"Life Without Bread"

[mcb]

I don't think that Megan was talking about a "danger" in the diet. We've certainly been doing it for a couple of years now and feel fine. Megan is talking about people with certain conditions that are difficult to resolve. I certainly understand her point of view since we have similar issues here to one extent or another...

Yes, that's right. The danger is in not changing course if you are one for whom a VLC (very low carb) diet has bad effects. There are a number of traps one can fall into. For me it was the fact that my hypoglycemia ceased as soon as I switched to VLC, and on ZC (zero carbs) my gut fermentation issues also went away.

I found it hard to move away from those approaches in spite of the warning signs that my overall adaptation was not good, because I didn't want those symptoms to return. The fallacy in my thinking was in the assumption that VLC/ZC is what caused the symptoms to disappear in the first place. It may actually have much more to do with eliminating wheat, and with being overly sensitive to signs of normal gut activity.

Another trap is thinking that we in this forum are now on to "the optimal diet" and that any other approach is sub-optimal. That is an ego thing. There is only individual "optimal," and optimal for an individual may very well be a significant nutritional compromise compared to any ideal, due to existing health issues.

I am starting to see something else now, both from my recent reading and listening and also drawing from decades of diet experimentation. My main issues now are weight (too much) and fatigue (which for me correlates with weight). There are at least two central factors in weight regulation, homeostatic regulation and hedonic regulation. We have focused on homeostatic regulation, and the role of dietary fat in stabilizing appetite.

My experience with dieting in earlier decades was that each time I wanted to begin losing weight, I had to surmount a "hedonic hump" and overcome my food cravings. This is a separate reward-based system that can override the homeostatic system. It still functions even after you address fat intake issues (raising dietary fat) and eliminate opioids from wheat and other sources, and it can easily sabotage weight loss efforts. The processed food industry knows how this works (good book on this subject: The End of Overeating) and exploits it to no end, because the more people eat the more profit is to be had.

So here is what I have realized in just the last day. We here have emphasized low-carb, high fat diet, but there is something else we learned about along the way that may be even more important, and that is the idea of "food as fuel." The more appealing the food you eat is, the more your food reward system may drive you to eat. When you keep your food plain and simple, this can be much less of a problem.

This is tricky, because taste and nutrition are closely linked. Highly nutritious foods tend to be tasty. It's not a perfect system, though, and I suspect (I really don't know) that our senses of taste may have been damaged by things we have eaten in the past that were designed to mess us up. In any event, while "tastiness" can signal high nutritional content, it can also signal other things. And even if the nutritional content really is high, if it triggers our (possibly damaged) reward system then too much highly nutritious food is still a problem!

This is definitely an area for further experimentation, and something to share about as we go. "Food as fuel" is very paleo, but it is neolithic as well. Fancy food use to be a privilege of the wealthy, and they developed specific serious health problems as a result. But today, just look at the pervasive influence that presses us to spice (and sugar and salt) it up. What do you all think of this?

And oh yeah, eat lots of liver. The less you like it, the better it is for you.

 

[Foxx]

Megan,

I imagine you're already aware and have tried it, but in case you haven't, have you tried a FIR sauna blanket? Did it not work well for you? Obviously it's not a solution the the diet issues that you've brought up, but for your health otherwise I wonder if it would be helpful.

 

[Mrs. Peel]

Mrs. Peel, if you actually completely removed sugar, dairy and gluten - just those three - your health would improve dramatically. Just because you haven't done that yet does not mean that you cannot do it.

Yes, I have started to do that, and have felt some modest changes over the last six months. But there are still issues I need to deal with. I would like to have the testing done to know what's going on with the cortisol, and some other hormonal things.

 

[anart]

Another trap is thinking that we in this forum are now on to "the optimal diet" and that any other approach is sub-optimal. That is an ego thing. There is only individual "optimal," and optimal for an individual may very well be a significant nutritional compromise compared to any ideal, due to existing health issues.

I think that's a bit of a leap on your part, or perhaps a projection? It has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum that everyone is different and what matters is what works best for each individual body. It has nothing to do with 'the optimal diet', nor does it have to do with ego. What it has to do with is real world results following informed experimentation.

 

[mcb]

Well, I hate to say but in the last couple of years, my health has actually gotten worse. Now I will admit it's my own fault for not eliminating gluten, dairy, sugar, and carbs entirely, but I was going through a lot of stress and the death of both parents within seven months. But I did begin to eat red meat and fat, but all it did was make ME fatter around the belly (since I was still eating carbs). My digestive system is just too damaged (leaky gut) to process all that meat and fat, my adrenals are shot, my thyroid is whacky, I've got a rash on my forehead for over a year now, I'm full of candida, and now I've got insommnia which got worse around the time I started taking mega doses of Vit. D. Yee-ha!

