Gyroscopic Investing

I can't recommend this book highly enough!  It is technical and doesn't waste time blathering about ideology as is very common in other diet books.  The title is also a bit lame in that it covers more than just diet, specifically food toxins, nutritional defenciencies and chronic infections.

The book is not perfect.  There are some inconsistencies that seem broscience rather than backed up by the author's usual scientific evidence, but they are relatively minor.  From my perspective, however, the recommendations for supplementation is woefully inadequate, but the authors are clearly not long-standing experts in that area, so I forgive them.  However, I learned some new things.

Thanks go to Benko and Gumby for pointing me in this direction.

http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Health-Di ... 45169914X/

I have no idea what the book says (I've just downloaded the kindle version) so I find it interesting that I've pointed you in this direction.

The only thing I'm sure of is that while there are general principles, that diets need to be individualized with some people doing well on higher fats/protein, and some doing better on relatively higher amounts of (appropriate) carbs.  I first saw this in metabolic typing, but people probably intuitively do this to some extent.

Individualization, I now believe also extends to yin/yang and am presently using TCM diet general principles.

Benko wrote:The only thing I'm sure of is that while there are general principles, that diets need to be individualized with some people doing well on higher fats/protein, and some doing better on relatively higher amounts of (appropriate) carbs.  I first saw this in metabolic typing, but people probably intuitively do this to some extent.

From what I've heard/seen, there is little evidence to support metabolic typing theories (i.e. no science to actually back up the current "typing"). However, in general, I agree that everyone has to do what is right for their own bodies as everyone has different genetics. Yet, for the most part, almost everyone would do well on their own version of the Perfect Health Diet and he explains how people can custom tailor it to fit their own needs.

In my mind, one of the most interesting parts of the book is that it points out that all cells — for every living animal on the planet — is made up of the same ratios of the same building blocks (fats, cholesterol, protein etc.). Yet, every animal species needs a very different spectrum of macronutrients to feed those cells. Why? Because each animal species has a fairly different digestive tract that breaks its foods to those same essential components — to nourish cells. Jaminet explains how the human gut evolved to become less complex and do less work than other animals. And by not having such complex digestive tracts, we therefore need to eat a diet that our simple guts can efficiently use to nourish our cells with the same proper ratios that every animal winds up with. Really fascinating stuff and it all makes so much sense when you see the big picture from an evolutionary perspective.

And, even more impressive are the wide range of chronic diseases that the diet is purportedly curing. Some of that is certainly due to people transitioning from a SAD (Standard American Diet) to any relatively healthy diet. I've often said that people will see improvement in their conditions if they went from SAD to a high quality dog food. However, I now see the big picture in that dogs have even less complex stomachs than we do — so it's no wonder that dogs easily became domesticated and willingly paired up with humans, to eat our fatty table scraps. In interviews, Jaminet said he always knew the PHD (Perfect Health Diet) would cure diseases, but he didn't know which ones. Even he has been surprised at how successful it has been for helping people.

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/reader-results/

Benko wrote:Individualization, I now believe also extends to yin/yang and am presently using TCM diet general principles.

Interestingly, Jaminet's wife, Shou-Ching Shih Jaminet, Ph D. — whom he co-authored the book with — is from Korea and there is definitely an Asian influence in the book in terms of nutrition and ingredients. I think you will find it very interesting.

I'm not talking about all of metabolic typing (whatever that is) but clearly some people need and do better on higher protein/fat diet and others need/do well on higher amounts of (appropriate kinds of) carbs.  I even have somewhere guidelines that discuss how you feel after eating as indicators of whether you ate the appropriate protein/carb ratio e.g. if you're hungry too quickly after eating it was not correct.

Some people are genetically predisposed to be better as marathon runners as others better suited to be middle linebackers and whatever diet on recommends needs to account for the variation that these people are clearly going to need on their diet.

And glancing at the diet here:  http://perfecthealthdiet.com/the-diet/ both grains and legumes are no nos (except rice) and I'm not sure I'm going to give them up.  Certain kinds of grains are very healthful (not wheat) in TCM terms and I don't know that I'm going to give up oatmeal (slow cooking).  I've been eating (1/2 cup raw measure cooked) Barley many days instead of the oatmeal as well.  I'll check to see if that seems to be a problem (not that I can tell--and the overly sensitive IgE food allergy panel reacted to wheat and gluten but not to Barley). 

Safe starches 1lb/day.  Yikes at the amount and their choice.

Anyway, I'll read the book and let you know what I think.

Acid is another very individualized thing.  Some people's body's are naturally very acid and e.g. I've always instinctively strongly  disliked vinegar, etc. and a practitioner who used blood pH to measure people's reactions to food noted that about me.  So acid food and foods which make my BLOOD acid (not what you'd expect from the veggies are alkaline, etc) are not the best choices for me.

