Lex's Journal

[PaleoPhil]

...Now I just put in my dehydrator set at 85 and gets mushy and I like it.   

Interesting idea. I've also been lightly melting fat on the fry pan without heating it to cooking temps.

[Ioanna]

Raw Rob gave me the idea.  A cold meal is so detestful to me, while a warm/room temp is so pleasant.

[William]

A few days ago I jerked an ox heart, too lazy to cut the fat off it.
Just broke the fat off before grinding the jerky, and had not the usual unpleasant reaction to raw fat when I ate it with supper.
Dried 5 days at 95F.

[PaleoPhil]

After reading your journal a second time, I'm a little confused about something. You said that the 80% fat regimen caused you to gain weight. Yet your last numbers (did I miss any?) show that you actually lost a little weight and all your other numbers improved except urine ketones.

                 68%F/32%P  80%F/20%P  80%F/20%P       80%F/20%P         80%F/20%P
                    Baseline   21 Days       42 Days       70 Days          84 Days

BG Daily Avg        106        94              92                 87                 88
BG Hi/Low Range     90/120     92/103        80/100           71/98          72/109
BG rise after meal  25         10               6                 12                 25
Urine Ketones       0-Trace    SM/Lg        Trace/Mod         Large+       Large/Large+
Resting Heart Rt    58         63              60                 59                  59
Weight              162        159            165               160                 155
BMI                 21.4       21.0           21.8              21.1                20.4
BP                  110/70     105/67        98/63            103/65           106/67
%Body Fat(calipers) 11.0       12.3           13.9               10.8                9.5
Caliper A/C/T       10/6/11    12/8/11       14/9/13          8/6/12            7/5/10

However, you said you had less energy on 80% fat and that it was a struggle to finish your meals, so it sounds like the 68% regimen is more doable for you. Maybe somewhere in between (72-75% fat) would work?


Lex wrote:

Around 1999 or 2000 I ran across Neanderthin by Ray Audette and the rest is history.  I found a webset call "Beyond Veg" (  http://www.beyondveg.com/  )

It's pretty neat that I had the same early influences, except in reverse order. I found beyondveg.com, which led me to Neanderthin as well as Boyd Eaton and Loren Cordain. When some of my symptoms started to relapse, I decided to follow through on Ray Audette's comments about raw meat actually being the best food, and how he only lightly seared his steaks and ate jerky and pemmican (likely heated below what are considered "cooking" temperatures). So I searched for advice on pemmican and raw meat and found DelFuego and your posts at other forums, which I was very impressed with and inspired by. Your posts at other forums then lead me to this one, which is my favorite forum so far.


Lex wrote:

My favorite running surface is a rubberized asphalt, but these are expensive to install and maintain so most of the local schools don't have them, and the ones that do, don't open their tracks to the public.  My choice is either deal with the jarring of joints when running on a smooth hard surface, or risk twisting my knee or ankle and possibly tearing ligaments by running on an uneven but cushioned surface like grass. ...

Lex, I suspect that if you run barefoot or in barefoot-type shoes, that you will be less prone to twist joints or tear ligaments, and your calf, arch and toe muscles may strengthen, further reducing the chances of injury. Standard shoes seem to immobilize muscles and joints, causing atrophy, and cause poor body mechanics, both of which increase the risk of injury.

As Sully suggested, our ancestors and the people still living the old ways [nearly] always have the answers. When they seem to be wrong, I erase my assumptions, start from a blank slate, and then re-examine what our ancestors did and what HGs said in recent times. Like you, it used to be easy for me to twist my joints on grass, or even a flat surface for that matter. I have been wearing Vivobarefoot shoes for some months now and find that my muscles and ligaments seem to be gradually strengthening and my formerly weak joints are less prone to twisting, which they did easily before. I think going ZC and mostly raw has also helped and it is a confounding factor, but I think the barefoot-type shoes have also helped. I know that my feet are more sore after a day of wearing Rockport shoes (conventional "comfortable" shoes) than they are after wearing barefoot-type shoes.

[Josh]

How do you feel about walking or running on hard surfaces in barefoot shoes all the time instead of grass etc?

