Does the body want to be in ketosis?

Dr. Garth Davis, a gastroenterologist who puts patients into ketosis before and after stomach reduction (weight loss) surgery, says no, he thinks the body does not want to be in ketosis. When we think about this question a little it becomes obvious why this is so...the body only "forces" ketosis when we are quite ill or injured. This can also be called "body initiated fasting", where we eat nothing, and drink only water for some period of time determined by the body. This occurs for example when we are so ill that the body reflexively regurgitates any solid foods we consume. Or when we are so injured we cannot move until we recover sufficiently to find food again.

During this period of body initiated fasting, or ketosis, normal energy stores (glycogen) are mostly depleted in 12-16 hours, and completely depleted in a few days. At that point the body goes into an accelerated healing process known as autophagy where the most superfluous tissues begin to be removed from the body. And what are the most superfluous tissues? The pathologic diseased ones. The dysfunctional ones.

Autopsies on people who have starved to death show that the most critical tissues, brain, eyes, and the like, are spared right up to the point of death, and there's a logical natural reason for this: if one is close to death from starvation but does survive, when health is regained all critical facilities remain intact. Showing, in only one of so many ways, our body's innate intelligence knows exactly what it's doing.

Therapeutic water only fasting, BTW, is not starvation, not even close to it. Starvation does not occur until all fat stores are depleted, whereupon proteins (body structure) begin to be converted to fuel. When there is progression from ketosis to starvation any further lack of caloric intake is no longer therapeutic and becomes dangerous.

Fat is consumed for fuel in ketosis because fat is the most plentiful source of stored energy in the body. So pathogenic tissues are removed, new healthy tissues are generated, and fats stored in the body are used as fuel for that process. Glycogen stores are completely depleted in a few days, stored fats in all but the anexoric will provide sufficient energy for the autophagy process to continue for several weeks and even longer.

This is a good point to mention that extended water only fasting should not be done without medical supervision. Intermittent water only fasting is usually OK, up to 24 hours, no more than once a week. The problem with finding medical supervision of water fasting is the number of MDs who have any training (much less practical expertise) in fasting supervision is very limited. More and more MDs are beginning to learn of the immense leverage fasting introduces in health recovery as the studies are coming at a rapid clip recently, but it is not common knowledge yet. And it also bears mentioning widespread fasting expertise among MDs may be a long time coming, as far greater revenues (and with much less effort) can be achieved prescribing minimally effective (or even counterproductive) drugs.

So does the body want to be in ketosis? Probably not until very ill or injured, when there is a lot of healing to be done, and then the body "forces" the condition of ketosis, rather than being "consciously chosen".

In addition, primates (including humans) instinctively chose carbohydrates for foods (when available) over fats. Thus ketosis in not our natural condition, it's the emergency back up survival system. Without which, BTW, we as a species would not still be here...so it is not superfluous, it's just not primary.

Consider if you will a thought experiment to illustrate: you're lost in the woods for a week and really hungry. All the sudden you come across a big fruiting apple tree with low hanging ripe apples and chickens on the ground pecking at the fallen apples. Would you pluck and eat the ripe apples hanging from the branches, or catch a chicken first? If you think "chicken", consider the following: you are freaking hungry! It's takes mere seconds to begin eating all the (incredibly delicious) apples you want, but the chicken you have to catch, then begin eating it...raw? Tearing it's flesh with the claws (you don't have)? Ripping into its muscles and organs with the rows of razor sharp teeth (you also don't have)? Or gather the wood, build a fire, cook the chicken?

Right, you'd eat the frickin apples.

In this brief vid Dr Davis talks a bit about his experience putting patients into ketosis for fat loss surgery, and recommends a few books he's currently reading, one of which sounds very interesting to me: "The Idiot's Guide to Plant Based Nutrition".
https://www.amazon.com/Plant-Based-Nutrition-2E-Idiots-Guides/dp/1465470204/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

And here is Dr. Davis:

Cholesterol - Does it matter? Or not? A few words on a confusing topic

A few words from Dr. Garth Davis, a gastroenterologist and specialist in gastric bypass surgery for weight loss, who is intimately familiar with this topic.

If your curiosity about Dr. Davis is peaked check out a talk he gave about his personal story, it's both entertaining and enlightening.

Toxins pt 2: Can they play a positive role in emotional health?

