This Week's Weigh In

This past week I've been experimenting with lowering my fat. I wanted to try and reverse something "strange" that's happening to me. Even though I seem to be losing weight continually each week, I'm getting this roll of fat across my midsection, that I didn't have before I went on zero carbs. I've gained 2 inches in my waist, and 1 inch in my belly so far. Which has given me a kindda muffin top appearance.

I tried to lower my fat by adding some tuna and chicken breast to my menus. I didn't want to put too much emphasis on counting stuff. Though I did enter what I was eating into Fitday. My goal was to drop my fat intake to 50%. I managed to drop it a little bit lower than that. With the average for the first 5 days coming in at 45%.

Now that was a pretty steep drop, but it was the kind of low-fat food I'd used before. And I really wanted to know for sure if my problem was fat intake, or not.

I started out well enough, with tuna. Not hungry, it kept me full for at least 6 hours. BUT it made me very sick. Not sure why, except that it was Albacore, which is high in Mercury, and I usually don't eat that type. I tried it twice, several days apart, and got the same reaction each time. So for now, tuna is out.

For lunch, I did the ice-glazed, frozen boneless, skinless chicken breast. Figuring that if this worked, then I could move to the more expensive, fresher stuff next week. However, it made me very hungry about 2 hours after eating. Now my typical portion size is about 8oz, so I decided to up that just a bit to 12oz, to see if it helped any. Plus I added a couple of teaspoons of bacon grease to the pan I sauteed it up in. That did help, but it still only held me for about 4 hours. After which I was ravenous.

Now the results of my experiment so far were good. In those 5 days, I'd dropped 1 inch in my waist and 3/4 of an inch in my belly. So I was pretty sure at that moment, that I'd been overeating fat.

So I went to Fitday and copied down the stats for all of the menus I had since I went on Induction this time around. I didn't have too many, because I don't use Fitday everyday like I used to. But I did have almost a dozen menus, so I averaged the stats together to see where I was falling exactly.

My fat percentage was 63%. Higher than I expected it to be. I thought I was eating closer to 60/40. So I thought well....

If I'm eating at 63%, and the recommended amount for folks over 50 is 60%, then maybe I can just tweak what I'm doing just a little bit, and get the results I'm looking for. So I went from 80/20 hamburger that I'd gotten at Walmart to 85/15 which I'd gotten at the small grocery one town over -- which lowered the fat percentage from 65% to 59%.

On Saturday, that's what I did. Zeroed in on my fat percentage and hit it right on the money. Same for Sunday. However, the results were not good. This morning when I weighed myself, I'd gained 1-1/2 lbs since moving to 60% fat. Plus I'd re-gained all of my inches. The 1 inch in my waist, and the 3/4 of an inch in my belly.

It was pretty depressing, let me tell ya. Because I have no intension of starving this fat off. But at the same time, I can't keep doing what I'm doing either. So I've found myself in a serious quandary.

Now as far as the week in concerned, I weighed in at 174.2 which is still 1 pound down from last Monday, BUT I'm on another upward trend, as my weight is still bouncing. Ugggh.

I went back to Fitday and started playing around with the numbers again. And I'm beginning to see that percentages are not really all their cracked up to be. Because no matter how much ground beef you eat, a little or a lot, the percentage doesn't change. So if you're overeating for your energy requirements, you can still be overeating fat. Even though you're hitting your percentage goal right on the money. Sigh.

The fat grams themselves at the 63% level averaged out to be 120 grams of fat, almost DOUBLE what I was eating when I was losing my weight in 2007. However, my fat grams yesterday came in at only 80, and yet I still GAINED more fat! In fact, I actually gained most of it from Sunday because when I measured myself on Saturday morning, I'd only put back on 1/4 of an inch in my belly. My waist was still okay.

So now I'm not "positive" the problem is the fat at all. It could very well be the lack of carbs. I just don't know anymore.

What I do know is that for me, so far, zero carb isn't working...

What is Hypoglycemia?

To understand Hypoglycemia, we first have to understand "normal" blood sugar control. And by normal, I mean you don't have metabolic syndrome issues. You have good glucose tolerance, and are not yet insulin resistant.

The body loves homeostasis, (balance), so it does whatever it has to, to keep your blood sugar level within a very tight framework. In other words, normal blood sugar doesn't bounce all over the place. There's a very specific curve or path that it follows.

