Hey, it’s that time again. Join me and Josh and Jeanne Rubin from http://www.eastwesthealing.com/ at 4pm Eastern time this afternoon for a continuation of our first conversation a few weeks back. I hope to bring up some of the general myths about insulin resistance and related topics…
Will listen in if time is available.
Thanks for all your work Matt. I just wanted to say that you have made me 'think' about fud and nutrition, gaining a new awareness' and appreciations, resulting in a new found love of 'the fud'.
If I wish to become a cult follower though, three questions:a) do I get any nifty badges/ insignia? b) is there any blood swapping/ letting involved? c) do I require a deep and involved knowledge of 80's flicks? If so, which ones?
Cheers, Robert
Actually, I regard the 80's flicks as backfill in my education–I was growing up in the 80's too, and somehow missed most of the contemporary culture, so coming here for cogent reminders to et(f)f and getting a bonus helping of my 'traditional' showbiz diet seems pretty sharp.
Yes, curious to hear what the what about insulin resistance. I read that PCOS (which my ND says I have) correlates to insulin resistance, but I'm not insulin resistant. I bet that's just a specious link and can be fixed?
Try to get straight answers out of Josh. Not everything "depends on the individual." There have to be general rules (even if they have exceptions).
hey brock,
why don't you "try to get straight answers out of Josh." Here is the phone number to call (347) 426-3546.
I'd like to know more about the hormone cascade, esp pregnenolone and DHEA – how to make them rise naturally, best way to supplement, etc.
Also, why they are against all grains. We're loving oatmeal lately – groats well soaked and cooked. My temp literally goes up 2-3 degrees when I eat oatmeal (and then comes back down within an hour). It's very strange, but boy I love oatmeal.
Okay, this is regarding the comments and everything in last post, so I apologize that it's off topic somewhat.
So Krysta gives up all WAPF foods and solves all her problems? What the hell does that mean? She only eats HFCS and vegetable oil? Last time I checked, WAPF wasn't forcing fermented cream and sprouted beans down people's throats.
Pat says screw everything because he's not dead and most people don't have strict diets? What kind of contribution to the discussion is that?
Despite what anyone here thinks they see, over 99% of Americans have pathetic health. Whether officially 30% are fat or 40%, who cares? Almost every non-kid I see is fucking fat. Former classmates of mine (I'm 24) have hair loss, obvious visceral fat, skin as bad as what-used-to-be only teenagers', and shit teeth. Finding a middle-aged person with good body composition is near-impossible (and I'm talking about good–not a guy with 20% body fat who can't do 5 chins or squat with a wet t-shirt). While I definitely think Sisson sometimes makes bad points and is way over the top with reenactment, nobody can deny that he is in phenomenal shape, and I don't think he spends his life as a social outcast, depressed and wishing for more friends.
People here are doing all they can to rationalize their own shortcomings by saying they're "mentally healthy" or whatever and are just excited they've found an authority/guru to tell them it's okay to eat donuts and brownies.
It's been about a year since I've eaten any crap food, and I don't feel restricted in the slightest. I'm at complete peace with my "orthorexia" of tubers, fatty animals, dairy, fruit, and even, gasp, some "disgusting" organ meats, including bull testicles and penis that I shared with some Japanese. Luckily, I actually prefer to look and feel better than 99% of people, instead of the other option of playing with ridiculous rationalizations and bad logic while continuing down the path of erectile dysfunction and poop sacks.
Just listened to the show and one question really sticks out in my mind…
Who is Johnny Lawrence?
LOL that call was hilarious.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH SHIT SON,john just went hard in the paint, he kicked some ass and took some names, job well done john, job well done.
Johnny is one of a kind. Loved his prank call :)
John-
I totally respect what you're saying but truthfully, must people eat bad food because it makes them feel good. They are stressed and that donut makes them feel better. I wish I was mentally strong enough to stick to an awesome wholesome diet and Im sure most people wish they were strong enough too but eating that way is just another stress on top of the everyday stuff they have to deal with.
Yes, I am "rationalizing my own shortcomings" and wish i didnt have to. I was born with bad health though, mom had TB a year before having me. I thought a great diet like WAPF would cure my anxiety and generally fatigue but it just made me more stressed. What is the answer then? I dont know. I still eat the same foods as you but no longer obsess and yeah I've gained some weight but feel better mentally and can function better at work and home.
I hear what you're saying but I think you miss the point a little in that most people aren't trying to have poor health and be fat, they reach for the coke because it makes them feel better and when they dont have it and try to eat healthy, they feel bad. It sucks but that is the way it is I guess. It goes a lot deeper than people being too lazy to eat good food though. I guess thats my point.
John,
You make some good points, but there is no reason to think that your diet of "tubers, fatty animals, dairy, fruit, and even, gasp, some "disgusting" organ meats, including bull testicles and penis" is more healthy just because it is "traditional" or "WAPF" approved.
When I tried eating that diet (excluding the penis), it made me worse. Tubers and most dairy and fruit made me sick. I got healthier eating untraditional foods like white rice, canned tuna, and chicken breasts. And, my body composition improved.
The problem isn't that you want to eat healthy, I do to, and I eat strict 90% of the time. The problem is that your defintion of healthy food = "traditonal" "WAPF". There is no good reason to believe this.
The easiest way to identify a nutritional guru fraud is when they say there is 1 right diet for everyone all the time.
Brock,
Sorry man, but Matt is right on this one. Everyone is different and has different needs. You can probably make some generalities for most, but nutrition will differ between individuals. Anyone who has worked with lost high level athletes would be able to tell you that you have to individualize.
Matt,
I am happy you finally picked up this concept. I remember trying to convince you of this a long time ago, but you were certain that there must be 1 true way!
Lorelei,
My advice is to work with someone that has experience with these hormones. I doubt Matt and the Rubins have experience in this respect. You need to find someone that has actually worked with many people, and validated their methods with real world results with the patient's lab work to validate their methods. You do NOT want to take advice from someone who just theorizes about it. Hormone therapies can be difficult to manage because people respond to things differently many times. This is why you need a real experienced practioner.
JT, I wish. I'd have to move. We don't have many naturopaths on this island, and the ones I've tried have scared me.
I'd rather have the beach time though.
Alright I just finished listening and I need time to mull… but Matt can you make the next post about the all day temp and pulse checking? Is the idea that we want them high? Because you're supposed to be able to check for food sensitivities by seeing if your pulse rises. And my example about my temp shooting up with oatmeal… is this good? Because I was thinking it was some kind of inflammatory response. So clarification would be good.
How much IS a consultation with these guys? I'm all stressed out about how "individual" it is, all over again.
Matt and all-
So no above ground veggies? What about corn? No cause it's a grain and don't they say grains not good either? So no grains and nothing green, is that right? Besides yams, sweet tators, taters, and carrots, what others are not above ground?
Thanks!
Yeah, that 'above ground is PUFA ridden" thing confused me too.. as you can hear on the talk.. I am stunned for a moment and was not sure what he asked me )
Oh yeah, Matt-
In the call you said you had a lot of faith in the Rubins. What makes you feel that way? What do you know that we don't know? So far we all have very little to go on. If what we know is all you know, what is the faith based on?
Also, can you tell us what the general guidelines are? For example (and besides), no above ground veggies. And am I correct about no grains either?
Thanks!
Grass Fed Momma-
I know what you mean and I noticed that. I'm confused too lol!
Matt, it's hard to take seriously someone who makes such sweeping statements as you do, and talks about "traditional diets" being irrelevant and says "I do think that potent nutritional strategies could be developed and utilized with great effectiveness by those who really understand how to manipulate it, know what biomarkers to really look for, and are not married to some diet religion – "traditional" or otherwise.", but doesn't seem to grasp what science is about. Not once do you give references for your arguments, repeteadly create strawmans and get overemotional and overgeneralize from you own personal experience. You haven't even measured your own hormones, so how the hell do you know what your own body temperature really means?? And about traditional diets being irrelevant, have you forgotten why do people study them in the first place? It's because real health, or at least health comparable to the people in those populations just can't be found in the modern world! So traditional diets are part of the very frame and basis we have for looking at what is wrong with modern nutrition and what can be done to fix it. If science is to be followed, then to really promote something as a cure or as a solution to a problem, you have to PROVE IT. Or at least have a lot of good arguments so that the hypothesis is at least believable. That is what you don't give. One thing, of course, would be that this were your own experiments and speculations, and that's ok, but other is to try to pass all this as facts.
Scientific claims should be able to be traced to their very origins, and if your work can't be traced, your arguments can't be followed and your statements are controversial but but you never feel the need to show the proof, why are we to believe you? Now sugar is the panacea, even refined sugar is accepted, but is there real proof of it's safety? Is there any culture or group of people that ever lived and where healthy while eating very high amounts of sugar, SPECIALLY refined sugar? You can theorize all day, but at the end of the day, nuts (with their huge o6 content, undigestiblity and low carbiness) have been with us for million of years and have partly fuelled populations much more healthy than ours, while sugar, with it's perfect cleanliness and superb taste, and it's magical ability to elevate body temperature (at least according to you) never has. Do you think people would have ever adopted refined foods if they had made them feel bad inmediately?
I'm open to sugar not being the cause of all evil, and maybe being even beneficial in some instances (specailly unrefined), but this post was just too much, too stupid. And I'm getting fucking tired of you never referencing your articles and just spouting your arguments like a drunked vegan. Growth hormone being behind sugar's magic? Common! There's not even proof that growth hormone does all that! That eating food you don't like decreases the absorption of minerals? That you can't follow a masai diet and be healthy? You don't even know hwat the masai diet is like!!!
Lorelei,
A naturopath is not the right doctor to go to for hormone therapy. Usually the anti-aging type docs are the ones that have experience with this.
Matt & Rubins,
I just listened to part of the interview concerning the hormones. Where are you getting your info besides Peat's articles?
Why do you think that if you have too much growth hormone it will convert to estrogen? Nobody I know of has had this happen to them when using GH. Testosterone can aromatize to estrogen if you use too much, but never heard of that with GH.
Where are you getting your information on the hormonal effects of exercise? Especially concerning estrogen, prolactin and thyroid. Have you validated any of these claim by having labwork done on your clients?
Pat,
First, I'm not some WAPF groupie–I just refer to it because I think the general idea is a good foundation. I understand what you are saying, and I don't have the answer. I mean I don't know exactly what you were eating, and even if I did, I don't claim to have a solution. But, I do know many people that have "tried everything," and a lot of them are just full of crap. Adding jars of peanut butter and cartons of industrial lemonade to Atkins, WAPF, etc does nothing except cause a lot of whining about bad genetics. Again, I'm not saying this was you, but it is common.
JT,
As above to Pat, I wasn't trying to hail WAPF as the perfect nutritional resource. The foods I eat are probably mentioned somewhere on the site, but I don't search through and cook every recipe and recreate every cultures' dishes. I eat what I like, which is mostly fat. If my diet is "WAPF approved," I could care less: there are plenty of bad articles on the site, and I don't blindly follow their recommendations.
My point was that rationalizing french fries and donuts by telling yourself it's for the mental and/or social health is not a solution. I have given up certain foods and refined my diet slowly, to where I now feel I have a good sense of what's right for me.
My above post was out of anger and annoyance from people telling me I'm weird or orthorexic or can't enjoy life because I don't get drunk or eat pizza. Why do they care what I'm doing? Again, it's as if they have to rationalize to themselves that someone like me is an outcast because otherwise, they'd be beneath me (which isn't the case either, but it shows they are the ones with mental problems, not me).
JT, well we do have a lot of old people, so I could probably find one of them kinda doctors.
The Rubins are really not part of the ETF mentality. After all, chicken and pig are bad, beef muscle is bad, PUFA is bad, all grains are bad, sweet potatoes are bad if you're a woman, and "above ground" vegetables are bad. I'm thinking for the anti-nutrients rather than the PUFAs, but what do I know. Also, non-tropical fruits are bad. The only ETFing they've got going on is with sugar and juice. I feel way more stressed about food after listening to them.
And on gelatin – 3 nights in a row I took 2 Tbl before bed and slept way, way worse. We've had very little meat but much broth for a few weeks and all I want is a big hunk o'tenderloin. But the kids are having fun with all my attempts to make gummy worms.
Agree with Lorelei above – as far as I can tell the Rubens are almost identical to RPs recs from his articles, which are extremely restrictive, and would leave me feeling like there was little to eat and enjoy, other than some nice bone broth/stews, fruit and dairy/ice-cream.
This is the type of food I like to eat when I have a cold and am recovering, (i avoid starch and vegetables mostly when unwell) but once I am feeling better, bring on the bangers and mash, porridge for breaky, lots of coconut fries, steak and eggs, salads and sourdough bread – my ETF standards, which fill me up and make me feel sated.
Eating lots of fruit is healing and easy to digest, but just makes me more hungry. Sooner or later, I will need a serious starch fix.
So I am keen to see where Matt's association with the Ruben's will go and how it can be of benefit to a general high calorie ETF mindset which has been so liberating for me (but still can't get the temps as high as I would like!)
Renz.
@Hans
How about just say the Rubins are Ray Peat followers? I haven't heard anything from them that isn't based on Ray Peat's stuff (haven't listened to this interview here though.) In some video, Josh speaks about how he connected the dots. I wonder why he doesn't just say "I read Ray Peat"…
No disrespect or offence intended, but this audio dialogue – for people who are indeed trying to "Eat the Food" and loosen up their attitude to eating – will likely increase the momentum of existing behaviours, not reduce them.
There are people from outer Mongolia to downtown Melbourne, (eating modern or traditional foods) who are blissfully unaware of all the 'perils' of eating such and such food(s) outlined in interview, yet lead healthy, vigorous lives.
The notion that one needs to reasearch extensively, or make an appointment with someone who has/does, to be healthy, becomes yet another layer of external dependency and fear.
Each to their own, and people have different motivations, but for the individual trying to foster a more relaxed attitude to eating, I dont think this interview is of much benefit.
Unless, of course it becomes the catalyst to a surrender to the on-going process, and "eat the food" truly becomes an ingrained attitude and not merely a catchy phrase.
