Somebody asked me this question the other day. At the time, it sounded unpleasantly sarcastic, but I answered civilly. Reflection on the larger question, though, leads me to answer more fully.
Yes. WE ARE ALL DOING IT WRONG if our problems deepen, or don't ameliorate as far as possible for our hypothetically-damaged bodies.
We're probably "doing it wrong" because we don't know what the right answer IS. We're "doing it wrong" because authorities have told us THIS IS THE WAY IT IS DONE and some people are foolish enough to trust them -- we're "doing it wrong" because the wrong thing is Standard of Care. Some of the information in textbooks IS WRONG, despite claims to the contrary.
Some people are "doing it wrong" because they leap into an attractive regimen without learning enough about it. There's an AWFUL lot of advice floating around -- from every possible side of the question -- for every possible thing that can ail us. Being particularly interested in thyroid issues and low-energy states, I've read a million of 'em! The vast majority are absolutely positively idiotic! They are frequently Conventional Wisdom maxims, and though it "makes sense" to people, it's just plain WRONG. Bearing in mind that there are a huge range of different thyroid problems one might have and all of them probably have different solutions (if any), there are SOME universal truths....
Some people are "doing it wrong" because they aren't doing something 100%. For the un- or minimally-damaged person, Sisson's 80/20 rule is already going above-and-beyond average health-consciousness and it's just fine. For others, that 20% non-compliance could quite possibly kick their ass (celiac disease, anyone?).
I could go on and on.... My point is, even though Regimen X works for 95% of people, it may be the wrong thing for that 5% -- the 5% are DOING IT WRONG, even though they don't have any reason to suspect it.
It's true -- too often when people claim failure at one of those perfect regimens, the peanut gallery pipes up that it's the fault of the Failed. Maybe, maybe not. But some distinctions need to be drawn. Somewhere along the line, the outrage against the concept of "blaming the victim" has gone overboard. There are damned good reasons to be careful about how blame is apportioned, ... but ya know what? The victim OCCASIONALLY is fully responsible for his plight -- think Darwin Awards!
We're doing it right when we finally find what succeeds. Until then, at least in part, we're "doing it wrong."
Friday, May 9, 2014
Thursday, May 8, 2014
dealing with leftovers this week!
Next came the remains of our Easter ham.
Damn modern skinny pigs, anyway! This came from our "local" pastured-pig farmer; his ground pork is positively wonderful, but his ham was a disappointment -- too lean, and therefore dry. The leftovers got shoved into the back of the fridge where things tend to freeze ... and was nearly forgotten.
But there's no way under the sun i'll waste a pound and a half of ham, even if it IS as dry as ... modern porkchops tend to be. :-P Deviled ham -- that's the ticket. And a way to add GOOD fat to a cut that often contains the wrong kind, if any at all. Check it out:
DEVILED HAM
1 1/2# ham, food-processed fine
3 small sweet pickles
1/4 c. dijon mustard
1/2 c. mayo
4 oz. melted unsalted butter
1/2 t. pepper
1/4 t. allspice
cayenne pepper to taste
To the ground ham, add the pickles, and process till everything is the texture you like. Add everything else, and mix thoroughly.
...I think it'll get used up enthusiastically!
Damn modern skinny pigs, anyway! This came from our "local" pastured-pig farmer; his ground pork is positively wonderful, but his ham was a disappointment -- too lean, and therefore dry. The leftovers got shoved into the back of the fridge where things tend to freeze ... and was nearly forgotten.
But there's no way under the sun i'll waste a pound and a half of ham, even if it IS as dry as ... modern porkchops tend to be. :-P Deviled ham -- that's the ticket. And a way to add GOOD fat to a cut that often contains the wrong kind, if any at all. Check it out:
DEVILED HAM
1 1/2# ham, food-processed fine
3 small sweet pickles
1/4 c. dijon mustard
1/2 c. mayo
4 oz. melted unsalted butter
1/2 t. pepper
1/4 t. allspice
cayenne pepper to taste
To the ground ham, add the pickles, and process till everything is the texture you like. Add everything else, and mix thoroughly.
...I think it'll get used up enthusiastically!
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
new favorite liver recipe!
When I made my last meatloaf, I only used half of the liver I had defrosted. The other half I cooked, to preserve it till I was ready to eat it, too. Then Monday rolled around -- Cinco de Mayo! :-) I know, "soup of the day" SHOULD have been tequila, but I had my really-authentic Mexican cookbook out, so I checked the index for "liver."
