"Life Without Bread"

Laura said:
But you can't just stop eating carbs or even cut down drastically all of a sudden unless you are pretty young and resilient. You have to approach this cautiously because, for many of us, we have been operating on a carb energy system for years and years and years and the fat energy system with all its varied connections is not brought online so easily.

Most people, after years of suppressing their liver function with low-fat and no-fat diets, have very sluggish livers, so the liver is going to need help to purge itself and get accustomed to doing its job again.

The same is true of the intestines, especially the colon, that has been accustomed to being swelled up and packed with irritating fiber and normal evacuation signals have been suppressed or can no longer be recognized or, in some cases, even perceived.

So, pay attention to what you are doing, go easy on yourself, and network about any problems.
Thank you. I am making a list of the supplements I take and will gradually reduce some of them. I agree that those that support liver function, Vitamin D, Omega-3 fatty acids may need to be continued as well as the digestive enzymes and probiotics for the time being.

I have been on a mostly low-carb diet for awhile now due to the elimination of gluten. But have not really counted them. This past week or so I have made a conscious effort to reduce them, but I have been extremely tired. I was also taking another course of herbs for chelation - so after about five days of that, I stopped as I could not stop sleeping! Feeling much better now.

He also mentioned in the comments at the end of the book that older people need to go slow on this - I just got to that part last night. When I thought about it, I remembered that until a year or two ago, I really did eat a lot of carbohydrates and since I am 60 - that is a long time and it will take a considerable time to reverse this.

My cravings for sugar have decreased with the higher fat intake, however I still crave a bit of chocolate in the late afternoon. I am making those chocolate balls with coconut oil/dark chocolate and xylitol, hoping to minimize the evil. Is this really bad or can we still have a chocolate treat as long as we keep to the recommended carb levels?
 
aleana said:
...
My cravings for sugar have decreased with the higher fat intake, however I still crave a bit of chocolate in the late afternoon. I am making those chocolate balls with coconut oil/dark chocolate and xylitol, hoping to minimize the evil. Is this really bad or can we still have a chocolate treat as long as we keep to the recommended carb levels?

You may like to consider using carob rather than chocolate - it's kinder on your adrenals, and the taste is not that much different. :)
 
aleana said:
Laura said:
But you can't just stop eating carbs or even cut down drastically all of a sudden unless you are pretty young and resilient. You have to approach this cautiously because, for many of us, we have been operating on a carb energy system for years and years and years and the fat energy system with all its varied connections is not brought online so easily.

Most people, after years of suppressing their liver function with low-fat and no-fat diets, have very sluggish livers, so the liver is going to need help to purge itself and get accustomed to doing its job again.

The same is true of the intestines, especially the colon, that has been accustomed to being swelled up and packed with irritating fiber and normal evacuation signals have been suppressed or can no longer be recognized or, in some cases, even perceived.

So, pay attention to what you are doing, go easy on yourself, and network about any problems.
Thank you. I am making a list of the supplements I take and will gradually reduce some of them. I agree that those that support liver function, Vitamin D, Omega-3 fatty acids may need to be continued as well as the digestive enzymes and probiotics for the time being.

I have been on a mostly low-carb diet for awhile now due to the elimination of gluten. But have not really counted them. This past week or so I have made a conscious effort to reduce them, but I have been extremely tired. I was also taking another course of herbs for chelation - so after about five days of that, I stopped as I could not stop sleeping! Feeling much better now.

He also mentioned in the comments at the end of the book that older people need to go slow on this - I just got to that part last night. When I thought about it, I remembered that until a year or two ago, I really did eat a lot of carbohydrates and since I am 60 - that is a long time and it will take a considerable time to reverse this.

My cravings for sugar have decreased with the higher fat intake, however I still crave a bit of chocolate in the late afternoon. I am making those chocolate balls with coconut oil/dark chocolate and xylitol, hoping to minimize the evil. Is this really bad or can we still have a chocolate treat as long as we keep to the recommended carb levels?

