Lex's Journal

[lex_rooker]

Day 5 came and went without incident.  No sign of detox symptoms

Basal temp was 97.4 this morning.

Was up 3 times last night.

Lex

[lex_rooker]

Day 6.  Still no detox symptoms.

Basal morning temp was 97.1

Up 3 times during the night.

Lex

[William]

I never heard of The Bear. I'm afraid that I can't speak to his case.

There is a treat for you: http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/about22.html

I'd heard of his throat cancer - he ate mostly cooked meat, and sometimes ice cream.  Didn't know he had heart disease.

[PaleoPhil]

Lex, your excellent info on iodine and your symptoms and similar history have me wondering if I should gradually increase my own intake of iodine and selenium. I've been interested in iodine, selenium, the fat soluble vitamins (especially A, D and K) and minerals and have been eating more seafood, greens, kelp, kelp iodine drops, douglas fir spring tips tea, butter oil, butter and other potentially helpful foods, but after reading your journal and your cherry angioma symptom, I'm thinking that my iodine and selenium intake is probably still too little to make a difference and based on what you, William and Mario Renato Iwakura at Paul Jaminet's blog say, it sounds like Lugol's is more likely to work.

I don't have cherry angiomas, but I do have a small number of pink bumps on my thighs that I was never concerned about, but looked up after reading your journal. The closest match is keratosis pilaris, which is extremely common and has been linked to vitamin A deficiency. I have some other symptoms and long history that roughly, though not completely, correlate with hypothyroid. I take vitamin A via RF cod liver oil and liver with no effect on the bumps, but other people report that they had to take iodine to enable them to better absorb the vitamin A and only then clear their skin and solve other hypothyroid-like issues, and research supports the link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18214025.

Iodine deficiency might also help explain my lifelong carb intolerance symptoms (though it could be coincidence):

INFLUENCE OF DI-NITROPHENOL ON CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=540774

However, Iwakura warns about the Risks of quickly going to high-dose iodine supplementation, instead of gradually building up to it:

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/nutrients/iodine-and-selenium/
How can the thyroid be made replete with iodine?

The best way, which we recommend in our book, is to supplement with iodine and gradually build up the dose over a four to six month period. Start below 1 mg/day, take that for a month, then double the dose. After a month, double the dose again. Continue doubling until you reach your desired maintenance dose; we recommend at least 3 mg/day (a quarter Iodoral tablet), with 12.5 mg/day a reasonable dose. Some people taking as much as 50 mg/day.

At 12.5 mg/day, it can take a year or more to become replete with iodine in all tissues and to fully drive out other halogens, such as bromine, from the body. This has great benefits for immune function. So, it is best to get started!

Risks of high-dose iodine supplementation

If a person’s thyroid gland is adapted for iodine scarcity and the person takes a large dose of (non-radioactive) iodine, the likely course of events is:

1.      Hyperthyroidism. The thyroid, aggressively scavenging for iodine to repair a deficiency of thyroid hormone, scoops up all the iodine and makes a large amount of thyroid hormone. The person develops symptoms of hyperthyroidism (too much thyroid hormone): anxiety, intolerance of heat, muscle aches, hyperactivity, irritability, hypoglycemia, elevated body temperature, palpitations, hair loss, difficulty sleeping.

2.      Wolff-Chaikoff effect. As thyroid hormone levels become too high, the body induces mechanisms for suppressing thyroid hormone production. Simply reducing TSH output is not effective to suppress thyroid hormone production if a very large iodine influx is received. Fortunately there is another mechanism for suppressing thyroid hormone formation, mediated by iodine itself: the formation of iodine-rich proteins (iodopeptides) in the thyroid that inhibt synthesis of the thyroid peroxidase (TPO) enzyme. Normally, this mechanism operates for a few days and wears off, restoring normal thyroid function. [3]

3.      Reactive hypothyroidism? Usually, everything will normally return to normal after a few days. But sometimes in previously iodine-deficient adults and more commonly in newborns and fetuses and some diseased persons, after very high doses of iodine the Wolff-Chaikoff effect can persist. In this case the early hyperthyroidism is followed by a period of hypothyroidism (too little thyroid hormone). This “hypothyroidism is transient and thyroid function returns to normal in 2 to 3 weeks after iodide withdrawal, but transient T4 replacement therapy may be required in some patients.” [3]

4.      Risk for lasting hypothyroidism. People who develop a reactive hypothyroidism following a large dose of iodine are at high risk for later development of persistent hypothyroidism. [3]

So most people will experience transient hyperthyroid symptoms for a few days and then do fine. Some will develop a reactive hypothyroidism lasting a few weeks and then be OK, save for an elevated risk of hypothyroidism later which may or may not be due to the reactive episode.

