Despite the lack of rain here, the mold reading in St. Louis is back up to high, as are the pollen levels of grass and ragweed. Since "Dysonizing*" the entire second floor of the house and "Idylisizing" the bedroom, my allergies/histamine issues have been much better. When i stepped out into the backyard, though, the fatigue recommenced -- the steamy, motionless air and relentless sunshine just flattened me. I've been forgoing wine (one short Campari-and-soda yesterday) most days but had some mushrooms during the course of the week. Heigh-ho, life is a balancing act....
My husband announced last night, over our dinner of leftovers, that he was going to start induction again today, so we're both back on the wagon. Just as well -- with our busy year and many recent trips, my weight has inched up two or three pounds with each excursion till my "skinny" size 6 jeans are on the snug side. (I completely wore out my "fat 8s" so there's no going back.) So my breakfast was bulletproof coffee (and J had his favorite scramble), then we went to Schnuck's and Costco and stocked up on dietary staples: ground beef, strip steaks, rib roast, chicken breasts and deli meat (to make breadless turkey clubs), pork rinds, eggs, cream cheese, and so on. J is banging around the kitchen as i type this, concocting meatloaf. There's both a duckling and a rack of lamb thawing in the sink.
Compare this to how i USED to feel going on a diet before LCHF! Dread and a grim tightening of the belt, as i anticipated hunger and dissatisfaction, and miserable hours on the treadmill or stationary bicycle. Thank all the gods that i got curious about that Atkins guy!
_________
* OMG i can't believe how much dust and hair that machine can pick up! i've been using a vintage Kirby, and it's been completely put to shame. The two bedside rugs from the rarely-used best guest room yielded as much debris to the Dyson as our bedroom historically surrendered to the old vacuum....
Showing posts with label Atkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atkins. Show all posts
Monday, August 26, 2013
Friday, June 7, 2013
and HOW can 1972 Atkins induction fail one?
I'll tell you -- and it ain't the lack of healthywholegrainsfruitsandvegetables. It's LETTUCE.
Vicious stuff. If you've read this blog for any length of time, you might have noticed my comments about the Salad of Doom; also that Dr. Donaldson of "Strong Medicine" fame says it's one of the hardest things to digest that there are. As a character reports in a book i love, he sometimes forgets he has asthma but asthma never forgets it has HIM -- it's the same with my digestive apparatus and that green leafy diet staple.
I wondered why i wasn't feeling a lot better and dropping pounds the way i should have. I was doing my damnedest to get plenty of good fats and calories, an appropriate amount of protein, and even forgoing wine. I've been sleeping well enough, not outrageously stressed, and although my allergies have been acting up a bit, it hasn't been miserable. The inflammation hasn't GONE from my left knee, but it's getting better. I realized early yesterday that one aspect of a healthily-running body wasn't quite what it ought to be ... and it HAS to be due to the lettuce.
That's the primary vegetable matter that Dr. Atkins originally sanctioned for the first week -- SALAD. I could happily have forgone any vegetable matter AT ALL (save coffee), but i wanted my husband's strict week to be less onerous. He's used to more variety in his meals than i had become accustomed to, and i wanted to indulge him as best one can, within the limits of induction rules. I can handle a leaf here and a leaf there, but a salad or two every day is too much for me.
Well, yesterday and today i topped off my morning coffee consumption with a cuppa that included a good chunk of grassfed beef tallow -- that trick has never let me down yet. I'm hoping that when the traffic jam disperses, the fat loss that HAS to have happened will become more apparent!
Vicious stuff. If you've read this blog for any length of time, you might have noticed my comments about the Salad of Doom; also that Dr. Donaldson of "Strong Medicine" fame says it's one of the hardest things to digest that there are. As a character reports in a book i love, he sometimes forgets he has asthma but asthma never forgets it has HIM -- it's the same with my digestive apparatus and that green leafy diet staple.
I wondered why i wasn't feeling a lot better and dropping pounds the way i should have. I was doing my damnedest to get plenty of good fats and calories, an appropriate amount of protein, and even forgoing wine. I've been sleeping well enough, not outrageously stressed, and although my allergies have been acting up a bit, it hasn't been miserable. The inflammation hasn't GONE from my left knee, but it's getting better. I realized early yesterday that one aspect of a healthily-running body wasn't quite what it ought to be ... and it HAS to be due to the lettuce.
That's the primary vegetable matter that Dr. Atkins originally sanctioned for the first week -- SALAD. I could happily have forgone any vegetable matter AT ALL (save coffee), but i wanted my husband's strict week to be less onerous. He's used to more variety in his meals than i had become accustomed to, and i wanted to indulge him as best one can, within the limits of induction rules. I can handle a leaf here and a leaf there, but a salad or two every day is too much for me.
Well, yesterday and today i topped off my morning coffee consumption with a cuppa that included a good chunk of grassfed beef tallow -- that trick has never let me down yet. I'm hoping that when the traffic jam disperses, the fat loss that HAS to have happened will become more apparent!
Monday, June 3, 2013
induction challenge
Since we returned from the cruise, my husband has been enthusiastic about buckling down and losing weight. Suits me! In solidarity, i started doing the original 1972 version of Dr. Atkins' induction with him. Of course, we do a cleaned-up version with minimized omega-6 fats, coconut milk/cream favored over dairy cream, and other tweaks of the like nature. We're both nixing alcohol this week. That's the hardest part! :-)
Although he's dropped 8 pounds since we got home on the 19th of May, he's disappointed it hasn't been going as fast as it did the first time. Every time his ketosticks are less than dark purple he feels a bit discouraged -- telling him that mine NEVER get that dark is no consolation.
I'm pleased to find that his blood glucose is in a healthy range! J has been so prone to growing skin-tags, and i understood that they're a sign of excessive insulin levels (but have no source for the idea).... He's been regularly checking BG in the mornings as well as using the ketosticks; both are good.
But of all the interesting things that Jackie Eberstein (Atkins' long-time nurse-assistant) said on the Low Carb Cruise, one thing sticks in my memory -- DO NOT expect your body to perform "the way it used to." This mind-trap may affect men in our age-bracket more than women, because women tend to see the changes very clearly, and men have fewer reminders. Age changes a lot of things in all of us, and the way we respond to dietary and nutritional input changes over time just like our responses to exercise do. Older people don't absorb nutrients as well, for one thing. We have to do more and try harder all the time, as our bodies actually resist our efforts at an increasing rate.
Before you say "upper 50s isn't OLD" remember that until comparatively recently it WAS considered reasonably advanced. Hell, 35 was "middle-aged" (half of that threescore-years-and-ten, you know). Just because 40 is the new 20 doesn't REALLY make us "young"....
We have to be more patient with ourselves, because we can't drop fat or put on muscle as well as we used to. We haven't escaped unscathed from the passing decades. We have to be more careful and less indulgent if we want to enjoy our retirement the way we want. Thank the gods for the benefits of low-carbing!
So we're chugging along with our diets as we also are with our house rehab. It's 117 years old -- no wonder it takes so long for it to start looking better! :-)
Although he's dropped 8 pounds since we got home on the 19th of May, he's disappointed it hasn't been going as fast as it did the first time. Every time his ketosticks are less than dark purple he feels a bit discouraged -- telling him that mine NEVER get that dark is no consolation.
I'm pleased to find that his blood glucose is in a healthy range! J has been so prone to growing skin-tags, and i understood that they're a sign of excessive insulin levels (but have no source for the idea).... He's been regularly checking BG in the mornings as well as using the ketosticks; both are good.
But of all the interesting things that Jackie Eberstein (Atkins' long-time nurse-assistant) said on the Low Carb Cruise, one thing sticks in my memory -- DO NOT expect your body to perform "the way it used to." This mind-trap may affect men in our age-bracket more than women, because women tend to see the changes very clearly, and men have fewer reminders. Age changes a lot of things in all of us, and the way we respond to dietary and nutritional input changes over time just like our responses to exercise do. Older people don't absorb nutrients as well, for one thing. We have to do more and try harder all the time, as our bodies actually resist our efforts at an increasing rate.
Before you say "upper 50s isn't OLD" remember that until comparatively recently it WAS considered reasonably advanced. Hell, 35 was "middle-aged" (half of that threescore-years-and-ten, you know). Just because 40 is the new 20 doesn't REALLY make us "young"....
We have to be more patient with ourselves, because we can't drop fat or put on muscle as well as we used to. We haven't escaped unscathed from the passing decades. We have to be more careful and less indulgent if we want to enjoy our retirement the way we want. Thank the gods for the benefits of low-carbing!
So we're chugging along with our diets as we also are with our house rehab. It's 117 years old -- no wonder it takes so long for it to start looking better! :-)
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
dawn of the challenge
The big news today is that Gary Taubes and Peter Attia have officially launched their new venture to challenge mainstream nutritional science, which has been such a dismal failure up to now. Glad to say, even astrology is on their side.
After reading that, i started looking at today's posts on a list of blogs that i consider "second string" for my purposes, and immediately got riled by Dr. Freedhoff's article on the subject. Not the first time -- i find some of his attitudes rather abrasive to my personality. His style of food-culture-bashing and mine are ... different. "What if everything you knew about nutrition was false?" Whaddaya mean, "what if"? IT IS FALSE ... if the "you" in this statement refers to CW.
Screw the "evidence" about Ewes AND Kitavans -- show me a culture in the MODERN world in which people eat like they do and stay lean IN MIDDLE AGE. Young bodies can get away with almost anything. Stress of city living screws up every tribe which enters it. The confounders to all these hypotheses are mind-boggling.
My recent success may be making me a little cocky, but the data from my body, and that which JM is currently reporting, AND what Wooo has been talking about for YEARS is all on the same page: if you're "of a certain age" OR have never had the physiological perfection of someone living in a technologically-limited tropical backwater, extreme carbohydrate restriction may be the only thing that could save your health!
