"Life Without Bread"

[mcb]

Hi Foxx, i have checked the forum, is there any preference to red meat over white, or are they both ok?

I don't recall that a lot has been said here. If "white meat" means farmed foul and pork that are unnaturally light in color then yes, there might be a preference for red meat. Turkey has a reputation in some segments of the paleo community for being too high in omega-6's, but then like beef, what feed was the turkey raised on? See, for example, _http://paleohacks.com/questions/26947/so-how-un-paleo-is-turkey

The question seems to come down to what the animals have been fed, and how appropriate and nutrient-rich those food sources were, as well as were the animals bred for low fat and rapid growth (i.e. "healthy" higher profits) or are they "heritage" stock. But if you become too concerned about these things then, depending on where you live and what you can afford, you might starve.

Just the fact that food animals are farmed/ranched seems to imply a less than optimal nutrient balance. Those paleo guys with their loincloths and spears (as Nora likes to say) weren't eating farmed food. My personal solution is to do the best I can and not worry too much about what I can't address (at least until I can address it), and to try to stay in touch with all the available information and experience about what works best given the food choices we have today.

 

[Gimpy]

Hello folks, I'm going to go back a bit to niacin and post some information on it that might be useful for the diet, or answer a few questions on how to use it.

Please bear with me, I'm not able to cut/paste and my fingers are all thumbs. ;D (Hubby can fix this given time, but I'm feeling good enough to type.)


Source here: http://www.amazon.com/Niacin-Story-Wonderful-Healing-Properties/dp/1591202752/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340237887&sr=1-1&keywords=niacin+the+real+story+by+abram+hoffer

From nickelbleau: “I have tried to find out more on the relationship between nicotinic acid (niacin) and nicotine.”

"Niacin's original chemical name was nicotinic acid. The name was changed to niacin to remove confusion with nicotine. Niacin was also known early on as vitamin B3, since it was the third water-soluble vitamin to be identified. Normally this term would have been eliminated once its chemical structure had been determined, but it was brought back by Bill W., co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), who wanted a catchy name he could use to inform members of AA about its immense value for this treatment of alcohol addicts. There is a question whether it should have been classed with the vitamins because it can be made in the body from tryptophan and is used by the body in quantities more appropriate to amino acids. It has been suggested that it should be classed as an amino acid, but it is now too late to do anything about this.

Gutierrez outlines a study at the University of California at Irvine which showed that liver cells in vitro treated with niacin did not take up as much HDL, which could explain why it increased HDL in blood. This may be the first explanation of why niacin is so effective. But it also shows that niacin is not toxic to live cells. This should help quell the delusion held by so many doctors that niacin is liver toxic."

Next post: Forms of Niacin and How they Differ in Action.

 

[Gimpy]

(Excerpt from Niacin the Real Story.)

Forms of Niacin and How they Differ in Action.

Derivatives of niacin (nicotinic acid) have been examine for their ability to alter lipid levels as well as niacin does.

Niacin lowers cholesterol, elevates high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and reduces the ravages of heart disease, but causes flushing when it is first taken. The flushing reaction dissipates in time and in most cases is gone or very minor within a matter of weeks. Niacinimide, which is not a vasodilator, does not produce a flush, but is has no effect on blood fats (lipids). Inositol hexaniacinate will lower cholesterol without the flushing side effect, but does not do so as well as plain niacin.

Another major difference between niacin and Niacinimide is that niacin normalizes blood lipid values. It lowers 'bad' cholesterol, elevates 'good' cholesterol, lowers triglycerides, lowers lipoproteins (a) Lp(a) is considered a risk factor for heart disease, and lowers the anti-inflammatory factor C-reactive protein. It therefore is the best substance known for these important therapeutic effects. Niacinimide has none of these properties.

Niacinimide

The other common form of niacin is nicotinamide, known more commonly as niacinimide. Both niacin and niacinimide forms are precursors to the active anti-pellagra factor NAD (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide). A third form of vitamin B3, nicotinamide riboside, was discovered in 2004, and little is known about it. Your body uses NAD (with a hydrogen, it is NADH) in over 450 biochemical reactions , most of which are involved in anabolic and catabolic reactions. Most people tend to associate NAD with glycolysis (sugar breakdown) and ATP (energy production). However, NAD is involved with many other reactions as a cofactor, including either the synthesis (anabolism) or the breakdown (catabolism) of just about every molecule our cells make: steriods, prostaglandins, and enzymes. NAD is involved in cell signaling and assists in ongoing repair of your DNA. There are several important reactions where it functions as a substrate for the enzymes PARP, Sirtuin, and IDO.

