Todd Wrote:
> ... This presupposes that *what* one eats and how one exercises can 
> bring LDL to HG levels.  If there's more to it than this, then one could 
> change these variables forever and not get there.

Yes, those factors do seem to be enough to correct health stats for many
people, but not for all. I think you're right that some people who have
continued high blood glucose or other ill effects leftover from SAD may
have to take additional measures than just eating the right types of
foods and exercising. 

Todd:
> The trouble with increasing protein and reducing fat is that doing so 
> has an immediate effect on my FBG; it raises it.  

OK, that explains why you didn't try a higher protein ratio for
satiation. The effects of protein are apparently complex. You're
experience confirms Rosedale's advice but is different than that found
in some studies, including the following study that was cited by
Cordain:

  "In this study, replacing carbohydrate with protein from meat,
  poultry, and dairy foods had beneficial metabolic effects and no
  adverse effects on markers of bone turnover or calcium excretion."
  (High-protein, energy-restricted diet shows beneficial metabolic
  effects - Diet Composition, Nutrition Research Newsletter,  August,
  2003,
  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_8_22/ai_107523997)

Perhaps replacing the carbohydrate with fats in this study would have
had even more beneficial effects on insulin metabolism? You've likely
investigated this much more than I have. Have you looked at any of the
studies that link high protein to improved insulin metabolism? Do you
think the effect was solely due to carb reduction or that protein only
helps up to a certain level per meal or only helps certain people (such
as those who don't have IR that persists on a Paleo diet)?

Todd:
> I consider [FBG] a higher priority than my LDL. 

Yes, I agree, though both my figures improved on a high protein -
moderate fat diet, and I did have some symptoms of IR, such as myopia
and adult acne. I'm not sure why there seem to be such different insulin
reactions to high protein. 

> I suspect, but can't confirm, that this 
> response to protein is more likely in a person with IR, and I would 
> expect it to diminish as I keep carbs low. 

That's an interesting hypothesis. If the people in the studies were all
"healthy" (not IR), that could explain why they had results that
differed from yours. If Rosedale draws his conclusions about too much
protein spiking blood sugar from his experience with patients, your
hypothesis could also explain that, because it's quite likely that he
has some IR patients. Have you discussed your hypothesis in the past
with any of the
Paleo diet gurus or their associates?

> reason for going to IF is: There appears to be a documented improvement 
> in insulin sensitivity from IF, and that should have the effect I want 
> on FBG.  Moreover, Cordain and others have made a plausible case that 
> HGs often eat just once or twice a day. 

I think I do vaguely recall Cordain mentioning that, but I was a little
skeptical of it at the time, because I also recalled reading about
hunter-gatherers eating a little bit of leftovers or dried meats early
in the morning before they go out on a hunt, then during the day eating
the prime parts of the kill raw right on the spot where they killed it
(with the older males getting first pick; and sometimes building a fire
right there and cooking some or all of the rest of the carcass) and
bringing the less choice parts of the kill home to the women, children
and elderly. It might have been from a book I read about Australian
aborigines--I don't recall exactly. I haven't seen a broad survey over
multiple HG groups that looked at what the overall avg meal frequencies
are.

> Since January 16, I've lost 9 lbs. and my FBG has begun to fall.  So 
> far, so good.  

That's good to hear. I hope it goes well for you in the long term as
well.

Todd:
> Unless a kind of IF is in fact part of the HG diet.

Yes, good point. Has anyone studied this in-depth?

> >  It
> > seems to me that the studies that find no problems with high LDL are cited
> > by people not to say that high LDL could be a normal health stat for people
> > living a HG way of life, but to justify their continuing to eat some of
> > their favorite foods.
> It doesn't matter why they're cited though.  If the studies find no 
> problems then they find no problems; the motivation for citing them is 
> irrelevant. 

Yes, the motivation is irrelevant, but what sometimes results from that
motivation (continuing to eat a significant amount of non-Paleo foods
despite continued levels of LDL or BMI, blood pressure, etc. above those
of HG's) is relevant. While the case for LDL being unhealthy is not
conclusive, I have seen no evidence of HG groups, neonates, or primates
having average LDL above 70, and some studies (though not all) have
found benefits from lowering LDL below 100. I think it's too early to
dismiss this as coincidental or incidental. 

> I think we're learning that elevated LDL is often part of 
> the body's complex manifestation of an inflammatory state, and it is 
> that condition of inflammation that is dangerous.  But there are other 
> markers as well, such as WBC count and CRP levels.  I haven't had these 
> tested but I think I will ask for them in my next set of lab tests.

If that's the case, then LDL is a good marker for inflammation and
worthy of trying to lower it, whether it's a primary or secondary
indicator. If LDL is just an indicator of CRP, then LDL should go down
when CRP goes down and it is therefore still a good sign to have low
LDL. It would also mean that LDL stats are redundant, of course, but
most blood tests still seem to list LDL without CRP, so until CRP
replaces LDL as a standard measure, we are stuck with LDL. I have long
believed that CRP is actually a better measure of inflammation and heart
disease risk than LDL and was lucky enough to have a doctor who checks
both (and they both did drop dramatically in my case), I'm just not
convinced that high LDL is "normal," as some have claimed. The evidence
leans the other way.

> IF is not yet well known or as thoroughly studied.  That said, I think 
> most people would find it too difficult.  Hell, I may find it too
> difficult.

:-)

> > If we want more fat and still want to eat like a HG, we can eat
> > more of things like wild salmon and grass-fed hamburger and pemmican (though
> > retail pemmican is rather expensive). I consider large quantities of stuff
> > like commercial bacon, sausage or cheese to be stretching the concept of the
> > Paleo diet too far. Some people can handle this, but apparently not all.

Todd:
> This is the trick.  If you want to keep protein intake moderate, to keep 
> BG down, and carbs low, then you have to get liberal amounts of fat.  If 
> you then want to minimize SFA intake, things get trickier.  If you are 
> concerned about SFA, then pemmican is the very last thing you'd want to 
> eat, isn't it?  It probably has the highest SFA content of any food. 

That's why I prefaced it with "If we want more fat." Like you said, if
you're going to eat a lot of fat it's dificult to avoid SFA. I'm not one
who thinks it's generally necessary to eat 60-80% fat (unless one is
forced
to eat an all-meat-and-organ diet, or nearly so), but if someone wants
to do it, I would think that HG fats would be preferable to commercial,
processed, grain-fed, salt-laden fatty foods. To most closely emulate HG
diets,
consumption of pemmican should be accompanied by consumption of the rest
of the carcass, including the lean meat and unsaturated fats. Plus,
while Cordain advises trimming all visible saturated fats off meats,
including grass-fed meats, he has acknowledged that not all saturated
fats are alike and that the profile of saturated fats in wild animals is
different from commercial livestock. While trimming commercial fats
makes theoretical sense to me, I've never fully understood his advice on
trimming grass-fed fats if one is also eating fairly proportionate
amounts of lean meats and vegetables. 

> As for sausage, I've found some very nice sausage, made without 
> preservatives, at Whole Foods stores.  

I've come across such sausage too, so when I say "commercial" I usually
mean the more standard fare. 

> My general approach is to vary from day to day, so 
> if I'm eating a fatty cut of beef one day, I'm having chicken pesto or 
> chicken sausage with olive oil the next.  As for cheese, if it's there 
> in small amounts, an a minor ingredient or condiment, I don't mind. 

It sounds like you've thought out your approach thoroughly and you're
not going overboard on any modern foods, so your chances for success
seem good.