That looks and sounds like a true masterpiece of a meaty mash-up! Heck yeah that is health food! I had a hell of a time trying to convince everyone at thanksgiving why eating more is actually good for them, I can only imagine trying to convince them that a bacon-wrapped tenderloin is better than mixed baby greens with oil and vinegar dressing washed down with water and lemon.
Matt, this is a bit off-topic, but youv'e been talking about the milk diet a lot lately. From what I've read, skim or low-fat milk is better, but wouldn't a diet of skim milk be antimetabolic with such a big quantity of protein, specially in relation to fat and carbs? And what about the vitamins?
You can make assumptions about certain things as it pertains to the milk diet, but the bottom line is that when looked at as a whole, it appears to be effective and anything but anti-metabolic. The most consistent results were bringing the heart rate and blood pressure to perfect equilibrium (lowering in those with high levels, raising it in those with low levels).
I have low blood pressure and a very low resting pulse. I used to consider those virtues, but now I'm not so sure. Can't wait to try it and see what happens. The most promising component is that the milk diet advocates claim that problems rarely, if ever return – such as asthma, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.
Thanks for the video. What a concept! Be healthy to avoid viruses! It's unbelievable that such a video would be considered 'radical.'
Jenny –
All kinds of rebound hyperphagia, but all is under control now. The hyperphagia lasted for 2-3 weeks. I still eat-a-plenty, but it's well controlled and I have no hunger in between meals or anything like that. Fasting and postprandial glucose readings are substantially lower now than during FUDA too – an important discovery.
I can't wait for you to do this milk diet. I just ordered the "Milk Diet" on amazon.Hope I will get through it before you start. When did you want to do it again?
http://www.archive.org/details/milkdietasremedy00portiala Milk diet for free. Yah, Matt, I know. And about the antimetabolic thing, I thought the same, just wanted some "theory", for fun. Like I once heard, maybe of you, that really the ratio ins't what matters, since the body can excrete protein if it abounds, but that there is enough "heat" material. Also, about the fat, it makes me think about how FUDA works, besides it is always low fat milk, never non fat milk. And of course, things without fat (even if the fat quality, short chain fatty acids, is so high in milk) are digested faster, which may be of importance given the necessity of hitting the system with nutrients as fast as posible.
Now, that's a lot of protein to digest, anyway, which isn't easy, but probably is an excellent digestive training. Maybe protein is fine in whatever amount you fancy if you have enough of the other stuff, just maligned because it is the hardest to digest.
Crap I'm feeling like some sort of vengeful spirit of Bruce K. nvm
Rice lover
Oh, wait, and for our name shifting third world guy: "A normally functioning stomach at the proper pH should completely digest casein" Thats from Stephan, here's the backup study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17720176 Macfadden, milk diet autor, recomends lemon for the ones with digestive problems, give that a thought.
I just wondered if you gained back all the weight you lost plus more to say thanks for playing with FUDA. Interesting thing about having better fasting blood glucose now than on the vegan diet….
It's too bad that my HMO will pay for people to have gastric band surgery but not for 30 days of bed rest and a housekeeper for the Milk Cure.
You don't have to wonder Jenny. You already know exactly what I experienced and why – as do I.
I'm about 5 pounds over my vegan start weight, but things are starting to creep back down.
My glucose control was worse immediately after vegan fare (mid-90's fasting, 110-ish postprandial), but that changed very quickly. After a month or so post vegan I've hit fasting levels as low as 67, with an average in the low 70's. Postprandials consistently below 100, some below 90 despite huge carb, fat, protein, and overall calorie loads (1,000-1,500).
This has been so impressive that even I am a bit baffled by it all.
Dude, come on. Last time I checked – a pound of mashed potatoes with a half stick of butter, a side of spinach cooked in beef fat, and a 9 ounce slab of beef tenderloin with an ounce of bleu cheese on top X 3 = A lot more than 1000-1500 calories.
That was yesterday's dinner. I also ate, during the day, 2 bowls of turkey-barley soup, 16 ounces fresh carrot juice, 2 large bananas, and another giant wad of mashed potatoes and leftover beef (see photo above) for breakfast.