If you have a chance to peruse it, what do you think about the key points in the article?

I've also been taking cold showers, and that more than anything seems to have helped improved my circulation and cold tolerance, which Paleo and raw Paleo had already helped some--especially raw suet and RF CLO--but seemed to gradually backslide again towards the end of my relatively brief ZC-to-VLC food elimination trial that helped me determine which plant foods I can currently tolerate fairly well. Like Paul Jaminet, Anthony Colpo, Chris Kresser, Danny Roddy, Matt Stone and others, I'm interested in trying to resolve the underlying issues that contribute to my carb intolerance symptoms, rather than just hide those symptoms with VLC, and apparently cause or exacerbate other issues in the process. (YMMV)

[Bio-shell Avatar]

Is it really safe to eat as much iodine from foods and supps as we want?

Here in Germany we have a huge debate about iodine enrichments and possible toxic side effects. You can find a lot of warnings against iodine overdosing. Even natural products like sea algaes must be labeled with big warning signs, prescribed by law. Some mineral supplements with iodine contents for cows that have been used for many years by beef stock farmers are now forbidden. Many scientist believe that too much iodine causes many severe health problems.

Iodine from natural sources is very different from artificial iodine that is used in supplements. Iodine in foods like fish is usually bound to sodium. But in supplements for humans and livestock feed they use potassium iodine which is much more reactive and potentially harmful.

Many websites, books and hundreds of articles are available about the so called iodine scam. Here is one example:

www.krank-durch-jod.ch

Löwenherz

being from germany i'm aware of the severe anti-iodine propaganda as well. there are several books that claim iodine is toxic. what all these people don't seem to get is that the symptoms that are caused by ingesting larger amounts (mg) of iodine are detox symptoms of bromide (and possibly fluoride and heavy metals). iodine does not cause any of these symptoms and they'll disappear after a while if iodine supplementation is continued.

@paleophil - re the article you posted. afaik thyroid hormone levels can't get too high, the body simply stops producing the hormone when it's not needed (just like with all other hormones). the only thing that can create problems is thyroid hormone supplementation because here the body can't control the amount, but not iodine supplementation. i think it's safe to start low to prevent the detox symptoms from getting too extreme in very toxic individuals but on the whole it's best to get the toxins out of the system as quickly as possible, hence the 50-100mg doses of iodine along with the salt protocol.

btw, back in the 19th and early 20th century people have been treated with doses as high as 1g or so per day for certain periods of time as a form of antibiotics and most didn't experience any adverse effects. also, nobel laureate albert szent-györgyi (who discovered vitamin c) is said to have taken several hundred mg of iodine a day and he lived to be 93.

from what i've read iodine up to 150mg per day is completely safe and any negative symptoms are signs of detoxification of toxic halides, not caused by iodine itself. what's interesting to note is that the japanese possibly have the highest iodine consumption of all people in the world due to their high seafood intake (approx. 12.5mg/day) and yet are among the nations with the lowest cancer rates (except for stomach cancer - i blame high tea consumption for that). the low cancer rate is particularly astonishing if you keep in mind that the japanese had two atomic bombs to deal with which would certainly have promoted increased cancer development given a lower iodine intake.

lex, i believe the reason why you don't experience detox symptoms is that thanks to your healthy diet your body can more easily deal with the toxic load. it's been proven often that external enzymes (from food or enzyme therapy) are plenty helpful with pretty much all conditions, reduce the severity as well as the duration. in your case i'd keep up the 50mg dose for 3 months and then cut down to a maintenance dose of 12.5g-25g for the rest of your life. i can only speak for myself but after a year of iodine supplementation like that there are absolutely no negative effects at all, quite the opposite.

[lex_rooker]

However, Iwakura warns about the Risks of quickly going to high-dose iodine supplementation, instead of gradually building up to it:If you have a chance to peruse it, what do you think about the key points in the article?

