FUMP Day 6

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0

I’m noticing some really strange symptoms all of the sudden. The tips of my ears are slightly pointed. This seems really odd. Just came out of nowhere. In addition to that, I’m noticing a few hairs growing in on my forehead. It’s the weirdest thing.

But strangest of all is that I saw a friend of mine today, and instead of giving him a normal greeting I just couldn’t resist the urge to sniff his hiney.

I’m a, I’m a…

OOOWWWWWolfman!!!!!

Ha, ha.

Okay I did have a little bit of headache today, but all else seems Jim Dandy. Even running up this big hill didn’t noticeably make my heart pound, which is a first since my FUMParoodling began.

My skin is so awesome though. It makes a baby’s derriere feel like Chuck Norris’s chin in comparison.

Now for a brief discussion of up and down regulation, because I find it to be one of the most interesting concepts that everyone should know so they understand how their body works…

Your body has hormones and neurotransmitters. Each one of those biochemicals depends on a complementary receptor site to fulfill its communication. Since the body is an equilibrium machine, the balance between receptor sites and the amount of any particular body chemical does a little dance.

Take, for example, serotonin. If you spike serotonin through the roof, and there are a number of ways to do that but drugs are certainly the most powerful means of getting you there, namely X, as in Xstasy, then your body compensates by shutting down serotonin receptors to keep from upsetting the communication balance. And this is why anything with a drug-like effect becomes habit-forming…

When you have a normal amount of any chemical, you have a normal amount of open receptor sites. If you spike a body chemical, and receptor sites shut down, when your levels of that chemical return to normal you don’t have the same amount of the functioning chemical because there are less receptor sites to pick it up. To feel normal, you must get the level of that biochemical ABOVE normal. Over time, the more you spike the chemical, the more receptor sites shut down, and the more drug you have to consume just to feel normal, much less high. When you have normal levels of the biochemical in your body, because you have shut down so many receptor sites (downregulation), you feel god awful and instinctually crave substances that your body intuitively knows will make it feel normal again. And the cycle continues.

This is precisely why a 12-ounce Coke has suddenly morphed into a 44-ounce Coke during my lifetime. To raise serotonin and beta-endorphin levels high enough to achieve normalcy, the hit of drug-like sugar and caffeine in a liquid form must reach ever-greater heights. And it just keeps going, and going, and going…

So know this. Anything that makes you feel high is also precipitating you feeling bad later on. If something relieves pain, you will feel extra pain later on. If something gives you energy, you will feel extra tired later on. If something takes your troubles away, you’ll have extra troubles later on. If something makes you think really positive thoughts, you’ll think extra negative ones later on. And now brace yourself for a sensationalized quasi-spiritual statement…

As some smart guy once said, “The will of God is equilibrium.” We live in a world of synergistic balance between diametrically-opposed functions. It can be witnessed from a subatomic level to a universal level. Not something to feel bummed out about – that you can’t live happily ever after without complementary lows that is, but a magnificent expression of the universe in which the material we are made out of is forged. Not depressing, but neat rather.

And that’s what I’m watching out for on this diet. As a general rule, anything that makes you feel too damn good is overstimulating something within your body and is instigating counter-regulatory forces that you’ll face down the line. It might fool me for quite some time that what I’m doing is the answer to my prayers, but if I eat some carbs I’ll probably instantly run into withdrawal symptoms from the chemicals that are being overstimulated by this carbless fare. Instead of being in a freakishly good mood, mentally sharp, energized, and free of physical pain like I have been since FUMP Day 1, I will feel terrible – the opposite of the above-listed traits, as my adrenal hormone and associated neurotransmitters return to normal (I’ll feel below normal because receptor sites will have been downregulated).

Currently, my levels of beta-endorphin and norepinephrine are definitely higher than normal. My vision is so clear and focused it’s surreal, like anyone’s vision gets during an adrenaline rush. For those who argue that what I’m experiencing isn’t so, or can be attributed to something else, I feel confident that you are wrong. It is impossible to feel like this without an elevation of the biochemicals responsible for those characteristics.

Not that this is a sign of doom. It just is. I’m reluctant to get excited just because I feel good. It would take months or more to come to any real conclusion about the relative merits and downfalls of following such a diet.

We’ll hit upregulation tomorrow if I’m up for it.

7 Comments

  1. “My vision is so clear and focused it’s surreal, like anyone’s vision gets during an adrenaline rush. For those who argue that what I’m experiencing isn’t so, or can be attributed to something else, I feel confident that you are wrong. It is impossible to feel like this without an elevation of the biochemicals responsible for those characteristics.”