Thank you for this helpful thread.
Aleana, I am just about your age and I am going through an identical process as you, except I have not done a chelation program for heavy metals and I am not sure what that is exactly. Are you saying that this is what was draining you or making you feel very tired?
It has not been difficult to cut down the carbs in the process of increasing the meat/fats, but my hubby sure is having problems because he ate a lot of carbs as an athelete and on into his middle age years as a habit and with a high metabolism.
Like you, I usually want a bit of chocolate in the mid afternoon. I think dark chocolate (like organic raw cacao powder) mixed with Xylitol, ghee and made into buckwheat cookies or put with coconut oil is working for me. Sometimes I cheat with a few squares of a reasonably healthy chocolate bar, and I notice I gain weight as opposed to Xylitol w/chocolate. I do not like carob at all.

My question is, what is the best protocol for chelation for heavy metals that one can do these days along with eating more meat/fat and less carbs? I am very drained and exhausted these days due to the stress of moving, so I realize I should wait to do this until I am more settled.
 
Ix-nay on the carob stuff for me, too. I don't want it as often, but when I do, I have chocolate with xylitol.
 
SolarMother said:
Aleana, I am just about your age and I am going through an identical process as you, except I have not done a chelation program for heavy metals and I am not sure what that is exactly. Are you saying that this is what was draining you or making you feel very tired?
[...]

My question is, what is the best protocol for chelation for heavy metals that one can do these days along with eating more meat/fat and less carbs? I am very drained and exhausted these days due to the stress of moving, so I realize I should wait to do this until I am more settled.

There is a lot of helpful information on chelation here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=16812.0

I purchased a chelation combination formula called "ChelaClear" by NuMedica which contains DMSA, EDTA, Cilantro, Chlorella, garlic extract, NAC and ALA. I also have a FIR blanket and make pesto out of cilantro and eat it as often as I can. I am doing this on my own slowly and probably need to have some tests done at some point because I do not know where my levels stand.

Actually, I am not sure if that was what was making me so horribly tired but many people mentioned that chelation is hard on the body, so it was my first suspect. Probably should not have decided to do another course of that while still in the initial phases of reducing carbs, but was in the mood to conquer!! Oh well.. :huh:

And of course the adrenal fatigue is an ongoing problem..I am really hoping that the increase of meat/fat will help that too...that battle just gets really old.

I am glad to know that a bit of chocolate is OK...I am not really fond of carob! And I have perfected making the chocolate balls so can do them really quickly and therefore am not tempted by bad Hershey's!
 
More:

Your Brain On Ketones: How a High-fat Diet Can Help the Brain Work Better

The modern prescription of high carbohydrate, low fat diets and eating snacks between meals has coincided with an increase in obesity, diabetes, and and increase in the incidence of many mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, and eating disorders. In addition, many of these disorders are striking the population at younger ages. While most people would agree that diet has a lot to do with the development of obesity and diabetes, many would disagree that what we eat has much to do with our mental health and outlook. I believe that what we eat has a lot to do with the health of our brains, though of course mental illness (like physical illness) has multifactorial causes, and by no means should we diminish the importance of addressing all the causes in each individual. But let's examine the opposite of the modern high carbohydrate, low fat, constant snacking lifestyle and how that might affect the brain.

The opposite of a low fat, snacking lifestyle would be the lifestyle our ancestors lived for tens of thousands of generations, the lifestyle for which our brains are primarily evolved. It seems reasonable that we would have had extended periods without food, either because there was none available, or we were busy doing something else. Then we would follow that period with a filling meal of gathered plant and animal products, preferentially selecting the fat. During the day we might have eaten a piece of fruit, or greens, or a grub we dug up, but anything filling or high in calories (such as a starchy tuber) would have to be killed, butchered, and/or carefully prepared before eating. Fortunately, we have a terrific system of fuel for periods of fasting or low carbohydrate eating - our body (and brain) can readily shift from burning glucose to burning what are called ketone bodies.

