Wow, what a weekend.
I received a thorough tongue-lashing by Richard Nikoley of http://www.freetheanimal.com/ for suggesting that he is hypothyroid (which he is, and was diagnosed with that disorder many years ago), was ridiculed by Dr. Kurt Harris at the Panu blog for making a ?Straw Man? argument and being unoriginal (yes, EVERYBODY is recommending overfeeding on high-glycemic carbohdyrates these days to drop blood sugar levels), and got some bizarre criticisms at http://www.fathead-movie.com/ for things as strange as what blogs I follow (uh, I follow like 30+ blogs and agree with the general conclusions, sentiments, and mindset of 3 blog authors ? Stephan Guyenet, Michael Miles, and Ryan Koch ? yet I continue to learn a lot from many others even if I feel their general conclusions are off-base).
But seeing myself attacked by people for being someone who claims to have the answer to all things ?for only $19.95,? hearing folks say that I’m just a money-making scammer that forces people to pay to read anything I’ve written, being ridiculed because of things that a diagnosed schizophrenic wrote about me 8 months ago, and so on, brings up a very important lesson.
How many times to do we simply write people off, and ideas off, when we have no knowledge of what those theories, or those people, are all about? Most of the cheap shots taken against me were by people who have very little clue about who I am, and couldn’t have been more off base. It all reminded me of T. Colin Campbell writing off the Weston A. Price Foundation for being in bed with factory farms, when the Weston A. Price Foundation is one of the world’s leading critics of the factory farm industry. It was like a Peace Corps volunteer being attacked for being ?all about the money.
Well, I’ve committed this foolish mistake many times myself, but I’ve gotten better over the years. No longer do I let researchers lose me with the phrase ?artery-clogging saturated fat,? or ?carbohydrates fatten pigs, so of course eating carbohydrates makes you fat. I try to make a conscious effort to get past some of the mistakes of other researchers to get through to the stuff that really is valid, useful, and important. To think of what I might have missed on this health exploration if I hadn’t taken the work of both Joel Furhman and Gary Taubes to heart. To think of how much incredibly cutting-edge science I would have missed in Barry Sears’s books if I had written him off as a huckster for selling sucrose-sweetened soy protein bars.
I thank my lucky stars that I have broken past the natural desire to be exclusionary and defensive, and read everything I can get my hands on with respectful intrigue ? working my best to unify health and nutrition ideas and beliefs with a more comprehensive understanding of how humans are impacted by what they do and eat.
Anyway, this whole experience has made me overwhelmingly grateful, and has really inspired me to be more open-minded than ever (risky I know, my brain was already starting to feel a draft seeping through the cracks). I don’t know if I’m ready to be polite about my views, or show any signs of being classy, or drop my love of ‘in-yo-face irreverence,’ or bite my tongue in the face of oversimplified theories such as low-carb = happily ever after?
But I am ready to move forward with more fire and reckless abandon for learning about health than ever before. The blog posts coming out in the weeks to come are going to be great fun. This past weekend is shaping up to be more of a recharge than anything I could have ever asked for.
Thanks again to everyone for your support and interest ? for taking the time to see what this adventure is really all about. I hope it continues to be more mentally stimulating than The Biggest Loser, or even some of the best health blogs and books of recent times. May we continue to explore new territories with an open and expansive mind. One thing I know for sure, and that has become my new saying of late, is that ?if you aren’t confused about health and nutrition, then you haven’t studied it long enough or deeply enough. If you are more confused than ever, then you must really be onto something! Thanks to everyone for following along on this pretty wild adventure. I can’t wait to see where we are years down the road.
And thanks especially to Timmy Patch. Recently, many people have been telling me that they appreciate being freed from ?X? dietary prison by some of my work at 180degreehealth. I was told that I am ?changing people’s lives? with heartfelt sincerity. What a thrill to be given such a compliment.
Well Timmy, I don’t know how deep you had to dig to get to what you wrote about me on my Fat Head Guest Post, but I can tell you that my life will literally NEVER be the same again after having read it. No one has ever written something like this about me, and I don’t even know if I conceptualized of what I’m doing to the extent that you have. I don’t know if anyone has managed to capture, in words, the real impetus for my writing and research and the true nature of it like you have. Thanks so much. This will be with me always:
?To Mallory, Charise, and other skeptics of Matt Stone and his message,
I can relate to your apprehensions over accepting nutritional guidance handed down from a bloggerhead with no real credentials to his name. I’d wager most individuals browsing Tom’s blog ruined their health placing blind faith in mainstream nutritional wisdom, only to experience further deterioration as they turned in desperation to loony diet guru’s promoting veganism, zero-carbomania. Having been fooled so many times by seemingly well intentioned zealots with an axe to grind, a purse to fill, or party-line to tow, why should we take seriously the rants of a goofball with nothing but a blog and force of conviction to his name?
I’ll tell you why. Matt Stone is not your run-of-the-mill health blogger. Although he may sound rigid in his views, he is not only receptive to, but actually seeks out cognitive dissonance. His concern is not with maintaining and spreading blind faith in an idealized diet/lifestyle. Rather, he operates like a scientist, constantly updating and revising his theories in order that they conform more closely with reality. In line with his goal, his research has been expansive and open-ended. Although Matt does not have a medical degree ? and therefore may not be able to wade through dense published medical articles with the same facility or level of comprehension as, say, Stephen at wholehealthsource ? he probably has developed a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying nutritional/metabolic theories advanced by nutritionists and doctors alike in the past century than just about any credentialed ?expert? you will ever meet. He does this because it’s his passion. He only charges money for some of his work because, huge dork that he is, this passion of his has kind of taken over his life. Guy’s gotta make a living somehow.