    I think you are ignoring one thing – the fiber. Previously you were eating fiber. You said you ate lots of macadamia nuts, and that might not be the only thing you were eating high in fiber. Now, you have eliminated the fiber. In order to prove that carbs are the problem, you have to eat carbs without fiber, pref unrefined ones like strained juice and comb honey. Then you will know for sure. That is why I did my current experiment eating close to no fiber, but eating carbs like honey and strained juices and white chocolate. I don’t eat refined sugars usually, this is just an experiment. I react better to white chocolate than 70-100% chocolates, so either the fiber or the stimulants in chocolate are problematic. I also eat a small amount of white rice (like 1/8 cup dry) or sourdough bread or a potato, but not every day or more than one meal per day. My diet’s virtually devoid of fiber now, my vision is sharper and steadier, hunger and cravings are gone, etc.

    Many of the benefits I had initially on the Primal Diet were probably due to the vast reduction of fiber. I now thing it is more important to avoid fiber than to limit carbs. I lost 10# in 2 weeks just by removing fiber. That’s why it’s hard to eat enough on the Primal Diet. Since fiber is virtually eliminated, metabolic rate increases as a result.

    http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fiaf-whos-fat-is-it-anyway.html
    http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fiaf-starving-amidst-plenty.html
    http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fiaf-where-next.html

    Reply
  2. Bruce,

    I think you are incorrect in assuming Matt’s diet contained lots of fiber before starting this diet. His diet appeared to contain carbs from potato, white rice, and other generally low- or no-fiber carbs. Indeed, if you read is posts immediately preceding the FUMP material, you will see several posts dedicate to such a diet.

    I can personally say that I have never felt worse in my life than when I ate a diet that consisted solely of natural sugars (raw milk, raw honey) and raw or undercooked meats. I personally think that raw meats are very problematic because they are exceedingly difficult to chew, esp. white meat like chicken. A failure to properly chew foods is a recipe for indigestion, which in turn sets that individual up for digestive disorders.

    The idea of avoiding fiber is hard to square with our history. Natural sugars in milk and honey would have been difficult for primitive man to get a hold of in any quantities if at all. Meats would have been available, but still rare as hunting is an exceeding difficult and risky metabolic activity (the potential exists for a great output of energy with no pay off). Not to mention that, unlike cats and dogs, we are poor natural hunters (we lack, for example, sharp teeth, claws, or foot speed to match our potential prey).

    All of this suggests to me that a diet of raw honey, raw dairy, raw meat, and green juices is–much like vegetarianism–an artificial diet made possible only by the benefits of modern agriculture and technology.

    As much as I hate to admit it, collecting or harvesting plant foods such as fruits, nuts, and seeds–as well as simply going without any food whatsoever–would probably have formed a larger part of man’s diet in nature.

    Indeed, even early agricultural societies, for whom dairy and meat would have been more consistently available, did not abandon their reliance on plant foods. For example, it appears from a number of sources that the Israelites relied heavily on fruits, legumes, wheat/barley, and dairy as their staple foodstuffs. Meats–particularly red meats–were eaten rarely, with fish and fowl comprising a larger part of the diet than lamb or beef.

    Interestingly, for all his exposure to a variety of traditional diets, Weston Price repeatedly emphasized whole grains (i.e., wheat) and unadulterated dairy as comprising a highly significant part of the ideal diet.

    I note also that the desire to refine grains appears to be proportionate to the significance of grains in the diet in question. In other words, the more a culture relies on grains for food, the greater the reliance on refined grains. Take, for example, the Japanese. It appears that the Japenese diet–rice and fish–reflects the practical necessity of living on a small island with steep topography. Since they rely so heavily on rice for food, it could be argued that it would need to be refined in order to avoid an over-consumption of phytic acid, fiber, etc. which would prove problematic if eaten in the quantities dictated by the practical realities the Japanese faced.

    Reply
  3. Atta boy Ben, good to hear from you ole’ buddy.

    To start, my diet was pretty low in fiber before I started this. 10 grams per day or less, just to clear that up, and I have done no-fiber experiments in the past and it didn’t feel anything like this. I did not lose weight on no-fiber and have not lost weight on this program despite my pants being more loose and a slight increase in muscle defintion (hint: I have definitely not lost any muscle mass…yet).

    Our ancestral diet was so varied it is terribly difficult to come to any real conclusions other than fiber is obviously not an essential nutrient, nor is it inherently harmful to a healthy human being. It therefore may be helpful for some conditions and harmful for others. If you suffer from any kind of abnormal bacterial overgrowth it will probably be little more than bacteria food, fueling fermentation, producing acidic byproducts, and damaging the intestinal wall.

