Random Sunday Hit & Run

I'm thinking this will be a regular Sunday deal and I may even do a "hump day" random as well. Let's jump right in. I'll start doing it in numbers instead of bullets for easy referencing in comments.

1. Deleting all Facebook: Enormous Relief.

Note that 100% of the 48 comments are supportive. One thing of interest is that since deleting it, my posts are no longer getting hardly any Facebook likes or shares. So, this must have been coming from FB fans predominately before, and since no more, they must not even have been engaging with the blog, but only on FB. But I really had no interest in separate comment threads for my posts on FB, so fine.

Has all this narcissistic, hyper-socializing jumped the shark? Will social media end up being "so 2000-teens?" Anyway, happy for the additional mindspace that allows me to focus my time on writing a blog and engaging real people on my blog.

2. I Deal With Dunning and Kruger Every Day. Every Where.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias manifesting in unskilled individuals suffering from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, people with true ability tend to underestimate their relative competence based on the erroneous or exaggerated claims made by unskilled people.

I'll take the latter. I'm happy to undershoot. I grew up around D-Ks in fundamentalist fucktardism ("born again" fucktards). Last weekend, I spoke with a young 20-someting niece and her friend (raised similarly, slightly more liberal). Listened to them laf and scoff at what their parents taught them about being a subject to a doG: to satisfaction and high salute on my pat and even, smacks on the cheek. It's just as I laf and scoff at my similar experience. It began crumbling for me in 1979 once I drove cross country and was on my own. How come I need to learn so many things from condemned heathens going to hell, if I know the TRUTH, THE WAY, AND THE LIGHT? Friar Occam suggests I was scammed by D-K types.

I told all my family 25 years ago that they were going to be lafing stocks. Glad they are, from the up-and-coming kids, now. Sow. Reap. And I get to have the intellectual, patriarchal stature. This will only get worse for all of them over time, as they become increasingly irrelevant unless they stop being fucktarded about Sky Fairies and after-life fantasies.

3. Gut Bacteria Always Get Fed.

Well, of course. If you aren't an HG who feeds them in spite of any knowledge on your part, they'll get fed anyway. it's a starvation adaptation, just like ketosis.

A team of scientists, led by Alexander Chervonsky from the University of Chicago, has now found that mice deal with this problem by manufacturing molecules that feed their gut microbes during bouts of infection.

The cells of their intestines glom a sugar called fucose onto fats and proteins, which the bacteria can yank off and eat. The sugar is an emergency currency, used to pay off microbial employees when the usual coffers are empty, to keep them from quitting the firm.

I told you the gut microbiome is very important. We actually have evolutionary adaptations to preserve it. Amazing what can happen over hundreds of millions of years.

4. Thanks San Francisco.

I watched that whole 6 1/2 hour game in DC yesterday, Giants. I love baseball because I see thinking men with serious work ethics. I love to watch them chewing, thinking, spitting.

49ers. That's serious, disciplined football. Few flags, no turnovers, decent stats roughly equal to those of your opponent. KC and Alex—who Left His Heart in San Francisco—you lost but put on a good show.

4. Janet Bloomfield got raped in college (she probably raped, too).

Turns out, according to current California law, we all did. We should all look up our college squeezes and apologize for raping them.

Do you have the heart to apologize for raping?

Do I need to add that privileged feminists who were unpleased are perfectly happy to dilute the meaning of rape, such that their displeasures can be 'herd'?

5. I adore Perez Prado.

That 2nd one, I blogged about here in 2011. Voodoo Suite. Good herb music.

6. Really funny stupid shit I saw.


...I could go on.

Squinting At A Specifically General View of the Gut Microbiome

This was my very first post of more than 100 by now, April of 2013, that began my evolution in thinking about the gut microbiome: Prepare for the “Resistant Starch” Assimilation; Resistance is Futile. Yes, the narrative was initially somewhat hyperbolic, silver-bullet, miracle cure and all. I'll cop to all of it.

I am primarily an integrator, synthesizer, and promoter of things that make evolutionary sense to me and I always kick off with a bang. But I'm also the least intransigent blogger you'll ever meet. I expect being half or more wrong from the outset. Rather than spend endless hours, days, weeks and months checking all my jots and tittles in a self-deluded effort to not be wrong about anything (completely futile, because you're always wrong about something), I go full shotgun and brace for the criticism and constructive critique:


(^ Wash, Rinse, Repeat—ad infinitum)

This manner of dialectic saves time, teaches more people faster—in fact, we all learn together, collaboratively—is an honest process, and seems to me to be the most natural way to build increasingly complex and closer-to-truth hierarchies of quality* knowledge (* See my AHS12 presentation: Paleo Epistemology and Sociology).

It is for this reason that in terms of most of my posts, I do not delve into "excruciating" detail. For instance, I'm typically not talking about a specific 1-in-1,000 species of a gut bacteria, unless it's a well identified pathogen run amok like C. diff, after a round of antibiotics (the antibiotics being the general issue—specific, to highlight general). Similarly, I don't dwell on deeply dysfunctional guts but rather, on the vast majority of guts, some better than others, but always with the idea of improving whatever you begin with—never achieving perfection.

