Re: fat percentage of diet

[Guest guest]

The bread and toast was from sourdough spelt, so the digestibility wasn't a

problem. The raw milk was from pastured Jersey cows--drinking it before a

workout didn't totally slow me down, maybe just a little. I do have 2-day kefir

with berries every night, too. Exercising when I haven't eaten in 8-12 hours, I

have tons of energy, so that's why I'm suspicious of the need for it. I don't

recall the details, but Taubes mentions quite a number of ways your body can get

the glucose it needs without carbs. I probably get 50-100 g of carbs, so I'm not

really super-low carb.

But the thing about it is is that if you cut carbs for particular meals or cut

out a meal entirely or cut snacks, this seems to have an effect that you can

modulate to your individual needs. I'm a relatively lean type, so I just have to

cut back on the carbs if I start gaining a little. Some with more weight to lose

or more insulin issues may need to cut back more. I don't know how you get below

50 grams of carbs without doing an all meat diet, since even the green

vegetables and Kombucha and the like start adding up, never mind the milk. But

Taubes reports studies where very obese people were able to lose on high

calorie, low carb diets, but it varied how strict they had to be--in some cases,

they couldn't eat a single, tiny bit of carbs or it would spoil the weight loss.

One could speculate that their insulin metabolism had become so disregulated

that only no-carbs would force the fat out of the cells. But certainly

individuals vary.

The situation in complicated by the different effects that different diets

have--for instance, low calorie diets usually somewhat lower their carbs,

leading to some weight loss until a new set point is reached. Sometimes, low

carb diets may be low calorie since you stop having potatoes to put butter on,

as Jeammarie said. Still, from what the underlying science seems to suggest,

lower rather than higher carbs will tend to have the longest-lasting effect. see

sparkofreason.blogspot.com/2009/08/gut-feeling-about-insulin.htm

Some people worry that low carb or intermittent fasting will suppress your

metabolism and make your health worse, but I haven't seen any evidence other

than anecdotal to really back that up, nor would I expect it if you eat big

meals.

I do wonder about the potassium levels, however, since I gave up bananas in my

kefir. I do take some supplemental kelp when I think of it, so maybe I'm fine.

Bill

>

> Upon further reading if you consume a higher fat diet your body will just feed

off the fat rather than the glycogen.� It's still better to consume some

carbs, atleast 50-100g a day to spare expensive protein or muscle from being

metabolized.� I think only 10% of fat can be converted to glucose anyhow.�

During lower intensities activities fat is by far the preffered source of

energy.� I think if you are sedentary and have a high fat diet 75% of the

energy you expend will be taken from fat.

>

> It depends on the source of starch, how much you had and when you had it.�

It's better to take in higher ratio of carbs before a higher intensity activity

rather than after it because the body metabolized more carbs before and during a

higher intensity activity, and metabolized about 57% of it's energy from fat

after an activity.� On days you don't play sports you can go low carb and it

will actually help with your energy levels on the days that you do play.

>

> I don't think granola, toast, or hamburger buns are good sources of

starches.� Your body will have a difficult time digesting it.� It would be

better to have genuine sourdough bread as the gluten has been fermented out so

it is much easier to digest and better for your energy levels.� Unheated honey

will also assist with absorption.� Potatoes are an excellent choice.� The

only problem with low carbs is a potassium deficiency.� You want 3.3g of

potassium a day.� You can cook 1-1.5oz of sundried dulse in your bone broth in

order to get the amount of potassium you need.� You can make ice cream that is

healthy to eat.� Just use healthy ingrediants such as raw milk, vanilla

extract, unheated honey, cacao syrup, macademia nuts, rapadura sugarcane, etc.

>

> You may not have had good results with the raw milk because it was hard for

your body to digest.� Most milk has a higher proportion of A1 casein in it and

it take several hours to completely digest.� You may prefer to have goats

milk, coconut milk, jersey cow milk, or fermented/kefired milk.� I think those

would all be good choices while you are working out.� The Muran drank milk

throughout the day and they were very healthy.� I think you can have it in the

place of water.� Raw Milk has properties in it that help with your energy

levels, may stabalize insulin, and the lactose may not be harmful for you health

like other sources of simple carbs.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have to differ from you on your view of starches.

As you said, Price looked at many different cultures. Several of them used

complex carbs (or starchy carbs) as mainstays of their diets.

You're forgetting that America's " great experiment " aka the SAD diet is

predominantly refined white starch. No one on this list would suggest you

eat large amounts of pure starch (at least I don't think they would...).

And just because starches break down to glucose does not put them in the

same category as HFCS and sucrose which both break down to significant

amounts of fructose (the only 5 sided sugar, a fact that requires the liver

to convert it into glucose before it can even be used).

As for the amino acid profile - it doesn't have the importance that most

people give it, I agree - however, there are a few amino acids that are

absorbed in sets. Missing one of those amino acids means the other can't

get absorbed. So monitoring protein balance can have some benefits, albeit

not the ones it is commonly toted for.

-Lana

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Jeanmarie Todd <jaytee3@...> wrote:

> I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of Price's work to try to

> narrow things down to one perfect example to follow. As I see it, the

> value of his work is the principles he derived from the essential

> foods and dietary practices that the different cultures had in common.

> We can all follow the principles he derived and get the benefits

> without trying to replicate a particular culture living under possibly

> very different circumstances. How you want to combine those in your

> own diet is of course up to you.

>

> As to " better to eat starches as they are more filling and they take

> longer to digest so they take away hunger craving. If you have a low

> activity lifestyle your appetite will tell you when to stop eating

> starches. " Hardly.

>

> If America's vast experiment in starch-eating and fat-shunning for the

> past several decades has taught us anything, it's that starches prime

> the appetite for more starches, they contribute to most or all modern

> degenerative diseases via the insulin response, and they are not, in

> fact, essential to life, let alone a good foundation for a healthful

> diet. They often lead to metabolic syndrome. How much it takes to do

> that to a person may vary considerably, it seems from the evidence

> I've seen.

>

> If by starches you mean complex carbohydrates, compared to straight

> sugar, then yes, they digest a bit more slowly but they still add to

> the total sugar intake because that's what they digest to: glucose.

> And fats and proteins are slower to digest, as are combined meals,

> which is how people really eat. Fats don't provoke an insulin response

> at all, whereas very high levels of protein can do so. Of course,

> properly preparing grains improves their nutrient profile and

> digestibility, as I'm sure you know. As far as I understand, the amino

> acid profile of a protein doesn't affect digestion, just utilization,

> if the missing ones aren't supplied before too long.

> Cheers,

> Jeanmarie

[Guest guest]

when you go low-carb, it doesn't have to be expensive. you don't need to eat a

lot of extra protein. eat extra fat instead. on a per calorie basis, fat is

cheap.

>

> You're right, everyone is different but our bodies all work the same basicly. 

There may be minor differences, allergies, or ailments certain individuals

carry.  Price studied a low carb group, the Inuit.  The Inuit had some forms of

carbs though.  They had the glycogen from the meat they eat.  They had atleast

20g of glycogen from meat a day.  They also had a higher percentage of fat and

protein to convert to glycogen.  Most likely 15% protein, 5% carbs, and 80%

fat.  Your body can convert 10% of fat to carbs and 60% of protein to carbs. 

It's more expensive to do that and you can more effectively utilize carbs for

glycogen burning.  It may also be more taxing for the organs and use up vitamins

and minerals in order to metabolize the excess protein.  They also had a very

low activity lifestyle so a low carb diet was useful.  They had a high number of

fat soluble vitamins

>

> The Muran were another group Price studied.  They would probably be the

opposite of the Inuit.  They had a higher activity lifestyle.  They had 7 quarts

of raw milk a day.  They had about 375g of carbs a day.  They were as healthy as

the Inuit.  They had 224g of protein a day but they also had a high number of

fat soluble vitamins and minerals.

>

> It's not ideal to go low carb because you may lose muscle and it gets

expensive to eat that much protein.

[Guest guest]

Oh I agree, some people do well on a higher starch diet, some on a

lower. And even for higher starch, I completely agree it should not be

refined white starch. I have found varied opinions among researchers

and practitioners on whether total carbohydrate content (or proportion

of the diet) matters at all or just the type. HFCO is absolutely not

identical in its effects to starch, you're quite right Lana.

I see evidence on both sides. The experience of many people, me

included, is that eating even properly prepared starches tends to make

the body want more and more. Not everyone experiences that. Some

interesting lower-starch proponents I've been reading and listening to

recently are Nora Gedgaudas in her book " Primal Body, Primal " Mind

(she talks a lot about blood sugar regulation and mental health as

well as physical health) and Tom Naughton of Fat Head fame.

They are at: http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com and http://www.tomnaughton.com

as well as http://fathead-movie.com. Another more fitness-oriented

(and heavy on " primal " nutrition) blog is http://

www.marksdailyapple.com.

To repeat my earlier point, I don't think there's one right answer for

everybody. Dr. Price found that there was a wide variety of healthful

native, traditional diets among people he met. For people who grew up

on the SAD diet, and maybe for other factors we don't understand, it

may be helpful to restrict carbohydrates in general more than other

people. I would never say everyone has to. I'm mainly trying to refine

what works for me.

Every now and then someone will come along who says, " oh I eat junk

food all the time and I feel great. " I remember an interview with

actress Locklear a few years ago who said she eats whatever

she wants, and people who worked with her were also quoted as saying,

yup, she eats candy all the time and she eats an enormous amount of

food, two double burgers in a sitting or whatever. Maybe her

metabolism has caught up with her by now? She's in her 40s I believe.

I know no one here is advocating candy bars and junk food. It's just

an example of how there are always outliers that dumbfound the rest of

us when they seem to break all the rules and get away with it. Human

beings are too varied and complex to come up with a rule that works

for *everyone* at all life stages. Even, " Eat real food. Not too much.

Mostly plants. " That's pretty much how I eat but I still wouldn't say

that's right for everyone.

Jeanmarie

On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Lana Gibbons wrote:

> I have to differ from you on your view of starches.

>

> As you said, Price looked at many different cultures. Several of

> them used

> complex carbs (or starchy carbs) as mainstays of their diets.

>

> You're forgetting that America's " great experiment " aka the SAD diet

> is

> predominantly refined white starch. No one on this list would

> suggest you

> eat large amounts of pure starch (at least I don't think they

> would...).

>

> And just because starches break down to glucose does not put them in

> the

> same category as HFCS and sucrose which both break down to significant

> amounts of fructose (the only 5 sided sugar, a fact that requires

> the liver

> to convert it into glucose before it can even be used).

>

> As for the amino acid profile - it doesn't have the importance that

> most

> people give it, I agree - however, there are a few amino acids that

> are

> absorbed in sets. Missing one of those amino acids means the other

> can't

> get absorbed. So monitoring protein balance can have some benefits,

> albeit

> not the ones it is commonly toted for.

>

> -Lana

>

> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Jeanmarie Todd <jaytee3@...>

> wrote:

>

> > I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of Price's work to try

> to

> > narrow things down to one perfect example to follow. As I see it,

> the

> > value of his work is the principles he derived from the essential

> > foods and dietary practices that the different cultures had in

> common.

> > We can all follow the principles he derived and get the benefits

> > without trying to replicate a particular culture living under

> possibly

> > very different circumstances. How you want to combine those in your

> > own diet is of course up to you.

> >

> > As to " better to eat starches as they are more filling and they take

> > longer to digest so they take away hunger craving. If you have a low

> > activity lifestyle your appetite will tell you when to stop eating

> > starches. " Hardly.

> ><snip>

>

>

[Guest guest]

But, because fats are so calorie dense, you don't get to eat as much food.

For example, in EFLF, Sally recommends one Tablespoon of coconut oil before

each meal. But, coconut oil has a lot of calories. I know that it has a lot

of benefits, but if you consume 3 Tablespoons a day, that's 350 calories

that you can't chew. And if you weigh over 200 lbs and consume the 6 T a day

that EFLF recommends, that's 700 calories! That's a lot of chewing I'm

missing out on!

Most of us overweight folks didn't get this way because of our ability to

not eat food.

Kathy

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of carolyn_graff

Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:24 PM

Subject: Re: fat percentage of diet

when you go low-carb, it doesn't have to be expensive. you don't need to eat

a lot of extra protein. eat extra fat instead. on a per calorie basis, fat

is cheap.

[Guest guest]

Fats are more satiating. But there is no competition here between fats

and carbs and proteins. We can have all of them in our diets and they

all provide different nutrients.

I like celery and big salads, with oil-based dressing. That gives me

lots of stuff to chew, not that many carbs, and some fat for satiety.

I like chewing, too!

Some traditional cultures, like Japanese and Ayurvedic in India, aim

for a blend of tastes and textures in each meal. One explanation is

that helps us to get the micronutrients we need when we eat, say,

bitter things (greens) in addition to sweet and salty, as Americans

tend to emphasize, as a gross generalization. Japanese food was

traditionally very seasonally oriented, and also prized combining

seafood (fish, sea vegetables) with " mountain " food (fiddlehead ferns,

mushrooms, wild boar, wild greens) and everything in between (rice,

meats, vegetables, eggs, even dairy). Most of us do need variety and

that helps to ensure both a balance of nutrients but also a balance of

textures and satisfaction. You wouldn't want to sip everything you

consume, nor to have to chew and chew and chew everything. At least I

wouldn't.

Do you find the coconut oil satisfied your appetite or reduces it at

all? Many people find that. I find it satisfying, not necessarily more

than other fats though.

Jeanmarie

On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Kathy Dickson wrote:

> But, because fats are so calorie dense, you don't get to eat as much

> food.

>

> For example, in EFLF, Sally recommends one Tablespoon of coconut oil

> before

> each meal. But, coconut oil has a lot of calories. I know that it

> has a lot

> of benefits, but if you consume 3 Tablespoons a day, that's 350

> calories

> that you can't chew. And if you weigh over 200 lbs and consume the 6

> T a day

> that EFLF recommends, that's 700 calories! That's a lot of chewing I'm

> missing out on!

>

> Most of us overweight folks didn't get this way because of our

> ability to

> not eat food.

> .

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> But, because fats are so calorie dense,

> you don't get to eat as much food.

This makes it sound like a bad thing. I love not having to eat much, and it's

cheap too. It's all so much less buying and cooking and wasting time.

Are you saying you like more volume of food?

Connie

[Guest guest]

> low carb may likely lead to some muscle loss.  Some people don't care but I'd

rather retain my muscle.

>

Where did you get this idea? Or are you talking about low protein too?

[Guest guest]

> Even, " Eat real food. Not too much.

> Mostly plants. "

I agree too everyone is different.

My favorite response to that one is,

" ate food. mostly plants. still hungry " har har har

[Guest guest]

It's all about the kreb's cycle and such.  I explained it earlier.  Here we go

again.  10% of fat can convert to carbs, and 60% of protein can convert to

carbs.  1 third of protein is dissipated in order to metabolize the other two

thirds.  So if you do not have enough sufficient protein or fat to convert to

glycogen in the absense of a carbohydrate source your body will pull from your

muscle stores.  Meaning you lose muscle.  Rapid weight loss usually leads to as

much if not more loss in muscle as in fat.  It can get expensive to have all

that extra protein and it may tax your organs, deplete your fat soluble

vitamins, and deplete your minerals.  You also have a whole lot of nitrogen left

over from all that extra protein which isn't really good.  You go low protein,

very low carb, and high fat you are likely to burn a hell of a lot of lean

muscle tissue leading to skinny fat.

From: cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...>

Subject: Re: fat percentage of diet

Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 4:53 PM

 

> low carb may likely lead to some muscle loss.  Some people

don't care but I'd rather retain my muscle.

>

Where did you get this idea? Or are you talking about low protein too?

[Guest guest]

Is this just me?  Whenever I had a lot of fat it wouldn't all digest.  If you

are going low carb and moderate protein will your body metabolize more fats?

From: cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...>

Subject: Re: fat percentage of diet

Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 4:52 PM

 

> But, because fats are so calorie dense,

> you don't get to eat as much food.

This makes it sound like a bad thing. I love not having to eat much, and it's

cheap too. It's all so much less buying and cooking and wasting time.

Are you saying you like more volume of food?

Connie

[Guest guest]

I'd like to summarize the Japanese health habits: they have variety, they have

raw meat sources such as sushi and sashimi, they apparently have eggs and dairy,

they have rich sources of trace minerals such as seaweed and shellfish, and

they're well educated on cooking a variety of foods!  Good summary huh?

They've been doing the raw paleo diet far before the trend started over here. 

Japanese have the most extreme diet.  With their raw fish and all.

> But, because fats are so calorie dense, you don't get to eat as much

> food.

>

> For example, in EFLF, Sally recommends one Tablespoon of coconut oil

> before

> each meal. But, coconut oil has a lot of calories. I know that it

> has a lot

> of benefits, but if you consume 3 Tablespoons a day, that's 350

> calories

> that you can't chew. And if you weigh over 200 lbs and consume the 6

> T a day

> that EFLF recommends, that's 700 calories! That's a lot of chewing I'm

> missing out on!

>

> Most of us overweight folks didn't get this way because of our

> ability to

> not eat food.

> .

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yeah.  The Masai warriors.  Their diet was different than the other people in

their tribe.

>

> From: <stacylmgmail (DOT) com <stacylm%40gmail. com>>

>

> Subject: Re: Re: fat percentage of diet

> < % 40groups. com>

> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 12:03 PM

>

>

>

> Who are the Muran? Where do they live? Do they still live there?

>

>

>

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Holt <danthemanholt

> >wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > You're right, everyone is different but our bodies all work the same

>

> > basicly. There may be minor differences, allergies, or ailments certain

>

> > individuals carry. Price studied a low carb group, the Inuit. The Inuit

>

> > had some forms of carbs though. They had the glycogen from the meat they

>

> > eat. They had atleast 20g of glycogen from meat a day. They also had a

>

> > higher percentage of fat and protein to convert to glycogen. Most likely

>

> > 15% protein, 5% carbs, and 80% fat. Your body can convert 10% of fat to

>

> > carbs and 60% of protein to carbs. It's more expensive to do that and you

>

> > can more effectively utilize carbs for glycogen burning. It may also be

>

> > more taxing for the organs and use up vitamins and minerals in order to

>

> > metabolize the excess protein. They also had a very low activity

> lifestyle

>

> > so a low carb diet was useful. They had a high number of fat soluble

>

> > vitamins

>

> >

>

> > The Muran were another group Price studied. They would probably be the

>

> > opposite of the Inuit. They had a higher activity lifestyle. They had 7

>

> > quarts of raw milk a day. They had about 375g of carbs a day. They were

> as

>

> > healthy as the Inuit. They had 224g of protein a day but they also had a

>

> > high number of fat soluble vitamins and minerals.

>

> >

>

> > It's not ideal to go low carb because you may lose muscle and it gets

>

> > expensive to eat that much protein.

>

[Guest guest]

I've been listening to podcasts of her radio show. Sally Fallon was on there.

her ideas mesh well with WAPF.

>

>

> Anyone else read the book, " PrimalBody-Primal Mind " by Nora Gedgaudas? I

think it's most excellent! Would love to know what others think of it.

>

>

>

> She also does a radio show on Voice American Health and Wellness. You can

find it on her website www.primalbody-primalmind.com

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.

>

http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:0\

82009

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, I like to eat! I LOVE to cook! I've just got to find somebody that

loves to cleanup as much as I love to cook J

Kathy

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of cbrown2008

Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:52 PM

Subject: Re: fat percentage of diet

> But, because fats are so calorie dense,

> you don't get to eat as much food.

This makes it sound like a bad thing. I love not having to eat much, and

it's cheap too. It's all so much less buying and cooking and wasting time.

Are you saying you like more volume of food?

[Guest guest]

Jeanmarie,

Yes, fats are more satiating. That's why in EFLF Sally says to have bacon,

eggs, and cheese for breakfast and leave the toast alone! I agree, and I

agree with the previous conversation about how much longer you can before

you eat lunch if you eat like that.

I like veggies, too, and live on salads in the summer, without dressing.

Gimme a good, ripe tomato on my salad any day instead of dressing. In the

winter, I like avocados on my salad and don't need/want dressing, another

high fat food. I also like fruit, and it satisfies the sweet tooth.

I don't think the coconut oil alone reduces my appetite. I do use it to

camouflage the taste of my kelp and maca powder in the morning, though J

In EFLF, Sally says to have coconut oil before each meal, to kick up the

metabolism, and to have milk or cheese at every meal. That's a pretty high

percentage of my calories. Not many left to chew on J

Kathy

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Jeanmarie Todd

Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:51 PM

Subject: Re: Re: fat percentage of diet

Fats are more satiating. But there is no competition here between fats

and carbs and proteins. We can have all of them in our diets and they

all provide different nutrients.

I like celery and big salads, with oil-based dressing. That gives me

lots of stuff to chew, not that many carbs, and some fat for satiety.

I like chewing, too!

..

Do you find the coconut oil satisfied your appetite or reduces it at

all? Many people find that. I find it satisfying, not necessarily more

than other fats though.

Jeanmarie

On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Kathy Dickson wrote:

> But, because fats are so calorie dense, you don't get to eat as much

> food.

>

> For example, in EFLF, Sally recommends one Tablespoon of coconut oil

> before

> each meal. But, coconut oil has a lot of calories. I know that it

> has a lot

> of benefits, but if you consume 3 Tablespoons a day, that's 350

> calories

> that you can't chew. And if you weigh over 200 lbs and consume the 6

> T a day

> that EFLF recommends, that's 700 calories! That's a lot of chewing I'm

> missing out on!

>

> Most of us overweight folks didn't get this way because of our

> ability to

> not eat food.

> .

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I didn't see it get posted so I will  say it again.  I found that when I had a

lot of fat my body would just poop most of it out.  Will the fat in a high fat

diet absorb?  Will more absorb if I go low carb?

> But, because fats are so calorie dense, you don't get to eat as much

> food.

>

> For example, in EFLF, Sally recommends one Tablespoon of coconut oil

> before

> each meal. But, coconut oil has a lot of calories. I know that it

> has a lot

> of benefits, but if you consume 3 Tablespoons a day, that's 350

> calories

> that you can't chew. And if you weigh over 200 lbs and consume the 6

> T a day

> that EFLF recommends, that's 700 calories! That's a lot of chewing I'm

> missing out on!

>

> Most of us overweight folks didn't get this way because of our

> ability to

> not eat food.

> .

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Jeanmarie Todd <jaytee3@...> wrote:

> I see evidence on both sides. The experience of many people, me

> included, is that eating even properly prepared starches tends to make

> the body want more and more. Not everyone experiences that.

I did at one time and now I don't. At this point I'm fairly convinced that

overeating mostly has to do with gut flora being out of whack (especially

yeast overgrowth and oh drat, which microbe is it a lot of SCD people battle

with? I think it starts with C?), or digestive enzymes being deficient (and

therefore not actually getting the nutrition those foods offer) and not the

foods themselves.

To repeat my earlier point, I don't think there's one right answer for

> everybody. Dr. Price found that there was a wide variety of healthful

> native, traditional diets among people he met.

Agreed.

> For people who grew up

> on the SAD diet, and maybe for other factors we don't understand, it

> may be helpful to restrict carbohydrates in general more than other

> people. I would never say everyone has to. I'm mainly trying to refine

> what works for me.

I agree here too. Both things I mentioned above (flora imbalance and

inadequate enzymes) could easily be a part of growing up on SAD. Low carb

worked for me at first but not for long. For me it was a temporary fix that

I tried to stick to without realizing that as I healed, my body's

requirements would change. Now I thrive on carbs - still not the full USDA

" requirement " , but far more than any low carber would ever dare to eat.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

There's a bit of a catch with fats.

It is that in order to fully " digest " (more accurately, absorb), they need

to be emulsified.

Theoretically, your bile will take care of that. However, bile is made of

several components often used up during detox (glycine and taurine included)

and it tends to be ditched by the body (instead of reabsorbed) when it

carries too many toxins. Therefore your ability to assimilate fats is

directly related to your liver health/overall toxicity.

The easiest way around this shortcoming is eating natural, pre-emulsified

fats such as butter and other dairy products - or, consuming your fats with

lecithin (such as egg yolks). So things like homemade mayonnaise, or eating

eggs with your bacon.

The " harder way " (just takes longer) is to boost your bile production by

increasing your glycine (broth) and taurine (heat sensitive: raw shellfish

are a great source, as is heart) intake. Bitters can help encourage your

body to release more bile too.

-Lana

" There is nothing more useful than sun and salt. " - Latin proverb

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Holt <danthemanholt@...>wrote:

> Is this just me? Whenever I had a lot of fat it wouldn't all digest. If

> you are going low carb and moderate protein will your body metabolize more

> fats?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Love that!

On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:57 PM, cbrown2008 wrote:

>

> > Even, " Eat real food. Not too much.

> > Mostly plants. "

>

> I agree too everyone is different.

> My favorite response to that one is,

> " ate food. mostly plants. still hungry " har har har

>

>

> _

[Guest guest]

Yes, that was a good podcast. She also had Ross, the author of

The Diet Cure and The Mood Cure, who spoke at WAPF last year. I went

to her clinic for awhile. I highly recommend Nora's interview of

on pyroluria, if that's a topic of interest. This podcast seemed to be

a bit more up to date on the subject than 's books.

Jeanmarie

On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:31 PM, carolyn_graff wrote:

> I've been listening to podcasts of her radio show. Sally Fallon was

> on there. her ideas mesh well with WAPF.

>

>

> >

> >

> > Anyone else read the book, " PrimalBody-Primal Mind " by Nora

> Gedgaudas? I think it's most excellent! Would love to know what

> others think of it.

> >

> >

> >

> > She also does a radio show on Voice American Health and Wellness.

> You can find it on her website www.primalbody-primalmind.com

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Kathy, So do you take coconut oil by the spoonful or in tea? I find

that when I do that I end up only having it occasionally, I just can't

make it a habit. So instead I cook with a blend of ghee and coconut

oil and I find it's lovely for everything.

Are you avoiding oil or do you just dislike salad dressing? Did you

realize the beta-carotene in veggies aren't absorbable without fat? I

love a variety of greens but wouldn't eat much at all without

dressing, personally. Homemade, to avoid canola oil, soy oil, etc.

How do you like to take your coconut oil?

Jeanmarie

On Aug 11, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Kathy Dickson wrote:

> Jeanmarie,

>

> Yes, fats are more satiating. That's why in EFLF Sally says to have

> bacon,

> eggs, and cheese for breakfast and leave the toast alone! I agree,

> and I

> agree with the previous conversation about how much longer you can

> before

> you eat lunch if you eat like that.

>

> I like veggies, too, and live on salads in the summer, without

> dressing.

> Gimme a good, ripe tomato on my salad any day instead of dressing.

> In the

> winter, I like avocados on my salad and don't need/want dressing,

> another

> high fat food. I also like fruit, and it satisfies the sweet tooth.

>

> I don't think the coconut oil alone reduces my appetite. I do use it

> to

> camouflage the taste of my kelp and maca powder in the morning,

> though J

>

> In EFLF, Sally says to have coconut oil before each meal, to kick up

> the

> metabolism, and to have milk or cheese at every meal. That's a

> pretty high

> percentage of my calories. Not many left to chew on J

>

> Kathy

>

>

[Guest guest]

, This may be an issue to take up with your doctor, but it

sounds like one possibility is impaired fat digestion, and a simple,

low-risk approach is to take digestive enzymes. I take them with most

meals, and betaine hydrochloride with meats, and find it very helpful.

I don't think I've ever had difficulty digesting fats in particular so

I'm not sure what that would look like. Like I said, this may be

something to consult a doctor about. Of course, a lot of doctors are

under the misapprehension that fats are something to be avoided.

There's good information on the WAPF site about gall bladder problems,

one possibility if digesting fats is a problem. It's in the " Ask the

Doctor " section by Dr. Tom Cowan, who is nominally my doctor though

I've only been to see him once. (Too darned healthy I guess!) He

advised me to eat leafy greens three times a day, and after about 3

years I'm still falling short of that goal, but I eat greens a whole

lot more than I used to!

Good luck,

Jeanmarie

On Aug 11, 2009, at 7:58 PM, Holt wrote:

> I didn't see it get posted so I will say it again. I found that

> when I had a lot of fat my body would just poop most of it out.

> Will the fat in a high fat diet absorb? Will more absorb if I go

> low carb?

>

>

>

> From: Kathy Dickson <kathy.dickson@...>

> Subject: RE: Re: fat percentage of diet

>

> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 7:02 PM

>

>

>

> Jeanmarie,

>

> Yes, fats are more satiating. That's why in EFLF Sally says to have

> bacon,

>

> eggs, and cheese for breakfast and leave the toast alone! I agree,

> and I

>

> agree with the previous conversation about how much longer you can

> before

>

> you eat lunch if you eat like that.

>

>

>

> RECENT ACTIVITY

> 15

> New Members

> Visit Your Group

> Ads on

> Learn more now.

> Reach customers

> searching for you.

> Sitebuilder

> Build a web site

> quickly & easily

> with Sitebuilder.

> Group Charity

> Food Bank

> Feeding America

> in tough times

> .

>

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting point, Lana. I have an unhealthy gall bladder. It lets me know

when it is working. It does not release bile in response to coconut oil. On

the other hand, that high fat breakfast of eggs, bacon, and cheese - oh ya

it works then!

, how do you know that your fat isn't digesting?

Kathy

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Lana Gibbons

Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:20 PM

Subject: Re: Re: fat percentage of diet

There's a bit of a catch with fats.

It is that in order to fully " digest " (more accurately, absorb), they need

to be emulsified.

Theoretically, your bile will take care of that. However, bile is made of

several components often used up during detox (glycine and taurine included)

and it tends to be ditched by the body (instead of reabsorbed) when it

carries too many toxins. Therefore your ability to assimilate fats is

directly related to your liver health/overall toxicity.

The easiest way around this shortcoming is eating natural, pre-emulsified

fats such as butter and other dairy products - or, consuming your fats with

lecithin (such as egg yolks). So things like homemade mayonnaise, or eating

eggs with your bacon.

The " harder way " (just takes longer) is to boost your bile production by

increasing your glycine (broth) and taurine (heat sensitive: raw shellfish

are a great source, as is heart) intake. Bitters can help encourage your

body to release more bile too.

-Lana

" There is nothing more useful than sun and salt. " - Latin proverb

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Holt <danthemanholt@...

<mailto:danthemanholt%40> >wrote:

> Is this just me? Whenever I had a lot of fat it wouldn't all digest. If

> you are going low carb and moderate protein will your body metabolize more

> fats?

[Guest guest]

I know my fat isn't digesting because on the days I have a lot of dairy fat my

stool would turn green.

From: Kathy Dickson <kathy.dickson@...>

Subject: RE: Re: fat percentage of diet

Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 9:48 PM

 

Interesting point, Lana. I have an unhealthy gall bladder. It

lets me know

when it is working. It does not release bile in response to coconut oil. On

the other hand, that high fat breakfast of eggs, bacon, and cheese - oh ya

it works then!

, how do you know that your fat isn't digesting?

Kathy

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Lana Gibbons

Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:20 PM

Subject: Re: Re: fat percentage of diet

There's a bit of a catch with fats.

It is that in order to fully " digest " (more accurately, absorb), they need

to be emulsified.

Theoretically, your bile will take care of that. However, bile is made of

several components often used up during detox (glycine and taurine included)

and it tends to be ditched by the body (instead of reabsorbed) when it

carries too many toxins. Therefore your ability to assimilate fats is

directly related to your liver health/overall toxicity.

The easiest way around this shortcoming is eating natural, pre-emulsified

fats such as butter and other dairy products - or, consuming your fats with

lecithin (such as egg yolks). So things like homemade mayonnaise, or eating

eggs with your bacon.

The " harder way " (just takes longer) is to boost your bile production by

increasing your glycine (broth) and taurine (heat sensitive: raw shellfish

are a great source, as is heart) intake. Bitters can help encourage your

body to release more bile too.

-Lana

" There is nothing more useful than sun and salt. " - Latin proverb

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Holt <danthemanholt

<mailto:danthemanho lt%40. com> >wrote:

> Is this just me? Whenever I had a lot of fat it wouldn't all digest. If

> you are going low carb and moderate protein will your body metabolize more

> fats?