RE: Re: candida/coconut

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Before I will believe that a sudden lowering of cards " can " be life

threatening I would have to see some proof.

If a sudden lowering of carbs were life threatening it would have been so

highly publicized that no one could miss it.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

>This doesn't seem to make much sense, as different people's carb

>metabolisms are damaged to different degrees -- not to mention being tuned

>differently just by nature. Atkins, who suggests that everyone find out

>their own carb thresholds, makes much more sense to me on this point.

>

>-

Well, he actually talks about that, so the error is probably in my

summarization.

But his one main contention with Atkins is just that the *sudden*

changeover can

actually be life-threatening, for some people (mainly people over 45) for

exactly the

reasons you mention -- the metabolism is damaged, or at least changed. So

it's better

to start a little high and work lower.

[snip]

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

,

Have you read Atkins latest " Diet Revolution " book? He barely mentions his

own products and he promotes whole foods, not processed. It's quite a change

from his previous book.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Heidi-

>Also

>the people I'm talking about have had a lot of health problems,

>which I think are related to lack of good nutrients and

>also lack of good exercise -- which aren't really part of the

> " low carb diet " but I think it does call for a more holistic

>approach.

Well, to be fair to Atkins he does focus a little on nutrition, even though

he sometimes seems to accede to the view that the only real nutrition is to

be found in the plant world, and he definitely recommends exercise, but

don't think I'm an unalloyed Atkins supporter. For all the good advice he

dispenses, there's a lot of crap and a lot of missing information too, and

lately he's been corrupted by his food product business. A lot of those

suffering low-carbers could benefit immensely by focusing on nutrient

density within the confines of a low-carb diet. I still have a lot to

learn on this subject myself, but I've noticed very substantial benefits

from adding liver to my diet (unfortunately raw liver in my case, but

probably not everyone need be so strict about that, at least provided the

liver isn't eaten well done).

-

[Guest guest]

>Don't want to open a can of worms, but thought I'd mention that some

>people are placing their bets with the theory that reduced caloric intake

>can extend one's potential lifespan. There's no hard evidence it'll work

>for humans, but there's substantial evidence for other species, and this

>would definitely be a drawback to extra calories. This is definitely not

>related to an NT worldview at all, but it's not inconsistent with it

>either. I've made a lifetime commitment to calorie restriction myself,

>just in case it works. There are practitioners who have attitudes like

> " every calorie is a second off your life " and that kind of thing. I'm

>only a semi-extremist at this point, but eventually I expect to become

>more fanatical.

Mike:

I've been curious about this myself. Some of the " insulin researchers " have

mentioned it in passing, and their take is that the overproduction of

insulin is the major culprit (not the calories per se). The thing about the

" long life " diet that struck me is that is MUST be a high-nutrient diet to

work -- neither people nor mice do well on a diet of *less* junk food. Lab

mice are normally fed mouse-chow, which is a high-grain mix they don't

usually get in the wild. The animals on the calorie restricted diets are

also on a diet that is high-nutrient, which I'm guessing is not the same

old mouse-chow.

So for a human, the long-life diets I've read seem to consist of a lot of

vegies and meats, which is pretty much what you end up with if you are on a

lower-carb diet, or a paleo diet, or several other diets, which strikes me

as an interesting synchronicity. The thing about that kind of diet is, that

even if you don't watch your calories, most people eat far fewer calories

because, even with the added fat, the food is just so darn filling. Even

the Macrobiotic diets (which are vegetarian) are really, really filling

because of the fiber and nutrient content.

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

Mike-

As usual with widely-reported dietary " research " , this is a pile of

crap. First, these calorie-reduced life-extended animals live miserable

lives. They're apathetic and practically brain-dead. And second, it's

turning out to be not calories, but insulin. IOW, the more excess insulin

that's generated, the shorter the life. So the real message is (surprise

surprise) eat more fat and cut carbs to a pretty fair degree, more so if

you have insulin problems as virtually all overweight people do. The

latest Wise Traditions touches briefly on it, Mercola's talked about it a

bit, and you can find other information. But of course the calorie Nazis

will stick to their guns just like the cholesterol gestapo is.

