Lex's Journal

[lex_rooker]

Ronbo,
Thanks for the links.  I guess I really should try to get the supplies a little cheaper.  To be honest, I've really been rather lazy and just gone to the local pharmacy when I need strips as it is convienent.  I'll follow up on the links you've graciously provided and see what the overall savings will be (after adding in shipping etc).

Lex

[lex_rooker]

Dayrl,
People react differently to the same words.  I want people to know that I recognize this and that I understand that the vigorous way in which I defend my ideas as well as my direct challenges for objective data or personal experience to support ideas that differ from mine can cause some people to feel that their comments are unwelcome.

It is conflict and debate that help us to separate the truth from ideas that are accepted only because they are repeated so often without challenge.  I just want to make sure that people know that I am not personally attacking them, just challenging them to look beyond the pronouncements of the latest gurus, and ask them to draw their own conclusions from their personal experience as well as published research, while keeping a sharp eye out for bias.  Whenever I draw a conclusion, I always try to support that conclusion with information from as many sources as possible as well as my own personal experience.  I hope to encourage others to do the same as I challenge their opposing ideas.

Thanks for your support and for providing me an opportunity to give readers a better understanding of my thought processes.

Lex



 

[William]

  I used to drink distilled water, but was was convinced by arguments from others that this would have been unnatural and we most likely got a good bit of our minerals from lake and/or river water so I now drink tap water. 

Jim McCanney, a respectable scientist, recommends filtering all water. His reasoning is:
" one listener wanted to know my opinion of distillation units for water ... first you will need a heat source (not always available in tough times) but second of all and more importantly ... when one distills liquids ALL liquids with vaporization temperatures below that of water are also distilled and end up in the final pot ... it turns out that MOST volatile poisons are in this category ... take iowa flooding for example with the chemical stew that is brewing there or with chemical byproducts of dead animals in the water ... guess what ... pretty much all those chemicals have lower vaporization temperatures than water so they will all end up in the end product ... not exactly what i want to drink for supper ... now look at ionizers and ozone cleaning techniques or how about ultra-violet water purification systems ... none of these will remove chemicals or other sludge ... so you may have some of the most bacteria free sludge on the planet out of these systems ... bon appetite !!! i have done a lot of research regarding water filters and what i sell is for a very good reason ..."
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/

I don't have to worry about what's added to the tap water, lucky to live on a lake in which all the wild critters are healthy, but I filter the water through one of the brand he sells because straight it tastes a bit too um, "liveley".



William

[lex_rooker]

Hi William,
McCanney is absolutely correct.  Normal distillation would include all contaminants with a boiling point lower than water.  Many years ago I built a fractionating tower as an experiment in distilling alcohol from wine and other fermeted substances.  It was only partially successful but did make very clear the problem of separating volatile substances with close boiling points.

My own system is really a mixed bed de-ionizer.  Minerals dissolved in water are in an "ionic" state which means that they have a weak electrical charge.  A de-ionizer has rosin beads that also have sort of a static electrical charge that attracts and holds onto the mineral ions - thus removing the minerals from the solution.  It works very well as my water starts out with about 900 parts per million of dissolved minerals and after passing through the de-ionizer there is less than 2 parts per million.  We originally got the de-ionizer to create "rain water" to water our orchids.  We started using it for drinking and cooking because it tasted so much better than the stuff straight from the tap.

De-ionization doesn't remove the volatile contaminants either as they don't convert to their ionic form when in solution with water.  After the water leaves the de-ionizer it passes through a carbon filter which through a mechanical surface tension action tends to hold onto the volatile contaminants and lets the water pass though. 

Finally, the water passes a UV lamp which tends to kill bacteria, parasites, and algae that may have made it through all the other stages.

All stages must be monitored and either "recharged" (in the case of the de-ionizer stage) or replaced (in the case of the particle filters and carbon filter stages) on a regular basis.