Phil,
My comments on the article are just my thoughts as I have no actual facts.  There are always those that point out every possible issue that may arise and then sternly warn against taking unapproved actions.  I've read hundreds of pages of information from "professionals" and their stern warnings, to laymen like myself that took bold steps and had no problems at all, to still others that experienced issues but worked through them.  I took all of this into account before choosing the protocol I was going to follow and decided that the risk was acceptable.

I also considered that I had a well defined medical problem that could turn ugly.  Let's suppose it did turn into cancer.  Do you think those same professionals that are so concerned that I might suffer temporary hyper/hypo thyroid problems and caution me to spend months or years working up to an effective dose will warn me that the chemo and radiation treatments that they are pushing me to take are so toxic that they recommend that I work up slowly so that it takes a year before I'm at full dose?

From what I've read, it takes a 50mg-100mg dose of iodine over a period of several months to get the effects that I hope to achieve.  Some doctors that are on the iodine bandwagon are using doses as high as 300mg/a day to treat cancer.  I assure you, they didn't spend years working up to this dose starting from a few hundred micrograms.  If it takes a 100mg daily dose of iodine over several months to show a positive effect on BPH symptoms, then I want get to that dose as fast as possible and then remain there as long as necessary to either show beneficial effect or show that it didn't work. 

Do you remember all the warnings I was given about going ZC?  None of the horrible concequences that were predicited ever materialized.  Remember I'm all about what works.  There is no one forcing me to continue to do something that is creating worse problems.  If I encounter issues that I feel are a major problem then I'll make a change.  I just choose to wait until the problem occurs rather than worry over something that most likely won't happen.

Lex 

[lex_rooker]

Bio-Shell,
Thanks for your input.  You stated my position better than I did.  I do hope that you are correct that my diet, though low in iodine, may also be low in halides and therefore I'm not experiencing any problems with starting at a relatively high dose.

I'm going to stick with 50mg/day for a month and then move to a higher dose.  I actually want to be at 100mg/day for at least 6 months to see if there is a positive change in my BPH symptoms.  I also plan on having my PSA checked again at 6 months or so to see if there is any movement there as well.

I will make my decision on when to drop the dose and what to drop down too depending on my actual results.  In reading Grizz's postings on Mark's Daily Apple, he was at 50mg and was having good results with his BPH (he's 69 so that gives me hope).  He then decided to drop to a 12.5mg daily dose (based on the Japanese dietary intake) and he noticed that some of his BPH symptoms started to return.  Needless to say, he upped the dose again.

Only time will tell where this adventure will lead.  I'm hopeful that iodine will have a beneficial effect on my BPH so that PSA drops and it would be great if I could drop the Doxasozin as well.  I'm also hopeful that high levels of iodine in my urine will stop the cycle of UTI's that I've been suffering for the last 30-40 years.  If it does, this alone may require that I remain on a higher daily dose just to keep iodine levels high in the urine to prevent UTI's.

Lex

[lex_rooker]

Day 7 - It's been a full week now and still no detox symptoms from taking 50mg of iodine per day in the form of 8 drops of 5% Lugol's solution added to my daily drinking water, along with all the recommended supplements.

I usually take my morning temperature first thing when I get up and that is the temperature I report.  This morning I awoke at 4:30am as all I had was a sheet over me and the window over the bed was open and I was a little chilly.  The chill is what woke me up.  I decided to take my temperature and it was 96.4.  I pulled a light blanket over me and went back to sleep for 2 hours and woke up feeling comfortably warm about 6:30 which is when I normally get up.  I again took my temperature and this time it was 97.5, almost a full degree higher.  Now I'm wondering how much things like how well I'm covered and what the room temperature is effect my early morning temperature.  This might be a useless measurement.  Thoughts anyone?

Was up 4 times last night.

Also did a patch test.  This is admittedly not very accurate, but does apparently show in a general way how well saturated your body is with iodine.  The theory is that if the patch disappears within 4 hours then you are highly deficient, if it lasts 4- 8 hours then you are high-moderate deficient, if it lasts 8-12 hours then you are moderately deficient, 12-18 hours light to moderately deficient, and 18-24 hours you are lightly deficient, and anything over 24 hours means your tissues are probably pretty saturated.  Some think this test is totally useless but I thought I'd try it anyway and see what happens.

