hearing what we want to hear

I've been re-reading Adele Hite's "As the Calories Churn" series -- and it's time for another episode, dear!  ;-)  ... SO many quotable moments here!  I was tempted to take a chunk out of her first article, which talked about how our dietary guidelines don't just ignore the science, but virtually put their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalala" to drown out the truth of our problem....

But continuing on through the first and into the second installment, i was inspired by a whole 'nother idea:  that when people read studies or the articles, discussions and twitter-storms that follow, how often their personal predilections cause them to zero in on PARTS of the message that jibe with their very own desires!

It's human nature.  The previously-fat-deprived individual hears the Good News a la Atkins, and the immediate take-away is, "i can eat all the bacon i want!!!  :-D" -- except Atkins never told us to stuff ourselves with ANYTHING.  He said to eat till we're satisfied, and pay attention to our bodies' cues so that we'll get ENOUGH, but not overload.  Conversely, the carb-addicted individual will read the voices of reason in the paleo-blogosphere and hear, "carbs are GOOD for you -- you just burn them off, and they aren't stored as fat", whereas if they were paying attention to the fine print, they'd have noticed that the caveat that causes their interpetation to be true is IF THE CARB-EATER IS BURNING GAZILLIONS OF ENERGY UNITS while in serious athletic training ... and even then candy is not an appropriate source of carbohydrate.  Sedentary individuals need not apply (this factoid to their personal experience).

The Oscar Wilde's maxim, "nothing succeeds like excess" is a very popular concept when it comes to indulging our hedonistic whims, but it really isn't as good a personal motto as "discretion is the better part of speeding valor" (oops, i was telling you my DRIVING motto, not my LIVING one).  I've always been fond of "procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday," too, and other Archie-isms....

"Truth" is likely to lie somewhere between what we HATE and what we want to hear.

On a more Ernest note -- doggone it, once i start down that Wilde road it's hard to turn back -- on an EARNEST note, once we have hit that midlife speedbump, the time for manic abandon is pretty much over!  The bacon or sweet-potato (or beer) orgies that we used to be able to indulge in our twenties with NO repercussions, and which we were able to recover from pretty quickly in our thirties, can now cause a lot more lasting damage.  A wheat, lettuce or cheese binge can make me miserable for a week.

I've digressed, which easily happens when i get in a whimsical mood.  ;-)  But yeah -- it's a temptation to read what we want to, when ambiguous research reports come within our radar.  If the message tends toward ANY extreme, we should look on it with much more cynicism than may come naturally.  Any GOOD study is likely to tell us nothing that's entirely new or revolutionary;  people HAVE been doing "good science" for a long time, even if the media pass it along very poorly, and bloggers do marginally better/worse.  The best we can hope for are refinements of what we already know.

if it doesn't work

... it doesn't work!

SO much drama recently, in the LC/WAP/paleo blogosphere!  Frankly, i find it almost as intellectually stimulating as broadcast television.

It doesn't matter how elegant a rodent laboratory experiment is, or how clear-cut the results.  IF YOU DON'T SEE THE SAME RESULTS WITH REAL PEOPLE IN REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS, YOUR TRIAL MEANS BUPKIS.

Seems like i've heard this conclusion before.  Makes sense.  Why, then, do people fight it so hard?  ...Must have something to do with egos.

[sigh]  Damned if i don't wish the world HAD ended last week.

proud to present anecdotes!

Ya know ... an awful lot of writers/bloggers, amateur and professional, make a big point of sneering at anecdotes and proclaiming that THEIR point of view is the correct one because they have SCIENCE on their side!!!  There are a few problems with that:

• one can design a study that will "prove" anything one bloody well pleases;
• the proclaimers get all nearsighted when accosted with a study that "proves" the opposite;
• just because it works on genetically-modified mice does not mean it will apply to humans;
• due to genetic and time/damage-wrought variations in humans, we can each react very differently to ANY stimulus.

My thought is that the only evidence at all credible, inspiring me to try something new with THIS body, IS anecdotal.  Reports of clinical success work too.