And then the interview will have been a landmark moment!
for what its worth.
I'm hoping someone can explain Josh's statement found between 1:31:00 – 1:31:20.
"and why is it loaded in unsaturated fat? Why is kale and lettuce loaded in unsaturated fats, but certain below-ground vegetables are not? A vegetable is a vegetable isn't it?"
Kale and lettuce are "loaded" in unsaturated fat? Kale has a 1:1 ratio of 3/6 in rather small amounts when I looked it up. "Loaded" huh? mmmkay.
I too found Rubin's comments odd as Remick puts it —- Kale and lettuce are "loaded" in unsaturated fat? Kale has a 1:1 ratio of 3/6 in rather small amounts when I looked it up. "Loaded" huh? mmmkay.
I won't stop eating my salads anytime soon, lettuce loaded with PUFA's thats crazy talk. I think the best thing to take out of this call is just pick out the good stuff and disregard the rest as some of it is pretty Ortho to me, and the last thing people recovering from eating disorders need to hear.
Lettuce isn't loaded with PUFAs, but it contains a lot of goitrogens, which supress the thyroid. That's why people can survive on a cabbage diet during a famine. Cabbage supresses the thyroid so much that people can survive on a diet that contains less than 1000 calories.
I don't get why people eat lettuce. It has no taste, it's like chewing water and contains absolutely no nutrients.
Iceberg lettuce is the most boring stuff on earth, I agree. But apart from that salad can really be quite tasty in my opinion.
It also depends on how the vegatables were grown. Even vegetables like carrots or fennel often lack any real taste depending on what kind you buy and where you buy it.
So I wouldn't necessarily critizise lettuce, but rather modern commercial agriculture.
Jannis,
Not true- I've raised lettuce and there are so many varieties, with different flavors and textures, and I'm sure, at least some vitamins and minerals- quality lettuce is something I savor. Doesn't translate to store-bought lettuce very well, though.
You mention both cabbage and lettuce here- I don't believe they're in the same family (Lettuce is aster, Cabbage is a Brassica). Does lettuce also have goitrogenic qualities. Can you provide some reference for that?
I eat lettuce because I like the feeling of eating raw foods (sometimes), and it's a good vehicle for dressings (including vinaigrette, with evil olive oil).
Also- second all those comments about the Rubins aiding an orthorexic mindset, John's comment about eating quality foods doesn't necessarily mean social isolation (though certainly it can sometimes), the continued NON-irrelevance of traditional foods and the uncertainty of as yet continuing research into the healthful-ness of sugar, Word.
Some more comments halfway through about this radio show-
I think the Rubins are obviously bright and informed, but I don't think they have as much insight as I'd like. Simplicity of perspective can mean an unsophisticated understanding, and acknowledging the complexities and uncertainties is a sign of honesty and rigor and intelligence. And on the other side of it, having a coherent and appropriate shorthand way to communicate can be a sign of brilliance- that you understand the complexities and the connections well enough that your words can become fewer without any dilution of meaning or truth. Like that probably apocryphal Mark Twain quote, paraphrasing 'Forgive the length of this letter- I didn't have time to make it short.'
The Rubins, all power to them, and they seem to do great and helpful work for people, don't seem to have the same ?lan with crafting coherent stories about what's happening in the body that Matt does. The key for me in understanding these sometimes involved and detailed processes is having a story that gives meaning, and isn't just a disconnected bunch of facts (estrogen does this, progesterone does that, leptin yet another thing, etc.). I think Matt does that really quite well, and his training as a writer comes through there. So in the midst of all this Matt-bashing (sort of), I want to offer that other side- I think he's damn good at what he does, even if I disagree with the content.
Yeah, Matty.
The other comment is- there's something so persuasive about the ETF idea- give thw body more than enough of everything it needs, and it can do the accounting, and sorting out. Hormone therapy, while I'm sure terribly effective in some cases, seems so fraught with potential unintended consequences, like calorie restriction, that it seems truly a blunt object lacking the surgical precision Matt referred to in an earlier post's comment. You add DHEA, and whoops- something else shifts and now you're in a deeper hole. Bam- a little growth hormones, and shit- this other bad thing happened. While it seems so marvelous on paper, tweaking hormones I suspect, is subject to the same shortcomings borne of our lack of complete understanding. So any experiments in manipulating them I reckon ought to be done modestly and humbly, and with full disclosure that we don't know yet what may happen, even if we have some idea of what we're aiming for.
The body has a grace and elegance and wisdom beyond what our aspirations toward puppeteering may overcome.
Jannis, would you mind elaborating on how you implement Ray Peats ideas in a typical day for you? I read on the proline blog you don't eat as much sugar? Or Matt? I want to test the sugar, low pufas, but I am not keen on purchasing all of the other supplements and thyroid yet.
Rob A- well stated post! We are all learning here…too much food restriction is what brought many of us to Matt's yard….&his molasses ice cream milkshakes ;-)
On hormones: even though they may help it seems it is a bit of Russian roulette to take them. Just like chemo, at this point I say no no no.
Deb the Hag
question about homogenised milk. would it be better to buy skim milk without additives and add whatever other fat or does it not matter. the milk is good quality (of course it is its irish haha)
Humans aren't designed to digest cellulose???
And so, according to Rubins, WTF can we eat?
In the recent videos, Josh talks about"connecting the dots" aka finding Ray Peat and using his theories to get much improved results for his clients. If that's true, what does that say about the Rubin's old approaches and their efficacy?
It seems like they are just like Matt on the quest of the unknown, yet because of their marketing and reputation, are getting clients to test out their theories in real life unlike Matt so much. If it were me, I'd stick with Eat the Food a la Matt and wait a while longer before seeing if Josh changes his mind in a few months and confidently markets a new more effective way of doing things. Don't misjudge me though, I think what they are doing with real experience as JT advocates is invaluable, and I'm grateful to the people with money who want to be their guinea pigs.
@WTF
Appearently whatever Ray Peat eats. Which must not be all that magical a strategy cause even he is still taking thyroid and other supps from what I've heard.
Don't intend any disrespect, but gees they talk as if they know everything and us other poor humans are just ignorant.
Well, you can't argue with stupid!
i think Peat was hyperthyroid when he was younger, could be wrong though. maybe he absolutely needs the thyroid. there are many problems that simply can't be fixed with anything except medication.
During the summer he takes 1/2 grain of thyroid. During winter it's more. Peat is 73. Since thyroid function inevitably slows down with aging, even if you eat a very good diet, that's probably a reasonable approach.
I'm not taking anything away from Peat, I think he's a very intelligent guy, but I just don't believe he or any one person has the answers – even Josh or Jeanne Rubin.
I think the answers were left behind in the past.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose
"Some animals, particularly ruminants and termites, can digest cellulose with the help of symbiotic micro-organisms that live in their guts. Humans can digest cellulose to some extent,[6][7] however it is often referred to as 'dietary fiber' or 'roughage' (e.g. outer shell of maize) and acts as a hydrophilic bulking agent for feces."
I see constipation in your future…
-psychic
@ all those crying that "we are all different"
we may all be at different places in the level of inefficiency of our metabolisms (different in/tolerances, etc…), but the point I've always believed in (and feel Matt is pushing as well) is that there is a generalized place where most should be able to achieve, one that allows one to eat a great number of things with little to no problems. there would simply HAVE to be a "core diet" if you will for all humans. we are too similar currently for there to be huge, sweeping differences. yes, there will always be people who do not react well to something "no matter what they do". just because we don't yet understand the root cause doesn't mean it's an epi/genetic adaption.
just because YOUR body currently doesn't react well to something doesn't mean "everyone is different", it just means something is going on that is preventing your body from properly processing whatever it is you have problems with. unless you can prove that it's a genetic variance (which currently i don't think that's possible. could be wrong) everyone should just take something at face value. don't try to force an explanation.
-Anonymous
EAT THE FOOD!
NOT!
Stop, Please, everyone who keeps stating that this is what is being promoted here. This is NOT true. I really do not understand how you can interpret Matt and the Rubins as promoting this.
Matt,
Please write a blog post with this title so people will quit thinking u believe this.
Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
-Tolstoy
Not an 80s movie, but still true of many areas of life.
Anonymous,
Please re-read the 2nd paragraph of your last post. You just agreed that people react differently to different diets and foods. This means that we are all different with our dietary needs. Genetics might be part of it, but it is not the only thing that would cause this. An individuals past and present environmental and dietary exposures will play a big part in this. Amount and type of activity levels will be big too.
But, I do think that most could find a generalized starting point with a zone type of diet based on starch and animL protein. Then u can adjust macros and food types based on you biofeedback.
Jannis,
I'm pretty sure that Peat believes that everyone should be on some thyroid medication.
What is your Peat diet? Give us an example of a weekly menu? What changes have you developed since implementing this diet.
How much is half a grain of thyroid in cynoplus/cynomel? He said he takes roughly equal portions of t3 and t4, some cynomel on most days, and occasional cynoplus.
I really wish more people who are currently experimenting with adding more sugar to their diet would report on the various side effects they're noticing. Personally I added even more sugar in the form of ice cream a week ago and it's been both up and down since. I felt really good for a couple of days but now again have intensified congestion, sore throat and coughing, feeling pretty tired after lunch, and also for the past couple of weeks I've regularly been getting red eyes that sometimes ache, and facebloat still comes and goes. Most of these are symptoms of increased inflammation, which is funny since Josh claims sugar reduces inflammation, but I guess it could be due to lowered cortisol which would increase inflammation.
Also, I am again both feeling somewhat colder and measuring new lows in body temp, which is perplexing since I'm still not gaining visible fat despite now eating at least 2500 kcals more than before I began fruit loading, at least acne has diminished somewhat.
Collden,
I've been adding sugar in the form of ice cream mostly to my diet the last couple weeks, and don't notice much, except a higher level of dietary freedom Several days ago I got a strong craving for nutritious foods like spinach and liver and bee pollen-liver's de-frosting in the fridge as I write this.
I also don't feel addicted to sugar- certainly don't crave it all the time, but am enjoying not feeling 'bad' if I do.
The first time I ate it, I thought I felt warmer, but was maybe imagining it. Don't know really.
So, much as I wonder about the truth behind the pro-sugar camp's message, easing up on its restriction has been satisfying, and hasn't led me off the deep end on addiction.
I had already seen a rise in body temperature from 35.1c (95.18f) to 36.1c (96.98f), in the mornings, through a molasses and warm milk drink three times a day for 2 weeks then curtailing the amount – 1 more week 2 times a day then 1 more 1 time a day – and now just now and again as well as having a breakfast of oranges and bananas. Only 6 pieces per day. That has remained throughout the day, sometimes reaching 36.4c (97.52f) on a really good day, sometime between 5 and 7 in the evening.
I have yesterday and the day before, added two packets of sugar when out for my regular coffee (at the end – don't want to waste good coffee) and had a rise in body temperature (between 5-7)compared to normal.
Today I had a molasses drink on awakening, one tablespoon in warm milk with a tablespoon of muscavado(?) sugar and the same two packets of sugar when out for coffee about 1 in the p.m for a further increase burning 37.1c (98.78f) at 2.30 and 37.2c (98.96), a new record, all evening starting to fall on slightly around 10.30-11pm.
This from someone who has recorded 35.1c through 2 years of hed and rrarf. My diet is otherwise exactly the same from mid-afternoon through evening meal, low on meat unless I get a huge craving for it, moderate to low on veg and high on starches, mostly potato and pasta at the mo (the pasta, oh and some bread, being way cool because I would double over in pain, sweat and often times loose my bowel contents when eating it in the past – thank you hed and rrarf) and all that for very little sugar added.
Now to see if it holds, or goes higher, and isn't just a temporary blip.
I am really amazed because I am so poor I can't always afford to eat as much as I would like and if I am out and about and get hungry, its a case of suffering the hunger till I get home – but I don't ever leave it a ridiculous amount of time.
On sugar:
-Sleep
Big thing for me is better glycogen stores, now I get full night sleep without waking up hungry and can go on like 5-6 hours without feeling down. Before sugar was total opposite had to eat every 2-3 hours.
-Performance
I play tennis a lot, so performance has drastically increased -I can play 1-2 hours without my muscles giving up. On starch, I could only play 30 mins max at my best, after that limit muscles seem to give up -like a spongy feeling, prlly due to low muscle glycogen.
-Temps and congestion
Before I used to be congested a lot, like one nostril always blocked no matter what. When I first started eating sugar, my nose would clear up and temperature would go up (hands and body warmed up) -all this happened within minutes of eating. Now this happens after eating any meal, and with esp. carbs regardless if its sugar or starch. Like a lot of you, my temp falls much lower then on a starch diet between meals, but also goes much higher after eating sugar.
My teeth did ache a lot in the beginning, but when I took OJ out most of the aches went away. I'm guessing because the OJ had supplemental minerals, really hard finding pure OJ. Without OJ, they don't really ache much. Again, there was very minor ache while eating bananas but now that is also gone.
My mood and energy both are amazing like I'm almost hyper all the time. Also note that I don't eat ice cream all that much 2-3 times a week. Most of my sugar comes from blackstrap, maple syrup/butter, and most of it from fruits -bananas, melons, oranges. Also the diet is kind of low-fat, I do use mostly peanut oil *gasp* and sometimes coconut oil for cooking.
The only thing that worries me is getting cavities so I propose we all come with good guidelines on how to avoid that.
1. rinse your mouth after eating sugar
2. ….
The last 4 weeks I've added about a litre of OJ, a cup of ice cream and a little dark chocolate and some fruit occasionally. Oh, and plenty of gelatin. I've increased my calories by at least 1000kcals without putting on any weight. I've never been one to drink OJ, as anytime in the past adding fruit juice guaranteed an automatic weight gain. Any sugar cravings have disappeared too.
I've had a sore throat and have felt like my body has been fighting off a cold the first 3 weeks and only now the sore throat is going. Initially the added sugar increased my appetite as I think I had been slowly reducing my food intake for awhile. My basal temps (36.1/ 97) have dropped and could be a little better but my day temps (37/ 98.6) haven't been affected and are great. My biggest symptom has been high blood sugar. Not diabetic high but enough to make me feel a little weird. My fasting BG was previously averaged around 4.5/ 81 and then on sugar it went up to about 5.5/ 99. Three hours after meals it's up to about 7/ 126. I feel like it's just started to stabilise back down again.
