will tell.

Lex

 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Bio-shell Avatar on November 10, 2012, 07:12:59 pm
Still no noticeable detox reactions from taking such large daily doses of iodine.  Makes me wonder why.  Most people seem to experience some sort of reaction - especially when they move to 100mg/day, but so far nothing of note in my case.  Maybe it is because I haven't eaten any bromated flour products for many years now and I've avoided fluoride in my water and toothpaste etc.  Flourides and bromides are the suspected culprits for most reported detox reactions.  Are these truly the cause?  I have no idea and no way to test the theory.  Just glad I'm not having any problems.

halides displace each other so the most likely causes for detox reactions are bromide and fluoride. halides are also very reactive so additional detox reactions could be if the iodine forms salts with any toxic elements and moves them into the blood.

It has been a bit over a month since I started this adventure.  I have noticed some positive changes to skin tone and texture as well as some lightening of brown age spots.  It is interesting that not all age spots are affected.  Some are definitely getting lighter in color while others have remained unchanged.  Could it be that there are several different types or causes for age spots where some are positively affected by iodine intake (or caused by a lack of iodine?) while others have a different root cause?  Unfortunately no way to tell.

it may depend on the kind of tissue and the location if the accumulations are removed more quickly or more slowly. after all, the accumulation doesn't always take the same amount of time either. if you want to experiement a bit you can try mixing iodine 50:50 with dmso and apply it topically to certain age spots. dmso carries everything deep into the tissue and the cells so if the iodine helps with removal that's the fastest way. i don't know if it's gonna work with iodine, though. people have used dmso+mms successully for stuff like moles or certain growths but if used with mms it has to be removed after 2-3 minutes or the skin gets severely damaged. mms is much more aggressive than iodine but it's a sure, if somewhat painful, way to get rid of unsightly skin growths. they'll get pretty much burned out and then the skin can heal. otherwise the body would just leave the damaged/overgrown cells in place and continue to ignore them or add more crap, same as with age spots.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 12, 2012, 10:39:38 am
Thanks for the feedback Bio-shell.

From what I've read, iodine itself will absorb through the skin without a carrier like DMSO so it may be worthwhile to but a dab here and there on brown spots and rough patches of skin to see what happens.  I'm sure DMSO would make the absorption more efficient, but it would also add an other layer of complication to what I'm currently doing.  For now I'll stick with the basic protocol I'm following and when I do a skin patch test, I'll put the iodine on areas of brown spots and/or rough places to see if there is a noticable change in skin color or texture in these areas.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 12, 2012, 10:47:36 am
Nothing new to report on the iodine experiment.  Everything is pretty much the same as my previous post #1752 on Nov 5th.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Bio-shell Avatar on November 15, 2012, 10:26:47 pm
i've done that for a while, putting just lugol's on brown spots, but also a mix of lugol's and 99% dmso (burns and itches quite a bit in certain places). the iodine as such won't be absorbed anymore after a while (or at least it will take very long for the spots to disappear, like several days) so i don't think that's going to help very much. didn't for me. i could have kept up with the lugol's+dmso experiment but i'm quickly getting bored with stuff if i don't get immediate results so i stopped it after three or four weeks. i think dmso+mms would be the best and fastest way but i haven't tried that yet. i'm afraid of the pain, haha
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 17, 2012, 01:02:49 pm
i could have kept up with the lugol's+dmso experiment but i'm quickly getting bored with stuff if i don't get immediate results so i stopped it after three or four weeks. i think dmso+mms would be the best and fastest way but i haven't tried that yet. i'm afraid of the pain, haha

I've found that many things take months or even years to see all the changes that will result.  I was still seeing changes from my zero carb diet after 2 years or more.  The changes were small but still measurable.  For this reason I commit to each change for at least 6 months before I decide whether to continue or not.  Three to four weeks just isn't enough for most things.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 18, 2012, 01:04:36 am
Still no detox problems with my increased intake of 100mg/day iodine in the form of 6 drops of 5% Lugol's solution mixed with 16oz (500ml) of water 3 times per day.

Also, no real significant change in my BPH symptoms.  They seem to be a little better, but not by a whole lot.  Maybe one less "get-up" on average during the night, and a little more urine voided each time.  The feeling of urgency is also noticably reduced.

Another thing I've noticed with the increase in iodine intake is that the palms of my hands and the bottoms of my feet, (areas that don't tan) have taken on a slight but noticable amber colored hue.  I had a similar experience when I was drinking lots of carrot juice 20-30 years ago and my hands and feet took on an orange hue. The yellowish amber hue is ligher and less obvious than the orange color created by consuming large amounts of carrot juice, but it is definately there.  I hope this is a good thing and indicates that tissues are saturated with iodine, but of course it could be totally unrelated.  No real way to tell.

Hope springs eternal...

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on November 19, 2012, 07:53:15 pm
I've found that many things take months or even years to see all the changes that will result.  I was still seeing changes from my zero carb diet after 2 years or more.

Lex, if you review your zero carb diet from day one. What are the TOP 10 benefits, from your experience?

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 22, 2012, 12:34:18 pm
Lex, if you review your zero carb diet from day one. What are the TOP 10 benefits, from your experience?

I'm not much good at figuring out a list of top 10 benefits.  The specifics things on such a list change depending on point of view or context of a discussion.

What I can say is that my overall general health has improved dramatically.  My annual lab work is very good for someone my age.  I don't have to take medication for cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes, and elevated triglycerides.  My weight is "normal" and I feel great and can physically do most anything I want to do.

Compared to 10 years ago when I was 50+ pounds overweight, was always tired, and often didn't feel like getting out of bed in the morning, not to mention all the pills my doctor wanted me to take, life today is wonderful.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TexasLady on November 26, 2012, 03:16:26 am

Incidentally, the second study talks about lower core body temperature being associated with greater longevity, which is probably one of the reasons for the claims you mentioned encountering before about lower body temperature being healthier. I think I read somewhere that higher body temp is associated with greater fertility, physical development and athletic prowess. If all these correlations are real, then the ideal body temperature depends on whether one's goals are maximum longevity or fertility/development or in-between.

Diet and Eating Patterns and Problems That Brought Me Here

I am doing the entire thread reading at this point but am only about 20% through.  The reason I began it is because I am a meat lover, vegetable hater (for the most part), fruit lover especially if it is high mountain fruits.  However, during my middle years, I have taken to also loving carbs as in potatoes, pasta and crackers (along with some breads).  This has been devastating to my weight, and I am now obese (about 50 pounds over weight).  Several years ago I decided I was "allergic" to carbs which meant that they were doing me a disservice in that I felt ill whenever I ate them.

In fact, I was experimenting on foods, and one test I did involved bread.  I found I gained weight whenever I ate bread.  But I scoffed at that idea and thought that it was a one time reaction.  So I decided to show myself that it didn't make any difference.  So I decided to have a sandwich every day for lunch.  Others do it:  Why can't I?  Day 1, I gained 1 pound.  Day 2 I gained one pound.  So after gaining five pounds in five days, I decided to cut the bread to a one slice sandwich.  Day 6, I gained one pound.  Day 7, I gained one pound and on to day 9 where I had finally gained ten pounds.  I decided that I was right:  Bread was bad for me.  But I was also sure that, by cutting bread, my body would take over and readjust.  That was a wrong conclusion!  It took me nearly a month and a half to lose that weight!    After that, I decided that I would eat bread only occasionally or not at all.

Then I also tried that same practice with potatoes--one or two a day.  My family raised potatoes in Idaho for decades, and surely they were not going to hurt me.  I was wrong.  Again, I gained weight (though not as bad).

Pasta might have been the worst.  I tried it for three days, I think I recall gaining five pounds.   That was a quit immediately reaction.

I then did an intestinal cleanse thinking that I had a build up lots of gunk in my system.  I should have lost weight, but I was gaining!  I discovered that the bulk they were using was a type of wheat.  It not only made me feel sick and full, but it again made me gain weight.

So I was tested for allergies to wheat.  There is no indication I am celiac.

When my son died unexpectedly three years ago, then my mother became ill, and my mother in law died (shortly thereafter my mother died), I found I had suddenly acquired a very high sugar reading.

Several months later, I went to a doctor about my health issues including the fact that I was having memory problems.  (This is consistent with several things including high weight, loss of loved ones and Alzheimers Disease.)  They assured me that, on their "diet" to cure my ills, I would lose a lot of weight suggesting 15-20 in a couple of weeks (which seemed a bit rash for me).  I gained two pounds.  The doctor was amazed and perplexed.  I was bilked and promptly quit him.

Then I tried Dr. Simeon's diet.  On 500 calories PLUS hcg, I was able to lose weight.  Without the hcg, I did not lose.  But as soon as I quit it, I was on the train to gain, and I could not stop that train or get off or slow it.  I was back up within weeks to the weight I had prior to the diet.  I tried Simeon's diet again and again, but I still could not maintain my lower weight though I did lose fabulously.  I finally figured out why, and I have corrected that problem in my most recent of five tries to lose weight.  If I can bear to do it again, I think I will be able to maintain the loss this time.  But 500 calories is a rough eating pattern, and when I do it, I must be very, very strict with what I eat and very regimented.  I am not so good at that.  I don't like to feel weak from lack of food or feed sick from withdrawals.  I also don't like the nervousness that seems to accompany quick weight loss.  But it is a way for me.

I am still looking for a way of eating that will work for me for the remainder of my life.  Nothing so far done has changed my extremely great ability to store fat, and I continue to be a storage facility.

Recently I received an email about how pigs are being fed a particular supplement that keeps their intestinal tract from getting dangerous, contagious diarrhea.  (I raise beef cattle, and this was about feed.)  I have been told that everything that your system needs runs through your intestinal tract, and if it is not healthy, you're not healthy.  As a result, I have been considering that the fix needs to, at least, start there.  So I began to look it up to see what that product did.  And this is how I found Lex Rooker.

I have been told that meat will cause cancer.  I am a meat lover, and this is not good news to me.  I have been known to eat only meat in a day's time because it satisfies my hunger, and I don't want anything else to eat when I am full on meat.  But since being told that meat causes cancer, I've been inclined to cut some of it from my diet.  I even considered, briefly and with great trepedation, changing to a vegetarian or vegan.  But veggies are just unappealing to me, and they neither taste good or fill me up--and then there is the fact that I can't grow all my own, so I don't much want to eat the chemicals that I know are in them. 

But here is Lex Rooker who is eating a lot of meat, and although it is common that men do have prostate problems (and Lex did not have the best start in his life with all the problems he encountered as a young child), this proclamation that meat causes cancer might not be true.

In coming here, I also discovered Owlsley "Bear" Stanley.  I am in the process of reading his views on meat eating (about 25% through).  It is fascinating that he was almost entirely a meat eater--I say this because he also ate some chilis, cheese, garlic and other spices though he said he ate only 5% carbs (which seems correct from what I see in his diet).  I also noticed that he had cancer (though it was finally attributed to the HPV in his tonsils) which caused destruction of half of his vocal cords.  He also had a coronary bypass.  This is also a threat from the powers that be to meat eaters, and my dad died of a massive heart attack as well as my uncle, and my aunt has had a bypass, and my cousin (age 61) had a small heart attack also.  My great grandmother also had heart issues.  Dad was a big meat eater, but he was a big eater of everything.  He was 280 when he died and about 25% over weight.

I have done Atkins prior to most of my fight with obesity, and I have re-considered trying it again with more meat and fat and less veggies.  The last time I did Atkins, I found that eating more than 20 carbs a day made me not lose weight, and eating more than 35 made me gain!  So much for Atkins and 100 carbs a day.  Bear said Atkins sold out, and I tend to agree, at least for me, he did because his set points on carbs are way too high for me.

But I realize that, for me, eating meat is likely going to be an answer to my problem.  I like it, it agrees with me, and if I had to eat only one food type, I would eat meat (though nuts would be a hard giveaway).   It matters little.  I will be required to eat meat, and if, eating it, I can become thinner, then I will be happy.  If it shortens my life (as suggested) then I will have to live a shorter life.  However, I believe obesity is more likely to shorten my life because of the fat and extremely insulin that my body seems to want to produce when I eat carbs.  (I have had a BG of 545 at one time.)

One more point I would like to make about vegetables and other kinds of food.  Increasingly, the big companies (Monsanto) are stepping into production of plants.  They have created GMO products that we are to eat without knowledge of their safety.  They have created bug poisons that we are to eat without knowledge of their safety.  Farmers have no choice in many cases whether or not to use their products, and frankly, it seems to me that these products are showing themselves to be not good for a body.  I believe more like Bear that our bodies were likely not meant to eat vegetables on a regular basis (in spite of the threats by vegans and vegetarians that it is extremely dangerous to eat meat and the FDA that insists that vegetables are required for a healthy lifestyle).  I have also concluded that dairy (also a highly manipulated and covered up industry) is generally not for adults which is another idea that Bear had.   However, eating meat that is from the feedlot (another highly manipulated product) is, IMHO, not wisdom.  I know what the feedlots put in their meat, and I do not believe the FDA's promise that the meat is free of the chemicals after short periods.  I will note that few ranchers eat feedlot beef, and you would be surprised how many of them live to be in their 80s and 90s.  Therefore, we elected to grow our own beeves, and I believe it is safer and wiser to eat meat from animals that are not given chemicals in the last few weeks of their lives.

Yesterday I restarted Atkins.  The last time I so craved carbs in the first few weeks that I couldn't continue.  I anticipate that this will happen again.  I am not sure how to deal with that, and so I thought I might, this time, eat carbs for a meal or eat small amounts of carbs when I am craving them badly.  I suppose, over time, I can incline myself to quit them because IMHO they are like a drug, and quitting them becomes such a severe craving that it is hard to resist and hard to overcome.  I am not sure how that will work, but at least it will help me take off some of my weight which scares me.  I am not at all inclined to suffer, and I don't do suffering well, and unlike Lex, I have not been a marathon runner, and in fact, discovered I have what is called Exercise Asthma (which means that highly stressing my lungs causes them to do poorly).  This adds another problem to my issues with obesity.

Family Health History

My great grandmother was warned ten years before her death that she was either going to take off the weight (she was more obese than I am) or she would not live another two years.  She lost most of it, and she died a relatively thin woman.  She also had been a big meat eater, and like dad, enjoyed her food.  She had been diagnosed with arrthymia.  My great grandmother, Granny Drake, lived to be 97.  Her daughter, my grandmother Nell, died at 84.  My dad (and his brother) died of massive heart attacks while in their early 50s.  No one else in the family of eight died prior to their 70s (with my last uncle on my dad's side (the last of the boys and the youngest) having died in his mid 70s).  My oldest aunt, Alice Marie, died of pancreatic cancer at 83.  Second oldest, Charlotte is still alive but did have a bypass.  Jackie and Della Jane died from Alzheimers complications in their early 80s and late 70s respectively.  Pat, my uncle died from lymphoma at 75.  (Cancer in my family is minimal and differentiated in types.  I am told it could well be because the family lived in Idaho when the atomic clouds passed over there which some attribute to higher cancer rates.)  Heart issues are more prevalent on my dad's side of the family.

My mother's father, Otto, had lower than normal blood temperature--in the 97 degree range from my recollection.  He was 80 when he had a stroke and died a few weeks later.  His wife, Elizabeth, died at about 82 from a combination of Parkinson's and poor care at the nursing home.  My mother's sister got cervical cancer and died at about 55.  My mother's brother is in his 90s and still alive last I heard.  My mother died 10/20/10 at 90 from improper care in the hospital.  She did not have any health issues that are inherited (except possibly cataracts) and had a slight stroke.

A Little of My Health Information

I was diagnosed with arrthymia when I was pregnant with my second son.  I had not been diagnosed with it prior to that time, and the MD that diagnosed me said that it was not uncommon for a woman to get arrthymia during pregnancy and often it did not continue.  I have noticed that I do still have arrthymia, but it has now become a longer, faster than normal heartbeat at times--a racing feeling (which is how it has always felt) that has increased in length of time.

Until my 4th son, I had maintained my weight at about 140-150, and at 5'5", that is just a little over weight.  With my 4th son, I gained 50 pounds and could not take it off after the c-section.  I discovered after about ten years of wondering why I couldn't lose the weight, much to my chagrin,  that the doctors cut women's stomach muscles and do not repair them after a c section.  Since a person's core muscles are some of the most used muscles in their body (and the largest), it was no wonder I gained and could not lose.  I had lost the function of these large muscles that helped me use the energy I was eating.  Therefore, I could not lose a pound, and I eventually gained another 30 pounds.  (I have considered a tummy tuck which would sew those muscles together again, but I was told that it can create more problems than the ones I have.  I am not sure of that, but I have hesitated so far.)

With the increased care of the elderly these days, I imagine I should live to be at least 90; however, with the insulin problems I have and with the increased weight, I may not if I cannot fix that problem.  And with the heart issues in my family, it is probably a good idea to get my weight down.  Eating solely/mainly meat might be my answer.  So I am now in the process of researching it. 

Like Lex, I am an avid researcher, and I do not start on a project without doing a lot of research and knowing what I am doing.  So this is my first foray into the art of eating meat as a sole (or mostly sole) dietary experience.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Your comment (above) was something I needed to respond to because of my own experience.  Although I cannot speak for the majority of others, only myself, what you say you thought you read that high body temperature means better fertility is IMHO a fallacy for women.

My normal body temperature is 97.6 although it seems to be getting lower in the last few years and now tests even at 97.4 (maybe the type of thermometer they are now using).  When I take it orally myself, even when I feel like I have a temperature, it is no more than 98.4 normally.  If I take it when I feel well, it is always in the 97s.

When I was younger (I am Lex's age), I could stand by a man and get pregnant.  I used all kinds of birth control methods, and I would get pregnant immediately if I didn't carefully meet the requirements of the device or pill.  I have had eight or nine pregnancies; however, I have also had only four children (probably because of the damage done to my uterus during my first delivery).

Therefore, I do not believe that a low body temperature is indicative of infertility. 

I do believe I have, as a family history, a lower basal metabolic rate.  I have found also that doing the patch test, I absorb the iodine within four to seven hours.  I have done it twice in two days now, and this morning, I put the iodine on my skin at about 7, and it is 11, and very light now.  It will probably be gone in another two or three hours.  Although I have painted myself with iodine, consistency is not my forte, and so I do it as I remember or am reminded, although the spot has never lasted 24 hours on me.

I am very interested in changing my diet to meat only (or mostly), so I will be continue to read about Lex’s progress and how he has managed his meat only diet.

Thank you for sharing your experience with us.  I do believe that experiences that people have with diets are a great way to discover what is best for a person’s body and to change to help yourself stay healthy.  I am not afraid of death, but if I had my choice, it would be after a long, healthy life.



Questions for Lex Rooker:

Could it be possible that Bear (Owlsley) had a heart attack from eating meat which caused arthrosclerosis?  Do you have any indications that you have artery problems?  If not, do you have any history of this in your family?  What reasons would you attribute to your having/not having heart issues?  Do you believe meat causes heart attacks eventually?

Is it possible that meat has caused your prostate problem?  Could it be that the prostate is particularly sensitive to the chemicals in meat (from the feedlot) and that eating “organic” or “all natural” meat would be best?

Would it be a good idea to include herbs in your regimen for prostate problems?  http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Top_Ten_Herbs_for_Prostate_Health_a1435.html (http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Top_Ten_Herbs_for_Prostate_Health_a1435.html)




Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: LePatron7 on November 26, 2012, 04:00:57 am
there's lots of info that cooked meat leadS to cancer. look into HCA's.

the same thing applies to cooked fat.

raw meat and Raw fats don't have those same problems.

I noticed I lost a lot of weight on raw paleo. but on a sad diet I gain weight very quickly. good luck and welcome to the forum.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TexasLady on November 26, 2012, 08:48:44 am
Thank you for the welcome.

Wow!  I guess I thought that the "raw" in RAW was rare.  I have to think about whether I can eat raw or not.  hmmm  I have eaten Lynx, but it was cooked.

So what is a "sad" diet?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: LePatron7 on November 26, 2012, 09:37:20 am
SAD diet = standard american diet.

Raw meat is actually perfectly safe when its grass fed beef, lamb, buffalo, etc. consider looking into it more before abandoning the idea.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 01, 2012, 01:06:34 am
Questions for Lex Rooker:

Could it be possible that Bear (Owlsley) had a heart attack from eating meat which caused arthrosclerosis?  Do you have any indications that you have artery problems?  If not, do you have any history of this in your family?  What reasons would you attribute to your having/not having heart issues?  Do you believe meat causes heart attacks eventually?

It certainly could be that Owsley's heart attack and cancer were caused by eating a meat heavy diet but I don't have any basis for thinking so.  Millions of people get heart disease and cancer eating a carb centric diet.  There just isn't enough information available to know what caused Owsley's problems.

I have no indications of heart or artery disease at this time.  Males in my family tend to die early but none that I know of were attributed to heart disease.  My great grandfather, grandfather, and father all died between 80 and 85.

I can't attribute anything to my lack of heart disease.  I don't even know if I have heart disease - only that I have no symptoms of heart disease at this time.  My arteries could be clogging as I write this.  The thing is, I don't care.  If I die from a heart attack tomorrow, so be it.  You see, I don't care about living a very long life.  I care about having a very high quality life while I'm alive.  What good is living to 100 if for the last 15 to 20 years you are unable to do the things you love to do?   I'd prefer to die early than to live the last years of my life with dementia or some other major disability.

What I believe doesn't matter.  If meat causes heart attacks or doesn't cause heart attacks isn't changed by what I believe.  What I can say is that I have no evidence that meat causes heart attacks anymore than carbs or any other single item causes heart attacks.

Is it possible that meat has caused your prostate problem?  Could it be that the prostate is particularly sensitive to the chemicals in meat (from the feedlot) and that eating organic or “all natural” meat would be best?

I had the prostate condition before I started eating meat.  In fact, I developed it when I was eating a mostly vegan/vegetarian diet.  Maybe it was the carbs that caused it.

I eat grassfed meat that is raised with no chemicals or hormones.  I don't' eat "organic" meat because the label "organic" is meaningless.  You can feed cows grain which is not their natural diet and label the meat organic.


Would it be a good idea to include herbs in your regimen for prostate problems?  http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Top_Ten_Herbs_for_Prostate_Health_a1435.html (http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Top_Ten_Herbs_for_Prostate_Health_a1435.html)

I've tried all sorts of herbal remedies and none of them have worked.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: edwardBe on December 22, 2012, 01:57:56 am
Lex,

If you haven't looked at it yet, CLA is reported to block metastasis of prostate tumors in mice. The Caveman doctor has a page on it and other ketosis related therapies:
http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2012/01/23/can-eating-fat-stop-cancer-in-its-tracks-what-is-cla-and-why-do-we-care (http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2012/01/23/can-eating-fat-stop-cancer-in-its-tracks-what-is-cla-and-why-do-we-care)

Edward
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 22, 2012, 02:40:13 am
Edward,
I eat about 95% grass-fed beef which is one of the higher sources of CLA listed in the post you linked.  Not sure what more I could do.  What I can say is that eating grass-fed meat (and hence relatively large amounts of CLA) hasn't cured or stopped the progress of my BPH problems.  That is why I'm currently experimenting with the iodine protocol.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on December 22, 2012, 02:59:04 am
I know you loathe herbal products but their previous lack of success may have been due to practising them during your raw vegan days, perhaps?   Also, since you eat some part of your foods cooked, you might very well find that you get a prostate improvement if you go all-raw, since various  types of heat-created toxins do play a major role in prostate cancer:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22206663 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22206663)

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cooked-meats (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cooked-meats)

Given that you already eat a lot raw in your diet already, you would probably need to try the above all-raw version for somewhat longer than your usual past trials, in order to see if it works long-term. After all, your prostate might be particularly prone to small amounts of such heat-created toxins.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 24, 2012, 01:26:37 pm
I don't know Tyler.  I eat so little cooked food, maybe 2 times per month and then it is cooked blu (grill marks but cold and raw under the surface), that I don't see how this could be much of a factor.  If we humans are that sensitive I'm not sure how our species have survived this long.

Have tried several herbal remedies in the last several years and none of them have had any effect whatever.  Some were recommended by my doctor.  If there had been any improvement at all I'd have mentioned it here in my journal.  I know others are afflicted with the same condition and all of us are looking for relief.

Still working on the iodine protocol.  Will know in July if it has had any significant effect.  At this point there is less urgency, a small but measurable increase in time between urination, and a small increase in voided volume, but certianly not the Holy Grail of an overnight cure.  At this point improvements are small and slow in coming.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on December 24, 2012, 04:11:15 pm
Oh, I'd thought you were eating  quite a bit of pemmican. My mistake.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on December 24, 2012, 07:41:45 pm
I don't know Tyler.  I eat so little cooked food, maybe 2 times per month and then it is cooked blu (grill marks but cold and raw under the surface), that I don't see how this could be much of a factor.  If we humans are that sensitive I'm not sure how our species have survived this long.
To survive, a specie only needs to be able to reproduce, as Seignalet noted here in point 4  (http://www.rawtimes.com/anopsy3.html):

Quote
As it happens, selective pressure is low. The ailments caused by modern foods only show up in later life, and further, do not hinder reproduction.
The amount of health troubles is not linearly proportional to the  percent of cooked food in the diet. Moreover, there’s no proportionality between these troubles and the cooking temperature — at least that's what our experiments and real life experiences have shown.

Best wishes
François
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 25, 2012, 12:56:28 am
Oh, I'd thought you were eating  quite a bit of pemmican. My mistake.

Actually I eat very little pemmican.  I take it with me when traveling in case I can't find a decent meal and that is only a couple of times per year.  I ate pemmican for 3 meals total last year while attending a seminar.  We were a captive audiance and they had our meals catered.  It was one of the rare times that I found almost nothing edible.  Every meal was a pasta dish with garlic bread and an iceberg lettuce salad with Thousand Island dressing and a single cherry tomato to brighten things up.   Sodas, Gatoraid, or pre-sweetened ice tea were the beverage choices.  I ate pemmican and drank water for that 3 days.

Other than that I eat fresh meat and only eat cooked meat for two monthly luncheons that are held at a local steak house.  It makes commercial steak houses nervous if you order raw as they are afraid that if you get sick you'll sue them.  It's just easier for all concerned to order it extra extra rare.  Makes the restaurant feel like they've met the health codes by putting the meat on the grill for a few seconds, and for my part the meat is mostly raw with just a few grill marks on it. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on December 25, 2012, 10:59:52 am
Lex,  I thought you had written where you now process/render most or all your fat (with heat) ?   I still enjoy putting my back fat through the meat grinder with small sieve (connective tissue and all) and then placing it (in bowl) into a large pot of water that's around 100f.  After  some minutes, depending on how much fat and what temperature it started at, it starts to separate, liquids and solids.   It has the most delicious flavor, with a golden color like melted butter.    I like to make it fresh each time, for I believe the meat grinder ads air into the fat and the combination of air and gentle temp oxidizes it to some degree.    Some day I would love to bite into freshly killed back fat, still warm,,, to compare to days old fat that's been either aged or wrapped or refridgerated.   I doubt in nature fat on any killed animal lasted more than a day or two before all the scavengers gorged on it first along with the organs. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 25, 2012, 04:31:18 pm
Van,
I always have lots of rendered fat around as I make a lot of pemmican during demos.  I've gone through phases where I used mostly rendered fat in my food mix as it is easiest to store, but for quite some time I've gone back to using ground suet for my mix.  Just tastes better.  If Slankers is out of Suet or fat then I'll go back to using rendered fat for a month but will return to suet again when it is available.

The only fat from freshly killed animals that I've had much exposure to is bloated dead cats and dogs on the side of the road.  Not overly appetizing to me.  Most of the fat I'm exposed to comes in plastic bags or shrink wrap packages from meat suppliers or the local market.  Maybe if I was younger I'd be excited about putting on a coon skin cap and foraging for fresh meat, but at this point in my life I prefer to spend what time I have left working in my shop.  Admittedly my shop is not paleo, but it brings me joy.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alive on December 26, 2012, 04:39:32 am
Hi lex, have you tried tumeric and black pepper as a very strong anti cancer effect?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Roxann on December 27, 2012, 03:41:13 am
Hi Lex,

I want to get the buffalo 1 1/2 lb pet food from Slankers. How long do you thaw it? Thanks.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Roxann on December 30, 2012, 02:31:18 am
I have my answer. I let it thaw at room temperature for about six hours and started eating it. It's the high organ mix.  I like it. I may make this the mainstay of my diet.

I hope you are doing well.

Roxann
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 31, 2012, 03:46:01 am
Alive - No, I haven't tried those specific herbs.  I find that most of the herb hype is just that, hype.  All the sure fire herbal cures that I have tried haven't worked at all.

Roxann - I thaw my meat until it is no longer frozen.  No specific time.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on December 31, 2012, 04:08:51 am
Another myth busted, at least for me.

My wife had a medical procedure recently that ended up with complications.  This had me cooling my heels in the waiting room of our local hospital for several hours with all the uninsured kids with runny noses and the flu.

Of course I’m very smug in my knowledge that I’m well protected against such common ills as I’m doing all the right things.  I’m eating the proper raw foods, taking large doses of Vitamin C every day,  I’m taking large doses of Zinc daily (the active ingredient in Zicam), I’m taking large doses of selenium daily, and of course, I’m taking large doses of iodine – to the point that my skin has turned yellow.

Yup, I ended up with the common cold.  Sore throat, runny nose, swollen sinuses, hacking cough – the whole nine yards.  It’s been 5 or 6 years since I had a cold like this.  I expect many of you are sure that this is some sort of detox reaction.  I’m unconvinced.  It looks like a common cold, feels like a common cold, and coughs like a common cold – that tells me that it is probably a common cold.  I’ve also had the best medical doctors available (the ones attending to my wife in the hospital for the last 5 days) verify that it is indeed a common cold. 

Anyway, so much for all the theories about perfect diet, Vitamin C, Zinc, and iodine protecting us from things like the cold and flu.  I now have some personal experience to the contrary.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: eveheart on December 31, 2012, 04:28:51 am
It’s been 5 or 6 years since I had a cold like this.

Well, you beat the odds by a whole lot. I don't know the exact figures, but I'm sure that "colds per year" in the US runs in the 1 to 3 range. You're doing a great job.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 31, 2012, 05:45:54 am
I’m taking large doses of Zinc daily (the active ingredient in Zicam)
My understanding is that the dose of zinc in Zicam is homeopathic strength (meaning nonexistent--see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zicam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zicam)). If you want a zinc supplement, I recommend taking a chelated form like a zinc/copper amino acid chelate. Chelated forms of zinc are more absorbable and less harsh on the stomach than cheaper zinc supplements and will likely provide much more zinc than Zicam. Though if you don't notice any symptom improvement from a zinc supplement, then I wouldn't bother with any and would try to get zinc from foods.

Quote
I’m taking large doses of iodine – to the point that my skin has turned yellow.
Hmmm, that sounds a bit unnerving. Could you be overdoing it?

Quote
Anyway, so much for all the theories about perfect diet, Vitamin C, Zinc, and iodine protecting us from things like the cold and flu.  I now have some personal experience to the contrary.
One cold in 5 years does sound like partial protection/defense, just not total protection. I don't think anything offers total protection. I also get fewer and less severe colds and "flus" than I used to, though I'm also not totally immune and didn't expect that raw Paleo would make me so.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on December 31, 2012, 05:49:19 am
Another myth busted, at least for me.


Yup, I ended up with the common cold.  Sore throat, runny nose, swollen sinuses, hacking cough – the whole nine yards.  It’s been 5 or 6 years since I had a cold like this. 

Anyway, so much for all the theories about perfect diet, Vitamin C, Zinc, and iodine protecting us from things like the cold and flu.  I now have some personal experience to the contrary.

Lex

Not so fast! If it's true that vitamin C is required for the proper digestion of carbohydrates, then you have been overdosing.  "An excess is as good as a poison".
I read somewhere that carnivore bodies use citric acid for similar purpose, and have for years occasionally used a drink of 1/2 lemon juice with a large pinch of dried seawater in a cup of water after the evening meal,
Got citric acid from purebulk.com, haven't tried it yet - still have lemons.

It might be at least 8 years since I had a cold, nothing noticeable anyway, but I get a break for months as it's too cold for the cold virus. Should be -18C/0F tonight.
Learned that in the High Arctic - nobody gets sick if they avoid newcomers from the South.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 31, 2012, 05:56:15 am
Zinc I get from live raw oysters.
Try oysters... it will raise your sperm count to fantastic levels.
I bet your zinc supplement can't raise sperm count levels.
In 2002 when I was into SAD, introducing raw oysters as lunch 3 times a week in 1 month raised my sperm count from 100 million per ml to 300 million per ml.

Vitamin C I get from fresh raw guava.  At the wet market.  And lately we have a tree.
Also get Vitamin C from papaya. 

--------

Sharing my experience maybe 2010.

My wife and 3 kids acquired colds cough and phlegm and I eventually had a cold myself.

Which led me to suspect environmental causes. (Since raw paleo dieters usually do not get colds.)

Found out eventually our house which was submerged months previously in a flood still had 8 sacks of fine dirt was mud in the 6 inch attic space.

Plus later on we found a leaking water pipe in the wall between our shower and storage room.  This was also giving out bad fungus smell which was making us sick.

-----------

Also my experience with Chicken Pox when my kids got it.

I was not immune from Chicken Pox and I got it as well.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on December 31, 2012, 11:22:10 am
GS, didn't you get a chicken pox/smallpox vaccine as a child? All westerners do.

William has a point. I am always amused by my Mother who insisted always in the past that one got colds from being out in the cold. Not true at all. The viruses lie dormant then.

As regards Lex's cold, I got a flu once, 4 years into being rawpalaeo. it could not be described as "detox" as I had clearly gotten it from my brother who'd just been recovering from a severe bout of flu himself.

As regards the excess artificial , processed forms of zinc:- all a waste of time, as GS has pointed out, zinc in the form of raw, wildcaught oysters is far superior. By all means carry on trying the iodine protocol, but I am highly dubious.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 31, 2012, 12:55:40 pm
Well, you beat the odds by a whole lot. I don't know the exact figures, but I'm sure that "colds per year" in the US runs in the 1 to 3 range. You're doing a great job.

