|03-26-2012, 06:47 PM||#211|
Senior LCF Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: So Cal
Stats: 240/173/182 6'2"
Start Date: 2/14/10
Thank you all for your kind remarks.
It was, in fact, a whirlwind. We met on November 5th thru Match.com.
and on Nov. 8th we decided to become exclusive.
We dated 6-7 days a week thru Christmas and she moved in with me in early Jan. We both like the same things and we both came out of 30+ year, happy marriages and both wanted to get married again. The living apart was expensive maintaining two houses so we decided to go for it.
|03-30-2012, 08:31 AM||#213|
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: south central OR
Stats: oh so happy at 120
WOE: Mine, all mine
Start Date: controlled carb '97-98
Ron, that is so cool.
I hope to find someone someday and it seems that it's never too late. Thank goodness.
So tell us, has your woe changed w this event or hers?
|03-30-2012, 01:49 PM||#214|
Senior LCF Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: So Cal
Stats: 240/173/182 6'2"
Start Date: 2/14/10
It took a while to meet her, with a few false starts, but I agree, it's never too late. I'll be 68 in April and she's my age.
Partly due to my diet, I have the good health and energy to pursue romance at my age. She is also slim and healthy.
My diet has added an occasional veg or rarely an half of potato to the normal meat, cheese and eggs. She still eats a few crackers and a little candy and/or ice cream, but very little. Otherwise, she has adapted to my diet. She drinks a beer or two and I stick to my Jack Daniels.
We both love to dance and we've done it at home for an hour or so everyday since we met.
Goal reached 9/24/10
|04-01-2012, 01:00 PM||#215|
Major LCF Poster!
|04-13-2012, 09:58 AM||#216|
Major LCF Poster!
Don't know if I posted a link to Dr. Donald Miller's talk on Saturated Fats. If you need something a bit more formal than Tom Naughton's "The Big, Fat Fiasco", this one is very good!
There is a brief version of this talk, in print, at the Lew Rockwell site, "Enjoy Saturated Fats, They're Good for You!" There are ads at the site, so I can't post a link, but I highly recommend the article.
Last edited by Auntie Em; 04-13-2012 at 10:05 AM.. Reason: added information
|04-18-2012, 09:57 AM||#217|
Major LCF Poster!
Good news about a ketogenic diet, again!
Lethal Mitochondrial Cardiomyopathy in a Hypomorphic
Med30 Mouse Mutant is Ameliorated by Ketogenic Diet
Krebs et al
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:19678 –19682.
The last paragraph, spacing divided for easier reading:
In their study, Krebs and colleagues established
a temporal link between worsening of cardiomyopathy and
weaning. Remarkably they deduced that changing the diet
might be sufficient to significantly slow the progression of
The authors actually demonstrated the positive
effects of ketogenic diet on enzyme activity and life duration.
Based on these observations in the MED30 mutant mouse, the
reported protective effect of the ketogenic diet might be
applicable to mitochondrial dysfunction resulting from other
The findings also implicate diet as a central actor in
the course of mitochondrial diseases and it could explain, in
part, the interindividual variability of expression of these
Maintainers Over 55
Best wishes for happy, healthy LCing.
|04-29-2012, 10:56 AM||#218|
Major LCF Poster!
Here is some information I posted in another thread, endeavoring to answer questions about eating only meat and eggs, or meat and fat, etc. Am posting most of those two posts here, in case that other thread gets hard to find:
Here is one support thread for M/E that is current, in the Other Plans sub-forum:
Egg/Protein Fast - Resurrection - 2011
Here is an M/E thread in Challenges:
Protein (eggs/meat) and fat fast anyone?
MEAT AND EGG, 3-5 Days or Until You Reach Goal***You Decide***SUMMERTIME***
And an Egg Fast thread, also in Challenges:
3 Day Egg Fast for stubborn weight... Join me
There are probably infinite ways to do a meat-only, meat-and-egg-only, or high-fat-mod-protein-ultra-low carb diet.
Several doctors before Dr. Atkins recommended food plans of 80% fat and 20% protein with calorie restriction. Dr. Atkins used the work of Drs. Kekwick, Pawan, Pennington, and MacKarness in his recommendations for his Fat Fast and Modified Fat Fast.
Here is an article from 1956, in the British medical journal, The Lancet, on the high fat, low carb diet used by Drs. Kekwick and Pawan, compared to other reducing diets. Their success with a high fat, low carb diet was the basis for Dr. Atkins developing his Fat Fast and Modified Fat Fast.
Dr. Kurt Harris posted on his blog, Archevore, (the blog was titled PaNu then) some time back, that if one weren't losing weight with his standard recommendations, that one could try this:
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)
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.
Meat, both muscle meat and offal, meat fat, bone/meat broths, and eggs are the basis of my nutrient intake. I add butter, cream, cheese, homemade yoghurt, and a few plants (for the micronutrients and some variety), and occasionally some fish, and follow Dr. Richard Bernstein's Law of Small Numbers. I found that going below 20g/CHO/d made me feel unwell. I feel best at 20-30g/CHO/d. The occasional day of below 20 or up to 40 or so is not a problem for me.
This ends up with a daily total of: 20-30g/CHO, 50-70g/PRO (I don't fret if I go a bit higher, but do watch it that I don't go lower than 50g) and enough FAT to feel well and cheery.
Liver, brains, kidneys, egg yolks, cheese, and cream all have carbs, so it is easy to get to that 20-30g/CHO/d.
I neglected to answer the part of the question about the origins of the meat and fat food plan. Those with ancestors in the northern parts of the globe, before the advent of agriculture, ate what they could hunt. They ate the whole animal, bones, marrow, the inside parts, even the contents of the stomach (which gave them micronutrients from the plants the animals had eaten). Dr. Michael Eades has posted about the pre-agricultural diet of human beings, on his blog. (A few berries, herbs, leaves and roots were added, as found, in regions where such things grew.)
Dr. Wolfgang Lutz writes about this in his book, Life Without Bread. Dr. Lutz called the diet since the advent of agriculture, the real "fad diet".
Dr. Blake Donaldson was the first doctor to write about a pre-agricultural diet for helping patients (heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, allergies, obesity, etc.), AFAIK, in his book, Strong Medicine, copyright 1961. (Dr. Donaldson started putting his patients on meat and fat diets, sometimes with one serving of veg/fruit, in the 1920s.) Dr. Donaldson interviewed museum curators at the American Museum of Natural History, as well as the explorer, Vilhjalmur Stefansson, about what our ancestors ate, and their health.
Dr. Richard MacKarness wrote about the diet of our ancestors in his book, Eat Fat and Grow Slim, ca. 1960 (depending on the edition one reads).