Shotguns usually hit the bullseye, too.

I've done a number of podcast interviews over this last year or so, most about Resistant Starch. The truth is, I didn't have any idea at the outset whether RS would pan out at all, be the Next Big Thing, or more likely, be a very important specific piece of the general puzzle. I now believe it's the latter.

So, with that, here's my latest podcast interview. It's with Will Barron of Upgraded Ape, one of of those biohacking folks. Upgrade your gut biome for improved brain performance. Talking resistant starches and fish with Richard Nikoley. While RS is in the title, I can assure you that I took a far more general track with it.

  1. I take pains to emphasize that whatever devils are in details, it's the enormous complexity of the gut microbiome that's the important thing.
  2. That focussing on very specific things in terms of specific pathogens, overgrowths, etc., is the province of clinicians with clinical experience that builds with practice and is applied to more and more specific and identifiable problems.
  3. That while experimenting and supplementing with RS and dirt-based probiotics is fine, not generally harmful (suggestions that it is, are bullshit), it is nonetheless likely best to get most prebiotics from various foods, and probiotics from being less sanitary, a bit more dirty. But supplementation, while not ideal, is better than nothing.

Alright, take a listen, and if you've heard some of my earlier interviews that focussed primarily on resistant starch, tell me if I haven't upgraded my specific views in general.

Now, let's squint some more. This post was formulated only an hour ago, when I read Jeff Leach's account of taking it up the butt for science, over morning coffee and an American Spirit ciggie: (Re)Becoming Human: what happened the day I replaced 99% of the genes in my body with that of a hunter-gatherer.

When he announced his planned DIY fecal transplant some while back on the Human Food Project's Facebook, I thought he was deeply confounding variables. I suggested that a better first step would be to bed down and swap bodily fluids and microbes with a Hadza woman for some months as a first step (interest of science, y'know?) and only then take some Hadza guy's shit up his butt. 'Butt' it is what it is.

Anyway, take a good read at that post. I was going to do some excerpts and comment on them, but I don't want anyone to miss the forrest through the trees. In short, I'm now a much bigger fan of Leach, and it's this bit of writing that did it for me. Take particular note of the vast differences between a Hadza gut and an American gut.

Keep squinting, Jeff. Good work, anxious to see the ultimate results.

...To wrap it up, it's easy, in hindsight, to say that supplementing RS in forms like potato starch is "bad." It's complete bullshit, and I'll tell you why.

  1. It's not harmful. How can it be harmful to ingest a real food fraction?
  2. People in general Paleo/RealFood have been talking about prebiotics for-fucking-ever. Onions, Garlic, Jerusalem artichokes, bla bla bla.
  3. Nobody really listened and when they did, it was chest beating over a coupla grams. It was only ever predominately about bacon, grilled meat, and added spoonfuls of coconut fat and grassfed butter.
  4. SAD dieters get way more fermentable fibers than "Paleo" peeps (which isn't saying a lot in an H-G scenario not even ridiculously and fantastically focussed on the way outlier Inuit). And H-Gers get way more than SAD.

But for my last point, it goes back to the way above. Nobody has any tolerance for being only half right. This is always a mistake. Always. Prebiotics have been jerked off about forever, but nobody paid real attention.

Until fucking potato starch and suddenly, there are many thousands worldwide doing so. But that's a specific thing. What's the general thing they learned is that when they took some isolated RS2, they observed first hand that:

  1. It had profound effects that cut through the signal/noise ratio on many gut levels.
  2. Results for the vast majority were positive, over time.

Sorry, I have this quirky fault where I think that giving folks valid generalities, they run with it and create their own specifics. I'm no hand holder. Fucking annoying, time wasting, and manufactures and maintains dependence.

So, some will doubtless stay with the potato starch supplementation forever and call it a day. Optimal? Probably not. But, some folks will always just supplement vitamin D rather than get out in the sun. Optimal? No, but only a stupid fucktarded miscreant would suggest that they ought not then supplement with vitamin D.

Potato starch supplementation in isolation has changed the landscape in many ways. That's a simple fact. But you watch. There will be many coming on line to tell you it's not a good idea and that all the foods they used to shun are the way to go—as though they came up with the idea.

Well, biting feeding hands has always been the province of latching-on leeches.

The Swedes Look Beyond Vilhjalmur Stefansson’s NYT Obituary, to The Science He Ignored

Back a bit, Duck Dodgers and I got into a kerfuffle with Dr. Mike Eades on Twitarded, of all places. It was in response to this post: One Thousand Nails in the Coffin of Arctic Explorer Vilhjálmur Stefansson, and His Spawn.

It resulted in Mike posting this: Beware the confirmation bias. Resoundingly, in at least my own comments, those who have a lot of respect for Eades, as do I, considered the post very...ironic.

