z31maniac

How does this compare to just say to the regular Psyllium Fiber Supplements I've been taking for years 20-25 minutes before meals?

I know fiber helps slow the absorption of foods in the stomach and thus slows the blood glucose spike, just curious if I should using this instead.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

One thing I have to ask: Do you have diabetes or some similar metabolic disorder?

I ask because you seem to be much more well-versed in matters such as blood chemistry than the average electrical engineer, and you also seem to be much more susceptible to extremes in dietary intake than I. I am by no means the sort of person who can eat as much as they want and always stay skinny (we all know people like that), however I've never really had any sort of metabolic / digestive disorders. I can eat damn near anything that exists without side effects, from handfuls of fresh jalapeno peppers to big, greasy sandwiches to huge slices of pecan pie with ice cream on top. I'm also quite tall, so I get to carry around a bit more fat than most without actually appearing overweight.



Thus far, I have done only one test pair, yesterday evening before and after dinner. While it's not a proper fasting test, my blood glucose at 7:30pm was 98 mg/dL (having eaten lunch at around 1pm), and one hour after dinner it was 104.

Dinner consisted of a large bowl of turkey meatballs smothered in greek yogurt and a low-carb Indian curry, plus a large bowl of green beans, and around 2oz of fresh mozerella with olive oil and some herbs over it. I also had a few handfulls of wasabi-coated almonds, and had gotten about one glass of rum into me by that point.

This is obviously not nearly enough data to be drawing conclusions from yet, however it satisfies me that I do not have a grossly abnormal insulin response, that an A1c test would not likely reveal any useful data, and that I probably don't need to be adding potato starch to my diet just yet.








So, this isn't the first time I've heard you mention the word "micronutrient," though I'm not sure that anyone has really bothered to analyze exactly what this actually means.

While I am not a nutritionist, what little research I have done on this subject over the past two days indicates that this is simply a fancy term for the various minerals, vitamins and acids that one tends to find printed on the back of a once-daily multivitamin supplement.

As I stated earlier, when I eliminated vegetables from my diet at the onset of the first test round, I added two supplements. One was psyllium husk fiber capsules (to firm up my leavings), and the other was Centrum-brand once daily multivitamin. Between these two things, I am really struggling to think of what magical micronutrient I am likely to be lacking.

None the less, I have gladly added green beans and brussels sprouts back into my regular dinner. I am concerned that this will tend to bias the experiment by displacing higher-calorie sides, but que sera...











See, now this is damned interesting, and upon a casual reading it seems to contradict much of what has been written so far.

I originally entered into this thread from a standpoint of "The only way to lose weight is by decreasing caloric intake," and was pretty much jumped on and called a troll for it. Now you're telling me that the principle mechanism of action for weight-loss under a low-carb/starch diet is that you don't feel hungry so you eat less and therefore consume fewer calories.

Can you see why I'm a bit perplexed by this?

JasonC SBB

My A1c had been creeping up over the years, almost to the pre-diabetic point. Way above "optimal". Looking back, I've had "reactionary hypoglycemia" as far back as I remember - if I have a very high-carb meal, I get hungry again very quickly and start getting crabby and shaky: "I need to eat, get out of my way or I'll eat your arm!". I have diabetes in the family so my A1c is something I'd been watching.

I think that people vary in how much starch/sugar intake they can tolerate and for how long. However I think that just about anyone, if they eat high-starch and keep it up for long enough, *will* at some point develop metabolic disorders.

It's only one datapoint (need trends), but... 98 is higher than optimal for a pre-meal (but not "famished") reading. Optimal is more like 70-85. The definition of "optimal" is that which correlates with longevity and lack of degenerative diseases.

104 is excellent, but note that that was a low-starch meal.

A better test is a "challenge", to see what the peak is with a bare 8-oz (dry weight), cooked potato or yam. Details here:
How to prevent diabetes and heart disease for $16
It's in lieu of the official lab "glucose challenge test", but the potato is more realistic. My peak used to hit 170 (quite poor), and after several weeks of the indigestible starch, went down to 130+ (which is terrific). Note that to catch the peak you need to measure 30 minutes after eating it, and measure every 10 minutes until the reading starts dropping.

Agreed. it's convenient for people who don't test blood sugar themselves.

It could be a separate experiment.

FWIW some people think that some of the vitamins and minerals in a multi pill aren't anywhere near as bio-available (absorbable) as when it comes from food. [/quote]

BTW some micro-nutrients are commonly deficient in the population:

- Vit D (sun and cod liver oil)
- Vit K2 (kefir, kimchi, and other fermented foods)
- Vit B12 (shellfish, liver and red bull lol)
- Magnesium (leafy greens grown in magnesium-rich soil)
- Iodine (kelp, seafood)
- Selenium (brazil nuts, egg yolks, wild salmon)
- Manganese (hazelnuts, almonds, mussels, oysters, clams)
- Choline (liver, egg yolks)

Notice how much of the list is covered if you eat liver, egg yolks, and seafood.
I don't bother with a multi, I just eat the above, plus "Concentrace", and use a magnesium "oil" spray.

Correct. But note that you lower your body's appetite / caloric demand by changing your metabolism, as opposed to counting and restricting calories, eating low-fat, and feeling hungry all the time. Simply saying "to lose weight you have to eat fewer calories than you burn" is a tautology, like saying "to win the race you just have to stay in front of the 2nd place guy". You need to discuss how to do that. With a fat-burning metabolism it's very easy to not overeat.

Yes. I guess I wasn't clear.

When transitioning from being a sugar-burner to a fat-burner, I suggest having big meals with lots of fat (and reduced starch) in order to not feel like they're missing something.. as they reduce the starch intake slowly. Once they start to not miss the starch intake, they can then stretch the time gap between meals (goal is 5-6 hours between meals, and 12 hours between dinner and breaky), and then work on not over-eating (eat just enough to feel satisfied, and to make it to the next meal). After I became a fat-burner, I noticed that I can actually miss normal mealtimes by 2 hours, without feeling famished.

JasonC SBB

P.S. That you can went 6 hours from lunch to dinner without feeling faint suggests that your body is capable of burning its fat for fuel.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

Joe, a couple points I will not-quote-but-respond to:

1. BMI is not an instrument heavy calculation, but it's pretty worthless. You just need your height, weight, and age. Presumably you can measure at least two of those with stuff you have at home. And this: Healthy Weight: Assessing Your Weight: BMI: Adult BMI Calculator: English | DNPAO | CDC

2. Micronutrients and reductionism. There have been studies done that look at the combination of micronutrients and other compounds (oils/fats, for example) that suggest that simply taking a vitamin by itself will not have the same benefit as eating a whole food that provides that same vitamin along with the rest of the foodstuffs included in the whole food. I don't have a single source, but the googles have a lot of info if you care to discover it.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

You're right- wrong terminology on my part. I meant to say body density, which is functionally interchangable with body fat percentage, in response to Jason's query "did that extra weight all go to fat?"

y8s

iTrader: (8)

BF% works. Measuring it is kind of like putting a turbo miata on a dyno. You'll probably get different results measuring it different ways, but if you have a single way to measure relative changes, you're doing ok.

like this:

JasonC SBB

If your morning fasting BG is >90, I'd go get a fasting insulin measurement. Prob the single best measurement of insulin resistance.

Have to measure every morning before breakfast and plot it in Excel to see trends and filter out fluctuations from dehydration et al.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Yes, I know. I was merely pointing out that I hadn't yet had the opportunity to do a proper fasting test, but was planning so to do.

Oscar

iTrader: (2)

I've been on a keto diet for about a month and half. I've almost lost 20lbs (212ish to 192 this morning, I'm 5'9") since, with mild exercizing added (mostly riding my MTB, 30-40 miles a week). I've cut out sodas since july last year and switched to water only. This resulted in a loss of ~4lbs alone.

I've always been able to go for hours between meals. I'd regularly had my first meal of the day at 1-2pm when I had my office job. I didn't feel any better or worse before/after. There were days were I would only have dinner and still be ok. I could eat but didn't have to. Would this suggest I've been a fatburner all along?

I've cut carbs cold turkey. My go-to snacks were usually either a bowl of cereal or a sandwhich. I haven't had either in a month or so. I miss them but wouldn't kill for them (yet). I did not experience 'keto-flu' or brain fogginess in the transition period. The biggest adjustment would be the fatty breakfasts. (I hate eating in the early morning).

Am I the exception to the rule or am I missing something?

The only thing is that keto threw my off my pooping schedule. It takes longer and it's not even daily anymore. This suggests I would need more fibres? Where do I get 'clean' fibres without adding carbs?

JasonC SBB

Try sugar-free psyllium fiber to improve regularity. Metamucil is one such. Start with tiny amounts and work your way up. If you don't like the aspartame in sugar-free Metamucil, (aspartame gives me migraines, and lots of people think it's toxic), there are lesser-known brands that have no sweetener (or use Stevia).

There is some data that suggests a very low-carb diet long-term, has harmful effects due to loss of beneficial bacteria in the gut. "Bob's Red Mill" (indigestible) Unmodified Potato Starch may prevent that. A buddy at work combines PS and Metamucil in the same glass of water, and he loves the benefits. Work your way up to 3 tbsp PS per day (divided into 2 or 3 doses).

Note that excessive protein will get you out of a keto state as the liver will break it down into glucose. Something to consider if your weight loss plateaus. This is what happened to "Livin La Vida Low Carb" Jimmy Moore. His blog and podcasts are a fountain of LC info. The proper keto diet is a high fat (not high protein) diet. "Ketostix" can be used to monitor how deep in ketosis you are.

There is also some data that suggests that some people start getting hypothyroid symptoms (low energy) on a VLC diet. Watch out for this. For those people, there's a minimum amount of carbs that prevents this. I don't know if those people subsequently have trouble losing bodyfat after they increase carbs to get rid of the hypo symptoms.

Eat avocados, eggs, and coconut oil for their highly beneficial fatty acids.

Lastly you should supplement with vits and minerals you'd normally get from veggies:
Vit C ("Ester-C" is a "complete" Vit C because it also contains the other important VitC compounds, not just Ascorbic acid), Magnesium (I like Concentrace). I'd add Twinlab Norwegian Cod Liver Oil (NOT emulsified) too for Vits A, D, and omega3. And if you start working out hard I know there's a bunch of Amino acid supplements that help with glycogen production on a keto diet.

Possibly.


All IMO. I only play a nutritionist on TV.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

That's the question that I'm also having trouble resolving.

I'm gradually piecing together the picture (mostly from Jason) that the principle mechanism of action of a low-carb / no-carb diet is that it's supposed to regulate appetite and prevent you from "needing" to snack throughout the day, with the consequence that this will naturally result in a lower caloric intake.

Except that this has never been a problem for me, either. On a normal day, I would typically have no breakfast, a light lunch at my desk, and then a substantial (some would use the word gratuitous) dinner. This is regardless of whether or not breads / grains / pastas are involved. Now, on weekends if I was just sitting at home with nothing to do then I'd often graze, but this was far less about hunger and more about boredom- particularly where good beer was involved.

(God, I miss beer...)

So, if all of this is true, then it makes perfect sense that I've gained weight. I'm eating basically the same quantity of food and on the same schedule, I'm just consuming a lot more calories now since I'm replacing foods like grains and corn which have a low ratio of calories to mass with foods like cheese and fatty meat that have a very high ratio of calories to mass.


I'm not really sure what to make of all this...




Yeah, that was also a huge problem for me. Used to be able to set a clock by the regularity of my poops- after I cut out carbs (and, therefore, fiber), things for ugly.

What worked for me was taking 4-5 psyllium-husk fiber supplement capsules before each high-fat meal. Examples:

Metamucil Fiber Supplement Capsules - Walmart.com

CVS Dietary Fiber Supplement Fiber Capsules - CVS pharmacy

It is possible to over-do this, and turn your turds into angry, hard logs that feel like they're coming out sideways, but with the right amount, balance is restored to the force. Unlike what Jason suggested above, these are capsules rather than a bulk powder, so there's no sweeteners, no additives, just the raw primary ingredient.

JasonC SBB

I posit it's possible that some people have a high metabolic tolerance for starch and that if they actually have difficulty losing unwanted bodyfat they'd have to go ketogenic for a while.

Another possibility is that for some of those people, it's still easier to reduce bodyfat by reducing starches, as opposed to a low-fat calorie-restricted diet.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Tossing out a wild hunch here...




....Joe, just as a guess, would you rate your exposure to antibiotics as high, average, or low? Just curious if anything stands out in your mind -- a particular illness that required repeated or continued antibiotic use, or maybe a seeming natural resistance to seasonal illness that resulted in lower-than-average antibiotic use. Anything like that -- any info that could possibly lead you to believe your antibiotic exposure is notably greater or lesser than average.

No idea if this leads anywhere at all. Just curious.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Hmm, interesting question.


Insofar as the ingestion of antibiotics through the food stream, I'm assuming that my exposure is about average (eg: I am not especially a stickler for seeking out labels that say organic / cage-free / hormone-free / fair trade / etc), though I have no idea whatsoever whether the consumption of properly-cooked livestock and poultry which have been treated with antibiotics actually results in any meaningful transfer into the human body.


In terms of antibiotics administered directly and intentionally, my exposure is essentially zero. That is to say that I cannot recall, at least over the past few decades, having ever received antibiotics from a healthcare provider for any reason. It's entirely possible that when I was a child, my parents might have taken me to see a doctor in response to some illness which was treated with antibiotics, however I can't provide any specific recollections here.

While I do get a flu shot every year, this is the extent of my routine participation in the healthcare system*. I would describe my susceptibility to ordinary seasonal illnesses as about average (in fact, I had a particularly nasty cold in early December, with lots of thick and disgusting green **** coming out of my nose and mouth, which took about a week to get over), but I have never tended to seek out medical treatment when such things occur. I simply stay home for a few days, self-medicate with rum, and let nature do its thing. The human body is fully capable of dealing with most infections all by itself**, and I've simply never felt the need to go running to the doctor in such an instance.



Of course, I really have no idea at all what an "average" exposure to antibiotics would be in this context. In my mind, the average exposure for a healthy adult living in an industrialized nation with good sanitary facilities should be zero, though I've come to accept that my perception in most matters of this nature tends to be discordant with reality.


Why do you ask?

* = I am excluding trips to the ER / Urgent Care as a result of orthopedic injuries, motorcycle wrecks, stab wounds, etc. On one such occasion, I received a tetanus shot during the course of my admission. This was somewhere around 2006 or thereabouts.

** = Yes, yes, I know that meningococcal meningitis is typically fatal if untreated. I'm talking about illnesses that don't cause your arms and legs to rot off.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Interesting answer.

Sadly, I think the average "healthy" adult heads to the doctor or clinic for relatively minor illnesses, and too often is prescribed a round of antibiotics for infections which may not even be bacterial in nature.

Jason's comment about some people being more tolerant of starch was brought to mind when I read this article* today, particularly this section:

*Yes, this particular article is basically summary with no references. For more info, click over to the list of labels on the right hand side -- of particular interest are the posts under the labels "antibiotic" and "antibiotics."

y8s

iTrader: (8)

doctors are (in my experience) no longer prescribing antibiotics for much. they will make you wait 2-3 weeks before they even consider it worth testing you unless it's something obvious like strep throat. generally if they don't see redness, swelling, pus, etc. they will let your body do the heavy lifting.

my wife tells me that meat cannot be sold if it has antibiotic residues and that livestock are no longer given antibiotics for some fixed time window before slaughter. so I'd say the amount you get from that is low to none.

JasonC SBB

That's good news.

Oscar

iTrader: (2)

After ~2 months of doing the healthy stuff, today I cheated and went to KFC. It was goooood. Maybe because I hadn't been in a long time. I'm going to shop pooping supplements tomorrow and resume my keto cooking for the rest of the week.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Good recap on the current state of affairs from Robb Wolf.

US News Ranks the Paleo Diet: 2014. Deja Vu All over again!