...Because ideal macronutrient ratios are different between rats and mice, let alone us.

...Because studies often use human subjects who are young, whole, and uncomplicated -- not the middle-aged, menopausal and carbohydrate-intolerant.

...Because the sometimes-arbitrary conditions of laboratory studies don't necessarily match real-world situations.

"Science" can be very good at pinning down mechanisms and processes once they're identified, but until they are, conducting studies can just confuse the poor myopic plodders who do things like feed, exercise and test nocturnal animals during the daytime.

So -- sorry -- claims of scientific evidence are not a clinching argument, but rather a starting point for enquiry into ways and means.  You may feel your study is definitive, but until you can show that it works in real people under normal circumstances, it doesn't actually MEAN diddly-squat.

a real-life MYSTERY!

Of all the things that could POSSIBLY go wrong with human health, nutrition and the epigenetic ramifications it has should probably be among the first things suspected, along with infection and toxicity.  Why it isn't that high on the list for sufferers and their physicians is a subject for more knowledgeable writers than i am....

But no -- the medical industry would much rather hunt for chimaeras than rabbits.  And many patients would much rather consider themselves the prey of a mysterious disease process than come to the conclusion that their favorite foods (and other lifestyle choices) are causing their degeneration.  They'd rather take a pharmaceutical whose list of side-effects is as long as your arm, than even TRY taking grains out of their diets or give up their nightly Ben & Jerry's fix.

There's a reasonable chance that people resist the idea that changing their diets could improve their health because they've tried many other alterations and found them worthless.  I wish i could remember where i read this idea, so credit could go where it belongs....  It makes perfect sense that if Joe switched from french-fries to baked potatoes and fat-free sour cream, and it made no difference either in how he felt or how his blood-test turned out, he might be skeptical about switching from potatoes to turnips, as a "frinstance."  Certainly, if he followed mainstream health recommendations over the last half-century, any changes he made would have had little impact on his wellness, or his subjective sense of it.  If these "common sense" changes didn't help, why would Joe be inclined to try something that his conditioning would react to as illogical?

Poor Joe -- he believes that dieticians actually know what they're talking about when it comes to food -- they're SPECIALISTS, aren't they?  When it comes to weight-gain, it's all about the calories, and for health, it's vitamins, minerals and antioxidants.  Moderation in everything!  All saturated fats are alike, and BAD.  Macronutrient, schmacronutrient.  How cells in a petri dish behave is exactly how they do in the body.  Mice are excellent subjects, because their little bodies behave just like people's do, with a very short lifespan to allow us to see changes quickly.  [sigh]

There are libraries full of anecdotal evidence as to the efficacy of food to healing.  "Science" loves to pour scorn on this kind of information, because it doesn't fit the cookie-cutter notion of "HOW science works."  But for the n=1 seeker after health, this is probably the best place to start to work.  THIS worked for a sick human being.  THAT may have worked for a knockout mouse, but is of questionable applicability if you have only two legs and the chromosomes that Nature gave you.

Of course, conventional sources of "wisdom" don't want you to try to improve your health by means of your diet or supplements.  They want you to come in for blood tests, then tell you your values don't suggest that you could be short of things like B12 ... but an antidepressant might make you feel better! :-P

Our bodies evolved to be self-repairing.  IF one had health as a teen but in the 30s developed infirmity, the first thing to ask should be, what has acted upon this organism to make it go wrong?  In the absence of toxin, infection or injury, most of what acted upon the body was NUTRITIONAL INTAKE.  Figuring out how to reverse the harm done is not going to be as easy, and probably won't be simply stopping the damaging intake ... though it's a good place to start.  The next step is to see how other real people managed to mend a problem of a similar nature.

Thank god for google; I've found many answers online.  "Tried and true" beats the hell out of "might" or "may."

nutritional groupies and espionage agents

"Why can't we all just ... get along?"  [sotto-voce chuckle]

We go through a sine-wave* pattern of argument in the nutritional blogosphere....  You'd think we would have outgrown the ganging-up and spying-out impulses by this time in our lives.  Some writers we agree with, and some we don't.  I don't read the ones that i KNOW can't benefit me, because there are more things worth reading than time in which to read them.  Others may certainly do something different if it amuses them!

