Wow, indeed -- i'm doing a happy-dance (figuratively speaking) as i write....
Peter at Hyperlipid just did a blog-post on thyroid, and it fills in some holes in my understanding. THIS is where a clinician runs rings around all the researchers and theoreticians in the world! :-D When you REALLY want to find out what's going on in a body, you learn to get the info you need one way or another -- if you can't get it directly, you find a way around.
I can't begin to summarize all his points -- you'll have to go read his post! ...But i feel like it's a vindication of all i've been writing the last few days.
Of course, a knee-jerk reaction of mine within the first few paragraphs i read, was "how does a cat become hypothyroid? could it be ... malnutrition?"
Showing posts with label Peter Dobromylskyj (Hyperlipid). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Dobromylskyj (Hyperlipid). Show all posts
Friday, July 13, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
MY thyroid on VLC
Quite some time ago, there was a lot of noise in the paleo blogosphere about low-carbohydrate diets causing a drop in thyroid function. I was puzzled by it, as i feel SO much better on LC. Surely if it really DID lower function, i'd be the first to notice it! The high-carb afficionados especially made a big deal about it.
Why do they insist so ardently that their way is the only way? Because they hate eating that way themselves, and they don't want others to benefit from it, what? ...Makes no sense to me.
Upon reading more from a range of sources, it turns out that ANY decent loss of weight makes the thyroid slow down -- LC is just more efficient for fat loss than most others. It's all about energy availability in the diet -- your body is slowing down to protect you from the famine it thinks is coming. From a subjective point of view, i didn't notice feeling worse because it obviously wasn't slowing down MUCH. It may have been statistically significant, but those numbers they use are often arbitrarily chosen. (Read Chris Masterjohn on statistics....)
I suspect that the lack of slowdown in MY body is all about the FIAF and the ghrelin. One thing i DON'T feel on very-low-carb is draggy, dopey and dim -- i have to eat a "normal" amount of carbs to feel that crummy.
So if you're making good progress on LC but are worried about what it might be doing to your thyroid function, monitor yourself for energy levels and symptoms -- but remember that a lot of thyroid symptoms are tied up with nutrient deficiencies ... which may be causing your poor thyroid function in the first place!
Why do they insist so ardently that their way is the only way? Because they hate eating that way themselves, and they don't want others to benefit from it, what? ...Makes no sense to me.
Upon reading more from a range of sources, it turns out that ANY decent loss of weight makes the thyroid slow down -- LC is just more efficient for fat loss than most others. It's all about energy availability in the diet -- your body is slowing down to protect you from the famine it thinks is coming. From a subjective point of view, i didn't notice feeling worse because it obviously wasn't slowing down MUCH. It may have been statistically significant, but those numbers they use are often arbitrarily chosen. (Read Chris Masterjohn on statistics....)
I suspect that the lack of slowdown in MY body is all about the FIAF and the ghrelin. One thing i DON'T feel on very-low-carb is draggy, dopey and dim -- i have to eat a "normal" amount of carbs to feel that crummy.
So if you're making good progress on LC but are worried about what it might be doing to your thyroid function, monitor yourself for energy levels and symptoms -- but remember that a lot of thyroid symptoms are tied up with nutrient deficiencies ... which may be causing your poor thyroid function in the first place!
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.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
between the battles
I wanted to refresh my memory on something that J Stanton wrote quite a while ago, and of course ended up reading more than just that one article. I also reread "Why Are We Here..." and came up with another good answer to that question, in the light of other bloggers' recent columns: i often read Gnolls.org and Hyperlipid and some others because it's RESTFUL to do so. I sit back and read and learn with the confidence that these people have done their homework, and are intellectually honest enough to tell it like it is, rather than how they would like it to be. I don't have the feeling they're trying to sell me something at every turn.
As long as i stay out of the comment section (or just read them selectively), i never see BS that insults my intelligence. I never read anything that screams "rebut this."
When one eats in a way that flouts convention and its "wisdom," one gets very, very tired of explaining things to those who would like one to conform. Now, when i had a chance to explain paleo/ancestral food theory to my niece this last spring, it was far from tedious because she was actually interested. She may or may not do anything with the ideas i introduced, but that's her affair -- she's intelligent and fully capable of researching it on her own if she likes. But to others (especially older people, i note), who seem to be incapable of thinking that "authority" could possibly be wrong ... it's utterly pointless. They eat meals that are nothing but "sugar molecules holding hands" and "food-grade paint thinner" and refuse to think that their physical ills (and they have many) could have anything to do with their diets. It's the epitome of frustration to me.
I hate to see people killing themselves with diet, especially people i love. NOTICE: if i pester you about your food choices, it means i CARE. But don't imagine that i'm having fun doing it.
It offends me to hear bad advice given to people who need to be careful about what they eat -- it brings out the She Bear in my nature. So to remove the temptation to get out the repeating rifle and climb a tall tower, i don't EVER visit certain websites, especially the ones full of healthywholegrains and vitriol. I leave it to the Lords of Karma to give them their just desserts -- pun intended.
