philosophy to the rescue

Fred has found that ancient Greek philosophy is helpful in coping with a difficult situation that can't be solved.  My fondness for Patanjali is good for coping with PEOPLE whom I wish didn't exist.  ;-)  Civilization insists that I MAY NOT kill them, despite our ancestors' predilection for pushing the incurably-antisocial off the edge of the ice, so SOMETHING is needed to keep them from soiling our nests.

The 33rd sutra reads:

By sympathy with the happy, compassion for the sorrowful, delight in the holy, disregard of the unholy, the psychic nature moves to gracious peace.

When we are wrapped up in ourselves, shrouded with the cloak of our egotism, absorbed in our pains and bitter thoughts, we are not willing to disturb or strain our own sickly mood by giving kindly sympathy to the happy, thus doubling their joy, or by showing compassion for the sad, thus halving their sorrow. We refuse to find delight in holy things, and let the mind brood in sad pessimism on unholy things. All these evil psychic moods must be conquered by strong effort of will. This rending of the veils will reveal to us something of the grace and peace which are of the interior consciousness of the spiritual man.

Modern thought tells us that all that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.  I'm sure that's true -- but it also causes a lot of stress when we are subjected to the constant stream of bad news that IS the modern world.  We join social media to try to increase contact with distant friends and relatives, and we get trapped into seeing examples of wickedness, greed and power-mania.  We "should" be doing something when we see all that's wrong, we think -- but there's so much of it we feel helpless.

I'm finding that the way to make internet communication work is to approach it with a hefty dose of Patanjali.  It works for the problem of trolls in the comment-sections of our favorite blogs, too.  There is no reasoning with them -- their joy is to stir up shit, though why they find that enjoyable is more than I can imagine.  They obviously want the attention and to show how clever they are (despite their mistaken impression of their own wittiness).  The best way to deal with them is to I-G-N-O-R-E, or to use the yogi's term, disregard them.

If nobody argues or engages, they'll go away eventually.  If they don't experience the joy of having the last word because their comments are deleted, they're bound to find that their attempts are in vain.  "Do not feed the trolls" should probably be the motto of all comment-sections, for the peace and happiness of writers AND readers.  That leaves plenty of room for sympathizing with the happy, displaying compassion for the suffering, and delighting in the "holy" -- the good, kind and up-beat people who ARE out there, despite the competing noise.

taking it out on the grunts

There's a good reason why a certain comedian's site was removed from my blog list ... but if it hadn't happened long ago already, today's post would have been the LAST STRAW.

[comment] -- I went out to lunch and could only find ‘lite’ mayonnaise so I asked for full fat and was told by the (slightly overweight and very young) server that I should be watching my calories! ... I used vinegar.

[blog host] -- By which I hope you mean you sprayed vinegar in her face and told her to mind her own @#$%ing business.

I MEAN REALLY.  I'm into a good rant myself, but the constant anti-government bitching ... you might as well stop calling yourself a comedian and get a job with Faux News.

EDIT:  that's right -- he became a starch-eater, so it must be the carbs talking!  ;-)

on the road again, again

We're heading back toward Texas together, with the pup and tweeter this time.  We're waiting for the concentrated WORK to begin in the back yard, so are taking advantage of the lull to let J "get away from it all" for awhile.  In our family, the driver gets to choose what plays on the stereo, so whereas i was listening to classic rock'n'roll and vintage radio-shows when i drove alone, today it's BBC World and other news and financial radio.  Boring to me for the most part, alternating with IRRITATING.  (The LIES!!!)

One brief blurb spoke of some company willing to donate to a cancer charity, dependent upon customer purchases.  Now, health "charities" get my goat at the best of times, but this one claimed that "a cure for cancer is in YOUR HANDS"....

You're damned right it is, but not in the way they mean.  You could bankrupt the country and not get any closer to a cure for cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes or any of the "diseases of civilization" for the simple reason that they aren't working from the right paradigm.  No drug is going to cure these illnesses, when the causative factors -- modern diet and lifestyle -- are not addressed.  And the pharmaceutical companies would implode if we did that!  No, they want the donations to keep pouring in because THEIR BUSINESS is the SEARCH, not the discovery.

