Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - halotek

Pages: [1]
1
Journals / Re: Lex's Journal
« on: September 09, 2009, 06:43:13 am »
Lex, did you ever reach a point where you didn't have spill over ketones on an 80%fat/20% protein diet?  Seems, like you were on that for a while, but your urine ketones stayed high, correct?  You had given yourself more than 2weeks to adapt, is that also correct?  Was it only when you up'd protein that your urine ketones went back down?

2
Journals / Re: Lex's Journal
« on: August 25, 2009, 08:21:09 am »
I agree with what you say Lex about keeping things simple, but I still want to know if something I'm consuming is dangerous or not.  Or if I'm consuming a diet that is nutritionally complete.

An example-- I definitely don't want to consume rapeseed oil like many Indian peoples had done for a couple thousand years-- they never questioned it because everyone used it.  Doesn't stop the fact that it is a toxic oil.

We know that fructose is dangerous, that seed oils are dangerous, and that grains are dangerous.

Most of my questions also pertain to things I want to figure out-- like I wanna know if I really need to balance out the zinc in my grass fed bef with sources of copper (which would have to come from plant foods if i didn't consume organ meats).  I feel that once I get a good idea of nutrient interactions, I'll have a better of what I think is nutritionally complete.

There still is a lot of questions!


3
Journals / Re: Lex's Journal
« on: August 25, 2009, 01:10:07 am »
Overall-- I think were on the same page Lex-- my ideas change over time to support what I think leads to best knowledge we have on health.

My comment to use vitamin c was a suggestion-- in no ways did I say 100% that it would make things better for sure--  especially because I've never tolerated vitamin c supplements as well, I was only suggestioning to try very small amounts (such as 100mg or less)-- but like I said-- I feel that a "little bit of plant material might be better, especially a little of fruit" --  and I know that while it doesn't work for you at the moment, you do recommend it for others.

I'm sure that as time passes, more research will come out to support certain biomarkers-- and I hope we have a better idea of what the optimal range for biomarkers are.  Or if it is really bad or not that A1c is raised.

Feeling good every day is not the only marker for health-- I'm sure you'd agree with me on that-- I've seen vegans feel good for years before there health went down the tubes.

Everything that we are discussing is only possible because you'd done a great job of showing your stats-- hopefully, over time this will lead to a better understanding of what stat values are of importance.

4
Journals / Re: Lex's Journal
« on: August 24, 2009, 01:08:07 pm »
PaleoPhil, Lex has constantly said it again and again-- what works for him-- works for him.  I can say 100% for me that I do best on a diet that mostly grass fed beef with small amount of veggies/fruit/fermented yogurt thrown in the mix.   That works for "me".  My biomarkers are also good (I am 29 however, and most people have good biomarkers at this age).  This may be also why I'm not moved to tears when Lex utters anything-- but when the science backs up his ideas or has an interesting comment, I will read and listen!  He has some conjectures-- and so do I-- hopefully will both understand more by having these talks.

Where Lex and I differ

1:  I don't have an A1c in the range of 6%-- which may or not be of concern.

2:  I don't suffer prostate issues and have to take medication to correct the situation.

3:  He believes that a 100% raw meat diet is superior to one that includes any type of plant material-- even if it has very small amounts of it!

Baring gross genetic malfunction of your body-- if you are consuming the diet that is best for you-- I believe you should have minimal if any health problems (even if you had problems on poor diets in the past).  Lex is content on taking a prostate medication-- I'm content on consuming some vegetable products-- this is where we differ.  Either his diet is causing his prostate to have these issues-- or he is missing some kind of compound that might help his situation (which I believe is some veggie products).  I don't belive his situation is genetic alone.  If it is-- then I'd concede I'm wrong.

Once again, I applaud Lex about being open on all his vital stats-- this allows us to have these kinds of discussions in the first place.  I'm not going anywhere-- and I'm not frustrated.

5
Journals / Re: Lex's Journal
« on: August 24, 2009, 11:48:30 am »
PaleoPhil l-- I completely understand how you feel on the subject.  In fact, the only supplements I ever consider taking are iodine, little bit of fermented cod liver oil, and once in a blue moon, vitamin k2 (because I don't like to eat organs-- and k2 has been showing great benefits in fighting heart disease and also for certain cancers)

I think people have taken my argument for vitamin c out of hand-- I just made a conjecture that Lex's A1c values would improve with a little bit of vitamin c--  that might of even turned out to be false.