I put one drop of 5% Lugol's on my forearm and spread it around about the size of a quarter and let it dry.  This was about 4:30pm.  I went to bed 7 hours later at 11:30 and the patch had faded a lot but was still visible.  It was gone when I woke up at 4:30 to make a bathroom call and put on a blanket.  From the best I can tell with this first test I'm probably in the 8-12 hour range.  Wish I had done this before starting the protocol, but I didn't so I'll just have to go on from here.   

Lex

[PaleoPhil]

i believe the reason why you don't experience detox symptoms is that thanks to your healthy diet your body can more easily deal with the toxic load.

That's a plausible hypothesis.

Do you remember all the warnings I was given about going ZC?  None of the horrible concequences that were predicited ever materialized.

Yes, and I'm not taking a position on your Lugol's protocol, just considering some different viewpoints with an open mind while considering embarking on a higher-dose iodine protocol myself.

It occurs to me that the ZC warnings did prove true for others, according to their reports, and they might have done better if they had done some more research first and listened to others like you instead of just Charles W. and included organs and raw foods in their diets. Commendably, it sounds like you took the precaution of researching the iodine protocol pretty thoroughly.

This morning I awoke at 4:30am as all I had was a sheet over me and the window over the bed was open and I was a little chilly.  The chill is what woke me up.  I decided to take my temperature and it was 96.4.  I pulled a light blanket over me and went back to sleep for 2 hours and woke up feeling comfortably warm about 6:30 which is when I normally get up.  I again took my temperature and this time it was 97.5, almost a full degree higher.  Now I'm wondering how much things like how well I'm covered and what the room temperature is effect my early morning temperature.  This might be a useless measurement.  Thoughts anyone?

Body temperatures vary during the day and are naturally at their lowest in the early morning while sleeping. Coincidentally, 4:30 AM is the low point on this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Body_Temp_Variation.png

Also, fasting lowers core body temperature, which may be part of the reason why body temp. is lowest in the early morning:
- in lab rats http://ep.physoc.org/content/69/3/541.full.pdf
- in humans http://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/2006/04/media-availability-low-calorie-diet-affects-aging-related-factors

Incidentally, the second study talks about lower core body temperature being associated with greater longevity, which is probably one of the reasons for the claims you mentioned encountering before about lower body temperature being healthier. I think I read somewhere that higher body temp is associated with greater fertility, physical development and athletic prowess. If all these correlations are real, then the ideal body temperature depends on whether one's goals are maximum longevity or fertility/development or in-between.

[lex_rooker]

Day 8 no symptoms of detox or any other problems.

Up 3 times during the night.

Did a little experiementing with temperature.  I started the night just covered by a sheet.  When I woke up I took my temperature and then added a light blanket.  I alternated between sheet and blanket whenever I awoke.  I kept the window closed so that the room temperature was more stable and stayed between 70 and 75 degrees for the whole night.  The results were interesting.

Being up 3 times created 4 blanket on/ blanket off periods.  When the blanket was on my temperature was about 0.75 F higher than when it was off.  When the blanket was on I felt toasty warm and when I was just covered by a sheet I was comfortable but did feel noticably cooler.

Since I left the window closed the room didn't drop to as low a temp as it ususally does so I never got cold enough where the low temperature woke me up when only covered by a sheet.  By the same token, the room was cool enough that a light blanket didn't make me too warm either.

The lowest temperature that I measured for the night with only a sheet was 96.8 and the highest temperature I measured when covered by the light blanket was 97.9.  Regardless of the time of night I had a lower body temperature when only covered by a sheet than when covered by a blanket.  This makes me wonder about the validity of this measurement.  I've seen others suggest averaging 3 measurements taken about 2 hours apart during mid day as a better solution. 

Thoughts?

Lex

[lex_rooker]

It occurs to me that the ZC warnings did prove true for others, according to their reports, and they might have done better if they had done some more research first and listened to others like you instead of just Charles W. and included organs and raw foods in their diets. Commendably, it sounds like you took the precaution of researching the iodine protocol pretty thoroughly.

