1221869365:::Will Sellars:::::::::Hi Diane,

In your reading have you come across blood type or metabolic type based diets? Does the Paleo diet match a particular "type" and therefore works for solely for person with a particular genetic background, or is it a diet promoted as "one answer" for all types?

Cheers

Will 1221870613:::John Harris:::John.Harris00 at gmail.com::::::It's mostly the protein that is doing the leg work.
I've been meaning to try such a diet, even just using shakes and such would be better than what I'm doing (which is more or less nothing.)
So I'll give protein drinks a good shot, maybe it'll work for me.

Diana I'm glad your new diet is working for you. GTD is working for me, so I'll give the protein a shot. Thanks. 1221871036:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::I only know a little bit about the idea of a blood-type based diet, but I dismiss it for three reasons:

(1) Its appeal to evolution seems totally spurious to me. It simply makes no evolutionary sense that people would have wildly different nutritional requirements based on a highly variable quality like blood type. Nor do what's-his-name's particular recommendations make sense, except in some rationalistic way.

(2) The basic workings of human metabolism (e.g. insulin response) do not depend on blood type.

(3) The recommendation for my blood type -- a vegetarian diet -- would result in an unbearable decline in health for me. I've confirmed -- over the course of years -- that the less meat I eat, the worse I feel. I'm not going to take anyone who recommends that I go vegetarian seriously -- ever.

Of course, I recognize the fact of individual variation in nutritional requirements -- within the general limits of human biology. However, differences in blood type have no plausibility whatsoever as a relevant factor. 1221871061:::John Harris:::John.Harris00 at gmail.com::::::I also avoid grains, particularly wheat. I avoid white flour like the plague -- and contrary to contrary to popular belief, whole grains are just as bad. On rare occasion -- meaning less often than once per week -- I'll eat a slice of sprouted bread or a small bowl of overnight-soaked oatmeal. (The sprouting and the soaking are supposed to make the grain more digestible. However, I find that if I eat more than a wee bit, I can feel the ill effects.)

What sort of fiber do you get in your diet then?

So that's what I eat, with only very rare exceptions. Notably, I do no counting or balancing or weighing. I'm not particularly concerned with the macronutriet composition of my meals. Instead, I have two basic goals: (1) to eat real, whole, unprocessed foods, and (2) to avoid foods that spike my blood sugar. These two categories strongly overlap, but they aren't quite the same.

Are you sure you're not experiencing hyperglycemia? (I'm not a doctor, but I do also try to avoid foods with higher levels of surgar; I have six months of Seroquel to thank for that.)

John. 1221871701:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::John,

Ugh, don't tell me about protein powder. I'd rather eat chalk.

Seriously, it's not the protein that's doing most of the leg work for me. I ate as much protein as I am now when I was on the Zone Diet. I never felt any of the good effects that I'm feeling now -- except that more protein / less carbs helped stabilize my then-crazy blood sugar. I was able to follow that diet perfectly, while still eating tons of sugars and grains. Eliminating those has made all the difference for me -- and now I eat more or less fat and protein without any significant effect. But feed me a slice of cake, even after a nice big steak, and I'll feel like crap for about 24 hours. 1221872199:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::John --

(1) Fiber isn't all that it's cracked up to be. See Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" on that: it's stressed today as a result of the attempt to integrate data from good studies with the false lipid hypothesis. In any case, I get plenty of fiber from eating real, whole fruits and veggies.

(2) I certainly don't have hyperglycemia now: my blood sugar levels are in good shape. (I have a blood glucose meter.) However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn I was eating my way to type 2 diabetes before. 1221886358:::Cheerwino:::::::::Congrats Diana! Several of us in the New South Objectivists are eating low-carb diets with good results. I've lost 30 lbs (195 to 165 in a few months) and eliminated mood swings from sugar. As you mentioned, the most amazing thing is how easy and painless it is. I simply don't feel like I am giving up anything.

I agree Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is a fantastic book on nutrition. I have also found "Protein Power LifePlan" by Drs. Eades to be helpful explaining how and why to lower carbs. I've learned a lot from his blog at www.proteinpower.com/drmike and of course Liriodendron's Spark A Synapse blog.

I look forward to hearing more about your health and diet. Another great way to change the culture is to outlive the rest of 'em!

Cheers,

Guy 1221895403:::Jimfw:::jimfw@hotmail.com::::::I'm curious about the rigorous avoidance of grains. The country with the largest number of centennarians is Japan and Japan is a grain based diet culture; rice, of course. Overall, Japan has excellent longevity statistics. They also consume a lot of fish, and their portions tend to be much smaller than those in the west, and perhaps these are mitigating factors. Your feedback on this would be interesting to me.

Thanks. 1221896245:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Cheerwino -- Congrats on your success! I do like Dr. Eades' blog ( http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike ) for the scientific explanations of the workings of metabolism, examinations of studies, and the like.

That reminds me, I need to add the food and health blogs that I'm reading regularly to the blogroll. 1221900481:::Mike Hardy:::hardy@math.umn.edu::::::Diana, you linked to a page that say of Nathan Pritikin:

> He died, in the prime of life, of
> suicide when he realized that his
> Spartan regime was not curing his
> leukemia.

What exactly is the "prime of life"? He was 70 years old. I don't think he ever expected his diet to cure leukemia. Is a cancer patient's auto-euthanasia supposed to refute his theory about what kind of diet would prevent heart disease? 1221902775:::OistPostGrad:::ttcrunch@lycos.net::::::Jimfw,

Japanese people also consumes on average the least refined sugar in the world. And from what I have read, rice is less offensive a carbohydrate than wheat. Diana is right. Its not necessarily the carbohydrate percentage that matters, its the state of the food. Natural unprocessed foods are what counts. This is proven out by studies of modern day (or recent) hunter gatherer populations. The Innuit Indians ate a diet high in fat (almost 80%) but the Massai ate a diet high in carbs (60-65%). Prior to being "Westerninzed" they both showed no evidence of the "diseases of civilization." Its the processing which causes the problem.

Diana,

I'm so glad you are going to be blogging on this subject. There are so many angles to this including the philosophical and political.

The welfare state / subsidized science establishment has backed the lipid hypothesis and the entire culture has oriented around it. We have become a carb consuming nation. Our lives revolve around carbohydrates. This shows in the high obesity rates and gives rise to the expression "fat American." Also, the Paleo diet movement is saturated with environmentalist / anti-man premises. So many Paleo authors exhibit worship of "the noble savage" when it comes to hunter / gatherer civilizations. So many also want to turn America into a Paleo diet version of the welfare state. Lorain Cordain himself thinks that the world could not maintain its current population if it had to eat a protein based diet and laments that the third world must eat a wheat and grain based diet for survival. You can just imaging what altruists will do with these sentiments if they should become popular.

Lastly, I am curious what you think of Art DeVanny who I am sure you are familiar with. How much credence do you give to his "randomness" worship? Lastly, are you doing Intermittent Fasting? That also has tremendous health benefits as I understand it. 1221904167:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::OistPostGrad -- Thanks for posting the data on the variety of healthy diets wrt macronutriets. I was feeling too lazy to look up the numbers myself. :-)

I've casually read Art DeVany's public blog for a few months, but I'm not familiar with enough of his views to comment on them. (I've been wondering whether his private blog is worth the price of subscription. Anyone know?)

I have been doing some intermittent fasting -- usually about a 20-hour fast every two weeks. After my initial quick drop of 5 lbs (of the usual water stored with glycogen), that's been the most reliable way for me to lose weight. Plus, it's helped me realize that -- if I eat right -- I can endure hunger easily, even through vigorous exercise, by drawing on fat stores. I'm not in the "internal starvation" mode any longer that required me to eat often. In particular, I used to have to eat right before and right after exercise. Now I can have a kick-ass session after fasting all day. In fact, I've discovered that it's easier for me to fast when I do exercise intermittently: it kills the headache that I tend to get otherwise. 1221905664:::Geo:::george62@operamail.com::::::My experience with the Protein Power diet (Eades) is virtually identical to your experience, Diana. One possible difference is the difficulty I experienced when getting started on the diet. For 3 or 4 weeks, I had little energy and strong sugar cravings, but I got through it. I eventually lost about 30 lbs and also felt great - full of energy.

I think that the anthropological argument for this kind of diet (protein/paleo) is very persuasive - humans simply didn't eat grains and processed foods until very recently. For many thousands of years of human evolution, we were hunter/gatherers, so it's easy to accept that the hunter/gatherer diet is optimal for us. Given the enormous complexities of human biology and nutrition, the science backing this is necesarily incomplete, but there's reason to believe the supporting evidence will continue to accumulate.

I haven't read the Taupes book, but it sounds like it's worth a read. Can anyone recommend any good books on the paleo angle ?

Regards...

George 1221905995:::Jimfw:::jimfw@hotmail.com::::::Otis: Thanks for the feedback. That makes sense to me, though when I was in Japan it seemed to me that they liked their confections. But I suspect that you are right; these confections didn't use refined sugar, I think they were sweetened with rice syrup or some equivalent.

Here's another question for you or Diana; some researchers have suggested that the high consumption of green tea may be a factor in Japanese longevity. Tea has many anti-oxidant properties, and some specific anti-cancer agents. So I suspect that it wouldn't hurt. I'm interested if this has appeared in any of your readings.

Thanks. 1221906516:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Great post! I'll definitely make use of this information. As for me, I've started to head down your path. I'm eating whole wheat products instead of white whenever possible (e.g. bread, spaghetti). I've also become accustomed to eating oatmeal daily. I started out with the flavored variety, but just sort of stopped eating those and am sticking to the plain, rolled oats (one of my few products with just one ingredient). My last big hurdle is diet pop/soda, and caffeine in general.

Not too long ago, I was scarfing down gobs of garbage, mostly because my workplace stocks lots of food, and they always want junk food. (I know that's no excuse though - I ate it because I wanted to.) 1221909088:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Diana,

Can you document what you eat and when over a couple weeks, and possibly how much it costs? I'd like to know what such a diet looks like, and whether or not it would be financially feasible. 1221909858:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Jimfw -- I place little stock in the various claims that some particular food is critical to or even a major boon to health. It's not likely true, and it diverts attention away from the real issue of what a person is consuming on a regular basis.

brian0918 -- From what I've read (and in my own experience) whole wheat flour products are no better than white flour products. They still cause the same problematic rise in insulin, just over a slightly longer period of time. Similarly, a single serving of oatmeal is a huge amount of carbohydrates. From what you say, your diet sounds better than it was, but it's still very much a modern, highly processed, agricultural diet. I'm advocating something different, something far more radical: eliminate the all grains. Then, after a while, maybe, if you feel no ill effects from doing so (unlike me, and many others), add one or maybe two servings of grains *per week* at most, preferably sprouted or soaked. Bacon and eggs are a fabulously healthy breakfast -- and they'll keep you sated for far, far longer than oatmeal. 1221910709:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::brian0918 -- "Can you document what you eat and when over a couple weeks, and possibly how much it costs? I'd like to know what such a diet looks like, and whether or not it would be financially feasible."

We tend to eat somewhat expensively for the sake of taste and quality, particularly since we're not eating out much at all these days. However, it's certainly possible to eat good food on the cheap. (It can be quite costly to eat prepared foods, and restaurants are way more expensive than eating at home.) I'll be happy to record what I eat, but if you're worried about the cost, I'll dig up some resources for eating paleo on the cheap. If I bought chicken on sale, for example, I could easily cook up a fabulous and hearty dinner for Paul and I for less than $5, probably with meat and veggie leftovers for lunch the next day. I can do a good ribeye-and-veggie dinner for us for less than $10 -- and in just 30 minutes on the grill. 1221915516:::Alex:::alex dot 3564 at hotmail::::::
Interesting stuff.