This is a complex topic. Let's begin with the obvious: human cultures have used measured doses of toxins for various purposes since the beginning of human cultures. Various purposes range from benign mood enhancement at social gatherings to horrific chemical weapons of mass destruction, and everything in between.

I'm not going to approach the more destructive uses of toxins here, except to note we humans have an intractable innate capacity for destruction / self-destruction that Freud called the death instinct (instincts are intractable).

That unsettling innate capacity noted, I'm going to hue closely to the title topic. This is not a blog on psychology, but emotional health is certainly within the purview. Can toxic substances have a positive effect on emotional health?

We are innately attracted to certain substances because they temporarily induce euphoria, and "pleasure seeking" is one leg of the "motivational triad" that controls behavior to a predictably greater extent than conscious thought. The other two legs are "avoid pain" and "conserve energy", together they can be called the basic set of survival instincts present in all creatures. (See the book "The Pleasure Trap").

The motivational triad works quite well for creatures in the original primordial setting, as there are no circumstances occurring outside the innate "instinct envelope", in other words there are no technologically concentrated substances. There is honey (and bee stings), but no white sugar, cocoa leaves, but no cocaine. Modern humans have the innate instinct set of "primordial conditions", but live in a self-made wilderness of concentrated substances.

So how might a chemically induced pleasurable (euphoric) episode benefit emotional health? It's like a mini holiday that does not require the effort and expense of actual travel. Changes in routine and perspective can "reset" emotional condition in very positive ways. 

The important question: is it possible to gain a net benefit to health? The answer would be yes if biologically destructive impact is outweighed by gains to emotional well being. Obviously we cannot go too far down the biologically destructive path before the net effect to health is a loss. Also obviously, there is no practical way of actually measuring net gain/loss in this situation, so it comes down to personal intuition, or "listening to your body".

The notion of "intelligently measured dose" (all things in moderation) comes to play here, and as you might imagine different folks have very different interpretations as to what that is. And it becomes very easy to rationalize on this point, which is essentially one description of addiction.

So there is a layer of complexity to ignore (path to addictive behavior) or contend with (balance and moderation).

And many will argue since our bodies have a baseline toxic load to contend with (generated by continuous ongoing metabolic "house cleaning"), and since we cannot control (or even identify) all the toxins coming into our bodies from various sources, we should put known toxins into our bodies (most typically in the form of rich foods and alcohol), very moderately, if at all.

Toxins: What Are They Exactly?

Does the answer to the question posed by the title seem self-evident? Perhaps it is: materials that when consumed alter biochemistry quickly and substantially. By substantial I mean "quite noticeable": one will feel ill, one will feel "high".

There is a reason these substances are frequently called intoxicants. Intoxicant consumption can feel good, it can be addictive.

But it's also complicated by the notion of "dose". Too much of anything will kill you...I've heard it said, don't know if it's true, drinking enough water will kill you. I kind of doubt you could breathe enough air to kill you, but hyperventilation does have an intoxicating effect.

Perhaps the simplest definition of toxin is anything that is not (real) food. This one is quite relevant, as toxic "food like" substances have created epidemics in the so called metabolic syndrome diseases: heart disease (stroke and high blood pressure in this category), cancer, diabetes, and the many and varied autoimmune disorders.

I realize the above is a contentious point, as we generally have not been exposed to the idea that the reductionist paradigm used in medicine is mostly counterproductive when it comes to the very desirable goal of reaching and maintaining the state of optimal health. Reductionism in medicine: "separate problems, each with specific and different treatments".

The alternative view to reductionism is simply that the body is a wholistic self-regulating biomechanical, chemical, emotional entity repaired most rapidly and effectively from the general state of disrepair most of us find ourselves in simply by removing toxins from our daily lives. In the most basic terms that means simply "stop putting them in your mouth".

Yes Virginia, it really is that easy on a logistic level...which is not to say it's that easy on an emotional level. But this knowledge is an excellent place from which to engage the emotional level, as it helps immeasurably knowing that terra firma actually does exist, and it's basic and simple. It is more than conceptual, it is bio-mechanical, and easily repeatable ad infinitum.

This health "terra firma" can also be metaphorically referred to as "True North", which is also, not coincidentally, the name of the well known health clinic in Santa Rosa, CA.

(Recommended reading on the general role of toxins in our lives: "The Pleasure Trap", written by two of the principles of The True North Health Center.)