My current thinking is to wear mbts or similar some of the time (when I can afford to replace my knackered pair!) then thin soled deck shoes the rest. That way it may even out the benefits and harm of each approach.

[PaleoPhil]

I currently can't imagine going barefoot all the time, certainly not at work where it's not allowed. As far as going barefoot when exercising, even when running on pavement, I'm not sure what I'll do there. Some people do regularly run barefoot on pavement, but pavement is a modern innovation and not something our bodies are designed for, so the long-term consequences are uncertain. I think I'd like to run barefoot in a race some day to freak people out (I like doing that ), but I don't think I'd want to make a habit of it. We'll see, I'm open minded about it.

I've found that it doesn't pay to walk barefoot indoors in my apartment (too cramped, with too many things to stub my toes on ). So currently I wear Vivobarefoot shoes and moccasins indoors and on gravel and pavement outdoors. Any time there is grass, sand or dirt to walk on outdoors I try to go barefoot.

My feet and skin are super-sensitive, so other people could probably be more daring than me. When I was eating lots of modern foods and carbs, my bare feet were sensitive even to grass! I learned that this is a common symptom among people with autism, which like the gluten sensitive enteropathy I suffered from is an autoimmune disorder with neural effects. Now I find tough grass and smooth stones to feel good on my bare feet--like a massage. Pointy gravel and pavement are still tough on them.

Of course, most people would claim it was all in my head (and before I learned better, at times I suspected similar causes for some other people's health symptoms--in part because my father drilled into me that anyone can improve their health if they just adopt a positive attitude--so if they don't improve it's their own fault; in other words--blaming the victim) and I just needed an attitude adjustment, but the truth is that walking on grass barefooted really did use to feel unpleasant to me and no longer does, despite no conscious change in mental attitude. It just happened organically and effortlessly when I changed my diet. This is something that Americans especially seem to have trouble accepting, because our culture is all about individual effort and achievement and positive mental attitude and blaming problems on individual character or moral defects, which organic changes from diet doesn't fit into.

The current approach of the medical community is backwards: it's atrophy-centered. When people's muscles are weak or joints are sore they say to immobilize them and rest--even lie down--when in reality they need more exercise and muscle strengthening (and improved diet to tighten and strengthen the connective tissues). When they have flat feet due to weak arches they add in arch supports, which immobilize the arch muscles and connective tissues, causing further atrophying. One needs to be careful about exercising weakened muscles and start out slowly, but immobilizing them is not the answer. My father learned this back in the 1960s in exercise physiology classes. Somehow that knowledge has been lost.

[halotek]

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.

[lex_rooker]

Anyway, that's why I was wondering if Lex felt 'hunger' during the 30 day fast.  Maybe his mindset did not allow him  to feel? Maybe he ignored?   

For the first several days I was hungry.  After that I didn't feel hungry at all.  However, once I started eating again I was ravenous for days.

Interesting. Lex experienced edema after eating cooked foods--I believe they were served by a hotel at a convention or something like that. What is it about cooking meats that could cause bloating or edema, I wonder?

I wouldn't be to quick to attribute my edema to cooking alone.  All the meats I ate that week were processed (sausage, bacon, ham etc) and full of chemicals.  I ate large amounts of these meats as they were the only ones available to me.  I also ate 5 or 6 scrambled eggs everyday which were scrambled with a commmercial cooking oil which I expect was plant based (soy, canola, coconut or the like).  Far too many variables to lay the blame for my bout of edema on cooking.


Lex

[lex_rooker]

halotek

You are free to believe and feel anyway you wish.  Based on my personal experience I've come to suspect that many of the 'normal' ranges for the various medical tests are really abnormal and based on a society eating an improper diet for many generations.  My doctor admits that he has no idea what the A1c, blood glucose, triglyceride, or any other level should be for a person eating an all meat diet.  He also has no idea (nor do I) if eating an all meat diet is good or bad.  What we both can agree on is that I feel great and I'm able to do things again that I had been unable to do for many years.