Until I get all my underlying issues somewhat under control, the full Paleo thing just won't work for me. I am going to a doctor next week that I found on the internet who supposedly specialilzes in fixing some of that stuff, takes saliva testing, does bioidentical hormones, etc.. The bad part is she doesn't accept insurance. :/

Onward to better health!!

Sometimes less clarity is better. Whether you realize it or not, you sound pretty clear about what you think are the underlying issues, even though you haven't done the testing. Obviously you can tell whether or not you have insomnia, but are you really full of candida? Do you know all of the precautions and contraindications for supplementing vitamin D?

What we have been talking about in this topic for the last year or so is not the "full Paleo thing." It is a low-carb (actually very low carb -- VLC) variant. Outside of this forum, there are many, many reports of people encountering further and new health problems when attempting a VLC diet. Why that is, I don't know -- nobody knows for sure. It might come down to the fact that a lot of us are just messed up. The damage that comes from eating agricultural and "industrial" foods may be hard to fix, and some of it may be irreversible. But that's no reason not to do something, and do it quickly.

There have been some really good suggestions of things to try, here in this topic. Sometimes they seem to conflict, but different things work for different people. In addition, in my last few posts I have been trying to point out that if the low-carb, high-fat approach we have discussed here doesn't work for your body, there is a whole "Paleosphere" out there full of ideas that you can draw upon. In fact if you are going to see a practitioner and do testing, you need to do some exploring first. The odds of a particular practitioner leading you astray are way too high, and you need to know enough in advance to protect yourself.

I have found Chris Kresser's material (chriskresser.com) to be very helpful. I recommend drawing upon a variety of sources, and you need to keep reading elsewhere, but Chris has addressed quite a few issues in his blogs and podcasts that people run into when they go Paleo or VLC Paleo. It is good material for broadening your own perspective. There are a few ideas he presents that might not be very well received here, such as raw dairy and "safe starches" but he's not saying you need to eat those things and those differences are by far the exception.

 

[Laura]

Another trap is thinking that we in this forum are now on to "the optimal diet" and that any other approach is sub-optimal. That is an ego thing. There is only individual "optimal," and optimal for an individual may very well be a significant nutritional compromise compared to any ideal, due to existing health issues.

I think that's a bit of a leap on your part, or perhaps a projection? It has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum that everyone is different and what matters is what works best for each individual body. It has nothing to do with 'the optimal diet', nor does it have to do with ego. What it has to do with is real world results following informed experimentation.

Well, Doug did sorta give that impression.

What I am interested in trying is what Gedgaudas wrote about: the reduction of volume/protein to a specific level to try to trigger the repair function in the body. I'm going to re-read that section and figure out exactly what I need to eat and try it for about a month to see what happens. I'm already to the point where I eat just twice a day and it is a fairly modest amount each meal, but I'm thinking that actually measuring and taking in only exactly what is needed and no more might be an interesting experiment.

 

[mcb]

Another trap is thinking that we in this forum are now on to "the optimal diet" and that any other approach is sub-optimal. That is an ego thing. There is only individual "optimal," and optimal for an individual may very well be a significant nutritional compromise compared to any ideal, due to existing health issues.

I think that's a bit of a leap on your part, or perhaps a projection? It has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum that everyone is different and what matters is what works best for each individual body. It has nothing to do with 'the optimal diet', nor does it have to do with ego. What it has to do with is real world results following informed experimentation.

I meant to identify a potential pattern. I notice, now that you point it out, that I worded it as if perhaps I had identified such a pattern. I haven't. Again, the danger is that someone will identify with the notion that we have "found the optimal diet," and disregard signs of needing to try something different. It might have happened with some people, and we wouldn't necessarily know. I am pretty sure that it happens elsewhere, outside this forum. If you identify with a particular movement, or branch of a movement, or diet protocol, there is that risk.

What I try to do (with varying degrees of success) is to identify where I seem to need to, but to continue to question and examine my views of things, and to take special note of information that conflicts.

 

[anart]

I meant to identify a potential pattern. I notice, now that you point it out, that I worded it as if perhaps I had identified such a pattern. I haven't. Again, the danger is that someone will identify with the notion that we have "found the optimal diet," and disregard signs of needing to try something different. It might have happened with some people, and we wouldn't necessarily know. I am pretty sure that it happens elsewhere, outside this forum. If you identify with a particular movement, or branch of a movement, or diet protocol, there is that risk.

What I try to do (with varying degrees of success) is to identify where I seem to need to, but to continue to question and examine my views of things, and to take special note of information that conflicts.