This is one of the reasons that I try very hard to be thorough in my descriptions of exactly what I'm doing.  It is also the reason that I don't try to prescribe for others.  There is really no way for me or them to know if they are actually doing what I'm doing, and it might be some seemingly insignificant little detail that makes me successful and them not so much.

I remember my Aunt called me up one time and asked for my recipe for carrot cake.  She had heard that it was really good and she had some special guests coming for dinner and wanted to impress them.  I gave her the recipe but was surprised when I didn't hear from her again.  Curious about how her dinner went,  I finally called her up and asked her if the cake was a success.  She said that it was very disappointing.  I was shocked.  Everyone loves my carrot cake and I expected her and her guests to like it as well.

After talking to her for a while she finally admitted that she didn't have as many eggs as the recipe called for so she substituted cornstarch mixed with water for the missing eggs.  Then she said she didn't have any raisins to make the raisin paste called for in the recipe so she used molasses instead.  Finally, she didn't have the cream cheese called for in the topping so she used cottage cheese.  Any one of these substitutions will create a significantly different cake both in taste and texture from the recipe I gave her.  I can just imagine how bad the result was with all three substitutions. 

The interesting thing is that in her mind she was convinced that she was following my recipe and it just wasn't that good!  I've found this to be true over and over.  People think that they are following my recommendations or doing exactly what I'm doing, but upon close examination, they've more often than not, made significant deviations - sometimes unconciously, and sometimes knowingly.  Regardless, they are usually convinced that they're following my protocol to the letter and it just doesn't work.

Lex

[Inger]

Lex a CRP does not tell much at all. You need a HS CRP (high sensitive CRP). There you can see your grade of inflammation in your body, which is very important. Remember, cancer is about inflammation.... so if you are concerned about cancer risk, I would suggest to test your HS CRP.
Here the HS CRP test cost about 10€ more then CRP. I did it and mine was 0,22. One should try to be as close to 0 as possible.

[Löwenherz]

i can only speak for myself but after a year of iodine supplementation like that there are absolutely no negative effects at all, quite the opposite.

That's very interesting. Please tell us more about the positive outcome of your iodine supplementation. What have been the benefits?

Löwenherz

[Löwenherz]

From what I've read, it takes a 50mg-100mg dose of iodine over a period of several months to get the effects that I hope to achieve.  Some doctors that are on the iodine bandwagon are using doses as high as 300mg/a day to treat cancer.

To my surprise, today I found an old package of japanese Aonori seaweeds in a hidden corner of my kitchen.

The warning sign reads (translated):
"An excessive iodine supply can cause thyroid dysfunction. Therefore the German Society for nutrition (DGE) recommends not to exceed an average daily iodine intake of 0,2 mg. Therefore MAXIMUM daily dose of Aonori should be ca. 1 gram = 1 teaspoon."

LOL!

I have no clue which amounts of iodine could be problematic for us, low or high. But after reading your posts here I think that the above recommendation is far away from reality. Nevertheless the argumentation of the DGE somehow makes sense to me. They say that after eating very low levels of iodine for decades and generations as in some parts of the world our bodies have adapted to such low levels and that a sudden and very drastic increase causes problems.

Hmm... Saturated fats are devil, whole grains are health food and nuts are good for our brains!

Löwenherz

[PaleoPhil]

Lex a CRP does not tell much at all. ...

Whatever it's efficacy, a recent study claimed that meat-heavy diets raise CRP levels, which has been used (even in Paleo circles) to criticize animal-food-heavy diets and promote instead a "low-glycemic" plant-based diet. So I found it fascinating that Lex's CRP is very low on an all-meat diet, as is my own on an animal-food-heavy diet. I suspect that the scientists who did the study are wrong on this, making some of the most common errors in science--jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence and ignoring potential confounding factors.

A high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP) test measures low levels of CRP using laser nephelometry. The test gives results in 25 minutes with a sensitivity down to 0.04 mg/L.
Normal concentration in healthy human serum is usually lower than 10 mg/L, slightly increasing with aging. Higher levels are found in late pregnant women, mild inflammation and viral infections (10–40 mg/L), active inflammation, bacterial infection (40–200 mg/L), severe bacterial infections and burns (>200 mg/L).[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-reactive_protein

It looks like high-sensitivity CRP is just a more sensitive test of the same marker of inflammation (CRP), yes? Is there any evidence that CRP below 0.5, in the context of "good" HDL and triglyceride numbers, is a significant health problem, Inger?