Why would I want to look on Pub Med to studies done on people who eat completely differently from me?  There are many studies that show vitamin C as being critical yet I don't consume any and I have no problems.  Studies that show that people eating lots of grains and processed foods and meats get scurvy mean nothing to a person who eats raw meat and fat and doesn't get scurvy. 

My son-in-law is a doctor and he suffers from gout (uric acid crystals in the joints and tissues).  He believes as you do, takes supplements, eats lots of fruits, and veggies yet suffers painfully for weeks at a time.  I eat no fruits and veggies and have no symptoms of gout whatever.  I have no idea what my uric acid levels are and I really don’t care as I don’t have any problems.  It’s my son-in-law, eating the way you suggest, has gout – apparently his gout didn’t read those Pub Med studies…..

I’ve come from the vegan background and know what poor health is all about.  I didn’t need any studies to tell me this.  My teeth were loose, my cholesterol was high, my triglycerides were high, my blood pressure was high, my blood glucose was high, my joints were arthritic, and I had constant killer migraine headaches.  All these problems have disappeared while eating an all meat diet.

I also believe we are all ‘deteriorating’, as you call it, all the time.  We are all heading inexorably towards death.  Most people are concerned with living a long life.  I care very little about living a long life.  I much prefer to live an active and productive life doing the things I want to do. I don't care to live to be 90 but be unable to do what I want to do for the last 20 or 30 years of my life - what good is that?  I'm only 58 but if I were to die tomorrow that is just fine with me because I feel great today and can do whatever I want to do.  I have little interest in riding around in my ‘free’ power chair or having to use a ‘stair lift’ to get to my bedroom.

I'm also not married to what I'm doing.  If a ZC diet stops meeting my needs I'll look for something better.  I’ll let you read the Pub Med studies and take the supplements.  I have no interest in doing either one.  I much prefer to be out in my shop doing the things I love to do.

Lex

[lex_rooker]

Satya was rooting around and found this gem.  According to recent studies increased levels of uric acid are not caused by red meat as once thought, but by fructose - which, if I'm not mistaken, is found in copious quantities in fruit. But wait, according to halotek, studies performed over the past 30 years and Pub Med say that fruit and toxic plant compounds are the cure. What a quandry this puts me in.  I no longer know who to believe, Pub Med pushing the traditional party line, or the more recent analysis comming from the blogosphere like Dr William Davis of the Heart Scan Blog, or Peter of Hyperlipid fame - both of whom nail fructose as something to avoid like the plague, Vitamin C and other magic plant based compounds not withstanding.

I guess I'll just stick with my own independent observations and give credit to whatever source supports my own findings at the moment.  Saves me a lot of unnecessary research and frees up a good bit of time to do more interesting things. Anyway, here's the link and the relevent quote from the blog post: 


http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/fructose-is-coronary-risk-factor.html
"Increases uric acid--No longer is red meat the cause for increased uric acid; fructose has taken its place. Uric acid may act as an independent coronary risk factor and increases high blood pressure and kidney disease."

So there you have it,
Lex

[William]

I passed Satya's find to a naturopath friend, and here's some of what she had to say:
"Wondering if this is fructose (found in fruit, veg's and wheat) causing a problem with uric acid or is it the synthetic HFCS (high fructose corn syrup)?"

It had better be the latter, as I've just finished the annual cherry eating, now doing the peaches.

[lex_rooker]

William,
The bad news is that fructose is fructose regardless of the source and it causes many metabolic problems, gout being just one of them.  Peter has several posts specifically on fructose with links to the associated articles and studies.  Here's a link to one of them:

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Fructose%20and%20gout%20%282%29

Just look down the list of subjects on the right side of the screen and you'll find a wealth of information on a variety of diet related topics.

Lex

[William]

Peter doesn't differentiate between whole fruit and synthetic extract.

All the studies on the evils of red meat studied the effect of cooked meat; same difference.

[lex_rooker]

Peter doesn't differentiate between whole fruit and synthetic extract.

All the studies on the evils of red meat studied the effect of cooked meat; same difference.

I read through the whole series of blog posts and what I got was that he was initially discussing the evils of manufactured high fructose corn syrup, but then in future posts he stated that the source didn't matter as fructose was fructose, whether from corn syrup or a peach, and the body metabolized it the same way causing the same problems.  Did I miss something?

