Oh... sorry Bear... Leary was way off! I know... it's only OS...

How 'bout:

All praise be to Bear!

Leary was a fool. Drunk with 'celebrity-hood' and his own ego, he became a media clown- and was arguably the single most damaging actor involved in the destruction of the evanescent social movement of the '60's.

Tim, with his very public exhortations to the kids to 'tune in, turn on and drop out', is the inspiration for all the current draconian US drug laws against psychedelics. He would not listen to any of us when we asked him to please cool it, he loved the lime-light and relished his notoriety... I was not a fan of his.

Who was?!

My sentiments exactly!

There are many here who think you have been elevated to some kind of spiritual guru or something... we're all waitin' for Halebop, right?

Just throwin' it back in their face, my friend!

Gotta give a dude credit where credit's deserved!

And another round goes to Bear!

Bear,

I have read the entire thread but was curious if you could add some more commentary on some subjects briefly touched upon. What are your thoughts on grass fed beef versus grain fed beef? Is one healthier than the other? If one chooses to eat grain fed beef (for cost reasons) is it necessary to supplement with vitamins/minerals or EFA's to make up for any deficiencies caused by the difference (if any) in composition of the beef? I don't mean to cause you to reiterate these points but would like you to expand on your previous posts if possible as I respect your opinion and advice. Thank you in advance for any response.

So, Bear... what about these statements is off? Would really like your input in understanding this. I respect your understanding of these things. Not that I won't check it all out for myself, but you are obviously extremely educated in this stuff... and I am really wanting to understand it. Thanks for all your help. You bring a very refreshing viewpoint to this forum. I love it!

BTW... when is Halebop comin' back around? Or should I just phone Syd Barrett and ask him?

Does such a wonderful thing exist? Actually the other day I was thinking that the mock danish base could be used to make really quick peanut butter cookies. Or, I wonder what a peanut butter "pancake" tastes like .

Since it's been brought up how bout a recap of the epic post I originally wrote.


1) Go here to read about the insulin index of food (how much insulin it stimulates).
http://www.mendosa.com/insulin_index.htm
Note that the glycemic score does not neatly correlate with insulin index. Please note the glycemic score is not to be confused with glycemic index, the glycemic score measures 1 calorie of food's impact on blood sugar compared to a control of white bread. In contrast the glycemic index measures a 50 grm portion of food and can be compared to a control of either glucose or white bread depending on which index you are using. The glycemic score is designed to calculate total glycemic load (not the curve of blood sugar). The glycemic index is mostly intended to prevent diabetics from choosing foods that spike blood sugar too fast and is supposed to be predicative of what a food will actually do to your blood sugar.

Note that cheese is really not all that hot in glycemic load or insulinotropic value. It's actually quite "carbohydrate like" in what it does to the body.

Also note that meats typically yeild little sugar to the body but require lots of insulin.

One final note: the best food for blood sugar of the lot seems to be peanuts. Almost zero effect on insulin (it is entirely fat practically) and yields virtually no sugar. Ironic, as this is not an animal food.

Also note that unlike virtually any other food, eggs are decent glycemic source by very very gentle on insulin levels. Perhaps this is why myself and almost every other person finds eggs such a superior way to satiate the body. Perhaps the goal is keeping sugar (energy) adequate while keeping insulin low.
I find it interesting my two "power foods" that form the staples of almost every meal I eat (eggs and peanuts) are the two lowest insulin stimulating foods on the list. I've gotten screwed over by chicken, and by beef, and definitely god knows I've gone to bed buzzy and spaced dazed and conked picking the cheese off dads casserole... but never, ever eggs or peanuts.


2) I would think measuring your blood sugar with a meter is more or less useless. It is erroneous to assume stable blood sugar means ideal diet or health. Balance between insulin and glucagon can remain favorable even if absolutely high (i.e. an obese person who eats a lot). An obese individual can eat his weight in meat, never experience hyper or hypoglycemia providing his metabolism is healthy enough to make the hormones required to keep balancing sugar. This does not mean they are just as healthy as someone who eats less, has lower levels of such hormones, so on.