JACKPOT. Only one liver recipe was listed, but WHAT A WINNER! Outrageously easy, too.
SOPA DE HIGADO
1/2# liver
1 qt. beef stock
your favorite thickener -- I use konjac flour
1/2 c. dry sherry
Cook the liver in bacon grease. Puree it with part of the stock. Add the rest of the stock. Bring to a simmer, and whisking constantly, sift in the konjac flour (or whatever) slowly till it begins to thicken a little. Add salt and pepper to taste. Stir in the sherry when you serve it.
THAT'S IT.
YUM.
JACKPOT. Only one liver recipe was listed, but WHAT A WINNER! Outrageously easy, too.
SOPA DE HIGADO
1/2# liver
1 qt. beef stock
your favorite thickener -- I use konjac flour
1/2 c. dry sherry
Cook the liver in bacon grease. Puree it with part of the stock. Add the rest of the stock. Bring to a simmer, and whisking constantly, sift in the konjac flour (or whatever) slowly till it begins to thicken a little. Add salt and pepper to taste. Stir in the sherry when you serve it.
THAT'S IT.
YUM.
give a dog a bad name and hang him
Another erstwhile lowcarber has joined the ranks of the starch brigade, and has begun the sad practice of strawman-fighting. :-(
Because it's EASIER to contradict and mock a philosophical opponent when you exaggerate or oversimplify his/her argument. It may make it easier to churn out blog-posts, but in the greater debate it doesn't get much ground covered. The two (or more) sides waste time and effort restating their premises definitively, the waters become permanently muddied, and the people who really need a concise answer as soon as possible ... moulder to dust.
Crafting ways to malign a counter-argument inappropriately is sloppy debating and pathetic "reasoning." Pasting an inapplicable label on, which everyone can agree to despise, does not make the basis of that position any less true.
NO, not everyone needs to VLC. YES, tolerance can be measured, so no longer should be a question of preference over physiology. ABSOLUTELY, experiments can and have been designed and run to prove any damned thing you want, so referencing studies by, for, and of the cherry-picker should perish from the earth.
But merely because some people carry more amylase-gene copies doesn't mean they SHOULD base their diets on starches. Though they tolerate a higher-starch diet better than we consistent lowcarbers do, there's STILL the issue of hyperglycemia, and the fact that tissues like the eyes take damage from it because even with faultless insulin performance, it isn't insulin which allows glucose in or keeps it out. If the ability to utilize starch well were the ONLY question in sugar-sourced illness, skinny people would not get diabetes.
It's time to revisit Lifextension's outstanding post about amylase. The novelty-loving blogosphere is very fond of focussing its attention so closely on details of the forest, the facts implied by the trees' distribution over the landscape sometimes gets ignored.
Because it's EASIER to contradict and mock a philosophical opponent when you exaggerate or oversimplify his/her argument. It may make it easier to churn out blog-posts, but in the greater debate it doesn't get much ground covered. The two (or more) sides waste time and effort restating their premises definitively, the waters become permanently muddied, and the people who really need a concise answer as soon as possible ... moulder to dust.
Crafting ways to malign a counter-argument inappropriately is sloppy debating and pathetic "reasoning." Pasting an inapplicable label on, which everyone can agree to despise, does not make the basis of that position any less true.
NO, not everyone needs to VLC. YES, tolerance can be measured, so no longer should be a question of preference over physiology. ABSOLUTELY, experiments can and have been designed and run to prove any damned thing you want, so referencing studies by, for, and of the cherry-picker should perish from the earth.
But merely because some people carry more amylase-gene copies doesn't mean they SHOULD base their diets on starches. Though they tolerate a higher-starch diet better than we consistent lowcarbers do, there's STILL the issue of hyperglycemia, and the fact that tissues like the eyes take damage from it because even with faultless insulin performance, it isn't insulin which allows glucose in or keeps it out. If the ability to utilize starch well were the ONLY question in sugar-sourced illness, skinny people would not get diabetes.
It's time to revisit Lifextension's outstanding post about amylase. The novelty-loving blogosphere is very fond of focussing its attention so closely on details of the forest, the facts implied by the trees' distribution over the landscape sometimes gets ignored.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
all carbs are not created equal -- but we all knew that
So far, Optimal Diet proportions haven't shown me much progress ... but stress has been an issue for months here. Stress is the very worst thing to have to deal with while trying to eat for health and fat-loss!