Lex

[William]

No, you didn't miss anything from his writing.
He writes that fructose is fructose, regardless of source. I cannot agree because I ate corn syrup and was very sick, and I ate cherries and was well.

This is another example of Word when we need something else. For instance "lipids" "protein" and other invisible stuff, none lof which do we eat. Great for confusion and mystifying and all that.
I once went into a liquor store, and asked for alcohol. (I do think like that) You can imagine the look I got.
What I wanted was a bottle of alcohol like the stuff I bought in Mexico which had in bright red letters on the label ALCOHOL, or even the same stuff called Everclear in the U.S.A.

A biochemist named Hulda Regehr Clark wrote books of which half described the bad result of eating food that is polluted with traces of poisons. I've never read that anyone else noticed; instead they rave on about the other half - the electronic medicine, and GS has been deceived the same way.

So it's not the food that's bad, it's the poison, and the naturopath made that point when she called it synthetic.
We call it "not paleo" and there are endless attempts to define what that is.

"Before you would speak with me, let us define our words" said Plato or Aristotle. Good idea, wonder if he ever managed it.
 

[lex_rooker]

No, you didn't miss anything from his writing.
He writes that fructose is fructose, regardless of source. I cannot agree because I ate corn syrup and was very sick, and I ate cherries and was well.

Did you ever stop to think that there is a considerable difference between consuming concentrated fructose with nothing to moderate its absorption and consuming fructose that is diluted and/or captured in a cellular matrix from which it must be extracted before absorption can occur?

I've had several instances over my life time where I ate a concentrated food element and had a disagreeable reaction, yet when eating the exact same element in a much diluted form or where absorption was moderated by a cellular structure or being combined with other foods, I was fine.

We also see this same problem when taking medications.  Many medications will cause problems if taken on an empty stomach, but are just fine when consumed with food to moderate their rate of digestion.

Lex

[PaleoPhil]

Your A1c and blood glucose numbers are probably the worst things that your critics can point to, but even they are not quite at levels that indicate diabetes, and diagnosis is usually not made on just the basis of one A1c reading anyway. It will be interesting to see what your future A1c numbers are. If they go down I would not be concerned. If they stay at the current level or go up, that would raise questions.


BTW, how did you run across Ray Audette's book Neanderthin?

[halotek]

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.

[Raw Rob]

Hey Halotek,

Lex has been eating a mix of organs in his food. (Although I know he was thinking of doing away with the practice as of late.) Anyway, I think he's probably been getting a lot of vitamin C from that. I myself am on a carnivorous diet, and I eat lamb livers and sweetbreads everyday. (just a few small pieces)

Also, Nicola had a post on here a while that discussed sugar and vitamin C competing with eachother to be absorbed by the body. Perhaps we don't need as much vitamin C since it doesn't have to compete with sugar in our bodies? I don't know.

Here's an interesting excerpt from Weston A. Price's "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," which I am reading right now: 

"When I asked an old Indian, through an interpreter, why the Indians did not get scurvy he replied promptly that that was a white man's disease. I asked whether it was possible for the Indians to get scurvy. He replied that it was, but said that the Indians know how to prevent it and the white man does not. When asked why he did not tell the white man how, his reply was that the white man knew too much to ask the Indian anything. I then asked him if he would tell me. He said he would if the chief said he might. He went to see the chief and returned in about an hour, saying that the chief said he could tell me because I was a friend of the Indians and had come to tell the Indians not to eat the food in the white man's store. He took me by the hand and led me to a log where we both sat down. He then described how when the Indian kills a moose he opens it up and at the back of the moose just above the kidney there are what he described as two small balls in the fat. These he said the Indian would take and cut up into as many pieces as there were little and big Indians in the family and each one would eat his piece. They would eat also the walls of the second stomach. By eating these parts of the animal the Indians would keep free from scurvy, which is due to the lack of vitamin C. The Indians were getting vitamin C from the adrenal glands and organs. Modern science has very recently discovered that the adrenal glands are the richest sources of vitamin C in all animal or plant tissues."

[PaleoPhil]

...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).

