Lex's Journal

[lex_rooker]

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.

Yes, a very good blog.  I've made several postings in the "Testimonial/Q&A" section and Dr Harris has always been kind enough to provide a thoughtful answer to my questions.

Another blog you might enjoy is Spark of Reason.  You can find it here:  http://sparkofreason.blogspot.com/  Dave has a PHD in Physics and his posts are incredibly detailed.

Lex

[William]

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

Not really interested in living forever, but there are those sasquatch/bigfoot/yeti stories - maybe they are the ultimate result of raw zero carb? 

[razmatazz]

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

i liked this post. You are so right. Plus there are many indigenous groups in the world who consume a fair amount of carbs yet remain in perfectly good health.

i'm only 18 and have no health problems..sometimes compromises have to be made in order to have fun with other people, and when I'm happy, it's worth it to me if I have to eat something unhealthy.As long as i'm doing everything right 90% of the time, I don't feel I have to worry about the remaining 10%. The human body is an amazing thing, sometimes people don't give it enough credit.

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, a very good blog.  I've made several postings in the "Testimonial/Q&A" section and Dr Harris has always been kind enough to provide a thoughtful answer to my questions.

BTW, when Dr. Harris noticed that he was getting a bunch of hits from people coming from our site (I was one of those people), he proceeded to vilify our WOE and our alleged way of thinking and reasons for eating this way, despite admitting he hadn't read more than a few posts here. I was surprised that he would attack his own readers without even asking them any questions to determine what our ACTUAL reasoning. If you have a good relationship with him, perhaps he would ask you some questions about RPD and you could put his fears to rest about us being essentially anti-science fanatical lunatics?

[lex_rooker]

Phil,
Dr Harris has actually told me that he has been reading my journal and complemented me on it.  From my interactions with him, he doesn't feel that turning diet into a religious experience is either necessary or wise.  He is looking at things from the standpoint of a medical doctor and what is actually necessary to achieve results based on biochemistry rather than archeology.  From his point of view there are certain tenents of a paleo diet (no neolithic foods) that are the core foundation, and as long as that criteria is met he's fine with just about whatever someone wants to do.

He is biased heavily towards getting most of his calories from dairy fat (cream and butter) and even seems to support coconut oil as a second rate but acceptable fat source.

I did read his post regarding raw paleo and I didn't find it objectionable or inflamitory.  He stated his beliefs and gave his reasons.  I also feel he's being a bit protective of what he's trying to do and would probably discount ANY site other than his or those resources that he draws from.

Just my take on it,

Lex

[lex_rooker]

Phil,
Much of what I said is MY feeling about Dr Harris posts and his communications with me.  I used the word religious (I don't think he did) because, quite frankely, I couldn't think of a better one that expressed the feeling that I got from him.

The bottom line is that it is his blog.  I don't think he specifically trashed us or our forum.  He has his take on paleolithic nutrition and how best to apply it in our modern world, and I have mine.  I think there is plenty of room for all our opinions.  The wonderful thing about the way the web works is that we can choose to associate with those of like mind and avoid those that we find objectionable.

I personally like his blog and will continue to follow along,

Lex 

[William]

The word "religion" means "link with the past" and it is surely what we do here. It does not mean churchy/priestly/missionary BS, which I think is the usual objection to what people think is religion.
The word "science" comes from the sci and psy, refers to the use of the mind or psyche, and is what JC did; note that He was a healer and recommended "Eat nothing that is heated with more than the fire of the body" - (Essene Gospels). Which we also do, and Dr. Harris doesn't.
If he shared my sense of humour, you could tell him he sins. Better not.

[lex_rooker]

William,
I meant the term religion in the sense of “a zealous adherence to a specific dogma”.  I know that in my younger days, dynamite wouldn’t have blasted me from my firmly held belief in the vegetarian lifestyle. I was a true believer and refused to budge from my cherished beliefs even when it was clear they weren't working. Even worse, I took every opportunity to preach the gospel, and convince all who would listen that I had found the true way.  Unfortunately it turned out to be the true way to self destruction.  

