Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:51 pm**

Gumby wrote: So, I'm not sure that the "shortcut" would work without warmth and time.

I did put mildly warm water in it to begin with and I'm sure it worked because the water the next morning was super cloudy and the grain looked very different, and tasted different. The differrence in the water was not the case just letting grain soak in water by itself for 24 hours.

Again this is a very specific kind of enzyme product.

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:58 pm**

Ah. An overnight soak. Got it. By "shortcut" I thought you were talking about less time. I've discovered that putting the bowl on top of my water heater is close to +80°, so it can be a good place to soak overnight when the kitchen is too cold.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:48 am**

@Benko, you haven't responded, but basically I was just wondering out loud about my own seed intake, based on MachineGhost's line that I quoted at #53

MachineGhost wrote:But the main point is to avoid the harsh grain/seed fibers that punches holes in or causes other trauma to the gut.

I don't have celiac disease, but I apparently have some wheat sensitivity. So, whether Dr Davis' claims are valid or not, I do feel better by avoiding most wheat products.
I don't have a milk allergy -- my friend does, and it can be quite serious. Life threatening. However, I do have trouble digesting milk proteins and therefore feel less bloated if I take it easy with dairy intake.

Again, I'm wondering out loud about the hole-punching sentence above, because it appears to be independent of any allergies or sensitivities.

------------------ earlier ----------------------

dualstow wrote:
Benko wrote: And if you read the post (dualstow) a few posts back--and I'm not picking on him, but it is very easy to read the posts here and conclude e.g. that fiber and grains are evil and you should never consume them.
I don't quite get that line. Did you mean that I have a confusing post a few posts back or that I should read a few posts back?

By the way, I'm still enjoying crushed aniseed and caraway, but now I strain it out before I drink.
I guess I consume a lot of flaxseed but it's all ground up and cooked in the wheat belly flax wrap recipe.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:39 am**

dualstow wrote:Again, I'm wondering out loud about the hole-punching sentence above, because it appears to be independent of any allergies or sensitivities.

Dualstow. It depends on who you ask... Read these two contrasting opinions.

The first opinion is telling us that intestinal cell injury, from grains, is a good thing... because the cell injury from grains causes us to secrete more mucus:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093156.htm

The second opinion tells us how crazy that theory is:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fibe ... e-and-aft/

Personally, I don't see how constant intestinal cell injury — all in the name of increased mucus production — is a good thing. But, what do I know?

All I know is that over the course of human history (+2 million years), grain consumption is a very new phenomenon (~10,000 years). So, it would seem that humans evolved to digest food without the need for fiber that injures the intestinal wall. And as far as I can tell, it's only been the last 100 years that people really stopped preparing those grains in a traditional manner (which used to include soaking, sprouting, fermentation, etc.). I believe those ancient techniques, and extended preparation, was probably done for a reason.

I have seen some evidence of people and populations who are "healthy" eating some traditionally prepared grains...

See: http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/ ... human.html
(Chris Masterjohn, the author of that article, also authors a blog for Weston Price Foundation)

...but it's difficult to find evidence of modern grain preparations being "healthy" (unless you believe in the beneficial cell-injury theory). I think it comes down to the tradeoff. Grains are cheap can help feed large populations — especially through food shortages. However, those benefits may come at the expense of gut health. (The main reason humans decided to turn to grains/agriculture is because populations increased, people stopped chasing/migrating after animal herds and they started running out of food to hunt).

I would also point out that these days it's quite difficult to find grains that weren't processed on machines that also processed wheat and soy — which can lead to some contaminations.

Basically, if you want to eat grains, and want to play it safe, I would follow WAPF guidelines. Nobody has studied modern vs. traditional grain preparation more than them. The book Nourishing Traditions has everything you'd ever want to know about traditional grain preparation and there is a guidebook published annually from WAPF (costs $3) that tells you which national consumer foods brands are produced in that manner.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:02 am**

I appreciate that Gumby, especially your notes on grain preparation.
Certainly, there's nothing inherently bad about grain or seeds, because it's worked well* for a long time, but:
A) as you mentioned, traditional preparation has dwindled, and
B) as Dr Davis asserts, wheat is not what it was in the 1950's and earlier. (And not just because of intentional genetic modification).