Lex is rarely around children, in large workplaces, or in hospitals.  Basically, he's almost never exposed.  I think that's the main reason he hasn't gotten sick.

Hospitals have some of the worst germs/viruses around. it's not surprising he got sick.

I still get sick, but I don't feel particularly bad, physically, when I do.  Mainly just mucus and a stuffy nose.  Not fun, but I'm still able to work. OTOH, my SAD-eating coworkers are often out of work for DAYS when they get the same cold/flu that I do. 

It's nice to be more robust. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on December 31, 2012, 03:53:12 pm
 
William has a point. I am always amused by my Mother who insisted always in the past that one got colds from being out in the cold. Not true at all. The viruses lie dormant then.
The worst cold I got was by 32° C - 90° F (about night and day) in Sri Lanka on the Indian Ocean shore. I was eating cooked food at the time, but also plenty of jackfruits and other fruits.

Quote
it could not be described as "detox" as I had clearly gotten it from my brother who'd just been recovering from a severe bout of flu himself.
Why not? Most (if not all) virus carry a fragment of DNA or RNA which apparently provides the body a complement of  genetic info allowing  a specific detox program — for new and noxious chemical species generated by cooking and other modern processes.

Why this idea that there’s a fundamental difference between a “common cold” and a “detox cold”? What would be the purpose of a “common cold” then ? What is coming out of a runny nose? Isn’t there something the body expels for some reason?

 A NEW THEORETICAL MODEL OF VIRAL PHENOMENA (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggvirus.html)

Quote
As regards the excess artificial , processed forms of zinc:- all a waste of time, as GS has pointed out, zinc in the form of raw, wildcaught oysters is far superior. By all means carry on trying the iodine protocol, but I am highly dubious.
I concur. We don’t need pure chemical substances but minerals and trace elements included in living organisms, embedded in complex organic molecular structures.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Adora on January 01, 2013, 04:32:45 am
Lex I think "getting a cold" is evidence that your immune system is stong and functioning well, I wouldn't get a flu shoot even if I did belive they worked. 
  I work in a hospital, and care for people who die from the flu. I get the flu/colds, and I recover. It's like immune exercises, where you build resistance and excrete phlem.
    wipe your sore nose and be proud of how healthy you are, I doubt you'll die and if you let yourself rest a little you'll probably feel better than ever when you recover.
I hope so  ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 01, 2013, 06:42:01 am
@Phil - The zinc I take is a chelated form.  It is part of the iodine protocol that I'm working on for the BPH issue.  I take 50mg/day which is a fairly large dose.

@William - The Vit C is part of the iodine protocol and is considered very important if not critical to its success.  As I remember you are the one that recommended the iodine protocol in the first place and provided the links describing the critical co-factors of which Vitamin C is one.  I don't remember any disclaimer stating that if I don't eat a carb centric diet that I should not take vit C as part of the iodine protocol.   News to me.

@Cherimoya_Kid - Where do you get the idea that I'm seldom exposed to children or other sources of common infections?  Since we've never met, I'd be intersted in what evidence you have to support such a statement.  I'm sure the students of the classes I teach, the youth groups I support, the community organizations that I belong to, and my class mates at the local Jr College that I attend would be interested as well.

@Adora - Thanks for the kind words and thoughts.  I doubt that I'll die, well not today anyway.  Just wanted to let people know that no matter what you do, you are not immune from the everyday maladies the befall everyone.  So many people seem to think that there is some "perfect" lifestyle that will protect them from everything.  When I was young I believed this myself, then the realities of life got in the way and burst my bubble.  I try to report the good and the bad in my journal just so people know that there is no perfection in life, at least on on this earth.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 01, 2013, 08:45:43 am
@Phil - The zinc I take is a chelated form.  It is part of the iodine protocol that I'm working on for the BPH issue.  I take 50mg/day which is a fairly large dose.
Ah, OK. Thanks for the explanation.

As regards the excess artificial , processed forms of zinc:- all a waste of time, as GS has pointed out, zinc in the form of raw, wildcaught oysters is far superior.
For you, yes. For me, no. Chelated zinc supplements do work to raise my zinc levels, based on zinc tally tests, and they do work for me to get rid of acne breakouts if I eat too much carbs.

Shellfish aren't available year-round where I live, whereas zinc supplements are, and the supplements are far more convenient. I don't take them every day, but they come in handy when needed.

It's nice to be more robust.
Here, here.

Quote
Just wanted to let people know that no matter what you do, you are not immune from the everyday maladies the befall everyone. So many people seem to think that there is some "perfect" lifestyle that will protect them from everything.  When I was young I believed this myself, then the realities of life got in the way and burst my bubble.  I try to report the good and the bad in my journal just so people know that there is no perfection in life, at least on on this earth.
Thanks for those wise words, Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on January 01, 2013, 11:20:42 pm
@Phil - The zinc I take is a chelated form.  It is part of the iodine protocol that I'm working on for the BPH issue.  I take 50mg/day which is a fairly large dose.

@William - The Vit C is part of the iodine protocol and is considered very important if not critical to its success.  As I remember you are the one that recommended the iodine protocol in the first place and provided the links describing the critical co-factors of which Vitamin C is one.  I don't remember any disclaimer stating that if I don't eat a carb centric diet that I should not take vit C as part of the iodine protocol.   News to me.
Lex

The iodine protocol is made for the carbohydrate-addicted, and vit. C is necessary for them. Not so for us.
I bet that the idea that carnivores might try iodine has never occurred to the inventors.
I used to use vit. C to be rid of the foul taste of cigarettes, no longer needed since I started taking the ATP co-factors.

Beware zinc!   I can't find it in the iodine protocol at breastcancerchoices.org
It is a copper antagonist, and must have washed too much copper out of me, resulting in supposedly deadly heart arrhythmia. I took 30 mg/day with 2 gm. Vit. C for years, and did not know that it must be balanced with copper separately - IIRC about 4 hours separation.
There should be plenty of zinc in the raw beef you eat.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 02, 2013, 05:45:27 am


@Cherimoya_Kid - Where do you get the idea that I'm seldom exposed to children or other sources of common infections?  Since we've never met, I'd be intersted in what evidence you have to support such a statement.  I'm sure the students of the classes I teach, the youth groups I support, the community organizations that I belong to, and my class mates at the local Jr College that I attend would be interested as well.


Lex, teaching a few part-time classes is not the same as being in close contact, with recirculated air, 40+ hours a week, with several hundred co-workers.  In addition, even THAT kind of environment is nowhere near the germfest that a daycare or elementary school is.

So yeah, compared to many people's daily lives, you are NOT getting much exposure.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 02, 2013, 11:30:14 am
Lex, teaching a few part-time classes is not the same as being in close contact, with recirculated air, 40+ hours a week, with several hundred co-workers.  In addition, even THAT kind of environment is nowhere near the germfest that a daycare or elementary school is.

So yeah, compared to many people's daily lives, you are NOT getting much exposure.

For someone who has never met me and knows nothing about how I spend my time, your unwavering conviction in the accuracy of your assumtions is breathtaking.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 02, 2013, 11:41:17 am
The iodine protocol is made for the carbohydrate-addicted, and vit. C is necessary for them. Not so for us.
I bet that the idea that carnivores might try iodine has never occurred to the inventors.
I used to use vit. C to be rid of the foul taste of cigarettes, no longer needed since I started taking the ATP co-factors.

What evidence do you have that Vitamin C is not recommended as part of the iodine protocol for people eating a low carb diet?  I've found nothing to support this.


Quote
Beware zinc!   I can't find it in the iodine protocol at breastcancerchoices.org
It is a copper antagonist, and must have washed too much copper out of me, resulting in supposedly deadly heart arrhythmia. I took 30 mg/day with 2 gm. Vit. C for years, and did not know that it must be balanced with copper separately - IIRC about 4 hours separation.
There should be plenty of zinc in the raw beef you eat.

The suggestion for supplementing with zinc came from a pub-med extract.  I decided to go with it for the relative short term of this experiement.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 02, 2013, 11:45:55 am
For someone who has never met me and knows nothing about how I spend my time, your unwavering conviction in the accuracy of your assumtions is breathtaking.

Lex

Dude, you don't have a job.  You don't have small children, and you're not confined with hundreds of other people in an enclosed space with recirculated air for 40+ hours a week, or anything like it.  You simply don't have the exposure.  However, there are plenty of people who DO have FAR more exposure than you.  My wife works in a daycare.  Daycares are the most germ-ridden places around.  Those kids carry communicable diseases that I've never even heard of.  I am exposed by proxy to those germs, and sometimes directly, when I visit her at work. 

For the last 7 years or so, I've worked mainly in large offices and call centers, where literally hundreds of people, many/most of whom have small children under the age of 8 at home, all breathe the same air for 40 hours a week or more. 

You've been pretty clear about how proud you are that you've retired young.  Well, some of us have to work for a living.  That sometimes means being around the most snot-covered and germ-ridden members of our species, small children. It also can mean being around the parents of such children.  In my family, it's both.

I'll be happy to link you to the relevant studies about infectious disease vectors in our country, if you'd like.  And drop the attitude, please, OK?  You're trying my patience.  No one cares about your feelings.  this is a fact-based message board.  ROFL
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: eveheart on January 02, 2013, 01:23:34 pm
What evidence do you have that Vitamin C is not recommended as part of the iodine protocol for people eating a low carb diet?  I've found nothing to support this.

The reduced need for Vitamin C is mentioned in Gary Taubes Why We Get Fat... book. He states:
Quote
Vitamin C is the one vitamin that is relatively scarce in animal products. But it appears to be the case, as it certainly is for the B vitamins, that the more fattening carbohydrates we consume, the more of these vitamins we need. We use B vitamins to metabolize glucose in our cells. So, the more carbohydrates we consume, the more glucose we burn (instead of fatty acids), and the more B vitamins we need from our diets.

Taubes, Gary (2010-12-28). Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It (p. 176). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Of course, he is not directing his remarks to your iodine protocol, but it's a thought that might apply. HTH
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on January 02, 2013, 01:32:56 pm
What evidence do you have that Vitamin C is not recommended as part of the iodine protocol for people eating a low carb diet?  I've found nothing to support this.
Lex

None, providing that it isn't consumed at the same time as iodine. I've tried it, and found no benefit.
Your circumstance might be different; if it helps I hope you will let us know.

I can't resist the snot-nosed kids stuff - The Germ theory of Disease is Dead! No kidding.
I thought we all knew that malnutrition is the cause of practically all disease.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 02, 2013, 02:02:10 pm


I can't resist the snot-nosed kids stuff - The Germ theory of Disease is Dead! No kidding.
I thought we all knew that malnutrition is the cause of practically all disease.

William, this is off topic for this thread.  Start another thread if you want to have that particular argument, please.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sabertooth on January 03, 2013, 04:50:31 am
This is all highly speculative theory, but it seems to fit the discussion.

I tend to take the AV stance on viral illness, and view viral outbreaks as a necessary though sometimes painful and unpleasant cleansing process, at the very least. I suspect there may be a more divine purpose at work within the biological matrix which virus are an integral part. Imagine the possibility that the emergence of a virus is triggered by some type of internally driven genetic response to environmentally adverse circumstances. By spreading through the population and inducing similar purgative reactions in other members of the same species, perhaps viral outbreaks are a way of maintaining genetic homogeneity and viability within the population as a whole. Not only do they cleanse and purge, but the can also alter the functions of our DNA leading to mutation and contributing to the process of adaption and evolution. Those organisms within the population who are in most need of purging waste or coping with deficiency or imbalance will of course have the most severe reactions, while the purest and most physically and genetically robust may only have a slight sniffle.

This is why suppressing viral outbreaks artificially through drugs and vaccines, due to the ignorance of the medical establishment is so insane. Evidence now shows that children who are not allowed to go through the childhood viral cleanse, such as chicken pox, hpv, measles, etc; while at the same time being shot up with genetically engineered viral strains, are being genetically culled and mutilated. This generation being raised in the age of socialized medicine as a result will be more prone to degenerative diseases that are now starting earlier in life. Their offspring will be less able to naturally adapt to environmental change, and it will ultimately lead to a Devolution of the species if these conditions of ignorance persist.

Medical science is either suppressing these new discovers, or perhaps is just ignorant of the implications of such an alternative theory. Either way the results are devastating.

There is still so much that isn't understood about viral illness, that its ludicrous for anyone PHD or Caveman like myself to make assumptions regarding causation of the common cold. From personal experience I can say that after going raw paleo my own chronic viral outbreaks have ceased. The year prior to going raw paleo I caught hand foot and mouth disease, viral meningitis, swine flu, and K-9 pravo. These were some severe purging reactions, it was a painful hell that I thought I wouldn't escape from. Looking back, honestly I think it was all biologically necessary(pain is just weakness leaving the body) and for all I know it may have lead to some kind of mutation that will better the next generations chance of survival in this ever changing world. Whatever the case was; These chronic recurring outbreaks have ceased after going paleo, and now when everyone gets full blow cold, I will often feel just a little off for a day, if any symptoms at all.

There are so many factors and co-factors involved that no one can be sure, considering how complicated the world has become in these post paleolithic epochs, but I believe that personally my chronic viral sickness was a combination toxicity and nutritional deficiency. These are the big two factors to consider. The dynamics of these two factors are different in every individual case, so much so, that modern medicine has yet to fully understand the implications and complications of such revelations as it pertains to treating diseases of civilization ;or even the common cold.



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ys on January 03, 2013, 05:30:57 am
Quote
Sore throat, runny nose, swollen sinuses, hacking cough – the whole nine yards.

This is totally normal body response for unfamiliar virus strain.  The stronger the immune system the milder the response.   One little cold in 5-6 years - not bad at all.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on January 03, 2013, 05:05:12 pm
IMHO it is just your body that uses the virus to detox a bit. ;)
Remember you have taken massive amounts of Iodine last months... and was also suprized you got no detox.. now you have it! ;)

I myself am waiting to get a cold.. because I want to test if the CT (icecold dips in the river) would help the healing. But none so far. Argh. I would use it as a nice opportunity to test stuff out. :)
The cold is said to activate a pathway in our bodies, it works like a rush of vitamin C. I am very curious if it works.

A Russian family friend told me his mom that grew up in Siberia always took a icebath when she got the flu. They had no doctors there, and that was their own cure. It worked. She was always healthy the next day. Amazing in my view.. and totally the opposite that we learn in western medicine!

Lex, maybe you could do this experiment for me? :)
I do not know though, if it works only if you are cold adapted.. and I do not know if you are living in a heated environment all winter long..
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 03, 2013, 11:06:52 pm
IMHO it is just your body that uses the virus to detox a bit. ;)
Remember you have taken massive amounts of Iodine last months... and was also suprized you got no detox.. now you have it! ;)

I myself am waiting to get a cold.. because I want to test if the CT (icecold dips in the river) would help the healing. But none so far. Argh. I would use it as a nice opportunity to test stuff out. :)
The cold is said to activate a pathway in our bodies, it works like a rush of vitamin C. I am very curious if it works.

A Russian family friend told me his mom that grew up in Siberia always took a icebath when she got the flu. They had no doctors there, and than was their own cure. It worked. She was always healthy the next day. Amazing in my view.. and totally the opposite that we learn in western medicine!

Lex, maybe you could do this experiment for me? :)
I do not know though, if it works only if you are cold adapted.. and I do not know if you are living in a heated environment all winter long..

Lex lives in San Diego.  It very rarely gets below freezing there, even at night. He could probably still use ice in bathwater, though.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 04, 2013, 12:32:06 pm
Lex, maybe you could do this experiment for me? :)
I do not know though, if it works only if you are cold adapted.. and I do not know if you are living in a heated environment all winter long.. 

Chermioya Kid is right about where I live - well almost right.  I live in Los Angeles not San Diego but it is all about the same.  We think it's freezing when the temperature drops to 50F.  I had a friend in my teens who grew up in Switzerland.  We would take a trip to the snow in Kings Canyon National Park during Christmas break.  A friend had a cabin near a stream with a swimming hole we'd use during the summer.  She'd break the ice covering the swimming hole to go skinny-dipping mid winter.  I was never that brave.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 04, 2013, 01:17:54 pm
Chermioya Kid is right about where I live - well almost right.  I live in Los Angeles not San Diego but it is all about the same.  We think it's freezing when the temperature drops to 50F.  I had a friend in my teens who grew up in Switzerland.  We would take a trip to the snow in Kings Canyon National Park during Christmas break.  A friend had a cabin near a stream with a swimming hole we'd use during the summer.  She'd break the ice covering the swimming hole to go skinny-dipping mid winter.  I was never that brave.

Yeah, I found it funny/bizarre to see Angelenos in heavy parkas in 45-degree weather, looking cold and miserable.

In Costa Rica it's the same way, I walk around in sandals and shorts, and the locals start wearing parkas when it gets below 55 F.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 04, 2013, 01:45:03 pm
Cherimoya Kid,
Again your faith in your assumptions about someone whom you know very little about amazes me.    Experience taught me early on that I can't predict much about another person's life from the limited information they reveal about themselves in public, and that includes forums, blogs, and social websites.  I also learned the hard way, that as a supervisor and manager for 30 years in a fortune 500 company, I couldn't accurately predict much about a co-worker or employee's home life from their behaviour at work.

I wouldn't bet the farm on your assumptions about me.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 04, 2013, 02:15:34 pm
Cherimoya Kid,
Again your faith in your assumptions about someone whom you know very little about amazes me.    Experience taught me early on that I can't predict much about another person's life from the limited information they reveal about themselves in public, and that includes forums, blogs, and social websites.  I also learned the hard way, that as a supervisor and manager for 30 years in a fortune 500 company, I couldn't accurately predict much about a co-worker or employee's home life from their behaviour at work.

I wouldn't bet the farm on your assumptions about me.

Lex

Dude, you run your mouth about your wealth here on a regular basis.  It's a turnoff to those of us who live hand-to-mouth.  it's actually kind of disgusting.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on January 04, 2013, 02:54:45 pm
Lex, you should really do some cold for your prostate. I mean.. I do not want to nag.. but as you talk about your issues with your prostate often this could be a nice and cheap way to help healing.  :)
Cold is amazingly healing for the man parts. Maybe you could sit on a ice gel pack or something when you work? I bet it would help!
It is like.. everybody knows heat is NOT good for the prostate at all.. and as the heat destroys, cold heals.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on January 04, 2013, 05:25:17 pm
Dude, you run your mouth about your wealth here on a regular basis.  It's a turnoff to those of us who live hand-to-mouth.  it's actually kind of disgusting.
Err, CK, could you please calm down. This is Lex's personal thread, after all.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on January 04, 2013, 06:00:43 pm
Dude, you run your mouth about your wealth here on a regular basis.  It's a turnoff to those of us who live hand-to-mouth.  it's actually kind of disgusting.

He sounds like he worked his arse off.

On another angle...was it worth it Lex?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on January 04, 2013, 06:11:09 pm
He sounds like he worked his arse off.

On another angle...was it worth it Lex?

LOL Wodgina..
 I would say yes to the first statement and no to the second...  ;)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on January 04, 2013, 06:12:31 pm
We'll see Inger he always has some wisdom which is not lost on me!

Fancy a cold dip?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on January 04, 2013, 07:24:59 pm
Err, CK, could you please calm down. This is Lex's personal thread, after all.

Absolutely.  :o
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on January 04, 2013, 07:58:33 pm

Fancy a cold dip?

Anytime Wodgina! You want to join me?  :)
It is always more fun to CT with company! My icehole is big enough for two.  :) Although the river has gotten a bit flooded so to say because it has rained and as I dunked my head under the water today I was scared to float under the ice so I had to hold onto the stairs huh it was a bit complicated..
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on January 04, 2013, 10:26:55 pm
Wodgina needs it. Australia's currently in an appalling heat-wave.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 04, 2013, 10:29:57 pm
Lex, you should really do some cold for your prostate. I mean.. I do not want to nag.. but as you talk about your issues with your prostate often this could be a nice and cheap way to help healing.  :)
Cold is amazingly healing for the man parts. Maybe you could sit on a ice gel pack or something when you work? I bet it would help!
It is like.. everybody knows heat is NOT good for the prostate at all.. and as the heat destroys, cold heals.

Very interesting.  I might just ask my 76 year old father in law to try this.

Anytime Wodgina! You want to join me?  :)
It is always more fun to CT with company! My icehole is big enough for two.  :) Although the river has gotten a bit flooded so to say because it has rained and as I dunked my head under the water today I was scared to float under the ice so I had to hold onto the stairs huh it was a bit complicated..

Send us pics you guys!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Adora on January 05, 2013, 03:00:21 am
Lex I'm not trying to be pushy either, you could warm up under a blanket or in the sun shine and still have direct benefit of an ice pack. Some surgeries are sadly traumatic to genitalia, and nurses use ice packs to reduce inflammation in recovery. BPH is chronic and non-traumatic, but still inflammatory. So, there is some practicality. I'm super curious to know if it helps. It bothers my sense of rightness in the world that somebody who seems to have such a good thing going for his health would have this problem. I'm glad you've tried the iodine. Some men pee 700ml in there 80's. Hopefully that will be you.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 06, 2013, 03:35:05 am
Dude, you run your mouth about your wealth here on a regular basis.  It's a turnoff to those of us who live hand-to-mouth.  it's actually kind of disgusting.

CK - any wealth I have is due to CHOOSING to live hand-to-mouth for many years and then making good investment choices with what I was able to save.

No matter how little I made - often minimum wage - I found a way to save 10% - 15% which I invested.  I paid cash for everything I bought with the single exception of my house.  Didn't own a new car until I was 48.  I always drove cars that were at least 10 years old and then I drove them until the wheels fell off.  I don't think I owned a car that I didn't have at least 350K miles on it when it finally gave out.  I had one car that went over 750K.  Most of my cars had door panels and roof liners falling off by the time they needed a new engine and I had to find another one that I could afford to pay cash for.

When we bought our house in 1976 we went without furniture in most rooms for 12 years.  I bought used beds and dressers from thrift shops for us and the kids.  We had a 20 year old refrigerator and  a 50 year old apartment sized 4 burner gas stove.  We finally replaced both of these in 1996.  We had a 12" used RCA black and white TV with rabbit ears.  Finally got a used 15" color set in 1984.  We had a cheap plastic sofa that my wife had before we were married.  The kids used bean bag chairs from the thrift store to watch TV which was sitting on milk crates.  Milk crates, cinder blocks and pine boards made up most of the furniture we had. The house was built in the 1950's and it had a "breakfast booth" where we ate are meals.  No living room or dining room furiture until the late 1980's early 1990's after we paid off the house.  Every spare nickel we had went to pay off the house or into savings and investments.  We paid off the 30 year mortgage in 17 years.  Once the mortgage was paid, 2/3's of what had been our house payment went into pension plans and investments. At this time 30% to 35% of my gross salary was going to savings and investments.  We rewarded ourselves with the remaining 1/3 which we used to purchase new items for the house, remodel kitchens and bathrooms etc.  I did most all the work myself, plumbing, electrical, and construction as we couldn't afford to pay to have things done. Neighbors often helped and I helped them in return.

We ate rice, potatoes, beans, veggies, and sprouts for more than 25 years before adding any significant meat to our diet.  At the time I thought this was the right thing to do and it was also very cheap.  Our Grocery bill was $50 a week and often less.  We only ate out once a month when we took the kids to a fast food place as a treat.

While working I only had one car and rode a bicycle and/or took public transportation to work.  My wife needed our only car for the kids.

In 1985 I started my own Telecommunications contracting business which I ran for 8 years while still working full time for my employer.  I would go to work for my employer  at 6:30am and work until 3:00pm 5 days a week.  After work I would drive to my contracting job and work from about 4pm untill midnight.  I would get home at 1am, sleep untill 5:30am to 6am and then do the whole thing over.  I worked every weekend and holiday on my contracting work from 7am untill 11pm.  I did this for 8 years without a day off during that time.  After 8 years of this my wife said "either the job or me, choose".  I quit contracting and went back to just working my normal day job.  It was this contracting work that allowed me to pay off the house so quickly as well as purchase some additional investment property for cash.

Yes, when I retired at age 55 in 2006 I had a good bit of money saved up, and yes I'm proud of that fact.  Today I still pay cash for everything.  If I don't have the money I don't buy it.  I still live in the same house that I purchased in 1976.  I bought my wife a New Volvo S-80 in 2002 which she still drives today.  I purchased a used 2000 Ford Ranger truck  from an estate sale in 2007 and I still drive that same truck now.  As everyone on this forum knows, I now eat ground meat from Slankers as my food and this costs me $300/month.  We live on a fixed budget just as we did when I was working.  The difference now is that if we find something we want or something we want to do we can easily afford to do it.  What is interesting is that as we get older we find we want or need fewer things and so we still spend very little. 

No silver spoon in the mouth here.  We worked hard and sacrificed for everything we have.  Several others that I hired at work have followed my example.  One young man I hired at age 23.  He changed his priorities and after 7 years he paid of $15K of school debt, paid off a $13K new car he had purchased before I hired him, has saved and invested every nickel he could and now has over $150K towards retirement and recently purchased a house.  He works 12 to 16 hours a day at two jobs.

Anyone can do this if they are willing to forego things now to have much more later in life.

Lex




Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 06, 2013, 03:54:56 am

Anyone can do this if they are willing to forego things now to have much more later in life.

Lex






There are stranger things in heaven and earth, Lex, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. :)

Have you ever been to eastern Kentucky?  West Virginia?  Rural Appalachia in general?  How about the more depressed rural parts of the rust belt?

There are people who work two jobs in those places....and they barely keep up with mortgage payments as it is.  that's assuming they can even find the first job, let alone the second.

The reason your house is paid off is because you bought it before Cali real estate shot up.  You pay probably 1/10 the property taxes that many of your neighbors do, and THAT'S why you own the same house since 1976....because of prop 13.

Also, the cost of living now is a lot higher than it was back in the 80s, and salaries have NOT kept up with inflation.

I know you don't understand that, because you started out back in the early 80s, but it's very true.  Feel free to research it, or I can provide cites. I respect that you worked hard and saved, but that's not even enough these days, particularly in more economically-depressed places.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: LePatron7 on January 06, 2013, 12:03:02 pm
Wow Lex what a story!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 06, 2013, 12:14:28 pm
Thanks for telling your financial story Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on January 06, 2013, 05:23:51 pm
Yes, thanks to Lex, that's impressive.  8)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Adora on January 07, 2013, 03:15:47 am
impressed and motivated, not for the rice and beans, but to try to live within my means, and do without to reap benefits later. thanks for sharing
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: stoneforest on January 08, 2013, 10:25:41 pm
Hi lex, u stated that ur skin feels smoother and some dark spots have lightened. Would u say ur skin is also oilier? 
I dont know if u had this experience when u fasted but in the past, whenever i would start eating again following a fast my skin  always felt oilier, glowing, sort of like when I was much younger. I felt that the fast really was rejuvenating in a sense. But I also feel that my skin didnt stay that way because I didn't follow up with the right diet.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 09, 2013, 11:25:19 am
There are stranger things in heaven and earth, Lex, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. :)

There are people who work two jobs in those places....and they barely keep up with mortgage payments as it is.  that's assuming they can even find the first job, let alone the second.

Have you ever been to eastern Kentucky?  West Virginia?  Rural Appalachia in general?  How about the more depressed rural parts of the rust belt?

I've been to Kentucky and West Virginia as well as Watts in Los Angeles and the Projects in New York.   I started my working life picking fruit, strawberries, cucumbers, and swamping melons with migrant farm workers.   Many of my friends and their families lived in 15 ft travel trailers, often with 5 or 6 children.  We all played in the dirt courtyard of the trailer park.  I lived in a dilapidated old house that was moved to a dirt lot when they built a freeway through our town.  It had been abandoned for 5 years when we purchased it, and it was the only house we could afford.  Nothing in it was straight.  The door frames were crooked and the doors wouldn't open or close. Every window (dozens of panes of glass) had been broken.  The light fixtures had been torn out.  There were large holes in the walls and all the plumbing leaked.  We flushed the toilet by pouring a bucket of water in bowl because the tank on the toilet had been broken and we didn't have the money to replace it.   It is not how you grow up, it is how you think and the choices you make throughout your life that determine how you end.

The reason your house is paid off is because you bought it before Cali real estate shot up.  You pay probably 1/10 the property taxes that many of your neighbors do, and THAT'S why you own the same house since 1976....because of prop 13.

Yes, today I'm able to take advantage of prop 13, but prop 13 made no difference when I purchased the property as I had to pay taxes on the current purchase price and this is true today.  I'm always amused when people think that it was easier to purchase a house years ago than it is now.  Just not true.  I paid $50K for my house in 1976.  At that time I earned 10K a year - about 800/month.  My interest rate was 9.25% and my payment and property taxes were $421 a month - over half my income.  Also notice that the purchase price of my house was 5 times my income.

Today my house will sell for $320K.  My neighbor across the street just sold hers for this amount and we have essentially the same tract house.  The same job that paid me $10K/year in 1976 is now paying $85K/year or $7k/month base salary (yes the exact same job exists and they are hiring).  The cost of the house today is only 3.75 times salary.  Interest rates are less than 4% rather than over 9%  Today's payment including current property taxes is $1,379/mo which is only 20% of today's equivalent monthly pay.  To be in the same financial position that I was when I purchased my house in 1976, where more than half my paycheck went to the house, you'd have to be making less than $15/hr. Purchasing the same house and paying today's property taxes while earning  $15 or more an hour today, and you are in better financial shape than I was in 1976.
 
Also, the cost of living now is a lot higher than it was back in the 80s, and salaries have NOT kept up with inflation.

I know you don't understand that, because you started out back in the early 80s, but it's very true.  Feel free to research it, or I can provide cites. I respect that you worked hard and saved, but that's not even enough these days, particularly in more economically-depressed places.

You don't need to provide citations as I'm living through this mess, but the truth is that what you believe is true today has also been true for every generation.  Every generation believes that the previous generation had it easier. What you call poor today is not even close to the kind of poor I grew up with.  I still have a darning egg and needles for repairing clothes when I was growing up.  Mom made most of our clothes and taught all us kids to sew and patch our own clothes.   I was still making my own shirts - even T-shirts and boxers - and darning the holes in my socks until I was in my late 20's because I wasn't willing to spend the money on commercially made clothes, which at the time were much more expensive than what I could make them for. That is not true today.

You believe that the cost of living today is much higher than it was when I was during most of my generation and that it is impossible to do what I did.  Not true.  It is how I think, the choices I made, and what I was willing to do without that gave me what I have today.   

Let me give you an example of a choice that I made that I doubt that you would make.  I can say this because over 15,000 people were offered the exact same thing I was and only 3 of us took up the offer.

The offer was made in 1980 to purchase $50,000 worth of a utility stock for 1/2 price or $25,000.  What a deal.  You will make an instant $25,000 profit if you accept this offer.  Sounds great until you find out the conditions. 

Condition 1- you must pay $12,500 or half of the purchase price up front.  It doesn't matter where you get the money.  You can borrow it, take it out of savings, whatever, you just have to pay $12,500 to get in.  Remember this is $12,500 in 1980 - not today's dollars.

Condition 2- you must have the remaining $12,500 deducted from your monthly paycheck. This will reduce your takehome pay by $1,040 per month for 1 full year.  The money you pay into this investment is not tax deductible so the full $1040 per month is lost to you for the full year.  You'll have to live on whatever is left in your paycheck.  Of course you can supplement with money from savings if you have it or take on a second job to cover the shortage for the year.  It is up to you.  In my case I was left with the equivalent of just under the 1980 minimum wage as my takehome during the year.  This just paid the mortgage, utilities, and food.  My wife took a job cleaning tables during the lunch rush at a hamburger stand to make ends meet.  She couldn't work full time because we couldn't afford a baby sitter for the kids so she had to be home when they weren't in school. 

Condition 3- you can't sell the stock or borrow against the value of the stock or get any of the money whatsoever from this deal for a minimum of 25 years.

Condition 4- this is just common stock but from a good Utility.  There is no guarantee that the stock will go up in value.  If it stays the same at least you make $25K but that is only 1K per year gain over the 25 year duration of this investment and you would make far more in a common bank CD.  The stock could easily go down to where you lose money, or it could go up and you'll make a good return.  The point is, you assume all risk and your hands are tied for 25 years.

Would you join me and my two other friends and take the offer? 

Again remember that all the sums above are in 1980 dollars.  If you want to judge this against the $85/K salary I said my job at that time pays today you must also increase everything else by 5 or 6 times.  In other words, today the initial payment would be between $60,000 and $72,000, and the monthly deduction from your check would be between $5,000 and $6,000 per month leaving you between $1,000 and $2,000 per month to live on.

If I were 29 years old today, would I take this deal if it were offered today and have to live off of $1,000 to $2000 per month ($6-$12/hr) in today's dollars for the next year, sacrificing cell phones, cable TV, grass-fed beef, riding a bicycle and not owning a car, and all the rest?  The answer for me is an unqualified yes - in a heartbeat. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 09, 2013, 12:02:41 pm
Hi lex, u stated that ur skin feels smoother and some dark spots have lightened. Would u say ur skin is also oilier? 
I dont know if u had this experience when u fasted but in the past, whenever i would start eating again following a fast my skin  always felt oilier, glowing, sort of like when I was much younger. I felt that the fast really was rejuvenating in a sense. But I also feel that my skin didnt stay that way because I didn't follow up with the right diet.

I hadn't thought about this until you asked the question.  No, my skin is not oilier, just some, but not all of what one might call age spots have gotten noticably lighter.  None of the spots have disappeared completly, and maybe only 25% of them have gotten lighter.  This makes me think that not all age spots are caused by the same mechanism.  Some might be a result of a deficiency of some sort but others have a different cause as they are not affected when the deficiency is corrected - assuming that the spots that have gotten lighter were caused by a deficiency of iodine or one of the supplements I'm taking for the iodine protocol.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 09, 2013, 12:36:05 pm
He sounds like he worked his arse off.

On another angle...was it worth it Lex?

Yes, for me it was worth it and I would do everything again if I was given a do-over.  I'd even happily re-do my spectacular failures as it was those that taught me the most.  Most people do everything possible to avoid painful situations.  They worry about what they might lose rather than focusing on the opportunity.