3) I hypothesize the only way to really experience blood sugar instability from protein (or on low carb for that matter) is if there is a preexisting metabolic deficiency in glucose creating or lowering potential. Meaning, if one's potential to lower glucose greatly exceeds the potential to create it (example: subclinical adrenal insufficiency; extreme adrenal fatigue)... that person could potentially experience hypoglycemia from protein providing the meal was large enough to create a lot of sugar, thus insulin, while "depleting" the body of available glucogenic hormones. This would never happen in a normal person because a normal person with healthy adrenals can never "overpace" themselves in this fashion as their adrenals work well.

Likewise, the only way to become hyperglycemic from protein is if the potential to make sugar greatly exceeds the potential to lower it. Obvious example, type 1 diabetes or advanced type 2 (when the pancreas goes to crap). These people can make tons of sugar, but their ability to lower it is impaired due to hyposecretion of insulin... and much like the former, a large protein load can cause abnormalities in glucose level for this reason.

Most people Do not suffer these types of physiological abnormalities: they have strong, healthy pancreas and adrenals that can produce enough chemicals as demanded no matter how high either level gets. This slight ebbing and flowing of sugar level due to protein consumption will be of no concern to sugar level.
The only time such people start getting problems is if they do something extremely physiologically stressful to metabolism that makes homeostasis of blood sugar nearly impossible (for example, eating krispy kreams donuts and a giant slurpee will give almost anyone a hypo ).

SO, taking a "normal" person and then measuring blood sugar after eating protein will not say much about what it can do to people like me (with crapped out adrenals, I can shake all night into the morning if I eat a whole order of buffalo wings but never touch a carb)
... or to the severe type 2/type 1 diabetic overthere, etc.

Either way.
What's mostly important here is establishing the validity that yes, protein DOES raise insulin and yes, protein DOES create blood sugar and therefore CAN contribute to metabolic disorder in sensitive people.
Therefore, the bear is wrong.
Therefore, eating only animal foods and no plant foods on the basis that it is always better for health (blood sugar) is likewise not necessarily correct. These things are affected by macronutrients, type of food (not living/plant) and most importantly quantity.

... well that recap was hardly brief was it.
Oh well. Guess I'm in then.
GOd damn it's 1:06. My vow to sleep regularly and adequately is being defiled yet again. Fortunately I don't have to wake up till 11 tomorrow. Happy dance!

Where is tamarian? I mailed one of my two photocopies of Fat of the Land to him weeks ago (to OCR), but have not heard whether it arrived, no reply from a private messsage, either.

Gluconeogenesis is overhyped and it's not that easy.
Eating 50 gr of protein doesn't mean that the body will start to produce glucose right now. It's way more complicated and in most instances it simply won't happen. I'm trying to find the article from the old protein power board by Orion. He's an biochemist and he wrote a long detailed article why with low carb intake there is no worry of protein being converted into sugar. As I remember up to 500 gr of protein (not meat but protein so it means up to 5 lbs of lean meat) there is nothing to worry about.

Maybe you're right. A few years ago when I managed to eat no carbs for almost 6 months if somebody insisted I was just telling some wild stories (bets, religion, diabetes, cancer, whatever).

Sorry you feel this is time-wasting. There are so many here that do appreciate your input. Hope you can find the time for this thread. Thanks again for answering all our questions.

New member- I think you must NOT have read the thread (over 1500 posts- in only two days? Perhaps it was sleep deprivation). I have made several definite posts on grain vs grass fed beef. Unfortunate that they have to feed the animals that way. Both however, have the same nutrients. Red meat (including adequate fat-60-80% of calories) is a complete food even if you only eat one cut of one animal. 'Variety' feeds the mind, not the body.

Here we go again. Quoting a ratbag like Mendoza? Give us all a break! This site is total bullshit. What a long, tiresome string of nonsense you have copied into the thread. Why do you bother? Is this another diabetic speaking? ...Making adamant statements, supported by flimsy and questionable data from some internet website which is ridiculous, to support your claims is not on.. they are all falsehoods.