It is true that some parts of some brain cells can only burn glucose, but fortunately our bodies can turn protein into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. This fact means that while there are essential requirements for both fat or protein (meaning we would die without eating at least some fat and at least some protein), we can live quite happily while consuming no carbohydrate at all. That's not saying there aren't some disadvantages or side effects to a so-called "zero carb" diet, but it won't cause the massive health problems and death that consuming zero fat or zero protein would.

All of us who are metabolically healthy will shift into some amount of ketosis, typically overnight while we are sleeping. If your breath is a little funky when you wake up, and your urine smells a bit strong, you may well be in ketosis, which, unless you are a poorly controlled diabetic (a different kind of pathologic ketosis occurs in uncontrolled diabetes), being in ketosis in the morning is a good sign of a healthy metabolism. What does ketosis mean to the brain, and why would it be more healthy, perhaps, than our regular old carbohydrate burning metabolism? And does the high carbohydrate, low fat diet of constant snacking have a cost to our brains by robbing us of more regular and deeper bouts of ketosis?

Ketogenic diets, which are very high in fat and low in carbohydrate and protein, have been prescribed for seizures for a long time. The actual research diets used in the past were pretty dismal and seemed to involve drinking a lot of cream and eating a lot of mayonnaise (premade ketogenic formulas are nightmarish combination of omega 6 seed oils and corn solids). At Johns Hopkins, pediatric patients were admitted to the hospital for a 48 hour fast and then given eggnog (minus the rum and sugar, I'm guessing) until ketosis was achieved (usually took about 4 days). In addition, ketogenic diets were calorie restricted to just 75-90% of what would be considered a child's usual calorie intake, and often they were fluid-restricted too (1)! If we're talking soybean oil mayonnaise, you could see how someone could get into trouble with mineral deficiencies and liver problems pretty quickly.

To understand "dismal," some of the latest research showed that a "modified Atkins protocol" was just as good as the classic ketogenic diet, and so much more liberating, as the patients were allowed up to 10 grams of carbohydrates daily, and they didn't begin with the fast, and they weren't calorie restricted (2)(3). While the classic ketogenic diet was 4:1:1 fat to carbs to protein. If you use medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oil for 50% of your calories (have to add it in slowly though to prevent vomiting, diarrhea, and cramping!), you could increase the carbohydrates and proteins to a 1.2:1:1 fat:carb:protein and still get the same numbers of magical ketones circulating. And while "MCT oil" sounds nice and yummy when it is gorgeous coconut milk, this MCT Oil 100% Pure 32 fl.oz doesn't look quite as appetizing, especially when that is going the be half of what you eat for the foreseeable future (4). You can see why researchers consider ketogenic diets (especially the original versions) to be extremely difficult and unappetizing (they were), whereas seasoned low-carbers (who have a bit of a different idea what a ketogenic diet is) will find that attitude ridiculous, especially when you compare a ketogenic diet to the side effects of some anti-epileptic medications.

So it looks like modified Atkins (very very low carb, but not zero carb) and a preponderance of MCT is the same, ketone-wise, for the brain as the classic ketogenic diet. And what does it mean to have a ketogenic brain? Let's examine neurotransmitters and brain energy more closely. Specifically, glutamate and GABA (5).

GABA is the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the mammalian nervous system. Turns out, GABA is made from glutamate, which just happens to be the major excitatory neurotransmitter. You need them both, but we seem to get into trouble when have too much glutamate. Too much excitement in the brain means neurotoxicity, the extreme manifestation of which is seizures. But neurological diseases as varied as depression, bipolar disorder, migraines, ALS, and dementia have all been linked in some way to neurotoxicity.