I shot back: When Confirmation Bias is the Landscape, Dialectics is Your Path to Better Truth. Fans of Hegelian Dialectics ought like that post. ...Trust me: it always pays to be somewhat of a lay philosopher and actually read the seemingly incomprehensible classics of weird-ass thinkers. It's like reading medical studies. Just keep reading them; eventually, you integrate the language and thus, the understanding. There are advantages to folks having had too much time on their hands.

It has been a long road and I have been cautioned on a number of fronts about tangling with those possessing automatic stature, like Eades has in spades. He can put up a post per year and still get rabid adulation for it. That's OK. But it also ought make one wonder: is he keeping up with stuff, or is he of the mind that there's nothing new to be wrong about? For my style of blogging, being wrong is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I adore having certainty over being wrong about something. It's the only time I know I'm right. It's my iconoclastic fuel spring for an exciting, ever changing life.

After all, wasn't he, Eades, in formative years, wrong about saturated fat, cholesterol...perhaps even statins, before he clashed with that idol and did something about it, tirelessly pumping out information in his practice and books: that it was wrong?

...But, did he then make the mistake of thinking that because he was right about others being wrong, for good reasons, that's he's forever right about any periphery that touches upon their wrongness? ....And about anything related, henceforth? ...Is a valid falsification right, on the grounds that it falsifies? Or, does it merely falsify, and becomes the new synthesis

...Once one is right about showing others being wrong, are those who engage in the same iconoclasm over their newly supposed "right" merely, now, confirming bias—even though they have come from the same position and are now challenging it?

...Per Wikholm is a Swedish guy. Vilhjalmur Stefansson has one of those Swedish sounding names. He's written here on this blog: Sweden Update: Resistant Starch On The Rise, LCHF Steffanson Myths On The Ropes. He has a popular LCHF blog in Sweden.

...He's a fucking honest man. Of course, in 2014, that's a big problem; but some people have courage, conviction, assholiness: really old-fashioned stupid shit, completely unlike in quotidian 2014 where the primary aim is to socialize and get along no matter the cost, to promote faux popularity amongst an entire earth of hypersocializing fucktards.

He manages, like me. That's why I like him. America is not where you go to find honest people, anymore. Needle. Haystack. America is still illusioned, not disillusioned, by doG. That will perhaps persist for a while. Europeans are fucking heathens. In large part commies, too. But I prefer commie to deluded by Sky doGs. ...It has the singular virtue of a terrestrial element.

...A couple of months ago, Per gave me a heads up about his own critique of Stefansson, submitted for publication in Sweden's popular LCHF publication. In case you don't know the history, Dr. Annika Dahlqvist became somewhat of an LC revolution there, and as a small country, it attained critical mass very fast. In retrospect, is it possible that the Swedish-esque Stefansson, helped solidify things?

Not any more. Now, it's going to be the fodder of only others outside of his ancestral ethnicity, I predict.

I'll reference a comment I got on this post, earlier today.

Nürnberg says:
October 2, 2014 at 00:10

Man I love your heresy. Looking forward to “safe sugar” being the next. One year ago when still LC I tried having some oatmeal porridge for breakfast just for kicks and I got massive confirmation it was The Poison by feeling like crap and of course ridiculously hungry again half an hour later. Now enjoying that same porridge with butter, eggs and some OJ every morning and barely hungry for lunch. Not to mention taters. Lots of taters. HA!

Btw Duck, your Stefansson bashing has made it into the LCHF Magasinet in Sweden, the main publication on LC, thanks to Per Wikholm who’s been featured on this blog earlier this year.


It was also endorsed by the high priest of LCHF in Sweden, DietDoctor Andreas Eenfeldt. Nice to see he’s still open to science as opposed to Mr Eades.


Have fun with the swedish :P

Well, I love any opportunity to highlight the entrenched, confirming-bias, Fucktardedness of Americans in general, so this is just fucking delicious. In contrast, during that dustup with Mike Eades, he Tweeted me the link to the New York Times obituary for Stefansson. When I winced at such poor argumentative tactics, he told me that NYT is renowned for digging up dirt and publishing that badness in an obituary. But they published no dirt on Stefansson. Ergo... This was perhaps my biggest face palm in all of my life.

...Planet Earth is asleep. America is far from your friend. On many levels. America has been reduced to a good pimp who fills your pockets with cash. Nothing more. It doesn't even have a shred of moral standing, anymore.

You have to go international, now, to get a breath of fresh air honesty.

Thanks Sweden, for taking the high ground and having no fear of how the debate of Stefansson's legacy shakes out. People here, in America, on Eades' piper, want to completely look away.

Thanks for showing the fucktards how things ought to be done.

Update: This will eventually be a blog post, but here's about a dozen published studies Stefansson and his fans ignored because, In Mike Eade's words, "he was such a good writer."


15-Minute Broiled Salmon With Roasted Cherry Tomatoes and Rice & Bean Salad

Well, you'll need to have made your Rice & Bean Salad previously, but this demonstrates its versatility as a side dish right from the fridge.

