Re: High triglycerides block leptin signaling?

[Guest guest]

> I saw something today that said that high triglycerides are involved

> in blocking leptin signaling.

>

> And on the same page it had the remark that " triglycerides go up in

> starvation " .

>

> Rosedale says that you can lower triglycerides by eating less/no

> grains.

>

> Several cultures consider grains to be " cattle feed " .

* Hi , could you please mention one or two of these several

cultures? I'm curious. These cultures must be contemporary, because

I've learned that possibly all Neolithic cultures not only relied on

grains as a staple food, but also created mythologies and genealogies

around grains. Many of the Deities were related to the cereals. Not

that I'm defending grains; I'm just stating a fact that is to be

found in many school textbooks.

>

> During the Irish Potato Famine, they were offered grains, but

> preferred potatoes. They considered grains to be cattle feed, and

> they stayed full longer on potatoes.

* But again, potatoes didn't arrive in Ireland before they were

brought in from South America in the 17th century. What did the Irish

eat before? Possibly grains, oats, wheat, rye, what do I know? So,

how come they considered grains to be cattle feed, unless you're

thinking of a very sudden and radical change in attitude? However, it

is true that the potato soon became a major crop in Ireland replacing

all other grains. Ireland became so dependent on the potato that the

great famine was due to a disastrous failure of the potato crop.

JC

<snip>

> (Personally, we don't think our cattle do so well on grains. I

> assume cattle should only be on grains if they are not expected to

> live long.)

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > I saw something today that said that high triglycerides are involved

> > in blocking leptin signaling.

> >

> > And on the same page it had the remark that " triglycerides go up in

> > starvation " .

> >

> > Rosedale says that you can lower triglycerides by eating less/no

> > grains.

> >

> > Several cultures consider grains to be " cattle feed " .

>

> * Hi , could you please mention one or two of these several

> cultures? I'm curious. These cultures must be contemporary, because

> I've learned that possibly all Neolithic cultures not only relied on

> grains as a staple food, but also created mythologies and genealogies

> around grains. Many of the Deities were related to the cereals. Not

> that I'm defending grains; I'm just stating a fact that is to be

> found in many school textbooks.

' ,

In North America and Canada alone 500 years ago there were more

hunter-gatherer, non agriculturist tribes than there were

hunter-gatherer-agriculturist tribes. Corn was the closest to what's now

considered grain with these cultures. Native Americans today have the

highest type 2 diabetes incidence and extremely high heart disease as well

indicative of inability to adapt to high processed carbohydrate diet.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> > I saw something today that said that high triglycerides are

involved

> > in blocking leptin signaling.

> >

> > And on the same page it had the remark that " triglycerides go up

in

> > starvation " .

> >

> > Rosedale says that you can lower triglycerides by eating less/no

> > grains.

> >

> > Several cultures consider grains to be " cattle feed " .

>

> * Hi , could you please mention one or two of these several

> cultures? I'm curious.

I think the first place I read that was in NAPD, when Dr. Price was

describing the differing diets of some African tribes. And I've read

it elsewhere since. If you haven't read it yet, you really ought

to! ;-)

> These cultures must be contemporary, because

> I've learned that possibly all Neolithic cultures not only relied

on

> grains as a staple food, but also created mythologies and

genealogies

> around grains. Many of the Deities were related to the cereals. Not

> that I'm defending grains; I'm just stating a fact that is to be

> found in many school textbooks.

I know there are cultures on almost every continent that had a grain-

goddess entity that they worshipped. And those same cultures tended

to be a magnet for the area. They tended to build pyramids and

demand and/or attract allegiance from everyone in the area. From

what I can tell, they had highly developed ways of measuring time,

tracking the seasons, and had a priesthood that used their

specialized knowledge and banker-type functions to keep everyone else

in line. I think they often may have started with altruistic

leadership, but eventually that power fell into the hands of others

who used it ruthlessly to " milk " the people and the environment dry,

all the time accumulating all the wealth they could.

But I get the idea from deeper reading that there were (at the same

time) other cultures that did not worship grains as the be-all and

end-all of their diet and source of greatness. These other cultures

depended on animals (often cattle or seafood) for their main sources

of food. The meat-eating peoples were less prone to accept

centralization of power and administration, and they didn't generally

build huge things like pyramids or giant statues.