I've lost plenty, but I've gained far more than I've lost.  Think about Las Vegas.  The house has a small edge and they make millions.  They are happy to pay out the jackpot on occasion as it brings in more customers.  They know that taking in a small 6 cents of every dollar played, over time they will be rich.  They also know that most people will keep replaying each dollar over and over until, 6 cents at a time, they've given all of it to the house.

All I want is a small advantage and enough time for it to work in my favor.  As an example, in my stock purchase above, most people think the 25 year lock down of funds is a disadvantage.  I see it as the primary advantage that works in my favor.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: wodgina on January 09, 2013, 01:06:41 pm
So interesting Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 14, 2013, 08:07:33 am
Hi Lex, It's interesting to see that the results of your experiment that started off this journal, which showed that you were able to gain body fat while eat very low carb (near-zero carb in your case), have since been confirmed by other low carbers, including even the famous Jimmy Moore:

"I was able embrace the message of that game-changing book written by the late, great Dr. Robert C. Atkins to drop weight off of my body very quickly and go on to lose 180 pounds by the end of that year [from 410 pounds to 230 pounds]. ... I got back up over 300 pounds again in early 2012 even while eating a low-carb diet." - Jimmy Moore, http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/jimmy-moores-n1-experiments-nutritional-ketosis-day-211-240/17390 (http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/jimmy-moores-n1-experiments-nutritional-ketosis-day-211-240/17390)

Granted, he has since lost weight again by doing a ketogenic version of LC, but his weight gain does show that it is possible to gain excessive body fat via the common sort of LC advocated by Atkins and Gary Taubes.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 15, 2013, 12:17:01 am
Hi Phil,
I find this fascinating as well.  Just goes to show that long term results are often quite different than short term.  This is why I find it rather humorous when someone decides to make a dietary change and they make statements like "Day 3 and doing great.  This is really working!".  At this point they are often quoting research studies referencing obscure metabolic pathways to account for their great success.  My own experience has made it clear that it's what happens after 1 year, 2 years, 5 years that really matter, and that the body's metabolic functions are far more complex than a simple choice between two or three identified pathways. 

I've learned that my mind can decide what action I'm going to take, and then based on that action my body will respond and adapt in ways that I cannot anticipate - often counter to what conventional wisdom driven by short term studies would suggest.  The best I can do is observe and report.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 15, 2013, 10:42:00 am
This is why I find it rather humorous when someone decides to make a dietary change and they make statements like "Day 3 and doing great.  This is really working!".
Hee, hee, so true. Gotta love it too when they say "I'm going to eat this way forever!" (which typically lasts less than a year). I love your eye for what's humorously ridiculous and your knack for revealing it for what it is.

Quote
At this point they are often quoting research studies referencing obscure metabolic pathways to account for their great success.
After all the raging battles of the macronutrient war, many of the LCers are starting to acknowledge that the CHO and insulin hypotheses may not explain nearly everything after all. Simple answers rarely do. Some LC bloggers have even switched sides and are attacking LCers with just as much gusto as they had attacked anti-LCers before.

Mind, I'm not saying that there's nothing useful coming out of the LC side. Paul Jaminet and Mark Sisson make some interesting points, for example (though Paul is sometimes attacked as not sufficiently pro-LC and too pro-starch), and if I measured my intakes I would probably still come out fairly LC myself.

Quote
My own experience has made it clear that it's what happens after 1 year, 2 years, 5 years that really matter, and that the body's metabolic functions are far more complex than a simple choice between two or three identified pathways.
Yup. When I first experienced dramatic improvements on Paleo and helped some family and friends by sharing some tips and directing them to more information, some told me I should start a blog and promote it and write a book (or even tell ill celebrities about it :) ). More and more newbie Paleo and LC dieters have been doing just that, and I was briefly tempted to do it myself, but after I calmed down I realized that months of good results are not a real test and vowed that I wouldn't heavily promote a diet, blog or book or claim to be some sort of expert for at least 4 years, if ever. I would try to help those who were interested, but not heavily market my approach or myself. It's too bad there isn't a law requiring that. Every prominent diet blogger I've seen who has stayed active for more than a year to two (most don't stick with it for that long) has changed their mind about at least one significant matter.

Quote
I've learned that my mind can decide what action I'm going to take, and then based on that action my body will respond and adapt in ways that I cannot anticipate - often counter to what conventional wisdom driven by short term studies would suggest.  The best I can do is observe and report.
Yeah, my experience also seems to be rather different than most people's. Research studies, reductionist science and the scientific consensus have been some of my least reliable sources for figuring out what will work for me. What has tended to work for me is often nearly the opposite of the consensus recommendations. So when someone says that I should accept or do something because of an alleged scientific or "Paleo" consensus, I just have to laugh.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 15, 2013, 11:47:55 am
... long term results are often quite different than short term.  This is why I find it rather humorous when someone decides to make a dietary change and they make statements like "Day 3 and doing great.  This is really working!".  At this point they are often quoting research studies referencing obscure metabolic pathways to account for their great success.  My own experience has made it clear that it's what happens after 1 year, 2 years, 5 years that really matter, and that the body's metabolic functions are far more complex than a simple choice between two or three identified pathways. 


I sometimes wonder what a society that had

1. Lots of money and good scientists (like the US)

2. NO profit motive re: drug companies, etc.

would look like. We have the best scientists in the world, but...look what a mess we are re: nutrition and health.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 16, 2013, 03:18:56 am
CK
I'd be interested to know how much of your time is spent on activities that are not in some way profitable to you?  Remember that profit is not always money, but can be anything that you find desirable or valuable.  Money is just a medium of exchange that allows us to trade between various types of value such as labor, goods, services, and entertainment.  Not everything of value is tangible like goods or labor.  Often it is psychological in how something makes us feel such as entertainment or charitable giving.

So how much of your time is spent doing things you absolutely despise doing and receive absolutely nothing you find of value in return for doing them?

In my case I can say almost zero.  If I find no value in something, I quickly stop doing it and redirect my time and effort to something that I find more profitable.

Don't confuse profit motive with corruption and political stupidity.

Lex



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on January 22, 2013, 07:32:17 am
CK - any wealth I have is due to CHOOSING to live hand-to-mouth for many years and then making good investment choices with what I was able to save.
...
Anyone can do this if they are willing to forego things now to have much more later in life.
Thanks for sharing Lex, that's a story that many people need to read.

My dad has been living exactly the same way, and by his example me too. He built our house all by himself and help of neighbors without knowing a thing about building a house, in what took 5-10 years because he wouldn't borrow any money.. and even then at first we all lived in one room for a few years until there were money to setup another room for me and my brother. All the money were mostly invested back in his business. And he's still doing the same, still working with a 30-40 years old VW van, sleeping on some old bed and having my mom sew the broken clothes, even though he's probably acquired enough assets by now to be considered fairly rich.

I payed off a school debt of 20K in two years while earning 20K a year and without asking for a penny from my parents, and then friends that have the same debt are wondering and even can't believe how did I manage that. It's all about investing your time and money wisely, e.g. paying out a loan with 7.5% interest is certainly a much better investment than buying a car, a huge unnecessary liability especially if you don't have a family yet to fill the car with. But most don't realize these things and then go on to complain how life is so hard and think that those with some more money got them with some magic.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 22, 2013, 03:27:28 pm
@aLptHW4k4y
Thanks so much for adding this to the conversation.  I'm told over and over that somehow my life and situation is different and so it is OK for me to live frugally but others point out that it would be totally impossible for them.  Total nonsense.  It is simply a choice.

I was fortunate in that I learned early in life that creating wealth and security was less about how much money you made and more about what you were willing to do without.  A co-worker of mine started with the company I worked for the same year I did.  We were the same age but he had much more education than I did so throughout the 34 years we worked together his annual salary was about 40% more than mine.  At age 55 I was able to retire comfortably with a nice pension, significant savings, and no debt.  At age 63 and 41 years on the job he's still working and making excellent money which he pays out to his creditors.  He lives paycheck to paycheck and last I talked to him he still had no savings. Recently he's been working with a financial planner and he hopes to have his debt paid down enough to be able to retire and live on his pension in about 12 years (2035).  Assuming he makes it, he'll be 75 when he is finally able to retire.
 
Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 22, 2013, 04:57:59 pm
Lex,  what do you do these days with your retired time?

We're supposed to live until 120++, so you've got lots of time.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on January 23, 2013, 02:11:33 am
Lex,  what do you do these days with your retired time?

We're supposed to live until 120++, so you've got lots of time. 

Hi GS,
I work in my shop most every day and then I belong to several nonprofit organizations that keep me busy.  I teach antique clock repair courses several times a year and also give demonstrations of jerky and pemmican making as well.

As an example I just gave a jerky demo last weekend.  I supply all the material including 5 lbs of meat for each participant and everyone goes home with a $10 Jerky Maker filled with meat.  There is no cost to the students - I supply everything.

On Wednesday the 23rd I leave for Ventura CA to teach a 5 day advanced antique clock repair course.

On Feb 1st I spend 3 days at the National Association of Watch and Clock Collector's greater Los Angeles Regional meeting.

On Feb 9th & 10th I give a 2 day Introduction to Horology course  for the Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties chapter of the NAWCC.

On the 28th of Feb fly to Dallas Texas for several days to meet with the director of training for the NAWCC to discuss my participation in rewriting the course curriculum for the NAWCC Field Suitcase Workshop program.

On the 3rd of March I fly to Atlanta Georgia to meet with a friend and spend several days working on a business plan he has for a franchise opportunity.  Will miss class this week (see below) but discussed this with my instructor before signing up of the classes.

The 7th of March I have my monthly luncheon and meeting with several managers and supervisors at the company I retired from.  We discuss the changing business environment, employee problems, evaluate advancement opportunities, corporate initiatives, and other business issues related to working and surviving in a large corporate environment.

In mid March (exact date not yet settled), I'll be flying to Portland Oregon to take a weekend course on putting together Distance Learning courses centered around using a 3 camera system with one camera coupled to a microscope to provide closeup detail when performing and teaching technical procedures.

I'm enrolled in El Camino College taking advanced CNC machining courses in Lathe and Milling Machine operations 5 hours per day on Tuesdays and Thursdays  from Feb 11th through June 10th.

I also make myself available for neighbors and friends to help with their projects.  I live in an old neighborhood and many of my neighbors are in their 80's and 90's.  I help with their computer problems, plumbing problems, phone, Internet and cable TV problems.  In the last 3 years I've upgraded electrical service (installed new breaker and meter panels) for 4 neighbors and 2 relatives.  I've also unstopped drains, installed water purification systems, re-plumbed a house with copper piping, replaced 2 water heaters, redid the lawn and sprinkler systems for 2 neighbors, and a host of other projects.  Most of these people retired years ago and are on small fixed incomes.  I do all work for free including supplying all material.

I open my shop to Boy Scouts and youth groups.  In the past few years I've done 2 Eagle Scout projects and all sorts of youth group stuff.  I helped a youth group from a local community church install a new telephone system for their church (I'm not a member of the church).  I supplied all the material and taught the group how to program and maintain the system.  We do fun stuff as well like making Pine Derby race cars (some not exactly legal) for an annual race held locally.  Lots of fun and the kids love it.

Anyway, I keep busy enough to stay off the streets and out of the bars,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: William on January 24, 2013, 05:22:32 am
You asked why not take vit. C, and I had forgotten my experience (diarrhea), but here's a good reason for carnivores. I'm assuming that there is vit C in lime juice.  From: http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=2028504#i (http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=2028504#i)

"These people are all children, contented, peaceable, honest and hospitable; they are without a ruler and without any ambition for fame or power—an ideal socialistic community where property is held in common, politics unknown, and where all are on the same social plane.

They subsist almost exclusively on a raw animal diet, which explains the absence of a number of diseases that are common among the civilized people. Salt water contains iodin, and all animals living in it and all animals which live on sea food absorb more or less of this fickle chemical substance. None of these people has ever suffered from scurvy, which was such a common affection among the crews of the early polar expeditions and which occasionally afflicts the Eskimos who consume more cooked than raw animal food. Peary has profited by this observation, and places great importance in supplying his crew with fresh meat, and has never seen a case of scurvy among them. He has found by experience that lime juice, which formerly enjoyed such an enviable reputation as an antiscorbutic, is not only useless but harmful. Taken in the Arctic region, it acts as a cathartic and becomes distasteful to those who have used it."

Note that the characteristics of these people are probably from what someone here called "a constant state of mild euphoria". Compare with the state of the carbohydrate-addicted.

...and a promising note on prostate:" I questioned Commander Peary and Mr. Henson, his main man, who have spent seven winters among these natives, with special reference to the existence of urinary difficulties among old men. From their accounts it appears that prostatic obstruction does not exist, as they have seen many of the men urinate, and noticed that the stream was large and strong. The sexua| life of these people and the iodized food may account for the absence of senile prostatic hypertrophy and its consequences, urinary obstruction and eventually renal disease. "
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on January 24, 2013, 05:53:25 am
Great article! Thanks, William.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Flyrod350 on February 26, 2013, 12:39:53 am
Well it took about 3 weeks but I read the entire journal start to finish. Very inspiring Lex. It was cool being able to compress 4 years into 3 weeks...I wasnt left hanging in suspense so to speak..like a good book I was sorry to reach the end. I am interested to see how the iodine experiment works.
I just turned 50 a few weeks ago...been gravitating to this way of eating for six or seven years now...many times of carb binging and not giving a crap..dropped 39lbs since October 2nd, nearly 5 months ago. So much anecdotal evidence all around me that has brought me to this point. I particularly loved someones smart ass remark that "God didnt give us these wonderful stereoscopic, forward facing eyes to sneak up on carrots!" Hehehehehehe...
Never thought I'd be eating raw meat...but here I am...probably one third of calories are raw now..made pemmican too and always have some in my truck in case I get hungry...thanks for being of service to the BSA, they need honest men of integrity now, more than ever.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 12, 2013, 12:59:08 pm
Flyrod,
Thanks for taking the time to read my journal and sorry it has taken me so long to respond.  I've been very busy with school and my trip to Dallas and Atlanta.  When I returned, I found a leak in my water main and that has taken several days to dig up and repair.

Unfortuantely I spent over 20 years sneaking up on carrots and the result was not what was advertised by the bugs & bunnies folks.  Doing much better on raw meat so I suppose I'll stick with that until something better comes along.

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Löwenherz on March 21, 2013, 07:01:18 pm
Unfortuantely I spent over 20 years sneaking up on carrots and the result was not what was advertised by the bugs & bunnies folks.

LOL! Good to hear from you, Lex.

You have done a lot of research. What are your thoughts about folates and manganese and (theoretically) expected deficiencies on a meat based ZC diet. Even if we eat liver every day it's nearly impossible to reach the RDAs..

How much water do you drink in a day?

Löwenherz
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on March 26, 2013, 09:52:13 am
You have done a lot of research. What are your thoughts about folates and manganese and (theoretically) expected deficiencies on a meat based ZC diet. Even if we eat liver every day it's nearly impossible to reach the RDAs..
I suppose the key word here is "theoretically".  I haven't had any deficiencies that I'm aware of.  Of course that may not mean much since I'm a single statistic.  Are you aware of any actual documented deficiencies that can be attributed to a proper meat based diet?  If you (or anyone else) discover any I'd be very interested in hearing about it.  Other than that I'm pretty busy and don't spend much time on the Internet.  A couple of weeks ago I was in Dallas, Texas for a week and then Atlanta, Georgia for 4 days.  Just returned yesterday from 4 days in Portland, Oregon.  Today was in Ventura, Calif.  I have very little time to muck about the web looking for potential problems I don't currently have.  I assure you that if a deficiency does make itself known, I'll report it here so that everyone is aware of it.

How much water do you drink in a day?
I drink at least 3 quarts (3 liters) a day and usually more.  I start with 1 quart in the morning with 50mg of iodine in it, I usually drink another quart with my afternoon meal, and then 1 quart in the early evening with the second dose of 50mg of iodine.  I then drink additional water throughout the day as thirst demands and that depends on what I'm doing, the weather etc.
Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: LePatron7 on May 29, 2013, 07:44:52 pm
Hey Lex. It's been like 2 months since we hear from you. How's the iodine going? I recently decided to start using Lugol's myself. I've been doing a drop every 2-3 hours of the 2%. I use Real Salt, 1/2 tsp 3-5 times per day if I experience any detox symptoms. I'm also taking the companion supplements (b complex, niacin, vitamin c, magnesium). I also take calcium since I read it can dislodge fluoride and calcium as calcium fluoride. Any advice you wanna send my way? I see you're taking 50 mg twice a day in 2 doses. I can't even take 2 drops at the same time usually.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 22, 2013, 03:42:29 am
Time for my annual check-in and check-up.  Just got the labs this morning.
As many of you know for the last 12 months I’ve been trying an iodine protocol to help with my BPH symptoms (known in the medical industry as LUTS or Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms).  My results have been mixed at best.  BPH symptoms have not gotten better over the long term and I’m now having to get up 3-4 times per night to urinate.  On the plus side, PSA dropped from 3.1 a year ago to 2.5 this year.  Not sure what this means and have an appointment with a urologist to work this through.  Will report what happens as the prostate drama unfolds.

As for the rest of the labs, I’m pleased. 

Blood Glucose is       91
Total Cholesterol    186
HDL         70
LDL         108
HDLC Ratio      2.7
Triglycerides      42
PSA         2.5

Vital Signs are still holding as well.
Blood pressure               110/60
Heart rate                            60

All in all, not bad for a 62 year old.

This makes the 7th lab test to be posted here and for the last 8 years I’ve been on a very high fat/very low carb dietary protocol.  Lab results are consistently good (with the possible exception of PSA) and I see no reason to change what I’m doing.

I’m going to continue the iodine protocol as well.  Though it didn’t have the hoped for results in reducing my BPH symptoms, it may well be the reason that my PSA dropped and therefore may have a benefit in reducing prostate cancer risk.  If it is helping, it may only be temporary but any delay in the need for traditional medical intervention is welcome.  It will also provide some insight as to very long term benefits that are difficult to find elsewhere.

Labs attached
 (HANNIBAL can you post these labs on the first journal entry along with the others?)
Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Cosmo on August 22, 2013, 04:59:35 am
Hi, Lex.
If you drink milk instead of water,  you won't have to get up 3-4 times per night to urinate. I had a similar problem in the past. Milk helped me to solve the problem.
I use organic milk only.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dr. D on August 22, 2013, 05:15:40 am
Lex,

I'm fairly new here and have read through your whole journal. I'm amazed to see your blood results again this year (though not surprised in the least). You HDL-LDL ratio is practically unheard of. Did your doc make any comment on those results? Does he know that you eat "insane" amounts of fat?

Congrats on your PSA. Sorry to hear no improvements in symptoms.

I'm wondering what your plans are for future "experimentation," if any? Not a loaded question as I've seen many others post for you. I have no suggestions to give sadly. :D

One thing I'm curious about: How did you fair adding in the supplements with your iodine protocol? Last time I added magnesium I "overdosed" and had terrible diarrhea all day. Just the basic 400 mg/ day suggested by the iodine protocol. I am also currently carnivorous and attribute it to the theory of needing less vitamins and minerals when not consuming any carbs.

Thanks
Dustin
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 22, 2013, 09:39:11 am
Hi, Lex.
If you drink milk instead of water,  you won't have to get up 3-4 times per night to urinate. I had a similar problem in the past. Milk helped me to solve the problem.
I use organic milk only.

Milk doesn't work well for me.   My nose runs and I have continuous post nasal drip if I drink milk - organic or not.  I eat very little dairy.  The occasional plain yogurt (once or twice a year) and that is about it.   More than that and I start having problems.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 22, 2013, 10:16:11 am
I'm fairly new here and have read through your whole journal. I'm amazed to see your blood results again this year (though not surprised in the least). You HDL-LDL ratio is practically unheard of. Did your doc make any comment on those results? Does he know that you eat "insane" amounts of fat?
Yes, my doctors are fully aware of what I eat.  They just shake their heads and suggest that if I took medication I could eat a more "normal" diet.  I'm happy without the meds.

Congrats on your PSA. Sorry to hear no improvements in symptoms.
I'm wondering what your plans are for future "experimentation," if any? Not a loaded question as I've seen many others post for you. I have no suggestions to give sadly. :D
I saw a Urologist right after posting my labs this afternoon.  I made the appointment several weeks ago based on the fact that the iodine protocol wasn't meeting my needs and I was scheduled for my annual physical so I wouldn't have to repeat the lab work.  This is the first time I've gone to a urologist.  Up to now I was dealing with my HMO and Primary care physician.

It was an eye opener.  My prostate is very large and is pushing into the bladder.  It takes up almost 25% of the bladder volume.  There are stretch marks on my bladder similar to the stretch marks women get when they are pregnant. This shows weakening of the bladder muscle.  The intrusion of the prostate into the bladder looks much like the shape of a volcano.  This means the opening to the bladder is no longer the lowest point and derbis in the form of small stones and granules collects in the bladder at the base of the volcano unable to escape.  The urologist says that over time, if left untreated, the stones will grow, (he's seen some the size of golf balls), and really create problems where the only remedy is surgery.  Also, the deformation and stretching of the bladder will continue until it can no longer contract to void urine and I could end up with a permanent catheter.

None of this sounds encouraging and would certainly lower my quality of life.  We discussed several options and since the damage to my bladder was not past the point of no return we decided on the least invasive procedure which is Cooled Trans Urethral Microwave Therapy.  The prostate is heated from the inside with microwaves like a microwave oven while the urethra is protected by a cooled fluid.  This destroys prostate tissue and over time the body carries the cooked tissue away shrinking the prostate.

Like all medical procedures there are risks, but the worst risk is the same as the end result of not taking action so I have little to lose.  Also, the risks of the microwave therapy are far less than the risk of major surgery, and if the microwave therapy doesn't work surgery is always an option.  My strategy is to work from the least invasive procedure up.  Since there is no sign of cancer the urologist agrees this is the best approach for me.

One thing I'm curious about: How did you fair adding in the supplements with your iodine protocol? Last time I added magnesium I "overdosed" and had terrible diarrhea all day. Just the basic 400 mg/ day suggested by the iodine protocol. I am also currently carnivorous and attribute it to the theory of needing less vitamins and minerals when not consuming any carbs.

The diarrhea from magnesium is partly caused by osmosis.  The magnesium creates a concentrated fluid in the intestines and bowel as it dissolves and fluid is drawn from surrounding tissues to dilute it.  I have no problem if I consume the supplements at the mid point of my daily meal.  This gives the magnesium a chance to dissolve in the stomach and mix with the large amount of food I consume which dilutes it beyond the point that it causes a problem.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: jessica on August 22, 2013, 10:45:20 am
Dustin what kind of Magnesium did you add?  Mag Citrate?

Lex, is having your prostate microwaved the only option you have considered?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dr. D on August 22, 2013, 11:45:23 am
That does sound terrible lex and I hope and pray you can find a viable alternative. Thanks for your answers.


Jess, (if I can call you that ;)) it was mag glycinate. But on the back it said mag oxide. So idk. I'm nervous about trying it again.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 23, 2013, 02:33:48 am
Lex, is having your prostate microwaved the only option you have considered?

Over the years I've considered almost everything from homeopathic to full prostate removal surgery.  I've tried almost every alternative and homeopathic approach with little or nothing in the way of positive results.  I've pretty much run out of options other than more invasive medical procedures.  I'm well beyond "wait and see" or "let's try this".  At this point the longer I wait the more damage is occurring to the bladder.    With the image from the urologist's scope I was easily able to see the stretch marks in my bladder.  These are areas that can no longer contract efficiently -and maybe not at all.  My prostate has grown to about 4 times the size it was when I was 25.  It is pushing into the bladder reducing the bladder's volume and pinching off the flow of urine.

TUMT microwave therapy is the least invasive of the medical procedures and has a reasonable expected outcome with the fewest listed possible complications.  My current prostate size is almost at the upper limit for this procedure so if I don't do this fairly soon I will lose this option and be forced into more radical and invasive procedures.

The picture is not pretty and from what the urologist says, the early onset of my condition is probably mostly genetic.  My father and paternal grandfather both had significant prostate problems as has my uncle (my father's brother).  Based on the current size of my prostate, the urologist is amazed that I've had as few issues as I've had and that the drug therapy (doxasozin) has been effective for so long.  He says that the meds often only work for about 2 years.  They've worked for me for about 9 years.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 23, 2013, 02:41:36 am
That does sound terrible lex and I hope and pray you can find a viable alternative. Thanks for your answers.
You're welcome.  I try to be as accurate as possible when discussing this stuff.  There are so many myths and so much nonsense out there, I do my best to be honest and straight forward.

Jess, (if I can call you that ;)) it was mag glycinate. But on the back it said mag oxide. So idk. I'm nervous about trying it again.

I'm taking the KAL brand of Magnesium Glycinate 400.  The back of the bottle says "Magnesium (as Magnesium Glycinate)" with no other form of magnesium listed.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: paper_clips43 on August 23, 2013, 04:50:51 am
Ever tried or heard of the Rife machine?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 23, 2013, 10:25:17 am
Ever tried or heard of the Rife machine?

Yes.  It doesn't work -  at least for me.  There are several Rife practitioners here in Los Angeles.  I went to two of them.  Total waste of time (and money).  Like I said in my previous post, lots of nonsense out there.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 23, 2013, 11:06:28 am
Hi Lex, Sorry about the enlarging prostate and bladder stones. Does that mean the kidney is continuing to produce stones?  Is the BG number fasting BG? The falling psa is encouraging.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2013, 07:29:08 am
Hi Lex, Sorry about the enlarging prostate and bladder stones. Does that mean the kidney is continuing to produce stones?  Is the BG number fasting BG? The falling psa is encouraging.

Hi Phil,
From what the urologist told me, the stones in the bladder are not from the kidneys.  The bladder stones (at this point very small and easy to deal with, more like grit than stones) are formed directly in the bladder from retained urine.  Usually these small stones and grit are washed out when you urinate.  In my case, they can't wash away because the urethra is being pushed up into the bladder and the stones, being heavier than liquid, drop below the opening.  Over time the stones grow in size just as sugar and salt crystals grow from a saturated solution.  According to the urologist, we all make these stones/grit in our bladders, but for most of us the opening is at or near the lowest point of the bladder so they are continually washed away and we don't even notice them.

BG is fasting, but for me, BG tends to stay relatively steady most of the time because I eat so few carbs.  I'm almost always right around 100 plus or minus 10.  If BG is measured just before I eat my daily meal it is usually around 90 (as seen in these labs taken at 2:30pm).  If BG is taken 2 to 3 hours after my meal it can rise to 110 or 115.  The rest of the time it stays right around 100. 

Yes, I'm encouraged enough with the falling PSA to continue with the 100mg/day of iodine along with the supplements.  It will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years  -  will it continue to drop?  will it start to rise again?  will it hold steady?  - only time will tell.  I'm also interested in what effect the microwave therapy will have on PSA.  My expectation is that in the very short term it will rise because the prostate is under stress.  I see this every time I have a prostatitis attack. PSA rises 10 points or more.  Once things are back to normal - usually 6 to 8 weeks, PSA drops back down.  Will try to get PSA numbers at 2 weeks after treatment and then at some regular interval until it returns to normal or stops changing.  People on this forum might be interested in this stuff.

Lex   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2013, 08:12:04 am
I know I’m rather blunt when it comes to the alternative treatments like Rife, Aroma Therapy, Reflexology, Magnetic Therapy, and a host of others.  Let me explain my general findings on 99.9% of the things I’ve personally investigated, and I've looked into dozens.  In fact, my change in diet is one such investigation which has had good results in most areas but alas no effect on BPH.

Most of the practitioners tout the wonderful benefits and what they call “cure rate” of their particular discipline.   I always ask pointed questions and request specifics both from the practitioners as well whatever patients are willing to talk with me.  Here’s what I’ve found:

In most cases the patients have no diagnosed pathology.  They have only vague symptoms and they credit the easing of these symptoms to whatever treatment they are currently pursuing.  Most of the time the patients I’ve talked to have tried many different treatments, each having a positive effect for the short term but the symptoms inevitably return and the patient seeks the next new  type of treatment.  In today’s vernacular this is often called the placebo effect.  Since in the vast majority of cases there is no organic pathology, there is no way to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of these treatments.

There are times when real pathology exists.  Again, many patients get immediate but temporary relief of symptoms(placebo effect), but there is no measurable or significant change to the good in the actual pathology.

On rare occasions when real pathology exists, there is a spontaneous remission of the pathology which is measurable.  This happens with any treatment protocol and at times with no treatment at all.  In my investigations of the alternative treatments I’ve looked into, the occurrence of spontaneous remission is at the same rate as for any other type of treatment or not treatment at all.

In many cases I’ve tried the alternative treatment myself but unlike most people, I have a real pathology and real indicators that I can measure to determine the effectiveness of the treatment.  Of all the things I’ve tried, the only one that has had any effect at all is the iodine protocol which has dropped my PSA by 0.6 points in 12 months.  Up to this point PSA had been climbing 0.5 points every 12 months for 5 years so the drop is encouraging, but based on the possibility of spontaneous remission (even though slight) is not conclusive.  An interesting point is that the decrease in PSA is not accompanied by a decrease in BPH symptoms.  If the iodine is doing anything, it might be affecting cancer cells, but it is not affecting the continued growth of the prostate.

Because I have gotten a long term positive result from the iodine protocol, I will continue with it to see how it plays out over the long term.  I’ll also continue to investigate other alternative treatments as I run across them but at this point I've pretty much researched what's out there.  If anything else shows promise, I’ll bring it up in this journal.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on August 24, 2013, 09:11:30 am
Just a vague thought, but since you do sometimes eat cooked/rendered meats, what about going 100% raw  and unprocessed for 6 months to see if that works?  It's just that prostate enlargement appears to be inextricably linked to inflammation, and heat-created toxins like advanced glycation end products happen to be  heavily linked to inflammation.

I think I mentioned saw palmetto before, but there are other herbs...:-

http://nutritionreview.org/2013/04/advances-herbal-prostate-support/ (http://nutritionreview.org/2013/04/advances-herbal-prostate-support/)

Another point:- I've been told that women at an advanced age often get problems re their bladders due to not doing enough sport(re kegel(?) exercises and the like). Perhaps more sport might help, I have no idea....

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2013, 02:07:14 pm
Just a vague thought, but since you do sometimes eat cooked/rendered meats, what about going 100% raw  and unprocessed for 6 months to see if that works?  It's just that prostate enlargement appears to be inextricably linked to inflammation, and heat-created toxins like advanced glycation end products happen to be  heavily linked to inflammation.
Not sure what more I can do.  I'd say I eat 95% raw and reserve the rendered fats for when on vacation.  I also eat a very rare steak as my meal once a month when dining out with a group of friends.  Other than that it is raw grass-fed beef and fat with some occasional raw grass-fed butter which I take with me when I do dine out.  If it is a dietary issue I don't believe it is due to eating cooked foods.

I think I mentioned saw palmetto before, but there are other herbs...:-

http://nutritionreview.org/2013/04/advances-herbal-prostate-support/ (http://nutritionreview.org/2013/04/advances-herbal-prostate-support/)
I have tried almost all the different oral supplements and formulations for prostate problems in general and BPH in particular.  Some have shown short term minor improvement but like the medical drugs, these supplements just address the symptoms and not the base pathology.  They work for a while but slowly decline in their effectiveness as the prostate continues to grow.  I've found no supplement that will actually shrink the prostate.  There are drugs that will shrink the prostate but these really upset the hormonal balance of the body and the side effects are terrible.

Another point:- I've been told that women at an advanced age often get problems re their bladders due to not doing enough sport(re kegel(?) exercises and the like). Perhaps more sport might help, I have no idea....
Many women have bladder leakage due to aging and unexercised muscles.  When men get bladder leakage it is usually due to a medical intervention gone wrong where the valves that control urine flow are damaged from radiation, surgery, or other invasive procedure.  My problem is not stopping urine flow, it is getting urine to flow at all and letting the bladder empty.  Actually, one of the side effects of the procedure that I'll be having is possible damage to the valves that control urine flow.  It is a much smaller risk (1%-2%) than for the more invasive procedures(20% or greater), but it is still a risk.  If you've ever been in the position where you just can't release urine at all and end up in the emergency room, you might understand why I consider the risk worth it.  Unless you've experienced this, no one can explain the panic and fear it creates.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alive on August 24, 2013, 02:08:43 pm
When my dad had prostate problems he chose to be castrated, as reducing testosterone production helps slow the disease. He was happy with the result and as a side benefit his personality also softened.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 24, 2013, 02:20:26 pm
When my dad had prostate problems he chose to be castrated, as reducing testosterone production helps slow the disease. He was happy with the result and as a side benefit his personality also softened.

I'm beyond the point that this would help.  It might slow the disease, but in my case, the disease has already progressed to the point that intervention is necessary to stop further damage to the bladder.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on August 24, 2013, 07:00:34 pm
When my dad had prostate problems he chose to be castrated, as reducing testosterone production helps slow the disease. He was happy with the result and as a side benefit his personality also softened.
  A rather overly drastic solution, imo.  Well, I hope I'll be one of the 25% of men who never get prostate problems.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 25, 2013, 01:21:09 am
Well, I hope I'll be one of the 25% of men who never get prostate problems.

I hope you and the others on this forum avoid prostate problems as well.  It is not the least bit fun and certainly tarnishes the "Golden Years".

My understanding is that all human male prostates grow as we age, however, not all of us experience severe Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS).  According to my urologist it is mostly a function of genetics and age.  Bad genetics LUTS occurs at an early age (some start to experience symptoms in their early 30s).  Good genetics and you may die before LUTS becomes a problem.

Diet may play a role as well, but I know of no studies in this area, and my dietary change did not significantly mitigate the problem.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Johan August on August 25, 2013, 02:16:24 am
[
When my dad had prostate problems he chose to be castrated, as reducing testosterone production helps slow the disease.
The opposite view is now held; testosterone protects against prostate cancer. Low testosterone is the danger. See "Testosterone for life" by Abraham Morgentaler, associate professor of urology at Harvard Medical School. McGraw Hill 2009. At the age of almost 70 I don't personally have a prostate problem or any significant enlargement but I do take extra testosterone after suffering a severe decline in testosterone after suffering from fibromyalgia. So please be careful before going down the road of deliberately lowering your testosterone levels. There are several good reasons to maintain a normal testosterone level apart from the obvious one.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 25, 2013, 01:45:12 pm
The opposite view is now held; testosterone protects against prostate cancer. Low testosterone is the danger. See "Testosterone for life" by Abraham Morgentaler, associate professor of urology at Harvard Medical School. McGraw Hill 2009. At the age of almost 70 I don't personally have a prostate problem or any significant enlargement but I do take extra testosterone after suffering a severe decline in testosterone after suffering from fibromyalgia. So please be careful before going down the road of deliberately lowering your testosterone levels. There are several good reasons to maintain a normal testosterone level apart from the obvious one.