Anyone else with higher BG on sugar?
You guys gotta get over the body temperature fixation. My body temperature was the highest (always at least 98.6) when I was on a super low carb diet. This is also when I did the most damage to my body and almost killed myself with the stupid diet.
Collden,
Of course you are increasing inflamation, those symptoms are signs of a strong histamine reaction due to you body reacting negatively to the foods your giving it. Don't try to justify this to yourself by thinking this is just your body reducing cortisol. If anything it is going up due to the stressful reactions to the food.
Ice cream is NOT a health food. Just because Peat does well on it doesn't mean it is healthy for you.
Quit believing in diet dogmas and listen to your body. If you really want to test out sugar and see if it is good for you then you need to isolate your variables. That would mean using pure sugar, not a mixed food with high allergenic potential like ice cream.
FYI–NY Times article "Is Sugar Toxic?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=3&hp
I haven't read it all yet but it's Gary Taubes on Robin Lustig, so probably we know where it's going…
@Narenawhat is your age? Are you female?
Thanks for your feedback
I cannot help but think back to my precancer chick days … I ran on sugar caffiene pasteurized non fat dairy bread cheese and factory farmed meats . Before I went raw vegan . My weight was stable ,strength good, sleep poor. It was. Before menopause of course. But all this sweet talking has got me thinking.,was I so far off the mark? Hmmmm
@JT
"You guys gotta get over the body temperature fixation. My body temperature was the highest (always at least 98.6) when I was on a super low carb diet. This is also when I did the most damage to my body and almost killed myself with the stupid diet."
I agree that body temperature isn't the only thing to consider. I remember giving blood once when my temp was 98.6, but my hands were freezing cold, and my extremity circulation was so low that they couldn't get any blood from me.
But what I notice is that typically, my body temps correlate with other good things. When my temp is high I *usually* feel warmer all over, have digestion that's running better, feel more relaxed, have lower blood sugar, and have better mental clarity. So it's a good objective signal.
I think we both agree that learning to read all your body's signals is the key. I wish I could go back 10 years with the knowledge that things like feeling cold all the time and being constipated is not 'normal'. Once you can read your body's signals better, it becomes possible to do self experimentation, as Seth Roberts promotes. The big complexity with self-experimentation is that it's hard to tell if symptoms after a diet change are transitional or not.
If this was easy, we'd have it figured out by now.
Whoops! That should be Seth Roberts.
(and no, I'm not suggesting the Shangri-La diet is the answer)
dude are you seriously going to delete my comment like that? i didn't even save the insightful part
cricize the all powerful rubins and get deleted!
Question about balancing pufas.
People have made a big deal about the n6:n3 ratio. I assume this means aa:epa/dha.
When looking at the sources of n6 in my diet, it seems that most are la. Isn't la converted to aa at very low ratio, something like 10%?
If one then "balances" the la with fish oil you would actually get a massive overdose of n3.
So, even if I eat commercial eggs and grain fed beef/dairy it would seem that I would only need a very small amount of fish to balance the pufas.
Ray Peat is against eating fatty fish like salmon and herring, so if you don't eat grass-fed meat, pastured dairy or take cod liver oil, your omega 6:3 ratio will be closer to 5:1 on high carb diet and even high as 10:1 on a high fat diet.
@E
Well Ray Peat hates all pufas, so no surprises there. Its only him and the even more wacky Brian Peskin who are against n3.
Still, he may have a point about fatty fish. As far as I know pufas are mostly used for structural purposes, not burnt. I imagine the rate of turnover is very low. Those fish may very well be a massive overdose of n3 derivatives.
@ the hagster
22yrs, pure manly man with oozing manliness
How long did it take you guys to add lots of fat back in?
Sugar as an energy source is much superior to starches or fat. So the new view is that the big meals, lunch and dinner, are for body maintenance while breakfast and evening snack are for pure energy purposes.
Also, this sugar thing might not be for everyone, but its definitely worth implementing if you love to play sports or just like to move.
curses foiled again Narenda as a 22 year old man you could most likely guzzle gatorade and get the same results. Although in few years, you might get cancer from the fake food dye in it :)
Guys, Matt, Girls, I have to say…I have come to the conclusion as JT said, Eat The Food is not working for me.
I am still fat.
I am still not gaining muscle.
This is not anyone's fault but mother nature.
New Rules: If you are hormonaly fucked, eat the food will render you fatter. Eat Wisely is my new motto. What that means remains to be seen but I am guessing it does not involve too much gelato.
Love to all
The Hag
anonymous: MATT DOES NOT DELETE ANYONE"S COMMENTS. Period.
Many have had trouble lately with posting and the comment not showing. Believe me, sometimes I Wish he would delete some comments here but his policy is to let the shit storm go, not to interfere.
Pretty sure the spam filter comes in when you have a link with the full http etc. there. Maybe that's what happened, Anonymous?
"Eat the food" got me in trouble at first. "Orthorexia" was actually what made me better. I think that the use of the term orthorexia only makes sense if one eats the way one does out of fear or against one's will, e.g. someone who tries to limited calories and thereby stays hungry all the time, always dreaming with food and ogling the ice cream someone else is eating. I mean I love the food I eat, it tastes better to me than anything else. I don't feel tempted by "forbidden" foods, I don't dream about them or anything. Because I know eating a restricted diet makes me feel better it's not hard to do it. It's only hard when I have to explain it to others or eat out.
Grass fed momma,
Seems like you are making some great realizations. Yes, eat wisely is a much better motto.
Narendra,
The hag is right. When I was 22 it didn't matter what I ate as long as I got in enough calories to fuel my activity level. My post workout meal could be eat a large pizza, drink a 12 pack of beer, have a bottle of whisky for dessert. Then go out until 5am chasing girls, wake up at 6am work all day, then go to the gym and do it all over again. And I would still make good gains!
Hans,
Limiting calories is not orthorexia. Eating what makes you feel best isn't orthorexia either. Orthorexia is when you have an obsession with eating the "right" way, which is usually some ideal promoted by a guru.
@JT yeah, took me a while. I find that I get into a place of magical thinking, 'if only _______ would make me feel 30 again (notice I don't even try for my 20's!) that would be great! I thought raw vegan was it, until my health got worse and I could not digest anything. Nothing says unhealthy like a non functioning digestive system.
:)
"Of course you are increasing inflamation, those symptoms are signs of a strong histamine reaction due to you body reacting negatively to the foods your giving it. Don't try to justify this to yourself by thinking this is just your body reducing cortisol. If anything it is going up due to the stressful reactions to the food."
Maybe, I've had similar reactions to upping carb intake before though and they eventually passed, and I have other signs of lowered cortisol like improved sleep and much less night time urination.
"That would mean using pure sugar, not a mixed food with high allergenic potential like ice cream."
What in ice cream has high allergenic potential? My ice cream contains cream, skim milk, egg yolks, and natural vanilla besides sugar. I've never had any problems with any of those ingredients before. I do think its probably more due to the increased sugar intake since the increased inflammatory symptoms started already when I just added a lot of juiced fruits in the morning. I'd like to hear what Matt has to say about sugar, cortisol and inflammation.
JT,
I didn't say limiting your food intake per se is orthorexic, but if doing so takes too much will power I think it is. How is subscribing to a certain number of calories different from subscribing to some guru's diet? Whatever happened to the feelings of hunger and satiety… they will guide you if you eat a whole foods diet (in most cases.)
JT,
You say listen to your body, but don't you think you need to explicate that or else it could be very dangerous.
1. Most ppl don't know what this means
2. People who have damaged their bodies from years of abuse of junk food have a lot to do to fix it. It seems you're implying that if there is a "healthy" food that they are reacting initially badly to, then it's the food's fault and not the f*ed up body that's to blame. You see this all the time here with the self-conscious women here who say RRARF or some other food isn't working because it's making them gain weight, or "causing" some other symptom. Like overfeeding starch eventually improving glucose tolerance, maybe people have to stick longer with a program to heal instead of avoiding the problem. Maybe not, I dunno it's too complex of an issue, but I think in general that people are looking for too quick a solution.
3. You mention your lifestyle of pizza and alcohol at 22. Wasn't that you "listening to your body"? Do you really think that was healthy, cuz that's the message I'm taking away from combining your comments and it seems dangerous although i do agree with your orthorexia points.
any tips for improving bowel transit time?
my 4.5 year old son seems to have the start of a hemorrhoid (bluish swollen
vien). it's not sore or bleeding. His stools are soft and very easy to pass,
but he doesn't open his bowels daily (usually every two days) and there is
obviously a problem as there is the swollen vien. I'm wondering if the stool
sitting there for longer than 24 hours is causing pressure in the rectum and
therefore causing swelling in the vein?
I have tried increasing ripe fruit intake, which at least keeps the stool soft
but it hasn't consistently improved the transit time. He has been having
homemade yogurt and kefir, but I tried without as someone here suggested, but it made no difference. It seems worse with grain
products like bread, rice and pasta (particularly white) so try to limit these,
but then I wonder if he's getting enough fibre. He likes raw veg like salads
but is less keen on cooked veg.
Any suggestions on improving transit time or extra info on what could have
caused this since there has been no constipation?
Thanks, Jane
Colld?n said…
"I'd like to hear what Matt has to say about sugar, cortisol and inflammation."
Me too. And speaking of Matt, where has he been lately? Seen no sign of him in the comments for a while.
And speaking of comments. Many have had their comments disappear recently. But the disappearing comments are blogger's doing, not Matt's. I don't always agree with Matt, but I know he's a great person and I respect that he, in fact, never deletes comments that are not true spam.
Anonymous,
please re-post your comments that disappeared. Someone may even have them in their email, if they subscribed. Anyway, I'm very interested in what everyone's thoughts are on these recent events here.
Hans said…
""Eat the food" got me in trouble at first. "Orthorexia" was actually what made me better. I think that the use of the term orthorexia only makes sense if one eats the way one does out of fear or against one's will, e.g. someone who tries to limited calories and thereby stays hungry all the time, always dreaming with food and ogling the ice cream someone else is eating. I mean I love the food I eat, it tastes better to me than anything else. I don't feel tempted by "forbidden" foods, I don't dream about them or anything. Because I know eating a restricted diet makes me feel better it's not hard to do it. It's only hard when I have to explain it to others or eat out."
Very good point. And ditto to most of that for me. I really enjoy the (mostly wholesome) way I eat. And it's very easy for me to avoid crap. Although I do eat some here and there, I rarely ever crave or tempted by crap, cause it makes me feel, well, like crap! But I don't ever bother or feel the need to "explain" myself to anyone. And when I eat out on occasion, I make the smartest choices of what I have available to me, but I don't stress about it, I just eat.
JT said…
"Hans,
Limiting calories is not orthorexia. Eating what makes you feel best isn't orthorexia either. Orthorexia is when you have an obsession with eating the "right" way, which is usually some ideal promoted by a guru."
Totally agree there. However, I don’t want to speak for Hans, but I’m sure he was referring to, with regard to calorie restriction, the mental issues it causes for some people. Many people become obsessed with calorie restriction as well. Because they view it as "eating the right way" – which also is "usually some ideal promoted by a guru."
JT: Your comments regarding nutrition, health and exercise are the most retarded, uneducated, psychological wannabe nonsense ever written. Wake the fuck up…
Anonymous,
Maybe you are right!
Are you able to point out what statements of mine are false, and give a rational explanation why?
anonymous, what's the point of just cussing out JT like that? If there's something you dont agree with him on you should either ignore his advice or try to create a productive argument/debate.
I don't agree with everything JT says but I have found out that many of the things that i disagreed with him in the past turned out "for me" that he was right. He is just offering advice or constructive criticism which whether he is right or wrong is still a lot better than just insulting a person.
Danimal,
No, I dont think that was healthy at all! That was my whole point, I was just reinforcing what grass fed momma had pointed out. I could do all kinds of unhealthy things and function OK when I was younger, and there is no way I could do that now. I ignored all the signs my body was giving me because I could recover from all the damage I was doing.
Yes, you are right most people cannot interpret their own biofeedback well. This is why I recommend consulting with a real professional that is experienced.
As inconsistent as Matt's blog may seem, I still find it helpful. It has helped me immensely to relax and not be as orthorexic. I think about why I became so obsessed with diet at one point, and why that all happened is starting to fade from memory. But John is still right. Most Americans do not have good health. Many will end up paying for that with higher medical costs and reduced quality of life. It bothered me long before I ever got into health and nutrition that people have this perverse guilt/pleasure relationship with food. Somebody brings brownies to a meeting. You don't eat one… That's weird, or you have lots of willpower. You do eat one, it's not that satisfying and you spoil your lunch. Everybody else is over-praising them and feeling guilty about eating them. WTF? They're brownies.
This used to be how I thought about things. I was healthy and did not have any extra body fat. Then I read GCBC and started getting into nutrition blogs. And again, I think John is right. But to me it really was something of a battle. Conventional wisdom is messed up and if you follow the herd, you're just going to end up with the same health problems as everyone else. Problems that no one should be getting.
Unfortunately, my dogmatic adherence to low-carbism and high levels of exercise did more damage than anything previous. There is a lot of wisdom in Matt's approach that has allowed me to step way back and slowly heal.
I also take a look at my ex. Although she's familiar with NT, cooks much of her own food, loves dairy and eats pasture raised whenever possible, she was never obsessive. She enjoys pizza and ice cream as well as home cooked foods. I wish it hadn't taken me so long but I finally see the wisdom in her approach.
The SAD may be destroying peoples' health, but too much fixation and an inability to relax can get you there much faster. Besides, in terms of causation, it's difficult to even separate diet from lifestyle factors. I'm not that surprised Matt doesn't seem to have a strong coherent message right now.
I think personally, for myself, I'd like to do what John mentioned, which is slowly transition to something that's working well for me. I used to not listen to anyone. Sugar's bad for me? Whatever. Butter's bad for me? Whatever. But I was changing and cutting things out, like pop or stupid brownies at meetings.