Personally, i wish the best to NuSI -- they've got a tough row to hoe, because a lot of industrial-food money as well as the moribund weight of the medical business are against them. :-/ They even have the problem of Mr. Taubes' unpopularity to deal with, and Dr. Atkins could tell them what that's like.... I don't agree with everything the former and Dr. Attia have written, but they're SO MUCH closer to the mark than the ADA, it isn't worth quibbling.
After reading that, i started looking at today's posts on a list of blogs that i consider "second string" for my purposes, and immediately got riled by Dr. Freedhoff's article on the subject. Not the first time -- i find some of his attitudes rather abrasive to my personality. His style of food-culture-bashing and mine are ... different. "What if everything you knew about nutrition was false?" Whaddaya mean, "what if"? IT IS FALSE ... if the "you" in this statement refers to CW.
Screw the "evidence" about Ewes AND Kitavans -- show me a culture in the MODERN world in which people eat like they do and stay lean IN MIDDLE AGE. Young bodies can get away with almost anything. Stress of city living screws up every tribe which enters it. The confounders to all these hypotheses are mind-boggling.
My recent success may be making me a little cocky, but the data from my body, and that which JM is currently reporting, AND what Wooo has been talking about for YEARS is all on the same page: if you're "of a certain age" OR have never had the physiological perfection of someone living in a technologically-limited tropical backwater, extreme carbohydrate restriction may be the only thing that could save your health!
Personally, i wish the best to NuSI -- they've got a tough row to hoe, because a lot of industrial-food money as well as the moribund weight of the medical business are against them. :-/ They even have the problem of Mr. Taubes' unpopularity to deal with, and Dr. Atkins could tell them what that's like.... I don't agree with everything the former and Dr. Attia have written, but they're SO MUCH closer to the mark than the ADA, it isn't worth quibbling.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
actually, they ARE doing it wrong
I hesitated about writing the above, because it smacks of that arrogance that we all hate in some of the bloggers out there. [aa-aa-aah-stephACHOOOOO!] ;-)
I read a number of Jimmy Moore's posts on his n=1 experiments yesterday, and came to the sad conclusion that, no matter how much experience you have at low-carbing, it's EASY to do it wrong. Wrong, like Jimmy did while he was regaining some of the weight he lost, and couldn't figure out how to get rid of again.
If i were going to coach a first-time low-carber, i would stress how "low-carb treats" are traps for the unwary. I would tell them that weighing and measuring is the only safe way to know, as best anyone can, how many grams one is eating. I would recommend eating large enough meals that snacks wouldn't be desired. I'd make a point of the fact that "eating as much as you want" ONLY means you CAN find satiation on the right foods, but it does NOT mean "eating as much as you want as long as it's low-carb" will allow you to lose weight at that level.
The first time each of us started Atkins (or whatever it was), we were coming from a mixed-food diet in which we were burning a lot of glucose. And we TRIED to be perfect -- it was new, and we had to pay attention to what we were doing. Under these circumstances we lose weight very quickly and easily. At the end of the first two weeks, a lot of us loosened up a little on our food choices as Dr. A allowed: MISTAKE.
Because we started eating nuts and more processed meats and cheeses, those yummy low-carb snacks that are ALLOWED because compared to other snacks they're ... low in carbs. We started using heavy cream to make desserts, and baking with alternative flours, both ideas that simply encourage us to eat more food in general AND increasing carbohydrates in particular. Did we measure how much almond flour we were actually consuming, or did we just say "three net carbs -- i can afford that."
Jimmy was surprised when he first started using his blood ketone meter, because he thought he was in ketosis already and he found he wasn't really there. This is a seasoned low-carber, folks! A successful one, though he had regained some of the weight he originally lost.
I read somewhere (and i'm convinced it's true) that as we continue with a controlled-carb lifestyle, we get more adept at USING the ketones our bodies produce, and much less energy is spilled down the toilet. My ketostix have very rarely turned a dark pink, and even these days when i'm eating a VERY low carbohydrate diet, they're pretty pale. I HAVE to be making and burning ketones because my body has no alternative, but i'm obviously wasting a lot less, too.
Another thing that Jimmy found was that when he was in the range of 0.5-3.0 mmol, his appetite was suddenly tamed. Dare i suggest that if one is eating low-carb and yet still slave to one's food-seeking urges, one is not properly in ketosis...?
His experiences with his meter makes me rather want one, but i'm too scotch to spring for the $6/strip price tag -- i can buy a day's worth of grassfed ground beef for that! I guess i'll have to be content with my pale ketostix and a curbed appetite.
I read a number of Jimmy Moore's posts on his n=1 experiments yesterday, and came to the sad conclusion that, no matter how much experience you have at low-carbing, it's EASY to do it wrong. Wrong, like Jimmy did while he was regaining some of the weight he lost, and couldn't figure out how to get rid of again.
If i were going to coach a first-time low-carber, i would stress how "low-carb treats" are traps for the unwary. I would tell them that weighing and measuring is the only safe way to know, as best anyone can, how many grams one is eating. I would recommend eating large enough meals that snacks wouldn't be desired. I'd make a point of the fact that "eating as much as you want" ONLY means you CAN find satiation on the right foods, but it does NOT mean "eating as much as you want as long as it's low-carb" will allow you to lose weight at that level.
The first time each of us started Atkins (or whatever it was), we were coming from a mixed-food diet in which we were burning a lot of glucose. And we TRIED to be perfect -- it was new, and we had to pay attention to what we were doing. Under these circumstances we lose weight very quickly and easily. At the end of the first two weeks, a lot of us loosened up a little on our food choices as Dr. A allowed: MISTAKE.
Because we started eating nuts and more processed meats and cheeses, those yummy low-carb snacks that are ALLOWED because compared to other snacks they're ... low in carbs. We started using heavy cream to make desserts, and baking with alternative flours, both ideas that simply encourage us to eat more food in general AND increasing carbohydrates in particular. Did we measure how much almond flour we were actually consuming, or did we just say "three net carbs -- i can afford that."
Jimmy was surprised when he first started using his blood ketone meter, because he thought he was in ketosis already and he found he wasn't really there. This is a seasoned low-carber, folks! A successful one, though he had regained some of the weight he originally lost.
I read somewhere (and i'm convinced it's true) that as we continue with a controlled-carb lifestyle, we get more adept at USING the ketones our bodies produce, and much less energy is spilled down the toilet. My ketostix have very rarely turned a dark pink, and even these days when i'm eating a VERY low carbohydrate diet, they're pretty pale. I HAVE to be making and burning ketones because my body has no alternative, but i'm obviously wasting a lot less, too.
Another thing that Jimmy found was that when he was in the range of 0.5-3.0 mmol, his appetite was suddenly tamed. Dare i suggest that if one is eating low-carb and yet still slave to one's food-seeking urges, one is not properly in ketosis...?
His experiences with his meter makes me rather want one, but i'm too scotch to spring for the $6/strip price tag -- i can buy a day's worth of grassfed ground beef for that! I guess i'll have to be content with my pale ketostix and a curbed appetite.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
my understanding of "yeast"
Mark has yet another interesting article today, on the question of candida overgrowth. He makes one point that i'm incredulous about, but it's only in the comment section that things get out-of-focus.
First thing that i did: get out the updated Atkins book (i may have to find myself a copy of the original, as that is said to have interesting differences), and read what he had to say. I was hoping for references to studies, but was disappointed; he reports, "I think that the complete explanation of what Candida overgrowth does to the human body is still well in the future. But I do know from my medical practice that this is a problem that can cripple weight loss efforts."
To begin with, although Atkins specifically mentions candida albicans, he quickly starts talking about other yeasts and molds, because if you have a candida problem, you are likely to have trouble with a lot of its "relatives" too. Well, i learned long ago that allergies are "cumulative" -- you can be in contact with things to which you're sensitive, but until these irritants reach some kind of threshold, they won't make you suffer. If i'm in contact with corn chips and salsa, i MAY not feel it unless i go into my basement on a rainy day, OR the oak-trees are pollinating, OR the Bradford pears are in bloom, OR i'm in Wyoming on a windy day, OR ... so on.
So if you eat a lot of "low-carb paleo-friendly" foods such as cheese, vinegar, mushrooms, sauerkraut, sour cream, nuts, bacon and wine, you're adding yeast/mold-bearing foods to whatever environmental sensitivities you have. Is the stuffy head you get after a meal, a symptom of candida overgrowth? Not specifically, but it's definitely a sign that you've got more "yeast" on board than your body can cope with. Atkins states, "It is important to remember that yeast overgrowth stresses the immune system, undermining your total health."
And we CAN measure an abnormal growth of candida in the feces and the blood, so i find the arguments in Mark's comment section completely absurd, that "I’m not impressed with this article, probably because 'candidiasis' is so overblown. Your article acknowledges that intestinal candida infection is not a recognized medical disease, the symptoms are vague and there are no reliable tests to diagnose it, and yet you think you know how to cure it?" ... Shall we start counting the number of things that are/were "not a recognized medical disease" and which ARE things that can be overcome by means of diet and lifestyle?
"Strong Medicine" has several chapters illuminating the vast number of illnesses which can be of allergenic origin. Even if candida albicans isn't PRIMARILY responsible for some of these allergic responses, there's every reason to believe that it contributes to the overall burden, so controlling it becomes one of the logical aims of allergy treatment. Donaldson recommends doing this by means of his "allergy bandwagon" -- eliminating wheat, dairy (except butter), chocolate and eggs for all patients, and a longer list for the more sensitive.
Atkins recommended an elimination test for those of his patients who seemed to have allergy-related problems, with the suspicious items of diet being those high-yeast/mold foods like cheese, which i listed above. But the thing that he believed would feed candida and its co-irritants most...? "The worst offender is sugar. It is the major growth factor for yeast, and Candida patients are invariably warned to stay away from ice cream, candy, pastry, corn syrup, maple syrup, molasses, etc. If you're doing Atkins, there's certainly no possibility you're eating any of that. You'll also be avoiding the natural sugar in fruit juice and lactose in milk."