What I would argue for without question-- is going from a 0 carb diet with 0 fruits and 0 veggies-- to a diet that is almost 100% animal products with a little fruit and veggies to bring carb intake to 30-50 grams a day.  This would also allow the body to benefit from the different micronutrients contained in plant material.  That would be better than supplementing vitamin c in my mind.  Because lex has said before that he is not willing to injest the plant matter-- i just threw it out there that he might "consider" a little bit of c.

Especially because Lex is very open and frank about his prostate issues- i just don't see how he could completely ignore the idea of a little raw plant material when there have been many studies done to show plant chemical benefits in this area.

6
Journals / Re: Lex's Journal
« on: August 24, 2009, 04:04:02 am »
I am familiar with the study you've quoted Lex.  There is usually going to be trade-offs with nutrients or actions.  Exercise has well known trade-offs --- there is the acute inflammation during and following exercise that is usually followed by anti-inflammatory aftereffects. 

The human body remarkable conserves vitamin c.  If you have good glutathione production-- which I'm sure you do-- you recycle the vitamin c you have floating throughout your body.   Plant compounds do this-- but this is also accomplished by consuming vitamin c.

It's only have you consume 0 fruit and 0 vegetables (usually) that i suggested you'd try a small amount of vitamin c -- 100mg or so-- and see how you'd feel.  The vitamin c dosages in those studies are in the order or 500mg to 1000mg (too much in my opinion).

I stand by my statement that I feel that a small amount of plant matter acts to benefit our body by a hormetic response.  I recommended vitamin c because I felt like you were more likely to take that rather than small amounts of plant matter <--------- which I think would be even healthier for the body than the vitamin c supplement.  And top off your already excellent health stats.

7
Journals / Re: Lex's Journal
« on: August 14, 2009, 07:32:55 am »
So you're saying that every known animal except humans produces its own vitamin c? Are there any exceptions to this? It sounds like you are saying that we should all consume vitamin c because you are very sure that humans are the only ones that don't produce it--more sure about this than anything else you've been saying, yes?

If you go by wiki "Vitamin C or L-ascorbic acid is an essential nutrient for humans, a large number of higher primate species, a small number of other mammalian species (notably guinea pigs and bats), a few species of birds, and some fish."  I bet a could back this up from other sources if I look.  This is good enough for me.  As it stands, humans are in a small group of animals that do not produce vitamin c.

By no means am I looking for Lex to increase his carb intake.  At this point in time-- I'm only interested in seeing if at some point- if he'd consider adding some vitamin c in supplemental form to see if it changes his lab values or well-being.

8
Journals / Re: Lex's Journal
« on: August 13, 2009, 12:59:58 pm »
Higher than usual uric acid levels are usually caused by fructose (which you don't eat), or by eating high purine foods (sometimes), or by very low vitamin c intake.  I have this nagging feeling that your A1c test would even benefit from increased vitamin c intake-- because vitamin c can protect many types of molecules from oxidation.

If you look back, this is what i posted originally.  For you to say that nobody understands what good lab values are for you -- that's not exactly true.  Even you would probably agree that blood glucose readings in the 150s+ <----- if you had them, would probably not be good.  As would also be the case with trig values in the 400s+ <---- just can not be good.

Why is it so had to conceive that A1c values in the 6% range can possibly be bad (especially over time)-- when other people have values in the 4% range.  Remember, this is a direct measure of red blood cell glycation.

Btw, I agree with you that your "diet" might conceivably be the best diet for robust health "for the moment"-  glycation reactions might be a slight side effect of having the strongest most robust body possible.  This might also be why you feel so well on it.  And, as you said, longevity is not really your concern.  I have always thought this to be the case on a high protein diet.  Which is also why low protein diets have shown increases in longevity in lab studies on other animals.

It's entirely possible that vitamin c might slow down reactions in your body-- which might lead to a little less robust body-- but at the same time, lead to greater longevity (who knows).

What I do know however, is that just about every know animal out there produces its own vitamin c-- we are anomaly.

The best reason why I'd love for you to take vitamin c though-- is because you are taking no other vitamin and eating like a carnivore--  I'm just so curious how it would effect you-- and like I mentioned, it would almost certainly bring down your A1c score.

I'm not out here to try to fight you on topics lex-- I just want to understand the human body.