It's a terrible thing that we have to watch our loved ones suffer and die from these dreadful diseases, just because they refuse to listen to the latest and most illuminated views on them.  We're wackos, you know!  How dare we doubt the omniscience (DIVINITY) of their voodoo-medicine-men -- i mean DOCTORS!  Having lost two dear friends rather recently, and unnumbered relations for uncounted years, i have a really bad attitude about patient trust and medical hubris, but more than that a raging fury against groups which claim to be working to help the ill, but in fact do everything in their power to maintain the horribly ineffective status quo.

The only way we can expect to have a respectable quality of life -- let alone length -- is to cover our asses and take care of ourselves.  Nobody cares how you feel or how you function outside a very small circle.  The more difficult your physical problems are to deal with, the more your MD just wants you to GO AWAY.  Sure, if you'll quietly agree to submit to and pay for your treatments s/he will continue to test and try and treat, but s/he doesn't really have a horse in that race!  If you complain that you've spent a fortune and suffered a lot and not made any progress, you're no longer even appreciated as a source of income....

WE have to be our own researchers and tryers-out, and make sure the physician knows that s/he WORKS FOR US, doesn't just autocratically run the show.  By being passive, trusting the experts to know what they're talking about, we assume that there is someone out there who WANTS us to be healed ... and that's a BIG assumption.

MORE THAN THAT though -- we have to be willing to do the work and put in the sweat, long hours and elbow-grease.  WE have to implement the lifestyle changes properly.  WE have to be disciplined. Just because we've read an article, too, we CANNOT assume that we DO know better than our GP ... BUT if we do our homework and bring up the subject, we shouldn't accept a brush-off sort of reply.

WE ARE in the driver's seat when it comes to our own health, and that entails a lot of responsibility.  If we abdicate it, and let others decide what is true, and blindly follow, the situation looks hazardous to me!  Is our "decider" a forward-thinker who spends his/her spare time reading PubMed, or a plodder whose hobby is more important than the patient and who believes everything the drug-rep spiels out?  We've been brought up to trust our professionals, but the more i learn about the medical industry the less i'm inclined to believe.

There's SO MUCH to know!  Even the brightest AND most caring, CAN'T know it all -- and people often do expect that.  The average Joe doesn't seem to realize that an awful lot of physiological detail is UNKNOWN -- and the "powers" in the medical world want to maintain that illusion!

IF people realized that their "sins" of dietary and lifestyle "commission" were insufficiently understood, and that there is no real treatment for the underlying problem besides CHANGE, would they be more careful in preserving their health and well-being?  If they knew that their chances of becoming seriously ill were LESS to do with their genetics and MORE to do with food-choices, would they depend so much on science to provide a magic bullet?

Those of us who have become renegades from the usual patient role are the bell-wethers of a new demographic;  time will tell if we're right (as we think) or deluded (as others consider us).  But that time is hurrying upon us!  The latest new cancer patient in my reenacting circle is a dozen years younger than i am.  His condition is so rare, they can't give him much idea as to what's going to happen next, but he's on chronic and acute pain medications.  :-(  IF we're right, we're going to be a group of "last leaves" ... which is not without its melancholy aspect, as we lose loved ones whose early deaths are theoretically postponable.

pleasant surprise

I got on the scale for the first time since before my trip, and i was stunned to see several pounds of loss.  Seven pounds to my goal of 140!  HUZZAH, as they used to say!

I expected a pretty good number, considering the way my "skinny shorts" fit....  A whole lot of different causes probably contributed to the process, but some of the FASTING is most central to it.

When i got sloppy and ate "naughty food" i followed it up with a 24-hour fast.  I pretty much did the Kitava thing!  A couple of times i ate canned fish as easy meals, and i also ran out of cashews early-on, and lapsed into macadamias -- that probably helped as i find them less moreish.

I will certainly NOT actually TRY to do the same thing again -- there is probably a lot of unrealized accident in the combination of circumstances surrounding my success!  I'll just celebrate progress.

PROGRESS.  When one exercises the discipline to be perfect on a dietary plan and does NOT get good measurable results, NOTHING is more discouraging!  Where is the incentive to forgo nontoxic foods that are merely fattening, if one doesn't get anywhere by so doing?  No -- as far as i'm concerned the "fast after indulgence" technique seems to solve a lot of problems.

fasting and not-fasting

Another "we're all different" discussion:

I was happy to spend some time with my long-time friend Meg while we were at "Cowboy Town*."  She and I met in 7th-grade music class, almost FORTY-SEVEN YEARS ago!  Now that's some connection....