So, get salmon filets, obviously. Get your hands on a frying pan big enough for them. Set your oven rack on the second position from the top (about 6" from the element) and put it preheating at the 'HI!' setting. The following contemplates two 6-8 oz. filets. Adjust as necessary, using your brain.

  1. Drizze some olive oil in your pan just like you see chefs do on TEEVEE.
  2. Add a goodly amount of butter and put it to medium heat on the stovetop. Whatever size pan you're using, the melted fats ought be at about 1/4".
  3. Crush and chop a clove or two of fresh garlic, then scoop it into the pan.
  4. Once the garlic is light brown and toasty, add a splash of white wine and the juice of about a half to a whole lemon or lime. Then a splash (about a TBS) of either soy sauce or Worcestershire (I used the latter this time). It's the difference between a more Asian salty/tangy/sweet vs. mildly savory.
  5. Let these liquids bubble off the moisture, then take it off the heat. Foregoing should take about 5 minutes.
  6. Plop down the filets and baste them with your mixture. Lightly dust with salt, pepper and fresh or dried dill (very easy on the salt—or none—if you've gone with the soy sauce option). Scatter a handful of whole cherry tomatoes in the pan.
  7. Pan under the broiler for about 5 minutes. Then slide it out and set each filet to one side. Lightly baste. 2 Minutes. Repeat for the other side of the filets. Another 2 minutes. 9 minutes total.
  8. In the last couple of minutes, nuke your rice & bean salad for about 30 seconds, just enough to take the chill off and soften the cheese chunks.
IMG 2685
Do Not Forget The Cherry Tomatoes. Co-Star of the Dish.

Plate it up.

IMG 2687

So there you have it. The above literally took 15 minutes from start to finish. But I work fast. It may take you 20.

Physiological Insulin Resistance = Low Carbohydrate Diet Induced Insulin Resistance

I'll admit to breathing a sigh of relief back in October of 2007, when Peter at Hyperlipid posted about "Physiological insulin resistance." Curiously, looking at the post again, I note that he didn't capitalize the second two words—as though it's not a proper name for a specific condition.

Back in mid summer 2007 there was this thread on the Bernstein forum. Mark, posting as iwilsmar, asked about his gradual yet progressively rising fasting blood glucose (FBG) level over a 10 year period of paleolithic LC eating. Always eating less than 30g carbohydrate per day. Initially on LC his blood glucose was 83mg/dl but it has crept up, year by year, until now his FBG is up to 115mg/dl. Post prandial values are normal.

He wanted to know if he was developing diabetes. [...]

What is happening? Well, the first thing is that LC eating rapidly induces insulin resistance. This is a completely and utterly normal physiological response to carbohydrate restriction. Carbohydrate restriction drops insulin levels. Low insulin levels activate hormone sensitive lipase. Fatty tissue breaks down and releases non esterified fatty acids. These are mostly taken up by muscle cells as fuel and automatically induce insulin resistance in those muscles.

Whew! Now I had something to tell my dad and others who'd been faithfully doing LC and became horrified, then scared, at fasting blood glucose measurements (which is primarily how the health community screens people for diabetes). I really didn't concern myself with it again—for all these last almost 7 years. OK, so long as post-prandial is fine (caveat: AFTER AN LC MEAL!), nothing to worry about; and combined with good HbA1c, and the fact that so far as we know, this condition will reverse in normal people after a few days of carbage, then just relax.

...That was until earlier this year when one of my collaborators, "Duck Dodgers," clued me into something. What if there are no populations on earth that we know of where you can observe the long-term effects of "physiological insulin resistance?" I mean, Kitavan vs. Inuit was always a kind of implicit A-OK. 'Ok, so the Kitavans do fine on an 80% carb Paleo diet. But they've never eaten SAD. Moreover, the Inuit are healthy too. And they're always in a state of deep ketosis, 'keto adapted,' other buzzwords, etc. They eat almost no carbs, etc., etc.'

...Uh, then you would expect them to feature "physiological" insulin resistance—just like the thousands of LCers in various forums, my blog comments, and in my dad—right?

...Uh, but you don't observe it. They don't even feature elevated ketones.

To Reiterate, Just In Case You Missed It: No Elevated Ketone Levels in the Inuit

Since this post the other day and subsequent exchanging of some emails and comments here & there with those I'd generally consider advocates of very low carb dieting—to include those advocating near perpetual states of ketosis—I've been met with surprise bordering on disbelief that indeed no, the Inuit are no more a "ketogenic society" than anyone else across the planet Earth.

And if not, then there is literally not a shred of any basis that chronic ketosis is a healthy state to be in (and so sorry, but I'm just guessing it's not "nutritional," either).

Let's dive into the three old papers cited in that other post: 1928, 1936, and 1972, all with identical findings.

Yea, so in 1928 and 1936 it was urinalysis, and in 1972, blood on test strips.