Anyways, sorry for the length of this letter – I did not have time to make it short.
@ JT:
Based on your experience is it normal to react negatively to starch (puffy face,blaoting, etc)after a long low carb diet?
Do these symptoms tend to dissappear once you embrace more carbs than fat?
I know you are into ayurveda, which ayurveda guidelines have been helpful on your recovery?
Best,
Marco
I hope Josh Rubin has a money back guarantee on his coaching. I mean this guy is claiming there's loads of PUFA's in lettuce? That's ridiculous. What percentage of lettuce is PUFA? He also eats 12 tablespoons of sugar per day? I think him (and Matt lately) have been going way overboard on the sugar and it shows. Josh Rubin clear looks overweight and has man boobs. Matt also looks to be on the chubby side from the pic he posted of himself earlier last month. Everyone should be cautious of jumping on this sugar bandwagon. As said in a previous comment, ice cream is not health food guys! And body temperature is not the be all and end all of good health!
I don't have time to debate people on the internet but I just had to relieve my frustration when people are giving others so much nonsense. You wanna feel good about eating junk… see a psychologist for approval but stop telling people that it's OK to eat the way u do JT. All of these internet blog responder "expert" discussions are useless. Get a life or stop spreading BS about diets just to make confused people feel better please… Stop advising others based on your personal experience which is biased and utter rubbish ;-]
I'm Loving the recent influx of boisterous Anonymous users in here at the moment. Come on fellas/ladies, if you're going to post such strong opinions have the stones (pun intended) to give a name at the very least ;)
Anonymous,
You must have completely misunderstood everything I have written if u think I eat a junkfood diet. I eat very clean 90% of the time and I never binge. I don't know anyone that eats as strict as me. I am also physically active and in shape.
I'm going to have to tell my coworkers about how my diet is too much junk food. They will probably fall down from laughter since they see me bring my meals of chicken breasts, fish, veggies and rice every day.
Sorry if I misled you.
Out of the anonymous closet please! JT you are such a junk food junkie NOT ;-)
Marco,
I have heard of the bloating reaction before. You body needs time to change to using a different energy source from carbs. Hopefully after a while it will go away, but some people retain more water than others. The type of carbs you are using could make a difference too. You might wanna post this question on Abel's forum. The people over there are much more experienced with this. I would also get checked out by a doctor and make sure everything is OK.
Yes, I like Ayurveda. The food mixing guidelines have been the most helpful to me. The herbal use was helpful as well, but u need a good Ayurvedic doc for that.
I don't always agree with everything JT says but his insights and experiences are as invaluable to hear as anyone else here – everyone has worth. But perhaps JT should stick to just giving his experiences, rather than giving advice – like he's been preaching to Matt lately. JT, you have to admit you've been doing the same thing that you've been picking on Matt about doing. And you've even "advised" him to just report his experiences with his experiments with nutrition, rather than him giving advice. Yes?
But I don't see the point in people telling commenters to use a name, rather than anonymous. Even if they use a name, they're still anonymous – so what's the difference?
But just talkin shit ain't cool either. We are all adults here, right? Or is this kindergarten?
JT-
of course everyone is different. it'd be moronic to argue to the contrary. i'm talking about the big picture. in that sense, very few of us are truly different. at least in my experience.
when most use "everyone is different", they mean it as a catch all for explaining why some people can drink alcohol daily, smoke 2 packs a day for 50 years, and live to be 90 in decent to good health. they act like there is nothing they can do do control things. i find this thinking irritating as it creates limitations that might not otherwise be there.
that is my beef.
-Anonymous
Matt,
Where are you? Please come help us sort out all this (like you are so good at doing) since your talk with the Rubins.
Missing you in the comments and eagerly awaiting your thoughts.
@not a newbie,
I think using a name instead of "anonymous" just helps commenters address each other. So you might as well use a name cause like u said, we're all anonymous here anyway.
@anonymous above: I think it's hilarious that you go to the trouble to sign anonymous. Really, what's the point?
@limey and everyone else who is egging people to give themselves a name
i apologize if posting as an unknown irks ya'll but i personally feel quite uncomfortable these days with how connected everyone is to the internet. i know a few people who have online "friends" that they genuinely see as friends. i find this behavior to be unhealthy and i choose to emotionally remove myself from discussions. when i post on the internet it is purely to learn and pass on my perspective and knowledge. I sign as Anonymous to let you lot know which Anonymous this is.
no, i do not have a facebook, twitter, etc… and honestly would get rid of my computer if it wasn't such a fantastic source of free, easy to access information.
-Anonymous
@the last anonymous poster-
I completely agree with your beef.
But I'll add, that beef, in my case, isn't with JT. It's with all who use the "we are all different" excuse.
But good points, nonetheless. And I thank you for your input
Peace.
@chanelle-
Point taken. But it's a matter of opinion. If you want to address someone, just quote what they said in your comment. Problem solved.
I just think it's childish to nit-pick shit like that. Who cares what clever name a person uses, what ANYONE has to add to the discussion has value – that we can learn from. Whether it's to ignore it, take it, use it, or leave it.
And thanks for your input :)
@chanelle
to be honest i started signing as Anonymous because it served a dual purpose; i found it to be funny and i wanted something to separate me from the crowd a bit. i'll gladly go back to being straight up anonymous if it means less nitpicking.
-Anonymous
Ooops, an anon slipped one in on me. The anonymous's beef to which I was referring in my previous post was this one…
"when most use "everyone is different", they mean it as a catch all for explaining why some people can drink alcohol daily, smoke 2 packs a day for 50 years, and live to be 90 in decent to good health. they act like there is nothing they can do do control things. i find this thinking irritating as it creates limitations that might not otherwise be there.
that is my beef.
-Anonymous"
And incidentally, I agree with this anonymous's next post that got snuck in before mine last lol!
More good points, Anonymous! I too think people get too emotionally involved on the internet.
For whatever the hell it's worth lol!
Btw, I'm just havin some fun with you all. Lighten up.
@ the anonymous who signs anonymous
I'm glad you think it's funny to sign anonymous. It makes me laugh a little myself.
OK, you all are being way too serious. I'm going to pull a "grass fed momma" and insert some silly up in here! I've been catching up on recent posts and comments tonight and came across this little gem along the way that cracked me up so much I had to share it. Here goes:
secret admirer said…
"Hey did I hear Matt say, ummm, "ex-girlfriend" in the call/interview with J & J Rubin?
Does that mean Mr. Stone is available? ::: bashful smile :::"
Matt Stone said…
"Secret Admirer-
Yeah, no girlfriend for a while here, but you'll have to hurry because I've recently given in to a girl that's been stalking me for months. If you can out-stalk her I will declare you the winner and we will live happily ever after."
secret admirer said…
"Matt,
Well, I'm not the stalker type. Real men tend to like that in a lady. Also, I have a very healthy sex drive and they seem to like that too. And, um, you would be the winner and I the winnee, if you were to get so lucky :)
Kidding aside, who says I was looking to "live happily ever after" with you? I just wanted to use you for sex :D"
Me said…
Yowza! Very nicely done, me lady! Impressive – and hot! Damn!!
Hey, secret Lady, I'm a real man, where do you live? ;)
@chanelle
Good for you to find the humor in it! Yes it is funny that an anonymous poster signs anonymous. Glad to hear that it made you laugh. We all should find the humor in life and not take things so seriously :)
@anyone else- feel free to chime in. Just trying to lighten things up here. Anyone else game?
Listening to the Nikolay/Johnstone debate right now, and poking around Durian Rider's blog. That post about the 'fat' paleo and low-carbers made me think about the catecholamine honeymoon. There was a follow up post about Robb Wolf and his feeling out of sorts after his book tour, etc.
Anyway, it seemed to resonate with me that maybe this catecholamine high stuff is legit, and not just theoretically. That there could maybe be a reckoning coming for some of the prominent low-carb proponents, as Matt's *evil doppelganger* independent researcher Anthony Colpo might forecast too.
Made me appreciate 180 a good bit- might be some mis-steps here, but there's definitely a sense that Matt's ahed of the curve on some of these things. Yeah, man.
@Rob
I truly appreciate your input here. You always contribute great stuff!
I too think that Matt has some (special) way of seeing things that we don't – quite yet anyway. But I learn a lot from you too. Thank you!
And no I ain't drunk tonight, people! :D
Rob just finished listening to the debate I have to give props to Richard but DR had some decent points too
Not a Newbie,
You obviously have misunderstood why I gave that advice to Matt. The reason I did is because I want him to succeed, but he is hurting his credibility by pinballing to new diets every couple of months and making sweeping proclamations about the new diet discovery.
How many times have I done this on here?
Matt obviously has a passion for trying out new diets, so he needs to find a way to do this without hurting his credibility. He could do this if he would just try experiments with these diets and report the results. I think he would be good as a Morgan Spurlock type who goes around documenting his diet exploits.
I am not against Matt giving advice. I have told him before that I think it would be a good idea for him to start working with people on an individual level. He could increase his knowledge base more, and be able to support himself financially.
Good one not a newbie ;-)!!!
Thanks Not-A-Newbie. Glad to contribute here and be recognized.
Grass Fed Momma- yeah, I think DR had some good points as well- the importance of the calorie, the hypocrisy (maybe?) of the preponderance of supplements among some paleo/primal folks. he missed the mark with his anti sat. fat and cholesterol sentiments, but it does make sense to me that fat is probably sub-optimal a fuel for performance.
and i guess that's the thing- these are all points I take away from Matt too- the chance to hear some of that and say: 'yeah, straight up,' and not be wedded to a high fat,low carb dogma, for example.
thought richard did best with his opening and closing remarks, which seemed obviously prepared, but articulate and well-spoken. veganism is still an experiment and unproven across a population for successive generations and our generalist omnivorism is an adaptive advantage and not to be ignored casually, as far as i'd wager
@Rob
Word up! I can never find fault with your sincere pursuit for truth. Keep it up, man!
@grass fed momma
I just love your zest for life – and you WILL conquer it – because you exhibit how precious it is. Keep on being you! I admire you!! :)
@JT, I love ya man, and appreciate your sincerity – cuz I know that you are sincere and only hope to help spare others of the disappointment (ups and downs) that you (like all of us) have experienced, in your quest for good health…
But, no man, I have not ("obviously") misunderstood. I know that your intent is good, but Matt will find his way, without help from us – he is special in that way – whether he knows it or not.
Give him room to discover it (just like you discovered your own truths – thru trial and erros). This is his passion. This is his dream. If we are lucky, we'll shut up and listen. I know, as Rob has recently observed, Matt has important things to say – even if it's before we are ready to hear it.
do any of you know a good starting point for finding reliable information about healing stomach ulcers? there is a friend of mine who has 3 and i'm trying to give her some suggestions that'll maybe enable her to one day stop taking meds. thanks.
-Anonymous
@ Anonymous: Try liquorice root tea and slippery elm bark before bed. In fact any foods with a mucilage type property (oats etc) will be very healing to the digestive tract.
Obviously avoid stuff like coffee and lemon juice on an empty stomach. You will probably also find that once they start eating whole foods on a regular basis with lots of nourishing fats and healthy grains things will start to repair themselves.
I know myself as I developed slight stomach ulcers when eating Paleo and overcome it using the tips above.
Brownies… When I went to the US the first time, I couldn't believe anyone would want to eat something like that. Way too dense and sweet. Yuck.
Yes, people ignore their body wisdom, and fight it whenever they can. It's as simple as that – you feel sleepy, but you don't go home because you don't want to miss out on the company of your friends. When you actually want to go they try to keep you from it – of course well-meaning.
Well, it looks like Walter Breuning is no longer with us.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBIT_WORLDS_OLDEST_MAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-04-14-19-55-54
Here are a few diet gems:
– Eat two meals a day ("That's all you need.")
"How many people in this country say that they can't take the weight off?" he said. "I tell these people, I says, 'Get on a diet and stay on it. You'll find that you're in much better shape, feel good.'"
I think JT is going to like that last quote. We can learn a lot from this guy.
Ivan said:
"Well, it looks like Walter Breuning is no longer with us."
Buster Martin died in his sleep the other day too.
Great mindset you got there 'Not a Newbie' :)
And my apologies if my earlier comment came across as aggressive. That was not what I intended. I guess I'm just really old school in that I would at least want an alias associated with a comment. That way you place your marker down, and we can at a future date learn and evaluate from what was written (both the original author and anyone else reading it)
Generally speaking, complete anonymity (at least sub-consciously) to me is like saying I don't want to put my (internet :P) reputation on the line. Although let me just say, I don't think anyone here is guilty of that, but that's what my naturally pessimistic British mind always alludes to thinking in that situation regardless. ;)
@Anonymous,
if you want to sign off all your posts as anonymous. Then that's perfectly fine by me (although if someone comes in thinking that's the protocol it could turn out to be an issue heh) It's also a little too 4chan-esque for my taste (if you get the reference) May I suggest 'Captain Anonymous' as a suitable alternative ;) ?
Rest in Peace Walter. :_(
RIP Buster, too.
My view on the Anonymous thing is that screen names clarify the conversation. Like if there are two anonymous posters posting differing views on something, it could appear that there was one person saying conflicting things. Like going to a party where everyone is dressed the same and everyone was wearing a hockey mask…makes it hard to mingle, LOL! It has nothing to do with anonymity…you can make up a name. It just makes it easier to have a conversation.
JT, have you had bloodwork done being on high carb for as long as you have? I just had bloodwork done and my cholesterol was under 200 for the first time but my HDL was low and my triglycerides were a little high at 220. I had cut back on my daily intake of wine (a glass or 2 at dinner) which had been keeping my HDL in the good range. I tried the fruit only thing for breakfast for a few weeks and I didn't feel good on that so I started eating eggs and fruit for breakfast. Fruit or starch with protein for lunch and starch and protein for dinner. Also, my blood sugar was a tad high at 103 (it was 106 last year). It just seemed that my bloodwork just got "weird" this time… some going up, some going down, some getting better, some worse…just weird.