I'm not advocating tons and tons of plant foods- in fact, I think that we should minimize eating anti-nutrients as much as possible-- as most of these come from plants.  But it is possible that an addition of some plant foods (our body's may remodel itself stronger).  Just like exercise increases inflammation at first-- later, it actually promotes anti-inflammatory behavior in the body.  You just don't want to exercise too much or take it too many plant foods.

9
Journals / Re: Lex's Journal
« on: August 11, 2009, 07:44:28 am »

My doctor had the same concerns as you.  After 3 years he's thrown in the towel.  Vitamin C deficiency shows itself within weeks and death occurs within a couple of months of the onset of symptoms.  If I were going to get scurvy I'd have been dead long ago.  I take no supplements and my blood tests show no deficiencies in the elements that are measured.  You are free to look at them. They are all posted as pdf files attached to the first entry of this journal.


Just because you don't have deficiency-- doesn't mean you are getting an optimal amount-- over time your body will show the wear and tear-- just like there are healthy vegans for years before they start deteriorating. I don't believe your elevated A1c is just genetic.  There is probably a combination of food or nutrients that would help to bring this down.  I think vitamin c is one of them.


There has been some speculation in the scientific world as to why humans don't experience vitamin C deficiency when eating a fresh meat diet.  One theory that I've heard is that Vitamin C does its antioxidant work by contributing an electron to neutralize charged free radicals.  It just so happens that uric acid is even a better electron donor than Vitamin C and therefore has better antioxidant properties than Vitamin C.  Is this true?,  I have no idea and I'm not sure anyone else does either.  What I am sure of is that I haven't eaten any fruits, vegetables, or carbs of any kind in about 4 years and my health just keeps improving. 

I don't buy into the argument that Uric acid is safe-- I can give you tons of pub med articles showing the uric acid is a contributor to inflammation and other dangers.  Once again- I'd like to know your level - it's curiously missing from your tests.  I feel that our genetic ancestors had raised uric acid levels to deal with the drop of vitamin c in our diet.  It's a double whammy, we lost the ability to produce vitamin c because our primate ancestors ate so much of it.  And when we started to roam the savannah, our vitamin c intake dropped and our uric acid levels raised to protect us.  As long as our primate ancestors lived long enough to reproduce- that was all that mattered.  As thinking humans, we should try to come up with a diet scenario that is optimal for longevity.  I feel like humans have a need for vitamin c that is greater than the trace amounts you get in muscle tissue--  Remember, all carnivores produce there own vitamin c.
 
I can easily tolerate 50 grams of carbohydrate a day but if I don't need it, and my health is much better than when I was eating carbs, then why would I do this?  Second, you seem to think that dietary protein is converted to glucose only because there is no carb source.  I don't think this way.  I think there is evidence that 50 to 60 percent of all protein eaten is converted to glucose regardless of whether we eat carbs or not. (Look at my previous post to Paleo D for my reasoning.)  Why on earth would I want to add carbs just to add to the glucose load my body must handle?

Once again-- there are tons of articles on pub med showing the protein-sparring effects of carbohydrates.  Even if I eat a high fat diet myself-- I just don't trust having high ketones all the time-- I suspect that you feel better on a higher protein diet because your body does not need to produce them with the higher-conversion of protein to glycogen-- I just ask, why not just eat a few carbs-- rather then having my liver convert them from protein. And overall, stay out of ketosis.

What evidence do you have for these statements?  I have much better health than when I was eating plant materials with all those 'protective compounds', and I certainly am not showing any signs of nutritional deficiency.  I would change in a heartbeat if things weren't working, but they are working wonderfully well, and have been for several years now.

Plant materials work by stimulating phase I/II reactions in the body-- it may just be the our livers need to be taxed from time to time to keep working well-- possibly like exercise.  Compounds like Resveratrol  or Turmeric work because of a hormetic response--

Again, how do you know this with so much certainty?  I know of no objective studies that come to this conclusion.

Have you missed the last 30 years of research on plant compounds and there effects on they have on the body?  Almost all of them are toxins to some degree- I am not saying to have lots of them- just some - and definitely not zero.

Sounds like pure nonsense to me.  You are correct that we are now discovering all sorts of hormonal effects of plant compounds and the majority of them are bad.  What could possibly make you believe that processing toxins from plant materials is what makes us stronger?  What studies can you produce that support such a statement?

Just look at pub med for studies on Resveratrol, turmeric, or even green tea compounds.  All of them are plant defenses- and are slightly toxic- but look to all the articles that show benefit from slight consumption.