Using De-Ionization is much more efficient than Reverse Osmosis as all the water that passes through a DI system comes out the other end and is usable.  RO systems require constant back flusing to maintain efficiency and many of the cheaper systems discard 5 gallons of water for every gallon of clean water they produce.  RO systems also suffer from allowing volatile contaminants to pass through so the carbon filter is still necessary, though most biological contaminants (bacteria, algae, etc) can't get through the RO membrane so the UV lamp is unnecessary.

All systems have Plus and minuses.  If all my system was for was drinking water I would have opted for RO, but since we use many gallons for watering and misting delicate plants, DI made more sense.

Lex



 

[Elli]

Gluconeogenesis has been such a topic of interest for me. It's obvious that since you're not an Olymphic athlete or a bodybuilder, 80g or so of protein you've been eating will be all used for bodily repair and building new muscles. And as a matter of fact, rise in BG after your single meal proves that GNG do take place. The quetion for me is whether ALL protein goes through GNG or only the excess ones after the amount for repair works and muscle maintainence has been secured?

Lex, would you be interested in maybe spreading your meal to 2-3 times a day just for a week or even a day or two to see if there's still a measurable rise in BG? Maybe same amount of glucose will still be produced and that you'll see BG rise of 8 three times a day rather than 25 from one meal or some different result. Maybe there won't be any rise in BG in terms of numbers on the machine because the muscles will immediately soak up the glucose produced.

Now, I'm a fan of the idea of intermittent fasting and prefer to have a one or two bigger meal rather than three or even six 'mini meals', however, I've wondered if too much of protein in one sitting actually increases the amount of protein going through GNG.. I absoultely understand if you wouldn't be interested in changing your protocol and that you'll be sticking to your present plan. If so, would you at least share your opinion on GNG? Some say all protein consumed goes through it, some others say that only the excess will be turned to glucose, and yet others insist that even in the case of excessive protein intake, the body doesn't initiate GNG unless needed, that is, when BG falls below what it is to be maintained at. Your readings seem to suggest that GNG definitely do take place, however, I do not know if it's taking place because all protein goes through GNG anyways or because your body is in need of it.

My thanks and respect for you, Lex

[lex_rooker]

It's obvious that since you're not an Olympic athlete or a bodybuilder, 80g or so of protein you've been eating will be all used for bodily repair and building new muscles.

Not sure I agree with the above statement and the way the sentence is structured it may be that you intended to say the opposite - that since I don't engage in intense muscular activities that the 80g of protein WOULD NOT be needed for repairs or building new muscles.  If this is what you actually meant to say then I concur that this is probably likely.

And as a matter of fact, rise in BG after your single meal proves that GNG do take place.

This is one I struggle with.  It does seem that the rise in BG after a meal tracks loosely with the amount of protein eaten, but I often wonder if any significant BG is produced directly from dietary fat.  Here's what causes me to question this.  The accepted wisdom is that when body fat is broken down for energy the fatty acids must be transported to and from the fat cells in the form of triglycerides.  When the triglyceride is finally broken down, and the three fatty acids are released, there is a glycerol molecule left over which the liver converts to glucose and this raises BG - or so goes the theory.  Now this has me wondering if there is any significant glycerol associated with the fat we eat - especially when we eat it raw, just as it came from the animal.  If so, do we absorb this glycerol and if we do, then I would think that it must also be converted to glucose since glycerol is glycerol regardless of the source.  If the body converts one glycerol molecue to glucose then it should convert all glycerol molecules to glucose unless the glycerol molecule is combined with fatty acids again to form another triglyceride.

The question for me is whether ALL protein goes through GNG or only the excess ones after the amount for repair works and muscle maintenance has been secured?

Based on what I've observed, I have to believe that some portion of all protein eaten is converted to glucose.  Now my speculation is that only certain amino acids are converted and others are not - and then, only if they are not removed from the bloodstream by some other tissue to be used for building or repair, before finally making it to the liver where the conversion would take place.  If this is the case it would account for the remarkable consistency of the amount converted, be it 58% or whatever.  Of course I have no way of really testing this, but it makes sense to me.  A corollary to this would be that the overall percentage of protein converted to glucose would be highly dependent on the source of the protein.  The amino acid makeup of meat may be such that 58% of the amino acids are the type that the body can convert to glucose, however, protein from plant sources have wildly varying amino acid profiles and often some of the amino acids are missing altogether so the conversion rate would be completely different for each plant source.  Again this is just speculation and I don't have a way to prove this.