Johan,
You pin point the problem exactly.  I'm not sure anyone knows what appropriate testosterone levels should be.  The medical community says one thing one day and then reverse themselves the next.  Politics and competition for government research grants just muddy the waters even more.

At this point I'm of a mind that hormone levels fluctuate and most naturally decline with age.  I'm somewhat concerned about trying to maintain a specific hormone like testosterone at the level of a 25 year old when all the other hormones are declining in my 62 year old body.  This seems that it could create an imbalance that might lead to other problems.

I did ask the urologist about testosterone supplementation and he said that as long as my testosterone levels were within the "normal" range for my age he didn't recommend it.   He sited some studies that suggested that boosting testosterone levels too high might support beneficial metabolic changes (lower weight, greater muscle mass, etc), in older men, but that it often lead to a significant increase in prostate and other cancers.  He didn't think the trade-off was worth it.

For now I think I'll trust my body to decide what its testosterone level should be.  It seems to be doing fine with insulin, cholesterol, triglycerides, thyroid, vitamin D, and other hormones and metabolic markers.  I don't think I want to mess things up by artificially propping up a specific hormone when I have no evidence that it is out of line with everything else that my body is doing.  Yes, I have an enlarged prostate, but I have no objective evidence that it is caused by low testosterone, and medical opinions on the subject vary widely depending on the source.

There have been many books written by experts over the years that have turned out to be totally incorrect.  I fell prey to blindly following these experts for many years and the results were not as advertised.  I now take a more cautious approach before hitching my wagon to an expert's rising star.  I'll take a look at the book you recommend and also see what my urologist says about his approach.  That's the most I'm willing to do at this point.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: jessica on August 25, 2013, 08:57:44 pm
have you read into or would you consider medical marijuana or mushrooms like reishi or any others touting anticancer benefits?  like topically or as an edible? 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 26, 2013, 01:13:21 pm
have you read into or would you consider medical marijuana or mushrooms like reishi or any others touting anticancer benefits?  like topically or as an edible? 

The answer is no,  I would not consider using any of these things.  I can't stand the feeling of being buzzed or drunk so I don't consume alcohol either.  I even refuse opioid pain meds when in the hospital unless the pain is almost unbearable.  I just don't like the way they make me feel.  I've been this way all my life.  I remember when I was 10 years old and had major surgery to remove a thyroid tumor.  After the surgery the doctor ordered morphine for the pain.  They gave me one shot and I floated off into lala land.  I hated the feeling and refused any further pain meds.  The nurses couldn't believe it.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Alive on August 26, 2013, 04:28:27 pm
If the marijuana is raw then it is not psychoactive, so you would feel fine. A variety high in CBD would have the best anticancer properties.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: jessica on August 26, 2013, 09:07:02 pm
It's much different if you take it internally.  And the leafs, as opposed to the buds, have much different qualities chemically and physically, there is still a slight psychoactive feeling, but it is not one of lacking control or anything that would make you act out in ways you might feel uncomfortable. 

Like many therapies, I think it would be wise to understand that when you undergo taking Cannabis in any form, you set aside time for the therapy and the recovery. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on August 26, 2013, 09:31:25 pm
hi Lex,  here's my two cents worth.   I would think about using a mini or a full size trampoline.  You'd have to look into the effects of trampolining, but in short they massage every cell in your body, bringing blood to and from, draining lymph, and building muscle tissue everywhere.  Your crowded prostrate and bladder must be compromised with these regards.  Also having lived in SC for many years I'm aware of the water quality it has; some of the worlds hardest water.   I am one of those believers of continual and excessive inorganic minerals having the tendency to accumulate in your body.  I'd switch to either  or distilled water and add back an ionic or organic source of mins (if you were concerned about having mins in your drinking water).  And the last item is urine therapy.  I have used it since '78.  I think it does inform the body as to what needs healing.  And I know for sure it doesn't hurt a thing.  Call it quackery, maybe.  There is a world conference this fall in SD.  You might drive down for a day and check it out, should you have an interest.   And then I guess, there's the frozen food item.  I know that you've been doing that for so long, it might be hard to take a fresh look.   Personally I get such a strong inner voice screaming no when I do  it.  To be honest I can't tell if it's my unconscious belief or not, I just know that I don't care for it, and many have written how it fools the body in different ways. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: LePatron7 on August 27, 2013, 12:54:49 am
And then I guess, there's the frozen food item.  I know that you've been doing that for so long, it might be hard to take a fresh look.   Personally I get such a strong inner voice screaming no when I do  it.  To be honest I can't tell if it's my unconscious belief or not, I just know that I don't care for it, and many have written how it fools the body in different ways.

I actually was doing frozen food for a while. I had a rash on 2 of my fingers that I associated with detox, but after it didn't go away for a while I looked into various causes.

I start researching how freezing effects fat and protein (animal foods) and saw that some damage takes place. I actually ended up buying the book "Advances in Food Research, Vol. 26" which has a few chapters that go into detail on how freezing alters various parts of animal foods.

Since I've switched to fresh unfrozen everything the rash I got has virtually disappeared.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 27, 2013, 05:15:44 am
@alive
@jessica
Not sure where the idea of cancer therapy has come from.  As far as I know I don't have cancer.  I'm also not interested in using Cannabis in any form for anything.  I'm also not interested in using any other recreational drug, alcohol, or tobacco in any form for anything.  I don't like the way they make me feel - mild or not.  To my knowledge, there are no peer reviewed studies showing these things to actually cure any pathology.  Most of the time they are used to mitigate the side effects of other more mainstream medical treatments like chemotherapy.  None of this has anything to do with me or the way I wish to live my life. 

If you wish to discuss stuff like this please do it on another thread.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 27, 2013, 06:00:33 am
@van
I've not tried the trampoline but I do get a fair amount of physical exercise walking, jogging, running, and playing with the grandkids.  I expect that there is a fair amount of internal massaging going on during these activities.  It's not like I'm a couch potato or sitting at a desk all day.  I'm constantly moving.  The 25 year old kid next door has trouble keeping up with me and he just got out of the military and is in great shape.

If you've read my journal then you should know that I drink distilled or deionized water, and have for about 20 years.

I haven't done urine therapy and frankly it doesn't appeal to me.  Not sure I'd consider it paleo in origin.  It's been around for a long time and I was exposed to it during my "Natural Hygiene" days in the late 1960s and 1970s.  Made no sense to me and still doesn't so probably won't be trying it any time soon.

I suppose frozen food is not as good as fresh, but it is what I have available.  To me, frozen grass-fed meats are better than fresh grain-fed meats.  It's a compromise as is everything else in life.  You pays your money and you makes your choice.  My choice is frozen grass-fed meats.  It's the best compromise I can make.

I had the prostate problem developing long before I started paleo.  One of the reasons I started paleo was to try to solve the BPH problem.  Unfortunately it didn't happen.  There is no perfect diet or lifestyle.  No matter what I eat, drink, or do, my body will age and its various systems will breakdown and stop functioning effectively.  So it is with every living creature.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Cosmo on August 27, 2013, 09:24:16 am
Lex,
Urine therapy does work and if your diet is absolutely wonderful, your urine is the best medicine for all of your health problem.
I'd try everything if I were you. I had the most awful experience with doctors and medication.
You might need to clean your colon, not sure if you've had it done before. I'd recommend it to everyone.
I felt as if I was born again after I had it done.
Im a not a doctor but I think prostate gland might suffer if the colon is not perfectly clean.
I hope that you will try it before going under the knife or anything else that your doctors will advise.
Good luck.
Cosmo
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on August 27, 2013, 10:40:35 am
Lex, good to hear about your choice of drinking water..  And I understand about your feelings or no feelings about urine therapy.  It's obviously not for everyone.  You do bring up the point of it being paleo or not.  I couldn't see why it wouldn't be since we all 'since the beginning of time'
floated in it during the second half of our nine months in the womb.
      And I understand your reluctance in general to any alternative healing modalities, for we both over the years have tried so many, they tend to be a little bit of a tale tell sign of just how many snake oil products and salespeople there are in the world.    But then there's the other side to that coin.  That is, because we have exhausted our efforts from being disillusioned so many times, we then turn it over to the Medical establishment and give in to ideas like 'it's genetic' or something else.  Now this may be true, I have no idea, but I do know what it's like when we exhaust our own efforts with alternatives.  I'm sure this happens time after time when cancer patients fail with alternative therapies and then walk into cancer treating physicians office's and accept treatments they never would have accepted back at day one.    And I'm not saying I would do anything differently or that you should either.   But I do think the whole process is one that deserves inquiry, as we probably all at some time will face something similar.   
      I have a trampoline, and I run, and sprint.  There is a difference.  You can run till you're a world class marathon runner,  but then try jumping on a tramp for an extended period of time, and the next day feel abdominal muscles that because of the g forces, are sore from having had to resist gravity.  It builds every cell in your body.    I not looking to reverse your opinion,  but like many here, I like to offer things I know about.   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on August 27, 2013, 03:08:00 pm
Just came across this, maybe it's relevant for you: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130826143608.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130826143608.htm)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 27, 2013, 11:25:27 pm
You might need to clean your colon, not sure if you've had it done before. I'd recommend it to everyone.
I felt as if I was born again after I had it done.

Having a regular colon cleanse was a major part of my health protocol during my 30 years as a vegetarian/vegan.  It's a foundation of the Natural Hygiene movement which I followed religiously.    Since it was during this time that my prostate started growing and giving me problems, I can only assume that colonics and colon cleansing had little positive effect.  Nor did any of the other protocols held near and dear to the hearts of Natural Hygienists and followers of Holistic alternative medicine.

I've pretty much done all this stuff (with the exception of drinking urine) and none of it works - at least it didn't work for me during the 30 years that I followed it.  In fact, it was following this lifestyle that destroyed my health over the long term and lead me to search out Paleo.

You might find it interesting that even with all the colon cleansing and the holistic lifestyle, I still had pre-cancerous colon polyps at age 54.  After changing my diet to all meat/paleo and ditching the colon cleansing, the polyps disappeared by age 57.

So much for the colon cleansing theory.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 27, 2013, 11:54:01 pm
@van
I've spent most of my life since a teenager trying alternative therapies for my medical problems, many of which were caused by traditional medical treatments when I was young.  Few of them have had any lasting value, and most caused more health problems over the long term.

I've tried all the alternative solutions to BPH and none of them have worked.  It is now down to looking at traditional medical treatments to gain some relief, or dying from the complications of not being able to void urine.  Yes, you can die from this and it isn't a pleasant way to go.

I have no doubt that a trampoline causes you to use muscles that you seldom use in normal daily activities.  I just don't believe that jumping on a trampoline is going to shrink my prostate or stop its continued growth.  Do you have any evidence or know of any peer reviewed studies that suggest that jumping on a trampoline will stop or reverse prostate growth?

The same goes for drinking urine.  Do you have any evidence or know of any studies that suggest that regularly drinking urine will stop or reverse prostate growth?

I already drink demineralized water and have for many years so I know that doesn't work.

Lots of theories and wishful thinking out there, most of it from people who have never experienced the problems they profess to be able to cure.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on August 28, 2013, 01:27:35 am
Again,  I can't empathize, but can sympathize with you.  For I've never faced a life threatening complication.  I wouldn't want to die either.  So, no judgment here.  Part of my point should have been (and I'm sure you've looked) finding the nature of the enlargement through lifestyle, diet etc.  That is where traditional medicine I thinks fails us.  And our alternatives unfortunately  are limited, or, questionable.  As far as peer review, I get the concept.  And no, I don't think you'll find them with urine or trampolines.  At least not right now.  But that wouldn't discourage me, especially if I was going the medical route.  But that's each's choice.   I think increased blood flow is almost always beneficial for healing.  Trampolining does that.  And if you never put urine to your mouth, simply collecting it in a glass container, and looking at it over several hours to a day is highly informative, in that one can notice how much sediment and cloudiness occurs with different eating patterns etc.  In your case I would think sediment is something you would want to avoid, or at least limiting the amount. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 28, 2013, 08:50:02 am
Part of my point should have been (and I'm sure you've looked) finding the nature of the enlargement through lifestyle, diet etc.  That is where traditional medicine I thinks fails us. 
Hmmmm.  I guess folks think I'm not looking hard enough to find what causes prostate enlargement.  I assure you, that has been my primary focus for almost 10 years.  I've followed up on everything that looked promising and many things that didn't.  I'm just as clueless now as when I started.  What I have learned is that we're not the only male animal where prostate growth occurs with age.  This might mean that for humans this is a natural process, as it is with other animals, and there isn't much we can do about it.  What is different about humans is that we're living so much longer now that prostate growth becomes a problem.  If I'd been eaten by a Saber Tooth Tiger before the age of 50 I wouldn't be experiencing these issues now!  To be honest, without modern antibiotics, I would have died from a massive infection I had when I was 14, and/or from several other major infections I had after that. 

As far as peer review, I get the concept.
I don't even care about peer review.  Do you (or anyone else for that matter) have any evidence at all that drinking urine will stop or reverse prostate growth?
I think increased blood flow is almost always beneficial for healing.
Increasing blood flow is not always good either.  There are times when we want reduced blood flow - especially to rogue tissues.  The ability to divert and increase blood flow to itself is one of the things that sets cancer apart from normal tissues. There's a whole branch of cancer research dedicated to finding ways to cut off the blood supply to cancerous tissues.

There's also some fairly solid evidence that increased blood flow to the prostate may play a role in tissue overgrowth.  Some of the research related to the treatment that I'm considering has shown that one of the problems with treating an enlarged prostate is the increased blood flow beyond what normal prostate tissue would have.  If this is the case, then increasing blood flow further may just exacerbate the problem.

People make assumptions based on conventional wisdom, and conventional wisdom is often wrong.  There is little related to the operation of the human body that can be depended upon to be true in every case.  Exceptions and alternate pathways keep cropping up to ruin our simplified operational models.  Increased blood flow being beneficial for healing is a good example.  It's always desirable -- except of course, when it's not.

I've spent years studying this stuff and the more I research the more complicated and confusing things become.  I started out thinking I knew a good bit about what was right/wrong, good/bad.  Today I must confess that I don't know much of anything for sure.  Most all of my cherished beliefs have been proven wrong over the years, and if not completely wrong, then riddled with exceptions.

I know that everyone is trying to help, but I'm way past the bromides and platitudes of conventional wisdom.  This is why I ask for actual evidence that what is being recommended has had some verifiable success.  Just faith or belief that "it should be good" or "its made me feel better"  is no longer enough.  I've been down those rabbit holes and not one of them has lead anywhere useful.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 28, 2013, 10:23:12 am
Hi Lex, Many chronic illnesses which are rare to nonexistent in wild animals and traditional human societies are written off as due entirely to "aging", yet many later turn out to have environmental factors. Staffan Lindeberg reported in Food and Western Disease: Health and Nutrition from an Evolutionary Perspective that BPH is very rare among the people eating the most traditional foods, and it's more common in humans and domestic dogs that are overweight or have diabetes or eat more modern diets. (pp. 150-151)

I have a history of BPH. The symptoms receded to almost nothing on LC Paleo (I no longer have to get up to pee during the night unless I consume too much problematic foods/drink). I hadn't looked into BPH in quite a while, so I looked it up again and FWIW found reports indicating benefit for BPH from zinc, B6 and GLA (among other things), supported by some studies, which I noticed because these coincidentally are also supposed to improve pyroluria, which I have many signs of. These nutrients are also supposed to be common factors in balding, which you and I coincidentally also share in common. I just stumbled on this, so I don't know how significant it is. Just putting it out there in case you or anyone else might be interested. Not trying to prescribe to anyone and I'm not making any miracle formula claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-alpha-reductase_inhibitor#Herbs_and_other_inhibitors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-alpha-reductase_inhibitor#Herbs_and_other_inhibitors)

Inhibition of 5 alpha-reductase activity in human skin by zinc and azelaic acid.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3207614 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3207614)

A Molecular Link between systemic metabolic disease and benign prostate hyperplasia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3174339/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3174339/)

It ties in interestingly with other recent research and experimenting I've done. Oxidative stress (Oxidative stress in benign prostate hyperplasia., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18298008 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18298008)), inflammation (Correlation between benign prostatic hyperplasia and inflammation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23159991 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23159991)), and nutrient deficiencies (Zinc status of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate carcinoma, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114577 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114577)) are things that keep popping up again and again in many different chronic disorders.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 29, 2013, 02:21:46 am
Hi Lex, Many chronic illnesses which are rare to nonexistent in wild animals and traditional human societies are written off as due entirely to "aging", yet many later turn out to have environmental factors. Staffan Lindeberg reported in Food and Western Disease: Health and Nutrition from an Evolutionary Perspective that BPH is very rare among the people eating the most traditional foods,...

From what I understand, this is not a completely accurate statement.  Symptomatic BPH is rare among people eating traditional foods, but the growth of the prostate with age is not. The key word here being "symptomatic".  And, I believe I read somewhere that the same is true with animals in the wild.  The issue is how much growth and/or the growth rate.  Growth rate, and therefore overall growth, is significantly less in people eating traditional foods, but there is growth with age.

I have a history of BPH. The symptoms receded to almost nothing on LC Paleo (I no longer have to get up to pee during the night unless I consume too much problematic foods/drink).

About 8 years ago when I started on this paleo adventure, my BPH symptoms lessened as well.  Enough that I had hopes of a reversal.  However, that was not to be the case.  Also, I'm told that the average length of time that oral medications are effective in relieving symptoms is around 18 months to 2 years.  In my case they have worked for almost 10 years.

All this leads me to believe that my dietary change was effective.  If I'd started this way of eating 30 years ago I might have avoided the symptoms of BPH all together, or at least delayed it well into old age.  I'm convinced that it was the 25+ years of vegan/vegetarian lifestyle (from age 23 until about age 50) that did me in.  It's pretty clear that my prostate did most of its growth during those years.  Now that I know the symptoms of BPH I can say that mild symptoms started in my early 40's, which means fairly rapid growth was well underway in my early 30s. It was my early 50's before symptoms became bad enough to seek medical attention and I stared on Doxasozin at age 53.

From age 53 to age 60 symptoms leveled out and seemed to reverse at first and then very slowly increase.  It has taken until present (age 62) for symptoms to again get to the point where I need to do something - either increase medication (I'm still on a fairly low dose of doxasozin at 4mg/day)  or look at other options.

As the dose of medication increases the side effects increase as well.  Feeling light headed when standing, constant runny nose, and other annoyances.  I'm not excited about having these issues get worse.   Also the meds don't do anything to reduce the size of the prostate.  My prostate is pretty large.  About 3 1/2 times the size it was when I was 25, and it is now pushing into the bladder setting me up for other potential problems such as bladder stones and stretching the bladder to the point that it will no longer contract.

If all goes well, the TUMT procedure will reduce prostate volume by about 30% releaving pressure on the bladder and urethra.  None of the procedures short of full prostate removal will halt prostate growth, and if nothing changes procedures like this must be repeated about every 5 years.   I'm hopeful that my current dietary habits will keep the regrowth of the prostate in check and extend the viable time of the procedure well beyond the 5 year average.   If it was my dietary change that extended effectiveness of medication from 2 years to 9 years,  then it's reasonable to expect that it will extend the effectiveness of the TUMT procedure as well. 

Am I doing the right thing?  Who knows.  Only time will tell.  But one thing is for sure, we'll learn a lot in the process.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 29, 2013, 09:35:12 am
From what I understand, this is not a completely accurate statement.  Symptomatic BPH is rare among people eating traditional foods, but the growth of the prostate with age is not. The key word here being "symptomatic".
I'll try to explain what I mean and what I think Lindeberg meant by BPH, because I think it's more than just a matter of semantics--it's illustrative of the growing normalization and acceptance of pathology and physiological degeneration in the modern world.

I think what you're talking about is called "normoplasia" (normal growth), rather than "hyperplasia" (over-growth). BP hyperplasia has become so common among domesticated animals/humans that it is increasingly being regarded as a "normal" result of aging (as are many other chronic disorders). It's common, but not necessarily normal in the sense of natural or healthy or inevitable for all and lack of symptoms does not necessarily mean absence of pathological processes. BPH is a medical diagnosis that 25% of even American males don't get even by the age of 80, and other nations have better rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_prostatic_hyperplasia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_prostatic_hyperplasia.) Even within nations there are differences:

"On a microscopic level, BPH can be seen in the vast majority of men as they age, in particular over the age of 70 years, around the world. However, rates of clinically significant, symptomatic BPH vary dramatically depending on lifestyle. Men who lead a western lifestyle have a much higher incidence of symptomatic BPH than men who lead a traditional or rural lifestyle. This is confirmed by research in China showing that men in rural areas have very low rates of clinical BPH, while men living in cities adopting a western lifestyle have a skyrocketing incidence of this condition, though it is still below rates seen in the West."

Rather than being genetic freaks, I think the 25+% are just healthier than average.

Lindeberg found only one case of BPH at any age on an entire island of traditional Kitavans (granted, it was probably hundreds, rather than thousands or millions, but that's still rather extraordinary). And it's not just because they didn't live long enough to develop BPH. Prof. Guyenet reported that life expectancy of traditional Kitavans "at age 50 is an additional 25 years. This is remarkable for a culture with limited access to modern medicine." http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans-wisdom-from-pacific-islands.html (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans-wisdom-from-pacific-islands.html) Plus, Lindeberg reported that BPH was more common on another nearby island of Trobriander people who had been eating more of the modern foods.

So how is this relevant to you? While you're already doing a lot and I don't doubt that you'll need some form of medical procedure, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there might be more you could do to reduce the chances that you'll need more drastic procedures (and I don't mean urine therapy or any of the therapies you mentioned trying already) and extend the viable time of the procedure even further than your current approach (which I agree already appears far better than what most men with BPH do).

I don't think I have sufficiently solid evidence that would convince you and I don't have all the answers myself, of course. I'm merely suggesting that the CW on BPH is misleading in an excessively negative and profit-oriented way (BPH as a mostly or totally natural product of aging that can only be treated effectively in the longer run with drugs and surgery, with complementary approaches being pointless). It might pay to keep an open mind and an eye out for potential complementary tools, if you aren't already doing so. I wouldn't bother you with this if I didn't think there was some possibility of it helping either you or someone else who reads this.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For centuries it was thought that all swans were white. It only took one observation of a black swan to refute decades of observations of white swans.

Quote
But one thing is for sure, we'll learn a lot in the process.
Yes, your journal is invaluable and I thank you for continuing to update it. Even if none of my input on this interests you, I also benefit myself from using you as a sounding board and bogusness detector to refine my thinking and inspire new ideas, and maybe improve my own prospects re: BPH (which luckily is currently close to asymptomatic) or avoid wasting time/money on bogus therapies, for which I also thank you.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on August 29, 2013, 10:33:41 am
Leave it to Phil to do the grunt research...  thanks Phil.  I was doing the dishes this morning after reading Lex's post about how his prostrate was more than three times larger than it was at 25..    That sent a clear picture that said I know nothing about his condition...  And that if it's that large jumping on a tramp might actually injure it or his bladder etc..   But, and there's always a but,  short of cancer, most organs that enlarge, like the heart, or the pancreas or liver, spleen, thyroid,, usually have a reason.  For instance enlarged pancreas's are common amongst high carbohydrate eaters, such as rice eating peoples,  thyroid can be due to the body's attempt to collect more iodine out of the blood, and so on.  Short of cancer, why would the body enlarge it's prostrate?  and at the rate of more than three times it's normal size.    Of course I don't have a clue.  But I am curious and probably wouldn't accept some medical authority to say it's normal as one ages. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 29, 2013, 11:27:26 am
Phil,
I just managed to get through all the links you provided in you original post.  All kinds of interesting information but I couldn't find any way to use the information. 

Much was made of the link between modern metabolic disease and the development of BPH as just another manifestation of this disease.  My annual labs indicate that I pretty much have modern "metabolic disease" well controlled (with the notable exception of BPH)  :(

Specifically there was correlation of diabetes and hypertension (neither of which do I have) as common co-factors to BPH.  Also mention that oxidative stress MIGHT be a contributor but nothing on how to control this in practical daily living. And how do I measure my oxidative stress levels?  What should they be if I do measure them?

Low HDL seems to be a contributing factor to BPH, but I have high HDL levels, and my HDL/TotChol ratio of 2.7 is amazingly low.  Trigs at 42 are also amazingly low.

5 alpha- reductase inhibitors have shown to reduce prostate size but often at a significant cost in very undesirable side effects.  I know two people that went that route and they are both very sorry that they did.  The bad side effects have continued for years after discontinuing the drugs. Not everyone is affected, but I'm not willing to take the risk since stopping the drugs doesn't always stop the side effects.

Prostate tissue levels of zinc was the subject of another abstract.  Nice info but if I take zinc how can I assure that the zinc will go into the tissues rather than be excreted?  The study mentioned low levels of zinc in prostate tissue and high levels of zinc in urine when pathology was present.  So there seemed to be enough zinc, the body was just not putting it in the prostate tissue.  Nothing in the abstract on how to control how the body uses zinc.  You see, low zinc levels in prostate tissue doesn't directly translate to low zinc intake, just as taking calcium supplements doesn't mean the body will use the calcium to re-calcify the bones in osteoporosis.

In short, there were lots of observations of likely metabolic co-factors to BPH, but I see no way to use this information to make positive lifestyle changes beyond what I've already done.  Especially since I currently exhibit none of these metabolic problems (at least the ones I can measure) and haven't for over 8 years.  True, I had them in spades 10 years ago, but I fixed them and that helped a lot of the issues I was facing, but unfortunately BPH was not among the cures.

What am I missing?   

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 29, 2013, 11:49:08 am
That sent a clear picture that said I know nothing about his condition...  And that if it's that large jumping on a tramp might actually injure it or his bladder etc.. 
Van, this is exactly why I never never ever give advice.  I've learned the hard way that I have no way of knowing someone else's true condition, and I have no way of controlling how someone interprets my advice.  The only thing I'm willing to do is explain as clearly as possible what I'm going through, what steps I'm taking, and as objectively as possible, what results I've gotten.  It's then up to the individual to decide for themselves what, if anything, they will do.

Short of cancer, why would the body enlarge it's prostrate?  and at the rate of more than three times it's normal size.
Yup, you've hit the problem dead center.   
Of course I don't have a clue. 
Me either.  Another bull's eye!
But I am curious and probably wouldn't accept some medical authority to say it's normal as one ages.
 
No more curious than I am, and I don't accept the common medical wisdom that BPH is normal as one ages. You're batting 1000!

Unfortunately, curiosity, and lack of acceptance of an accepted medical norm doesn't cure the pathology.  Nor has anything else I've tried to date.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 29, 2013, 12:18:58 pm
Regarding your enlarged prostate.

Maybe it is time to deviate from your current diet plan of raw meats, cooked meats on travel and water (i don't know what kind of water you drink).

You may want to explore magnesium oil on your skin, many other raw paleo diet foods out there... various animals and sea foods, various fruits, various veggies or root crops, many other raw paleo drinks out there, even instinctive nutrition, you can even explore bob beck protocol with a magnetic pulser.

- sleeping position
- sleeping matress
- dirty electricity in your home
- internal martial arts
- prostate massage
- vector analysis
- muscle testing
- Magnesium should be number 1... check it out... do your tests... you like tests... so do the magnesium tests.

http://requestatest.com/ (http://requestatest.com/) has a magnesium specific test

Listen to Carolyn Dean about this epidemic of magnesium deficiency.
http://oneradionetwork.com/health/dr-carolyn-dean-md-nd-the-magnesium-miracle-changing-your-life-by-getting-enough-july-15-2013/ (http://oneradionetwork.com/health/dr-carolyn-dean-md-nd-the-magnesium-miracle-changing-your-life-by-getting-enough-july-15-2013/)



etc etc etc

many many many other possibilities...
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: peacefulbunny on August 29, 2013, 09:56:58 pm
Hello Lex.  I have been following your journal for 3 or 4 years now.  You are my hero in so many ways.  I was vegetarian for over a decade and became very ill and found that I couldn't eat anything that I normally ate so I had to eat meat much to the aghast of my vegetarian friends.  I was very knowledgeable in natural medicine and had done most all of it.  Some of it works on minor things like cuts and boils but for the most part I find it all junk - at least in my experience and I don't want to discount it for those whom it works.  I do however believe in supplementation because parts of the intestines absorbs only certain vitamins and if that part isn't working appropriately you will become deficient - also, our foods are not raised the way nature intended even with organic farming because the soil is so depleted and you cannot control the toxins in the water and air.

I was so scared when I started to eat copious amounts of meat but I knew I was getting better because I really was on death's door at the time with so many issues I could hardly get around the house let alone sleep at night.  It was terrible for months until I figured out that meat made me feel better and nearly everything else felt like poison.  It wasn't the total answer though.  I only really got healthy once I discovered bioidentical hormone supplementing.  I'm a woman in my 40's and had no idea that I could be losing my hormones so early.  I did a lot of research, some blood tests and some experimentation with the hormones.  After almost a year of introducing the idea and finally on hormonal patches, I am healthy enough to return to work.  After years of being so ill and even on good times not having much capacity, this is amazing to me.

Something you had written about women's bladder leaking got me to sign up to relay some things I learned.  Bladder issues in older women come from the lack of hormones.  I know this first hand.  With my hormones back and without exercising the muscles I do not leak anymore.  I do believe this is the same case for men.  I know lack of testosterone in men create muscle issues in the sphincter but I do not know off the top of my mind about urine leakage but I am willing to bet it will improve the muscle structure in the bladder to help you void. 

Testosterone supplementation is scary for men because it is taught that it causes prostate cancer.  From what I understand that was a very small study (like only 2 or 3 men) many decades ago.  It is very old information and probably not too accurate.  I have read many reports of men going on testosterone patches only to have excellent reports.  I know a guy personally who took my recommendation and he is far better with it now and would not even entertain the thought of not using them. 

An interesting fact is the heart has the most testosterone receptors of any organ in the body.  I take several hormones including testosterone.  I had terrible arrhythmias without it.  My thyroid meds alone won't take care of the palpitations - I know because I tried living without the testosterone for a while. 

As for normal levels of testosterone or any other hormones for our age, I used to believe in that but I don't anymore because I believe in feeling my best and if it takes hormones, so be it, though I am very against most medicines.  Sometimes you just have to give it a chance and see how you feel.  I would recommend a slow introduction to the body - lowest amounts possible and raising up a little at a time.  The sudden jolt of what doctors like to give takes a couple weeks to balance out from what I've seen. 

That being said, you might look into DHEA.  It didn't work for me, at least at this point.  I might give it another shot in the future.

There is also a ton if misinformation on hormones out there.  I have done months of research on it for myself.  The one doctor who seems to have very good information is Dr. Elizabeth Vliet.  She focuses more on women, probably because women's hormones are so complex, but her first knowledge was on men's hormones.  She doesn't listen to all the blab by the pharma driven information but deals with many international studies.

Please do not be afraid of testosterone but definitely do the research like you do before making judgement against it.  But remember to stay with bio-identical if you do.  That is very, very important.

Thanks so much, Lex.  I rarely speak up in forums but I felt I owed you this for you had given me much comfort when I was starting down the paleo road myself several years ago.

Take care and the best of luck in your situation.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 29, 2013, 11:50:09 pm
@peacefulbunny
Thanks for your kind words and comments on hormones.  This is an area I'm exploring with my urologist who is also a specialist in testosterone replacement therapy.  I fully understand your point on bioidentical hormones so will keep that forefront.  I never rush into anything.  I always research and then have a specific reason for each choice I make. I then test relentlessly to see if outcomes are as expected.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on August 30, 2013, 12:34:30 am
Maybe it is time to deviate from your current diet plan of raw meats, cooked meats on travel and water (i don't know what kind of water you drink).
Not sure why I would want to deviate from a protocol that has been working well for over 8 years.  All metabolic issues that I've had have improved with the exception of BPH.  Even the BPH issue has responded such that medications worked 5 times longer than normal.  Do you have any evidence that my current way of eating is the cause of prostate growth?  If you do, I'd be very interested in reviewing the research.
You may want to explore magnesium oil on your skin, many other raw paleo diet foods out there... various animals and sea foods, various fruits, various veggies or root crops, many other raw paleo drinks out there, even instinctive nutrition,...
As van so suscinctly put it, for some reason the body is supporting prostate tissue growth.  The goal here is to stop this growth and reduce the size of the prostate.  Can you tell me which fruits, veggies, root crops, raw drinks etc. have been shown to reduce prostate growth and/or reduce prostate size?  I also can't find any research showing magnesium oil on the skin will reduce prostate growth or size.

you can even explore bob beck protocol with a magnetic pulser.
I can find no real research studies on the bob beck protocol.  Even the testimonials were forced to be pulled by the FDA as false and misleading.  Zero indication that there is any relevance to stopping prostate growth or reducing prostate size.
- sleeping position
- sleeping matress
Do you have any evidence or studies that changing sleeping position or matress will influence prostate growth or size?  I can find none.
- dirty electricity in your home
I don't know what this is.  I certainly have electricity in my home but no clue as to what "dirty" electricity is and how it affects prostate growth.  Do you have any more information on this?
- internal martial arts
I've practiced Tai chi and Chi quong since 1991, studying with a master in Long Beach CA. and these have had no measureable effect on stopping or reversing prostate growth that I can tell.
- prostate massage
This is one of the first things that I tried.  It seemed reasonable and was directly related to the prostate.  Unfortunately, it had no effect on prostate growth or size, but it did make the symptoms much worse to the point that they were almost unbearable.  I gave up after 6 months.
- vector analysis
- muscle testing
I looked these up but can find nothing indicating that they have any effect on prostate growth or size.  Do you have any such information?
- Magnesium should be number 1... check it out... do your tests... you like tests... so do the magnesium tests.
I take large amounts of Magnesium supplements in several differnet forms as part of the iodine protocol.  I can't imagine that it would be low but I'll have it tested next time I see the doctor which will be in a few weeks.
many many many other possibilities...
You are correct.  There are many many possibilities.  In fact, the possibilities are infinite.  The problem is that my life is finite and I don't have time to play with options that show no evidence of being relevant to stopping prostate growth or reducing prostate size.