  1. All studies separated by 44 years achieved the same result in terms of no elevated ketones.
  2. All studies separated by 44 years demonstrated that Inuit on their normal diets could pass a typical glucose tolerance test (bolus dose of pure glucose, BG elevates to about 140, then comes down over a few hours).
  3. All studies separated by 44 years demonstrated that Inuit put into unequivocal ketosis via and 80 hr. fast failed glucose tolerance tests miserably, with elevations in BG as high as 400, some still over 300, 2 hrs. later.

First, this confirms to us what Peter was saying back in 2007 when everyone was ignorant of this research and alarmed at their physiological insulin resistance (PIR). All of that is our physiologic response; not evidence, per se, that extended ketosis or sufficient LC dieting to induce PIR is a very bad thing. In other words, it all makes perfect sense. There is no surprise. I believe this is what Peter was saying originally, and his 'failure' to capitalize two words in a title signals to me that this was where his mind was at: 'Don't really know for sure if it's good or bad; but makes perfect sense as a normal physiological response to input stimuli.' Correct, Peter?

But why? How come the Inuit—the Gold Standard of We Can Do This!—were not in perpetual ketosis and could take a bolus dose of glucose and display Physiological insulin sensitivity?

Here's two clues as to why.

  1. Disrupting Paleo: Inuit and Masai Ate Carbs and Prebiotics, Part 1
  2. Disrupting Paleo: Inuit and Masai Ate Carbs and Prebiotics, Part 2

...Turns out they actually ate a lot more carbs than anyone ever thought. Mostly, by eating kills raw, fresh, or frozen, preserving muscle and liver glycogen—as well as nose-to-tail, with lots of bits that gut bugs feed on, just like plant fibers ('animal fiber'). Moreover, they partake of a very unique niche, where the demands of diving sea mammals means that they store lots of carbohydrate in what's supposedly just fat. Perhaps that's why they call it blubber, not fat?

What Did Indigenous People Inhabiting the Coldest Places on Earth Really Eat?

From: Lawrie's Meat Science by R. A. Lawrie, David Ledward, p 92, (23 Jan 2014) A much delayed onset of rigor mortis has been observed in the muscle of the whale (Marsh, 1952b). The ATP level and the pH may remain at their high in vivo values for as much as 24h at 37ºC. No adequate explanation of this phenomenon has yet been given; but the low basal metabolic rate of whale muscle (Benedict, 1958), in combination with the high content of oxymyoglobin in vivo (cf 4.3.1), may permit aerobic metabolism to continue slowly for some time after the death of the animal, whereby ATP levels can be maintained sufficiently to delay the union of actin and myosin in rigor mortis.

One Thousand Nails in the Coffin of Arctic Explorer Vilhjálmur Stefansson, and His Spawn

It turns out that marine mammals that spend a good deal of their time diving to great depths have significant glycogen stores. Sperm whales make routine dives to 400 meters for 40 minutes and can reach a maximum depth of 2000 meters (6,560 feet, or 1.25 miles). Narwhals make some of the deepest dives recorded for a marine mammal, diving to at least 800 meters (2,600 feet) 18 and 25 times per day every day for 6 months, with many dives reaching 1,500 meters (4,900 feet). Narwhals have been recorded diving to as deep as 1,800 meters (5,900 ft, over one mile). In addition to making remarkably deep dives, narwhals also spend more than 3 hours per day below 800 meters—this is an incredible amount of time at a depth where the pressure can exceed 2200 PSI (150 atmospheres).

[Editor's note: most of your grilled Paleo land food lives its entire life at about 1 atmosphere.]

During their deep dives these marine mammals run out of oxygen and switch to their unique glycogen-based energy stores. They store large quantities of glycogen in very odd places, but it typically gets concentrated in the skin and organs. Researchers have discovered significant "glycogen pools" in the narwhal's arterial thoracic retia. Ringed seals have "large quantities of glycogen" in a gelatinous material near their sinuses. A sperm whale's blubber ranges from 8—30% carbohydrates, mostly believed to be glycogen. The hearts and brains of weddel seals have concentrations of glycogen that are two to three times that of land mammals. Furthermore; in marine mammals, these organs tend to be larger in proportion to the total body weight than in land-based mammals.

In 1973, George and Ronald wrote about the harp seal, "All the fiber types contained considerable amounts of glycogen...it is postulated that the seal muscle is basically geared for anaerobic use of carbohydrate as an adaptation for the animal's diving habit."

Let's continue with the delicious iconoclasm, shall we?

...What Stefansson and Anderson set out to do in their Belleview experiment by modeling an "Inuit diet" for a year is, if you integrate all the foregoing: non sequitur (a conclusion that does not logically follow). They merely demonstrated that chronic ketosis was survivable for a year. It does not logically follow that the Inuit are a model for a chronic, ketogenic diet; because, they were not that and ironically, Stefansson and Anderson showed that. Stefansson and Anderson had vastly different outcomes than the Inuit, upon scientific scrutiny (as opposed to folklore).

Why? Because, unlike the Inuit in 3 studies over 44 years, they could not pass a glucose tolerance test on the diet they were eating, when tested at the very end of it. Why? Because, as I said, it was very far from an Inuit diet; thus non sequitur; and literally, NOBODY has made this connection but for Duck, to me, to promote to the unwashed.