(Our sunroom-and-garage addition planning is getting finalized, though. We have our favorite construction guy on board -- that's one source of stress removed; we've chosen the hot-tub, fireplace, floor tile and doors and windows. Floor plan is as carved-in-stone as is humanly possible. Whew. Found someone to take care of our dog and bird, too, after our usual TWO dog-sitters had conflicts with our vacation dates. BIG "whew.")
So for the next two weeks -- i vow here with witnesses! -- i'm going to be very, very good. I may not achieve "perfect" but i WILL be that way inclined. One glass of wine with lunch and dinner, not imbibed in advance. Wine is an important digestive aid with me, but if i start my first glass while i'm cooking, i have to pour another when we sit down to our meal. One glass is not moreish but two are -- sneaky stuff! And three glasses of wine IMPAIRS digestion. :-)
No potatoes. Minimal lettuce. Be wary of inulin. Be wary of ANYTHING that causes bloat! Avoid goitrogens. Buy a cucumber. Squash (two types in the fridge already) seems to be trouble-free in the serving sizes i favor. Half-cup of rice causes no problems.
Because all carbs are not created equal, any more than the various types of fat are! Not even all SATURATED fats are. The human tendency to categorize and compartmentalize just doesn't work well when it comes to food.
It's more than just "gut health" -- there, we find, various gurus STILL try to fit everyone into a single niche. I for one do not think that everyone SHOULD strive to be able to eat "everything." Even if we all were to have the same microbiome, our genetics would assert themselves and demand that we not eat something which other people can center their entire diets around. The gut-bugs that are ideal for MY ancestrally-appropriate diet are not the gut-bugs that are optimal for my friends whose people are NOT from the British Isles and northern Europe. We should, most likely, NOT be eating the same kinds of foods when you get beyond animal parts.
I was eating very cleanly when i discovered a problem with nightshades above the half-cup-serving size. Ditto for cashews cooked into dishes (again, a half-cup of roasted salted ones don't give me any trouble). Real fermented sauerkraut brings on hypothyroid symptoms. A small salad made at home is fine; a large salad served in a restaurant has "digestive discomfort" written all over it. Peanuts, too -- but if i soak and cook dried legumes MYSELF i can get away without the fermentation that causes the misery.
It's all VERY individual. If your body says "NO," i'm not sure why some people want to force it to go there anyway.
Some people absolutely DO NOT TOLERATE gluten, ... and some have fructose absorption issues, or lactose or alcohol processing limitations. Should they try to consume the stuff anyway, just because some people claim to thrive on it?
If you know what you can eat so that your own signature biota are happy, why do you want to push them beyond that? Because "nine cups of colorful vegetables per day" improved the health of SOMEBODY ELSE? Why should i think that would work for ME, if ONE cup of colorful vegetables can make me miserable? "You have to feed your good bacteria" -- but who says you DON'T have the right bacteria FOR YOU already? Unless you've killed off your microbiome with antibiotics, or intoxicated them with excess sugar, or suffered the foreign-invasion of food-poisoning, does something really NEED to be done? ...Maybe it does, but the point is, it's YOU who should reach that conclusion, not some guru extrapolating from a few success-stories to the greater population.
(Our sunroom-and-garage addition planning is getting finalized, though. We have our favorite construction guy on board -- that's one source of stress removed; we've chosen the hot-tub, fireplace, floor tile and doors and windows. Floor plan is as carved-in-stone as is humanly possible. Whew. Found someone to take care of our dog and bird, too, after our usual TWO dog-sitters had conflicts with our vacation dates. BIG "whew.")
So for the next two weeks -- i vow here with witnesses! -- i'm going to be very, very good. I may not achieve "perfect" but i WILL be that way inclined. One glass of wine with lunch and dinner, not imbibed in advance. Wine is an important digestive aid with me, but if i start my first glass while i'm cooking, i have to pour another when we sit down to our meal. One glass is not moreish but two are -- sneaky stuff! And three glasses of wine IMPAIRS digestion. :-)
No potatoes. Minimal lettuce. Be wary of inulin. Be wary of ANYTHING that causes bloat! Avoid goitrogens. Buy a cucumber. Squash (two types in the fridge already) seems to be trouble-free in the serving sizes i favor. Half-cup of rice causes no problems.