No -- at times like these i go to the sites where my sense of outrage is never aroused. Bastions of cool, gracious intellect. It's almost as though i'm sitting with them in a shady place with a great view, and there's a glass of wine at my elbow, and nobody says anything stupid. Ahhhhh.
As long as i stay out of the comment section (or just read them selectively), i never see BS that insults my intelligence. I never read anything that screams "rebut this."
When one eats in a way that flouts convention and its "wisdom," one gets very, very tired of explaining things to those who would like one to conform. Now, when i had a chance to explain paleo/ancestral food theory to my niece this last spring, it was far from tedious because she was actually interested. She may or may not do anything with the ideas i introduced, but that's her affair -- she's intelligent and fully capable of researching it on her own if she likes. But to others (especially older people, i note), who seem to be incapable of thinking that "authority" could possibly be wrong ... it's utterly pointless. They eat meals that are nothing but "sugar molecules holding hands" and "food-grade paint thinner" and refuse to think that their physical ills (and they have many) could have anything to do with their diets. It's the epitome of frustration to me.
I hate to see people killing themselves with diet, especially people i love. NOTICE: if i pester you about your food choices, it means i CARE. But don't imagine that i'm having fun doing it.
It offends me to hear bad advice given to people who need to be careful about what they eat -- it brings out the She Bear in my nature. So to remove the temptation to get out the repeating rifle and climb a tall tower, i don't EVER visit certain websites, especially the ones full of healthywholegrains and vitriol. I leave it to the Lords of Karma to give them their just desserts -- pun intended.
No -- at times like these i go to the sites where my sense of outrage is never aroused. Bastions of cool, gracious intellect. It's almost as though i'm sitting with them in a shady place with a great view, and there's a glass of wine at my elbow, and nobody says anything stupid. Ahhhhh.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
we interrupt our regularly-scheduled rant for this important message
LOL ....
It's been a stressful couple of weeks for me, here in the land of sunshine and humidity. Even though i've been consuming lots of things i shouldn't (as well as many i thoroughly approve of), i've never strayed in my affection for my IDEAL diet -- lovely fatty ruminants and oily fish. I keep fruitsandvegetables at arm's-length (figuratively); i KNOW they're less-than-perfect fuels for this vehicle.
As a sort of comfort-reading -- you might consider it "comfort-food for the mind" -- i've been amusing myself by dipping into the archives of Hyperlipid, in order to relax and de-stress. DAMN, how i love his writings.
...And lookie what i found! :-D http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fruit-and-vegetables-re-post.html
I feel better and better all the time, in doing exactly the opposite of what nutritional authorities tell me to!
It's been a stressful couple of weeks for me, here in the land of sunshine and humidity. Even though i've been consuming lots of things i shouldn't (as well as many i thoroughly approve of), i've never strayed in my affection for my IDEAL diet -- lovely fatty ruminants and oily fish. I keep fruitsandvegetables at arm's-length (figuratively); i KNOW they're less-than-perfect fuels for this vehicle.
As a sort of comfort-reading -- you might consider it "comfort-food for the mind" -- i've been amusing myself by dipping into the archives of Hyperlipid, in order to relax and de-stress. DAMN, how i love his writings.
...And lookie what i found! :-D http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/12/fruit-and-vegetables-re-post.html
I feel better and better all the time, in doing exactly the opposite of what nutritional authorities tell me to!
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!
Thursday, March 22, 2012
slippery slopes
Since the time i began eliminating "neolithic" foods from my diet, any try at reintroducing them illustrates to me how bad i feel under their influence, and how addictive my body finds them. Small servings of certain carbohydrates fuel a strong desire for more (this might be why: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Fiaf%20%282%29%20starving%20amidst%20plenty).
Yesterday morning, i felt stressed -- bad starting point. I suspect that the circumstances (workman coming to fix my security system for heaven-knows-how-long, as well as wondering how extensive the damage was going to be) were exacerbated by the damp weather. Humidity can help to set off allergic issues even worse for people who are inclined to mold sensitivity and candida overgrowth. Even though my diet is low in the things that encourage candida, i'm VERY sensitive to mold. Therefore, deciding to have a little hot sake with my lunch was an error in judgement.
One of the things your gut bacteria can do is turn carbohydrates to alcohol and send them racing into your bloodstream. Four ounces of sake added to the self-produced alcohol created a minor buzz completely out of proportion with the actual amount i drank. I decided to have a handful of macadamias, too.
Later, i felt a sugar craving -- highly unusual with me. I retrieved an almost-forgotten stash of SUGAR-FREE jelly beans, and had a couple of tablespoonsful. It was hard to stop there, but i did.
