You posted that stuff about Matt Stone and Insulin posts, right? Have you tried RRARF and to what effect?

I did answer this, but, I know, there's a lot of writing to get through here.  No, I didn't have any effects, but like letifer mentioned, Matt's point might be good at least for getting people to eat enough.  I like the idea that calories are good for you; and if you are to get enough, it's probably easier by including carbs.  Don't be afraid of glucose-- cells put it to good use!  Well, unless you have a problem managing glucose levels, which I can't help you with there.

Also, I've also posted on NCR... just look for it earlier in this thread.  Should be easy to find because I have that same youtube video there.  I give my reasons for not trusting that either.

    Thank you everyone.  I don't have anything to contribute, but it's good reading and watching/listening.

Yeah, and I'm thankful for my small audience here!  I actually hope to reach a larger audience someday on this important and overlooked subject.  We'll see if it works out for me...

Hi guys,

I stopped the ALF treatment a few months ago.  But I didn't feel like writing more about it then because it was just too disappointing.  I wasted thousands of dollars, and my bite is non-functional, because I have "buildups" on the molars, and looks stupid with the teeth all jutting forward in front.  Chewing is painful.  I'm a mess.

Anyways, I wasn't completely convinced that the ALF did nothing for my skull until I put together this video of before and after x-rays.  See it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdxEsft8U20

It wasn't the best quality "after" x-ray-- it's all my practitioner would provide me at the time.  I had to resize it and turn it to match it up properly, which is what they should have done too, if they really wanted to discover the truth.

I also sent a letter to Dr. Nordstrom, the inventor of the ALF, since my practitioner had been with him discussing my case and how "successful" it was.  But also I was complaining.  He's responsible for sucking people like me in with his claims as anyone.  He responded defensively-- basically you can see his comments on the youtube video.  I could have replied, but it's just no use.  These people are going to believe what they want.  Let the buyer beware.

One thing I didn't clarify with him-- I still believe the ALF may change the bones in the head when used in a developing child.  So yeah, parents should definitely try this as opposed to extracting teeth, or harsh palate wideners that expand in intervals when you turn it with a key, as I had when I was a kid.  The most striking evidence of this was an experiment done with identical twin girls, which you can see pictures of in this article: 

http://www.westonaprice.org/dentistry/1733-from-attention-deficit-to-sleep-apnea.html

Unfortunately for the less fortunate twin, it was the standard practice of the time to remove teeth for crowded palates.  Only x-rays like my own would tell for sure what the differences there were in skull development, but it would be downright cruel to repeat this experiment.

But in adults, as far as I know, there is no such evidence.  So I wouldn't believe it.  It's kind of a ridiculous idea, but I was desperate to believe it, as I'm sure many are.

I should write to the WAPF to warn others, because I do think they're at least honest.  But I just don't have the will to.

I'm quite self-conscious about my looks.  I wonder if it's simply a major impediment in my life, or the major impediment in my life.  It's a terrible curse.  I'd think I have "Body Dismorphic Disorder" if there weren't evidence that this is an actual deficiency.  I wasn't supposed to be like this.

Basically the only way to even sort of fix this is craniofacial surgery.  I was trying to go the cheaper and more natural route with the ALF, but it just didn't work.  It's just disheartening to think that I'd have to fight so hard to even get a chance of having the personal confidence that most other people have never had to worry about.  And if it looked the least bit weird, it would still suck.  People want good nature, not a damn surgery.

I shouldn't be so disheartened though.  I've seen a few really good results with surgery.  I'd just want to make sure I got the best.  You know, with full 3d modeling and manipulation.  Ideally there could be someway to tell what my skull was supposed to look like, but I doubt anyone does that.  Because that's the only way I could be sure it could look natural.  It seems as though my whole skull should be expanded, but I don't know if they do that.

Like see, this isn't bad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StdoLxmjImQ

And there's this.  That's like, WHHHOOOOAAAAA.



But yeah, the biggest obstacle of course is the money.  And especially because I don't want just anybody, but really the best that can be done for me.  But I don't have money, and I can't get money.  I don't even want to work because I'm so depressed and fatigued all the time.  What to do guys?  Shit just sucks.  I'm 25.  I'd think that it has to be soon or never.  I still have a youthful body that could heal well, but that probably won't last much longer.

As for my fatigue, I'm trying a shot in the dark liver treatment I found on Google.  See here:  http://www.sensiblehealth.com/.  Sorry to get off-topic again, but please feel free to give any advice.

... I have also been off the raw paleo diet for some time now (I still eat raw on a weekly basis, but probably 90% cooked now). And have recently been eating increasing amounts of cooked starches in large part to reading matt's blog since cooked low carb wasn't doing alot for me. Although I think Matt has some good ideas,  I take what I read there with a large grain of salt. In other words it's a good blog to get ideas from, but best to experiment yourself. His approach of overfeeding to up the metabolism is simplistic. I think the best take away I've had is really the importance of eating enough. Forcing calories down has not had any benefit for me...