Lex, would you be interested in maybe spreading your meal to 2-3 times a day just for a week or even a day or two to see if there's still a measurable rise in BG? Maybe same amount of glucose will still be produced and that you'll see BG rise of 8 three times a day rather than 25 from one meal or some different result. Maybe there won't be any rise in BG in terms of numbers on the machine because the muscles will immediately soak up the glucose produced.

I have spread smaller meals through out the day in the past and there is still a rise in BG after eating, only it is smaller.  It does not track as an even division such as you suggest (eat three meals for a rise of 8 per meal for a total of 24, instead of single meal with a rise of 24).  The rise is smaller but widely variable even though the 3 meals are all the same size and spaced 6 hours apart.  One meal may show a rise of 8, another of 3, and the last of 18.  And the middle meal is not always the lowest, nor is the last always the highest.  As I've said before, I often get a 10 point rise in BG a couple of hours after getting up in the morning and I haven't eaten anything at all.  Bottom line here is that I've tried this and didn't have anything useful or consistent that I could report other than there is a general rise in BG after eating a meal consisting of protein and fat and the BG rise is loosely correlated with the amount of protein in the meal.  You will find this observation is several of my previous posts.

May I suggest an alternative to your test of maintaining normal food composition but divided into smaller portions and eaten throughout the day which I've already done - though not with any real rigor, and maybe try something a bit more radical like a day or two consisting of meals of fat only.  I would expect BG to rise and fall since it does so even when no food is eaten, but with no protein to provide the raw material for GNG, it would be interesting to see if there is any significant correlation between the fluctuations in BG with meals consisting of only fat.  This might shed some light on whether any portion of dietary fat is converted to glucose or is it only protein.

What do you think?

Lex

[Elli]

It sounds like a fantastic idea. Though I don't think a day or two of only eating fat would hurt, do it only if you're willing. I didn't find the taste of raw suet that appealing, so I don't really want to force you!

I didn't take account of glycerol component that could raise BG. I'm actually having trouble keeping my BG above certain level; maybe it has to do with the fact that I don't tend to eat high level of protein and that with my extremely low body fat, I don't have much stored TG to burn which will also could raise BG somewhat.

Now that you've got me interested on this 'fat fast' experiment, I can't wait to see the result.

[Elli]

And I also believe that metabolizing fatty acids do create some glucose. Not all the fatty acids you consume will become ketone bodies but glycerol and such. To be honest, I'm not too much of an expert on this matter, however. You and Steffanson both consumed about 80-100g of protein a day which could translate to maxiumum of about 58g of glucose created although I'm not sure if this much will be created given that some of the dietary protein must have been used for bodily maintainance and both of you didn't wasn't constantly wasting away your LM. Brain needs about 40g of glucose when adapted to burning ketones, and there are few parts of the body that needs little bit of glucose as well. Maybe that 58g (possibly lower) of glucose was enough to take care of all that, but if Mary's theory is correct and that we need some higher amount of glucose to have fatty acids completely metabolized for energy, obviously we need little more than that and some that could be derived from breakdown of TG could certainly help out. Don't you think so?

[Raw Kyle]

There is a technique for restricting substances with a lower volatilization point than water. You have multiple collecting containers and only start collecting your final product when the temperature reaches and holds a steady 100 degrees Celsius. I would still prefer a good filter though.