Here is a short newsreel, with a very short interview of Dr. MacKarness explaining what our ancestors ate and how this LC diet is our natural diet. Dr. MacKarness mentions a bit about Dr. Donaldson's work, in his book.
The Arctic explorer and anthropologist, Vilhjalmur Stefansson, wrote extensively about the diet, eating habits, lifestyle, and habits of the Inuit (then called Eskimos). Here is a report by the doctor who supervised the one-year, all-meat diet, known as the Bellevue experiment, which Mr. Stefansson and his colleague, Karsten Anderson, undertook. They proved that there is no nutritional deficit on an all meat (including meat fat) diet. Here is Stefansson's book, The Fat of the Land (pdf).
To put the proportions of the fatty meat diet in short form: fatty meat, including offal and bone marrow, in the proportion of 80% meat fat, and 20% protein, of total calories. This is what Dr. Donaldson and Dr. MacKarness recommended. Drs. Kekwick and Gawan had some of their patients on 90% fat and 10% protein to lose weight. Dr. Alfred Pennington's writings and work are very much worthwhile reading, too. His success putting patients on LCHF diets put LC diets in the news. Here is a paper of his from 1953 on LCHF diets for obesity. Dr. Donaldson also had patients in hospitals on meat, three times a day, and they recovered from many ailments. His book is fascinating reading.
I use heavy cream or half-and-half, and butter, along with the meat, meat fat, offal, bone broths, eggs, fish, and bits of plant matter. If one has no intolerance for dairy products, such as lactose or casein intolerance, or sensitivity to amines, there is no nutritional reason to avoid them, AFAIK. Some find that they lose weight by leaving out the cream, cheese, etc., even when replacing those calories with beef fat. Some leave out particular foods, and do not replace them with anything containing calories.
I hope all that is of use.
|04-29-2012, 11:15 AM||#219|
Major LCF Poster!
Interesting article at wiley on cellulite being a symptom of inflammation:
|04-29-2012, 12:04 PM||#220|
Senior LCF Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: JOIN DATE FEBRUARY 6, 2012
Stats: goal 150
WOE: Ketogenic 85 F/12 P/3 C
Start Date: 1/7/2013
I wanted to do a read on bone marrow (re fat fast - watched a few Ytube videos on folks enjoying it as meals) and found this wonderful compilation! What a nice collection of information! Thank you for sharing I'll have a great time savoring it all...
I'll need to get over the yip factor re marrow - but past that, it looks to be great based on all I've seen and read.
|04-29-2012, 12:17 PM||#221|
Major LCF Poster!
Hi, CC. An easy way to get the benefits of bone marrow, is to make broth. I just put the bones in the pressure cooker with beef broth or water, some vinegar, and let it cook for an hour. I use the broth and fat for cooking.
All the best to you.
|05-23-2012, 06:36 AM||#223|
Major LCF Poster!
Dr. Richard Mackarness, in his book on allergies, "Not All in the Mind", mentions Dr. George L. Thorpe, of Wichita, Kansas. Dr. Thorpe had his patients who needed to lose weight on a diet quite similar to what Dr. Blake Donaldson had been having his patients follow. It is delightful to find yet more proof that VLC has been around for a very long time!
Here is the abstract for the 1957 article at JAMA, by Dr. Thorpe. There is a link there for a pdf, one of the free ones.
The simplest to prepare and most easily obtainable high-protein, high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, and the one that will produce the most rapid loss of weight without hunger, weakness, lethargy, or constipation, is made up of meat, fat, and water. The total quantity eaten need not be noted, but the ratio of three parts of lean to one part of fat must be maintained. Usually within two or three days, the patient is found to be taking about 170 Gm. of lean meat and 57 Gm. of fat three times a day. Black coffee, clear tea, and water are unrestricted, and the salt intake is not reduced. When the patient complains of monotony, certain fruits and vegetables are added for variety. The overweight patient must be dealt with as an individual. He usually needs help in recognizing the factors at work in his particular case as well as considerable education in the matter of foods.
|06-16-2012, 12:26 PM||#224|
Major LCF Poster!
I've been reading about allergies lately, rather than general carnivory and ketogenic diets.
Have been meaning to post this excerpt from Dr. Richard Mackarness' wonderful book, Eat Fat and Grow Slim, pp. 24-25.:
Stefansson, who was a few pounds overweight at the beginning, lost his excess weight in the first few weeks on the all-meat diet.
His basal expenditure of energy (metabolism or general rate of food using) rose from 60.96 calories to 66.38 calories per hour during the period of the weight loss, indicating an increase of 8.9%. He continued the diet a full year, with no apparent ill effects.
His blood cholesterol level at the end of the year, while he was still on the diet, was 51 mg. lower than it had been at the start. (Remember this when reading about the next objection - the possibility of heart disease.) It rose a little after he resumed an ordinary, mixed diet. After losing his excess
weight he maintained constant weight the rest of the year, though food was taken as desired.
His total intake ranged from 2,000 to 3,100 calories a day. He derived, by choice, about 80% of his energy needs from fat and 20% from protein. These proportions are close to those derived by a person from his own tissues during prolonged fasting. The instinctive choice of about 80% of the calories from fat seems to be based on selection by the metabolic processes of the body. It was found that with carbohydrate restricted in the diet, the appetite for fat greatly increased. The body adapted itself to a greater use of fat for energy when this substance was supplied in increased amounts.
Dr. Mackarness, as well as Dr. Blake Donaldson, and Dr. George Thorpe, each recommended eating one ounce of fat for every three ounces of meat, which gives that 20% Protein and 80% Fat ration, give or take a bit, which Dr. Mackarness states is what the body uses during fasting.
I feel well at these ratios and find it very easy to keep a food plan. My current amounts are ca. 20gCHO/d, 50-60gPRO, and 90-120gFAT.
More can be read about the Inuit Eskimos eating these ratios in The Fat of the Land, by Mr. Stefansson.
Best wishes to all for happy, high fat nourishment.
Last edited by Auntie Em; 06-16-2012 at 12:27 PM.. Reason: corrected error
|06-16-2012, 04:54 PM||#225|
Join Date: Mar 2000
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
|06-17-2012, 08:28 AM||#226|
Major LCF Poster!
Seems there is truth to this being the ratio our bodies naturally prefer when eating a low carb diet as I, too, find myself averaging 80-85% fat daily as well.
AuntieEm - my allergies , both food and grass/pollen/dust have been very strong this year. Seem to be developing new strong food allergies too. I keep my epipen and Benadryl close at hand and limit my diet to "safe" foods. Can still make tasty satisfying meals but it is a bit of a challenge.
|06-18-2012, 10:38 AM||#227|
Major LCF Poster!
