las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Friday, October 7, 2011

The next time I marinate or brine ...

... a piece of meat, I'm going to do it in 2 hour dips, 3X per day,  into diluted brine or marinade.  Also, I'll be rinsing in between my dips.  Normally I marinate or brine for upwards of 12 hours in fairly concentrated mixtures or solutions.  Still, I am convinced this will produce the same texture or flavor penetration.

Do you think this will work?   


Oh, of course not!  This is the whole nonsense that has been going on in low carb circles over glycation for a good while now.  Even if my blood sugar were to spike to 180 after a bowl of oatmeal (which it does not) it would not stay there long enough to cause glycation.  Glycation -- simply put the non-enzyme catalyzed attachment of sugars to proteins -- is a concentration driven, equilibrium, process.  That means that elevated glucose levels favor glycation, but when they fall, they favor detachment again.   Have you ever over-marinated something?  Happens to me with chicken all the time.  I just put it in plain water for several hours and problem solved for the most part.  The reality is that even for a prediabetic, FBG in the one hundreds and one teens, we aren't talking about CHRONIC glucose levels that drive glycation.  And even if this person experiences a few postprandial spikes, they may have some net glycation vs. someone with consistently low blood glucose levels, but they are not experiencing the levels diabetics experience.  

It's the same thing as my analogy.  

A more serious post on glycation, glucotoxicity and confounders is in the pike, but I just had to get this one out there.   I've just read too much Krispie Science these past 48 hours, and my head was going to explode if I didn't say something!   ;-)

Happy Friday all!



42 comments:

Chris said...

I'm guessing you have been reading the strange musings at LLVLC?

Quarrel said...

Isn't this also a valid criticism of low GI / GL dieting generally?

I mention it because I thought GI had fairly mainstream backing...

--Q

Christopher said...

Re. LLVLC: Never knew pumpkin pie could be paleo.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

How'd ya guess Chris? {grin}

@Q: Yes, generally. T2's have an impaired acute response resulting in spikes on the upside but long slow downgrades on the backside, so there's usefulness in it if taking into account the total load. In that regard the load is ultimately more of an issue and it is possible a glucose spike stimulates better clearance w/o insulin than foods that are lower GI in those with appropriate insulin response. Don't know. For the insulin dependent T1's I know, it helps them control dose/response.

@Christopher: According to Dr. Rosedale we should never eat pumpkin! LOL. Jimmy's already become a Lacto-Paleo ... blame it on Christine! But she loves to do dishes when he cooks LOL.

Archibald said...

Lacto-Paleo. I love it! Or how about Lacto-Ovo-Paleo (or Lacto-Paleovo)? I think that these days you've got to be kind of specific about what your Paleo includes or excludes. And just for complete accuracy, it's not pumpkin pie we're talkin' about, but, rather, pumpkin cheesecake. It does look and sound yummy, though, doesn't it? I think that I'll try to adapt it to a lower-fat version as my contribution to our Thanksgiving dinner-party. How about a graham cracker crust (I know, I know) with just a few nuts for flavor, and reduced-fat cream cheese and not so many egg-yolks, etc. etc.. Maybe use a non-stick baking pan. For me, lower-fat works better than smaller-portion.

And speaking of pumpkin, it's a squash well worth learning how to use, and learning how to use fresh rather than canned. Try using some pumpkin and lots of chopped kale (no tough stalks though) as ingredients when you make bone-broth chicken soup. To die for.

Archie

Fashiontribes Diet said...

hi evelyn After reading @chris mention the "strange musings" at LLVLC, I of course went over to the site...so can I vent a bit?

I saw that he chose to take on Paul Jaminet of all people under the pretense of "spirited" inquiry. I had actually wondered after the AHS kerfluffle about what you do when the theory (CHO) on whose coat tails you've staked your "career" (since relocated to a strange new "paleo" universe of lemon squares & cheesecakes) is publicly trounced and agreed on by people with a brain to be wrong. But creating a giant faux "discussion" of whether carbs can be safe by recruiting the troops - most of which didn't apparently didn't read PHD - to rough up a guy with a degree in astrophysics is such a sleazy way to insert yourself into the eye of the storm. Honestly.

Emily Deans comment, though, made me laugh when she lauded the post as "valuable" because "Now I have a good idea of who has a dubious grasp of physiology and who doesn't."

LynMarie Daye said...

I went over and had a look too. Wow, some of the respondents did not do their mamas proud. Jeff Volek sounded like a smug you-know-what. I'm actually quite shocked by his dismissive response. At least his colleague Stephen Phinney came across well.