Yes - and I suppose that I'm just so used to the very basic (and ALWAYS true) idea that we're learning as we go here, so most, if not all, of our conclusions are tentative, that I wanted to point out that it's all still a work in progress. There is no dogma here, not even on diet - we're just figuring out what works best and even that might change with continued epigenetic expression. I think we're a lot closer than we used to be to having a handle on what works best for the vast majority of people, but it really is an 'each person is unique' situation.

There may come a time when I no longer function well on a very low carb diet - we'll see - at that point, I'll up my carbs with more veggies!

 

[mcb]

...There may come a time when I no longer function well on a very low carb diet - we'll see - at that point, I'll up my carbs with more veggies!

"Six months" seems to come up a lot in blog/podcast discussions. That is roughly how long it took my weight loss to plateau and for me to start feeling worse again (until I increased carb intake), and it apparently works something like that for quite a few people. If you make it longer than 6 months, it is certainly a good sign that low carb is working for you.

My housemate is doing great with it, but she kept her carb intake relatively high (including fruit) and didn't completely eliminate grains. Her main problem has been having to replace or take up most of her clothes after she lost weight.

There doesn't seem to be any one reason why some people do well for a while on low carbs and then don't any more. Even at the individual level, it may be the result of a number of things. Obviously, it's a question of considerable interest being investigated within the Paleo community.

 

[Laura]

What I have noticed is this: when I do zero carbs, I can hardly function at all. My legs feel like jello and no matter how many minerals or supplements I take, I am so exhausted I can barely move. I get dizzy and vertigo. And I did it for months with no change. But, up the carbs just a bit and I'm fine.

Next, here in the house are two of my kids who have been on zero carbs for months. Atriedes has had huge improvements in many areas, but he's still got that darn condition that we are having to work on from other directions in addition to diet. I don't think he'll be adding any carbs, but it is clear that zero or near-zero carbs doesn't cure everything.

One of my daughters has many precursor symptoms of Lupus and her paternal aunt died of it at a very young age. She was on low carbs, but was still eating quite a bit of veggies. Her condition appeared to be worsening. I was concerned, we talked, and she went zero carbs for several months. She had modest improvement. She was tested for every known auto-immune disease and even in the middle of this zero carb period, the markers for Lupus and Rheumatoid arthritis gave returns, though the doctor said they were still under the line and no reason to be concerned. She also had a bladder infection that was treated. This is a person in her early 20s, so having these markers show up as they did, even after her diet has been corrected drastically for several years now, is worrisome. Of course, the doctor didn't know that, he just said "oh, it's not high enough to be significant though yes, there is a return."

So, it's clear that really low carbs doesn't solve everything, though it could be that it is just a matter of waiting it out, letting the body heal itself. We didn't get this way overnight, so it probably won't fix itself in only 6 months or even a couple of years. It could also be that some things can only be controlled, not necessarily fixed permanently. I've been on this diet, mostly, for almost 4 years now. I think my improvements continue and I would never, ever go back, but I also realize that I'm not going to have a miracle cure overnight nor is low-carb/zero-carb/paleo eating the cure-all. Some of us, like me, are just too damaged and it may actually be too late to get the top benefits.

We continue with low carbs but I know that if I feel a bit wonky, I can have a bit of green beans, a half a beet or sweet potato, or a small salad and I'll be fine.

 

[mcb]

What I have noticed is this: when I do zero carbs, I can hardly function at all. My legs feel like jello and no matter how many minerals or supplements I take, I am so exhausted I can barely move. I get dizzy and vertigo. And I did it for months with no change. But, up the carbs just a bit and I'm fine...

One possibility that has been raised is that zero carbs could starve the "good" gut flora. These flora can vary a lot from one person to another, so perhaps that is why individual results are so different. Clearly, whole populations have done well on zero carbs. But then, as pointed out in (I think) Deep Nutrition, they didn't necessarily share their secrets (or their epigenomes) with others.

 

[LQB]

I have been on a very low carb, high fat diet now for a year and two months and I've never felt better in my life - no comparison. I've lost 42 pounds in that time and gained muscle mass. I don't have rashes, I don't have pain, I don't have headaches. I do occasionally have leg cramps when I'm not vigilant about keeping up with my magnesium and potassium - but that's it. By very low carb, I mean around 20 a day or less.

Any time I have experimented with adding more vegetables, I pay for it with increased carb cravings and a lot of intestinal gas. I eat zero sugar, gluten, dairy or grains, so - for my body at least - this has been a life saver and I see no reason to change anything. If something develops that is a problem, then I'll adjust.