Nice to hear it.  Yeah, I briefly tried overfeeding too, but it didn't work for me.  Then, more recently, he suggested people try eating a high protein breakfast, and 80% of their calories within the first half of the day.  This is an interesting idea, and seems to jive with stories I've heard of how wealthy successful businessmen in the old days used to get up early and have a ridiculously large meat-filled breakfast.  Successful?  Wealthy?  Early?  Yes, sounds good to me!  But no, I tried it, and I just get too fatigued when I eat a meal that large.  This would make sense if I have trouble digesting, which may go with the current theory about the liver that I gave the link to above.

So yeah, I'm skeptical of Matt too, but boy does he continue to seek answers and learn more.  He's determined to figure this stuff out better than anyone, and what a value to our society to have someone like that.  At least he got us unafraid of carbs so far.

Jared, you speak as though you know much about the Inuit.

   No, I don't, I'm broadly speculating and taking for granted what people have said who've actually read the texts.  (On that note, I'll keep in mind that Tyler Durden said Stefansson may not be that credible).

Don't you think that setting yourself up as the "voice of dissent to the low carb theory" is a tad presumptuous, especially given that you have admitted that you "didn't investigate too thoroughly"?

   Well, that's why I pointed people to Matt Stone, he's a bit more motivated to investigate than I am.

   I thought I explained myself pretty well.  I see that there are a lot of differing views on this forum as a whole, but when someone like me comes along who is completely sold on the Eades/Taubes insulin theory, and are just trying to get better, we tend to only read more about what fits in our current beliefs.  I browsed this specific sub-forum to see if I could find any dissenting threads, and I didn't see any, so that's why I've posted.  A thread headline like mine would have really caught my attention, as it was the core belief of why I was forcing myself to eat low-carb.

Isn't that part of why you're here too, because such information shared in forums like this one might be useful to you too? Or is none of the information here of any use to you?

   Well, I did come pretty sure about my position, and my goal was to help people get out of low-carb, who might not really be feeling all that great about it.  But I was curious to see what information people might bring up.  I figured the subject is at least relevant to this sub-forum.

Nothing of what you've written seriously challenges what I have found to work for me...

   Sure, one of the main things I'm urging people to do is to trust their feelings more.  I did notice your signature quotes.  If you're feeling good, continue doing what you're doing.  In my case though, low carb did not feel good, but I kept on with it because the evidence seemed unshakable.  A lot of people here are desperate too, if they are willing to depart from modern conventions so much.  It's not unreasonable to think that people may be going against their feelings out of desperation.

   As short-sighted as I may have been, I did not believe there was an alternative to low carb.  I know that's not the opinion of this board in general, but I was led on by the aforementioned authors.  As Micheal Eades said in an interview, "I can't imagine a person who I wouldn't recommend a low-carb diet to."  I don't mean to eradicate low-carb or carnivorous for everyone, but I'm at least challenging the idea that it should be for everyone.

Did you read any of my posts on giant pandas?

   I did click a link you gave and found that it had already gone drastically off topic   

I think that actually Matt Stones' current recommendations are pretty mainstream: high carb, low fat, about 1g of protein per kg of bodyweight, maximize omega-3 vs. omega-6. Carbs mostly starches, but fruit are allowed, as are desserts in moderation. In what he differs is advocating (temporary!) overfeeding and abstaining from exercise, and his strong stance against calorie restriction.

   Yes, "going down the rabbit hole", as he says.  (That is.... after we've already been down the "first" rabbit hole.)  Probably the most drastic difference from mainstream recommendations is the vegetable oil issue.  Coming out of low-carb, it's hard to see that the woes of the world could be due to anything less than monumental, but really these oils do permeate the SAD.  Also as he says, the mainstream does promote under-eating, over-exercising, over-working, abundant caffeine (and alcohol) usage, tons of sugar (which I don't think is too terrible in moderation), and RDAs that are far too low.

   Also what Matt doesn't go into is all the toxins in our world, which I think play a huge part in the diseases of civilization.  Even in the days of WAP-- could it be that the metals leaching into canned goods could have been part of the degeneration?  Maybe cookware too?  I used to be afraid of the "small" stuff.  Then I got into macronutrients, and I thought it was the "big" stuff.  Now, it's the "small" stuff again with me.  For example, I just found out from a cheap test that there are some heavy metals in my water.  I have yet to find out exactly which ones.  Also, pretty much anything from a store has been manufactured in stainless steel vats.  Some stainless steel alloys leach nickel, which is very toxic, according to Ray Peat.  I would think that acidic things will leach the most.  Ray Peat says that if the stainless steel is magnetic, then it's the type that doesn't have nickel in it.