Benko wrote:Certain kinds of grains are very healthful (not wheat) in TCM terms and I don't know that I'm going to give up oatmeal (slow cooking).  I've been eating (1/2 cup raw measure cooked) Barley many days instead of the oatmeal as well.  I'll check to see if that seems to be a problem (not that I can tell--and the overly sensitive IgE food allergy panel reacted to wheat and gluten but not to Barley). 

Aren't IgE panels pretty much useless? My understanding is that they are highly prone to errors.

Most grains are full of toxins and are typically high in Omega-6. Jaminet acknowledges that sprouting and fermentation help reduce those toxins, but almost nobody takes the time to properly do that and some toxins are still present — so he doesn't include it in the diet. Weston A Price Foundation followers/members are very adept at documenting ways to "properly prepare grains" (as our not-too distant ancestors did) but it takes a lot of work and not everyone can tolerate it. You basically have to soak your grains and make sure that they are from a good source. I do that occasionally, and I enjoy it and tolerate it, but it's tough to do all the time and I fail to see the main benefit (other than enjoyment).

Benko wrote:Safe starches 1lb/day.  Yikes at the amount and their choice.

Everyone has that initial reaction. But, it seems to work wonders for many. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts after you read it.

Benko wrote: Acid is another very individualized thing.  Some people's body's are naturally very acid and e.g. I've always instinctively strongly  disliked vinegar, etc. and a practitioner who used blood pH to measure people's reactions to food noted that about me.  So acid food and foods which make my BLOOD acid (not what you'd expect from the veggies are alkaline, etc) are not the best choices for me.

Someone asked Jaminet his opinion on the acid/alkaline theory. Here's what he said...

Paul Jaminet. Ph D. wrote:I don’t think acid/alkaline mix is that important as long as mineral content is high/optimal because the urine can excrete excess acids or bases and dietary minerals, not bone minerals, can be used to accomplish this. Our diet is fairly acid/base neutral and high in minerals, so there’s no concern for us. But even highly acidic diets are only a problem if they are also malnourished. At least that’s my belief.
Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/10/ar ... mment-3107

"I fail to see the main benefit"

"Certain kinds of grains are very healthful (not wheat) in TCM terms"

Unless modern dietary theory/science is MUCH more advanced than western medicine, you are saying you are sure you know what diet is best for an organism, but our understanding of the organism is extremely imperfect to put it mildly.  This is like saying you know what optimal car maintenance is including what kinds of oil, gas, etc for a car for which your understanding is suboptimal.

I believe very strongly in TCM terms have experienced benefit to my body with herbs of which the science is not worked out fully (to put it mildly). 

Benko wrote: Certain kinds of grains are very healthful (not wheat) in TCM terms

Well, maybe you could enlighten us on the list of TCM-approved grains. I mean, exactly which grains were the chinese "traditionally" eating thousands of years ago? I'm guessing they weren't chowing down on bowls of oatmeal or grits on a regular basis. Wasn't rice the main grain? Soy was mainly used for crop rotation — as it is highly toxic — until they figured out how to ferment it. I believe millet was the first grain farmed in ancient China, however millet was traditionally fermented or soured — often for several days — to reduce phytic acid and anti-nutrients.

Domesticated grains are a product of the Neolithic period. Jaminet points out what many other Paleo researches have shown — that the human race could not possibly have had enough mutations to adapt to eating these relatively new domesticated grains. During the Paleolithic period, humans were mainly eating animals and dug-up tubers. Humans have had plenty of time (+2 million years) to adapt to that Paleolithic diet. But, right at the start Neolithic period, archaeologists discovered that the skeletons and mummies became shorter and more diseased from eating grains.

Keep in mind that before grains and nuts were domesticated, they were almost always poisonous. For instance, wild almonds are bitter and poisonous [Source]. Humans couldn't tolerate Almonds until they were domesticated. So, people certainly likely didn't eat very many wild nuts or grains before the Neolithic period. More likely, it seems that populations grew large enough that they had to find alternative (i.e. cheap and easy) ways to feed the growing populations. So, people figured out how to grow birdseed and feed it to large populations. Through hybridization and domestication — and lots of experimentation — many of these toxic grains became generally tolerable to human guts. But, there is little evidence that they are perfect foods. Far from it.