More Uncovering of the Inuit Myth: Stefansson and Anderson Belleview Experiement; Compromised Glucose Tolerance

From that link, here's Stefansson's glucose tolerance at the conclusion of his Belleview experiment. (Anderson's was worse.)

Stefansson - Solid line after 1-yr LCHF, dotted after 3-4 weeks normal carb

Need I remind you of how the Inuit test subjects faired in three separate studies separated by 44 years after not just a year, but a lifetime of eating their traditional diet? Occam's Razor: were Stefansson and Anderson just way different than Inuit physiologically, after a year in a metabolic ward, or did they simply not eat a real Inuit Diet?

Screen Shot 2014 03 31 at 8 27 24 AM
Normal glucose tolerance with adults receiving about 120 grams 12 hrs after last meal

Oh, yea, I know: Inuit are "Keto adapted," according to Dr. Michael Eades. Way to "explain" away a Black Hole, Mike. ...Of course, the New York Times obituary for Stefansson didn't call anything into question, so that's evidence of absence.

...Alright, let's wrap up this pagan, heretical infidelity in clashing icons. This post was motivated by a comment a few days ago.

“I have an approach to life. I resist insulin. Running on the edge of ketosis, with a major preponderance of long chain saturated fatty acids as metabolic substrate, I expect to be insulin resistant. I am. It is pure physiology.”


Oh, that's Peter, again. Didn't we see him earlier? In the same post of May, last in 2014, he also wrote:

I like to have uncoupled mitochondria running with a relatively low delta psi, high oxygen consumption and low free radical leakage. On isolated occasions, a few times a week, my parsnip chips will spike my blood glucose and delta psi for an hour or so and generate a few extra superoxide/H2O2 molecules above basal levels. I hope that’s enough for generating a decent number of healthy mitochondria. I don't know if I am correct.

Do you know what made me love Peter from day one in 2007? His sidebar. It reads differently now; but back then, it said he was a veterinary doc. Said he was practicing a high fat Optimal Diet a-la the Polish guy, which whom I'm not going to take the time to Google, to get the spelling right. Starts with a Kw. Very, very most notable: he had up there words to the effect that he doesn't know if he's right, but he keeps checking PubMed.

I read everything he posted and I told people routinely: "don't go to an MD, go to a veterinarian. They're species agnostic. They understand all about mammalian, even reptilian physiology, and dismiss doG and his meaningless distinctions."

Later, Peter helped me greatly extend the life of our beloved rat terrier Rotor (about 3 years) when he developed EPI. I even got an email or two from Peter after the initial barrage: "how's Rotor?" Beatrice thinks Peter is a doG.

...I wonder if Peter would enjoy so many folks out there saying "well, it's physiological," as though to say it's necessarily ok, or even correct and right. I'm not getting that from the originator himself.


  1. I just cut off my finger. Shit, it's way bleeding and hurts like hell. No worries. It's physiological.
  2. My teenage daughter just got pregnant. She has a 16 yo boyfriend. No sweat. It's physiological. It's..."Physiological teenage pregnancy."

Get the idea?

I think Peter never meant to convey the idea that because something makes perfect logical sense in terms of what we know about the physiology of organisms (remember, he's species agnostic), that' it's right, wrong, or indifferent. It just is, and:

You're still on your own. PubMed.

So, how about: Low Carbohydrate Diet Induced Insulin Resistance? And now, onus is on all y'all to demonstrate how that's the optimal place to be for life, given that even the Inuit don't demonstrate it.

Best of luck.

Iconoclasm: Your Presidents Are Supposed To Be Godlike, But Your God is a Rapist, Murderer, and Slaveholder

I love being primarily an iconoclast in everything I do. 25 years and counting.

I kinda fell into it, after my formative years had been wasted on "Mother Goose." Long story.

I was out and about today and heard a bit of Dave Davies standing in for Terry Gross on Fresh Air (a program I love far more than I hate). It was an interview of Matt Bai on his book, just released today: All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid. Alright, ostensibly, its a book about how the revelations of Gary Hart's philandering in 1988 during the Democrat presidential primary changed things in the way media covers future prospective Kings in America.

I'm completely unsure of what the whole point, moral, or conclusion of the book is about. Here's the book description from Amazon.

In 1987, Gary Hart-articulate, dashing, refreshingly progressive-seemed a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination for president and led George H. W. Bush comfortably in the polls. And then: rumors of marital infidelity, an indelible photo of Hart and a model snapped near a fatefully named yacht (Monkey Business), and it all came crashing down in a blaze of flashbulbs, the birth of 24-hour news cycles, tabloid speculation, and late-night farce. Matt Bai shows how the Hart affair marked a crucial turning point in the ethos of political media-and, by extension, politics itself-when candidates' "character" began to draw more fixation than their political experience. Bai offers a poignant, highly original, and news-making reappraisal of Hart's fall from grace (and overlooked political legacy) as he makes the compelling case that this was the moment when the paradigm shifted-private lives became public, news became entertainment, and politics became the stuff of Page Six.