Over the past three years, as he has gobbled through tombs of nutrition literature, his views have radically evolved. At each stage, he spoke as if he had finally attained nutritional enlightenment, only to change his mind a few months later upon exposure to conflicting information or new perspectives on old information. Some would view his inability to stick rigidly to a specific set of internally consistent dietary stipulations as vice, but I see this as his strongest virtue; it has enabled him to avoid the confirmation bias pitfall most nutrition researches fall into. Over the past couple of years, his principal theories HAVE grown more stable, suggesting he has refined his ideas to the point where they are internally consistent with the preponderance of legitimate research.
Nonetheless, his site is not, and has never been about creating packaged diets or scheduled meal plans. If you want somebody to tell you that you should eat twelve sticks of celery and two sheep livers for breakfast, three liters of distilled water for lunch, and sack of hay for dinner, then Matt’s blog is not the place for you. Nor is it the place for you if you are afraid of being exposed to contradictory ideas. Matt Stone is a ?follower? of the dietfucked site because its two publishers, ?harper? and ?chloe,? were formerly active commenters on the 180 degree blog who took perhaps too seriously the ideas of a certain endocrinologist with brilliant but just as often misguided insights into the human metabolism. Matt never agreed with Harper or Chloe that binging on sugar and orange juice was a smart idea, but he embraced their active participation on his blog because it made for some interesting conversation and debate. Although he disagreed with them, he chose to link their blog because they are, like him, interested in improving health and well being through nutrition.
I’m no evangelist for the 180 crusade. Matt Stone certainly doesn’t have all the answers, nor do I expect he ever will, but he is a passionate researcher, a powerful thinker, and, in my opinion, a man of high integrity. I’d sooner take his advice than my doctor’s any day.
When I saw Timmy Patch's post on Fathead, I was moved as well. Didn't recognize his name and thought, dam this good, people really understand what is going on here.
Things are only going to get better from here Matt.
When ever you try to do something good people will question your motives. When you try to do something great, they'll question your methods. Don't let them stop you from doing good or great things, Matt. My blood sugar dropped 100 points since I let some carbs back in my diet (I'm very Type II diabetic). If it weren't for you I'd still be dragging around doing the low carb thing and failing. Thanks for being a bloggerhead with a research problem. It's helping!
A 100 point drop! That is so f'n classic! Awesome!
I thought you were a shyster at first too.
Now I just think you're…different. =D
Keep up the great work!
nice matt,
i know what you mean, having that feeling when you start a new diet like you have finally figured it out…. or after studying or reading another stack of books.
Thats why i can't stand what some of these bloggers are saying, they have been into nutrition and what not for tops, three years. I have personally been into it for almost ten years now, but i don't know anything because i don't have a degree. I have boxes of books, wellness journals, magazines, studies, lectures, tapes, cd's, and ezines from various people all saved up. I have done all kinds of diets, low carb, paleo, optimal diet, A.J.'s raw diet, and luckily never was never interested in vegetarian or vegan diets.. shew!! I learned that i don't know anything after all those years. I am also in the best shape i have been in since i was 22… not lean like some guys… but pretty close, and i just stay there, without worrying about my macro nutrient ratios or calories… just make sure that i eat real food.
Alot of bloggers are changing there stance slowly but surely… claiming they were never low carb, or i never recommended any macronutrient recommendations… haha!!
Anthony Colpo just had a new really good article on low carbing causing mental problems… haha.. i suggest alot of people read it!!
Anyways, keep up the good work,,, looking forward to the new posts, and for that matter diet fucked too.
troy
I second Timmy Patch.
Matt, I've been trying to figure out this whole nutrition thing for 10 years now, and I lose certainty every day. It's scary sometimes, but also heartening – they say the people who know the least are also the ones least aware of their ignorance, and thus the most confidant. Given my current level of confidence, I must know a lot!
You've helped me learn a great deal, and introduced me to ideas and authors I might never have encountered, or not encountered for many years yet. Thank you. I'd tell you to not let the accusers get you down, but I think you're already handling them very well without my advice.
Looking forward to the future posts.
-Brock
My favorite thing is that they criticize me instantaneously, not on content, but because I'm not a doctor.
Then they sing the praises of Gary Taubes like he is the Jesus Christ of all things nutrition. Taubes is a journalist that went to school for writing and picked the topic of health/nutrition to research and write about.
Funny, I have a degree in writing and have been researching health and nutrition for 4 years – following up many years of being a vegetarian, trying various diets, and being very familiar with the subject to begin with.
Then I'm harassed for not relying solely on peer-reviewed research and nutrition trials to come to the conclusions that I've come to. Ha! Like the conclusions of Weston A. Price circumnavigating the globe for a decade and reporting on nutritional consistencies is invalid in comparison – or what Melvin Page concluded after a lifetime of treating real people for health problems, or Broda Barnes, etc.
If people were judged based only on the fact that they were doctors, then we would all conclude that:
Carbs are the best thing ever
Carbs are the worst thing ever
Animal protein is the best thing ever
Animal protein is the worst thing ever
Eat lots of fiber
Eat no fiber
Eat unsaturated fats
Don't eat unsaturated fats
… and on and on to infinitum.
There is no congruency about what doctors have concluded after doing their research. There needs to be an overseer that can track through the conclusions of a vast array of people, in a vast array of places and time periods, and so on.
That's why Gary Taubes and myself ARE doing a better job of piecing the puzzle together than most doctors. Plus, we've got so much less baloney to unlearn!
If being confused about health and nutrition is a sign of intelligence then I must be one smart cookie. ;)
But seriously, the more I delve into research in this field, the more I am aware that there is no way anyone can have all the answers. As time goes on, I gain far more humility than knowlege (I hope), because no matter how many equations we come up with, they can't compete with the complexity and unpredictability of the human body and life itself.
Anyone who says they have the all-encompassing answer to health is just trying to sell something – and I don't believe you fall into that category at all, Matt. Your idea is unconventional and yet completely traditonal in a way: feed your body real food, plenty of it (emphasis on plenty), and quit will-powering yourself down a dogmatic path of nutritional egotism that makes you feel like garbage!