[lex_rooker]

Hmm... Saturated fats are devil, whole grains are health food and nuts are good for our brains!

Yup, my point exactly.  The establishment's trackrecord hasn't been all that good.  I spent years following other people's advice and the results were poor at best.  Some of my own choices haven't been all that great either, but at least I'm in control and can decide for myself what is working and what isn't.

Inger, I'm more of a macro than a micro kind of guy.  If the macro test (the big picture) indicates that there is no problem then I see no reason to get into the weeds of the micro test in an effort to find things that aren't there.  My CRP test came in at less than 0.1.  This indicates very low levels of inflammation and I see little value in breaking it down any further.  I already have PSA tests and BPH symptoms (big picture items) that tell me there is an area of trouble brewing.  A CRP test at the micro levels doesn't add anymore useful information.

Phil, apparently the two of us are unique.  Or bodies just refuse to follow the dictates of current conventional medical wisdom.  I'd like to think that maybe someday the medical establishment will catch up with the greater wisdom of our amazing bodies.

Lex

[Inger]

It looks like high-sensitivity CRP is just a more sensitive test of the same marker of inflammation (CRP), yes? Is there any evidence that CRP below 0.5, in the context of "good" HDL and triglyceride numbers, is a significant health problem, Inger?

PaleoPhil, I researched this long ago but now I forgot how it exactly was. Stupid. So I dunno. I just know CRP is not much a help. My brother is eating a better SAD and he has CRP 0. So that looks to be not uncommon. When looking for disease we need to dig deeper to find the cause so we can change. Inflammation is what cancer is about very much. Low grade, chronic inflammation. That is why it is interesting to dig into it for sure. Or to me at least.
There is always so much to learn. I need to ditch a lot of "old" information and science and take in new all the time..huh! 
But you know.. I have come to like it.. it never gets boring that's for sure..lol

@ Lex... I see.. I just hope you are not falling into false assumptions, there is no inflammation going on because of your low CRP.. because there could very well be... and that would be so important to know for someone with cancer risk. And how one could lower the inflammation too.

[lex_rooker]

@ Lex... I see.. I just hope you are not falling into false assumptions, there are no inflammation going on because of your low CRP.. because there could very well be... and that would be so important to know for someone with cancer risk. And how one could lower the inflammation too.

I assure you that I'm not falling into making false assumptions.  You see, I fully understand that my body is filled with inflammation.  Normal metabolic functions required for living create all sorts of inflammation.  Just breathing and processing oxygen creates large amounts of free radicals.  I could significantly slow the productions of free radicals if I stop breathing but the consequences of that would be to rapidly accelerate my death to occur in about 6 minutes.  Not a great trade-off in my estimation.  Therefore, I accept that things like free radicals and low levels of CRP inflammation exist, understand that there is little in the way of practical intervention that I can take, and spend my time pursuing more fruitful endeavors.

My goal is to have the best quality of life that I can while I'm here and my idea of quality is not spending what little time I have left on this earth agonizing over CRP, free radicals, AGES or the host of other minutiae that I have little or no control over.  Most of this stuff is theory and from what I can determine no one really knows what the practical implications are to everyday living.  I know what the current conventional wisdom is, but conventional wisdom hasn't had a real good trackrecord and it is a constantly moving target.

Assume I dedicate my time to trying to lower my already low CRP number, agonize over free radicals, and diligently track AGE consumption.  No matter how successful I am in these pursuits, I'm going to die, and I can't think of a bigger waste of the precious little time I have left on this earth.  I'd much rather spend my time doing things that bring joy to my life. 

Lex

[Löwenherz]

Whatever it's efficacy, a recent study claimed that meat-heavy diets raise CRP levels, which has been used (even in Paleo circles) to criticize animal-food-heavy diets and promote instead a "low-glycemic" plant-based diet.

Did they use grain-fed or grass-fed meats in this study? It makes a huge difference, regarding w6:w3 ratios and related inflammatory processes.