Shit, I could about write a post about every sentence, but I like to do things 'more posts, each shorter,' nowadays.

There's many ways you could go with this, the most obvious being that it coincided with an enormous debt build up, various bubbles, and high politics became a game you couldn't afford to loose, so very high stakes. Or, it was the rise of the American Shiites who called themselves Baptists and Fundamentalists (my own experience).

Neither explanation is really satisfying to me as some singular thing. Do you know what is? News companies as big corporations that sell advertising to other big corporations whose customers are the Americans who buy their stuff. Faux News isn't Shiite fascist conservative because it has owners that have deep family values. It has identified a certain market niche of fucktards. CNN and MSNBS aren't commie liberal because they have similarly opposite, conscientious owners. They're in it to make money for shareholders and their corporate advertising customers have their own fucktards.

Only fucktards make meaningless distinctions about all of the above.

...I can't really help but think, given what I heard in 10 minutes of that interview, that it's mostly about bemoaning the fact that those who reach high office aren't the doGs we've always imagined them to be.

I guess they never clicked into EvilBible.com.

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

Should I go on? I can give you a few thousand similar evil passages in your Book of Divine Grace.

...And so, I don't think there's a lot to worry about in terms of presidential politicians and other Nomenclatura getting their willies wet outside the White House presidential bed—nor sacred bassinets for proto-Presidents and other risers to doGhood.

By my reading of the Bible, the worst of them are all amateurs. So relax. Let your doGs have their fun. Europeans have been doing it for centuries and still manage to uphold a lot of the trappings of the general fantasy.

California Enacts ‘Yes Means Yes’ Law, Defining Sexual Consent

One fucktarded, regurgitated story, here.

"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent," the law states, "nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

So, is "yes, Yes, YES, YeSSSSS safe haven?

...Close to the most anti-animal, ridiculous fodder for jilted cuntfmales and adventuresome prosecutors I've ever heard of. Because it's basal, and putting legal distinctions on intimate human animal behavior is something only The Land of The Free would dare to do.

No worries. Someone else will care for the kids who get chewed up up in this femiNAZI cunt adventure. It's so...motherly.

...I haven't read the legislation but what I'm primarily interested in is how a judge's decision tuns on the distinction between a raging hard cock and a swollen, dripping wet pussy. Just guessing, but I'd guess that few black robe types, perched on benches have ever experienced a swollen, dripping wet pussy.

May you live in fucktarded times.

Cold Rice and Bean Salad

I arrived back to San Jose yesterday afternoon, after a week away giving Beatrice time off from attending to two very spoiled and ornery rat terriers (she spoiled them; see how charitable I am IRL?).

Checked email when I got back and a blog reader, Brian, had a link for me: Rice and Bean Resistant Starch Salad; a post at Food Renegade by  Shannon Stonger (wouldn't it be cool if she was 'Shannon Stronger' or, 'Shannon Stoner'?).

I looked around. Bea had a pot of pinto beans in the fridge, and the rice cooker was on the countertop, with a full load from the night before. Hmmm, beans & rice dish? I'm in. After a quick surveillance of what else there was on hand, I set off to the market.

All I needed was two large heirloom tomatoes (I got a big red and a big yellow) a big [h]ass avocado, and a block of cheddar cheese. It calls for Mexican oregano, but I had Greek, which is the closest. Substitute a little lime juice for some of the vinegar and you'll approximate that lemon verbena thingy (I googled it on my iPhone 6, in the store).

See her full recipe here.

My variations:

  1. the rice was Ben's Parboiled. Doubt it makes any difference. It's just starch.
  2. went with 2 tsp of sea salt instead of 1 1/4.
  3. 1/2 tsp cayenne instead of 1/4.
  4. for the vinegar, used juice of a whole lime, 1 TBS coconut vinegar, and 2 TBS ACV.
  5. recipe calls for black beans or whatever your preference. I had pintos, but bought a can of black at the market which when drained, was 1 1/2 cup of the 3 cups called for. So, half pinto, half black.

The recipe doesn't specify, but you want to drain the beans of their liquid. Ought be obvious, but you never know. Some people do beans more like soup, so you want to start off the same.

My only thing I'd do different next time is to go with less onion. Recipe calls for a medium, the two I had were large and I picked the smallest one. Bit more chunky raw onion than I'd have preferred. Beatrice, on the other hand, loved it more than I. Definitely go with doubling the cayenne if you at all like a little kick. Even still, it's a small kick.

IMG 2682
Yea, it's a lot

So, there you have a week's worth of starchy, side-dish substrate for your proteins for lunch and dinner, for two people; and it's as cheap as sewer water.

IMG 2684
Yin Yang. Grace and Evil.

...I really loved the idea of a whole avocado for the dressing substrate (as opposed to mayonnaise, which I hate to make). Word of caution: if you go with the 2 tsp salt as I did, the dressing will be very salty. Remember, it's to dress a lot of stuff. You'll not need to add any more salt.