But "cavemen" wouldn't have had an unlimited supply of food, be able to choose when they feel like they're finished with eating, and when they want to have their next meal.

   Ah, I thought I had posted something about this in this thread, but it turns out it was in another thread.  (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/raw-weston-price/fixing-narrow-palates-and-cranial-deformities/msg39218/#msg39218)

"The thing is, it's entirely plausible that prehistoric humans/hominins were smarter than we're making them out to be, in terms of processing and storing food.  Hunger is a feeling that we work to avoid, and they probably did too.  I take it even farther-- I think that agriculture was not out of their means as well.  The concept is pretty self evident, if you want more of a plant that feeds you.  Grains are questionable because they are so small and inedible-- I think our first attention to grains started with beer actually.  It's also not a leap to think that hominins might have messed around with leaving things in water, and found that mashed-up seeds did something.  As they've hypothesized with the Egyptians, bread came soon after, originally intended as a storage device to harbor the beer-making yeast in the raw center.

I even wonder why humans have such a sweet tooth, when apparently, at least in most places in the world, there is such a short supply of fructose.  Well, with all of those graphs of how low sugar and honey consumption was pre-1850, I think one source they probably are not accounting for is jams and jellies.  This is actually where I think people have been getting their fructose throughout history.  It was probably a good way to store and concentrate the calories from large yields of fruit.  Trade is certainly plausible too, just like Lewis and Clark found networks trading sea-salt (pretty sure).  And wasn't it the Native Americans that showed the Europeans how to make maple syrup?  What should we trust more: the numbers or our senses?"

I'll break this trend here and admit it's safe to say everyone here believes in Raw food eating... 

Well, I didn't want to start a thread refuting everything, but I did intend Matt Stone's site to change some minds about all types of restrictive eating, and includes the all raw thing.  You really can't eat a lot of calories without cooking (well, except for the banana-lady).  And I believe, despite what the experts say, that cooking has probably been with us since pre-human days.

The main thing I like about this forum is the people here generally hate conventional nutritional and medical practices and theories as do I. We should be exposing these crooks more and work together.

Same here.  I like your signature quote btw.  One of my favorites: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”  -Thomas Jefferson

You guys, I just read something mindblowing (which is usual when I read Ray Peat articles).

In tune with talking about high glucose levels, and alternate ways to think about what's happening with insulin resistance...

"The simplest illustration of how inflammation relates to the organism's resources was an experiment in which blood glucose was varied, while an animal was exposed to chemicals that varied from mildly irritating to potentially deadly. When the animal had very low blood sugar, the mildest irritant could be deadly, but when its blood glucose was kept very high, even the deadly antigens were only mildly irritating."
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/ms.shtml

Wow... high blood glucose protected an animal from an inflammatory response.  This is not the first time I've heard good things about high glucose.  (Probably the first was from Russell Blaylock when he said that high glucose protects against excitotoxicity.)

This is just like when they tried to pass off that elevated cholesterol is what clogs arteries.  Instead, I'm more prone to believing that cholesterol is elevated in response to whatever problem is going on, perhaps to repair cells for instance, or make hormones.  It's also similar to how they're claiming uric acid causes metabolic syndrome.  But uric acid is an antioxidant (although it's undeniably harmful as concentrations get high enough for it to form crystals).  Perhaps all these changes we monitor during metabolic syndrome are not uncontrollable outcomes, but purposeful responses by the body to counteract whatever the real underlying problem is (including high blood pressure, high triglycerides...).  That may include elevated glucose.  Perhaps the body purposely makes the cells insulin resistant in order to raise glucose, in order to protect the body against inflammation, stress, or whatever.

(A flaw in this theory is that people like Michael Eades say that insulin levels slowly climb over time to match the progressive insulin resistance of the cells, which would seem counter-productive.  I wonder if there are studies showing this, since they usually don't measure blood levels of insulin directly, because there is an extremely small amount.)

(Also what's always puzzled me is that, in metabolic syndrome, the fat cells seem NOT to get insulin resistant, since they are the ones collecting all the glucose.)

I've heard that high blood levels of glucose are bad in many ways.  Perhaps this strategy is a last resort of the body's, and it is never meant to get too high.  At least concerning AGEs, I think glucose may be over-feared.  Ray Peat has said that lipid peroxides (from polyunsaturated fats) are 23 times more likely to form AGEs than glucose (fructose being 10 times more likely, but it only lasts a minute or two in the blood stream).

Sorry if I'm getting things mixed up, but I had to share that with you.

(..."ts"?  Oh, thread starter!  That means me.  I'm used to the term "OP"...)