Glutamate has several fates, rather like our old buddy tryptophan. It can become GABA (inhibitory), or aspartate (excitatory and, in excess, neurotoxic). Ketogenic diets seem to favor glutamate becoming GABA rather than aspartate. No one knows exactly why, but part of the reason has to do with how ketones are metabolized, and how ketosis favors using acetate (acetoacetate is one of the ketone bodies, after all) for fuel. Acetate becomes glutamine, an essential precursor for GABA.

What can be confusing is that there are a variety of theoretic advantages in the brain to a ketogenic diet, and we're not sure which ones are more important. A classic ketogenic diet had three major components which were thought to contribute to the anti-seizure effect. One, it was calorie restricted. Just calorie restricting epileptic monkeys (no matter what the macronutrient ratios) reduces seizure frequency (and increases longevity). Secondly, it was acidic, and the extra protons themselves could block proton-sensitive ion channels, or the ketone bodies or fats themselves could affect the neuron membranes, making them harder to excite. (For the biochem geeks out there, ketones or fats seem to affect ATP sensitive K+ ion channels, making hyperpolarization easier to maintain). Thirdly, it lowered glucose levels. And lower glucose is associated with a higher seizure threshold (that's good - one doesn't want to easily have a seizure!) and less neuronal excitability. Gads. Doesn't sound to me like glucose really is the preferred fuel for the brain after all.

And now let's really get down to the mitochondrial level. Mitochondria are the power plants of our cells, where all the energy is produced (as ATP). Now, when I was taught about biochemical fuel-burning, I was taught that glucose was "clean" and ketones were "smokey." That glucose was clearly the preferred fuel for our muscles for exercise and definitely the key fuel for the brain. Except here's the dirty little secret about glucose - when you look at the amount of garbage leftover in the mitochondria, it is actually less efficient to make ATP from glucose than it is to make ATP from ketone bodies! A more efficient energy supply makes it easier to restore membranes in the brain to their normal states after a depolarizing electrical energy spike occurs, and means that energy is produced with fewer destructive free radicals leftover.

What does it all mean? Well, in the brain, energy is everything. The brain needs a great deal of energy to keep all those membrane potentials maintained - to keep pushing sodium out of the cells and pulling potassium into the cells. In fact, the brain, which is only 2% of our body weight, uses 20% of our oxygen and 10% of our glucose stores just to keep running. (Some cells in our brain are actually too small (or have tendrils that are too small) to accommodate mitochondria (the power plants). In those places, we must use glucose itself (via glycolysis) to create ATP.) When we change the main fuel of the brain from glucose to ketones, we change amino acid handling. And that means we change the ratios of glutamate and GABA. The best responders to a ketogenic diet for epilepsy end up with the highest amount of GABA in the central nervous system.

One of the things the brain has to keep a tight rein on is the amount of glutamate hanging out in the synapse. Lots of glutamate in the synapse means brain injury, or seizures, or low level ongoing damaging excitotoxicity as you might see in depression. The brain is humming along, using energy like a madman. Even a little bit more efficient use of the energy makes it easier for the brain to pull the glutamate back into the cells. And that, my friends, is a good thing.

Let me put it this way. Breast milk is very high in fat. Newborns spend time in ketosis, and are therefore to some extent ketoadapted. Breast milk is also high in sugar, but babies' brains are so big they can handle a lot more sugar than us full-grown folks. Being ketoadapted means that babies can more easily turn ketone bodies into acetyl-coA and into myelin. Ketosis helps babies construct and grow their brains. (For those interested in nitty gritty details - babies are in mild ketosis, but very young babies seem to utilize lactate as a fuel in lieu of glucose also - and the utilization of lactate also promotes the same use of acetyl-CoA and gives the neonates some of the advantages of ketoadaptation without being in heavy ketosis.)

We know (more or less) what all this means for epilepsy (and babies!). We don't precisely know what it means for everyone else, at least brain-wise. Ketosis occurs with carbohydrate and protein restriction, MCT oil use, or fasting. Some people believe that being ketoadapted is the ideal - others will suggest that we can be more relaxed, and eat a mostly low sugar diet with a bit of intermittent fasting thrown in to give us periods of ketosis. (A caveat - I don't recommend intermittent fasting for anyone with an eating disorder without some extra support and consideration). Ketosis for the body means fat-burning (hip hip hooray!). For the brain, it means a lower seizure risk and a better environment for neuronal recovery and repair.
 
Low Cholesterol and Suicide: Your Brain Needs Cholesterol

Low serum cholesterol has been linked in numerous scientific papers to suicide, accidents, and violence (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)... there are a bunch more, but I'm a bit weary of linking! This is why I write a blog, and not a peer-reviewed journal. Anyway, no one knows to this day whether depression, violence, and suicidal risk have a metabolic byproduct of low cholesterol, or whether having low cholesterol will predispose you to suicide out of hand (here's a rather snarky editorial pointing out that fact (8)). Some trials of statins (with the resultant crackerjack drop in cholesterol) will show no effect on suicide (9). A statin skeptic's favorite study, the J-LIT trial, showed deaths by accidents/suicides increased threefold in the group with total cholesterol less than 160 (yes, the p was .09, but that means there is only a 91% chance that finding didn't happen by random happenstance (10)).

Now, why could serum cholesterol have anything to do with the brain and depression? Good question - and the first question to ask in any theory of the brain is do the peripheral levels of something have anything at all to do with the central nervous system amounts of the same thing - so do serum cholesterol levels match up to relative amounts of cholesterol in the brain? They do (11). And cholesterol is important in the brain. Synapses, where brain function goes live, have to have cholesterol to form. Brain signaling is all about membranes, and cell membranes are constructed from fat. Cholesterol and the omega 3 and 6 fatty acids are the most important molecules in the synapse. If your brain fat is significantly different from so-called "normal" fat (which I'll go back to the hunter gatherer paradigm and say an HG's brain is going to have the approximate fat constituents for which we are evolved), the signaling in your brain could be very different too (12). Scientific papers will call this "alterations of membrane fluidity." (13).

So we know that low serum cholesterol is associated with suicide, violence, and accidents. (Another wrench in the works - low serum cholesterol is also associated with low CSF serotonin - which is of course associated with increased violence and suicide! These association studies are enough to make anyone give up and go boar hunting.) But does dietary fat intake have anything to do with depression and suicide? (Remember, serum cholesterol is often a chancy thing to connect to diet, after all.) Well, of 3400 some-odd people in Finland, the omega-3 rich fish consumers (14) had significantly less depression than abstainers, but the finding was more robust among women (no one knows why). In this round-up of 408 suicide attempters and an equal number of controls, there was no difference in saturated fat intake between attempters and controls, but the attempters did report lower fiber and polyunsaturated fat intake.

And, finally, do statins cause depression? I've seen statins cause or exacerbate depression several times in my clinical practice, especially in women. (I've also seen them cause paranoid psychosis a couple of times - twice in women and once a long time ago in a man. The psychosis remitted with withdrawal of the statin). Very striking! But anecdotes aren't clinical trials. This brand new study shows no link, and statins actually seemed to decrease depression in elderly women. This study also shows no link. This study shows that chronic cholesterol depletion via statin use decreases the functioning of the serotonin 1A receptors in humans, by decreasing the ability of the receptor to bind to its friendly neighborhood G proteins and other binding proteins. (The serotonin 1A receptor is more highly associated with anxiety-type symptoms than depression).

Clear as mud! But stepping back to whole health, I never like the idea of "the lower the better, no matter what," which seems to be the prevailing winds of cholesterol treatment right now. Usually, chemicals in the body are important for something, or else they wouldn't be there, and typically, a U-shaped curve emerges, where too little or too much (cholesterol, vitamin D, omega 3s, immunoglobulins, you name it!) is bad for human health. Here's an example of the U-shaped curve from the J-Lit trial (via Hyperlipid), showing increased cardiac death at low and high serum cholesterol levels.

Statins may have their role, but please don't put them in the water. In my opinion, adopt a whole foods, paleo-style diet. Keep yourself in the middle of that U-shaped curve for what our human systems were evolved for. It may help your mood, too, especially if you are a woman who eats fish!"

Continuation of Low Cholesterol and Suicide, part 2.

In my last post on the link between low cholesterol and suicide, I made note of some general trends between low cholesterol, suicide (particularly violent suicide), accidents, and violence, and raised some questions about the safety of cholesterol-lowering drugs. I didn't find any researched link between statin therapy and suicide, though one study showed that a statin reduced the ability of a certain serotonin receptor to do its job (linked below). My takeaway point from the post was that, hey, cholesterol is important and needed in the brain. Obliterating the ability of our liver to make cholesterol may have some untoward mental health side effects.

Since then, I've kept an eye out for more information, and a few interesting snippets have come up. Current Psychiatry has a decent article this month, "Cholesterol, mood, and vascular health. Untangling the relationship."

Some interesting facts from the article:

1. 1/4 of the body's free cholesterol is found in the central nervous system.

2. Depleting cholesterol impairs the function of the serotonin 1A receptor and the serotonin 7 receptor, and reduces the ability of the membrane serotonin transporter to do its thing. (Serotonin is made within nerve cells and needs to be transported outside into the synapse between the nerve cells to work. If the transporter isn't functioning, we have a Big Problem).

3. Cholesterol is also needed for forming a nerve synapse (also Important) and making myelin.

4. Cholesterol may be involved in GABA and NMDA receptor signaling, opioid signaling, and the transport of excitatory amino acids.

Just to be crystal clear - low serotonin is associated with violent suicide, impulsive acts, hostility, and aggression. We need plenty of cholesterol in the brain to have all our serotonin machinery work properly. Low cholesterol is also associated with suicide and violence. If you have low cholesterol, of course it does not mean you will be suicidal. Suicide is, fortunately, rare, and will have multiple predisposing causes.

So the paragraph above, with its caveat, brings up an interesting and actionable hypothetical question - does lowering cholesterol with medication predispose you to suicide or violence? The first cholesterol-lowering drugs were not statins. And an early analysis of the primary prevention trials of the non-statins showed a doubling of the risk of violent death or suicide. Oops. (I also linked the J-LIT trial in my previous post, which showed a 3-fold increase in suicide or accidents with statin therapy, though the increase was not statistically significant).

A later case-controlled study showed that statin users had a lower risk of depression than patients on non-statin lipid-lowering drugs. The LIPID study followed 1130 patients on pravastatin for 4 years, and found no changes in (self-reported) anger, impulsivity, anxiety, or depression. Pravastatin doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier very well. Simvastatin, a very commonly used statin, crosses it quite readily - but why this would be important may be interesting. HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors (statins) do most of their work in the liver, after all. But it turns out we have HMG Co-A reductase all sorts of places. These researchers found it in Chinese hamster ovary cells. And in these cells, administration of a statin reduced the ability of the serotonin IA receptor to work. Getting rid of the statin restored the serotonin IA receptor function.

But there's another complication in examining the literature for statin side effects. Some studies excluded patients with psychiatric problems (1). And due to the ability of statins to cause birth defects, many trials have excluded any women of childbearing age. Just something to keep in mind.

We are left with... well, a clinical trial is apparently underway to study the effects if pravastatin, simvastatin, or placebo on mood, sleep and aggression. We still don't know if low cholesterol causes suicide and aggression, or if it is a biomarker of depression. I'm convinced high cholesterol is just a biomarker for heart disease, after all, rather than a cause. Thus the whole question of why treat high cholesterol at all (though the magical anti-inflammatory statin effect may help younger men. With known heart disease.)

My brain needs cholesterol! So does yours.
 
Ok,now I understand much better why I had suicidal tendencies while I was a true believer vegetarian 20years ago!Very bad times :(
Thanks Laura :)
 
Don Diego said:
Ok,now I understand much better why I had suicidal tendencies while I was a true believer vegetarian 20years ago!Very bad times :(
Thanks Laura :)


People - and the medical profession - seriously underestimate physiology in respect of mental states. They also don't understand the relationship between physiological states and nutrition... Well, some of them do and it is becoming more common to ask these questions, but for right now, people are mostly on their own trying to find their way out of the maze of corrupt science.
 
WOW... what an interesting thread ... I am currently reading the book, which I must say is a real eyeopener.

I'd like to try to recap what I have gleaned from this thread and add a few thoughts and questions of my own.

One of the most important ideas here is that we have a genetically imprinted range of weight, beyond which our body tries very hard to get back to that target range. The range can be quite large in some, so there is a bit of leeway for up and down movements.

Still the fact remains, that the population at large has become fatter over the last 50 years or more. The question is why, bearing in mind, that we have a genetic disposition to a certain weight range. The answer probably lies in what we eat. Carbohydrates certainly stimulate insulin and this pushes all unused calories into fat cells. But that's only part of the equation. The other part is fat: It seems, we have changed the type of fat that we now eat. Not only are we gorging on carbs, but we have supplemented animal fats for vegetable fats. And on top of that it doesn't seem to matter much how much calories we eat in the end ...

But I still wonder, whether there are not more factors still involved in why people have become fatter, maybe a general lack in certain nutritious components, that the body requests and pushes the "user" to eat until these particular components have been delivered - or other reasons? Toxicity certainly plays its part as well - the fat being the storage place of many toxic substances (mercury etc), so that the body is trying hard not to use the fat, which would also mean that the toxic substances are circulated in the body once again. But this again means that after detoxing you should be able to get rid of these extra pounds.

It seems to me, that the whole physiology of energy production and maintenance of body functions is very much not well understood. Mainstream science for the most part has got it totally wrong. But even the scientist with an open mind looking for clues away from mainstream science seem to really lack the answer: Why are we getting fatter as a whole?

I sometimes wonder if there is not a "cosmic" connection. This might sound a bit strange, but if we postulate, that weight is pretty much predetermined at birth, this begs the question, whether there is not an "intention" behind. Or to put it differently: Do the cosmic changes we are witnessing lead to changes in the body as well, with the effect that a lot of people are putting on weight? Do psychopaths put on weight as well? I am not really able to express my feeling very adequately here, but maybe being fat has some quality, or some benefit (or disadvantage), or is some "sign" for something, that we here on 3D cannot appreciate? I wonder whether we shouldn't expand our search into this direction as well. Maybe the C's have a take on that?

While I feel that most people probably can loose some weight, I know from my own lifelong experience, that whenever I change my eating habits significantly (and like most of you I have done that a number of times in the last few years), I loose weight, maybe 3 to 4 kg, but put them on again over time, despite not relenting in my effort and despite continuing exactly like at the beginning. Looking back over the last 35 years, I have had the same weight give or take 5 - 7 kg. So despite eating carbs and gluten and bad fats up to the eyeballs, or cutting down to get into ketosis (with all the healthy stuff thrown in for good measure), my weight hasn't changed on a major scale.

Maybe I am way off here, so any comment in that regard is most appreciated.
 
Laura said:
Don Diego said:
Ok,now I understand much better why I had suicidal tendencies while I was a true believer vegetarian 20years ago!Very bad times :(
Thanks Laura :)


People - and the medical profession - seriously underestimate physiology in respect of mental states. They also don't understand the relationship between physiological states and nutrition... Well, some of them do and it is becoming more common to ask these questions, but for right now, people are mostly on their own trying to find their way out of the maze of corrupt science.
Grrr...F......Corrupt science makes me feel again very angry as they've destroyed my mother with Prozac pills and more :mad:
Sorry for the noise...needed to post it
 
Don Diego said:
Grrr...F......Corrupt science makes me feel again very angry as they've destroyed my mother with Prozac pills and more :mad:
Sorry for the noise...needed to post it
The enormity of what has been done is difficult to even begin to take in. But those meds are another book, Anatomy of an Epidemic, and another topic.

Who do you imagine that "they" are?
 
Who do you imagine that "they" are?
I don't imagine anything!They are mainstream doctors,self-proclaimed healers instead of dealers officially ordained by consortium and I'm sure you already know that,so what the use to ask? :huh:
 
nicklebleu said:
I sometimes wonder if there is not a "cosmic" connection. This might sound a bit strange, but if we postulate, that weight is pretty much predetermined at birth, this begs the question, whether there is not an "intention" behind. Or to put it differently: Do the cosmic changes we are witnessing lead to changes in the body as well, with the effect that a lot of people are putting on weight? Do psychopaths put on weight as well? I am not really able to express my feeling very adequately here, but maybe being fat has some quality, or some benefit (or disadvantage), or is some "sign" for something, that we here on 3D cannot appreciate? I wonder whether we shouldn't expand our search into this direction as well. Maybe the C's have a take on that?

While I feel that most people probably can loose some weight, I know from my own lifelong experience, that whenever I change my eating habits significantly (and like most of you I have done that a number of times in the last few years), I loose weight, maybe 3 to 4 kg, but put them on again over time, despite not relenting in my effort and despite continuing exactly like at the beginning. Looking back over the last 35 years, I have had the same weight give or take 5 - 7 kg. So despite eating carbs and gluten and bad fats up to the eyeballs, or cutting down to get into ketosis (with all the healthy stuff thrown in for good measure), my weight hasn't changed on a major scale.

Maybe I am way off here, so any comment in that regard is most appreciated.

I've been giving this a lot of thought myself.

The first thing that occurs to me is this: Few people that I know who have had success with low carb "diets" have gone into it as a lifestyle. It's a diet and then, carbs get reintroduced, and everything goes back where it was. That's kind of a take home message from "Rethinking Thin".

So, why do we not just think of it as a lifestyle for HEALTH and not just "taking off a few pounds" thing? Maybe that is the key?

Second, the Cosmic connection has also been on my mind. If, for example, people do not really lose weight and keep it off IF they go low-carb as a lifestyle instead of just a temporary eating pattern, why would that be?

Thinking about the example of the squirrels and other creatures that put on weight seasonally no matter what they eat, could it be that there are longer "seasons" in cosmic terms, and humanity going fat merely expresses this subliminal knowledge that an Ice Age or cataclysms are coming?

I do think about all the goddess images from Ice Age times and all of them were really fat women. The ones on Malta were outstanding for their rotundity - to be polite about it.

So why?

Are "heavier" souls incarnating now - like heavy with karma or something?

I dunno. I only know that I'm looking at this low carb thing now as a lifestyle instead of a diet. It sure simplifies things including cooking. We'll see what happens over the next year.
 
I do think about all the goddess images from Ice Age times and all of them were really fat women. The ones on Malta were outstanding for their rotundity - to be polite about it.

So why?

Are "heavier" souls incarnating now - like heavy with karma or something?
Laura,are you meaning that spiritual advancement is related to the shape of a body?If so,Jesus and Mary might have been fat?What about Kennedy,G,Cayce,Gandhi,Diana,(Perceval,Andromeda...)etc?A contrario Elvis,Sharon!!! :huh: very disturbing indeed!

Thin people as me have to worry...I would add I'm on very low carbs diet for almost two months(dunno if I reached Ketosis yet,I doubt)with very high fat intake,90% meat etc..Ok I feel very much better now and my skin issues are improving fastly but I haven't gained one gram! :(
 
Back
Top Bottom