Daily caloric intake at I'd guess 4,000 average. I hope to do a whole macro, micro, and caloric breakdown for a week one of these days to share with the 180 cult, but my ESHA nutritional software is being a lil' bitch right now.
Matt, so you take fruit juices, or rather high amounts of fructose. I'm not aware of ANY culture with good health and with high intake fructose from any source. And I think juices may be too much, since in Nutrition and physical degeration, etc. fruit juices, heavy fruit and/or heavy honey intake are never mentioned. Abundant overly sweet fruits and abundance of honey are rather modern situations (except in cases like ancient Egypt, yet their health was horrible). Hell, if my memory does not fail me (and it doesn't) W. Price advised against the intake of too much fruit, even if for different reasons (lack of minerals). That you can tolerate something for a given moment doesn't mean it isn't a poison long term. Hell, if the poor natives had their teeth fall off whenever they touched sugar we wouldn't be in this mess. The only example I can think of now is… Bruce K…
Wait, no, if God is fine with tons of honey, then it is O K, ain't it? (^.^)
Rice lover
Btw, I do eat fruit, etc. but never loads of fruit juices or the like.
Matt, between your advice and the tons of reading I've done elsewhere on various low-carb sites, Diet Fucked, etc., I really don't know what to believe or try anymore. I'm sure it doesn't help my health to keep vascillating between these different approaches, does it? No matter what eating style I take, after a few days I end up feeling 'bingey' and have something that doesn't belong to that protocol, i.e. tons of protein on top of everything else, or lots of fruit and sometimes other sugar, or whatever. My body's reaction to these binges is unpleasant, to say the least – I've bloated up about 10 lbs in the past two days. Surely this isn't normal? Since abandoning the low calorie/low carb/severe over-exercise path (via which I lost about 120 lbs from Jan 2007 through Fall 2008, but ended up driving my health into the toilet) in hopes of health exploration and improvement back in Marchish of this year, I've gained back about 35-40 lbs and really hate it (5'5" and 182 as of this morning – was 173 Monday). I hate feeling out of control around food, and don't feel as though I really know my appetite anymore or how to determine if I'm really hungry.
What's the difference between HED and full out binging? I've read your and D.S.'s advice to treat food as medicine, choke it down etc etc, but then there are others such as J.S. & Bruce who (I believe) say not to stuff yourself, or that you should skip a meal if you've eaten later than usual and aren't hungry, or whatever. There just seems to be so much contrary advice out there that I don't know what approach to take anymore and feel quite stuck.
I know this doesn't raise a lot of specific questions that you can think about and answer, but I guess I just wanted to post to see what, if any, clarifications or advice you could offer.
-Sarah (who previously posted some months ago, and was given advice to spend a few days fruit binging before taking up HED-style eating. Couldn't make it through even one day of fruit only, felt like a crazy person.)
Is a FBG below 70 good? The lower, the better? What about Melvin Page’s holy 85 (or was it 100)? When your FBG is lower, so should be your postprandial glucose. No surprise there. Starting with 95 and ending with 115 might be better (insulin sensitivitywise) than starting with 70 and ending with 100.
Carrot juice isn't exactly fruit juice. It's sweet, but nutrition data says carrot juice contains 0 grams of sugar (16 carrot juice from Jamba was the reference). Who knows.
I eat fruit on occasion. Usually a few times a week. Sometimes I'll go 2-3 weeks with no fruit at all. I eat maybe 1T of honey per month, not exactly gonna give me metabolic syndrome now is it?
I still believe that a low-fructose diet is a safe bet, and there are times for eating a NO-fructose diet, but that doesn't need to be a life sentence.
Sarah – Just like Dr. S. says, if eating well makes you gain weight, then you have a damaged metabolism and need to heal. The healing process often includes a lot of weight gain, especially for someone who is down 120 pounds from set weight via starvation and overexercise.
The post-diet binging and addictive eating behavior is caused by the diet, and is the body's attempt to heal itself.
Unfortunately, we often convince ourselves that dieting is good, and that binging afterwards is harmful, and should be avoided with willpower. No way. That's the body's revolt and desperate attempt to fix itself.