At this point I only know of one oral treatment that will reduce prostate growth and size and that is 5-alpha reductase inhibitors.  For me, these are not worth the risk so they are not under consideration as a possible treatment option.

If you know of anything that has valid research showing that it will stop prostate growth or reduce prostate size, I'm very interested.   As for "possibilities" with nothing to back them up, not so much.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 30, 2013, 08:49:50 am
My intended messages apparently didn't quite come across, Lex. One reason my post was somewhat vague is that like you, I try not to prescribe to other individuals, and I try to encourage folks to think for themselves and do their own investigating.

Posting in someone's personal journal probably does tend to come across as pushy prescribing, and I don't wish to derail your journal, so I'll probably create a thread at some point on oxidative stress, gut dysbiosis (and Old Friends, prebiotics), inflammation, dis-ease, hormesis, etc. (I wish there was a single word to categorize all of it, but nature is infinitely complex) and then I could message you a link to it if you're interested.

I agree with you that absorption of zinc is more important than intake, especially given that excess zinc floating around in the body's GI tract and fluids can have some unpleasant and serious side effects (vs. less potentially toxic supplements like the P5P form of B6, which is the only supplement I've read about so far that doesn't have any reported side effects at any dose, as it is reportedly in a very usable form that is not irritating to the body, and any excess is readily excreted, vs. another more potentially toxic form of the very same vitamin--pyridoxine hcl, the standard form of B6).

Good luck in whatever course you take.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 30, 2013, 09:18:50 am
Lex, you are the type who waits for studies and believes in studies.

I'm of the type who listens to testimonials and find the logic in them... i'm not in the business of waiting for studies just as your diet and my diet are not recommended by medical studies.

Check out this prostate healing testimonial via bob beck devices

Bob Beck Units help with an ailing prostate ... surgery avoided.

Bob Beck Units help with an ailing prostate ... surgery avoided (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3ccSXI3IGc#noexternalembed)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on August 30, 2013, 11:12:31 am
Some may get this, some may not.  you've read where they have stress numbers related to events such as getting a divorce, losing your job, moving, a death in the family...  I think changing one's diet, depending on the reason, can be ranked right up there.   I am an amputee, one that designs legs for a living...  and still for me to switch permanently into a new one is difficult in that it is something completely new for me, an unknown.   Another example for me to witness happened around May this year.  I discovered Miller's farm and started ordering their thick raw grass fed cream, 1st colostrum, raw butter, and thought I was in heaven.  I almost totally substituted my 70% daily fat intake from beef fat and marrow to dairy fat.  About three weeks into it, boom, diarrhea, a total  repulsion of the idea of eating fat, and a loss of appetite.    Looking back, I thought I had a blocked bile duct, maybe a severe blockage of round worms,,,,,  bottom line, though, my body could not make energy or digest fat any longer.  Just like that.  I lost weight, had no energy and wasn't doing very well.  I had to include fruit or carbs into my diet.  It was a hard transition for me to make, mostly mentally.  It reminded me of the many times over forty years where i've either by choice of necessity made complete reversals in my diet.  And each time there were days followed by anxiety and a feeling of being lost, with nothing to bank on or believe in that was going to keep me healthy, keep me from dying prematurely, no magic bullet that I could use should I need it.  ( Years ago, it was wheat grass that was going to heal me, should I need it)
    So,  GS,  when you suggested to Lex to change his diet...  my past came into mind, and all the mental thoughts, practices, habits, believes, convictions....that had naturally formulated over the days, months, and years while adhering to each diet.    Looking back a little deeper, it's almost clear that we create our own reality with the choices we mentally make when it comes to diet and health. 
   For those still interested;  I got tested for parasites, found none, but still chose to take humaworm's wormer.  Who knows whether it was time itself or some of the herbs, but my diet is back to using fat as fuel,, and noticing again how fruits detract my feeling balanced and consistently energetic.    But without turning to fruits or carbs,  I really was wasting. 
   In a way, my experience deepened my respect and sharpened what little instinctive nutrition practices I use.   I was forced to  eat fruit.  But since then,  I follow my tastes much closer.  As my ability to digest fats increased, I used more plant fats, including avocados, which prior experience had left me feeling that they weren't for me.  I do think the body has a wisdom and has the ability to help heal itself.  And I put a little more effort in finding new and varied foods, and discovering whether i like them or not.   A friend recently gave me a King Salmon.  I sliced it and hung as much as I could in the fridge.  The rest I froze.  When I ran out of the drying fresh,  I attempted to eat the frozen.  I wanted to enjoy it, but had to force myself to swallow.  So interesting, how I tried to overpower what my body was trying to tell me. 
 
     
    GS, have you perused Jack Kruse's website much?   He writes and is adamant that food is 10%,   and our living envirorment , or getting away from, as you call it,  'dirty electricity' and a few other environmental factors is 90% of the being healthy equation.  Whether or not he's right or wrong,  I again find it fascinating that our believes as to what keeps us healthy really come from thoughts, and they can be formed and reshaped so easily (hopefully that's not too non-dualistic ).   
   
   On a side note,  I'm more than curious as to why Iguana hasn't chimed in here?   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on August 30, 2013, 01:51:48 pm
Well, we are men.
Men are always well meaning to come up with various possible solutions.
We should never stop throwing out ideas out there and sometimes somehow Lex or others may pick up on those ideas and be successful with them.  You never know.  Maybe not now, but possibly in the future.

I like that idea of 10% and 90%.  Although I feel we need to give diet more credit.  Say at least 50%.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Johan August on August 30, 2013, 06:52:05 pm


Lex

Zinc is unlikely to be a problem unless you have some undiagnosed  rare condition. Your diet is rich in zinc.

Your diet is low in calcium and  potassium but your numbers for these two are consistently okay in the  long term, all based on RDA standards. In your case it would seem that your body balances the minerals that people on a high carb diet do not.  If you test for magnesium I predict that your level will be discovered to be okay.

Personally I have to keep my minerals  in balance to stop further deterioration in my atrial fibrillation.

Johan




Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on September 02, 2013, 08:31:01 pm
On a side note,  I'm more than curious as to why Iguana hasn't chimed in here?   
He, he... Because our friend Lex has his own approach which is quite different than mine. I appreciate Lex's honesty and truthfulness, but I’ve felt that expanding on my ideas and experiences here would be unwelcome since if Lex had been interested in our experiences, including on instinctive nutrition in Europe, he would have participated in other threads too – which AFAIK he’s never done.

If it could be of some relevance here, I just came across this on page 148 of the outstanding book "Sex at Dawn" linked by Aura: (http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/6191785/)
Quote
The correlation between infrequent ejaculation and various health problems offers further evidence that present-day men are not using their reproductive equipment to its fullest potential. A team of Australian researchers, for example, found that men who had ejaculated more than five times per week between the ages of twenty and fifty were one-third less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life (réf. 9). Along with the fructose, potassium, zinc, and other benign components of semen, trace amounts of carcinogens are often present, so researchers hypothesize that the reduction in cancer rates may be due to the frequent flushing of the ducts.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 02, 2013, 11:01:28 pm
>> ejaculated more than five times per week between the ages of twenty and fifty

Ejaculating 5 times per week is easy when you are in your 20s.

But at 40, 50, 60, 70.... may be a little too excessive don't you think?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on September 03, 2013, 05:26:17 pm
GS, I reply here: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/raw-nutrition-love-premonitory-dreams-visions-and-esp/msg114026/#msg114026 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/raw-nutrition-love-premonitory-dreams-visions-and-esp/msg114026/#msg114026)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 06, 2013, 10:35:01 pm
Sorry to let posts go unanswered for so long, but I've been out of town teaching an antique clock repair class since last Thursday and I'm leaving today to teach another one.

@Phil
Phil, I didn't find your post vague nor objectionable, I just didn't find the links useful.  They contained lots of observations that might be valid, but there is no clear way to use any of the information.  As an example, the findings on Zinc.  Valid information, but I have no control as to what my body does with the zinc I take in and there was no clue in the research as to how to control this.  The same goes for the research in the other links.  I have no doubt that some sort of stress and or inflammation, and possibly a deficiency, or even an excess of some inappropriate nutrient (such as gluten in grains)  is involved in the process, the issue is what to do about it.  Unfortunately, no one seems to be able to answer that question.

@GS
I've looked into most of the alternative therapies like Rife machines, magnetism, Beck protocol, & etc.  The testimonials are all over the map for these things and I don't find most of them credible.  They all seem to cure everything from hangnails to cancer.  What I've never seen is a double blind study (there have been some attempted), where the outcome is better than the control group or random chance.  If no one can achieve a positive outcome under controlled conditions, then I have little faith in the protocol.

@Johan August
At this point I agree with you.  I've tested well for all the common nutrients and expect that a test for magnesium would be no different.  Of course I could be wrong so will ask for this test next time I see the doctor.

@van
I understand your point on stress.  I have lots of stress in my life and always have. Interesting that at this point the only manifestation of this stress is an enlarged prostate - an issue that affects over 85% of males in developed countries. Stress is also shown to be related to heart disease, lupus, diabetes, crohns, and almost every other modern malady. All the indicators for these other diseases improved when I changed my diet.  Only the BPH remains. Being alive is stressful, so if that is truly the cause of BPH, then I suppose I can look forward to relief only after I'm dead and all the stresses of being alive are gone.

I'm also sorry you are so sensitive to the minor changes and stressors in your life.  Things like eating frozen foods, varying my fat source, or getting out of bed in the morning don't seem to have the negative effects on me as they do on you.

@ Iguana
I never counted my weekly ejaculations.  They say that what you measure is what you control.  Maybe it isn't the actual number of ejaculations at all,  maybe all we need to do is count them every week!  Alas, at my age it's too late, the damage is done.  If only I could go back to my twenties and start counting...

Lex

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: paper_clips43 on September 07, 2013, 10:42:19 am
This might be a stupid question but I thought I would ask because of the current healing I am going through with this remedy.

How is your intake of bone broth?

I am on day 3 of nothing but bone broth and veggie juice (mainly greens, some carrot) and I have been experiencing quite a few benefits. Its still too early to tell but I notice I urinate longer and a lot less frequent. The rough patch under my eyes (which I link to gallstones) has started to smooth over. I ate a lamb brain and some liver today so I guess I broke my liquid fast a little but I really think the bone broth has been helping me tremendously. Today was chicken feet and head broth, from Millers (best quality chicken I am aware of) What has been your experience with bone broth, and which animals do you prefer if any?

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 07, 2013, 09:35:37 pm
Quote
Phil, I didn't find your post vague nor objectionable, I just didn't find the links useful.  They contained lots of observations that might be valid, but there is no clear way to use any of the information.
I think there may be additional real things one can do for prostate health--and for reducing chronic oxidative stress (which is a different concept than the external stressors that most folks think about when they think of stress), chronic inflammation, and chronic deficiencies--beyond the iodine protocol, your version of VLC raw Paleo diet, drugs, and surgery, but like I said, I don't wish to derail your journal with it. I may make a thread or two on it some day and I'll probably put bits and pieces relating to it in my journal from time to time.

For example, I think there may be ways to improve what the body does with zinc and other nutrients, but I'm too early in my own learning about and experimenting with it to post much on it and answer questions now.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 08, 2013, 06:40:23 am
I took a look at your lab report and I see your RDW # improved, Lex, though it's still somewhat high. I wonder if the iodine helped? I found one case of anemia correcting with Lugol's: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7079684. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7079684.) Maybe it improves anemia by helping the thyroid? Danny Roddy thinks, based on Ray Peat, that your past TSH #'s were too high (he reported that around 0.5 is optimal http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/the-myth-of-male-pattern-baldnes (http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/the-myth-of-male-pattern-baldnes)) and your CO2 numbers too low. I would have been interested to see your TSH # with the Lugol's therapy.

High RDW with normal MCV is associated with mixed deficiency (Iron + B12 or folate) anemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell_distribution_width (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell_distribution_width)) and possibly the early stages of deficiency in vitamin B12 plus folic acid (http://www.justanswer.com/medical/4395a-rdw-17-8-mcv-normal-b12-high-iron-saturation-iron-35.html (http://www.justanswer.com/medical/4395a-rdw-17-8-mcv-normal-b12-high-iron-saturation-iron-35.html)). I noted before that the latter seemed more likely in your case, but your MCV was a touch low-normal in the past. High RDW with low MCV is associated with iron deficiency anemia, which is surprising in your case given the heavy read meat intake. I see the MCV rose in this test.

RDW is increasingly being regarded as an important measure:
Quote
"Higher RDW values (anisocytosis) indicate greater variation in size, and have typically been associated with anemias and nutritional deficiencies. ....

Potential Mechanisms: RDW may represent an integrative measure of multiple pathologic processes in heart failure (e.g., nutritional deficiencies, renal dysfunction, hepatic congestion, inflammatory stress) thus explaining its association with clinical outcomes. ....

In another study that examined a more representative community-based population, for every 1% increment in RDW, total mortality risk increased by 14%." http://www.trackyourplaque.com/forum/topics.aspx?ID=11972 (http://www.trackyourplaque.com/forum/topics.aspx?ID=11972)

"RDW is being recognized as a global marker of chronic inflammation and oxidative stress." (Impact of Red Blood Cell Distribution Width on Long-Term Mortality in Diabetic Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, 2013, https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/circj/77/2/77_CJ-12-0730/_pdf (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/circj/77/2/77_CJ-12-0730/_pdf))
With your high RDW and low MVP, I wonder if you've noticed any easy-bruising (http://www.ask.com/question/low-mpv-count (http://www.ask.com/question/low-mpv-count))? I think you said before that you haven't had any petechia.

Did you get a urinalysis? Given the elevated creatinine, low eGFR and history of kidney stones, that might be useful, though I doubt your physician is concerned by one poor instance for those numbers.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 09, 2013, 09:29:24 pm
This might be a stupid question but I thought I would ask because of the current healing I am going through with this remedy.

How is your intake of bone broth?

I am on day 3 of nothing but bone broth and veggie juice (mainly greens, some carrot) and I have been experiencing quite a few benefit.

I've never done bone broth but used to drink a pint or more of fresh green juice daily for many years during my vegetarian/vegan days.  The long term results were not good.

I'm glad you are finding your bone broth and green juice helpful after 3 days.   The real question is how will you do over the long term of 5, 10, or 30 years.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on September 09, 2013, 09:49:19 pm
I'm glad you are finding your bone broth and green juice helpful after 3 days.   The real question is how will you do over the long term of 5, 10, or 30 years.

Well said, I couldn't agree more. I've been unceasingly repeating that short term effects can be very different than long term effects.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 09, 2013, 10:01:17 pm
...short term effects can be very different than long term effects.

It certainly took me quite a few years of dietary experimenting before I understood this.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: paper_clips43 on September 10, 2013, 01:45:20 am
I completely agree that its going to take years to notice the effects of something diet related. Even though I consider myself more sensitive than most I am by no means and exception to this rule.

All that aside can you really deny the fact that the long living cultures around the world, Himalayans, Vilacabamba, and Georgia Russia all have bone broth as a main staple in their diet. It also provides the opposite side of the Amino Acid Spectrum that you can absolutely not get from muscle meat or organs. Collagen and Gelatin have been shown to very healing.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on September 10, 2013, 06:47:24 am
I agree it's got a long successful track record.  I've made it a couple of times, but with each batch I couldn't get past eating a tablespoon before either my mind or my mouth said this stuff is dead.  Maybe if a girlfriend made it, I might get more down.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 10, 2013, 10:38:40 am
Danny Roddy thinks, based on Ray Peat, that your past TSH #'s were too high (he reported that around 0.5 is optimal http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/the-myth-of-male-pattern-baldnes (http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/the-myth-of-male-pattern-baldnes)) and your CO2 numbers too low. I would have been interested to see your TSH # with the Lugol's therapy.

Low/High as compared to what?  I don't know anyone who eats the way I do and I have no clue as to what the numbers should be based on my particular lifestyle choices.  I suppose I could manipulate the numbers by making different choices as Danny has done, but that defeats my methodology of making a choice and then letting the numbers fall where they may.  Last time I was in contact with Danny he was drinking lots of sugar water and consuming a good bit of caffeine in an effort to get specific numbers for TSH, CO2 and other lab results in line with Ray Peat's theory's.  That is Danny's current methodology and it's not what I'm about.

High RDW with normal MCV is associated with mixed deficiency (Iron + B12 or folate) anemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell_distribution_width (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell_distribution_width)) and possibly the early stages of deficiency in vitamin B12 plus folic acid (http://www.justanswer.com/medical/4395a-rdw-17-8-mcv-normal-b12-high-iron-saturation-iron-35.html (http://www.justanswer.com/medical/4395a-rdw-17-8-mcv-normal-b12-high-iron-saturation-iron-35.html)). I noted before that the latter seemed more likely in your case, but your MCV was a touch low-normal in the past. High RDW with low MCV is associated with iron deficiency anemia, which is surprising in your case given the heavy read meat intake. I see the MCV rose in this test.

RDW is increasingly being regarded as an important measure:With your high RDW and low MVP, I wonder if you've noticed any easy-bruising (http://www.ask.com/question/low-mpv-count (http://www.ask.com/question/low-mpv-count))?

No easy bruising or any other indications that there are problems.  RDW has consistently been at the high end of the range with MCV at the lower end of the range but both are still within a range that is considered "normal".  Even when one of my lab numbers slips outside the range it is usually by a fraction of a point or two and not grossly one way or the other.  The numbers also move slowly over the years with no wild fluctuations - very different than when I was living a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle when my labs were always all over the map and when something was out of range it was WAY out.

I think you said before that you haven't had any petechia.

None that either my doctor or I am aware of....

Did you get a urinalysis? Given the elevated creatinine, low eGFR and history of kidney stones, that might be useful, though I doubt your physician is concerned by one poor instance for those numbers.

Again, all lab numbers for urinalysis are within acceptable range and there is no pathology that points to getting a more comprehensive analysis.  Kidney stones have not returned since the initial incidences of Nov 2009 and Feb 2010 (one stone each side).

Since the only pathology I'm currently aware of is an enlarging prostate, and that pathology started well before I changed to a paleo lifestyle, can you show where BPH is caused by low MCV, high RDW, low CO2, high creatinine, high TSH  or any of the other things you've mentioned.  I understand that some of these may be ASSOCIATED with BPH, but association is not cause and therefore controlling the lab value won't solve the core issue.  Also, none of my numbers are grossly out of "normal" range so just what numbers should I be shooting for and how do I know that these new numbers are truly any better than the current set of numbers accepted by the medical profession.

There are lots of things associated with pathologies, but few of the associations are core causes, but rather co-symptoms.  I'm not about chasing lots of individual symptoms unless forced to do so.  In the case of BPH I had to deal with the symptom of being unable to urinate by taking medication - this issue was forced.  I've done everything in my knowledge and power to identify the core issue that is causing my prostate to enlarge, so far unsuccessfully.  I'm now to the point where I'm forced to take slightly more drastic measures to deal with the symptoms of BPH. 

If you or anyone else has clear evidence as to the root cause of BPH and know of a specific lifestyle change or protocol that will effectively deal with it, I'd certainly be happy to give it a shot. 

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 10, 2013, 11:00:35 am
All that aside can you really deny the fact that the long living cultures around the world, Himalayans, Vilacabamba, and Georgia Russia all have bone broth as a main staple in their diet.

I'm always skeptical of wonder elixirs like bone broth.  Outside of their native complex environments they seldom perform well.  This makes me ask the question "Can it be proven that it is bone broth alone that makes these cultures long lived and healthy?"  My experience makes me believe that it is the sum of many different parts of their total lifestyle that create the effect, not a single magic elixir like bone broth.

Collagen and Gelatin have been shown to very healing.
Healing what specifically? and has it been shown that these fractionated nutrients are better than the full nutrient complex gained from eating the parts of the animal that these processed nutrients are extracted from? (yes, making bone broth is a modern process unavailable to our paleo ancestors)  I don't make or drink bone broth, but I do eat lots of bone marrow, bone chips, gristle, and all the other offal that these nutrients are made from and is normally discarded by modern meat processors.

For me, making broth adds un-needed complexity to my lifestyle.  It is less time consuming to just to eat all the parts of the animal that contain Collagen and Gelatin raw, than to go to the trouble of boiling these parts to make a broth.  True, I can't eat whole bones for the most part, though I do get bone chips in my meat mix, but then if that were necessary, our species would not have made it this far.  There were no pots and pans in paleo times to boil water to make broth.  Come to think of it, no other animal finds it necessary to boil parts of its food and drink the broth for health.  Makes we wonder why this should be necessary for humans...

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 10, 2013, 11:21:17 am
:D Yeah, I'm not a fan of the sugar water/Mexican Coke/OJ plus coffee therapy either (though who knows, I could be misguided about that). I did read somewhere where low CO2 is not good, but whether Danny's target is a good one, I don't know. I agree with you on not using any means necessary just to hit a number.

On the other hand, just because a number is within range or close to it doesn't necessarily mean it's optimal. Lab numbers are based on American averages, which are themselves probably suboptimal to begin with.

Low/High as compared to what?
That's an excellent question. What do you propose as the standard to measure ourselves against? Are American averages the best numbers to use, or should we consider the numbers of other populations?

Quote
I don't know anyone who eats the way I do and I have no clue as to what the numbers should be based on my particular lifestyle choices.
Yeah, Durianrider is a mostly-raw vegan with very different numbers than yours and he says the same sorts of things--that his diet is different, so his numbers are probably OK and just skewed because of his diet, which he claims is healthy. He also says he has no symptoms. It's an interesting contrast. With outlier diets it is indeed difficult to know what the numbers should be.

Congrats on the urinalysis numbers.

Quote
Since the only pathology I'm currently aware of is an enlarging prostate, and that pathology started well before I changed to a paleo lifestyle
Yes, I see it improved and then gradually got worse again, and now is improved again since the iodine. It will be interesting to see what the next number is.

Quote
can you show where BPH is caused by low MCV, high RDW, low CO2, high creatinine, high TSH  or any of the other things you've mentioned.
Nope, I'm not making any assumptions, just asking questions and learning. I'm just not certain that there's nothing else that can be learned or done.

Quote
There are lots of things associated with pathologies, but few of the associations are core causes, but rather co-symptoms.
Yup. I look at my test results more as clues to try to help get a sense of the overall picture than absolute indicators of underlying causes of multiple individual pathologies. Unfortunately, some physicians apparently freak out over individual numbers and want to prescribe drugs at the drop of a hat. Luckily, I only encountered mild pressure to use statins in my case some years ago, which I declined.

Clear evidence seems rare in medicine when it comes to chronic illnesses, unfortunately. And before the advent of modern medicine, people relied more on traditional heuristics than clear evidence. Sometimes both approaches fail. Good luck.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 10, 2013, 11:50:14 am
On the other hand, just because a number is within range or close to it doesn't necessarily mean it's optimal. Lab numbers are based on American averages, which are themselves probably suboptimal to begin with.
Yup, I agree. 
That's an excellent question. What do you propose as the standard to measure ourselves against? Are American averages the best numbers to use, or should we consider the numbers of other populations?
I don't have a standard.  I just try to make informed and well thought out decisions and let the numbers fall where they may.
Yeah, Durianrider is a mostly-raw vegan with very different numbers than yours and he says the same sorts of things--that his diet is different, so his numbers are probably OK and just skewed because of his diet, which he claims is healthy. He also says he has no symptoms. It's an interesting contrast. With outlier diets it is indeed difficult to know what the numbers should be.
I have come to accept that I have no idea what is right or wrong, (only, what I hope are well reasoned theories) but what I firmly believe is that my body will do the best it can regardless of the choices I make, good or bad. It is my body's response to my choices that create the lab numbers. Since I have no idea what a good number should be, nor do I know if my choices are correct,  I let my body make its decision with out prejudice or intervention.
Yes, I see it improved and then gradually got worse again, and now is improved again since the iodine. It will be interesting to see what the next number is.
I'm not willing to make the leap that it is iodine that is affecting the numbers - even though the effect is small.  Remember I'm taking several supplements as part of the iodine protocol and any one or the combination of all of them could account for these small lab changes.  Or none of them.  Who knows. 
Yup. I look at my test results more as clues to try to help get a sense of the overall picture than absolute indicators of underlying causes of multiple individual pathologies. Unfortunately, some physicians apparently freak out over individual numbers and want to prescribe drugs at the drop of a hat. Luckily, I only encountered mild pressure to use statins in my case some years ago, which I declined.

My doctors push for meds but I'm up front with them and tell them that I will not take them even if they prescribe them.  I also give them my reasoning and of course my overall dietary results rather speak for themselves.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: paper_clips43 on September 10, 2013, 11:29:04 pm
I understand that bone broth is not considered paleo by this rawpaleodietforum standards. Although I have been pondering and I would bet that back in paleo times they would go without animal meat for awhile and resort to spending all day crushing bones into powder and eating that. They probably had much stronger teeth and could actually eat the whole bone. Also I bet wolves eat the whole bone or at least as much as they can.

Its possible that the first non paleo food consumed was bone broth. I bet when fire was discovered the first thing they used it for was bones.

An animal consists of %50 protein from meat and %50 protein from collagen. So potentially we should be consuming the same ratio...

Thats great to hear you you eat lots of bones and bone marrow. Have you ever gone long periods of time where you believe your collagen consumption was equal to your meat consumption?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on September 11, 2013, 05:43:13 am
I used to think that grinding bones up and eating powder was needed.  I had the same argument that early man ground bones on stones etc...    but when you look at the composition of bones, they have very little mg. and mostly ca.  I think it's easy to get an overabundant amount of ca from doing such.  I have never really found the answer, but I suspect that the animals mg. is mostly in the blood.  I don't think there' much mineral concentration in marrow, but yes for the soft boney material at the ends of the bones which early man maybe ate.    I doubt Lex eats or gets that many bone chips in his pet mix,  although I could be wrong.  Maybe they do throw in a few ribs in the grinding process.  A beef rib will mess up most meat grinders, commercial or not. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 11, 2013, 07:10:09 am
Quote
Phylameana lila Desy   
Holistic Healing Guide
http://healing.about.com/od/dietandfitness/a/magnesiumfacts.htm (http://healing.about.com/od/dietandfitness/a/magnesiumfacts.htm)
"About half of your body's magnesium stores are found inside cells of body tissues and organs, and half are combined with calcium and phosphorus in bone. Only 1 percent of the magnesium in your body is found in blood. Your body works very hard to keep blood levels of magnesium constant."

Magnesium basics
http://ckj.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/Suppl_1/i3.full (http://ckj.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/Suppl_1/i3.full)
"About 99% of total body magnesium is located in bone, muscles and non-muscular soft tissue [17] (see also Table 2)."

Bone composition isn’t set in stone. What the animal ate, how it lived, where it lived, the mineral content of whatever it ate, the nutrient density of whatever it ate – these all factor into the composition and content of the bones, joints, and cartilage. The nutrition facts of commercial bone meal marketed as a calcium supplement gives us a general idea of the mineral content (900 mg calcium, 360 mg phosphorus, 9 mg magnesium per serving) of bone stock. That stuff comes from powdered “cattle raised in the United States,” which undoubtedly means corn-fed, nutritionally-deficient cows.
Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cooking-with-bones/#ixzz2eX9vtNmx (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cooking-with-bones/#ixzz2eX9vtNmx)

Bone Marrow is full of nutrients such as an assortment of minerals (calcium, magnesium, potasium...), collagen, cartilage and fats.
 http://www.fitsyracuse.com/2011/06/bone-marrow-stock.html (http://www.fitsyracuse.com/2011/06/bone-marrow-stock.html)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on September 11, 2013, 10:37:37 am

    So, where's the mg. (beef) ?   The article does say marrow is 'loaded',  ,,  but how much.   The point was that if we're really looking to balance out our ca./mg.  levels,  how does one do it with eating animals?   I've looked online a couple of times, and never really came up with a part of an animal loaded with mg.  So I guess it's not in the blood after all.  At least, any where as concentrated as ca. is in the bones....
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 11, 2013, 11:31:20 am
I'll make some wild guesses. I don't have any supporting references, but since bones have the highest concentration of Mg in the body and since animals love to chew large bones, my guess is that the highest concentration of Mg in the bones (or perhaps the highest concentration of edible Mg) is near the surface where it can be gnawed off. Thus, bone chewing would be not just for pleasure, nor just for jaw exercise, but also for Mg nutrition. Also, canids are known to bury bones, where they ferment and become more easily chewed, so that perhaps more of the Mg can be obtained and absorbed. Of course, bones would have been more Mg-rich eons ago when soils were richer in Mg.

There are of course also other sources of Mg, such as green plants, seafoods, sea salts and anadromous fish like salmon, all of which has been mentioned before in the forum. Plus, sacred healing lakes/ponds/springs tended to be rich in Mg and/or sulfur (think epsom salts). Andadromous fish tend to be sacred also, especially the salmon.

In Irish pagan tradition, the salmon was a magical wise being that when consumed could bestow those who ate it with wisdom and the gift of prophecy (foresight). Thousands of years later, scientists rediscovered the brain-boosting powers of wild salmon.

I don't think it's just coincidence that if one reads about the old ways, old myths, etc., that everything seems to fall into place (or maybe I've got it completely wrong ;D ). Not everything old is superstition, foolish barbarity or made-up nonsense. Some of it is effective practices based on time-tested experience. One can also learn useful things by studying wild animals, which the ancients understood and many scientists that observe wild animals have found out.

The modern notion that some seem to have of chewing little or nothing and juicing, blenderizing, grinding or swallowing lots of foods forever, based on bizarre theories, makes the teeth into useless ornaments and makes no sense to me. I can see maybe doing such things when one is seriously ill or underweight or has very poor digestion, but not for the longer term, unless perhaps one is toothless, and even then there are dentures.

"One must attend in medical practice not primarily to plausible theories but to experience combined with reason." - Hippocrates, Precepts
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on September 11, 2013, 01:52:14 pm
Ah,  I bet you're right, about the mg. being at the outside of the bone,  for it's often said that it's the mg. that gives strength to bones,, and structurally then it would be incorporated towards the outside of the bone.  Good thought.   I supplement with seaweeds,  ocean mins, occasional greens, sea food, pumpkins seeds.. so  tend to think I'm getting enough.  I have wondered how those on Zero carb forums ( Just meat and fat, no organs ) maintain. I have read where they almost all go through severe cramping.   I wonder if the body has the ability to simply hang onto or maybe even recycle it's own minerals when outside sources are severely lacking?  And if so,  I imagine this can happen easier when the body isn't burdened by sugar or insulin spiking carbs upsetting hormone balances. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 11, 2013, 10:12:35 pm
Thats great to hear you you eat lots of bones and bone marrow. Have you ever gone long periods of time where you believe your collagen consumption was equal to your meat consumption?

I have no clue.  I have no way to measure how much collagen vs other protein sources I consume.  Because of the pet food my mix is rather chewy from fairly large amounts of connective tissue as compared to normal ground muscle meats.  Unlike fat, I don't have a way to measure collagen percentage, but it is certainly way higher in the pet food than in commercial ground beef.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 11, 2013, 11:06:31 pm
I still don't understand how collagen is supposed to help the prostate. Am I dumb?  ROFL
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: paper_clips43 on September 12, 2013, 09:50:34 pm
That I can not answer.

The number one reason I brought this up is because after reading this forum for over a year I have to value the opinion and experience of Lex and a few others. I like to debate my beliefs with those I who respect in order to either strengthen them or disprove them and walk away learning something new.

The second reason I brought this up is because after reading a lot of Lex’s history through his journal I noticed, bone broth, was something that was not mentioned that much, or at least I didn’t read it, and figured it was worth mentioning.

The third reason I brought this up is because it is currently a belief of mine that bone broth is good for me. I have been contemplating how cultures may have eaten nothing but bones for days until killing a fresh animal. The fact that it supplies high levels of gylcine, glutamine, proline, and hydroxyproline and none of which are in meat amazes me and inspires me to continue research it. I bet there is information out there connecting these amino acids to prostate health although I have yet to stumble upon it.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 13, 2013, 03:34:33 am
I had the TUMT procedure yesterday morning around 10am.  All went well.  There was some minor prep work where I was given a muscle relaxer and some ibuprofen as an anti-inflammatory.  They also inserted a catheter and inserted lidocaine into the bladder to numb it and much of the prostate area.  No needles were used for this, they just pushed the lidocaine into the bladder through the catheter.

I then waited about 20 minutes until the meds took affect before they took me into the treatment area.  This is an office procedure so no hospital surgery room was required.  They use the same room for the TUMT treatment that they use for cytoscope exams and other minor procedures.

When they felt I was ready, the urologist came in and did an ultrasound of the prostate through the rectum.  The normal prostate at age 25 has a volume of about 15 cubic centimeters.  The ultrasound showed my prostate to be 68 cubic centimeters – about 4 ½ times the size it was at age 25.  To give you a graphic that may help you understand the sizes, take a regular ¼ lb cube of butter.  Cut off about 1 1/2 tablespoons from one end.  The 1 1/2 tablespoons  represents the size of a normal prostate at age 25.  The remaining 6 1/2 tablespoons is the size of my prostate.

With the ultrasound guiding, the urologist injected (with needles this time) some lidocaine into the major nerves around the prostate and bladder, much as a dentist does in your mouth before drilling.  There was no pain and I didn’t even know he was doing this until he told me, so the lidocaine wash in the bladder did its job.

Once the nerves were numbed the urologist removed the ultrasound probe from the rectum and replaced it with about a 4 inch long temperature sensing probe.  I understand this probe has 5 sensors along its length.  It is also very flexible and maybe the size of your little finger so no discomfort here.

Next the TUMT catheter was inserted through the penis and up into the bladder where a small balloon at the end of the catheter was expanded with water to hold the catheter in position.  No pain but I certainly felt the catheter as it passed the valve into the bladder.  Sorta causes you to involuntarily curl your toes for an instant, then it’s over and you feel nothing.