THIS is where i disagree with Mark's point of view on candida, etc. -- he goes with Jaminet's pronouncement on the subject, and i think it's absurd. "Paul Jaminet, who suffered from candida overgrowth, argues that since candida (being eukaryotes) have mitochondria that can feed on both ketones and carbs (as opposed to prokaryote bacteria without mitochondria), going very low carb or ketogenic will only provide more fuel for the overgrowth. Furthermore, since ketones are water-soluble and pass easily through cellular membranes, ketones will actually be a more accessible food source for candida. Don’t go high-carb, since any extra glucose will just be food for the yeast, but don’t go ketogenic, either."
It just doesn't make any sense! Granted that these buggies can eat EITHER glucose or ketones, what the hell difference does it make WHICH you feed them? But MY CELLS definitely prefer ketones and FFAs, so i'm damned if i'll eat for the bugs i don't want!
First thing that i did: get out the updated Atkins book (i may have to find myself a copy of the original, as that is said to have interesting differences), and read what he had to say. I was hoping for references to studies, but was disappointed; he reports, "I think that the complete explanation of what Candida overgrowth does to the human body is still well in the future. But I do know from my medical practice that this is a problem that can cripple weight loss efforts."
To begin with, although Atkins specifically mentions candida albicans, he quickly starts talking about other yeasts and molds, because if you have a candida problem, you are likely to have trouble with a lot of its "relatives" too. Well, i learned long ago that allergies are "cumulative" -- you can be in contact with things to which you're sensitive, but until these irritants reach some kind of threshold, they won't make you suffer. If i'm in contact with corn chips and salsa, i MAY not feel it unless i go into my basement on a rainy day, OR the oak-trees are pollinating, OR the Bradford pears are in bloom, OR i'm in Wyoming on a windy day, OR ... so on.
So if you eat a lot of "low-carb paleo-friendly" foods such as cheese, vinegar, mushrooms, sauerkraut, sour cream, nuts, bacon and wine, you're adding yeast/mold-bearing foods to whatever environmental sensitivities you have. Is the stuffy head you get after a meal, a symptom of candida overgrowth? Not specifically, but it's definitely a sign that you've got more "yeast" on board than your body can cope with. Atkins states, "It is important to remember that yeast overgrowth stresses the immune system, undermining your total health."
And we CAN measure an abnormal growth of candida in the feces and the blood, so i find the arguments in Mark's comment section completely absurd, that "I’m not impressed with this article, probably because 'candidiasis' is so overblown. Your article acknowledges that intestinal candida infection is not a recognized medical disease, the symptoms are vague and there are no reliable tests to diagnose it, and yet you think you know how to cure it?" ... Shall we start counting the number of things that are/were "not a recognized medical disease" and which ARE things that can be overcome by means of diet and lifestyle?
"Strong Medicine" has several chapters illuminating the vast number of illnesses which can be of allergenic origin. Even if candida albicans isn't PRIMARILY responsible for some of these allergic responses, there's every reason to believe that it contributes to the overall burden, so controlling it becomes one of the logical aims of allergy treatment. Donaldson recommends doing this by means of his "allergy bandwagon" -- eliminating wheat, dairy (except butter), chocolate and eggs for all patients, and a longer list for the more sensitive.
Atkins recommended an elimination test for those of his patients who seemed to have allergy-related problems, with the suspicious items of diet being those high-yeast/mold foods like cheese, which i listed above. But the thing that he believed would feed candida and its co-irritants most...? "The worst offender is sugar. It is the major growth factor for yeast, and Candida patients are invariably warned to stay away from ice cream, candy, pastry, corn syrup, maple syrup, molasses, etc. If you're doing Atkins, there's certainly no possibility you're eating any of that. You'll also be avoiding the natural sugar in fruit juice and lactose in milk."
THIS is where i disagree with Mark's point of view on candida, etc. -- he goes with Jaminet's pronouncement on the subject, and i think it's absurd. "Paul Jaminet, who suffered from candida overgrowth, argues that since candida (being eukaryotes) have mitochondria that can feed on both ketones and carbs (as opposed to prokaryote bacteria without mitochondria), going very low carb or ketogenic will only provide more fuel for the overgrowth. Furthermore, since ketones are water-soluble and pass easily through cellular membranes, ketones will actually be a more accessible food source for candida. Don’t go high-carb, since any extra glucose will just be food for the yeast, but don’t go ketogenic, either."
It just doesn't make any sense! Granted that these buggies can eat EITHER glucose or ketones, what the hell difference does it make WHICH you feed them? But MY CELLS definitely prefer ketones and FFAs, so i'm damned if i'll eat for the bugs i don't want!
Friday, August 24, 2012
good sleep, good morning -- just CORRELATION
Yes, i took melatonin last night. I woke up slightly in the wee-small hours, but drifted right off again. Got somewhere around ten hours of good rest, making up for the two previous nights.
I woke up cheerful, serene and alert; the scale was down another half-pound. I was WICKED yesterday, and had a couple of cocktails (home made -- only significant sugar was in the ounce or two of Cointreau) with my pound of meat (over two meals), and my supper was a good-sized glass of home-made raw-milk kefir.
Since i had tired myself out on wednesday, patching plaster in my still-renovating living room (it was all the ladder-climbing), i took it easy yesterday and included a long hot bath. No walkies, only one or two trips to the basement and none to the attic.
Am i going to advocate this as a perfect formula for weight loss? HELL no!
Just because a sugar-containing increase in carbs for one day RESULTED in weight loss, doesn't suggest to me that yesterday's intake was optimal. It was just delicious and satisfying. If i repeated it, the scale would probably be up tomorrow.
In looking at the recent iniquitous studies that condemn red meat and egg yolks and all those foods WE have been improving our health with, paleo/low-carb authors are always decrying the confusing of correlation with causation. But ya know what i've noticed? They don't mind mere correlation at all, when results tell them something they want to hear. Chairs kill? Standing-desks are best? People who walk or bike to work are thinner? I don't think anyone has even done a randomized, controlled study on those things. Why are they considered gospel? Because it fits into people's belief systems.
Now, i'm not one to deride anecdotal evidence. In many cases -- like, when Drs. Atkins or Davis observe hundreds of patients improve health with the removal of sugar, wheat, vegetable oil, whatever from their diets -- THIS is powerful evidence and more likely to be true than a BigPharm trial that's rigged from the start. You just have to make sure that the people telling the anecdote are on the same page with you.
So today, i'm going to resist the temptation to repeat my good-resulting behavior of yesterday. My breakfast was a good-sized serving of Italian Almond Cream (an Atkins recipe -- if you've never tried it, you SHOULD -- delicious!) with my coffee. I think i'll have a steak for lunch/dinner, but no cocktail-hour today. Since i've had such good luck on weight this week, i won't anticipate the scale going down for several days.
That should correlate with long-term success.
I woke up cheerful, serene and alert; the scale was down another half-pound. I was WICKED yesterday, and had a couple of cocktails (home made -- only significant sugar was in the ounce or two of Cointreau) with my pound of meat (over two meals), and my supper was a good-sized glass of home-made raw-milk kefir.
Since i had tired myself out on wednesday, patching plaster in my still-renovating living room (it was all the ladder-climbing), i took it easy yesterday and included a long hot bath. No walkies, only one or two trips to the basement and none to the attic.
Am i going to advocate this as a perfect formula for weight loss? HELL no!
Just because a sugar-containing increase in carbs for one day RESULTED in weight loss, doesn't suggest to me that yesterday's intake was optimal. It was just delicious and satisfying. If i repeated it, the scale would probably be up tomorrow.
In looking at the recent iniquitous studies that condemn red meat and egg yolks and all those foods WE have been improving our health with, paleo/low-carb authors are always decrying the confusing of correlation with causation. But ya know what i've noticed? They don't mind mere correlation at all, when results tell them something they want to hear. Chairs kill? Standing-desks are best? People who walk or bike to work are thinner? I don't think anyone has even done a randomized, controlled study on those things. Why are they considered gospel? Because it fits into people's belief systems.
Now, i'm not one to deride anecdotal evidence. In many cases -- like, when Drs. Atkins or Davis observe hundreds of patients improve health with the removal of sugar, wheat, vegetable oil, whatever from their diets -- THIS is powerful evidence and more likely to be true than a BigPharm trial that's rigged from the start. You just have to make sure that the people telling the anecdote are on the same page with you.
So today, i'm going to resist the temptation to repeat my good-resulting behavior of yesterday. My breakfast was a good-sized serving of Italian Almond Cream (an Atkins recipe -- if you've never tried it, you SHOULD -- delicious!) with my coffee. I think i'll have a steak for lunch/dinner, but no cocktail-hour today. Since i've had such good luck on weight this week, i won't anticipate the scale going down for several days.
That should correlate with long-term success.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
as Roseanne Rosannadanna's daddy used to say...
Doggone it, i was hoping to have more to say after almost a week of using carnitine*, but Mother Nature has been picking on me for the last few days. The good news is, it's no longer 105 degrees in the shade, but the bad news is that the increased precipitation has driven the air quality into the orange zone. Mold. I've been struggling with a headache and sinus issues since Monday. :-(
The first time i read Dr. Atkins' book, almost a decade ago, i was surprised and interested to learn how much my allergies affected my metabolic health. I don't remember suffering from "hay fever" as a child, but it got pretty bad when i was in my 20s. Maybe i was infected by a new strain of yeast when i moved to a more humid place that didn't get weather as cold in the winters? Whatever the case may be, i've got it now.
I picked up a sensitivity to oak pollen and yarrow in Texas, to goldenrod, ragweed and Bradford-pear pollen in Oklahoma, and to sage pollen in Utah. The worst offender here is the mold, which makes me miserable when i need to do laundry in humid weather -- my washer is in the basement, where 116 years' worth of molds/mildew have found refuge.
The respiratory symptoms got a lot better when i went low-carb, but i still keep benedryl on hand for when the wrong irritants are in the air, or when i have chores to do downstairs. At least i KNOW now that antihistamine-time indicates poor weight-loss results -- it makes things less frustrating when i eat "perfectly" and see no progress on the scales. (Actually, this week hasn't been bad in THAT regard.)