Not-a-Newbie,
Thanks. Happy to hear that I inserted some silly for you. That was my intention, spreading some laughs.
I was just silly-sparring with Matt. But maybe he took it the wrong way. He didn't offer any come-back and dropped it like a hot potato! < total pun!
Or… maybe his stalker has him tied up and using him for sex? Maybe that's why he's been missing around here lately?
A reminder to everyone that a having a "good" body does not necessarily mean having good health. This girl has been a low fat, raw fruit vegan for 2.5 years eating nothing but fruit, greens, nuts and seeds.
It's also a reminder that feeling good and believing you have great health and a great diet doesn't necessarily make it true. She claims to feel great and have great health, but is it true??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=8UK-aX0_fAw
Side note: At least she Eats The Food: 3000 calories a day!
Side question: If sugar causes insulin resistance why isn't this girl (and other fruitarians / 80-10-10 raw vegans / etc) obese & diabetic?
Dr. Douglas Graham is the 80/10/10 raw vegan guy and he's got a book about his diet.
http://www.amazon.com/80-10-Diet/dp/1893831248
The book has 64 pages of success stories from adopting his diet.
Are these people right? Are these people delusional? Is it the honeymoon effect?
Doesn't every diet have success stories? Doesn't every diet have horror stories?
Haven't there been people of almost every diet who have had long, happy, healthy lives?
Haven't there been people of almost every diet who have had major health disasters?
ETF? More like WTF!
I'm starting to think nutrition is more like a religion than a science – there's no way to know for sure who is right or what "right" even is.
So you inherit one or make the best choice you can, have faith and see what happens and how long it lasts – at least until crisis, curiosity or newly discovered prophet brings you to a new food religion and you repeat the cycle.
Even when you read science by scientists you still take their conclusions on faith. They could have made the whole thing up! Or there could be mistakes or misinterpretations.
Man, there are no facts! Everything is just a belief! At least until it happens and it's in the past. Then it's a fact – but even then memories can lie, people can lie, people can forget.
State a fact and prove it's true. "The sun will rise tomorrow."
How do you know it's true? Because it's risen every day for as long as anyone can remember? But you don't know for sure it will rise tomorrow. It could blow up. You don't f#ckin know! It's called a Black Swan! Crazy shit happens!
There is no such thing as science! Everything is a religion because everything is based on beliefs – some more plausible then others.
Because everything except for the indescribable reality exactly as you perceive it at this exact moment time is simply a belief – a thought you think is true.
WTF!
/existential crisis over
Sirhc! How about eat your beliefs ? EYB it is catchy;-)
Yeah we know all about Freelea,she is durianriders 'wife'. Nuff said
sirhc,
Check out Charles Fort, complete text of his most faomous book, 'Book of the Damned,' here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/fort/damn/index.htm
He says that the universe is like an ocean, and trying to pin smomethign down is like trying to pin donw a wave. He aims to help us establish patterns of thought that tend toward acceptance ratehr than belief, insomuch as belief is finite and limiting, and actually does not ever fully correspond with reality. Acceptance allows more openness and fluidity, and better gets at what we're recahing for anyway- those observations, etc. that seem to more closely correspond with our experience of the world. He's a trip, and really influential in my own thinking.
Yay epistemology!
Read that quicky and I thought you said 'epesiotomy' which is a whole other topic! Xo
"Acceptance allows more openness and fluidity"
Hi Rob.A
Nice.
When it comes down to it, we know that we know not so much. For every theory, a counter theory. And a counter to the counter.
But yet in this so-called 'uncertainty' the openess and fluidity is liberating.
So to with the whole eating thing.
@ grass fed momma, that's what I read at first too! lol
@limey, captain anonymous- love it!
@anonymous who signs anonymous- do you?
C
Side question: If sugar causes insulin resistance why isn't this girl (and other fruitarians / 80-10-10 raw vegans / etc) obese & diabetic?
NO macronutrient causes insulin resistance. People need to get this through their skulls: Insulin resistance occurs as a cellular defence mechanism against excessive nutrient load that cannot be effectively metabolised. Remain sedentary and overeat on anything you choose (hint hint, some combinations are easier to overeat than others), and you will basically become increasingly insulin resistant over time, until you develop fully blown type II diabetes. Some may get there quicker due to genetics (Asians), others take longer (but get fatter in the process; Caucasians). Getting fat is a way your body defends against excess nutrients, when this mechanism breaks, insulin resistance and diabetes occur.
Grapes do a body good ;-)
Real Will,
I don't eat extremely high carb. I haven't had my cholesterol checked in a long time be because I don't really believe it is that relevant to my health.
You are like me with the fruit. I think the worst time to eat lots of fruit is in the morning. I prefer the high protein for breakfast, and save the fruits for later in the afternoon or evening. I can tolerate the most right after a workout in the evening before dinner.
"NO macronutrient causes insulin resistance. People need to get this through their skulls: Insulin resistance occurs as a cellular defence mechanism against excessive nutrient load that cannot be effectively metabolised."
PUFA have been shown to cause insulin resistance.
@sirhc
You can state and prove facts, but not in science. Doing so is called mathematics.
In science one deals with probabilities. Some statements have such high probabilities that they can be promoted to honorary facts, such as the sun will rise tomorrow.
I would consider a scientific "belief" to be the one supported by the most evidence. You must, of course, bear in mind how much evidence your position has behind it before prematurely promoting it too that status of "fact".
In principle there is no true or false in science. Only more or less likely. In practice we treat very likely or unlikely positions as if they are true or false.
A belief is a position taken that is not backed by evidence. Often it is the position that you want to be true. See many vegans as an example.
Black swans. If a million things could each go wrong, each with a million to one chance, then something will probably go wrong. But we don't know which one it will be.
The normal response is to prepare for the most recent disaster, when the next disaster could equally well be any other thing.
On reason that I think followers can be more fanatical than the gurus they follow is that the guru will at least have some idea of the probabilities behind his statements.
Fanatical followers simply assign true to all statements made by the guru leading to extremely inflexible beliefs.
PUFA have been shown to cause insulin resistance.
Anything can be shown to cause insulin resistance if you can get mice/rats/people to eat enough of it; that's the point. And I know PUFA is evil around here, but if anything, the current literature supports the idea that replacing dietary saturated fat with MUFA and n-6 PUFA actually improves insulin sensitivity. If you're talking about oxidised PUFA, then I would agree.
If lots of exercise is bad then I wonder why this guy is as awsome as he is at his age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46o0to59LIY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYpwX2KrQxw
"NO macronutrient causes insulin resistance. People need to get this through their skulls: Insulin resistance occurs as a cellular defence mechanism against excessive nutrient load that cannot be effectively metabolised. Remain sedentary and overeat on anything you choose (hint hint, some combinations are easier to overeat than others), and you will basically become increasingly insulin resistant over time, until you develop fully blown type II diabetes. Some may get there quicker due to genetics (Asians), others take longer (but get fatter in the process; Caucasians). Getting fat is a way your body defends against excess nutrients, when this mechanism breaks, insulin resistance and diabetes occur."
High fat diets can cause insulin resistance even at lower calorie intakes than a control diet, and very low calorie diets have been known to induce type 2 diabetes, so clearly there is more to the picture than that.
"And I know PUFA is evil around here, but if anything, the current literature supports the idea that replacing dietary saturated fat with MUFA and n-6 PUFA actually improves insulin sensitivity."
I'd love to see those studies
Jannis, here you go:
1. Hooper L, Summerbell CD, Higgins JPT, Thompson RL, Capps NE, Smith GD, Riemersma A, Ebrahim S . Dietary fat intake and prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review. BMJ 2001;322: 757-763
2. Deleted
3. Mann J, Skeaff M, Truswell S and Hu FB, Sacks F, Willet W. Letters to the editor. BMJ 2001; 323: 1000-1002
4. Sinnett PF, Primitive life keeps tribesmen’s hearts strong. JAMA 1969; 210: 1687-1688
5. Hellerstein HK, Atheroscleroic vascular disease. Salt Lake City: Meredith 1967;p115
6. Wissler RW, Vesselinovitch D. Studies of regression of advanced atherosclerosis in experimental animals and man. Annals New York Ac Sci 1976; 275: 363-375
7. Gordon DJ. Cholesterol and mortality: what can meta analysis tell us? In Gallo LL, ed. Cardiovascular disease2. New York Plennun Press 1995, 335-40 and Gordon DJ. Cholesterol lowering and total mortality. In Rifkind BM. ed. Lowering cholesterol in high-risk individuals and populations. New York : Marcel Dekker Inc. 1995. 333-48
8. Turpeinen O, Karvonen MJ, Pekkarinen M, Miettinen M, Elosuo R, Paavilainen E. Dietary prevention of coronary heart disease: the Finnish Hospital Study. Int J Epidemiol 1979;8:99-118
9. Connor WE, Connor SL. The case for a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. NEJM 1997; 33: 562-563
10. Barnard RJ, Guzy PM, Rosenberg JM, O?brien LT. Effects of an intensive exercise and nutrition program on patients with coronary artery disease: Five year follow up. J cardiac Rehab 1983;3:183-190
11. Brown WV, Karamally W. Coronary heart disease and the consumption of diets high in wheat and other grains. Am Jnl Clinical Nutrition 1985;41: 1163-1171
12. Shekelle RB, Shryock AM, Paul O et al. Diet, serum cholesterol and death from coronary heart disease: The Western Electric Study. NEJM 1981; 304: 65-70
13. Kushi LH, Lew RA, Stare FJ et al. Doet and 20-year ortality from coronary heart disease: the Ireland-Boston Diet-Heart Study. NEJM 1985; 312: 811-818
14. Sever PS, Dahlof B, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers G, Caulfield M et al. Prevention of coronary and stroke events with atorvastatin in hypertensive patients who have average or lower-than-average cholesterol concentrations, in the Anglo Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial ? Lipid Lowering Arm(ASCOT ? LLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003; 361:1149-1158
15. Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program(NCEP) Expert Panel on: Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults(Adult treatment panel III). Circulation 2002;106: 3143-3421
16. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major Outcomes in Moderately Hypercholesterolemic, Hypertensive Patients Randomised to Pravastatin vs Usual Care. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial(ALLHAT-LLT). JAMA 2002;288: 2998-3007
17. Pasternak RC. The ALLHAT Lipid Lowering Trial: Efficacy Does Not Equal Effectiveness. 21 January 2003 published online on Cardiosource 2004
18. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Bairey Merz CN, Brewer HB, Clark LT, Hunninghake DB et al. Implications of Recent Clinical Trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines. Circulation 2004; 110: 227-239
19. Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, Bollen ELEM, Buckley BM, Cobbe SM et al. Pravastatin in elderly indiciduals at risk of vascular disease(PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:1623-1630
20. Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, Isles CG, Lorimer AR, MacFarlane PW et al. Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease with Pravastatin in Men with Hypercholesterolemia.(WOSCOPS). NEJM 1995; 333: 1301-1307
21. Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S, Whitney E, Shap DR, Beere PA, et al. Primary Prevention of Acute Coronary Events With Lovastatin in men and Women with Average Cholesterol Levels(AFCAPS/TexCAPS). JAMA 1998;279:1615-1622
22. Shah E, Smith FD, McCabe C, Payne N, Pickin M, Sheldon T, et al. Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: screening and treatment. Quality In health Care 1998;7: 232-239
23. Sinnett FP. Primitive life keeps tribesmen’s hearts strong. JAMA 210:1687-88
24. Keys A. Lessons from serum cholesterol studies in Japan, Hawaii and Los Angelos. Annals of Internal Medicine. 48:83-94
25. Breslow JL, Deeb S, Lalouel JM, LeBoeuf R, Schaefer EJ, Tyroler HA, et al. Genetic Susceptibility to Athereosclerosis. Circulation 1989;80:724-728
26. Keys A. Coronary heart disease in seven countries. Circulation 41;Suppl 1
27. Herbert PR, Gaziano JM, Chan KS, Hennekens CH. Cholesterol Lowering With Statn Drugs, Risk of Stroke, and Total Mortality. JAMA 1997;278: 313-321
28. Aronow WS. Rationale for lipid-lowering in older patients with or without CAD. Geriatrics 2001;55:22-30
29. Wood D, DeBacker G, Faegerman O, Graham I, Mancia G, Pyorala K, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease in clkinical practise: Recommendations of the Second Joint Task Force of European and other Societies on Coronary Prevention. Atherosclerosis 1998;140:199-270
30. The Lipid Research Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial Results. JAMA 1984;251:365-374
31. Strandberg TE, Strandberg A, Rantanen K, Salomaa VV, Pitkala K, Miettinen TA. Low Cholesterol, Mortality and Quality of Life in Old Age During a 39-year Follow Up. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2004;44:1002-1008
32. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with Simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:7-20
33. Levine GN, Keaney JF, Vita JA. Cholesterol Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease. Clinical Benefits and Possible Mechanisms. NEJM 1995;332:512-520
34. Stampfer MJ, Sacks FM, Salvini S, Willett WC, Hennekens CH. A Prospective Study of Cholesterol, Apolipoproteins, and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction. NEJM 1991;325:373-381
35. Neaton JD, Wentworth D. Serum Cholesterol, Blood Pressure, Cigarette Smoking and death From Coronary Heart Disease. (MRFIT). Archives of Internal Medicine 1992;152:56-64
36. Holme I. An Analysis of Randomised Trials Evaluating the Effect of Cholesterol Reduction on Total Mortality and Coronary Heart Disease Incidence. Circulation 1990;82:1916-1924
37. Cucherat M, Lievre M, Gueyffier F. Clinical benefits of cholesterol lowering ytreatments. Meta-analysis of randomised therapeutic trials. Presse. Med. 2000;20(17):965-976
38. Smilde TJ, van Wissen S, Wollersheim H, Trip MD, Kastelein HHP, Stalenhoef AFH. Effect of aggressive versus conventional lipid lowering on atherosclerosis progression in familial hypercholesterolaemia(ASAP): a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet 2001;357:577-581
39. LaRosa JC. What do the statins tell us? American Heart Journal 2002;144:S21-26