If there is a flush from niacinimide, it is very unpleasant. (I've experienced it, and its terrible: severe dizziness, tingling limbs, nausea, and it stuck with me for four hours. The dose? Only 500 mg.--Gimpy)

Niacinimide is more likely to cause nausea at long-term, medium-high dosages than are the other forms of B3. By medium-high we mean several thousand mg per day. Niacin and inositol hexaniacinate generally do not cause nausea unless the dose is extremely high, on the order of tens of thousands of mg per day. No one would need to take that excessive amount of B3, and no one should. And just to be sure, nausea indicates overdose. On the other hand, niacinimide has been successfully used at maintained doses of several thousand mg per day by Dr. William Kaufman to treat arthritis (see chapter 7) He reported virtually zero side effects.

Inositol Hexaniacinate

For those few who cannot tolerate niacin, there is an option of using inositol hexaniacinate. This preparation has most of the therapeutic advantages of niacin and none of the side effects. It is available in health food stores as 'no flush niacin.' It costs perhaps three times as much as 'regular' niacin, but this is still much better than the cheapest statins.

Inositol hexaniacinate is an ester of inositol and nicotinic acid. It is sometimes called inositol hexannicontinate. The ester is broken down slowly in the body. It is about as effective as nicotinic acid. There is very little flushing, gastrointestinal distress, or other side effects. Inositol does have a function in the body as a messenger molecule and may add something to the therapeutic properties of nicotinic acid.

Remember that niacin (nicotinic acid) and nicotine have no physiological properties in common.

And with this, I'm done for the evening.

 

[LQB]

(Excerpt from Niacin the Real Story.)
.
.
.
And with this, I'm done for the evening.

Thanks for that Gimpy :) I'm up to about 2 grams twice a day with only a hint of flush.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

Hi all,

I just got back from the doctor for a general check up and she said all is OK, except for the level of cholesterol in the blood, which is 246 mg/dl, which is too high according to her. According to some research I did, this seems indeed the case. The average for my age in my country is 235 mg/dl, which is considered also too high. At least that is according to the accepted knowledge of mainstream medicine and the role cholesterol has been given in that scenario. I wonder though if it is really too high. Has anybody an indication?

I am about three months on the paleo diet. If the cholesterol is really too high, what can be done to lower it, staying on the diet? Thanks for the advice.

 

[Mikey]

I am about three months on the paleo diet. If the cholesterol is really too high, what can be done to lower it, staying on the diet? Thanks for the advice.

Search this topic for the term "cholesterol" to get more info, especially the following:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,22916.msg338750/topicseen.html#msg338750

Also:

http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.fr

"High cholesterol helps the elderly with high blood pressure to live a longer life"
"Saturated fat and dietary cholesterol lower the risk of orofacial clefts"
"Low cholesterol levels increase the risk of death from stroke, cancer and all-causes"
"Saturated fat and dietary cholesterol reduce the risk of allergic rhinitis"

 

[dugdeep]

Hi all,

I just got back from the doctor for a general check up and she said all is OK, except for the level of cholesterol in the blood, which is 246 mg/dl, which is too high according to her. According to some research I did, this seems indeed the case. The average for my age in my country is 235 mg/dl, which is considered also too high. At least that is according to the accepted knowledge of mainstream medicine and the role cholesterol has been given in that scenario. I wonder though if it is really too high. Has anybody an indication?

I am about three months on the paleo diet. If the cholesterol is really too high, what can be done to lower it, staying on the diet? Thanks for the advice.

Jeremy, have you lost much weight on the paleo diet? Weight loss will always cause blood lipid levels to go up, and they stay elevated for quite some time (possibly until weight normalizes).

But realistically, 246mg/dl is not all that high. A few decades ago, anything below 280 was considered normal. It's only in recent times that doctors (actually pharmaceutical agencies) have started to call for the new "normal" to be below 200, which is actually proving to be more dangerous than "high" cholesterol.

And remember, as has been stated repeatedly in this thread, total cholesterol doesn't mean a heck of a lot in isolation. If the rest of your blood lipid levels are normal (particularly triglycerides, but also HDL:LDL ratio and LDL type), you probably don't have anything to worry about.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

data,

thanks for the links - will look more into the topic.

dugdeep

thanks for the comment. I have lost around 5 kg´s since I am on the diet, so that could indeed play a part in it. I don´t know about the other levels you mentioned. I will ask my doctor for a print out so that I can check them and report on them. As said though, the ´high´cholesterol level was the only thing she mentioned as being out of the norm.

 

[Mikey]

thanks for the links - will look more into the topic.

For comparison, other forum members have shared their blood analysis in these posts:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,22916.msg343142.html#msg343142
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,22916.msg339958.html#msg339958

 

[mcb]

Hi all,

I just got back from the doctor for a general check up and she said all is OK, except for the level of cholesterol in the blood, which is 246 mg/dl, which is too high according to her. According to some research I did, this seems indeed the case. The average for my age in my country is 235 mg/dl, which is considered also too high. At least that is according to the accepted knowledge of mainstream medicine and the role cholesterol has been given in that scenario. I wonder though if it is really too high. Has anybody an indication?

I am about three months on the paleo diet. If the cholesterol is really too high, what can be done to lower it, staying on the diet? Thanks for the advice.