Hi RawKyle!  I get my new ideas from Matt Stone primarily, and I have to admit, even he has not gotten too much into the mechanics of how all this works. Basically he thinks insulin resistance is a result of low metabolism, which can be caused by a number of things.  The basic idea is that low metabolism is a like a state of hibernation, where, for some reason, the body thinks it should be storing fat and conserving energy.  When the body is getting this signal from hormones, such as low leptin, high estrogen, high serotonin, low T3, high cortisol, or whatever, there's nothing you can do to stop it without addressing those hormones.  I'm pretty sure he's even suggested that the body causes its own state of insulin resistance, as a response to the hypothalamus being leptin resistant and not getting the leptin signal (which I say in turn is probably caused by some other hormone).  See, it's trying to store fat by raising insulin, because it's getting that message from other hormones.

He focuses on leptin, since it is said to be the "master hormone" that controls fat storage and metabolism (thyroid hormone).  What he and many scientists are saying causes leptin resistance (which refers to the hypothalamus specifically not getting the leptin signal from the fat cells) are:

1) Polyunsaturated fat
2) Excessive Fructose Consumption
3) Dieting – and other factors that contribute to high cortisol levels [as a result of stress, caffeine, and chronic inflammation, which is where the polyunsaturated fats come in, as well as chronic bacterial infections, which occur as a result of chronically low body temperature, which is a vicious cycle]
4) Nutrient Deficiency

In his own words:  "The only problem is, leptin research is in its infancy, so the cause of leptin resistance and what can be done to overcome it remains very primitive and limited.  ...If I knew nothing of the causes of leptin resistance and had to simply guess by retracing the major shifts in the diet and lifestyle since the pre-obesity era, it would seem that an overworked, overstressed, sleep-deprived, polluted population fed on a nutrient poor diet with an unprecedented amount of fructose, caffeine, and omega 6 polyunsaturated fat in the diet would somehow be the cause."

Also, I don't think Matt Stone has even mentioned serotonin and estrogen.  I added in those ideas from Ray Peat (raypeat.com) who mostly concurs with Matt Stone's idea that low body metabolism is a central cause of most of our diseases.  There are estrogen-like compounds in legumes (soy, peanuts) as well as plastics, and while serotonin is a reaction to stress, which I've already mentioned, we may be increasing it even more as a society by taking SSRI antidepressants.  I would also add alcohol as a possible aggrivator (smoking, maybe).

But, why not the simple answer of carbs?  Well, I thought it was a little condescending when Matt Stone says that low carb theory "is the easiest one to disprove", but he's kind of right.  Based on evidence around the world, there are loads of examples of people eating high carb diets who never develop obesity or insulin resistance.  Even most of Weston Price's cultures were moderate to high carb.

In addition to this, as mentioned previously in this thread, low carb diets seem to cause insulin resistance, as evidenced by people having higher than normal fasting blood sugars on low or even zero carb diets.  This is further confirmed by people, including Dr. Atkins, reporting low body temperature on low carb diets, indicating low thyroid function (aka low metabolism).  This brings me to the reason I came here today-- I wanted to share with you (also posted on Matt Stone's blog) yet another low carb horror story that was saved by carbs.  This guy stuck to a purely zero-carb carnivorous diet for 2 years... if that isn't a enough time to properly "adjust", I don't know what would be.

See:  http://www.carnivorehealth.com/main/2010/7/14/i-used-to-think-matt-stone-was-a-douche-i-was-wrong.html

The theory I've heard for exactly how a low carb diet may lower metabolism is: excess protein consumption simulates breakdown of our own muscle tissue in times of stress by cortisol, and muscle meat has an abnormally high amount of tryptophan, which is converted to serotonin.  Also, protein and fat is very satiating, so we end up eating less calories than we need for body maintenance (why is it we get sick eating pure saturated fat?  I don't know).  It's a little shaky, but the proof is in the pudding.  My best advice is to follow your feelings instead of theory and dogma.  I mean, theory is good-- completely unquestioningly following our feelings has been the downfall of our society (if you do believe there's a downfall).  Just, don't punish yourself based on theory, because our feelings are there for a reason.

I would like to know how it is possible to get 25% of your calories from carbs when you're in the wild.

Root vegetables/tubers.  I've heard of many HG cultures that have this as their main source of calories.

Also, the very first European explorers in North America reported huge Native American agricultural societies.  One said that there were such large networks of crops that one could walk through them for "days on end" with no interruption.  This lifestyle got abandoned when plagues swept through North America faster than it was explored.  I don't know about the validity of this figure, but it is estimated that 80% to 90% of the people on the North American continent were wiped out by disease before any explorers ever reached them.  Of course, there is evidence of terrible malnutrition, such as with the Hardin Villagers;  but my point is, agriculture is certainly possible with very little technology.

the fructose spikes insulin

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this.  Fructose doesn't affect blood glucose, and therefore doesn't provoke insulin.  That's why they recommend it for diabetics.  Fructose is thought to be involved in insulin resistance however, in the long term, though I am skeptical of that.