Additionally, "traditional" preparation of domesticated grains included acid-soaking, fermentation or sprouting to neutralize toxins — which, as I said, is rarely performed these days. So, even if Traditional Chinese Medicine supports the consumption of certain grains, most modern-day humans are almost certainly not preparing them properly to reduce toxin exposure. Likewise, herbivores have the ability to diminish the toxins — when eating small amounts of seeds and grains — by fermenting all of their food in their caecums and rumens. But, even herbivores weren't designed to eat large amounts of grain!

The Perfect Health Diet seeks to minimize toxin exposure and reduce Omega-6 consumption — so all "modern" preparation of grains don't cut it. That doesn't mean that you will die if you eat oats. It just means that the tradeoff they present isn't really worth it in the long run. Improperly-prepared grains tend to be full of toxins and will poke microscopic holes in your gut, which often leads to gut issues.

Benko wrote:Unless modern dietary theory/science is MUCH more advanced than western medicine, you are saying you are sure you know what diet is best for an organism, but our understanding of the organism is extremely imperfect to put it mildly.  This is like saying you know what optimal car maintenance is including what kinds of oil, gas, etc for a car for which your understanding is suboptimal.

I suppose you could use that as an excuse to ignore toxin loads and anti-nutrients in most grains. For instance, most people believe that brown rice is "healthier" than white rice. The logic is that the bran holds all of the nutrients. While it's true that brown rice technically measures higher than white rice in terms of nutrition, what few people realize is that the phytates and other anti-nutrients found in the rice bran reduces the bioavailability of any vitamins and minerals present. On top of that, the bran tends to absorb a LOT of naturally occurring arsenic found in ground water. So, white rice is preferred by those who believe in reducing toxin exposure. Brown rice is not a health food.

In the Perfect Health Diet, it all comes down to maximizing nutrition and reducing toxin exposure.

Again, I'm still not sure what the "benefit" is of eating domesticated grains — whether they are traditionally prepared or not. High in toxins, high in Omega-6, poor in bioavailabilty of nutrients (when prepared improperly), and they tend to harm the gut (when prepared improperly).

It's a bit unfair for me to tell you all this before you've had a chance to read the book, so let us know when you've had a chance to catch up!

Analogy time (since some points are best made this way):

1. Cinnamon is supposedly (not sure where latest research is) healthy for people (blood sugar) so presumably one could advocate that everyone consume it.  However it is VERY warming i.e. yang.  So if one is too yang i.e. if one has too much yang in their body, then cinnamon would not be good for that person (this is true of me and I no longer consume 1/2+ tsp of cinnamon daily).  If one was yang deficient it would likely be good for that person.

So is cinnamon good for you in TCM terms?  Mu (unask the question, or at least ask good for whom?)..

2. IF you contracted some significant illness it sounds like you would approach it scientifically, consulting your doctor, researching the best of what you could find scientifically to combat your illness.  I would certainly do that, but I would also look into TCM trying to find out what organ/energetic imbalances I had and how to remedy them in TCM terms.  What would be beneficial to me would be anything that would contribute to undoing the energetic imbalances.  None of the TCM concepts would make sense tin western medicine framework.  Different paradigm.

3. "Certainly the threat of another ice age was the topic of much scientific and popular discussion in the 1970s"
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/t ... revisited/
Then of course the global warming hysteria, and like hemlines if we wait long enough perhaps the cooling hysteria will come back in fashion.  Point being science is sure of many things that are later turned out to be wrong, or incompletely understood, and not understood with proper perspective.

End of analogies

3.  Brown rice is a straw man, as I never mentioned it.

4.  Lots of foods contain toxins in varying amounts and I'm not certain that they all cause bad results i.e. that they all are a problem for every person e.g. night shades.

I can certainly believe that people with certain gut problems would do well on a diet which eliminates many "toxins".

5.  The chinese have been using diet therapy for over 1000 and probably over 1500 years.

Five tcm physicians aging between 76 and 101 years old were asked for their healthiest food recommendations and oats were #2
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/health/medi ... dicine.htm

I should add that one can apparently dramatically lower ones cholesterol by eating 1/2 cup oats twice a day.  I'm very skeptical that cholesterol means much (unless it is 300) but I could be wrong.

Dilute rice porrige (Congee or Jook) is used as a basis of medicine adding various chinese herbs as needed for the specific condition being addressed.

6. Here is table of food properties i.e. which are heating, cooling, etc including grains:
http://www.pingminghealth.com/article/5 ... mon-foods/


We've discussed at least some of this topic before and I really can't add much to what I've said here.

I don't believe the toxins you are talking about are significant for everyone and the benefits of grains i.e. contributing to making my body more yin seem to be working for me.  It is less easily described, but in TCM grains are very nutritious, easily digested, and given to even debilitated people.   

Perhaps the "quick cooking" (10 min)  barley I've been using has less toxins?.

I could certainly be wrong and you correct

And I'll let know know after I read the book (but I have a number of book clubs next week so it is somewhat low in the stack to read).

Benko wrote: 2. IF you contracted some significant illness it sounds like you would approach it scientifically, consulting your doctor, researching the best of what you could find scientifically to combat your illness.  I would certainly do that, but I would also look into TCM trying to find out what organ/energetic imbalances I had and how to remedy them in TCM terms.  What would be beneficial to me would be anything that would contribute to undoing the energetic imbalances.  None of the TCM concepts would make sense tin western medicine framework.  Different paradigm.

I'm very intrigued by TCM, so I appreciate that. I certainly would give it a look if I was sick.

Benko wrote: 3. "Certainly the threat of another ice age was the topic of much scientific and popular discussion in the 1970s"
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/t ... revisited/
Then of course the global warming hysteria, and like hemlines if we wait long enough perhaps the cooling hysteria will come back in fashion.  Point being science is sure of many things that are later turned out to be wrong, or incompletely understood, and not understood with proper perspective.

Agreed. But, as I'm trying to explain (again) "traditional" preparation of grains is almost never done these days.

Benko wrote:4.  Lots of foods contain toxins in varying amounts and I'm not certain that they all cause bad results i.e. that they all are a problem for every person e.g. night shades.

Agreed. Although, the nightshades we typically eat are fairly low in toxins compares to "toxic" nightshades (Belladonna for instance). Additionally, the highest concentration of toxins tends to be in the parts of the plants we don't eat (roots, leaves, stems). However, once again, you are ignoring the fact that grains are high in Omega-6 and that improperly-prepared grains contain antinutrients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient

The antinutrients in grains makes it very difficult to get much benefit out of grain consumption when they are prepared improperly.

Benko wrote:I can certainly believe that people with certain gut problems would do well on a diet which eliminates many "toxins".

Agreed. And the idea is that reducing toxin exposure can more easily keep the gut healthy.

Benko wrote: 5.  The chinese have been using diet therapy for over 1000 and probably over 1500 years.

Five tcm physicians aging between 76 and 101 years old were asked for their healthiest food recommendations and oats were #2
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/health/medi ... dicine.htm

This is where your argument appears to be flawed. Why? Because you are ignoring the word "Traditional" in "Traditional Chinese Medicine". Traditionally, oats and other grains were are soaked, fermented or soured to reduce phytatic acid and antinutrients.

Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD (Weston A. Price Foundation) wrote: So the well-meaning advice of many nutritionists, to consume whole grains as our ancestors did and not refined flours and polished rice, can be misleading and harmful in its consequences; for while our ancestors ate whole grains, they did not consume them as presented in our modern cookbooks in the form of quick-rise breads, granolas, bran preparations and other hastily prepared casseroles and concoctions. Our ancestors, and virtually all pre-industrialized peoples, soaked or fermented their grains before making them into porridge, breads, cakes and casseroles. A quick review of grain recipes from around the world will prove our point: In India, rice and lentils are fermented for at least two days before they are prepared as idli and dosas; in Africa the natives soak coarsely ground corn overnight before adding it to soups and stews and they ferment corn or millet for several days to produce a sour porridge called ogi; a similar dish made from oats was traditional among the Welsh; in some Oriental and Latin American countries rice receives a long fermentation before it is prepared; Ethiopians make their distinctive injera bread by fermenting a grain called teff for several days; Mexican corn cakes, called pozol, are fermented for several days and for as long as two weeks in banana leaves; before the introduction of commercial brewers yeast, Europeans made slow-rise breads from fermented starters; in America the pioneers were famous for their sourdough breads, pancakes and biscuits; and throughout Europe grains were soaked overnight, and for as long as several days, in water or soured milk before they were cooked and served as porridge or gruel. (Many of our senior citizens may remember that in earlier times the instructions on the oatmeal box called for an overnight soaking.)

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/food-featur ... our-grains

In other words, modern preparation of grains is in no way compatible with "Traditional" Chinese Medicine.

Benko wrote:I should add that one can apparently dramatically lower ones cholesterol by eating 1/2 cup oats twice a day.  I'm very skeptical that cholesterol means much (unless it is 300) but I could be wrong.

That's another interesting part of the book. Jaminet shows rather convincing evidence that total cholesterol between 200 and 260 is associated with longevity and reduction of infectious diseases. He goes into more detail here:

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/06/bl ... se-part-i/
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/07/bl ... e-part-ii/

So, this idea that we should eat grains to lower our cholesterol appears to be rather flawed when we look at how cholesterol protects us from infections and diseases. Of course, if you are eating a high Omega-6 diet, heavy in improperly prepared grains, you may be contributing to inflammation and oxidizing that cholesterol while raising triglycerides — which would not be good. If you manage to eat enough oats to lower your cholesterol below 200, you may be making yourself more prone to infections and disease.

Benko wrote:Dilute rice porrige (Congee or Jook) is used as a basis of medicine adding various chinese herbs as needed for the specific condition being addressed.

Yes. The Perfect Health Diet encourages rice consumption. Congee or Jook is also cooked for eight to nine hours until the rice grains have dissolved completely, for maximum digestibility. Digestibility is the name of the game here.

Benko wrote:I don't believe the toxins you are talking about are significant for everyone

Correct. Many people can tolerate toxins. On the other hand, many people cannot and those toxins likely contribute to chronic disease and metabolic disorder. Jaminet is simply arguing that keeping toxin exposure low is one of the keys to good health.

Benko wrote:It is less easily described, but in TCM grains are very nutritious, easily digested, and given to even debilitated people.

Yes, when the grains are prepared in a "traditional" manner.

Benko wrote:Perhaps the "quick cooking" (10 min)  barley I've been using has less toxins?.

Not likely. Traditionally, grains were always prepared in a slow fashion, for good reason. "Quick Oats" were never a part of "Traditional Chinese Medicine." Additionally, most "quick oats" are processed on equipment that is used to process wheat — which often leads to various kinds of contamination.

I don't know if your "traditional grain preparation" is the same as what is done in "traditional chinese medicine".  I will ask my herbalist (congee is something else again), but I am skeptical as I've seen recipies for e.g. oatmeal on the web from tcm practitioners and have not seen long soaking mentioned (then again, it could have been lost in the translation).

Benko wrote: Where did quick oats come from?

It's a denatured oat that comes from modern processing.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_oats

Only whole oats contain avenanthramides that supposedly protect us from arteriosclerosis. But, of course, to eat "whole oats" you need to really soak them.

Interestingly, directions on early oatmeal packaging used to recommend overnight soaking mediums. Corporations soon realized they could sell more oats if the directions were faster and less complex.

Benko wrote: I don't know if your "traditional grain preparation" is the same as what is done in "traditional chinese medicine".  I will ask my herbalist (congee is something else again), but I am skeptical as I've seen recipies for e.g. oatmeal on the web from tcm practitioners and have not seen long soaking mentioned (then again, it could have been lost in the translation).

Congee is soaked and cooked for a very long time to improve digestibility. Rice cookers have a "Congee" setting that allows the rice to be cooked overnight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congee#Preparation

Personally, I think it's all been lost in translation. The more I read about traditional preparation of foods, the more I'm convinced that it's a lost art.

For instance, here is a video on how an old mexican woman makes her "traditional" tortillas.

YouTube: Magdalena's Traditional Tortillas

As you can see, the "traditional" preparation of tortillas is excruciating and time consuming. Her own children scoff at the idea of taking the time to soak the corn in lime water and boil it overnight (and traditionally soaked up to 1 to 2 weeks to promote fermentation). They think she is crazy and they have no idea that there is a reason for doing all that work. The traditional art is lost to modern "convenience". (Technically her kids can now buy Masa which has been very briefly pre-soaked in lime water for a few minutes, before milling).

It would honestly not surprise me if an herbalist is unaware of all traditional methods of grain preparation.

Benko wrote: I should add that one can apparently dramatically lower ones cholesterol by eating 1/2 cup oats twice a day.  I'm very skeptical that cholesterol means much (unless it is 300) but I could be wrong.

I remember the oat bran muffin hype, back in the day.  Eventually, it was discovered that a particular soluble fiber in oats was responsible for the cholesterol lowering effect.  That fiber is more familarly called beta glucan (which can also come from mushrooms but I'm unaware if it has the same cholesterol lowering effect).  A concentrated version of oat beta glucans is sold as Nutrim.  Not advocating it or anything, just pointing out how Cheerios still exploits the oat myth to sell its cereal (even though you would have to eat 3 cups per day to have any effect).

Back when I could not eat any carbs due to what now seems like endotoxic reactions in hindsight, oatmeal was literally the only carb I could tolerate and had to live off of.  If I remember correctly, cooked oatmeal is one of the gut-healing foods recommended in naturopathy because it has mucilagous properties, i.e. it would help sooth and heal the gut with its goop.  Obviously, that effect must have taken precedence over toxins in the short term.  I can't eat oatmeal anymore; the acid now burns my esophagus and that is no fun.

MachineGhost wrote:oatmeal was literally the only carb I could tolerate and had to live off of.  If I remember correctly, cooked oatmeal is one of the gut-healing foods recommended in naturopathy because it has mucilagous properties, i.e. it would help sooth and heal the gut with its goop.  Obviously, that effect must have taken precedence over toxins in the short term.  I can't eat oatmeal anymore; the acid now burns my esophagus and that is no fun.

The avenanthramides in cooked whole oats does seem to have some magical properties.

From WikiPedia:

WikiPedia.org wrote: Ancient literature describes the anti-inflammatory and antipruritic properties of oatmeal. In 1978 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) external review panel noted that colloidal oatmeal was safe and effective for the symptomatic relief of dry skin and itching.

Recent studies were conducted to verify whether avenanthramides are also responsible for the antipruritic activity of oat extracts. The results of human in vivo skin prick tests combined with an in vitro model, investigating the inhibitory activity of avenanthramides on the histamine net release from rat peritoneal mast cells stimulated by substance P showed a clear indication that avenanthramides found in oat extract play a major role in the reduction of itching and redness in skin. Because of the fundamental role of histamine in itch sensation, these results can be considered as a clear indication that oat extracts with a standardized content of avenanthramides are useful materials to reduce histamine related itch sensation and redness in skin.

Most recently, extracts containing avenanthramides have been used in veterinary medicine in various topical forms, such as shampoos, sprays and ear cleansing solutions, by AvenaPro Pet Solutions for the relief of companion animals exhibiting adverse skin conditions, including atopic dermatitis.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avenanthramide

Clearly oatmeal can be therapeutic. However, being "therapeutic" doesn't necessarily make it an every day food. My main point is that modern preparation of oats makes them not so great — they are really just a cheap source of energy for large populations. Most commercially available oats are processed on the same machinery as other less-healthy grains, including wheat — which leads to various kinds of contamination (gluten, mold, toxins) — and are stored in warehouses for extended periods of time. Uncooked oats contain mycotoxins, phytic acid, and lectins. However, the proper preparation of oatmeal (i.e. extended acid soaking and cooking) often reduces some of these toxins significantly.

So, yes, oatmeal can be beneficial when properly prepared and from a good source, and I completely agree that many people can tolerate some level of these toxins fairly well. But, again, not everyone can — and that's the whole point of the PHD.

Nevertheless, I'm still not sure I see why it would be wise to choose oats as one's regular high Omega-6 food (the PHD prefers eggs for the n-6/nutrition trade off). It seems a bit misguided to eat a lot of oats, unless there's a good reason. Properly prepared oatmeal on occasion seems fine though — especially if it's well tolerated.

The title's a bit off-putting.

Ch: 15 is about Alcohol. Could someone give me a heads-up on that? Is there anything fun in there, or is alcohol to be avoided?

dualstow wrote: Ch: 15 is about Alcohol. Could someone give me a heads-up on that? Is there anything fun in there, or is alcohol to be avoided?

Its the usual "in moderation" shtick, which I think is conventionally defined as 2 glasses for men and 1 glass for women, per day.

It's very plausible that moderate alcohol intake induces a hormetic effect despite the truly massive free radical damage that alcohol incurs.  And certainly the B-vitamins, reseveratrol and grape bioactives in the "alcohol tincture" help as well.  It's not for me, though.  I value my brain cells a great deal.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the hormesis is my interpretation, not the book.  I don't believe hormesis is even within the author's purview.

Ok thanks.

For those who, like me, had no idea what hormetic meant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
It only kills the weak cells, don't you know. ;-)

I can see from the co-author's name that she is Taiwanese, which is always interesting to me. (Spent a lot of time there). But, she was raised by Koreans and has a PhD, acc. to Amazon. Curious.

He goes into more detail about alcohol, here: Is It Smart to Drink?

And here's something I didn't know...

Paul Jaminet Ph. D. wrote:Interestingly, drinking alcohol may be a healthful way to raise HDL. We’ve previously discussed epidemiological evidence for health benefits from drinking and the matter of how to drink safely (Is It Smart to Drink?, Sep 9, 2010), but didn’t discuss alcohol’s effect on HDL.

Well, it’s significant. Alcohol increases HDL-C level, with higher doses of ethanol leading to higher HDL levels and lower rates of coronary artery disease. This works as long as there is no liver damage. Once liver damage begins, alcohol lowers HDL. [10]

This is good news because alcohol alone does not damage the liver – only the combination of alcohol with polyunsaturated fats – either omega-6 or omega-3 will do. As long as alcohol is consumed only with saturated fats, it is likely to be beneficial to health.

Here’s some numbers relating alcohol dose to HDL increase:

  * One beer per day raised HDL by 4.4% without affecting other lipid parameters. [11]
  * A half-bottle of wine per day (containing 39 g ethanol) raised HDL by 17% without affecting other lipid parameters. [12]

It is possible that red wine is particularly beneficial for HDL due to certain plant compounds that accompany the alcohol. [13]

In an analysis of the MRFIT trial, alcohol’s HDL-raising effect was found to be responsible for half of its benefits for mortality from coronary heart disease. [14] It appears that alcohol’s other health benefits, from its glucose-lowering effect to its stress-relieving effect, are less important for health than its HDL-raising effect.

[10] Lakshman R et al. Is alcohol beneficial or harmful for cardioprotection? Genes Nutr. [Epub ahead of print] http://pmid.us/20012900.

[11] Thornton J et al. Moderate alcohol intake reduces bile cholesterol saturation and raises HDL cholesterol. Lancet. 1983 Oct 8;2(8354):819-22. http://pmid.us/6137650.

[12] McConnell MV et al. Effects of a single, daily alcoholic beverage on lipid and hemostatic markers of cardiovascular risk. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Nov 1;80(9):1226-8. http://pmid.us/9359559.

[13] Brien SE et al. Effect of alcohol consumption on biological markers associated with risk of coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies. BMJ. 2011 Feb 22;342:d636. http://pmid.us/21343206.

[14] Suh I et al. Alcohol use and mortality from coronary heart disease: the role of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group. Ann Intern Med. 1992 Jun 1;116(11):881-7. http://pmid.us/1580443.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/04/how-to-raise-hdl/

Half a bottle per day! That would be a lot for me. I've always wondered about pesticides in wine. You don't hear much about that, but it all gets pressed with the grapes unless you get your wine from a biodynamic/organic producer.

EDIT: Holy crap! I think he may be right about liver disease not being caused by alcohol alone. The phrase "liver disease" was quite rare in the lexicon before 1935. It skyrocketed after that — right when everyone was really starting to increase their PUFA consumption and alcohol consumption (after prohibition ended).

See: Google Ngram View: "liver disease"

Correlation doesn't prove causation, but that really is fascinating!

But since HDL serves dual purposes, detox and well as immunity, it is not clear here that the alcohol is encouraging the latter.  Why is not the response of higher HDL considered to be a response to alcohol being a toxin?  I see this mistake being made lot about anything that raises HDL.

Thanks for that, Gumby! Although the usual caveats apply, and drinkers are always looking for pro-alcohol studies to validate their habits, I have to say that's a fascinating excerpt.

I try to drink in moderation, and I love my potato vodka- gluten-free ethanol.

MachineGhost wrote: But since HDL serves dual purposes, detox and well as immunity, it is not clear here that the alcohol is encouraging the latter.  Why is not the response of higher HDL considered to be a response to alcohol being a toxin?  I see this mistake being made lot about anything that raises HDL.

Good question. But I guess what it comes down to is... what is the evidence that moderate alcohol (half a bottle of wine?) is toxic when consumed with a low PUFA meal?

His own conclusion is...

Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. wrote:Drink alcoholic beverages – but only when consuming meals low in polyunsaturated fats. Drink up when you eat beef, but be cautious when the entrée is salmon.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/04/how-to-raise-hdl/

The book also argues that all beneficial foods, nutrients, etc. become toxic at certain levels, but have benefits at lower (normal) levels.

Gumby, what do you think about nixtamalization as applied to corn specifically for hominy/grits?  It is one of the starches I gradually evolved into eating over time without overt reactions (along with corn, oatmeal and refined wheat) and I wonder if it could be considered a safe starch.  Lye is some pretty strong stuff!  Taro has oxalates and sweet potatoes have too much toxic fructose, both of which I react to.  I'm already bored with just potatoes and I can't eat rice but every 4 days, so I really need some variety here!

[quote=Wikipedia]Impact on health

The primary nutritional benefits of nixtamalization arise from the alkaline processing involved. These conditions convert corn's bound niacin to free niacin, making it available for absorption into the body, thus preventing pellagra.[citation needed] Alkalinity also reduces the amount of the protein zein available to the body, which improves the balance among essential amino acids, although the overall amount of protein is reduced.[citation needed]

Secondary benefits can arise from the grain's absorption of minerals from the alkali used or from the vessels used in preparation. These effects can increase calcium (by 750%, with 85% available for absorption), iron, copper and zinc.[citation needed]

Lastly, nixtamalization significantly reduces (by 90-94%) mycotoxins produced by Fusarium verticillioides and Fusarium proliferatum, molds that commonly infect maize and the toxins of which are putative carcinogens.[citation needed][/quote]

It seems beyond Jaminet's purview too.  I guess he's too Asian-influenced, rather than Southern.

I have noticed some rules of thumb about PHD meals.