[lex_rooker]

You and Steffanson both consumed about 80-100g of protein a day which could translate to maximum of about 58g of glucose created although I'm not sure if this much will be created given that some of the dietary protein must have been used for bodily maintenance and both of you didn't wasn't constantly wasting away your LM. Brain needs about 40g of glucose when adapted to burning ketones, and there are few parts of the body that needs little bit of glucose as well. Maybe that 58g (possibly lower) of glucose was enough to take care of all that, but if Mary's theory is correct and that we need some higher amount of glucose to have fatty acids completely metabolized for energy, obviously we need little more than that and some that could be derived from breakdown of TG could certainly help out. Don't you think so?

Not sure exactly what to think.  The best that I can do is observe and then comment on my observations.  

There really is no way for me to know if 58% of meat protein is converted into glucose.  My observations tell me that some is converted, but exactly how much is impossible to tell.  I've done some mathmatical gymnastics and included these in some of my posts.  They are interesting but hardly conclusive.  The systems that control things like BG are designed to meet the body's needs at any given moment and it is impossible to tell if the current reading is more influenced by external inputs like food and exercise, an internal breakdown of body fat or lean muscle mass, or a combination of both.

It's also not possible for me to know how much glucose the brain or other glucose dependent systems need -keto adapted or not.  And here I don't really have any way to observe what's going on at all.  Any comment would just be a wild guess and serve no real purpose.

My only tools are a digital bathroom scale, glucose meter, and Ketostix.  Even if these provided laboratory precision measurements, I still can't tell exactly what any tissue in the body is doing.  The best I can do is try to correlate food intake over time with general changes in body mass, blood glucose, and ketones in the urine.

I've got a couple of projects going that will take me most of the week to complete.  Once these are done I'll put together an experiment where I spend a day or two eating just fat.  I really don't look forward to this because a change like this means I have to measure BG every hour to get anything useful so my fingers really take a beating.  But I'm interested in what will happen, so I'll sacrifice my fingers in the interest of science.....

Lex  

[lex_rooker]

There is a technique for restricting substances with a lower volatilization point than water. You have multiple collecting containers and only start collecting your final product when the temperature reaches and holds a steady 100 degrees Celsius. I would still prefer a good filter though.

Kyle,
I've used that technique before, but also tried to build and use a fractionating tower.  Here you build a rather tall column where vapors from the heating vessels are injected.  The temperature is hotter where the vapor enters the column and lower at the opposite end.  As the vapors rise (or fall, depending on the design) through the column, the various substances will condense on the inside surface of the column where the temperature is just below their boiling point.  A sort of trough is attached to the inside walls of the column at points where the condensed vapors you desire can collect and be drawn off.  It was a fun project but I have to admit that getting things right and maintaining accurate and consistent temperatures was really difficult.  I built everything out of beakers and glass tubing so that I could see what was happening and the setup looked every bit like the laboratory of a mad scientist you might see in a B movie.

Lex

[Erasmus]

Lex, I'm a bit surprised to read that you drink DI water.  I find that the stuff "tastes" awful.  Do you add salts back to make it have whatever mineral balance you prefer?  This opens up, like a thousand questions. 

You continue to amaze me.  I thought I was extravagant to consider getting a magnetic stirring hotplate for the kitchen.  I haven't done it yet, but you really kind of shame me into doing it.  lol.

-E

[lex_rooker]

E-
DI water tastes the same as distilled water and I actually prefer it to our tap water, but Geoff and others convinced me that tap water was probably better for me since it does contain a considerable amount of minerals.  I now drink mostly tap water and save the DI water as a treat.  My wife always makes her coffee with DI water (I can't stand the stuff myself) and she does all of her cooking with DI water.  Other than that the orchids get most of it.

I never had a hot plate with a magnetic stirrer - sounds interesting.  We cook with induction rather than gas or normal electric heating elements.  With induction just the pan and its contents get hot.  You can actually spread newspaper over the heating element, put the pot on top, boil, fry or whatever, and then wad up the newpaper and throw the mess away - makes clean up a breeze.