On another note: many people visualize our brains just consuming endless amounts of glucose so everyone goes "oh no, if I dont consume enough carbs, my brain wont have any energy and I wont be able to think." This is also one of the most bogus theories around as well. Truth is, science knows and has known for decades that our brains run 2/3 on fat in the form of ketone bodies, and only 1/3 on glucose.

Yes, this is a good point to remember.  "There is no necessary (dietary) carbohydrate" is the championing phrase of the low carbers.  However, almost every cell can still use glucose, and there may be a point to using calories that aren't protein or fat (or ketone).  I'm sorry that I haven't a clue as to why that might be, but evidence of my own experience, and what I posted above, suggests there's something more to the story.

Not to mention that a high meat diet is...a high glucose diet, as the body converts the majority of amino acids into glucose...

cancer cannot grow at all because it needs the presence of glucose.

Looks like we have a conflict here..............

Also, you might not want to train the body to get its glucose from proteins, as it will more readily convert your lean body tissue to glucose when you're not eating.  So I've heard.

Somewhat related:  A high fructose diet could be considered a high fat diet, since the fructose is almost entirely converted to fat by the liver.

Thanks for the commentary everyone.

That's the second time I've seen someone claim on this forum that cooking goes back to the dawn of time, or to that effect. Jared, where did you get that idea--was it from Wrangham?

Sorry- I'm probably not as well read as y'all.  I came up with the cooking tubers idea myself as a way to reconcile with the new idea that maybe humans can handle carbs.  The prehistory/evolutionary standpoint is huge chunk of the no carb argument, but really, should we base our lives on some very scant and vague evidence, either way?  What did they base the fire c.250,000 years ago thing on-- that we have found no ash layers in caves below this time?  Well, maybe not in the few specific places we've looked, or can look.  Actually, that's one of the farther back estimates I've heard; seems like adaption could have definitely taken place since then.

The thing is, it's entirely plausible that prehistoric humans/hominins were smarter than we're making them out to be, in terms of processing and storing food.  Hunger is a feeling that we work to avoid, and they probably did too.  I take it even farther-- I think that agriculture was not out of their means as well.  The concept is pretty self evident, if you want more of a plant that feeds you.  Grains are questionable because they are so small and inedible-- I think our first attention to grains started with beer actually.  It's also not a leap to think that hominins might have messed around with leaving things in water, and found that mashed-up seeds did something.  As they've hypothesized with the Egyptians, bread came soon after, originally intended as a storage device to harbor the beer-making yeast in the raw center.

I even wonder why humans have such a sweet tooth, when apparently, at least in most places in the world, there is such a short supply of fructose.  Well, with all of those graphs of how low sugar and honey consumption was pre-1850, I think one source they probably are not accounting for is jams and jellies.  This is actually where I think people have been getting their fructose throughout history.  It was probably a good way to store and concentrate the calories from large yields of fruit.  Trade is certainly plausible too, just like Lewis and Clark found networks trading sea-salt (pretty sure).  And wasn't it the Native Americans that showed the Europeans how to make maple syrup?  What should we trust more: the numbers or our senses?

That said, humans most likely do consume more fructose than ever before.  This could be because:
1) We just like the taste of quick easy calories, or
2) We have an unnatural modern attraction to it for its LDL cholesterol, uric acid, or triglyceride raising effects, which are what the body tries to do on its own in the case of metabolic syndrome.  I've also heard (raypeat.com) that it's good for the adrenals somehow.

Tyler, what are the traditional methods of processing tubers before cooking them? I have a friend who eats cooked tubers and doesn't want to give them up. I figure traditional methods would at least be an improvement over modern methods of just baking at high heat. I do have info from a blog on the cooking part of traditional tuber processing--baked at lower temps for a longer time period than the modern baking method.

I think of how WAP said the aboriginies cooked their vegetables at very high temps for very long times.

Here's something that confuses me-- they say potatoes are a good source of vitamin C, but isn't it destroyed by the heat?

I think Matt Stone's "Eat More Everything” diet might be just an initial phase of the diet or the mainstay of the diet, but my memory is fuzzy on this.

Yes, it's just a tool to correct low metabolism, according to him.  He doesn't say it should be long term, or that everyone should do it.

Also, I have a thread going about this in the LC/ZC forum.

Well, well, that's the pillar of the low carb theory, isn't it?  Well, what if that's wrong?