>

> >

> > During the Irish Potato Famine, they were offered grains, but

> > preferred potatoes. They considered grains to be cattle feed,

and

> > they stayed full longer on potatoes.

>

> * But again, potatoes didn't arrive in Ireland before they were

> brought in from South America in the 17th century. What did the

Irish

> eat before? Possibly grains, oats, wheat, rye, what do I know?

I suspect they depended on seafood a lot, and perhaps a _little_ bit

on oats or barley or something similar. Perhaps they had a few

cattle. But once potatoes were introduced, they apparently provided

advantages. Perhaps they were more popular because you could leave

some in the ground either for storage or to start the crop for next

year. Perhaps they _did_ help the people feel full longer.

> So,

> how come they considered grains to be cattle feed, unless you're

> thinking of a very sudden and radical change in attitude?

There probably was a big enough change in attitude to make them feel

like eating grain was a step down. I mean, if you could just dig a

potato out of the ground (most times of the year), pop it into a fire

for a bit (or stew it for 20 minutes), and then eat it, that would

probably be a lot less work than harvesting grain, winnowing grain,

storing grain, then preparing it in such a way that it could be eaten

either as bread or gruel. Perhaps they noticed that they felt

healthier when they didn't depend on grains as a staple item of their

diet.

I can imagine a fish-and-potato stew would be pretty easy to make and

would be pretty tasty. But fish-and-oat stew? Hmmm...I don't think

I've ever heard of such a thing. They did have that fish-head dish

that involved oats (that Dr. Price noted), but I think that was a

special-purpose item.

> However, it

> is true that the potato soon became a major crop in Ireland

replacing

> all other grains. Ireland became so dependent on the potato that

the

> great famine was due to a disastrous failure of the potato crop.

I understand part of that was political mismanagement. There was

also a fungus that took the crops because they all raised the same

variety of potato. Mono-cropping may seem good, but it is prone to

catastrophic failures if the right combination of factors come

together.

You might go to Wikipedia and start by looking for " potato famine " .

There are several good links on their pages that give more

information about those aspects of the famine.

[Guest guest]

Two things to add to this thread: First, the healthy Irish that Price

studied ate oats as a main staple in their diet.

Second, , why would grains elicit a starvation response? I align

carbs/protein with insulin signaling and fat/fasting with

ketogenicity. It seems misplaced to align carbs and fasting along the

same signaling pathway.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> > * But again, potatoes didn't arrive in Ireland before they were

> > brought in from South America in the 17th century. What did the

> Irish

> > eat before? Possibly grains, oats, wheat, rye, what do I know?

>

> I suspect they depended on seafood a lot, and perhaps a _little_ bit

> on oats or barley or something similar. Perhaps they had a few

> cattle. But once potatoes were introduced, they apparently provided

> advantages. Perhaps they were more popular because you could leave

> some in the ground either for storage or to start the crop for next

> year. Perhaps they _did_ help the people feel full longer.

>

>

The early Irish (and the Scots) were great herders of both cattle and

pigs - read the Mabanogian (not spelled right) the great collection of

Irish myths and about Finn the king. And Maeve the queen and the red

earred cattle and the great war about them (the cattle).

It would have been the poor and the servants who ate the oats that

were usually fed to the highly prized cattle.

Connie H.

[Guest guest]

> ' ,

> In North America and Canada alone 500 years ago there were more

> hunter-gatherer, non agriculturist tribes than there were

> hunter-gatherer-agriculturist tribes. Corn was the closest to what's

now

> considered grain with these cultures. Native Americans today have the

> highest type 2 diabetes incidence and extremely high heart disease as

well

> indicative of inability to adapt to high processed carbohydrate diet.

> Wanita

Wanita:

Thank you. Well, I think I knew that, anyway. Don't forget that I also

live in the Americas (the South), you know, and the Natives on this

corner of the world led lifestyles which weren't dissimilar to their

Northern cousins', so to say. Grains or tubers were a part of their

diet, though certainly not the main part of it and not in a highly

processed fashion as is the rule nowadays.