Induction is also far more efficient than gas or regular electric.  I can bring 5 gallons of water to a rolling boil in 30 minutes and when I reduce or turn off the heat, it stops instantly just like a gas flame. It's far more controlable also.  You can place a chocolate bar in a pan, set the heat on low and leave it there all day and the chocolate will never overheat or burn - no double boiler needed.   You can set an exact temperature for doing things like rendering fat.  I set the temperature for 250 deg F and I can leave for the day and when I come back the fat is rendered and is exactly 250 deg.  Once you use induction you'll never go back to regular gas or electric again.

Here's a picture of our 2 inductions hobs. Yup, only two.  It's all we need - even when cooking for 50 or 60 people when we host family gatherings.

Lex

[xylothrill]

Lex,

Only you could have outdone the Professor's ingenuity on Gilligan's Island. I'm convinced! 

Craig

[lex_rooker]

Only you could have outdone the Professor's ingenuity on Gilligan's Island. I'm convinced! 

Well, the only issue with our high tech approach is that we have to get everyone that attends our gatherings to stir their coconuts so we can get enough power to run the stuff!

Lex

[Erasmus]

Wow.  DI water and iron based cookware?  Don't you find the DI water a bit corrosive?  I figured you were cooking in glass, if for no other reason than someone that goes to the trouble of getting REALLY clean water would opt for REALLY clean cooking vessels.

With a top grade induction unit the advantage of the lab hotplate is mostly nullified.  But if you like to make sauces...  it's really cool to have that third hand do the stirring all the while being able to PRECISELY heat the stuff.

Myself, I've got gas.  Your chocolate thing requires my 1/4 inch slab of aluminum I keep around for such occasions.    I got you beat on the 5 gal water boil thing, but I gotta go outside to do it.  I've got a portable propane restaurant grade wok burner.  Now that's a party! 

Induction would be easier...

About the tap water. I thought Norwalk pulled it's water from the San Gabriel river aquifer.  That *should* be relatively clean and tasty.

-E

[lex_rooker]

E-
Cooking is now pretty much a moot point for me so I don't worry about it.  Most of our cookware is magnetic stainless made by Demeyre.  I think it's their Apollo line.

We started using induction in 1984 with a Chambers Magnawave cooktop.  My wife fell in love with it and we've be using induction ever since. Over the years I've used CookTek, Iwatani, Chambers, Sunpentown, GE, and Phasar.  Our current induction hobs are Gaggenau and they are by far the best but are pricey at about $3,000 USD per hob.

I've seen those propane flame throwers they use out doors for deep frying turkeys and the like.  They don't look as though safety is the first consideration in their design.  Considering my expertise (or lack thereof) I'd probably burn the house down if I tried to use one of those.  I much prefer the flameless approach of induction.

I understand from our water company that part of our water is well water, however, they are limited by how much they can pump per year and therefore rely on water from MWD and IID which comes from the Colorado River as well as the Owen's Valley to make up the difference.  It's really not all that bad tasting, but I've been drinking DI or distilled water for so many years that just about any tap water tastes bad to me.  My wife also says it makes a big difference in the taste of her coffee.  She much prefers the DI or distilled.

Lex

[Erasmus]

I've seen those propane flame throwers they use out doors for deep frying turkeys and the like.  They don't look as though safety is the first consideration in their design.  Considering my expertise (or lack thereof) I'd probably burn the house down if I tried to use one of those.  I much prefer the flameless approach of induction.

Yeah, I was at a medieval recreationist event some years ago and I tripped on a turkey fryer that was at full temp ready for the bird.  It very nearly dumped on me.  Even without the turkey in it, some of the oil hit sloshed out.  The last thing I wanted to do that day was to explain to the ER docs WHY I was dressed up all medieval and boiled in oil.   :   

For all of you raw foodists I guess you can add this to your list why raw is better and cooked food is "dangerous".   

-E

[lex_rooker]

Yeah, I was at a medieval re-creationist event some years ago and I tripped on a turkey fryer that was at full temp ready for the bird.  It very nearly dumped on me.  Even without the turkey in it, some of the oil hit sloshed out.  The last thing I wanted to do that day was to explain to the ER docs WHY I was dressed up all medieval and boiled in oil.   :   

For all of you raw foodists I guess you can add this to your list why raw is better and cooked food is "dangerous".   

