Lex's Journal

[lex_rooker]

Lex, when you eat butter at restaurants, how is it used? I'm thinking that when you have to eat fried foods at restaurants you ask for eggs and meat to be fried in butter.

I only use butter on my steak at the table when all they have are lean cuts of steak available.  If they have a good fatty ribeye then I pass on the butter as well. This seldom happens anymore as I seldom eat at restruants that don't serve good meat unless I'm out to dinner with family or friends and don't have a choice.  If I know the food will not be to my liking (wedding receptions, baptisms, funerals, etc) I'll eat before I go and then just eat whatever small amount of meat is served at the function.  I leave the potato, veggies, bread, and wine to those who enjoy them.

I almost never eat eggs except on the rare occasion of a breakfast when on vacation (maybe once or twice per year).  Then I just eat the eggs as they are served in the all-you-can-eat buffet.  Not ideal, but it is only one or two meals per year.

Lex

[lex_rooker]

It appears that my conjecture on gaining weight and putting on body fat while on a Zero Carb or Very Low Carb diet is not all there is to the story, and may even be just incidental in the whole weight gain issue on a ZC/VLC diet.  Most of my ideas have been based on excess glucose created from protein and/or the left over glycerol from fat metabolism.  Seems there’s another metabolic pathway at work here.  An enzyme called ASP (Acylation Stimulating Protein).  This little jewel has the ability to directly store fat in the fat cells completely bypassing the glucose and insulin pathways. 

On a zero carb diet, excess fatty acids not immediately needed for energy will be directly stored in the fat cells through ASP.  This stored fat will then be called upon as the body needs energy and is mobilized out of the fat cells through Hormone Sensitive Lipase (HSL) which will only allow body fat metabolism if insulin, a hormone, is low, hence ‘hormone sensitive’.

As long as the total fat stored is equal to the total fat consumed, body fat will not accumulate.  However, if, on average, less energy is needed than was stored, not all fat stored by ASP from the ZC meals will be remobilized by HSL and body fat will rise. 

There’s a lot going on here and the assumption is that the body is efficiently handling fatty acids (totally adapted), and the person is eating a ZC or VLC dietary protocol.  Here’s a link from Peter’s blog that gets to the nitty gritty:

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Weight%20loss%20when%20it%27s%20hard%201.

I guess the bottom line is, that in the long term, energy IN must equal energy OUT or you will either gain or loose weight regardless of what you eat or where the energy came from.  So calories (unfortunately) still count.  As I’ve said, there’s no ‘magic’ in ZC (darn it).

Lex

[PaleoPhil]

... As I’ve said, there’s no ‘magic’ in ZC (darn it).

The link didn't work for me.

Most ZCers seem to agree that it's possible to add muscle weight on ZC. The controversy comes in with whether it's possible to add body fat weight. I think it is and I actually think this is a good thing in nature, else how would animals, including humans still living in nature, store up body fat in preparation for the lean times of late winter and early spring? The ability to store body fat appears to be an important survival mechanism in nature--not as crucial in humans, but still valuable.

This only becomes a problem in the wealthy areas of the modern world, where ZC foods can be overabundant. Luckily for those trying to lose weight, it appears to be very difficult (though not impossible) for most people to add fat weight on ZC--much more so than on high-carb. This is not so lucky for me, as I am trying to gain weight.

[Dextery]

Paleo Phil

Mark Sisson, writer of Primal Blueprint, has Mark's Daily Apple website. He has written a pretty good article for hard gainers.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gain-weight-build-muscle/

[lex_rooker]

The link didn't work for me.

The period at the end of the link is part of the link but this board thinks it's the end of the sentence not part of the link.  You'll have to click the link then add the period at the end of the URL to get the text.

Lex

[PaleoPhil]

Paleo Phil

Mark Sisson, writer of Primal Blueprint, has Mark's Daily Apple website. He has written a pretty good article for hard gainers.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gain-weight-build-muscle/

Thanks. I've read one or two articles at his site before but missed that one. His suggestion for hardgainers to eat a dozen eggs a day got me thinking more positively about raw eggs again. I researched them and posted my findings in another thread (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/palatable-and-safe-raw-food/msg15723/#msg15723) and am feeling even better about them now.