Elizabeth, i was about to say the same as you. More unsure now after years of research than ever before. I am not 100% sure this is the best approach but it seems the most convincing at this point to me. Also I believe matt is one of the most open minded nutrition bloggers out there, very willing to change and develop his views as he learns more. Many may see this as a weakness but I see it a a great strength.
I would agree with Timmypatch's assessment of you. You'll have to admit that part of this backlash is caused by your own lavish criticisms of these people's favourite nutritional beliefs. I have come to the conclusion that nutrition has become some sort of religion. If you don't commit nutritional sins, you will be rewarded by long life and free from the diseases of civilization. It's a mix of Christianity and the noble savage myth with an unhealthy dash of narcissism.
I've given you quite some criticism in my last few posts, but I have a ton of respect for your holistic approach to all of this. To see you go along the fructose-thing is a bit strange to me, actually.
The holy grail, to me, seems to be resistant to becoming insulin-resistant. If you get that, you have it made. This would mean that your next step is to find out how to become immune to fructose and omega-6. :-)
Anyways, best of luck in your further research.
Matt!
I don't care about the fact that your posting frequenzy has probably increased tenfold since last year (This year has already 24 posts!). That's not enough! I want daily blog posts! At least three!
Now what I'm trying to say with this, is that of all blogs I follow your posts are usually the ones I look the most forward to. At the moment I'm very happy I landed here (and I hope you guys also find me to be at least half-decent and not just some annoying monkey (monkeys rule btw, but this is getting off-topic^^)).
And of course I was joking when I demanded three blog posts per day. The people who accuse you of just trying to make money, really haven't taken a look at the comment section of this blog. I really, really appreciate it how you are taking the time to answer pretty much everyone's questions (including mine) and also listen to their opinions, read the links they post etc. If anything, the claim that you're just trying to make money off your readers, is probably the most ridiculous of them all!
But on the other hand, your sales tactics seem to be working, because I'm so close to purchasing your 180 kitchen eBook. Maybe those people actually are right. You sneaky bastard!
;-)
To me one of the best things you have done is show in a reasonable way that carbs are not evil, there is too much stuff around these days slating any type of carbs. Especially if you get sucked in by some of the blogs you mentioned in this post. Just look around at what happy lean and healthy populations have been eating for 100's of years. It certainly is not Paleo/Low Carb.
As anyone who has practiced Paleo or Low carb for a significant amount of time know is that it makes living life hell. Going out and having to scour menu's or piece together meals to avoid starch can be a real head f$%k especially when your not getting the desired results and feeling like shit. It is funny Paleo started out as "Meat, Vegetables, Fruit, Nuts and seeds" now paleo folks are saying little or no fruit and the same for nuts and seeds. Leaving those poor paleo followers with a diet of meat, fat and veggies to eat, plus throw in a bit of IF (sometimes 24hrs 2-3 times a week) what fun…… Having this kind of mindset takes away the relationship of love and joy we have with food and goes against our natural cravings for natural wholefoods.
Keep up the great posts and keep making peeps question their beliefs.
i have to agree with Ori Hofmeckler, author of the warrior diet… the neolithic time period is the best… fuck paleoithic.
troy
I just finished reading all the comments on the three different sites. I think there are some valuable discussion points / learning experiences hidden among the noise.
– The thing that really got me listening to Matt was watching my blood sugar drop from 130 to 95. As much as I expected them, I never really got the wild swings of hyper-hypoglycemia. Several people used their own hyper-hypo episodes as evidence that carbs are bad. What is the difference between them and someone having success with HED? Is it even possible to isolate a single difference as the cause? Clearly there must be something different, and it seems like there are tons of potential culprits (calories? exercise? stress?).
– It was pointed out once that blood sugar testing only diagnoses peripheral insulin resistance, not liver insulin resistance. Is this true? I don't understand how glucose could even cause liver insulin resistance, so this may just be a learning experience for me. =)
– One guy had severely improved results on a glucose tolerance test after going low carb. I thought it was pretty widely accepted that low carb causes insulin resistance via the action of palmitic acid, maybe in order to conserve what sugar is left for the brain and muscular glycogen for life/death sprints? I clearly have something left to learn about the difference between chronic insulin resistance vs. acute insulin resistance.
– Towards the end there were some references about longevity, thyroid, and body temperature. I would be really interested to know what the proposed mechanism for increased longevity is. Specifically what I'm not understanding is: Did the people with higher temp/thyroid/metabolism just keel over dead earlier? Or did they die of acute reasons like heart disease, stroke, cancer. I think there is a huge risk of conflating cause and effect on this topic. For example, if the higher metabolism / early death group only had a higher metabolism from using stimulants. I have problems with the argument that running "hotter" causes more wear and tear; my understanding is that a huge majority of our caloric intake goes to maintenance and repair and muscular contraction is actually relatively cheap. If you increase your basal metabolism and most calories go towards repair, how could that cause you to die faster?
– I've noticed a distinct lack of consistency about blood insulin vs. blood sugar. My understanding was always that high blood sugar was bad via correlation with things like heart disease, dental problems, etc. One recognized mechanism was increased protein glycation. But some people have also pointed out how low their insulin is, as if it were a good thing. Is there research showing elevated insulin without elevated blood sugar causes problems? At one point at Hyperlipid it was pointed out how his fasting blood sugar was in the 130s*, but it was fine because his fasting insulin was so low.
As frustrating as banging your head against an ideologue can be, I think Matt has set a great example of taking advantage of every opportunity to keep learning. Bravo sir.
* I can't find the post again, so please take this as a hypothetical example if need be. On the other hand, my own fasting blood sugar on low carb was 130-150, fwiw.
@Half Navajo:
You mention Ori Hofmeckler? Did you read the warrioir diet? If so, what are your opinions on it and do you recommend the book?
"As anyone who has practiced Paleo or Low carb for a significant amount of time know is that it makes living life hell. Going out and having to scour menu's or piece together meals to avoid starch can be a real head f$%k especially when your not getting the desired results and feeling like shit."