This story is priceless.  I imagine the emergency room folks see all kinds of interesting things, however, like you, I sure wouldn't want to be their entertainment for the day.

Lex

[lex_rooker]

I've had several requests to show exactly what I eat.  Here is the whole story.

Picture 1491 from left to right,
 
1 1/2 lbs package of Slankers Dog & Cat
3/4 lb coursely ground beef fat/suet
1 tsp salt
2 lb package of Slankers Chili beef

Picture 1492 everything in a large stainless steel bowl ready to mix

Picture 1493 after mixing

Picture 1494 divided into 3 equal portions in plastic containers to be stored in refigerator.

In this case the total weight was 2,060g so each package has about 685g or about 1 1/2 lbs.  If I were to divide into 4 portions each would be about 515g or about 1.1 lbs.

Lex

[wodgina]

Looks delicious Lex! Mines very similar, I still add 3/4 tsp of azomite a day. Slightly more salt.
Mines tweaked with 200 grams of suet a day and higher protein seems better for me.

Anyone who says Raw Paleo is too time consuming/expensive/difficult need only look at our examples, It could not be any easier, especially if you live in the states, 3 days food in minutes.

I make mine daily for no reason other than I just got into a routine for now but I may change. I get my suet solid then I defrost it during the day, I add the suet and ground beef in my food processor with Azomite, Himalayan salt and maybe a chunk of organ meat.

My food processor is a Breville Ikon BFP650 with 900 watt motor. Its the one with a stainless steel facade so it looks cool in my kitchen. I've given it a real thrashing (sometimes I throw in semi frozen suet) since I've bought it and its going strong. I don't wash it either just keep the bowl in the fridge.

[lex_rooker]

Hi Andrew,
I used to prepare my food each day but then thought how silly it was to spend almost the same amount of time each day to mix a single meal worth of food when I could prepare several day's worth in the same amout of time.  The best part is that I only have to clean up the mess twice a week instead of every day.

I also use to thaw chunks of fat and grind it with a small hand grinder that clamped to the table at the time I prepared my food.  Now I grind all the fat at one time when I receive it (usually about 20 lbs at a time) and then freeze it in gallon sized Ziploc bags.  It takes about 15 minutes to grind all 20 lbs and then I only have to clean up that mess once a month or so.  I built my own power grinder for another project, and it will tear through whole chickens, bones and all, without missing a beat.    Motor is 1 1/2 horse power coupled to a #32 Choprite bolt down grinder.  Weighs about 100 lbs.

Lex

[lex_rooker]

As those who follow my journal are aware, several weeks ago I was in a position where I was unable to eat my normal food and had to make do with typical cafeteria fare.  I experienced some unpleasant side effects from this in the form of large amounts of water retention even though I did my best to eat only protein and fat and consume no obvious carbs.

Two weeks ago my wife and I attended a summer family gathering and I decide to throw caution to the wind, eat all the forbidden foods, and see what would happen.  The results are rather instructive and should be given consideration before a person decides to commit to a zero carb lifestyle. 

The framework of the experiment was that I ate my normal meal during the day and then consumed a large amount of carbs in the evening between about 6pm and 9pm.  The next day I returned to my normal meat only fare.  Here’s what happened.

At 4pm I ate 1.5 lbs of raw meat and fat after which we headed off to attend the family gathering.
 
Between  6pm and 9pm I ate the following:
 
6oz of 7Up,
½ dozen cheese and cracker appetizers
3 pieces of thin crust pepperoni pizza
2 large chocolate chip cookies
1 small scoop vanilla ice cream
1 large slice of watermelon
½ cantaloupe

I found that the more I ate the more I wanted to eat of these foods.  My intention was to eat one piece of pizza, (after all I had already eaten a full portion of my normal food and really wasn’t all that hungry), but found myself going back for seconds and thirds.  Chocolate Chip Cookies are my favorite and I justified 2 as it was “only this one time and I deserve it”.  Probably my favorite thing in the world is ice cream and I would have loved more but they ran out.  Large plates of sliced melons were available all night long and I found myself picking up a piece every time I walked by them even though by this time I was pretty well stuffed – I still wanted more.  We finally left about 9pm and my binge was forced to an end.