Today I’m not so sure of myself.  I now question everything.  I no longer adhere to a specific belief because I “know it is right”.  I stick with it only as long as it continues to work.  I’m constantly looking for, and evaluating, differing opinions in an effort to find those nuggets of truth buried in the noise.  Had I continued to listen only to those with whom I agreed, I’d have missed many opportunities to learn and grow.

Lex

[William]

William,
I meant the term religion in the sense of “a zealous adherence to a specific dogma”.

Yes, that's how it is used today, however I am a nitpicker and have a talent for literacy, love etymology, so try make sense of this confusing world by learning the true meaning of words. It works! Um, for me, anyway. So what others call religion is what I call faith, can be comforting to be certain of stuff, as in a book title "The Comfortable Pew".

Today I’m not so sure of myself.  I now question everything.  I no longer adhere to a specific belief because I “know it is right”.  I stick with it only as long as it continues to work.  I’m constantly looking for, and evaluating, differing opinions in an effort to find those nuggets of truth buried in the noise.  Had I continued to listen only to those with whom I agreed, I’d have missed many opportunities to learn and grow.

Me too, except I never was much of a believer. I've thought of experimentally not-believing in the force of gravity but chickened out - suppose it worked?

[razmatazz]

I like Dr Harris blog too, I think his main gripe with "rawists" is that some seem to be pretty fundamental and he believes the notion that ANY cooking whatsoever is bad/toxic to be incorrect. I don't think this is far off, because in my opinion eating rare steaks as opoosed to raw is not as bad as say, eating lots of grains or lots of high sugar fruits. He himself states that he eats his meat "almost raw" but he dislikes the fact that some people state that ANY cooking is wrong/bad/toxic/will make you weak and diseased, etc.

[Paleo Donk]

I like Dr Harris blog too, I think his main gripe with "rawists" is that some seem to be pretty fundamental and he believes the notion that ANY cooking whatsoever is bad/toxic to be incorrect.

My main gripe with people who think that there is nothing wrong with a little cooked meat (or little bit of whatever) is that they forget to look at the long term scope of things. For every molecule of meat that is cooked, it is altered/damaged to some degree. There is no avoiding this. For this one meal, you will likely see nothing wrong with the body that has eaten the cooked meat. But if we were to look at someone who eats cooked meat for 40 years in a row this little bit of cooked meat might eventually add up to something highly significant. If you can imagine a billion people where half of them are eating cooked meat and the other half raw it becomes easier to visualize the impact of cooked meat. Which group are you going to wager your own money to have better health over their lifetimes?

So, even though the chance that one individual suffers because of a little cooked meat over a short time frame is extraordinarily low does not make it the right choice over an entire lifetime.  The same goes for people that consume small amounts of grain-fed meat or HFCS. Each small addition will increase the probability (whatever and however small that may be) that something deleterious to your health will happen. This is assuming raw grass-fed meat is superior, which could just as easily be false, but you get the point.

[lex_rooker]

I've thought of experimentally not-believing in the force of gravity but chickened out - suppose it worked?

William,
While I was in boot camp in 1969 three people dove off the 3rd story balcony of my barracks.    I believe they were on LSD.  None of us was ever sure if they thought they were diving into a swimming pool or that they could fly.  Regardless, I don't recommend it.  As I remember, it made quite a mess.