Potential future variations: Olives? How about fresh cilantro, either as garnish or in the dish itself?

Thinking Out Loud: Resistant Starch in Beans vs. Soaking Beans

Alright, here's the brain teaser.

So, since the beginning of this Resistant Starch Revolution, I was in San Jose all the time and did all the cooking of beans. And like a dutiful respecter of Wise Traditions methods, I always soaked them (mom and grand moms did too, when I was a kid). On the other hand, my Mexican-heritage mother-in-law scoffs. Mexicans apparently dump their beans in a pot, add water and cook them. Side note: they always taste far better than my soaked ones (soaking liquid discarded) and make way better refried beans.

Now that I'm away about half the time, Beatrice cooks her own beans—just like her mom taught her.

So here's the deal. My beans? Little to no fartage. Bea's beans? Substantial fartage, unless you eat them daily, in which case—for me at least—it subsides.

Remind you of anything?

Hypothesis: soaking beans ferments them to where certain bacteria strains pre-consume various fibers (including the RS2) and the by-product is the bubbles you see on top of your soaking liquid that you discard and that don't end up in your colon where said by-products are available to co-feeders and whatever else benefit you might get. Alternatively, or both, soaking activates certain enzymatic processes whereby RS2 is consumed, much as it is in the ripening of a green banana that's full of RS2; but that's what fuels ripening such than when it's yellow, little to no more RS.

Alright, theorize away. Destroy my hypothesis if you can. After all, the only thing I can ever be truly certain about is when I'm absolutely wrong.

What ought I call this? How about: The Pre-Farted Beans Hypothesis? The gasses end up in the air you breathe, not in your colon where they do the most good.

Update: a Twitter follower sent along this: Soaking the common bean in a domestic preparation reduced the contents of raffinose-type oligosaccharides but did not interfere with nutritive value.


The objective of this study was to verify the effect of soaking on the factors causing flatulence in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, L.) cv. IAC-Carioca during domestic preparation. A biological assay using recently weaned (21 days) male Wistar rats provided the Food Conversion Efficiency (FCE) and the Net Protein Ratio (NPR). Five treatments were carried out with isocaloric (350.9 +/- 37.9 kcal/100 g) and isoprotein (12.0 +/- 0.5%) experimental diets, with the following protein sources: beans cooked without soaking (BNS), beans soaked and cooked with the soaking water (BSWW), beans soaked and cooked without the residual soaking water (BSNW), control diet (casein) (CC), casein plus the total soluble solids found in the soaking water (CSS) for comparative purposes, and an aproteic diet (AP) for corrective purposes, all diets offered ad libitum. The contents of raffinose-type oligosaccharides were determined in the different domestic preparations of the beans. Significant reductions were observed in the contents of the oligosaccharides raffinose (25.0%), stachyose (24.8%), and verbascose (41.7%), and in the contents of total sugars (80.6%), reducing sugars (58.2%), nonreducing sugars (90.3%), and starch (26.8%) when soaking took place before cooking and elimination of the soaking water not absorbed by the beans (BSNW) was used. No significant difference (p > 0.05) was observed between the values for FCE and NPR of the control diet (casein) and control diet plus soaking water soluble solids. Neither was any significant difference between the values for the different bean treatments found, though the values for FCE and NPR were lower than those obtained for casein treatments. Thus it was verified that although the domestic preparation of the common bean significantly reduced the contents of raffinose-type oligosaccharides, total reducing and nonreducing sugars and starch, it did not interfere with its nutritive value.

"[D]id not interfere with nutritive value." Well, at least not for the human cell 10% of us. :)

Weekend Random Links and Commentary

Now that Facebook doesn't have me to kick around anymore, I'll be doing more link roundup posts of various sorts of things that I formerly put out on my Facebook profile and two pages. I'm thinking I'll primarily do this on weekends. Perhaps sometimes under a single theme or category, other times just random. Let's begin with random.

It may sound counterintuitive, but there's even credible research suggesting that low-fat high-complex-starch diets can help type 2 diabetics achieve better glucose control and reduce insulin needs. It's really interesting for me to encounter almost identical anecdotes from the low-carbohydrate crowd and the low-fat vegan crowd: I lost 100 pounds, got off my diabetes medications, my blood lipids are much better now, etc. I'm quite convinced that many people do well on the McDougall diet, and more remarkably, that a significant number of people can stick with it and even seem to enjoy it. [...]

If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the McDougall diet and the Atkins diet for the rest of my life, I'd probably choose the McDougall diet. Most of the people I met seem to be aging gracefully on the McDougall diet, and I still feel there are questions to be answered about the long-term health impacts of Atkins-type diets. I still have major reservations about a 100 percent vegan diet, however, particularly for children.

Fortunately, no one is putting a gun to my head, so I'll stick with my starch-based diet that includes lots of nuts and a moderate amount of olive oil, butter, meat, seafood, eggs, and whole dairy.

  • America The Police State.

  • The funniest meme I saw this week (via JudgyBitch)

It's a cruel world indeed.