But as Rosanne Rosannadanna's daddy used to say, "It's always somethin'." :-P
________
* For what it's worth, the carnitine experiment SEEMS to be going well -- at least i see no indication that the theoretical lowering of thyroid function is true!
The first time i read Dr. Atkins' book, almost a decade ago, i was surprised and interested to learn how much my allergies affected my metabolic health. I don't remember suffering from "hay fever" as a child, but it got pretty bad when i was in my 20s. Maybe i was infected by a new strain of yeast when i moved to a more humid place that didn't get weather as cold in the winters? Whatever the case may be, i've got it now.
I picked up a sensitivity to oak pollen and yarrow in Texas, to goldenrod, ragweed and Bradford-pear pollen in Oklahoma, and to sage pollen in Utah. The worst offender here is the mold, which makes me miserable when i need to do laundry in humid weather -- my washer is in the basement, where 116 years' worth of molds/mildew have found refuge.
The respiratory symptoms got a lot better when i went low-carb, but i still keep benedryl on hand for when the wrong irritants are in the air, or when i have chores to do downstairs. At least i KNOW now that antihistamine-time indicates poor weight-loss results -- it makes things less frustrating when i eat "perfectly" and see no progress on the scales. (Actually, this week hasn't been bad in THAT regard.)
But as Rosanne Rosannadanna's daddy used to say, "It's always somethin'." :-P
________
* For what it's worth, the carnitine experiment SEEMS to be going well -- at least i see no indication that the theoretical lowering of thyroid function is true!
Friday, July 27, 2012
what is it about plant foods?
This is Day Two of dealing with one of those annoying little upticks of the scale....
On Wednesday, i had to go out into the world, and i thought it was about time for the mini-binge which customarily does good things for me. I lunched at a certain restaurant which offers a very good taco salad, and included some guacamole and sour cream instead of a commercial dressing. I didn't get anything so wicked as a sweet-sour-laden margarita -- oh, no! I had ONE glass of a pleasant, civilized red wine. Next morning, i wasn't surprised that the scale had stagnated, and just hit the half-caf hard, thinking that would run the water out of my body. I finished the take-home box of salad-and-guac; no 'rita, no chips. Supper was a tin of sardines and a glass of wine.
The scale should have been down this morning. It was up. Two days in a row, i had a significant quantity of lettuce, a small amount of other salad vegetables, moderate animal protein and maybe an ounce of cheese (just on Wednesday). I didn't exceed 1350 calories (estimated, since i didn't compile the recipes) the second day, or 1600 the first.
I swear, if i had lettuce in the fridge, i'd do a day of nothing else, and i bet the scale would be up again tomorrow. What is it about plant foods that makes my body misbehave so?
In "Strong Medicine," Donaldson says, "Green vegetables can contain unknown irritants, aside from additive sprays, that bother some of us a great deal. Annoying intestinal gases or joint pains or sudden elevations of blood pressure may all stop when such patients are deprived of green vegetables. I have one family who love asparagus and have a big patch of it to feast on during the season. The whole family run elevated blood pressures at that time." Now, the intestinal gases we can explain very easily, but the other symptoms he mentions are a little more mysterious in their etiology.*
On Wednesday, i had to go out into the world, and i thought it was about time for the mini-binge which customarily does good things for me. I lunched at a certain restaurant which offers a very good taco salad, and included some guacamole and sour cream instead of a commercial dressing. I didn't get anything so wicked as a sweet-sour-laden margarita -- oh, no! I had ONE glass of a pleasant, civilized red wine. Next morning, i wasn't surprised that the scale had stagnated, and just hit the half-caf hard, thinking that would run the water out of my body. I finished the take-home box of salad-and-guac; no 'rita, no chips. Supper was a tin of sardines and a glass of wine.
The scale should have been down this morning. It was up. Two days in a row, i had a significant quantity of lettuce, a small amount of other salad vegetables, moderate animal protein and maybe an ounce of cheese (just on Wednesday). I didn't exceed 1350 calories (estimated, since i didn't compile the recipes) the second day, or 1600 the first.
I swear, if i had lettuce in the fridge, i'd do a day of nothing else, and i bet the scale would be up again tomorrow. What is it about plant foods that makes my body misbehave so?
In "Strong Medicine," Donaldson says, "Green vegetables can contain unknown irritants, aside from additive sprays, that bother some of us a great deal. Annoying intestinal gases or joint pains or sudden elevations of blood pressure may all stop when such patients are deprived of green vegetables. I have one family who love asparagus and have a big patch of it to feast on during the season. The whole family run elevated blood pressures at that time." Now, the intestinal gases we can explain very easily, but the other symptoms he mentions are a little more mysterious in their etiology.*
He goes on to say, "No one knows why the yellow vegetables seem better tolerated by children who have a background of eczema. Onions and beets and celery can sometimes be used with no apparent ill effect, but yellow vegetables always seem to be safer, perhaps because they aren't sprayed." Unfortunately, he doesn't list the items he characterizes as "yellow" but by inference he seems to include carrots, corn, winter squash and turnips. He praises real sweet potatoes and the better varieties of white ones. You'll notice that most of these foodstuffs either grow underground, or have some kind of protective "casing".
Dare i take a leap of intuition and suggest that above-ground plants (green ones) produce more self-protective toxins than edible portions which, being underground, don't need to conduct chemical warfare as much?
Amongst zero-carb enthusiasts, it's postulated that there are enough plant toxins in vegetables to make them poor choices for those of us who are sensitive. In fact, the antioxidant chemicals, ironically labeled "protective," seem to be the ones that irritate us most. Proponents of hormesis say these substances do us good BECAUSE they irritate us; although some people may benefit from it, i'm not sure we all do.
When doing my research on what foods are goitrogenic, a staggering array of "healthy" foods become distinctly deleterious. As a hypothyroid, i should avoid most of the "green leafy" things that every health-fiend from vegan to paleo can agree to ... agree to. ;-) Broccoli, kale, apples -- kiss 'em goodbye! Oh, they're okay if i boil the hell out of them, though....
I believe that plant toxins are a big reason why Atkins and Paleo/Primal only give outstanding results when people come to them from the SAD. Getting the virulent poisons out of your diet only gets you part of the way. The chronic trace poisoning that people love so much is what stands between some of us and real health.
__________
* i have my suspicions.... more on that later.
Friday, June 29, 2012
low-carb diets get a boost in reputation
The recent news of the small-but-significant randomized controlled trial is being celebrated amongst believers in low-carb lifestyles. A few major media sources have published things with the usual uninformed comments against, but so far the "insulin deniers" in the blogosphere haven't said an awful lot. (But i have every confidence they will, as soon as they quit scratching their heads.)
The big reason this makes me happy is, "nonresidents of the blogosphere" such as my mother, neighbor, sisters, and some friends may now hear from an "authoritative" source that LC ways of eating are not just fads and gimmicks, but are scientifically sound. To ME, it doesn't matter in the least.
I don't need official confirmation of what i already know to be true: VLC is the only healthful diet for me at this time in my life. Having the NIH study and JAMA publication is convenient, so i have someplace to refer people, that's all. Even IF the low-GI arm of the study had been shown to be more effective, i wouldn't change my ways.
I know what works for ME. That's all that's important ... to me. ;-) If other people add in potatoes and are suddenly able to lose more weight, hurrah for them. For me, it doesn't work that way.
It's not like we haven't known for a long time that higher-protein diets are more thermogenic -- some of Peter's old postings that i've been re-reading lately stated that clearly (and in passing, as though this is information EVERYBODY KNOWS). It's just that this is a nicely-done (by all accounts) study that is harder to pick apart than something that might have been financed by the Atkins Foundation, for example.
So i'm not gonna crow, but i WILL be quietly satisfied by this small victory. WE probably won't be helped by it, and THEY won't be swayed from their potatoes by it, but the ordinary person-on-the-street who has been failing to make progress via CW will have a better chance for rethinking his/her path now, as a result of it. Those are the people who need it.
The big reason this makes me happy is, "nonresidents of the blogosphere" such as my mother, neighbor, sisters, and some friends may now hear from an "authoritative" source that LC ways of eating are not just fads and gimmicks, but are scientifically sound. To ME, it doesn't matter in the least.
I don't need official confirmation of what i already know to be true: VLC is the only healthful diet for me at this time in my life. Having the NIH study and JAMA publication is convenient, so i have someplace to refer people, that's all. Even IF the low-GI arm of the study had been shown to be more effective, i wouldn't change my ways.
I know what works for ME. That's all that's important ... to me. ;-) If other people add in potatoes and are suddenly able to lose more weight, hurrah for them. For me, it doesn't work that way.
It's not like we haven't known for a long time that higher-protein diets are more thermogenic -- some of Peter's old postings that i've been re-reading lately stated that clearly (and in passing, as though this is information EVERYBODY KNOWS). It's just that this is a nicely-done (by all accounts) study that is harder to pick apart than something that might have been financed by the Atkins Foundation, for example.
So i'm not gonna crow, but i WILL be quietly satisfied by this small victory. WE probably won't be helped by it, and THEY won't be swayed from their potatoes by it, but the ordinary person-on-the-street who has been failing to make progress via CW will have a better chance for rethinking his/her path now, as a result of it. Those are the people who need it.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
radical health improvement from diet X
Every time i hear about a spectacular health turn-around after a person changes his/her dietary style, the first thing i want to know is, exactly what was changed?
Yep, a Real Home Cooking diet, in which whole foods replace CIAB will make the whole family feel, look and perform better, even if it contains the worst grains and beans in the world. Most plant toxins aren't nearly as nasty as some of the man-made ones which flood the food supplies of modern countries!
I heard the success story of Terry Wahls, and i couldn't be more happy for her! Especially considering her profession, this is a coup for advocates of nutritionally-based medical treatment; she's harder to shrug off than most of us grunts. AND she's very vocal about her situation; :-D ...i do so admire the people who get out there and fight for what i believe in, but into which i am not willing to pour my whole life's-energy. But do i think that her diet is optimal for universal health? No, at least not for me.