I used to be low carb, and I'm here to try to dig anyone else out who has been sucked into it.  Low-carb is the conclusion of some seemingly really smart people-- Michael Eades and Gary Taubes for instance.  The research seems to all support it.  Archeology seems to support it.  So what's the deal?

Well, I don't have time to explain, but I highly recommend you check out www.180degreehealth.com.  I know we're all desperate here.  I have not found the answer to my health woes yet.  But I believe this low-carb thing can actually be harmful.  Matt Stone discusses in his free e-book why that is.

As for the archeology and anthropology supporting paleo, consider this: It is entirely plausible that humans have at least been eating various potato-like root vegetables and cooking them around the world since the dawn of time.  It's not that hard to believe that we naturally have eaten starch, as hominids probably got calories from whatever source they could.  There are plenty of observed hunter-gather tribes that have eaten up to 80% or so carbs and were in fabulous health.  (Those are the ones you don't hear about from low carb sources.)  Matt Stone gives these examples in his free ebook and blog.

The main thing that I have learned from all this is that we need to trust our feelings more.  Our body has feelings for a reason.  Please do not do restrictive dieting.  I even eat sugar again (which he doesn't recommend, but I do).  I'm taken away my acne by merely avoiding omega 6 and polyunsaturates in general, which does not require much willpower at all.

My best explanation for the ills of the world at this point are toxins (including unnatural PUFAs), and malnutrition (perhaps even caused by chronic undereating).

And also, I know there are some people out there, like Lex Rooker, or diabetics, who've found that low carb is the only thing that works for them.  Some people are not able to handle changing blood sugar levels, and are forced to do low carb.  But I believe as Matt Stone does that this is a crutch, and does not address the underlying problem.  My sympathies go to those people, because I don't have an answer for them; but I don't believe low carb is something that everyone should do because of their marginal success.

Discuss.

Hi all,

It's me, the guy who started this thread.  I can't write much, because it's hard to write about disappointing news.  And I've been disappointed with the ALF.  And I have what I'd consider to be one of the better ALF people out there:  Rebecca Griffiths (http://www.tmjarizona.com/).  I say that because she focuses on realigning the jaws in addition to the ALF.  But she also sees things through a very rosy lens, if you ask me, and will continue to say that the ALF "moves bones" in the whole face, and also believe in a bunch of other bogus cures.  She eventually has tried to refer me to a cranial osteopath to try to correct my asymmetries, and has remarked that it may not work if I'm not willing to "believe" in it.  The cranio-osteopath will not do even one free session to try to help me decide, and I'm tired of forking out money for bogus treatments.

What has it done?  Well, basically, just splayed out my top teeth.  I'm not done with the treatment, but I don't have high hopes.  I still feel very deficient in the mid and upper face.

Also what I've considered is NCR, as seen here in this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ngRpnBN3ag.  But seriously, is the guy who invented it credible?  He's also invented this completely bullshit looking thing here (http://www.bodiebox.com/).  Anything that deals with "energy waves" can be written off as pure bullshit in my opinion.  Anyways, I'm not willing to spend $400-$600 and a lot of trauma to find out if NCR is worth anything.

I'm very skeptical about alternative cures these days, and you should be too.  For example, I've seen Mark Starr, who is well known for his "Type 2 Hypothyroidism: The Epidemic" book.  I don't know if you know who he is, but I was shocked to learn that he's a complete con.  You can take that not as my opinion, but a plain fact.  I don't care to go into it, but noting that "kinesiology" and homeopathy are two main pillars of his "treatment" should be enough for you.

There are other forms of ALF devices out there.  I wouldn't expect more out of them than the ALF but I guess it's worth mentioning here.  There's this in Australia:
http://www.myoresearch.com/cms/index.php?professional, and another thing featured on this blog post:  http://ryan-koch.blogspot.com/2010/03/adult-palate-expansion.html.

My goal is to get some sort of cranial surgery done in my lifetime, and I'm probably just going to have to fork out the money.  I've looked into being a research subject in using new techniques to fix the head, as seen here at the UCLA: http://www.uclahealth.org/body.cfm?xyzpdqabc=0&id=307&action=detail&limit_department=22&limit_division=1069.  They say ALL AGES.  But I figure they only want people with more severe cranial deformities.  I dunno, I guess I should try writing to them just in case.  One of the people on the team is Dr. James Bradley, a guy who has WRITTEN the textbook on craniofacial surgery.  They have the best people there.  Anyways, what they are doing trials for, osteogenesis (stretching of craniofacial bones), sounds way better than traditional surgery.  You can get a glimpse of how it works here: http://www.rchsd.org/ourcare/programsservices/c-d/craniofacialservices/advancedprocedures/distractionosteogenesis/A002824.