Hmmm, yeah, well eschewing caffeine, sugar and booze can be pretty socially awkward and difficult as well. If someone makes a cake and offers you a piece it's kind of rude not to at least try it.
I'm a skeptic of this blog for good reason. I asked questions of Matt that were never answered.
Look at all of the questions that the skeptics asked – were they answered? No!
We're skeptics because what we've read is so "out there" that we're curious to know what the research says.
When people say "whole grain products in moderation actually lower blood sugar" and other people state "any grains whatsoever contain phytates, lectins, and gluten, which are harmful and cause blood sugar spikes" I wanna know who has actually done their research. I'm a little offended that the skeptics are attacked (nicely, mind you) for asking questions. Sorry for linking to the site that I linked to – sometimes you can tell a lot about someone and the kind of research they do by the kinds of things they read.
I'm not being hateful or spiteful, I'm not swearing or calling you down. I'm asking. Why aren't you answering me?
The warrior diet looks like yet another baby out with the bathwater diet debacle. The baby is eating large balanced meals, when you like , the bathwater is all the junk that goes with those meals: sugar, processed vegetable oils, caffeine and booze.
Also if you look on the dude's website, he's selling warrior milk, which is hilarious. Sorry, I'm just imagining someone trying to pump milk out of a big dude's pectoral muscles. So funny.
Even the argument that we aren't genetically tuned to grazing is full of holes. If we were hunters and gatherers without refrigeration, chances are we ate a lot of what we found as soon as we found it. In other words, grazing. Why carry around a sack of nuts all day so you can eat when you back to the cave with your mammoth stakes and ox meat? Wouldn't you just mow em down on the spot in case some bigger human came along and took your nuts.
Eeeek. My nuts!
Good point Jenny, my bday was last week, I managed to escape with just a taste, and I had many many family members taunting me with chocolaty grins!
Hi Charise-
Welcome. I've been busy with birthdays, football, and, you know, life. Plus I felt like letting everyone else converse about what I wrote at Fat Head – staying out of it completely.
It's just that there are gaps and overgeneralizations with the beliefs of the low-carb and Paleo communities alike.
For example, one of the healthiest communities of humans ever studied ate primarily wheat. Robert McCarrison's research extensively examined this. Weston A Price also noted great health among grain-based cultures such as the Gaelics and Swiss. He didn't come back from circumnavigating the globe with the conclusion that carbohydrates, or grains, or legumes, or starchy foods are pathological because they weren't, and aren't.
T.L. Cleave, Denis Burkitt, Hugh Trowell, etc. all noted that unrefined carbohydrate foods such as grains were highly protectorant from type 2 diabetes, heart disease, tooth decay, arthritis, and countless other symptoms that Cleave grouped under the heading "the saccharine disease."
As for the Paleo argument, and neolithic foods, McCarrison fed unfermented, unsprouted wheat to monkeys – hardly an evolutionarily suitable food. The result – perfect health, so much so that they were immune to infectious disease that killed other lab animals. Assuming all their nutritional needs were met, it's as if any of his lab animals could obtain good health, regardless of food type or macronutrient ratios.
I also did plenty of glucose testing as well, noting that my glucose numbers were considerably lower, and got increasingly lower on a diet of 600+ grams of carbohydrates per day while losing weight rapidly.
On an overfeeding regimen, considered to be the cause of insulin resistance, diabetes, etc., my fasting glucose dropped all the way down to 67 mg/dl with 1-hour postprandials in the 70's, even on high-glycemic carbohdyrates.
That's just a taste, but don't expect me to be able to answer everyone's questions. It took Gary Tabues 500 pages to give a thorough answer to what causes obesity and increasing rates of degenerative disease. A brief comment is not enough to satisfy everyone's objections.
Way to be, Matt!
All this talk reminds me of a line from a Blackalicious song: "the more I know, the more I don't pretend to know."
Gina
My stance on sugars, to reiterate, is that a prolonged period of zero sugar eating can be very therapeutic. This may or may not be directly related to inactiviting fructokinase enzymes as Richard Johnson is trying to achieve with his zero sugar regimen of a few weeks. I think a few months is more likely to have a lasting and more significant impact.
After that period, sugar consumption can resume as long as it is not habitual.
I don't shun any foods, nor am I phobic about eating anything. Since Friday I have consumed cake, ice cream, beer, and an Americano.
I probably won't eat any of those things for another couple of weeks (caffeine I doubt I'll have for another several months – as I'm not really into it).
It's a balance between eating healthy, and being relaxed about diet. I am a strong advocate for short periods of more strict dietary strategies for achieving healing from a severe health problem of some kind, but for everyday life, it's important not to become overly rigid. Being social and laid back is more important in the long run. I don't know anyone with a strict diet that lives what I would call a balanced, well-rounded, carefree, and quality life.
It's all a matter of trying to figure out how to eat healthy food without your healthy food eating you (in the form of paranoia, phobia, and rigidity).
Hey, yesterday was my kid's birthday party? Did I make a sugar-filled chocolate cake/mood altering time bomb? You bet I did. And I ate some. And I suffered the moods swings and attendant meltdowns of all the toddlers involved and even some of the parents (including myself). Hey because this is a party and that's fun, right? Yeah, right, just keep the sharp objects out of reach and we'll all be fine.
madMUHHH – I know your question was directed at Troy but I have all three of Ori's books. They are ok. In my opinion Maximum Muscle Minimum Fat is the best one as it has some decent science and hormone information in it. The basis of all the books is under eating during the day and overeating/feasting at night. He mostly recommends whole foods.