I've never understood the general obsession with longevity. When I was suffering from chronic health problems, I wasn't thinking about how to extend my life even further so I could suffer from these symptoms for an even longer stretch of time at a more advanced, severe stage. I was interested in treating the underlying illness and healing the body, not ignoring the causes and extending lifespan using unnatural means like ingestion of plant antinutrients, medicines or machines.

Did you read Lex's bio or my journal? If so, surely you can understand why we are thrilled that our health issues have improved dramatically and are less concerned about MAYBE living a few extra months or years at some point in the distant future.

Promises, promises. It reminds me of the Jimmy Cliff lyric, except that "when I die" would be replaced with "when I'm old":

"Well they tell me of a pie up in the sky
Waiting for me when I die
But between the day you're born and when you die
They never seem to hear even your cry...."

I'd rather live a happy, healthy life than a miserable life dependent on extensive supplements, drugs or life support, probably burdening society as well as my own physical and mental well being.

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

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?

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.

This raises the question--why do you care what Lex eats? Isn't that his business?

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

So does this mean you want Lex to experiment with carbs so that you can understand the human body better? If so, why not ask him? He might even consider the request, or give an explanation as to why he is not interested.

[lex_rooker]

Your A1c and blood glucose numbers are probably the worst things that your critics can point to, but even they are not quite at levels that indicate diabetes, and diagnosis is usually not made on just the basis of one A1c reading anyway. It will be interesting to see what your future A1c numbers are. If they go down I would not be concerned. If they stay at the current level or go up, that would raise questions.

I’m not sure what A1c is really measuring.  I’ve been told that it reflects an average BG level over about a 3 month period.  This “average” is based on people eating high carb diets with large fluctuations in BG levels several times per day.  I don’t think this accurately reflects someone with a BG level as consistent as mine.  I’ve been measuring my BG (often hourly) for several years and for the past 2 years I don’t think my BG has ever exceeded 110 – even after a meal.  My A1c level was 6% which corresponds to an average BG level over the last 3 months in excess of 135, which I know is not true.

Based on hundreds of BG measurements my average for the last 2 years has been right at 98-99.  If A1c were a true average I would expect an A1c level of about 5.0%   Anyway, I don’t plan on making changes to my diet based on a test parameter that I’m not sure is relevant to my situation.

BTW, how did you run across Ray Audette's book Neanderthin?

I think I ran across it mentioned on some website in the mid to late ‘90s if I remember correctly.  I then found it in a local bookstore.  I think it is out of print now which is disappointing.


Lex

[halotek]

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.

[PaleoPhil]

...Based on hundreds of BG measurements my average for the last 2 years has been right at 98-99.  If A1c were a true average I would expect an A1c level of about 5.0%   Anyway, I don’t plan on making changes to my diet based on a test parameter that I’m not sure is relevant to my situation.

Dang! I can't catch you on anything! You are a fountain of experience and knowledge that I've learned quite a bit from--thanks again.

Did you catch my questions on your experiment--such as what you thought of your lowered blood glucose numbers (but also higher ketones) on a higher fat diet and whether you thought that somewhere in between (say 73% fat) might lower BG without raising ketone excretion and therefore maybe be more optimal for you, based on the data (assuming you felt good at that level)?

I think I ran across it mentioned on some website in the mid to late ‘90s if I remember correctly.  I then found it in a local bookstore.  I think it is out of print now which is disappointing.

It is still available used online to anyone who wants it. It has become something of a classic and is actually selling better today on Amazon than it did on 11/22/06. The price of a new edition has risen to $145.52 as of right now.

[lex_rooker]

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.

Certainly there are values that we know are not good, however, I’m not convinced that the “normal” values that are based on the “normal” population living a lifestyle that is completely different from mine should in every case constitute normal for me.  Everyone that I know that eats a Zero Carb diet ends up with a very stable BG that is usually right around 100.  Is this good?  Who knows, I certainly don’t.  What I do know is that this is what it is, and I feel great.

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.