Razmatazz,
I think you've probably hit the nail on the head as far as Dr Harris goes.  I started out eating raw for two reasons: 1) As an adventure to see if I could do it and survive, and 2) no other animal needs to cook it's food so why should I.  I continue to eat mostly raw because over the years I've come to prefer it that way, not because I think cooking is evil or toxic.  I do eat out about 3 times per month and thoroughly enjoy the occasional rare cooked ribeye steak.  I also eat meat that has been cooked well done when that is all that is available.  I'm squarely in the camp of making the best choice I can in each situation.  If that means eating well done meat at a family gathering then so be it.  It beats the soda, cookies, and potato chips that everyone else is loading up on.  Also, if the only thing available is a very lean steak I'll slather it with butter to raise the fat to my liking.  Butter is inexpensive and always available for the asking. To my way of thinking, butter fat is far better than no fat at all, and it beats the socks off plant based oils.

Lex

[TylerDurden]

My main gripe with people who think that there is nothing wrong with a little cooked meat (or little bit of whatever) is that they forget to look at the long term scope of things. For every molecule of meat that is cooked, it is altered/damaged to some degree. There is no avoiding this. For this one meal, you will likely see nothing wrong with the body that has eaten the cooked meat. But if we were to look at someone who eats cooked meat for 40 years in a row this little bit of cooked meat might eventually add up to something highly significant. If you can imagine a billion people where half of them are eating cooked meat and the other half raw it becomes easier to visualize the impact of cooked meat. Which group are you going to wager your own money to have better health over their lifetimes?

So, even though the chance that one individual suffers because of a little cooked meat over a short time frame is extraordinarily low does not make it the right choice over an entire lifetime.  The same goes for people that consume small amounts of grain-fed meat or HFCS. Each small addition will increase the probability (whatever and however small that may be) that something deleterious to your health will happen. This is assuming raw grass-fed meat is superior, which could just as easily be false, but you get the point.

That's exactly my viewpoint. People often claim that a "little cooking" is OK or whatever, but they don't take into account the long-term possibilities. For example, eating only lightly-cooked meats and no raw meats is bound to cause problems in the long-term as the levels of cooking-derived toxins such as AGEs start to build up over the decades. (I also wonder if perhaps cooked diets might increase the chance of birth-defects appearing due to epigenetic factors etc.No data as yet, but it would be most interesting to find out.

[Josh]

I agree with what you're saying, but for me I think I have to balance it out with making a lifetime plan I can stick to. I'm trying to tighten up more and more as I get into it, but realistically I'm gonna be stuck somewhere and eat out sometime.

I think I have to accept modern life and compromise to some extent...otherwise there's no peace worrying about all the things that are harming you. But to be fair there's a lot of benefits to modern life...if you can do raw paleo as well it's not too shabby at all.

[razmatazz]

Lex - your reasons for eating raw are pretty much the same as mine..
If I have to eat lightly cooked or even fully cooked meat I don't sweat it...worry and stress would cause far more health problems than a little cooked meat here and there
ditto on the butter too lol

Tyler -I'm fully aware of your stance on cooked meat, but just wanted to point out re AGES, that these are actually natural and occur in the body over time regardless of what one eats, that is why the body has evolved mechanisms to deal witih them, plus not all the AGEs in cooked meat are absorbed, so i bet the effects of AGEs consumed with lightly cooked meat here and there  would be negligible. I don;t know about other heat created toxins, but just wanted to mention that...

[William]

but just wanted to point out re AGES, that these are actually natural and occur in the body over time regardless of what one eats

I read that AGEs are created in the absence of an enzyme. Does not seem natural to me.

[lex_rooker]

It seems there is a good bit of hand wringing over AGES.  I think I'm on board with the idea that AGES that are internally created by our bodies from excess glucose is probably not a good thing as it might cause some long term damage.  What is far less certain, at least to me, is the idea that AGES consumed in the diet are harmful.  Our digestive systems are designed to break down food to its basic elements of sugars and amino acids.  I'm not totally convinced that a molecule of protein linked to a molecule of glucose is not broken down to its component parts as well.  I've read scientific papers that seem to favor both sides of the issue.