The TUMT catheter looks like the tenticles of an octopus.  There’s one leg that goes into the bladder to do the work, 2 legs (input/output) that circulate the cooling fluid around the catheter to protect the urethra from excess heat, one that connects to the Urologix Coolwave Thermo Therapy machine, and I think one more but not sure what it’s for.
Finally they pressed some buttons to tell the machine what to do and the machine started clicking and humming as it went through a calibration cycle.  This took about 5 minutes.  Once the calibration cycle was over the machine started the 28 minute treatment cycle which is totally automatic. 

I must admit the treatment is a bit uncomfortable.  Not pain really, but very strong urges to urinate, bladder spasms, and other feelings that are annoying but you can do nothing about.  I was very glad when the 28 minutes was up.

When the treatment was completed, it took about 1 minute to remove the catheter and temperature sensor and I was then taken to a regular exam room.  Here I was given 24 oz of water to drink and container to catch urine.  They want to find out if you can pass urine after the procedure and the amount you are able to release determines if you must go home with a catheter for a few days.  The treatment causes trauma to the prostate and it often swells to the point that no urine can flow and this is what they test for.  The ibuprofen given at the start of the procedure helps some, but in my case it was not enough.  I was only able to pass one ounce of urine over a 1 hour period so in went a catheter.  Within 2 minutes 800ml of urine was drained from my bladder.

After that I was sent home with a prescription for antibiotics and ibuprofen to be taken for 2 weeks, and an appointment was made for next Monday morning to remove the catheter.

I arrived home about noon. The first 9 hours home was not fun.  Bladder spasms every half hour or so that were accompanied by a rather intense burning sensation.  I was ordered to drink lots of water and the resulting urine was pink showing some minor bleeding was going on, but I was warned that this would happen and not to worry unless it persisted for more than 3 days.

The spasms were so annoying that I couldn’t even concentrate on watching TV or working on the computer.  I finally gave up and went to bed around 9pm.  I was afraid that I probably wouldn’t sleep but this was not the case.  Since I was lying down and not moving, the spasms slowed way down and I went to sleep.  I woke up twice during the night with spasms but they passed quickly (maybe 1 or 2 minutes at most) and I fell right back to sleep.

I awoke at 6am with a 3rd mild spasm and decided to get up and start the antibiotic and ibuprofen for the day.  Overall I’m now very comfortable.  I get an occasional spasm but it is mild compared to the ones when I first got home and now they only happen every 3 to 4 hours if that often.

The catheter is left in for several days to allow the swelling in the prostate to reduce to the point that urine will flow reliably.  In my case I go back on Monday so I’ll have the catheter for 5 days.  I was told that 3 to 4 days was the norm, but the weekend gets in the way so I have to wait a couple of extra days.  As long as the spasms don’t return in force I’m fine with this.

I believe that they set the machine to kill about 30% of the tissue inside the prostate.  This dead tissue will be carried away and discarded taking the pressure off the urethra and allow urine to flow more freely.  The whole process takes about 6 months, but I’m told that I should start seeing improvement in 3 to 6 weeks and shortly after that I can discontinue the Doxasozin.  Results should last for 5 years or more after which the procedure can be repeated if necessary.  A friend of mine had this done and he went 10 years before he noticed things slowing down again.

Well that’s it for now.  Will answer questions and post as this adventure continues.

Lexa
   
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 13, 2013, 05:57:33 am
I hope you heal up well. I hope we can find some better answers for you.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on September 13, 2013, 06:33:56 am
wow, I just was going to ask what your favorite percentage mixture is when making pemican ( rendered fat and powdered meat)  I just figured out, well, perfected  a way of rendering at 100-105 f.  If you're interested, I can tell you about it.  I also have a meat grinder that I plan to pulverize the meat drying in the fridge hanging in strips.      And then I read your little office visit.  It's amazing what we can do when we need to.   Sounds like it went as planned and you should be seeing some relief.    Rest well.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 13, 2013, 09:10:39 am
wow, I just was going to ask what your favorite percentage mixture is when making pemican ( rendered fat and powdered meat)  I just figured out, well, perfected  a way of rendering at 100-105 f.  If you're interested, I can tell you about it.  I also have a meat grinder that I plan to pulverize the meat drying in the fridge hanging in strips.      And then I read your little office visit.  It's amazing what we can do when we need to.   Sounds like it went as planned and you should be seeing some relief.    Rest well.

Van, thanks for your concern.

As for pemmican, I always make it 50-50 by weight. 

I'm surprised that you've found a method to successfully render suet at 100F to 105F.  I've never been able to do this.  First the more saturated fats won't render out as they won't melt at 105F.  Second the temperature is not high enough to remove the water from the fat so what tallow you do get will spoil without refrigeration or freezing.  A few years ago there was a guy on Charles' forum that said he was doing this but he never gave us a sample and he sort of went away after awhile.  I don't know anyone that has been able to successfully fully render beef fat at this low temperature.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on September 13, 2013, 09:41:14 am
I'll let you know if it spoils, but I keep tubs or jars of it in the fridge now.   As far as water left in,,  I do know that any liquid that is apparent will  settle to the bottom of the jars or tub and can be poured out afterwards.  The 'trick' is to put it through a meat grinder with a small sieve.  The fat then comes out like spaghetti.  I then put it in a ss colander with a weight on top suspended over a bowl, in a large pan with either water that I keep at 100 f or whatever works.     Well, you may be right,  maybe only mono or poly fats are dripping out, but I'd bet that saturated is also coming out.   It does taste amazingly good, what ever fat it is.  I like shaving it like parmeson  or melting it and dipping meat in it.  The color is mostly golden yellow, like melted butter. 
    I think the guy on Charles' was me, I got banned for talking about organs and grass fed.  Other than the fact that the forum has about five active members, or so it seems,  I am surprised that Charles hasn't yet run into health problems.  It will be interesting to see in another ten years of eating just walmart meat. 
  Thanks for the 50/50 recommendation,  again, rest well.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 13, 2013, 10:00:39 am
I still don't understand how collagen is supposed to help the prostate. Am I dumb?  ROFL
Let me get that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prostate+collagen)  -d
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 13, 2013, 11:32:00 am
That's fascinating.  Thanks Phil.

See, that makes me suspect men with Lex's issue might be deficient in some trace mineral.  Here's why.

I noticed that, when I ate raw clams regularly, that my fingernails were stronger and harder.  After eating a couple dozen clams a week for about a year, my nails starting being brittle and splitting.  I stopped eating the clams, and now, 3 months or so later, they're not brittle anymore.   They're still strong, though. 

There may have been some vitamin in the clams that was helping my nails, but I much more suspect a trace mineral, since clams are filter feeders, and therefore extremely high in trace minerals.  I figure I finally managed to get enough of that mineral, and finally even overdosed on it a little.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 13, 2013, 07:22:00 pm
Well, the main protein in fingernails is keratin, rather than collagen, but minerals and collagen do reportedly help strengthen the nails, in addition to collagen-rich tissues (http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/minerals-aid-collagen-production-9485.html (http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/minerals-aid-collagen-production-9485.html)) like the wall between the prostate and bladder. Clams are rich in iron and also have some chromium, calcium and selenium. Lex's diet is already rather high in iron.

Since collagen is a major structural/connective substance in the various wall tissues of the body, whenever I hear "prolapse" in any area of the body, I know that collagen is involved, and probably also elastin or other proteins (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110524070316.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110524070316.htm)) in these connective tissue defects. Of course, the pressure of a growing prostate also puts tremendous strain on even strong connective tissue.

Zinc is an important mineral for collagen and the prostate and Lex's reports did show him a bit low in zinc. Oysters are rich in bioavailable zinc. However, like Lex said, absorption is probably more important with zinc than intake. So I don't know how well he would absorb zinc from oysters. I've been seeking info on how to improve zinc absorption myself and I suspect that improving gut bacteria might be one route. I don't have rock solid evidence that would stand a chance of convincing Lex, though. It's also an interesting coincidence that gut bacteria tend to be scant on mostly-meat diets.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 13, 2013, 08:20:24 pm
Well, he definitely wouldn't want to eat clams if he's low in zinc.  Clams are very high in copper, which is antagonistic with zinc.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 13, 2013, 09:27:00 pm
I'll let you know if it spoils, but I keep tubs or jars of it in the fridge now.   As far as water left in,,  I do know that any liquid that is apparent will  settle to the bottom of the jars or tub and can be poured out afterwards.  The 'trick' is to put it through a meat grinder with a small sieve.  The fat then comes out like spaghetti.
I always grind my fat before rendering as well. Renders much faster.

Large drops of moisture will settle to the bottom but without enough heat I've found that there is a good bit of moisture throughout the tallow as well.

I then put it in a ss colander with a weight on top suspended over a bowl, in a large pan with either water that I keep at 100 f or whatever works.   

This is interesting.  Putting the fat under pressure while rendering.  I never thought of this.  The more saturated fats may not melt but they surely will soften significantly and under pressure you may be extracting more than I would have expected.  I may try this just to see for myself.

 
    I think the guy on Charles' was me, I got banned for talking about organs and grass fed.  Other than the fact that the forum has about five active members, or so it seems,  I am surprised that Charles hasn't yet run into health problems.  It will be interesting to see in another ten years of eating just walmart meat. 

No, it wasn't you,  it was a guy using an amusing user name and I can't remember what it was (something-Joe I think).  His wife had lyme disease or something and she did well on pemmican.  I also think he said he raised is kids on pemmican as well.  The kids were something like 3 and 5 as I remember- two cute boys.

I was fairly active on Charles' forum for awhile.  Even went to one of his "meat ups" when he came to Los Angeles.  I got kicked of the forum when I dared to state that it was possible to gain weight on a meat and fat diet after the body had fully adapted to it.  Charles refused to believe this and said I was no longer welcome on the forum so I left.  I heard a couple of years latter that Charles was gaining weight and he couldn't understand why.  I was told he was blaming it on all sorts of things other than the fact that once the body fully adapts to a dietary protocol it then can use all the calories available and you can gain weight.  Not sure what he believes now.  I've pretty much lost touch over the last 2 or 3 years.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 13, 2013, 09:33:57 pm
Phil and Cher-Kid,
I took chelated zinc supplements for several years and that didn't seem to have any effect.  Don't know if it was due to the form of the zinc or lack of absorption or both.  I only know that it made no detectable difference in lab results or anything else I could find.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on September 13, 2013, 11:32:55 pm
Zinc.   I wonder if the land where the cows are raised,  think it's Texas, where Lex gets his beef from, is low in Zinc?   But just as interesting, is why might he be low if there is sufficient zinc in his meat, which is noted for supplying zinc?    Lex,  I have bought for many years a variety of sproutable dark green pumpkin seeds that come out of Austria,  I believe, that are sold by sunfood.  Europeans have for generations used pumpkin seeds just for prostate health.  I have heard this over and over.  I used to travel to Europe for many years, and would always bring them home.   I soak and sprout for a day each and then in the fridge they go in a collander.  I snack on them, and are completely different than all the pale green dead unsproatable rancid chinese pumpkin seeds that fill the health food stores these days.  They are touted for being high in bio-available zinc.    Couldn't hurt, is my opinion.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 14, 2013, 06:02:50 am
Van, Phil, and others looking for a single magic supplement:
For about 5 years I've been taking supplements prescribed by my doctor that contain lots of zinc supposedly from pumpkin seeds, (that's what it says on the label), as well as bio sources of selenium and a host of other co-factors that are supposed to support prostate health.  None of it has done any good.

As I've said before, I've done all the conventional things as well as many unconventional things, all without success.  At this point I don't think any single supplement is going to shrink my prostate.  At least none have done so over the past eight or nine years.  And in fact, my prostate continued to grow during that time.

If the issue could be solved with something as simple as oysters, pumpkin seeds, ginger root, saw palmetto, lycopene, Glutamic acid, Lysine, African pygeum, Stinging Nettle, Pomegranate, Quercetin,  Vitamin D3, Vitamin E, Vitamin B6 complex, Vitamin B12, various berry extracts, Beta-Sitosterol, manganese, magnesium, selenium, chromium, molybdenum, copper, silicon, boron, vanadium, etc, etc, etc, Did I mention a raw meat diet?  I'd have been cured long ago.  All of these popular supplements were prescribed by my doctor (with the exception of the raw meat diet).  If they have done anything at all, they have only suppressed the symptoms.  They did nothing to address the cause or stop, or reverse prostate growth.  Iodine did seem to lower PSA a bit, but didn't have any effect on prostate size, growth, or symptoms.

So far, just about everything that has been recommended on this forum has been researched and/or tried by me and thousands of other men, and to my knowledge, supported by my urologist, they have no effect other than to temporarily relieve symptoms.  The relief can be for months or years (8-9 years in my case).  Ultimately, for most men, the prostate will continue to grow until the supplements and drugs lose their effectiveness.  This is the point where I'm at today.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 14, 2013, 07:02:15 am
Phil and Cher-Kid,
I took chelated zinc supplements for several years and that didn't seem to have any effect.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Quote
Don't know if it was due to the form of the zinc or lack of absorption or both.
I suspect both.

Van, Phil, and others looking for a single magic supplement:
Not me, I don't believe in magic and I'm actually looking for ways to improve my body's functioning so that I eventually don't need any supplements at all, with luck. You must have me confused with someone else. :) I guess I need to add yet more caveats and explanations to my posts. It gets boring and time consuming, but it looks like it's needed.

Quote
For about 5 years I've been taking supplements prescribed by my doctor that contain lots of zinc
That's interesting that your doc was also concerned about zinc, presumably due to the combination of your somewhat low zinc measures and the connection between zinc and prostate issues, yes? Sounds like you have a rather good doc.

As I've said before, I think you're right that absorption is more important with zinc than intake (it's as if you read my mind on that--we seem to think alike on a number of things). Unfortunately, it seems that not many docs or scientists have explored this,  not even the rare docs that bother to consider nutrients at all, so we're left with mostly guesswork.

I don't think one single magic bullet is going to help either you or me. Nature is way too complex for that. Instead, the most beneficial therapies are likely to be multi-factorial and difficult to figure out. If chronic health problems could be easily solved with single-factor magic bullets, there wouldn't be much need for diet/health forums.

---

Unfortunately, the recommended therapies for improving the body's ability to absorb and produce nutrients tend to be so far-out, that I doubt you'll take them seriously, but I'll try to remember to post about them some day when I have a bit better understanding of them myself. Even if none of them help the prostate, they may help in other ways.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 17, 2013, 06:15:44 am
Well today was a big day.  After five days they removed my urinary catheter.  I thought this would be a simple matter as I could have easily removed it myself, but apparently the urologist takes no chances of having problems.

First a correction.  For the initial test to see if a catheter is necessary, I voided less than 30ml in one hour.  When they inserted the catheter, I voided 560ml, not the 800 I put in my previous post.

From the amount voided during the initial test, they determine minimum time the catheter should remain in.  In my case it was 5 days.  For many that require a catheter it is 3 or 4, and from what I understand about half go home without a catheter.

Today I was scheduled to go in to have my catheter removed.  I found out that my urologist doesn't just remove the catheter, he runs another void test to make sure I am able to void properly.  I've been told by several that have had the same treatment that their urologist doesn't do the void test.  They get a catheter at the end of the procedure for three days, whether they need it or not, and then they return and the catheter is removed.  If they have problems then it's back to the office (or emergency room if the office is closed) to have the catheter put back in.  The people I talked too all had trouble voiding, but struggled for one or two days without catheter and things got slowly better.

When I went in today, I was sent to an exam room and a nurse came in with 500ml of sterile water and a 100ml syringe (sans needle).  She started injecting the water into my bladder through the catheter, 100ml at a time, until I told her that I had serious urgency to urinate.  For me that happened at 300ml.  She then pulled the catheter out telling me to release the water into a measuring cup.  She said I had to void all 300ml or the catheter would be put back in for 3 more days when the test would be run again.

I passed with flying colors and was able to go home without a catheter.  Even so, I was given instructions to go home and immediately drink a liter of water followed by a half liter one hour later.  I was then  to measure my urine output until I voided at least 1 liter.  If this took more than 4 hours I was to call the office for instructions.

Glory be, I passed this test as well so it looks like I'm good to go.  My next appointment is Oct 14th.  Not sure what happens then.  Will report on my progress as this adventure continues.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 17, 2013, 06:58:10 am
Déithe a mholadh!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 17, 2013, 07:10:05 am
Déithe a mholadh!

I don't think there are 2 h's in moladh... but I could be wrong.  I'm certainly not an expert, but Google tells me so...

Had to look it up!

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on September 17, 2013, 07:13:52 am
All right Lex!   That waiting can be one of the hardest things.   Let's hope time heals.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: cherimoya_kid on September 17, 2013, 07:15:07 am
Good luck. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 17, 2013, 08:36:46 am
I don't think there are 2 h's in moladh... but I could be wrong.  I'm certainly not an expert, but Google tells me so...

Had to look it up!

Lex
Nicely done! The Irish were never much for spelling (or writing, generally), anyway, so maybe they'll forgive me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 18, 2013, 01:08:38 am
Last night I was talking to an engineering friend of mine who is a little older than I am, and he had the same procedure that I just completed back in 2007.  Like me, he wanted concrete evidence of the effectiveness of the procedure so he came up with a way to measure urine flow rate with a stopwatch and a measuring cup.

It's rather simple and probably not particularly accurate, but all we care about are relative readings anyway so it is an interesting place to start.  He tracts volume voided in milliliters and time to void in seconds.  Dividing seconds into milliliters gives milliliters per second.  My friend has been tracking his urine flow for over 15 years and he could easily see significant differences when he started taking Flowmax, the taper off as Flowmax started to have less effect, then the TUMT procedure etc. etc.

Unfortunately, timing the flow of urine when you have BPH is not simple because you often have stops and starts in flow.  In his and my case we have a main flow where about 75% or so is voided, then a stop followed in a few seconds by a second flow which is much smaller in volume.  Since the second flow is small he decided to ignore it but let it continue to add to the total volume in the measuring cup.

So his procedure is to start flow into a measuring cup and as soon as the first drops hit the bottom of the cup start the stopwatch.  As soon as the main flow stops, immediately stop the stopwatch.  Let any second flow add to the volume in the cup.

The thinking here is that flow usually starts somewhat slowly, goes to full strength, then tapers off and stops.  The volume of the second flow just compensates for the tapering flow rates at the start and stop of the initial void.  What we want to know is max flow rate so this compensation probably brings us closer to that value than if we didn't do this.

Normal average flow rates for males depends on age.

From age 4 to age 13 average flow rate is 10-12 mL/sec
From age 14 to age 45 average flow rate is around 21 mL/sec
From age 46 to age 65 average flow rate is around 12 mL/sec
From age 66 to age 80 average flow rate is around 9 mL/sec

Between last night before going to bed and 9am this morning I was able to make three measurements.  The first, at 10pm came in at 6.25 mL/sec.  The second at 5am came in at 5.58 mL/sec, and the last at 9am this morning came in at 6.25 again.

As you can see, I'm worse off than the average 80 year old.  There should be little effect of the TUMT procedure and any effect this early after the procedure would probably slow flow rate due to swelling.  I'll be doing this test weekly capturing all data over a 24 hour period and then averaging to get an average daily flow rate.  Will post the results as things change.  Let's hope the change is significant and for the better.  My urologist said not to expect to see much change for at least three to four weeks.  After that there should be steady improvement for up to 3 months.  Things should level off after that.

I now have a way to test this and compare relative readings starting from today onward.

Lex
 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: paper_clips43 on September 21, 2013, 10:33:04 pm
Praying for a speedy and healthy recovery for your Lex. That was quite a lot to deal with man and congratulations on getting the catheter removed. I had a catheter in for 3 days when I was hospitalized after rupturing my spleen. It was more annoying and painful than the injury and I had to make them remove it on the third day.

I noticed how many supplements, remedies, diets, and cures you have tried and am wondering how bone broth never made it on your list? You even have experienced the Rife Machine which I was “this” close to buying one but stopped because of your experience with them. Or at least decided to hold off...

Still though I have to ask. Would you consider supplementing with bone broth/collagen/gelatin for a period of time and see if it helps at all?

I am three weeks into about 30-40 grams of collagen protein a day now and still seeing improvements. I understand it could takes years to notice real changes although so far I hope to continually have it in my diet for a long time.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 23, 2013, 12:54:51 am
Still though I have to ask. Would you consider supplementing with bone broth/collagen/gelatin for a period of time and see if it helps at all?

Sorry but I'm just not interested in making bone broth.  I eat lots of collagen/gelatin/marrow as part of my diet, it's just not cooked into broth.  There is a large amount of connective tissue in my food which is the source for extracted collagen and gelatin.  I prefer to eat mine raw and complete rather than cooked into a broth where the solids (and an unknown amount of nutrients) are discarded and or damaged by heat.  I have to ask myself why I would want to supplement with a cooked partial form of these nutrients rather than just eat the uncooked complete nutrients just as other animals do.

I'm all about what works, and if bone broth is working for you then that is wonderful keep it up.  My diet has worked well for me for about 8 years now and I'm very happy with it.  Many problems have been resolved and only BPH remains as a significant issue.  There's just nothing in bone broth that makes me believe that it's worth the trouble.

With three weeks into your protocol you have a long way to go.  Let's see if you are still convinced that bone broth is the key to health 10 to 20 years from now.  I know that when I became a vegetarian/vegan about 45 years ago, I thought I'd found the dietary holy grail.  It took 25+ years to realize things were not turning out as advertised on the vegetarian front and after about 30 years I finally got the courage to switch to paleo. 

For me, paleo, VLC, ZC is still new. Eight years is not an overly long track record compared to an expected lifespan of 80 to 90 years.   I make no claims for it nor do I recommend it to others. Right now it seems to be working well for me.  However, if things change and I start to see problems, I'll change in a heartbeat.

My BPH is not a result of the paleo lifestyle.  It started in my vegetarian/vegan days well before paleo.  BPH was just one of the many problems I hoped that paleo would solve.  Alas, it is the last remaining problem and it seems paleo was not the answer.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 23, 2013, 01:05:30 am
For anyone that's interested, raw bone broths are also possible (acids and fermentation, instead of cooking, can be used to leach the nutrients from the bones and connective tissues--dogs and wild animals bury, ferment and gnaw on bones, BTW, so Lex's emulation of wild nature in his raw eating heuristic comes interestingly into play here). It was discussed in a thread somewhere.

I'll just toss out another shameful speculation too that I hope Lex doesn't mind--pastoral peoples that eat lots of red meats and not a lot of veg tend to also consume not only lots of bone broths, but also dairy and teas. Is it just coincidence that Europeans are prone to hemachromatosis and that dairy and teas are believed to deplete heme iron (to the point where pastoralists typically traditionally added blood to milk, perhaps to avoid anemia?)? I don't know. If anyone has high iron issues, this may be an area of inquiry to consider. As always, I'm not prescribing, just exploring and  learning.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: paper_clips43 on September 24, 2013, 12:04:34 am
Thats great you eat your gelatin and connective tissue raw Lex. I do as well just not as much as I would like, hence the broth. I hope to move entirely back to raw and believe the broths are going to help me transition.

Do you have any links to raw methods of gelatin extraction paleophil? And are you saying, or theorizing, that because people are depleting their iron levels with dairy and tea that bone broth is more needed due to high iron levels?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 24, 2013, 12:15:52 am
--dogs and wild animals bury, ferment and gnaw on bones,...
Hmmmm, didn't think of burying my food before eating. Maybe that's what I'm missing.
Is it just coincidence that Europeans are prone to Hemochromatosis and that dairy and teas are believed to deplete heme iron (to the point where pastoralists typically traditionally added blood to milk, perhaps to avoid anemia?)?
Interesting that you came up with a dietary explanation/solution for hemochromatosis.  When I looked into this issue several years ago, the most common thinking was that parasites tend to deplete the body of iron and in our natural environment we most likely would have been loaded with parasites as are most wild animals.  Our bodies evolved to conserve iron for this reason.  The problem today is that we seldom get parasites that would deplete iron stores, so our body's hording of iron, which evolved as a survival mechanism, now works against us, and is seen as a genetic flaw.

I think obesity and diabetes are similar.  In our natural environment carb sources would have been seasonal.  We certainly would have gained weight when eating them which would prepare us for lean times during the winter.  Today there are no lean months, and rather than a seasonal splurg, carbs have become our primary food source all year around, and obesity and diabetes are now common place.  Of course our medical profession sees this as disease, and looks for genetic flaws to explain it. 

Is our craving of carbs and the putting on weight by consuming them genetic?  I think certainly.  Is this a flaw?  I doubt it.  It's what has allowed our species to survive lean times. Just a guess, but I tend to think many of our metabolic problems are are likely due to our corruption of the natural food cycle.

I find it fascinating that hard won evolutionary advantages that served us well for tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of years, are now considered to be genetic flaws and a state of disease.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ys on September 24, 2013, 03:03:00 am
I think bone broths are totally not needed for proper collagen formation.

Collagen/Gelatin breaks down into standard set of amino acids during digestion.  The same amino acids anyone can get from any animal products.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 24, 2013, 08:41:18 am
Yes, Lex, helminths are of course another big factor in avoiding iron overload. Is their utter annihilation in the USA yet another reason to consider ways to reduce iron accumulation?

Not only would carb sources have been seasonal, but some of them would have been bletted or fermented, which increases prebiotic fibers and bacteria, which in turn increases generation of SCFAs. Should we utterly ignore these aspects of nature and just assume that modern practices are sufficient?

It's quite true that today there are no lean months. The fractal/intermittent nature of nature has been replaced with chronic habits based on pleasure-based preferences. The hard aspect of nature is largely being ignored.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 25, 2013, 02:49:15 pm
Should we utterly ignore these aspects of nature and just assume that modern practices are sufficient?.....

It's quite true that today there are no lean months. The fractal/intermittent nature of nature has been replaced with chronic habits based on pleasure-based preferences. The hard aspect of nature is largely being ignored.

I suppose the question is how important are these natural cycles?  We tend to focus on the specific foods we should and should not eat, but seldom do we look to emulate the natural cycles of food supply in nature.  Could it be that the annual cycle of eating far less food in late winter and becoming very lean into spring could be just as (or more) important to overall health as the specific foods consumed?

I know from horticulture classes I've taken that plants grown in a hothouse appear fleshy and robust, but are actually much weaker than the same plants forced to deal with their natural environment.  A hothouse grown plant will die when suddenly faced with an extreme change in environment, where its scrawnier sibling in the wild will handle the same change with ease.

Maybe we've turned ourselves into the equivalent of hothouse plants that look robust but are actually rather fragile because we've been sheltered from our normal environmental cycles.  We have all the same foods plentifully available all year around.  We heat our environments in the winter and cool them in the summer such that we can no longer tolerate wide temperature changes.  Could this be a significant source of our modern day maladies?

Another story comes to mind that might illustrate the point further.  Many years ago my grandfather came to live with us after grandma died.  He brought along his little dog, a mix of pomarenian and pekingese, weighing about 12 lbs.  The dog was about 8 years old and had always been a house dog.   It had heart trouble and digestive issues, was taking a lot of medications and wasn't expected to live much longer.  My dad said that it wasn't good for dogs to be in the house all the time and insisted that the poor little dog sleep outside.  We lived in the San Joaquin Valley and it easily reached 108+ in the summer and below freezing at night in the winter.  We were all sure that the poor dog was going to die in the first month.  That didn't happen.  The dog actually got better. Within 6 months she was no longer on any medications. She grew a thick coat in the winter and shed profusely in the summer months.  And she lived to be 14 - very old for her breeding.

Anyway, the importance of exposure to natural environmental cycles is an interesting question that is not much discussed.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on September 25, 2013, 11:59:49 pm
makes sense,  Jack Kruse is writing profusely on the same subject, and seems to have quite a lot of data collected.  Sport teams are using cold therapy in a unique fashion also with big results, supposedly. 
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 26, 2013, 08:28:52 am
Do you have any links to raw methods of gelatin extraction paleophil?
There was a brief thread on it somewhere. As I recall, it's basically meat/bones + water + acid (lemon juice, vinegar, etc.) + optional veggies or herbs, presumably stored in the fridge for extended periods.

Quote
And are you saying, or theorizing, that because people are depleting their iron levels with dairy and tea that bone broth is more needed due to high iron levels?
No, iron comes more from red meat and blood than bones. I'm just speculating that it's theoretically plausible that the enormous dairy and/or tea intakes of traditional pastoral peoples of today and the past (Celts, Scandinavians, Turkics, Mongolics, Tibetans, Altaics, Dinka, Massai, Bantu, Zulu, Scythians, Aryans, Maykops, Pazyryks, etc.) may help them (have helped them) to avoid iron overload.

If so, then it's also possible that people with pastoral ancestry and genetic predisposition to iron overload who eliminate all dairy, grains, teas, and potatoes (all foods that deplete iron and/or promote competing minerals like calcium and magnesium) because of a raw "Paleo" diet, and do not have helminths in today's antiseptic Western world, may put themselves at increased risk for iron overload. Interestingly, there are anecdotal reports of high iron levels amongst Paleo dieters on the Net and recent research suggesting that iron levels should be lower than the lab ranges suggest and that being in the upper parts of the "normal" range may actually contribute to insulin resistance (and physiological insulin resistance is another anecdotally common report in Paleo circles, but is largely dismissed as "normal" and assumed to be healthy). Some Paleoists even regularly give blood to reduce their iron levels. I find the idea of eating some dairy and teas/bitter herbs to be more appealing (if they don't cause problems) than regularly giving blood. For rawists, there are raw dairy foods and it's possible to make nearly raw tea. Some people heat their tea with just the sun, but I don't find even that is necessary to make tea. You can just soak the tea with no heat at all, it just takes more time (such as overnight). Teas are heated to varying degrees in production, so one can also seek out less-heated teas, such as green teas, if one wishes.

Another hypothesized factor in the genetic predisposition to iron overload in Westerners was that the gene(s) offered some protection from the bubonic plague, but it turns out "that patients with higher iron stores are actually more vulnerable to plague" (infection.http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/the-iron-in-our-blood-that-keeps-and-kills-us/266936/2 (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/the-iron-in-our-blood-that-keeps-and-kills-us/266936/2)), which leaves the dietary and helminth hypotheses even more plausible. The peoples of the British Isles have both some of the highest rates of lactase persistence in the world, long histories of pastoralism (dairy consumption) and tea drinking, presumably higher past rates of helminths given their close contact with cattle, and also some of the highest levels of hemachromatosis. Is it just coincidence, or something more?

It's just speculation on my part. I'm not saying that anything is proven. Just food for thought. :D

Maybe we've turned ourselves into the equivalent of hothouse plants that look robust but are actually rather fragile because we've been sheltered from our normal environmental cycles.
Fascinating analogy. Another one is zoo humans.

Quote
We heat our environments in the winter and cool them in the summer such that we can no longer tolerate wide temperature changes.
Yes, and I recently learned that some of the primitive people who lived at the cold Southern tip of South America did not wear clothes and instead just coated themselves in seal oil and heated themselves with fires when necessary (and had to go without added warmth when walking/running about).

Quote
Could this be a significant source of our modern day maladies?
I think so, and so does Wim Hof. Fascinating anecdote about the dog.

Quote
Anyway, the importance of exposure to natural environmental cycles is an interesting question that is not much discussed.
Indeed, and I suspect it's because even so-called Paleoists prefer coddled versions of "Paleo." You're one of the few exceptions who doesn't. It's fascinating that many people still insist that Wim Hof is crazy for enduring (and enjoying) cold despite the fact that scientists have already supported some of his claims with hard evidence. When people ask me isn't the cold weather "terrible," or why I'm not wearing a coat or going into a lake on a cold day and I try to explain that I actually like it and benefit from it, they insist that it is crazy despite my displaying no ill effects at all right in front of their eyes, while they in contrast are shivering or miserable.

As Wim Hof says, “The cold is my friend. Why wouldn't I go back to my friend? I will always go back to my friend.” And to that I add, the heat is also my friend.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 26, 2013, 07:14:55 pm
Maybe we've turned ourselves into the equivalent of hothouse plants that look robust but are actually rather fragile because we've been sheltered from our normal environmental cycles.
Some more examples of the sort of "Paleo" approaches that keep us fragile, like hothouse plants, is people that use these fragilizing/coddling words to describe their foods, recipes, etc.:

"nom nom nom" / "yummy"
"Paleo comfort food"
pemmi-crack (thoroughly cooked pemmican)
sweet fruits
electric blanket
mittens
comfy/cushy/soft (ex: mattress, chair, shoes)

There are fewer people using these robustifying/hardening words:

bitter herbs/gentian/...
bitter fruits/bitter melon/...
sour fruits/lemon/...
cold plunge
nail bed
bee sting therapy
hard nature

The progression of soda pops and candies is an example of the decline of the robustifying approach. In the old days, people used bitter herbs like gentian root as medicinals. Then people took them with sweet soda pop or candy to make them more palatable. Then they dispensed with the bitter herbs entirely and just consumed the soda pop and candy and the remaining few that still contain the old medicinal herbs (like Moxie soda) are called "old people's candy/soda," and most people today think these old medicinals are crazy.

Of course, it's possible to go too far in the other extreme and become a masochist, but what's considered a masochist today probably would have been considered a wimp just a couple centuries ago. The farther back you go, the more hardened the people seemed to be.

This video says that some primitive South Americans near the cold southern tip of the continent wore no clothes and instead put seal oil on their skin and used fires for warmth:

Ancient Voices: 1/11 - Tracking The First Americans (BBC Documentary Series)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P0xzlToyNzA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P0xzlToyNzA)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 30, 2013, 01:48:33 am
Well its been about 2 1/2 weeks since my TUMT procedure.  Unfortunately I didn't measure flow rate before the procedure but I did measure volume voided.

For the first several days after the catheter was removed I did measure flow rate as well as volume and everything seemed very close to what I was experiencing before the procedure so we'll just have to go with that. 

For several days after the catheter was removed (Monday 9/16/13) flow rate was between 5.5 and 6.25 ml/sec.  Average amount voided was around 100ml.  It's been about two weeks since the catheter was removed and I made flow rate and void volume measurements again yesterday.

Average flow rate has increased to between 8.5 and 10.1 ml/sec. about a 50% improvement.  Average volume voided has also increased from 100ml to around 150ml - again about a 50% improvement.  I'm getting up about 3 times per night rather than 5 so this is a nice 40% improvement as well.