IMO, one of the biggest nutrition myths (starting to be dispelled, but still believed by many) is that "fat is bad". Some fats are bad (e.g. trans fats found in processed foods), but some are very good (e.g. monosaturated fats found in nuts and olives). Even saturated fat is misunderstood. My newest discovery is extra virgin coconut oil, a glorious little food.

A book that I've gained a ton of value from is Jonny Bowden's 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth:
http://www.amazon.com/150-Healthiest-Foods-Earth-Surprising/dp/1592332285

The author also has a blog:
http://www.jonnybowden.com/blogger.html

cheers

Alex 1221917750:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::I love coconut oil for stir-frying veggies. The onions always retain a lovely flavor of coconut. Yummy! You can find extra virgin coconut oil at Whole Foods; my local store carries about 5 different brands. 1221921574:::Jenn:::::::::Saturated fat is actually very, very good for you, if you eat a low-carb diet. It has been unfairly maligned. The real fat bad guy is polyunsaturates, like vegetable oil, margarine...things that don't even taste good! (I would put fish in that category too.)

For the last 4 years I have eaten a high-fat, low carb diet created by a doctor in Poland. He calls it "Optimal Nutrition" and has been using it with his patients for over 30 years. Its about 70-80% fat, and most of that is saturated. Sounds crazy (and unbelievably indulgent) to most people...but I am healthier and happier than I have ever been, as well as thinner. This is after trying all the variations on a low carb diet, including paleo. 1221922732:::OistPostGrad:::ttcrunch@lycos.net::::::"For the last 4 years I have eaten a high-fat, low carb diet created by a doctor in Poland."

That would be the The Optimal Diet developed by Polish doctor Jan Kwasniewski. Some people swear by it. But its extremely low carbohydrate levels might be very difficult for many people to handle. 1221924170:::Ted Coxhead:::tedcoxhead@yahoo.co.uk::::::I'm pleased that you feel better for changing your diet, Diana. But when you write : "My general goal is to approximate -- to some reasonable degree -- the hunter-gatherer diet that humans were adapted to eat by a few hundred thousands of years of evolution. That diet changed radically with the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago. It has changed even more in the last 100 years or so." I get a little confused.

The guys who were living on that hunter gatherer stuff tended not to live very long for a variety of reasons. Maybe the food was good for them, but how do we know, when so much else killed them? Are you saying that the development of agriculture was a "bad thing" for mankind? Or is it just modern food production techniques that are bad? Most of us seem to live a lot longer on this stuff today, despite cancer, obesity and diabetes.

How much state of nature do you think it might be a good idea to go back to?

It's true, and I thought generally accepted as such, that Atkins type diets which have been around for decades, will get the weight off, but the whole area concerning which diet is objectively the best is almost impossible to research. Mainly what we read is anecdotal. You know, along the lines of well it works for me. Or, there's this guy at work and he swears by... etc.etc.

Here's an anecdote for you. I consulted with a top doctor and nutritionist when I was 55 for a diet that would maintain heart health and maybe improve my prostate health. For over 5 years I ate only the best quality meats (usually white meats but not turkey), I ate minimal amounts of carbos. I drank a small amount of red wine each day for anti-oxidants. I drank green tea by the gallon. I consumed beta-sitosterol flown in from California along with saw palmetto. And I developed a real appetite for soya products on the grounds that the Japanese and Chinese don't get so much prostate cancer. It came as quite a surprise when after the 5 years I got a prostate cancer diagnosis.

After that I figured that the diet I had been on might not make me live any longer but it certainly felt like I was living longer!

Now I tell people this: eat small amounts of good quality food. Eat whatever you like but eat it in moderation. When I am in the States I always ask the server to give me a European portion. They look puzzled but usually understand, especially if I offer to pay the same money as for an American portion. Move about as much as you can. Keep a lively mind. And of course, there's a bloke in England who swears by it...... 1221926114:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Ted -- Any anthropologist worth his salt will tell you that human health and welfare declined substantially with the advent of agriculture. From my own anthropology classes, I remember that previously-rare communicable diseases raged rampant through crowded conditions, and that something like 10-12 hours of work per day was required for sustenance rather than 2-3 hours. Hunter-gatherers were a comparatively healthy lot, although they definitely succumbed to trauma and other ailments. See:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/saharan-hunter-gather ...

Modern studies of primitive tribes show that people eating native diets are quite healthy: diabetes, heart disease, and obesity are almost unheard of. However, when those people switch to a modern diet filled with refined carbohydrates, they develop all of those diseases. Americans (and others) are living long lives despite our standard diet, not because of it.

I'm not interested in raw anecdotes. They're are just meaningless correlations without some real science (including an understanding of human metabolism) to put them in causal context. For that, I'll recommend the book that I've already mentioned a few times: Gary Taubes' _Good Calories, Bad Calories_. It's a detailed survey of a wide, wide range of scientific data on nutrition and health.

Also, moderation is crap as diet advice. Should I eat moderate amounts of poison? What counts as a moderate amount of Twinkies? Dr Bowden a good post on that here: http://www.jonnybowden.com/2005/05/eat-balanced-diet-and-other-usel ...

Portion control as the key to a good diet is also largely a myth, precisely because it treats all kinds of food and all calories as equal. Study after study shows that overeating is not the cause of obesity. (Again, see Taubes for some fascinating data on that.) 1221929320:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::I was reading through the criticism of the paleo diet on Wikipedia. Here's an interesting bit:

"Based on Marlowe (2005), Ströhle et al. (2006) and Jenike (2001), they indicate that, because the plantâ€"animal subsistence ratios of contemporary hunter-gatherers vary in a remarkable manner (0â€"90% food from gathering; 10â€"100% food from hunting and fishing), it is likely that the macronutrient intake of preagricultural humans varied enormously."

What they're saying is that the basic premise of the paleo diet - that early man had large intake of certain foods and little of others - is not true based on current hunter/gatherers.

Here are the sources:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ypmed.2006.08.014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fevan.20046
http://www.ernaehrungs-umschau.de/archiv/summaries/?id=2430
http://books.google.ca/books?id=7yCpBRAY22UC&pg=PA205&lpg=P ... 1221930043:::Ted Coxhead:::tedcoxhead@yahoo.co.uk::::::Just a few points,Diana. Please be assured I genuinely wish you well on your diet. It's just that Gary Taubes notwithstanding, I don't see a great deal of evidence for your position in favour of hunter-gatherer
diets whether paleo or otherwise. I guess given the nature of the subject, the huge size of populations and the difficulties of conducting studies of diets and their consequences, real evidence will be difficult to come by.

I do know that not only did a diet regime not work for me, but that your consumption of dairy produce would be anthema to many if not most of the serious doctors working in the field of prostate cancer now. The same would apply to your reluctance in regard to fruit. I could refer you to Professor Jane Plant or Dr Bob Arnot on saturated fat and to many others in Britain and the US.

Also I don't know anything about Mr Jonny Bowden except that in the clip you highlighted he seems remarkably hostile to the modern food industry. In relation to his and your question as to should you eat moderate amounts of poison, the answer frankly is no you should not, which is why I spoke about good quality food.

Another Bowden (Thomas A.), in his book "The Enemies of Christopher Columbus", says when explaining how disease in earlier times menaced all peoples, "Interestingly, however, it was the Europeans' domestication of animals that had the unforseen effect of rendering Europeans immune to various diseases that later killed many Indians." He quotes William McNeill as saying paradoxically that "the more diseased a community, the less destructive its epidemics become." (p41 "The Enemies of Christopher Columbus"). Farming therefore enabled Europeans to not only develop new sources of food, but to improve their immune systems.

I guess, in my position, I am always wary of claims for diets and the enthusiasm that their advocates always seem to have. You have to decide what you are eating for. What you are trying to achieve. The diet you advocate for yourself in your piece may be very good for what you wish to achieve. But it is very dangerous to advocate it for everyone. Like I say, I don't think your diet would win many admirers in the field of prostate cancer. 1221931000:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::brian0918 -- Yes, some advocates of paleo-type diets advocate a particular macronutriet composition. I don't -- as I stated in my post: "I'm not particularly concerned with the macronutriet composition of my meals." My reasons are basically those stated by OistPostGrad in comment #11. Studies of the diets of primitive cultures clearly show that people can thrive on a wide range of macronutrient compositions -- albeit presumably within some limits. Plus, individuals vary in their responses to and needs for foods, and they should experiment (within reason) to discover what works well for them.

My view -- and I'm not alone in this opinion amongst the "evolutionary diet" crowd -- is that the essential problem with the modern diet is massive consumption of highly refined carbohydrates -- particularly sugars and grains. Such foods were definitely not common (if existent at all) in hunter-gatherer diets. And they have demonstrable bad effects on human metabolism over time -- as seen in today's "epidemics" of diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. 1221932009:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::You mentioned eggs and bacon. Aren't they bad for your arteries, clogging them up with cholesterol? Or do you prepare them in some way that is healthier? 1221932089:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Ted -- My purpose of my post was just to outline my diet. I specifically said that the science would have to wait until later: "As for the science supporting my new diet, that will have to wait for another Saturday." So please don't complain that I failed do something that was beyond my purpose. That's annoying.

That being said, I have no plans to re-hash the overwhelming data discussed in Taubes' massive tome. NoodleFood is just a blog, and nutrition isn't my specialty. My only goal is to intrigue people enough to study the issue more themselves. So, if you're interested in an excellent and detailed survey of the science of nutrition, then read the book. If not, then don't -- but don't gripe at me for failing to re-write the book for you.

Regarding moderation, the point is that you need to know what constitutes "good quality food." And that's the issue here: a great deal of the food that most people eat is, in my judgment, slow-acting poison. That includes most of what's in the grocery store -- and most of what's touted as healthy food. 1221932563:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::brian0918 -- The cholesterol in the foods you eat does not translate into cholesterol in the bloodstream. Our metabolism is much, much more complicated that that. I'll let you guess which foods are the real culprits for artery cloggery. But again, I'll strongly recommend the Taubes book, as he covers the relevant studies and biology in great detail. 1221933041:::OistPostGrad:::ttcrunch@lycos.net::::::"What they're saying is that the basic premise of the paleo diet - that early man had large intake of certain foods and little of others - is not true based on current hunter/gatherers."

The best way to look at the Paleo or Evolutionary diet approach is to ask not so much what early man ate but what he didn't eat or *couldn't* have eaten. The culprits here are processed foods, especially processed (ie refined) carbohydrate (although processed fats are not healthy either). They reek havok with the endocrine system, especially insulin levels and insulin is one of, if not the most important, hormone in the body. Interestingly, its one of the oldest hormones which was found in the first living organisms eons ago (which is yet another point in favor of the theory of evolution). The human body is on one level a bio-chemical machine with a very definite nature. It evolved under certain conditions to run on certain "fuels" and although it is believed that our bodies have undergone some adaptations to modern conditions, essentially we carry the same genetic makeup that Paleolithic man carried.