This is an exploratory site. I am in process of answering my own questions as well, no different from what you are trying to do via self-experimentation and research as well. Be patient. Answers don't always come easily. I too, post-vegan, gained 10 pounds in less than a week, but doing so healed me. I feel great now, my eating is under control, my pants are starting to loosen up again (thankfully, I was on my last beltloop), etc.
Based on all the exploration I have done, if I were you I would simply focus on nourishing myself as well as I could. Eat nutrient-dense vegetables, energy-rich tubers, satisfying fatty meats, fish and eggs, coconut and dairy fats – in whatever quantity it takes to totally satisfy you. The more you commit to it, the faster you will heal. Then you can begin making progress with your weight and addictive eating behavior. Until then, if you fight yourself, you will most likely lose. I always lose against me. Matt Stone is one formidable opponent. When he wants something, he gets it.
I do not feel that it is wise to favor sugars over starches. A little fruit here and there is one thing, but only if you can eat a piece or two and be satisfied. If you can't, and this fuels addictive eating behavior, you must give all sweets up until you overcome being hooked on them. Your reaction to your "fruit fast" is pretty indicative of your tolerance for sweets right now if you ask me. Best of luck and let us know how things progress over time. There are millions in your predicament right now that would love whatever insights you get out of this.
Sven –
Page's magic number was 85. The 100 number was due to a different measuring technique as IFNH.org suggests in the Melvin Page bio.
Cheraskin touted 75-85 as the best 'range.'
I am actually concerned about it being too low, but also read in another book that numbers as low as 65 mg/dl can be healthful fasting levels. Ideal even. It's hard to say. I don't recall Page talking about needing to bring fasting levels up or seeing levels below 85 frequently. Can't say for sure, but I'm definitely not assuming "the lower the better" I assure you. Just am amazed by it that's all. I've had postprandials ranging from 73 to 91 typically. It's generally assumed that the higher the level goes, the more cellular damage is done. I feel awesome though, so I'm not going to panic by any means that my glucose levels are too low. Not yet.
Hey Sarah, I am up close to 10lbs, after about 2 months on Matt's ideas. In the first week I think I gained 5 lbs and its been slowing going up and down since then – fluctuating! This morn I was 194, up from 185. I know this is my body healing and it will take some , just stick with it, your body will thank you. Sucks to think it can take years to heal your metabolism, get those hormornes inline, but it might. My body has been damaged since I was a kid and it wont fix overnight.
Nah, carrot is mostly sugars and fibre, but I guess yours must have a low ratio of sugars to water. Oh, I'm just nickpicking, sorry. Good to confirm your stance on sugars, I was somewhat confused with that much Peat talkin' and the like. My FA is 70 mg/dl, btw, and I also got a bit scared when I found out. 65 could easily be a full-blown hypoglycemic state for some people, or at least a trip to cranky and craving land. You and I know why.
Just quickly chiming in on the "too low" fasting blood glucose question. Unless you're on insulin, I don't think going too low is a possibility, unless there is something else very bad wrong. I don't think you could give yourself dangerous hypoglycemia purely from what you eat. I'm lazily not looking this up, but when I was on insulin during gestational diabetes, I was told not to worry unless it was under 60, and I think alarms don't really sound unless under 50. Keep in mind this was advice for someone on insulin, that is, I wonder if the concern is that if it's dipping that low, it could go lower unless you do something – meaning, eat.
p. 137 Nora Gedgaudas's Primal Body-Primal Mind (which I f'n hate by the way)…
?A healthy person maintaining consistently low glucose and insulin levels may not exceed 90 or 100 even following a meal and may feel absolutely comfortable and symptom-free [free of hypoglycemic symptoms that is] with fasting blood sugar at 65.
No rice lover. I'm not into "sweet Peat." I am curious about the idea of optimizing health to tolerate natural sugars though.
Thanks for the info. Helen. We weren't worried about whether or not we were hypoglycemic at that point, but whether it was preferable or not to be there as a fasting level – or if that was out of the parameters of homeostasis.
That looks and sounds like a true masterpiece of a meaty mash-up! Heck yeah that is health food! I had a hell of a time trying to convince everyone at thanksgiving why eating more is actually good for them, I can only imagine trying to convince them that a bacon-wrapped tenderloin is better than mixed baby greens with oil and vinegar dressing washed down with water and lemon.