Did you every stop to think that maybe the lower values of A1c are caused by very low BG levels driven by huge infusions of insulin after eating a carb heavy meal?  Here’s my reasoning:

When eating carbs, glucose spikes quickly and the pancreas responds with a large shot of insulin to control it.  The refined sugars we eat creates a rapid and massive BG spike that causes the body to overestimate the actual sugar content so it over shoots with more insulin than needed. This forces BG to rapidly fall to an artificially low level for extended periods of time.  Of course, if it gets to low then fat and muscle will be sacrificed (and/or you'll crave a snack) to bring the level back up.  Our modern solution is to eat a candy bar or drink a soft drink which zooms BG back up and the process starts over.  This creates a yo-yo effect, and, I expect, a very skewed ‘average’ which could quite easily lead to a skewed A1c level (whatever that is).
 
When eating fat and protein, glucose climbs in a gentle curve over several hours.  The pancreas still releases some insulin but not in the panic mode as there is no large spike to make it think the body is in trouble.  This gentle rise in BG with the associated slow release of insulin to control it, would keep BG in a very stable and narrow range at the high end of the 'normal' scale - right at the edge of where insulin release is triggered.
 
Anyway, this is my theory and I'm sticking to it, unless you have a better one…..

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.

I know of no studies that show ‘low protein’ diets showing increases in lifespan.  What has been shown is that very low calorie diets have demonstrated statistically measurable increases in lifespan – independent of the makeup of the diet.  Also, were these studies you are referencing based on putting carnivores on a low protein diet?  You see, I believe humans are first and foremost top level carnivores and only eat plant material as a survival tactic.  And how was the overall energy and health of the animals in the studies.  Long life is of little value if you don’t have the health, energy, or will to live.  I know a lot of emaciated vegetarians with major health problems – I used to be one of them.

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).

On this point I just don’t care.  What I’m doing is working very well for me so I have no interest in changing anything.

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

This may be what is so…. But it is also, so what?  As far as I’m concerned it is not relevant to my situation as my doctor can find no sign of vitamin C or any other dietary deficiency.

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.

This is not a project that interests me.  If it interests you then I suggest that you do your own experiments in this area and report your findings to the group.  We may all find it instructive and I know you will learn a lot more than from reading studies of the longevity of animals eating a low protein diet.

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

Nor am I fighting you.  I have learned much about MY human body through actually living various different lifestyles over the last 58 years.    I have come to my own conclusions as to what works and what doesn’t, and I’ve reported my observations as objectively as possible here on this forum.  In my journal and other postings I’ve plainly stated my beliefs and the tests I’ve made as well as the reasoning I used to arrive at these beliefs.

If you truly want to understand how YOUR human body works, then run your own tests and present your own findings and the reasoning behind them so we can all benefit from your experience.  This way you will learn far more about yourself than you ever imagined, and in areas you never dreamed of.

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.

Well if YOU think we should minimize eating anti-nutrient filled plant foods as much as possible, then why on earth should I start eating them because YOU think it might, maybe, could be, possible that it could produce some unforeseen benefit – but then again maybe not.  This isn’t a very persuasive argument.  I think I’ll pass and continue doing the things that I find successful. 

Lex

[lex_rooker]

Did you catch my questions on your experiment--such as what you thought of your lowered blood glucose numbers (but also higher ketones) on a higher fat diet and whether you thought that somewhere in between (say 73% fat) might lower BG without raising ketone excretion and therefore maybe be more optimal for you, based on the data (assuming you felt good at that level)?

If you've paid attention to my normal model, I do what makes me feel best rather than trying to control some arbitrary lab number.  My best guess is that I'm eating around 70% calories as fat as that is where I seem to do best.  BG is still hanging right around 100 mg/dl and seldom moves more than a few points up or down from this number.  I have no interest in trying to maniupulate BG, I just eat what seems to satisfy me and then objectively measure what my body does with it.

It is still available used online to anyone who wants it. It has become something of a classic and is actually selling better today on Amazon than it did on 11/22/06. The price of a new edition has risen to $145.52 as of right now.

Yeah, I'm aware of the inflated price.  I've purchased several used copies over the last few years to hand out to friends and others who are interested.  I seldom get them back but I console myself into thinking that it may have had some positive impact in their lives.

Lex