The "wow factor" of dietary change frequently depends upon your starting point. Mine has been changing step-wise, and to see how my health has improved i have to search my memory for details that are confounded by (comparative) youth, fitness, etc.
I started out from i categorized above as a Real Home Cooking diet. I grew up eating white bread and corn oil, but at least we always COOKED. Frequent eating-out didn't happen till about twenty years ago, and i had been fighting the battle of the bulge before that. As food-and-supplement fads came and went, i never noticed a significant improvement with ANYTHING until i added systemic enzymes to my daily routine. I suspect i was developing fibromyalgia; i would sit with my feet up and vaguely ache all over. My chronic fatigue i attributed to the hypothyroidism.
So, first enzymes actually promoted some improvement, then my doctor recommended iodine supplementation, and that helped much more. I went on Atkins next, and my general improvement was immensely noticeable. No more morning brain fog, significantly improved allergies, better energy, and weight-loss without constant hunger. I was a FAN.
The biggest reason that low-carbing didn't result in all the weight-loss i could ever have wanted was the temptation to add foods in too soon. One sees all those opportunities to again eat the things the low-fat-me had been denying myself so long.... And, as an enthusiastic cook, i was also hot to adapt old recipes to the new philosophy, and got caught in the carb-creep that is so hard to resist. I screwed up.
I don't remember what led me to Mark's Daily Apple, but it was my portal to the paleo/primal world. I no longer link his site from mine, but it's still one of the first to which i send my paleo-curious friends. Like so many other eating plans, if you go straight to it from the SAD your results will be absolutely stunning: i didn't, so mine were much less noticeable. Not perfect, and nor is the Perfect Health Diet ... for me.
What DID produce jaw-dropping IMPROVEMENT for me was the Personal Paleo Code program, and the Strong Medicine protocol i tried after it. In my case, i found out that health challenges have been all about dietary intolerances and "personal toxins."
So yeah: a veg*n diet will be beneficial ... if you ate absolutely horrible things before. So will Atkins, despite the highly-questionable ingredients in their trademarked products. So will a low-fat diet, if you go from lots of omega-6 oils to almost none (and can stand the hunger).
To eat OPTIMALLY is going to take a lot of n=1 experimentation. Eat only things that are "never" toxic or allergenic for a month, then add things back one at a time, slowly. It's ILLUMINATING.
Yep, a Real Home Cooking diet, in which whole foods replace CIAB will make the whole family feel, look and perform better, even if it contains the worst grains and beans in the world. Most plant toxins aren't nearly as nasty as some of the man-made ones which flood the food supplies of modern countries!
I heard the success story of Terry Wahls, and i couldn't be more happy for her! Especially considering her profession, this is a coup for advocates of nutritionally-based medical treatment; she's harder to shrug off than most of us grunts. AND she's very vocal about her situation; :-D ...i do so admire the people who get out there and fight for what i believe in, but into which i am not willing to pour my whole life's-energy. But do i think that her diet is optimal for universal health? No, at least not for me.
The "wow factor" of dietary change frequently depends upon your starting point. Mine has been changing step-wise, and to see how my health has improved i have to search my memory for details that are confounded by (comparative) youth, fitness, etc.
I started out from i categorized above as a Real Home Cooking diet. I grew up eating white bread and corn oil, but at least we always COOKED. Frequent eating-out didn't happen till about twenty years ago, and i had been fighting the battle of the bulge before that. As food-and-supplement fads came and went, i never noticed a significant improvement with ANYTHING until i added systemic enzymes to my daily routine. I suspect i was developing fibromyalgia; i would sit with my feet up and vaguely ache all over. My chronic fatigue i attributed to the hypothyroidism.
So, first enzymes actually promoted some improvement, then my doctor recommended iodine supplementation, and that helped much more. I went on Atkins next, and my general improvement was immensely noticeable. No more morning brain fog, significantly improved allergies, better energy, and weight-loss without constant hunger. I was a FAN.
The biggest reason that low-carbing didn't result in all the weight-loss i could ever have wanted was the temptation to add foods in too soon. One sees all those opportunities to again eat the things the low-fat-me had been denying myself so long.... And, as an enthusiastic cook, i was also hot to adapt old recipes to the new philosophy, and got caught in the carb-creep that is so hard to resist. I screwed up.
I don't remember what led me to Mark's Daily Apple, but it was my portal to the paleo/primal world. I no longer link his site from mine, but it's still one of the first to which i send my paleo-curious friends. Like so many other eating plans, if you go straight to it from the SAD your results will be absolutely stunning: i didn't, so mine were much less noticeable. Not perfect, and nor is the Perfect Health Diet ... for me.
What DID produce jaw-dropping IMPROVEMENT for me was the Personal Paleo Code program, and the Strong Medicine protocol i tried after it. In my case, i found out that health challenges have been all about dietary intolerances and "personal toxins."
So yeah: a veg*n diet will be beneficial ... if you ate absolutely horrible things before. So will Atkins, despite the highly-questionable ingredients in their trademarked products. So will a low-fat diet, if you go from lots of omega-6 oils to almost none (and can stand the hunger).
To eat OPTIMALLY is going to take a lot of n=1 experimentation. Eat only things that are "never" toxic or allergenic for a month, then add things back one at a time, slowly. It's ILLUMINATING.
Friday, June 1, 2012
sometimes, fasting just FEELS good!
With one thing and another, my dietary habits have been VERY discombobulated this week! I did well at my event, but not at my daughter's house. It's a social thing -- we talk a lot and drink more wine absent-mindedly, then our inhibitions are down and we eat things we shouldn't. Yesterday i fasted till mid-afternoon, and i felt significantly better ... till i overloaded at dinnertime. My digestion felt very "off." This morning, even coffee doesn't sound very good.
Here in the Houston area, it never gets COLD, ever. Nor does the humidity ever go away. Mold is a problem, and i'm sensitive to it.
When an animal doesn't feel well, it goes off its feed, and even children instinctively lose their appetites when under the weather (till their ignorant parents succumb to marketing, and ply them with drugs and drinks). Nature knows what she's doing.
I've learned from Nature, too -- our afflicted digestive systems "reset" themselves best when not burdened with input. I'll be taking it MUCH easier today, and staying away from "yeast" foods like cheese, wine, mushrooms, etc.
Dr. Donaldson, in "Strong Medicine," spoke extensively about allergy, and Dr. Atkins devoted a couple of chapters to food sensitivity as well. The variety of unpleasant symptoms possible when one eats "incompatible" things is truly impressive. Who would think that a little sugar would result in sinus issues ... but it can. Ditto for pollen in the air and weight loss, and for a surprising range of foodstuffs and athlete's-foot. One of most beneficial effects of an all-fresh-meat diet MAY just be its low-histidine aspects.
Thank heavens i have some potato-based gin to fall back on if needed -- less reactive than things like wine and grain alcohols! Alcohol HAS therapeutic uses, after all.... ;-)
Here in the Houston area, it never gets COLD, ever. Nor does the humidity ever go away. Mold is a problem, and i'm sensitive to it.
When an animal doesn't feel well, it goes off its feed, and even children instinctively lose their appetites when under the weather (till their ignorant parents succumb to marketing, and ply them with drugs and drinks). Nature knows what she's doing.
I've learned from Nature, too -- our afflicted digestive systems "reset" themselves best when not burdened with input. I'll be taking it MUCH easier today, and staying away from "yeast" foods like cheese, wine, mushrooms, etc.
Dr. Donaldson, in "Strong Medicine," spoke extensively about allergy, and Dr. Atkins devoted a couple of chapters to food sensitivity as well. The variety of unpleasant symptoms possible when one eats "incompatible" things is truly impressive. Who would think that a little sugar would result in sinus issues ... but it can. Ditto for pollen in the air and weight loss, and for a surprising range of foodstuffs and athlete's-foot. One of most beneficial effects of an all-fresh-meat diet MAY just be its low-histidine aspects.
Thank heavens i have some potato-based gin to fall back on if needed -- less reactive than things like wine and grain alcohols! Alcohol HAS therapeutic uses, after all.... ;-)
Monday, May 7, 2012
when is a fast not a fast?
Hint -- this is like when Peter asked "when is a high-fat diet not a high-fat diet."
When Dr. Atkins prescribed a "fat fast" for people who are extremely resistant to losing weight, it was incredibly low in calories, and he only recommended doing it for a few days at a time. It had enough fat to suppress the appetite, and it forced the burning of body-fat for fuel, because it certainly didn't supply enough protein to convert to a LOT of glucose. I feel sorry for those on it who didn't have the metabolic flexibility or gut-bugs to get ENERGY from fat, and yet had to go about their daily business....
I assumed that the fat-fast was all about getting into ketosis ... until recently. There are a few blogs where isolated posts give hints on why eating like this may promote weight loss by other pathways, too.
In one of Peter's posts, he speaks of intestinal biota which prompt the brain to eat "fiber" and store fat, or to release stored fat for energy (so the host can go out hunting) ... and fat ingestion signals the latter. The use of fatty foods during an intermittent fast (like drinking coffee with cream) is suggested by the Drs. Jaminet as "not counting" as food....
Here, too, is an explanation for the benefit of oil-swilling in the Shangri-La regimen!
Now we have this discovery that eating fat-with-no-carb spurs glp-1 production, which in turn turns off appetite and turns on spontaneous movement. I find this very exciting. In the average human, excessive energy "wasting" -- i.e., going to the gym -- is discouraged by our very beings (see Naturally Engineered); as a result, forcing yourself to exercise when you don't want to is more stressful and less effective. But by this pathway, the urge to move is instinctive rather than a choice. One gets the benefits of movement on the tissues and the mood-enhancing aspect of exercise in the brain -- all with no hunger or nasty cascades of BG and insulin.
So, yeah -- i now see the fat-fast as being a LOT more powerful than i believed possible, just reading Atkins. ...I'll be sure to eat MORE CALORIES of it than he recommended, though!
When Dr. Atkins prescribed a "fat fast" for people who are extremely resistant to losing weight, it was incredibly low in calories, and he only recommended doing it for a few days at a time. It had enough fat to suppress the appetite, and it forced the burning of body-fat for fuel, because it certainly didn't supply enough protein to convert to a LOT of glucose. I feel sorry for those on it who didn't have the metabolic flexibility or gut-bugs to get ENERGY from fat, and yet had to go about their daily business....
I assumed that the fat-fast was all about getting into ketosis ... until recently. There are a few blogs where isolated posts give hints on why eating like this may promote weight loss by other pathways, too.
In one of Peter's posts, he speaks of intestinal biota which prompt the brain to eat "fiber" and store fat, or to release stored fat for energy (so the host can go out hunting) ... and fat ingestion signals the latter. The use of fatty foods during an intermittent fast (like drinking coffee with cream) is suggested by the Drs. Jaminet as "not counting" as food....
Here, too, is an explanation for the benefit of oil-swilling in the Shangri-La regimen!
Now we have this discovery that eating fat-with-no-carb spurs glp-1 production, which in turn turns off appetite and turns on spontaneous movement. I find this very exciting. In the average human, excessive energy "wasting" -- i.e., going to the gym -- is discouraged by our very beings (see Naturally Engineered); as a result, forcing yourself to exercise when you don't want to is more stressful and less effective. But by this pathway, the urge to move is instinctive rather than a choice. One gets the benefits of movement on the tissues and the mood-enhancing aspect of exercise in the brain -- all with no hunger or nasty cascades of BG and insulin.
So, yeah -- i now see the fat-fast as being a LOT more powerful than i believed possible, just reading Atkins. ...I'll be sure to eat MORE CALORIES of it than he recommended, though!
Sunday, May 6, 2012
BIG discovery
Kindke finds the missing link. I am in awe -- quite literally; i sit and stare into space while contemplating the simple elegance of it.
It's very fashionable in some circles to sneer at what Dr. Atkins called the "metabolic advantage." However, for those of us who not only lose weight better on low-carb diets but FEEL significantly better on them, we know it's real. Dr. Lustig (who also works with REAL LIVE PATIENTS, not mice and rats) made a point in his talk at last year's Ancestral Health Symposium that quality of life is directly associated with the amount of energy one manages to burn. As a hypothyroid who has always had vitality limitations, i believe this wholeheartedly.
Finally, Kindke points out what the mechanism is. What makes it easy to "eat less and move more"? Eating the right things -- duh. For many of us, eating those lauded starches, those healthywholegrains, those FRUITSandvegetables, makes it HARD to do both. His discovery fits in tidily with Dr. Donaldson's observation that, round about the fifth day of his "Strong Medicine" regimen, his patients found their morning walks a lot more do-able.
You gotta go read it in Kindke's words....
Oh -- and by the way, you should read Fred's article, too.
It's very fashionable in some circles to sneer at what Dr. Atkins called the "metabolic advantage." However, for those of us who not only lose weight better on low-carb diets but FEEL significantly better on them, we know it's real. Dr. Lustig (who also works with REAL LIVE PATIENTS, not mice and rats) made a point in his talk at last year's Ancestral Health Symposium that quality of life is directly associated with the amount of energy one manages to burn. As a hypothyroid who has always had vitality limitations, i believe this wholeheartedly.
Finally, Kindke points out what the mechanism is. What makes it easy to "eat less and move more"? Eating the right things -- duh. For many of us, eating those lauded starches, those healthywholegrains, those FRUITSandvegetables, makes it HARD to do both. His discovery fits in tidily with Dr. Donaldson's observation that, round about the fifth day of his "Strong Medicine" regimen, his patients found their morning walks a lot more do-able.
You gotta go read it in Kindke's words....
Oh -- and by the way, you should read Fred's article, too.
Monday, April 30, 2012
alternatives to alternatives
When circumstances occur that make us reconsider what we have "decided" before, it's probably a good thing. I mentioned the other day that my esteemed DIL has deadly allergies, the most virulent of which are to nuts. Tree nuts, from coconuts on down to filberts (is there anything larger and/or smaller?) ... she can't have 'em.
Low-carbing is something she's willing to do, and has done with success in the past, but for her the choices are more limited. Therefore, i've been considering what might be some nice alternatives.
Most of us make do with nut flours when we want to "eat our cake and have it too." Coconut pancakes and tortillas, hazelnut-meal bread, almond cakes and cookies are out the window this week. What to make instead? Well, i think we ARE going to have to go a little higher in carbs. It's time to experiment with legumes, and to cave in to flours made of tubers.
I'm thinking that a sourdough starter can be begun with a little rye, augmented with chickpea meal, and finished with potato or rice flour (i need to look at the exact protein/carb ratios of these). It will require some baking soda to lighten the texture.... By souring the legume flour during the week the starter ripens, the antinutrients should be weakened considerably.
Sunflower and pumpkin seeds should be legitimate to use as well, ground up to a meal in the food processor. And mixing those with finely chopped peanuts should be pretty tasty -- i'm seeing a cake made with these ingredients and iced with chocolate cream cheese. Do i have anyone's mouth watering yet (besides mine)?
Resuscitating ground-up pork-rinds is a good idea as well -- i've liked using them in the past (during the Atkins Era), but of course when i started avoiding omega-6 oils, they had to be relegated to "neolithic purgatory." I don't think ANYBODY in my neck of the woods is frying the things in acceptable fats, so if i want to start using them again, i'll have to fry them myself. Coincidentally, i have a package of pork skins in my freezer at home, some tallow in the deep-fryer, and lard in the pantry -- let the experimentation begin!
At a higher carb count, there are quinoa, buckwheat and that sort of thing. Compared to wheat, they're angels of light. Tapioca ... sweet potato ... maybe even konjac flour....
Oh, and i almost forgot the original Revolution (or "oopsie") Rolls! All is not lost -- there are LOTS of options we can explore!
Low-carbing is something she's willing to do, and has done with success in the past, but for her the choices are more limited. Therefore, i've been considering what might be some nice alternatives.
Most of us make do with nut flours when we want to "eat our cake and have it too." Coconut pancakes and tortillas, hazelnut-meal bread, almond cakes and cookies are out the window this week. What to make instead? Well, i think we ARE going to have to go a little higher in carbs. It's time to experiment with legumes, and to cave in to flours made of tubers.
I'm thinking that a sourdough starter can be begun with a little rye, augmented with chickpea meal, and finished with potato or rice flour (i need to look at the exact protein/carb ratios of these). It will require some baking soda to lighten the texture.... By souring the legume flour during the week the starter ripens, the antinutrients should be weakened considerably.
Sunflower and pumpkin seeds should be legitimate to use as well, ground up to a meal in the food processor. And mixing those with finely chopped peanuts should be pretty tasty -- i'm seeing a cake made with these ingredients and iced with chocolate cream cheese. Do i have anyone's mouth watering yet (besides mine)?
Resuscitating ground-up pork-rinds is a good idea as well -- i've liked using them in the past (during the Atkins Era), but of course when i started avoiding omega-6 oils, they had to be relegated to "neolithic purgatory." I don't think ANYBODY in my neck of the woods is frying the things in acceptable fats, so if i want to start using them again, i'll have to fry them myself. Coincidentally, i have a package of pork skins in my freezer at home, some tallow in the deep-fryer, and lard in the pantry -- let the experimentation begin!
At a higher carb count, there are quinoa, buckwheat and that sort of thing. Compared to wheat, they're angels of light. Tapioca ... sweet potato ... maybe even konjac flour....
Oh, and i almost forgot the original Revolution (or "oopsie") Rolls! All is not lost -- there are LOTS of options we can explore!
Sunday, April 29, 2012
plateauing problems
One of the irritations we encounter on ANY weight-loss diet is the plateau. How to break through these stalls is tricky indeed, and i suspect they may be the reason most people never manage to meet their goals -- especially for those of us who have a hard time losing weight in the first place.
Sometimes you read a person's record and they say, "i plateaued out but kept doing what i was doing, and three months later, i started losing again." THREE MONTHS??? Hell, i plateau that long, and there's no way on earth i'd be able to keep my motivation to continue what i'm doing!!!
On the other hand, i have a suspicion that the body so likes to have homeostasis that it can actually be good for you to remain at a stable weight for an extended period. The problem arises when your mind has a reason for wanting to continue losing, and your body refuses to cooperate.
I think Dr. Atkins didn't consider a plateau a real issue until it had gone on for a month. He had a set of suggestions ready and waiting for his patients when/if it happened, but not having my book available right now, i really can't enumerate many of them. I suspect his first rule would be to step back 5 or 10 daily carb-grams, and to make sure one was using all the appropriate supplements. Making sure allergies and hormones are under control would be another suggestion. Checking fat-burning status through the use of keto-sticks might be yet another, and if they didn't show "enough pink" he might have recommended a fat-fast.
The tricky bit is, if you ARE producing ketones, a fat-fast is superfluous -- ITS major virtue is forcing a recalcitrant body to burn FFAs rather than glucose. In the presence of decent ketosis, other tricks will be far more effective in spurring weight loss.
I've long suspected that "shocking" the body with an abrupt change in food or exercise habit makes it perk up and take notice, start "thinking" about how it functions instead of coasting along on autopilot. What we DON'T want to do is make it think it's threatened, by dipping protein or total calories TOO low, or working out so excessively that stress hormones actually encourage more fat storage! That's the "logical" thing to do, from the point of view of a physicist; unfortunately, the biological system doesn't behave like a mechanical one....
This "shock technique" MAY be why low-carbers who abruptly start eating more starches see an immediate loss -- the question in my book would be, how long can it last? Now, in my case, an addition of carbs to spur weight-loss is out of the question -- i start feeling terrible, i get palpitations and tremors upon a too-large increase of carbohydrates in my diet! Not fun. Adding in fasts are effective for some people, too, which could theoretically work the same way, shaking things up.