Scott
Matt, this is a bit off-topic, but youv'e been talking about the milk diet a lot lately. From what I've read, skim or low-fat milk is better, but wouldn't a diet of skim milk be antimetabolic with such a big quantity of protein, specially in relation to fat and carbs? And what about the vitamins?
Oh, and watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4
It's rather interesting, in'st it?
Rice lover
Hey Matt:
Any Rebound Hyperphagia from FUDA?
Rice lova,
You can make assumptions about certain things as it pertains to the milk diet, but the bottom line is that when looked at as a whole, it appears to be effective and anything but anti-metabolic. The most consistent results were bringing the heart rate and blood pressure to perfect equilibrium (lowering in those with high levels, raising it in those with low levels).
I have low blood pressure and a very low resting pulse. I used to consider those virtues, but now I'm not so sure. Can't wait to try it and see what happens. The most promising component is that the milk diet advocates claim that problems rarely, if ever return – such as asthma, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.
Thanks for the video. What a concept! Be healthy to avoid viruses! It's unbelievable that such a video would be considered 'radical.'
Jenny –
All kinds of rebound hyperphagia, but all is under control now. The hyperphagia lasted for 2-3 weeks. I still eat-a-plenty, but it's well controlled and I have no hunger in between meals or anything like that. Fasting and postprandial glucose readings are substantially lower now than during FUDA too – an important discovery.
I can't wait for you to do this milk diet. I just ordered the "Milk Diet" on amazon.Hope I will get through it before you start.
When did you want to do it again?
Probably not until spring of 2010.
http://www.archive.org/details/milkdietasremedy00portiala
Milk diet for free.
Yah, Matt, I know. And about the antimetabolic thing, I thought the same, just wanted some "theory", for fun. Like I once heard, maybe of you, that really the ratio ins't what matters, since the body can excrete protein if it abounds, but that there is enough "heat" material. Also, about the fat, it makes me think about how FUDA works, besides it is always low fat milk, never non fat milk. And of course, things without fat (even if the fat quality, short chain fatty acids, is so high in milk) are digested faster, which may be of importance given the necessity of hitting the system with nutrients as fast as posible.
Now, that's a lot of protein to digest, anyway, which isn't easy, but probably is an excellent digestive training. Maybe protein is fine in whatever amount you fancy if you have enough of the other stuff, just maligned because it is the hardest to digest.
Crap I'm feeling like some sort of vengeful spirit of Bruce K.
nvm
Rice lover
Oh, wait, and for our name shifting third world guy: "A normally functioning stomach at the proper pH should completely digest casein" Thats from Stephan, here's the backup study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17720176
Macfadden, milk diet autor, recomends lemon for the ones with digestive problems, give that a thought.
Rice Lover
I just wondered if you gained back all the weight you lost plus more to say thanks for playing with FUDA. Interesting thing about having better fasting blood glucose now than on the vegan diet….
It's too bad that my HMO will pay for people to have gastric band surgery but not for 30 days of bed rest and a housekeeper for the Milk Cure.
You don't have to wonder Jenny. You already know exactly what I experienced and why – as do I.
I'm about 5 pounds over my vegan start weight, but things are starting to creep back down.
My glucose control was worse immediately after vegan fare (mid-90's fasting, 110-ish postprandial), but that changed very quickly. After a month or so post vegan I've hit fasting levels as low as 67, with an average in the low 70's. Postprandials consistently below 100, some below 90 despite huge carb, fat, protein, and overall calorie loads (1,000-1,500).
This has been so impressive that even I am a bit baffled by it all.
The 100-1500 kcal is per meal. not per day, right Matt? You're not sneaking out a lowcalorie plan on us, are ya?
Dude, come on. Last time I checked – a pound of mashed potatoes with a half stick of butter, a side of spinach cooked in beef fat, and a 9 ounce slab of beef tenderloin with an ounce of bleu cheese on top X 3 = A lot more than 1000-1500 calories.