Terra firma, finally found, feels good, safe, and solid. Most of us are unaware it even exists in reality. For those folks it can feel amazing.

Those brave souls who step outside the reductionist box to repair their health by discontinuing the ingestion of toxins tend to no longer "need" (or even want) the medications, supplements, and intoxicant substances that "make us high" or give us comfort...at the expense of our good health.

On the Crux of a Tipping Point

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

We are still in the latter stages of "violently opposed", with smatterings of the early stages of "accepted as being self-evident".

But the "violently opposed" camp is entrenched and heavily fortified, sitting as it is on one of the more profitable situations in history. Let me give a few examples: cardiology, oncology, pharmacology, processed food, fast food. And another example; the mechanism to funnel middle class wealth directly into the coffers of big pharma and all they've bought and paid for on capitol hill: Medicare.

I'm recently on Medicare. Any interface I've had usually revolves around a central question: what meds do you take? When I say none, the assumption seems to be I misheard the question, and it is repeated. Then I feel compelled to be more clear: I am not taking any medications whatsoever.

Here is a Ted Talk by a common citizen who discovered the truth more or less by accident, as many of us do.

Nutrition: What is it?

An important question, surrounded with a lot of conflicting answers, and a lot of confusion. Why is that?

Elucidation is at hand in the form of a talk given by the person many consider to be one of the most important nutrition research scientists of this (and perhaps any) age, T. Colin Campbell, the American biochemist who specializes in the effect of nutrition on long-term health, in a career spanning six decades of activity.

If you're already familiar with Dr. Campbell's work this presentation is perhaps the best synopsis of his views I'm personally aware of, and I can't recommend it highly enough to you.

Prepare to be surprised, and enjoy.

Admit it, you want to be here :)

 

As Groovy As Sex

OK that was shameless clickbait:)

I was having some trouble finding a title for this post that would convey my feeling of its importance without sounding cumbersome, so I gave up and went with the above.

Thanks to the continuing efforts of Dr. Michael Greger and his team at Nutritionfacts.org, we see here in a single presentation a comprehensive compendium of research showing the outsized benefits of a Whole Foods Plant Based diet. It is significant in that it dispels uncertainty as it presents the facts.

How can we be sure these are indeed facts? And if they are, why aren't we hearing more about them? Dr. Gregor handles both questions masterfully, so be sure to watch to the end. Prepare to be surprised along the way, and enjoy.

OK perhaps not as groovy as sex, but...

A Slightly Different Perspective on Cancer Screening

I'm being just a wee bit subversive using the word slightly in the title of this blog; the word "radically" in its place would be more accurate.

Are you curious? If so then you may find this presentation by Dr. John McDougall quite interesting. In it he shows why decreasing probability for developing detectable cancer in the first place is so desirable an idea and practice.

File this under an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure:

And then, after watching, if you presented this information to your medical doctor (if you could get their attention long enough in the first place...an unlikely scenario) the response you'd probably get would be along the lines of harrumphing and sputtering. One thing they would not be able to produce is science countering the science presented here.

Information like this can be very unsettling. We do not want to know the man behind the curtain is no wizard after all. The truth is the responsibility for your health cannot be handed over to others, and you are, in fact, almost solely responsible for it yourself.

Information is power. The purpose of misinformation is to persuade one to give control of one's destiny over to others, in this case, for profit, at the expense of your health.

And how big a cost is that exactly?

What is the effect of cooking on health?

For most this question is getting off into the weeds. Even the idea one could survive (much less thrive) eating nothing but fresh, whole raw foods is ridiculous. So bear with me for a few moments while I introduce a particular perspective you may not have been exposed to. I'm going to let a raw foods proponent of many years experience do the heavy lifting for me, a gentleman who also was featured in a previous blog "Fasting - How Does It Work?"

So there is research supporting this point of view. Think about it: leukocytosis and inflammation occur simultaneously. Inflammation should not be suppressed unless it goes to dangerous levels, it is part of the normal process of the body healing itself. Obviously inflammation should be prevented in the first place by achieving high levels of health. Allowing inflammation to run its course, essentially the same thing as allowing the body to heal itself, does not sell many drugs, herbs, and suppliments however! So it's not likely to be something we hear from traditional MDs, or even naturopaths and other alternative medical practitioners.