And oh the irony of Collette Heimowitz's contribution. She starts out by writing that the idea of safe starches is “the most ridiculous notion I’d ever heard” and then goes on to assert that nucleic acids are the building blocks of proteins. Oh my…

And as for Richard Bernstein's contribution, there's one second of my life I'll never get back!

;)

Sue said...

Ok, now I have to go and take a look!!

Sue said...

Geez, how wrong is that post at LLVLC. Safe starches mean they are not allergenic I believe not that diabetics can eat them safely in any amounts, without any issue.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Very wrong on many levels. Jimmy Moore is not interested in discussion or learning. He has made that abundantly clear many times. I'm just surprised he didn't trickle this out in several installments to maximize page hits and such.

Publishing Bernstein's comment was low class. He'll use the excuse that he's just passing such along, but that's no excuse. It's his blog and he's responsible for the content.

Reading Jimmy's comments in response, he's also saying it's not about Paul's book but the concept of safe starches. He should at least have linked them to Paul's Dangers of ZC diets blog posts. Anyone who began with I have no idea what this is or who this is should have just declined comment ... or educated themselves first.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

@Archie: Do you blend the pumpkin for broths? When I make soups I often do the carrot/celery/onion thing and then blend with a stick blender.

@FTD: Jimmy sand bagged James Krieger over the insulin series. I thought it was poor form at the time and I think this is too. Poor Paul -- not that he's not capable -- now has to defend himself against all of this. It's an out and out attack to generate blog traffic and nothing more. The tomes from some are excessively long.

Not to mention they miss the point of "safe starches"

@LMD: Nice to "see" you! I love that "there's a second of my life" quote. LOL!! And, nut job? Paul Jaminet? C'mon.

Sue said...

"It's an out and out attack to generate blog traffic and nothing more."
I agree.

Thomas said...

Ah, what a financial interest can do to the pursuit of truth and an open mind.

Beth@WeightMaven said...

Re Jimmy, I think the blog traffic is really secondary to his primary goal, which is getting reassurance about LCing. I could be way off base, but I get the feeling that he finds the idea of "safe" starch threatening to his identity/status quo of LC being the end-all, be-all of diets whether you have met syn or not.

In particular, given that Paul really advocates moderate carbs of 100g/day, I'm not exactly sure why Jimmy has extrapolated this to "I think it is potentially dangerous to give people like this a virtual green light to consume these foods they hear are “safe” for them to eat."

Also, re Paul, what's so great about him is that he really, truly welcomes serious critique of his work. The series he did on carbs & thyroid with Colpo is a great example. But there's not a lot to do with a "sounds like BS" comment.

Thomas said...

"I think it is potentially dangerous to give people like this a virtual green light to consume these foods they hear are “safe” for them to eat."

Wow! But we do have a green light on perfectly safe Quest Bars, right? Throw em' in the microwave for a nice cookie dough feel. Then eat 20 of them.

This LVLLC conversation just has the feel of being a little over the top crazy-but I'm a bit bias I guess.

Duffy Pratt said...

@Thomas, Give me a break. The Quest Bars are only a convenience food, for like when I'm driving. If I'm home, I'd rather sit down to a nice tray of Lemon Bars, with maybe a Pumpkin Cheesecake chaser.

Thomas said...

@Duffy Pratt-hey, as long as they're low sugar and starch, anything goes. Have at it! Consequence free living rules! And if you do gain weight, it's not your fault.

Laura Izbicki said...

@Chris

Thanks for the heads up on Jimmy's blog post. I have not been to his blog in a while, and the safe starches post reminds me why!

I love how Tom Naughton always gets a say in these controversies because he is such a great source of scientific knowledge. The guy made a decent movie about how eating sensibly can help you lose weight but then he diverted that message into a low carb diatribe. He sure understands science, physiology, biochemistry, and nutrition (sarcastic).

What a bunch of tools. The majority (mainstream, or whatever you want to call it) will never take any of these people seriously.

I just hope that there is never a saturated fat tax imposed in the States!

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

I am happy with the response I gave Jimmy. I looked at it as an opportunity to support Paul (whose diet has always been similar to my own) and maybe gets some digs in against the idea that any macronutrient is the black monolith of health.

But I am embarrassed by the company and annoyed that Jimmy would even print most of the clueless, hostile and uninformed responses that he did.

And I liked Tom Naughton's movie, but he is consulted as a low carb expert?