Attempts to "reason" with someone who disagrees is ALWAYS in vain.  We all have our reasons for holding the opinions we do, and "truth" is relative to the complexity of experience.  What is applicable to a 20-something male gym-rat (or even a 40-something male gym-rat) is completely irrelevant to this 50-something, hypothyroid, energetically-challenged female body.  What kind of mental process is capable of assuming that it COULD be?  Obviously, only one with a very limited experience of life.

"Vitamin X turned my life around, and statistics show that a majority of people are deficient; therefore, EVERYBODY needs to swallow handfuls of X!"

"Mineral Y is DANGEROUSLY HIGH in a small minority of the population!!!  NOBODY should EVER supplement Y, and EVERYBODY should carefully avoid foods containing this POISONOUS substance!"

Bullshit.

I have my own opinions about what people are better off eating/avoiding, but it doesn't matter.  People WILL follow the diet of their choice despite the "evidence" of its wholesomeness.  People WANT to believe that what they like is good for them ... or at least "not THAT bad."  Time will tell.

There's room for disagreement, but not for outright lies.  There have been LIES published recently (and from time immemorial), and misled groupies of the liars run around defending and promoting and acting like silly teens who think their gurus can do no wrong.  I'm not saying that any of us is exempt from being MISTAKEN, but intellectual honesty is the aim of science, and there's a distinct shortage of that in some theoretically-scientific blogs.

What i write here is subjective -- it's what works for me, and meant as an expression of what MIGHT work for others LIKE ME.  There's no suggestion that these ideas may be universally applicable.  However, i'm not out to build readership by writing provocative articles; if i get playful or go on a rant from time to time, you're perfectly welcome to ... ignore me!  ;-)
___
* i almost wrote "wine-save" -- is that a freudian slip, or what?  ;-)

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.

theory and practice

The important thing, in so many different areas and on so many different levels is ... what WORKS?

That's what my blog is all about.  Doesn't matter what the researchers (and dilettantes) philosophize -- if theory (actually, hypothesis) doesn't fit what happens in real life, it ain't true.  And i'm not calling genetically-engineered rodents "real life."  For flesh-and-blood humans who want to shed a few pounds, what WORKS?

What kind of alternate universe do some "scientists" inhabit?  My guess is, it's one where there are no actual physical NEEDS -- just ***ideas*** tra la la....

How many times has a certain philosophy "made sense" and yet turned out to be 180-degree WRONG?  [cough **lipid hypothesis** cough...]  "Just logical" reasoning put us in the position we now inhabit:  ELMM!  CICO!

Raspberries.  The shoe doesn't fit.

searching

As usual, J Stanton inspires....

He observes (among other things) that, though real "news" in the paleo blogosphere is rarer and rarer as time goes by, we still avidly pursue the trickles of information that emerge, searching for ... something.  Of course we do.  Seeking to improve our lives is a basic human drive.

Some lucky people really don't have much to gain by way of health, fitness and well-being, others desperately seek the youth they've lost, and way too many are looking for the properly-functioning body they never had.  Therefore, separate camps have evolved, and thus support systems exist for all conceivable subgroups.  This is highly appropriate -- but it's absolutely absurd that the camps should each consider itself THE One Holy Catholic Church of Radiant Health, and all others HERETICS.

They just need to be honest with themselves about what their specific goals are.  A lot of them aren't, and in some cases apparently can't.  Egos have taken over.  The desire to help others has been subjugated to the desire to lead a cadre of idolaters in some cases; to build careers; to get approbation from the kewl kids in order to bolster fragile self-esteem.  Even some whose scholarship can hardly be doubted damage their potential influence through their overweening arrogance.  Sad ... and self-defeating.

All the groups have their places, because they're serving the needs of some very different people.  The young and "unbroken" human body cannot be the experimental model for the ideal treatment of the older and "challenged" -- how could anyone expect it to be?  Isn't it OBVIOUS that there are no easy universal SOLUTIONS?  Some information is generally useful, and some completely individual, like what supplements will really benefit health.  I'm constantly amazed when people who don't know anything about ME will make absolute pronouncements about what i should and should not take.  How can some people be so presumptuous?

Disagreements are bound to happen, since one man's meat is another man's poison.  I started this blog because i couldn't find one that chronicled the experiences of a woman with problems like enough to mine; if a community of us might FIND EACH OTHER, our individual experiences might compile themselves into a body of knowledge that would be more enlightening than what we'd discover on our own.  What I'M searching for is applicable information.  I don't pretend to have anything to TEACH anyone, but i may be a specimen that allows others to learn.  The young and sound probably won't find much here; that's fine.  Their indifference/disapprobation doesn't hurt my feelings a bit.  I'm unlikely to learn anything from them, either, but they'll get my admiration if they earn it.

There are those who will sneer at all others whom they consider not "scientific" enough, but when their "science" doesn't take into account ALL variations of experience, they don't qualify, either.  If they provide useful information to SOME seekers, well, more power to 'em.  I just hope that the seekers whom they fail realize that there are a lot more ports in the storm.

sick people need more than drugs

Today, my writings are inspired by a rant.  :-)  Sidereal's post about modern psychiatry comes from the point of view of one whose education, experience and intelligent observation make her uniquely qualified to comment on the subject.  I'm an outsider whose introductory-level learning has only made me an interested witness ... but that doesn't keep ME from having an opinion on the subject.  Anyone who knows me would expect nothing less!

The "mental-health business" has always been a misogynist.  He's a self-centered, uppity jerk who (because he knows he's a quack and not a scientist), builds his sense of self-worth through acts of power over anyone he can dominate:  children, the sick, the weak, and -- even in the 21st century -- women.  (The history of "civilization" is full of men treating women as badly as they can get away with, pardon the grammar.  Look up the background of the word "hysteria" for more....)

The medical business, too, thinks meanly of us and our problems.  Built into its philosophy is a very materialistic point of view -- something VERY tangible is behind an imperfectly-operating human machine -- and if they can't get a handle on what that is (bacteria, poisons, viruses, excessive or non-existant hormones, a piece of metal imbedded in a tissue), they're completely lost.  Subtlety is out of the question for most doctors, and a woman's malaise is frequently of subtle origin.

Since the fall of Rome, the slow rise in importance of drugs in health-care, from the herbs of the wise woman to the monopoly of Big Pharma's influence on what is studied, and what information is dispersed, and what teachings medical-students (and graduates) are given, parallels the rise in knowledge of physics.  Unfortunately, the two are confounded in their degree of "scientific-ness" even though they're very different in practice.  The human body is NOT a machine, and you can't tinker with THIS mechanism without screwing up THAT one.  Too bad that medicine doesn't acknowledge ONE point the fields have in common -- if something seems to help at first but throws the system out of balance and causes more problems later, that practice is a non-starter.*

Certain drugs are amazing adjuncts to actual CARE.  Historical instances are told us of beautiful surgeries ... whose patients died of shock rather than sepsis or other causes, simply because anaesthetics were unavailable at the time.  Shock is much less of an problem now.  The Black Death, which decimated the population of Europe over and over again, is now a non-issue due to antibiotics.  Pain relievers, both for physical and mental causes, are a godsend -- can't be lauded enough!  But if the SOURCE of the pain isn't hunted down and eradicated, their value and usefulness is of a limited nature.  One needs to use these things as crutches till the actual healing is accomplished, then put them aside.

I once found written (and it drives me crazy that i can't find it again) a pithy statement about 20th-century western society seeking for "temporary relief" indefinitely:  this is EXACTLY what happens when one tries to use these patent medicines as they are too frequently used today.  Making an abused spouse emotionally numb does not solve the problem of abuse, providing insulin to a diabetic doesn't make cake-eating okay, and giving antidepressants to a woman who is malnourished and in a bad work environment isn't going to get her very far.  And don't get me started about hyping up a child with sugar and not letting him go out for recess....

The point is, unless something is done to fix what's REALLY wrong, which in some cases will actually take some TIME and EFFORT on the part of a doctor, drug use is a contemptible wimp-out.  The profession is spoiled and lazy.  They think they can order a blood test and write a prescription, and that's all there is -- well, it's NOT.  They're going to have to listen and think and research and reason, inspire and enable.  If they don't want to do what will actually HELP, they're in the wrong fucking field.
_____
*  "Stuart Chase tells the story of the plumber who wrote to the Bureau of Standards saying he had found hydrochloric acid good for cleaning out clogged drains. The Bureau wrote back 'The efficacy of hydrochloric acid is indisputable, but the chlorine residue is incompatible with metallic permanence.' The plumber replied that he was glad the Bureau agreed. The Bureau tried again, writing 'We cannot assume responsibility for the production of toxic and noxious residues with hydrochloric acid, and suggest that you use an alternate procedure.' The plumber again said that he was glad the Bureau agreed with him. Finally, the Bureau wrote to the plumber 'Don't use hydrochloric acid; it eats hell out of the pipes.'"  ;-)

addition to my supplement list

As a result of some discussions of inositol on Wooo's blog, i've decided to add it to my collection of daily supplements.  DAMN, that collection is getting extensive!  :-)  I don't take every single one of them every single day, but ... damn.

Inositol is not classified as a "vitamin" because we CAN make it for ourselves.  Danger signal for me:  i so obviously DON'T manufacture and absorb things like "normal" people, whenever i find out something like this -- especially if the word "thyroid" is in the description or pathway -- i have to learn more, and possibly try it for myself.

Information on the 'net about how to use it and what it interacts with, is a lot sketchier than with some of my other supplements -- the latter are carefully grouped so as to give me the most nutritional bang for my buck.  Tyrosine allies with copper (on the days i take it) early in the morning, and magnesium is scrupulously placed in the bedtime group.  But inositol?  Save for some psychiatric drugs (which are not in my repertory -- i take no prescribed pharmaceuticals), i can't find much about it competing or abetting....

On one site, i DID find a suggestion about it being lacking in hypothyroids, and on another was a hint that it might be excessively excreted in those whose carbohydrate tolerance is iffy.  The latter conclusion with me has been one of comparatively-recent realization; i've known for years that low-carb is best for me, but just how poor my tolerance is, is an ongoing revelation.  However, i've grown quite proud of how my health has improved as a result of my diet and supplement choices, because of the care i take to bolster the specific nutritional needs of my struggling thyroid gland AND conversion-of-T4-to-T3 (with my liver especially in mind).  Only my energy levels need improvement at this point.

So i encourage my readers with experience of inositol use to chime in and tell me what WebMD and the others don't (won't?)!  I tell ya, i learn more from you all and the other bloggers listed here, than i ever have from "official" health sources....

lessons that we could learn from my dog

Spenser seemed to feel less-than-perfect after we got home from our trip.  He's getting "up there" in years (i think he's 12), and he met quite a few challenges, including four days of riding in his "box" in the car, and suffering a flea invasion.

This morning, though, he's showing signs of getting back to normal -- thank heavens!  It's darned hard to treat him for anything unpleasant or uncomfortable because he has a "sharp end."  Obviously he had an unhappy puppyhood and when my daughter adopted him from a pet-rescue organization, he exhibited a number of strong self-defense reflexes.  I can fool him into getting a bath (because he doesn't really mind the process, just the anticipation), but to clean his ears or cut off a mat or trim toenails, my husband has to hold him firmly in his arms while i do the operation.  However, he LOVES brushies.

On our regular visits to the vet, Spense used to have to get his anal gland expressed every time.  If you're not familiar with it, it's a rather unpleasant thought:  this is a scent-gland inside the dog's rectum, which leaves behind an olfactory record so other animals know who's been around.  If living in a natural fashion, the gland works without a hitch, oozing a little material in every poop and never clogging.  Pet dogs, though, do NOT live in a natural fashion, nor do they eat a natural canine diet.  Even the higher-priced "scientifically" formulated dogfoods usually contain large amounts of grains -- cheap fillers -- as the bulk ingredient.  This stuff does horrible things to a dog's insides.