Hi, Cathy. Hope you find just the right proportions that suit you.
Shunsweets, I'm sorry the allergies have been so rough.
The books I've been reading by Dr. Mackarness on allergies, and also by Dr. Theron Randolph, agree with Dr. Blake Donaldson's earlier book, that those of us who are "allergics" can have allergic reactions to anything at any time. Dr. Donaldson said that 20% of the population belongs to the non-allergic folk, and 80% of us are allergics.
Dr. Randolph had his patients go on "rotary diversified diets". Eating only safe foods, and not eating anything more often than once in a six-day period. That is, leaving five days in between eating any more of that food, or that food group. Both he, and later, Dr. Mackarness had their patients on water fasts for five days to eliminate whatever foods still in the system that might trigger reactions. The test is to eat a normal portion of that food, and then back to water, for three days. It can take up to three days for the reactions to appear. Dr. Mackarness states in his book, that if the water fast isn't possible for someone, to eat beef and water, as beef allergies are rare. I suppose one could use another meat and fat, such as salmon and coconut oil, if they were safe foods for that person.
They state that when foods are eaten often, that one can develop allergic reactions to them. The way to find out is to go on the strict elimination diet. Eliminating possibly problematic foods for a good while, and then testing. I don't have the books with me, so can't check the length of time recommended for avoidance. One example was coffee. To eliminate for several months (6-8) and then test.
Dr. Mackarness' book, Not All in the Mind, was published in the U.S. as Eating Dangerously. I find it easier reading than the Dr. Randolph's book. Dr. Randolph's books give more details and explanations of levels of allergic reaction and also list of food families. I found the lists of food families quite helpful. For example, cucumbers and yellow squash are both in the melon/gourd family. So, if one has reactions to either one, anything from that food family would need to be eaten with five days in between.
Are you on a low histamine diet? The Paleo Guy has a couple of good posts about that at his blog. Here is one.
Dr. Mackarness states very clearly that we are not genetically designed to eat industrial foods, and that many of us develop several reactions to them, as our genetic heritage has not adapted to the toxins.
I have not done the water fast and the specific food testing, but have done the easier version of eliminating the most problematic categories of foods. I am eating less these days, and in weight-loss mode, which makes reactions to problem foods much more pronounced, for me.
Also, both Dr. Mackarness and Dr. Randolph tested their patients for reactions to food grown organically, with compost, and then to commercial versions. The variables have since compounded, as the outgassing from plastic package, plastic linings of refrigeration and freezer units, has become much worse.
I noticed in the McClellan-Dubois report of the Bellevue experiment that both Anderson and Stefansson came out with the average of circa 80/20, that it wasn't a daily ratio.
It has been a relief to find nice PFC ratios, incorporating the 80/20, which allows me to limit calories, and feel well.
Am doing the testing of foods and supplements which may be unsafe in very slow motion.
Both Dr. Mackarness and Dr. Randolph recommended rotating water, as well.
I drink purifed water, first run through a carbon filter and then through a Berkey, with the cartridge elements for eliminating fluoride as well as bacteria, viruses, chlorine, etc., and I sometimes still boil my water before drinking. I also take iodine (Iosol drops).
Hope this helps someone. Having an allergic make-up is quite a puzzle, esp. getting older, in what Dr. Mackarness and Dr. Randolph called, the "exhaustion" phase.
Sending you both best wishes.
Last edited by Auntie Em; 06-18-2012 at 10:46 AM.. Reason: typing error
|06-19-2012, 09:08 AM||#228|
Major LCF Poster!
It is a challenge to face increasing allergies as I age. I am going to buy Dr Mackarness's book if I can find it. I have done a 48 hour water fast in the past to get allergens out of the system but don't think I could manage a 5 day water fast! I do follow a strict diet of foods that are safe as found by an elimination diet. The info on food families sounds like it would be valuable - I'm going to look it up. It worries me that eating foods frequently can cause one to develop allergies as I eat my staples - eggs and beef and coconut oil (expeller pressed - I don't tolerate virgin CO) daily and would be hard pressed to replace them if I develop allergies to them. I know my 91 year old mom is allergic to almost everything now especially all medications and eats a very limited diet but is doing well with it.
I never thought about water being a concern. We do have a whole house filter and use a Brita pitcher with another filter on it so I think it should be fine but never thought about it. We are on city water and I guess I just figured it would be tested at the treatment plant - foolish thought! I am opposed to bottled water due to the plastic bottles being bad for us and horrible for the environment. I worry about the world my grandchildren will inherit when the grow up.
Thanks for all the information as always AuntieEm. You are so generous in sharing all your research with us. You are a true treasure here on LCF's .
March goal 100 miles - 62 done
Miles walked in 2014 - 285
|06-19-2012, 12:08 PM||#229|
Major LCF Poster!
Shunsweets, thank you so much for your kind thoughts and words. You have made my day so much nicer. I really appreciate your posting here, too. I find your posts very reassuring. I'm glad your mother is doing well with the limited diet. The medicines as well as the fillers, capsules, inactive ingredients, etc., can be a huge problem.
I order used books mostly through abebooks, and sometimes look up things at addall, which compiles listings for abebooks, alibris, and several other online sellers. That's how I found Dr. Donaldson's book, Strong Medicine. His book helped me tremendously, and gave me the courage to stop eating most vegetables. (After leaving out the starches, fruits, the nightshades, the goitrogens, the oxalates, and the high salicylates, and the high FODMAPs, there weren't too many left to avoid.)
Both Dr. Mackarness and Dr. Randolph recommend rotating waters as well. I rotate distilled water, spring water and the water which goes through my purifier (Berkey). I haven't found five different ones yet. Getting the fluoride and chlorine out is vital, along with the microscopic varmints.
They each make very clear distinctions to test for reactions to commercially grown and packaged foods, and then separately for organically grown, of the same food. The pesticides, hormones, insecticides, and who knows what else, along with the packaging, can incapacitate some.
Dr. Randolph has a chart of sorts, a pyramid showing foods and substances according to their likelihood to be allergic/addiction triggers. Fats are the least likely and meats the next least likely. Here is a much-too-simplified explanation of Dr. Randolph's findings, with the Addiction Pyramid. A bit more info on Dr. Randolph's work with allergies to foods and chemicals.
This explains a tiny bit of how someone becomes addicted to foods to which one is allergic.
When someone is a "universal reactor" or as the FailSafe diet puts it, a "super responder", having allergic reactions to all foods, water, chemicals, etc., then one must find the foods, water, appliances, etc., that cause the least severe reactions, and rotate.