That was yesterday's dinner. I also ate, during the day, 2 bowls of turkey-barley soup, 16 ounces fresh carrot juice, 2 large bananas, and another giant wad of mashed potatoes and leftover beef (see photo above) for breakfast.
Daily caloric intake at I'd guess 4,000 average. I hope to do a whole macro, micro, and caloric breakdown for a week one of these days to share with the 180 cult, but my ESHA nutritional software is being a lil' bitch right now.
Matt, so you take fruit juices, or rather high amounts of fructose. I'm not aware of ANY culture with good health and with high intake fructose from any source. And I think juices may be too much, since in Nutrition and physical degeration, etc. fruit juices, heavy fruit and/or heavy honey intake are never mentioned. Abundant overly sweet fruits and abundance of honey are rather modern situations (except in cases like ancient Egypt, yet their health was horrible). Hell, if my memory does not fail me (and it doesn't) W. Price advised against the intake of too much fruit, even if for different reasons (lack of minerals). That you can tolerate something for a given moment doesn't mean it isn't a poison long term. Hell, if the poor natives had their teeth fall off whenever they touched sugar we wouldn't be in this mess. The only example I can think of now is… Bruce K…
Wait, no, if God is fine with tons of honey, then it is O K, ain't it? (^.^)
Rice lover
Btw, I do eat fruit, etc. but never loads of fruit juices or the like.
Matt, between your advice and the tons of reading I've done elsewhere on various low-carb sites, Diet Fucked, etc., I really don't know what to believe or try anymore. I'm sure it doesn't help my health to keep vascillating between these different approaches, does it? No matter what eating style I take, after a few days I end up feeling 'bingey' and have something that doesn't belong to that protocol, i.e. tons of protein on top of everything else, or lots of fruit and sometimes other sugar, or whatever. My body's reaction to these binges is unpleasant, to say the least – I've bloated up about 10 lbs in the past two days. Surely this isn't normal? Since abandoning the low calorie/low carb/severe over-exercise path (via which I lost about 120 lbs from Jan 2007 through Fall 2008, but ended up driving my health into the toilet) in hopes of health exploration and improvement back in Marchish of this year, I've gained back about 35-40 lbs and really hate it (5'5" and 182 as of this morning – was 173 Monday). I hate feeling out of control around food, and don't feel as though I really know my appetite anymore or how to determine if I'm really hungry.
What's the difference between HED and full out binging? I've read your and D.S.'s advice to treat food as medicine, choke it down etc etc, but then there are others such as J.S. & Bruce who (I believe) say not to stuff yourself, or that you should skip a meal if you've eaten later than usual and aren't hungry, or whatever. There just seems to be so much contrary advice out there that I don't know what approach to take anymore and feel quite stuck.
I know this doesn't raise a lot of specific questions that you can think about and answer, but I guess I just wanted to post to see what, if any, clarifications or advice you could offer.
-Sarah (who previously posted some months ago, and was given advice to spend a few days fruit binging before taking up HED-style eating. Couldn't make it through even one day of fruit only, felt like a crazy person.)
Matt:
Is a FBG below 70 good? The lower, the better?
What about Melvin Page’s holy 85 (or was it 100)?
When your FBG is lower, so should be your postprandial glucose. No surprise there. Starting with 95 and ending with 115 might be better (insulin sensitivitywise) than starting with 70 and ending with 100.
Rice lover –
Carrot juice isn't exactly fruit juice. It's sweet, but nutrition data says carrot juice contains 0 grams of sugar (16 carrot juice from Jamba was the reference). Who knows.
I eat fruit on occasion. Usually a few times a week. Sometimes I'll go 2-3 weeks with no fruit at all. I eat maybe 1T of honey per month, not exactly gonna give me metabolic syndrome now is it?
I still believe that a low-fructose diet is a safe bet, and there are times for eating a NO-fructose diet, but that doesn't need to be a life sentence.
Sarah –
Just like Dr. S. says, if eating well makes you gain weight, then you have a damaged metabolism and need to heal. The healing process often includes a lot of weight gain, especially for someone who is down 120 pounds from set weight via starvation and overexercise.
The post-diet binging and addictive eating behavior is caused by the diet, and is the body's attempt to heal itself.