For me, the most effective thing seems to be to stop drinking wine and spirits, stop eating any nuts, dairy or fruit that i may have been indulging myself with. A more strict observance of what kinds of vegetables i eat, too, can be important. Anything that sets off allergic symptoms is an automatic suspect.
Please, everybody -- leave a comment on your favorite and most effective means of breaking a plateau! I think that learning from each other is one of the best aspects of the internet!
Sometimes you read a person's record and they say, "i plateaued out but kept doing what i was doing, and three months later, i started losing again." THREE MONTHS??? Hell, i plateau that long, and there's no way on earth i'd be able to keep my motivation to continue what i'm doing!!!
On the other hand, i have a suspicion that the body so likes to have homeostasis that it can actually be good for you to remain at a stable weight for an extended period. The problem arises when your mind has a reason for wanting to continue losing, and your body refuses to cooperate.
I think Dr. Atkins didn't consider a plateau a real issue until it had gone on for a month. He had a set of suggestions ready and waiting for his patients when/if it happened, but not having my book available right now, i really can't enumerate many of them. I suspect his first rule would be to step back 5 or 10 daily carb-grams, and to make sure one was using all the appropriate supplements. Making sure allergies and hormones are under control would be another suggestion. Checking fat-burning status through the use of keto-sticks might be yet another, and if they didn't show "enough pink" he might have recommended a fat-fast.
The tricky bit is, if you ARE producing ketones, a fat-fast is superfluous -- ITS major virtue is forcing a recalcitrant body to burn FFAs rather than glucose. In the presence of decent ketosis, other tricks will be far more effective in spurring weight loss.
I've long suspected that "shocking" the body with an abrupt change in food or exercise habit makes it perk up and take notice, start "thinking" about how it functions instead of coasting along on autopilot. What we DON'T want to do is make it think it's threatened, by dipping protein or total calories TOO low, or working out so excessively that stress hormones actually encourage more fat storage! That's the "logical" thing to do, from the point of view of a physicist; unfortunately, the biological system doesn't behave like a mechanical one....
This "shock technique" MAY be why low-carbers who abruptly start eating more starches see an immediate loss -- the question in my book would be, how long can it last? Now, in my case, an addition of carbs to spur weight-loss is out of the question -- i start feeling terrible, i get palpitations and tremors upon a too-large increase of carbohydrates in my diet! Not fun. Adding in fasts are effective for some people, too, which could theoretically work the same way, shaking things up.
For me, the most effective thing seems to be to stop drinking wine and spirits, stop eating any nuts, dairy or fruit that i may have been indulging myself with. A more strict observance of what kinds of vegetables i eat, too, can be important. Anything that sets off allergic symptoms is an automatic suspect.
Please, everybody -- leave a comment on your favorite and most effective means of breaking a plateau! I think that learning from each other is one of the best aspects of the internet!
Thursday, April 5, 2012
rolling in his grave
Poor Dr. Atkins! What has happened to his company since he died.... The man wasn't perfect, for heaven's sake -- but the good he did in spreading the low-carb word is being DESTROYED by the greedy idiots who have been directing the course of his legacy since he went to his reward.
Before i discovered the "metabolic advantage," i tried to manage my weight by means of "conventional wisdom" -- that is to say, i starved myself till i couldn't stand it any more, then lost ground when i started to eat like everyone around me. As with everyone else, every attempt at weight loss was less productive than the time before. I don't remember what inspired me to pick up his book, but it changed my life, and for the better.
I used to be constantly hungry on low-fat, even when my stomach was full; low-carb solved that. I realize now, from all i've read over the past few years, that i may have been replete with water-soluble vitamins, but woefully lacking in the rest -- not to mention minerals! I began supplementing a few things RA recommended (and my physician added Iodoral as well), and my health improved as my waistline contracted.
He died only a year or two after i started his diet plan -- before i learned that a lot of ingredients in his shakes and bars were things i didn't want in my body. I like to think that he would have authorized a reformulation of them, had he lived: who knows! But i'm reasonably certain he would NOT have gone down the popularization/inclusivism road which the company has followed, since. Really: the new Atkins "revolution" not only makes it look like all the others ("you CAN have cookies!") ... or maybe even worse.
What foils the usual low-carb dieter, if s/he gets past Induction in the first place, is playing with all the "toys" which give them the illusion of eating their cake and having it too -- and i'm using this expression advisedly. All the treats, snacks and faux meals are NOT going to fix the broken behaviors and metabolisms that most dieters of ALL SORTS bring to the table (pun intended).
The big difference between "paleo low-carbing" and Atkins-style LC is not just the latter's inclusion of chemical cheats (including all the soy), or that the treats keep alive the perceived "need" of cookies, candy, etc. Really -- this is the shortcoming of lots of other diets (**cough**WW**cough**) my friends have tried and ultimately failed with: they don't retrain the appetite and personal habits.
PaleoLC's advantage is the lack of ravenous appetite which is spurred by the semi-carb shortcuts. Eating natural food helps restore a natural appetite -- and i'm not talking about natural almonds ground up and mixed with natural honey and natural eggs and natural mineral salts to make a natural CAKE....
(GRRRRR!)
Before i discovered the "metabolic advantage," i tried to manage my weight by means of "conventional wisdom" -- that is to say, i starved myself till i couldn't stand it any more, then lost ground when i started to eat like everyone around me. As with everyone else, every attempt at weight loss was less productive than the time before. I don't remember what inspired me to pick up his book, but it changed my life, and for the better.
I used to be constantly hungry on low-fat, even when my stomach was full; low-carb solved that. I realize now, from all i've read over the past few years, that i may have been replete with water-soluble vitamins, but woefully lacking in the rest -- not to mention minerals! I began supplementing a few things RA recommended (and my physician added Iodoral as well), and my health improved as my waistline contracted.
He died only a year or two after i started his diet plan -- before i learned that a lot of ingredients in his shakes and bars were things i didn't want in my body. I like to think that he would have authorized a reformulation of them, had he lived: who knows! But i'm reasonably certain he would NOT have gone down the popularization/inclusivism road which the company has followed, since. Really: the new Atkins "revolution" not only makes it look like all the others ("you CAN have cookies!") ... or maybe even worse.
What foils the usual low-carb dieter, if s/he gets past Induction in the first place, is playing with all the "toys" which give them the illusion of eating their cake and having it too -- and i'm using this expression advisedly. All the treats, snacks and faux meals are NOT going to fix the broken behaviors and metabolisms that most dieters of ALL SORTS bring to the table (pun intended).
The big difference between "paleo low-carbing" and Atkins-style LC is not just the latter's inclusion of chemical cheats (including all the soy), or that the treats keep alive the perceived "need" of cookies, candy, etc. Really -- this is the shortcoming of lots of other diets (**cough**WW**cough**) my friends have tried and ultimately failed with: they don't retrain the appetite and personal habits.
PaleoLC's advantage is the lack of ravenous appetite which is spurred by the semi-carb shortcuts. Eating natural food helps restore a natural appetite -- and i'm not talking about natural almonds ground up and mixed with natural honey and natural eggs and natural mineral salts to make a natural CAKE....
(GRRRRR!)
Friday, March 16, 2012
divergent goals
Methinks there are several different main "populations" of individuals who have interest in the paleo/ancestral realm of health ... and each of them has separate, if overlapping, end-results in mind. The lack of understanding between them can be breathtaking. My imagination envisions it as being like a Brit, an Aussie, and a Texan all speaking their particular jargon; everyone is technically speaking English dialects, but it sure sounds like different languages.
I belong to the subgroups of "middle aged," "hypothyroid," "female," and "eat-less-move-more doesn't work anymore," of the larger set "wanting to lose weight."
I read a variety of websites, some of which are more focused on the goals of groups with which i do NOT share characteristics: "younger" (note, i did not say YOUNG, just youngER), "male," "never overweight," "desiring less than 10% body-weight," and "for whom, long hard workouts and rigorous calorie-apportioning are reasonable tools." I don't assume that their advice will be useful to me as stated, but i occasionally pick up info with which i can do something. It's distinctly possible that, among themselves, the usefulness of the prescribed regimen is generally applicable, but it's unthinkable that it might be widely important to the entire population of "wanting to lose weight."
One distinct group amongst the paleo/ancestral crowd is that which is not interested in personal weight loss, but in the theory of it. These folks don't actually deal with overweight human bodies at all; most of them have never had a true PROBLEM with their own weight (even if they may have been a little chubby in the past), nor have they helped such a person manage obesity, as did Atkins and Donaldson, and current bloggers such as Kresser, Sharma and Briffa. These researchers usually spend their time mulling over rodents, or other people's studies of humans. Again, it's sometimes possible to glean immediately-useful information from their blogs, but most of it is either hypothetical, or extremely technical and over my head (note the addition of Lucas Tafur to my blog-list...) -- that's okay, i'm not the audience he's addressing, anyway.
Another group comprises people with illness, who are seeking relief that allopathic medicine has failed to deliver. They have my respect and best wishes; they are those who are willing to ACT rather than passively drug themselves and die. Their paths are frequently very instructive.
We make a mistake when we try to lump everyone together and generalize what is best for everybody -- outside the obvious things like "junk food is problematic for health." ;-) In Mr. Tafur's words, "...people who already have developed an inflammatory and/or autoimmune disorder respond differently to any diet. This means that the response to a diet is individual, and more importantly, in this case, the starting point is not a natural one." People's tolerances vary widely.
Don't tell me i'll do better with more carbs in my diet. Tried it -- doesn't work.
I belong to the subgroups of "middle aged," "hypothyroid," "female," and "eat-less-move-more doesn't work anymore," of the larger set "wanting to lose weight."
I read a variety of websites, some of which are more focused on the goals of groups with which i do NOT share characteristics: "younger" (note, i did not say YOUNG, just youngER), "male," "never overweight," "desiring less than 10% body-weight," and "for whom, long hard workouts and rigorous calorie-apportioning are reasonable tools." I don't assume that their advice will be useful to me as stated, but i occasionally pick up info with which i can do something. It's distinctly possible that, among themselves, the usefulness of the prescribed regimen is generally applicable, but it's unthinkable that it might be widely important to the entire population of "wanting to lose weight."