[lex_rooker]

In the last few weeks I was urged to take vitamin C supplements as the requester believed that it was some sort of magic bullet that would lower my A1c levels.  I'm not a big fan of supplementation, especially when there is no evidence of any deficiency.  I was also urged to read PubMed in an effort to convince me that plant nutrients and supplements were of great value.

Well, here's a study from PubMed that comes to the conclusion that "Vitamin C supplementation decreases training efficiency because it prevents some cellular adaptations to exercise."  Now this doesn't mean that it wouldn't lower my A1c level as suggested, but at what cost?   I haven't read the full study, however, the summary certainly doesn't present a very rosy picture.  At the very least, it appears that even with supposedly benign supplements like vitamin C there are trade-offs.  Here's the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175748

Lex

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, and if I recall correctly, a study that looked at combined vitamin C and E as a possible preventer of cancer found that instead it INCREASED cancer risk. The counter to that was that supplements used were synthetic, rather than natural, and I used to accept that as the likely reason--but now I'm thinking that plant-based C and E supplements might have the same negative effects, given that the accumulating evidence indicates that homo sapiens are naturally much more carnivorous than herbivorous.

[halotek]

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.

[PaleoPhil]

I used to have these same views that you've shared, halotek, and even sold supplements as an employee in a health store. However, I was not impressed with the results of the vitamin products on myself or my customers (minerals, in contrast, did seem to produce generally good results). It was a very eye-opening experience for me, as I had been a life-long believer in vitamins (my mother subscribed to Prevention and advocated vitamins long before they became really popular). I have also not been impressed with the studies.

Lex's advice, in contrast, has produced miraculous results for me. Why should I give up what has been working for me and return to something that did not? It makes no sense to me and I don't know how you can recommend that in good conscience for either Lex or me.

[halotek]

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.

[PaleoPhil]

OK, thanks for the input, Halotek and I appreciate your politeness. I wasn't familiar with the prostate angle. Perhaps you could shed some light on that. Don't you find the fact that his prostate has been improving to be at all reassuring?

I find Lex's responses to your other concerns to be very convincing and reassuring, don't you? He has spoken on multiple occasions about the inadequacies of the obsession with mysterious micronutrients that are supposedly missing from a carnivorous diet, yet fail to produce any actual negative symptoms. I suspect that there is more profit motive behind the promotion of vitamins than real health benefit (though I do find minerals to have some real positive effects--yet even there, raw meat also seems to do the trick). Have Lex's brilliant posts had no impact on you at all?

What would you do in my position, when everything that Lex has told me has turned out to work for me, versus nothing that you have said has had any benefit for me? Who would you believe?

And, BTW, I share your frustration in trying to prove him wrong on anything. I have tried myself and also failed miserably.

[halotek]

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.

[lex_rooker]

...- and see how you'd feel. 

halotek, the above phrase sums up the entire problem for me.  I already feel great.  I've taken vitamin C in the past (as well as many other supplements) and none of them made one bit of difference in how I "felt".  Now I don't take any supplements and feel wonderful. 

I also have no way to measure what's going on at the cellular level, and free radicals and anti oxidants have absolutely no objectively measurable effect on how I "feel" over the short term of days, months, or even years.  It takes decades for this type of damage to accumulate to the point that it becomes visible or can be felt, and even then there's often no way to prove a direct cause and effect relationship to any given nutritional element (or lack thereof). It would be a whole different story if I were showing some signs of nutritional deficiency, but since I'm not, I have no symptoms for a supplement to cure.

I have no idea if my body is recycling vitamin C or not, and there is no way for me to objectively test whether your conjecture on this point is correct or not. But what difference does it make as long as my body's needs are being met?  My experience suggests that if the body's needs are being met supplements will have no effect, or in the worst case a negative one.

Sorry, I'm just not excited about vitamin supplements, herbal remedies, or magic elixirs.  I've taken many of them over the years and from my experience all they did was lighten my wallet.

Lex

[lex_rooker]

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!

I've never had an A1c test before so have no idea where the baseline on this particular parameter was.  For all I know it could be much improved, especially since 5 years ago my fasting BG was over 140 and it is now consistently around 100.