Once you start reading on this subject, while there certainly is controversy, you begin to see that it is not the case that all diets are equally valid or that its impossible to learn anything from dietary studies. There are some fundamentals emerging from the volumes of nutritional data that have been accumulated. The hunter / gatherer studies are very revealing. Gary Taubes is a good place to start. So is The Weston Price Foundation. Art DeVanny and Lorain Cordain and Michael Edes are all good sources as well. 1221933894:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Thanks Diana and PostGrad. While my diet is much better than what it was, and I've lost about 20 pounds in response to that alone, this sounds interesting and I'll add Taubes book to my reading list. I have been wanting to buy more locally-grown, fresh foods (although just finding where and when such markets are open is not easy), and maybe this will get me motivated.

I look forward to your weekly blog on this topic; I'm interested in what your day-to-day diet looks like. 1221942882:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Regarding raw milk: I'm in Ohio, which apparently bans it completely, so if I wanted it, I'd have to go a store across the border in PA to get it, or I'd have to buy a cow share like Diana does. Is the better taste simply because most milk is reduced fat (e.g. 2%, 1%, etc), while raw milk has all the fat? If so, couldn't you buy pasteurized milk that has all the fat?

I'm worried about the health risks, though. The FDA put out this article in 2004 about the dangers of raw milk:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/504_milk.html

"More than 300 people in the United States got sick from drinking raw milk or eating cheese made from raw milk in 2001, and nearly 200 became ill from these products in 2002, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

"Listeria monocytogenes-caused illness can result in miscarriage, fetal death, or illness or death of a newborn infant. And Escherichia coli infection has been linked to hemolytic uremic syndrome, a condition that can cause kidney failure and death. Some of the diseases that pasteurization can prevent are tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, salmonellosis, strep throat, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever. "

As for the healthy benefits, they say that pasteurization doesn't do much harm:

"Research has shown that there is no significant difference in the nutritional value of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk, he says. The caseins, the major family of milk proteins, are largely unaffected, and any modification in whey protein that might occur is barely perceptible."

"Science has not shown a connection between drinking raw milk and disease prevention. "The small quantities of antibodies in milk are not absorbed in the human intestinal tract," says Ingham. "And there is no scientific evidence that raw milk contains an anti-arthritis factor or that it enhances resistance to other diseases."" 1221943323:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::brian0918 -- With 20 lbs lost already, you diet is definitely improved! Hooray! Based on the good questions you've asked here, I think you'll find the Taubes book as fascinating as I did. In ever chapter, I had something to discuss with Paul -- often something quasi-philosophical. I was often extremely irritated to learn that so much of what I'd accepted as true -- based on medical experts, the media, and the government -- was anything but. Most of all though, I'm extremely grateful to have found a source that made sense of all the conflicting, confusing data about nutrition. While I still have much to learn, I have a coherent core of knowledge to which I can effectively integrate new data, as well as better standards for what to accept or not.

Just FYI, here's what Paul and I had for dinner tonight:

* 1 pretty large boneless pork chop each, pan fried in about 2 tablespoons of bacon fat. (I recently discovered that the bacon fat gives the pork a fantastic flavor. Pork tends to be bland, so that's most welcome. Also, I brined the pork beforehand in salty water; that improves its moisture. I do prefer bone-in, but the butcher only had boneless.)

* About a cup of assorted tomatoes from the garden, sauteed in olive oil, then covered with a bit of basil, fresh mozzarella, and a lots of parmesan cheese and broiled until the cheese was bubbly. We split that.

* 1 small peach each from Colorado's western slope, with about 1/4 cup of raw cream.

Normally, we eat more vegetables than that, but I didn't have anything in the fridge and I couldn't find any yellow squash or zucchini in the garden. Cost was about $8, mostly because I bought the pork from our high-end local butcher. It took about 20 minutes to prepare and cook.

I definitely don't feel deprived, in any way, shape, or form. Oh, and did I mention that I hit a new record time in rowing today? I "sprinted" a mile in eight minutes. On my prior diet, I would struggle to do a ten minute mile, even when feeling my best. More on that later too. 1221943658:::Col. Hogan:::Waynesdirtylab@yahoo.com:::http://www.colhogan.blogspot.com:::Diana,

The diet you describe, and the thinking behind it--that is, the better health and longevity of mankind prior to the advent of agriculture--is being described in a novel I'm reading right now: "Pallas," by L Neil Smith. A coincidence, or do you know him?

I've been thinking along these lines myself, since I have a bit of tonnage I'd like to unload. Thank you very much for the info, current and future, and I'll see what I, living in the middle of the urban jungle, can do about finding some good steak and greens! 1221944442:::canuck49:::canuck49@telus.net::::::I subscribe to the same diet as Sophia Loren. Her famous quote is "Everything you see I owe to spaghetti." 1221945723:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Regarding raw milk: I haven't read enough about it to say whether it has health benefits. Mostly, I drink it because I LOVE LOVE LOVE the taste. After just a few weeks of drinking it, I drank a glass of 1% milk at Paul's parents in Los Angeles. Honestly, that stuff didn't taste like milk at all. It was revoltingly artificial. And I used to drink 1%, before I switched to raw milk. (Perhaps I can taste the nonfat dry milk that they add into it; the government doesn't require that on the label.) I can tolerate organic whole milk, but I wouldn't drink it if I had the option of drinking raw milk.

Notably, pasteurization compensates for some rather unsanitary practices in dairy farming. With pasteurization, farmers don't need to be careful about the contamination of their milk with muck and manure and illness. In contrast, raw milk farmers are generally very careful -- because they must be.

As for the dangers of raw milk, I say: (1) don't drink it if you're immuno-compromised, (2) drink it somewhat sparingly at first, and (3) know the farmer that you buy it from. From what I've read, raw milk is about as dangerous as deli meat or hot dogs. That's not very dangerous, in my view. However, you should make your own choices about the risk.

Some more details were discussed in the comments of my original post:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/06/raw-milk.shtml

For the case for raw milk, see:

http://www.realmilk.com/why.html

In any case, if you're not drinking raw milk, I would definitely recommend whole milk rather than any lesser percent. The fat is good, and it's much more satiating. The same goes for yogurt: I recommend full fat plain. 1221946218:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Oh, and I should mention: the federal government hates raw milk -- with a blind passion. They'd like to see it banned entirely, as would many conventional large dairy farms. I wouldn't trust any of them on its safety any more than I would trust the IRS to treat me fairly in an audit.

Here's a reasonably good article on the battle over raw milk:

http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2008/08/some-like-it-raw/ 1221948549:::TammyPerk:::tammy.ryan@gmail.com::::::Hey, Diana!

Greg and I loved reading of your success with the paleo diet! We did some checking around online and have the Taubes book on order.

We've both been thinking about dietary issues lately -- me with gaining muscle on a vegetarian diet and maintaining steady energy levels, and Greg with a desire for a healthier diet and a little weight loss. Inspired to try it out, we scampered to clear our cupboard of all high-carbo foods. It was fun but a little shocking to see our countertop overflowing with all of our yummy high-carb foods that would soon be donated to my son Cameron (a starving college student who will very much appreciate the food)! Tomorrow we'll clear out the refrigerator and freezer and then zip to the grocery store to stock up on meat, eggs, and veggies. This will be fun -- I hope Greg and I feel as great as you do once it's underway.

Thanks for the inspiration! 1221952092:::Paul Hsieh:::paul(at)geekpress(dot)com:::http://www.geekpress.com:::I've always been a fan of bacon and eggs, and this new diet allows me to eat those items as I prefer, since it's actually good for me.

At one of the hospitals where I work, the physicians get free food from the cafeteria and they always have excellent excellent bacon and eggs in the mornings.

So now when I'm in the self-serve line, I love being able to say to myself, "Hey, I'm on a diet -- MORE BACON!..." 1221957735:::Anonymous:::::::::Regarding bacon... the fat is okay. The problem with bacon is the processing... it's generally LOADED with nitrates, which are known carcinogens. There is some nitrate-free bacon out there, but it doesn't taste the same; apparently the nitrates give bacon its distinctive taste. According to Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw (authors of the now-classic book "Life Extension"), one way to protect yourself from the nitrates in bacon is to take some extra Vitamin C.

Yeah, the government hates raw milk with a passion. Not sure what the current state of the lawsuit against the raw-milk ban is here in California.

For those people who can't tolerate cows' milk, you can try goats' milk, which has its own distinctive taste. 1221960752:::Ted Coxhead:::tedcoxhead@yahoo.co.uk::::::"And that's the issue here: a great deal of the food that most people eat is, in my judgment, slow-acting poison. That includes most of what's in the grocery store -- and most of what's touted as healthy food." Diana, if you believe that then I'm afraid it goes for Paul's bacon in the hospital canteen and your pork chops even from the high end butcher.

By the way, I have read Taubes' book. I could also recommend to you "Panic Nation" edited by Professor (Emeritus) of Clinical Biochemistry, Vincent Marks. He is known internationally for his work on hypoglycaemia and diabetes. He says: "The quality of evidence linking diet to specific disease is poor, apart from common 'simple deficiency diseases'........" He concludes: "What is the best advice on healthy eating today? I beleive that, as in the past, we should eat a variety of different foods from the dairy, grocer, baker,fruiterer, greengrocer and vintner, and somewhat less frequently from the fishmonger and the butcher, in portion sizes and total quantity that ensures proper growth in children and the maintenance of a body mass index of around 20-25 in young adults and 23-27 in older adults." He then urges moderate daily exercise. ("Panic Nation" Feldman and Marks.pp50-51. (Moderation and balanced diet?)

You have certainly achieved your goal in sparking interest about your diet on your blog. 1221978571:::Jim May:::seerak@gmail.com::::::I've been drinking raw milk since Diana last posted about it. I can attest to the richer taste, though the difference betwen raw milk and pasteurized whole organic milk is much less than the jump from the latter to any "conventional" milk; organic milks taste one grade above their conventional counterparts to me (e.g. 2% organic is more like whole conventional, than 2% conventional).

Lawsuit in California? That must have something to do with the sign outside Whole Foods that said something about imploring the Governator to sign some sort of new bill regulating raw milk. I hope they don't screw things up.

Anon: I have never understood the fascination with those crispy meat chips you Americans call "bacon"; it's nothing like meat. Give me good ol' peameal (Canadian) bacon over that stuff anyday.

Regarding Ted's quote from Vincent Marks that "The quality of evidence linking diet to specific disease is poor", that fits with my current hypothesis that human beings *in general* can handle a wide variety of dietary inputs, with the exceptions being due to yet unknown genetic variations in the population.

Diana: I'm glad you are going to keep up with the food blogging. I'm definitely going to be following those posts. I'm looking to continue adjusting my diet as well, and I have reason to believe that the path you are following might be one I should investigate closely as well. My issue is that most of the time I simply don't want to spend time on preparing food, and just want to kill hunger -- it's the "fast" in fast food that is my downfall. If I can get into a rhythm which makes me better able to handle the gaps, it would be a big help in avoiding all those Twinkies in the Universal Studios commissary. 1221980813:::Cheerwino:::::::::For me, reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" was like "Atlas Shrugged" for health. It shook the very foundations of what I thought was true. After reading GC,BC, I cut out grains, sugar and starch. There was no plan, other than to avoid foods that I came to believe are not healthy for me. The book doesn't tell you what to eat, though. The Drs Eades Protein Power books, of which I think "Protein Power LifePlan" is the most complete, offer a more straight forward presentation of the science along with a diet plan, for those who would like one.