Two things keep me from eating Matt's wheat. (1) The fact that certain people eat wheat and do not drop dead immediately (or develop terrible dental caries) does not mean that wheat is "good" for them. What is "good"? I am pretty sure Matt does not have a clear picture of that; indeed, he admits as much here in this thread. In order to get my vote of confidence, Matt needs to articulate a compelling picture of health, and convince me that it is a picture of my health (not just the result of his individual tinkering with what may not be a universal blueprint). This brings me to my second point. (2) A compelling portrait of health requires a narrative fitting "causes" to "effects" in a compelling, coherent fashion. People gravitate to researchers like Stephan Guyenet, Peter Dobromylskyj, and Art Ayers (to name three) because they provide detailed maps of metabolic experiences which meet Karl Popper's standard for science: they are falsifiable. In stead of talking vaguely about "feeling good" and "healing a broken metabolism," the bloggers I just mentioned define problems specifically (e.g. malocclusion, oxidized LDL, inflammation) and then offer their idea of a cure, making plain what observations would negate the validity of their conclusions. Matt, on the other hand, talks generically about a health that is never really defined (as far as I can tell).
In short, I get good vibes from Matt (I think he is a nice guy who wishes the world well), but I do not get anything really useful to myself apart from emotional support. I agree with Matt that our knowledge of nutrition is imperfect, but I do not see how he is closer to "the cutting edge" of real research than I (as a knowledgeable layperson) am. So, Matt, if you're going to convince me that I should put gluten back in my diet, you're going to have to give me more than a rant about traditional peoples: you are going to have to talk science.
Just to be clear, by "science" I meant "falsifiable theories," not summations of other people's epidemiological research (which tells us little) or fancy jargon. The fact that we can throw out big words does not mean that we understand what we are saying.
i wouldn't never follow the warrior diet again!! haha… its an alright book… he does recommend real foods for the most part.. but doesn't think it too unhealthy to go out for the occasional couple slices of pizza, which i agree with… but its still a diet. He is also into food combining, which i don't do, and i don't like being told when to eat… i just eat when i get hungry. If you have hypoglycemia this diet it sure to end fast for you… better to eat a big breakfast. He also hates on red meat… but is all for milk, eggs, etc. He doesn't like fish oil either… thinks its all rancid… umm… but likes Udo's 3-6-9 blend… i like his ideas on strength training. I have all his books though… and i use to listen to his podcast… it was entertaining, but didn't care for much… just part of the research i do… and he does sell funny products..haha… i like his stance on Estrogen though.
Since i finally got my metabolism back, i can get away with sugar here and there… and actually glad i added raw honey back in my tea. I did like matt said… didn't eat sugar for months, and broke through the barrier of being sugar phobic and now have it occasionally in ice cream. cheesecake, orange juice, or some fruit… i never crave it though.
Sometimes i don't eat much, then sometimes i eat big… i can usually tell when i need to eat alot… i am pretty much at my goal weight… which is stable, and didn't even have to try to diet… ate all food groups, and ate as much as i wanted. I am 5'9 159-161 lbs…. a little body fat, which is healthy in my mind… it took along time… almost a year, but i am glad i stuck with it… my mind and body is back to my hayday!!
I will keep eating my bacon cheeseburgers with the bun, and pass on the fries… till someone starts frying them in tallow again.
troy
Matt's wheat? Convincing others to put gluten back into their diet?
This is a perfect example of what was discussed in this article. Someone coming a long with an urge to shoot me down with no knowledge whatsoever of my work.
I'm not saying gluten is something humans should eat more of, or that it is required for health. Many people do have substantial problems with it and fare far better without it in their diets. I wouldn't classify it as an optimal food either. But to think that wheat has caused a recent epidemic of autoimmune disease or something like this is ridiculous. For one, my own girlfriend developed an autoimmune disease without gluten in her diet, and overcame it with gluten in her diet, so I know it can't be a simple matter.
How anyone else processes information and looks at health, whether comprehensive and broad or in very miniscule, rigorous detail makes no difference if the conclusion is wrong.
Peter can talk all day about how we should eat 80% of our calories as fat, and find as many studies as he likes, but he will continue to be wrong if that is his interpretation of the material he is perusing.
Now with Stephan, that's another matter entirely. He is at least willing to hold his conclusions under the flame of logic.
I agree.. adding gluten back into my diet has helped, i usually only eat whole grain sourdough breads, but organic pasta, good pizza, or burger buns can be found in my tummy. I tricked myself into thinking i was gluten intolerant…haha… how ridiculous i was.
Oh on the warrior diet… he has a good section on why cutting carbs doesn't usually work and why its a bad idea also.
The debate rolls on!!
troy
I'm just a few weeks into researching all the various methods of eating. My motivation was to stop the uncontrollable sugar cravings. I started with carb counting, low carb/low fat, low carb/ high fat, no carb,
etc…you get the picture. I had some initial weight loss and then stalled. I had no energy and was depressed and crabby more and more often. Not good… but the sugar cravings did stop, so I knew that I was heading in the right direction. My research continues too, but since reading Matt's stuff I have added some starch back into my diet and I feel so much better. I bought the whole 2009 Collection, which is a very good value at $39.95. The cook book is worth it alone.
Anyway, Matt keep on researching and sharing your opinions. You represent all of us who are on a path to find the answers that work for each of us.
Celiac disease is very correlated with hypothyroidism. Why, is another matter. Bad diet + gluten = faster death, like white rice + butter. That I would think, though of course things need not be absolutes, so it is possible that gluten could impair the health of even some "hunther gatheres". No way to know now, though.
Anyway, to think all hunter gatherers, or Price's people where, even if way better than us, in equal state of health or inmunity does not seems wise. The very counts of cavities by Price himself and other data like eskimo aging rapidly, unmodernized cultures getting whiped out by epidemics, etc.
I think seemingly "peripheral" issues may be more important than they may seem in this community. Stresses that didn't killed them, even if they did some damage, would impair us in our way to recovery. It's like a perfect bamboo stem vs a cracked bamboo stem. The first can resist a lot of things and get back to shape relatively easyly, the other just gets worst and worst.
HED is good, but I think most of us, if not all, are and will be cracked bamboos, even if somewhat reassembled, sadly. The very fact that Matt can't stand a low carb diet is proof of that for the time being.