In 2005 I made an experiment and ate exclusively the cheapest of the cheapest grain-fed meats every day on a very low carb very high animal fat diet, including a lot of conventional pork. At that time I didn't know much about the massive negative consequences for our health from grain fed meats. Still influenced by Aajonus Vonderplanitz and Wolfgang Lutz, who both obviously never fully understood the enormous importance of w3:w6-ratios, I wanted to find out if grass-feeding is just new age gossip or not. After only six months I got GOUT, diagnosed by a doctor. I experienced gradually increasing pain in my joints, especially in the morning hours. Gout is an inflammatory condition. I couldn't believe it. So fast!? During my zero-carb experiments based on 100% grass-fed meats in the following years I noticed the EXACT opposite reaction in my body! Even with much higher amounts of protein. The pain disappeared and my joints completely healed. They felt better than ever before, even better than in childhood.

Just one thought on "healthy" grains..

Löwenherz

[lex_rooker]

In 2005 I made an experiment and ate exclusively the cheapest of the cheapest grain-fed meats every day on a very low carb very high animal fat diet, including a lot of conventional pork. At that time I didn't know much about the massive negative consequences for our health from grain fed meats. Still influenced by Aajonus Vonderplanitz and Wolfgang Lutz, who both obviously never fully understood the enormous importance of w3:w6-ratios, I wanted to find out if grass-feeding is just new age gossip or not. After only six months I got GOUT, diagnosed by a doctor. I experienced gradually increasing pain in my joints, especially in the morning hours. Gout is an inflammatory condition. I couldn't believe it. So fast!? During my zero-carb experiments based on 100% grass-fed meats in the following years I noticed the EXACT opposite reaction in my body! Even with much higher amounts of protein. The pain disappeared and my joints completely healed. They felt better than ever before, even better than in childhood.

Thanks for telling us about this.  It is the kind of practical information that I and others can take real action on and see if we can achieve similar results.  Since my food intake is 95% grass-fed meats, and I've avoided all the expected problems associated with a high meat-low carb diet, I think our experiences support each other.

Lex

[TylerDurden]

The above argument that the  info on AGEs is just theory is, of course, a load of old b*lls. The fact is that there are now tens of thousands of scientific studies on the inflammation caused by AGEs, so that no responsible, rational scientist could any longer deny that AGEs are a problem.

[PaleoPhil]

Inflammation is what cancer is about very much. Low grade, chronic inflammation.

I agree and I read up further on the difference between the CRP test and the hs-CRP test and confirmed that the hs-CRP test is just a more sensitive test of the exact same measure (CRP). I also found that Lex must have had the hs-CRP test, based on his result, as his result of 0.1 is too low to be detected without a hs-CRP test (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_crp_and_hs-crp#ixzz28e17bXaC).

Did they use grain-fed or grass-fed meats in this study? It makes a huge difference, regarding w6:w3 ratios and related inflammatory processes.

Yes, that was my point. The authors extrapolated conclusions based on unfounded assumptions that didn't consider questions like that.

---*---

Tyler, I understood what Lex meant by "theory" (ie, academic hypothesis based on rat studies and plasma AGE levels in humans) vs. "practical implications" (ie, accelerated aging or death of nondiabetic people eating real-world diets, like Lex).

[TylerDurden]

Tyler, I understood what Lex meant by "theory" (ie, academic hypothesis based on rat studies and plasma AGE levels in humans) vs. "practical implications" (ie, accelerated aging or death of nondiabetic people eating real-world diets, like Lex).

The info linking AGEs to accelerated aging in humans is not "theory". Indeed, the scientific data on accelerated aging linked to  nondiabetic people eating real-world diets is  negligible by comparison.

[lex_rooker]

The info linking AGEs to accelerated aging in humans is not "theory". Indeed, the scientific data on accelerated aging linked to  nondiabetic people eating real-world diets is  negligible by comparison.

Tyler,
I guess I was unclear.  Paleo Phil understood my meaning.

AGEs, free radicals, CRP,  etc. certainly have a scientific basis, and I never said that they didn't.  AGE damage to tendon tissue is often used to determine the chronological age of an animal in the wild.  I fully understand this.  The "practical implications" as Phil so eloquently put it, is that regardless of what we consume, AGE, free radical, and other damage will accumulate.  It is just part of being a carbon based lifeform that oxidizes its fuel to create energy.  I'm just not convinced that some dietary consumption of things like AGEs makes much difference. You of course may feel otherwise and that is fine with me.