I also know many people that are well into their 90's, in good health, and have eaten cooked food all their lives.  This makes me believe that our bodies don't necessarily behave as the science in the lab predicts.  For now, I'm going to accept the fact that we just don't understand all we think we know about the subject and get on with life - following what I deem prudent dietary principals, but not obsessing over minutiae.  We're all headed for the Pearly Gates no matter what we eat, and I expect that if our worst sin is eating a bit of cooked food on occasion, we'll still be admitted as souls in good standing.

Lex

[TylerDurden]

Tyler -I'm fully aware of your stance on cooked meat, but just wanted to point out re AGES, that these are actually natural and occur in the body over time regardless of what one eats, that is why the body has evolved mechanisms to deal witih them, plus not all the AGEs in cooked meat are absorbed, so i bet the effects of AGEs consumed with lightly cooked meat here and there  would be negligible. I don;t know about other heat created toxins, but just wanted to mention that...

First off, the natural amounts of AGEs in the body are tiny by comparison to the load of toxins found in cooked foods.Secondly, I'm well aware that not all the AGEs found in cooked foods are absorbed, it's claimed, for now, to be 30%, but that's plenty already(especially when you consider that there are also AGEs in raw foods from unhealthy animals(eg:- grainfed meats). And there are now enough studies done on animals and humans to show inflammation etc. being directly caused by AGEs and other heat-created toxins like PAHs, so that it's very difficult to argue they don't have any effect.So eating lightly-cooked food would be comparable to smoking a cigarette every now and then, while eating moderately-cooked food would be equivalent to smoking several regularly. (it's a good analogy as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, created via cooking, are also byproducts of smoking cigarettes).

Re smoking:- The longevity issue is irrelevant as Winston Churchill managed to live till 90 despite smoking cigars heavily(though suffering long-term ill-health for decades like Roosevelt). Longevity appears to be a lot more to do with issues like will-power rather than diet.

I'm not trying to make people feel guilty about eating cooked foods. We all have to make practical compromises re healthy living  for social reasons , here and there. What I object to is when people know it's unhealthy to eat such cooked foods, so they try to convince themselves and others that eating cooked food is supposedly healthy. I suppose, on a psychological level, people don't like the notion of eating something that is unhealthy as it sounds a bit foolish, so they try to justify their actions by claiming that cooked food is healthy.

[lex_rooker]

I finally got the results of my DEXA scan.  Considering that I was a devout vegan for 20 years, and dental x-rays from 6 or 7 years ago showed that my deteriorating dental health was due in large part to loss of bone density, I’m pretty happy with the results.

Age: 58   Gender: M   Height: 73 inches   Weight: 165 pounds

Region              BDM    Young Adult%   T Score     Age Matched%     Z Score
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L1-L4              1.212             99%              -0.1              104%            +0.4
Neck                0.976             91%              -0.7              103%            +0.2
Ward               0.805             84%              -1.2              103%            +0.2
Trochanter     0.858             92%              -0.7                98%            -0.2
Total               1.009             93%              -0.3              101%              0.0

Studies were performed using a Lunar DPX IQ.  Technical quality of the scans were excellent with no artifacts. According to the World Health Organization guidelines, the patient is classified as NORMAL.  Based on these results, a followup exam is recommended in two to three years.

This is my first DEXA scan so this becomes the base line.  At this point I really don’t know much about them and the best my doctor could do was read the report which indicates that everything is normal – whatever that means.  If anyone can provide a more comprehensive analysis it would be greatly appreciated.

Actual report is attached below,

Lex

[PaleoPhil]

Congrats, Lex! Well I hope that satisfies some of the critics, but I doubt it.

[rawlion]

T-Score Numbers
Your Dexa report will have a series of numbers. The most important is the T-score. A T-score between +1 and -1 is considered normal. A T-score between -1 and -2.5 indicates that you are beginning to lose bone density. This is the beginning stage of osteoporosis, called osteopenia. A T-score of -2.5 or lower confirms that you have osteoporosis. Scores of -3.8 or more is considered severe osteoporosis.