Dogs, though omnivorous, are not designed to eat grains.  The only animals actually DESIGNED to eat grains are birds and rodents:  not humans, and certainly not dogs.  Conventional dogfood, even the kind they sell through veterinarians, might as well be formulated to mess up his digestive tract, wreck his teeth, make him fat and diabetic, and yes -- clog his anal gland.  I won't describe the process of unclogging it; some of my readers may like to look at my blog on their lunch-hours....

A few years ago when i discovered the more appropriate ancestral diet for humans, i also heard about a similar diet for dogs.  (I think it might have been on Mark's Daily Apple -- give the man credit for intelligently dealing with all conceivable subjects within his intellectual purlieu, despite the inanity of some of his commenters.)  I first considered providing Spenser with a raw diet, but decided that if anyone else would be feeding him (and that was inevitable) it would be more problematic, and therefore went on a hunt for an acceptable kibble.  Finally deciding on Taste of the Wild, i never looked back.  He loves the stuff, every flavor they make.  He lost his chubbiness, is less itchy, stays cleaner, maintains whiter teeth ... and no longer has anal-gland issues!

All the stupid pointless diet studies that are currently carried out with rodents would more appropriately (and applicably) be done with dogs.  Mice, it has been pointed out, are not small furry humans -- the wild ones do not choose a diet similar to that of primitive people, among other things.  And humans (with some notable exceptions) are not large rats, either.  Canines, however, are omnivores who thrive on raw meat -- just like we do.  NOT that i would advocate treating dogs as badly as laboratory rodents are -- i'm outraged that experimenters feel all right about stressing the little things to death!  But it's less a stretch of the fitness of things that what applies to a dog is comparable in a human.

So, what Spense teaches me in his indirect fashion includes this:  the foods we eat have repercussions WAY beyond merely satisfying our tastebuds and bellies, beyond weight issues, beyond intestinal comfort issues, beyond skin and dental condition.  Of course he also teaches me things about personal boundaries, and that there's no such thing as too many walkies.

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!

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.

epidemiological studies and hypocrisy

The "big bloggers" need to clean up their acts.  Since the recent BS about red meat, i've started noticing that epidemiological studies are okay if they support your position, or something you'd like to believe....  WHAT??? 

Ladies and gentlemen, either these studies are good science or they're bad science -- but you can't swing both ways and retain respectable credibility!  I'm getting to the point that i automatically shake my head and walk away every time i see the phrases "linked to" or "associated with," when reading about some dietary, exercise or lifestyle principle.

If you want to wax philosophical, you could say that EVERYTHING is linked to everything else, because they're all aspects of being alive.  Letting the dog sleep on my bed is linked to puncture wounds on my feet.  Owning clocks is linked to arriving at the theatre on time.  Eating is linked to both being thin and being fat.  Please.

We may have to put up with poor scientific study results being extrapolated into human guidelines (like ideal mouse diets being proclaimed optimal for us omnivores), but do we have to hear about epidemiological studies BEFORE the hypotheses they generate are subjected to a controlled trial?

first day of the rest of my paleo life

I love coffee,
I love tea,
I love the java....

lol -- couldn't resist.  After yesterday, i figured it was appropriate.

Whew, yesterday....  Even Nature was playing April Fool jokes; ninety degrees this early in the year is just weird.  Today will be that hot again, and then we'll get some more seasonable weather.

Last week's orgy of eating out is over.  Having started being "good" again (i swear, i really wasn't that bad), last night i re-read various sections of "Strong Medicine" again, as a reminder and an inspiration.  I've also re-watched a few of the videos from last summer's Ancestral Health Symposium.  Dr. Lustig's presentation (as well as some others) was so technically descriptive, it amazes me that anyone can argue with the insulin hypothesis!  So who should one believe, theoreticians or practicing physicians who actually improve the health of live human patients...?