I look at the situation much like the cholesterol hysteria over the last 40 years.  Scientists had us terrified to eat eggs, red meat, and other dietary sources of cholesterol as they were convinced that dietary cholesterol was what was raising blood cholesterol to pathological levels creating heart and artery disease.  We now know that this is not true. The problem is that it has taken us 40 years to figure this out and it's still mainstream thinking to shun cholesterol containing foods.

I place AGEs, free radicals, and other such compounds in the same category as cholesterol 30-40 years ago.  They are the "new" cholesterol bogey man.  We know they exist, we know tissue damage occurs, we may even know the biochemical mechanism by which the damage is created.  What we don't know is how much impact dietary sources of these compounds contribute to our overall aging and degeneration.  We do know that aging and degeneration will happen from AGEs, free radicals and the like even if we consume none of them in our diet.  Our body creates them as part of the life process and there is absolutely nothing you or I can do about that.  I'm not even sure that if I could, that I would do something about it.  I've seen the mess we've made of people's lives by artificially manipulating blood cholesterol levels and other things that we don't fully understand.

If you choose to believe that these things are important and you derive great joy from worrying over them, then by all means continue to enjoy yourself.  As for me, I find it tedious to dwell on things that I have little control over, especially when practical implications to my daily life are tenuous at best.

Lex

[PaleoPhil]

The "practical implications" as Phil so eloquently put it,

Lex, are you aware that you just complimented yourself, for I was quoting you?

is that regardless of what we consume, AGE, free radical, and other damage will accumulate.  It is just part of being a carbon based lifeform that oxidizes its fuel to create energy.  I'm just not convinced that some dietary consumption of things like AGEs makes much difference.

Since the topic has come up yet again and likely will again in the future if we don't address it more deeply, I may as well give it a shot. The most common question/criticism of concern about AGEs raised by cooking defenders is this one you've mentioned of wondering whether the diet contributes a significant or insignificant amount of (exogenous) AGEs in relation to overall AGEs in the body (endogenous + exogenous AGEs). This study (please forgive me if it has already been brought to your attention) suggests that diet does indeed contribute quite a bit (and maybe this is partly why Tyler seems to be up in arms?):

Henle T. AGEs in foods: do they play a role in uremia? Kidney Int 2003;63(suppl 84):S145-S147.
http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v63/n84s/full/4493792a.html
"the major part of AGEs measured in urine is of dietary origin. Similar results were observed for PD-effluates. This gives the preliminary indication that dietary AGEs might significantly contribute to the total AGE load of the human body. The kidney, as well as the peritoneal membrane, has to deal with a "continuous" exposure to dietary AGEs. Therefore, biologic effects of these exogenously formed compounds have to be considered, in addition to AGEs formed endogenously."

Whether this has any serious health effects is, of course, still an open question in science, regardless of the opinions of you, Tyler or myself, but it seems that Tyler is right to the extent that current science does suggest that the dietary contribution to AGEs is very substantial. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to phase him in the slightest that not a single credible scientist agrees with him that eating all-raw is best, despite his past claim to consider the current scientific consensus as the default position. It seems like for Tyler the scientific consensus is only important if it matches his views, but maybe I'm missing something?

One potential offsetting factor is hormesis, which rarely gets factored into the equation. It runs counter to modern thinking to consider that small amounts of poison can actually be beneficial, though it does fit in somewhat with the philosophy behind homeopathy, which Tyler has expressed some positive sentiments about in the past. Is a potential "homeopathic-type" benefit from small amounts of AGEs not something to be considered, Tyler?

Based on my own experience with certain foods, such as coconut oil, I suspect that heating does have some significant negative effects on foods (whether due to AGEs or something else, or a combination), which in turn have negative health consequences, but my experience says nothing about your or Tyler's experience, of course. Certain types and degrees of cooking seem to have worse effects than others.

The problem is that it has taken us 40 years to figure this out and it's still mainstream thinking to shun cholesterol containing foods.

Yes, which is one example of why I am loathe to draw absolute conclusions prematurely. I see sciences as being more about asking questions and testing hypotheses than drawing absolute conclusions for all time. I see the latter as more the sphere of religion, politics and at times individual practical necessity.