Now, I may be wrong…, but my point is little differences may be more and more important as your health gets worst.
Not to say you shoud Mercolize your views, Matt, but try to generalize less. We know we are all fucked, but it's time to center more, even more, in recovery. Harper's and Chloe cases, among others, show HED has it's limitations. You also are no longer a good example, or experimenting body, for all of this, because you have your health back. Just sayin'.
Rice burner
Hi, Matt. In honor to cognitive dissonance, I've been invesigating some about refined sugar, and Peat, and if it is that bad. Also been digging a lot into the milk cure
Well, first, I think I've seen a lot of connections I didn't expect to find in the first place. The milk diet, though it may appear simply HED on steroids at first, by results and certain special characteristic seems a lot more(if Sanford Porter wasn't lying, and we are not THAT much worst in our health).
First, if you compare the speed of recovery, HED seems a little scared puppy in comparison. People were able to return to their diets (probably semi-crappy) and conserve their health for a long time, that also impreses. Second, it is suprisingly in accordance with many of Ray Peat's suggestions for recovery (that interested me much). It's protein is balanced, it's carbs are not starch, it's iron is low, it's PUFA content is low, and seems to work better with even lower fat (EFA deficiency), extremely low in antinutrients and toxins (including estronium,… or whatever), very high in calcium and magnesium, etc. He seems very supportive of milk as an ideal food, though he calls it "sugar with minerals", lol. He's 90, anyway, so if that makes him happy…
Interesting things dont end there. I've been reading about the kuna:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search?q=kuna
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/03/say-hello-to-kuna.html
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/hypertensionaha;29/1/171
They have high chronic consumption of REFINED sugar (G-A-S-P), and their health seems fine overall (H-O-L-Y F'N G-A-S-P). Their nostrils seem a bit pinched, but their chompers are fine. They even drink kool aid!:
http://mblurs3-journal.blogspot.com/2008/12/learning-ton-about-kuna-way-of.html
http://aboardlulu.com/lulu20090317.htm
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessionid=LrFJ6GDchpPlPfghJtHXSkQHMfFpzsfyyyGpvsS0Qw9rGy1tWDhn!243734?a=o&d=76953911
Aside from that, their diet is composed of whole foods, high in carbohydrate, low on PUFAs with fish as almost the only source.
Of course I know only "time will tell", but they aren't certainly falling apart.
This all goes with the theory that says: fructose ain't no big deal, but trow linoleic acid into the mix (and some deficiencies, etc.) and BAM! Given Peat's recommendations about diet, his overall view does not seem as crazy if you consider that.
A review of Price's book and other good ol' sources doesn't seem to reveal arguments against it, nor in favor, of course.
All very interesting indeed…
Lol, I added an ' to all the its. Damm you stupid english errors!
go live…!!!! for gods sake live!!!!! stop worrying about this bullshit… and live.. eat real foods.. have wonderful kids,and live!!!! its very easy!!!!!
troy
Troy, wile i do agree that we can all become far too stressed and anal about food and health, you are a healthy, fit young male in his mid twenties, I think it may not be quite so simplistic for eg a pre menopausal female with thyroid and adrenal issues, having struggled with infertility.
I'm not worrying! This is fun, I'm a nerd :-). Got a problem with that?…
Though I'm also pretty much fucked up, but that's another story…
Please…doctors are not all that smart. I am always arguing with someone because all my views go against what most doctors say. People tend to forget that doctors used to tell people to smoke cigarettes and to eat trans fats.
My mother in law has been living with us for several months now(somebody please help me!)and she is constantly arguing with us on our views. She sees that I am fat so doesn't even consider what I have to say. She is not fat, but she has a huge belly and a really high BMI and no muscle, but she sees herself as better because she is not fat. My husband occasionally gets a headache from his glasses and she called her doctor and he said that he is getting headaches because he eats way too many eggs and the cholesterol goes to his brain. What kind of crap is this? The brain is made mostly out of cholesterol and eating 2-3 eggs a day hardly would raise cholesterol. Plus, how can he make a diagnosis from thousands of miles away. But she believes him and argues with me and tries to get me to replace our fresh as hell pastured eggs for chemically laden old as hell egg beaters. Just look at the Japanese, they eat more eggs than anyone and they are pretty healthy. Americans eat half the eggs they used to in the 1940s. I just had 4 eggs and buttered toast for breakfast…oh no, I think I may have a heart attack now!
Anyways, when my son was born I took him to a doctor for his check ups and the doctor was really clueless on so many things. He insisted nobody in the U.S. ever died from a vaccine…what? Not only have they, but the vaccine court has paid out tons of money to victims. He also told me that infant formula was not made from cow's milk….what then? Hamster milk? He also told me my son would die of botulism if I gave him raw milk formula.
Well, I stopped taking him after his 4 month check up and he has not seen a doctor since.
Ok, sorry for this rant, but doctors and people who listen to their doctors usually are the most clueless.
Matt, I think the greatest ability that someone can have is being able to change their minds. People who stick to their ideas even if those ideas prove to be wrong are weak with no self confidence and those people will never succeed in anything. Keep learning with us and keep sharing with us.
Even if I never lose weight with the HED, it is better than starving and not losing any weight. This is freedom.
Lol, smart doctors… Any day now.
Well, maybe…
Vida – I completely agree about doctors. The cigarette/trans fat thing is such a great example to me… it makes me wonder why people don't notice that doctors are constantly recommending products that are later pulled from the market because they are downright dangerous.
I quit taking my kids to the doctor after my 18-month-old daughter's pediatrician insisted they run blood tests on my little girl because this was "standard" care for all children her age. I'm sitting there staring at my healthy, robust child and wondering what kind of world we live in that draws blood from toddlers for no real reason. I've never gone back since.