Unfortunately, we often convince ourselves that dieting is good, and that binging afterwards is harmful, and should be avoided with willpower. No way. That's the body's revolt and desperate attempt to fix itself.
This is an exploratory site. I am in process of answering my own questions as well, no different from what you are trying to do via self-experimentation and research as well. Be patient. Answers don't always come easily. I too, post-vegan, gained 10 pounds in less than a week, but doing so healed me. I feel great now, my eating is under control, my pants are starting to loosen up again (thankfully, I was on my last beltloop), etc.
Based on all the exploration I have done, if I were you I would simply focus on nourishing myself as well as I could. Eat nutrient-dense vegetables, energy-rich tubers, satisfying fatty meats, fish and eggs, coconut and dairy fats – in whatever quantity it takes to totally satisfy you. The more you commit to it, the faster you will heal. Then you can begin making progress with your weight and addictive eating behavior. Until then, if you fight yourself, you will most likely lose. I always lose against me. Matt Stone is one formidable opponent. When he wants something, he gets it.
I do not feel that it is wise to favor sugars over starches. A little fruit here and there is one thing, but only if you can eat a piece or two and be satisfied. If you can't, and this fuels addictive eating behavior, you must give all sweets up until you overcome being hooked on them. Your reaction to your "fruit fast" is pretty indicative of your tolerance for sweets right now if you ask me. Best of luck and let us know how things progress over time. There are millions in your predicament right now that would love whatever insights you get out of this.
Sven –
Page's magic number was 85. The 100 number was due to a different measuring technique as IFNH.org suggests in the Melvin Page bio.
Cheraskin touted 75-85 as the best 'range.'
I am actually concerned about it being too low, but also read in another book that numbers as low as 65 mg/dl can be healthful fasting levels. Ideal even. It's hard to say. I don't recall Page talking about needing to bring fasting levels up or seeing levels below 85 frequently. Can't say for sure, but I'm definitely not assuming "the lower the better" I assure you. Just am amazed by it that's all. I've had postprandials ranging from 73 to 91 typically. It's generally assumed that the higher the level goes, the more cellular damage is done. I feel awesome though, so I'm not going to panic by any means that my glucose levels are too low. Not yet.
Hey Sarah, I am up close to 10lbs, after about 2 months on Matt's ideas. In the first week I think I gained 5 lbs and its been slowing going up and down since then – fluctuating! This morn I was 194, up from 185. I know this is my body healing and it will take some , just stick with it, your body will thank you. Sucks to think it can take years to heal your metabolism, get those hormornes inline, but it might. My body has been damaged since I was a kid and it wont fix overnight.
Nah, carrot is mostly sugars and fibre, but I guess yours must have a low ratio of sugars to water. Oh, I'm just nickpicking, sorry. Good to confirm your stance on sugars, I was somewhat confused with that much Peat talkin' and the like. My FA is 70 mg/dl, btw, and I also got a bit scared when I found out. 65 could easily be a full-blown hypoglycemic state for some people, or at least a trip to cranky and craving land. You and I know why.
Rice lover
Matt –
Just quickly chiming in on the "too low" fasting blood glucose question. Unless you're on insulin, I don't think going too low is a possibility, unless there is something else very bad wrong. I don't think you could give yourself dangerous hypoglycemia purely from what you eat. I'm lazily not looking this up, but when I was on insulin during gestational diabetes, I was told not to worry unless it was under 60, and I think alarms don't really sound unless under 50. Keep in mind this was advice for someone on insulin, that is, I wonder if the concern is that if it's dipping that low, it could go lower unless you do something – meaning, eat.
p. 137 Nora Gedgaudas's Primal Body-Primal Mind (which I f'n hate by the way)…
?A healthy person maintaining consistently low glucose and insulin levels may not exceed 90 or 100 even following a meal and may feel absolutely comfortable and symptom-free [free of hypoglycemic symptoms that is] with fasting blood sugar at 65.
No rice lover. I'm not into "sweet Peat." I am curious about the idea of optimizing health to tolerate natural sugars though.
Thanks for the info. Helen. We weren't worried about whether or not we were hypoglycemic at that point, but whether it was preferable or not to be there as a fasting level – or if that was out of the parameters of homeostasis.