*A very long time ago, I read something about wheat-eating westerners and millet-eating northern Chinese being generally taller than rice-eating Asians. I don't know if that has been overturned or if the height disparity really does have something to do with the nutritional value of wheat and not something else.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:31 am**

dualstow ,

Apologies for not replying. Gumby and I have been back and forth over this but since you asked:

"I'm wondering out loud about the hole-punching sentence above"
My opinion is that it is sensationalist BS which is harmful because it causes people like you to worry and the worry is likely to be more harmful to you than the grains. Seriously. Now let me be clear.

1. People do silly things like the fruitarian I was once told about who ate 10 bananas per day. So if you are eating a large bowel of cooked grains with each meal, it would not shock me if that is too much for many people's gut to deal with. And most cold cereal is just junk.

2. If you have a gut problem, whether it has a label given to you by a doctor, or your gut is not quite right, you need to experiment and see what works for you. And this may certainly include avoiding grains if that is what your body needs.

3. If you have a healthy gut, and are eating e.g. 1/2 cup (dry measure) of cooked grains per day, I would just forget about the whole issue.

4. There may very well be some people with borderline guts and you can see how you feel eating vs not eating grains and also perhaps try soaking the grains (or the shortcut I gave which is less effort, but still time for the grains to soak).

5. Wheat may very well be a seperate case and it may be a good idea for many/most to avoid wheat.

6. NOTE VERY WELL: One can create intellectual arguments (and often find research to back you up) to support almost anything including different schools of dietary thought which contradict each other. Thus the importance of seeing what works for you.

7. There are many adverse reacction e.g. dairy which are not life threatening i.e. not anaphalactic which is what I was referring to about dairy.

8.I'm still enjoying crushed aniseed and caraway, but now I strain it out before I drink.
I wouldn't bother with straining.

There might be reasons to limit your consumption to 2 tbsp of ground flaxseeds per day, having nothing to do with this discussion but for hormonal reasons. MG may be a better person to ask about this than I.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:47 am**

Just to offer up my experience, I've found that I tolerate a low to moderate amount of grains pretty well. Breakfast consists of bacon and eggs, but many lunches include a sandwich or tortilla, and we probably eat pasta at least a night or two a week. None of these grains have ever given me any real trouble, and I have no problem maintaining a healthy weight. Even when I was eating cold cereal every day, I didn't see any particular adverse effects, but I've still given it up.

It is, however, a huge comfort to find out that rice is "safe starch" because I freakin' love rice.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:55 am**

Thanks, Benko! Very comprehensive.
I agree that worry can be more detrimental than a cookie here or an allegedly gut-tearing seed there.
I think I have a pretty healthy gut, but irritable bowel syndrome does run in the family.

I eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, too, PointedStick. It's something I look forward to once or twice a week. I used to love it as a kid, and now I love it even more now that I have found a diet that allows it (Probably rationalizing on my part).

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:25 am**

Benko wrote: And thanks for the full disclosure. For awhile back (until you mentioned your fruit veggie intake) I remember wondering if you lived entirely on meat/satuirated fats (well and broth).

I actually thought that too! Especially when he couldn't poop.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:30 am**

Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012 Dec;66(12):1290-4. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2012.143. Epub 2012 Oct 17.

Leukocyte telomere length and its relation to food and nutrient intake in an elderly population.
Tiainen AM, Männistö S, Blomstedt PA, Moltchanova E, Perälä MM, Kaartinen NE, Kajantie E, Kananen L, Hovatta I, Eriksson JG.

Source
Department of Chronic Disease Prevention, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. anna-maija.tiainen@thl.fi

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:
Shorter leukocyte telomere length (LTL) is associated with several chronic diseases, but only a few studies have assessed the association between dietary factors and LTL. Our objective was to study the association between fats, fruits, vegetables and LTL in a cross-sectional study design. We hypothesized that intakes of fruits and vegetables would be positively associated with LTL and that intakes of fats, and especially saturated fatty acids (SFAs), would be negatively associated with LTL.

SUBJECTS/METHODS:
LTL was measured by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction in 1942 men and women aged 57-70 years from the Helsinki Birth Cohort Study. We assessed the whole diet by a validated semiquantitative 128-item food-frequency questionnaire.

RESULTS:
In general, there were only a few significant results. However, total fat and SFA intake (P=0.04 and 0.01, respectively) were inversely associated with LTL in men adjusting for age and energy intake. In women, vegetable intake was positively associated with LTL (P=0.05). Men consuming the most butter and least fruits had significantly shorter telomeres than those consuming the lowest amounts of butter and highest amounts of fruits (P=0.05). We found no association between LTL and body mass index, waist-hip ratio, smoking, physical activity or educational attainment.

CONCLUSIONS:
In this cross-sectional study of elderly men and women, there were only a few statistically significant effects of diet, but in general they support the hypothesis that fat and vegetable intakes were associated with LTL.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:35 am**

moda0306 wrote: This stuff is kind of mind blowing. Part of me still doesn't want to believe it.

Its hard to escape the logical conclusion that everything promoted and commercialized as "good for you" has been a crony capitalist conspiracy.

Posted: **Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:34 pm**

I was discussing grains with my TCM practitioner who reminded me that rice (at least american rice) is contaminated with arsenic (apparently from chicken poop from the antiparasitic drugs feed to chickens).

I would certainly not worry about eating e.g. rice with asian food a coupla times a month (about my consumption) but I'll stick to oats/barley for my daily consumption and perhaps soak it and or take phytase if I get around to it.

Eating rice (at least american rice) daily may remove the (hypothetical in my eyes) risk of whatever, but will most certainly give you arsenic which is far worse.

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:06 am**

Benko wrote:Eating rice (at least american rice) daily may remove the (hypothetical in my eyes) risk of whatever, but will most certainly give you arsenic which is far worse.

Let's not get sensationalist about rice now

It really depends on the rice you buy. Chris Kresser did a great article about the arsenic scare. Basically avoid all brown rice.

Chris Kresser: Arsenic in rice: how concerned should you be?

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:16 am**

And also... to put all this into context. Jaminet will write articles about how X is bad for you, given certain correlations and whatnot. The correlations are interesting, but they rarely prove anything definitely. And so, he will argue that pork is bad for you or chicken is high in omega-6, etc. And therefore you shouldn't eat it. But, the fact is that we can eat these things as part of a healthy diet — provided you just exercise common-sense moderation.

Kresser nails it again in the following podcast, as he discusses Jaminet's various recommendations:

Chris Kresser wrote:It’s all in moderation. Like, we have the ability to deal with some amount of omega-6, and eating dark-meat chicken, you know, once or twice a week, I don’t think it’s gonna cause any serious health problems for anybody. I think that the risk in doing what I do and making people aware of these things is it’s sometimes difficult to convey the — What am I trying to say? It’s easy, I think, sometimes for it to come across too literally, and I’d like to find a way of communicating it where that’s less likely to happen. But, you know, if I write an article that says omega-6 is proinflammatory in excess and contributes to various disease states, then sometimes that gets interpreted like I shouldn’t eat any omega-6; you know, like even half of an avocado is gonna make me keel over and die of a heart attack. And I just don’t think that’s the case. I don’t see evidence really to support that, and I don’t see it clinically in my practice. I think it’s wise to reduce our omega-6 consumption significantly, as I’ve pointed out several times, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have dark-meat chicken or avocados or walnuts or things like that occasionally as part of an overall healthy diet.
Source: http://chriskresser.com/the-highly-effe ... -sinusitis

That quote was from a long discussion about how Kresser enjoys eating pork a few times per week — despite the fact that Jaminet believes that pork is bad for you. And yet, Kresser is a very big fan of Jaminet's work.

So, what does that tell us? It tells us that if Jaminet says something is "bad" for you, you can still eat it in moderation and enjoy it and it won't harm you.

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:50 am**

The diet is listing rice as the only "safe grain". This may lead people to consume it regularly e.g. daily or nearly so. Someone I know obtained elevated levels of mercury eating salmon (a low mercury fish) daily. So I agree I would not be concerned about arsenic from occasional rice consumption. Frequent consumption, is another story.

It does not sound like we disagree (and what I'm writing here is not much different from what I wrote in my last post).

If you want to quibble about how often is safe, I would say forget theorizing, get yourself tested for arsenic.

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:15 am**

Benko wrote: The diet is listing rice as the only "safe grain". This may lead people to consume it regularly e.g. daily or nearly so.

Even Jaminet says not to eat a lot of white rice. It's not nutrient dense. It's just an easy source of carbs/glucose. He prefers people eat white rice in moderation and favor the other safe starches (taro, sago, plantains, tapioca) since you get more benefit from them.

Personally, I've never seen taro or sago in a typical food market. Occasionally I see plantains, but I have no idea what to do with them. I find myself eating a lot of sweet potatoes these days, but I think I will get pretty bored of them. And tapioca, I have no idea what to do with that either.

Part of the problem with trying to eat these good starches is that people, including myself, have no idea how to eat them. They are traditional foods, yes, but that doesn't make them easy to get and prepare in America. Their next project is a Perfect Health Cookbook, and they are already collecting recipes.

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/recipes/

But, I'm not entirely impressed by the dishes just yet. Kind of wish people used those types of starches were easier to work with in terms of variety. Most people, including myself, want a little more variety.

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:11 pm**

Gumby wrote: Let's not get sensationalist about rice now It really depends on the rice you buy. Chris Kresser did a great article about the arsenic scare. Basically avoid all brown rice.

Chris Kresser: Arsenic in rice: how concerned should you be?

This sure makes me glad I now have a working sauna again!

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:13 pm**

Gumby wrote: And also... to put all this into context. Jaminet will write articles about how X is bad for you, given certain correlations and whatnot. The correlations are interesting, but they rarely prove anything definitely. And so, he will argue that pork is bad for you or chicken is high in omega-6, etc. And therefore you shouldn't eat it. But, the fact is that we can eat these things as part of a healthy diet — provided you just exercise common-sense moderation.

He kind of drops the ball on that issue too. Eggs are about 15% Omega-6. I don't know what pork is. But he seems to base what is bad for you on percentage terms not absolute values. Lean pork has very little absolute Omega-6 especially compared to eggs. You can't just live off a lot of iron-dense red meat and seafood, with occasional chicken and never pork. Blech!

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:15 pm**

Gumby wrote: Personally, I've never seen taro or sago in a typical food market. Occasionally I see plantains, but I have no idea what to do with them. I find myself eating a lot of sweet potatoes these days, but I think I will get pretty bored of them. And tapioca, I have no idea what to do with that either.

Sweet potatoes are loaded with toxic fructose. Another screwup on Jaminet's part.

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:21 pm**

Gumby wrote: But, I'm not entirely impressed by the dishes just yet. Kind of wish people used those types of starches were easier to work with in terms of variety. Most people, including myself, want a little more variety.

You should adopt a nutritional-dense morning smoothie, so the other other two meals don't get so monotnous. Move the traditional breakfast to lunch or dinner. There's no reason you have to eat certain kinds of food at certain times of day.

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:40 pm**

MachineGhost wrote:He kind of drops the ball on that issue too. Eggs are about 15% Omega-6. I don't know what pork is. But he seems to base what is bad for you on percentage terms not absolute values.

I'm pretty sure it's about tradeoff. Yes, eggs are high in Omega-6, but I guess he feels the nutrient-density is worth it.

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:48 pm**

MachineGhost wrote: Sweet potatoes are loaded with toxic fructose. Another screwup on Jaminet's part.

Not so fast. He prefers Yams or Asian Sweet Potatoes for that very reason:

Paul Jaminet wrote:One factor to consider is that there are different varieties of sweet potato. We eat an Asian sweet potato variety which is not nearly as sweet as conventional American sweet potatoes; it has a yellow flesh and a chestnut flavor. It is botanically a yam, not a sweet potato. It looks like this (via “my super sweet twenty-six”?):

Like so many modern foods, the standard American sweet potato has been bred for sweetness. Here is data from http://nutritiondata.com comparing 100 g of potatoes, yams, sweet potatoes, and grapes for sugar, starch, and fiber content:

FoodSugar (g)Starch (g)Fiber (g)

Potato1.217.32.2

Yam0.523.13.9

Sweet potato6.57.53.3

Grapes15.50.00.9

All have similar calories. Yams are largely sugar-free, but sweet potatoes are intermediate between grapes and potatoes in both sugar and starch content. They are sort of half fruit, half starch.

Thus, it is conceivable that sweet potatoes could trigger an issue like fructose malabsorption

Source: Paul Jaminet: What's The Trouble With Sweet Potatoes?

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:35 pm**

I'm in my third week on the PHD and I thought I'd give an update.

The most immediate effect I've noticed is a minor sense of what feels like constant bloat. So much that I'm having trouble eating more than two meals a day, though there were a few days where I forced myself to eat a third meal. It's not fun to eat when you are not hungry. Especially in an 8-hour feeding window. Consequently, my caloric intake has been lower than when I was zero or low carb!

I drink a ton of water everyday. I've noticed that my urine volume is dramatically less than before, no longer like a waterfall where the water intake feels like it is just passing out. It is a little disturbing, but I figure this is normal as my glycogen stores go back up.

I also have minimal desire to carb-load on the weekends after working out. The standard pre and post-workout drink is enough. Though I did attempt to adapt my gluten-free pizza crust last weekend to be PHD compliant. It will take some work and I'm just can't be bothered yet as I don't crave it.

This week I am reducing my protein intake to the 75 grams day target suitable for dieters as opposed to 120-150 grams. Carbs have a sparing effect on protein anyway. Hopefully that will free up some "room" and allow me to eat three meals. I have considered adding extra volume to just two meals and I may consider that if three meals are still out of reach, but I'm not confident I can handle 850-900 calories in a meal and be ready for another one eight hours later.

Also, it turns out that the 1/4 cup of raw almonds that I've been putting my my smoothie for years is directly responsible for my chronic nasal congestion. I have little to no reaction to grass-fed raw milk and grass-fed raw butter. I can also eat white rice again without a reaction, surprisingly. I suspect I am suspectible to the toxins in brown rice, but I'm in no hurry to verify that.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:05 pm**

MachineGhost wrote:The most immediate effect I've noticed is a minor sense of what feels like constant bloat. So much that I'm having trouble eating more than two meals a day, though there were a few days where I forced myself to eat a third meal. It's not fun to eat when you are not hungry. Especially in an 8-hour feeding window. Consequently, my caloric intake has been lower than when I was zero or low carb!

Interesting. When I eat nutrient-dense, I never feel hungry. Ever. But, I don't do the 8-hour feeding window. I just eat three normal meals. I was under the impression that the 8 hour feeding window isn't something you need to do every day, or at all, to be PHD compliant.

MachineGhost wrote:I drink a ton of water everyday. I've noticed that my urine volume is dramatically less than before, no longer like a waterfall where the water intake feels like it is just passing out. It is a little disturbing, but I figure this is normal as my glycogen stores go back up.

Sounds like you are drinking more water than the typical person on PHD. I was under the impression that high water consumption is a good idea for Very Low Carb or Zero Carb dieting. I wonder if you can now drink less water and feel less bloated now that you aren't VLC.

Most people don't need lots of water...

http://chriskresser.com/hydration-101-h ... eally-need

MachineGhost wrote:Also, it turns out that the 1/4 cup of raw almonds that I've been putting my my smoothie for years is directly responsible for my chronic nasal congestion.

Wow. Amazing to think of the long term benefit you will probably get from simply avoiding the various toxins in Almonds. Nice.

MachineGhost wrote:I have little to no reaction to grass-fed raw milk and grass-fed raw butter. I can also eat white rice again without a reaction, surprisingly.

Your gut is already healing. Well done.

MachineGhost wrote:I suspect I am suspectible to the toxins in brown rice, but I'm in no hurry to verify that.

Only poor asians and misinformed Americans eat brown rice. Brown rice is not a health food.

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:47 pm**

Is the 8 hour feeding window this diet, or is MG doing intermittent fasting? (or is it part of MG's calorie restriction?)

Gyroscopic Investing

The Permanent Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet

Re: The Perfect Health Diet