Anyhow!  Off i go, yet again, with absolutely no cheating this week.  Next week i'll have houseguests, so "perfection" will be out the window, but i'll still keep the carbs as low as i can, even though i'll be in restaurants again.  *Sigh*  Wish to heaven that the professionals cooked like i do....

lack of real progress in obesity research

A researcher in obesity, well-known in the "paleo blogosphere," is celebrating because his hypothesis has become very popular among his peers.  It's a sad day for progress.  In fact, i see him as another Ancel Keyes -- so determined to prove himself right and "important" and listened-to, he's doing his fellow humans a grave disservice.

It's not news that researchers can have problems doing relevant work, because those who are willing to finance their experiments and trials don't have altruistic goals.  Most "angels" represent the pharmaceutical industry, or food processors, or other self-promoting interests, and what THEY want the researcher to find is a short-cut to the consumer's wallet (or cost-savings for themselves).

Add to this, the pressure from the peer-review system, luxuriating in its insulated, womb-like atmosphere of group-think and professional jealousy -- if the in-crowd doesn't accept you, you'll NEVER make your mark.  New, simple, vibrant ideas, it's said, don't stand a chance because it would make the old guard look bad.  Pity.  That means, we ALL lose, as a society, while the world gets fatter and sicker, and thinks that any day now, there'll be a pill that fixes everything.

So while this blogger-researcher crows, and revels in the accolades of the like-minded, he is completely letting down those for whom he theoretically chose this field of endeavor.  For the ALREADY METABOLICALLY-DAMAGED, his "finding" that a high-unrefined-carb diet does not automatically induce obesity is IRRELEVANT.  We KNOW how to make mammals fat, that's HISTORY.  Research is about the FUTURE -- how to fix the millions of overweight, diabetic, diseased people who have already sustained the damage inherent in the perverted diet of the modern world.

For this, he and his mentors and his sycophants are doing NOTHING.  Zilch, nada, niente, bupkis.  His work is WORTHLESS, meaningless to the people he entered this field to help.  I hope he's very proud.

hungry today!

I woke up with an appetite this morning, pretty much for the first time in MONTHS.  Drat.

Two possible reasons leap to mind, and i'm praying it's not this one:  my fat cells may be producing less leptin, and leptin (as we know) is the body's own appetite suppressant, the most important signal of energy repleteness.  I didn't think this reaction set in till much later in the weight-loss war....   :-(  When one loses fat weight, the cells get smaller and they secrete less of this precious hormone (because the fat mass is not inert flesh, as was the theory until very recently -- it is, in fact, your largest endocrine gland).  Producing lots of leptin tells the brain that there's enough energy storage on board, thank you very much, and we don't need more.

When the quantity produced by the fat cells significantly decreases, the brain gets the notion that something may be wrong with the food supply; if there's going to be a shortage, we'd better ramp up appetite and store more if possible.  THIS IS USUALLY WHY PEOPLE CAN'T KEEP DIETING INDEFINITELY -- they get unmanageably hungry, and the brain causes them to fixate on food.  It has nothing to do with willpower -- this is how animals are hard-wired.  In starvation (dieting), metabolic and brain changes are triggered, whose purpose in the world is Survival.  This is NONCONTROVERSIAL -- how do you think the better research scientists have kept themselves busy recently?  ;-)

The other most likely reason for my hunger this morning is the quality of my meals yesterday.  There are plenty of animal studies which show that what you eat today influences what you want to eat tomorrow.  I'm wondering now if the seafood chowder i had last night might have contained enough carbohydrates to start the blood-glucose-insulin-hypoglycemia-hunger roller-coaster.  If so, i'll have to be more careful with that dish in future, which would be a pity because it was REALLY GOOD.

Although i was still in ketosis when i checked first thing today, i'm hoping it's the latter, because that's easily fixed:  i eat plenty of good fats and moderate protein today and go light on the carbs, and my body happily continues burning fat and ketones as its main fuels.