The Berkey water filter, and the Air Oasis purifier help greatly. I also use a salt lamp and negative ionizers.
This gives more information. Here is the text:
Do you know that your living environment can make you sick? Yes! It is true. How is it? Let's talk about that.
Intolerant reactions to normal substances are not allergies in the true medical sense, yet they have the same symptoms and cause the same distressing health problems.
It is not yet fully understood why people become sensitive to various foods and chemicals. One theory is that the body may lack the particular enzyme necessary to digest a certain food. This may be temporary or permanent, acquired or inherited. An example of this is milk intolerance caused by a lack of lactase, the enzyme needed to digest lactose, the natural sugar in milk.
According to Drs Kenyon and Lewith of the Centre for Alternative Therapies, Southampton, 'Ecological illness is best defined as illness caused wholly or partially by food and/or chemical sensitivity. In the real sense of the word ecological illness is not strictly allergic, as the normally accepted serological accompaniments of allergic illness are not invariably present. '
Causes of Ecological Illness:
What causes the body to become sensitive to many different foods and chemicals? At this stage the causes are not clearly understood. However the alarming number of people who are now suffering from this problem, in varying degrees, indicates that it is widespread due to the following reasons:
The excessive consumption of refined, pre-packed, tinned, frozen and artificially-preserved foods, in our Western civilization. The over-consumption of refined carbohydrates and the almost daily intake of 'fast foods', are aggravating factors.
Increasing pollution of the environment with chemicals such as fertilizers, insecticides and hydrocarbons.
The vast array of drugs and medication being prescribed daily by doctors for every conceivable complaint.
These factors are related to Western lifestyles. Many studies have shown that the tribes people of Africa and the rural peasants of Asia, do not suffer from ecological illness. Freedom from chemicals and drugs, along with their diet of unrefined unprocessed foods, allows their immune systems to work at full potency. The result is relative freedom from allergies, cancers and heart disease.
While the individual might find it difficult to do much about the overuse of fertilizers and insecticides, it is possible to cut back on drugs and the wrong type of foods. Ecological illness, whilst being debilitating and depressing, can be overcome by personal discipline and sound management.
According to Dr Richard Mackarness in his book Chemical Victims, in terms of clinical ecology, the body is like a water barrel. Environmental exposure to allergens, in the form of food and chemical substances, is seen as the water. If we have an excess of environmental exposure (water), the barrel overflows and the body becomes overloaded with toxins. Once the excess exposure to allergens can be avoided, the water ceases to overflow the barrel, and the body's immune system can regain control. Symptoms then disappear and the individual returns to normal good health. Therefore it is not necessary to eliminate all allergens. Provided enough of them are eliminated, the body will again take over and deal with the remainder itself.
I have yet to find any books published more recently which are of the quality of Drs. Donaldson, Mackarness, and Randolph. If I do, I'll post about them.
Perhaps some good things will appear at archive.org and scribd, too.
Best wishes to all for happy, healthy days.
Last edited by Auntie Em; 06-19-2012 at 12:11 PM..
|06-22-2012, 08:45 AM||#230|
Major LCF Poster!
I finally obtained the revised edition of Dr. Mackarness' Eat Fat and Grow Slim.
He mentions some about Dr. Ancel Keys and the Minnesota Experiment.
Here are a few links with pithy observations about the Minnesota experiment, and starvation, calories, weight loss, weight gain after starvation, etc.:
That Univ. of Ottawa one has comments and graphs about insulin resistance and children with Metabolic Syndrome, among other things.
And this from the CrossFit Brunswick site (can't post a link due to the advertising):
All It Takes Is Willpower, Right?
So, what happens if a person does have the willpower to stay on the hypocaloric diet and continue exercising at a high intensity? Our old buddy Ancel Keys tested this back in the 1940’s. During World War II there were some people who refused to enter the draft or go to war for religious reasons. These pacifists were not forced to go to jail, but instead were allowed to serve the country in other ways. They were called conscientious objectors and there are still some today, but it’s not as relevant now that there is no mandatory draft. These conscientious objectors performed laborious jobs that aided in national defense, and Keys recruited 36 of them for his Minnesota Experiment.
Keys was a pretty manipulative little guy, not just with research data, but also with people. The goal, he claimed, was to find out what was happening physiologically in the concentration camps where people were starving. Keys, feeding off the humanitarian nature of the conscientious objectors, convinced them that they would be helping the starving victims if they participated. He posted ads that read, “Will you starve so that they will be better fed?” Sneaky little man, indeed.
The Minnesota Experiment
The men who volunteered for the experiment were kept under lock-and-key in an area under the football stadium at the University of Minnesota and fed strict portions while being forced to work and exercise. In the first phase of the experiment the men ate well, over 3,000 calories per day. Then for six months they went on a semi-starvation diet. The rations were cut substantially and the men became constantly hungry and obsessed about food. They were lethargic and when they weren’t forced to work, they slept as much as possible. The men suffered from depression, and some from psychosis. Sam Legg is probably the most famous because of his mental state at the end of the study. The picture of him below appeared in Life in 1945.
Legg became famous because at the end of the experiment, about a month after this picture was taken, he cut off his fingers with an ax because of the mental damage he incurred during the study. This was even after the men were allowed to eat more as part of a recovery phase of the study. He was at a dinner and was sent out to chop wood for the fire. He laid his left hand on the chopping block and cut off several fingers. I read an interview with him five decades later in which he told the reporter he still wasn’t ready to admit he did it on purpose, but he couldn’t say that he didn’t. The other participants of the study reported similar mental distress, but none as bad as Sam Legg. Once they returned to their normal diets, they all made mental recoveries. They also gained all the weight back, and some a little more.
Just from looking at this picture, how many calories do you think the participants were fed during the starvation phase of the experiment? People usually guess 800 or even 500, but these men were fed 1,570 calories per day! That’s not even as low as many of the low-fat, low-calorie diets nutritionists and doctors prescribe today. The problem is these men were starving because they were only getting 30 grams of fat per day and the defense mechanisms for low caloric intake were being ignored. The men were forced to exercise and could not get any more food.
In the real world, people will simply give in and stop exercising and start eating more. You cannot eat fewer calories forever and eventually you will either suffer severe damage or eat. Their bodies are primed for weight gain since adaptive thermogenesis has kicked in and the metabolism has slowed down, sending the body into starvation mode. The body refuses to let the fat be burned and it accumulates all it can until stability is regained.
As a side note, there were a couple of men in this study who did not lose any weight. Keys accused them of cheating and kicked them out of the study. There was never any evidence, other than their lack of weight loss, (for at least a few of them) that they cheated. Keys did not understand that some people are less prone to weight loss than others, just like some people are perpetually skinny.