I ended up at many more carb-grams (and a few more total calories) than are common for me, at the end of the day. The polyol-induced gas i endured as a fitting "reward" for my indulgence. This story could be part of a modern Aesop collection, because the moral is so blatant:
Physical and mental stressors incline one to do things that are counter-productive to wellbeing. THIS is one of the times to dig in your heels, and resist a single step down this road, because there are too many forces working together to sweep your feet completely out from under you, and carry you to entirely undesirable destinations.
Yesterday morning, i felt stressed -- bad starting point. I suspect that the circumstances (workman coming to fix my security system for heaven-knows-how-long, as well as wondering how extensive the damage was going to be) were exacerbated by the damp weather. Humidity can help to set off allergic issues even worse for people who are inclined to mold sensitivity and candida overgrowth. Even though my diet is low in the things that encourage candida, i'm VERY sensitive to mold. Therefore, deciding to have a little hot sake with my lunch was an error in judgement.
One of the things your gut bacteria can do is turn carbohydrates to alcohol and send them racing into your bloodstream. Four ounces of sake added to the self-produced alcohol created a minor buzz completely out of proportion with the actual amount i drank. I decided to have a handful of macadamias, too.
Later, i felt a sugar craving -- highly unusual with me. I retrieved an almost-forgotten stash of SUGAR-FREE jelly beans, and had a couple of tablespoonsful. It was hard to stop there, but i did.
I ended up at many more carb-grams (and a few more total calories) than are common for me, at the end of the day. The polyol-induced gas i endured as a fitting "reward" for my indulgence. This story could be part of a modern Aesop collection, because the moral is so blatant:
Physical and mental stressors incline one to do things that are counter-productive to wellbeing. THIS is one of the times to dig in your heels, and resist a single step down this road, because there are too many forces working together to sweep your feet completely out from under you, and carry you to entirely undesirable destinations.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
back on track
Yesterday i indulged in a fat-fast, to rid my body of the poor effects of my weekend intake. I consumed a full can of coconut milk, divided between three or four cups of coffee, and a couple of tablespoons of butter (i bought two "new" brands at the import grocery, and needed to taste them for preference). I wasn't hungry at all.
I'm a half-pound up from where i was on Friday, but i imagine it was because of drinking too little water yesterday. I also woke up this morning with a stuffier head than usual -- support for the suspicion that i have a minor sensitivity to nuts. Thank heaven for neti-pots! :-)
Having overslept a bit, i didn't get the walk done before breakfast, but Spenser doesn't care if we do it later in the day, so long as we do it. I had my half-pound of ground lamb for breakfast with a cup of coffee, and i'm well into my morning jug of water. The last of the pot-roast will be dinner, and supper will be a liver dish (with onions AND bacon) that i found in an old Scottish cookery book. ...I'm DETERMINED to find a way to enjoy liver, in addition to foie gras!
I spent much of yesterday reading the archives of Pal Jabekk's blog, Ramblings of a Carnivore; Sunday i did the same on Lucas Tafur's. The latter often stretches my understanding, when it's not completely over my head. The former is very accessible. Both have taught me a great deal about physiology which my body can corroborate! THAT is the important bit -- over the last year or two, i've read a huge amount that SOUNDS plausible, but which doesn't pan out in practice.
Conscious intermittent-fasting and carb refeeding, conscious hormesis-inducing behaviors had the ring of truth, but like the failed low-fat hypothesis, seem not to make much of an impact on my body. The Shangri-La oil-guzzling technique, on the other hand, works WITH the Strong Medicine protocol THROUGH Peter Dobromylskyj's description of FIAF (fasting induced adipose factor).
WOW. Makes ya feel like you know what "42" means....
I'm a half-pound up from where i was on Friday, but i imagine it was because of drinking too little water yesterday. I also woke up this morning with a stuffier head than usual -- support for the suspicion that i have a minor sensitivity to nuts. Thank heaven for neti-pots! :-)
Having overslept a bit, i didn't get the walk done before breakfast, but Spenser doesn't care if we do it later in the day, so long as we do it. I had my half-pound of ground lamb for breakfast with a cup of coffee, and i'm well into my morning jug of water. The last of the pot-roast will be dinner, and supper will be a liver dish (with onions AND bacon) that i found in an old Scottish cookery book. ...I'm DETERMINED to find a way to enjoy liver, in addition to foie gras!
I spent much of yesterday reading the archives of Pal Jabekk's blog, Ramblings of a Carnivore; Sunday i did the same on Lucas Tafur's. The latter often stretches my understanding, when it's not completely over my head. The former is very accessible. Both have taught me a great deal about physiology which my body can corroborate! THAT is the important bit -- over the last year or two, i've read a huge amount that SOUNDS plausible, but which doesn't pan out in practice.
Conscious intermittent-fasting and carb refeeding, conscious hormesis-inducing behaviors had the ring of truth, but like the failed low-fat hypothesis, seem not to make much of an impact on my body. The Shangri-La oil-guzzling technique, on the other hand, works WITH the Strong Medicine protocol THROUGH Peter Dobromylskyj's description of FIAF (fasting induced adipose factor).
WOW. Makes ya feel like you know what "42" means....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)