@Beth

"I get the feeling that he finds the idea of "safe" starch threatening to his identity/status quo of LC being the end-all, be-all of diets whether you have met syn or not. "

Jimmy eats too much and will do so until he recognizes that he is self-medicating with food. It will make no difference if it is paleo or low carb or low fat or whatever.

Sue said...

Agree about Jimmy and self-medicating with food and it was appalling that he printed some of the comments.

Archibald said...

Evelyn: "Do you blend the pumpkin for broths?"

I never blend anything 'cause I like really chunky soup (or stoup a la Rachael Ray). As for the pumpkin specifically, since I bake it before trying to remove the meat, I wait to add it to my broth until all the other veggies have cooked. Even so, unless I've been really careful not to bake it much, it tends to just break down and disperse into the broth adding a lovely color and a mild but recognizable, slightly sweet flavor.

Archie

Diana said...

"How have the Inuits, the Sami people of Northern Scandinavia and the Masai people been able to survive? They live almost entirely of animal food."

No, they don't. Somewhere or other I read on the Weston Price website that the "blood, milk and meat" diet of the Maasai is a myth. That's the diet for adolescent boys. Everyone else eats cereal-carbs, like other Africans.

Eskimos ate plants. I don't know anything about the Sami, so I looked them up.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948650

"The prevalence of obesity was high in this population and central obesity was most pronounced in women, particularly in Sami women. Sami men were less obese than Norwegian men"

That diet's not working for Sami women.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Gee, I missed Quest bars in the microwave!

@Beth: LLVLC is Jimmy's only source of income. Despite what he says publicly, his franchise is struggling. Given that he relies on affiliate programs and advertising I found his n=1 stuff rather the more curious. He has a BG meter so why not test them at least for himself before he endorses them?

I have to get a kick at how many people took issue with Paul's recommendations not to bother counting the itty bitty carbs in veggies. This, frankly, endeared me to PHD right off the bat as I've always thought it ridiculous to limit LC veggies. Sisson gets my vote for his Big Ass salad thing (even Harcombe gets kudos for that one!).

Hans said...

What is ur take on?:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21673053

Sanjeev said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sanjeev said...

a visual comment:

click or

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=facepalm&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Sanjeev said...

Again, it is a question for Dr. Su.that dangling "the" is suspicious.

the v,v,v and the "visual comment" are meant for many of the comments there (and for Dr. Su iff and ONLY IFf he meant it exactly that way)

Sanjeev said...

I went. my bad. This is what I wanted to post:

veni, vidi, vomitus

I don't have time for a discussion at the moment so I didn't ask if Dr. Su meant his post.

___________________________
Robert K. Su, MD 2 days ago in reply to Matt Brody
Not exactly. the ramifications of hyperglycemia are of major concerns. However, hyperglycemia is the root of most, if not all, of the health problems. Please visit my website and look for a three-part article, " carbohydrates Can Kill: Hyperglycemia is problematic but preventable by restricting carbohydrates", and another one, "A Silent Killer: Hyperglycemia At Anytime Bt Fasting and 2-hour Postprandial."
_____________________

"hyperglycemia is the root of most, if not all, of the health problems"
... "health problems" ...

Not even the more restrictive "disease", my understanding being diseases are a subset of "health problems"

I thought the Liver Fluke caused all diseases

click

or copy and paste (for the paranoid)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=iil&channel=fs&q=%22+cause+of+all+diseases%22+%22liver+fluke%22&oq=%22+cause+of+all+diseases%22+%22liver+fluke%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=30643l32915l0l33099l14l11l0l0l0l0l484l1933l0.4.2.0.2l8l0


or various other things - subluxations? something else? Here's a few candidates (ignore the top link though, it may confuse)


click

or copy & paste
http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22the+cause+of+all+disease%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

@Hans: That's interesting. In the abstract they say that " because of the reported tumor-promoting effects of high fat and the immune-stimulating effects of high protein" was the reason they used a VERY high protein diet. The diets ranged from 58-69% protein which is utterly unfeasible in humans except in a PSMF.

Still, protein stimulates IGF-1, especially dairy protein. Couldn't find the composition for the diet but casein is common protein in rodent chows. But we don't want to stimulate IGF-1 with carbs? (Jack Kruse's reply to Jimmy)

Tsimblist said...

Forwarded for @bentley from:
http://discussion-home.1053854.n5.nabble.com/Re-JM-safe-starch-tp4882970p4882970.html

Sorry, blogger still doesn't like me. Maybe it's a subtle hint.