>Don't want to open a can of worms, but thought I'd mention that some

>people are placing their bets with the theory that reduced caloric intake

>can extend one's potential lifespan. There's no hard evidence it'll work

>for humans, but there's substantial evidence for other species, and this

>would definitely be a drawback to extra calories.

-

[Guest guest]

Judith-

>Have you read Atkins latest " Diet Revolution " book? He barely mentions his

>own products and he promotes whole foods, not processed. It's quite a change

>from his previous book.

No, I haven't read his most recent books. (Is that a really recent update,

or was it available a few years ago?) Is there anything significantly

useful in that one that I wouldn't have found in his earlier ones? I heard

he has another book out that's basically a huge commercial for all his

processed factory food products, which is unfortunate.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Generally most of my meat comes from

>hamburgers, and most of my fat comes from butter.

I have a recommendation for you, then. I don't know whether you'll have

the same result I did, but I think it's worth a try. For awhile, switch to

getting most of your fat from meat. It's probably not feasible to make

your own sausages (it was barely feasible for me to start!) but try it somehow.

And stop eating hamburgers that someone else has ground. I know that sucks

hugely, but I've noticed that almost all commercially-available hamburger

meat just isn't very good or energy-promoting, and I've been told that meat

processors clean their meat grinders with detergents that they don't

actually wash off the grinders, so that a good deal of it winds up in the

meat. Also, when the meat is ground somewhere else and then takes days or

weeks to reach you, all that extra surface area has been exposed to air for

a lot longer than if you grind or chop it yourself. I know this sucks too,

but it's worthy a try if you can replace the hamburger with other

non-ground beef to see what kind of effect it has on you.

> I'm using palm butter

>right now, which is half saturated (like most meats) and supplementing with a

>couple tbsp coconut oil a day, which is mostly saturated. If I wasn't on

>this damn diet I would be drinking 2 gallons of milk a week, a pound of

>butter, and a quart or half gallon of cream, which provides a large load of

>saturated fat.

Sure, but none of those are meat fats, which means they don't come with all

the nutrients and co-factors that meat does. (Granted, neither does lard,

but if you make sausage you're actually using the whole fat tissue.) Also,

there may be something to Wolcott's belief that some people need lots of

high-purine foods, and you might be one of them.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>That works fine if you are a basically healthy fat person. If you are a 60

>year old diabetic it could kill you, according to LWB

Perhaps, but I remain skeptical. Atkins is a practicing cardiologist who's

treated tens of thousands of patients in his center, including

diabetics. If the abrupt shift away from sugar and starch killed any of

them, I'm sure he would've said something.

>Also, a lot of people have upper intestinal damage, which means lower

>pancreatic output, lack of bile salts, lack of stomach acids, poor

>absorption, and who knows what else, which can make it really difficult to

>digest fat. I had to start out on coconut oil because it is easy to digest!

This is true of me, and my health is substantially improved by taking

pancreatin supplements, and yet even when I first low-carbed years ago,

when I knew nothing about enzyme pills, the diet still worked for me.

>Or at least some people do.

What can I say. I remain unconvinced.

>You can eat more calories and still lose weight.

Exactly, which allows you to feel more satisfied and happy on the diet --

and, probably, allows your body to do some degree of cherry-picking of what

it wants from what you're eating, though I'm just guessing on that.

>That may be true for some people. I've done it both ways, and I have to say

>that the changes I've made over the last year have been much more permanent

>and much less painful,

Could this be because the first time around you didn't eat enough fat? Or

because you were missing some other source of nutrition, like my personal

favorite liver? <g>

>I agree, though he talks about it more than most people listen. One woman I

>know on Atkins was living mostly on those commercial pepperoni sticks --

>lots of fat, for sure, but sheesh they are full of chemicals.

Some people won't learn even if you shove knowledge down their throats. Oh

well.

-

[Guest guest]

>>>>This is true of me, and my health is substantially improved by taking

pancreatin supplements,

---->paul, what brand do you use, and do you recommend it?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

,

The newest " New Diet Revolution " book is really new. Copyright 2002. And it

has changed a lot. Not so much in the diet itself but in other ways. His

recommendation of whole, natural food and avoidance of aspartame are two of

the biggies, in my opinion.