Z-Score Numbers
Your Z-score is a comparison of your bone density to what is normal for someone your same age and body size. The Z-scores is not used to diagnose osteoporosis in those over age 50. Among older adults, low bone mineral density is common, so Z-scores can be misleading. An older person might have a "normal" Z-score but still be at high risk for breaking a bone. Z-scores are be more helpful in younger men, premenopausal women and children. A Z-score above -2.0 is normal

And some further information:

http://lesann.tripod.com/dexa%20scans.htm

Basically, impressive results!

Yuri

[lex_rooker]

Well I hope that satisfies some of the critics, but I doubt it.

Ever since I disclosed that my urine pH was consistently running around 5.0 to 5.5, (acidic), I've been warned by many concerned do-gooder's that this is a sure sign that my blood is also very acidic and that my body is certainly sacrificing massive amounts of minerals from my bones to neutralize the acidity. It won't be long, they warn, before my bones crumble to dust and I’ll be a formless quivering mass of protoplasm.    

Well, I’ve been eating this way for almost 4 years now.  I check urine pH and ketones every morning.  Ph is almost always around 5.0, but occasionally will rise to 5.5.  One would think that if the theory that urine pH reflects blood pH, and that bone minerals are sacrificed to keep blood pH under control were true, then surely my DEXA scan would show a significant level of abnormality.

Though I’m not qualified to comment on the actual numerical results of my DEXA scan, the fact that it returned as NORMAL, and actually showed slightly higher than normal bone density for someone in my age group, would seem to me to disprove the "acidic urine equals acidic blood" theory, or at least shows that, in my case, bone minerals have not been sacrificed under these conditions.

I also think that those who are concerned that a diet of mostly meat and fat is deficient in calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous can put those fears to rest as well.  If this were true, I doubt that the body could maintain bone integrity over such a long period.  One thing I’ve come to accept, is that nothing in our bodies is static.  Fats are constantly moving in and out of fat cells, protein is constantly being broken down and rebuilt, and minerals are moving in and out of bone structure.  If there was a deficiency of any necessary element for building and maintaining healthy bones, then minerals that naturally moved out of the bones would not be replaced and bone integrity would suffer over time.  Based on my test results, this concern seems unwarranted as well.

This is my current thinking based on what little I know, and the above may be total nonsense, however, I’m betting my life on the assumption that it's fairly close to the mark.

Lex

[William]

The Inuit used piss to tan their animal skins; with that pH, you can now do the same.   
Their women chewed the skins after soaking, so a wifely opinion should be sought.

[PaleoPhil]

It won't be long, they warn, before my bones crumble to dust and I’ll be a formless quivering mass of protoplasm.

Cool! If you turn into a quivering, talking blob can I put you in a jar and show my friends?

Well, I’ve been eating this way for almost 4 years now.  I check urine pH and ketones every morning.

BTW, are your ketones staying around zero now that your fat level is back down a bit?

Ph is almost always around 5.0, but occasionally will rise to 5.5.  One would think that if the theory that urine pH reflects blood pH, and that bone minerals are sacrificed to keep blood pH under control were true, then surely my DEXA scan would show a significant level of abnormality.

Yeah, it will be even more convincing when you get your next scan and it doesn't show BD decline.

I also think that those who are concerned that a diet of mostly meat and fat is deficient in calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous can put those fears to rest as well.

Yeah, my potassium and zinc deficiencies actually improved dramatically and rapidly on a carnivorous, mostly raw diet.

[Michael]

Congratulations on the results Lex!!!  That's great news.

I have been waiting anxiously for your results on this ever since you mentioned it.  I even put it on my calendar!!    I think, as always, you have added further very valuable information to the discussion.  I now look forward greatly to your next results for comparison (in 2-3yrs time!) as, of course, these will provide the definitive evidence.

Keep up the great work!