40. Salonen R, Nyyssonen K, Porkkala E, Rummakainen J, Belder R, Park JS et al. Kuopio Atherosclerosis Prevention Study(KAPS). A Population-Based Primary Prevention Trial of the Effect of LDL Lowering on Atherosclerotic Progression in Carotid and Femoral Arteries. Circulation 1995;92:1758-1764
41. Blankenhorn DH, Johnson RL, Mack WJ, El Zein HA, Vail LI. The Influence of Diet in the Appearance of New Lesions in Human Coronary Arteries. JAMA 1990;263:1646-52
42. The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Investigators: Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study(4S). Lancet 1994;344:1383-1389
43. The LIPID Study Group. Prevbention of cardiovascular events and death with Pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad base of initial cholesterol levels. NEJM 1998;339:1349-1357
44. Canner PL, Berge KG, Wenger NK, Stamler J, Friedman L, Friedwald W. Fifteen year mortality in Coronary Drug project patients: long term benefit with niacin. Journal of the American College of Cardiolology 1986;8:1245-55
45. Arntzenius AC, Kromhout D, Barth JD, Reiber JHC, Bruschke VG, Buis B, et al. Diet, Lipoproteins, and the Progression of Coronary Athereolsclerosis. The Leiden Intervention Trial. NEJM 1985;312:805-811
46. Jacobs D, Blackburn H, Higgins M, Reed D, Iso H, McMillan G et al. Report of the Conference on Low Blood Cholesterol: Mortality Associations. Circulation 1992;86:1046-1060
47. Gould AL, Rossouw JE, Santanello NC, Heyse JF, Furberg CD. Cholesetrol Reduction Yields Clinical Benefit. Circulation 1995;91:2274-2282
48. Law MR, Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR. Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2003;326:1423-1427
49. La Rosa JC. Reduction of serum LDL-C levels: a relationship to clinical benefits. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2003;3:271-281
50. Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Execu tive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program(NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults(Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 2001;285:2486-3325
51. Bonow RO. Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Call to Action. Circulation 2002;106:3140-3141
52. Roberts WC. Getting More People on Statins. American Journa of l Cardiology 2002;90:683-684
53. Silverstein HR, Reader’s Comment ? National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel ? III Guidelines and the Abolition of Symptomatic Coronary Artery Disease. American Journal of Cardiology 2003;91:654-654
54. Hedblad B, Wikstrand J, Janzon L, Wedel H, Berglund G. Low-Dose Metoprolol CR/XL and Fluvastatin Slow Progression of Carotid Intima-Media Thickness(BCAPS). Circulation 2001;103:1721-1726
55. Corti R, Fuster V, Fayad ZA, Worthley S, Helft G, Smith D, et al. Lipid Lowering by Simvastatin Induces Regression of Human Atherosclerotic Lesions. Circulation 2002;106:2884-2887
56. Superko HR, Krauss RM. Coronary Artery Disease Regression. Convicing Evidence for the benefit of Aggressive Lipoprotein Management. Circulation 1994;90:1056-1069
57. Libby P. Coronary Artery Injury and the Biology of Atherosclerosis: Inflammation, Thrombosis, and Stablisation. American Journal of Cardiology 2000;86:Suppl 3J-9J
58. Ballantyne CM. Low-Density Lipoproteins and Risk for Coronary Artery Disease. Am Jnl Cardiol 1998;82:3Q-12Q
59. Castelli WP. The New Pathophysiology of Coronary Artery Disease. Am Jnl Cardiol 1998;82:60T-65T
60. Muldoon MF, Manuck SB, Mendelsohn AB, Kaplan JR, Belle SH. Cholesterol reduction and non-illness mortality: meta analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2001;232:11-15
61. Law MR, Thompson SG, Wald NJ. Assessing possible hazards of reducing serum cholesterol. BMJ 1994;308:373-379
62. Pfeffer MA, Keech A, Sacks FM, Cobbe SM, Tonkin A, Byington RP, et al. Safety and Tolerability of Pravastatin in Long-Term Clinical Trials.(PPP Project). Circulation 2002;105:2341-2346
63. Bjerre LM, LeLorier J. Do statins cause cancer? A meta-analysis of large randomised clinical trials. American Journal of Medicine, 2001; 110: 716-723
64. Aronow WS. Treatment of Older Persons With Hypercholesterolemia With and Without Cardiovascular Disease. Journal of Gerontology, 2001;56A:M138-M145
65. Law MR, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. By how much and how quickly does reduction in serum cholesterol concentration lower risk of ischaemic heart disease. BMJ 1994;308:367-372
66. Small DM. Progression and Regression of Atherosclerotic Lesions. Insights from Lipid Biochemistry. Arteriosclerosis 1988;8:103-129
67. Rifkind BM. Cholesterol Redux. JAMA 1990;264:3060-3061
68. Kannel WB. The Worth of Controlling Plasma Lipids. American Jornal of Cardiology 1998;81:1047-1049
69. Castelli WP, Garrison RJ, Wilson PWF, Abbot RD, Kalousdian S, Kannel WB. Oincidence of Coronary Heart Disease and Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels. The Framingham Study. JAMA 1986;256:2835-2838.
70. LaRosa JC, Hunninghake D, Bush D, Criqui MH, Getz GS, Gotto AM, et al. The Cholesterol Facts. A Summary of the Evidence Relating Dietary Fats, Serim Cholesterol, and Coronary Heart Disease. AQ joint Statement by the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Circulation 1990;81:1721-1733
71. Tonstad S, Holme I. Treatment with statins: further data from the Heart Protection Study. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2002;122:2777-2780
72. Glueck CJ, Kelly , Gupta A, Fontaine RN, Wang P, Gartside PS, et al. Prospective 10 year evaluation of hypotalipoproteinemia in a cohort of 772 firefighters and cross-sectional evaluation of hypocholesterolemia in 1,479 men in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I. Metabolism 1997;46:625-633.
73. The 1997 World Health Report.
74. Iwashita M, Matsushita Y, Sasaki J, Ararkawa K, Kono S. Relation of Serum Total Cholesterol and Other Risk Factors to Risk of Coronary Events in Middle-Aged and Elderly Japanese Men With Hypercholesterolemia. The Kyushu Intervention Study. Circulation Japan 2004;68:405-409
75. Kannel W, Fonarow G. Cardiosource On Line Discussion Panel. 1 September 2004. ESC Congress 2004. Coronary Heart Disease Prevention: Will More Stringent Lipid Guidelines Produce Better Outcomes?
76. Joao AC, Lima MD, Milind Y, Desai MD, Henning S, Warren WP et al. Statin-Induced Cholesterol Lowering and Plaque Regression After 6 Months of Magnetic Resonance Imaging ? Monitored Therapy. Circulation 2004;110:2336-2341
77. Asia Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration. Serum Triglycerides as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Dieases in the Asia-Pacific Region. Circulation 2004;110:2678-2686
78. Soichiro K, Masahiko O, Shoichi E, Takahiko N, Yoshihiro I, Eishu Hai et al. Oxidised low density lipoprotein levels circulating in plasma and deposited in the tissues:Comparison between Helicobacter pylori- associated gastritis and acute myocardial infarction. American Heart Journal 2004;148:818-825
79. O?Keefe JH, Cordain L, Harris WH, Moe Rm, Vogel R. Optimum Low-Density Lipoprotein is 50-70 mg/dl. Lower Is Better and Physiologicalkly Normal. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2004;43:2142-2146
80. British Hear Foundation website. Cholesterol. December 2004
http://www.springerlink.com/content/441413412608848u/
Are you kidding me? Show me ONE study you actually read yourself and don't just post some list you probably found somewhere with google.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11317662?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11719836?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11914742?dopt=Abstract
Start off with those three, and let's see how open minded you really are Jannis? Sounds to me like you constantly ask for studies but you are already set in your ways…
Make it stop I am not a scientist just an old hag who wantsto be healthy!;-)
What about the studies that show that sucrose and fructose will cause insulin resistance?
http://www.ajcn.org/content/38/6/879.abstract
This study concluded "1) sucrose feeding results in a loss of insulin sensitivity in normal rats; 2) addition of fiber attenuates, but does not completely prevent, the loss of insulin sensitivity associated with feeding sucrose; 3) exercise training prevents the loss of insulin sensitivity seen in sucrose-fed rats, and actually improves glucose uptake"
People around here are recommending the high sugar diet and low exercise. Seems like it could be a good way to induce insulin resistance.
And we got this study that shows how a high sucrose diet can make you bigger, insulin resistant, and at higher risk for Alzheimers.
http://www.jbc.org/content/282/50/36275.abstract
"The sucrose group gained more body weight and developed glucose intolerance, hyperinsulinemia, and hypercholesterolemia. These metabolic changes were associated with the exacerbation of memory impairment." "These data underscore the potential role of dietary sugar in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer Disease."
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/107/1/147.full.pdf
Replacing starch with sucrose increases bodyfat and decreases insulin sensitivity.
Of course bodybuilders have know this for a long time. this is why many have high starch low sugar diets.
Ok, lets start with the sugar since that's far more controversial than the fat issue.
Jt, rats react very differently to sugar than humans do. A few days ago I posted a summary of several studies which showed that quite a few studies show a connection between sucrose intake and insulin resistance in rats, but that no study has actually found a connection in humans. I don't want to post it again since I already did that several times. But on the other side, there are also many studies showing no adverse effects of sugar on rats.
"Effects of sucrose vs starch diets on in vivo insulin action,
thermogenesis, and obesity in rats"
The first study you cited shows that the sucrose rats had slightly higher insulin and blood glucose. That alone says absolutely nothing, since it is not the quantity of insulin but the way it functions in the system. that matters.
As you can see, the sucrose rats developed neither obesity nor other health problems, despite eating more calories.
You say that eating sugar without excercise is a good way to induce insulin resistance, but there is no evidence at all suggesting that.
That sugars makes you fat is a big cultural myth without any evidence.
"No group of researchers has yet
shown a convincing negative or positive effect of sucrose on insulin sensitivity by using dynamic insulin sensitivity assessment (eg, euglycemic clamp). In young healthy adults or sedentary overweight adults and in the setting of controlled experimental highcarbohydrate
diets, no negative effects of sucrose on insulin sensitivity
were seen."
Source: http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/4/865S.full.pdf
JT,
If you think that sucrose causes you to gain fat and induces insulin resistance, please read the study I discussed on Andrew's blog and which was also discussed by Matt.
Sucrose increases lean body mass and decreases fat in humans.
Jannis,
My point with posting those studies was not because i think sucrose is "bad". My point was to show that we can post studies for both sides. Total calorie consumption and activity level matters more when it comes to insulin resistance and obesity. If you eat less calories than you burn you will not get fat even if you only consume twinkies.
Because we can find plenty of studies that support and negate all of our different diet theories we should not be so confident in them.
This is why I think actual experience is the most important thing. Anybody who has worked with lots of people can tell you that there will be a difference in the cosmetic and body composition effect of starches and sugars.
"I don't know if I would ever be convinced that I could learn any truths about humans from rats."
Not taking sides here but I do agree with the argument that we ain't rats.
And based on lack of evidence to prove that sugars cause fat gain or insulin resistance – and rather real life observations to the contrary – I don't believe it either.
But I also believe the notion that it's about calories in calories out is BS too – also because of real life observations to the contrary.
…and not just in observing my own real life experience but of many others as well.
unsubscribing :(
Anonymous,
I do think that we can learn from rat experiments. But a lot of rat studies seem to be really messed up. As I said, as far as sugar is concerned, there are studies with the same methods showing completely different results. I think a lot of them are fraud. So, we should forget them and focus on human studies.
Fat Anonymous,
I just wanted to get some studies on saturated fat, but then I noticed that don't have them on my computer. And I'm really not in the mood for searching some. I just realised that I never bothered to collect studies on the sat. vs. unsat. issue, since I have never doubted that saturated fat is superior. My experience and those of many others have shown me again and again that saturated fat is a healthy thing. Coconutoil alone has helped so many people, including myself. Also, people like Stephan, Chris Masterjohn and some of the paleo folks have good information on fat that you can read.
You may call me an arrogant narrow minded bitch now, I don't care. I don't want to discuss something when there is no question for me.
Anonymous,
If you believe that you cant learn anything about humans from rats or other animals, then you should talk with some professional scientists and see that 99.9% disagree with you.
Grass fed momma,
The type and quality of discussion has gone downhill quickly. I can't tolerate much more either.
That's fine by me. I disagree with 99.9% of scientists – cause most of them are biased, paid off, or otherwise corrupt. And who's agenda it is to 'appear to prove' a theory – rather than seeking truth – whatever it may be.
JT,
Accepted. But the question remains, why do studies with the same settings showtotally different results. I also believe that experience is the most imporant thing. That's why I eat sugar. I don't care what personell fitness trainers say. They only repeat what they learned from mainstream science. My own experience and observations show me that sugar is not fattening at all. That is confirmed by human studies, like the one I discussed.
"total calorie consumption and activity level matters more when it comes to insulin resistance and obesity. If you eat less calories than you burn you will not get fat even if you only consume twinkies."
I also agree with you that it is about calories. If you eat more than you burn, you will gain fat. No question. What you semm to neglect is that certain foods raise your metabolism so that you can eat more without gaining fat, and that there are feedback mechanisms which prevent you from eating more than you can burn. Only if your metabolism is decreased and those mechanism distorted, you will become fat.
I'm going to apply what I like to think of as the "common sense" approach. It's a reality check that keeps you from doing things that really seem silly and impractical, like following low-carb diets, grapefruit diets or trying to eat like a caveman. It's based on what your grandmother or great-grandmother knew, and your own gut intuition. Mine says this:
-Eating a lot of white sugar is probably not a good idea. It lacks nutrients and while may not cause weight gain on its own, probably will as part of a high-fat diet.
-Eating a little white sugar is probably fine, and healthy from a social/pleasure standpoint.
-Eating lots of fruit is healthy as long as you enjoy it and feel okay.
-Eating an avocado or a few nuts is okay. Eating lots of refined vegetable oil is not.
-A diet low or moderate in fat is probably best.
-Eating the whole animal is a good idea, and bone broth is fantastic.