I really try not to have disdain for people in the medical profession, because they aren't really all bad. In fact, I've met some really wonderful doctors recently who've been very interested in our views on nutrition. But the idea that we should all blindly obey someone just because of their medical degree is just too condescending for my taste. Modern medicine has its place, but it isn't the end-all-be-all of nutrition.
Thanks El 66k.
I'm more open to Peat than ever. It takes a while to let new ideas sit. Note I said "open," not "convinced his is the almighty."
I'm going to do a post soon about why Don Gorske is so healthy – assuming that he is healthy and it is not some fluke (I don't tend to believe in flukes). It'll be Peat-tastic for sure.
As for the milk diet, you're right. The milk diet also seems extreme and most would never dream of trying it. HED is a more reasonable solution for most, and we'll continue to refine it into a more-efficient beast – perhaps going low-EFA.
I do have aspirations, as Felix is urging, to become immune to fructose's negative effects as well, and feel like I've made progress, like Troy has and others.
What seems the most obvious, is that combining lots of omega 6 with refined fructose seems to be "the perfect nutritional storm."
Western medicine certainly has its place, and doctors are generally getting smarter and more open-minded.
They are beginning to understand how one-sided and corruptly-funded their education and continuing education is.
They are instructed to be closed minded to all ideas not in accordance with what they've been taught. But there are thinking doctors out there that are learning how dumb of a mindset that is.
Don Gorske has OCD. Bad shit.
He was OCD before his first Big Mac in 1972 though, and seems to be in damn fine shape for a man born in 1953 that's eaten every meal at McDonald's for 38 consecutive years.
Hey Matt,
Thanks for the hat tip. I'm honored to be among the few that you identify with in the world of health blogs. I hope to continue on this inquiry into nutrition for many years to come, asking endless questions along the way; and I'll be dropping by your blog often to keep me guessing!
Keep up the great work, and don't let the naysayers get you down.
Hey Matt,
This story may be of some interest to you as I think it goes well with your beliefs. Last night I made dinner for three of my female co-workers. One of which was heavy set(250 lbs), another was a very medium frame(160-170lbs), and the last was thin yet muscular(115lbs). I made them all a well marbled 12 oz. Strip Loin steak, a large sweet potato with plenty of butter, and a bowl of broccoli also with lots of butter. To my amazement, the heavy set woman only managed to eat about half of the food while cutting off the fat from the steak(she looked like she was dieting), the medium frame woman probably ate 2/3 of the food while cutting off the fat from the steak, and the thin woman completely devoured all of the food(including the steak fat) in record time while asking for more butter and a second sweet potato. In my mind I had pictured it would all happen the complete opposite. The thin woman even asked me to turn on her favorite radio station afterwards so she could start dancing, as she had a very high amount of energy. The other 2 heavier woman were both happy but seemed drowsy with low energy. It was very obvious that the thin woman was the classic adrenal type with a high metabolism which you have mentioned in previous blog posts. She has obviously never dieted in her life and has eaten high amounts of food, only to have a very high amount of energy. I plan on meeting up with her more in the next week and I will no doubt report more on her eating habits if any are interested. I can only assume it includes eating a shitload of food, while being happy and active and not eliminating entire macronutrients though.
Gaaz
Gaaz-
I see this time and time again. I saw it long before I ever really gave it much thought.
That's why overweight people get stuck and seldom have any real breakthroughs. The fatter they get, the less they eat – even if they are hungry. They often cut out the fattening parts like visible fat or starch, but refuse to sacrifice the caloric sources that they love, which usually consist of soft drinks, other sugary foods, chocolate, coffee, alcohol, etc.
Then the typical emotion is jealousy over seeing a skinny person eat like horses without getting fat. "I wish I could eat like that, but I can't."
Which is exactly what makes this site so exciting. Whether a way exists or not, the objective is to turn people into hypermetabolizers that feel great, have tons of energy, no hypothyroid-related symptoms, and turn calories into energy and lean mass instead of excess fat.
And I think we're getting warmer…literally.
Your comment also takes this quote, which for years I was always desperate to understand how it was possible, and puts it into perspective:
?In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol? we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, and ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.
-William Castelli, director of Framingham, MA heart disease study, the largest saturated fat/cholesterol heart disease study ever conducted, 1992 (excerpt taken from Mary Enig’s Know Your Fats; 2000).
Koch. You are the man. If I come through Utah on the annual Western Colorado spring Exodus to Utah, I'm paying you a visit. Don't worry, I won't make you eat gluten (as described above).
Yeah, keep your gluten to yourself, Matt. I don't want any part of that filth. :-)
I'd love for you to visit southern Utah. I live in a gorgeous area very far off the map — I think you would appreciate it. Lots of red rock, mountains, and only 2,500 people (mostly concentrated in a few towns) in an area of 2,475 square miles!
Got lots of love for Southern Utah.
Spent lots time (too much) frolicking around Escalante/Powell/Zion/Kolob/Bryce/
etc. But always up for more.
@the framingham study quote:
Yeah, when I read that quote in Nourishing Traditions I immediately though of how this perfectly is in line with the HED.
"I agree.. adding gluten back into my diet has helped, i usually only eat whole grain sourdough breads, but organic pasta, good pizza, or burger buns can be found in my tummy. I tricked myself into thinking i was gluten intolerant…haha… how ridiculous i was."
i think Gluten allergies and Lactose intolerance are really over diagonosed. It's more baby out with the bath water dieting, really. Before you throw out all gluten, try doing a quality separation for freshly ground whole wheat products. They are rarer than you think, 90 of the bread at my co-op was being made from whole wheat bread that 's been sitting around or is enriched. I'm not exactly sure how sourdough helps with gluten. I always thought you were avoiding yeast with sourdough (and the sugar that's usually added to the yeast as food), but most sourdough's are made with white flour. Sourdough rye, may have whole wheat flour (a purely rye bread is a rare thing these days) that isn't freshly ground.
I've noticed a big change in my digestion since getting rid of white flour and "rancid" whole wheat flour. I know other people who were IBS or borderline IBS who were diagnosed as having gluten allergies…but I wonder.