Just in case, i'll knock back a couple of ounces of coconut oil later -- doesn't hurt to have the heavy-artillery of the weight-loss war on alert....

two-week progress point and a digression

I had a good scale reading today -- that was certainly a mood-upper -- 7.5 pounds lost in two weeks.  My measurements haven't improved much (only waist and hip are recorded in the PPC) -- in fact, the RATIO has gone the wrong way a little.  Just shows, i lose fat off my backside faster than off my middle.  A little disappointingly, my (subjective) overall health improvement score is a flatline; perhaps a 0-3 reporting range is too narrow for small-but-perceptible changes?

But my progress isn't what's gotten me excited this morning.  I was just reading the blogs that have been updated since i stopped reading last night, and found something noteworthy from Dr. Sharma (linked on the right side of this page):  a colleague of his, also lecturing at a special event, explained the weight-defending homeostatic system in a way that ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE. 

The argument goes, of course, that in pre-industrial ages, fat storage was valuable for sustenance in times of famine.  (It's also valuable in illness --perhaps you've noticed, when you're feverish, and you don't really feel like eating ordinary fare, you weigh less when you get better.  Problem is these days, sickness is frequently a time when people eat anyway -- treats like ice-cream and snacks!)  So the hedonic system encouraged our ancestors to pig out when they came across something like fruit, which would pack on the pounds in fall, so they could "eat" their own fat tissue all winter when food would be harder to come-by.

Dr. Colmers explains that the weight-defending homeostatic system has been at work all our lives, as we go from infant to child to adolescent to adult, making sure we don't slip backward into a pathological wasting-away of what we so arduously gained (think about primitive people, here -- gaining is hardly arduous in Western society).  It's logical to me, NOW.  Some people explain a HELL of a lot better than other people.

I never thought the idea of the body defending an ever-increasing fat mass to be particularly logical.  Oh yes, i know about leptin-resistance: that contributes, without a doubt.  Is it alone enough to tip the scale (pardon the pun) toward detrimental quantities of fat gain, or does mitochondrial inflexibility start now?  (Does this work the same way with bodybuilders who add freakish quantities of muscle?)  I'm going to have to review what i've read about these points....

Currently, the Drs. Jaminet are formulating an hypothesis on quality of lean tissue being the goal of the brain's drive to keep us big or make us bigger.  I'm extremely eager to see what their ultimate argument will be.

So much information out there, and lots of mental collating to do.  "We" know so much, and yet average people, even doctors, know so little.  Wow....

Sunday is a good day to bring up spirituality

All of the paleo/ancestral bloggers who pride themselves on their science-based writings seem to maintain a strong stance against "woo."  This is an expression designed to pour scorn on anything that hints of the esoteric, something which could be true but is unprovable by means of a clinical trial -- or at least a mathematical model.  If you can't measure it, it ain't there.

Bullshit.  I won't even bother to list things that we couldn't measure a few years ago.

I'm neither impressed nor bullied into yea-saying by all the "scientific disbelief" (i watched "Shanghai Express" again last night...), nor the contempt of the spirituality-bashers whose only instruction was amongst the kind of fundamentalist groups which can quote the entire bible and UNDERSTAND not one word of it.  in fact, the bible is mostly sociology, not spirituality; my favorite reading in that department is Patanjali.

The notion of "God" as some old white guy with a beard, crowned and sitting on a cloud, IS bullshit -- no argument there.  Yes, i do realize that this vision was put forth in the middle ages to educate the illiterate and put an imaginable form to that which is formless.  And alternatively, expressing it as "something out there" is a little on the wishy-washy side; you don't want to upset your mother who is a pious ____ (enter denomination of choice), even though you think she's completely deluded -- but what the heck, she doesn't have too many years left, and if it makes her happy....

I've seen WAY too much in my 56 years to believe that it's all "material."  From personal experience, i KNOW that "there are more things in heaven and earth ... than are dreamt of in your philosophy."  "Evidence-based" isn't the same as "science-based." 

I'm not trying to convince you, though -- you can believe any ol' thing you want, i really don't give a damn....

...Unless you try to tell ME what I should believe -- that's when we bring out the big guns (metaphorically speaking).  I can quote till the cows come home.  Wait -- i've already done that.