If you eat 6oz of lean cooked protein (man serving), it will allow 1T (15g) of fat.  If you eat 3oz of lean cooked protein (standard/woman serving), it will allow 2T (30g) of fat.  However, 3oz is not enough to meet the minimum PHD protein requirements, 3.57oz is.  It can be a challenge figuring out a raw weight to match a final cooked weight.  For instance, conventional chicken will shrink 20% after cooking, but pastured chicken will only shrink 9%.  3-3.57oz also brings the macronutrient ratio more in line with the ideal 18% protein, 30% carbs, 52% fat.

Starchy carbs are always limited, so it will never be more than 50g max, ever.  Most of the standard serving sizes seem to fall short of the minimum 41.67g, but it can be fixed by "well-rounding" off the standard serving size in the case of rice or tripling the standard serving size for potato flakes (assuming no milk is added).  Most directions call for adding "hidden" fat and that can take away from being able to use a fatty sauce.

I like a PHD rule of thumb of matching protein and carbs 1:1 by weight when being an athlete, weight training. etc..  The insulinemia and glucagon could theoretically offset each other.  It's highly unlikely I will ever have more than 150lbs of lean body mass.

I have found that two standard 3oz (85g) servings of non-starchy vegetables is the right amount for me.  One was too little fiber, and three was too much bulk.  I was eating three servings before when I was not eating any carbs with no problem.  I don't worry about a bit of starchy corn, carrot or peas in frozen mixed vegetables -- I just treat it all as non-starchy.

I can't speak to the ability of not measuring the fat or eating it ad lib and not have it pack on the pounds.  However, the body does have to process those superflous fat calories which increases mitochodrial damage and oxidisation and that is simply not compatible with life extension.  So my definition of "allow" above is keeping the total meal calories to 1800 as close as possible.  For comparison, the average American eats an amazing 1900 calories a day in carbohydrates alone!  Mind boggling.

The irony to me about all this is that I'm having trouble eating three of these meals a day, even with one of them an easily-digestible smoothie.  So my net calorie intake so far is actually lower than when I was eating no carbs!  Who knew that starchy carbs wold be so filling?  I suspect that if I reduce my protein intake to 3.57oz per meal, it would make it easier.  But that would also violate quite a bit of [bro]science about protein requirements and hypertrophy.

MachineGhost wrote: Gumby, what do you think about nixtamalization as applied to corn specifically for hominy/grits?  It is one of the starches I gradually evolved into eating over time without overt reactions (along with corn, oatmeal and refined wheat) and I wonder if it could be considered a safe starch.  Lye is some pretty strong stuff!  Taro has oxalates and sweet potatoes have too much toxic fructose, both of which I react to.  I'm already bored with just potatoes and I can't eat rice but every 4 days, so I really need some variety here!

Wikipedia wrote:Impact on health

The primary nutritional benefits of nixtamalization arise from the alkaline processing involved. These conditions convert corn's bound niacin to free niacin, making it available for absorption into the body, thus preventing pellagra.[citation needed] Alkalinity also reduces the amount of the protein zein available to the body, which improves the balance among essential amino acids, although the overall amount of protein is reduced.[citation needed]

Secondary benefits can arise from the grain's absorption of minerals from the alkali used or from the vessels used in preparation. These effects can increase calcium (by 750%, with 85% available for absorption), iron, copper and zinc.[citation needed]

Lastly, nixtamalization significantly reduces (by 90-94%) mycotoxins produced by Fusarium verticillioides and Fusarium proliferatum, molds that commonly infect maize and the toxins of which are putative carcinogens.[citation needed]

It seems beyond Jaminet's purview too.  I guess he's too Asian-influenced, rather than Southern.

Nixtamalization is Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) territory (i.e. "properly prepared grains") and if you can tolerate any properly prepared grain then it's perfectly fine to eat, in my opinion. To my knowledge, Jaminet has never criticized WAPF. From what I can tell, he just doesn't "approve" of those in the PHD because he doesn't have enough good scientific evidence to back up their consumption. But, that doesn't mean they are bad, per se.

For instance, Kresser eats "properly prepared grains" and "safe starches" with his own family (his kids need the carbs, and he enjoys/tolerates them). So, it's clearly ok to eat them if you can tolerate them. The only drawback is that properly prepared grains can be a lot of work.

A strict PHD might only be for someone who was trying to easily reverse health problems. And even then, I think PHD is just a guide for an easily digestible diet that happens to reverse chronic disease. He was just designing a diet that is easily tolerated by the most people (including our paleolithic ancestors).

So, if you can tolerate a WAPF/PHD approach (again, that's what Kresser does), then I say go for it!