6 weeks ago, I purchased a bicycle and started riding it anywhere from 50 to 80 miles per week with moderate to high intensity. At around the same time, I cut my caloric intake by approximately 25% without altering my diet significantly (read: I eat all the same stuff, just less of it).

At the same time, my bathroom scale began to malfunction. Each week, it says I weigh approximately two pounds less than I did the previous week.

A very odd coincidence, I know :party:

Exercise improves insulin resistance in some people who otherwise weren't getting much.

It's not the calories you expend *during* the exercise that matters so much as the fact that the improved insulin sensitivity raises your metabolic rate and reduces hunger.

Many fat people who are very insulin (and leptin) resistant exercise a lot but their fat and appetite stubbornly remain. Their metabolism is very broken and for many of them what will work is to slowly cut the sugar and starch to near zero; and in fact for many of them their insulin sensitivity will more easily improve if they avoid exercise for the first 6-8 weeks until after their metabolism improves.

I know that it's slightly cruel to bring this up now that you aren't riding for a while, but...

...maybe this is a good opportunity to get your diet right and stop bonking on your local club rides.

Paleo Diet Popular With Endurance Athletes - Nutrition - MensJournal.com

Food & Nutrition Myths: Bicycle Training | Bicycling Magazine

Feature: Tour of California Cuisine from the Clif Bar Food Mobile – Team Garmin-Sharp Pro Cycling Team

several months ago I stopped lifting weights and didn't change my diet and built a shed with almost no help.

I lost 10 lbs. durp.

Maybe mostly muscle.

Exactly my point. I lost weight in spite of reducing my activity and not changing my diet. It's just not how I prefer to lose. I am back at the gym and eating a ton. Weight is up 3+ lbs in a few weeks.

Neither supports nor contradicts the mostly-insulin-driven fat-thermostat (adipostat?) theory of fat loss/gain then.

last night I ate vegetarian.

it was odd.

we made patties out of chickpeas, broccoli, garlic, and onion in the fopro. used breadcrumbs and eggs to bind and tossed in a pan. Then topped them with tomato, avocado, and lettuce and ate--Similar to a Falafel.

Had homemade hummus/carrots and guacamole with it.

So, in the interest of science and fairness, I've been doing an experiment for the past month. I've more or less eliminated carbohydrates from my diet, and have instead been focusing on high-fat, calorie-dense foods. Lots of cheeses (fresh mozzerella, good swiss, lots of soft, smelly, goat cheese...), eggs, lots of meat- a mix here of "unprocessed" meats (salmon fillets with the skin on, canned tuna, fresh ground beef, roast duck) and "processed" meats (spam, frozen meatballs, pre-cooked chicken and steak strips in a bag, etc.)

I've totally given up all green vegetables and nuts, all fruits and fruit juices save for a max of two tomatoes and 1/2 avocado per day, nearly all bread and bread-like products, etc. I have resisted all of the cookies and sweets lying around the office this time of year. My exercise regime hasn't changed a bit- I still commute about 5 miles a day via bicycle, and do a fair bit of walking and stair-climbing during the course of my day (this TV station occupies two full floors of the building.)


So, last night's dinner, for example, was about 8oz of TJ's frozen turkey meatballs slathered in a mix of greek yogurt and Indian-style Vindaloo curry sauce*. Beside that was one medium-sized tomato, sliced and laid out on about 4 oz of sliced fresh mozzerella, all covered in olive oil and herbs. A late-evening snack consisted of three hard-boiled eggs mashed up with some mayo and salt. And today's lunch is a mountain of grilled chicken atop a lo-carb tortilla (6g net carbs) with two hefty slices of swiss cheese and 1/2 of a sliced avocado.


As I noted a week or so ago, I did cheat once. Specifically, I'd been feeling sort of light-headed for a couple of days, and while exiting the subway one evening I suddenly became dizzy and nearly collapsed on the steps. I ducked into the first pizza shop I could find and ordered a slice which I wolfed down ravenously. After about 15 minutes, I felt just fine and went about my business. After that, I increased my portion size at lunch a bit, which seemed to help.

Additionally, I've been sick (cold/flu) twice now in a 30 day period, which is pretty rare, but then I'm also in a new environment, so it's hard to say whether my immune system is crapping out or if it's just the climate making me more susceptible.


As for weight-loss? Well, I've gained about 8 lbs. This is unsurprising, as my caloric intake has gone up significantly with all this rich food.

What does this experiment have to do with anything? Are you creating your own diet?

Joe, why are you eschewing greens?

I'm exploring, for my own edification, the theory which Jason and other have espoused that a diet low in carbohydrates, starches, sugars and gluten, and high in protein and fat, will cause my body to do various ill-defined things such as "reset its fat setpoint" which will have the end result of causing weight-loss and improving my general feeling of well-being.

In other words, it's one thing to just have an academic debate, it's another to do empirical research. So I'm testing the theory.




Because those green vegetables which I typically consume (brussels sprouts, green beans, etc) are high in net carbohydrates. Continuing to consume them would bias the experiment.

I will note that I've also been taking a daily multivitamin (store brand equivalent of Centrum) in an attempt to fill in whatever I'm missing out on from the total deprivation of fruits and vegetables.


Additionally, I started taking psyllium husk fiber supplement capsules towards the middle of week 1, after the removal of most of the natural fiber from my evening meals resulted in unacceptable variation in both the consistency and regularity of my bowel movements. This treatment restored normality in both the texture and timing of my poo.

Way to add a bunch of variables. I feel pretty confident Jason never recommended cutting out vegetables and fruit, or eating nasty processed mystery meat.

But, sounds like a fun diet.

He (and others) have recommended cutting out carbs in general, with only some vague, non-specific references to certain classes of carbs being OK, but only after a heavy workout. Since I don't do heavy workouts, I decided to err on the side of caution.

Thus, I have removed a variable, not added one.


As for sources of protein and fat, there have been various discussions as to whether "unprocessed" meats are less likely to carry the sort of long-term risks associated with high fat diets in general (eg: increased risk of most cancers, heart disease, etc.), however no distinction has been made between the two insofar as the specific topics of weight loss, "resetting the body's fat setpoint," etc.

So this is a neutral point.



I realize that you are personally a proponent of the so-called Paleolithic diet, which permits the consumption of fruits, nuts and vegetables while condemning processed meats, however that is not relevant to the specific test being conducted here.

Sure, whatever.

I'm genuinely confused. What is it about what I have done that you consider to be invalid relative to the mantra of "carbs and grains and starch are bad, fat and protein is good"?

Or are you expressing a more general belief which is disabused of that notion altogether, in favor of the more omnivorous Paleo diet which you more frequently espouce?

Because instead of giving Jason the most charitable reading, and assuming that his varied posts in this thread probably don't encapsulate a full-fledged diet plan, but are rather specific responses to different questions, comments, and objections, and therefore taking the time to research the sites and sources he's offered and basing your plan on that, you have decided to construct the most narrowly reductionist interpretation of his comments and then deliberately added new variables within that interpretation which will undoubtedly "disprove" your narrow interpretation of his comments but will have little resemblance to actually giving it a fair shot.

It's fine. You're playing an internet-forum-debate-troll-game, not expressing real interest and honest curiosity. If that's your purpose, go for it. Eat some shitty processed meats, ignore fruits and vegetables, and write up a snarky post about it. Yay.

And it's spelled "espouse."

I'm going to respond to this out-of-order, as it fits better into the general dialogue (eg: I want to air the dirty laundry first so that the post can end on a more productive note.)


First of all, fuck you.

Specifically, fuck you for presuming my intentions to be flippant and simply resorting to the rather childish tactic of saying "you're a troll because what you say disagrees with something that I believe" rather than bothering to expend a modicum of effort to have a meaningful conversation.

I would have thought that my years of taking the time to perform careful, rationed analysis of topics ranging from the semi-absurd (high performance thermostats and plastic trays in the toaster oven) to the quite serious and useful (AFM removal in the 1.6 engine using the EMU, fault-tolerant MS1 ignition output drivers, reliable crank decoder circuits, aircon control...), and then share the results with the community would count for something.

While I certainly won't claim to be an expert in the field of nutrition (if anything, I admit quite the opposite), I do, in fact, treat this as a serious field of investigation. I am saying "Although I do not understand the rationale behind these suggestions, and view them with some suspicion given my limited understanding of the subject matter, I am willing to subject myself to a strict interpretation of them in order to gain a personal basis of reference for understanding the subject matter, rather than simply relying upon conjecture and speculation to determine what is and is not pseudo-science."

Hell, I haven't even had any beer for the past month. Is that not sufficient evidence of my motivation for you, you self-righteous, presumptuous, ignorant little shit?





Now that we've gotten that unpleasantness out of the way:



Yes, that is how the scientific method works. You don't take "charitable readings" of data coming out of a particle accelerator or a seismometer, you strip away all of the noise, eliminate as many variables and points of uncertainty as possible, drill down to a single theory, and then perform experiments to either support or refute that theory.

If this thread were a dissertation, then the thesis could be fairly summarized as follows:

"In general, present-day thinking among a growing minority of nutritionists in the US and Europe suggests that the consumption of carbohydrates precludes the burning of fat by the body and results in weight gain and ailments related to the regulation of blood sugar, while a diet low in carbohydrates but high in fats and proteins tends to reverse this effect, leading to a decrease in body fat and more stable regulation of blood sugar."

Which leads me to...


You are correct in that I have taken a narrow interpretation. As I discussed above, a narrow interpretation is a necessary element of good research.

I have not, however, added new variables. Quite to the contrary, the elimination of vegetables from the diet was done for the specific reason of reducing variables.

If you go back and read post #29 (and the surrounding conversation), you will see why I consider this to be an unwelcome variable. (For context, this followed Hustler noting that some professional athletes, specifically cyclists, promote a diet which is rich in carbohydrates.) In response to that, Jason wrote:

The best interpretation which I can make of this is:

1. Vegetables are a source of carbohydrates.
2. I only need carbohydrates to replenish my glycogen reserves after a workout.

So, since I do not routinely perform strenuous workouts, I interpret this as meaning that I do not require carbs in the form of vegetables, and that since the over-arching theme of the thread in general is to reduce carb intake, the elimination of vegetables is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the thread.



Or do you feel that I have mis-interpreted this?



While there are a couple of different ways in which I could respond to this, I acknowledge that this post is getting a bit lengthy.


First off, I will concede that there may be certain long-term health risks associated with the consumption of processed meats. I have read research which supports this conclusion, and I have no reason to doubt it.

However, I question the relevance of this to a discussion concerning the merits of a low-carb diet. I can find no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim, and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you bring up the subject in that context, rather than just vomiting random words onto the screen for the sake of some random tangent.


A re-reading of the article to which you linked in post #112 (Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb High-fat Nutrition) seems to provide further reinforcement for my experimental parameters. First, it mentions vegetables only once, in the context of a joke, to wit: "You don’t get fat from fatty foods, just as you don’t get atherosclerosis from calcium or turn green from green vegetables.” It also says that "the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides,” and notes that "Butter, olive oil, heavy cream, and bacon are not harmful foods. Quite the opposite. Fat is the best thing for those who want to lose weight."

By contrast, it mentions a distinction between "processed" and "unprocessed" meats exactly zero times. In fact, the consumption of bacon is promoted twice, and modern bacon is generally considered to be a "processed" food in most western medical / nutritional literature owing to the use of nitrites, sodium erythorbate / ascorbate and phosphates in the brining and curing process. (This is not a US innovation, it is common to all mass-produced cured bacon.) If processed meat were strongly counter-indicated in the low-carb / high-fat diet targeted at weight loss, you'd think that fact would merit at least a small mention by a scientist promoting the consumption of bacon as a healthy alternative to bread on behalf of the Sweedish government in a peer-reviewed committee publication.





Ah, yes. If there's one thing which I espouse, its' the care-ful use of schpelling and gramar all times. :D

Summary:

Joe makes flippant comments in response to Jason's posts.
Joe writes snarky post about trying Jason's suggestions.
Joe gets mad that someone doesn't believe he's taking this subject seriously.

Don't blame me. You poisoned the well with your previous comments and attitude toward Jason. Why would anyone believe you were suddenly struck with honest curiosity toward the subject, when the very post announcing your self-experimentation was written in the same snarky tone?

Motivation is fine, but your self-experimentation (and self-deprivation) will be wasted if you introduce extra variables like not eating any fruits or vegetables at all.

But what you did is introducing variables instead of reducing them. It would as if I wanted to find out whether water or Coca-Cola was healthier, so I ran a test where people did nothing but drink water or Coke until they died. Yes, I "reduced" variables but not in a realistic way.

The charitable reading principle refers to proper debate/discussion etiquette, not scientific study results. I was referring to how you chose to interpret Jason's advice.

See above.

Again, this is an uncharitable reading of Jason's comments. If you'd read the sources and sites that Jason frequently posts here, and in light of the post to which he was responding (Hustler suggesting that athletes need carb-heavy foods like grains), you could correctly interpret his comments thusly:

1. Vegetables are carbs
2. You only need carbs to replenish glycogen
3. Glycogen stores are finite so only a small amount of carbs are required
4. Therefore, healthy sources of carbs, like vegetables, are sufficient for the body's needs

[*]Understood, but not spoken since it was not pertinent to this response: Vegetables are beneficial and healthy for reasons other than carb content

I do believe that you have. Read his comments in the context of the sites and sources that he frequently mentions, and they make much more sense.

I do bring it up for a reason. Nutrition and health are not easily reducible to easily testable hypotheses. But I already linked a study comparing the health effects of processed vs. unprocessed meats in this thread, and since you chose to address in your original self-experimentation post not only the measurable effects re: weight change but also how you felt, then I'm comfortably within the appropriate context of this discussion when I point out that you are including foods that are detrimental to getting a clear result from your experiment.

Again, why are you taking one news article -- written by a news editor -- as the guideline for constructing your experiment? If you're actually approaching this seriously (and setting aside a month out of your life to change your diet), why wouldn't you start by setting aside 30 minutes to read Robb Wolf, or Gary Taubes, or Mark Sisson, or Chris Kresser, or any of the people Jason and I have mentioned? All four of those that I just mentioned have some kind of "Getting Started" page on their respective websites. If you don't understand what their claims are, how can you fairly test them?

More overly reductionistic logic. Processed and unprocessed are fuzzy categories. Why are you trying to build counterarguments on flimsy definitions from an editor's summary in a news article? Why not seek out an actual explanation? If you're actually curious about bacon, there's information from plenty of paleo/keto/anti-inflammatory sources that discuss in great detail the various healthy and unhealthy aspects of bacon.

To clarify, I did not say "you only need to replenish glycogen reserves after a workout". I said "you only need enough carbs to replenish your glycogen reserves". I also meant "your glycogen reserves are closer to empty after a workout". Which does NOT mean "do not have carbs if not after a workout".

Points to get out of the way:

- there are good carbs and bad carbs. Sugar, juice, soda, grains and other forms of (digestible) starch are bad carbs. For some sensitive folks sweet fruits are bad carbs too, e.g. grapes, ripe bananas, as opposed to berries and green bananas.

- carbs should come from non-starchy veggies, and very little from sugar, grains, and starch (e.g. bread, pasta, rice, etc).



Now some new ones

- A very low carb (VLC) diet is potentially a *ketogenic* diet. This means your body is getting its fuel from fatty acids instead of glycogen/sugar. This is a very fast way to lose body fat, but:

- there is an adjustment period and during this period you can get dizziness, weakness, and brain fog - this is due partly to too-low transient blood sugar as the liver hasn't adjusted to converting fatty acids to blood sugar

- for some obese people a ketogenic or near-ketogenic diet is necessary to lose bodyfat, for others, it's unnecessary. Individuals vary in how many carbs they need to maintain or to lose bodyfat.

- it is actually quite difficult to maintain ketogenesis all the time

- in a VLC diet it can be difficult to get certain nutrients, due to lack of plants e.g. Vit C ... unless you eat raw liver like the Inuit. (and stomach contents too?)

- a VLC diet without resistant (indigestible) starch to feed the good gut bacteria can be harmful in the long run

- you can still get fat force-feeding or over-eating (eating beyond satiety) on a low-carb but non-ketogenic diet


Now more detail on metabolism:

- a person with a healthy metabolism will easily go 4-6 hours between meals (and 12 hours overnight, with no midnight snacks). About 4 hours after a meal the insulin levels are down to baseline and the body seamlessly switches to burning fat stores for energy, without feelings of weakness.

- a person with a broken metabolism (a carbivore, or a sugar-burner), will get hungry and shakey < 4 hours after a meal and will need carbs to feel better. In contrast a person with a healthy metabolism whose previous meal had a good amount of fat and little starch may feel hungry but will not feel the shakes and can go another 1-2 hours without the shakes. To get to this point a sugar-burner goes through an adjustment period just like the one to get used to a ketogenic diet. It is hard to lose bodyfat unless you can go the aforementioned 5-6 hours between meals.

- the adjustment period can take up to 6 weeks, and for many the best way is to not cut the starchy carbs cold turkey, but to gradually reduce them (halve it, til you get used to it, then halve again). It is best to substitute starchy carbs with non-starchy veggies, and to up the saturated fat intake (e.g. animal fat, *real* butter, avocados, coconut oil, etc). For bad cases some supplements during the transition can be helpful, such as L-Glutamine.

- as you adjust try to lengthen the time between meals to 5-6 hours, and to have zero snacks (nothing that provokes an insulin response, not even creamer in your coffee). This forces your body to get used to getting its insulin down to baseline before its next meal, and forces it to learn to burn bodyfat

- have some fat at every meal (this is your primary fuel)

- have lots of protein for breakfast (this improves satiety throughout the day)

- do not overeat (i.e. feed yourself more than needed to last 5-6 hours to the next meal) and do not eat when not hungry

Edit: Jason, I didn't see that you'd responded before I posted this. Give me some time to digest your post- I'm a tad busy at the moment.

So, forgive my brevity here, but I seem to be sensing an overall theme in your posts, which I can best summarize as "Because you were initially skeptical about the topic, and expressed your skepticism openly, I choose believe that you are incapable of objective analysis, and instead elect to nitpick your methodology and make semantic arguments rather than discuss the ramifications of your results."


I mean, seriously, why does it matter whether I consumed no vegetables vs. some vegetables, if the question is "does a low-carb diet make you lose weight?" Whatever other (potentially valid) arguments might be made on the vegetable subject, you have not yet made it clear to me why you think that my elimination of carbs in every way possible invalidates a test designed to gauge the effectiveness of eliminating carbs from the diet.


In other words, you seem to be back-pedaling and weaseling away from the core subject matter by introducing extraneous points of debate. If all you want to do is let me know that you are closed off to any points of view other than your own, then I'll agree to stipulate that point without any further argument.

In other self-experimentation news, I've had 2 or 3 really poor nights of sleep in a row (mostly due to my wife recovering from a cold -- coughing and clearing her throat, etc.). Last night I decided to take 6 mg of melatonin before bed.

Wow.

I had the most vivid dream I've had in months. I'm talking a full story-form dream based on a real location and people, with a relatively (for a dream) coherent plot, interactions, events.

Also, I slept past my alarm by about 30 minutes. Fortunately, my first meeting today wasn't until 10 AM.

One question for you: Are those 8 lbs gained all body fat? Did your waistline grow?

Now while you're at this:

- as geoff said, avoid mystery meat

- avoid processed seed oils (soybean, canola, sunflower, safflower, peanut). This is very hard to do if eating pre-packaged meals. Pretty hard when eating at a resto. Those oils are polyunsaturated fats, and they oxidize easily and theorized to be a factor in heart disease, cancer, and autoimmune diseases.

- If cooking with oil, use butter for low temps (e.g. cooking eggs). For high temperature coooking use coconut oil, ghee, tallow, lard or bacon fat. Don't cook with olive oil except maybe for very low temps

Skeptical != openly mocking.

Really? You are maintaining that based on everything Jason has written, his argument can be summed up as, "Regardless of any other factors, as long as you don't eat carbs, you will magically lose weight." No consideration of micro-nutrients, or portion size (yes, you can still overeat non-carbs), quality of food sources, or macro-nutrient ratios, or anything else?

Jason's argument isn't that simplistic, so why test it as if it is?

Discussing the core subject matter is fine. Acting as if you're testing the core subject matter, when in fact you are really testing the core subject matter + all kinds of additional unaccounted for variables, doesn't help the discussion. You say that you're reducing variables, but you aren't eliminating those variables, you're just choosing to ignore them. They still exist, and they still have an effect on your results.

More detail on the timing of meals. It has to do with the Leptin/Insulin system:

The Five Rules of The Leptin Diet | Weight Loss News

Melatonin is great as a tool but DO NOT take it for more than a few days at a time (e.g. for jet lag), and you need to WEAN yourself off of it.

Melatonin is a "downstream" hormone and when you supplement with them for long periods the body down-regulates its production and you will become dependent. Additionally the cell receptors that "listen" to the hormonal signals can become *resistant* - i.e. they start to ignore it.

Testosterone, insulin, and estrogen are other examples of downstream hormones. Thus "insulin resistance" means your cells ignore the insulin singal and your blood sugar becomes chronically high. This is why it's so important to be able to go 5-6 hours between meals.

DHEA is an example of an "upstream" hormone. i.e. it's a precursor hormone used to make downstream ones. They're less dangerous.


I greatly improved my sleep quality by wearing blue-blocking amber goggles when lying in bed waiting to sleep and reading my phone. Blue light blocks the brain's production of melatonin. For the same reason your bedroom must be pitch black before waking time.

Yup, it's not something I take on any kind of regular basis (for example, it's been at least 6+ months since the last time I took it). I keep it on hand for situations like last night -- another night of poor sleep would have really set me back.

I also realized I had slacked off any Vit D supplementation, which doubly stupid as it's the middle of winter, and my new job has me indoors almost all day.

I switched from vitD to cod liver oil and after 4 months my blood vitD levels went from 45 to 36. I added some vitD capsules back in. I want it at 50-60.

Here's a recent article from one of the websites that Jason and I often mention that addresses a lot of the issues with your self-experiment.

Meat Leads to Inflammation?

This is why I was so frustrated with your approach. You thought you were eliminating variables, but by cutting out other healthy parts of your diet (and expanding the "recommended protein" category to include unhealthy protein sources) you were actually introducing new variables.

Couple points I would like to contribute.

1) Healthy can be quite subjective. In terms of looking lean and fit, one can have a "roundish" body where they may look soft and over weight but in actuality, their muscle type/fat ratio is different but they remain healthy. I do understand some health issues will surface physically but to me, putting obvious obesity aside, health has most to do with the conditions of your insides.

2) Generally though humans can more or less consume anything, and still live a long life, there is without a doubt some combinations of foods which will not only lead us to live longer but healthier. But it seems quite obvious that rather than just healthy food, a good lifestyle must accompany the food or else, it wont work as well.

3) Although I do see that JasonC's diet looks to be quite healthy, I think it is important to understand the interconnectedness of food and lifestyle. Also, I think it is important to really consider the moral question of eating meet, for example, even grass fed beef will face a brutally painful death.. I will say, I do in fact eat meat myself but I am trying to limit it to eggs, fish and chicken.

4) Aside from nutritional factors, there does not seem to be much on eating organic foods. I've done plenty of research on this topic and I have been spear heading a campaign to get organic options provided on our campus and would suggest you guys to do some research on this very important topic. The science has only started coming out in the past few years BUT there are clear peer reviewed studies which pointed to damage and danger from eating foods with pesticides and herbicides. It is a accumulative affect in which the more you eat, the more you store in your body. In particular, the organs in your body that have to do with cleaning out the toxins in your blood, your kidneys, liver and intestinal tract. There even is a study done on pregnant mothers in Canada which showed that pesticides and herbicides that are associated in the production of "middle class" food with lots of meats and dairy, transferred through mothers body to the placenta and fetus. These types of chemicals are extremely dangerous especially for a developing baby.

5) All things considered, I would like to just say, I am half Okinawan. Okinawans are know to be in average the longest people in the world. We (at least the older folks) suffer from less from health problems including things like alzheimers, heart disease and cancer. I will say, there is most defiantly a genetic factor, called the "fox gene" which affects the ability for our bodies to regenerate itself BUT, there is without a doubt a very strong connection to lifestyle and food being very important in maximizing your natural lifespan. What is interesting is that since American culture has become very prevalent in Okinawa, foods with lots of meats and cheese, processed foods, non labor work/car transportation, the young generation of Okinawans are becoming increasingly unhealthy. This is very unfortunate.

What do most believe is the key to long life in Okinawa? Genes, lifestyle, and good food.

Here is recipe to live as long as your genes will let you.

1) Eat mostly vegetables and fruits. Eat dark veggies. Your plate of food should consist of 3/4 veggies and fruits and 1/4 for grain and protein.
2) Eat root foods like carrots and sweet potatoes
3) Don't eat junk food, make your own chips with healthy oil
4) Cook your own damn food cause you can make it taste better than any restaurant and do it cheaper than eating out. Also, buy from local farms because most of the crap you buy at the store is shit brought over from another country which was picked before it even ripened, then gassed with chemicals to ripen. It's also very important for the environment and community to shot local. LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL! Support local farmers, support America.
5) Excise - Heavy or moderate like walking. Do all kinds of shit like paddle canoe, hiking, throwing rocks, whatever.
6) Have a hobby to master, work on cars. Put your heart into things, work, hobby, family, whatever, just do it with your whole heart.
7) Be a part of your community, help others, be kind to others, love MANY people. This takes time, it's never too late to contribute to your local community.
8) LOVE LOVE LOVE! Chronic stress is one of the biggest factors in stopping you from living a long and healthy life. Some stress is good but lots of it for a long time is not good for you. Try to move toward a loving and caring attitude. This may sound gay to some but trust me, this shit will make you live longer!

Now look, no body is perfect and it is a work in progress for all of us and shit you know what, once in a while I still end up going to Mcdonalds and buying a Bigmac meal, chicken club and a coke! LOL But it's baby steps yeah and as we all become more knowledgable and wise, we will be able to to continue to guide this country into supporting healthy practices for both our foods and the environment. Mind you, I aint talking about some utopia but things can get better in a significant and meaningful way. Do it for for your family, children, bloodline, country, world, mankind! :)

Anyone on here use Vemma products?
Are they really up to par with all the hype? or just another Scam? (the product itself i mean... the company itself is a blatantly obvious pyramid scheme)
I got some for christmas oddly... doesnt taste bad... and boasts alot of stuff about the benefits of its use...
BUT.... Could be like those penis enlargement pills... They advertise the hell out of them, and make wild claims, and goofy commercials, but according to medical research they do nothing.... (did a paper in human sexuality/psychology.... didnt look into buying any. lmao)

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1388280893

I'll be honest and say I quit reading here.

Most cows slaughtered in the "west" is an actually relatively quick and painless. If you're talking about Halal compliant meat, yes, that is absolutely a horrible way to kill an animal.

For those that don't know, the way we slaughter beef in the west is typically something along lines of a high-powered bolt (or other projectile) to the brain that kills the animal basically instantaneously, whereas Halal compliant entails taking a cow, putting it in a cage while it's throat is cut and letting the animal bleed out while wailing and kicking.

You may have had other good points, but I couldn't get that far. Especially when you consider how non-organic chicken is raised.

z31maniac, if you think those bolt guns are painless, you must not have seen it. I don't think eating non organic chicken is okay, and sometimes I do slip up and go to McDonalds BUT, most of the chicken I eat is supposed to be non caged but I cannot say exactly what conditions they lived in and how they are killed. I am in no way saying it is okay, and I am not pretending to be all high and mighty. Its easier for some as they were raised that way but for the majority of the public, it is extremely hard to change their diet unless forced to. That is why I am understanding of the "human condition" but that does not mean we should not strive to be incredible as we can be.

And yes I did have good points that followed so it would make me happy if you read them. :)

What is "healthy"? I consider longevity and being free of disease, with highish, even energy levels and a good mood, to be markers of a healthy person. To me looking good naked is secondary, and athletic performance 3rd. However fortunately the last 2 items tend to improve with health. :)

I found some raw unpasturized goats milk yogurt around here that is by far and large the best yogurt I have ever had in my life. It has the perfect amount of tanginess and creaminess and it is just magnificent mixed with some fruit and nuts.

Admittedly, being a nutritionist working for the government, I was slow to buy into the grains suck thing, but they really do. The further I have progressed with my studies (I am debating on whether I should go for my masters at this point, because with the exception of some of the food science classes, the dietetics bachelors I have is basically just how to regurgitate facts someone else gave you, and if you didn't you are wrong) I have found that the high carb low fat diets just don't work that well for most. They work ok for some.

I think people need to pay attention to what their body is telling them. If anyone ever truly feels great after injesting free radical infested burgers and fries, I would be shocked. I just don't think choking down wheat bread and plain oatmeal at every meal while avoiding delicious, nutritious meat, eggs, and vegetables is a sign of health. I can't eat right ATM and I feel like shit.

I tested my hs-CRP (inflammation marker) after a few months of paleo eating (but with raw-milk kefir, cheese, some raw milk and lots of eggs), and it was very low.

Some people do OK with dairy, and some are sensitive to either lactose or caseine. I think homogenization which alters the fat molecules, is bad. Pasteurized but un-homogenized milk from healthy antibiotic-free cows is probably OK if fermented (e.g. kefir or yogurt), because the lactose is converted (pasteurization destroys the lactase which helps lactose digestion).

Agreed. However when kicking a sugar/starch addiction, you have to slowly wean yourself off. If you quit cold turkey you will feel like crap because it takes time for your body to convert from being a sugar burner to a fat burner. Mark Sisson calls it being "fat adapted":
What Does it Mean to Be Fat-Adapted? | Mark's Daily Apple

I get a pleasant high from coconut oil in my morning coffee, and I feel good for hours after eating a high-fat low-starch meal.

I had some raw milk in california. I picked it up at the campbell farmer's market. it tasted like regular milk. sadly we can't get it that easily in virginia.

Ok, getting back into this thread after a few weeks off...

I ended the test on Dec 23, as that's when I flew down to FL to visit the family. Over the roughly five weeks which preceded this, I gained approximately 11 pounds (from 202 to 213) while eating as described in post # 130.

What I find rather more interesting is what happened over the period of Dec 23 - Jan 4. During this two week period, I was staying with family and eating what most Americans of the 1950s would have recognized as a "traditional" diet. Reasonable portion sizes, and "well balanced" according to the USDA food pyramid, but very heavy on processed grains, starches and sugars. Pancakes with real maple syrup for breakfast, a sandwich at lunch, and dinner always contained a generous potato or rice dish. Furthermore, a reasonable amount of pie and cake was consumed, this being the holidays and all. During this period, I gained 2 lbs.

That's kind of remarkable, actually. It's pretty much a given that consuming a high-calorie "pie & cake" diet during the holidays is going to produce some weight gain, what's interesting is how little weight gain this diet produced as compared to a very high-calorie but nearly carb-free diet.


(hint: I don't suffer from any sort of abnormal metabolic disorders.)



So, I'm now back home and ready to re-start, though I'm going to fall back on a more conventional low-calorie, high-fiber diet for a while, in order to get myself back down to a reasonable baseline.


Furthermore, since Jason has on many occasions made reference to insulin / blood glucose as a principle mechanism of action in this theory (starting at post #25), I have purchased an inexpensive blood glucose meter which I will be using to gather data.



Now, in the mean time, some interesting responses have been posted to what I'd written earlier, which merit consideration:



While I lack the equipment to measure BMI, I think it's reasonable to assume that for the most part, they are. 8-11 lbs over a 6'2" 200 lb body isn't a huge amount- certainly one one full pants size. But yes, my jeans are no longer loose-fitting as they were before, and a bit of extra flab is visually observable.



I would be curious to hear an explanation as to what exactly "mystery meat" means, and the mechanism of action by which it is supposedly harmful. I'm not explicitly saying that you're wrong, only that this seems to be the sort of advice that's based on FUD / "common sense," rather than any particular hard science. If you look on the ingrediants on the back of a can of Turkey SPAM, there's actually not much in there at all other than some dextrose...

None the less, I find it to be fairly loathsome to eat, and will henceforth eliminate SPAM from the test. The only "processed" meats of any kind shall be Trader Joe's Turkey Meatballs (35% fat, 19% carbs, 46% protein, no preservatives, and only a hint of refined sugar) and Libby's Country Sausage Gravy, which is high in sodium and contains a few refined ingredients, but is nearly carb-free and consists mostly of pork fat and salt.





At present, I am using no pre-packaged meals, and I almost never dine at restaurants.

At home, the only oils I have on the shelf are oilve oils. A bottle for pouring over fresh mozerella and tomatoes, and a can of Pam brand olive-oil spray, which consists of oilve oil, grain alcohol, and lecithin.





Someone (Jason?) has also said "you need to start eating breakfast," and while, again, I don't quite understand the basis for this suggestion (I do not typically consume anything other than black coffee between the time I wake up and lunch), I will now be consuming one hard-boiled egg before I run out the door each morning.






Mostly because that's how science works. In order to conduct a rational experiment, you really need to strip the subject matter down to just one element (or one element per test group, for very large sample sizes.)

In this case, there has been a lot of vague conjecture about microbes, micro-nutrients, etc., but no actual hard data has been presented. Thus, there's nothing I can yet test for in this realm. What has been put forth as alleged fact can be basically summarized as: "grains are bad, bread is bad, sugar is bad, starch is bad." Thus, I elected to begin be reducing intake of these foods as much as possible, and consuming both vitamin and fiber supplements to replace the lost nutrients.

I would welcome any other specific suggestions you might have here, so long as they have some provable basis in fact. EDIT: ... or can be tested for in a reasonable manner using simple, monovariable experiments.


You'd previously objected to my elimination of green vegetables from the diet, though I'm still not quite sure what the justification for this was. (eg: you called me an idiot for doing it, but didn't give any explanation for why.) None the less, I will happily re-introduce green beans and brussels sprouts to the diet, but with the obvious caveat that in so doing, they are displacing some fat / protein intake and thus biasing downward the total caloric count of the meal. We would expect this to produce weight loss even in the absence of all other factors.

I gained 1/2 a lb. ;) I had way more dessert than I usually do.

Based on your recent experience it does seem to me that you can tolerate way more starch than I could. (My (regular) starch tolerance seems to have improved tremendously since starting the indigestible starch)

If you want even more data, the following are useful:

Triglycerides - reflects how much carbs you eat
A1c - average blood sugar
Fasting insulin - this is your baseline insulin and is a reflection of how much insulin resistance you have

If you're willing to pay out of pocket for them you can go to Discount Online Blood Chemistry Tests & Results, Wellness & Anti Aging Direct Access Laboratory Testing.
Walgreens has A1c for walk-ins for $35, not sure about Trigs.

Morning after-crap before-breaky waistline measurement is a pretty good method, if done consistently. So is a scale that has some kind of electronic bodyfat% measurement.

Grains have such low essential nutrient-density that substituting it with veggies or meat will increase your micronutrient intake. Veggies have more fiber than grains, per calorie.

BTW, while this would add variable to your experiment, but you may want to start taking indigestible (resistant) starch. It is a type of fiber. Two guys at work have tried it and they both report large decreases in post-meal blood glucose. Bob's Red Mill Unmodified Potato Starch (not "flour"!) is available in many groceries' baking section. Just increase the dosage slowly as there is an adjustment period during which you will greatly contribute to global warming.

FWIW to me the main effect of reducing starch and increasing (good) fat is that the "slow burn" reduced my appetite (reducing caloric intake) and allowed me to go 5-6 hours between meals. And between meals I never got feeling "famished" with the attendant slowed metabolism (i.e. no reduction in caloric output between meals). The reduction of carbs that allows this varies from person to person.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 shit 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.

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."

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.

That's good news.

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.

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

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