Rose Lake

Members
  • Content count

    1,459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rose Lake

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Female
  1. School Vouchers As The Key To Educational Competition

    Here's the full case for choosing not to advocate voucher programs, but tax credits, as a step toward the full solution (not as some perfect end-in-itself). The article is by Michael A. Ferrara, who also wrote the article linked to above by toyohabu. It's very well-researched and presented, IMO: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-spring/school-vouchers-tax-credits.asp I alerted Brad Harrington to this on FB after he posted that terrific rebuttal to his old teacher, and he agreed to read it, for which I am grateful, since he is a persuasive writer. IMO, all who care about this issue should read it too.
  2. Osama Bin Laden Killed

    FYI - a couple of excellent websites: An Inquiry into Islam Citizen Warrior
  3. Happy Birthday to Carolyn Buby

    Happy Birthday, Carolyn!
  4. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    Sophia, By way of an FYI on how elastic "Paleo" is, all by itself, when used to supposedly designate a particular approach to nutrition - here is a blog post on what Kurt Harris means by "paleo." IMO, "Paleo" in nutrition, is about as useful a term as "Jazz" is in music, which is often used to designate pieces of music that contain virtually nothing in common, and critical elements that are entirely opposed to one another: The Only Reasonable Paleo Principle SUNDAY, MARCH 28, 2010 AT 6:25PM [A simple Venn diagram appears at this point (not duplicated here) in the post, which is also described in the text] Ok, that will be seen as dogmatic, but I can’t help liking my version best. This is yet another post that started out as preamble to another topic, the defense of butter, but has become something else. Before I defend butter, I want to address why I don’t care that butter is not “paleo” and to re-state my own dietary paleo principle. For other essays on what I mean by “paleo principle” you can read this and this. It seems the “paleo” tag itself is becoming less and less useful (a separate blog post in that, I suppose) so I won’t waste much time arguing that butter is “paleo”. It’s not. Butter is Neolithic. Butter is one of many excellent Neolithic foods. But isn’t Neolithic bad and Paleo good? Such dichotomies are attractive but very misleading. When I began to seriously investigate these things years ago, one of the first books I read was a very popular diet book with word “Paleo” in the title. I was pretty disappointed. Allow me to elaborate. Here I had just read Gary Taubes’ magnum opus, the crux of which, it seemed to me, was that the lipid hypothesis was a failed scientific paradigm. Alternatively, in GCBC evidence was presented that certain relatively novel foods could account for diseases of modernity, or diseases of civilization (DOCs). The DOCs, argued Gary, seemed to be related at least in part to the introduction of sugar and wheat flour into our diets. That fat and meat and in particular, saturated fat, had been parts of the human diet for hundreds of thousands of years was without question. So if saturated fat or cholesterol were not, as we had been taught, the cause of the DOCs, and these other agents, which are newer to our diets, might be the real cause of heart disease and other DOCs, then we have the beginnings of a principle, one that just seems obvious when you think about it, and for me really just came from reading GCBC. My new principle or “paleolithic” principle, was just that if foods contribute to disease, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that the bad foods are what we have been eating a long time, and much more likely that they are something relatively new So, the way I thought of it, a food being evolutionarily novel was a likely condition for it being an agent of disease, but that novelty was neither necessary nor sufficient for agent of disease status. So let me explain this necessary nor sufficient thing – a common term in the hard sciences but an important concept. To my simple mind it seemed obvious that the universe of foods that were newer or Neolithic would provide candidates for the dietary agents of disease, and that a disease-causing agent would be very likely to be a Neolithic one. Lots of foods are Neolithic. Among them we are likely to find our agents. But being a Neolithic food alone is not sufficient to make it an agent of disease. Sidebar: I arbitrarily deem foods newer than agriculture – newer than the late Paleolithic period –neolithic foods – even though the newest, like corn oil or HFCS are really more modern or even post-industrial foods. The idea that all Neolithic foods would be agents of disease was an idea I never really entertained. So when I started to read some popular books and blogs, including that one with “Paleo” in the title, it occurred to me that some of the approaches were using a Paleolithic principle quite different from mine - so different that it led to a totally different diet. Some of the sources I read had an inclusive logic – they seemed to say that all Paleolithic foods were the nectar of the gods, and most Neolithic ones were poison, as if exactly what it is in the food matters less than its provenance. That is what I call paleo-reenactment. Of course, that there were and are “paleo” approaches that still cling to the idea that the saturated fat we store in our own bodies is poisonous didn’t help much. To me ditching the lipid hypothesis was essential to the genesis of any realistic Paleolithic principle. How could eating palmitic acid be dangerous when a fasting hunter-gatherer would have it coursing through his veins? And frankly, coming at it from any direction, whether as a doctor or as an amateur reader in evolutionary biology, the idea that one would presume that most foods (especially the real ones!) introduced in the past 10,000 years are Neolithic agents of disease is just kind of incoherent. Just imagine a Venn diagram. One giant circle, one medium and one small. The giant circle is food with a long evolutionary history, the Paleolithic food. The medium circle is the food with a shorter history, the Neolithic food. The small circle is “agents of disease”. The paleo and neo circles do not overlap, but the small circle overlaps both of the larger ones. The “agents of disease” overlaps the Neolithic circle by about 95% of its volume (let’s say) and only 5% overlaps the the paleo circle. But even though the overlap between the agent of disease circle and the Neolithic circle (Neolithic agents of disease) is 95% of the disease circle, the medium-sized neolithic food circle is larger – so only some fraction of the large category of neolithic foods are actually clinically significant causes of disease. Note that, unlike the paleo-reenactors, I see no need to assume that all Paleolithic food is 100% healthy. We can account for foods with millions of years of evolutionary history wreaking havoc with our metabolism by accounting for quantity and ubiquity, and not just “did we eat it”. So there is the necessary part – it is not necessary for a food to be Neolithic to be an agent of disease. How many of the Neolithic foods are agents of disease? I don’t know, but I am confident that thinking they ALL are is biologically implausible and an unsophisticated oversimplification – paleo re-eanctment. When we have medical and metabolic evidence that a Neolithic food is healthy and we find its constituents to be totally compatible with foods we consider Paleolithic, we can conclude that food is not in the agent of disease part of the Venn diagram. Which will bring us round to butter. Next Post. Note: A special thanks to reader Phil for making the Venn diagram! Kurt G. Harris MD
  5. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    For those interested: How to Lose Weight THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2009 AT 10:56AM Let's see if I can write the world's shortest description of everything you can do to lose weight. OK, you'll have to read some of the rest of the site to make sense of it, I suppose. But it will still be pretty short. PaNu is not a weight loss program. It is a healthy eating regime that also happens to be the most powerful and simplest (not easiest, necessarily) regime that I have encountered to achieve your genetically determined normal lean body weight. Being at a particular weight is simply evidence of a having a healthy metabolism, and should obviously not be a health goal in itself. If you have trouble losing weight following the first 4 or 5 steps, you may have what I unscientifically call a "broken metabolism". If you have a broken metabolism, with stubborn residual insulin resistance (liver, not adipocytes), or your leptin receptors are screwed up by WGA from wheat and your satiety switch is broken, or any of a number of theoretical metabolic derangements from years of eating the standard american diet, you may have trouble losing weight without going VLC (say 5-10% carbs) and you might indeed gain weight if you eat excess protein beyond your needs. The extra insulin response to excess dietary protein may simply drive more fat storage. I would not expect this in most people, but it may happen in some. See this. What to do? If you can't lose weight and you need to, you must cut carbs until you have ketones in your urine. Ketones in your blood is ketosis. Ketones in your urine is ketonuria. Ketonuria is proof of ketosis. GNG (gluconeogenesis) and ketosis is the sure way to prove your insulin levels are low as you can get them. Then, as dietary fat has the least effect on serum insulin, and dietary protein has a small but measurable effect, eat only the minimum necessary protein (.8 -1 g/Kg/d) and the rest as fat. 5% carbs should guarantee GNG and ketonuria. (This will mean almost no vegetables and no sugary salad dressings, etc. Your food must be naked except for healthy fats) 15 -10% protein (drop it as you adapt) 80-85% fat This, by the way, is ridiculously easy to achieve if you use butter and cream, but a bit impractical otherwise. This is close to Kwasniewski's Optimal Diet. Read the book. A few more things not mentioned by Kwasniewski but that I think are important: It is helpful to absolutely eliminate fructose from your diet if you have any issues with weight. The SAD (standard american diet) has absurdly high amounts of fructose that destroy your liver's insulin sensitivity. Fructose may be the single biggest cause of broken metabolism. The second biggest (or maybe first, who knows?) cause of broken metabolism may be gluten grains. Wheat germ agglutinin (WGA) binds leptin receptors and insulin receptors, in addition to nasty effects on the immune system and gut. So even if you have no immunologic issues like celiac disease, and you don't believe like I do that almost everyone has subclinical damage to the gut from gluten grains, wheat may be making it harder for you to lose weight by affecting your satiety switch and by directly causing fat storage. Excess Omega 6 linoleic acid ("the third horseman") probably also has an effect on weight loss, as there is evidence that excess n-3 linoleic acid contributes to the inflammation in the liver that is part of metabolic syndrome. Just one more reason to keep industrial vegetable oils limited. Stick to white rice and potatoes if you absolutely must eat starch. No wheat, barley or rye. Try eating one big meal a day to satiety, then allow yourself nothing but decaf coffee with whole cream or fast the rest of the time. I eat like this about three days a week. It is really easy once you are keto-adapted* It is, I believe, easier to go cold turkey from carbohydrates than taper off. Teasing yourself with cereals and bagels is more difficult than simply enduring a few days of nausea or hypoglycemia. Just carry a container of sliced oranges or apples and eat a slice if you are hypogycemic. (Yes, there is a bit of fructose there, you are just eating it while you adapt to ketosis) Totally avoid grains and starches. Use fruit for emergencies. It will pass. *I define keto-adapted as being conditioned enough to ketosis that you can easily fast without getting light headed or hypoglycemic. I think VLC (50g) or ZC (5-10 g) folks are all ketoadapted. LC (100g/day carbs) not as much. Even if not in ketosis all the time, KA folks can slip in and out of it easily and their metabolism has all the machinery for ketosis and GNG constructed. Caution: metabolic speculation informed by experience. Kurt G. Harris MD
  6. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    For those interested: Carbohydrates: No dietary requirement but metabolically critical FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009 AT 12:27PM Reader Mallory has asked some questions, which I will use as a framework for talking about the metabolic need for carbohydrates. In response to "what are the Triglyceride/fatty acid/Krebs cycle and the Randle cycle and can you comment on Taubes description of these in GCBC?" For starters, the triglyceride/ fatty acid cycle (not really a metabolic cycle in the sense of metabolism of substrates, just a feedback mechanism really) as described by Taubes has nothing whatever to do with the Krebs cycle. That is just his term for the equilibrium between esterification and lipolysis and the transport of Triglycerides back to adipocytes from the liver. The Kreb's cycle is totally different, occurring inside mitochondria and is the keystone of aerobic respiration. That is what you are using when you burn fat or glucose aerobically and amino acids and ketone bodies can feed into it as well. The Kreb's cycle is very efficient, and is employed as long as there are enough substrates and oxygen available in most circumstances. It is not determined by diet, really, it is like your furnace if you live in wisconsin in the winter. It is always on to some degree when it has substrates in a functioning cell with mitochondria. The Randle cycle also is not really a cycle of metabolic substrates the way the TCA or Krebs cycle is. The Randle cycle is just mutual feedback between glucose and NEFA (non-esterified fatty acids) or ffa (free fatty acids, same thing) that determines which is the predominant energy substrate. When glucose in the blood is high, glucose is the preferred energy substrate and glycerol phosphate, a metabolite of glucose, rises in the cell. This is the backbone of triglyceride (fat) and fat storage is thereby stimulated and lipolysis inhibited. Glycolysis is stimulated so more glucose can be burned (Usually in the Kreb's cycle) (Important: note that inhibited does not mean stopped! It means the balance is towards fat storage but there is always lioplysis and esterification happening at the same time! Think of patrons passing by a crowded bar. Some enter and some leave. The change over time in the number of patrons in the bar is determined by the net difference between those leaving and those entering over time. That's integral calculus, basically. The point is, you don't have to stop people from leaving to get a bigger crowd, just shift the balance so more come in than go. ) Conversely, when NEFAs are high, the balance between lipolysis and esterification is shifted so there is net release of NEFA for use a substrate (usually burned in the Kreb's cycle again) and glycolysis is inhibited (again, not stopped, but inhibited) Part of this mutual feedback is being mediated by insulin, which is responding to glucose levels, among other things. So the Randle cycle is just the mechanism whereby your body "knows" how to shift fuel sources based on fuel availability. Makes sense, as multicellular life was founded first on metabolism of glucose. The ability to store and burn fat (much more efficient than glucose) evolved later. You need mitochondria to bun fat. Almost any living cell can burn glucose, with our without mitochondria. It makes perfect sense that we are evolved to be able to use either glucose or fat for fuel. PaNu dogma is that we are healthier when spending more time in fat-burning mode. This dogma does not, however require us to fantasize that we are somehow unable to metabolize glucose or that glucose is useless as an internal fuel source. It is adaptative that humans can survive well for long periods, especially when calorie restricted, with carbohydrate as the predominant fuel source. It is entirely consistent that fatty acids are the best fuel when available for most processes, but that glucose remains a backup fuel both on a dietary and internal metabolic basis. How long would our ancestors have survived if they were unable to eat plants? Let's stipulate that there is no absolute dietary need for carbohydrate. Is there a metabolic need? Definitely. As most of you know, fatty acids cannot cross the blood/brain barrier. Neurons can shift about half their metabolism to ketone bodies, but still require a gradient of glucose that can diffuse into the brain. If your blood glucose level drops too low, you are in a coma. Also, red blood cells require glucose. Finally, apart from these special situations, there is another very significant situation in which it makes perfect sense that we have retained the ability to burn glucose generally. That is called anaerobic glycolysis. When you need to perform a lot of work very quickly, like running from a predator, or spending twenty minutes lifting weights, you are not burning fatty acids. Aerobic glycolysis and lipolysis are very efficient but too slow for very high intensity tasks. Any time you need high intensity work done by muscles faster than can be accommodated by aerobic respiration, you are absolutely, positively, using glucose for anaerobic glycolysis. I don't care if you have not eaten of the plant world in eons, that is what is happening. The question was asked: "does low insulin keep muscles from burning glucose" For as long as there is aerobic work, with low insulin levels, fatty acids will be preferred. However, the instant anaerobic work is done, you are absolutely using glucose to do it because you cannot burn NEFAs anaerobically. If I lift weights or sprint on a 15 hour fast, my insulin levels are very low, yet I can instantaneously burn glucose anaerobically. How about: "When insulin is low the liver does not give up the glucose." Generally False. It's just the opposite. When fasting or just between meals, you are constantly burning a small amount of glucose in your brain (hopefully) and you need to constantly maintain your serum BG level. If you did not replenish your serum BG from somewhere, it would drop to dangerous levels. In order to make up for the glucose consumed, and in response to falling glucose, hormones like glucagon and epinephrine are released, which promote gycolysis of liver glycogen, which is then released into the blood. Good thing, too, or I would quickly be in a coma with my daily 15 hour fasts. Finally, I need to make sure everyone understands what is happening with glycogen in the liver if you eat no carbohydrates (or less than replacement levels, like I often do on VLC) . It is still there. Really. You have lots of glycogen stored in your liver as the glucose storage depot to keep your blood glucose stable. If you don't eat enough carbohydrate, this is where gluconeogenisis comes in. GNG is induced when your liver glycogen has been depleted to a certain critical level. As discussed in my previous post, amino acids will be used to make new glucose (hence, gluco- neo-genesis) and the glycogen will be restocked. The big difference between VLC and high carb eaters is in the turnover of liver glycogen. Th high carb eater is using it as his main fuel, so his "gas tank" is being both filled and emptied simultaneously at a higher rate. Everyone has glycogen in their liver, and everyone uses it. The Final Question asked: "Is excess protein just peed out?" No. Unless your kidneys are diseased, there are no protein or amino acids in your urine. Excess protein not used for new protein synthesis may be burned (efficiently or inefficiently) or stored as fat. If metabolised, urea shows up in the urine as a byproduct, but amino acids are not just spilling out like your body doesn't know what to do with them. To repeat from my prior post, there is no particular fate for any macronutrient in your diet, and any excess substrate with caloric value can be stored as fat or burned. If you can eat excess protein or fat or for that matter carbohydrate and not gain weight, that is only proving that your diet has not deviated from favorable insulin levels, your caloric intake is low, or whatever. It is not because that macronutrient "can't be" turned into fat. Kurt G. Harris MD
  7. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    For those interested: Eliminate Sugar and Refined Flour SUNDAY, JUNE 28, 2009 AT 12:52AM Not everyone reading this makes the nutrition blogosphere rounds for the latest biochemical tidbits. Quite a few people don't yet know what “macronutrient” means, and that's OK. They are busy living their lives. I like to think one advantage of the PaNu approach is that you can be healthy without a calculator or a scale, or any doctor-provided tests whatsoever, but you do need some basic knowledge to start making choices. Macronutrients: Proteins, Fats and Carbohydrates Proteins are chains of smaller molecules called amino acids. Proteins are what compose our muscles and give our bones tensile strength and they include enzymes that make all the chemical reactions in our bodies possible. Generally, the body is constantly turning over proteins and re-cycling the amino acids to make new proteins for both structural and enzymatic purposes. Some of the amino acids (aas) will get used up in this turnover process, so we must have a certain amount of our calories come from protein to replenish these aas or we will literally waste away and die. There are 20 aas used by the body to synthesize new proteins, and we must have 8 of them to avoid deficiency. These are the essential amino acids we need to eat. Animal sources of protein like eggs and meat are complete sources, that is, one portion of such a food contains all eight essential amino acids. The other 12 we can synthesize from the essential 8. Humans are omnivores and not vegetarians. Animals that exclusively eat plants are able to synthesize amino acids from a smaller essential list eating monotonous plant sources. Humans who choose to artificially emulate true herbivores by eating only plant sources must consciously mix and match different plant sources, and unless they want to eat their own feces (I am not making that up -it would take about 30% by weight), must artificially supplement to get vitamin B12 that we can otherwise only get from the animal sources we evolved to eat. Animal sources of protein like eggs and meat are complete sources of amino acids – no mix and match required to get the essentials. Fats and oils are described by class here, but generally are in the form of triacylglycerols or triglycerides (TAGs), three fatty acids chains on a glycerol backbone. Lipid is the technical term, but lets use fats for short. The fat composition of our diets affects cell wall and other vital functions, and the ratios of fats like Omega 6 and Omega 3 has important effects on immune function and inflammation. As a fuel, fats are nonpariel. The FDA and the AHA and the ADA and all the lipophobes say to avoid fats because they are 9 kcal/ g (versus roughly 4kcal/g for proteins and carbs) and this caloric density will somehow by itself make you gain weight. I never saw a wild animal titrate their food by weight and humans don't either. We stop eating when we are no longer hungry and nothing turns off hunger like fats. The caloric density of fat is not an accident. Animals evolved to store energy efficiently as fat, and humans evolved to eat the the fat that prey animals we co-evolved with have stored “on our behalf”. We store the majority of the extra energy in our own bodies, whether derived from fats or sugars or proteins, as fat, especially saturated fat. To suspect that the saturated fat we store in our own bodies in such large amounts causes disease is wholly implausible, and I have yet to see any convincing scientific evidence that it does. Animal fats are quite simply the anchor food source of the PaNu approach. Carbohydrates are simple sugars (glucose, fructose, etc..) or polymers (long chains) of simple sugars called starches. Glucose and Fructose are simple sugars. One glucose joined to one fructose is one sucrose disaccharide molecule. Sucrose and high fructose corn syrup or HFCS (manufactured from corn) are metabolically equivalent for all practical purposes. They are equally bad for you. Sugars can be burned as fuel or converted into storage fat in our bodies. They have other biological functions within the body, but importantly, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Any sugar or starch needed internally can be synthesized from scratch. Unlike the case with Proteins and Fats, starches and sugars are basically just fuel. PaNu theory (well, basic cell biology, actually) recognizes that sugars are the oldest cell fuel. Many bacteria and primitive organisms, and dedifferentiated cancer cells, can only use glucose (sugar) as fuel. During the long evolution of animals, the ability to store and use fatty acids evolved as well. This has had huge advantages in energy storage and efficiency for animals. It is my working hypothesis that during much of human evolution, fatty acids were a much more utilized fuel source within the human body, and even though it was adaptive during our evolution for humans to exploit carbohydrate rich food sources when in a food scarce environment, our current food abundant environment has us using glucose as an internal fuel far more than what we are biologically adapted to. This is the first central dogma, if you will, of PaNu theory. Lets state this central dogma for reinforcement: I. The first core departure from the evolutionary metabolic milieu (EM2) is the degree to which we use glucose as an internal fuel relative to fatty acids. In a food abundant environment, where there is no caloric deficit, carbohydrates as a large fraction of caloric intake create a situation where our metabolism is not spending enough time in or near the fat-burning state known as ketosis. The consequence of this is the metabolic syndrome, which is insulin resistance, diabetes, hypertension, obesity and a variety of other diseases that have highly suggestive lines of evidence connecting them to chronically increased levels of insulin and/or serum glucose – including coronary artery disease, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, atrial fibrillation, atherosclerosis, alzheimer dementia, degenerative diseases and even the most common cancers like breast, colon, lung and prostate. Now, as a physician who sees a wide variety of ailments in the context of people who are ill enough to need MRIs, CT scans and Ultrasounds, I can tell you that this short list is about 60% or more of the serious diseases that I encounter routinely. Imagine if these diseases of civilization were not an inevitable consequence of aging, each with a different cause, but were all a consequence of living long enough despite eating the wrong diet – a diet that deviates from the EM2. That is what I believe to be the case. My first central dogma is just a subtle extension of Gary Taubes' carbohydrate hypothesis. For the comprehensive tour-de-force argument for the carbohydrate hypothesis, read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes So what can we do to get closer to the fat-burning metabolism of the EM2? Let's look at our current diet (not yours or mine, the average north american's) and see what it's macronutrient composition is. (These figures are approximate but pretty close) Average daily calories 2300 Sugar and HFCS 100 lbs/yr 496 kcal/day per capita = 22% Source – HFCS web site Flour 138 lbs/yr 685 kcal/day per capita = 30% Source - The Wheat Foods Council The percentage figures as a fraction of daily calories are 22% Sugar and HFCS and 30% from wheat flour. These figures may be high and count wastage and protein (gluten), so lets round the flour carbs down to 20%. Most figures for current total carb consumption are 55%. So, being generous, we can ballpark all other sources of carbs like vegetables and corn and rice and fruit, etc. at 15% of calories. So we have, roughly, 22% sugar and HFCS, 20% flour carbs, 15% veggie carbs, 16% protein and 27% fat. Note that all the vitamins, and all of the essential aas and fatty acids (if we are getting them) are coming from 58% of our diet. To get closer to the fat burning metabolism of the EM2, what can we do with this as a starting point? Insulin levels can be low despite a high carbohydrate fraction and we are in ketosis if we are in constant caloric deficit, but this has nasty side effects like lethargy, muscle wastage and well, eventual death if we keep it up. Being hungry all the time is no fun either. How about eating 55% carbs and only eating every other day, a rigorous form of intermittent fasting? Well, there is some evidence that would work, but I would not prefer alternate day eating to once or twice a day, and try fasting 24 hours after big plates of pasta sometime. Good luck with that. Perhaps we could agree that Sucrose, HFCS and white flour are providing absolutely nothing essential to our diets, and the sugars (they are all nothing but sugars with some gluten protein in the flour) are just stimulating insulin secretion (glucose) and if not stimulating insulin, they are being converted directly to fat, damaging our liver, and making us eat more by not shutting off our appetites (fructose). To make our cells more reliant on fatty acids and avoid the damage from too much sugar in the diet and the bloodstream, we will completely eliminate 42% of our diet. That is step 1 of PaNu. Now we have a 42% hole in our diet. We can fill it with more macronutrients from the following: a) 15% other carbs category choosing from starchy foods like corn, rice, potatoes or fructose laden fruit. b ) 15% other carbs but choosing non-starchy vegetables like green salads, broccoli, asparagus etc. c) Protein 16% d) Fats 27% (This number has actually decreased at the same time obesity has increased over the past 20 years) The a) choices just add back glucose and fructose we just removed even if we picked up a few vitamins from sugary fruit. The b ) choices might be OK, but if you avoid starch and add green vegetables till they are over 60% of calories you have added most of the carbs right back and you are now chewing for hours a day like a chimpanzee just to get nourishment. * Now, people don't eat pure macronutrients once they've eliminated sugars and flour. They eat foods that are composed of macronutrients. We need lower the carbohydrate fraction by adding back foods that don't just raise it back again. Since Fats have zero insulin response, are a great fuel source, and give great satiety, why not do this: Increase Fats to 65-70%, and cut out all residual grains, legumes, and starchy vegetables like potatoes, corn and rice so that only the green salads and non starchy veggies are left. This will get carbs down to 10% (roughly 50g per day) and absolutely minimize glucose, fructose and insulin effects. For the reasons elucidated here we will not allow mechanically extracted seed oils into the diet. This leaves animal sources like butter, cream and flesh of animals like beef, chicken, pork and fish. Now, when we seek out these natural unprocessed animal sources of fat, we will get a bit more animal protein and many more vitamins in the bargain. Keep carbs around 10%, seek out animal fats, let protein come along for the ride and you will get close to these ratios, + or – 5% for each: 65-70% Fat, 20-25% Protein, and 10% carbohydrates. This may well be more protein than you need. No harm reducing it to 15% and adding more cream or butter Try it. Record everything you eat for a few days while sticking to 1 through 4. Use Fitday to calculate your ratios. It will be hard to radically deviate from the above ratios unless you purposefully try to subvert it. Now is when you ( well not you, but those who buy the healthy grains propaganda) say: Where are the healthy grains? Answer in the next post. *Greens are fibrous and not starchy or calorie dense, so if we add enough back to replace the lost calories, we are eating a huge amount of vegetables now. This is in fact advocated by authors like Colin Campbell and Joel Furhman - it can have some effect as the mechanical satiety and sheer work of eating may reduce your caloric intake. However, you will be having a minimal effect on insulin levels at the expense of eating fewer higher quality animal foods and absurd amounts of fiber - this approach only makes sense if you think animal products and fats per se are unhealthy - they are not. Also you just don't need that many vegetables in general and you don't need "fiber" at all. Kurt G. Harris MD
  8. Harriet Whitney Frishmuth

    Thank you so much for this! Ordered.
  9. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    Low carb is not necessarily high protein, though, if one does not fear healthy fats. I (probably) eat more protein than I used to, but not a lot more. The biggest differences are: much less sugar no refined carbs and other things that are more Kurt Harris's ideas (links below) not ideas from Taubes, e.g. no gluten grains or oils high in linoleic acid [conjugated linoleic acid, however, (which has been through the digestive system of a ruminant) is not the same, and may be good] more eggs a lot more calories from fat good fat sources: fats from grass-fed ruminants, where possible - butter, ghee, and fat on meat coconut oil nuts low in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) - macadamias, hazelnuts, pistachios, almonds I like the approach outlined here: PaNu So I'm offering the same link that I offered above, again. And for those who like audio, here is an interview with the doctor who writes the blog. Jimmy Moore interviews Kurt Harris (one hour)
  10. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    The first question did assume that which was never asserted, i.e. that carbohydrates cannot be eaten without ill consequences. I encourage everyone to read Good Calories, Bad Calories if they want to discover what is behind mainstream ideas of nutrition. Prior to reading GCBC, I never thought any of Ray's ideas were mainstream. But whether or not an idea is mainstream is irrelevant to whether it is true, false, or arbitrary. The only difference it makes, whether an idea is mainstream or not, is that when false or arbitrary ideas are widely accepted, they can cause immense harm. And that is the kind of widespread harm which Taubes' book can diminish -- if people read the book -- because he exposes some very prevalent, and important wrong ideas in the field of nutrition, by showing how they came to be accepted, despite the lack of evidence to support them. Taubes will be publishing a second, shorter book in December, presumably designed for those who want a diet book. Among the complaints about GCBC, was that it was not a diet book, and many people didn't want to read through 500 pp. to understand the ideas. I guess they just wanted to try a diet, and see if it worked. Anyway, the title of the shorter book is: Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It. I am sure, however, that GCBC will always be the superior reference, for those who want the full case.
  11. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    For the benefit of those interested in the issue of sugar, my answer to "No, I am not" [wrong about what Taubes says in GCBC] is: Read the book, and see for yourself. Taubes makes a very good case for anything he claims. And his claims are not many. Much of the book is concerned with demonstrating the unscientific bases for much of the nutrition advice that has become mainstream, showing the causes for the acceptance of common recommendations with regard to nutrition, in spite of a lack of scientific evidence. These reasons are specific and complex, but, not surprisingly (to me) result, in part, from the disastrous marriage between government and "science." As for the questions. They were presented as questions that I should ask myself. And since no one has claimed that people cannot eat carbohydrates without ill consequences, the very first question contains a straw man. But, presuming for the moment that your facts are correct in the next three questions, and which ask why the body uses glucose as the primary source of energy, the answer would be: the law of identity.
  12. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    You are quite wrong about Taubes' claims. I encourage people to read the book, before deciding what his claims are. For interest: Insulin is a doorman at the fat cell nightclub, not a lock on the door
  13. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    Already seen it, and Taubes' reply.
  14. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    I have an idea about that, which is: If one can do something through sheer will, I know of no one who would do it without batting an eyelash better than yourself, and convince your clients to do it too. I have read you saying that you get hungry, but still stick to your calorie limitation, which doesn't surprise me in the least. Also, I may say, that the metabolic syndrome type of problems take twenty years or more of too-high sugar / refined carbs consumption to manifest, which you will probably never have, as I expect that you don't enough of anything to eat too much sugar / refined carbs. Fortunately for me, pretty much by accident, I didn't start eating too much sugar and refined carbs until my mid twenties. With regard to Taubes. He answers those people specifically in his book, and gives all documentation of the context in which he obtained their comments. He is an honest, meticulous journalist. He is not even claiming to be right (as he thinks more studies need to be done). He is mostly showing what has been VERY wrong in the nutrition advice that most of us got for our entire lives, and shows the reader why. And has good ideas about promising topics for study in nutrition. I don't know what you mean by "foolish."
  15. Fat and glucose vs. fructose

    I only ever restricted calories once, last year, making no distinction between calories from fat, protein, and carbs. I started at about 130, and my goal was 125 (I am a little over 5' 6"). I thought it would be healthy. I ate about 1200 calories per day in four small meals for ~ three months and achieved 125. But I was hungry all the time, and thought about food all the time, which had never happened to me before. (I had never counted and strictly/severely restricted calories before). After the losing weight part, my sustaining calories were supposed to be either 1500 - or maybe 1800. Can't remember. Whichever it was, I was still hungry all the time on that number of calories too. So I gave up counting after about a month, and gained ten pounds over the next ~ four months, which put me at 135 -- not horrible, but more than I'd ever been. Then, in early 2010, I (fortunately for me) read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories [GCBC] (~ 500 pp. not including notes) and found it VERY illuminating. He is very careful, and I like his ideas about what constitutes good science. He is a science journalist, and did not start out with any particular agenda or hypothesis, but went where the information took him. He researched the book for seven years. And when I read the chapter on hunger, I recognized what he described (though I would not have if I had never been on a restricted-calorie diet). While reading GCBC, I started to act on what is implied in the book. A few months later I was (and am still) at ~ 120 (varies between 118 - 122) -- without trying to lose weight, without calorie counting, and most importantly to me, never the kind of hunger that had me thinking about food all the time (what a bore). I am eating primarily for health - not weight loss per se. Still, I haven't been in this range for more than 20 years. Interesting. My fat/protein/carb ratios are roughly what is recommended on this blog, created by a doctor who read Taubes' book and started the blog as a result of reading GCBC, combined with his own interests, and a desire to help people with their health: PaNu GCBC is not (particularly) a diet book. It is also a long read, and contains very little (almost no) direct advice. It just presents a lot of information about the science (or, mostly the lack of science) behind many nutrition studies. If you read it, you can decide for yourself whether you think he is saying something important, and whether you want to eat differently based on the facts he presents. My opinion was (obviously): yes. And I have not been sorry at all. I was, OTOH, sorry when I tried a restricted calorie-diet with small meals four times per day. But fortunately, I did that only once before GCBC offered an explanation for why that felt bad, and was not a reasonable, sustainable diet, for me.