You can see my blood potassium, calcium, and other mineral levels in my annual blood tests posted in the first entry of this log.  They all show normal and for the most part right down the middle of the acceptable range.

Your bone scan done now-- and possibly in 5 or 10 years down the road will show what is going on here.

How do you know this?  I know others that have eaten an exclusive muscle-meat-only diet for over 4 years and they show no deficiencies of any kind. 

I feel that you should be eating organ meats because carnivores instinctively know that they need to obtain vitamins from them.  In fact, most carnivores go after the stomach first-- and there is usually half digested plant material in them.  Over time, I think your body would miss the vitamin a, the folate, and the multitude of other compounds found in foods such as liver.  No other carnivore eats only flesh and fat.  It may be another situation where it takes years to show problems-- just has it can take years for vegans to show problems.  And it may be that we need some compounds from plant material to be optimal for the long term.

All of the concerns you've brought up were voiced by my personal doctor as well.  All of his gloom and doom predictions have not come true.  I have no idea why I show no nutritional deficiencies on such a restricted diet of raw red meat and fat, but I don't.  I assure you that if I did, I'd change things in a hurry.  You see, I'm not about doing what doctors and diet gurus think is right, I'm all about what actually works.  Raw red meat, fat, and zero carb intake has been working very well for me for over 3 years.  Based on that 'real' evidence, I'll stick with it for the foreseeable future, and let others like yourself worry over things that might be problems, but aren't.

I hope you stay healthy.  I'll be extremely interested to see what happens 5/10/20 years down the road. I feel that humans do have very small mineral requirements-- which is why we can almost eat just about anything for the first 30 years of life and still be healthy and reproduce-- I'm hedging my bet with the thought that if i don't eat organ meats.  I'd want to make sure I'm getting the loss of nutrients from some other type of food or substance.


10
Journals / Re: Lex's Journal
« on: August 09, 2009, 07:19:39 am »
First off, just wanted to say how impressed I am with this journal.  I came to this site thinking there was going to be some crack-science going on -- but you are very candid with your medical results, and that is such a benefit to everyone.

I am extremely interested in trying to somewhat figure out the puzzle of what constitutes sufficient vitamin and mineral intake for man.  Because you are basically eating a diet that is 100% animal products (which don't really have anti-nutrients in them) I'm sure your vitamin intake is more than sufficient (with one caveat).  For people who eat cereal grains with phytic acid, they even have to worry about minerals being directly leached out of their body.  Mineral intake on your diet is a little more tricky though-- I'm glad your getting a comprehensive bone scan, I'm interested to see if you can maintain calcium balance with such low intake.  With a diet so low in anti-nutrients, you probably just don't need as many minerals.

The caveat I have is with vitamin c intake.  I'm sure you are trying as hard as you can to do this diet without vitamin supplementation, but it just seems that humans need to get a decent amount of this nutrient.  All humans are in a catch 22, to get vitamin c you have to eat foods that are potentially damaging (such as fruit and veggies).  I looked through your tests to see if I could find your uric acid level-- I'd like to know that.  Higher than usual uric acid levels are usually caused by fructose (which you don't eat), or by eating high purine foods (sometimes), or by very low vitamin c intake.  I have this nagging feeling that your A1c test would even benefit from increased vitamin c intake-- because vitamin c can protect many types of molecules from oxidation.

I'd also like to ask you why you think it is that you really don't think you can tolerate up to 50grams of some type of carbohydrate a day?  If it really is the case that 57% of your protein gets converted to glucose-- why not just find some type of carbohydrate that you can tolerate to fill in.  I would also say that your high A1c level may be due to the amount of protein in your diet-- coupled with low vitamin c intake-- and the lack of protective compounds (which are actually toxins) in plant materials.  Protein requirements are almost certainly lower with additional carbohydrates in a diet.  We are really making strides in understanding why have "some" plant compounds are so benficial to us.  The hormetic effects of plant compounds really seem to shine.  The act of processing the toxins in the plants or fruits is what makes us stronger-- having a diet so devoid in toxins (such as a 100% meat diet)  deprives the body of this hormetic benefit (I'm not saying to eat a lot of plants-- just a little!)

Lastly, going back to mineral arguments-- do you think your potassium levels are ok on a diet that is so low in plant materials?

btw-- I wouldn't give up the organ meat component of your diet if you have next to non-existant plant foods-- because then you really would start to miss out on folate, vitamin a-- and others.

thanks for this forum!

Pages: [1]
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk