"Life Without Bread"

[Pete]

I was eating an almond cookie today and I hiccupped a few times.  This made me think of how incredibly long it's been since I had the hiccups.  I almost forgot about them.  I did a quick search and there seems to be a link between starchy things and hiccups. 

Since going paleo, have you guys noticed any hiccups?

Nope, no hiccups. As a matter of fact some coworkers at my job were commenting on how my allergies didn't seem to really be affecting me as much as they used to. Hardly any sneezing at all this season and cat hair used to drive me nuts but I hardly notice it anymore.

[Bobo08]

Since going paleo, have you guys noticed any hiccups?

When I was transitioning to paleo diet, I experienced more hiccups than usual. I remember it because my wife said it was because of my new diet. However, when I've been fully adapted, the hiccups disappeared. I don't remember having any of it for a long time now.

[Bluefyre]

Funny you should mention hiccups Odyssey.  I used to get them at least a couple of times a week before I reduced the carbs.  I hadn't realized until reading your post that I can't remember the last time I experienced them.  I started cutting back carbs a year ago in April and so I've been in ketosis for about a year.

[Kaigen]

  I had a lot of laugh today evening!
I thought I post it here. 

[SeekinTruth]

I had a lot of laugh today evening!
I thought I post it here. 

 

[Elisa]

Very funny Kaigen!

[dugdeep]

Just wanted to give a heads up that Sean Croxton of Underground Wellness, the same guy that brought the Paleo Summit a few months back, is going to be presenting the Real Food Summit. It seems to have a much broader theme than the Paleo Summit, but a lot of the speakers are people who have been quoted and mentioned in this thread like Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms, Chris Kresser, Chris Masterjohn (talking about Weston A. Price), Cate Shanahan (Deep Nutrition), Dr. Barry Groves (SOTT has run a lot of his articles). Others who haven't specifically been discussed here but are sure to be good to listen to are Jeffrey Smith, the foremost authority on GMOs, and Kaayla Daniel, author of 'The Whole Soy Story'. There might be some other good speakers on the list, too, I just haven't heard of them.

The 'conference' is set up the same way as the Paleo Summit - each day, three audio presentations are posted for free and they stay up for 24 hours. The next day, another three are put up for 24 hours. At the end you have the option of buying a package of all the audios as well as some bonus material.

It starts this Sunday (July 8) and can be found here - http://realfoodsummit.com/

[voyageur]

...Real Food Summit...


It starts this Sunday (July 8) and can be found here - http://realfoodsummit.com/

Thanks for the link dugdeep.

[Jones]

Just wanted to report on a new exercise/physical work experience.

The weather got cold enough here for us to start lighting the fire.  The wood here is much tougher than I'm used to and I don't have a log splitter at the moment - I've been doing the splitting with an axe.  My strike rarely splits the log in one go and the ax gets stuck in the wood.  So I've taken to bashing the back of the axe head with a hammer to split the wood. It takes a fair bit of work too.

I've noticed that while some of these muscles haven't had such exercise of this type for some time,  I could keep going without getting that 'burning' sensation in the muscles that I might have once.  My arm still got a bit wobbly, but I could keep going without pain.

[Laura]

Just wanted to report on a new exercise/physical work experience.

The weather got cold enough here for us to start lighting the fire.  The wood here is much tougher than I'm used to and I don't have a log splitter at the moment - I've been doing the splitting with an axe.  My strike rarely splits the log in one go and the ax gets stuck in the wood.  So I've taken to bashing the back of the axe head with a hammer to split the wood. It takes a fair bit of work too.

I've noticed that while some of these muscles haven't had such exercise of this type for some time,  I could keep going without getting that 'burning' sensation in the muscles that I might have once.  My arm still got a bit wobbly, but I could keep going without pain.

Sounds like what Mark Sisson is describing in his current article:

What Does It Mean to Be Fat-Adapted?
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-fat-adapted/

When describing someone that has successfully made the transition to the Primal way of eating I often refer to them as “fat-adapted” or as “fat-burning beasts”. But what exactly does it mean to be “fat-adapted”? How can you tell if you’re fat-adapted or still a “sugar-burner”? I get these and related questions fairly often, so I thought I’d take the time today to attempt to provide some definitions and bring some clarification to all of this. I’ll try to keep today’s post short and sweet, and not too complicated. Hopefully, med students and well-meaning but inquisitive lay family members alike will be able to take something from it.

As I’ve mentioned before, fat-adaptation is the normal, preferred metabolic state of the human animal. It’s nothing special; it’s just how we’re meant to be. That’s actually why we have all this fat on our bodies – turns out it’s a pretty reliable source of energy! To understand what it means to be normal, it’s useful examine what it means to be abnormal. And by that I mean, to understand what being a sugar-dependent person feels like.

A sugar-burner can’t effectively access stored fat for energy. What that means is an inability for skeletal muscle to oxidize fat. Ha, not so bad, right? I mean, you could always just burn glucose for energy. Yeah, as long as you’re walking around with an IV-glucose drip hooked up to your veins. What happens when a sugar-burner goes two, three, four hours without food, or – dare I say it – skips a whole entire meal (without that mythical IV sugar drip)? They get ravenously hungry. Heck, a sugar-burner’s adipose tissue even releases a bunch of fatty acids 4-6 hours after eating and during fasting, because as far as it’s concerned, your muscles should be able to oxidize them (PDF). After all, we evolved to rely on beta oxidation of fat for the bulk of our energy needs. But they can’t, so they don’t, and once the blood sugar is all used up (which happens really quickly), hunger sets in, and the hand reaches for yet another bag of chips.

A sugar-burner can’t even effectively access dietary fat for energy. As a result, more dietary fat is stored than burned. Unfortunately for them, they’re likely to end up gaining lots of body fat. As we know, a low ratio of fat to carbohydrate oxidation is a strong predictor of future weight gain.

A sugar-burner depends on a perpetually-fleeting source of energy. Glucose is nice to burn when you need it, but you can’t really store very much of it on your person (unless you count snacks in pockets, or chipmunkesque cheek-stuffing). Even a 160 pound person who’s visibly lean at 12% body fat still has 19.2 pounds of animal fat on hand for oxidation, while our ability to store glucose as muscle and liver glycogen are limited to about 500 grams (depending on the size of the liver and amount of muscle you’re sporting). You require an exogenous source, and, if you’re unable to effectively beta oxidize fat (as sugar-burners often are), you’d better have some candy on hand.

A sugar-burner will burn through glycogen fairly quickly during exercise. Depending on the nature of the physical activity, glycogen burning could be perfectly desirable and expected, but it’s precious, valuable stuff. If you’re able to power your efforts with fat for as long as possible, that gives you more glycogen – more rocket fuel for later, intenser efforts (like climbing a hill or grabbing that fourth quarter offensive rebound or running from a predator). Sugar-burners waste their glycogen on efforts that fat should be able to power.

Being fat-adapted, then, looks and feels a little bit like the opposite of all that:

A fat-burning beast can effectively burn stored fat for energy throughout the day. If you can handle missing meals and are able to go hours without getting ravenous and cranky (or craving carbs), you’re likely fat-adapted.

A fat-burning beast is able to effectively oxidize dietary fat for energy. If you’re adapted, your post-prandial fat oxidation will be increased, and less dietary fat will be stored in adipose tissue.

A fat-burning beast has plenty of accessible energy on hand, even if he or she is lean. If you’re adapted, the genes associated with lipid metabolism will be upregulated in your skeletal muscles. You will essentially reprogram your body.

A fat-burning beast can rely more on fat for energy during exercise, sparing glycogen for when he or she really needs it. As I’ve discussed before, being able to mobilize and oxidize stored fat during exercise can reduce an athlete’s reliance on glycogen. This is the classic “train low, race high” phenomenon, and it can improve performance, save the glycogen for the truly intense segments of a session, and burn more body fat. If you can handle exercising without having to carb-load, you’re probably fat-adapted. If you can workout effectively in a fasted state, you’re definitely fat-adapted.

Furthermore, a fat-burning beast will be able to burn glucose when necessary and/or available, whereas the opposite cannot be said for a sugar-burner. Ultimately, fat-adaption means metabolic flexibility. It means that a fat-burning beast will be able to handle some carbs along with some fat. A fat-burning beast will be able to empty glycogen stores through intense exercise, refill those stores, burn whatever dietary fat isn’t stored, and then easily access and oxidize the fat that is stored when it’s needed. It’s not that the fat-burning beast can’t burn glucose – because glucose is toxic in the blood, we’ll always preferentially burn it, store it, or otherwise “handle” it – it’s that he doesn’t depend on it. I’d even suggest that true fat-adaptation will allow someone to eat a higher carb meal or day without derailing the train. Once the fat-burning machinery has been established and programmed, you should be able to effortlessly switch between fuel sources as needed.

There’s really no “fat-adaptation home test kit.” I suppose you could test your respiratory quotient, which is the ratio of carbon dioxide you produce to oxygen you consume. An RQ of 1+ indicates full glucose-burning; an RQ of 0.7 indicates full fat-burning. Somewhere around 0.8 would probably mean you’re fairly well fat-adapted, while something closer to 1 probably means you’re closer to a sugar-burner. The obese have higher RQs. Diabetics have higher RQs. Nighttime eaters have higher RQs (and lower lipid oxidation). What do these groups all have in common? Lower satiety, insistent hunger, impaired beta-oxidation of fat, increased carb cravings and intake – all hallmarks of the sugar-burner.

It’d be great if you could monitor the efficiency of your mitochondria, including the waste products produced by their ATP manufacturing, perhaps with a really, really powerful microscope, but you’d have to know what you were looking for. And besides, although I like to think our “cellular power plants” resemble the power plant from the Simpsons, I’m pretty sure I’d be disappointed by reality.

No, there’s no test to take, no simple thing to measure, no one number to track, no lab to order from your doctor. To find out if you’re fat-adapted, the most effective way is to ask yourself a few basic questions:

    Can you go three hours without eating? Is skipping a meal an exercise in futility and misery?
    Do you enjoy steady, even energy throughout the day? Are midday naps pleasurable indulgences, rather than necessary staples?
    Can you exercise without carb-loading?
    Have the headaches and brain fuzziness passed?

Yes? Then you’re probably fat-adapted. Welcome to normal human metabolism!

A quick note about ketosis:

Fat-adaption does not necessarily mean ketosis. Ketosis is ketosis. Fat-adaption describes the ability to burn both fat directly via beta-oxidation and glucose via glycolysis, while ketosis describes the use of fat-derived ketone bodies by tissues (like parts of the brain) that normally use glucose. A ketogenic diet “tells” your body that no or very little glucose is available in the environment. The result? “Impaired” glucose tolerance and “physiological” insulin resistance, which sound like negatives but are actually necessary to spare what little glucose exists for use in the brain. On the other hand, a well-constructed, lower-carb (but not full-blown ketogenic) Primal way of eating that leads to weight loss generally improves insulin sensitivity.

[bngenoh]

That is very interesting Laura, I have finally been feeling well enough to contemplate exercising, I used to be a gym rat, but haven't been for over a year. I have started with yoga based stretching exercises to get my flexibility back up to where it used to be, and walking around with a weight vest. Just doing that is producing muscle growth.

The sugar burner parts were hilarious.   

[Megan]

I have been reading the book Sweet Potato Power: Discover Your Personal Equation for Optimal Health and far from focusing on sweet potatoes, it has turned to to be a pretty good summary of a lot of what we have been discussing here. If you have been at this for quite a while, a lot of the material will not be new, and for that reason I have been skimming much of it and not checking it carefully (because I have other things to read too!), but some of the later material (after the introductory chapters) is looking quite useful.