Normal blood sugar runs around 80 mg/dl, which is where one's "fasting blood sugar level" or "baseline" should optimally be. Until you eat something, and then it's goes UP. In a healthy individual, this blood sugar rise never goes above 120 mg/dl, irregardless of what or how much you eat.

Now, when blood sugar rises, first phase insulin is dumped into the bloodstream to help shuttle the glucose into the cells. The amount of insulin dumped is generally dependent upon what you ate the LAST TIME. Not what you're eating right now. If that's enough, great. Blood sugar level will slowly return to normal, and your cells will be well fed. If it isn't enough, the body will produce more insulin which keeps trickling into the bloodstream until it is.

The amount of time this takes obviously depends on what you ate, and how much. But generally speaking, after a typical meal, it takes 3 hours for the blood sugar to return to a normal baseline level. After which it pretty much stays there, irregardless of how long you go without eating. Thanx to Glyconeogenesis.

There are three types of Hypoglycemia. Drug induced, Reactive, and Fasting.

Drug induced hypoglycemia is pretty self explanatory. You take too much insulin, you take too much Metformin, or some other type of drug that interfers with the above process.

Reactive Hypoglycemia is when you produce too much insulin. The spike causing the blood glucose level to either go below baseline, or to fall too quickly. This occurs within 5 hours of eating. But generally you hit your lowest level somewhere between 1 and 3 hours. At which time other hormones comes into play to kick the blood sugar back up to normal. Normal meaning baseline.

However, it doesn't work that way with Reactive Hypoglycemia. Usually the hormone kick results in higher than baseline glucose levels somewhere between hours 2 and 3.

Fasting Hypoglycemia is when you're either fasting for longer than 5 hours, or you find yourself in a situation where you can't eat for that long, and as a result, your blood sugar drops below 70 mg/dl.

All three conditions means your body is not reacting normally. Something in the pathway is amiss.

Hypoglycemic symptoms do not come from the level of glucose in the blood. They come from adrenaline which is kicked into gear whenever the blood sugar level begins to fall too quickly, or when glycagon isn't able to convinse the liver to release it's glycogen stores.

So just because you aren't experiencing so-called Hypoglycemic symptoms, (irritability, dizziness, weakness, hunger, craving for something sweet, need for caffeine, etc.), that doesn't mean you aren't having a problem somewhere in the cycle. Because like anything else, it is very easy to get USED to the response to adrenaline your particular body has. Even going so far as becoming "addicted" to the energy rush that adenaline gives you, or mistaking that energetic feeling for a healthy response to whatever you've been eating.

When blood sugar is up, a hypoglycemic is hyperactive, energetic, and feels happy. When the blood sugar starts to drop they feel irritable, tired, and begin craving a quick pick-up. If one uses diet caffeinated drinks or coffee to do that, energy drinks or whatever, the caffeine stimulates the adrenal glands to encourage the liver to release glucose into the bloodstream.

One of the major problems with a Hypoglyemia diagnosis is that there is often a very small window when the blood sugar actually falls to the point where adrenaline is necessary. With that window usually being only about 5 minutes or less. So testing every hour, or even every half hour, can easily miss your lowest point. And make you think you are healthy, when you are not.

Now one of the keys to diagnosis is comparing your blood sugar curve to a normal curve. Because there's some very interesting things that happen when we're caught up in Hypoglycemic cycles. Typical body response to falling glucose levels is to first activate glucagon, which informs the liver that it needs to convert it's glycogen stores into glucose to keep the glucose blood level at baseline.

However, if the liver doesn't have any glycogen stores, or simply doesn't respond to glucagon's signal, maybe can't manufacture glucose through Gluconeogenesis fast enough, the blood sugar level drops to the point to where other hormones rush in to save the day. That's where adrenalin comes in. When the blood sugar drops below 70 mg/dl, a surge of adrenaline is released. But adrenaline always overshoots the mark. So rather than returning the glucose level to baseline, it raises the blood sugar above baseline, and you end up with BOUNCING values.