I've recently been to a part of Brazil, where the Native influence on

the culinary is very strong, and this is felt especially in the use of

herbs, maize flour, and manioc. For breakfast we were often served

maize *bread* (which tasted more like cake) rather than wheat bread,

but of course this is a mixture of Portuguese and Native traditions.

The maize bread undoubtedly contains sugar, eggs and milk. Our Indians

typically ate the corn on the cob or maybe flat manioc bread like

chapati.

José

[Guest guest]

....

> I think the first place I read that was in NAPD, when Dr. Price was

> describing the differing diets of some African tribes. And I've

read

> it elsewhere since. If you haven't read it yet, you really ought

> to! ;-)

## Yes, I guess I should read that book, . Still, I keep

wondering about the SEVERAL cultures that did without grains at all.

Can we be sure it is a number much larger than two or three that

entitles us to say *several*? Even so, it seems that the majority of

peoples on earth, in the ten or twelve last millenia, had a more or

less strong relationship with grains, for their good or bad.

....

> I know there are cultures on almost every continent that had a

grain-

> goddess entity that they worshipped. And those same cultures

tended

> to be a magnet for the area. They tended to build pyramids and

> demand and/or attract allegiance from everyone in the area. From

> what I can tell, they had highly developed ways of measuring time,

> tracking the seasons, and had a priesthood that used their

> specialized knowledge and banker-type functions to keep everyone

else

> in line. I think they often may have started with altruistic

> leadership, but eventually that power fell into the hands of others

> who used it ruthlessly to " milk " the people and the environment

dry,

> all the time accumulating all the wealth they could.

## Yes, those are benefits and drawbacks of civilization, or, if you

prefer a single term, the contradictions thereof. Established

religions also sprung from agriculture and control of nature and

people. Complaining about Western Civilization sounds right, because

it's full of exorbitances, but we must be extremely careful not to

throw the baby out with the bathwater.

> But I get the idea from deeper reading that there were (at the same

> time) other cultures that did not worship grains as the be-all and

> end-all of their diet and source of greatness. These other

cultures

> depended on animals (often cattle or seafood) for their main

sources

> of food. The meat-eating peoples were less prone to accept

> centralization of power and administration, and they didn't

generally

> build huge things like pyramids or giant statues.

## I can think of the Eskimoes as the prime example of this. I don't

know much about the Eskimo culture. What I read about them is that

they are usually a happy people who welcome the foreigner and all.

But I don't know that I would like to be an Eskimo or a Masai or a

Maori myself. I lead a simple life. I am not in search of power or a

large fortune, but I am much too contaminated by the values, comforts

and outlooks of civilized life, from which I can barely escape, and

would probably find any other remote lifestyle too difficult, too

bleaky or missing something.

....

> There probably was a big enough change in attitude to make them

feel

> like eating grain was a step down. I mean, if you could just dig a

> potato out of the ground (most times of the year), pop it into a

fire

> for a bit (or stew it for 20 minutes), and then eat it, that would

> probably be a lot less work than harvesting grain, winnowing grain,

> storing grain, then preparing it in such a way that it could be

eaten

> either as bread or gruel. Perhaps they noticed that they felt

> healthier when they didn't depend on grains as a staple item of

their

> diet.

>

> I can imagine a fish-and-potato stew would be pretty easy to make

and

> would be pretty tasty. But fish-and-oat stew? Hmmm...I don't

think

> I've ever heard of such a thing. They did have that fish-head dish

> that involved oats (that Dr. Price noted), but I think that was a

> special-purpose item.

** Yes, I can see that the potato is more practical and possibly more

digestive and thus less health-damaging than most cereals. What

remains unexplained to me, however, is that the phenomenon only hit

Ireland (no other country I know of surrended so completely to the

potato) and that they were so disloyal as it were to their ancient

crops of cereals and started looking at them with disdain. Was that

fair?

>

> > However, it

> > is true that the potato soon became a major crop in Ireland

> replacing

> > all other grains. Ireland became so dependent on the potato that

> the

> > great famine was due to a disastrous failure of the potato crop.

>

> I understand part of that was political mismanagement. There was

> also a fungus that took the crops because they all raised the same

> variety of potato. Mono-cropping may seem good, but it is prone to

> catastrophic failures if the right combination of factors come

> together.

>

> You might go to Wikipedia and start by looking for " potato

famine " .

> There are several good links on their pages that give more

> information about those aspects of the famine.

## Good idea. I think I will do that some time. I think the famine

taught them at least a lesson: not to rely exclusively on one crop.

Perhaps afterwards the Irish saw to it that their agriculture

remained more diversified again. Thank you, .

José

>

[Guest guest]

> ## Yes, I guess I should read that book, . Still, I keep

> wondering about the SEVERAL cultures that did without grains at

all.

> Can we be sure it is a number much larger than two or three that

> entitles us to say *several*? Even so, it seems that the majority

of

> peoples on earth, in the ten or twelve last millenia, had a more or

> less strong relationship with grains, for their good or bad.

Oh, you skeptic! Let's see...there _were_ the Innuit, and the

American Indians, and some of the African tribes that were mentioned

by Dr. Price. There were also other groups throughout history that

couldn't have depended upon grains to any significant extent because

they were nomadic. I guess you had to expect the Huns didn't do much

grain farming. And the Scythians. And I wonder how much grain the

Vikings used.

>

> ...

>

> > I know there are cultures on almost every continent that had a

> grain-

> > goddess entity that they worshipped. And those same cultures

> tended

> > to be a magnet for the area. They tended to build pyramids and

> > demand and/or attract allegiance from everyone in the area. From

> > what I can tell, they had highly developed ways of measuring

time,

> > tracking the seasons, and had a priesthood that used their

> > specialized knowledge and banker-type functions to keep everyone

> else

> > in line. I think they often may have started with altruistic

> > leadership, but eventually that power fell into the hands of

others

> > who used it ruthlessly to " milk " the people and the environment

> dry,

> > all the time accumulating all the wealth they could.

>

> ## Yes, those are benefits and drawbacks of civilization, or, if

you

> prefer a single term, the contradictions thereof. Established

> religions also sprung from agriculture and control of nature and

> people. Complaining about Western Civilization sounds right,

because

> it's full of exorbitances, but we must be extremely careful not to

> throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It _is_ a dilemma!

> ** Yes, I can see that the potato is more practical and possibly

more

> digestive and thus less health-damaging than most cereals. What

> remains unexplained to me, however, is that the phenomenon only hit

> Ireland (no other country I know of surrended so completely to the

> potato) and that they were so disloyal as it were to their ancient

> crops of cereals and started looking at them with disdain. Was that

> fair?

I believe I read that the fungus also occurred in France and perhaps

other countries on " the continent " . It just decimated farming in

Ireland because of the politically-motivated monocropping. At least,

that's how some make it sound. ly, it doesn't sound that hard

to believe, seeing as we did have the Dust Bowl in Oklahoma during

the 1930s, after the government advised farmers to plant " fencerow to

fencerow " , leaving no provision for soil conservation, etc.

> ## Good idea. I think I will do that some time. I think the famine

> taught them at least a lesson: not to rely exclusively on one crop.

> Perhaps afterwards the Irish saw to it that their agriculture

> remained more diversified again. Thank you, .

>

Actually, some of Mark Purdey's writings make it sound as if

monocropping has unfortunately taken hold in the UK.

[Guest guest]

....

> Oh, you skeptic!

....

>

Oh, but anyway thanks for being patient with me!

JC

[Guest guest]

> Two things to add to this thread: First, the healthy Irish that

Price

> studied ate oats as a main staple in their diet.

>

> Second, , why would grains elicit a starvation response?

That's what I've been trying to figure out. Perhaps improperly

prepared grains are so detrimental to health and take so much out of

the body's stores of nutrients that it's _like_ being in a famine

situation to have to handle them.

" It takes so much out of me to deal with that fat-free, fiber-free,

protein-free, high-starch stuff that I must have something more to

replenish the nutrients that it took out of me. I burned that last

batch so fast that I'm going to keep the 'appestat' turned up high

until you meet my needs. "

" When are you going to give me something with enough magnesium to

replace what that last meal demanded? "

" I used up a lot of _______________, _________________, and

___________

to make the triglycerides required to handle that last stuff. You'd

better replace it soon or you won't hear the last of me. "

Or finally, " If you keep stuffing me with starch and sugar, I might

as well shut down for a while. Nighty-night. "

> I align

> carbs/protein with insulin signaling and fat/fasting with

> ketogenicity. It seems misplaced to align carbs and fasting along

the

> same signaling pathway.

>

> Chris

<sigh> That's why I wrote the post. So many of you have a much

better understanding of the issues and chemistry than I do. I am

trying to synthesize my own understanding of the role of leptin.

It's been hard for me to " master " .

[Guest guest]

On 8/21/05, <toyotaokiec@...> wrote:

> <sigh> That's why I wrote the post. So many of you have a much

> better understanding of the issues and chemistry than I do. I am

> trying to synthesize my own understanding of the role of leptin.

> It's been hard for me to " master " .

I'm not sure what " starvation mode " actually means, but I think your

point on being starved for nutrients is a valid one... but in terms of

the metabolism of macronutrients, I think that fasting and

carb-loading are opposites.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

>Since grains tend to be relied upon during famines, and they require

>so much special handling to neutralize their antinutrients, perhaps

>the cultural wisdom that says grains should only be used for

>[fattening] cattle has some credence.

>

>What do y'all think?

That makes perfect sense to ME except that historically, what

happened is that the upper class often got the grains. In

Ireland, the peasants grew grain and potatoes, but they

were not allowed to eat the grain (that from someone who

was studying the potato famine: maybe different stories

have gone around?). Anyway, in Rome, wheat sold for

twice what barley did, and both were considered desirable

foods.

In less Neolithic cultures though, I suspect that in fact

grains weren't so prized and they were more " starvation "

foods. Or " beer making foods " ... malt just makes great

beer ... I kinda think one of the impetuses for farming was,

in fact, beer! Price's natives though, took to " white flour "

pretty quickly, as have cultures around the world. It's

addicting stuff.

>(Personally, we don't think our cattle do so well on grains. I

>assume cattle should only be on grains if they are not expected to

>live long.)

Goats don't do well on grain at all: if they get too much they die.

They always warn me about that at the coop where I buy

the " bribery " grain I use to get them back to the stall at night.

I don't give them much though.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>That makes perfect sense to ME except that historically, what

>happened is that the upper class often got the grains. In

>Ireland, the peasants grew grain and potatoes, but they

>were not allowed to eat the grain (that from someone who

>was studying the potato famine: maybe different stories

>have gone around?). Anyway, in Rome, wheat sold for

>twice what barley did, and both were considered desirable

>foods.

And in recent (i.e. historical) times we know that the upper classes

preferred all sorts of less-healthy foods, leaving organs to the peasants

and eating muscle meats, for example.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>I saw something today that said that high triglycerides are involved

>in blocking leptin signaling.

Yes, elevated triglycerides induce leptin resistance at the blood-brain

barrier.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0922/is_5_53/ai_n6026851

>Rosedale says that you can lower triglycerides by eating less/no

>grains.

This is well-established, though rarely observed in the mainstream. Atkins

had remarkable success in lower patients' triglycerides by putting them on

a low-carb diet. The " common sense " wisdom is that since triglycerides are

fat, eating fat must be bad for your triglyceride level, but in fact the

body packages carbs as triglycerides, and your triglyceride level spikes

enormously after a carby meal. So really, grains aren't the only potential

culprit.

>High-grain diet ==> Body assumes starvation mode ==> Triglyderides

>rise ==> Leptin signaling is blocked ==> Body mishandles carbs and

>fats ==> Obesity and diabetes results when there actually is plenty

>of food

The assumption of starvation mode doesn't really make sense. High-carb

diet --> elevated triglycerides --> leptin resistance induced --> all the

symptoms of leptin and insulin resistance result, including obesity,

diabetes, syndrome X, heart problems, etc. Of course, that's not the whole

story, but it is one chain in the overall mesh.

>Since grains tend to be relied upon during famines, and they require

>so much special handling to neutralize their antinutrients, perhaps

>the cultural wisdom that says grains should only be used for

>[fattening] cattle has some credence.

I'd never feed grains to any cattle of mine, and I do my best to procure

meat from grain-free grass-fed animals.

-