By 10pm I noticed that I was very thirsty and just couldn’t get enough to drink.  I checked BG and it had risen in to the low 200s.  It might have gone higher but I didn’t start measuring until I got home. 

I went to bed about 11pm and woke up twice during the night from thirst and each time consumed 16 oz of water.  BG started to fall but this process was very slow.  It took almost 24 hours to get back down below 100.  My thirst continued for about 36 hours and during that time my weight increased by about 12 lbs, and my ankles, feet, and hands swelled up with edema.  I was very uncomfortable to say the least.
Even though I returned to my normal diet the next day, my thirst continued for about a day and half and I continued to gain weight during that period.  I’d say that I hit the peak at about 48 hours before things started to reverse.

On the 3rd day I started feeling better but I was really puffed up with fluid retention.  When I stood for long periods (working in my shop) fluid would pool in my lower legs, feet and ankles making them stiff and painful due to stretching of the skin.  I’d go to bed and throughout the night the fluid would redistribute more evenly throughout my body and I would wake up with my hands noticeably stiff and swollen, but legs and ankles less so.

After the 4th day I began to see a slow drop in weight and this continued at the rate of about one pound per day over the next week and a half until now I’m almost back to normal.

Of course I really have no idea of what is actually happening but here are the conclusions I’ve drawn from this experience:

My guess is that, after 3 years of zero carb, my body is no longer conditioned to handle large carb loads efficiently.  Insulin production is probably low and when BG was suddenly and unexpectedly driven very high, my body called for large amounts of water in an attempt to dilute BG to bring it down to safe levels.

I have had small amounts of carbs in the past, but in very small amounts, a single bite of something just to taste it as an example.  This might have amounted to 5g of carbs and this caused no detectable problem, but clearly large infusions of carbs are now a problem for me.

My previous experience with the cafeteria food suggests that since I experienced the same symptoms as with this current experiment, there must have been a significant amount of hidden carbs in what I was eating.  Maybe sugar in the sausage, lactose in the cheese, and eggs may have more available carbs than expected.  Also it took much longer for the edema to develop, though it was just as severe, so it seems that lower levels of carb intake over an extended period of time will exceed the body’s capacity to handle ever rising BG levels once the body has shut down those systems through adaptation to a zero carb diet.

It took several months for my body to adapt to zero carbs and during that time I was rather uncomfortable.  I think that if I were to decide to return to a high carb diet, I would face a similar period of adaptation back to where my body handled carbs efficiently again.  I think this is an important consideration for anyone contemplating adopting a zero carb lifestyle.  You should not make this decision lightly.

Don't take this to assume that I'm now sorry for being zero carb - nothing could be further from the truth.  My health has improved dramatically, and I have a much better quality of life.  I can do things today that I couldn't do as recently as 5 years ago, and at an age when most are taking more and more medications while at the same time having to reduce their activity levels, I'm off all meds but one, have reduced my single remaining medicaton to 1/4 the original amount, and increased my activity levels almost to what I was doing in my mid 30's.  The trade-off of now being forced to restrict my carb intake or suffer the rather unpleasant consequences is well worth it for me.

Lex

[boxcarguy07]

Very interesting little experiment, Lex.
Boy, you really pigged out!

I wonder how my body would react to a large amount of carbs, now that I only eat a bit of fruit each day. Right now has been the longest time since I've been raw that I haven't broken my diet at all. I used to get big cravings for certain foods, but now I crave meat! 
I'm sure one of these days I'll be breaking my diet for a social reason or something, so I guess we'll see then.

[TylerDurden]

I'm impressed, Lex. So many other online groups focus on opinions/studies etc., but you at least prefer to rely on your own experiences and measure them, regardless of others' opinions.