Matt's girlfriend of 180degreehealth went to this guy:  http://www.arnettcourses.com/.  You can see x-rays of what's been done to her on his blog post here:  http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010/06/lose-25-pounds-in-28-days.html.  I like that he does upper face as well.

Before going through with anything though, I'd like to know, what techniques should we use to determine what my head's supposed to look like?  This is probably a question few could really have the right approach to, as few know about Weston A Price, and therefore, what a head is supposed to look like.  All I know so far is that there is the "Sassouni analysis", along with a few others, as seen here: http://www.sassouniorthodontics.com/pages/about.htm.  That's what they use to do the tracing on my x-rays I get with my treatment from Rebecca Griffiths.  But who's to say it's right?  And that reminds me, I have to get the copies of my most recent x-rays, so I can do a conclusive before-and-after comparison to see what's changed, if anything.  The tracing analysis has drastically changed, but I'd have to compare the actual x-rays, not the drawings of them, to be sure.

They use this software to do the analysis: http://www.dolphinimaging.com/3d.html.  I'd love to get it on my computer somehow, but I couldn't find a torrent anywhere.  Heck, I'd love to get my own CT and x-ray machines for that matter, and then charge people to use them .  Eeeaaaaasy money!

Here's some more organizations that might be helpful:
http://www.baoms.org.uk/page.asp?id=61
http://www.iaom.com/
http://www.iscfs.org/
http://www.researchgate.net/journal/1536-3732_The_Journal_of_craniofacial_surgery

Here's one of Bradley's books online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ssYcw4GuihgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=experimental+craniofacial+surgery&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1#v=onepage&q=experimental%20craniofacial%20surgery&f=false

Here's a person with Crouzon's syndrome in the Czech Republic who is currently undergoing many surgeries, paid for by her government (I think).  I don't have Crouzon's, but maybe someone here does.
http://candar.wordpress.com/about/

Well, good luck to anyone in this pursuit.  The only advice I can give is, be very skeptical.  It's a cruel world, and there are sick people out there who will take money from sick people.

Also, I rarely visit this forum, especially because I am NOT low-carb anymore.  I think it can actually be harmful.  In essence, it is entirely plausible that humans have at least been eating various potato-like root vegetables and cooking them since the dawn of time.  It's not that hard to believe that we naturally have eaten starch, as hominids probably got calories from whatever source they could.  And consider this: what if insulin spikes do NOT lead to insulin resistance?  Well, there's actually good evidence that they actually IMPROVE insulin sensitivity, as shown by Matt Stone, when his fasting glucose levels LOWERED after a month of eating a ton of carbs.  I advise you to listen to him and get his free ebook here:  http://www.180degreehealth.com/.  I know we're all desperate (desperate enough to eat raw meat?), but the main message you should get from him is that we need to trust our feelings more.  I even eat sugar again (which he doesn't recommend, but I do).  I'm taken away my acne by merely avoiding omega 6 and polyunsaturates in general, which does not require much willpower at all.

My best explanation for the ills of the world at this point are toxins (including unnatural PUFAs), and malnutrition (perhaps even caused by chronic undereating).

No one has yet seemed to tie the whole Down's Syndrome kid thing together yet.  RawKyle was on the right track when he said changing the skull shape may affect "glands".  In particular, the pituitary gland is sitting right on top of the sphenoid bone, which is connected to the maxilla.  Apparently the maxilla expansion did make a difference on the pituitary, because WAP said that the kid suddenly grew facial hair and pubic hair.  You can claim he may have exaggerated on behavioral changes, but on such an indisputable physical change, he would have had to either discovered something amazing, or be a flat out liar.  The kid was 16 years old-- a little late if you ask me.

Another theory WAP had about the kid was that the continual mouth breathing contributed to his retardation problem.  I can't remember if he specifically said "lack of oxygen", but this is the claim of recent carriers of WAP's work like Raymond Silkman, as seen here: http://www.westonaprice.org/Is-it-Mental-or-is-it-Dental.html.  Raymond Silkman claims the nose releases small amounts of nitric oxide when breathed through, and this helps us absorb oxygen.  Don't know how true it is-- he also says lack of oxygen causes black circles under the eyes, but I've been told by a doctor that this is wrong.  There is also another book on the seemingly ill-effects of mouth breathing called "Shut your mouth and save your life", which predates WAP by about 100 years, as reported by the WAPF journal.  This all seems plausible to me, and is another plausible mechanism by which fixing a person's skull could drastically change one's mental ability.  "Shut your mouth" text is here:  http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/indians.pdf.