Meg, whether because of my advocating it or because she heard about it somewhere else, has given up wheat-eating for the most part, too.  She did an elimination/refeed experiment, and she finds that her minor health challenges are much better without it -- like so many of us do!  She's one of these high-energy people I envy so, who has the power to "get things done yesterday."  :-)  Meg has always been slender, but nowadays wears very loose-fitting clothes because she doesn't like what mid-life has done to her shape. 

We've corrupted her with our Sunnyland Farms nuts always in the house, and Meg sends off regular orders for them.  She eats more fruit than I, but that's only fair -- I'm sure she burns a lot more energy.  At "Cowboy Town" she rarely sits down for meals, but nibbles a little on-the-go -- for our Saturday night traditional steak dinner she usually sits, but this time she was a bit late, and the only steaks left were overcooked;  she ended up circulating through the room, chewing off bones that were still pretty well-endowed with medium-rare meat.  :-)  They buy big bone-in ribeyes for us these days!

One thing that I do, diet-wise, that she doesn't ... is FAST.  Meg feels the need to eat about a half-dozen small meals each day, as opposed to the two large ones that I prefer.  Sometime, I need to quiz her on exactly why she does it -- does she feel poorly when she eats larger meals, what?  I can understand that -- on the unusual event that I eat a little too much quantity, my digestion feels as though it can't handle it.  Lettuce is frequently involved, or I've consumed too much liquid with my food (this is why I no longer like to order iced tea with meals -- if I can't have a glass of wine to sip, I order coffee).  Perhaps Meg has a stomach-acid issue, or maybe a shortage of digestive enzymes...?

The short version (too late!) is that she feels best eating frequently, even though to most people she's a low-carb eater -- she evolved this style not because she ever needed to lose weight but because LC foods are what make her feel best.  Before he retired, she had a wonderful holistic MD who encouraged herbs and "food as medicine," and she took that ball and ran with it.  She's a middle-school science teacher by trade -- very much a cool scientific thinker.  If it WORKS, then it doesn't matter to her that Conventional Wisdom is against it.

So "all middle-aged low-carbers are overweight, red-faced plodders" -- not quite!  There are many reasons to go LC, and my friend Meg, just like Jan at thelowcarbdiabetic, finds that a low-starch and -sugar intake provides plenty of fuel for their high-energy styles.  There's plenty of room in the tribe for their types, too!

here we are, with another friend...

______
*  I'll call it what a friend's children used to, because I'd prefer to keep its true name quiet -- long story! 

it's not WHAT so much as HOW

All it takes is a title, sometimes, to set me off....

Those people pushing the boundaries of what "everyone should eat" may have part of their story right, but as usual there are a lot of loose ends fluttering in the breeze.  Yes, our free-living ancestors ate plant material when available and convenient.  But they weren't eating it the way most modern folks do.

From "tubers are okay" to "pan-fried in nut oil" is a big jump.  Do we sun-dry and ferment our potatoes?  Of course not (we probably wouldn't like them if we did).  But that's how Andean potato-eaters were doing it, and apparently thriving.

The vast majority of Americans (i haven't sufficient knowledge of everyday practices to indict preparation techniques elsewhere), even if they DO cook their own legumes from dry instead of just buying them in cans, more often than not only soak them overnight, or use the quick-soak method.  Softening -- that's the reason to soak beans, isn't it?  HAhahahahaha....

When it comes to subsistence vegetable foods containing protein, HOW they're prepared is absolutely critical.  If you say "legumes are okay" you HAVE to append that statement with "when you soak them to the point that they're beginning to ferment, because if you don't you're not only NOT getting the food-value you expect from them, you're also robbing your body of the nutrients in the other things you eat alongside."

I just don't understand the drive to get people to eat second-class forms of nutrition!  Beans and potatoes really don't taste good enough to be worth the bother!  They're useful as hell if you're in a survival situation, but my friends and i ain't THERE (yet).

The message seems to be coming from individuals who have gone out of their way to diversify their gut-bugs, and they're intent on feeding them.  I strongly suspect that "a good microbiome" is a SYMPTOM of health, not a determiner of it -- despite what happens when you put skinny-mouse bacteria into fat mice.  Just as obesity and naturally-occurring hypothyroidism are symptoms of malnutrition and energy misappropriation -- causality and DIRECTION-of-causality are sometimes tangled.