You’ll Probably End Up Just As Fat
It has been shown over and over that people who go on hypocaloric diets and use exercise to lose weight end up the same weight or heavier than they started. Therefore, the only logical conclusion we can come to is that eating less and exercising more makes people fat! Of course, we know that it’s not the diet or exercise that makes people fat; it is the thermodynamic and physiological principles that our bodies use for survival that make long-term weight loss challenging if not impossible with caloric restriction. Guess what happened with these men? They suffered mental and physical damage when they were depriving their bodies of energy, but when they went back to their normal diets they gained the weight back, and some gained more. In the real world very few people will have the willpower to continue to starve themselves on a hypocaloric diet. Those that do are called anorexic. Their bodies suffer severe damage and their minds suffer just as much.
So what can we do to lose weight? When we stop thinking about our diets calorically and start thinking about the hormonal implications of the food we eat, we can eat plenty of calories to fuel our bodies and still cut excess fat. Hormones are the controllers of our bodies and our metabolisms. When we learn how to control our hormones we can control our weight. Cutting calories is the quick fix weight loss solution that will eventually cause damage or weight gain if the hormonal side effects of our diets are ignored.
continued in next post...
|06-22-2012, 08:50 AM||#231|
Major LCF Poster!
and Dr. Emily Deans:
Dieting Can Make You Lose Your Mind | Psychology Today
So you have some pounds to lose. Wedding coming up, or a class reunion. I know. I've been there. Goal pants in a special place in the closet, a measured scoop high fiber cereal every morning with skim milk, salads for lunch, apple and string cheese snack, fat-free yogurt, a sad hunk of boneless skinless chicken breast and steamed vegetables for supper. Better yet, two or three calorie-controlled pink or brown diet shakes throughout the day followed by a "sensible dinner." The sauce on the turkey in that 230 calorie microwaveable meal has such a unique taste. Four or five days a week at the gym, walking or running or elliptical or aerobics. It's exhausting, but you tell yourself you feel good, and for a couple months, success. Pounds come off, closer-to-goal pants come on - right up until you crack and end up face first in a plate of warm brownies one time too many. The next year you make the same New Years Resolution and lose the same pounds again.
See All Stories In
You and Food: Tortured Love or Healthy Union?
Eating decisions are often wildly irrational and subject to influences we are not aware of. A lot of body anxiety may underlie even what look like good food choices.
Find a Therapist
Search for a mental health professional near you.
This perpetual insanity is simply the result of following the government advice for weight loss. Calories in = calories out. Basic physics. Scientists probably researched this stuff, right? Obesity and diabetes and metabolic syndrome and heart disease are such big health problems these days. All you need is the right formula, the right calculation, enough exercise, and the willpower to make it through.
Why is it so hard, though, to keep off the pounds? Is it the huge restaurant portions? Is it all the food everywhere? Brownie advertisements? Video games? Somehow, even with our big brains and computers to do the simple work of tracking exercise and calories, we can't seem to get it together enough to prevent the obesity and the diabetes. But look out the window - you never see that family of squirrels with brains the size of your thumbnail (and an all-you-can-eat buffet of acorns) waddling through the yard, stricken with morbid obesity.
Scientists have been studying obesity and weight loss for generations. One of the most famous calorie-restriction studies was done on conscientious objectors during World War II by Dr. Ancel Keys. 36 healthy young men who had been excused from armed service for ethical objections agreed to a year long diet of sorts. It would include 3 months of preparation, 6 months of semi-starvation (designed to make the men lose 25% of their body weight), and then 3 months of refeeding. The purpose of the study was to determine how people would react under such conditions, and also to learn how to safely and successfully refeed starving populations. The men were highly motivated for the study, as their purpose was to help their country and the men fighting overseas who might face starving conditions themselves.
The young men lived in a dorm at the University of Minnesota, and in addition to their restricted diet, they were required to walk 22 miles a week. All their food was prepared in a dormitory kitchen, and once the starvation began, each man's calories were adjusted every Friday to meet a weight loss goal of 2.5 lbs (1.1 kg) per week. Their average daily calories during the semistarvation period was about 1600 calories a day (they ate approximately 3200 calories daily before the study). I find the number 1600 calories especially compelling, for a standard weight loss diet recommended for a woman is usually about 1200 calories daily. Their food consisted of what might have been available in war-torn Europe at the time - potatoes, turnips, rutabagas, dark bread, macaroni, small glasses of milk, chicken, toast with a small smear of jam, those kinds of things.
What was it like for them? Well, horrible. They described lethargy, irritability, anxiety that approached each time they were to learn how much they were allowed to eat the following week. They had to institute a buddy system so that none of the men were allowed to leave the dormitory alone, as one man went off diet and had to be excused from the study. They had dizziness, cold intolerance (requesting heavy blankets even in the middle of summer), muscle soreness, hair loss, reduced coordination, edema, and ringing in the ears. Some had to withdraw from their university classes because they did not have the capability to concentrate. Their sex drive disappeared. They became obsessed with food, eating with elaborate rituals (which eating disorder patients also do) and adding water to their plates to make the food last longer. Many collected cookbooks and recipes. One man, tempted by the odor from a bakery, bought a dozen doughnuts and gave them to children in the street just to watch them eat. Originally, the participants were allowed to chew gum, but when many of the men went to chewing about 40 sticks a day, it was decided that gum would affect the experiment and it was disallowed.
Only 32 of the original 36 completed the semistarvation period. One man who broke diet admitted to stealing scrapings from the garbage cans, stealing and eating raw rutabagas, and stopping at shops to eat sundaes. Two of the men suffered severe psychological stress - one became suicidal, and another cut off three of his fingers in an act of self-mutilation. Both men were taken to a psychiatric hospital.
The 3 month refeeding period involved trying several different combinations of protein, vitamins, and levels of calories. Dizziness, apathy and lethargy improved first, but persistent hunger, weakness, and loss of sex drive persisted for several months. The men described "a year long cavity" that needed to be filled. The day after they were finally released from the study, one of the men was hospitalized to have his stomach pumped after binging. In the aftermath of the study, "many, like Roscoe Hinkle, put on substantial weight: Boy did I add weight. Well, that was flab. You don't have muscle yet. And get[ting] the muscle back again, boy that's no fun." None who were interviewed in their 80s felt there was any lasting medical harm, once they'd recovered.
What strikes me the most about this study is how close it is to the standard recommendations for weight loss today (500-1000 calorie deficit daily for goal of 1-2 pounds lost a week, plus moderate exercise). The difference is by degree (1700 calorie deficit daily for goal of 2.5 pounds lost a week), and the fact that the men were normal weight when they began the study. But this strict diet sent 6% of the participants to the psychiatric hospital - and these were highly motivated, healthy young men!