Interesting observation:  When I wake up in the night to void, if I've been sleeping on my stomach, I void much less (about half the amount 75-90ml) as I would if I were sleeping on my side or back.  I also have to void again quickly, say within a half hour or so, and the second void brings the total volume up to the normal 150ml or maybe a little more.  After that I can go back to sleep for 2+ hours before having to get up again.

Very pleased that I have had no "retention" issues (where I just can't void at all) since the procedure.  I've been told that I can expect to see continuing improvement for 3 to 6 months before things level off.  Based on how things were before the procedure, I'm very happy with how things are now even if there is little further improvement.

The improvement has also been rather rapid compared to what I was told to expect.  The urologist said I should start to see some minor improvement starting at 3 to 4 weeks from the date of the procedure.  I'm seeing measurable improvement at 2 to 2 1/2 weeks.

No bad side effects that I can detect yet, but we're still early in the game.  Next appointment with the urologist is on Monday 10/14/13.  Will post further results once I've got feed back from the doc.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dr. D on September 30, 2013, 03:09:36 am
Awesome, Lex. Glad to hear of improvement.

I hate to be another one of those guys trying to give advice, so I won't give advice. I just want to know if you've ever looked into either cold therapy or incline bed therapy.

I'm reading through Jack Kruse's info on cold therapy right now and I've got to say, his thoughts are very compelling. From what I understand, diet is only a part of the whole puzzle of health and the reason we see kids with heart attacks and the reason cholesterol is even considered an issue is because of our warm environment, even though we descend from cold-adapted mammals. He claims (not me) that it is the missing puzzle in why so many people that do well with diet and exercise still have disease, yet those in cold environments are so healthy.

And I've only recently started IBT but it's helped my back and theoretically it may help you possibly by relieving prostate pressure...? No clue here either, you're a smart guy and I'm just wondering your take.

Just curious if you've ever looked into either and your experience with them. Take care.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 04, 2013, 10:02:26 am
I just want to know if you've ever looked into either cold therapy or incline bed therapy.
I didn’t try this specifically, but I can see nothing in the idea that would do anything to reduce prostate size or stop prostate growth.  It might alleviate symptoms for a while, but I’m way beyond that point.  Before the TUMT procedure, I couldn’t let any significant pressure build in the bladder or it would shut off urine flow completely. 
I'm reading through Jack Kruse's info on cold therapy right now and I've got to say, his thoughts are very compelling. From what I understand, diet is only a part of the whole puzzle of health and the reason we see kids with heart attacks and the reason cholesterol is even considered an issue is because of our warm environment, even though we descend from cold-adapted mammals. He claims (not me) that it is the missing puzzle in why so many people that do well with diet and exercise still have disease, yet those in cold environments are so healthy.
I’m not a believer in cold therapy alone as exposure to cold is only one aspect of our environment.  In a previous post I suggested that it may be exposure to environmental cycles that we miss in our modern society.  Natural environmental cycles include hot, cold, wet, dry, feast, famine, etc., etc.  We moderate almost all natural cycles to the point of non-existence.

I’m not willing to choose a specific thing like exposure to cold and hail it as the holy grail to health.  Like diet, I expect that it is just one more piece of the puzzle.  There are cycles within cycles.  Day and night not only cycle light and dark, but also temperature, usually warmer during the day and cooler at night.  There are then seasonal cycles that move the overall average temperature up and down creating the more extreme heat of summer day vs the cold of a winter night.  Who’s to say that these compound cycles are not just as important as any individual cycle.

The natural availability of food usually follows the seasonal cycle with less food available during the cold winter months than the warmer months.  So for those that try to emulate food cycles through intermittent fasting, is weekly, monthly, or quarterly fasting the thing to do,  or should they reduce food intake during the colder months rather than the warmer months following the annual progression of seasons?

For those that think diet alone is the answer, is there one food fits all like my current ZC adventure or should we change our diet to fit the foods most available during the seasons?  And of course, is diet alone enough or must it be coupled with famine in the winter months to be fully effective?

Lots of questions and possibilities with little hard data to point the way.  My guess is that it is the exposure to complex and constantly varying cycles in ALL aspects of our environment that contribute to robust health.  Notice I said health and not longevity.  I have no illusion that a good strong and robust life is necessarily an exceptionally long one.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dr. D on October 04, 2013, 10:51:21 pm
Excellent answer. Thanks for your patience, I remember those previous posts now. Glad the procedure is helping.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 05, 2013, 12:13:21 pm
Somehow my reply to Dustin (two posts above this one) got posted as though it was from goodsamaritan.  Not sure how this happened.  Here's the header to the post:

Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #1954 on: Yesterday at 09:02:26 AM »

The post is correct but I'm the one that made the post, not GS.  I guess Arthur C. Clarke was on to something when he said:  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  It's clear some sort of magic happened here...

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on October 05, 2013, 02:07:47 pm
Actually, there was a problem with the server at one point, so that some of the most recent posts at the time were lost. GS was obviously just re-adding the various posts in and had to do it via his own username. That`s all. Nothing sinister here.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Dr. D on October 05, 2013, 02:09:29 pm
We had a server crash and GS reloaded all the posts so they appear in his name. Thankfully you always sign your posts so I knew it was you.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on October 05, 2013, 10:37:44 pm
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/infonews-items/reactivated-and-restored-posts-from-temporary-server/msg115291/#msg115291 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/infonews-items/reactivated-and-restored-posts-from-temporary-server/msg115291/#msg115291)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 06, 2013, 11:16:07 am
Never thought there was anything sinister.  I thought the server made the error and somehow put GS as the poster.  Would have been an interesting software error to find.

Glad to know that GS and/or moderators can recover posts when the server burps.  Also glad it wasn't some strange software bug that would be difficult to reproduce.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Inger on October 08, 2013, 09:14:49 pm
  I’m not a believer in cold therapy alone as exposure to cold is only one aspect of our environment.  In a previous post I suggested that it may be exposure to environmental cycles that we miss in our modern society.  Natural environmental cycles include hot, cold, wet, dry, feast, famine, etc., etc.  We moderate almost all natural cycles to the point of non-existence.

I’m not willing to choose a specific thing like exposure to cold and hail it as the holy grail to health.  Like diet, I expect that it is just one more piece of the puzzle.  There are cycles within cycles.  Day and night not only cycle light and dark, but also temperature, usually warmer during the day and cooler at night.  There are then seasonal cycles that move the overall average temperature up and down creating the more extreme heat of summer day vs the cold of a winter night.  Who’s to say that these compound cycles are not just as important as any individual cycle.

The natural availability of food usually follows the seasonal cycle with less food available during the cold winter months than the warmer months.  So for those that try to emulate food cycles through intermittent fasting, is weekly, monthly, or quarterly fasting the thing to do,  or should they reduce food intake during the colder months rather than the warmer months following the annual progression of seasons?

For those that think diet alone is the answer, is there one food fits all like my current ZC adventure or should we change our diet to fit the foods most available during the seasons?  And of course, is diet alone enough or must it be coupled with famine in the winter months to be fully effective?

Lots of questions and possibilities with little hard data to point the way.  My guess is that it is the exposure to complex and constantly varying cycles in ALL aspects of our environment that contribute to robust health.  Notice I said health and not longevity.  I have no illusion that a good strong and robust life is necessarily an exceptionally long one.

Lex


I think you speak wise words here Lex. We need the nature with all its aspects. I think it is a mistake to believe it is all about foods. It is about context though, seasons... the stuff you write about above.
I slept in a tent last 1,5 months... and I have never slept so well. Tells a lot to me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: panacea on October 28, 2013, 02:19:41 am
I'm not a healthy person, but I'm a very in depth and objective researcher. I usually post more questions than advice because it takes me further, but I noticed you have clued into something I found very interesting in other places on the internet.

The reason health is so dynamic and puzzling is because a persons specific healthy diet/lifestyle/ambient temps not only depends on the standard genetics, life history, and specific environment, but drastically on what health state they are at right now. Someone who is extremely healthy can just about eat any bacteria/rancid food they want and only  suffer diarrhea or vomiting. Someone who is sick fares better on cooked soup than raw food, because the mechanical ease of digestion from heat becomes more beneficial than enzyme activity, which is suppressed even if enzymes are present in raw foods, in sickly people.

However, the interesting thing is regarding ambient temperatures. For an unhealthy person, hot or warm temperatures (above 72 degrees fahrenheit) are by far more beneficial for them. Even though this results in breathing more volume and therefore depleting oxygen supply to all of their organs, this is their normal state in being unhealthy anyway, and cold temperatures shocks their body and taxes it with energy to keep warm which it does not have - thus the resulting need for blankets/heavier clothing or shivering. Coldness is miserable for sick people.

For a healthy person, hot temperatures that are comfortable or tolerable for an unhealthy person become either slightly irritating, or imperceptibly detrimental to their temporary health. For an average healthy person, too warm/hot body temperatures (due to too much clothing, no wind, etc) results in sweating, if there is no wind or very little exposed skin, it will become intolerable to not mouth breathe. Mouth breathing (like how a dog pants but less extreme) also evaporates heat, but also causes great losses in bodily carbon dioxide, which is absolutely necessary for oxygen to be delivered to organs (this is why you pass out when you hyperventilate, your brain shuts down due to lack of oxygen delivered to it, all the oxygen on the planet being in your lungs gets you nowhere by itself). 

For an extremely healthy person however, they can actually slow down their metabolism in adaptation to very hot environments (or too much clothing, etc), or speed it up in very cold environments, and can tolerate extreme temperatures that seem remarkable to science. Some true monks (not the jokes on youtube) have demonstrated this before, again the reason for their health is always because they practice breathing techniques, live a relatively traditional lifestyle with very little polution, etc. Unfortunately, extremely healthy people like this can tolerate just about any kind of raw/cooked diet, so it's hard to use them as a gauge for what is the best diet. It is also impossible to use sickly/chronically allergic people as a gauge for the best diet, because their best diet is determined by what doesn't shock their body, not necessarily what is the most all-around nutritious/least toxic per pound. Animal studies such as on capuchin monkeys are not relevant for many reasons but the prime example being that they live in a nearly perfect environment free of pollutions like electrical devices, smog, synthetic fabrics, and get plentiful exercise, sleep in the outdoors, etc, they are, by all standards, living an opposite life from modern humans. Nuts/plants with high defense mechanisms would be easily digested by such powerful stomach acid from such fit animals, and there in lies the problem with translating to us.

We also don't know how important things like freshness / the diets of our lower food chain are, or other factors. Of course it is easy to deduce that these things are valuable, but how much so, we have no clue really.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 03, 2013, 12:03:32 pm
Panacea,
I enjoyed your well thought-out post.  I seldom give advice for the reasons you point out.  I have no idea of the health, condition, or environment factors affecting anyone other than myself.  To give advice to others under such conditions is sheer folly.  Therefore, I try to state plainly what I'm doing and the results I achieve and let others determine for themselves what action, if any, they wish to take.

I also enjoy pondering the unknowable and often post my thoughts and ideas for others to consider and comment on.  Your post should provide much food for thought as well.  You are in good company with Paleo Phil and others who post to my journal.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 05, 2013, 07:28:45 am
Thanks Lex.

Quote from: Lex Rooker
I’m not a believer in cold therapy alone as exposure to cold is only one aspect of our environment.  In a previous post I suggested that it may be exposure to environmental cycles that we miss in our modern society.  Natural environmental cycles include hot, cold, wet, dry, feast, famine, etc., etc. 
That's my hunch too. I expose myself to all those things, not just cold. It's interesting that Dr. Kruse reported owning and using a hot tub.

I live in a Northern state, so I tend to focus more on cold therapy for practical reasons. I found that cold shock therapy improved my ability to tolerate high temperatures as well as cold. I'll bet it works in reverse too and presumably combining the two to maximize the range of temperature differences would be better than focusing on just one or the other (and Scandinavian and Roman bath therapies involve both heat and cold). Both summer and winter are more pleasant for me now. I still have room for improvement with temperature tolerance.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on November 10, 2013, 06:29:06 am
@PaleoPhil,
I just finished John Durant's book "The Paleo Manifesto".  The book is a tour de force of all things paleo covering everything from history to diet to exercise to fasting and even daily and seasonal cycles.  He seems to embrace the hot/cold exposure theory much as you suggest in your post above.  It seems he's a member of the Polar Bear Club (folks that jump in the cold ocean in winter on purpose) and frequents saunas and Russian Banya's for the hot side of things.  Must be something to it....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Daryl on December 10, 2013, 01:58:28 am
Hope all is well, Lex.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 10, 2013, 07:42:10 am
Thanks for the report from the book, Lex. It's a bit strange that the heat side of the scale has been removed and largely ignored in recent methods and discussions of the traditional ancient therapy. The same stress proteins are apparently triggered with both cold-shock and heat-shock, as well as with oxygen deprivation. Wim Hoff has famously demonstrated withstanding all three of these hormetic stressors (I suppose we could call them eustressors in the right doses) with remarkable antifragility and aplomb.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: chris_k on December 29, 2013, 10:14:56 pm
Hi Lex. I came across your journal, read a little bit and was just about to leave, but then I read about your prostate problems.

So just in case you haven't tried it, this might help: squat when pooping and peeing (just like buddhist monks, btw). And I mean a full squat like the Chinese do. I say that because I've come across westerners who have no idea what to do in a squat toilet and attempt to sort of do a half squat where they keep their ass a foot above the toilet or something weird like that.

The modern toilet is just a silly invention, an attempt by western civilization to appear "civilized". You know, because sitting while crapping is civilized and squatting is what "primitive" cultures do.


http://www.jcrows.com/squatting.html (http://www.jcrows.com/squatting.html)

Google these:

prostate squat
prostate squat chinese

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 03, 2014, 02:22:13 am
Lex, I hope you're doing well. Please check out my warning here:

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/gut-bacteria/msg118811/#msg118811 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/gut-bacteria/msg118811/#msg118811)

I think you are at risk, given that you've been doing VLC for longer than most. I know, you haven't been showing super-bad metrics or symptoms, and I think that's a near miracle. No, I don't have proof, but if you look into this I think you'll see the logic.

I hate to recommend specifics to others to do, but I have a new experiment to consider: test your gut microbiome, such as getting a practitioner to give you the GDX/Metametrix GI function stool test (http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/2013/09/feeding-microbiota-non-starch.html (http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/2013/09/feeding-microbiota-non-starch.html)), then add potato starch or foods rich in resistant starch and/or other prebiotics and later get tested again.

You're a near perfect candidate for the experiment, as you're so close to ZC and you track things meticulously.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 24, 2014, 06:02:37 am
Phil,
The battle of the diet gurus is, if nothing else, amusing to watch.  They all claim they've found the dietary Holy Grail.  The next thing you know, there's a stampede in another direction towards a different cliff, again labeled "the dietary Holy Grail". Years ago it was Ehret, Walker, Bragg, Tobe, Sheldon, and Carrington.  Then came Wigmore, Kulvinskas, and Pritikin.  Shortly followed up by Atkins, Sears, and Diamond.  Then there's the new crop Asprey, Kresser, Moore, Cordain, Taubes, Durant, Sisson, Hunt, Wolf, Jaminet, Devany, and Peat, et al. each with their own biases and agendas.

Ehret championed the mucusless diet, Walker- raw juices, Bragg-apple cider vinegar and fasting, for Sheldon it was cherries, and Carrington thought the perfect food was chocolate.

For Wigmore and Kulvinskas it was wheatgrass juice, rejuvilac, and sprouts.   Pritikin was all about ultra low fat, high carb, moderate protein.

The current crop seems to be all over the map as well, though they seem to have more of a herd mentality.  They all shift direction like a school of fish - almost in unison - but with the occasional straggler that peddles hard to catch up with the pack.

Today's hot topic seems to be "resistant starch" (last week it was "safe starch") and so the drama continues.  Just as all the gurus of the past discovered about their pet beliefs, RS will soon be eclipsed by the next Holy Grail, and relegated to the ash heap of history.  Stay tuned.

Life is short, and I have determined to waste as little of it as possible, for death will overtake each of us soon enough, regardless of what we choose eat.  Dietary wars were waged long before I was born, (even the Bible weighs in on the subject), and will still be raging long after I'm gone.  Diet gurus will come and go as sure and as regularly as Paris fashions.

If you think agonizing over resistant starch (used to be called fiber in the olden days) is a good use of your time, then by all means have at it.  For me, other things are more important.  I think I'll continue to do what works well for me, and spend little of my precious time worrying over the constant hysteria churned up by the gurus.  What time I have left on this earth is better spent in my shop and with family and friends doing the things I love to do. 

Rest assured, if what I'm doing stops working or problems arise, I'll change in a heartbeat. Until then I'm going to burry my head in the dietary sand and ignore all the clatter from the gurus.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 24, 2014, 08:58:54 am
Thanks for the response, Lex. I figured you wouldn't be interested, but thought I'd give it a shot, as I'd want you to do the same for me.

I'm not a dietary guru and it was actually an unknown person here, Muhammad Sunshine, who tipped me off about RS, not a guru (or maybe you're aware of his huge popularity somewhere else? ;) ). The important thing for me is that RS has helped, and more so than I expected. Like you, I was quite skeptical of it at first,  and expressed that in my comments to Muhammad. I try to stay open-minded and didn't dismiss RS entirely, and then I quickly realized that it fit with a lot of other things I had learned independently and could potentially explain a lot.

One of the things that improved for me was my fasting blood glucose, which I think you reported was above-average in your case as well. Somewhere around 100 mg/dl I think? Have you seen a report of any society having an avg FBG that high? If not, doesn't it strike you as a bit odd to assume that a high FBG should just be ignored, like VLC diet gurus suggest we should do? Even if physiological insulin resistance is not a problem in itself, it may suggest that something is not quite right--such as perhaps that the gut bacteria are not being properly fed.

Another indicator that your gut bacteria may be depleted is your low fecal volume. This may be a bad sign, rather than a good sign, as some VLCers have assumed. In other words, you may already have problems, and some of them may be hidden, and your physician does not even know what to look for, because physicians have never had to deal with people on extreme VLC diets before (even Dr. Atkins allowed some increased carb intake after his induction phase).

Resistant starch is not a recent fad, removing it from the diet is. The question isn't so much why add it back in, as why did we remove it in the first place. It seems to be one of the biggest holes in popular versions of "Paleo" diets. It and other prebiotics have been part of the human diet from the beginning. It's only since industrialization that it has been drastically reduced in the diet, especially in the USA recently.

One of the puzzles for VLCers was why multiple high-starch societies are faring so well, such as the Kitavans and Okinawans. The usual excuse is to blame it on exercise, but RS may be a better explanation.

In the past, the key component of "fiber" was thought to be the bran/husk of plants. Then when this was studied, it turned out that bran did more harm than good and scientists were perplexed. Some of them went back to the drawing board and re-examined the diets of healthy populations with high fiber intakes and discovered that it wasn't so much bran that they were eating as resistant starch.

Lots of people talk about the right diet for them, but few talk about the right diet for their beneficial gut bacteria, which is proving to be also quite important.

One fellow is looking into the possibility that liver and other organs may provide some of the benefit of RS, so if you don't expand your diet, then here's to hoping that your organ intake will be sufficient.

If you choose not to expand your diet at all, your gut microbiome results would still be particularly interesting. Maybe your physician would even prescribe the test, as it seemed like in the past he was worried about your diet (though perhaps less so since your colonoscopy).

Another change that has happened since the early days of your VLC experiment is that more and more VLCers have been reporting worse and worse problems. One whistle-blowing ex-VLC physician recently reported that things have gotten so bad, he is afraid of being sued for his past advice to eat VLC, and thus he wishes to remain anonymous. According to him, by the time people realize that there is a problem, it may be too late to save themselves.

There has also been more and more evidence coming out of higher starch consumption by Neanderthals, ancient H. sapiens sapiens, Eskimos and others than previously assumed. The completely novel modern VLC dietary approach is turning out to be more problematic and more rare than many expected, including me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on February 25, 2014, 01:31:54 am
Phil,
I don't disregard RS as important or unimportant any more than any other SINGLE fix-all.  What I find amusing is the constant search to discover the single Holy Grail nutrient, hormone, or whatever.

We are complex animals and no single food is going to meet our needs.  Our bodies require oxygen but we can't survive in a pure oxygen environment.  We need many things in proper balance.

I do believe that our nutrient intake needs to come from sources that would be available in our natural environment and without the need for modern processing.  This takes all the nutrient isolates off my radar as acceptable food.  I won't eat protein isolate powders so popular with body building crowd because these are not complete foods.  By the same token I'm not going to eat resistant starch isolates regardless if they are labeled all natural and organic and come from potatoes.  None of these things are available in nature in this isolated form.

Now a potato is a whole food.  If I read correctly, raw potato is high in RS, but cooked potato has almost none.  Reading further and from real world practical experience when I was a vegan, raw potato can cause some serious gastrointestinal upset, where cooked potato doesn't.

Then there's legumes - again a whole food.  Too cook, or not to cook, that is the question.  And of course there's sprouts full of monsacarides and other less than healthful compounds.

Oats have a good measure of RS but they fall into the category of grains which are a paleo no-no.

Fruits are loaded with fructose - horrors.

Green veggies are loaded with oxalic acid - Yuck.

Now I'm told that meat doesn't have RS and I'm going to get really sick if that is all I eat.

So what's a recovering vegetarian/vegan to do?  It's all so complicated.....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Sorentus on February 25, 2014, 02:12:50 am
I think we evolved to get as many bacterias as we can in our gut and bacteria play a good role towards proper immunity. A person with a wide reaction of beneficial bacterias posses a healthy immune system. It's likely why most people with lower compromised gut microbiota develop autoimmune disease and other auto immune conditions such as allergies etc. I think we evolved to eat vegetable, starches and fruits otherwise we wouldn't be able to digest them, it's likely why some birds evolved to eat specific type of fruits that we can't eat.

So the more we feed our gut bacteria with a verse diversity of starches, the better we help our immune system to be strong and healthy. GCB'S wife died of cancer but I suspect maybe we wasn't having enough high meat or not enough good fermented vegetables and good fruits.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 25, 2014, 07:31:26 am
Gee, I was hoping you'd know me better than this by now, Lex. :)

I wouldn't waste your time with info on RS if I thought it was about any of the things you mentioned. I wouldn't even have bothered experimenting with RS foods myself if it were. I'm grateful to Muhammad Sunshine for tipping me off about it and thought I'd try to pay it forward.

RS doesn't require any modern processing at all, nor to be eaten purely in isolated form. Among whole foods, RS content is actually highest in raw unprocessed ones. RS is of particular interest in the LC/Paleo world because many Paleo dieters and LCers have been avoiding the foods that contain it for unproven reasons that get repeated over and over like holy doctrines, and more and more who do so have been reporting problems, and then reporting improvements when they stop avoiding these foods.

Raw potato is indeed high in RS. My grandfather ate small amounts of raw potato his whole life without any GI upset. Cooked potato reportedly regains a retrograde form of RS when it's allowed to cool for a good 8 hours or more. People have been reporting benefits even from this retrograde form. If raw or cooked potatoes and potato starch don't float your boat, there are other RS sources to choose from.

As for me, I'm less concerned about which foods are on gurus' Paleo no-no lists full of lots of simplistic assumptions that lots of evidence contradicts than I am about what works for me. Nature is indeed complex, infinitely so, and we will never fully comprehend it.

As always, I'm not telling you or anyone else what to do and wish you good luck with whatever you do.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: van on February 25, 2014, 08:11:22 am
Nice response Phil..   I think what would prove most valuable is to report back in some months.  This forum is replete  with anecdotal stories about how this food or supplement is the One,, but only time will tell.  Thus if it's still number one on your list ( and you Have had a few others)  let us know.  And I would imagine you might be able to encourage Lex to give it a try with a little more short/long term experience.   And again,  I do think you are on to something.  At least the field of gut bacteria is wide open for discovery.   When you think about how many different microbes early man swallowed; from varying water sources, to eating high meat off of dead carcasses, to the very fact they never washed anything, ate right off the ground, etc....   I'm still convincing myself to go out to wild areas and dig down a foot or two, grab a couple of pounds of dirt, and add water, and strain through a coffee filter.   I saw a doc. called 'Dirt'.  The scientist picked up a handful, and described how many millions if not billions of bacteria, fungi, etc. constituted dirt..   It might be a fascinating experiment to collect dirt/water/strainings from various locals and see what effects on one's gut bio they create.     Also let us know what form of RS you like best, that seems to work best for you.  For I'm probably not going to go out and buy a processed potato starch.   thanks,   Van
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on February 25, 2014, 03:28:10 pm
I  recall one article in the Daily Telegraph magazine in which a pop-star mentioned that in his younger days, he was so dirt-poor that he chose to eat only raw potatoes(plus water) for a whole month. He said he nearly died from the experience, no doubt due to the high levels of antinutrients in those potatoes.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Iguana on February 25, 2014, 03:36:45 pm
How could he do that? Raw potatoes are inedible - except sometimes in minute amounts!
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: LePatron7 on February 25, 2014, 09:20:23 pm
Phil,
The battle of the diet gurus is, if nothing else, amusing to watch.  They all claim they've found the dietary Holy Grail.  The next thing you know, there's a stampede in another direction towards a different cliff, again labeled "the dietary Holy Grail". Years ago it was Ehret, Walker, Bragg, Tobe, Sheldon, and Carrington.  Then came Wigmore, Kulvinskas, and Pritikin.  Shortly followed up by Atkins, Sears, and Diamond.  Then there's the new crop Asprey, Kresser, Moore, Cordain, Taubes, Durant, Sisson, Hunt, Wolf, Jaminet, Devany, and Peat, et al. each with their own biases and agendas.

Ehret championed the mucusless diet, Walker- raw juices, Bragg-apple cider vinegar and fasting, for Sheldon it was cherries, and Carrington thought the perfect food was chocolate.

For Wigmore and Kulvinskas it was wheatgrass juice, rejuvilac, and sprouts.   Pritikin was all about ultra low fat, high carb, moderate protein.

The current crop seems to be all over the map as well, though they seem to have more of a herd mentality.  They all shift direction like a school of fish - almost in unison - but with the occasional straggler that peddles hard to catch up with the pack.

Today's hot topic seems to be "resistant starch" (last week it was "safe starch") and so the drama continues.  Just as all the gurus of the past discovered about their pet beliefs, RS will soon be eclipsed by the next Holy Grail, and relegated to the ash heap of history.  Stay tuned.

Life is short, and I have determined to waste as little of it as possible, for death will overtake each of us soon enough, regardless of what we choose eat.  Dietary wars were waged long before I was born, (even the Bible weighs in on the subject), and will still be raging long after I'm gone.  Diet gurus will come and go as sure and as regularly as Paris fashions.

If you think agonizing over resistant starch (used to be called fiber in the olden days) is a good use of your time, then by all means have at it.  For me, other things are more important.  I think I'll continue to do what works well for me, and spend little of my precious time worrying over the constant hysteria churned up by the gurus.  What time I have left on this earth is better spent in my shop and with family and friends doing the things I love to do. 

Rest assured, if what I'm doing stops working or problems arise, I'll change in a heartbeat. Until then I'm going to burry my head in the dietary sand and ignore all the clatter from the gurus.

Lex

I'm glad someone finally mentioned the peril of the diet gurus.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on February 25, 2014, 11:24:16 pm
How could he do that? Raw potatoes are inedible - except sometimes in minute amounts!
He was obviously desperate at the time.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Celeste on February 26, 2014, 12:48:31 am
I  recall one article in the Daily Telegraph magazine in which a pop-star mentioned that in his younger days, he was so dirt-poor that he chose to eat only raw potatoes(plus water) for a whole month. He said he nearly died from the experience, no doubt due to the high levels of antinutrients in those potatoes.
I remember when I was younger, about 18, I had destroyed my gut bacteria earlier going to a dermatologist who had given me antibiotics and accutane for my skin for awhile. Once off them, I came across a doctor (? can't remember his credentials) who wanted me to eat raw potatoes. He said they were alkalizing. They were awful! I did not try them long. I think they added to my flatulence at the time. My stomach was in knots back then.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 27, 2014, 09:34:00 am
Thanks Van. I have been experimenting with RS-rich foods for months already and intentionally stayed low key about it until I had tried it for some months, in case the benefits were a temporary fluke or any harms developed. I felt compelled to start reporting about it more assertively once I learned about the increasing seriousness of health problems that chronic LCers have been reporting, sometimes while thinking they were doing well because they were feeling good and had what they thought were good numbers on standard health metrics, and also because I've continued to benefit from RS-rich foods and have been seeing increasingly amazing positive reports from VLC and Paleo dieters who have been expanding their diets to include more prebiotic-rich foods that surpass anything I've seen since Paleo first started becoming popular.

I'll forego responding to other questions and claims in Lex's thread, as he asked in the past that people not use his journal for debating. My intention here wasn't to debate, it was just to share a warning and an idea with Lex.

If anyone has any questions about RS, they can ask them at the VLC warning thread I created or my journal or PM me. I'm not looking to hard sell anyone, just try to answer questions from the truly interested, if I can make the time. I hope people will do some of their own digging before asking me, and it's people's curiosity and open mindedness that I'm hoping to inspire, rather than to become some sort of guru. Lex and Tyler have been warning about the perils of blindly following diet gurus for years (which is something I agree with them on), and I certainly wouldn't want others to blindly do something just because I'm doing it (and in my signature I warn folks not to do that). I selfishly also don't want to end up inundated with questions the way Richard Nikoley and Tatertot Tim have been. :) Richard has even had to stop answering emails, he has gotten so many on RS.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sunsetbreak on May 14, 2014, 03:02:53 pm
Hi Lex. I am new to the forum and have been skimming this thread today.

A little about me. I'm 38 and generally free of any acute health issues. I'm 6'0 and 144. I haven't ever been to a doctor other than a naturopath about 12 years ago, whom I saw a few times over the course of a year.  I don't have any recent blood work so I can't say much in that regard. I've been doing some home blood sugar tests and blood sugar experiments lately and my blood sugar is remarkable stable, and hardly changes after meals, especially my first meal of the day. Blood sugar pretty much hovers around 92 when I wake up in the morning and one hour and  two hours after breakfast it is still around 92, which I find interesting.  Some times my second or third snack of the day will create a little 25 point spike, and then the rest of the day I hover around 92, even after evening snacks.

I've read that 75-85 is optimal, but I've also heard that people around those levels usually have 40 point spikes or more after eating meals....even after a piece of chocolate.  Seems to me I would rather be around 92 with 10 or 15 point spikes, than be at 82 and have 40 or 50 point spikes.  Your observations?

Also, I have one question about your current prostate challenge...  What is your take on water fasting as relates to acute pain, acute illness, etc? I have a great respect for Herbert Shelton's work and I find fasting to be quite 'efficient' in the treatment of disease(for lack of a better word).

Aloha, Mark
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sunsetbreak on May 16, 2014, 03:21:42 am
FYI, my fasting glucose is 84 on average, but once I eat it rarely drops below 92 during the day. That's probably because I eat frequently.  My diet is 80% raw but it is fairly high in sweet tropical fruits, coconut water, and oranges. I do smoothies with raw grass fed cream. I do salads with raw sheep and goat cheeses and lots of olive oil. I do quinoa with egg yolks and raw butter. I try to eat fat when I have any carbs/sweets fruits. I only eat meat twice a week, usually sashimi or low temp processed buffalo jerky.  I get lots of sun exposure on my skin. I don't exercise formally, but I do spend alot of time in the yard playing with the kids, gardening, walking.

I'm thinking I might be a bit low in animal flesh, but I don't crave it much. Sometimes I start to feel an animal flesh craving coming on and then I eat some raw dulse, and the craving is gone. How does one gauge protein deficiency without relying on cravings alone? Cravings seem like the only accurate measure for me.   If I start to feel even a tiny bit anemic I boost my animal flesh and sometimes I add bone marrows.  I only sleep about 7 hours typically, but when I slightly boost the amount of animal foods in my diet, I sleep more like 8 hours.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sunsetbreak on May 16, 2014, 04:24:54 am
I think you speak wise words here Lex. We need the nature with all its aspects. I think it is a mistake to believe it is all about foods. It is about context though, seasons... the stuff you write about above.
I slept in a tent last 1,5 months... and I have never slept so well. Tells a lot to me.

I concur. No matter what I do I can't achieve the same sleep quality as when living in a tent.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: littleElefant on November 16, 2014, 12:27:37 am
Hi Lex,

how are you? I wonder why you dont write  here any more. Are you  still on you raw beef diet? How is it going, is your health, everting ok with you? It would be very nice if you could  sheare your  experinces and  keep  us informed :)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Satya on August 27, 2015, 09:21:51 pm
We need many things in proper balance.

Hi Lex!  Long time.  I do hope you are doing well these days.  You are one of my all time favorite people whom I have yet to meet in person.  And as usual, your words are filled with wisdom and insight.  But never fear, I will not bow down at the altar of your greatness.  I will, however, hope to hear from you again someday.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 25, 2016, 11:49:31 pm
I get an occasional email request for an update and this week I got three so I thought that it's been awhile since I posted and it's time to check-in and bring everyone up to date.

I'm really busy as I now have 2 wonderful granddaughters ages 3 and 5, still teaching antique clock repair several times a year, and very involved in helping aging neighbors (most in their late 80's and 90's) with their daily struggles.  I travel quite a bit and have converted a small diesel Ram Promaster van (136" wheel base, low roof) into a camper van much like the old Volkswagen Westy's.  Have taken two trips so far this year, one 5,000 mile and one 3,000 mile, to visit friends and relatives. Van is fitted with 600 watts of solar panels and Lithium batteries so have a fridge and freezer and prepare all my own food along the way.

I'm still pretty much eating just raw meat.  On occasion I do add a bit ( a couple of tablespoons) of diced onion or maybe some garlic, a dash of hot sauce now and again, and salt and pepper for flavor and variety, but other than that it is 95+% meat and fat. No grains, or starches, and veggies only when eating out, and then only if that's all that's acceptable on the menu.  Like when friends take me to one of those new-age lunch places where the only meat on the menu is Chicken Caesar Salad. I order the salad with double or triple meat (usually costs a fortune) sans croutons, and throw the salad away - not excited about the lettuce and don't want the soy oil based dressing either.