In addition to the inflammation problem we know the net reduction of micronutrient content of cooked foods is substantial, and correlates to how cooked those foods are: fresh, ripe, raw, whole foods have as much micronutrient content as they ever will, and cooking reduces that net content by the degree to which it is cooked.

Here's one other point that is even more obscure than the points about inflammation and micronutrient content; it has been suggested to me (by someone who probably knows) that the greatest source of greenhouse effect is the net global effect of cooking food. Recently we commonly hear that modern day practices of animal agriculture contributes more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere than all transportation combined, pretty new information for most of us...for years the prevailing idea was transportation was the greatest contributor. If it is true the net global warming effect of cooking food is greater than any other a microcosmically few people must be aware of it at this point.

It would be irresponsible to not mention that one cannot begin eating raw foods exclusively and hope for great results without first coming to some understanding how its done so that we get our needs for energy (sufficient calories) and nutrition met. It's not complicated, it's more that we have never been exposed to these ideas. It's also not difficult, depending to some extent upon where we live and how much access to quality raw foods we have there.

Finally it's worth noting that the whole food plant based diet used to reverse chronic conditions by leading edge MDs (ie the MDs that achieve the greatest net result with patients) such as McDougall, Esselstyn, Barnard, Ornish, and Fuhrman is some mix of fresh/raw and cooked foods, and they believe that mix is practical and healthful. It can also be helpful to make diet and lifestyle changes in a context that is more familiar with what we are used to doing already.

Meanwhile we can begin immediately to access the benefits of fresh, ripe, raw foods by eating more fruits and salads everyday.

It's that easy.

Fasting - How Does It Work?

We're hearing more and more about the efficacy of fasting recently because a lot of "paleo" proponents are discovering the many benefits, and paleo is very popular.

But it may seem counterintuitive that abstention from eating can make us better. Here is a common sense explanation of how it works:

There are two full time fasting clinics in this part of the world I'm aware of, the one in this video is called Tanglewood and located in Costa Rica, and True North Health Center in Santa Rosa, CA:

https://www.healthpromoting.com/water-fasting

Forks Over Knives

Forks Over Knives is a documentary about the whole foods plant based diet that I feel is a must see. And of course I am not alone is that, it has helped many find a path back to robust health, me included. It's free with a netflix subscription, or can be streamed for 5 bucks:
http://forksoverknives.vhx.tv/

I also suggest signing up for their mailing list, it is a good source of healthful information, scroll to the the bottom of their home page:
https://www.forksoverknives.com/

An MD Physician in Boston explains the cancer problem beautifully

Dr. Daniel Witkowski in a 3 minute vid that is the most succinct presentation of the methionine restriction idea I've seen.

I've written a blog or two previously on the NORI protocol, an approach to cancer treatment that restricts dietary levels of methionine more aggressively than this, and adds a cocktail of "nutraceuticals" that have been shown in various studies to trigger apoptosis (cell death) in cancer cells only, with no harmful effect on the trillions of healthy cells that comprise the body.

The diet Dr. Witkowski recommends here, a standard whole foods plant based diet, is thought to be cancer preventative, while the NORI Protocol is designed to treat cancers that are already malignant.

I was curious about Dr Witkowski so I looked for the web site he mentions here. It appears to have morphed into a different web site, where I found his "my story" page. It's just really great to see more and more MDs railing against the crap that passes for for medical wisdom these days. See if you agree, here's Dr. Witkowski in a 5 minute vid (click anywhere on the picture):

https://www.danielwitkowskimd.com/mystory.html

Finally, and best of all, a 50 minute podcast featuring Dr. Witkowski speaking about his approach to preventing and reversing disease in more detail:

https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/a/c/2/ac25b021064c2c88/drdanfinal.mp3?c_id=20642622&cs_id=20642622&destination_id=536607&expiration=1537929238&hwt=fe7c91eb9e9e424d91cc8447fbe22977

I Thought I Ate Healthy. Then I Was Diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes

A story on Forks Over Knives website that reflects the fact people still don't know how easy it is to reverse common chronic conditions...because no one they trust (authority figures) is telling them.


https://www.forksoverknives.com/i-thought-i-ate-healthy-then-i-was-diagnosed-with-type-2-diabetes/?utm_source=AC&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Joseph+Binning+Success+Story&utm_campaign=Veggie+Slaw+GC9%2F25#gs.6GIWHOc

Is it safe to feed children (and ourselves) a lot of fruit??

Kevin "Cosmo" Rogers, an expert on the 80/10/10 lifestyle, explains to potential skeptics how feeding his children a lot of fruit (and vegetables) is actually healthy! WHO KNEW?? Well, me. I didn't know for most of my life. Better late than never!!

Kevin is also an ultramarathon runner. Here's his perspective on that particular activity:

I’ve met several doctors that say 'there’s no such thing as a healthy vegan'

I came across an anecdotal story today I thought worth a blog post.

This story is extremely commonplace, we whole food plant based vegans hear a lot of these. So many continue to be unaware that a WFPB vegan diet can not only be healthy, but even moreso than any other.

Cultural resistance remains strong! For now that is... The truth will out, eventually.


From this link:

https://www.quora.com/I%E2%80%99ve-met-several-doctors-that-say-%E2%80%9Cthere%E2%80%99s-no-such-thing-as-a-healthy-vegan%E2%80%9D-One-of-them-a-surgeon-refuses-to-perform-surgeries-on-vegans-They-are-okay-with-vegetarianism-but-not-veganism-Is-this-true/answer/Mark-Burgett-1?share=99354ef4&srid=2Vrhb

Have Some Graham with your McDougall, Fuhrman, Barnard

It is my considered opinion that those of us lucky enough to have found our way to an SOS free (sugar, oil, salt) Whole Food Plant Based diet are missing the best source of nutrition available by not incorporating Dr. Doug Graham's perspective into the mix. After all, you're already doing an 80/10/10 calonutrient ratio and therefore have no need to fear insulin resistance (the sole reason for the "consume fruit with moderation" meme).

You may recall Dr. Graham is a raw food vegan, and also SOS free. His basic approach is to have a large fruit meal for a midday "break fast", and a large raw vegetable meal for dinner, with a handful of nuts/seeds daily.

Drs. McDougall, Fuhrman, Barnard have no restriction on cooked vegetables, including potatoes and legumes. They also have no particular restrictions on fruit, but one gets the impression neither do they take full advantage of it's rich nutritional benefit, not to mention the much more pleasurable diet in the bargain.

And the blend of Graham and McDougall et al makes moving through rocky western societies considerably easier. One learns over time how to do "well enough" being "flexitarian".

If you are SOS free WFPB already do not fear the fruit!

And in honor of the ongoing Woodstock Fruit Festival going on this week you may find this entertaining:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/600-fruitarians-gather-to-eat-sex-organs-at-the-woodstock-fruit-festival-300306833.html

The Corruption of Science and The Negative Impact on Health

Science and technology is so seductive, and therefor imminently subject to corruption...quotes between the red lines from an article published in Kaiser Health News - "Financial Ties That Bind: Studies Often Fall Short On Conflict-Of-Interest Disclosures"

https://khn.org/news/financial-ties-that-bind-studies-often-fall-short-on-conflict-of-interest-disclosures/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Nearly two-thirds of the 100 physicians who rake in the most money from 10 device manufacturers failed to disclose a conflict of interest in their academic writing in 2016, according to a study published Wednesday in JAMA Surgery.

...The omission can have real-life impact for patients when their doctors rely on such research to make medical decisions, potentially without knowing the authors’ potential conflicts of interest.

...The issue is anytime there’s a new technology, people get really excited about it.

...The researchers also pinpointed the 10 physicians who received the highest compensation from each company. They then searched for articles published by these physicians between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2016, and reviewed the full text of each article for COI disclosure. According to their findings, those 10 companies paid more than $12 million in 2015 to the 100 doctors included in the study. The median payment to these physicians was $95,993.

...The financial ties between medical device manufacturers and providers go well beyond academic research and ivory towers. As many as 94 percent of doctors, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine, report getting some kind of benefit from the industry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The best marketing medium in the 21st century for the "big" food, pharma, and medical industries? "Big science" of course.

Many of these folks are well meaning - my favorite Upton Sinclair quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Need proof nutrition is a young science? Read up on Flavonoids.

A few quotes from a paper dated 2013 (link below):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been increasing interest in the research on flavonoids from plant sources because of their versatile health benefits reported in various epidemiological studies. Since flavonoids are directly associated with human dietary ingredients and health, there is need to evaluate structure and function relationship.

Flavonoids ...are known to be synthesized by plants in response to microbial infection.

The number of studies has suggested protective effects of flavonoids against many infectious (bacterial and viral diseases) and degenerative diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, cancers, and other age-related diseases.

Flavonoids are the most common and widely distributed group of plant phenolic compounds, occurring virtually in all plant parts. Flavonoids are an integral part of human and animal diet. Being phytochemicals, flavonoids cannot be synthesized by humans and animals. Thus flavonoids found in animals are of plant origin rather than being biosynthesized in situ.

Flavonoids in food are generally responsible for colour, taste, prevention of fat oxidation, and protection of vitamins and enzymes.

Preparation and processing of food may decrease flavonoid levels depending on the methods used.

Accurate estimation of the average dietary intake of flavonoids is difficult, because of the wide varieties of available flavonoids and the extensive distribution in various plants and also the diverse consumption in humans.

Flavonoids have been consumed by humans since the advent of human life on earth, that is, for about 4 million years. They have extensive biological properties that promote human health and help reduce the risk of diseases.

Flavonoids are also known to influence the quality and stability of foods by acting as flavorants, colorants, and antioxidants.

Intake of antioxidant flavonoids has been inversely related to the risk of incidence of dementia.

Lipid peroxidation is a common consequence of oxidative stress. Flavonoid protect lipids against oxidative damage by various mechanisms.

Antibacterial flavonoids might be having multiple cellular targets, rather than one specific site of action.

The immune system can be modified by diet, pharmacologic agents, environmental pollutants, and naturally occurring food chemicals. Certain members of flavonoids significantly affect the function of the immune system and inflammatory cells.

Dietary factors play an important role in the prevention of cancers. Fruits and vegetables having flavonoids have been reported as cancer chemopreventive agents. The critical relationship of fruit and vegetable intake and cancer prevention has been thoroughly documented. It has been suggested that major public health benefits could be achieved by substantially increasing consumption of these foods.

Naturally occurring flavonoids with antiviral activity have been recognized since the 1940s and many reports on the antiviral activity of various flavonoids are available.

Prevention and cure of diseases using phytochemicals especially flavonoids are well known. Fruits and vegetables are natural sources of flavonoids. Variety of flavonoids found in the nature possesses their own physical, chemical, and physiological properties. Medicinal efficacy of many flavonoids as antibacterial, hepatoprotective, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and antiviral agents is well established. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3891543/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Me again) How many flavonoids have been discovered to this point? Many thousands and the number is still growing. Now we can wait for the health benefits of fruits and vegetables to be stuffed into pills, but they still won't be in the balances and substrate formats nature intended us to consume. Why wait? Eat your fruits and vegetables now.

Simple prescription for health:
1) skip breakfast extending your natural daily fasting period.
2) break your daily fast with a large fruit meal. (yum!)
3) have a large vegetable meal for dinner.
4) if you need between meal snacks, eat fruit.
5) never cook your fruit, eat many of your vegetables in salads (not cooked).
5) have a handful of nuts and seeds everyday.

In the "Preparation and processing of food" quote section above, not specifically mentioned in this paper is the destructive effect of cooking on flavonoids - 80% reduction in potency is not uncommon!

The "don't eat fruit" meme is propagated by folks who wish to continue consuming an animal heavy diet because it is culturally familiar, and by those who profit from high fat animal food diets. To their credit, "Paleos" have figured out the least harmful way to consume animal products, but it is not optimal for a variety of reasons. One of them is high fat diets cause insulin resistance, which means very moderate consumption of carbs, effectively eliminating fruit as a significant part of the diet...but fruit is one of the two healthiest food groups on the planet.

High fat low carb diets are not optimal...high carb low fat diets comprised of whole plants in variety is optimal.

What do instincts have to do with nutrition?

We need two basic types of nutrition, macro nutrients, or calories for fuel, and micro nutrients, vitamins and minerals etc, for ongoing health. The micronutrients are among the thousands of chemicals that repair and maintain our bodies.

We are told that we should get the "recommended daily allowance" of all the known key micronutrients.
Definition of RDA:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/recommended%20daily%20allowance

But the RDA is a bit of a science fiction. We do need calories on a daily basis to keep going, but we do not need micronutrients daily to keep going. Why is that?

The body stores micronutrients - animals in nature only restore supplies of many of them on a seasonal basis. They have adapted to this pattern over the millenia. We humans are no exception! We have not evolved physiologically to any significant degree for 100,000 years, but the industrial revolution began, what, about 200 years ago?

Meanwhile we have developed all kinds of technologically concentrated and refined substances that massively overstimulate our innate inborn instincts governing what food we eat, and how much of it. Which seems kind of stupid, why did we do that? Well, because the taste of these things is amazing, and because we can do it. Also because there's billions of dollars of profits in it.

Betcha can't eat one. Presenting: the lowly potato chip.

Standard diets have become full of these concentrated substances. Modern foods have become irresistible, addictive, and also unfortunately, deadly. Consuming "foods" (using the term loosely) laden with these substances completely wrecks our inborn instinctual ability to "know" what and how much to eat. The foods we are biologically adapted to, the foods that make us whole and well, are no longer even on the table, but if they were we would still not pick them because our instincts for nutrition have been wrecked by concentrated substances.

So what are these "native" foods for humans? If you believe as I do that we are adapted to consume mostly plants, then one common definition promoted by many of the MDs using diet to reverse the too common diseases of diet is SOS free WFPB, which translates to sugar oil and salt free plant based whole foods. This immediately eliminates the instinct wreckers in our diets, and provides us with the nutrient dense calories we need for wellness.

Sugar oil and salt are the three primary problems in modern diets. Let's go back to the potato chip - salt and oil, highly addictive, and toxic. What's for dessert? Sugar and fat, also toxic and highly addictive.

There are so many problems with cooking oils I won't even try to address them all here, but in this context they provide hidden and empty calories. And if that weren't bad enough, for many folks consuming standard diets most of the total calories they consume in an average day come from oils!

Can you imagine? Most of the "food" consumed in a day is oil? And when it's heated it's really not just oil, it's grease. No wonder I had acne as a child.

But to get back on point, the purpose of this particular blog is to tell you that all is not lost, we can return our inborn instincts to normal. Well normal is no longer the completely accurate word since so many of us have have unintentionally wrecked them beginning early childhood.

When we go back to eating whole foods only, as close to their natural state as possible - simple recipes of few ingredients with minimal or no cooking and no added sugar oil or salt - within a relatively short period of time our instincts begin to return. We begin to taste complex and wonderful flavors in simple vegetables we may not have noticed before. And fruit becomes a dance of utter deliciousness.

Instincts begin to return relatively quickly, but we become accustomed to them, and the messages they are giving us, a bit more gradually. For example (and to return to the beginning), what do instincts have to do with nutrition?

When we are running the clean body instincts returned to us by clean foods, and are low in some particular micronutrient, we will find the foods that contain that nutrient especially appealing "for no particular reason", as attraction to the foods that are supremely good for us becomes a "self-healing" problem.

The body does truly vector toward health at every available opportunity, in every possible way.

Curious as to why sugar has such a pernicious grip on modern societies?

The preternaturally gifted Alan Goldhamer, author of The Pleasure Trap, explains it beautifully here:

the nutrient to toxin ratio

Our bodies are designed to deal with toxins, we have elimination pathways: immune system function, breath, sweat, pee, poo, etc.

There is no such thing as a body without toxins, the body is in a continual state of elimination of toxins, 24/7/365 birth to death. Toxins come from inside (endogenous) and outside (exogenous). Endogenous ones comes from cell die off (a considerable base line load that never goes away), and other ongoing immune system function. For most of us exogenous comes mostly from what we put in our mouth.

We are unaware of toxic elimination processes when in a state of health. But when the sum of internal generation and consumption of toxins becomes greater than than elimination capacity, symptoms arise, and health begins a degeneration process.

There is a "toxic load threshold", and when exceeded, symptoms arise. One definition of "state of heath" is "lack of symptoms".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The body's self healing mechanisms are a function of the principle that our natural elimination systems keep load below threshold.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are not taught this principle, we are taught we need drugs and supplements to be healthy. And that nutrition is so confusing we may as well eat any ole crap we want.

Nutrition is not confusing. It's simple and clear at the base level.

Consumption of toxins includes dirty air or water, toxins in contact with skin (gasoline, paint thinner etc). We only know the system is working as it should when we are symptom free. When we develop symptoms we know our elimination systems are being overwhelmed by toxins or infectious pathogens.

There is tremendous lack of clarity among lay people about the difference between infectious pathogens and toxic overload. Both take us down, both can kill us. But they are not the same thing.

Pharmacology is really good with the infectious pathogen side of the problem, and completely counterproductive on the toxic overload side. Why would that be?

Toxic overload is typically caused by consumption of toxic "foods", and only fixed by reducing consumption of these toxins, so that load falls back below threshold. Drugs typically make the load problem worse. Why would that be?

Drugs are not food.

How many folks do you know on multiple medications that are becoming healthy as a result?

Recreational drugs "intoxicate" us. yipee! But make no mistake, they add to our pre-existing toxic load.

The only materials that are not toxic are clean air, water, and food. All foods have some degree of toxicity also, and it varies considerably depending on what we are willing to call "food".

So ideally we put in our bodies only the foods that have the highest nutrition to toxin ratio. Everything else is suspect. refined fractionated products sold to us as health promoting are not food, they are supplements or drugs. They are "foreign" to the body.

They can in certain instances be a good thing. They can be life savers. With the guidelines of these principles one can evaluate the cost benefit ratios of putting foreign substances (not food) into the body. It will vary considerably depending on circumstances. Generally the benefits of consuming drugs etc is greatly overstated.

These principles can help us "use medicine intelligently". Big Pharma will happily sell us loads of poo poo too.

A powerful presentation on the obvious...that is still not obvious: Dr Michael Klaper

Dr Klaper deserves our complete attention and appreciation for the work he is doing to wake us up.

Bravo, Dr Klapper.

Mediterranean Diet Study retracted - Shenanigans with Science pt 2

Diet studies with conflicts of interest, improper design to skew a result, and misinterpretations of data are numerous. Worse, they are the studies that usually surface through mass media outlets. There are a few reasons for that.

First, mass media is not qualified to analyse diet studies, journalists are not nutrition scientists. No one is analyzing studies for red flags before publication.

Second is cultural bias. We love to hear good things about our bad habits. Legions of people, for example, love to see studies that say moderate consumption of alcohol is a good thing. Including many doctors. I'm not taking a position here on whether alcohol consumption is good or not good, I'm simply pointing out that bias is cultural, and pervasive. And people who enjoy alcohol are going to be happy and relieved to see a study that says "what you're doing is good". If that study happens to be conflicted (paid for by an alcohol industry group) that "little problem" somehow never makes it into popular media reports.

Third, studies cost money. Who can typically afford to fund studies? Industry groups...who can then also afford media blitz campaigns to get the "studies" before the public.

Forth, studies are complex and difficult to design and run. "Getting it right" is a narrow set of conditions, getting it wrong is everything else. Deliberate corruption of studies is not difficult, and hugely tempting to industries generating outsized profit on questionable products.

Does any of this make you look toward the flurry of studies saying "butter is back", "cholesterol doesn't matter", "saturated fats are good" with a slightly different perspective?

The Mediterranean Diet Study of 2013 made a huge media splash, and it's recently been retracted. Here's is Dr Pam Popper, who is qualified to analyse diet studies, with an explanation as to why.

Is Medicare a Big Pharma scam?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair

I'm going to begin this post with the Upton Sinclair quote to allow for the fact there are many well intentioned folks who remain blissfully unaware of the facts, which are the topic of the remainder of this post.

Fact: The vast majority of people who begin using a low fat whole foods plant based (with no added oils, salt, or sugar) diet come off all medications, and rather quickly at that.

Fact: The above group, now "cured" of "chronic conditions" (that need never to have occurred to begin with), continues forward with the best measured "health markers" of any other single group of humans alive on the plant today.

Fact: Big Pharma makes the majority of it's profits selling medications "you'll have to take the rest of your life" because there's no known cure for ... (fill in the blank). If they were being honest they would add: "that we can sell you, as the cause of your condition is dietary, and the only way to cure it is also dietary".

Fact: The majority of Americans of middle age and older are on multiple medications for conditions that are reversible with diet.

Fact: No one with "authority", including MDs, are telling these folks that there is a "cure" that actually works, and it's easy and free (we have to buy food either way).

Fact: This results in a kind of "pocket picking" of citizens, through the agency of Medicare, with the "revenues" flowing to Uncle Sam and Big Pharma.

Nice to know good old Uncle Sam is looking out for our best interests, right?