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.
Showing posts with label Jimmy Moore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jimmy Moore. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
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.
Friday, August 10, 2012
interrupting myself
Mercury has turned direct again, so a lot of the delays and misunderstandings of the past month should be unraveling. :-D I look forward to better internet-connectivity -- it's been HORRIBLE recently.
Boys and girls, i did it -- while out looking for an attachment for my meat-grinder (to allow me to stuff breakfast-sized sausage casings), i tried on and bought a pair of Vibram FiveFingers! They're on my feet right now, and feel great on the stairs (good tread); i look forward to walking the dog while wearing them, too. I'm always tempted to walk Spense barefooted, even though it's not very advisable to do in the city. Look strange, though....
I was overawed to see that Jimmy Moore included me in his list for August! I feel like a real live grown-up now. ;-) I also feel a little immodest though, because i suspect it wouldn't have happened if i hadn't "tooted my own horn" on Mark's site.... Somebody had mentioned the Little House foodways right after i had posted on it, and i'm afraid i couldn't resist. Anyhow, my thanks go to Jimmy!
While we were out, i also picked up some L-carnitine. I was reading up on it yesterday, and it sounds like it might be worthwhile. I know, i know -- "theoretically" it isn't advisable for hypothyroids, but i found the arguments weak in the face of the experiences clinicians have with it. I'll keep you posted....
Boys and girls, i did it -- while out looking for an attachment for my meat-grinder (to allow me to stuff breakfast-sized sausage casings), i tried on and bought a pair of Vibram FiveFingers! They're on my feet right now, and feel great on the stairs (good tread); i look forward to walking the dog while wearing them, too. I'm always tempted to walk Spense barefooted, even though it's not very advisable to do in the city. Look strange, though....
I was overawed to see that Jimmy Moore included me in his list for August! I feel like a real live grown-up now. ;-) I also feel a little immodest though, because i suspect it wouldn't have happened if i hadn't "tooted my own horn" on Mark's site.... Somebody had mentioned the Little House foodways right after i had posted on it, and i'm afraid i couldn't resist. Anyhow, my thanks go to Jimmy!
While we were out, i also picked up some L-carnitine. I was reading up on it yesterday, and it sounds like it might be worthwhile. I know, i know -- "theoretically" it isn't advisable for hypothyroids, but i found the arguments weak in the face of the experiences clinicians have with it. I'll keep you posted....
Sunday, June 24, 2012
the case against sucralose
addendum (11/18/12):
I was looking up something on the Gnolls.org site, and happened upon this mention: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800291 ... which of course inspired me to figure out how much canned soda the SMALLEST test quantity (100 mg/kg) would represent. At 70 mg (approx. from info on a website about sucralose) per can, and my present weight of 145, that would mean i'd have to swill NINETY-FOUR cans of Diet Rite before i'd reach the experimental minimum.
On a "wild" day at home, i may drink two -- most days it's not any. On the highway, it may be more -- perhaps as many as five. I don't think i'll worry about upsetting my gut flora very much for awhile....
***
...Actually, i have yet to see ANY real evidence that sucralose is problematic.
I tuned in to Jimmy Moore's "Ask the Low-Carb Experts" even though i dislike listening to podcasts/radio-shows, because he had a guest whom he'd announced as being an authority on sweeteners. And what did he say about Splenda, beyond the stuff i'd heard before? Nothing.
Detractors like to report that the lab-rats who invented the stuff were actually researching things that might be good pesticides -- it's said that sucralose is manufactured "just like a pesticide," whatever that is supposed to mean. They also talk about the CHLORINE in it (oooooh!). Jimmy's guest referred to sucralose as a toxin but didn't go into details about what it's supposed to do, or how. Sorry, but that just isn't good enough; "guilt by association" isn't enough to convict in a courtroom, either.
A lot of things are invented/discovered when people are looking for something else entirely; i don't consider that a good reason to find fault with this sweetener. "Oh -- this isn't the Indies!" thinks Columbus, "let's just pretend we never found land at all, and keep looking!" (A lot of people would have been happier if he HAD done this, but he didn't, for obvious reasons.)