The prostate issues developed over the many years that I was a committed vegan as did all of my health issues.  I ate nothing but plant based foods - mostly huge salads and copious amounts of ‘fresh’ fruit with some grains and a bit of dairy. I also drank huge quantities of green juices and took many supplements. Initially my BPH was rapidly getting worse, but since I went Zero Carb, there has been little measurable change in about 4 years.  The fact that it has stabilized has amazed my doctor as this is totally opposite of his predictions.  I'd love to reverse this condition and had high hopes that the dietary changes I've made would do the trick.  Alas, this has not been the case. The best I've been able to do is halt the progression or significantly slow it down.  One thing I do know, vitamin C is not the answer - neither is vitamin E, CoQ10, plant sterols, or any other supplement I've tried.

I have never said that a 100% raw meat diet is superior to one that includes plant material - only that this approach has worked well for me for the past 4 years or so.  If you will read my journal and other posts, you'll find that I always state that there is no 'magic' in an all meat diet.  I recommend that most people would be better served with a VLC diet that includes a piece of fruit or a small salad each day.  I ate this way myself for a couple of years before trying the zero carb route, and gained most of the health benefits I currently enjoy from eating that way.  I may return to this protocol in the future if I find that an all meat diet is no longer meeting my needs. At this point, however, I’m pleased with the simplicity and incremental improvements I’ve gained eating an all raw red meat diet and so will stick with it for the foreseeable future.  This doesn’t mean that I believe a 100% raw meat diet is superior to one that includes plant material as I have no idea if it is superior or not, only that I’m very happy with the benefits and trade-offs of my current way of eating.

As you state, I’m almost exactly twice your age.  When I was 29 I didn’t have any health problems either, ran 10 miles every other day (at a 6 min/mile pace), drank Dr Pepper by the gallon, ate ice cream by the quart, and was proud to be saving the planet by living a vegetarian lifestyle.  I grew wheatgrass, made rejuvalac, sprouted seeds, grains, beans, and legumes, made nut butters, fermented cheeses, and sauerkraut.  After 20 years of this foolishness I was rewarded with weak bones, loose teeth, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, constant migraine headaches, elevated cholesterol levels with a horrible HDL/LDL ratio, triglycerides off the charts, and a host of other problems including BPH.  All of this has improved dramatically since going raw paleo and especially since adopting a high fat raw red meat diet.

I know that you are very sure of yourself and your beliefs as was I when I was your age.   It will be interesting to see where you are and how your beliefs have changed 29 years from now.

Lex

[halotek]

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.

[PaleoPhil]

halotek, the above phrase sums up the entire problem for me.  I already feel great.  I've taken vitamin C in the past (as well as many other supplements) and none of them made one bit of difference in how I "felt".  Now I don't take any supplements and feel wonderful. 

I had the same unimpressive experience with natural vitamin supplements like vitamin C, which I used for years. How many years must one try something before people accept that you tried it?

I used to ask my customers to let me know whenever a supplement helped them. Very few ever reported noticeable benefits from vitamins like vitamin C other than just a vague feeling that they were doing better or had more energy. In contrast, significantly more people reported improvements in physical symptoms from taking minerals (including me).

Halotek, Lex has explained multiple times that his prostate problems have been improving on a carnivorous diet, whereas supplements did not improve his symptoms (same for me, BTW). My prostate problems cleared up completely by adopting a VLC Paleo diet, whereas I tried every supplement in the book to treat it and none of them made one bit of difference (except to lighten my wallet)--and I sold the dang things, for Pete's sake. Did you have prostate problems that improved with vitamins? If not, then I find Lex's and my evidence to be much more convincing--especially since diet already did the job for me and I no longer have any prostate problems to treat with supplements.

Working in the supplement industry opened my eyes to the level of quackery and fraud that exists in it. There were only a handful of supplements and natural treatments that produced actual significant benefits for my customers. Most just bought the stuff because others had told them that they are beneficial, or they saw some news item or ad that promoted them or saw a doctor pushing them on Oprah. Most of the products were a waste of money, which is the main reason I got out of that industry.

So you see, it's not that Lex and I are unwilling to try it--it's that we've "been there, done that."