He also says that it's okay to stay on induction, the start-up, lowest carb,

part of the diet for six months.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Judith-

>Have you read Atkins latest " Diet Revolution " book? He barely mentions his

>own products and he promotes whole foods, not processed. It's quite a

change

>from his previous book.

No, I haven't read his most recent books. (Is that a really recent update,

or was it available a few years ago?) Is there anything significantly

useful in that one that I wouldn't have found in his earlier ones? I heard

he has another book out that's basically a huge commercial for all his

processed factory food products, which is unfortunate.

-

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>Before I will believe that a sudden lowering of cards " can " be life

>threatening I would have to see some proof.

>

>If a sudden lowering of carbs were life threatening it would have been so

>highly publicized that no one could miss it.

>

>Judith Alta

Judith:

I'm not sure about the publicized part. Thousands of people were dying from

cigarettes for decades before it got publicized. Anyway, Atkin's was

accused of causing heart attacks in some number of people, and he got

dragged into the Senate for testimony. There were no heart attacks during

studies that were done later, but the studies probably excluded the more at

risk people. I'd guess it is similar to the situation with Ephedra -- a lot

of people take it, and they do ok, but susceptible people can get heart

attacks from it.

In all three cases, the people on one side of the fence say it is a " witch

hunt, " but it is really difficult to show cause and effect in some of these

cases.

Anyway, this is what Life Without Bread has to say on the topic:

" Animal fat that contains abundant saturated fatty acids has certain

effects on the body's clotting system. This seems to be connected, on the

one hand, with the heparin requirements (a protein that inhibits clotting

of the blood) and, on the other, the formation of the clotting enzymes. The

occurrence of thrombosis in occasional instances of a too-rapid changeover

to a low-carbohydrate diet might be due to the state of starvation in which

the body finds itself -- expecting carbohydrates, for which it is prepared,

it instead receives fat and protein, for which it is not immediately

equipped, or not ready to handle in high quantity " (pg. 202).

He goes on to list several other conditions that can occur as the body goes

into " changeover " mode, including constipation, inflammation, bleeding

gums,immune reactions, asthmatic attacks, and heart and liver problems. He

doesn't give " proof, " but I've heard the complaints from people going

through " induction, " and I think it is reasonable to expect a lot of

drastic bodily changes if you drastically change your diet.

His data is based on the observations of Dr. Lutz, who was treating a lot

of sick patients over a period of many years. Most healthy people can take

a LOT of stress without dying though, and a lot of people would just figure

the symptoms were " detox. "

I kind of doubt anyone in this group is in the " at risk " category, but my

friend's mother (who is elderly and has type 2 diabetes) IS very at risk,

and I sure would not want to put her through the additional stress of a

sudden really drastic dietary change. And for myself, I just would rather

do things gradually, because it is more comfortable and I don't like

putting myself through additional stress if I can help it.

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>---->paul, what brand do you use, and do you recommend it?

Historically I've used Lipanase tablets, which is either Labs or

AMNI, depending on which part of the label you look at and which health

food store you listen to. That's worked very well for me, and I definitely

recommend it to anyone who needs pancreatin.

Recently I've tried Zypan from Standard Process based on Dr. Marasco's many

recommendations here on the list because it also contains an HCl

supplement. It works, but I think I may need a higher potency

(particularly of HCl) and I'm troubled by the seemingly-large amount of

lactose in the pills -- they taste extremely sweet. Also, the bottle

simply givez zero indication of how much pancreatin or HCl the pills

actually provide.

I have Thorne Research pancreatin on order based on Dr. Ron Schmid's

recommendation in his article on the WAPF site and because it's a capsule

rather than a tablet like Lipanase and Zypan. That might work even better.

I've also tried WobEnzymes, which is a mixture of pancreatin and a bunch of

plant enzymes and costs an arm, three legs and a kidney, and I found it

somewhat less effective than other pancreatin preparations I've tried.

-

[Guest guest]

Pick up a copy of Atkins first Diet Revolution book that has the transcript

of his testimony to the Senate committee. It's still available in the book

stores around here. And Amazon.com should have it. If you should happen

across an old, old one check to be sure the transcript is in it. Some of the

first printing did not have it.

The committee stated that they were investigating " diet frauds " but Atkins

is the only one they looked at. He offered to open his patient files to the

committee but they never took him up on it.

In the 1970s the heart attack rate dropped and no one seems to know why.

This is when Atkins first hit the book stores and Linus ing was

prominent in the news with his work on vitamin C.

I think that's about the time the Schute brothers in Canada were in the news

also with their work on Vitamin E.

Then in the early 1980s the cholesterol panic hit and the rate of heart

attacks has climbed ever since.

Think about it!

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

>Heidi,

>

>Before I will believe that a sudden lowering of cards " can " be life

>threatening I would have to see some proof.

>

>If a sudden lowering of carbs were life threatening it would have been so

>highly publicized that no one could miss it.

>

>Judith Alta

Judith:

I'm not sure about the publicized part. Thousands of people were dying from

cigarettes for decades before it got publicized. Anyway, Atkin's was

accused of causing heart attacks in some number of people, and he got

dragged into the Senate for testimony. There were no heart attacks during

studies that were done later, but the studies probably excluded the more at

risk people. I'd guess it is similar to the situation with Ephedra -- a lot

of people take it, and they do ok, but susceptible people can get heart

attacks from it.

In all three cases, the people on one side of the fence say it is a " witch

hunt, " but it is really difficult to show cause and effect in some of these

cases.

Anyway, this is what Life Without Bread has to say on the topic:

" Animal fat that contains abundant saturated fatty acids has certain

effects on the body's clotting system. This seems to be connected, on the

one hand, with the heparin requirements (a protein that inhibits clotting

of the blood) and, on the other, the formation of the clotting enzymes. The

occurrence of thrombosis in occasional instances of a too-rapid changeover

to a low-carbohydrate diet might be due to the state of starvation in which

the body finds itself -- expecting carbohydrates, for which it is prepared,

it instead receives fat and protein, for which it is not immediately

equipped, or not ready to handle in high quantity " (pg. 202).

He goes on to list several other conditions that can occur as the body goes

into " changeover " mode, including constipation, inflammation, bleeding

gums,immune reactions, asthmatic attacks, and heart and liver problems. He

doesn't give " proof, " but I've heard the complaints from people going

through " induction, " and I think it is reasonable to expect a lot of

drastic bodily changes if you drastically change your diet.

His data is based on the observations of Dr. Lutz, who was treating a lot

of sick patients over a period of many years. Most healthy people can take

a LOT of stress without dying though, and a lot of people would just figure

the symptoms were " detox. "

I kind of doubt anyone in this group is in the " at risk " category, but my

friend's mother (who is elderly and has type 2 diabetes) IS very at risk,

and I sure would not want to put her through the additional stress of a

sudden really drastic dietary change. And for myself, I just would rather

do things gradually, because it is more comfortable and I don't like

putting myself through additional stress if I can help it.

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

Addition: I think I said it in another post. This book barely mentions his

products. Apparently he made up for it in his last book.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

,

The newest " New Diet Revolution " book is really new. Copyright 2002. And it

has changed a lot. Not so much in the diet itself but in other ways. His

recommendation of whole, natural food and avoidance of aspartame are two of

the biggies, in my opinion.

He also says that it's okay to stay on induction, the start-up, lowest carb,

part of the diet for six months.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Judith-

>Have you read Atkins latest " Diet Revolution " book? He barely mentions his

>own products and he promotes whole foods, not processed. It's quite a

change

>from his previous book.

No, I haven't read his most recent books. (Is that a really recent update,

or was it available a few years ago?) Is there anything significantly

useful in that one that I wouldn't have found in his earlier ones? I heard

he has another book out that's basically a huge commercial for all his

processed factory food products, which is unfortunate.

-

[Guest guest]

>>>>

I have Thorne Research pancreatin on order based on Dr. Ron Schmid's

recommendation in his article on the WAPF site and because it's a capsule

rather than a tablet like Lipanase and Zypan. That might work even better.

---->are you referring to " bio-gest " ? i've tried that with Mokie. I'm

currently using Designs for Health " Digestzymes " which seems to work really

well for her, but I want to find a good one *without* HCl, which both

digestzymes and bio-gest have. I think her body's become dependent on the

external HCl (and digestive enzymes!) and I'd at least like to wean her off

HCl.

>>>>I've also tried WobEnzymes, which is a mixture of pancreatin and a bunch

of

plant enzymes and costs an arm, three legs and a kidney, and I found it

somewhat less effective than other pancreatin preparations I've tried.

---->hmmm...i've considered wobenzyme. at least it's not really expensive

when you're only 9 lbs!

thanks for all the suggestions.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>Don't want to open a can of worms, but thought I'd mention that

some>people are placing their bets with the theory that reduced caloric

intake>can extend one's potential lifespan. There's no hard evidence it'll

work>for humans, but there's substantial evidence for other species, and

this>would definitely be a drawback to extra calories.<<

What if the restricted calories causes some species to live longer so that

their genes can be passed on, so that adults of the species can reproduce

when food is again more plentiful? In other words, the longer life span is

part of a survival mechanism to insure species survival? Would the same be

true for humans? It seems to me the only thing that has been proven is

that low calorie = no insulin over production, and oh yeah, in mice, they

live longer.

What about a big meat eater... I wonder if the big cats, or bears, or

wolves would live longer on restricted calories? I don't think they'd live

happier, that's for sure. ; )

Rhea

[Guest guest]

> I've been curious about this myself. Some of the " insulin researchers " have

> mentioned it in passing, and their take is that the overproduction of

> insulin is the major culprit (not the calories per se). The thing about the

> " long life " diet that struck me is that is MUST be a high-nutrient diet to

> work -- neither people nor mice do well on a diet of *less* junk food. Lab

> mice are normally fed mouse-chow, which is a high-grain mix they don't

> usually get in the wild. The animals on the calorie restricted diets are

> also on a diet that is high-nutrient, which I'm guessing is not the same

> old mouse-chow.

>

> So for a human, the long-life diets I've read seem to consist of a lot of

> vegies and meats, which is pretty much what you end up with if you are on a

> lower-carb diet, or a paleo diet, or several other diets, which strikes me

> as an interesting synchronicity. The thing about that kind of diet is, that

> even if you don't watch your calories, most people eat far fewer calories

> because, even with the added fat, the food is just so darn filling. Even

> the Macrobiotic diets (which are vegetarian) are really, really filling

> because of the fiber and nutrient content.

>

>

> Heidi S

Yeah, the calorie restriction (CR) guru, Walford, wrote a nice book

recently that really hammered on the idea of nutrient-density. That's the

whole trick, making every calorie count in terms of nutrients. (Unfortunately,

Walford's own nutritional approach has a few shortcomings that would be

obvious to anyone on this list.) It's kind of funny, though, that some of

the people who do CR eat low-fat, processed foods, take lots of

supplements, and have hunger problems. On the other hand, others are very

savvy. It's a wildly heterogenous cohort.

and , thanks for the critical viewpoint on CR. I'm also aware

of these controversies involving the disentanglement of insulin effects,

etc. I keep one eye on the theoretical debates, but since CR is

independently appealing and these issues are far from being resolved, I'm

keeping the

odds stacked in my favor. There's still quite a bit of substance to the

oxidative stress theory of aging. By the way, I was already a skinny guy

when I read about CR, so to me it's just a reason to keep doing what I'd

be doing anyway. Thanks to WAPF/NT and all sorts of random sources, I've

got the nutrient-density part down pretty well now (always things to

tweak of course), so CR is a no-brainer. The only downside is that one has

to be very careful about bone-density, but while that's a very

complicated issue that I plan to investigate in great depth in the coming

years, I'm optimistic that it's manageable.

Additionally, one specific remark for Chris. You pointed out that lower

calorie levels can cause lower insulin levels, and so even if everything

boils down to insulin (and I seriously doubt everything is going to boil

down to just one thing), it would not be correct to conclude as you did

that calorie intake is irrelevant. Quite to the contrary, it would among

the key tools one would have to regulate insulin, alongside macronutrient

ratios, etc.

Mike

[Guest guest]

very interesting thought! I wonder if this is discussed in one of

Walford's older books. I've only read the two most recent ones.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Rhea Richmond wrote:

> >>Don't want to open a can of worms, but thought I'd mention that

> some>people are placing their bets with the theory that reduced caloric

> intake>can extend one's potential lifespan. There's no hard evidence it'll

> work>for humans, but there's substantial evidence for other species, and

> this>would definitely be a drawback to extra calories.<<

>

> What if the restricted calories causes some species to live longer so that

> their genes can be passed on, so that adults of the species can reproduce

> when food is again more plentiful? In other words, the longer life span is

> part of a survival mechanism to insure species survival? Would the same be

> true for humans? It seems to me the only thing that has been proven is

> that low calorie = no insulin over production, and oh yeah, in mice, they

> live longer.

>

> What about a big meat eater... I wonder if the big cats, or bears, or

> wolves would live longer on restricted calories? I don't think they'd live

> happier, that's for sure. ; )

>

> Rhea

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 12:35 PM 3/15/2003 -0500, you wrote:

> >That may be true for some people. I've done it both ways, and I have to say

> >that the changes I've made over the last year have been much more permanent

> >and much less painful,

>

>Could this be because the first time around you didn't eat enough fat? Or

>because you were missing some other source of nutrition, like my personal

>favorite liver? <g>

Could be. In general though, I find I do better if I take things slowly.

It's a life principle with me -- do things one step at a time. I've made

HUGE changes in my life, and people keep asking how I can do it,

but if I concentrate only on one thing at a time, it's easy. I.e. I did NOT

learn to make kefir and kimchi at the same time -- I went on a kefir kick,

then after I had that down, I went on to kimchi. Right now I'm experimenting

with milk (or lack thereof). I track everything in a food diary, so I can tell

the macronutrient levels etc. easily. Every time I have tried an extreme

diet I " crash and burn " at some point because I just miss some food or

the other and I'm tired of the discipline.

Most things just work better if they are gradual. Exercise works a LOT

better if

you take it gradually -- when, in my younger years, I pushed myself

to run 4 miles at a pop I ended up with shin splints and gave up running.

This time I started with a mere 10 minutes a day

on a Nordic Track and wimpy weights --

now I'm up to a hard 20 minutes a day and 25lb hand weights, and I've

had no injuries whatsoever. No back problems either, which so far literally

every other adult my age seems to have!

But, for some people it might be better to leap off the cliff and be

done with it, esp. people who enjoy extremes, and it IS easier for a lot

of people to say " No sugar at all " than to cut down, because some foods

are just " trigger foods. "

As for Atkins reporting heart issues -- maybe. Given how much he

has been under attack though, and how defensive he is, and the financial

interest he has, I'm not sure. The people selling Ephedra certainly don't

believe it causes any damage, though there are certainly reports of it

causing heart attacks. But I don't have hard evidence either, and everyone

should be skeptical of everything (another life philosophy of mine).

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

>It seems to me the only thing that has been proven is

>that low calorie = no insulin over production, and oh yeah, in mice, they

>live longer.

I have a friend who has rats that keep getting tumors, and another thing

did occur to me. Much pet food is made with " dock sweepings " -- that is,

grain that falls on the floor or whatever and is swept up. Which probably

includes bits of rat poison, bird poison, anti-fungals, and anti-weevil

stuff that they use around granaries, I'd guess (I was working at a granary

for a bit in college). So mice fed commercial mouse feed likely get

a lot of bad stuff besides calories. Anyway, my mice almost ALWAYS died

of cancer, not old age.

I'd wonder how mice would fare if you fed them their " wild " diet --

insects, greens, roots, nuts, and maybe the occasional dead animal --

and compare the " all you can eat " cohort with a reduced calorie cohort.

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

> > Additionally, one specific remark for Chris. You pointed out that lower

> > calorie levels can cause lower insulin levels, and so even if everything

> > boils down to insulin (and I seriously doubt everything is going to boil

> > down to just one thing), it would not be correct to conclude as you did

> > that calorie intake is irrelevant. Quite to the contrary, it would among

> > the key tools one would have to regulate insulin, alongside macronutrient

> > ratios, etc.

>

> I don't really think so. There are too many variables. Cutting excess

> carbs, adding fat, and exercising more would help lower insulin a lot more

> efficiently than generally cutting calories. Calorie level and insulin is

> largely coincidental except in cases where people are actually *over*eating,

> that can cause excessive insulin even in the absence of excessive carbs. As

> to calories, I eat until I'm full, but not stuffed. If I can't go four or

> five hours without getting hungry, I didn't eat enough. If I feel bloated or

> an energy slag, I ate too much. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room to

> play with calories, I, and everyone else, just need to eat a certain amount

> of food, individual to each of us, to maintain a good weight, feel energetic

> and satisifed after meals, etc.

It's not an either-or situation: one can simultaneously implement the

strategies you mentioned alongside any other strategy than may have its

own independent virtues, such as calorie restriction.

Many people like to eat until they're almost full, like 80% or so, without

experiencing any drawbacks. Personally, I have no idea how to make this

kind of judgement, because it's seems like there's a very broad range of meal

sizes that work fine for me. Additionally, there is only a very loose

relationship between caloric intake and satiety. In fact, I think it's

possible to feel " full " without eating anything at all. I've never had a

problem going long periods of time without eating, although these days I

do things very systematically and eat every four or five hours. In my

early undergrad days as a math major I would frequently wait till the last

minute to do some hairy problem set, waking up the day it was due (or

starting the night before and not sleeping at all) and not stopping to

even think about food or anything else until it was finished (usually

about five minutes after the class had started!), and then maybe eating in

the early evening or so. It was very common for me to eat only once a day

and I never thought about food or felt a lack of energy. I absolutely

positively never ate breakfast from the time I was a kid until about a

year ago. I like to speculate that these questionable habits might have

had at least one positive effect in the form of robust hunger regulation

mechanisms.

Sorry to be rambling on here...

Mike

[Guest guest]

" She also told me that once you've had candida in your body that it is always

" right there. " So I wonder if this may be a lifetime diet to keep it from

recurring. "

I was always under the impression that we are all born with candida in our

systems. It is only when our body's immune system is not in balence with candida

that it becomes a problem. Maybe this was just what these people wanted to

believe to sell their herbs etc. Does anyone know which is true?

a

[Guest guest]

At 06:51 PM 3/15/03 -0600, you wrote:

> " She also told me that once you've had candida in your body that it is always

" right there. "   So I wonder if this may be a lifetime diet to keep it from

recurring. "

>

>I was always under the impression that we are all born with candida in our

systems. It is only when our body's immune system is not in balence with

candida that it becomes a problem. Maybe this was just what these people

wanted

to believe to sell their herbs etc. Does anyone know which is true?

>

>a

Thrush, which used to be more common it seems in baby's mouths is

yeast/candida

overgrowth. Maybe it was created to what its become with yeasted foods, drinks

and isn't natural. Just a thought.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> >I was always under the impression that we are all born with candida in our

>systems. It is only when our body's immune system is not in balence with

>candida that it becomes a problem. Maybe this was just what these people

>wanted

>to believe to sell their herbs etc. Does anyone know which is true?

> >

> >a

There seem to be two camps on Candida:

1. Candida invades your system, and causes you to crave sugar and causes

blood sugar imbalances.

2. If you have high blood sugar, it tends to cause Candida to overgrow.

I don't have definitive evidence for either 1. or 2., and the debate is

about as hot as the " Fat vs. Carbs " issue. So I'm going to try not to

take sides here.

I tend to believe that the body fights off invaders pretty well, and yeasts

in general LOVE sugar, so if you have high blood sugar you would tend

to get yeast overgrowths. Candida is always found in your gut though,

and that is ok. It is only a problem if it goes elsewhere.