One distinct group amongst the paleo/ancestral crowd is that which is not interested in personal weight loss, but in the theory of it. These folks don't actually deal with overweight human bodies at all; most of them have never had a true PROBLEM with their own weight (even if they may have been a little chubby in the past), nor have they helped such a person manage obesity, as did Atkins and Donaldson, and current bloggers such as Kresser, Sharma and Briffa. These researchers usually spend their time mulling over rodents, or other people's studies of humans. Again, it's sometimes possible to glean immediately-useful information from their blogs, but most of it is either hypothetical, or extremely technical and over my head (note the addition of Lucas Tafur to my blog-list...) -- that's okay, i'm not the audience he's addressing, anyway.
Another group comprises people with illness, who are seeking relief that allopathic medicine has failed to deliver. They have my respect and best wishes; they are those who are willing to ACT rather than passively drug themselves and die. Their paths are frequently very instructive.
We make a mistake when we try to lump everyone together and generalize what is best for everybody -- outside the obvious things like "junk food is problematic for health." ;-) In Mr. Tafur's words, "...people who already have developed an inflammatory and/or autoimmune disorder respond differently to any diet. This means that the response to a diet is individual, and more importantly, in this case, the starting point is not a natural one." People's tolerances vary widely.
Don't tell me i'll do better with more carbs in my diet. Tried it -- doesn't work.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
appetite still down
The scale read 3/4 pounds lower AGAIN today -- not that i'm complaining! :-) I DO find it exceptionally interesting.
It has occurred to me recently, how artificial are our eating cues these days. If a paleo/primal outlook should do anything, it's to bring to our attention what natural human behavior really is, and how we have perverted it. Not only is WHAT we're eating out-of-phase with the natural: HOW we're eating is just plain WARPED.
"I'll eat when i'm hungry, i'll drink when i'm dry,
and if the moonshine don't kill me, i'll live till i die!"
:-D
Except ... we DON'T. We eat by the clock, and we eat what is lying around handy, and we try to eat as much as we can get away with. WHY? Why do we feel compelled to eat when we're not hungry? If a certain foodstuff is labelled "healthy," why do we feel like we have to consume it, even if we don't have an urge to do so?
The ancient peoples whose health and fitness we want to duplicate would not feel inclined to find something to eat if they were already satisfied, unless it were stuffing on fruit in autumn, to put on weight to last the winter (which is apparent from our disinclination to stop eating glucose-supplying foods when we once start). The other day, when i was overfilling myself on meat, this was a prominent thought. As an experiment, this behavior might be interesting and instructive, but as an everyday occurrence, i can only believe that it undermines health.
Now, here's where someone with decades of experience has a breadth of understanding that young "obesity experts" may never obtain! I clearly remember being constantly unsatisfied on a low-fat regimen, and the bliss of Atkins lay in the ability to eat to appetite and still lose weight. Perhaps this is why some "new" low-carbers overdo (and fail ultimately) -- they are so hungry from before, and their bodies react so gratefully to consuming animal fats, they lose track of their natural appetites when they have permission to eat these traditional foods.
That, and all the low-carb treats which seduce one into thinking one CAN eat one's cake and have it, too -- quite literally. [shaking head] superfluous foods -- junk calories -- are something to avoid no matter what they're made of.
Appetite is something we need to listen to very carefully. You have to be able to distinguish belly-hunger from mouth /imagination-hunger. If we ignore it and restrain our eating to save calories, we set ourselves up for mistakes later -- i think this applies to pretty much everybody! Beyond that, i believe one has to know one's body very well indeed, because they DON'T always perform predictably. THIS is the problem with the medical business' "one size fits all" prescriptions.
If you're belly-hungry, EAT (that is, eat something which YOU have found truly nourishes YOU). If you're not, DON'T. I'm going to eat within Donaldson's guidelines, but not more than appetite allows -- that should improve the program. I'll let you know....
It has occurred to me recently, how artificial are our eating cues these days. If a paleo/primal outlook should do anything, it's to bring to our attention what natural human behavior really is, and how we have perverted it. Not only is WHAT we're eating out-of-phase with the natural: HOW we're eating is just plain WARPED.
"I'll eat when i'm hungry, i'll drink when i'm dry,
and if the moonshine don't kill me, i'll live till i die!"
:-D
Except ... we DON'T. We eat by the clock, and we eat what is lying around handy, and we try to eat as much as we can get away with. WHY? Why do we feel compelled to eat when we're not hungry? If a certain foodstuff is labelled "healthy," why do we feel like we have to consume it, even if we don't have an urge to do so?
The ancient peoples whose health and fitness we want to duplicate would not feel inclined to find something to eat if they were already satisfied, unless it were stuffing on fruit in autumn, to put on weight to last the winter (which is apparent from our disinclination to stop eating glucose-supplying foods when we once start). The other day, when i was overfilling myself on meat, this was a prominent thought. As an experiment, this behavior might be interesting and instructive, but as an everyday occurrence, i can only believe that it undermines health.
Now, here's where someone with decades of experience has a breadth of understanding that young "obesity experts" may never obtain! I clearly remember being constantly unsatisfied on a low-fat regimen, and the bliss of Atkins lay in the ability to eat to appetite and still lose weight. Perhaps this is why some "new" low-carbers overdo (and fail ultimately) -- they are so hungry from before, and their bodies react so gratefully to consuming animal fats, they lose track of their natural appetites when they have permission to eat these traditional foods.
That, and all the low-carb treats which seduce one into thinking one CAN eat one's cake and have it, too -- quite literally. [shaking head] superfluous foods -- junk calories -- are something to avoid no matter what they're made of.
Appetite is something we need to listen to very carefully. You have to be able to distinguish belly-hunger from mouth /imagination-hunger. If we ignore it and restrain our eating to save calories, we set ourselves up for mistakes later -- i think this applies to pretty much everybody! Beyond that, i believe one has to know one's body very well indeed, because they DON'T always perform predictably. THIS is the problem with the medical business' "one size fits all" prescriptions.
If you're belly-hungry, EAT (that is, eat something which YOU have found truly nourishes YOU). If you're not, DON'T. I'm going to eat within Donaldson's guidelines, but not more than appetite allows -- that should improve the program. I'll let you know....
Monday, February 20, 2012
shades of Stefansson....
Even though i've been a "locarber" for years now, i seem to be following the classic pattern old Vilhjalmur described in his men: they take to the fatty meat-eating enthusiastically enough, but soon have a lapse in appetite for a couple of days before regaining their relish. I'm in that middle phase. The first day i easily ate and drank the quantities prescribed, but yesterday i had a heck of a time choking it all down!
I was tempted to reduce the volume, and wondered if Donaldson's recommendation of half-pound-beef-eating might have been the male version of the diet -- one case history he discussed was a stout young woman, whom he directed to eat two two-rib frenched lamb chops three times a day -- exactly how many ounces would that be? Tempting to do exactly the same, but EXPENSIVE. Other women cited DID have comparable prescriptions to that of the men, though....
Soldiering on, i managed to consume 1/2 pound of home-made pork sausage for breakfast, another patty of my home-ground chuck/liver/parsley/green-peppercorn burger, and an appropriate amount of the over-large KC strip steak, each meal accompanied by a short cup of coffee, interspersed with the six total cups of water. Damn, i felt my stomach was overloaded all day!
This morning i woke with a reasonable appetite and the scale a pound lower than yesterday. The before-breakfast exercise took a goodly amount of my appetite away, though, and i had little enthusiasm for the half-pound of leftover pot roast i ate. Stuffed again! ...On the other hand, it beats hell out of my low-fat days, when my stomach could be overloaded but my satisfaction level inadequate.
Allergy symptoms are lower than they were yesterday, but not gone. I'll be sticking to ruminant meat today (i have goat and lamb in my freezer as well as beef), and if i decide to sneak in a little starch at supper, it'll be white rice. I predict less sinus inflammation tomorrow.
This remains an interesting experiment! Like the Atkins "fat fast," i think it makes for a reasonable method of getting past a frustrating plateau.
Bette Davis (LOVE that actress...) once said, "Getting old is not for sissies." I'll go a step further and say, losing weight WHILE you're getting old isn't for the weak, either!
I was tempted to reduce the volume, and wondered if Donaldson's recommendation of half-pound-beef-eating might have been the male version of the diet -- one case history he discussed was a stout young woman, whom he directed to eat two two-rib frenched lamb chops three times a day -- exactly how many ounces would that be? Tempting to do exactly the same, but EXPENSIVE. Other women cited DID have comparable prescriptions to that of the men, though....
Soldiering on, i managed to consume 1/2 pound of home-made pork sausage for breakfast, another patty of my home-ground chuck/liver/parsley/green-peppercorn burger, and an appropriate amount of the over-large KC strip steak, each meal accompanied by a short cup of coffee, interspersed with the six total cups of water. Damn, i felt my stomach was overloaded all day!
This morning i woke with a reasonable appetite and the scale a pound lower than yesterday. The before-breakfast exercise took a goodly amount of my appetite away, though, and i had little enthusiasm for the half-pound of leftover pot roast i ate. Stuffed again! ...On the other hand, it beats hell out of my low-fat days, when my stomach could be overloaded but my satisfaction level inadequate.
Allergy symptoms are lower than they were yesterday, but not gone. I'll be sticking to ruminant meat today (i have goat and lamb in my freezer as well as beef), and if i decide to sneak in a little starch at supper, it'll be white rice. I predict less sinus inflammation tomorrow.
This remains an interesting experiment! Like the Atkins "fat fast," i think it makes for a reasonable method of getting past a frustrating plateau.
Bette Davis (LOVE that actress...) once said, "Getting old is not for sissies." I'll go a step further and say, losing weight WHILE you're getting old isn't for the weak, either!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)