There is also a marked contrast between the psychological states in this long-term semi-starvation and reports of shorter-term water fasts. All told, prolonged semi-starvation on turnips and dark bread is not something I would recommend for anyone, if you can avoid it. Perhaps Mrs. Ancel Keys said it best, when she described the effects of the experiment on her husband: "Mrs. Keys said that Dr. Keys went through terrible times during the experiment as we lost weight and became gaunt and so on. And he would come home and say, ‘What am I doing to these young men? I had no idea it was going to be this hard.'"
What if, instead, we take a cue from the squirrels, and throw out the packaged meals and shakes, and eat the food our ancestors ate for thousands of generations. Those ancestors who likely never struggled with obesity or diabetes. We can even look at studies of the modern-day Kitavans, who eat starchy root vegetables, coconuts, and fish and seaweed, seem to have plenty of food, don't exercise all that much, but remain effortlessly slender and free of diabetes and the other diseases of civilization. Maybe a calorie isn't just a calorie. Maybe novel food products cause inflammation and irritation, leading to changes with insulin, leptin, and other appetite hormones. Perhaps that explanation would make more sense than the current one that, somehow, in a few generations, the majority of Americans have become hopeless gluttonous sloths.
Instead we keep running on the same treadmill, the same calorie counts and fat-free food. Along with obesity and diabetes, binge eating disorders and bulimia have increased over the years, and the population suffering from all these conditions keeps getting younger, and younger, and younger.
Don't lose hope. Hop off the treadmill and go for a long walk outside. Consider eating the food our ancestors ate (ditch the processed food, the sugar, and the grains for a while) and see what happens. You might find yourself eating the calories you need to sustain your particular physical activity level, and even burning some of your own fat to a new, lower bodyweight set point. Only domesticated, grain-eating animals have problems with obesity, after all. Let a little bit of of the wild back into your routine and habits. Your health might improve for it.
continued in next post...
|06-22-2012, 08:58 AM||#232|
Major LCF Poster!
And the full text to the report, here:
They Starved So That Others Be Better Fed: Remembering Ancel Keys and the Minnesota Experiment
The advertising brochure for the Minnesota Experiment, "Will You Starve So They Will Be Better Fed?"
And the link for what Wikipedia has:
I haven't found Keys' book, The Biology of Human Starvation, online yet. There is review in this link. Search word "Keys" will bring it up:
Here is a summary in bullet point form, for a college class, of some of the effects of the starvation on the men:
End of Minnesota posts, for now.
Last edited by Auntie Em; 06-22-2012 at 09:10 AM..
|06-22-2012, 09:13 AM||#233|
Major LCF Poster!
Back to allergies. Here is an excerpt from the book, Dirty Medicine, by Martin Walker, from Positive Health Online. Excerpt in two posts. This is part one.
The development of clinical ecology – the study of illness created by our surrounding environment – has been little different from the development of any social idea despite being a matter of health and therefore one of some urgency. New social forces and their actors create feelings of passion and commitment, both for and against. New ideas are disputed by those with both altruistic and mercenary motives. Progress, however, is like the statues which Michelangelo described as trapped within his blocks of marble; it will eventually be released.
The philosophy and practice of what is generically called clinical ecology assumes that the mechanical and chemical processes of the industrial revolution, the electrical and the nuclear age, have all had a deleterious effect upon the health of individuals and societies. This idea has met with more resistance than perhaps any other non-ideological philosophy. The basic demand of clinical ecology is, in fact, a radical one: that the industrial means of production be reorganised to suit the health of the whole of society.
The initially observed links between illness and industrialisation were fairly straightforward. The city of Salford, which abuts Manchester in Lancashire, used to have the highest rate of bronchitis in the world. Such health problems appeared relatively easy to resolve. There was a direct causal link between the smoke from Salford's many domestic and industrial chimneys and the lung disease. Over time, industrial processes changed, pressured and cajoled by campaigns and new laws, and aided by the change from fossil fuel to electricity. Decades after the problem was recognised, Manchester got 'clean' air.
Following the Second World War a movement of doctors and therapists grew up. They were mainly rooted in the fields of allergy and immunology, principally because it was these disciplines that dealt with the effect of ingested alien substances on the human being. These practitioners considered that singular illnesses such as bronchitis and pneumoconiosis and chronic complaints caused by inhaled pollen, dust and mites were only the tip of the submerged iceberg of illness caused by environmental factors.
The major body of twentieth century illnesses and their pathogens, it was thought, lay hidden beneath the surface of a general miasma of poor, but not necessarily ill, health. The movement which grew with these theories differed from previous medical movements in the way that its practitioners placed the emphasis upon a preventive approach to sustaining good health.
Clinical ecologists began to consider that a great many of the illnesses associated with a generally falling standard of health, from allergy to alopecia, migraine to eczema, from arthritis to stomach ulcers and including such serious illnesses as cancer, may be linked to the substances which we ingest voluntarily and involuntarily.
These doctors and therapists began to redraw the boundaries of 'the environment', until it included anything from the food taken by the pregnant mother, to the quality of the air at its furthest reaches. Consequently, clinical ecology developed as an internally diverse movement, which contained, amongst many practitioners, nutritionists, surgeons, allergists and paediatricians. They had, however, one central message in common: what was taken into the body by a number of means inevitably affected the balance of its internal ecology, and particularly its immune system.
That such ideas would meet with the most aggressive and determined resistance was inevitable. After two centuries of industrial development, there were those whose very lives, wealth and family heritage rested upon the science of productive industry. The power and identity of a whole class were vested in products as diverse as petrol and animal feed, products which clinical ecologists claimed were causing an erosion of health.
Clinical ecologists have been at the forefront of many significant contemporary battles over health, such issues as the dangers of lead in petrol and passive smoking. The part they have played has, however, been 'hidden from history' principally because they are insurgents struggling against an accepted and prevailing power which tends to record only its own history.
For many clinical ecologists, the chemical treatments of the pharmaceutical industry are yet one more aspect of a toxic environment. Allopathic medicine has taught us to see the many diseases of the twentieth century as diverse and not necessarily related to life-style or environmental causes. Allopathic medicine has also taught us that the symptoms of each illness may be treated separately. It has developed many site-specific chemicals to treat these symptoms and has tended to ignore the whole person and their environment.
It is now becoming clear that we ignore the whole person at our peril. At the heart of the human eco-system is the immune system, a self-regulating mechanism which protects the body from invasion. The human immune system is under attack as never before, as our bodies manifest a series of new and debilitating illnesses in addition to an increased incidence of old ones.