    Most foods do not need to be raw. Many people get confused by studies like the Pottenger study, thinking that cooking the food is what caused the difference. No way. Look at today’s pets on the most lifeless, low-grade foods on the planet. They don’t have facial deformity, rickets, osteo, allergies, tooth decay, or any of that shiz. Pottenger just gave cooked lactose to a creature that produces no lactase. Of course they went extinct.

    Having said that, sugars other than glucose, which can be absorbed directly, are probably greatly assisted by accompanying enzymes. There IS a big difference between raw fruit, juice, and honey and cooked fruit, juice, and honey. Milk of course tops the list of foods needing to be raw. Lactase is in short supply in nearly everyone.

    Having said all that, lunch today is a 12-ounce ribeye, raw, sliced, and drizzled with da kine white truffle oil. Go figure. Going all meat has given me more of a taste for raw meat for sure. I can’t remember the last time raw meat tasted so good.

    And finally, Bruce, I had to laugh when you called Charles’s diet extreme. I assure you that a diet of mostly raw meats and eggs is every bit as extreme as an all-meat diet. In fact, after experimenting with both, the all-meat diet is much, much more palatable. Plus, I don’t have to spend all day chewing!

    You’re right Ben, most raw meats are like rubber bands. I don’t see them digesting well unless tender, with or without enzymes.

    Good commentary amigos.

    Reply
  4. Matty Stone,
    You crack me up

    I have put myself on a diet of meat cooked and raw, Fats, and a peeled potato in the evening with loads of fat on it just to see what happens,
    so far my appetite is pretty mellow, no desire to eat anymore I feel satiated, But I’m now on day 3 and I’m getting a itch, like I have candida, A candida itch. and I didn’t sleep well last night..
    Thats my update keep up the good blogging and catch ya on friday for a movie xxxxxxx
    xpx

    Reply
  5. Hey Matt..
    I’ve really been enjoying your blog. Interesting take on alternative nutrition.. keep up the good work!
    I do have to comment on this though:
    “Look at today’s pets on the most lifeless, low-grade foods on the planet. They don’t have facial deformity, rickets, osteo, allergies, tooth decay, or any of that shiz. “
    I have to respectfully disagree. I’ve worked and volunteered at a number of shelters, training centers and doggy daycares and had lots of conversations with lots of dog owners/trainers/breeders. Modern pets DO suffer from all of those diseases you mention and more.
    Allergies are rampant in the American dog population and so are behavioral weirdnesses and anxiety that seem to be akin to ADHD and autism type disorders in humans. American dogs and cats have rampant tooth decay, degenerative bone and joint conditions and cancer at probably jsut as high a rate as American humans do.
    More than one trainer I’ve talked with has said that they’ve been in dogs long enough to know that this is new – the last 20 or 30 years. Dogs just didn’t used to be as sickly and as weird as they are now.
    Poor breeding practices can be blamed on some of this but I bet the vast majority of it is the crap food we feed our pets. Most American pets are eating tons of corn (completely undigestable), and meat byproducts that have all been cooked and processed and pressed.
    I do not currently feed my dog a raw or homecooked diet, just as I do not currently feed myself the best diet I know I should be eating :) I do know, however, that if I were ever going to buy a purebred dog and/or breed dogs – I’d feed raw. Just like when I am ready to have kids myself I will work harder to eat better. Nutrition is just that important when making babies.
    Great blogs, I love it! Keep up the good work :)

    Reply
  6. Candida itch? Sounds like a case of toddeus cunnilingus to me. You probably caught it from too much coitus electronicus. c-ya Friday!

    Alyss,

    Great points. I know that pet health sucks and is getting worse as well. There’s no doubt about that either, and yes, putting really cheap subsizided crops like corn and soy in everything has a lot to do with that. A starchy diet just ain’t fit for dogs, and is even worse for cats.

    Still, deformed dental arches amongst humans in countries like the U.S. is getting close to 100%. It’s not that bad in pets… yet.

    Thanks for dropping a line.

    Reply
  7. Alyss,

    Your point is well taken re: pet health. However, I believe Matt was making the point that although modern pets are not fed anything remotely close to an ideal diet, they are not suffering quite as badly as the animals in Pottenger’s study. Indeed, Pottenger noted that the cats fed cooked foods were sterile after 3 or 4 generations, but we see no such issues with our pets (this, of course, is why we have to get them spayed and neutered).

    There is one other variable to consider: Commercial pet foods are loaded with chemicals, insecticides, etc. This makes it hard to separate whether modern pets’ health problems are due strictly to nutrition, chemical exposure, or some combo of the two.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>