Philip wrote:
>> More conjecture, if that's okay.... As I see it, the relation between 
>> calories in and calories out is non-linear, and that's what a calorie 
>> is not "just a calorie."  There is, I believe, a caloric "window" for 
>> each of us, within which we neither gain nor lose weight.  Depending 
>> on whether we are at the high or low end of that window, and depending 
>> on what we eat, our bodies go into different states in response
>> to food.  
>>     
>
> This is getting too complicated for me. I would just suggest eating HG foods
> and exercising. If one's health stats don't change to HG-type levels, then
> it's time to examine what one has been eating and doing for exercise and see
> where it differs significantly from HG's (and supplementing where
> necessary).
>   

Maybe.  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.

> Using your case, as I understand it, your LDL spiked up, you gained a little
> weight and you think you over-ate on a high-fat NeanderThin diet, in part
> due to severe caloric restriction before NeanderThin while on Zone. Since
> protein is more satiating than fat, accoring to Cordain's references, the
> logical approach would seem to be to increase protein and reduce fat (and
> also examine the fat profile to see if it comes close to that of HG's) and
> examine exercise levels. Intermittent fasting might also be tried, but I
> would have saved that for last, since I haven't seen much data on IF
> practices by HG's. However, if your current experiment ends up working for
> you and has no noticeable side effects, I can't knock success. 
>   
The trouble with increasing protein and reducing fat is that doing so 
has an immediate effect on my FBG; it raises it.  I consider that a 
higher priority than my LDL.  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.  But we'll see.  My first 
priority goal is to get my FBG into the low 80s (plasma reading, not 
whole blood).  I can track my progress easily with a home BG test kit.  
I know that I won't get there without at the same time dropping 40 lbs.  
If and when I am successful with that, I'll take on the LDL problem.  My 
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.  My current regimen is once per 
day, but if social demands require me to eat another meal, I don't worry 
about it.  Since I don't want to push my BG up with tons of protein, I 
either use fatty meats or I add fat, usually olive oil.  For example, I 
do a lot of chicken and beef pesto in home-made olive oil based pesto.  
This is delicious and very satiating.  And I add a large portion of 
salad or some low-density veg, which is also filling.

Since January 16, I've lost 9 lbs. and my FBG has begun to fall.  So 
far, so good.  I'll have another physical in a month or so, at which 
time I will hopefully have made more progress on the things that I can 
easily track.  Then I'll get some new blood work done and see how the 
lipids look.


>> Mattson's work on IF, though not yet tested very well in humans 
>> (except for Ramadan studies, mainly) ...
>>     
>
> That's one reason I would try closer adherence to HG principles before
> trying IF, since we have much more data on HG diets than on IF.
>   
Unless a kind of IF is in fact part of the HG diet.

> I think macronutrient and fatty acid ratios are mainly important in that
> they can identify and explain differences between HG diets and modern diets.
>   

They *may* do so, but timing and energy balance may be an equally 
important part of the equation.  That's the hypothesis I'm testing.

> LDL is more like one of several indicators that can help us determine if we
> are eating like HG's than a stat to be argued over in isolation. If someone
> has every other health stat in HG ranges except for LDL and no signs of the
> diseases of civilization, then I would say they the high LDL may be OK
> (although I wouldn't be able to explain why it differed substantially from
> HG numbers and this would be worthy of investigation). However, in your case
> and in most people's cases, LDL is not the only stat that's out of whack.
You mean currently as of my lab tests in the fall?  I agree, but then I 
had been eating badly by anyone's standards.  In fact, I expected them 
to be much worse.  My HDL of 55 is higher than it's ever been, and my 
TG, although high at 151, was actually a pleasant surprise.  At this 
weight I was expecting twice that.  LDL 168 (calculated, not measured) 
is high, but it's been higher.

>  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.  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.


>> It is psychologically not easy, because even though simple "hunger" 
>> goes away, you always have the
>> feeling of eating less than you'd like--often considerably less.
>>     
>
> That's why I think that CR alone will never work for the majority of the
> people. Maybe IF alone could, but I suspect that if it could a lot of people
> would be doing it already.
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.
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.  As 
for sausage, I've found some very nice sausage, made without 
preservatives, at Whole Foods stores.  Some of them, such as the chicken 
and turkey sausages, are too lean, but if I serve them with olive oil 
they're pretty good.  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. 

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]