For me, the "low hanging fruit" in all of this is:
-Avoid carbs (sugars, starches, grains)
-Increase good fats (saturated fat from coconut oil or grass fed/pastured animals and their by products like butter and milk--not those raised entirely grain)
-Get enough protein for your body weight (see Eades), I think mine is around 27g per meal
-Eat variety of most veggies (except for high starch ones like potatoes)
-Eat fruit (avoid or limit quantities of tropical fruits: bananas, mango, pineapple)
-Avoid fried food, especially those cooked in vegetable oil (coconut would be the best for frying)
-Avoid nitrites and MSG from processed foods and sweetener aspartame
-Avoid transfats, partially hydrogenated oils of any kind, powdered milk, powdered eggs
-Add potassium (like NoSalt) and more sodium at first to ease the body's transition to the new diet (see Eades)
-Give your body time to adjust its enzymes needed to digest the change, perhaps transition in (although I went cold turkey)

For detailed reasons why, please see Protein Power series, Dr. Bowden's aforementioned books or Taubes Good Calories. The reasons are far too detailed to discuss in a blog and others have explained this far more thoroughly and eloquently than I can.

I don't eat Paleo, but I have read and enjoyed Paleo books "Neaderthin" and "Paleo Diet". While "Neanderthin" sounds faddish, is it an interesting little book using much of the research from Dr. Cordain the author of "PaleoDiet". The author lists his occupation as "falconer", so it's a bit unconventional, as you can imagine. In general, I think the Paleo folks overstate the dangers of saturated fat and dairy. The gist of the argument seems to be "cavemen didn't have access to high fatty meat or eat dairy so we are not evolved to handle high fat meat or dairy."

I am so excited Diana and Paul will be blogging on this topic and look forward to reading more. I would especially like to hear Paul's thoughts on why the medical profession is so hostile to the concept.

Guy 1221984284:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Nitrate-free bacon is fantastic. The taste is not terribly different, but it is heartier and meatier than conventional bacon. I highly recommend the Whole Foods store brand: it's called something like "365." Paul and I eat a package every weekend -- and that's what I use I get the bacon grease that I use for cooking. (I wouldn't use the stuff with nitrates.) You can also get nitrate-free dry salami at Whole Foods. Again, totally delicious, much better than the conventional stuff. (That tends to upset my stomach a bit, actually.) 1221984878:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Jim -- If you're going to do "fast food," I'd recommend Chipolte, if you have that near you. The quality of their food is stellar, much better than Qboda or whatever that other chain is called.

Get a skinless burrito (i.e in a bowl, not a totilla), skip the rice and double the meat. Salsa, cheese, sour cream, and guacamole is fine. You'll have a very hearty meal (or two or three, in my case) without the junk.

If you mean snacking, then that requires something different, but its possible to do that without resorting to crap. And, in any case, it's good if you just don't *have* to eat to remain functional. 1221988187:::Daniel Woelfel:::dwwoelfel@gmail.com::::::Diana,

Are you worried about the liberal amount of salt Chipotle puts in their beans, meats (excluding the pork), and salsas?

A handy tip for people get a second serving of a different meat, for example a Steak burrito with extra Chicken. Tell the cashier that you have a (less expensive meat) burrito with extra (more expensive meat). For the example above, you should say that you have a chicken burrito with extra steak. The reason for this is that the burrito itself is priced according to the meat, but extra meat costs $1.75 no matter what meat you order. 1221988596:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Daniel -- I haven't read enough about salt to be concerned or not. Its not a concern for me, in that I eat Chipolte about once per month. 1221991242:::Naomi:::xorwais@hotmail.com:::http://mypaleokitchen.blogspot.com:::Just wanted to say; welcome to the good stuff! ;) Glad you're spreading the word. 1221997822:::Paul:::ultraupper(at)gmail.com::::::For those who do not have Gary Taubes' book Good Calories, Bad Calories there is a google video of him discussing a few of the issues covered in his book. 72 minutes long here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149&q=g ... 1222004136:::Cheerwino:::::::::This is making me hungry! 1222004305:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::I used to eat Chipotle all the time in college, and still do occasionally, although I've always had it with the tortilla. Leaving out the tortilla is not a big deal, though, because the deliciousness is in the meat, beans, and the other fillings.

Daniel, thanks for the tip - I'll have to try that next time. 1222005306:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Chipolte's tortilla adds 290 calories with 42 grams effective carbs, according to this handy nutritional calculator:

http://www.chipotlefan.com/index.php?id=nutrition_calculator

But all the good stuff is what's inside. 1222012118:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::What about the beans? They add 22g carbs but also 9g protein. Should they be avoided as well? 1222014789:::ormus::::::http://www.thechinastudy.com/:::http://www.thechinastudy.com/

you eat too much meat 1222017116:::OistPostGrad:::ttcrunch@lycos.net::::::Ormus,

Here are a few good discussions of China and its diet:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/wheat-is-invading-chi ...

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/obesity/another-china-study/

In the second link, Dr. Eades skewers the idea that the China Study shows that meat and fat are bad for you. 1222018311:::Anonymous:::::::::I find it interesting that although you (seemingly) exercise a lot (from your blod descriptions), Diana, that alone apparently was not enough to control your blood sugar. Good for you that you're changing your dietary ways now, before you actually tip over into type II diabetes.

With milk, I have read from several sources (including realmilk.com and Weston A. Price Foundation) that not only does it taste better, but there is a difference in nutrition--I believe that pasteurization changes the shape of the milk protein. Also, the fats in raw milk are good for you, and will also contribute to losing weight.

Even tastier than raw milk is raw butter... it's just about BURSTING! with flavor. I almost couldn't believe my taste buds the first time I ate some raw butter.

At any rate, I cannot tolerate pasteurized cows' milk, but can tolerate raw cows' milk. However, right now I can't get raw milk in California. I can tolerate goats' milk really well, but I can't get raw goats' milk either.

Here in California, the fate of raw milk is in limbo. I previously posted about this. They should have something about the latest news at http://www.organicpastures.com

I'm moving away from California within two years at the most, and I hope that my intended new home will be in a state where I can get raw milk easily, either in stores or through a goat or cow share. 1222019855:::Tim R:::timothy_s_robinson@yahoo.com.au::::::This totally mirrors my experience.
I try to stick to a paleo diet. And I limit my carbs to ideally 72g a day, or at least < 100g.

I've never felt better and I've been eating this way for 2 years with no cholesterol or homocysteine level problems. I do not have trouble with maintaining a good weight, and I've had improvements in my digestion.

Also, I eat ALL the saturated fat on foods. Go saturated fats! I can't wait for society to wake up and stop demonising sat fats.
eg/ Fat person X goes to McDonalds gets a massive Coke, a big serve of fries, a sugar enriched bun on their tiny burger and is clearly eating > 80% sugar (or carb which turns into sugar and is processed by the body by the same mechanism, just slightly slower) - then they'll be heard to say something like, "this food is unhealthy, there's so much fat"! 1222020576:::OistPostGrad:::ttcrunch@lycos.net::::::"then they'll be heard to say something like, "this food is unhealthy, there's so much fat"!"

So true. But the anti-fat crowd has an expression that they use all the time and I cringe every time I hear it. It will usually go something like this:

"Oh my goodness, you're eating a steak. That's so bad for you. You are eating all that "ARTERY CLOGGING SATURATED FAT! Don't you know you should be eating whole wheat pasta, rice cakes and bran muffins. Then you will live forever."

Sadly this is only a slight exaggeration.

As a side note, does anyone who follow this see this connection: it seems to me that the medical and health industry professionals who are the loudest champions of the lipid hypothesis and thus the low-fat, high-carb diet all come across as your typical altruist, egalitarian Leftists. I wonder if there is a correlation between the low-fat advocates and left-liberalism. I would bet there is. 1222036983:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Brian asks: "What about the beans? They add 22g carbs but also 9g protein. Should they be avoided as well?"

Ah, that raises an important point: When reading nutritional labels, what matters is not the total carbs, but rather than "effective carbs," i.e. the total carbs minus the dietary fiber. (The fiber is not digested, so it doesn't count.)

So the black beans have only 10g effective carbs (22 - 12) and the pinto beans have 13g effective carbs (23 - 10). Given the total meal, that's not a huge amount. 1222039919:::Jim May:::seerak@gmail.com::::::Diana: thanks for the tips, although my Diana likes Qdoba for their use of seasoning, in particular a lot of lime and cilantro in the rice. (Don't ask me; she finds flavors I don't even believe are there, and she really despises any hint of salt while I prefer having it there as a "foundation" for flavor.) I plan to take a good look at the commissary tomorrow to see what options I have.

Daniel: recent studies (I can't remember where I heard this, alas, but I've heard about more than just this instance of this kind of discovery) indicate that salt is an issue for about 1/3 of the population, due to a particular genetic mutation; for that 1/3, salt pushes up blood pressure. For the rest of is, salt isn't any big deal. I'm fairly certain that I'm in the 2/3, as *low* blood pressure runs in my family.

I've got really irritating issues with sleep, including both hypersomnia and sleep phase issues (I can't synchronize with the earth, so my circadian rhythm is always an average of 2-5 hours behind local time). While I've not made any definite correlations, I do notice that these issues vary considerably in their acuteness; I am hopeful that there will be a diet which mitigates those issues for me. 1222059584:::Ted Coxhead:::tedcoxhead@yahoo.co.uk::::::Jim, or Diana, perhaps I am just being thick here, but what do you mean, Jim, by saying that you "can't synchronize with the earth"? What exactly can that mean? Does it mean that you simply have trouble getting to sleep or waking up?

Perhaps a short course of zopiclone would be easier than searching for a diet that had such a specific action as you seek on sleep patterns? Just a thought. 1222063989:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Diana, thanks for the replies. One more question: what do you drink?! It looks like the only permitted beverages under the paleo diet are water, maybe tea, and some juice. Is that it?? I don't think people had tea back in the stone age, so shouldn't that be avoided as well? 1222064020:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::(besides milk, that is) 1222068635:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Brian -- I drink pretty much the same things that I always have.

I drink water as my primary beverage. (I definitely think that's the way to go.) I drink milk with dinner sometimes, and as a snack.

I usually drink a cup of black tea once per day, with cream but without sugar. (I don't like coffee, but I would drink that. Same for green tea.) Once winter hits, I might also drink hot chocolate, made with something dark but not sugary.

I've never drunk soda, except the occasional root beer with a burger. So not drinking soda isn't a change for me.

I don't drink juice: it's lots of carbs very quickly, including lots of fructose.

I usually drink a glass of wine once or twice per week. I don't drink beer because I don't like the taste. (Also, it's a fermented grain. However, an occasional beer surely wouldn't be a big deal.)

Iced tea (without sugar) would be okay too, I suppose.

In general, I'm not sure about the effects of caffeine. I don't think that caffeine dependence is a fun way to live, however. 1222070842:::Nancy Lebovitz:::nancyl@panix.com:::http://www.nancybuttons.com:::Sweet potatoes are surprisingly low glycemic, noticeably lower than white potatoes.

On "the everything you know is wrong" front, check out Gina Kolata's _Rethinking Thin_-- there's no evidence that body composition (within ordinary ranges) has anything to do with health. Imho, energy level and sense of well-being is a better guide. 1222105018:::Monica :::monicabeth10@gmail.com:::http://sparkasynapse.blogspot.com:::Just a few thoughts.

I've been eating this type of diet (some slips due to being on the road) with great success. I've lost 10 pounds in 2 months and hope to lost 20 more. Like Diana, I feel very constant energy levels. If someone told me a year ago I could lose weight eating meat, eggs, cheese, cream, and green vegetables I would have laughed in their face!

As for a "balanced" diet, most people that believe in "balance" think there's nothing wrong with eating a lot of fruit. But fruits and their fruit juices on the market today would not have been available even 150 years ago. The fruits that we tend to eat are very much modern developments, intensively selected for sweetness. That's particularly true of grocery store apples. If you've ever tasted some of the older varieties that can't be found in stores sold in orchards around the east coast this time of year (such as the Northern Spy) they have much more malic acid and much less sugar. Fruits in the 1800s were even "worse": tough, fibrous, small, and not very flavorful. And even up until the early part of the 1900s, apples were mostly used for making hard cider, not for eating. Biting into any old apple encountered randomly in the fields and woods of New England will convince you of that in short order! :) The phrase "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" was a marketing slogan developed to sell apples for eating when Prohibition went into effect, and that's when the more intensive selection started.

I still enjoy my occasional piece of fruit but peaches and apples have more than 20 grams of sugar each. That kind of carb load in one shot 20,000 years ago would have been very rare. Eating just one piece of fruit would put me at close to half of my upper desired grams of carb intake daily (40 grams or less), since I'm trying to lose weight. If I wasn't trying to lose weight I probably wouldn't stress about having a piece or two of fruit daily in addition to my other veg intake, but if you are out there and want to lose weight you have to watch it. There are many, many vegetables that do not have anywhere near that amount of sugar... particularly leafy greens.

Today I had 3 eggs, turkey breast, Canadian bacon, 1.5 oz cheese, spinach salad and artichoke hearts with olive oil, and some cream in my coffee. I don't feel hungry at all and I've only had about 1200 calories today. If I had eaten 1200 calories of high carb foods like whole grain cereal, bread, or fruit I'd be *starving* right now due to fluctuations in my blood sugar and insulin levels. 1222105419:::Monica :::monicabeth10@gmail.com:::http://sparkasynapse.blogspot.com:::Oh, and I'm not sure who mentioned that the Masaai had a diet high in carbohydrates. I'm not sure where that is coming from because I was under the impression that the Masaai lived almost exclusiveily on a diet of blood and beef (with perhaps some milk). That is not a diet high in carbs by any stretch of the imagination!

And funny how they have no heart disease and enjoy such excellent health, eating so much cholesterol and all that artery clogging saturated fat! 1222106273:::OistPostGrad:::ttcrunch@lycos.net::::::Here is some good posts on the Masai:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/masai-and-atheroscler ...

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-masai.html

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-to-do-if-your-st ...

My mistake. It was the Bantu that were healthy on a high carbohydrate diet. Here is this bloggers conclusion:

"My conclusion, from this study and others, is that macronutrients don't determine how healthy a diet is. The specific foods that compose the diet do. The rural Masai are healthy on a high-fat diet, the rural Bantu are fairly healthy on a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet. Only the urban Bantu show a pattern really consistent with the "disease of civilization", despite a daily energy expenditure very similar to the rural Bantu. They're unhealthy because they eat too much processed food: processed vegetable oil, processed grain products, refined sugar." 1222110341:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Monica, can you document what you eat and when for a couple weeks, to give an idea of what such a diet looks like. I figured out that my effective (net) carbohydrates for what I've been considering a "diet" for the last several weeks has been over 300g! It was effectively nothing but high-sugar fruits, oatmeal, and pasta (especially spaghetti, lots of it). Thanks. 1222112640:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Monica,

While I think you're generally right about fruit, I'm not sure that your sugar numbers are right. According to the USDA database ( http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ ), one medium peach (2-2/3" diameter, 150 g) has 12.59 g sugars and one medium apple (3" diameter, 182 g) has 18.91 g sugars. The peaches that I got from Colorado's western slope this year are much smaller than usual (although just as tasty), slightly less than that medium size. I don't have any apples on hand to measure, unfortunately, but 3" sounds about the size of the Galas I usually buy, if not a bit large. Obviously, much depends on the size you buy.

Notably, the apple has a whopping 10.74 g of fructose, while the peach only has 2.29 g. (My heart scan CT showed a fatty liver, whereas my blood sugar is under good control, so I'm more concerned about fructose than sucrose. More on that later.)

Also, I don't know if the amount and kind of sugar in apples varies by type, but I would imagine it might do so, as they often taste so different. 1222114113:::Flibbert:::junk@treygivens.com:::http://flibbertigibbet.mu.nu/:::Hi, Diana!

I would definitely be curious about what you eat and what it costs. I am willing to spend a little more for food, but my main concern is the time and effort spent on preparation. I'm willing to eat out, but buying food at restaurants is sometimes a black box.

I've been considering this diet for a little while, so I would definitely like to hear more about your experience with it. My biggest weakness, though, is sugar. I am a crackhead for candy. And also sushi.

I'm slowly weaning myself off of sugar, though, and I hope to turn to a diet like this full time. I just need to figure out where to get the foods I want.

Anyway, great post and fantastic discussion. I want to hear more!

-3 1222115526:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Flibby,

As you know, I'm a sugar addict too. For ages, I've known that I could wean myself off it, as I've done in the past, but (insert whine here) I just didn't want to. So a few quick recommendations, based on my recent personal experience of doing so.

* I started by allowing myself "one bad carb" per day. After a few days (and after I'd eaten the few remaining slices of chiffon cake stored in the freezer), I found that I often wasn't interested in eating any bad carbs at all, because the not-so-satisfying junk that I could have now wasn't worth the price of not being able to eat something maybe better later. And then it would be time for bed. It was very much like the "spongeworthy" effect from Seinfeld, for those familiar with that reference. (Of course, to work the one-carb system well, you have to refrain from buying the bad carbs at the grocery store. That's easier to do if you know you'd be eating that package of 40 cookies over 40 days.)

* Use your favorite guilty-pleasure fats as your pleasure foods. Because I began drinking fully-fat raw milk right when I cut the sugars, I didn't miss the sugars at all. The fats were deeply, deeply satisfying -- much more so than any sugars might be.

* Don't make the mistake of attempting to substitute for some supposedly "better" sweet like agave. (I did that, and then I was horrified to discover that it's actually worse due to its higher-than-sugar fructose content.) Doing so -- or using artificial sweeteners -- will only prevent your tastes from changing, as they will naturally and easily if you cut the sweets entirely. Now I couldn't imagine adding agave to my yogurt.

In general, it's far, far easier to eschew sweets entirely than to eat them in moderation. In part, that's due to taste expectations, but it's also a blood sugar issue, from what I've seen in myself. (More on that later.)

As for the cost, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not the best person to ask, as I'm willing to pay good money for stellar cuts of meat. As for the preparation, the easiest method for dinners -- by far -- is grilling. However, that might not be easy for a city-dweller such as yourself. However, I also love to cook -- I make my own butter, for goodness sake -- so again I'm perhaps not the best person to ask. However, I'll see what I can do. 1222116054:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Flibby -- I just realized that you were mostly asking about cooking. Maybe I should start posting some pictures and recipes, with some info about how much time and effort it took to cook? I do only cook for dinner; cooking for breakfast -- unless it's for Paul and me -- is just too much trouble. And I try not to spend more than 30-40 minutes on dinner. Breakfast and lunch are meals from the fridge in less than 5 minutes. 1222117808:::fuzzyrider:::pluckytc@aol.com::::::Wow- you have described the diet I chose to go on after I was diagnosed with diabetes- it took about 6 months to work its magic, but I am off all diabetes meds and my blood sugar and insulin levels are normal. My cholesterol numbers fell, but never quite got into normal range. For all the talk of the evils of fat an cholesterol, etc., I hve become convinced that refined sugar and starches are the biggest problem in the modern diet. 1222148533:::Slim Jim:::beefeater@snapintoit.com:::http://mucoidplaque.com:::Diana,

Did you ever consider that you are physiologically addicted to meat consumption? That if you were to go off of it for just as short period of time you'd go into physical withdrawls? But that if you were to come out the other side of that you might actually have broken a physiological addiction and be able to subsist rather differently...

Did you know what at best given a healthy digestive bio-terrain, you're only assimilating 50% of the amino acid chains from the 'meat' you eat? Only half and in your case possibly less is bio-available to you. That means the rest is putrifying in your gut and loading your colon with nitrogenous waste that's autointoxicatively reabsorbed through your transverse colon into your blood stream keeping your pH acidotic and your red blood cells all clumped together. Hence your moderate hypoxis. Not to mention the demineralizing effects of the meat, the low nutrient density of your overall diet, the chronic cellular dehydration never mind the poorly 'structured water' loaded down with 180plus contaminants your likely drinking, and the leukocytosis that occurs ever time you dropped denatured food into your gut (immonocological white blood cell response).

Do you crap 2-3 times a day? That's healthy! If you're an average american it's .75 times a day...

Have you ever detoxed and been rational enough to compare and contrast with something experientially new? 1222152800:::Ted Coxhead:::tedcoxhead@yahoo.co.uk::::::See,Slim Jim, I guess the problem with diets is that one man's meat is another man's poison. 1222153032:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Flibbert, if you're still wanting sushi without the rice, you can try just sashimi, which is just the fish without anything else, or get it wrapped only in cucumber and dried seaweed (nori), or other veggies. Rice isn't necessarily bad - the Japanese live the longest, after all. 1222153185:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Also, if you don't have access to a grill, but you have an oven, you can try broiling the meats. I'm going to try this tonight with a grass-fed strip steak that I got yesterday. It's marinating right now in olive oil and ground pepper. 1222154077:::Rory Hodgson:::cowboybebop@ntlworld.com::::::Diana, this has gotten my interest. I'm 19 years old ectomorph - or 'hardgainer', which applies to fat and muscle. I burn through anything I put in my body pretty quickly, and so on recommendation of another O'ist interested in diet and exercise, I've started upping my intake of fatty, meaty stuff (as for vegetables, I already eat about 5 a day, usually mixed in with my yoghurt in the morning and/or as a snack or in other meals).

It sounds like switching over to this diet you recommend wouldn't be too difficult, considering I've already been gearing my body up now in its intake of the stuff you recommend. What would be difficult would be cutting the grainy, starchy, sugary things (not out of nutritional need, but because I like the taste of them [although I do LOVE dark, dark, dark chocolate already] - big pints of Guinness and all).
I already exercise, going to Wing Tsun (martial arts) class at least twice a week, along with at least 10 to 15 mins of going through a basic exercise regimen every morning, consisting of crunches and sit ups+chain punches, along with going through my form at top speed and full power to get a good cardio-vascular workout (as well as to brush up on doing it properly).

Would you recommend such a diet to someone like me, who is working on, to use the analogy of a college degree, a major in physical endurance with a minor in muscle growth? (And no concern about losing weight - although, of course, the usual concern about watching sugar intake to avoid diabetes).
Also, Paul is a Doctor, what does he make of all the studies and such? 1222154146:::Rory Hodgson:::cowboybebop@ntlworld.com::::::Er, I meant, I put fruit in my yogurt - I have my vegetables as sides at lunch and dinner. 1222157932:::Richard Nikoley:::rnikoley@gmail.com:::http://www.freetheanimal.com:::Diana:

Good for you, and your post outlines in broad terms all the essentials. Though, you might give the intermittent fasting a try for unbelievable high-resolution into your own hunger and tastes.

Thanks again for your email. Always means a lot to me to see people getting it and I'm happy to have a part in that.

I've not yet read all the comments (doggies need walking, just now), but I'll go through them to see if there's anything needs addressing. 1222158068:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Rory said "Er, I meant, I put fruit in my yogurt - I have my vegetables as sides at lunch and dinner."

Heh. That was a funny image.

"Would you recommend such a diet to someone like me, who is working on, to use the analogy of a college degree, a major in physical endurance with a minor in muscle growth?"

I haven't read about or heard much from people of your body type, so I can't say for sure what it would do for you. But I recommend the general diet to everyone, absent some health problem. I've easily gained quite a bit of muscle on the diet, doing crossfit-type weight training (i.e. lots of variation, short and intense sessions, intervals in cardio).

I'd say: try it and see what happens. 1222158149:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::fuzzyrider - Congrats on getting your diabetes under control with diet alone. That's fantastic. 1222165245:::Richard Nikoley:::rnikoley@gmail.com:::http://www.freetheanimal.com:::Read through all the comments, just now. Wow. Diana, you have some smart and informed readers. "OistPostGrad:" right on and fantastic contributions.

Just a couple of things to add. Someone mentioned that Good Calories Bad Calories is the Atlas Shrugged of nutrition. Would you like the Fountainhead, then?

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Price, DDS.

Here are some posts that deal with the essential aspect of the book:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/vitamin-k2-menatetren ...
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/vitamin-deficiency.html
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/activator-x.html

Of all Stephan's links, here's the essential one:

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamin-k2.html

Now, as to the exercise / diet combo, it's 80% diet, as I found. I had been doing the brief and intense (intensity and endurance are inversely related -- power law ) thing for six months with results, but very slow. Then I went more or less Paleo and doubled results over time. I then incorporated intermittent fasting and quadrupled results over time.

Here's my latest photo set:

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/09/periodic-photo-progress-u ...

Here are examples of what I eat:

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/food-porn/

Mine & the wife's lipid profiles:

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/07/lipid-pannel.html
http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/09/more-results.html

And, finally, here's my posts dealing with my fasting experiments:

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/intermittent-fasting/

Yea, Diana is dead on right about this. I have not only my own results, but those of my wife, and now, after 18 months doing this, a half dozen friends and family. Not a single person has reported anything but fabulous benefit, fat loss, muscle gain (not "weight" loss as the objective -- leaning out, that is, lowering body fat percentage, is the objective).

I'll keep tuning in, but it looks to me like Diana really has this stuff nailed. 1222167207:::OistPostGrad:::ttcrunch@lycos.net::::::Slim Jim,

Are you advocating Vegetarianism? Or if not, what is the dietary approach you think is best? 1222179713:::Flibbert:::junk@treygivens.com:::http://flibbertigibbet.mu.nu/:::Hi, Rory!

I'm actually a skinny person who loses weight when he stops eating a lot and exercising like he should. I have noticed that my metabolism has slowed a bit since I've gotten older. But it still seems to race a bit above the norm and if I don't pay attention, I lose weight and plateau at a BMI around 22 or so.

In order to gain weight, I actually drank a 700 calorie protein shake with whole milk every morning for a couple of months and stuck to a fairly rigorous schedule of six meals a day. (I actually liked the taste of the shake.) I coupled that with working out at the gym at least 3 times a week on weights with no cardio. Maintaining the weight is easy as long as I have time to eat. And eat and eat.

Frankly, I got tired of all the eating and, of course, the incumbent amount of defecation that comes with consuming that amount of food.

But the point of a diet is to maintain a healthy lifestyle, not merely to look good. (Although it is a benefit.) So, I can't say that I recommend all of that. It seems tiresome for relatively little benefit. But if you absolutely want to gain weight, you'll just have to work really hard at it knowing that your age and body type are working against you. 1222183755:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::I had my first attempt at cooking a steak today - I broiled it in the oven. Grass-fed strip steak, marinated during the day in a quarter cup of XV olive oil and lots of pepper. Broiled for 6 minutes each side (electric oven with door slightly ajar, heating element 3-4 inches from the top of the steak).

I sauteed up some onions with a little olive oil and 2 tbsp butter, some garlic, and mixed in the drippings from the steak. Then poured that mixture over the steak, served on a hot plate. It was medium done, really juicy and excellent! I'm really surprised at how well it turned out, and can't wait to try this again. 1222184076:::Ted Coxhead:::tedcoxhead@yahoo.co.uk::::::Ted Coxhead wrote: Mainly what we read about (diet benefits) is anecdotal.

Diana wrote: I'm not interested in raw anecdotes. They're are just meaningless correlations without some real science (including an understanding of human metabolism) to put them in causal context.

Richard Nikoley wrote: I have not only my own results, but those of my wife, and now, after 18 months doing this, a half dozen friends and family.

Ted Coxhead quoted Professor Vincent Marks as saying: "The quality of evidence linking diet to specific disease is poor, apart from common 'simple deficiency diseases'........" 1222184746:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Oh, and I drank it down with a glass of locally-produced whole milk, pasteurized (by law) but not homogenized. 1222186070:::OistPostGrad:::ttcrunch@lycos.net::::::Ted,

In post #69 I linked to three blog posts from a science blogger who specializes in this area. After analyzing modern day hunter gatherers (or those of the recent past), his conclusion was:

"My conclusion, from this study and others, is that macronutrients don't determine how healthy a diet is. The specific foods that compose the diet do. The rural Masai are healthy on a high-fat diet, the rural Bantu are fairly healthy on a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet. Only the urban Bantu show a pattern really consistent with the "disease of civilization", despite a daily energy expenditure very similar to the rural Bantu. They're unhealthy because they eat too much processed food: processed vegetable oil, processed grain products, refined sugar."

Vincent Marks conclusion couldn't be more wrong. The link between certain types of foods and disease is overwhelming. Now, as to what actually comprises a healthy diet. Well, here there is great variation. But processed foods are not on that list. My take on your comments is that you are somewhat of a skeptic in this regard; ie ideal diets. (I'm not accusing you of being a philosophic skeptic - I know you're not.) But the data indicates that not all foods are equal and not all diets are healthy, even if it is one of "moderation." There is option here, but its not infinitely malleable. Actually, that shouldn't be surprising. 1222186296:::Richard Nikoley:::rnikoley@gmail.com:::http://www.freetheanimal.com:::Well that's bunk, Ted Coxhead.

Go read the Weston Price book I cited (start with the Amazon reviews to get an idea). The evidence is overwhelming, stunning, much was published in med journals 60 years ago, and is of extremely high quality.

And that only scratches the surface when it comes to the volumes of evidence documenting the top health and absence of disease amongst primitive peoples on real food diets around the world. Much of that is in physician journals, autopsy records, examinations of thousands of subjects, etc.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The quality of your knowledge in this area is what's poor. Woefully so.

But, of course, I could care less. 1222191177:::Flibbert:::junk@treygivens.com:::http://flibbertigibbet.mu.nu/:::Also, can I please request to never, ever hear about "mucoid plaque" again? EVER. 1222226217:::Ted Coxhead:::tedcoxhead@yahoo.co.uk::::::OistPostGrad wrote: My take on your comments is that you are somewhat of a skeptic in this regard; ie ideal diets. (I'm not accusing you of being a philosophic skeptic - I know you're not.) But the data indicates that not all foods are equal and not all diets are healthy, even if it is one of "moderation."

Thanks for the parenthesis, OistPostGrad. I agree that not all diets are healthy for all people at all times. And yes you are right: I don't think that there can be an ideal diet (almost by definition). Despite Mr Nikoley, I don't think this makes my knowledge in the area of diet woeful, although like many here, and amongst eminent people who are not here, my knowledge is inadequate. Certainly it is inadequate to make prescriptions for what the mass of people should be eating.

I am genuinely happy for all those of you who have felt greater health since you adopted your diet, whether you call it paleolithic, neanderthal or simply high protein and low carb with avoidance of highly processed foods. Taubes refers to variations on this theme over decades.

There is no point in engaging in a swap of authorities, Mr Nikoley, along the lines of my expert knows more than your expert.

I am from a family that grew up in great deprivation in London, England, and lived that way until the end of the second world war. I personally remember food rationing. The great achievement of capitalist industry, farming and food production is to give us a bountiful supply of all types of food which enables us to achieve the longevity we have DESPITE obesity,diabetes or whatever. Capitalism has created a food supply, which of course early man would dearly love to have had when he contemplated his organic food, his fresh air, his unpolluted water, his strenuous exercise - and his very early death.

I agree with OistPostGrad's statement that not all diets are healthy. You have to consider though, that the very diet that is being almost proselytized for by some here (including recipe swaps), may by your own terms be extremely unhealthy for some or even for very many people. There are many experts who would counsel against what is now called the paleo diet for those of us who have had or have, or are even seeking to avoid, prostate or breast cancer. It may also be the dead wrong diet for the aged and frail. 1222251689:::Bryan Rankin:::first.lastATgmail::::::
Ted,

"There is no point in engaging in a swap of authorities, Mr Nikoley, along the lines of my expert knows more than your expert."

Richard was not making an argument from authority. He was directing you to evidence. If you do bother to read it, I trust you will come to the conclusion that his expert does know more than your expert.

"The great achievement of capitalist industry, farming and food production is to give us a bountiful supply of all types of food which enables us to achieve the longevity we have DESPITE obesity,diabetes or whatever. Capitalism has created a food supply, which of course early man would dearly love to have had when he contemplated his organic food, his fresh air, his unpolluted water, his strenuous exercise - and his very early death."

The "great achievement of capitalist industry, farming and food production" has not granted longevity to individuals, it has granted us the ability to sustain more individuals.

"There are many experts who would counsel against what is now called the paleo diet for those of us who have had or have, or are even seeking to avoid, prostate or breast cancer. It may also be the dead wrong diet for the aged and frail."

It sounds like it is you who are making the argument from authority.

-Bryan 1222252943:::Dana H.:::::::::As a scientist, statistician, and endurance athlete, I have a large degree of skepticism about the grandiose claims of low-carbohydrate diets (or of any diet for that matter).

First, from the perspective of evolutionary biology, man did not stop evolving at the hunter-gatherer stage. So it makes little sense to argue for a hunter-gatherer diet on evolutionary grounds. To take one specific example, lactose tolerance in adults is a characteristic that evolved in man after the domestication of cattle. (So if you drink cow's milk, you are not eating a diet that hunter-gatherers could have tolerated.) Ten thousand years might seem a short time relative to the millions of years over which life evolved, but experiments in the lab as well as the example of the dog show that significant evolutionary changes can take place over surprisingly few generations. It is reasonable to hypothesize that man has evolved to tolerate the increase in grains in his diet since the advent of agriculture.

Second, I have not read the entire anti-carbo literature, but what I have read fails to separate the effects of carbohydrate consumption and obesity. The argument I have seen is, "Carb consumption leads to obesity, and obesity leads to type II diabetes, heart disease, etc." There may be statistical evidence for the former, and physiological evidence for the latter. But the question is this: If one has a carbohydrate-rich diet, yet manages to stay lean (through exercise or moderation of intake), is there any increased risk of the various diseases attributed to carbohydrates? E.g., does Lance Armstrong need to worry about diabetes?

Finally, an important principle of philosophy and of science is that for a claim to qualify as knowledge, it must be integrated not just with some knowledge but with all of your knowledge. The principle of conservation of energy makes me question any claim that "overeating does not cause obesity." The examples of Japan and endurance athletes (who consume more carbohydrates than anyone) make me question any global claim of the evil of carbohydrates. The countless examples of environmentalist-inspired food scares that have come and gone makes me question any screeds against "processed foods," as if "processing" is something fundamental (or evil). My personal example as a lactose-intolerant, IBS-suffering endurance athlete for whom processed white rice has become an essential staple (for both digestive and athletic reasons) makes me dismiss out of hand any claim that a low-carb diet is ideal for everyone. 1222254235:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Dana --

I'm not an advocate of low-carb diets -- for the reasons already stated in these comments. I've also never said that my particular diet is "ideal for everyone." Some people (like me) do fine with milk, others cannot. Paul can eat a hefty bowl of soaked oatmeal without ill effect, but I cannot.

I regard certain kinds of diets as healthy and others not -- although the short and long-term effects of those diets on any particular person will vary, based on his/her particular biology. Moreover, illness of various kinds may require pretty dramatic variations from what would be healthy in normal cases.

As for the scientific data, the Taubes book _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ that I (and others) have already recommended is an excellent if not exhaustive survey of the relevant data. And that data all points in some very clear directions. Notably, it does not argue that carbs cause obesity and obesity causes heart disease, diabetes, etc. (I'm not aware of any major low-carbers who argue that, actually, but I've not studied them extensively.)

The fact is that a person is not healthy just because he's lean -- or even athletic. I've never been overweight (by official standards), and I've been quite fit for the past few years. However, that doesn't mean that my diet was optimal, or even healthy -- or that I was going to suffer ill effects from it 20 years down the road. 1222255024:::Richard Nikoley:::rnikoley@gmail.com:::http://www.freetheanimal.com:::
Dana: "Second, I have not read the entire anti-carbo literature, but what I have read fails to separate the effects of carbohydrate consumption and obesity. The argument I have seen is, 'Carb consumption leads to obesity, and obesity leads to type II diabetes, heart disease, etc.'"

The more current line of reasoning is that carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage. Insulin is the fat storing hormone. This is why Type 1s are rail thin. Insulin also shuts down fat burning.

There are plenty of examples of carbohydrate rich diets that are healthy, such as the Kitavans and the Kuna, but they eat Real Food (http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/09/keeping-it-real-food.html). But, none I'm aware of who eat modern diets, and in fact, people from those indigenous populations who take on a modern diet end up showing up with the diseases of civilization. The Pima are a good study.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/05/lessons-from-pima-ind ... 1222269261:::Lenny Off Peak:::whyrand@readmore.com:::http://youarebeingpoisoned.com/index.html:::http://youarebeingpoisoned.com/index.html 1222271001:::Ted Coxhead:::tedcoxhead@yahoo.co.uk::::::Well...............

"Panic Nation" edited by Feldman and Marks is published by John Blake.

"Scared to Death" by Christopher Booker and Richard North is published by Continuum.

Both are available through Amazon in the UK. 1222271724:::Dana H.:::::::::Diana and Richard, thanks for the replies.

What I would really like to see is a well-controlled study that separates the effect of diet composition (percent carbos, fats, and proteins) from the effect of body composition (body fat percentage and lean muscle mass). For example, I would like to know if there is any *empirical* evidence that, say, a male on a high-carbo diet who maintains 12% body fat has an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Does anyone know of such a study (whether mentioned in Good Calories, Bad Calories or elsewhere)? 1222335672:::Dana H.:::::::::Well, I didn't find a study that directly addresses my question above, but I did find one that indicates essentially no correlation between glycemic index or glycemic load and the risk of diabetes. See here:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/gi-more-bad-carb-myths.html

The article also makes the claim that "all of the controlled trials on humans to date suggesting that low GI diets may help insulin sensitivity have been done on those who already have impaired glucose tolerance, not the prevention of diabetes in the general population." 1222337798:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Apparently, if you cook with olive oil, the good fats turn into trans fat (as does any other oil with monounsatured fat), which is bad. So why does everyone recommend using it in cooking? 1222338316:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Brian -- What's your source? I've heard of problems with heating olive oil at a very high heat. See:

http://www.jonnybowden.com/2008/08/when-im-wrong-im-wrong-cooking-w ...

I've not verified that information, however. And it's short on facts.

However, from a Google search, it seems that your source might just be wrong:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/jul/25/healthandwellbei ...

"The article below mistakenly stated that almost any cooking of olive oil beyond the gentlest of sweating would transform it into trans fats. Most trans fats in food are the result of an industrial hydrogenation process. Frying in oils such as sunflower or olive oil has an insignificant effect in producing trans fats."

And here's the Weston A. Price Foundation on the question:

http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/howtransform.html

"The idea that cooking with heat damages the oils that are highly polyunsaturated is true and the warning against cooking or frying using fragile oils such as flaxseed oil is valid, but not because trans fats are formed. What is formed under harsh circumstances such as high-temperature cooking and frying is a polymerized oil, and this is because the heat has helped to form free radicals and then various breakdown products. (Flaxseed oil that is still in the ground seed can be heated in baking and it does not become damaged.)" 1222339606:::brian0918:::my handle, through gmail::::::Yeesh, the internet is flooded with misinformation. Everyone contradicts everyone else ("saturated is best", "mono is bets", "poly is best"), and a lot of people say things with absolute certainty without finding an original source. Thanks for the information, Diana. 1222344344:::Dana H.:::::::::One more comment and I'll try to shut up for awhile. At the Junkfood Science blog, I found the following excellent article on "What is a Fair Test?" The focus is on evaluating clinical trials, but the principles apply to any scientific study that makes use of statistics (which means essentially all of them these days):

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-is-fair-test.html

One point is particularly near and dear to me, for a reason I will explain: "Inappropriate statistical analysis methods and sufficient sample size is an entire topic of its own, but briefly, can overstate the results or significance of a study’s findings. This problem is so pervasive, that outside independent statistical analyses for all clinical trials before the results are published were recently recommended by JAMA editors."

The reason comes from my investigations in another field: climate science. Some of the most highly publicized work done by these scientists displays a shocking misuse of statistics, of the sort that would not be acceptable from even a first-year statistics grad student. The problem is often that the people analyzing the data are not statisticians, nor do they employ statisticians to check their work. Based on this experience, I have become increasingly skeptical of any new scientific claims until I'm able to see the details of the study (and the raw data if I'm sufficiently interested), especially if there is any political aspect to the work, or if the claims are presented in a particularly strident manner.

This may seem like a digression, but I put it here to explain my initial (and ongoing) skepticism about the extravagant claims by some advocates of low-carb (and other) diets (which extends to skepticism about anti-trans-fat claims, various alleged carcinogens, secondhand smoke, global warming, etc.) 1222358858:::Richard Nikoley:::rnikoley@gmail.com:::http://www.freetheanimal.com:::"The reason comes from my investigations in another field: climate science. Some of the most highly publicized work done by these scientists displays a shocking misuse of statistics, of the sort that would not be acceptable from even a first-year statistics grad student. The problem is often that the people analyzing the data are not statisticians, nor do they employ statisticians to check their work. Based on this experience, I have become increasingly skeptical of any new scientific claims until I'm able to see the details of the study (and the raw data if I'm sufficiently interested), especially if there is any political aspect to the work, or if the claims are presented in a particularly strident manner."

Hey, Dana: welcome to my world.

Actually, it's precisely the same in the diet world, though the actual problem is probably less misuse of stats than not properly controlling variables and then arbitrarily assigning cause to only one of several possible variables (hint: it's always the fat). The standing hypothesis is the "lipid hypothesis." Virtually all studies seek to confirm it, rather than disprove it.

I did a blog this last weekend along these lines, but it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/09/bad-science-and-confirmat ... 1222359745:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Dana -- If you want a sense for how Gary Taubes approaches the science, I'd recommend reading his 2007 NYT article "Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?" It's here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html

It's not about diet at all, but about what kinds of conclusions we can draw from what kinds of medical studies. 1222370041:::Anonymous:::::::::When deciding how many carbs to handle, I think this can vary a lot from person to person. Also... some of us are sensitive (in terms of hunger/blood sugar/insulin production) even when it comes to artificial sweeteners and things such as stevia.

I am a big person, and I have always loved to eat. But years ago, I started noticing that I could eat a pile of (for example), roast chicken and vegetables... but if I followed that with fruit or tea sweetened with saccharin... I'd get hungry again within minutes and want to do it all over again. For those of us who are very sensitive to carbs, even the sweet taste can make us hungry again.

Like Diana said... Paul can handle a bowl of soaked and cooked oatmeal, but she cannot.

Richard K. Bernstein, M.D. is the author of a couple of books on diet and diabetes (Google his name; he has a website with a forum). He is also a type I diabetic who pioneered the *regular use* of personal home glucose meters. He points out, and this is also evident from the comments on the diabetes forums on his website, that regardless of a type of food's "glycemic load," different people have different metabolisms, and their bodies react differently to the same foods. For instance: Different people will react to eating yogurt... so he advises his patients to monitor their own blood glucose and see for themselves which foods send their blood sugar soaring. Person A can handle X amount of yogurt, but person B cannot. 1222419968:::Rory Hodgson:::cowboybebop@ntlworld.com::::::Anonymous: So, the general rule here is, 'Pay attention to the good science, and test it alongside what works for you'. But the thing is, how can you set up a little lab to test this stuff? I mean, glucemic load is only one fraction of what's going on right?

Man, the comparison to Climate Change by Dana was good - this is just like that. Lots of people contradicting each other with full sincerity, and a lot of statistics that are easy to misread. How the hell is one meant to navigate all this stuff? 1222432926:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Rory -- The data on nutrition is not inherently confusing.

It has been made that way by the widespread acceptance of a dogma, namely "the lipid hypothesis." It claims that fats, particularly saturated fats, are the cause of major health problems, particularly obesity and heart disease. The lipid hypothesis permeates American thinking about health: for most people, healthy food just is low-fat food. It's also permeated the scientific community, such that the data from new studies is interpreted within the general framework of the lipid hypothesis.

The problem is that the lipid hypothesis is false. It's not supported by good-quality studies, nor by our general knowledge of the workings of the human metabolism. It was developed and promulgated by an enthusiastic dogmatist, and then widely disseminated by the media as incontrovertible truth once endorsed by the government. It has seriously distorted our understanding of the data, and so prevented the development of any integrated science of nutrition.

However, one can develop the necessary general understanding of nutrition based on good-quality data -- and that's what Taubes' _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ does. It's a detailed look at a huge range of studies -- and on the whole, they point in some very clear directions. For me, the integration of that analysis with my own experience -- including mini-experiments in blood sugar testing and the like -- has been decisive.

Here's the Amazon link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400040787/dianahsieh-20 1222440924:::Dana H.:::::::::Diana, thanks for the link to the excellent Taubes article in the New Yorker. One of his most important points is that a cohort study can *generate* hypotheses, but to *test* a hypothesis, you really want a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. As far as I can see, this is almost never done in the field of diet and nutrition -- except perhaps for testing the efficacy of specific supplements such as vitamins. (If you really wanted to compare low-carb, low-fat, and balanced diets to each other, it's hard to even think of how to design such a study. After all, it's pretty obvious whether you're eating bacon versus pasta.) 1222441010:::Dana H.:::::::::(Oops, that should be "New York Times Magazine" rather than "New Yorker.") 1222446297:::Rory Hodgson:::cowboybebop@ntlworld.com::::::Dana H - how do you do a double-blind placebo test for dieting?

"Ok, I want you to eat this basket of Hamburgers every evening. Er... did I say hamburgers, I meant fresh, juicy, grapefruits! Yes!" 1222474215:::Rory Hodgson:::cowboybebop@ntlworld.com::::::Sorry - just noticed you made the exact same point.

As to GC,BC, I'm thinking I'm going to have to pick this bad boy up. I take it's going to require all my focus though? Lots of studies and what not? 1222478548:::Ted Coxhead:::tedcoxhead@yahoo.co.uk::::::Dana : One of his most important points is that a cohort study can *generate* hypotheses, but to *test* a hypothesis, you really want a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

If we link this back to the "paleolithic" diet that this thread really started with surely another problem immediately arises which is, what would constitute a paleolthic diet in order to test it? Some paleoliths in some areas, for example would simply be catching and picking what that region gave them which could be copious fruits and tubers plus insects and reptiles. Others would be finding copious meat and carrion.

Also when doing the double blind, placebo controlled study in Japan, for example, would we have some Japanese continuing to eat their relatively highly processed soy based diet plus fish, (which some would say encourages longevity in them), alongside another sample who would be eating a Japanese paleolithic diet or a western paleolithic diet with all the variety that these would have. That's before we even get into what the placebo could be.

Similarly on the Indian sub-continent, first you would have to identify the Indian Standard Diet (if there is one) and then which primitive diet would you study it alongside? (Interestingly and amusingly, the British now eat what you might call the Indian Standard Diet or more probably the Bengali standard diet, since chicken tikka masalla has been voted the nation's favourite food - above fish and chips :) ).

Interestingly of course is the fact that whilst many of the health issues associated with the Western Standard Diet are absent in other regions, there are plenty of other issues which take their place, which also may be diet related.

The great problem to start with is also how good a diet was the paleolithic diet even for paleoliths? When the bones and feacal remains are studied it is not possible to see what organ diseases may have been suffered. 1222489498:::Anonymous:::::::::RORY: Dr. Bernstein recommends that his patients and readers not only observe how they feel after eating, but also recommends that they test--with glucometer and testing strips--the effects of foods on their blood sugar. I imagine it'd be impossible to set up a double-blind study for eating... however, I could test my own blood sugar some minutes after eating any given food, and I could see the blood sugar changes.

Plus, I have my own experience to guide me... which may not be good enough for you, but which I find valuable in deciding what I should be eating.

The goal of self-controlling diabetics is to have as normal of a blood sugar as possible.

Dr. Richard K. Bernstein--who as a type I diabetic makes no insulin and is very sensitive to foods' effect on him--is able to maintain his blood sugar in the normal range--that is, hovering at 100 mg/dL or somewhat under. He has more self-control than many people do... but he himself is pretty much able to eat the same amount of food from one dinner to another. And in contrast to people using the ADA's guidelines (including many orthodox-trained dietitians), he uses very low doses of insulin.

He has even reversed many of the complications of diabetes which he had experienced as a young man.

TED: Are you sure that Japanese in Japan eat a highly soy-based diet with lots of processed foods? I have read contradictory statements on this. Sometimes I have read that throughout Asia, soy products are mostly used as condiments, not as whole meals. Supposedly most Asians don't eat the mass quantities of, say, tofu which some American authorities are trying to shove down everyone's throat. 1222496695:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Rory -- I found _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ to be a really interesting and relatively fast read overall, not a painful slog. Some sections were heavier than others, however. It's not written in the style of studies, thank goodness.

Ted -- Nice strawman. 1222520653:::Radical Health:::radical@health.com:::http://radicalhealth.com/:::http://radicalhealth.com/ 1222677927:::Dana H.:::::::::While Diana dismisses Ted's latest posting as a strawman, he makes some valid points. One virtue of a designed experimental study, as opposed to mining historical data, is that it forces you to be crystal clear about the hypothesis you are testing -- and doesn't let you get away with imprecise questions such as, "Is a paleolithic diet better than a modern diet?" (What do you mean by "paleolithic diet"? What do you mean by "modern diet"? What do you mean by "better"? For whom?)

The various issues Ted threw out are some of those that one would need to address to turn the initial vague question into something specfic enough to be testable. Something like: "For middle-aged males of European origin, does a 2400 calorie diet of 50/40/10 fat/protein/carbohydrate reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes relative to a 2400 calorie diet of 20/30/50 fat/protein/carbohydrate?"

While I've already alluded to problems trying to double-blind such a study, this hypothesis is at least testable in principle. And even if you can't double-blind the study, you can design around many of the confounding effects that Taubes mentions in his NYT Magazine article (e.g., healthy user bias, compliance bias, prescriber effect). 1222678684:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Dana -- I would be wholly supportive of good controlled studies on diet. For Ted to claim that testing the kind of roughly "paleo" diet that I advocate would require testing the actual diet of paleolithic people of various regions is, however, completely freaking absurd. And since he's read the Taubes book, he should know better. 1222692884:::Ted Coxhead:::tedcoxhead@yahoo.co.uk::::::I'll have another go, although I thought that since I seem to have upset Diana it might be best not to. It really is not my intention to set up a straw man, I admire Diana too much for that. I am not a doctor or scientist but I have at least as good a reason as any here to read as widely as I can about food and health. Cancer does tend to concentrate the mind.

In discussions of this subject a great deal of emotion seems to be generated, with people taking positions in relation to their pet or favourite food solution. If you browse through all these posts and those on Diana's new thread about eating experiments, you will see the names of many doctors mentioned, some almost as saviours. I understand how this may come about. Some people have had bad health issues and they are certain that by taking up X's diet, they are now healthier than they have ever been. And maybe they are and maybe that is a result of their diet. And so they want to share the good news. And they can't understand when others are skeptical of their claims.

Dana expressed part of my query better than I did, when she said that the questions that would have to be sorted are: What do you mean by a "paleolithic diet"? What do you mean by "modern diet"? What do you mean by "better"? For whom?

Let me re-cap to an earlier point I made concerning all those men who would like to prevent themselves from getting prostate cancer. Many (and I mean very many) doctors and prostate specialists believe that diet plays a role in the development of this cancer - as I guess it may do with many other cancers. But when you look at what they say they almost universally recommend a diet the opposite of what is here being described as the paleolithic diet (whatever that actually is, or rather was). Have a look at the work of Dr Charles Meyers, a leading prostate cancer doctor and (I believe a man with prostate cancer himself). And here, frankly almost picked out of the hat, is a link to a piece from the UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Centre. http://tinyurl.com/3rtx3b).

You see this diet approach is quite different to what you might describe as "paleolithic", although we should not forget that some paleolithics may have eaten a diet heavy in fruit, vegetation and fibre for a great part of the year, and so might not have found Myers' plant based type of diets as strange as we would suppose.

I also referred you earlier to the work of Professor Jane Plant - no pun intended. She claims that her diet (the diametric opposite of what here would be called "paleo"), actually cured her. Plant had breast cancer 5 times. It spread to her neck lymph nodes. She had 4 operations including mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy. By the time her book "The Plant Programme" (essentially a recipe book) was published in 2001 she claims she had either been cured, or was at least in remission, for 8 years.

I am perfectly aware of the argument that not all calories are the same. I am perfectly aware of the resurgence (once again) of high protein diets from animal sources, avoidance of simple carbs, slightly higher more complex carbs, no highly processed foods, no fear of saturated fat. There is a whole popular literature arguing this, and also arguing against what is called the cholesterol myth. Those of you who have not yet done so might check out the work of the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, which you can find on the web and which disputes the alleged connection between dietary saturated fat and high cholesterol and heart disease.

Dana said that the sort of specific question that needs to be addressed is: Something like: "For middle-aged males of European origin, does a 2400 calorie diet of 50/40/10 fat/protein/carbohydrate reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes relative to a 2400 calorie diet of 20/30/50 fat/protein/carbohydrate?". I agree and also (since it is alleged that not all calories are the same), you would have to test with different fat, protein and carb sources, I think. You would also have to test which of the 2400 calorie diets not only reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes but then did not increase the risk of other diseases.

It would be a bummer, wouldn't it, to embark on your new diet and successfully avoid type 2 diabetes only to get something else - maybe worse - instead, especially if it was shown later that it was diet induced.

There is as yet no evidence that any one diet suits all and until there is I continue to advocate the advice I quoted in a post way back, from Professor Vincent Marks. Have your experiments in eating (I'm all for that, I love it!), but let us not try to generalize too much theory from what seem to me to be very personal experiences. I really will shut up now. 1222709070:::Richard Nikoley:::rnikoley@gmail.com:::http://www.freetheanimal.com:::Ted:

You've mentioned cancer several times. I wonder if you are aware of these two things:

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/04/counterintuitiv.html

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/04/will-the-blogos.html 1222901922:::Martin Levac:::vac3@pppoe.ca::::::Hi,

Congratulations on your success with the diet. I wish you continued health.

I'd like to chime in on the subject of testing the various diets to find the one that suits us best. It's impossible to determine precisely what people ate before the annals of history. However, it's quite easy to determine what diet suits us best today. We have the information already and all we need is to compile it. For instance, we know what the Inuit ate and continue to eat. We also know that those Inuit who eat the traditional diet suffer none of the diseases of civilization. The same goes for the Massai, the Pima and those isolated populations that still eat, or at least ate at the time of observation, their respective traditional diet even today.

Jay Wortman did one such experiment by putting about 100 people of the Namgis First Nation on Cormorant island on their traditional diet of mostly game meat, fish, oolichan grease and some low carb veggies. The same group of people lost a total of more than 1200lbs collectively after one year on this diet. It's not a comparative experiment since he didn't put another group on another diet but the results show that the Namgis traditional diet of high fat, low carb, unprocessed whole foods works to shed fat. There are some in the group who also cut their meds because the disease that called for them was reversed by the diet alone. Incidentally, this phenomenon is common amongst folks who cut out carbs from their diet and who previously suffered from diabetes, obesity and heart disease to name a few.

I eat an all meat zero carb diet and I think that considering my improved health due to this diet, whatever bad things others may say about it must be false. In my opinion, there is nothing inherently bad about eating the flesh of another animal. Meat is the perfect food in that it contains everything, protein-fats-vitamins-minerals, a human needs in the appropriate quantities and proportions. Also, meat contains none of the bad things we find in carbs, such as glucose which I consider toxic in any quantity above normal, or elsewhere for that matter. I haven't been this healthy ever. And my health continues to improve by my own reckoning.

By the way, I found your blog on this one:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statins/is-the-mainstream-starti ... 1225469526:::Martha:::marthaleescott@hotmail.com::::::Diana, you and a lot of others here are sooo on the right track! I am a "Weston Price baby" (my father and mother lived by and raised me by his book, which I have inherited), now 63 years old, extremely strong, energetic, and in great health. I left the correct dietary path twice in my life, and thereby suffered from everything from dental caries (again, see Dr. Price!)to the first stages of cancer, none of which exists in me while I eat correctly.
Some of my recent recommendations to my best friend have helped her rid herself of "restless leg syndrome" (one of my favorite new and unnecessary conditions rearing its ugly head for no reason other than poor nutrition) and possibly (at this time being checked by her doctor)the need for a second hip replacement.
One thing that most people are unaware of is that most things that are referred to as "diseases" these days are actually "conditions," controllable or eradicable by diet and correct nutrition.
My experience has been that, yes, we are all somewhat different, requiring different food balance, but straight teeth and really good health, especially in the long run (i.e., into old age) do require whole, natural, unprocessed foods.
Oh, by the way, I was raised on raw milk and buy it these days at Mother's Market, right here in Orange County.