Because all carbs are not created equal, any more than the various types of fat are! Not even all SATURATED fats are. The human tendency to categorize and compartmentalize just doesn't work well when it comes to food.
It's more than just "gut health" -- there, we find, various gurus STILL try to fit everyone into a single niche. I for one do not think that everyone SHOULD strive to be able to eat "everything." Even if we all were to have the same microbiome, our genetics would assert themselves and demand that we not eat something which other people can center their entire diets around. The gut-bugs that are ideal for MY ancestrally-appropriate diet are not the gut-bugs that are optimal for my friends whose people are NOT from the British Isles and northern Europe. We should, most likely, NOT be eating the same kinds of foods when you get beyond animal parts.
I was eating very cleanly when i discovered a problem with nightshades above the half-cup-serving size. Ditto for cashews cooked into dishes (again, a half-cup of roasted salted ones don't give me any trouble). Real fermented sauerkraut brings on hypothyroid symptoms. A small salad made at home is fine; a large salad served in a restaurant has "digestive discomfort" written all over it. Peanuts, too -- but if i soak and cook dried legumes MYSELF i can get away without the fermentation that causes the misery.
It's all VERY individual. If your body says "NO," i'm not sure why some people want to force it to go there anyway.
Some people absolutely DO NOT TOLERATE gluten, ... and some have fructose absorption issues, or lactose or alcohol processing limitations. Should they try to consume the stuff anyway, just because some people claim to thrive on it?
If you know what you can eat so that your own signature biota are happy, why do you want to push them beyond that? Because "nine cups of colorful vegetables per day" improved the health of SOMEBODY ELSE? Why should i think that would work for ME, if ONE cup of colorful vegetables can make me miserable? "You have to feed your good bacteria" -- but who says you DON'T have the right bacteria FOR YOU already? Unless you've killed off your microbiome with antibiotics, or intoxicated them with excess sugar, or suffered the foreign-invasion of food-poisoning, does something really NEED to be done? ...Maybe it does, but the point is, it's YOU who should reach that conclusion, not some guru extrapolating from a few success-stories to the greater population.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
the stoopid, it burns
:-) I wish i knew who said that originally. It's so apt!
I've felt down for about the last twenty-four hours -- no good reason, but it seems every time i turn around i see examples of people behaving in really dumb ways! Ascribing many large, complex problems to a single, simple and limited "cause" that a child might be able to dispute reasonably. Ignoring elegant theories (and i do mean THEORIES in the scientific sense), explanatory of a whole range of phenomena, to fixate on ... Benghazi-like flakey notions that don't even reach the level of hypotheses! Manganese! Electric fields!
Head ... Bang ... Wall ....
I think i'll desist from reading comments in my favorite blogs, altogether. Used to be, the fanatics came to call very rarely, but when moderators have busy lives, the nutcases come out to play....
I've felt down for about the last twenty-four hours -- no good reason, but it seems every time i turn around i see examples of people behaving in really dumb ways! Ascribing many large, complex problems to a single, simple and limited "cause" that a child might be able to dispute reasonably. Ignoring elegant theories (and i do mean THEORIES in the scientific sense), explanatory of a whole range of phenomena, to fixate on ... Benghazi-like flakey notions that don't even reach the level of hypotheses! Manganese! Electric fields!
Head ... Bang ... Wall ....
I think i'll desist from reading comments in my favorite blogs, altogether. Used to be, the fanatics came to call very rarely, but when moderators have busy lives, the nutcases come out to play....
Thursday, May 1, 2014
excuses, excuses...
I just can't justify myself...! ;-) I'm adding another blog to my collection, and i feel a bit guilty that it's loaded with low-carb "junk food" recipes.
You see, i believe that snacking and indulging in a lot of substitute-foods in a low-carb diet is just asking for trouble. When LCers eat their versions of breads, pancakes, cereals, muffins, cakes and so on, more than just as an occasional treat, they add many more grams of carb than they often think. Trust me -- i've paid attention to how easy it is, when i've tried out new LC cookie recipes! (Those Expert Foods butter cookies are EEEEEVIL!)
But to get alerts when potentially-helpful recipes come up, i'm adding All Day I Dream About Food to my blog list. I'm sorry. ;-) I'll figure out some kind of penance later....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)