A Short History of Allergy Medicine
Unlike the history of 'scientific' medicine, which was developed principally in relation to the piece by piece discovery of human biology, the history of clinical ecology has relied much more upon the ad hoc subjective experiences of its practitioners.
The earliest discoveries about antigens entering the human body uninvited and creating allergic responses, focused mainly on food. Francois Magendie first created allergic symptoms in animals in 1839. He found that animals sensitised to egg white by injections died after a later injection.(1)
Dr Charles Blackley, who practised in Manchester in the 1870s, had hay fever. He covered slides with a sticky substance, left them outside and found that his symptoms were invariably at their worst on the days when the most pollen stuck to the slides.(2) He later scratched a tiny amount of pollen into his skin and found that it produced a red weal; when he tried this test on a number of patients, the weal only came up on those who suffered from hay fever. The first doctors to use injections of allergens – the substances which create allergic reactions – were Drs Noon and Freeman of St Mary's Hospital in London. In 1911 they found that injections of pollen temporarily cured those who suffered from the allergy.(3)
Dr Carl Prausnitz and D Heinz Kustner were allergic to different substances. Kustner suffered from an allergy to fish, the briefest taste of which would make his mouth swell. In 1921, these doctors injected themselves with small amounts of each other's blood and showed that sensitivity to particular substances could be passed from one person to another through blood serum.(4)
As early as 1925, when Dr Erwin Pulay published a book on eczema and urticaria,(5) doctors were making diagnoses of allergic responses in sensitised subjects, not only to foods, but to chemicals placed on the skin.
A lady consulted me regarding a long standing and painfully irritating eczema which had spread all over her body. When she first called, her eyes, ears and face were inflamed, the skin disfigured all over by scratches, and the patient felt her unpleasant condition acutely. Her eczema was diagnosed by the specialists as being of the nervous type, and its cause asserted to be unhappiness in her married life.
The conspicuous discoloration of the skin and the state of the finger nails allowed me to diagnose immediately that the eczema was due to nothing else than naphthalene, and investigations bore out this conclusion. It had originated as follows: the patient had rolled up three Persian rugs and strewn them with naphthalene. When she put naphthalene in her clothing during spring-cleaning, she was immediately attacked by severe inflammation of the skin. The carpets had sensitised her skin and she had become allergic to naphthalene.(6)
Even from this example, it can be seen that from the beginning, allopathic specialists were prepared to diagnose psychiatric and emotional causes for allergic responses, rather than carry out proper scientific investigations. Scientific proof of environmental illness has always been difficult. The human body with its infinitely complex and individualistic metabolism refuses to be generally classified. Apart from the most extreme invasions, which are likely to trigger similar responses in many people, ingested antigens affect people differently. The preconditions for an allergic response may vary from a fault in the body's metabolic pathways, of which six thousand have been recorded, to a previous, specifically induced, compromise of the immune system.
Between 1900 and 1930, a number of doctors observed and recorded allergic responses amongst themselves and their patients, particularly to high protein substances such as egg and milk. In 1921, Dr William Duke reported cases in which eggs, milk and wheat produced severe stomach upsets.
From the first recognition of allergy, doctors were in two minds about its meaning in relation to treatment. In the early part of the century, doctors restricted their search for antigens to a narrow field of common substances. They also restricted the symptomatic picture presented by allergy sufferers, to weals, swellings, itching and runny noses.
One of the first clinical ecologists, a British psychiatrist, Francis Hare, went much further. In 1905, he published The Food Factor in Disease.7 His research showed that far from being a simple equation between food and allergic response, allergy was a complex matter, sometimes dependent upon state of mind, which could result in degenerative diseases. Hare suggested that migraine, bronchitis, asthma, eczema, gastrointestinal disturbances, epilepsy, angina, high blood pressure, gout, arthritis and a number of other conditions were almost wholly the result of an intolerance to sugar and starch. Hare was not taken seriously by his contemporaries.
Dr Albert Rowe translated a French work by two Paris doctors, L'Anaphylaxie Alimentaire,8 in which they recorded all the available accounts of illnesses caused by food in France. Following this translation, Rowe began work with his own patients on their allergies. It was Rowe who first used systematic skin injections of allergens to produce reactions. He found such tests, however, to be ultimately unreliable and began to work on elimination diets.
Rowe's work was influential and his techniques were quoted as being good treatments for migraine, asthma, eczema, hives, chronic catarrh, persistent indigestion, ulcers of all kinds, period pains and a condition of tiredness known in the 1930s as 'allergic toxaemia, characterised by fatigue, nervousness, mental confusion and an aching of the body'.(9) Rowe was still practising in the early nineteen sixties in California, where he introduced a new generation of students and doctors from Europe and America to clinical ecology.
Dr Arthur Coca, a Professor at Cornell in the 1930s, was a founder of the Journal of Immunology. He researched a number of allergic responses to ingested substances. Many of these produced no outward signs, but did speed up the pulse, making the sufferer feel slightly unwell. His theories were not well received by the orthodox medical establishment. In one of his books, he complained:
continued in next post...
|06-22-2012, 09:13 AM||#234|
Major LCF Poster!
The reason for it [the scepticism] is that the medical profession is again faced with scientific findings and their consequences that are so far out of line with settled concepts as apparently to represent the impossible.(10)
In the late thirties, Dr Herbert Rinkel, then practising as an allergist, himself had a severe allergic response. For years previously Dr Rinkel had suffered from recurrent fatigues, headaches and a distressing runny nose. After reading work by Rowe, Rinkel wondered if he were allergic. Suspecting that he was allergic to eggs, he ate six raw eggs at once. When they produced no reaction he thought that he had made a wrong diagnosis. Some years later, still suffering from chronic health problems, Rinkel decided to eliminate eggs completely from his diet. His symptoms began to fall away. But on his sixth egg-less day, his birthday, he took a bite of angel-food cake, containing egg, and crashed to the floor in a dead faint.
The experience led Rinkel to understand that some patients who showed symptoms of allergy might be ingesting a number of foods regularly and not know that they were causing an allergic response. He coined the phrase 'masked allergy'.
In 1944, Dr Rinkel met a young doctor called Theron G Randolph. Randolph was later to become one of the pioneers of American clinical ecology. After taking case histories of his apparently healthy students and nursing staff at the Northwestern University near Chicago, he came to the conclusion that two thirds of them had a history of food allergy. Randolph began to think that food allergy was also involved in alcoholism, and different forms of mental illness.
It was the careful detective work of Randolph which gave clinical ecologists their first real understanding of the fact that many chemicals, other than those occurring in foods, could cause illness akin to allergy. After four years' work, Randolph diagnosed a particular patient as being sensitive to petroleum exhaust fumes.