I was pretty much done once it became clear that compulsive eating behaviors are unrelated [as claimed] to macro ratios, insulin "spikes", or any other low carb [or low fat] nonsense.

JM will be obese until and unless he contends with his compulsive eating behaviors regardless of the macro composition of his diet.

First tip is a freebie. It's not "normal" to require a stash of any kind, specifically not a stash of faux candy bars to be able to navigate from point A to point B without binging at a fast food joint.

The sad part is...that his life is being consumed by this crap. He's a YOUNG man but you'd never know it. I nearly had to scrape my chin off the floor to learn he was in his thirties.

I have been harshly critical of JM because his behavior disgusts me. I have a strong reaction to it and denial of that fact will do nothing but make a liar out of me. Nevertheless I do truly regard his situation as very sad and consider him worse off for having become involved [particularly in a fiscal sense] with the LC movement.

It would be difficult to do a 180 and reject it all and just eat some crow [as I have done] being so much in the public eye. There are no cruises schedualed for the "oops, I was wrong" diet recovery. No one is getting their book/diet plan/advice/etc validated and promoted.

In his case it's easy to see that despite it OBVIOUSLY not working for him the benefit of his influence and celebrity has become a liability and a noose around his neck and I do pity him for that. If my weight loss had been more extreme [or related to LC] that could easily have been me and I don't feel confident that I would have quickly and easily dismissed my wrong dogma surrouded by an ocean of validators, adulators, and people to help me rationalise. He is as consumed by food today as he was when he was tossing back entire boxes of cupcakes if not moreso. This is not freedom and I don't want anything more to do with it.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Thanks for doing this Tsimblist -- I'm so behind checking on the disco board!!

Bentley, I share many of your thoughts on this. As someone who had an ED, I can spot one a mile away. Not that Jimmy's is hard to spot, but he vehemently denies it. When he went on the week long fast "for health", MANY cautioned him not to, and as I recall I commented that I don't think this is a good idea for anyone with a history of yo-yoing OR eating disorders. He snipped back that he doesn't have an ED.

It seems from reading old posts Jimmy tied his fortunes fully to LLVLC (as in quitting his day job) after he was already having some issues with maintaining. The thing is being low carb should NOT have to be this "some people are so sensitive they have to count the carbs in veggies" nonsense. This is what got him into trouble and trapped him. He can't very well go back on that now.

Andrew C said...

This guy quit his job to run that site full time?
I wonder if his disorder affected him being able to hold down a full time job, at least mentally and with focus issues.

His whole lifestyle must revolve around food and fear of many foods. "Low carb" must be on his mind almost all of his waking hours. It's like he's created a jail for himself. Since viewing his blog I've noticed a self deluding repetition of phrases like "my healthy low carb lifestyle". Say it enough and you fool yourself I guess.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Welcome Andrew! Good on you for asking him. Banned in a few days? Jimmy is getting quicker on that trigger. From what I can gather Jimmy used to work in sales for a corporation. As his blog picked up and he branched to YouTube, the podcasts, etc, he eventually made a go at it full time. I'm not sure exactly when this happened but he's been making money through affiliate stuff (KimKins anyone??!!! -- OH the hypocrisy there!!) for a good long time. When I first found Jimmy through LLVLC forum, I had NO idea he was struggling with his weight. To this day he called a 30-ish lb (which was really more like a 50-ish lb rebound from KK) weight gain as "slight" and reading his blog you would think he could never shake those creatinine supplement induced pounds. Only he did -- all but perhaps 5 of them. He would probably be smart to scrub the internet of his old content except for the fact that it will live on in cached/archived form and look worse. But the Jimmy of 2005-2006 is not the Jimmy of today. And, dadly, its a mutual users' society to a degree. Sisson used Jimmy to sell Primal Fuel, Jimmy used Sisson for ad revenues.

But all of these other folks have "real jobs", thriving businesses as trainers or selling supplements or exercise equipment/programs, etc. Even Naughton now says he makes very little off Fat-Head ... he's a software engineer (and . comedian). I can't think of anyone else who is in Jimmy's position of relying solely on trading on his increasingly less successful weight loss success to make a living.

Andrew C said...

Hi Evelyn, thanks for that background. Very interesting. I think if he wasn't revolving everything in his life around food and basically trying to prove to everyone that low carb is best, he'd be better off. Then he could try a less extreme diet based on less calories and not worry about what it means when it works for him. I don't think he has enough other things in life to feel good about. Even just having a productive non-weight-based job would take a lot of the focus off of food for him.