-Probably whole grains are better than refined white flour, but white rice seems okay. White flour is probably okay if not eaten to excess, and as part of an otherwise healthy diet.
-Eat full-fat dairy products.
-Avoid all chemicals in food, and eat organic/local food as much as is realistic.
-Enjoy food and don't stress.
-Eat what you enjoy and crave; there's a reason your body wants it.
-Try to make sensible choices – i.e., don't go chowing down on processed foods and expect to be healthy.
This is what I live by and I think it would be helpful for everyone here to apply their own reality checks. It helps you stay on a good track.
yeah amy i think you solved the case. call off all the detectives
by the way, my diet does not lead to obsession and it is not absnormal
look at what i can eat:
milk
eggs
cheese
fruit
cheesecake
jello
beef
sugar!
marshmallows
coffee
saturated fat!
i mean, come on, it's awesome! what appeals to our taste buds more than saturated fat, meat, and sugar. when you were a little kid, if you think back real hard, you just wanted chicken and sugar. if you happen to take something to bring you back to this kid like state, you'll realize what i mean
plus popcorn, your own chips, french fries, etc. basically if they started using coconut oil again for chips, fries, and cookies, we could eat all this junkfood we wanted to!
adults are dull, serious people. they exercise rather than play. and they eat boring food that no one likes.
"…if they started using coconut oil again…"
"adults are dull, serious people. they exercise rather than play. and they eat boring food that no one likes."
Yep! And yep!
Rodents are not small people, but they're pretty damn close to it. Here we can see that coconut oil compares favourably to lard and olive oil in terms of preserving insulin sensitivity in rats:
http://jme.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/content/full/36/3/485
Not to say that coconut oil is some kind of magic elixir. Some kinds of fats/sugars may be more harmful than others, but only in the setting of overnutrition. Fructose for example promotes hepatic lipogenesis and NAFLD, but again, it's not going to give you problems if you burn it off (like the 30bananas crowd).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21067942
plus popcorn, your own chips, french fries, etc. basically if they started using coconut oil again for chips, fries, and cookies, we could eat all this junkfood we wanted to!
*facedesk*
No, no, no, no, no. Excess consumption is all that's needed to get you to insulin resistance/obesity. The type/quality of fat may change the course of progression but really that's just filling in the details.
I like how Gary Taubes's article in the New York Times is called "Is Sugar Toxic?" He can't write "Sugar is Toxic" because that sounds dumb, the stupidity seems more subtle when you phrase it as a rhetorical question, and then write a 9 page article/novella devoted to the silly topic of his carbophobic musings.
This comes directly on the heels of your sugar post Matt. I think there is a connection and Gary reads your blog and doesn't like you. More importantly he doesn't like that carb hating is no longer the "in" thing. It reached its peak and fizzled out.
I'm not saying I eat tons of refined sugar and refined grains. I don't have a problem with sugar substitutes, I see it as useful. However, the constant blabbering about how sugar and carbs are generalized as "unhealthy","toxic","fattening" has got to go. At least admit there are healthful sources of carbs, starch and sugar and not so healthy ones.
I don't understand this sugar business. I only added fruit and some "all natural" green tea that had some sucrose in it. Only consumed them alone and my teeth started to hurt more and more. I was doing MET training and gained 5lb. I'm sure I started getting cavities so I quit and started back a "traditional diet" including liver, New Zealand butter, and bone broth and the pain has ended. Not trying that again any time soon, sorry.
@Jannis
"I don't want to discuss something when there is no question for me."
I don't really understand why you're on this blog in the first place. In you world, Ray Peat is right and the rest of the world is wrong. You won't accept any studies that aren't Peat-approved, so what's the point? You're just like a child who is totally convinced that your guru is right and whenever someone contradicts him you get angry and have to put them in their place.
Yes, Peat is just another diet guru, just like Aajonus Vonderplanitz. The only difference is that Peat is good at selecting and interpreting studies his way while Aajonus doesn't even try that. But both prescribe some whacky out-of-this-world kind of diet.
Some people may have had success with Peat's recommendations, but the same is true for Aajonus. Others have quit because they ran into problems. Peat's trembling voice isn't really re-assuring either.
Real person in real life with real longevity. (I know he's been mentioned in the thread before.) No ETF, no RAARFing, no orange juice, quality protein, coconut oil or ice cream gave him that. No weight lifting or MET either. Just good old moderation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Breuning
His health story:
Around the age of 64, Breuning was diagnosed with colon cancer. It was
successfully treated and did not return. Breuning didn't have any other health
issues until he broke his hip at the age of 108. He spent eight days in the
hospital and was totally healed in 21 days. Breuning attributed much of his
longevity to his diet. Shortly after his wife died, Breuning started eating out
at restaurants. Eventually, he stopped dining out, but he continued eating two
meals a day. He ate a big breakfast and a hearty lunch but skipped an evening
meal, snacking on fruit instead. Breuning consumed a lot of water plus a cup and
a half of coffee with breakfast and one cup with lunch. He got up every day at
6:15 a.m. and had breakfast at 7:30 a.m. He then took a stroll around The
Rainbow for exercise and could then be found sitting in the lobby chatting with
fellow residents.
His weight was around the same for the last 50 years of his life (between
125?130 pounds (57?59 kg)). Because Breuning was 5 feet 8 inches (1.73 m), his
body mass index was around 19. For years Breuning took a baby aspirin
daily, but he eventually gave that up. In his later years he took no medication
at all, stating that he didn't need it. Breuning believed another key to his
longevity was keeping his mind and body active, not retiring until the age of 99
and until very recently doing calisthenics every morning. Though his vision
didn't allow him to read anymore, Breuning kept his mind active by listening to
the radio.
On March 31, 2011, Breuning was hospitalized for an unspecified illness. The
Govenor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer visited Breuning in the hospital on April 6
and 8, 2011.
Hans,
What does the saturated fat issue have to do with Ray Peat? As I said, that saturated fat is superior is a well known fact among a lot of people like Stephan Guyenet, Chris Masterjohn and a lot of other bloggers with scientific a background. A while ago Stephan wrote a good article about Omega 6 supressing the thyroid. Cris Masterjohn has a lot of good work about how small our need for PUFA is. I disagree with Peat on quite a few issues. But I guess that mentioning him automatically makes me a childish follower of a guru.
Jannis, I ask before but maybe you didn't see the cmment. Could you share how you implement Ray Peat, MaterJohn ideas, ie a typical day for you? I am open to the sugar thing and everything, but I do not want to rush and buy any supplements but I want to give it a fair shot befre I jump to conclusions as long as it is economical for me to maintain. If you do not want to answer this then I understand.
Jannis,
as far as I have read your posts on 180, you always supported Peat's views. Where do you actually disagree with him?
About the Omega 6 issue, I think it is much more complicated. If one is going to eat a high-fat diet for some reason, maybe sat fat is the better choice. But unless you eat a lot of processed foods, fats always come as part of a whole food, so one has to take into account a lot of other factors. I think this PUFA=evil makes for a bad guideline to choose foods, because it may not take into account other risks one might be taking or benefits one might be leaving out. I'm constantly stumbling over new factors and interdependences in the whole food / health thing. The puzzle is becoming more and more complex with no end in sight.
For example eating no greens because of goitrogens or avoiding fiber because it is indigestible may seem like the right thing to do, but it may then turn out that those greens have other benefits and that that indigestible stuff actually helps with getting rid of heavy metals etc.
Maybe it's really best to "reduce consumption of X" like mainstream advice usually has it, not "cut that out of your diet." That is of course except for processed foods of questionable nutritional value like refined vegetable oils or sugar. I will avoid those as much as I can as long as I have more natural and more nutrient-dense alternatives.
I'm not really into studies myself, because I distrust their worth most of the time (based on my belief that they can hardly come close to the complexities of real life.) But if you are right and there are no studies suggesting advantages of PUFAs, how come that mainstream opinion is so anti-sat fat and so pro PUFA? I'm not saying that this stance is correct or anything. I just doubt that it would be that way if there really was no evidence at all pointing in that direction.
Anonymous,
I have been experimenting a lot recently. On a normal day, my meal plan looks something like this:
Breakfast: Rice with homemade chili, Cheese, Orange Juice
Lunch: The same
Afternoon: 1,5 quarts of milk with orange juice and gelatine, Ice cream
Dinner: Fried potatos, cheese, OJ, gelatine
On average, I eat about 350g of Carbohydrates. Around 180-220 is sucrose. 70-100g of fat from coconut oil, butter, milk, and cheese. Protein intake varies from 100-140g. I also take around 10mcg of T3. (Cynomel)
Anonymous, you wrote:
"No, no, no, no, no. Excess consumption is all that's needed to get you to insulin resistance/obesity. The type/quality of fat may change the course of progression but really that's just filling in the details."
That argument is directly contradicted by much of what Matt has written, including the theoretical and apparently practical underpinning of RRARF. See this post here: 180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010/11/overfeeding-reduces-insulin-resistance.html
The shorthand is: insulin resistance seems to be one mechanism that arise due to famine or restriction of some kind. The body and it's metabolic pathways come to believe that deprivation is in store, and it therefore becomes more frugal about things like lean mass building and body temperature raising, and more adept at fat storage and appetite enhancement. If your argument was accurate, we would expect to see a positive feedback loop wherein the more the person ate, the more insulin resistant they became, yet that doesn't seem to happen after a certain point, after which the body's counter-regulatory mechanisms for maintaining its bodyweight setpoint kick in.
That's been heavily discussed here before, and fairly persuasively argued by Matt I think.
Hans,
Most fat studies show that PUFAs lower the cholesterol. Since cholsterol is considered to be the ulimate evil in modern nutritional science, they think of this property of the PUFAs as a beneficial effect. Initially, PUFAs also reduce inflammation because they supress the immune system. Within their current concept, the fear of saturated fat makes perfect sense.
But if you think of cholsterol as one of the most protective substances and know the long term effects of PUFAs that are caused by the supression of the thyroid, you will see the whole aspect differently. All long term studies with animals show that PUFAs are fattening and that saturated fats are not.
Besides, no healthy culture has ever eaten a lot of PUFA without substances that protect their body from the toxic effects. If you eat a lot of vitamin E and thyroid, there won't be so much damage. But most people that studied the Eskimos can tell you that they aged very rapidly and had awfull skin.
I disagree with Peat on some properties of sugar, for example. He thinks that sucrose will reduce your adrenaline. But the studies show that it initially increases adrenaline and glycolisis. That might be a short term effect, but he has at least to consider it, since some people might get problems with an increase of stress hormones. On the other side, the women in the study I discussed had no physical reactions and their body composition improved.
I think sugar has to be handled carefully, depending on the person. But all the things that we are beeing told about sugar are not true. Sugar doesn't make you fat, it doesn't cause insulin resistance, nor does it contribute to other degenerative dieseases.
Jannis
Thanks for your explanation. So you believe that the sat fat cholesterol connection is real but the cholesterol heart disease is not?
"Besides, no healthy culture has ever eaten a lot of PUFA without substances that protect their body from the toxic effects. If you eat a lot of vitamin E and thyroid, there won't be so much damage. But most people that studied the Eskimos can tell you that they aged very rapidly and had awfull skin."
I agree wholeheartedly, doesn't that put the whole PUFA thing (outside of refined vegetable oils) into perspective?
Hans,
I believe that cholesterol itself does absolutely no damage and is highly protective. That's why people who take statins have increased mortality. High cholesterol is just a symptom of reduced conversion of cholesterol into the steroids (Pregnelonone, Progesterone, DHEA etc.) which is caused by hypothyroidism. T3 causes cholesterol to be turned into pregnelonone. In the long run, PUFAs will probably increase cholsterol, whereas saturated fats will help to stabilize it at a healthy level, because they support the thyroid.
So yes, some natural foods containing PUFAs are not as harmfull as refined oils. But that doesn't make them safe. And besides, there are so many better foods available. I know of no healthy food that naturally contains a lot of PUFAs. All the things that contain them in great quantities (grains, nuts, beans, avocados, fish oil from cold water fish) are not healthy, imo.
Just yesterday, I read an intersting study showing that PUFAs are essential for cancer development.
I can really recommend to read Peat's article Oils in context. Unlike his newer articles it is very well referenced and contains a lot valuable information on PUFAs.
Jannis,
I didn't know Europeans eat Chili!
Is it easy to get Cytomel in germany?
In the past I was a staunch Peatist like you. Now I have moved on, but the one idea of his that I am convinced is true is sugar lowering adrenaline/cortisol. I experienced it myself in a very strong way. But, this was a problem for me because my stress hormones were already too low.
His ideas on hormones are interesting, but he doesn't have much practical experience with it. You should check out some other forums where the people are manipulating hormones and see what the experiences that are validated with labs are. check out the forum at musclechatroom.com these guys do a lot of experimentation with pregnenelone, progesterone, thyroid, testosterone, growth hormone, etc… and they post their labwork too.
Hans,
Are you still following Satyananda Saraswati's Kriya yoga course? Are you doing the reccomended mono diet of the Kitcharee?
JT,
I experienced the exact opposite. My adrenal drastically increased in the beginning. That's what most of the studies show, too.
I think Peat actually has a lot of practical experience. He has been consultating with patients face to face for more than 20 years.
I'm not interested in bodybuilders. I was reading in a lot of bb forums for two years. They normally take low quality stuff and/or take retarded amounts of certain substances that have nothing to do with reality. Also they only focus on maximal muscle grwoth and are not interested in good health.
I get my cynomel from Mexico.
"I didn't know Europeans eat Chili!"
Honestly, wtf?
Thank you Jannis. Chili for breakfast! Great. Care to share the recipe? :)
Do you attribute a lot of your success to the inclusion of cynomel or do you think someone would be fine without it at first?
I don't think the discussion is going downhill at all. While I think in general the complexity of life cannot be fully represented in studies, proper analysis of well designed studies must teach us something since they are done on a set of randomized people so it should eliminate the chance factor. JT, I don't know how much your forums you cite about the bodybuilders can teach us since they seem to be taking those hormones out of food context.