Most who are officially diagnosed with Hypoglycemia (either Reactive or Fasting) have been known to demonstrate very low glucose levels. Waaay below the 60s that we've been discussing here. Mostly because of the high glucose required for testing. So it isn't just a matter of checking what our blood sugars are doing within a low carb framework. Since low carb is the typical corrective treatment.

Hypoglycemia causes a lot of "fight or flight" symptoms associated with the blood glucose's decline. Then improvement of symptoms upon eating. Getting that pick up. But sometimes this can be caused from the stomach emptying too soon. But most of the time it has to do with a damaged carbohydrate metabolism.

MILD Reactive Hypoglycemia, while not life threatening perhaps, does interfer with weight loss and health. Because whenever blood sugar rises, or is in a bouncing situation, insulin elevates or continues to stay elevated as it's the ONLY hormone that lowers blood sugar, clears the blood of current fatty acids and proteins, and locks up fat stores. Not a good situation to be in if fat loss is your goal. PLus there are loads of health issues that result from elevated insulin, in any degree.

Now there's another form of Hypoglycemia known as Fasting Hypoglycemia. It occurs more than 5 hours after your last meal, and is diagnosed when the blood glucose level drops into the 60s or less. It has many causes: drugs, organ failure, hormonal deficiencies (like adrenal fatigue), non-beta cell tumors, congenital and/or enzematic disorders (hypoglycemia in kids), or elevated insulin levels caused by Insulinoma (tumor of the beta cells), autoimmune situations to either insulin itself, or the insulin receptors. It can also be caused from drinking and eating carbs at the same time, or a damaged liver. So that's another possible dangerous situation to be in, because if the body is reacting normally, it just doesn't happen.

Also keep in mind, that for a glucose tolerance test to be accurate, you have to be eating a diet high in carbs. The purpose being to stimulate the pancreas to its full potential for secreting insulin. Plus home glucose meters are not accurate enough to show you exactly what's going on if you're suffering from more than mild Hypoglycemia. They can be as much as 15% off. They were created for high blood glucose accuracy, and begin to fail somewhere in the 60s.

So if you're having readings that are anywhere near what we been discussing here, go and see your doctor for an accurate testing. Please.

This Week's Weigh In

This past week has been an interesting one.

With no diet soda to control the water retention issues, I spent quite a bit of my afternoon in bed. The vertigo worsened tremendously, plus my weight was still bouncing. So I'm not so sure the diet soda was a contributor to that, after all. Stalling the upswing, then bringing my weight back down (one time) might have just been a coincidence. I don't know yet.

Now I don't want to sound like others who are currently rationalizing and justifying their "sweet" addiction and habits. And I most certainly do NOT want to tread behind them. But I can't spend my life in bed either. Plus my weight has been on the upswing again, even with the no soda.

The weather here has been freaky lately. Storms moving in and out several times a day, a most unusual occurrence for June, which has been playing with me as well. According to my digital scale my water retention is waaaay up. So I did add back in the diet soda to try and help control that a bit. Like I said, I can't spend each and every afternoon in bed. I might change my mind again later on, but that's what I'm doing for right now.

The scarey thing, however, was that my fat level is....well....THE SAME.

So I had my husband take a picture of me early Sunday morning so that I could see if I was experiencing some body recomposition. It's been 6 weeks since my last pictures, and I've seen plenty of folks lose a lot of fat even though it doesn't register on the scale. I was sooo hoping that would be true for me too. But it wasn't. In fact, it's even worse than staying the same. Cuz I've gained a roll of fat just above my belly button. A blue jean overhang I didn't have before.

It was quite a shock. So my husband took more pictures an hour or so later, when the sun was out in order to give us a clearer picture. And YEP. I'm FATTER than I was before I started dieting again.

Say what?????

I went into the bedroom and took my measurements. There's a person on a lot of my low carb egroups who is always advising folks to use measurements rather than the scale. But that didn't paint a better picture either. I've gained 2 inches in my waist, and 1 inch in my belly/hips. Which doesn't make any sense at all.

I'm doing zero-carb for heaven's sake. Can't get any lower on the carb scale than that. And yet...there it was. In both the pictures and the measuring tape. I couldn't DENY IT.

Sunday we were invited to dinner by a close friend. I was a bit nervous, not only because of my zero-carb diet, but also because of my gluten intolerance. If I'm exposed to gluten in any form, I always gain a couple of pounds which takes me a week to 10 days to recover from. As well as all the other physical stuff. I realized that because of "who" this friend was, and how often we get together, that I would have to make some concessions. But it went a bit better than I expected.

She was serving bbq chicken breast, a nice lettuce salad with ranch dressing, and baked corn on the cob with butter. Sit down style though, so there was no dishing up your own. And no way to get out of the food sitting there on my plate. Now the marinade on the chicken made me nervous, cuz it tasted a little bit like Heinz 57 was in there. Not good. But the more interesting thing was that I did NOT react to the salad the same way I had when I'd tried to add it back before.

So I took a step back to reason that out a bit.

When I tried to do salad after the first week on Atkins '72 Induction, I used an olive oil and vinegar dressing (homemade) so as to avoid dairy and soy. But it made me hungry as heck. Previous to this new salad experience, sometime during this past week, I had been thinking about my difficulty in adding back salad (partly because I'm really not digging this zero-carb stuff) and decided to check out olive oil.

To do that, I scrambled up a couple of eggs in it. And surprisingly, that too made me hungry as heck. Sooooo there's clearly something in olive oil that doesn't agree with me. I don't understand WHY oil would raise my hunger level, since fat is not supposed to raise blood sugar or insulin, but...nevertheless it did. SOMETHING is amiss.

We ended up staying with our friends for most of the afternoon, watching a very long movie. And by the time we got home early in the evening I was still not hungry. Now, I already KNEW that about corn. So the welcoming relief for me about this was that I got NO stomach/belly cramps from the Ranch. NO stomach/belly cramps from that one meal of carbs. Which means that maybe, when I reach the 6 month gluten-free point, I'll be able to add back in a small bit of dairy. At least, I hope so.

The bottom line from eating the salad and corn, and chicken with who knows what on it, was that yes, I did get a strong hot-flash gluten reaction to the meal (which could be pan contamination rather than the food), but didn't gain any weight from it all. In fact, Monday morning for my weigh-in this week, I was down a pound. So my weigh in for this week places me at 175.2 pounds. Probably the release of some water from adding back in the diet soda....but still.

Still got the roll of fat and increase in inches to deal with.

So I high-tailed it back over to the Zeroing in on Health forum, trying to figure out what was going on with me, and ran into a thread for those over the age of 50. It seems that I am not the only one this has happened to. Several older folks over there have had to cut down on the amount of fat they were eating, because when they ate like the youngins, they put a roll of belly fat on -- right around the middle. Exactly the same as me.

WOW.

Okay, so my diet -- what I'm eating, and maybe how much -- needs to be reconsidered and evaluated. Most of those posting on that thread, or being discussed there, had better success with 60 to 65% fat calories. Basically what Atkins recommends, rather than the higher fat most on that site typically eat.

But then, they aren't a 5ft woman with gluten intolerance, missing a gall bladder, and post meno. Interestingly enough, 60% is what I've been doing -- yet I gained all that fat.

So I'm going to try cutting down to 50% this week instead, and see what happens. I've been eating quite a bit of 80/20 hamburger which fitday pins as 70% fat calories. Don't really wanna give them up, so I'm going to try throwing in some tuna and chicken breast along with the fatty meats. And see where that lands me.

At least...that's my current plan for this week.

Does High Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease?

I don't intend on going into all of the particulars of the various dietary studies that Gary Taubes uses to prove his point in Chapter 2. That there is "no" real evidence to prove that high blood cholesterol causes heart disease, due to studies being contradictory, bias, or filled with too many variables to give the results any meaning.

But it is interesting to note how human nature tends to use and view such studies. Especially since Ancel Keys himself, the originator of "the low-fat diet is the healthiest diet" dogma, was guilty of ignoring, rationalizing, or tweaking studies that didn't support his beliefs. I guess that's just human nature to view things through our own perspective. We read not to discover truth, but to find something that will support and uphold what we already believe.

Which doesn't make scientific studies un-useful, it just means we gotta be careful when we're reading the results and commentary attached, because sometimes things are accepted as givens that really aren't, or the author of the report states as fact things that weren't even shown to be true in the study.

Now, science tries to avoid that kindda thing by requiring scientists to try and prove their theories wrong, but it doesn't really happen that way in the real world. People are quick to ignore, reject, or rationalize away anything that doesn't fit into their current perspective. Even among low-carb advocates, bloggers, and reporters there's a tendency to color the results, explain away, or even outright reject anything that doesn't fit into what we think we know and believe about low-carb science today.

Which is why it's important that we do our own research, and come to our own conclusions and testimonies regarding this stuff. Cuz if we just sit back, and take someone else's word for it, if we read a bunch of blogs or forum posts, and follow in their footsteps, even if they're all saying the same thing -- we're really no different than the press and gullible public who took Ancel Keys at his word about dietary fat. Are we?

We're still pinning our physical salvation on someone else's sleeve.

The truth is, evidence can be compiled to support any hypothesis. Take Ancel Keys 7 country study, for example. He literally hand-picked the countries that would support his beliefs. And even though he discovered something new, how saturated, unsaturated, and monosaturated fats affected people differently within those 7 countries, if he'd used say, France, his findings would have been very different. Cuz the french use lots of saturated fat, but have very little heart disease.

So Keys was totally off-base using fat, any kind of fat, as a measurement as far as heart disease is concerned. But he was severely blinded by his perspective. He just wasn't able to get beyond that. Even though much of the evidence told a very different story, he stuck with his first instinct. Tweaking it just a bit after that 7 country study to form the root for the current Mediterraneon Diet so in vogue these days within many low-carb circles.

Interestingly enough, the Mediterraneon Diet isn't based on what those who live on the Mediterraneon coast of Yugoslavia eat, or even on what any of those in the cities of Italy eat. It's based on Ancel Key's low-fat 7 country diet study. His new theory of that day. But because the theory fits into our nice little low-carb box we call healthy, we turn our heads and hold up the theory as if it were fact.

Now the ONLY reliable, accurate type of trial is controlled, rather than vague observations of populations called studies. Those that try to create 2 identical situations, using a double-blind and placebo technique, and changing only a single variable at a time. In order to see what happens as a result.

But dietary trials can't be performed in that manner. Because when you lower fat, let's say, you also lower calories and that's 2 variables, not one. If you wish to keep the calories the same, then you have to add something to take the place of the fat you've lowered, and once again, you get more than a single variable.

So how do you know which variable is the cause of the outcome? How can you trust those types of studies and observations as being accurate? You can't. You just have to guess (educated or not). Which means you end up with scientists and researchers and journalists making flat-out judgments about these things. Ignoring what they don't understand, or rejecting what doesn't fit with current popular opinion.

Another thing I picked up on in this chapter was how those with low cholesterol suffer from just as many heart attacks, as those with high cholesterol. But it seems that nobody wants to discuss those folks. Nobody wants to address the idea that we are supposed to live longer, and be waaaay healthier if we lower our cholesterol numbers. Because that situation doesn't fit with what we have always been told to believe. That high cholesterol is bad, and low cholesterol is good. Even though it isn't true, was clearly proven to be false in the studies that Taubes includes in his book. Plus all this doesn't hold up for women anyways.

Which is another thing that I haven't heard anyone talk about. The fact that most, if not all, of these studies were done on middle-aged men. Not older men, or younger men, or even women. Just middle-aged men. Yet physicans throw statins at all of us!

Like what happened to me, a few years ago, right after the vertigo started. Blood work came back showing an extremely high CRP marker, with elevated liver enzymes. So what does the doctor do? He prescribes statins (the strongest one on the market by the way, which caused my feet to swell, off and on, for 3 years after taking them for a mere 30 days) and sends me to a Healthy Heart Program.

Talk about low-fat dogma!

He was extremely afraid that I was going to have a heart attack, but come on! Everything does not circle back around to heart disease. I had Vertigo for heaven's sake. Meniere's Disease, in fact. So it's no wonder that my CRP marker was elevated. Besides, systemic inflammation is more associated with elevated insulin levels than anything else. But what I couldn't believe was he was actually going to IGNORE my elevated liver enzymes, and start me on that poisonous stuff. With the only caution being to come back for testing in 2 months, to see if my liver was getting worse.

HUH?

But then, he's also the same doc who told me I wasn't disabled until a specialist told him I was disabled, even though my husband had to literally carry me into his office because I couldn't walk on my own.

You know...sometimes the medical profession is downright scary!!!

The Low-Fat Dogma: A Leap of Faith

This week I've been reading and studying chapter 2 of Good Calories, Bad Calories. And I found it very interesting in light of the fact that my brother-in-law recently had a heart attack plus a double by-pass for arteries that were 95 and 99% clogged.

For as far back as I can remember, the medical profession has been preaching the benefits of a low-fat diet -- defined as being 30% of your daily calories, or less.

What I didn't know was that the idea to prescribe such a diet didn't come from any kind of truth. But originally came from well-meaning physicians convinced there was a heart-disease epidemic. Apparently they had "heard" about the possibility that a low-fat diet could prevent heart disease, and rather than waiting for scientific proof to back up the claim, decided to put their patients on such a diet.

Today, they call that kind of behavoir Preventative Medicine.

I can remember how strongly my own doc in California was that I was in mortal danger because I was overweight, which meant my cholesterol and/or blood sugar was sky high -- even though he hadn't tested any of that stuff yet. When the results came back "normal" on the cholesterol, he did apologize, but since my fasting sugars were a bit high, he still placed me on what is known today as a Healthy-Heart Diet. He stressed and insisted that chicken breast was the healthiest form of protein there was. That I was putting myself in grave physical danger if I didn't get both my fasting blood sugar and weight under control by going the low-fat, higher-exercise route.

Okay. Sure. But it was my blood sugar, not my cholesterol that was outta whack. Right? Well...yeah. But fat's the bad guy. If you wanna cut down on carbs, okay, but carbs aren't really the problem he said. It's fat and lack of exercise that's driving up your fasting blood sugars.

I guess it's only natural that the press jumped onto the same low-fat wagon. They always seem to have some type of agenda in getting the public to "believe" what they want them to believe, even if it isn't always clear why. And BELIEVE is the nail this whole dieting advice hangs on.
Eat less fat and you'll live longer.

Besides, if you repeat it often enough, the majority of the public will believe it too. And believe it they did. Even though skeptics voiced their concerns and oppositions to putting that type of faith in something that wasn't any stronger than a hypothesis. A guess. Hardly anybody listened. Most jumped onto the same wagon of belief that the press wanted them too.

Like the Railroad. My brother-in-law had been receiving dietary counsel from them for 2 years before his heart attack and by-pass operation. Eat more veggies, they said. Eat less fat. Use only Olive Oil. Avoid processed foods. Take fish oil. Each year it was something new they told him to do. Yet it didn't work.

WHY? Because the Low-Fat dogma isn't true. It was just a theory that Ancel Keys came up with after investigating and watching a lot of folks eat. It was an educated guess. There was never anything scientific or logical about it.

And we, the "gullible" public, got taken for a ride.

Weekly Weigh-In

This past week showed a tiny bit of progress, which was surprising. A little less than 1/2 a lb, I weighed in at 176.2.

I didn't expect to see that this past Monday, since I've been bouncing up and down lately...still. The removal of all things sweet from my diet appeared to stabilize the upward trend, then started things moving downwards again. At least, I HOPE that's what's going on.

I AM drinking a little bit of Club soda, with lots of ice to dilute it, as that was suggested over at LCF by someone who's been doing zero-carb for awhile now. I thought I would give that a shot. Since for me, it's always been about the bubbly more than the sweet.

I plugged a couple of my menus into Fitday the other day, when my weight was climbing upwards so quickly, and it seems I'm eating about 60 to 65% fat these days. That's new for me. I've NEVER been able to eat that much fat before, and still lose. The calories that particular day were a bit high, about 2400 or so, but that day was when I'd eaten about a dozen roasted chicken wings. Even so, it was the first day sweet free and my weight still stabilized, high calories or not. The next couple of days was more reasonable for calories, about 1600 to 1800. With a BMR of 1432 or so, that's not too shabby.

It's good to know that my body has finally healed from the Kimkins' fiasco.

Just gotta keep wraping my brain around the fact that it's the INSULIN reaction to foods that matter, because it seems to be so ingrained among the low-carb community these days that blood sugar is everything. I'm glad to say it's not. Because I "might" have finally found some of the answers I need to complete my journey.

What Constitutes a Healthy Diet?