Same thing with milk. I don't think you even have to go raw. I simply started drinking pasteurized whole milk (grassfed) with no additives and my allergy symptoms abated rapidly.
"In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol? we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, and ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.
-William Castelli, director of Framingham, MA heart disease study, the largest saturated fat/cholesterol heart disease study ever conducted, 1992 (excerpt taken from Mary Enig’s Know Your Fats; 2000"
I've seen this quote here and in other WAPF inspired work, but I've never managed to find it outside of the WAPF world. Does anyone know when and where Castelli originally said this? What little I've read of his popular literature (skimmed a book in the library) he said nothing of the sort and certainly came down against saturated fats.
Jenny,
to speak of one complete Rye bread, the French Meadow Baekery European Sourdough, they use 100% refined rye flour and ferment for 24 hours. The email that I was sent was unclear on if it was pre-ground flour or ground on site but I suspect the former. I've written back to ask for clarification.
Mike-
Your right, that quote litters WAPF materials. I have not seen it elsewhere. If anyone sees it outside of that circle I'd love to see it.
Here maybe, though it only mentions cholesterol:
http://archinte.highwire.org/cgi/content/summary/152/7/1371
"Jenny,
to speak of one complete Rye bread, the French Meadow Baekery European Sourdough, they use 100% refined rye flour and ferment for 24 hours. The email that I was sent was unclear on if it was pre-ground flour or ground on site but I suspect the former. I've written back to ask for clarification."
French Meadow rye is one of the two breads I eat, the other is whole wheat from Great Harvest as they grind their flour on site the day its used. I also by my flour over the counter from them. It's so much better anyway.
Got mey second email from French Meadow. The flour is ground before they buy it, who knows how long before :(
Thanks so much, Collden. Of course, my local library only goes back 2 years in that journal. Grrr.
Well I'm late to this party but I will add a few comments here and there.
First, Matt, thanks for the shout out. Glad to know someone thinks my blog is worth reading. :-)
That's why Gary Taubes and myself ARE doing a better job of piecing the puzzle together than most doctors. Plus, we've got so much less baloney to unlearn!
Generally speaking movement is made from those on the fringe or outside the establishment. That is why it rare to see a MD really do much. They are usually very much – in terms of mindset – a part of the establishment. My post on The Problem With Science is a good introduction as to why.
It is funny Paleo started out as "Meat, Vegetables, Fruit, Nuts and seeds" now paleo folks are saying little or no fruit and the same for nuts and seeds. Leaving those poor paleo followers with a diet of meat, fat and veggies to eat, plus throw in a bit of IF (sometimes 24hrs 2-3 times a week) what fun……
Actually they are including more starchy carbs in their diet, but that is still a far cry from the conventional understanding of paleo as put forth by its early popular proponents. To wit, you have people now drawing a distinction between Primal and Paleo for example. Others talking about alcohol and others suggesting a high carb diet does fit within the paleo world. That is not the paleo diet of your father. :-)
I have said this day was coming. After all you can't keep calling Weston Price a giant and then turn around and ignore the bulk of his work. The cognitive dissonance has to be settled somehow and referring to what "paleo man" ate back in the unrecorded netherverse of history won't resolve it.
i have to agree with Ori Hofmeckler, author of the warrior diet… the neolithic time period is the best… fuck paleoithic.
LOL! I had some fun times following Ori's Warrior Diet back in the day. I have never packed so many carbs away in one meal in my life!
Why carry around a sack of nuts all day so you can eat when you back to the cave with your mammoth stakes and ox meat? Wouldn't you just mow em down on the spot in case some bigger human came along and took your nuts.
Eeeek. My nuts!
Ori wasn't making a paleo argument. He was arguing from a distinct tradition that in fact ate that way.
Weston A Price also noted great health among grain-based cultures such as the Gaelics and Swiss
Don't forget some of the African tribes who were grain based and…gulp…low fat!(but not low saturated fat).
Anonymous said…(sure sounds like "Joseph" who comments on Free The Animal)
Just to be clear, by "science" I meant "falsifiable theories," not summations of other people's epidemiological research (which tells us little) or fancy jargon.
You mean like this ditty from Dr. Stephan Guyenet:
The reason I believe macronutrients are not the culprit is that there are healthy cultures eating high-fat diets, low-fat diets and everything in between (past and present). The Kitavans are a good example of a high-carb, low-fat culture that does not suffer from the diseases of civilization. They eat root vegetables rather than grains. These cultures lose their good health when they introduce processed food into their diets, typically white flour, sugar and vegetable oils. That's irrespective of macronutrient levels.
I think low-carb is great for individuals who have already damaged their metabolism with processed foods (overweight and/or glucose problems), but it's not necessary for good health on a cultural level.
July 27, 2008 10:04 AM
People tend to forget that doctors used to tell people to smoke cigarettes and to eat trans fats.
Doctors are as cultic and trendy as everybody else, although there have always been exceptions.
matt,
didn't your podcast pit omega6's and high insulin levels (aka high glucose and not fructose as you wrote in the comments) as the perfect storm
Danh,
I proposed that CHRONIC high insulin levels paired with excess omega 6 as the perfect storm. I don't think a temporary rise caused by glucose in response to meals is significant, as a couple hours later it falls back to baseline. It's having insulin at above average levels 24-7 that leads to overproduction of AA. Only insulin resistance leads to that, and insulin resistance is not caused by glucose. Fructose appears to be much more capable of inducing insulin resistance even though it's a low-glycemic carbohydrate.
You know this blog post completely misrepresented what Richard and Dr. Harris's blog posts were about. They were reasoned, well Dr. Harris's was more reasened, thoughts on specific statements you had made. They did not shed you in a positive light, no, but they did not engage in simplifications or personal attacks.
It seems if you really have a problem with their points you should respond to their lengthy posts with more than a dismissive paragraph.
Since when is binging on OJ a bad idea? (: