I stopped soaping "all over" about 15 years ago. Now I use an organic olive oil based soap only under my arms; I've tried skipping even that part for months at a time, but it just doesn't work for me -- everywhere else is fine. Otherwise, I find warm water and some gentle washing action to be all I need. No bad side effects, people haven't shunned me due to bad odors, etc. Actually, to the contrary, I've had complements on how I smell ("what are you using?"), and my skin looks and feels fine; not too dry or oily.
[[MORE]]I've also used baking soda as a soap for extended periods. It cleans fine; I just don't particularly care for how it makes my skin feel afterwards.
Almost anything you put on your skin will get absorbed to some degree into your body (that's how nicotine and hormone patches work). Unfortunately, most commercial soaps and cosmetic products are full of artificial chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens. Perfume doesn't come from some beautiful crushed flower; it's an artificially created chemical.
Basically, if you wouldn't eat it, you shouldn't put it on your skin or in your mouth.
FWIW, the same idea holds true for clothes, many of which are coated with toxic formaldehyde sizing to help discourage wrinkles and prevent mildew. Some kids clothes are even worse, being coated with fire retardants. You can minimize potential health issues related to fabric treatments by washing them thoroughly before you first wear them. For kid's clothes, I would was them more than once. Of course, this assumes that you're using a good, non-toxic, perfume-free laundry detergent!
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Proper dental care
After reading an article online about it, I decided to try brushing with soap.
I use an organic olive oil based soap. To my surprise, the taste isn’t unpleasant at all.
Part of the idea behind it is that most toothpastes contain glycerin, which doesn’t easily rinse off completely. While the teeth still have a film of glycerin on them, they don’t remineralize easily. With the film removed, they do.
[[MORE]]Another aspect of using soap is that it has a natural antibiotic character to it, which helps limit plaque.
I’ve tried using a variety of conventional toothpastes over the years, and while they’ve kept gum disease and cavities at bay, I still had some slight persistent inflammation at my gum line, with gum pocket depths that were less than ideal. About two weeks after switching to using bar soap, the inflammation went away—for the first time ever.
I’m a quick plaque/tartar maker, though, and I’ve found that soap alone isn’t quite enough to keep the tartar under control, so I alternate with a baking soda based toothpaste without any additives. The slight coarseness of the baking soda is enough to remove any built-up tartar.
I think that if we ate food that required much more biting, chewing and natural friction over the tooth surfaces, so that plaque and tartar were naturally removed, that we probably wouldn't need to brush -- but that's not a feature of modern diets, even of the Paleo variety. I actually see this easily with my dogs; when they have chew toys, bones, etc, their teeth stay healthy. Without them, the tartar builds up quickly.
To brush with baking soda, I usually pour some dry powder in a small bowl and then scoop it up with a wet toothbrush. It doesn't take that much. When I brush with soap, I just rub a wet brush back and forth against a bar several times, and then let the bar dry out before next use.
Another thing about conventional toothpastes: because they tend to be sweet, they can trigger a release of insulin. One of the goals of Paleo should be to keep your insulin levels low, so they’re incompatible with the diet in that way.
BTW, in case you're not aware, sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), which is in most toothpastes, can cause outbreaks of canker sores. This was explained to me by my dentist years ago after I told him I was having regular outbreaks. Since stopping all toothpastes containing SLS, I haven’t had another sore. Also, the reason they add SLS in the first place is simply to make the toothpaste foam; it doesn’t improve its ability to clean your teeth in any way.
The soap I use is made near where I live here in New Zealand. It's called Clean Earth Soap (the Basic Olive Bar):
http://www.cleanearthsoap.co.nz/collections/soaps
If you can't find anything equivalent locally, they do ship overseas.
It's great for skin, too, not just teeth!
I use an organic olive oil based soap. To my surprise, the taste isn’t unpleasant at all.
Part of the idea behind it is that most toothpastes contain glycerin, which doesn’t easily rinse off completely. While the teeth still have a film of glycerin on them, they don’t remineralize easily. With the film removed, they do.
[[MORE]]Another aspect of using soap is that it has a natural antibiotic character to it, which helps limit plaque.
I’ve tried using a variety of conventional toothpastes over the years, and while they’ve kept gum disease and cavities at bay, I still had some slight persistent inflammation at my gum line, with gum pocket depths that were less than ideal. About two weeks after switching to using bar soap, the inflammation went away—for the first time ever.
I’m a quick plaque/tartar maker, though, and I’ve found that soap alone isn’t quite enough to keep the tartar under control, so I alternate with a baking soda based toothpaste without any additives. The slight coarseness of the baking soda is enough to remove any built-up tartar.
I think that if we ate food that required much more biting, chewing and natural friction over the tooth surfaces, so that plaque and tartar were naturally removed, that we probably wouldn't need to brush -- but that's not a feature of modern diets, even of the Paleo variety. I actually see this easily with my dogs; when they have chew toys, bones, etc, their teeth stay healthy. Without them, the tartar builds up quickly.
To brush with baking soda, I usually pour some dry powder in a small bowl and then scoop it up with a wet toothbrush. It doesn't take that much. When I brush with soap, I just rub a wet brush back and forth against a bar several times, and then let the bar dry out before next use.
Another thing about conventional toothpastes: because they tend to be sweet, they can trigger a release of insulin. One of the goals of Paleo should be to keep your insulin levels low, so they’re incompatible with the diet in that way.
BTW, in case you're not aware, sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), which is in most toothpastes, can cause outbreaks of canker sores. This was explained to me by my dentist years ago after I told him I was having regular outbreaks. Since stopping all toothpastes containing SLS, I haven’t had another sore. Also, the reason they add SLS in the first place is simply to make the toothpaste foam; it doesn’t improve its ability to clean your teeth in any way.
The soap I use is made near where I live here in New Zealand. It's called Clean Earth Soap (the Basic Olive Bar):
http://www.cleanearthsoap.co.nz/collections/soaps
If you can't find anything equivalent locally, they do ship overseas.
It's great for skin, too, not just teeth!
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Eating raw beef
I have a close friend who loves raw beef, and had been eating it for several years when he became ill. It turns out he had been infected by not just one, but several different hard-to-diagnose parasites. I don’t know exactly where he got his meat or what precautions he took, but the story still gives me pause.
In addition, there’s good evidence that cooking our food was a key factor in our evolution from Homo habilis into Homo erectus, partly since cooked food requires less digestive effort and results in more complete digestion and energy extraction, which in turn allowed our guts to shrink and our brains to grow. In keeping with the rest of the Paleo diet philosophy, I think that’s a good reason to continue cooking my food, regardless of my personal taste preferences.
There’s a good book that discusses this subject in detail: Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, by Wrangham.
In addition, there’s good evidence that cooking our food was a key factor in our evolution from Homo habilis into Homo erectus, partly since cooked food requires less digestive effort and results in more complete digestion and energy extraction, which in turn allowed our guts to shrink and our brains to grow. In keeping with the rest of the Paleo diet philosophy, I think that’s a good reason to continue cooking my food, regardless of my personal taste preferences.
There’s a good book that discusses this subject in detail: Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, by Wrangham.
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Endorphins
I recently heard that eating fat causes the release of endorphins (the body’s natural opiates). It seems to me that this might explain a few things that I’ve observed about myself since switching to Paleo. It could be why my mood has improved: endorphins relieve aches and pains and have a mood-elevating effect. Endorphins are also an appetite suppressant, which could explain why I now only feel the need to eat once a day.
[[MORE]]Since vigorous exercise also releases endorphins, I’m wondering whether some synergy is possible there. Chocolate and caffeine also release endorphins.
I started looking into this because I take low-dose Naltrexone for my arthritis. Naltrexone is an opiate antagonist. In low doses, it blocks the opiate receptor sites for just a few hours, which then causes the body to release more of them in response. The resulting increase in endorphin levels can modulate immune system function, and thereby help a wide range of immune system-related conditions ranging from arthritis to MS to cancer to Chron’s.
Apparently, there is some mounting evidence that an “endorphin deficiency” is prevalent in modern society. Is it possible that low fat intake is responsible? Perhaps low fat intake leads to low endorphins which leads to increasingly common immune system dysfunction? Could it also be part of why people crave chocolate and “can’t live without” their morning caffeine?
[[MORE]]Since vigorous exercise also releases endorphins, I’m wondering whether some synergy is possible there. Chocolate and caffeine also release endorphins.
I started looking into this because I take low-dose Naltrexone for my arthritis. Naltrexone is an opiate antagonist. In low doses, it blocks the opiate receptor sites for just a few hours, which then causes the body to release more of them in response. The resulting increase in endorphin levels can modulate immune system function, and thereby help a wide range of immune system-related conditions ranging from arthritis to MS to cancer to Chron’s.
Apparently, there is some mounting evidence that an “endorphin deficiency” is prevalent in modern society. Is it possible that low fat intake is responsible? Perhaps low fat intake leads to low endorphins which leads to increasingly common immune system dysfunction? Could it also be part of why people crave chocolate and “can’t live without” their morning caffeine?
Saturday, 12 December 2009
How the health care system in New Zealand works
Here's the way the health care system in New Zealand works, in a nutshell:
Emergency care is free; routine doctor's visits to your GP are heavily subsidized (cost is about US$20 per visit); most drugs are heavily subsidized (US$2 to $10 per course); most lab work is free; most in-hospital care is free. That's the so-called "public" system. The problem is that because it's free, the supply is limited, which means rationing. The existence of rationing is readily admitted by everyone. The impact of rationing is long waits. In my area, it can take 3 months to get an MRI scan, or up to 6 months to get in to see the one-and-only neurologist in town.
[[MORE]]To help make the system more palatable -- which also means providing it with badly needed money -- there is a parallel "private" system. Doctors can choose to offer some of their time on a private basis, or not. Most do, but some, like the neurologist I mentioned above, do not. Private fees are still reasonable by US standards: maybe US$45 for a 15-minute visit. There are also private hospitals, since docs aren't allowed to use public facilities for their private patients. Fees there are higher; closer to what they charge in the US. You can buy health insurance that covers private costs. Unlike in the US, pre-existing conditions are never covered by private insurance; there is no "time out" period. Insurance costs are moderate-to-low by US standards, and insurers are also much more picky about who they accept.
So, this all works OK if you only ever see your GP, get a few lab tests and a few prescriptions and maybe go to the emergency room once every few years. But as soon as you have anything complicated happen that requires a specialist or expensive test equipment like an MRI, then your care is rationed. The waiting times for certain surgeries in the public system is notoriously bad: 2 yrs or more in some cases. If you're lucky, and you can afford it or have insurance, then you can get private care. But private care isn't always available, and even when it is, there may still be a waiting list.
Emergency care is free; routine doctor's visits to your GP are heavily subsidized (cost is about US$20 per visit); most drugs are heavily subsidized (US$2 to $10 per course); most lab work is free; most in-hospital care is free. That's the so-called "public" system. The problem is that because it's free, the supply is limited, which means rationing. The existence of rationing is readily admitted by everyone. The impact of rationing is long waits. In my area, it can take 3 months to get an MRI scan, or up to 6 months to get in to see the one-and-only neurologist in town.
[[MORE]]To help make the system more palatable -- which also means providing it with badly needed money -- there is a parallel "private" system. Doctors can choose to offer some of their time on a private basis, or not. Most do, but some, like the neurologist I mentioned above, do not. Private fees are still reasonable by US standards: maybe US$45 for a 15-minute visit. There are also private hospitals, since docs aren't allowed to use public facilities for their private patients. Fees there are higher; closer to what they charge in the US. You can buy health insurance that covers private costs. Unlike in the US, pre-existing conditions are never covered by private insurance; there is no "time out" period. Insurance costs are moderate-to-low by US standards, and insurers are also much more picky about who they accept.
So, this all works OK if you only ever see your GP, get a few lab tests and a few prescriptions and maybe go to the emergency room once every few years. But as soon as you have anything complicated happen that requires a specialist or expensive test equipment like an MRI, then your care is rationed. The waiting times for certain surgeries in the public system is notoriously bad: 2 yrs or more in some cases. If you're lucky, and you can afford it or have insurance, then you can get private care. But private care isn't always available, and even when it is, there may still be a waiting list.
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Rancid fish oil
Fresh fish oil should not taste bitter or fishy. I'm convinced that a large number of fish oil capsules contain rancid oil. I've also found that many people who think they don't like fish actually just don't like fish that isn't fresh. Even store-bought fish often tastes fishy, which is a clear sign that it's not fresh.
Another issue with rancid oil is that it can turn rancid well before it's possible to taste it.
If you take capsules, you might consider storing them in the refrigerator to help maintain freshness. For bulk oil, adding some vitamin E to the bottle can help extend its shelf life.
Even if you don't use it on a regular basis, you might consider buying a bottle of Carlson's cod liver oil, just so you know what fresh, non-rancid oil tastes like. You might also try checking to see how your capsules change in taste over time: chew on a few when you first get them, and then repeat once a week or so. Any change is not good.
The issue with oil rancidity isn't unique to fish oil. I've noticed foods like bulk nuts sold at many grocery stores are also often rancid. Once you identify the taste, you may be surprised at how prevalent it is.
Another issue with rancid oil is that it can turn rancid well before it's possible to taste it.
If you take capsules, you might consider storing them in the refrigerator to help maintain freshness. For bulk oil, adding some vitamin E to the bottle can help extend its shelf life.
Even if you don't use it on a regular basis, you might consider buying a bottle of Carlson's cod liver oil, just so you know what fresh, non-rancid oil tastes like. You might also try checking to see how your capsules change in taste over time: chew on a few when you first get them, and then repeat once a week or so. Any change is not good.
The issue with oil rancidity isn't unique to fish oil. I've noticed foods like bulk nuts sold at many grocery stores are also often rancid. Once you identify the taste, you may be surprised at how prevalent it is.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Health-related risk management
As with all health and diet issues, when assessing risk and determining trade-offs, it’s best to look at the whole picture, rather than just one narrow piece. For example, consider the risk of contaminated raw milk. In the event that something bad happens, the resulting conditions should be quickly diagnosable and readily curable with antibiotics. However, the same is not true for the more serious conditions that raw milk may help you avoid, such as heart disease or immune system dysfunction.
[[MORE]]This is similar to the “too much sun” argument and Vitamin D. While it’s true that staying out of the sun will reduce your risk of certain skin cancers, those cancers tend to be among the most treatable and survivable. However, the lower level of Vit D from staying out of the sun also increases your risk of getting the more serious cancers, which are not very curable.
The total cholesterol argument is also similar: you may avoid heart disease with low total cholesterol, but your average lifespan is also likely to be decreased (more death from cancer and other diseases).
[[MORE]]This is similar to the “too much sun” argument and Vitamin D. While it’s true that staying out of the sun will reduce your risk of certain skin cancers, those cancers tend to be among the most treatable and survivable. However, the lower level of Vit D from staying out of the sun also increases your risk of getting the more serious cancers, which are not very curable.
The total cholesterol argument is also similar: you may avoid heart disease with low total cholesterol, but your average lifespan is also likely to be decreased (more death from cancer and other diseases).
Monday, 7 December 2009
Sources of omega-3 supplements
My experience with O-3 oils is that taste follows quality, which follows price. Bad tasting oils are usually rancid (oxidized), which makes them not just useless, but actually damaging. (if you take capsules, it’s not a bad idea to occasionally bite one open to see if the oil tastes bad)
[[MORE]]Cod liver oil (CLO) is a good source of O-3. Unfortunately, one complication is that fish tend to pick up a number of toxins, and those toxins tend to concentrate in their oil -- so the source of the fish used to make the oil is important. I like Carlson's for that reason; they use fish from Norway and also test the oil they use for toxins, which is something I'm not confident that many other suppliers do.
Another issue is the high level of Vit A, which can apparently counteract some of the benefits of Vit D, according to some recent studies.
CLO also contains more than just O-3. A somewhat better source is Krill Oil, although it's not cheap. I've found Jarrow to be a good brand. Both products are available from iherb.com.
Fresh fish oil should not taste bitter or fishy. I'm convinced that a large number of the fish oil capsules contain rancid oil. I've also found that many people who think they don't like fish actually just don't like fish that isn't fresh. Even store-bought fish often tastes fishy, which is a clear sign that it's not fresh.
Another issue with rancid oil is that it can turn rancid well before it's possible to taste it.
If you take capsules, you might consider storing them in the refrigerator to help maintain freshness. For bulk oil, adding some vitamin E to the bottle can help extend its shelf life.
Even if you don't use it on a regular basis, you might consider buying a bottle of Carlson's cod liver oil, just so you know what fresh, non-rancid oil tastes like. You might also try checking to see how your capsules change in taste over time: chew on a few when you first get them, and then repeat once a week or so. Any change is not good.
The issue with oil rancidity isn't unique to fish oil. I've noticed foods like bulk nuts sold at many grocery stores are also often rancid. Once you identify the taste, you may be surprised at how prevalent it is.
[[MORE]]Cod liver oil (CLO) is a good source of O-3. Unfortunately, one complication is that fish tend to pick up a number of toxins, and those toxins tend to concentrate in their oil -- so the source of the fish used to make the oil is important. I like Carlson's for that reason; they use fish from Norway and also test the oil they use for toxins, which is something I'm not confident that many other suppliers do.
Another issue is the high level of Vit A, which can apparently counteract some of the benefits of Vit D, according to some recent studies.
CLO also contains more than just O-3. A somewhat better source is Krill Oil, although it's not cheap. I've found Jarrow to be a good brand. Both products are available from iherb.com.
Fresh fish oil should not taste bitter or fishy. I'm convinced that a large number of the fish oil capsules contain rancid oil. I've also found that many people who think they don't like fish actually just don't like fish that isn't fresh. Even store-bought fish often tastes fishy, which is a clear sign that it's not fresh.
Another issue with rancid oil is that it can turn rancid well before it's possible to taste it.
If you take capsules, you might consider storing them in the refrigerator to help maintain freshness. For bulk oil, adding some vitamin E to the bottle can help extend its shelf life.
Even if you don't use it on a regular basis, you might consider buying a bottle of Carlson's cod liver oil, just so you know what fresh, non-rancid oil tastes like. You might also try checking to see how your capsules change in taste over time: chew on a few when you first get them, and then repeat once a week or so. Any change is not good.
The issue with oil rancidity isn't unique to fish oil. I've noticed foods like bulk nuts sold at many grocery stores are also often rancid. Once you identify the taste, you may be surprised at how prevalent it is.
Friday, 4 December 2009
Losing weight is not just about calorie balance
Many people I talk to about diet are still convinced that weight control is all about calorie balance: calories in vs. calories out. As Gary Taubes convincingly demonstrated in Good Calories, Bad Calories, it's not so simple.
Here's my argument:
[[MORE]]1. If weight is determined entirely by calorie balance, then why are type 1 diabetics unable to gain any weight? They can eat 5000+ calories/day and still be rail-thin. But as soon as you replace their missing insulin, they are suddenly able to put on weight, with no change in diet or activity level. The body does not always hold onto everything you put into it (insulin is the “storage” hormone).
2. In order to survive times of famine, humans developed a feedback loop: the fewer calories you take in, the fewer the body needs; your basal metabolic rate varies depending on food intake. Otherwise, if it didn't, then if you were at a constant weight and cut back your calories, you would eventually waste away to nothing, right? Instead, you reach a new set-point as your metabolic rate adjusts. If you reduce calories enough, people slow down, get tired and fatigued easily, etc., which makes it difficult to exercise, which increases insulin resistance.
3. You can make people or animals fat by boosting their insulin level. Why do you think farmers feed grain to cattle? It's because it boosts their insulin level, which makes them fat. Fat animals weigh more, and are more profitable. Unfortunately, grain makes people fat too, through exactly the same mechanism. (side note: Carbs also make you hungry. Why do you think many restaurant owners give bread or chips away for free?)
4. If caloric input is the primary determinant of weight, then why does obesity tend to increase with decreasing income? The higher the poverty rate, the higher the rate of obesity. (Hint: Which foods provide the least expensive calories?)
Here's my argument:
[[MORE]]1. If weight is determined entirely by calorie balance, then why are type 1 diabetics unable to gain any weight? They can eat 5000+ calories/day and still be rail-thin. But as soon as you replace their missing insulin, they are suddenly able to put on weight, with no change in diet or activity level. The body does not always hold onto everything you put into it (insulin is the “storage” hormone).
2. In order to survive times of famine, humans developed a feedback loop: the fewer calories you take in, the fewer the body needs; your basal metabolic rate varies depending on food intake. Otherwise, if it didn't, then if you were at a constant weight and cut back your calories, you would eventually waste away to nothing, right? Instead, you reach a new set-point as your metabolic rate adjusts. If you reduce calories enough, people slow down, get tired and fatigued easily, etc., which makes it difficult to exercise, which increases insulin resistance.
3. You can make people or animals fat by boosting their insulin level. Why do you think farmers feed grain to cattle? It's because it boosts their insulin level, which makes them fat. Fat animals weigh more, and are more profitable. Unfortunately, grain makes people fat too, through exactly the same mechanism. (side note: Carbs also make you hungry. Why do you think many restaurant owners give bread or chips away for free?)
4. If caloric input is the primary determinant of weight, then why does obesity tend to increase with decreasing income? The higher the poverty rate, the higher the rate of obesity. (Hint: Which foods provide the least expensive calories?)
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Update on my weight loss and BMI
I switched to full Paleo in March 2009. Before that, I had eliminated sugar and refined grains for many years. I started at 234 lbs, and have lost 35 lbs since then—so about a pound a week (BMI went from 31.3 to 26.6, and my waist size has dropped by about 5 inches). My exercise during that time has been relatively light. The main difference for me was eliminating all grains, a few lingering processed snack foods, and nuts. The carb cravings were a little tough the first month, but after that my average hunger level dropped dramatically. Now, it’s easy to go 15 hrs or longer without eating, and I often skip breakfast entirely. I’m in relatively constant mild ketosis. Not enough for acetone breath, but enough that it shows up on the ketostix.
[[MORE]]I didn’t consciously notice it for some time, but my mood has been better, too.
One interesting thing I’ve learned about weight is that there is a difference between optimal from an appearance perspective and optimal from a health or longevity perspective. For the latter, a BMI of 25 to 30 appears to give the best longevity in Western culture, even without a famine.
http://keaen.blogspot.com/2009/06/bmi-and-longevity.html
The “official” categories describe a BMI of 25 to 29.9 as “overweight.” I’m aiming for 25 at the moment. If I wasn’t borderline diabetic, I might be happy at my current weight, but if I can eliminate a little more visceral fat (around the middle), it should help further reduce my insulin resistance.
[[MORE]]I didn’t consciously notice it for some time, but my mood has been better, too.
One interesting thing I’ve learned about weight is that there is a difference between optimal from an appearance perspective and optimal from a health or longevity perspective. For the latter, a BMI of 25 to 30 appears to give the best longevity in Western culture, even without a famine.
http://keaen.blogspot.com/2009/06/bmi-and-longevity.html
The “official” categories describe a BMI of 25 to 29.9 as “overweight.” I’m aiming for 25 at the moment. If I wasn’t borderline diabetic, I might be happy at my current weight, but if I can eliminate a little more visceral fat (around the middle), it should help further reduce my insulin resistance.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Iodine "allergies"
I've heard others talk of iodine allergies -- however, it's not really possible to be "allergic" to an element that's essential for life; at least not in the traditional meaning of the word. Real allergies are usually an immune system reaction to proteins, such as those in fish or nuts.
Having said that, iodine can definitely be an irritant, and initial supplementation can cause the body to release bromine, fluorine and certain metals, which are also irritants. The result can be a skin rash or possibly lung irritation. It might look and feel like an allergy, but more often it's probably a toxic reaction of some type.
If you apply iodine to the skin, you can help minimize the irritation effect by avoiding areas with skin creases, such as your inner elbows or inner knees. Maximizing air exposure seems to help dilute any potential toxic effects.
Regarding dyes, keep in mind that they usually contain much more than just elemental or ionic iodine. Although some people seem to be more sensitive to iodine than others, systemic reactions to radiological dyes are usually also toxic reactions, caused by things like overloading the kidneys.
Here's a link to a page with one MDs opinion about iodine dyes and related allergies:
http://www.wdxcyber.com/ngen22.htm
Having said that, iodine can definitely be an irritant, and initial supplementation can cause the body to release bromine, fluorine and certain metals, which are also irritants. The result can be a skin rash or possibly lung irritation. It might look and feel like an allergy, but more often it's probably a toxic reaction of some type.
If you apply iodine to the skin, you can help minimize the irritation effect by avoiding areas with skin creases, such as your inner elbows or inner knees. Maximizing air exposure seems to help dilute any potential toxic effects.
Regarding dyes, keep in mind that they usually contain much more than just elemental or ionic iodine. Although some people seem to be more sensitive to iodine than others, systemic reactions to radiological dyes are usually also toxic reactions, caused by things like overloading the kidneys.
Here's a link to a page with one MDs opinion about iodine dyes and related allergies:
http://www.wdxcyber.com/ngen22.htm
Monday, 23 November 2009
Iodized salt and other sources of iodine
The issue with iodized salt is that you may get enough iodine that way to prevent goiter, but there are some good studies now that show most people can benefit from doses 100 times more than that. Whole-body sufficiency is associated with much lower rates of breast, endometrial and prostate cancers, and can reduce brain fog, muscle pain, and a host of other ailments.
[[MORE]]One problem I have with iodized salt actually has nothing to do with its iodine content. I’m also not anti-salt as many docs and medical writers seem to be these days. What I do object to, though, is pure, refined sodium chloride. I much prefer sea salt. One of the things I’ve learned about long-term health maintenance is the importance of obtaining adequate amounts of micronutrients—many of which are available in high-quality sea salt, but are not present in the refined stuff.
If you’ve never tasted it, the difference is dramatic. It reminds me of honey: there’s the usual store-bought stuff that’s familiar and bland, and there’s the gourmet and very tasty stuff. In the case of salt, the good stuff comes from places like Baja California or Spain (I prefer the “macrobiotic” brands myself).
I also think kelp can be a good source of iodine. One part of a theory I’ve heard about how the Japanese stay thin and healthy is their relatively high intake of kelp, which of course includes iodine. Inland Japanese ingest about 13mg/day of iodine, which is 100x the RDA (and about 100x more than most Americans or Europeans get). They even use seaweed as fertilizer. If you’re looking for a source of seaweed:
http://www.alcasoft.com/seaweed/
While we’re at it, there are a few more things you might like to know about iodine: Initial high doses can displace bromine and fluorine from the body, which can cause rashes and other temporary problems. Iodine can also help to eliminate toxic metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury, and can be a good alternative to chelation for those metals.
Here’s a link to a page with a number of interesting papers along these lines:
http://optimox.com/pics/Iodine/opt_Research_I.shtml
If you do supplement to correct a deficiency, you might want to follow-up with a quantitative iodine loading test to assess your status:
http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/loadTest.htm
You might also enjoy Dr Brownstein’s book: Iodine, why you need it, why you can’t live without it:
https://www.drbrownstein.com/bookstore_Iodine.php
High doses of iodine are also a key component of some successful alternative cancer treatment programs, such as Gerson. Here’s a link to a very interesting paper that talks about Gerson's cancer treatment, including his use of iodine:
http://gerson-research.org/docs/GersonM-1978-1/
The less iodine you have, the harder your thyroid gland has to work; the harder it works, the more inflamed it can become. I had a thyroid nodule myself years ago; it went away after a year or so of targeted supplementation (including thyroid hormone).
Iodine deficiency has also been implicated in fibrocystic breast disease.
Here's an interesting fact about iodine deficiency and vegetarians:
If you do need to supplement iodine for a while to correct a deficiency, one good source is a product called Iodoral.
[[MORE]]One problem I have with iodized salt actually has nothing to do with its iodine content. I’m also not anti-salt as many docs and medical writers seem to be these days. What I do object to, though, is pure, refined sodium chloride. I much prefer sea salt. One of the things I’ve learned about long-term health maintenance is the importance of obtaining adequate amounts of micronutrients—many of which are available in high-quality sea salt, but are not present in the refined stuff.
If you’ve never tasted it, the difference is dramatic. It reminds me of honey: there’s the usual store-bought stuff that’s familiar and bland, and there’s the gourmet and very tasty stuff. In the case of salt, the good stuff comes from places like Baja California or Spain (I prefer the “macrobiotic” brands myself).
I also think kelp can be a good source of iodine. One part of a theory I’ve heard about how the Japanese stay thin and healthy is their relatively high intake of kelp, which of course includes iodine. Inland Japanese ingest about 13mg/day of iodine, which is 100x the RDA (and about 100x more than most Americans or Europeans get). They even use seaweed as fertilizer. If you’re looking for a source of seaweed:
http://www.alcasoft.com/seaweed/
While we’re at it, there are a few more things you might like to know about iodine: Initial high doses can displace bromine and fluorine from the body, which can cause rashes and other temporary problems. Iodine can also help to eliminate toxic metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury, and can be a good alternative to chelation for those metals.
Here’s a link to a page with a number of interesting papers along these lines:
http://optimox.com/pics/Iodine/opt_Research_I.shtml
If you do supplement to correct a deficiency, you might want to follow-up with a quantitative iodine loading test to assess your status:
http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/loadTest.htm
You might also enjoy Dr Brownstein’s book: Iodine, why you need it, why you can’t live without it:
https://www.drbrownstein.com/bookstore_Iodine.php
High doses of iodine are also a key component of some successful alternative cancer treatment programs, such as Gerson. Here’s a link to a very interesting paper that talks about Gerson's cancer treatment, including his use of iodine:
http://gerson-research.org/docs/GersonM-1978-1/
The less iodine you have, the harder your thyroid gland has to work; the harder it works, the more inflamed it can become. I had a thyroid nodule myself years ago; it went away after a year or so of targeted supplementation (including thyroid hormone).
Iodine deficiency has also been implicated in fibrocystic breast disease.
Here's an interesting fact about iodine deficiency and vegetarians:
"Vegetarians also have substantially greater likelihood of iodine deficiency than carnivorous people, since foods of plant origin are less rich in iodine than animal-derived foods. One study demonstrated iodine deficiency in 25% of vegetarians and an incredible 80% of vegans, compared with only 9% of those consuming a mixed diet that contained meat."
If you do need to supplement iodine for a while to correct a deficiency, one good source is a product called Iodoral.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Paleo Snacks
Since switching to the Paleo diet, I find I don’t get hungry very often; I tend to eat only 1 or 2 “traditional” meals a day. However, I also enjoy snacks, partly as a social thing, and partly for a change of pace. Unfortunately, my portfolio of Paleo-compatible snacks isn’t very large. If you have any ideas, I would very much like to hear them.
[[MORE]]To get things started, here’s one for chocolate lovers:
30 grams coarsely-chopped 85% Lindt chocolate (3 squares or 3 level tablespoons)
12 grams baking cocoa powder (3 level teaspoons)
2 oz heavy cream (about enough to cover the dry ingredients)
8 oz whole milk
Mix in a large mug, stir, and eat with a teaspoon (I like to pretend it’s ice cream, rather than chocolate milk).
According to FitDay, the result is 73% fat, 11% protein, 16% carbs (22 gr total) and 555 calories. I sometimes use more like 4 oz of cream, which brings it up to 80% fat.
[[MORE]]To get things started, here’s one for chocolate lovers:
30 grams coarsely-chopped 85% Lindt chocolate (3 squares or 3 level tablespoons)
12 grams baking cocoa powder (3 level teaspoons)
2 oz heavy cream (about enough to cover the dry ingredients)
8 oz whole milk
Mix in a large mug, stir, and eat with a teaspoon (I like to pretend it’s ice cream, rather than chocolate milk).
According to FitDay, the result is 73% fat, 11% protein, 16% carbs (22 gr total) and 555 calories. I sometimes use more like 4 oz of cream, which brings it up to 80% fat.
Sunday, 8 November 2009
Longevity and Side Pork
Years ago, someone did a Gallup Poll where they asked centenarians about their diet. The goal was to see if they had anything in common. It turns out there was only one food that had a statistically-relevant commonality: side pork. Side pork is the same cut as bacon (taken from the loin after the spareribs are removed), although it’s fresh and not cured.
[[MORE]]I heard this information maybe 30+ years ago from my father (who enjoyed repeating it often), so I don’t have any documentation. However, taking it at face value today makes me wonder if the apparent benefit wasn’t so much from the side pork itself as it was an indication that the centenarians didn’t skimp on meat or animal fat.
I also have some anecdotal counter-evidence: My maternal grandmother lived to be 101, and she was a vegetarian most of her life (though she did eat eggs and dairy).
[[MORE]]I heard this information maybe 30+ years ago from my father (who enjoyed repeating it often), so I don’t have any documentation. However, taking it at face value today makes me wonder if the apparent benefit wasn’t so much from the side pork itself as it was an indication that the centenarians didn’t skimp on meat or animal fat.
I also have some anecdotal counter-evidence: My maternal grandmother lived to be 101, and she was a vegetarian most of her life (though she did eat eggs and dairy).
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Nutrient Density
For some time now, I’ve been following claims that optimizing nutrient density is a good thing. The arguments I’m familiar with flow from the caloric restriction studies, where minimizing caloric intake while maintaining enough nutrient density to support life ends up extending maximum lifespan.
One aspect of the logic behind this approach is that it minimizes the work your body has to do, particularly when it comes to handling biochemical byproducts and waste.
[[MORE]]The thing about vegetables (and I do enjoy mine!), is that they also contain a bunch of things that aren’t necessary for human health, including carbs. For example, Vit B-12 isn’t readily available in plant form (small amounts in seaweeds and BG algae), but it’s very available in animal products. B-12 deficiency in some ways mirrors Vit D; it’s widespread, and has been implicated in a number of conditions, including heart disease and mental illness. Plus, following the same thinking from above about minimizing the load on the body’s support systems, many plants also contain toxins that have to be detoxified – gluten from grains is a big offender in that area.
I’ve found that many people are still stuck in the calories-in vs. calories-expended trap. Maximizing nutrient density doesn’t have to mean minimizing calories. Particularly when you’re eating low-carb, some foods just don’t “stick.” It’s like a type 1 diabetic who isn’t taking insulin: no matter how much they eat, they won’t gain weight. When you’re eating low-carb, and therefore have a low insulin level, some foods are simply excreted, without being fully absorbed; with minimal biochemical process involved, the resulting load on the body must be very low.
A related issue is how absorbable the nutrients are: They may be present in plants, but unless you spend 12 hours a day chewing (like a cow does), then odds are they won’t be fully available to you, so you will need to eat more calories to get adequate quantities. Nutrients in animal products are much more absorbable.
Finally, another important point is that eating Paleo / low-carb seems to have many of the same physical and biochemical side-effects as a calorie restriction – but without the torture.
One aspect of the logic behind this approach is that it minimizes the work your body has to do, particularly when it comes to handling biochemical byproducts and waste.
[[MORE]]The thing about vegetables (and I do enjoy mine!), is that they also contain a bunch of things that aren’t necessary for human health, including carbs. For example, Vit B-12 isn’t readily available in plant form (small amounts in seaweeds and BG algae), but it’s very available in animal products. B-12 deficiency in some ways mirrors Vit D; it’s widespread, and has been implicated in a number of conditions, including heart disease and mental illness. Plus, following the same thinking from above about minimizing the load on the body’s support systems, many plants also contain toxins that have to be detoxified – gluten from grains is a big offender in that area.
I’ve found that many people are still stuck in the calories-in vs. calories-expended trap. Maximizing nutrient density doesn’t have to mean minimizing calories. Particularly when you’re eating low-carb, some foods just don’t “stick.” It’s like a type 1 diabetic who isn’t taking insulin: no matter how much they eat, they won’t gain weight. When you’re eating low-carb, and therefore have a low insulin level, some foods are simply excreted, without being fully absorbed; with minimal biochemical process involved, the resulting load on the body must be very low.
A related issue is how absorbable the nutrients are: They may be present in plants, but unless you spend 12 hours a day chewing (like a cow does), then odds are they won’t be fully available to you, so you will need to eat more calories to get adequate quantities. Nutrients in animal products are much more absorbable.
Finally, another important point is that eating Paleo / low-carb seems to have many of the same physical and biochemical side-effects as a calorie restriction – but without the torture.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Toxins in Food
The list of foods that contain toxins of various kinds may be surprising to some people. The presence of toxins in plants is the reasoning behind Kurt Harris’ (paleonu.com) “defenseless when dead” premise, and is another reason to consider using veggies more as condiments than as a main course.
Here’s a list of food toxins derived from one that I found in "Chemical Sensitivity Volume 2"; by William Rea, including notes taken from the text; I've added a few comments of my own to the author’s.
[[MORE]]Humans have evolved to handle low levels of toxins from food and the environment. However, the side-effects of poor overall nutrition, combined with widespread exposure to low-level environmental toxins, and food from depleted soils and over-industrialized agriculture is low levels of the micronutrients the body needs to property detoxify them. As a result, the less well you are, the more important it is to avoid them.
So it’s not too surprising to note that some well-known "healing" diets, such as macrobiotics, eliminate nearly all of these foods (from the following list, strict macro only allows cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower and legume, which are all listed together in one group below).
Chaconine and solanine are steroidal glycoalkaloids and potent cholinesterase inhibitors (which are poisons). They are found in especially high levels in white potatoes. Potatoes exposed to light, resulting in greening, and those that are diseased or bruised, can have levels high enough to result in human illness.
Peanuts (a legume) also often contain aflatoxin (from the aspergillus mold), which is one of the most potent carcinogens known
Although quercitin also appears to have some beneficial properties, it can be toxic, and may be carcinogenic to the general population. See "Fecalase: A model for activation of dietary glycosides to mutagens by intestinal flora", G. Tamura, et al, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1980, 77:4961:4965.
Safrole is mutagenic and carcinogenic in rodents. Black pepper also contains piperine, which is related to safrole. Extracts of black pepper have been shown to produce tumors in various sites in mice.
See Merck #1745. Canavanine is present in alfalfa seeds and sprouts at about 1.5% of dry weight. It is an arginine analog, which is what enables it to be a potent growth inhibitor of many organisms. It is toxic to mammals, and can induce hematologic and serologic abnormalities characteristic of systemic lupus in monkeys.
When activated by sunlight, psoralen may damage DNA and induce tanning when placed on the skin. Furocoumarins are mutagenic and carcinogenic.
Present in a large number of plant species; they are mutagenic, carcinogenic and teratogenic.
These also accentuate glutathione deficiencies found in blood cells.
Allyl Isothiocyanate is also called "volatile oil of mustard". It’s not related to onions or garlic. It’s the principal component of mustard gas. It's also present in raw cabbage, where it is a weak goitrogen. It's also used as a fungicide, an insecticidal fumigant and as a repellant for cats and dogs.
This doesn't refer to allergies, rather to things like ovo-mucoids in eggs.
Bromelain and papain are also histamine liberators. Pineapple and papaya also contain alcohol from acetaldehyde.
The original sources referenced are:
"Toxicants of Plant Origin, Vols 1-4", P.R. Check, 1989, CRC Press, and
"Not to Worry", J. Tierney, Hippocrates, 1988, Jan/Feb, 29-30.
Here’s a list of food toxins derived from one that I found in "Chemical Sensitivity Volume 2"; by William Rea, including notes taken from the text; I've added a few comments of my own to the author’s.
[[MORE]]Humans have evolved to handle low levels of toxins from food and the environment. However, the side-effects of poor overall nutrition, combined with widespread exposure to low-level environmental toxins, and food from depleted soils and over-industrialized agriculture is low levels of the micronutrients the body needs to property detoxify them. As a result, the less well you are, the more important it is to avoid them.
So it’s not too surprising to note that some well-known "healing" diets, such as macrobiotics, eliminate nearly all of these foods (from the following list, strict macro only allows cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower and legume, which are all listed together in one group below).
Nightshades (potato, tomato, eggplant, green pepper, tobacco): nicotine, glycoalkaloids, chaconine, cholinesterase inhibitors
Chaconine and solanine are steroidal glycoalkaloids and potent cholinesterase inhibitors (which are poisons). They are found in especially high levels in white potatoes. Potatoes exposed to light, resulting in greening, and those that are diseased or bruised, can have levels high enough to result in human illness.
Cabbage, broccoli, brussel sprouts, cauliflower, sweet potato, legume: glucoinolates, goiterogens, cyanogens
Peanuts (a legume) also often contain aflatoxin (from the aspergillus mold), which is one of the most potent carcinogens known
Cheese, banana: pressor amines
Orange, citrus fruit: flavonoids quercitin
Although quercitin also appears to have some beneficial properties, it can be toxic, and may be carcinogenic to the general population. See "Fecalase: A model for activation of dietary glycosides to mutagens by intestinal flora", G. Tamura, et al, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1980, 77:4961:4965.
Derivative of sassafras, black pepper: safrole, estrogole, methyleugenol
Safrole is mutagenic and carcinogenic in rodents. Black pepper also contains piperine, which is related to safrole. Extracts of black pepper have been shown to produce tumors in various sites in mice.
False morel: hydrazines
Cotton seed, Okra: gossypol (contraceptive), cyclopropenoic acids (steroic and malvalic acids) (toxic fatty acids)
Alfalfa: canavanine (toxic arginine analogue) (lupus-like syndrome)
See Merck #1745. Canavanine is present in alfalfa seeds and sprouts at about 1.5% of dry weight. It is an arginine analog, which is what enables it to be a potent growth inhibitor of many organisms. It is toxic to mammals, and can induce hematologic and serologic abnormalities characteristic of systemic lupus in monkeys.
Celery, parsnip, parsley, fig: furocoumarins such as psoralen, (damaged DNA induces skin tanning)
When activated by sunlight, psoralen may damage DNA and induce tanning when placed on the skin. Furocoumarins are mutagenic and carcinogenic.
Rhubarb, blue grape: quinones, natural phenols
Coffee: catechol (chlorogenic acid), (catecholamine), (cardiomyopathy)
Coffee, tea, cocoa: theobromine (DNA damage, testicular atrophy, sperm cell)
Honey, some herbs: pyrolizidine alkaloids (lung and liver lesions)
Present in a large number of plant species; they are mutagenic, carcinogenic and teratogenic.
Fava bean: vicine, convicine (bad in g-6-phosphatase deficiency)
These also accentuate glutathione deficiencies found in blood cells.
Oil of mustard, mustard seed, horseradish: allyl isothiocyanate
Allyl Isothiocyanate is also called "volatile oil of mustard". It’s not related to onions or garlic. It’s the principal component of mustard gas. It's also present in raw cabbage, where it is a weak goitrogen. It's also used as a fungicide, an insecticidal fumigant and as a repellant for cats and dogs.
Egg white, tomato, tuna, salmon, crustaceans, strawberry, pork, chocolate: histamine liberators
This doesn't refer to allergies, rather to things like ovo-mucoids in eggs.
Pineapple, papaya: proteolytic enzymes (bromelain, papain)
Bromelain and papain are also histamine liberators. Pineapple and papaya also contain alcohol from acetaldehyde.
Some tropical fish, dinoflagellates: fish toxins, saxitoxin
Spinach: natural nitrates (methemoglobin and hepatic disease)
The original sources referenced are:
"Toxicants of Plant Origin, Vols 1-4", P.R. Check, 1989, CRC Press, and
"Not to Worry", J. Tierney, Hippocrates, 1988, Jan/Feb, 29-30.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Interview with the pilot who dropped the first atomic bomb
Here's a link to an interview of Paul Tibbets, who was the pilot who dropped the first atomic bomb, on Hiroshima:
http://dalesdesigns.net/interview.htm
[[MORE]]There are some interesting lessons here:
In case it's not clear, I actually agree with the reasons why the bombs were dropped on Japan -- but that's a subject for another post.
http://dalesdesigns.net/interview.htm
[[MORE]]There are some interesting lessons here:
- To get someone to kill thousands of innocent civilians, all you need to do is convince them that it's for the "greater good" -- the fact that the people being killed are, in fact, innocent, has no bearing. Applying that concept to the world as it is today leads to some pretty ugly thoughts.
- The US made plans to nuke Europe at the same time as Japan. I don't recall hearing that before. Hitler was vilified for having thousands killed in Berlin in the last days of the war; imagine how many more would have died if a bomb had been dropped there. Also, the US almost certainly would not have been able to withdraw their forces before the bomb was dropped, due to secrecy.
- The winners write the history, and spin it their way. The pilot and crew of the plane that killed thousands is a hero. If Japan had won, the US would certainly have been cast in a much different light.
- There was a third bomb. From the tone of the discussion, it sounds like Japan would have had a third one dropped on them if they hadn't surrendered. I don't recall ever hearing that before, either.
In case it's not clear, I actually agree with the reasons why the bombs were dropped on Japan -- but that's a subject for another post.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Seasonality of Influenza
On the subject of the seasonality of influenza, here’s an interesting chart that shows the seasonality of Vit D levels and the correlation with the flu season. The chart is from the following article:
http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/44680902.html
Note, however, that the 30 ng/mL that it calls “optimal” is now considered much too low (Dr Joe Prendergast recommends a target range of 100 to 200 ng/mL).
http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/44680902.html
Note, however, that the 30 ng/mL that it calls “optimal” is now considered much too low (Dr Joe Prendergast recommends a target range of 100 to 200 ng/mL).
Getting enough Vitamin D
Dr John Cannell at the Vitamin D Council did a thorough review of the literature and found that 10,000 IU of Vit D3 is safe for long-term supplementation. The skin can make that much Vit D after a relatively short exposure to the sun (well before it turns pink). In some parts of the world (such as the UK), local atmospheric conditions absorb significant amounts of UV light, so even being outside in the sun isn’t a guarantee of having enough Vit D.
It’s not uncommon these days for people to need one to three months of 50,000 IU/day to get their levels corrected. Always take Vit D3, not D2, and take it in the morning. Bio-Tech is a good brand; they are a high-quality manufacturer. I've used them for years, and have followed-up with lab tests to verify levels, with excellent results.
[[MORE]]One Vit D site I like:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/
Dr T at Nephropal talks a lot about it:
http://nephropal.blogspot.com/search/label/vitamin%20d
Dr Joe Prendergast’s talk to the Smart Life Forum is also worthwhile:
http://smartlifeforum.org/wiki/2007/02
He suggests a target range of 100-200 ng/mL (250-500 nmol/L)
Carlson makes a liquid version, with 2000 IU per drop, in a coconut oil base (sugar free):
http://www.iherb.com/Carlson-Labs-Ddrops-Vitamin-D3-2000-IU-10-ml/10364
Adding the drops to a little cream works great.
Vit D isn’t really a vitamin in the usual sense; it’s actually a pro-hormone.
Vit D is a strong immune booster; my family and I take a loading dose at the first sign of a cold or sore throat (or before being in a confined space with many other people for an extended period, such as on a plane flight overseas), and have found it to be very effective (much better than Vit C). It’s also important for vasodilatation (blood pressure) and insulin sensitivity.
One interesting statistic I remember is that although cancers seem to start in any season, the most common season people die from cancer is in the Winter, when Vit D levels are at their lowest.
If you shop at iHerb (my favorite online vitamin store, and they have very inexpensive overseas shipping, too), you can get $5.00 off of your first order by using my referral code, if you like: RIC830 (if you do, they also give me a small credit).
It’s not uncommon these days for people to need one to three months of 50,000 IU/day to get their levels corrected. Always take Vit D3, not D2, and take it in the morning. Bio-Tech is a good brand; they are a high-quality manufacturer. I've used them for years, and have followed-up with lab tests to verify levels, with excellent results.
[[MORE]]One Vit D site I like:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/
Dr T at Nephropal talks a lot about it:
http://nephropal.blogspot.com/search/label/vitamin%20d
Dr Joe Prendergast’s talk to the Smart Life Forum is also worthwhile:
http://smartlifeforum.org/wiki/2007/02
He suggests a target range of 100-200 ng/mL (250-500 nmol/L)
Carlson makes a liquid version, with 2000 IU per drop, in a coconut oil base (sugar free):
http://www.iherb.com/Carlson-Labs-Ddrops-Vitamin-D3-2000-IU-10-ml/10364
Adding the drops to a little cream works great.
Vit D isn’t really a vitamin in the usual sense; it’s actually a pro-hormone.
Vit D is a strong immune booster; my family and I take a loading dose at the first sign of a cold or sore throat (or before being in a confined space with many other people for an extended period, such as on a plane flight overseas), and have found it to be very effective (much better than Vit C). It’s also important for vasodilatation (blood pressure) and insulin sensitivity.
One interesting statistic I remember is that although cancers seem to start in any season, the most common season people die from cancer is in the Winter, when Vit D levels are at their lowest.
If you shop at iHerb (my favorite online vitamin store, and they have very inexpensive overseas shipping, too), you can get $5.00 off of your first order by using my referral code, if you like: RIC830 (if you do, they also give me a small credit).
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Increased fasting blood glucose in low-carb diets
When you're relatively insulin resistant, even a slight rise in glucose production or intake can cause a blood glucose (BG) peak.
It goes something like this: low-carb intake reduces insulin; low insulin activates hormone-sensitive lipase (LIPE); LIPE breaks down triglycerides in the muscle or adipose tissue and releases non-essential fatty acids (NEFA); NEFA induces insulin resistance.
[[MORE]]In the morning, you normally have a growth hormone surge; that causes NEFAs to peak, and you have a spike in fasting BG (FBG). When you eat a low-carb meal, the protein in it will cause insulin to be released -- although not nearly as much as if you ate carbs. The insulin inhibits LIPE, so NEFAs decline; insulin sensitivity comes back; BG goes down.
However, if you have too much protein, BG can decline too far; then the body secretes catecholamines (adrenaline) to help bring BG back up again; that stimulates GNG (I'm not sure of the mechanism--it may be by stimulating glucagon release from the pancreas); you start to feel jittery; if it happens in the evening, it can contribute to insomnia. Sometimes people mistake the jitteriness from low BG with what they feel from caffeine. Also, you can become acclimated to the elevated catecholamine levels, which is why diabetics can be at severe risk for not recognizing low BG (a diabetic relative of mine passed out at the wheel and was killed as a result of this).
It goes something like this: low-carb intake reduces insulin; low insulin activates hormone-sensitive lipase (LIPE); LIPE breaks down triglycerides in the muscle or adipose tissue and releases non-essential fatty acids (NEFA); NEFA induces insulin resistance.
[[MORE]]In the morning, you normally have a growth hormone surge; that causes NEFAs to peak, and you have a spike in fasting BG (FBG). When you eat a low-carb meal, the protein in it will cause insulin to be released -- although not nearly as much as if you ate carbs. The insulin inhibits LIPE, so NEFAs decline; insulin sensitivity comes back; BG goes down.
However, if you have too much protein, BG can decline too far; then the body secretes catecholamines (adrenaline) to help bring BG back up again; that stimulates GNG (I'm not sure of the mechanism--it may be by stimulating glucagon release from the pancreas); you start to feel jittery; if it happens in the evening, it can contribute to insomnia. Sometimes people mistake the jitteriness from low BG with what they feel from caffeine. Also, you can become acclimated to the elevated catecholamine levels, which is why diabetics can be at severe risk for not recognizing low BG (a diabetic relative of mine passed out at the wheel and was killed as a result of this).
Monday, 26 October 2009
Caffeine and cocoa
One of the goals of the Paleo diet is to reduce the level of insulin in the body. Insulin is a pro-aging hormone; it encourages excess energy to be stored as fat, and acts to inhibit lipolysis. One of the side-effects of a low-carb diet is increased insulin resistance, which can lead to higher levels of insulin and larger peaks in blood glucose (BG) levels (high BG levels are worth avoiding because they can damage many internal systems, particularly nerves).
[[MORE]]Maintaining insulin sensitivity, or even increasing it, should be part of a comprehensive Paleo program. There are many ways to do that, but I thought I would mention two that might be of interest: caffeine and cocoa. In addition to improving insulin sensitivity, caffeine also decreases TNF-alpha, which lowers inflammation (which should, in theory, also be anti-cancer). Cocoa contains not just caffeine, but also flavonoids, and cocoa consumption has been documented as having a strong inverse association with mortality from heart disease.
More details at Dr. T’s Nephropal blog:
http://nephropal.blogspot.com/2009/10/beans-coffe-and-cacao.html
Part of what this means to me is that drinks with coffee or tea or cocoa and cream, are acceptable on a Paleo diet not just for their low-carb, high-fat content, but because of the caffeine and flavonoids too.
Here's a link to a study that supports the idea that a low-carb diet increases insulin resistance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=7895958
As it says in the abstract: "Studies in both humans and experimental animals indicate that the adaptive (phenotypic) response to low-carbohydrate intake is insulin resistance."
What happens with a low-carb diet is that with lower levels of BG, muscles adapt to burning fat as fuel. Then, in order to conserve glucose for areas like the brain, the muscles become insulin resistant.
The often-neglected issue with the high-carb Kitavans is that they have a high sensitivity to insulin that's derived directly from their genetics; that's how they can get away with a diet like that and remain healthy. Most people don't share those genes.
Here are links to a few more related papers:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9288547
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10889799
Here are a few references for coffee and cocoa/chocolate (low adiponectin is associated with insulin resistance):
Williams, CJ, et al: Coffee consumption is associated with higher plasma adiponectin concentrations in women with or without type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2008 Mar;31(3):504-7.
Janszky I, Mukamal KJ, Ljung R, Ahnve S, Ahlbom A, Hallqvist J: Chocolate consumption and mortality following a first acute myocardial infarction: the Stockholm Heart Epidemiology Program. J Intern Med. 2009 Sep;266(3):248-57.
Ding, E, et al: Chocolate and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review. Nutrition and Metabolism. Jan 2006, 3(2):1743-707
Grassi D, et,al : Short-term administration of dark chocolate is followed by a significant increase in insulin sensitivity and a decrease in blood pressure in healthy persons. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;81:611– 4
I'm not trying to suggest that caffeine or flavonoid supplementation is a requirement; I'm confident that you can be perfectly healthy without them. Rather, it seems like they could be an optimization, particularly for people who don't get enough vigorous exercise.
In addition to the Paleo diet, our evolutionary metabolic environment also included plenty of moving around, which decreases insulin resistance. For those of us who are relatively sedentary, foods like caffeine and flavonoids may offset some of the negative effects of not getting enough exercise, by helping to maintain insulin sensitivity.
[[MORE]]Maintaining insulin sensitivity, or even increasing it, should be part of a comprehensive Paleo program. There are many ways to do that, but I thought I would mention two that might be of interest: caffeine and cocoa. In addition to improving insulin sensitivity, caffeine also decreases TNF-alpha, which lowers inflammation (which should, in theory, also be anti-cancer). Cocoa contains not just caffeine, but also flavonoids, and cocoa consumption has been documented as having a strong inverse association with mortality from heart disease.
More details at Dr. T’s Nephropal blog:
http://nephropal.blogspot.com/2009/10/beans-coffe-and-cacao.html
Part of what this means to me is that drinks with coffee or tea or cocoa and cream, are acceptable on a Paleo diet not just for their low-carb, high-fat content, but because of the caffeine and flavonoids too.
Here's a link to a study that supports the idea that a low-carb diet increases insulin resistance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=7895958
As it says in the abstract: "Studies in both humans and experimental animals indicate that the adaptive (phenotypic) response to low-carbohydrate intake is insulin resistance."
What happens with a low-carb diet is that with lower levels of BG, muscles adapt to burning fat as fuel. Then, in order to conserve glucose for areas like the brain, the muscles become insulin resistant.
The often-neglected issue with the high-carb Kitavans is that they have a high sensitivity to insulin that's derived directly from their genetics; that's how they can get away with a diet like that and remain healthy. Most people don't share those genes.
Here are links to a few more related papers:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9288547
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10889799
Here are a few references for coffee and cocoa/chocolate (low adiponectin is associated with insulin resistance):
Williams, CJ, et al: Coffee consumption is associated with higher plasma adiponectin concentrations in women with or without type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2008 Mar;31(3):504-7.
Janszky I, Mukamal KJ, Ljung R, Ahnve S, Ahlbom A, Hallqvist J: Chocolate consumption and mortality following a first acute myocardial infarction: the Stockholm Heart Epidemiology Program. J Intern Med. 2009 Sep;266(3):248-57.
Ding, E, et al: Chocolate and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review. Nutrition and Metabolism. Jan 2006, 3(2):1743-707
Grassi D, et,al : Short-term administration of dark chocolate is followed by a significant increase in insulin sensitivity and a decrease in blood pressure in healthy persons. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;81:611– 4
I'm not trying to suggest that caffeine or flavonoid supplementation is a requirement; I'm confident that you can be perfectly healthy without them. Rather, it seems like they could be an optimization, particularly for people who don't get enough vigorous exercise.
In addition to the Paleo diet, our evolutionary metabolic environment also included plenty of moving around, which decreases insulin resistance. For those of us who are relatively sedentary, foods like caffeine and flavonoids may offset some of the negative effects of not getting enough exercise, by helping to maintain insulin sensitivity.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Calcium supplementation and Paleo
Most people don’t require calcium supplementation, particularly when eating Paleo. Meat and green vegetables are rich sources of highly bioavailable forms of calcium.
I would even suggest the reverse, which is that most people get too much calcium. Calcium is actually a cellular poison; if too much calcium gets into a cell, it dies; before it dies, it becomes sluggish and poor-performing. One aspect of arteriosclerosis is arterial calcification, which may be encouraged by having too much calcium.
[[MORE]]Also, since magnesium deficiency is so wide-spread, and because they offset each other in your muscles, supplementing calcium while magnesium is low could cause or aggravate all sorts of problems, including muscle cramps, migraine headaches, blood pressure spikes, etc.
This is true even with osteoporosis: calcium supplementation can do more harm than good (osteoporosis is not a disease of insufficient calcium). One theory of osteoporosis is that excessive calcium can slow down or kills osteoblast cells, which are responsible for building bone. Those cells are apparently affected before the osteoclasts, which break down bone; less effective bone building + continuing bone break down = a net loss of bone.
The above associations with heart disease and osteoporosis are reasons why EDTA chelation therapy, which pulls a lot of calcium from the body, can be an effective treatment for both conditions.
There are of course exceptions, but unless you have a documented need, I would avoid calcium supplements. Getting enough vitamin D is much more important.
I would even suggest the reverse, which is that most people get too much calcium. Calcium is actually a cellular poison; if too much calcium gets into a cell, it dies; before it dies, it becomes sluggish and poor-performing. One aspect of arteriosclerosis is arterial calcification, which may be encouraged by having too much calcium.
[[MORE]]Also, since magnesium deficiency is so wide-spread, and because they offset each other in your muscles, supplementing calcium while magnesium is low could cause or aggravate all sorts of problems, including muscle cramps, migraine headaches, blood pressure spikes, etc.
This is true even with osteoporosis: calcium supplementation can do more harm than good (osteoporosis is not a disease of insufficient calcium). One theory of osteoporosis is that excessive calcium can slow down or kills osteoblast cells, which are responsible for building bone. Those cells are apparently affected before the osteoclasts, which break down bone; less effective bone building + continuing bone break down = a net loss of bone.
The above associations with heart disease and osteoporosis are reasons why EDTA chelation therapy, which pulls a lot of calcium from the body, can be an effective treatment for both conditions.
There are of course exceptions, but unless you have a documented need, I would avoid calcium supplements. Getting enough vitamin D is much more important.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
An approach to high blood pressure
The best approach to high blood pressure will of course depend on the cause. Metabolic syndrome (chronic high levels of insulin with associated insulin resistance) is one well-documented cause of hypertension, as is diabetes. The theory is that chronically high BG (even below levels considered diabetic) can damage nerves, including the autonomic nervous system, which is responsible for controlling blood pressure (among many other things). In the long-term, the Paleo diet should help improve things by eliminating what may have been one aspect of the initial cause.
[[MORE]]There are many other causes too, though. Calcium is required for muscles to contract, and magnesium is needed for them to relax – that includes the muscles in arterial walls, which, when they contract, raises your blood pressure. Increasing your magnesium to the point of bowel tolerance for a few months helps some people. Unfortunately, magnesium deficiency is wide-spread and often hard to correct. Avoid magnesium oxide; amino acid chelates, such as magnesium orotate or aspartate are much more readily absorbed. Time-release mag chloride (“Slow Mag”) is another option. Mag citrate (Natural Calm) is also OK, although you need to take more of it to get the same effect.
Another area that helps for some is nitric oxide (NO) releasers, such as arginine, ginkgo biloba, panax ginseng, resveratrol, green tea, garlic and quercitin. NO is involved with blood vessel dilation. Since NO is a strong oxidant, be sure to take extra antioxidants with NO releasers.
[[MORE]]There are many other causes too, though. Calcium is required for muscles to contract, and magnesium is needed for them to relax – that includes the muscles in arterial walls, which, when they contract, raises your blood pressure. Increasing your magnesium to the point of bowel tolerance for a few months helps some people. Unfortunately, magnesium deficiency is wide-spread and often hard to correct. Avoid magnesium oxide; amino acid chelates, such as magnesium orotate or aspartate are much more readily absorbed. Time-release mag chloride (“Slow Mag”) is another option. Mag citrate (Natural Calm) is also OK, although you need to take more of it to get the same effect.
Another area that helps for some is nitric oxide (NO) releasers, such as arginine, ginkgo biloba, panax ginseng, resveratrol, green tea, garlic and quercitin. NO is involved with blood vessel dilation. Since NO is a strong oxidant, be sure to take extra antioxidants with NO releasers.
Problems with chronic IBS, constipation, etc
I’ve had chronic IBS and associated problems most of my life. My solution to this is to take 1 tbsp of soluble fiber daily; works great. If you’re into supplements, you can also add 1 tbsp of Natural Calm, which is a magnesium supplement (Mg is a natural laxative). The psyllium-based fibers are too rough for me. Look for a soluble fiber that doesn’t have sugar or sweeteners and that isn’t wheat-derived. Apple pectin or glucomannan are other options. Increasing fluid intake slightly is also helpful.
[[MORE]]I had a fair amount of gut-related discomfort when making the initial switch to Paleo. Among its many other effects, I’ve read that it encourages a completely different type of gut flora. The good news is that 80% of the achiness associated with my IBS is now gone, for the first time ever.
[[MORE]]I had a fair amount of gut-related discomfort when making the initial switch to Paleo. Among its many other effects, I’ve read that it encourages a completely different type of gut flora. The good news is that 80% of the achiness associated with my IBS is now gone, for the first time ever.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Long-term low-carb tips
Something that happens to many people on a low-carb diet is that their insulin resistance increases slowly over time. In an initial low-glucose environment, the large muscles begin to burn fat (ketosis). As they do so, they need less glucose, and therefore become resistant to insulin. The result is that fasting blood glucose levels increase, along with HbA1c.
[[MORE]]In addition to further lowering your carb intake, which should help, isometric training is another good approach to addressing this (isometrics is better at increasing insulin sensitivity than aerobics). It also helps a lot to exercise only after you’ve been fasting for 12 to 15 hours (exercise after fasting improves insulin sensitivity more than when you’re not fasting). The idea is to work on two fronts: decreasing carb intake to further lower blood glucose (BG) and insulin, and working on the muscles to increase insulin sensitivity.
If you’re into supplements, you can also add some insulin-sensitizing ones, such as resveratrol, melatonin (also helps with sleep), vanadyl sulfate, lipoic acid, and N-acetyl-carnitine. Those last two also help reduce the glycation that creates HbA1c, as do benfotiamine (B1), B6 and carnosine.
You might also be interested to know that the shakiness you might feel when your BG gets low is usually due to the release of adrenaline, which is part of the mechanism your body uses to raise BG in the absence of food. It’s one cause of insomnia in some people. Improving insulin sensitivity and cutting back on protein (which releases insulin) will help there too.
Another tidbit: there’s good documentation out there that a glucose tolerance test isn’t very meaningful when you’ve been on an extended low-carb diet. The usual suggestion is to have carb-rich meals for at least two days before the test (at least 150 gr carbs each day), to help re-establish insulin sensitivity. A few scientists I know also recommend having one day a week of high-carbs, partly for the same reason – the idea is to come out of ketosis, but only for 24 hrs per week or so. I don’t do that myself, although I think it might make sense for some people.
[[MORE]]In addition to further lowering your carb intake, which should help, isometric training is another good approach to addressing this (isometrics is better at increasing insulin sensitivity than aerobics). It also helps a lot to exercise only after you’ve been fasting for 12 to 15 hours (exercise after fasting improves insulin sensitivity more than when you’re not fasting). The idea is to work on two fronts: decreasing carb intake to further lower blood glucose (BG) and insulin, and working on the muscles to increase insulin sensitivity.
If you’re into supplements, you can also add some insulin-sensitizing ones, such as resveratrol, melatonin (also helps with sleep), vanadyl sulfate, lipoic acid, and N-acetyl-carnitine. Those last two also help reduce the glycation that creates HbA1c, as do benfotiamine (B1), B6 and carnosine.
You might also be interested to know that the shakiness you might feel when your BG gets low is usually due to the release of adrenaline, which is part of the mechanism your body uses to raise BG in the absence of food. It’s one cause of insomnia in some people. Improving insulin sensitivity and cutting back on protein (which releases insulin) will help there too.
Another tidbit: there’s good documentation out there that a glucose tolerance test isn’t very meaningful when you’ve been on an extended low-carb diet. The usual suggestion is to have carb-rich meals for at least two days before the test (at least 150 gr carbs each day), to help re-establish insulin sensitivity. A few scientists I know also recommend having one day a week of high-carbs, partly for the same reason – the idea is to come out of ketosis, but only for 24 hrs per week or so. I don’t do that myself, although I think it might make sense for some people.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
What about legumes?
Legumes contain anti-nutrients such as phytoestrogens and phytic acid (both are particularly high in soy). Phytoestrogens encourage the growth of certain cancers, and are pseudo-hormones that can wreak havoc on the body. Phytic acid can block the uptake of essential minerals, including calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc.
Unlike animal products, legumes are actually not safe to eat unless they've been either fermented or sprouted or soaked and cooked, but even then, the toxins aren't completely gone. In fact, the phytic acid in soy is actually resistant to long, slow cooking.
Unlike animal products, legumes are actually not safe to eat unless they've been either fermented or sprouted or soaked and cooked, but even then, the toxins aren't completely gone. In fact, the phytic acid in soy is actually resistant to long, slow cooking.
More scientific support for Paleo
Those looking for additional technical / scientific support for a Paleo-style diet might enjoy the following books:
Life Without Bread: How a Low-Carbohydrate Diet Can Save Your Life
By Christian Allan PhD and Wolfgang Lutz MD
Dangerous Grains: Why Gluten Cereal Grains may be Hazardous to Your Health
By James Braly MD and Ron Hoggan MA
[[MORE]]Both are rich with technical citations (as is Taubes, of course).
Then there’s the Hyperlipid blog: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/, also written by a scientist.
One post that I found particularly enlightening:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/03/cholesterol-within-nations-studies.html
It includes the graphs below (derived from published papers), which say that your relative risk of heart disease is much more strongly correlated to your HbA1c level than to total cholesterol. How do you minimize HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin, which is caused by high levels of blood sugar)? With a low-carb / paleo diet.
Life Without Bread: How a Low-Carbohydrate Diet Can Save Your Life
By Christian Allan PhD and Wolfgang Lutz MD
Dangerous Grains: Why Gluten Cereal Grains may be Hazardous to Your Health
By James Braly MD and Ron Hoggan MA
[[MORE]]Both are rich with technical citations (as is Taubes, of course).
Then there’s the Hyperlipid blog: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/, also written by a scientist.
One post that I found particularly enlightening:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/03/cholesterol-within-nations-studies.html
It includes the graphs below (derived from published papers), which say that your relative risk of heart disease is much more strongly correlated to your HbA1c level than to total cholesterol. How do you minimize HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin, which is caused by high levels of blood sugar)? With a low-carb / paleo diet.
What is a "Paleo" diet, anyway?
My interpretation of the "Paleo" diet is that it’s not about eating the exact same things that the Paleolithic people ate, or somehow returning to the primitive. Rather, it’s about duplicating the human metabolic environment of the period.
Quite a bit is known about the diet and lifestyle of the period. For example, have a look at Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, by Wrangham, or Meat-Eating and Human Evolution, by Stanford and Bunn.
[[MORE]]While dairy wasn’t consumed in the Paleo period, it is certainly compatible with Paleolithic metabolism in the sense that it’s an animal product, high in fat and protein. Two of the best tools you have to replace carbs are butter and milk fat. They may not be “orthodox” Paleo, but they are definitely acceptable in terms of metabolic affects, provided you aren’t allergic. Many dairy allergies seem to be provoked by gluten; once gluten is removed from the diet, those sensitivities often go away; sensitivities are also minimized by using dairy products with a high fat (and therefore low protein) content.
Here’s Dr Kurt Harris’ step-by-step approach to the paleo diet, which I think is fabulous (and is what I’m following). See his blog at http://www.paleonu.com/. He thinks that by the time you get to step #9 you have 80% of the benefits, and by adding proper exercise at step #10, you have 99%; eliminating dairy provides only a very small benefit after that.
1. Eliminate sugar (including fruit juices and sports drinks) and all flour
2. Start eating proper fats - animal fats and monounsaturated fats like olive oil - substituting fat calories for carb calories. Drink whole milk or half and half instead of skim.
3. Eliminate grains
4. Eliminate grain and seed derived oils (cooking oils) Cook with butter, coconut oil, olive oil or animal fats.
5. Get daily midday sun or take 4-6000 iu vit D daily
6. Intermittent fasting and infrequent meals (2 meals a day is best)
7. Fruit is just a snickers bar from a tree. Stick with berries and avoid watermelon which is pure fructose. Eat in moderation.
8. Eliminate legumes
9. Adjust your 6s and 3s. Grass fed beef or bison avoids excess O-6 fatty acids and are better than supplementing with 0-3 supplements.
10. Proper exercise - emphasizing cross-fit or interval training over long aerobic sessions
11. Eliminate milk (if you are sensitive to it, move this up the list)
12. Eliminate other dairy including cheese (now you are "orthodox paleolithic")
One natural consequence of this approach is that it tends to be relatively low carb. If you start with a SAD-like diet and eliminate sugar, grains, fruit and legumes, the resulting diet will have fewer carbs than when you started.
Quite a bit is known about the diet and lifestyle of the period. For example, have a look at Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, by Wrangham, or Meat-Eating and Human Evolution, by Stanford and Bunn.
[[MORE]]While dairy wasn’t consumed in the Paleo period, it is certainly compatible with Paleolithic metabolism in the sense that it’s an animal product, high in fat and protein. Two of the best tools you have to replace carbs are butter and milk fat. They may not be “orthodox” Paleo, but they are definitely acceptable in terms of metabolic affects, provided you aren’t allergic. Many dairy allergies seem to be provoked by gluten; once gluten is removed from the diet, those sensitivities often go away; sensitivities are also minimized by using dairy products with a high fat (and therefore low protein) content.
Here’s Dr Kurt Harris’ step-by-step approach to the paleo diet, which I think is fabulous (and is what I’m following). See his blog at http://www.paleonu.com/. He thinks that by the time you get to step #9 you have 80% of the benefits, and by adding proper exercise at step #10, you have 99%; eliminating dairy provides only a very small benefit after that.
1. Eliminate sugar (including fruit juices and sports drinks) and all flour
2. Start eating proper fats - animal fats and monounsaturated fats like olive oil - substituting fat calories for carb calories. Drink whole milk or half and half instead of skim.
3. Eliminate grains
4. Eliminate grain and seed derived oils (cooking oils) Cook with butter, coconut oil, olive oil or animal fats.
5. Get daily midday sun or take 4-6000 iu vit D daily
6. Intermittent fasting and infrequent meals (2 meals a day is best)
7. Fruit is just a snickers bar from a tree. Stick with berries and avoid watermelon which is pure fructose. Eat in moderation.
8. Eliminate legumes
9. Adjust your 6s and 3s. Grass fed beef or bison avoids excess O-6 fatty acids and are better than supplementing with 0-3 supplements.
10. Proper exercise - emphasizing cross-fit or interval training over long aerobic sessions
11. Eliminate milk (if you are sensitive to it, move this up the list)
12. Eliminate other dairy including cheese (now you are "orthodox paleolithic")
One natural consequence of this approach is that it tends to be relatively low carb. If you start with a SAD-like diet and eliminate sugar, grains, fruit and legumes, the resulting diet will have fewer carbs than when you started.
Effect of grain on livestock
It’s interesting to think about why farmers feed grain (including corn) to livestock: they do it to make them fat. Grain-fed livestock don’t just “mature early”; they’re obese. Unfortunately, feeding them grain also weakens their immune systems and makes them prone to infection, which is why they require antibiotics. Grass-fed livestock don’t have those problems. In fact, grass-fed cattle can be amazingly lean animals.
[[MORE]]What’s surprising to me is that more people don’t make the connection between the obvious effect on livestock, and the same effect on people: grain makes us fat, and weakens our immune systems, too.
Oh, and FWIW, I would avoid livestock that are finished with grain, as well as those who are raised on it. Just a few weeks on a grain-based diet can completely distort / reverse the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in favor of omega-6 – which encourages inflammation, pain, etc.
[[MORE]]What’s surprising to me is that more people don’t make the connection between the obvious effect on livestock, and the same effect on people: grain makes us fat, and weakens our immune systems, too.
Oh, and FWIW, I would avoid livestock that are finished with grain, as well as those who are raised on it. Just a few weeks on a grain-based diet can completely distort / reverse the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in favor of omega-6 – which encourages inflammation, pain, etc.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Paleo questions from a newbie
1. Do we know the quantities of types of foods that Paleo people ate? If not, would this knowledge change the diet recommendations?
One thing we know is that a typical hunter-gatherer tended to eat a few leftovers in the morning, hunt/gather all day, then have a big meal at the end of the day. They were metabolically well-equipped to handle food scarcity / fasting.
[[MORE]]An important aspect of the diet recommendations is that they are based on the metabolic conditions that we evolved under. Since those conditions are only loosely associated with quantity, I think even if we knew more details about exactly how much the Paleo people ate, that it wouldn't significantly affect the recommendations.
2. Humans obviously ate grains (they got the idea to cultivate them after all), but was the quantity just greatly reduced to the post- agriculture quantity? Or perhaps they started eating them just recently before agriculture was developed?
Monocot grass seeds and gluten cereal grains were at best inconsistent and trivial sources of food prior to the advent of agriculture. Also, the fact that a food was available or sometimes used tells us nothing about its long-term impact on health, or whether it's better to eat that food vs. something else.
Unfortunately, cereal grains (and legumes, including peanuts) contain anti-nutrients with clinically significant health effects -- and we are poorly adapted to consuming them.
4. Honey, agave nectar, coconut sugar, stevia, maple syrup....good, bad, same as cane sugar? I don't understand the differences well. From what I've read, people seem to think that while they may be less processed and have a lower GI than cane sugar, they all still have the same addictive properties.
From a health perspective, there are three primary factors to consider with sweeteners: total carb content, and the fraction that's fructose, and whether it's artificial. It turns out that GI or GL are poor indicators. What's more important for long-term health is total insulin produced, rather than the size of the post-meal spike -- and the total is directly correlated to carb content.
Fructose is evil, and I would avoid it as much as you can. It's responsible for conditions like gout; it goes directly to the liver, where it's converted to triglycerides; it drives insulin resistance in the liver. Fructose may be the single biggest cause of a broken metabolism (although gluten is right up there too).
For artificial sweeteners, history says they don't have a good record when it comes to health effects. Also, even though they're artificial, they can still cause insulin to be released. Even brushing your teeth with an artificially sweetened toothpaste can cause an insulin spike.
The sweetener I prefer is glucose, also known as dextrose -- although I only use it in very small amounts.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
The Big Fat Lie about what causes obesity
OK, I keep reading articles about how Americans are "rich, fat and lazy," as though each has something to do with the other. Time for a short rant.
The idea is based on yet another Big Lie told by doctors, health professional and others: that overeating makes you fat. News flash: that's not the cause. The whole concept of "net calories" is fatally flawed, since the body adjusts absorbtion and metabolic rate based on intake and activity. If you look at modern poor countries, where nearly everyone is undernourished, you will often find a mix of those who are obese and those who are thin, even in the same family. If it was overeating, then all poor people should be thin, right?
[[MORE]]The other half of the Big Fat Lie is that exercise makes you thin. If you're fat, you must be lazy. Also not true.
Look at the indigenous peoples of the world. Most started out thin and trim, but over the last 100 years or so, have evolved into obesity epidemics. Most are very physically active, so it's not laziness.
Here's the truth: insulin is what makes you fat, and insulin is released when you eat carbohydrates. Putting my rarely-used tin foil hat on for a second, guess who funds many of the "fat is evil, carbs are good" research studies? The large cereal companies. General Mills, for example, is a long-time sponsor of Harvard.
Example: look at Type 1 diabetics, who make no insulin of their own: no matter how much they eat, they stay thin, and can actually die from malnourishment.
If you're overweight, you don't need any diet books to get thin. The answer is simple: cut down on carbs, which will reduce your insulin level, and keep cutting until you achieve the weight you want. Calories (mostly) don't matter. Fat by itself isn't evil; it's the carbs that are the problem.
This is yet another example of societal brainwashing through non-stop propaganda. Just like "there's nothing wrong with FRNs," "school is where you go to learn how to support yourself," "your vote matters," and "the banks are safe."
The idea is based on yet another Big Lie told by doctors, health professional and others: that overeating makes you fat. News flash: that's not the cause. The whole concept of "net calories" is fatally flawed, since the body adjusts absorbtion and metabolic rate based on intake and activity. If you look at modern poor countries, where nearly everyone is undernourished, you will often find a mix of those who are obese and those who are thin, even in the same family. If it was overeating, then all poor people should be thin, right?
[[MORE]]The other half of the Big Fat Lie is that exercise makes you thin. If you're fat, you must be lazy. Also not true.
Look at the indigenous peoples of the world. Most started out thin and trim, but over the last 100 years or so, have evolved into obesity epidemics. Most are very physically active, so it's not laziness.
Here's the truth: insulin is what makes you fat, and insulin is released when you eat carbohydrates. Putting my rarely-used tin foil hat on for a second, guess who funds many of the "fat is evil, carbs are good" research studies? The large cereal companies. General Mills, for example, is a long-time sponsor of Harvard.
Example: look at Type 1 diabetics, who make no insulin of their own: no matter how much they eat, they stay thin, and can actually die from malnourishment.
If you're overweight, you don't need any diet books to get thin. The answer is simple: cut down on carbs, which will reduce your insulin level, and keep cutting until you achieve the weight you want. Calories (mostly) don't matter. Fat by itself isn't evil; it's the carbs that are the problem.
This is yet another example of societal brainwashing through non-stop propaganda. Just like "there's nothing wrong with FRNs," "school is where you go to learn how to support yourself," "your vote matters," and "the banks are safe."
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Books for teaching math
I love math, and it makes me ill every time I think about how badly it's taught in public schools.
I looked into the subject of good math books extensively, for use in home high-schooling my kids. Here are the best ones I found:
[[MORE]]Elementary Algebra, by Jacobs
Geometry: Seeing, Doing, Understanding, by Jacobs
Mathematics, A Human Endeavor, by Jacobs
Jacobs has a great knack for explaining math.
I've known several people who "hated" math, until they learned it the right way. One of them loved it so much afterwords that she went on to get her degree in math and to teach it at the college level.
I looked into the subject of good math books extensively, for use in home high-schooling my kids. Here are the best ones I found:
[[MORE]]Elementary Algebra, by Jacobs
Geometry: Seeing, Doing, Understanding, by Jacobs
Mathematics, A Human Endeavor, by Jacobs
Jacobs has a great knack for explaining math.
I've known several people who "hated" math, until they learned it the right way. One of them loved it so much afterwords that she went on to get her degree in math and to teach it at the college level.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Telescopes
I love astronomy and astrophotography. If I had the right equipment, asteroid hunting is right up my alley.
If you can afford it, the Questar is a very nice, compact scope:
http://www.company7.com/questar/index.html
Televue also makes some very nice refractors that are less expensive than Questar:
http://www.company7.com/televue/index.html
[[MORE]]Unless you're planning to do serious astrophotography, you probably don't need much more than about 4 inches of aperture. You will be limited by atmospheric seeing, so a bigger scope doesn't buy you much.
Don't skimp on the mount or the eyepieces. A good mount can cost almost as much as the scope.
If you can afford it, the Questar is a very nice, compact scope:
http://www.company7.com/questar/index.html
Televue also makes some very nice refractors that are less expensive than Questar:
http://www.company7.com/televue/index.html
[[MORE]]Unless you're planning to do serious astrophotography, you probably don't need much more than about 4 inches of aperture. You will be limited by atmospheric seeing, so a bigger scope doesn't buy you much.
Don't skimp on the mount or the eyepieces. A good mount can cost almost as much as the scope.
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Benefits of intermittent fasting for me
When I cut grains and refined carbs from my diet, my near-constant hunger went away within about a week, after I adapted to being in mild ketosis. I get hungry now only many hours after I wake in the morning. With a lite lunch, I get hungry again about 8 hours later for dinner, and generally feel no need for between-meal snacking. The net result is intermittent fasting that lasts about 15 or 16 hour per day.
[[MORE]]I also find, though, that a meal moderately high in complex carbs, including certain vegetables, can throw a wrench into things for a day or so. I get more hungry those days, and I also see my blood glucose go up.
It's interesting to me that one of the recommendations for diabetics from experts like Dr Richard Bernstein is to keep blood glucose within a range of about 10 points, 24 hrs a day. Yet non-diabetics often have huge swings, ranging from perhaps 80 to 140 or more over the course of a day. Due to the pro-aging effects of insulin, I am increasingly convinced that non-diabetics would also benefit from keeping their blood glucose under equally tight control.
[[MORE]]I also find, though, that a meal moderately high in complex carbs, including certain vegetables, can throw a wrench into things for a day or so. I get more hungry those days, and I also see my blood glucose go up.
It's interesting to me that one of the recommendations for diabetics from experts like Dr Richard Bernstein is to keep blood glucose within a range of about 10 points, 24 hrs a day. Yet non-diabetics often have huge swings, ranging from perhaps 80 to 140 or more over the course of a day. Due to the pro-aging effects of insulin, I am increasingly convinced that non-diabetics would also benefit from keeping their blood glucose under equally tight control.
Sunday, 24 May 2009
Paleo oils and MCTs
When choosing a good oil, ones that are rich in medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) offer some interesting advantages. They can directly flow into cells and be used as fuel, without the requirement for carnitine. Also, since MCTs are a saturated fat, they don't oxidize easily, which makes them suitable for cooking and long-term storage. MCTs also don't get stored as body fat. If you consume more than your body needs, they are just excreted. Coconut oil, for example, is 50% MCTs. Butter has about 5%.
[[MORE]]So, if you have a choice of oils, the MCT-rich ones have some benefits. Flax oil and fish oil, on the other hand, in spite of being rich in Omega-3's don't keep as long, and aren't well-suited to cooking, because they oxidize easily.
[[MORE]]So, if you have a choice of oils, the MCT-rich ones have some benefits. Flax oil and fish oil, on the other hand, in spite of being rich in Omega-3's don't keep as long, and aren't well-suited to cooking, because they oxidize easily.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Property confiscation and recovery in California
Before leaving California a few years ago, my wife and I moved into a rental home for a while so we could more easily sell our house. After the house sold, we of course sent a mail forwarding request to the post office. Some time later, my insurance company sent me a $500+ refund of some kind to our old address. Here's what happened after that:
[[MORE]]When they do pay, they don't include any interest -- so the state gets a nearly 3 year "loan" from me without my consent and without compensation.
A similar thing happened maybe 10 years ago. My kids both had savings accounts at a local savings and loan. The kids weren't into the accounts that much, so they sat idle most of the time -- in theory collecting interest. Well, after about 2 yrs of no activity, the state considers the accounts abandoned, and requires the bank to send them the funds. We never received any notice. It wasn't until a couple of years after that, when we decided to check the balance in the accounts, that we discovered that they had been "closed".
If you or members of your family currently live in CA, or ever lived there, I highly recommend taking a quick look on the unclaimed property page to see if they have stolen anything of yours too. I found they also had property of my now-deceased grandparents, among others (reclamation of which is basically impossible):
http://scoweb.sco.ca.gov/UCP/
- The post office failed to forward the letter, and instead returned it to the sender.
- Rather than spending the two minutes it would take to find us (we kept the same phone number), the insurance company instead sent the money to the California state office for unclaimed property.
- The state deposited the money into the general fund. They never sent me a letter or otherwise made any attempt to contact me.
- Almost two years after the fact, I accidentally discovered that the state is holding "unclaimed" property in my name (I think "stolen" would be a better word...).
- I sent the state all of the requested information -- ID, proof of address, etc.
- A few days ago, I received a letter from them saying that their office has received so many claims lately (300,000+ in the last year), that it will take at least six months before they can even look at mine. If the claim involved securities (which mine doesn't), they said it would take 8 or 9 months, since the securities will have been sold when they were first received and computing the resulting pay-out takes some extra effort. If all provided information isn't exactly as required, they will request the additional info only after they've reviewed the initial claim in 6+ months.
[[MORE]]When they do pay, they don't include any interest -- so the state gets a nearly 3 year "loan" from me without my consent and without compensation.
A similar thing happened maybe 10 years ago. My kids both had savings accounts at a local savings and loan. The kids weren't into the accounts that much, so they sat idle most of the time -- in theory collecting interest. Well, after about 2 yrs of no activity, the state considers the accounts abandoned, and requires the bank to send them the funds. We never received any notice. It wasn't until a couple of years after that, when we decided to check the balance in the accounts, that we discovered that they had been "closed".
If you or members of your family currently live in CA, or ever lived there, I highly recommend taking a quick look on the unclaimed property page to see if they have stolen anything of yours too. I found they also had property of my now-deceased grandparents, among others (reclamation of which is basically impossible):
http://scoweb.sco.ca.gov/UCP/
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Naomi Wolf: The End of America
Interesting video by Naomi Wolf, on the "End of America."
[[MORE]]She mentions 10 steps on the path to the "end":
[[MORE]]She mentions 10 steps on the path to the "end":
- Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
- Create a gulag
- Develop a thug caste
- Set up an internal surveillance system
- Harass citizens' groups
- Engage in arbitrary detention and release
- Target key individuals
- Control the press
- Dissent equals treason
- Suspend the rule of law
Monday, 23 March 2009
Unemployment during the Great Depression
Unemployment during the Great Depression:
1929 -- 3.2%
1930 -- 8.7%
1931 -- 15.9%
1932 -- 23.6%
1933 -- 24.9% peak
1934 -- 21.7%
1935 -- 20.1%
1936 -- 16.9%
1937 -- 14.3%
1938 -- 19.0%
1939 -- 17.2%
[[MORE]]On an apples-to-apples basis, we're at about 19% now according to SGS, with no sign of a slow-down in the unemployment rate, much less a reversal. So we're already worse than 1931.
Based on the current rate of change, I'm guessing U-6 might peak at or above 20% -- that's 24% on the Great Depression scale above and around 13% on the more widely-reported U-3.
1929 -- 3.2%
1930 -- 8.7%
1931 -- 15.9%
1932 -- 23.6%
1933 -- 24.9% peak
1934 -- 21.7%
1935 -- 20.1%
1936 -- 16.9%
1937 -- 14.3%
1938 -- 19.0%
1939 -- 17.2%
[[MORE]]On an apples-to-apples basis, we're at about 19% now according to SGS, with no sign of a slow-down in the unemployment rate, much less a reversal. So we're already worse than 1931.
Based on the current rate of change, I'm guessing U-6 might peak at or above 20% -- that's 24% on the Great Depression scale above and around 13% on the more widely-reported U-3.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
What's your is yours, right?
I had an interesting conversation with a friend here in New Zealand today. He told me about a meeting he had with one of the local city Council members about an emergency generator that he had recently installed. They were talking about emergency preparedness, and he asked what the city would do in the event of an extended, wide-scale power outage. The Councilman said they would go around to local firms and individuals with generators, claim them under an emergency declaration, and take them where they were "needed".
[[MORE]]My friend subsequently wrote to our MP to ask if that was true and if they could provide assurances that it wouldn't happen. He responded by confirming it was true, and that they could not provide any assurances. Right after that, he sold the generator in an auction. What good is it if you can't be sure that you can use it?
I have no doubt that something similar would happen in the US.
The moral of the story: in a mixed economy, what you think you own, you really don't. Someone bigger and stronger, including your own government, can walk in at any time and claim it for "emergency" purposes. Not just generators, but food, clothing, weapons and even housing.
[[MORE]]My friend subsequently wrote to our MP to ask if that was true and if they could provide assurances that it wouldn't happen. He responded by confirming it was true, and that they could not provide any assurances. Right after that, he sold the generator in an auction. What good is it if you can't be sure that you can use it?
I have no doubt that something similar would happen in the US.
The moral of the story: in a mixed economy, what you think you own, you really don't. Someone bigger and stronger, including your own government, can walk in at any time and claim it for "emergency" purposes. Not just generators, but food, clothing, weapons and even housing.
Thursday, 5 March 2009
The realities of gunfights
Here's a link to a page with some interesting info about bullet stopping power:
http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=0
It continues to surprise me how many gun hobbyists seem to refuse to accept the realities of a live gunfight, such as:
[[MORE]]
Those are a few of the reasons why I would only carry a 45 or a 357, and never a 9mm. The chart from the page above says 91% one-shot stop for 9mm vs. 96% for 45. If I'm probably only going to get one hit to start with, why not make it count?
And here's a big one you won't hear from anyone except those who have been through it: what's one of the most important pieces of backup gear you can bring to a gunfight? A knife. Contrary to the old saw about not bringing a knife to a gunfight, that's the most effective weapon during the 30 seconds between when your assailant has been shot and when he falls.
http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=0
It continues to surprise me how many gun hobbyists seem to refuse to accept the realities of a live gunfight, such as:
- Your assailant can easily keep moving for at least 30 seconds after being fatally shot (even with a so-called "one shot stop"). People usually don't fall down and stop like in the movies.
[[MORE]]
- Depending on where you're shot and with what kind of bullet, it may not actually hurt that much, at least at first (unless the bullet hits a bone or some other tender area). I had friend who got shot in the leg and didn't even know it for many minutes afterwards.
- Aiming at a moving target when you're under life-or-death pressure isn't something you can learn at the range. Most weekend hobbyists will have terrible aim in a gunfight, at be lucky if they hit anything at all.
- Most gunfights are over fast. Assuming you're actually aiming (as you should), you'll be lucky to get off 2 or 3 rounds, much less a whole clip.
Those are a few of the reasons why I would only carry a 45 or a 357, and never a 9mm. The chart from the page above says 91% one-shot stop for 9mm vs. 96% for 45. If I'm probably only going to get one hit to start with, why not make it count?
And here's a big one you won't hear from anyone except those who have been through it: what's one of the most important pieces of backup gear you can bring to a gunfight? A knife. Contrary to the old saw about not bringing a knife to a gunfight, that's the most effective weapon during the 30 seconds between when your assailant has been shot and when he falls.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
How bad is the Dow now, really?
Every once in a while, I like to break the Dow index down and look at the 30 individual components. I just finished comparing it to where is was on Jun 1, 2008. A few facts:
1 company was dropped from the average (AIG). Its price has dropped 99%. It was replaced with Kraft Foods.
1 other company has dropped more than 90%: Citigroup.
3 companies have dropped between 80 and 90%: Alcoa, BofA and GM.
[[MORE]]
5 companies have dropped between 50 and 80%: Dupont, Amex, Boeing, GE and Caterpillar.
The average itself has declined by 43.6%.
The top 3 best performing companies dropped 9.5% (McDonalds), 11.7% (Walmart) and 22% (Home Depot)
GM alone lost 45% of what all of the other companies earned together (on a per-share weighted basis).
The companies that are the largest components of the Dow are IBM, Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
Including AIG, the P/E on the Dow is 27. Excluding AIG and GM, the P/E is about 9.7. Historically, "reasonable" valuations are around 7 at the end of a bear market. Using the more optimistic number, that would put the bottom around 5100. Except earnings are declining rapidly with no end in sight and the impact of unfunded pension fund liabilities hasn't hit yet, either. If the P/E goes to 5 and earnings of the profitable companies drop by another 30%, that could be 2500.
The highest individual P/Es (which applies only to companies earning a profit) are 27.2 for Alcoa, 26 for JP Morgan, 16.4 for Coke and Home Depot is at a very questionable 15.2.
The lowest P/Es today are Caterpillar 4.3, GE 4.7, Amex 5.0 and Chevron 5.3.
A one-point move in any of the Dow components moves the Dow average by almost 8 points.
1 company was dropped from the average (AIG). Its price has dropped 99%. It was replaced with Kraft Foods.
1 other company has dropped more than 90%: Citigroup.
3 companies have dropped between 80 and 90%: Alcoa, BofA and GM.
[[MORE]]
5 companies have dropped between 50 and 80%: Dupont, Amex, Boeing, GE and Caterpillar.
The average itself has declined by 43.6%.
The top 3 best performing companies dropped 9.5% (McDonalds), 11.7% (Walmart) and 22% (Home Depot)
GM alone lost 45% of what all of the other companies earned together (on a per-share weighted basis).
The companies that are the largest components of the Dow are IBM, Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
Including AIG, the P/E on the Dow is 27. Excluding AIG and GM, the P/E is about 9.7. Historically, "reasonable" valuations are around 7 at the end of a bear market. Using the more optimistic number, that would put the bottom around 5100. Except earnings are declining rapidly with no end in sight and the impact of unfunded pension fund liabilities hasn't hit yet, either. If the P/E goes to 5 and earnings of the profitable companies drop by another 30%, that could be 2500.
The highest individual P/Es (which applies only to companies earning a profit) are 27.2 for Alcoa, 26 for JP Morgan, 16.4 for Coke and Home Depot is at a very questionable 15.2.
The lowest P/Es today are Caterpillar 4.3, GE 4.7, Amex 5.0 and Chevron 5.3.
A one-point move in any of the Dow components moves the Dow average by almost 8 points.
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Sucked into the green zone
I ran across a blog post that includes an article called Sucked into the Green Zone, by Andrew Redleaf (Dec 2008). It presents an interesting perspective on how government-backed borrowers are crowding others out of the market:
Here's an excerpt:
When a massive and sudden deflationary credit collapse hits a modern economy, borrowing becomes extremely expensive for everyone—almost. The government, and certain government backed institutions, will still able to borrow at pre-deflation rates. With money plentiful and cheap on one side, the government’s side, but scarce and expensive on the other side of the room, assets will flow toward the government’s side of the room like water flowing downhill. Over time all ‘normal’, not government-backed, asset holders who can borrow only at high rates would lose everything they own to those who can borrow at the government rate. If government backed entities can finance an asset at 5 percent, and everyone else in the room is obliged to finance it at 15 percent, and if this condition could long endure, ultimately every asset in the economy would be owned by the government backed crowd.
Thus, just as in an inflation, by precipitating a sudden catastrophic deflation the government not only shifts wealth from one citizen to another, the government itself can massively confiscate assets.
[[MORE]]At first this seems odd, since the government itself is massively a debtor, and deflation is generally held to be bad for debtors (as inflation is generally held to be good for them). Is it not for this very reason that governments are tempted to inflate the currency, so that their own debts can be wiped away, paid off with cheap currency of its own issuance?
All true. But our deflation—let us call it the deflation of the Red Zone—is the creature not of a long term shortage of currency, as for instance the US saw frequently in the 19th century, but a catastrophic credit collapse. A credit collapse, as the very word implies, is preeminently a crisis of trust. A lone trusted borrower in the midst of a financial terror can borrow and lend at an extraordinarily favorable spread, putting assets on its balance sheet at amazing bargain prices. This is exactly what the government is doing right now—even though it is trying to give the spread away by tossing money to its favored banks. Right now, the only US debtor with access to still functioning credit markets is the U.S. government. Because only the Treasury can borrow, only the Treasury, or those on whose behalf it consents to borrow, can lend, or buy.
A deflation arising from a catastrophic credit collapse can thus be described simply as a condition in which the spreads between risk free, or Treasury rates, and all other rates, or risk premiums, are radically out of proportion with real economic risks. (Or at least those real economic risks apparent before the collapse. The longer credit markets remain dysfunctional, the more the real economic risks will increase to match the increase in risk premiums.)
If such a condition could persist forever, only the state would own any assets, which is why the estimated price of the bailout keeps rising. The government is borrowing, lending, and buying in an attempt to keep the system afloat, but it is not closing the spread between risk free and risk premium paper. Perversely, by driving down risk-free rates it is actually widening the spread.
(continues)
Here's an excerpt:
When a massive and sudden deflationary credit collapse hits a modern economy, borrowing becomes extremely expensive for everyone—almost. The government, and certain government backed institutions, will still able to borrow at pre-deflation rates. With money plentiful and cheap on one side, the government’s side, but scarce and expensive on the other side of the room, assets will flow toward the government’s side of the room like water flowing downhill. Over time all ‘normal’, not government-backed, asset holders who can borrow only at high rates would lose everything they own to those who can borrow at the government rate. If government backed entities can finance an asset at 5 percent, and everyone else in the room is obliged to finance it at 15 percent, and if this condition could long endure, ultimately every asset in the economy would be owned by the government backed crowd.
Thus, just as in an inflation, by precipitating a sudden catastrophic deflation the government not only shifts wealth from one citizen to another, the government itself can massively confiscate assets.
[[MORE]]At first this seems odd, since the government itself is massively a debtor, and deflation is generally held to be bad for debtors (as inflation is generally held to be good for them). Is it not for this very reason that governments are tempted to inflate the currency, so that their own debts can be wiped away, paid off with cheap currency of its own issuance?
All true. But our deflation—let us call it the deflation of the Red Zone—is the creature not of a long term shortage of currency, as for instance the US saw frequently in the 19th century, but a catastrophic credit collapse. A credit collapse, as the very word implies, is preeminently a crisis of trust. A lone trusted borrower in the midst of a financial terror can borrow and lend at an extraordinarily favorable spread, putting assets on its balance sheet at amazing bargain prices. This is exactly what the government is doing right now—even though it is trying to give the spread away by tossing money to its favored banks. Right now, the only US debtor with access to still functioning credit markets is the U.S. government. Because only the Treasury can borrow, only the Treasury, or those on whose behalf it consents to borrow, can lend, or buy.
A deflation arising from a catastrophic credit collapse can thus be described simply as a condition in which the spreads between risk free, or Treasury rates, and all other rates, or risk premiums, are radically out of proportion with real economic risks. (Or at least those real economic risks apparent before the collapse. The longer credit markets remain dysfunctional, the more the real economic risks will increase to match the increase in risk premiums.)
If such a condition could persist forever, only the state would own any assets, which is why the estimated price of the bailout keeps rising. The government is borrowing, lending, and buying in an attempt to keep the system afloat, but it is not closing the spread between risk free and risk premium paper. Perversely, by driving down risk-free rates it is actually widening the spread.
(continues)
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
The effect of outlawing employment testing
In 1971, the Supreme Court effectively outlawed employment testing. Their justification was that it discriminated against minorities, and was therefore in violation of the Civil Rights Act. With the benefit of hindsight, care to guess what happened as a result?
A recent study has shown that in the aftermath of the ruling, employers changed their approach to requiring college degrees. Many minorities were shut out only because of their financial condition, rather than their ability. The number of people in college increased and the cost of education increased without providing additional skills or knowledge, further compounding the problem. A bad deal for minorities all around. Plus, degrees evolved into being mostly a demonstration that you could make it through the process, rather than certifications that you actually learned anything useful about your subject.
Yet another example of how government interference in the free market rarely has the desired effect.
Link to PDF
A recent study has shown that in the aftermath of the ruling, employers changed their approach to requiring college degrees. Many minorities were shut out only because of their financial condition, rather than their ability. The number of people in college increased and the cost of education increased without providing additional skills or knowledge, further compounding the problem. A bad deal for minorities all around. Plus, degrees evolved into being mostly a demonstration that you could make it through the process, rather than certifications that you actually learned anything useful about your subject.
Yet another example of how government interference in the free market rarely has the desired effect.
Link to PDF
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Russian Techniques of Subversion
Pretty interesting series of videos from 1983 by KGB defector Bezmenov that describes the Russian techniques of subverting their enemies -- the accuracy with which he described the events of the 25 years since then in the US is definitely impressive.
It occurs to me that WW III may have been fought for the last 50 years, right in our midst. It was not a war with guns and bombs, it was a war of ideology. And the US is now in the final stages of losing, big time. Most of us didn't even know it was happening. To the extent it was intentional -- and the more I hear Bezmenov talk, the more I believe it may have been -- it was really an amazing achievement, in the true spirit of Sun Tzu. Fighting without fighting. Help your enemy destroy themselves.
It occurs to me that WW III may have been fought for the last 50 years, right in our midst. It was not a war with guns and bombs, it was a war of ideology. And the US is now in the final stages of losing, big time. Most of us didn't even know it was happening. To the extent it was intentional -- and the more I hear Bezmenov talk, the more I believe it may have been -- it was really an amazing achievement, in the true spirit of Sun Tzu. Fighting without fighting. Help your enemy destroy themselves.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Short summary of moving to New Zealand
Here's a short summary of what it took for us to move to New Zealand:
-- It took about 9 months to get the visas. Would go much faster if you had a job first.
-- It's much easier to do when you're under 55 and your kids are under 18. The rules change after that.
-- It was challenging to find a job here while still in the US, but it wasn't impossible. Pay is well below California averages.
-- We hoped living expenses would be lower. Unfortunately, while they turned out to be lower in some areas (housing, insurance, property tax), they were much higher in others (food, clothes, imported goods).
[[MORE]]-- Making a real lifestyle change takes a lot more than just moving. We're still struggling with that in some ways.
-- There are a lot of odd quirks about moving to a new country: strange laws, new holidays, odd customs, new foods (and the loss of previous favorites), licenses, taxes, forms, the legal system, the medical system (prescriptions, appointments, who pays for what, etc) -- and even small things, like how you interact with trades people and what they call certain things (like "Panel Beater" instead of "Body Shop")
-- There's a lot of "hidden" work after you move, like finding new stores, a new attorney, doctor, dentist, bank, insurance broker, accountant, etc, learning your way around the town, learning the new driving rules (and how to drive on the left). This is from someone who has lived in 15 or 20 different places before (but they were all in California).
-- Getting household goods shipped was a challenge and a half: lining up movers, shipping to the right port, customs and biosecurity clearance, lining up local movers -- a ton of details, and very easy to make costly mistakes
-- Banking is very different: mostly electronic here, checks are rarely used, bill paying is different, new frequent customer programs, new credit card
-- Finding and buying a house: finding a real estate agent, shopping for homes, getting prices (sellers sometimes prefer auctions or other formats where prices aren't published), totally different negotiation process, no escrow (all handled by the lawyers), a very short sales contract, somewhat different process of finding a loan
Just one quick story -- the loan process might be of interest. First I was referred to a local lender by my real estate agent. It was a "building society," rather than a bank. The approval process consisted mostly of a short interview; the paperwork was basically a formality since we were borrowing much less than the purchase price. But the interesting part was what happened after the loan was approved. Rather than just signing the contract and that being the end of it as in the US, our attorney called and walked through the loan agreement with me, paragraph-by-paragraph. Home loans in NZ are full-recourse, for example, which was good to know. After the lawyer finished with me, he then had the same conversation with my wife. He did the same thing for the other legal documents associated with the purchase (the original purchase agreement was only 4 pages long). He explained that this was standard practice in NZ; I thought the whole thing was very cool.
I'm still a US citizen. I still have a US passport. I still have to pay US taxes on all income. I have family and friends in the US, and will always have deep connections there. I think of myself as an American, not a Kiwi.
I also have Permanent Resident status in NZ. After passing through all of the hoops (which took 2 yrs), I have the same privileges as a New Zealand citizen. I can do everything they can except certain government jobs (security clearance, etc); I could even serve in the military. I also pay income taxes here. My family and I are covered by the national health system, we're eligible for government benefits, we can vote, travel out of the country indefinitely and then return to stay permanently, etc.
-- It took about 9 months to get the visas. Would go much faster if you had a job first.
-- It's much easier to do when you're under 55 and your kids are under 18. The rules change after that.
-- It was challenging to find a job here while still in the US, but it wasn't impossible. Pay is well below California averages.
-- We hoped living expenses would be lower. Unfortunately, while they turned out to be lower in some areas (housing, insurance, property tax), they were much higher in others (food, clothes, imported goods).
[[MORE]]-- Making a real lifestyle change takes a lot more than just moving. We're still struggling with that in some ways.
-- There are a lot of odd quirks about moving to a new country: strange laws, new holidays, odd customs, new foods (and the loss of previous favorites), licenses, taxes, forms, the legal system, the medical system (prescriptions, appointments, who pays for what, etc) -- and even small things, like how you interact with trades people and what they call certain things (like "Panel Beater" instead of "Body Shop")
-- There's a lot of "hidden" work after you move, like finding new stores, a new attorney, doctor, dentist, bank, insurance broker, accountant, etc, learning your way around the town, learning the new driving rules (and how to drive on the left). This is from someone who has lived in 15 or 20 different places before (but they were all in California).
-- Getting household goods shipped was a challenge and a half: lining up movers, shipping to the right port, customs and biosecurity clearance, lining up local movers -- a ton of details, and very easy to make costly mistakes
-- Banking is very different: mostly electronic here, checks are rarely used, bill paying is different, new frequent customer programs, new credit card
-- Finding and buying a house: finding a real estate agent, shopping for homes, getting prices (sellers sometimes prefer auctions or other formats where prices aren't published), totally different negotiation process, no escrow (all handled by the lawyers), a very short sales contract, somewhat different process of finding a loan
Just one quick story -- the loan process might be of interest. First I was referred to a local lender by my real estate agent. It was a "building society," rather than a bank. The approval process consisted mostly of a short interview; the paperwork was basically a formality since we were borrowing much less than the purchase price. But the interesting part was what happened after the loan was approved. Rather than just signing the contract and that being the end of it as in the US, our attorney called and walked through the loan agreement with me, paragraph-by-paragraph. Home loans in NZ are full-recourse, for example, which was good to know. After the lawyer finished with me, he then had the same conversation with my wife. He did the same thing for the other legal documents associated with the purchase (the original purchase agreement was only 4 pages long). He explained that this was standard practice in NZ; I thought the whole thing was very cool.
I'm still a US citizen. I still have a US passport. I still have to pay US taxes on all income. I have family and friends in the US, and will always have deep connections there. I think of myself as an American, not a Kiwi.
I also have Permanent Resident status in NZ. After passing through all of the hoops (which took 2 yrs), I have the same privileges as a New Zealand citizen. I can do everything they can except certain government jobs (security clearance, etc); I could even serve in the military. I also pay income taxes here. My family and I are covered by the national health system, we're eligible for government benefits, we can vote, travel out of the country indefinitely and then return to stay permanently, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)