And yes, just to reiterate, WAP did not claim to "cure" the boy-- he specifically said that he was drastically improved, but still retarded.  But, he went from laying on the floor, playing with blocks and talking to no-one, to being trusted to run errands by himself, taking several trains, and also "having an interest in other people".  In fact, he became a "sex pervert" and had to be institutionalized in the end-- another indication his pituitary received a massive wake up call, besides him growing like a foot.  This detail is oddly edited out of my print-copy and can be seen here:  http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/price19.html

Also TylerDurden, I believe Price had nothing to do with the Pottenger cat study.

Also, I don't believe that WAP was "not taken seriously" in his day.  Regardless of what you read on the Quackwatch page, this is what Dr. Ron has to say:

"He kept meticulous records and photographic accounts of all he saw. His work shows that nearly everyone in traditional cultures had all 32 teeth, perfectly fitting into the dental arch, perfectly formed, as long as the people had no access to refined foods. Eating refined foods invariably caused dental decay and systemic diseases, and in the next generation, crooked and crowded teeth.
Price collected over 10,000 samples of native foods. He sent them back to America for analysis in his laboratories. Price was a pioneer in developing assays for vitamins A and D in the 1920's. He wrote a textbook on dentistry that was on every United States naval vessel. His studies of problems associated with root canals were rediscovered 70 years later, and became the basis for the recent book Root Canal Cover-Up. His articles appeared in dental journals throughout the twenties and thirties. His classic book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, was required reading in Harvard anthropology classes for many years. "
http://www.drrons.com/weston-price-traditional-nutrition-5.htm

While I'm picking apart everything that you said, I might as well mention that WAP photographed and praised many natives with teeth that look "worn out", instead of dodging the subject like you said.  The teeth may have been worn down considerably (I don't know the reason why), but Price still upheld them as examples of good health because they did NOT have cavities or decay, and had fully formed dental arches.

Sorry, I'm no expert, but I think this aquatic theory has enough merit to defend it.  I find it most plausible because it explains how we eased into bipedalism.

...also, we're not very suited to warding off aquatic predators (crocs and sharks, etc) so that is a little perplexing. why the hell would we adapt to an environment where we are most vulnerable? at least on land you can run from a lion or climb a tree or try to kill it with a spear. in the water you're pretty helpless...
That's a very good question and a fatal flaw in the aquatic ape hypothesis. You can learn about some of the other flaws here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis.

To be clear, the idea is not that humans were spending their lives in the sea or lakes and were just short of forming gills.  The idea is that humans spent a big enough chunk of their time in the water for it to affect their evolution- hence the term, as Elaine Morgan calls it, a "semi-aquatic phase".  That could mean a lot of wading in rivers, general swimming, or relying on a food source that required diving.  This could have happened at a time when humans, or perhaps a previous species of hominid now extinct, were not that widespread in the world.  Predators might have been as big a threat to them as fishing or clam diving is today- not that much.

also, why do we still have hair on our heads? the other aquatic mammals mentioned don't have any remaining spots of hair... i dont know. im skeptical i guess.
Another excellent question, and you're wise to be skeptical. Question everything, especially when the one proposing the hypothesis spends more time name dropping and ridiculing alternative hypotheses than providing evidence for her own.

Perhaps the hair on our heads is to protect us from the sun (-although, that doesn't explain why there's no hair left on our shoulders).  Also, it's also the only thing that sticks out of water when swimming.  The theory states that the loss of hair was partly to prevent mold and parasites from getting hold, so maybe the head didn't get wet as often, especially if there was mostly wading involved.

Also, I admit there wasn't a lot of evidence in the video, but Elaine Morgan was more speaking out against the general academic rejection of new ideas than promoting the theory.  I suppose she thought that if people really wanted to get into it, they could refer to at least 4 books that she's written on the subject over the past 30 years, plus other people who have argued it before her.  She acknowledges that it is still just a theory in the video, but her main contention is that people don't even consider it as an option worth looking into.

it is pretty curious though that we are so naked.
Yes, but there are other possible reasons. Think in terms of what we've learned about diet and the other morphological changes of h. sapiens and our hominid ancestors beyond just decreasing hair. Also ask yourself, if an ancestral aquatic ape is the origin of near-hairlessness, why have humans become increasingly hairless even over the last few thousand years?

Increasingly hairless?  Says who?

The amount of body hair may vary from race to race, depending on the climate.  We might be able to adapt slightly, but the basic structure of hair distribution is pretty much the same.  The hair that's on the head is quite different than the hair on the body.  The hypothesis is that this organization is left over from a much more distant ancestor than the last few thousand years.

is there a generally agreed upon time period where we began to wear clothes? anyone know?
Another excellent question. Notice how she also didn't even mention a time frame for when proto-humans began losing hair, or what species it started with? That information would seem to be crucial to her hypothesis.

An interesting question.  I would think that our hairlessness preceded any wearing of clothes, as wearing clothes probably developed because of our hairlessness, when we started moving into colder climates.