The word "healthy" is being thrown around a lot these days. You gotta eat a heart-healthy diet to avoid heart disease. You gotta eat a healthy low carb diet to get your obesity issue under control. You gotta eat healthy (good) fats to keep your arteries clean and inflammation at bay. But what does the word "healthy" actually mean?

I don't know that society as a whole even knows. Not when we've been batted around by all of the differing camps of opinion and diversity of experiences out there. The conflicting scientific studies. The overriding money-interests of those trying to sell us a particular line of goods. A particular line of bull-crap.

And it's not unique to the low-fat camp either. The low-carb community has just as much pig mire being slung around these days as anyone else. Follow-the-money, and a whole different picture begins to develop!

So now we have a lot of individuals throwing their hands up into the air in disgust and going back to what they believe Paleo man ate, or the cave-men ate, or what they believe our bodies were designed to eat (an all meat and water diet), because there's just too much garbage being thrown at us these days with it's resulting food sensitivity and addiction. Too much bodily damage -- all in the name of the mighty dollar.

We have others who are going to a lesser extent, and shunning all processed foods. A whole-foods diet, I think it's called. That's the category my brother-in-law's original cardiologist was in. He firmly believes that processed foods cause heart disease, and that they should be avoided like the plague.

And then, of course, we have the low-fat guru's and low-carb guru's who believe healthy is anything that fits within the box that defines their specific dieting parameters. Whole foods, processed foods, frankenfoods...none of that matters. All that matters in regards to a healthy low fat and/or low carb diet is whether or not a food is low fat and/or low carb.

It's no wonder that a lot of us are being taken for a ride.

I found it particularly interesting that the USDA estimate for 1830 regarding meat consumption (not including farm goods, locally produced animal goods, nor eggs, milk, poultry, or fish) was 178 pounds per person, per year. Because that comes out to about 1/2 pound of non-local, non-poultry, non-fish meat per day. Add to that 1/2 pound -- the poultry, and the fish, and the local animal goods, the milk and eggs and cream and butter and all of that; and all of a sudden you discover that you really don't have to go all the way back to Paleo or cave man days. You don't have to GUESS what constitutes a healthy diet.

You just have to go back to before the food manufacturers got their hands in our pocket books. Back to when oranges, grapefruit, broccoli, cantaloup, asparagus, spinach, carrots, lettuce, tomatoes, celery, mushroom, lima beans, corn, green beans, and peas were unknown...or very rare. Back to when the typical carby staples in the American diet were potatoes, cabbage, onions, radishes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, grapes, and some berries. In season!

Back to when there wasn't any vegetable oils, margarines or Crisco. Back to when there was just butter, tallow and lard. Animal fats. Back to when flour wasn't the ultra fine stuff we know as flour today. Back to when the gluten protein molecule didn't even exist! There wasn't anything to make ultra-light, fluffy white bread and cakes with. It was very coarsely ground. If you've ever tried to grind wheat on a hand-churned wheat grinder, you'll know what I mean. Not the same thing.

So what happened to us? How did we get gullible enough to swallow it all? The idea that saturated fats (what man has lived on since our humble beginnings) raise cholesterol, and thereby cause atherosclerosis, heart disease, and untimely death? How did we get gullible enough to swallow the idea that we as a people are gluttons? That we have no willpower. That we're spoiled and lazy? And how in tarnation did we ALLOW the basic 4 food groups to be turned into our modern day nightmare of a pyramid?

Amazing what a little mind-control can do, huh?

Let's face it. We've been sideswiped by those we set up as authorities over us. Whether that be government agencies, researchers, scientific analysers, food manufactorers, advertizing agents, food refiners, or even authors. We have. Because we did as we were told, lowered our meat and animal product consumption, lowered our animal fats, then raised our fruits and veggies (including vegetable margarines and oils), our sugars and starches.

And what did we get for our obedience? The diseases of civilization (that used to be called the diseases of aging, by the way). The unsightly and unhealthy consequences of obesity. Excessive hunger and cravings, food sensitivities and addictions. Eating disorders. Fiber issues. Gluten intolerance. And the list goes on and on.

We've done it to ourselves. We have no one else to blame. They spoke, they commanded, and we obeyed. It's as simple as that. We TRUSTED them to tell us the truth. To have our best interests at heart. But they didn't. They only cared about getting us to give up our money.

And that's the real bottom line.