In particular, there is a section based on Mark Sisson's Primal Blueprint Carbohydrate Curve that talks about different carb intake levels and what they imply. Here is the basic table (see the web page above or the book for more information):

Danger zone: >300
Weight gain zone: 150–300 grams (U.S. recommended daily allowance)
Optimal carb intake for effortless weight maintenance: 100–150 grams
Weight loss sweet spot: 50–100 grams
Ketosis: <50g

I can only validate the 0-50 gram range so far (I did not lose weight at 70g), but it looks reasonable to me. Now there are reasons that people here in the forum might want to stay in ketosis (lipolysis). Clearly, ketosis is recommended for people with certain neurological conditions, but apart from this pathology-oriented point of view it may very well be that brains work better in general on a ketogenic diet. That seems to be what Nora Gedgaudas has been saying, supported by her work in neurofeedback. But if you need to lose weight or your gut can't tolerate a ketogenic diet then you might want to see what else works for people in general, and then the 50-150 gram ranges might become more attractive.

I seem to be finding that I need to increase carbs a bit in order to lose weight. My situation is awkward, because I am overweight AND a ketogenic diet is also indicated due to medical issues. When I go very low carb my brain works better but my GI tract goes wacky and I eventually start gaining weight back. So I am experimenting with around 40 g/day right now, using sweet potatoes to raise it to that level. But everybody is different; you have to work it out for you.

Next the book (Sweet Potato Power) offers this diagnostic table, along with examples of how it is used (too much to quote here).

Symptoms of	Too Many Carbs
Look	Feel	Perform
Overweight	Lethargic / Afternoon energy slumps	Poor recovery and soreness post workouts
Acne	Depressed / Mood swings / Mental Fog	Sore Joints
Bloated	Limited attention span
	Anxiety / Hyper
	Lack of focus
	Sugar cravings / Midnight hunger pains / Food obsession	Poor sleep patterns / Fatigue even after getting a full night of sleep
Symptoms of	Too Few Carbs
Look	Feel	Perform
Lean or fat	Sluggish	No motivation to train
	Depressed / Flat personality	Muscle fatigue / Slow reaction time, i.e. no snap in muscles
		Slow recovery
Indicators of	Right Amount of Carbs
Look	Feel	Perform
Lean	High energy	Muscle energy
Clear skin	Consistent energy levels / Attentiveness and focus	Motivation to move and work out

The book then goes on to describe various experiments you can do on yourself to gather more data, many of them involving a glucometer (or if you really want to get into it, an implanted glucose monitor!).

That's as far as I have read so far. There seem to be quite a few recipes near the end of the book.

     

[Jones]

Laura:

Sounds like what Mark Sisson is describing in his current article:

Yes it does.  I doubt that I've entered ketosis.  I haven't yet been able to get the books to do all the reading so while there have been times/days where my carb intake has been below 50g it hasn't been for prolonged periods.  I've limited the types of carbs I eat and reduced the amount.

"Right Amount of Carbs" from the table Megan supplied seems to be where I'm at at the moment but I guess I won't have any real idea of a personal comparison until I can attempt ketosis.

[sebbe]

Can you go three hours without eating? Is skipping a meal an exercise in futility and misery?
    Do you enjoy steady, even energy throughout the day? Are midday naps pleasurable indulgences, rather than necessary staples?
    Can you exercise without carb-loading?
    Have the headaches and brain fuzziness passed?

If i respond simply, nearly one year of fat consumption:

- Can you go three hours without eating?    Yes

- Is skipping a meal an exercise in futility and misery?   No

- Do you enjoy steady, even energy throughout the day?  No

- Are midday naps pleasurable indulgences, rather than necessary staples?  I am not sure to have understood this question, but if it talks about the necessity of a nap, No.

- Can you exercise without carb-loading?  Yes

- Have the headaches and brain fuzziness passed?  Yes

[Aragorn]

(Psyche has taken a job in a Spanish hospital and will no longer be available to do research for us, so other medically/scientifically trained peeps here are gonna need to step up to the plate on this.)

that's a bit suprising to hear but she is still a part of this forum and work here ?

Yes.  But doing shifts and sleeping in a little room in a hospital, doing ER duty, means literally no time. 

And yes, it was a bit surprising to us, but she had the offer and made the choice.

Any word on how Psyche is doing? I miss her input on the forum. I'm sure that with her knowledge and skills she'll help many people wherever she is, but still, things feel a little bit empty without her - especially on the diet and health section.