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: ezekiel 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: ezekiel 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: ezekiel 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: ezekiel 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: ezekiel 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: ezekiel 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