I changed my meat source a couple of years ago from Slanker's to Marine Sun Farms here in California.  They shipped for free as long as I picked up at the freight terminal which was only 5 miles from my house, so it was a pretty good deal. Unfortunately, sorry to say that Marin Sun Farms has stopped selling to me directly.  I now have to order through one of their local wholesale customers and pay a retail mark-up which adds about $2 per pound to the cost.  Because of this I now only order their "Patty Mix" which is about 25% organ meat for $6/lb (used to cost me $4/lb) because I can't purchase that at the local market.  Walmart now carries grass-fed meat for $6/lb so I purchase my normal ground meat there.  Marin Sun Farms wants $8/lb so no benefit ordering regular ground meat from them. Von's has it for $8 so I'll purchase there in an emergency.  Both Walmart and Von's only offer 15% fat so I have to add butter or other fat to bring the fat content up to snuff - usually about 4 tablespoons per pound. My favorite butter is Kerry Gold which I purchase by the case from Trader Joe's.  As an alternative I may mix a bit of Taco seasoning in the meat and slather with sour cream to raise the fat content when in the mood for a south of the border flavor.  I make sure any seasoning mix I use has no MSG or other badies.

For awhile I was unable to get an organ mix ground meat at all so I had to figure out an alternative.  After a bit of head scratching I came up with the idea of adding sardines packed in olive oil.  You get the whole fish including bones, (only the heads are missing) and they are very rich in Omega-3s so I figured they'd fit the bill.  To this end I add one 3.75 oz can of King Oscar "Tiny Tots" sardines packed in olive oil to one pound of grass-fed ground meat when my organ mix is not available. Kinda adds a Tuna taste to the mix but not bad at all. King Oscar says each tin has 2.4 grams of Omega-3 which is quite a lot.  I purchase these by the case at Walmart for $2.54 per tin which is the best price I've found.  Most markets price them at $3+. Their also very convenient when traveling.

Still only eat one main meal per day at around 2 or 3 in the afternoon. However, I have taken to having a cup of chicken broth in the morning which I enjoy immensely.  I make the chicken broth myself following Stephen Phinney's directions which you can find doing a Google search.  I make a couple of gallons at a time and store it in pint containers which I freeze and then thaw as needed.  To serve, I heat one cup broth with 3-4 tablespoons butter and then mix well with and immersion blender - wonderful.

I still eat between 1800 and 2500 calories per day at 75% to 85% fat. My protein intake is around 80 - 100 gm/day.  I haven't tallied it up, but I think my food costs are still around $10/day. However, it may be closer to $11 or $12 now since my cost for organ mix meat has gone up and sardines are not free either.

One thing I added to my menu this summer was sparking herbal tea.  Since I don't drink sodas and don't want to add artificial sweeteners, sugary fruit juices, or grain heavy beer to my diet, it's a bit of a struggle to find an acceptable alternative.  Enter Celestial Seasonings caffeine free herbal teas.  These things are amazing.  My favorites are Country Peach Passion, Raspberry Zinger, and True Blueberry.

I'll start by using one tea bag in a cup (8oz) of hot water as normal.  Let steep and cool for an hour or so.  Remove tea bag and refrigerate the tea.  When ready to serve, pour over ice, add a dash of lemon juice for tartness, and top off with 4-6 ounces of club soda or seltzer water to add a bit of tingle. Really hits the spot on a hot summer day.

Over the years my doctor became worried that my highly acidic urine would be a problem, especially since I've had a bout of kidney stones in my recent history (2009/2010).  He wanted me to do something to rise my urine ph from 4.5-5.5 to somewhere between 6.0 and 7.0.  I did a bit of research and decided the best paleo friendly approach to do this would be to add some bicarbonate of soda to offset the highly acidic metabolites of the ketogenic diet.  This kills two birds with one stone so to speak.  It adds sodium to my diet which is needed since a ketogenic diet flushes sodium (per Phinney et. al.) and puts me at risk of loosing magnesium and potassium to compensate, and the bicarbonate effectively lowers ph which keeps my doctor happy.  The body manufactures lots of bicarbonate in the pancreas and kidneys so all I'm doing is supplementing what it already creates - hopefully removing a bit of stress on the kidneys and pancreas in the process.

My protocol is to drink a pint (16oz) of water with 1/2 tsp of Arm & Hammer baking soda in the morning upon arising before my morning walk, and again about 12 hours later in the early evening well after my daily meal.  This seems to work like a charm, keeping urine at a ph between 6.0 and 7.0 and is really cheap at less than 2 cents a day.  A one pound box lasts about 2 1/2 months and costs about $1.30 at any supermarket - even cheaper if you purchase in bulk.

EDIT:  I forgot to add my exercise protocol.  I walk about 4-5 miles per day 6 days a week first thing in the early morning (6am).  When I return home (about 7:30am) I follow Paval's "Minimum Kettlebell Protocol" which is a short warm-up followed by 100 swings and 10 Turkish Get Ups.  I do this with a 20kg (44 lb) kettelbell which takes about 30 minutes.  I'm finished with all this foolishness by 8am and ready to face the day.

Hope you find this useful.  Will hang around awhile to answer any questions,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Celeste on September 26, 2016, 02:24:08 am
Lex, it is so good to see a post from you and hear what you are up to. :)  So you are pretty flexible, trying new things and changing resources. I myself had been getting meat and butter from a Pennsylvania Amish farmer for years, but that is expensive and have myself looked for more local and cheaper options. I'll have to check out Walmart. I've gotten off the grassfed butter for about a month, but find that it is so hard to get the fat levels needed from just grassfed meat. I tried using grassfed tallow too, that I would put into Puerh tea. I wanted to try just meat and water, so for the last two weeks have been using Costco ribeye. I know it is not grassfed. :-/  Does it really make a difference from what you've learned?

Sounds like you are really enjoying life. Your travels sound fun.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 26, 2016, 03:35:15 am
HI Celeste!
Yup, flexible is my middle name, but I do try to stick with the foundational principles of a raw meat ketogenic diet, so I can't stray too far from home base.

I'm much less concerned with some of the minutiae than I used to be.  Grass-fed meat has a much better Omega-3/Omega-6/Omega-9 fatty acid profile than its grain-finished counterpart (so say the biochemists) which has almost no Omega-3.  I suppose the question becomes what "better" means.  From a practical standpoint I've just decided to try to cover all the bases.  My thought is that supplementing with sardines, (especially the King Oscar Tiny Tots that have such a high Omega-3 content), sort of mitigates the problem for me.  Maybe not optimal, but better than the alternative, and I do have to function in the real world.

The truth is that I can't tell the difference in my day-to-day health one way or the other when it comes to grass-fed vs grain-fed, from eating one type for a week or a month and then the other.  I'm sure it has a significant effect on long term health, think decades, and formative health, when a child is in the womb and its first dozen years of life, but as for its value at my stage in life, I have to take it on faith and some of the more recent research that says grass-fed does have some beneficial effect at the cellular level.

I think the key to your question is the very last phrase: "...from what you've learned".  The problem is that what we've all "learned" could be hogwash and nonsense. My life is replete with examples of modern medical knowledge that has been proven to be totally wrong.  In defense of the medical profession, the holistic naturopathic healing side hasn't fared any better.  Most of what they've taught for decades is totally wrong as well.  Much of the research is highly biased and most of us don't have the understanding to interpret studies properly anyway.  I do put some faith in Peter at his HyperLipid blog.  He seems a straight shooter and is much better qualified to comment on the efficacy of the various studies than I am.  Even so, you still have to decide if his interpretation is one you wish to put your faith in.

I don't use tallow much anymore except to make pemmican.  Just to much bother to render it.  Easier to purchase grass-fed butter.  Again, it's putting living life above agonizing over every detail of my diet.

I am having fun - probably more fun that I deserve.  Hope you are as well....

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 26, 2016, 06:56:09 am
Good to hear that you're doing well, Lex. Thanks for the update.

Beef (and other meat and fish) prices have risen quite a bit in my local area in recent years, and organ meats are less abundant. Luckily I had been experimenting and found various plant foods that I handle rather well, so the impact was minor for me.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sabertooth on September 26, 2016, 07:30:47 am
Welcome back Lex, Ill try to not inundate you with too many questions, but there are so few people in this world who have lived for so long on a diet similar to my own, that I would like your take one some of these new theories I've been working on.

Wonder what you think about my quest to go beyond Grass Fed. Especially in the context of getting optimal fats?and overall optimal nutritional balance on a meat based diet? Limited pastures full of cultivated grass which is the bulk of natural beef production, in my view does not provide the best balance of nutrition.

Ive been dissatisfied with many of my local sources of beef which comes from younger cows raised on fescue heavy pasture. Most animals are slaughtered under two years of age and do not have time enough to fully mature. The taste of much of the hay supplemented overgrazed tripe being passed off as grass fed beef is not good. It takes a few years for animals to build up optimal CLA levels even on the best pasture, and I think that most animals brought to market, even if they are pasture raised, may not have the optimal stories of fats and other nutrients

The Sheep I've been eating work well when I can find older fatter animals, but lately Ive exhausted my local flocks of the choicest animals....Im actually Driving to Arizona next month to load up on Desert Range Jojoba fed beef suet and organs, from a ranch that raises the closest thing to wild cattle around. There isn't even any grass out there, just miles of open range desert forage, and the animals arent slaughtered until around ten years old. Its the beef Ive had.

Its too bad the Rancher is so gung ho about being local that he wont ship any out, but perhaps if I could get enough interest I would go down there regularly and buy in bulk and ship some out myself to cover the cost of the trip.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Projectile Vomit on September 26, 2016, 07:38:01 am
I'd consider buying some of the beef from you Derek, if you're game to ship it up north. What do you expect the cost per pound to be? I'd primarily be interested in organs, but would consider buying muscle too of the price were reasonable.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 26, 2016, 07:39:55 am
Hi PaleoPhil,
Thanks for checking in.  I'd recognize that avatar anywhere!  I've tried to add some plant foods now and again, but I'm so insulin resistant that eating a small salad and a piece of fruit every day will add 10 pounds in less than two weeks.  All those carbs get converted to fat immediately. I find I have to stay under 20-30 grams of carbs per day or the result isn't pretty.  Yes, I could add carbs back in, but I'd have to totally change my dietary protocol so that muscles and other tissues would start preferring glucose again over fatty acids. I'm doing so well where I am that I just keep doing it.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 26, 2016, 07:46:52 am
Yup, I didn't expect you to want to change anything. Just letting you know that I have also seen price increases in meats and did feel some of your economic pain for a while, :) especially early on when I was eating more meats. Looks like the increases haven't been bad for you, luckily.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 26, 2016, 08:08:45 am
Sabertooth,
Hmmmmmmm.  The key to your post is "... getting optimal fats?and overall optimal nutritional balance on a meat based diet?"  I have no idea what "optimal" is for either fats or nutritional balance.  All I can tell you is that my protocol, eating 10%-15% mixed organ meats with the rest being regular ground muscle meats with 80% of calories from fat, seems to be working well for me.  No signs of deficiencies of any kind.  When organ meats aren't available I'm using sardines as described above, and again, no deficiencies have shown up.

As I stated to Celeste, I'm taking the idea that the fatty acid profile in Grass-fed is better than grain-finished meat as an article of faith as I have no direct experience that tells me that it is either correct or incorrect.  I have no way to directly measure what these are doing in my body, and I don't have time to observe the effects of these two profiles across multiple generations (ala Pottenger's Cats).  Enough for me that I feel great and can do the things I want to do, which is usually a great deal more than many of my peers.

As for CLA levels, Jojoba suet, and whether older animals are better than younger animals, unfortunately I'm clueless and have no way of doing any meaningful testing.  My remaining years are short and I choose to spend them on something other than agonizing over things I can do very little about.

Initially I had the same shipping problem as you have with Marin Sun Farms.  I had to drive 13-14 hours round trip to San Francisco and back to buy from them.  Then they decided they wanted to open up the Los Angeles market so they hired a sales/delivery guy down here and sent meat down via refrigerated freight and I got to purchase wholesale as long as I picked my meat up at the freight terminal when the delivery guy showed up.  Now they've gotten too big here and won't sell to me direct even though I order 120 lbs of meat at a time.  I have to go through one of their local wholesale customers who add's on a couple of bucks a pound to receive and hold my unopened boxes of meat for 2 or 3 hours.  Oh well, as I said, life's too short to worry about such things.  Change and adapt.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sabertooth on September 26, 2016, 09:26:27 am
I hear you, no worries, hakuna matata,
We all may be dead in just a few short decades,

Its more of an obsession on my part, than anything that drives my curiosity...... being 33 years young, and an intrepid soul I still have the ambition of changing the world in meaningful ways and making a contribution to the advancement of human understanding...be it by tooth and nail, by any means possible. I really feel im onto something big with the beyond grass fed concept and wish to take some of the ground work that people such as yourself have laid out to the next level and onto the world stage.

I think what you have done could be further optimized, though I agree as the state of affairs as they are, such innovations are neither frugal or practical in most peoples circumstances... still if these ends are not pursued by at least a few pioneers, i fear that much of this knowledge will be lost, and future generations of Paleo dieters will be hopelessly lost, mindlessly eating sub optimal  GMO grass fed animals and never knowing their true potential!



Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 26, 2016, 12:30:01 pm
Sabertooth don't let me dampen your enthusiasm.  I was passionate about my life's work and it served me well for over 40 years.  I'm passionate about the things I do now.  I advise everyone to follow their passion.

I'd be interested to know what you mean by "beyond grass-fed". 

I truly have no idea what you mean by optimal fats.  How are they different from the fats in grass-fed meats? (from your wish to go beyond grass-fed you must be referring to something different than fat from grass-fed animals?).

I'm also very suspicious when people talk about "optimal nutritional balance on a meat based diet" since by definition a meat based diet such as I follow is anything but balanced as the term is normally used in nutritional circles.  Again, not sure what you mean here.

I suppose I want to know how what you are working on would be valuable to me. Make my life simpler, fuller, healthier, better.

Thoughts?

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sabertooth on September 28, 2016, 10:34:36 am
Sabertooth don't let me dampen your enthusiasm.  I was passionate about my life's work and it served me well for over 40 years.  I'm passionate about the things I do now.  I advise everyone to follow their passion.

I'd be interested to know what you mean by "beyond grass-fed". 



There has been flashes of insight into this concept over the years which I have not been quite able to fully articulate.

First one must understand that a Protein is not a Protein, a Fat is not a Fat, and a Carb is not a Carb. Not all nutrients are created equal, and there are very important differences between the quality of the proteins and fats generated by Grass fed animals, compared to those fed processed and artificial foods....but lets not stop there..why not go beyond the notion of grass fed...to a place where the animal is entirely emerged in its natural element and given total free right to seek out its own optimal substances, in accord to its innate biological needs.

There is a biological symphony at work in which the micro RNA of the various organisms work their way up the food chain and culminate within the higher evolution of apex organisms within a particular environment.

If the environment is strictly limited to just a few spices of cultivated forage then diversity of elements which provide for the "optimal balance" will not be present, and the essence of life which is dispersed up the food chain will not attain full potential.

Totally wild foraging animals, on open ranges of unadulterated land, in my opinion offer the potential for the optimal nourishment. The animals whom have access to the Garden of Eden quality pastures will assimilate the various elements of that healthy ecosystem into its own tissues, so the actual quality of the total environment gets transferred up the food chain.

Even if it would appear that a meat based diet lacks what "nutritional Science" calls "optimal balance" I claim that if those animals which the meat is sourced are derived from a totally balanced and open ecosystem then their bodies if eaten entirely raw, will transfer those optimal qualities which manifest into being a more optimal synchronicity with the living environment, on multiple levels (Mind Body and Spirit).

By going beyond grassfed I am taking the ideal to the extreme, in order to point out to others interested in attempting this way of life, that all Grass fed is not created equal. Perhaps for the average person your standard grass fed green pasture, offers something that is responsibly balanced and wholesome when compared to the commercial factory farm....but for people who commit themselves to such a diet as ours, perhaps in order to optimally thrive it would be better to go beyond.

This of course is only a hypothesis? Though its based on a profound intuition that is backed up by a common sense view, that the freest and happiest animals from the most pristine and untouched ecosystems ,would be most Ideal sustenance for someone seeking to incorporate those qualities into their being.

In recognition of your own experience, I am not entirely sure if this information would make much difference to you personally, considering you have already been living for years on decent quality animals, and perhaps in a way you have already been going beyond grass fed, by sourcing much of your meat from open range cattle.

My thoughts here are primary to be viewed as food for thought to those who read your journal and may want to experiment with a meat based diet....For it is a strong conviction of mine that if those people dont learn to recon that there are differences in quality, they may simply start eating whatever is at their local market without a clue to the true health of the ecosystem from which the animal came, to their own determent.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 28, 2016, 05:23:47 pm
Basically, beyond grassfed is part of the beyond organic movement where domesticated animals are fed on  the foods which they would normally eat in the wild. So grassfed cattle, for example, often do not have much acccess to a wide variety of herbs. Similiarly, chickens on beyond organic farms would have plentiful access to insects, worms and carrion just like wild jungle fowl have etc.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 29, 2016, 12:27:47 am
Sabertooth.  Thanks for the detailed reply.  What you say makes a lot of sense. Get ready for it...  here is comes.... OK Now comes the "BUT"...

When I was younger (late teens through my thirty's) I was hung up on "perfection".  I was convinced that if I just ate the right foods, did the correct exercises, drank the purest water, that I'd live in robust health forever. I had the diet gurus telling me so.  Then I got older and things started going wrong, even though I was surely doing everything right.  How could this be?

The initial flaw in my thinking was that I knew what was right.  Clearly I didn't. At least if doing what was right meant that I'd live in robust health forever - or at least a very long time.

My next issue was how could people do so well on such a varied playing field. Eating all the wrong foods, sitting on the couch watching TV, and drinking beer, and sodas.  Many of these people were living as long or longer and in as good health as those of us that were doing everything right.  I'm still scratching my head over this one.

In your examples of allowing our food animals to eat their natural diet in unfettered circumstances is a wonderful ideal, but what does it gain us.  The Inuit certainly ate free range animals and their average lifespan was into their 80's - very much the same as the soda and beer swilling couch potatoes I described above.

The Garden of Eden you describe doesn't exist anywhere on this earth.  Every bio-habitat or region has it's own strengths and weaknesses.  All the wonderful herbs may be present but the soil may be missing one or more key nutrients.  The soil may also be contaminated by such substances as lead, arsenic, or some other bad thing that will be taken up by the animal either directly through consuming bits of dirt or through the plants they eat.

The wonder of it all is that despite everything being less than perfect, we seem to do rather well.  It is the fact that perfection is not required that makes animal and plant life so amazing.

The opposite side of the coin is also interesting.  Even if everything is perfect, assuming we even know what perfect is, we will live our same life span - say into our 80's or 90's.  Maybe in slightly better health assuming all the natural destructive elements all around us in our food and environment (the sun?)don't do us in, but none the less our lives are finite. 

So for me it comes down to a matter of degree.  It makes sense to me to eat as close to the diet we evolved on, food that eats as close as possible to the diet it evolved on, but as you get closer to perfection - assuming we know what perfection is - there are diminishing returns.  I think the oldest (validated) recorded living human is 120 years and 4 months.  There are people all over the planet, eating a wide variety of diets, and yet none have exceeded this age.  Many people today, again on varied (and some might think terrible) diets live into their early 100's.

So, let's say you find a way to meet your idea of a Utopian food source.  What do you expect to gain? Will it be worth the time and effort expended?  At 65, I'm faced with my mortality.  I have less time to go than I've already lived. If my genetic history has any bearing then maybe only 20 years or so.  No male member of my family has lived beyond 85, and most died in their 70's. Very sobering.  The question I have to ask myself is do I want to spend the next 20 years totally focused on trying to find or live some idea of perfection in an effort to gain an additional 5 years of life?  I've answered that for myself with a resounding NO!

For me it is quality of life. Right now.  Today.   I'm committed to doing practical things within my modern environment that will give me the best quality of life possible for whatever the remaining duration is.  I'm fine with dying tomorrow (or this afternoon) from a massive heart attack or stroke, because yesterday (or so far today) I'm doing everything I want to do. 

This implies that what I don't want to spend my remaining time doing is obsessing over my diet.  I eat my food (which I've chosen with the best information I have available, and from what is readily available in modern commerce), and then I spend the rest of my time on family and other interests.

Your choices are surely different from mine.  That's OK.  The only thing I'd ask you to consider is, if you are able look back in 30-40 years at what you've spent your life doing, will you find it time well spent?  Will the commitment be worth the reward?

So each of us must decide for ourselves,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 29, 2016, 12:39:12 am
TylerD! so good to see you're still around and as cogent as ever. Thanks for stopping by.

I agree that our food animals should eat as close as possible to their natural diets.  Commercial Chicken Chow is far removed from what wild chickens eat.  I find it humorous that the state of California has decreed that no eggs may be sold from caged chickens.  However, chickens in large open pens eating Chicken Chow is somehow more humane and better for us.

Such is the hubris and ignorance of our leaders,

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: ys on September 29, 2016, 01:29:44 am
How is your prostate after that procedure you went through?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sabertooth on September 29, 2016, 03:28:47 am
The perspective I am attempting to cultivate takes into consideration many of the points you have made, and Ive shared many of the same realizations, but there is something more difficult to explain I am attempting to communicate, which takes a little stretch of the imagination to follow. Its the spirit of the maxim "In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation." Though I see the irony in how even this insight could not protect the Natives from progress....and I personally fall short of doing this in some way just about every day.

I agree following gurus and eating what is deemed a pure diet by "nutritional science" hacks, then experiencing that they all failed to provide the ideal results, can make one question the rational of seeking such ideals or truths in a world of confusion, but this does not mean that there isn't an ideal to strive for, or a truth to stand for. The human mind is just not capable of taking in all the factors involved as it works out ways to decouple itself from nature, and so the results of even the "wisest" of lifestyle choices can be easily fouled up by the invisible variables which constitute the unknown and unknowable. 

I am in no way a fundamentalist who believes that there is only one singular ideal, because I know what is optimal in one environment is detrimental in another. What is heaven in one persons mind would be hell to another.... Still it seems there must be a larger unifying force that connects us to the life and the health of our earth? When I look out over land that a few generations ago was wild ecosystems and see the pinned up animals, in between fields of round up soy and corn that seem to go on forever, in a wasteland were no other life is permitted to trespass....I get a feeling of foreboding....as if our living world is undergoing a forced mechanized metamorphosis....which alas may be part of the inevitability of fate.
 
This is where larger perspectives are needed for greater understanding of our all too human dilemma. On the one side I agree, it does seem fruitless to struggle against the tides of a changing world out of clinging to ones ideals, but on the other-side it also seems like a waste of human potential to allow our progeny to be degraded and desecrated to lower forms without a struggle....the ideal in my mind would be to live a life thats balanced somewhere between the extremes.

Regardless of what happens life will find a way, but what kind our future will be inherited, and is there anyway we can alter it with our personal life choices?

There is this notion that perhaps it is not my purpose to stop progress. Life is a quantum force riding a wave of mutilation, and it will in some shape or form flow on regardless...but perhaps there is a purpose to be found in playing the role as an intermediary between the natural world and the mechanical civilization. We must hold back the machines from certain areas of a biological critical nature( such as food production, and in our own environmental spaces) long enough for our technical civilization to mature and begin to integrate technological advances in more balanced ways and with less destructive effects on the biological matrix. 


Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Projectile Vomit on September 29, 2016, 04:46:18 am
I've long since given up on the idea that there's a perfect diet, either in general or for anyone in particular. The human body is very adaptable, and any individual person could probably live well on multiple different diets. Finding a diet that renders us free of disease is a useless ideal, in my opinion. This isn't to dismiss the value of eating clean, whole food, obviously. Just that it's important not to view diet as a perpetual work-in-progress rather than to turn it into a dogmatic ideology.

I honor Derek's pursuit of a better relationship with the landscape one inhabits. That's a huge driving force behind my dietary choices too. The healthy diet that one piece of land can provide might (and most likely will) be very different from the one another can, though.

Here in Vermont, for instance, there are a lot of farmers growing grass to feed cattle. But is the northeast really the place for cattle? Cattle are grazers, and prior to the introduction of domestic sheep and later cattle with the Europeans there were no large grazing animals here. None! Perhaps a wood bison wandered into the state once in a blue moon, but they were never here frequently enough for the resident indigenous peoples to even create a word for them. Given this reality, I don't think cattle have a place here. They're only here now because farmers force the landscape to be something they can inhabit, force the land to be pasture when it wants to become savannah or forest. What did live here? Browsers, like caribou, elk, deer and moose, all of which do very well in forests and savannahs. A grazer is very different, ecologically, from a browser.

Perhaps what Derek means by "beyond grass fed" is to rekindle an awareness of the ecological appropriateness of food animals?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 30, 2016, 01:11:00 am
Sabertooth - I wish you well on your personal quest.  Right now I'm satisfied with the choices available to me in my current environment.  They meet my minimal needs, and I'm not sure that seeking an incremental improvement is a good use of my remaining time.  I'd rather spend it on other pursuits.

There is some truth to the saying "Shoot for the stars and with luck you'll hit the moon", I'm glad you have the energy and interest to do so.  It's how progress is made.  I'm beyond making progress.  I'm at the point in my life where I'm happy just to have the strength to continue hanging on by my fingertips.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on September 30, 2016, 01:13:39 am
Very wise words Eric.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: RogueFarmer on September 30, 2016, 11:07:41 am
Elk are grazers though, so are turkeys. Actually for that matter elk weren't in the americas 20000 years ago but horses were. Did the natives have a name for mammoth, ground sloth, giant armadillo, giant beaver etc?
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: TylerDurden on September 30, 2016, 05:03:21 pm
Err, RogueFarmer, it seems that elk moved to North America some 2 million years ago, not 20,000 years ago:-


https://books.google.at/books?id=Yy_xAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=elks++bering+strait&source=bl&ots=cRrxb4i5XH&sig=tK8oTLmDV4fATdip1rrC_MC_ttI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjigbup3bbPAhXHOBoKHQtwAvcQ6AEIPjAF#v=onepage&q=elks%20%20bering%20strait&f=false
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Projectile Vomit on September 30, 2016, 08:11:14 pm
And I would add that elk are browsers, not grazers, as RF asserts. You don't see herds of elk grazing in prairies like bison do, or like antelope. They form herds, much like deer, that move through forests browsing on herbs, fungi and shrubs, mostly, with mast, bark and other things making up important parts of their diet seasonally. Sure, they'll eat grass occasionally, but it's not their mainstay.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Projectile Vomit on October 01, 2016, 07:40:15 am
And I will further add that after a bit more research, I've found a few sites that suggest elk are both grazers and browsers, so it appears that both I and RF are correct on this front.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 02, 2016, 06:48:58 am
Interesting discussion on browsers vs grazers.  I would imagine that fauna that inhabit an area would be determined by the indigenous flora.  For me, the important question is, do I care which I eat since both are easily available in our modern food delivery system?  If so, why?  If not, why bring it up?

Paper describing b vs g in detail:

http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/espm-186/Unit_II_(cont)_files/grazer%20v.%20browser.pdf (http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/espm-186/Unit_II_(cont)_files/grazer%20v.%20browser.pdf)
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sabertooth on October 02, 2016, 01:00:48 pm
Grazing animals migration patterns have been shown to be in part directed by soil mineral composition as well as the actual kinds of forage available. There are higher levels of sensitivity which guide the food choices of both browsers and grazers... one might even suggest that (as is below so is above) in the food chain....and its likely the highest of apex predators (grazed on the grazers) and (browsed on the browsers) in their own quest for optimal balance.

Purely instinctive practices such as "prey grazing" have been almost entirely forgotten by even the most re-wilding enthusiast among us. After a lifetime of hunting wild game, it seems reasonable to assume that one would develop a taste for the optimal kill, and our ancestors would have sought out the best flesh the environment had to offer, and would be willing to chase it to the ends of the earth if need be.

Just as grazing and browsing animals would be driven by craving to seek out a certain variety of forage, so would the Hunter Gatherers seek out different types of animal flesh. Being highly adaptable, our hungry ancestors would have likely eaten whatever they could catch.... lightly grazing on wild birds, reptiles, fish and smaller mammals, as well as the mega fauna...Haven tasted everything Paleo Eden had to offer they must have developed their own instinctive preferences, which would direct them to drop everything and run off for days if they sighted the optimal animal that would satisfy that carving for the richest and most nourishing flesh possible.

I personally value taste, and if the animal taste bad I wont try another from the same flock, and have even thrown out entire animals if the taste was not right. Within the modern meat market situation, paying by the pound, most people seem content to chow on what ever the market has to offer, and very few venture to such lengths as to seek out and kill their own animals, in their natural habitat, but I have and the experience has lead me to be much more discerning in my choices.

There are markers of health and vitality in each animal which can be seen by those with eyes to see.... the brightness of the eyes, the body shape and composition, the skin and coat, the hoofs, the smell of the animal, the composition of the pasture....these factors must of been observed by our ancestors as well and guided their own decisions when choosing their optimal prey animals.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 03, 2016, 06:19:07 am
@Sabertooth - thanks for the interesting post.  I guess I'm more of a deadend kid.  I'm afraid my palate is not all that sensitive to subtle differences in taste.  Some here say they can tell the difference between fresh and frozen then thawed meat.  I suppose, side by side, I might be able to tell the difference, but when I'm hungry, I don't care, all I want is to eat and satiate my hunger, and when I'm not hungry, I don't care because I'm not hungry and won't eat no matter how good it tastes.

As a hunter I expect I'm in the opportunist category.  Assuming I'm hungry and haven't eaten in awhile, I'll kill and eat anything that holds still long enough.  If I'm not hungry I'd like to think that I'm like the industrious ant, working to put away food for lean times, but alas I'm probably more like the grasshopper, wondering where summer went and will probably spend the winter eating whatever i can scavenge.

As a paleo hunter, with not much more than a rock and sharp stick as my weapons and tools, I'm inclined to think that I'd have preferences, mostly based on the size of the animal and the fact that larger meant I'd have to hunt less often, (in my experience humans are lazy by nature), but most likely would eat whatever I could kill.

In any case, I'm not sure I'd pass up a meal because the animal I took down was a browser and not a grazer (or visa versa), but it is interesting to contemplate.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Celeste on October 11, 2016, 07:37:06 am
Hi Lex,
I was wondering if the shift in your bone density occurred while you were using salt, or before, or if it really does not make a difference. Do you still test for bone density? If so, how?
Thanks,
Celeste
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 18, 2016, 04:35:38 am
@Celeste - Hi Celeste! I use lots of salt and have for many years now.  In the very beginning (2005-2007) I started getting nighttime leg cramps which got worse as time went on.  When I started adding salt they went away.  I think that was in 2007/2008 time frame.

A couple of weeks ago I had an ultrasonic bone density test where they check your heel bone.  They won't do a DEXA scan unless the ultrasonic shows a problem.  The heel bone came out above normal (+0.43 on the left foot and +0.57 on the right) so that's all I know.  To get anything more I'd have to pay out of pocket.  I also don't know what "above normal" means exactly.  I don't know if it is age adjusted so I'm better than most 65 year olds, or if it is better than most people of any age.

The machine gives a reading between +1 and -10 with 0 being "normal".

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: sabertooth on October 18, 2016, 06:18:55 am
Ive dealt with similar leg cramping issues, especially in the summer when I sweat out all my mineral salts.

For me drinking blood is the optimal way to remedy that situation, because the blood contains all the mineral salts the body needs, already assimilated into an optimal ratio. Blood contains more salts than the tissue, and when animals are butchered and hanged to drain, the mineral salt level drops below what would optimal sustain a raw low carb diet, so additional salt may be necessary in the long term, if blood isn't an option.

Lex, what kind of salt do you use?

I do get cravings for salt every now and then, and am curious as to finding the salts that would go best in some home made Paleo bratwurst.

Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: lex_rooker on October 18, 2016, 06:49:03 am
@Sabertooth - haven't gone the blood route.  Not readily available and whatever I do has to be convenient or I just won't do it.

As for salt I take two approaches:
1) I use one of the unrefined "sea" or mountain salts when adding salt to food.  I probably add about 1/2 tsp to things on a typical day.  These salts have a lot of trace minerals that are removed from normal table salt.  Not sure if it makes much difference, but I spend the extra money on the premium salts anyway.
 
2) I make and drink chicken broth everyday.  I have a large grinder that I made for grinding jerky for pemmican and other odd uses.  I grind whole chickens bones and all, throw them in a large pot, add 1 quart of water per pound of chicken, 1/4 cup vinegar to help dissolve the bones, and then simmer, covered, on low heat for 24 hours.  I loose about 2 qts liquid over 24 hrs so if I start with 10 lbs of ground chicken and 10 quarts of water I end up with 8 finished quarts of broth. I strain out the solids and put the broth in pint deli containers which provides two 8oz servings and freeze.  As I use one container over two days I have one thawing next to it in the fridge.

To serve, I put 8 oz in a glass or mug, add 2-3 tablespoons of grass-fed butter ( usually KerryGold salted),  nuke in the microwave for about 2 minutes, then whip with a stick blender and add additional salt to taste. I use this as my morning beverage as I don't like coffee.

Lex
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Projectile Vomit on April 24, 2017, 04:54:56 am
...Just that it's important not to view diet as a perpetual work-in-progress rather than to turn it into a dogmatic ideology...

I realize there's a typo in this sentence. It should read: "Just that it's important to view diet as a perpetual work-in-progress rather than to turn it into a dogmatic ideology." Too bad we can't go back and edit old posts.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: Grey-Cup on October 15, 2017, 08:06:07 pm
Hello Lex et al,

I just wanted to thank all of you for what has been a very fascinating education. I have adopted a zero carb diet over the past few months and have finished reading this journal, the discussion has been very helpful. Hope all are well.
Title: Re: Lex's Journal
Post by: townhouse on June 18, 2018, 07:56:47 am
Lex, thanks for the detailed journal.  I'm about to attempt to make pemmican, so of course found & downloaded your pemmican guide.  Would you make any amendments it (published in 2009)?  Is it advised to construct a similar jerky grinding machine that's described in that guide?  If so, any advice on doing that?

Thank you for any advice!!