One conclusion reached before the Second World War about allergic responses was that they were person-specific. Different people are allergic to different allergens at different times. For this reason, is has always been easy for orthodox practitioners to suggest that such individually experienced symptoms do not have a scientifically measurable organic base.
The specificity of sensitisation to 'everyday' substances has presented particular problems to diagnostic practitioners, not least because patients themselves and observers will often be sceptical about a diagnosis for which they cannot see clear material causal reasons.
Over the last twenty years, a major schism has developed between those doctors who are willing to accept only food intolerance as a classic cause of allergy, and those who have developed the work of the early clinical ecologists.
The major difference between the groups is that for the orthodox allergists, the patient's response is a transitory disorder, caused when a substance which acts as an antigen enters the body. This discomfort passes when the antigen has left the body and the cells have stopped breaking down. Clinical ecologists, however, are convinced that many chemical antigens, though they may cause a primary allergic response, are not dispelled from the body but stay as continual irritants to the immune system, often lodged in fatty tissue. The illnesses which are consequent upon this toxic storage and the toll which it takes on the immune system, can be long-term. They also believe that once a person is sensitised to a substance, future exposure can lead to dangerous and debilitating illness.[/I]
|06-22-2012, 09:26 AM||#235|
Major LCF Poster!
I can't get the post above to edit to have it in italic type. I apologize.
Here is another post of Dr. Emily Dean's on the Minnesota Starvation Experiment:
Evolutionary Psychiatry: Semistarvation Experiments in WWII
|06-22-2012, 01:24 PM||#236|
Major LCF Poster!
Wow very interesting stuff AuntieEm. I had read the Minnesota experiments while in college many years ago. Amazing what researchers could subject test subjects to back then. That Ancel Keys was part sadist I think.
I think I would have liked to be a clinical ecologist lol. Very interesting field of study. I was particularly struck by the finding that allergies can be passed via blood serum as I have had several blood transfusions and multiple shots of rhogam which is made from multiple donors.
Allergies are rampant in my family to chemicals as well as foods, pollen, grains, and many home cleaning/personal hygiene products. My daughter has severe latex allergies and bee sting allergies and has been hospitalized with anaphalaxis several times. We all have epipens now and frequently need them. Then there is the allopecia, celiac disease, and more typical allergic symptoms of watery eyes, congestion, skin rashes, hives ect. Clearly there are many manmade allergens at work here as well. Very distressing to know it will only get worse as our world becomes more and more polluted and industrialized.
We can each only do what we can to live healthy and happy lives. I struggle to balance my concerns to not let them overwhelm my happiness nor do I want them to become my major focus. But knowlege is power and again I thank you Auntie Em for reminding me of these studies and making me consider what, if any, personal actions I can take. Not to mention I really enjoy reading the science articles. Guess I'm still an old geek at heart!
|06-24-2012, 05:40 AM||#237|
Senior LCF Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
hi all i'm back to drop 2 pounds
i eat cheese, all diff diff types meat, bison, chicken chicken necks, pork, no proceesed any thing
butter a ton
and herbs spices coffee as spice
salt substitute too
and gallon and 20oz of liquid
thinking to reduce cheese to just one serving daily in the morning or 2
feel great tho eating 5 meals so far a day or 6 depends hunger high fat
lowcarb only from herbs and cheese
and nice size protein not too much so more fat percent then meat per meal
feel great tho just prob 2 water weight since i dropped the meat thing for day and now hoping get it off. love carnivore life. hope i can join all of you
|06-24-2012, 10:25 AM||#238|
Major LCF Poster!
Shunsweets, thanks so much for your thoughtful post. Your words are an inspiration to me for more mindfulness, more reading, and taking really good care. I, too, find the science quite fascinating. I agree about Ancel Keys. This Crossfit post touches on his manipulativeness. I don't have Dr. Mackarness' book with me, so can't post his exact words. He wrote that in the Minnesota Experiment, it was planned to have glucose IVs in the recovery phase, and something else, but that they found that very small, frequent meals of meat, and milk, worked best. The starvation diet of all carbs was horrific.
Natosha, hi. In case you missed the first post of this thread, it is aimed at those who have been eating a seriously carnivorous diet for a good long time, and have found they must do so for the rest of their lives and who have a keen interest in the science.
Most of us who post here are older, and have serious health challenges.
Here is a Meat-and-Egg support thread for those who wish to post menus and the chit-chat of losing weight, and experimenting, etc. There may be other Meat-and-Egg threads, but that one was the one that turned up on the search I did.
I wish you success with your plan.
Last edited by Auntie Em; 06-24-2012 at 10:29 AM.. Reason: added thought
|06-25-2012, 09:00 AM||#239|
Major LCF Poster!
Shunsweets, I found the reference by Dr. Mackarness as to the recovery IVs in the Minnesota Experiment. It was to have been amino acids and glucose, which "were abandoned in favour of straight feeding by mouth of frequent, small meals of good meat and fat with drinks of milk". This stood out to me as a possibility for the recovery of those whose cells are starved due to pour utilization of glucose, as in obesity, depression, etc.
I do wonder if those who were starved by Ancel Keys ever fully recovered.
The mental disturbances caused by the low calorie, all CHO diet, say a great deal about the mental state of those who live on carbs.
Much food for thought in Dr. Mac's books.
ETA: The quote is from the revised edition of Eat Fat and Grow Slim, first published in 1975. The edition I have is a paperback, printed in 1985. The quote is near the top of page 109.
Last edited by Auntie Em; 06-25-2012 at 09:01 AM.. Reason: added citation reference
|06-26-2012, 03:54 AM||#240|
Senior LCF Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
day 3 passed and now in total ketosis
can tell frequent headaches and today bad breath on day 4 lol..
plus good news .5 pound weight loss, plus metab boosted on full tons butter half carton of pure whipped butter cream a day might do more or another zero carb fat lol.
try keep fat high in all meals and near zero carbs daily , just from herbs and 1 ounce cheese daily
sedentary life style but eating all day and getting hungrier but losing probably can have 6th meal
today try pure broth water no soda diet lol see if can handle it
yeah so excited tho i can not live without fat in my food especially love for butter
and don't have to change my lifestyle to lose just eat and stay happy lol haha is all that i need to do
wondering what other fat if possible to add to my diet or just stick to more butter a full jar lol haha unsatled butter lol
plus love no calorie counting freedom, will deff keep to high fat meats, when done this lean bison and still add tons fat to it lol goal per meal 80percent or more fat towards the protein and like trace or .5 gram carb per meal