He actually banned me within the span of a few hours. The comments begin here.
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/is-there-any-such-thing-as-safe-starches-on-a-low-carb-diet/11809#comment-328876134
I pressed on a few points, trying to get direct answers, but he basically said he didn't have time to respond. The "metabolic derangement" claim just seemed to strange (that it must exist because nothing else would explain his failed weight loss he said), that I didn't want to let it go without a direct response.

Glad to find your site - much more sane!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Andrew, I used to be quite active on Jimmy's discussion board. I think it was a few months before I realized that he was struggling with his weight (sometime summer 09). He put it all out there on the menus blog but became increasingly hostile to any and all comments where people tried to help. I agree with you, he would do better for himself to not have his livelihood revolve entirely around food and weight, but that ship has sailed. Can he re-brand to a HAES-style low carber bringing folks the latest and greatest in the paleo/LC community? Or will he get lap banded ...

Lerner said...

Hi, are you saying that glycation is readily reversible? AFAIK, AGEs are not, neither is cross-linking. They have to be broken down in proteosomes or elsewhere and then excreted via the urine.

Is there a distinction between that and some class of 'regular' glycated proteins?

I've also recently read that N-Acetyl Carnosine eyedrops are used to reverse cataracts. How would that fit it?

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hi Lerner -- Don't know anything about eyedrops. I'll have to look -- I'm not sure search function will pick up on comments -- but Nigel if memory serves provided an excellent link to the glycation thing. It is multiple steps and the first step is readily reversible. The next step is not. So progression requires chronic elevated levels. Also we have to consider the end point requiring no cellular/molecular turnover during the timecourse of progression.

Lerner said...

Thanks, Evelyn. You're right that blogger doesn't index comments, and using a search engine I see ~45 hits for--> Nigel + glycation.

So I'll proceed on what you say since you have credibility, not being an advocate of one thing or another :) That's why I asked here.

One quick other thing, wrt to your last reply sentence. Macrophages have a scavenger receptor which recognizes oxidized fats, which is said to be useful is detecting senescent cells. (That process might also be involved in foam cells endocytosing oxidized lipids in atherosclerotic plaques.) Macrophages can also detect glycated proteins. From your vantage point, would you think that latter process is significant healthwise or is it instead relatively trivial and not worth considering? E.g., there is such a thing as glycated LDL.

(The reason I ask is because I'm focused on the whole postprandial thing, especially as that concerns refeeding crammed into a possibly short window.)

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Thankfully, my reader has a search and I found it. I had tracked down a few articles at the time confirming Wiki's account of The Amadori Rearrangement but not finding those in my browser history :( In any case, my recollection was slightly off, the first TWO steps are reversible.

You might find this "grand daddy of NEFA" Bierman lecture/paper of interest: http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/12/6/647.full.pdf

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hmmm ... my highlighting deleted an entire paragraph of my reply :-( Anywho ... I'm not so well-versed in all the various impacts of glycation as it hasn't been a focus. As Kurt, I believe, has pointed out here and elsewhere, below certain levels the nuances do not appear to be significant. The elevated HbA1c is seen in frank diabetes result from chronic hyperglycemia and other issues compounding the issue. From a chemical equilibrium POV, however, even an hour at 200 is not likely to do anything permanent if BG falls back to normal. I've seen 180 as a threshold (although some say 150 or even 140 for "some").

Speaking of postprandial, Cianflone's group has been focusing on that with the ASP thing. Impaired clearance of dietary fat seems every bit, if not more from an earlier timepoint, as predictive of metabolic dysfunction.

Lerner said...

Thanks again.

wrt to "my highlighting deleted an entire paragraph of my reply" I hope I'm not merely stating what you already know but Control-z will usually undo the delete (or use Edit/Undo from the menu bar)

Woodey said...

I read your comments and was surprised by the lack of response from Jimmy. I was also surprised by how quickly he became defensive and deflected your comments to his devoted fanbase. If he is going to throw terms out then he should take the time to explain. I get suspicious when people claim to be about science, but then take offense when they are challenged or questioned. He doesn't have a day job and spends his time online blogging, surely he has the time to explain himself. Instead he let the devoted gang up on you and accuse you of being a troll.

Low carb people seem to love to talk about their damaged metabolism as the reason behind stalls and plateaus. Common sense says to get tested to find out for sure, it would save people a lot of frustration. Although if it turns out they don't have a damaged metabolism then that means the diet is more than likely the culprit. Uh-Oh!!!

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.