And as for demonizing chlorine...??? Last time i looked, chlorine is a very important element in the body, though i'm not knowledgeable enough in physiology to insist that it's only the ion that's essential. Yes, yes, i know that chlorine GAS is remarkably nasty stuff.... ;-) Without enough Cl in the body in the form of NaCl and HCl though, we are in TROUBLE. You'd have to show me that THIS chlorinated molecule is a bad one in reasonable trials before i'll get excited about it.
For the record, in discussing aspartame, Jimmy's guest insists (more than once) that the evidence against THAT is well-proven in controlled trials, but he doesn't get nearly as specific in describing the ill-effects of sucralose. He drops the T-word and changes the subject.
There has been a small amount of anecdotal evidence that people CAN have trouble with Splenda-sweetened foods, but beside the number of people who have trouble with aspartame, they're few indeed. When i did the elimination diet back in January, i gave up all sweeteners, natural and otherwise. At the end of the month i added sucralose back in the same way i did rice, dairy, alcohol and other things, and i perceived NO effect (except that it just didn't taste that good). So until there's a lot more solid data, i'll continue to use the stuff in the negligible quantities i'm accustomed to.
I was looking up something on the Gnolls.org site, and happened upon this mention: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800291 ... which of course inspired me to figure out how much canned soda the SMALLEST test quantity (100 mg/kg) would represent. At 70 mg (approx. from info on a website about sucralose) per can, and my present weight of 145, that would mean i'd have to swill NINETY-FOUR cans of Diet Rite before i'd reach the experimental minimum.
On a "wild" day at home, i may drink two -- most days it's not any. On the highway, it may be more -- perhaps as many as five. I don't think i'll worry about upsetting my gut flora very much for awhile....
***
...Actually, i have yet to see ANY real evidence that sucralose is problematic.
I tuned in to Jimmy Moore's "Ask the Low-Carb Experts" even though i dislike listening to podcasts/radio-shows, because he had a guest whom he'd announced as being an authority on sweeteners. And what did he say about Splenda, beyond the stuff i'd heard before? Nothing.
Detractors like to report that the lab-rats who invented the stuff were actually researching things that might be good pesticides -- it's said that sucralose is manufactured "just like a pesticide," whatever that is supposed to mean. They also talk about the CHLORINE in it (oooooh!). Jimmy's guest referred to sucralose as a toxin but didn't go into details about what it's supposed to do, or how. Sorry, but that just isn't good enough; "guilt by association" isn't enough to convict in a courtroom, either.
A lot of things are invented/discovered when people are looking for something else entirely; i don't consider that a good reason to find fault with this sweetener. "Oh -- this isn't the Indies!" thinks Columbus, "let's just pretend we never found land at all, and keep looking!" (A lot of people would have been happier if he HAD done this, but he didn't, for obvious reasons.)
And as for demonizing chlorine...??? Last time i looked, chlorine is a very important element in the body, though i'm not knowledgeable enough in physiology to insist that it's only the ion that's essential. Yes, yes, i know that chlorine GAS is remarkably nasty stuff.... ;-) Without enough Cl in the body in the form of NaCl and HCl though, we are in TROUBLE. You'd have to show me that THIS chlorinated molecule is a bad one in reasonable trials before i'll get excited about it.
For the record, in discussing aspartame, Jimmy's guest insists (more than once) that the evidence against THAT is well-proven in controlled trials, but he doesn't get nearly as specific in describing the ill-effects of sucralose. He drops the T-word and changes the subject.
There has been a small amount of anecdotal evidence that people CAN have trouble with Splenda-sweetened foods, but beside the number of people who have trouble with aspartame, they're few indeed. When i did the elimination diet back in January, i gave up all sweeteners, natural and otherwise. At the end of the month i added sucralose back in the same way i did rice, dairy, alcohol and other things, and i perceived NO effect (except that it just didn't taste that good). So until there's a lot more solid data, i'll continue to use the stuff in the negligible quantities i'm accustomed to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)