If i can get liver and oysters and lamb-chops, why the hell should i waste my appetite on BEANS?  Especially as we get older -- we have less appetite and less power to digest!  What we SHOULD eat for well-being are easily-absorbed nutritional powerhouses, not the scratching-the-bottom-of-the-vitamin/protein/mineral-barrel foods that fatten and bloat and promote inflammation.  Soaring blood-sugar and insulin spikes?  They may not be harmful in isolation ... but YOU can have them, not me.

Now, in the case of people who need to make the most of their food dollar, as we discussed yesterday, beans and potatoes are far-and-away better choices than the day-old-baked-goods aisle.  For conscientious vegetarians who don't care about the small animals that are killed in wheat-fields as much as cows, chickens and pigs, tubers and legumes are better than tofu, too.  And you can't beat a well-prepared Cajun-style red-beans-and-rice either, every once in awhile.  But all things equal (tolerance-wise), to go for the latter instead of the mussels in home-made tomato broth?  Insane.  ;-)

One could make an argument for all kinds of modern foods being "paleo" in character -- it means NOTHING.  Paleo is only a template for a healthy lifestyle that omits modern practices and foodstuffs which are KNOWN to be deleterious, like staying up half the night watching television, and eating things that require processing which destroys food value.  This is why nut-flour-based desserts really aren't "paleo" even if they only contain nuts, eggs, honey and natural flavorings -- they've violated the healthy spirit of the game if you eat them EVERY SINGLE DAY....

So YES, tubers and legumes are ancient foods, just like the nuts, eggs and honey of my example.  BUT THEY ALL HAVE TO BE EATEN IN CONTEXT.  If YOUR digestion can stand them, they're potentially nourishing.  BUT....

All vegetables "are trying to kill us," as they say.  Some people are killed more easily than others.  For the hard-to-kill to insist more delicate constitutions emulate them is self-aggrandizement, hubris and selfishness.  It's exactly like lactase-persistent people advocating milk-drinking in people who don't have the genes for it.  Like celiac people being told they just have to take their RS, and they'll be fine -- bread is the staff of life, after all.  ...EXACTLY.

 Like others before me, i find the "paleo" part of my blog-title to be misleading to others, and containing unintended connotations.  I'm too stubborn to change it, though, and i'll persistently defend the concept of non-NADism.  "Is it paleo/primal?" however, is a question not worth asking.  Say, rather, is it non-NAD -- the LAST thing i should eat regularly are the Neolithic Agents of Disease.

"food insecurity"...?

I followed a link to a National Geographic article about "the new face of hunger" in the US.  I only read a few paragraphs, because of my mounting irritation -- this time, not at our broken system that gives billions to profitable businesses but shorts programs that help the working poor -- but to the state of ignorance in this country when it comes to food savvy and making the most of our dollars.

I noticed a similar situation when a friend was having financial problems years ago -- she and her husband both had full-time, decent-paying jobs, but were facing bankruptcy.  They had NO idea how to handle what they had. 

"Hungry" children don't refuse food -- the child in the article who DID was obviously not HUNGRY.

It's an insult to STARVING people to call these brats "hungry."  Conversely, it's an insult to the hard-working poor to cut off the assistance which is making it possible for them the scrape by.  Hand-me-downs can be deceptive.  Poor children receive gifts too. 

People who "know how to be poor," i.e. to MANAGE on a small budget, don't buy Coke, fruit roll-ups, and other snack foods, and they don't let their kids take one bite out of an apple then set it aside ... like my friends did.

The malnourishment of "poor" Americans has a distinct air of spoiled children refusing to settle for second-best.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THERE ARE NOT TRULY IMPOVERISHED AND STARVING PEOPLE HERE ... but the families of four unable to feed themselves on twice the minimum wage (as in the NG article) are squandering their resources, not using their brains.

It really seems to be time to restore life-skill-teaching in schools.  Do any of us recall details of our "social studies" classes even a year after learning them (so we could regurgitate them on a state-mandated test)?  What would happen if we compressed classes to contain more essential quantities of things a modern human NEEDS to know, and leave unimportant minutia behind?

I'm reminded of that '60s classic movie, "To Sir With Love" with sadness -- what Poitier's character did would never be allowed today.  However, that sort of class would provide benefits to all society, not just help the students deal with the real world when they have no choice but to face it.