I don't know if the folks who have recurrent Candida problems ever

measure their blood sugar levels. A lot of Americans have some degree

of insulin resistance, so their blood sugar levels are higher than they should

be. You can lower your insulin resistance by eating less sugar/starch (which

is one of the recommendations of the Candida diet), or by getting

some good, hard exercise. But if you tend towards high blood sugar,

that is likely a permanent condition as soon as you start eating

a fair bit of sugar again, so it makes sense to me that the Candida

would " come back, " even if you got rid of it totally. But it is such a

common yeast that I don't think anyone ever really gets rid of it.

Also, yeasts tend to take over when there are not bacteria present.

So part of the Candida issue is the antibiotic issue. Foods are full

of preservatives (which are there to kill bacteria) and people take

antibiotics, so the Candida has an easy time of it.

Yeasts and bacteria don't like each other, and yeasts tend to

fight each other too, so if you drink kefir the kefir bacteria and the

kefir yeast tend to replace the Candida Albicans, in your gut anyway.

They fight other baddies too. I've been wondering if they are

good against mycoplasma, which seem to be problematic (I've

been experimenting with kefir whey for nasal infections, which

often have mycoplasma, and some people use kefir whey

for vaginal Candida infections).

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/15/03 4:12:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, bwp@...

writes:

> It's not an either-or situation: one can simultaneously implement the

> strategies you mentioned alongside any other strategy than may have its

> own independent virtues, such as calorie restriction.

That's the point-- I'm saying that in most circumstances calorie restriction

*isn't* and independent virtue, but is dependent on its coinciding with lower

carb intake or other factors affecting insulin.

> Many people like to eat until they're almost full, like 80% or so, without

> experiencing any drawbacks. Personally, I have no idea how to make this

> kind of judgement, because it's seems like there's a very broad range of

> meal

> sizes that work fine for me. Additionally, there is only a very loose

> relationship between caloric intake and satiety. In fact, I think it's

> possible to feel " full " without eating anything at all. I've never had a

> problem going long periods of time without eating, although these days I

> do things very systematically and eat every four or five hours.

Do you define that as a long period? Everyone should be able to go that long

without eating, and if they can't, they are very deficient in fat probably.

I can't go *long* periods without eating or I totally crash, nor can I skip

breakfast. Some people can do both fine.

> In my

> early undergrad days as a math major I would frequently wait till the last

> minute to do some hairy problem set, waking up the day it was due (or

> starting the night before and not sleeping at all) and not stopping to

> even think about food or anything else until it was finished (usually

> about five minutes after the class had started!), and then maybe eating in

> the early evening or so. It was very common for me to eat only once a day

> and I never thought about food or felt a lack of energy. I absolutely

> positively never ate breakfast from the time I was a kid until about a

> year ago. I like to speculate that these questionable habits might have

> had at least one positive effect in the form of robust hunger regulation

> mechanisms.

I really don't think so. I think some people have the capability to do that

and some don't. Metabolic types can change from different periods in life

but often don't. I know a lot of people who grew up not eating breakfast.

But they didn't eat breakfast growing up *because* it didn't bother them. I

ate breakfast growing up because I *had* to, if I wanted to not be keeling

over from hunger all day.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>>>>I was always under the impression that we are all born with candida in

our systems. It is only when our body's immune system is not in balence with

candida that it becomes a problem. Maybe this was just what these people

wanted to believe to sell their herbs etc. Does anyone know which is true?

----->a, i've read in a number of sources that we are not *born with*

bacteria in our guts, but that our GI tract starts being populated shortly

after birth, with a significant # of micro-organisms coming from mother's

milk. if that is so, then i would tend to doubt that we would be *born with*

candida. Candida is a normal resident of the GI tract, albeit in small #s. i

would assume it comes from external sources, as do bacteria. and as heidi

mentioned, *overgrows* when immunity is down, or if a person has dysbiosis -

imbalanced gut flora, which is probably *extremely* common among modern

americans on SAD, eating lots of starch, overusing antibiotics and living in

a *hyper-hygenic* environment.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...