[lex_rooker]

Halotek,
I used to be very focused on the biochemistry behind everything until I discovered, that for the most part, we really don't know all that much.  What we think we know today may change dramatically tomorrow.  Look at all the dietary theories, supported by science, that have proved totally wrong.  Our current government backed Food Pyramid is just one example of a total disaster, yet the best minds in nutritional science testified before Congress that it was the Holy Grail to America's future health.

So much of what is published, even on PubMed, is really theoretical educated guesses.  Data from study after study has been misinterpreted - sometimes due to our lack of understanding, and other times due to profit motives. 

Our ancestors managed to do well enough such that both you and I are here today to discuss this topic, and they did it without any study or understanding of science or biochemistry at all.  They ate their food, had their children, and lived their lives. 

Sometimes the simplest approach is best.

Lex

[halotek]

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!

[PaleoPhil]

...Our ancestors managed to do well enough such that both you and I are here today to discuss this topic, and they did it without any study or understanding of science or biochemistry at all.  They ate their food, had their children, and lived their lives. 

Yes, you hit an important point there. When there is disagreement between the scientists and the old ways of our ancestors and the remaining HGs on fundamental questions like diet, the old ways generally prove best. When you think you've figured out a better way of eating, exercising, supplementing or using natural treatments, check again, because you probably haven't.

[Raw Kyle]

Peter (Hyperlipid) says that he notices no differenced between Zero Carb and Very Low Carb (30 - 50 grams carbs per day).  Both seem to have a similar effect on blood glucose levels and all other health parameters.

Lex

How do you think it would compare to eat 60-100 grams of carbs every other day rather than 30-50 per day? How long is the cycle that matters, a 24 hour day?

[lex_rooker]

How do you think it would compare to eat 60-100 grams of carbs every other day rather than 30-50 per day? How long is the cycle that matters, a 24 hour day?

Hi Kyle,  From what I understand, the idea is to keep any rise in BG as low as possible so as to keep any insulin response as minimal as possible.  The larger amount of carbs consumed in the shorter period of time (one day) might trigger a higher insulin response than the same amount of carbs spread over the longer period of 2 days.  Of course the insulin spike would be intermittent by occurring every other day and whether this would make any difference I would have no idea.

Also, to be honest, compared to the many hundreds of grams of carbs eaten in a normal SAD diet, 60 to 100 grams would be considered very low carb.  In the book "Life Without Bread" Lutz recommends a daily carb intake of 75g or less and he got phenomenal long term results.  If I were you, young and in good health, I'd just go ahead and eat my 60 to 100 grams of carbs and enjoy myself.  What good is sticking to some artificially determined low level of some nutrient if it makes your life miserable or socially uncomfortable?  Let's face it, none of us knows if what we are doing is 'correct' or not.  The human body has a very large tolerance and can accept a very wide input of different macro nutrients (fat, protein, carbs).  If eating 100 grams of carbs per day is a sin, then it is certainly a very minor one and I think St Peter will still allow you through the Pearly Gates when the time comes.     If I hadn’t spent over 20 years eating nothing but carbs, I seriously doubt that I would have had the problems that have driven me to try the rather dull and mundane zero carb lifestyle.

You are young, don't become old and end up regretting unnecessarily ridged rules you made in your life due to some arbitrary dietary dogma.  You will become old, infirm, and die no matter what you eat.  The trick is to live and enjoy life to its fullest.  And make sure that the definition of “enjoyment” and "fullest" is your definition and not someone else’s. 

Lex

[Dextery]

A nice posting by an MD regarding making glucose from fat in ZC.    http://www.paleonu.com/   
Not Raw Paleo but a validation of ZC/VLC from one member of the medical community who found the light after hearing a Taubes interview on his car radio.

[William]

You will become old, infirm, and die no matter what you eat. 

Not proven.

I am probably the oldest on this forum, and I become less infirm, even to the point that it feels like I am finally escaping the "valley of the shadow of death".

Raw paleo did not do it, then I went on a strict pemmican-and-egg yolk diet and the symptoms of ischemic heart disease and back injury disappeared.
Symptoms of nameless diseases also disappeared.

It really looks like Bear is right; carbs are poison.

[lex_rooker]

You will become old, infirm, and die no matter what you eat. 

Not proven.

William,
I hope that age reversal and living forever works out for you.  If it does, you'll be the first, and I'll be first in line to copy whatever it is you are doing!

Lex