I entirely welcome Jannis's or any other's viewpoints who are counter to others esp. since it encourages this back and forth discussion that this blog is missing. There's just not enough people who are actually reading studies themselves and thinking if they are well designed enough to be meaningful.
I do see how Jannis has a hard position since he doesn't know the type of due diligence that another poster has done when he puts up a contrary study. It gets real annoying when you're reading a study and can't believe how poorly it was done and why you wasted your time on it and then you have to peacefully reply to the poster to educate.
Jannis, you said "in the beginning", you mean to say your stress hormones came down later? Personally I'm on the 6th week of a high-sugar diet now, and I'm still experiencing many of the same negatives as when I began, ie headaches and lightheadedness and sometimes racing mind and general inability to focus, low energy in the afternoon and facial edema that comes and goes every few days. This in the absence of any real benefits like improved energy, warmth, libido or well-being.
How has your health actually improved since you discovered Peat and started to implement his dietary recommendations? One problem I have is with finding good accounts of people whose health improved significantly by doing stuff like eating more sugar or gelatin, particularly since most seem to be coming from people who crashed on a low-carb diet and its really impossible to disentangle if any health improvements were due to the sugar in particular or just adding back carbs in general.
One thing I've noticed during these past six weeks is that I've actually felt my best on the few occasions when I've eaten a lot of refined starches, like having a meal consisting of two pounds of french pastries with some milk and a sandwich to go with it, after which I generally get a comfortable feeling of warmth, feel very relaxed and have my heart pumping at 85-90 for the rest of the day.
danimal,
that was not just a bodybuilding website, it has a forum dedicated 100% to hormone modulation and they have labwork to backup their theories. it is also run by a doctor who specializes in the field.
what do you mean outside of food context? jannis and peat both talk about using supplemental hormones like thyroid, progesterone, and pregnenelone. There is no reason to believe that hormones will be optimized for eveyone if they can get on a "perfect" diet.
madmuhh,
I was joking with that comment. But seriously, i have lived in different parts of europe for several years, and I never saw anyone eating chili.
Collden,
Yes, after two months it significantly decreased. But I felt a lot of good things from the beginning. If you don't feel any advantages at all, you might wanna consider reducing your sugar intake for a while. Something that has helped me tremendously is the Buteyko breathing method. When you are having a headache or other stress symptoms, sit down, relax, and breath in very deeply and breath out slowly. Then try holding your breath longer than usual. Try breathing only three times or twice per minute.
That way you increase the circulating carbon dioxide in your blood stream. Carbon dioxide itself is protective and relaxing, and it also increases the oxygenation of the tissues.
Can you describe your diet in more detail?
For breakfast, immediately upon waking up
1kg of oranges
500-600 grams bananas
250 grams strawberries
pint of whole milk
half a pint coconut cream
All juiced up in a mixer, the first three weeks I also had about 100 grams of molasses in the mix, but then the stores ran out.
For lunch I have typical school restaurant fare (well, typical for France anyway, like potato gratin, cheese, some carrots and legumes, and chocolate mousse or some fruits for dessert, maybe 1000kcal in total).
Evening meal at 6-7pm, usually a quart of milk, 50g of cheese, two eggs, a big carrot and a pound of oranges/bananas. For the past ten days I've also had a pound of Haagen dazs with my evening meal.
Before this, my diet was still based mostly on milk, fruit and eggs, what I added was basically the huge sugar load in the morning (before I fasted until lunch). So my carbs were still mostly lactose and sucrose, but I was eating far less of it and far fewer calories in general, and I was feeling fine doing that. So I'm suspecting the problem isn't with sucrose but just with the sheer overloading, though I did not have this kind of problem (with light-headedness and racing mind and such) when I was overfeeding on starch and fat a year ago.
Oh, forget all this crap! Just
go on Weight Watchers Points Plus Program and eat real food.
i increased my carbs a few weeks ago. i've been experiencing dizzy spells. could be unrelated, but has anyone else experienced this? i went from moderate carb restriction to much higher quickly.
Collden,
Your meals are huge. First of all, I'd suggest you eat smaller meals more often. Big meals, especially if you are not hungry, can upset your intestine and cause endotoxin to be released. That can cause some severe problems. I avoid bananas because they contain a very big amount of serotonin. Molasses are probably not so good, either. The heating process can turn the sugar into some weird starchy material like that in HFCS.
You could also reduce your protein intake in the evening. You probably get more than 50g with your dinner. Is your sleep good?
I think it is best to eat 5-7 smaller meals, each having some well balanced protein, a moderate amount of fat, and enough sugar/starch.
@Collden
i experienced prolonged "side effects" to reintroducing sugar and honestly all of those problems went away when i allowed my body to sleep as long as it wanted to. it took a good two weeks of roughly 10 hours a night, but i feel better than i have in over a decade. i no longer get panic attacks or feel tense. to the best of my memory this is the most relaxed i've ever been. ive had anxiety issues most of my life so this is a huge deal to me.
now, i know most of you probably don't do drugs, but i really enjoy marijuana and i have always had problems that would seem to never go away when i would go longish periods of daily smoking (2 months id say) then stopping. the first time i attempted to stop smoking i was having drastic mood disturbances even after a year of abstinence. ever since i started eating highly saturated fats and starches i saw large but still not completely satisfying results. with sugar it only takes maybe a week before i feel 100% back to normal. honestly i feel 90% after 3 days which, again, big development to me.
-Anonymous
@jannis
i don't know why people suggest to eat more often/less often. just eat when you feel like and your body will take care of it self.
although, personally i've been eating sugar as my main carb source during the day and starches with my dinner at night due to sugar's energizing/starches relaxing effect. you could try that, collden. same with protein. i tend to eat more protein for breakfast due to it's energizing effect.
-Anonymous
@anyone
what is the cause for eyesight degeneration? this is the only lingering "health problem" i've retained since adopting some of matt's ideas.
also, any more info about healing ulcers? no chanelle, i do not. the only info i know of is just mainstream advice. i do not trust it and am asking you guys for your opinions.
thanks all!
-Anonymous
JT,
yes, I'm still on it and I don't have any plans on stopping. I'm convinced that it will be key in getting my health to where I want it to be.
Right now as an experiment I'm eating a diet of vegetables, fruit, nuts, very little added fat to appetite, which means I'm eating a lot less than before. My digestion loves this, but body temp is somewhat problematic.
@ Jannis
"And besides, there are so many better foods available. I know of no healthy food that naturally contains a lot of PUFAs. All the things that contain them in great quantities (grains, nuts, beans, avocados, fish oil from cold water fish) are not healthy, imo."
In my opinion, grains, beans, and nuts do have unique positive properties that make them healthy (in moderation.) One thing I can put my finger on is IP6, which may be helping with the iron problem among other things. Grains, nut ans legumes also seem to have been part of the original human diet. Maybe for a good reason.
Anonymous said…
"…plus popcorn, your own chips, french fries, etc. basically if they started using coconut oil again for chips, fries, and cookies, we could eat all this junkfood we wanted to!
*facedesk*
No, no, no, no, no. Excess consumption is all that's needed to get you to insulin resistance/obesity. The type/quality of fat may change the course of progression but really that's just filling in the details."
Yeah I'm with Rob A.– if this is what you believe, what are you even doing here? People generally don't overeat, as our senses are a good guide as to when to stop eating. Even so, in studies where animals are forcefed, they simply expend more energy than gain weight. Haven't you heard of people that can eat and eat and are as thin as a rail? How about that female Japanese competitive eater that Matt featured recently? The idea that people get fat because they're lazy and eat too much is the mistaken notion that we are trying to dispel here. I'm not fat, but I conclude this after seeing how hard my fat mother works, and how little she eats. The worst thing is how fat people start imagining that they eat more than others, even when they're intaking less than average total calories. (Fat people do require more calories to maintain their fat, so even more food than average would only be adequate.)
It might be fattening to eat ONLY junkfood, as it is low in vitamins or minerals, and fat may be a response to a deficiency of these. But that's not what we are suggesting here. Yes, the world would be a much safer place if they would only use coconut oil (or animal fat) for chips, fries, oreos, whatever, and people could pig out on these from time to time without any worries whatsoever. People should not be afraid of their natural desires, even to overeat if they feel like it. Lots of primitive communities were thin and healthy despite having an over-abundance of food.
Jannis:
Grains don't contain "great quantities" of PUFAs… certainly not refined white flour anyways. I looked at a package of whole wheat flour and it said ~0.5 g fat per 1/4 cup.
Hey so has anyone ever heard of the Optimal Perforamance Institute (by Matt Labosco). in all this confusion of what health is, he makes sense. but wanted to know if anyone else knew of his works?
http://optimalperformanceinstitute.com/blog/
thanks,
Chelsey
Hans,
You should quit worrying about the body temperature if you are focusing on this yoga. Your body temperature and metabolic rate can slow down with a lot of the practices, but they think this is what gives them the health benefit.
JT, could you expand a bit on what you said about sugar being a problem for you because your stress hormones were too low. What kind of problems/symptoms did this cause? Was this why you saw improvement when you started to exercise more and restrict calories (if I recall correctly), because you actually needed some stimulus to increase stress hormones to optmial levels?
I think I'm having some kind of epiphany here. JT, if my memory isn't too off, a while back you were saying how adrenal insufficiency or adrenal fatigue isn't always caused by the adrenals being overworked, but sometimes rather because they've been too inactive and that the cure in that case is to stimulate them. So the adrenals can be thought of as something like a muscle, exercise a muscle too much and it will get injured or fatigued, but likewise if you don't exercise at all your muscles will atrophy and become less able to meet the demands of everyday life. Similarly, if you stimulate your adrenals too much you will end up with too high levels of stress hormones and build up a resistance to them which causes big problems whenever you relax and let stress hormones fall. But, if you stimulate your adrenals too little they will become sluggish and less able to efficiently respond to the stress demands of everyday life, such as keeping blood sugar stable after a meal.
I thought about that after reading the study on lifelong consumption of a high-sucrose diet in mice. These mice had much slower secretion of insulin in response to a glucose infusion, which caused them to become strongly hyperglycemic compared to both the starch-fed and high-fat fed mice after a glucose tolerance test, even though they had perfect insulin sensitivity. The lifelong consumption of nothing but low-GI sugar had made their pancreas "sluggish" and unable to secrete insulin fast enough to prevent hyperglycemia in response to higher-GI carbs. Maybe something similar happens with the adrenals on a high-sugar diet, if they're overworked then sugar might work wonders, but if they're already understimulated then increasing sugar consumption might cause a whole set of different problems related to hyposecretion of stress hormones, essentially putting your adrenals to sleep.
Matt has been so focused on reducing stress through all possible means that he's really completely neglected the possibility that attempting to further lower stress hormones when the adrenals are actually not overstimulated, might also decrease metabolic health.
Collden: I think what JT means is that if you have Hypoadrenia (low cortisol) Peat's method of eating would not help as they would lower the cortisol even further – hence why someone like me with low cortisol feels like crap when eating sugar on its own, or eating too much.
This though is a very deep stage of Adrenal Fatigue, as the initial stages will manifest with high cortisol and high adrenaline (before your adrenals give out) at this stage eating sugar would work to lower stress hormones by relaxing the adrenals.
All I know is that for people with low adrenal function eating balanced meals (pro/starch/fat/some sugar) is the best way to heal them and feel good. Liquorice root and Ashwagandha can also help a lot.
@Chris and others looking at worn out adrenals: just wanted to give a balance to the recommendations of licorice and ashwagandha.
I hear so much talk about ashwagandha being great for adrenals but (n=1, I know) I have to urge caution. I tried it a few months ago (and when I told my ND, he said to monitor carefully, he thought it would be too stimulating) and pretty soon my anxiety was through the roof. I quit taking the ashwagandha and by the end of that day, I was back to more normal levels, scraped myself off the ceiling. The good news was how fast that anxiety effect cleared out.
Another point is that traditionally, it's thought to be better for men (I'm a girl).
Licorice is great, but it is a hypertensive (raises blood pressure): it's recommended not to take therapeutic doses for more than 6 weeks without a break. I know people who are more sensitive to it, whose blood pressure rises if they consume it at all.
JT, thanks for the info. BTW, what's your favorite breakfast protein? I know you said that you don't do dairy, but what are your thoughts on cottage cheese. Thanks!
As far as nuts go, you guys are probably right about them being OK in moderation. If you think about it, and I'm going into the netherworld of traditional diets here, someone eating nuts many years ago would be opening the shells and eating one at a time at a slow pace. They wouldn't be popping open a 4 lb. container from Sam's Club and throwing back a handful of nuts at one time that would have taken 30 minutes to shell and eat in years past.
…and not to change the topic, but I have said in the past that it's not how active you are, but how inactive you are that matters. Here is an article from the NY Times…
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17sitting-t.html
The Real Will,
yeah, and I also remember that Matt once was talking about how freshness of nuts might also be an issue. Someone eating nuts many years ago would most likely have eaten them in a very fresh state. The nuts you buy in the store probably have been harvested weeks ago and been subjected to temperature, sunlight etc. So this might also be a concern, especially when considering the PUFA content of nuts.
Good points madMUHHH
Collden,
That is a great epiphany! Seems that you and I are coming to the same conclusions. I don't think that the problem is really with the adrenals gland in themselves, but with the HPA(hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis).
Chris,
Yes, that is a very good representation of my view.
Will,
My usual breakfast protein is a chicken breast. I don't think there is anything wrong cottage chees or dairy, but I don't do well on too much. Eggs would be alright too, but they make me sick.
I would just go with what makes you feel good.
so what effect do starches have on the adrenals? I thought carbs in general relaxed the stress hormones, but is sugar really the only thing that does this?
Also, wouldnt that mean that for a sedentary person perhaps a low carb diet would be good for the adrenals?
in my experience starch and sugar both relax different "stressors" and therefor it would be advantageous to include both in your diet. every time i eliminate one or the other i eventually have problems, just with different stresses.
but yeah, i'm also interested in finding out how each affects the body.
-Anonymous
Thanks JT
JT,
it's a real problem… maybe I shouldn't say "body temperature"… cold hands and feet rather… and I know when that happens, I'll get sick sooner or later, actually that has already happened.