....Protein NEVER raises insulin and does not form blood sugar. Your statements to the contrary are both false. ...I am NOT 'therefore wrong'. Join the other girls- and please- stay away from your keyboard unless you have something of real value to contribute on the subject, or have legit question to ask.. It is already obvious from your posts that you eat a lot of vegetation, even toxic stuff like peanuts. Go irritate someone else. This thread is for those who want to know about the all meat diet. You do not want to know about it, just to denigrate it.

Dean, I feel like a light-heavyweight boxer called on to fight bantamweights. They don't even make it to the center of the ring, on the opening bell. KO. Tiresome. Nothing in your statement appears to be wrong. If additional glucose is needed in a fat-fed person, it is obtained from glycerol- not protein.

Is this truly a 'war zone'? I think not.

Not even a proper 'skirmish zone'. It is more like being forced to have a 'battle of wits' with unarmed opponents.

I did not start this thing up to be argued about over my life experiences by people who have none. I came here to share them with those who are really interested, especially not know-it-all anorectic children and metabolically-challenged diabetics, who cling solidly to their myths like their very lives depended on it (it may, who knows?). This thread is not for them.

Eat as you like, you are going to anyway, so why challenge and question me whenever I try to warn you that you are most likely travelling on a bad path?

Prove what? I HAVE proven that everything I say is true. It may not fit in your 'science box', but it is true, none the less.

I have proven the truth of what I say in the fire of real living, over more years than most of you have lived, not by spouting published bogus-science and nonsense mythology.

All the cells in a human body are replaced in a period of about seven years. Deficiencies of any kind, even the most subtle will show up quickly in so dynamic a system as our bodies. I have lived through nearly SEVEN of these total cell turnovers, and yet my body remains like that of a much younger person. Trust me on this- I examine and question every single person I come into contact who is within ten years of my age, I am not guessing, I am very different in my condition.

Thus, whether any of you who come here want to believe any of what I say about metabolism, or about any other of my statements about diet and human the body, my statements still remain truer than anything else you will ever experience- or learn about. If you think this appears to be arrogance, so be it- that's what the game of real life looks like to the sideline-sitters.

Can we please get back to the sharing of this path? Otherwise you are all going to find yourselves arguing amongst yourselves- I will be out of here, and I will not go and do this again, anywhere else.

I am beginning to think like Greg Ellis, who has quit trying to tell anyone anymore.

Trying to get across what we really are, and what we should be eating is like casting the pearls of wisdom before swine.

Acculturation gives everyone a closed mind, ignorance and myth rule the world.

Too bad.

Bear... please don't leave! Take Bawdy's advice!

Bear,
You are helping many..even those of us who are struggling to try to eat your way!! We really hope you will stay!!

Will everyone stop arguing about the same things over and over again..i dont blame Bear for being weary and tired of all the BS!!

Don't ya'll understand that the man has eaten this way for 47 years, which nobody else on this entire board can claim for our own way of eating..he has something to OFFER us for goodness sakes!!

This is his first and only time coming on a message board to HELP people....and a bunch of idiots are sitting here posting a bunch of stupid ass links...its tiresome! If you want to follow Bears way of eating and learn from him..THIS IS THE PLACE..it ya wanna argue about stupid shit..go start another thread for it..or those of us who WANT to learn from him will end up LOSING him ....PLEASE people..shut yur yaps ...if ya have nothing nice to say..dont say nuthin at all!!

Thanks, Bear!

OK... I said "where is there a need for glucose from protein (or any source)"... and there IS a need for glucose (for those cells that don't have mitochondria), and that glucose will come from glycerol. And ketones and glycerol come from triglycerides. And, of course, during starvation, the body would eventually run out of adipose tissue (once it got to a certain needed threshold), and then would resort to tearing down our own muscle to furnish glucose (gluconeogenesis), which the CNS could then use, since ketones would no longer be an option.

So as long as there are dietary fatty acids why would the body use lipolysis? Or does it always use lipolysis until we hit that threshold, and then start using dietary triglycerides? Or does it use both? Since insulin inhibits lipolysis, I can see the benefit of taking carbs to zero.

Thanks again for your help!