That pretty much sums up my experience as well except for a little more time in transition.

 

[dugdeep]

Another trap is thinking that we in this forum are now on to "the optimal diet" and that any other approach is sub-optimal. That is an ego thing. There is only individual "optimal," and optimal for an individual may very well be a significant nutritional compromise compared to any ideal, due to existing health issues.

I think that's a bit of a leap on your part, or perhaps a projection? It has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum that everyone is different and what matters is what works best for each individual body. It has nothing to do with 'the optimal diet', nor does it have to do with ego. What it has to do with is real world results following informed experimentation.

Well, Doug did sorta give that impression.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. It seemed to me that this forum had been pretty hard-line about getting ourselves into ketosis and this recent direction the thread has taken seems to be taking a softer stance on that. I thought this was a change, but maybe it's not. Perhaps it's just reflective of my own hard stance and how I've been reading into things. Feedback appreciated on that point, actually, because now I don't know what to think

 

[anart]

Another trap is thinking that we in this forum are now on to "the optimal diet" and that any other approach is sub-optimal. That is an ego thing. There is only individual "optimal," and optimal for an individual may very well be a significant nutritional compromise compared to any ideal, due to existing health issues.

I think that's a bit of a leap on your part, or perhaps a projection? It has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum that everyone is different and what matters is what works best for each individual body. It has nothing to do with 'the optimal diet', nor does it have to do with ego. What it has to do with is real world results following informed experimentation.

Well, Doug did sorta give that impression.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. It seemed to me that this forum had been pretty hard-line about getting ourselves into ketosis and this recent direction the thread has taken seems to be taking a softer stance on that. I thought this was a change, but maybe it's not. Perhaps it's just reflective of my own hard stance and how I've been reading into things. Feedback appreciated on that point, actually, because now I don't know what to think

Doug I think it's merely that you have a tendency toward rigid thinking. You've demonstrated that in this and other diet threads quite a few times. When you do this, you usually balk at something that has been said, due to your own 'hard stance' and then, after input from others, you come around to a different understanding, which is good because you usually do come around to a different understanding.

I don't think that anything is being said here that hasn't already been said - each human being is unique. For most (if not all) human beings, sugar, dairy, gluten and grains are very very bad. Ketosis is beneficial for most (if not all) people, but if problems present themselves with ketosis then, obviously, the person should make adjustments according to their body. I'm not sure if that clarifies anything for you, but it's really just being adaptive and paying attention to the body and doing what is best in each case. I would posit that very few people do better in the long run on a glucose metabolism, but that doesn't mean it never occurs. fwiw.

 

[dugdeep]

Another trap is thinking that we in this forum are now on to "the optimal diet" and that any other approach is sub-optimal. That is an ego thing. There is only individual "optimal," and optimal for an individual may very well be a significant nutritional compromise compared to any ideal, due to existing health issues.

I think that's a bit of a leap on your part, or perhaps a projection? It has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum that everyone is different and what matters is what works best for each individual body. It has nothing to do with 'the optimal diet', nor does it have to do with ego. What it has to do with is real world results following informed experimentation.

Well, Doug did sorta give that impression.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. It seemed to me that this forum had been pretty hard-line about getting ourselves into ketosis and this recent direction the thread has taken seems to be taking a softer stance on that. I thought this was a change, but maybe it's not. Perhaps it's just reflective of my own hard stance and how I've been reading into things. Feedback appreciated on that point, actually, because now I don't know what to think

Doug I think it's merely that you have a tendency toward rigid thinking. You've demonstrated that in this and other diet threads quite a few times. When you do this, you usually balk at something that has been said, due to your own 'hard stance' and then, after input from others, you come around to a different understanding, which is good because you usually do come around to a different understanding.

I don't think that anything is being said here that hasn't already been said - each human being is unique. For most (if not all) human beings, sugar, dairy, gluten and grains are very very bad. Ketosis is beneficial for most (if not all) people, but if problems present themselves with ketosis then, obviously, the person should make adjustments according to their body. I'm not sure if that clarifies anything for you, but it's really just being adaptive and paying attention to the body and doing what is best in each case. I would posit that very few people do better in the long run on a glucose metabolism, but that doesn't mean it never occurs. fwiw.

OK, thanks for that, anart. It certainly does clarify things for me. It's what I already knew, is obvious in retrospect, but somehow I was still managing to put things into black and white terms (ketosis good, carbs bad). Obviously this rigid thinking is something I need to look at. Quite frankly, it reminds me of my dad (not exactly an open-minded fellow). It would be nice to be more flexible in thinking instead of needing hit up against conflicts to really see where I'm being rigid. It's a direction for work, so thank you for the gift :)