"Cholesterol" is not a well-defined, specific measure. As I recall, it doesn't even measure cholesterol -- it measures lipids that transport cholesterol. It might mean something or it might not. When your MD looks at the measure and mechanically writes a prescription for statins, it means nothing. A lot of MDs don't even seem to know what questions to ask to clarify. Like "are you on a low-carb diet to lose weight?"

But if you ignore it, there could be some other significance (probably something to do with inflammation) that you miss. Read up on it and make your own informed decision. Ideally, you should have a doctor or other trained/licensed practitioner to work with that actually knows what to look for. (Good luck with that! I am still trying myself.)

 

[mcb]

Another issue with cholesterol measurement: the level varies throughout the day. You can't draw good conclusions from a one-time measurement, even though that is exactly what doctors often do. Two readings taken a short time apart can show that you are healthy and that you "need medication." It's that flakey.

 

[mcb]

Here are a couple more links regarding high cholesterol:

(Freshly posted today) Why Did My Cholesterol Go Up After Going Primal
_http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-did-my-cholesterol-go-up-after-going-primal

I have high cholesterol, and I don’t care
_http://chriskresser.com/i-have-high-cholesterol-and-i-dont-care

 

[Gertrudes]

Jeremy, adding to what the others have said, a few of us have seen our cholesterol levels rising. I would really take note of what the others have mentioned regarding the true significance of cholesterol levels, particularly given the standard methods to measure it.

Also to bear in mind is that these levels, once you change your diet, are often transient. Dr. Lutz author of "Life without Bread" gave several examples throughout the book of how things will take even up to 2 years to normalize. Perhaps even more, I would say. Just to give you an example, on September last year my total cholesterol was at 417mg, yes, that high. In March this year it was at 324mg. In April it was at 313mg, and finally last time it was checked in the very beginning of this month it was at 296mg. I haven't been asking for the tests, but doctors have been so worried with my levels and even more so due to the fact that I refuse statins that they just want to keep checking it.

I have now been on the paleo diet for roughly 1 year and 4 months and, as you see, my cholesterol seems to have reached a pick, and is now steadily going down. I have done absolutely nothing different over the course of the past months, and have taken no supplements to "improve" my cholesterol. It seems that it is simply stabilizing, though I can only tell for sure in a few more months. Going on a paleo diet is a massive change after a lifetime of eating glucose, so I would expect for changes to continue occurring over a relatively long period of time.

The levels being pushed on us are now dangerously low. I posted a chart earlier on this thread by a researcher correlating mortality levels with cholesterol. Here's the quote with the link to the chart:

The Portuguese blogger Ricardo Carvalho created a database correlating serum cholesterol levels with disease and mortality levels. You can see in his graph that mortality levels rise sharply below 200, and begin to rise again above 240. His graph can be found here:
_http://perfecthealthdiet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/O-Primitivo-Cholesterol.jpg

As with everything, correlation is not causation, but it may still add to the data.

Another easy to see video on cholesterol can be found here: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/223262-I-have-high-cholesterol-and-I-don-t-care

And another interesting article: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/223978-The-most-important-thing-you-probably-don-t-know-about-cholesterol

EDIT: Just noticed that Megan has also added a link to the video I linked above, but through Chris Kresser's site.

 

[Gertrudes]

On a side note and after I have written the above, the first doctor (GP) that saw me wanted to send me to the hospital straight away after I refused statins. He then called me a month after and even yelled at me on the phone. As far as I'm aware I did nothing to provoke him apart from refusing statins. It really shows how invested they all are on this cholesterol business. It makes me think that right now they are very, very likely being constantly pushed by the medical system to give this top priority, whilst unbeknownst to them, pharmaceutical companies, not people's health, are behind it.

This month I managed to talk over the phone to a different doctor who has shown a different attitude from all the GPs I have so far found. He is also concerned about my cholesterol, but given that he sees the gradual change in numbers, is willing to wait and see what happens. I told him that I changed my diet and was in a way expecting to see changes on my cholesterol for a period of time. And because he was actually listening to me, I also explained to him very briefly why I didn't want statins, and what I find to be the problem with evaluating cholesterol and the conclusions normally reached. He was silent for a moment, and then said: Keep me updated then, and maybe even teach me about these things. He was being serious!
I was stunned. Of course I'm not going to "teach" him nor is that the point, but rather his willingness to actually listen to something completely different from what he had heard before!

 

[WIN 52]

Well, I have trimmed about 90 pounds of carbs off of my body in the past 3 years using a high protein diet. I still break down from time to time and eat a bit to many carbs at times.

When I do this, I am always glad to eat a rib steak with nothing else... and I do eat the fat also. People give me funny looks when they see me eat that fat and love it.

You know what? Other people tell me I am looking better every time they see me, which is about once a year or so. They want to know my secret, till I tell them, then they look puzzled. Then they want me to not lie to them, to which I laugh while eating more meat and fat.

From my experiences, this really does work well. I do agree that food products fed to the animals we eat does have a big effect on the quality of the animal protein consumed by me.