>The mysterious part about strange attractors like the Lorenz Attractor is that we can throw pretty much any number into an equation or system of equations, and if we plot them, they form strangely non-random patterns like the butterfly above. It’s mysterious because we didn’t exactly design these equations to produce butterfly pictures on purpose, it just sort of.. happens.
fwiw, strange attractors are a minority of attractors in dynamical systems, and your description is more consistent with SAD-analogues being a fixed-point attractor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor#Fixed_point
the broader point about economic forces (supply & demand both) converging on SAD is well made
"Many traditional foods are less swampy than the average SAD food. "
Tie into with Cuisine and Empire (https://substack.com/home/post/p-166902514 , fantastic book and review) and you see that also, historic foods (other than the subsistence peasant diets which were often close to mono-diets) changed a ton! There's a cool part in the book where it is revealed that high class Spain in maybe the 1400s (?) was just exclusively pastries - everything was made into a pastry for every meal. And then a few years later that changed entirely, and then later changes again as they incorporate new world foods.
And yet I don't think there's anyone who noted any kind of effects from this - and you'd think there'd be decent data on it for the nobility (we have good data on who died in battle, and extrapolate economic data from that) if they were having radically different health outcomes as a result.
I propose a new movement : MFBA (Make Food Boring Again). The dopamine hit with SAD is just too high. The goals of MFBA is to eat simple only from base ingredients : (a bag of) vegetables + a cut of meat/chicken/fish. No sauces, no salt, no detectable sweetness, no processing, simple cooking techniques, cheap and no dopamine hit to speak of. Get your entertainment somewhere else (outside of food).
I'd agree with you that most modern food tends to end up looking pretty SAD; however, what are your thoughts on the historical versions of these? For instance, pan fried chicken made at home (that's been a thing since at least the mid-1700s)? My immediate fat-guy thought was Scotch eggs, which again, is breaded and fatty, and has been around since at least 1809. I think the issue with the SAD to me is your point on the chemically processed, seed oil filled, fast foody type versions of these things. The long and the short of it seems to be that food made at home, of any stripe, is better than food from a restaurant.
On that stuff I'm not sure. It could be that these types of food were always bad per se, but people didn't eat enough of them/not regular enough for the same bad effects that we see today. E.g. if pan fried chicken and scotch eggs is your only bad foods, and you eat them once a week each, maybe that's fine but if you ate them all day every day, not fine.
It could also be that these foods are fine per se if you're not in a metabolically ruined context like high seed oil consumption, or microplastics, or whatever. Maybe those people could've eaten pan fried chicken and scotch eggs all day because they didn't fry the chicken in seed oils, but in lard, and the pigs weren't fed corn & soy bean, so their lard was way less PUFA'd.
If our modern versions of these foods are really worse, it would be due to some specific changes like swapping out the fats in them.
In short, WHY is "food made at home" better than food made in a restaurant?
I have reached a level of perfection in preparing and cooking beef that literally no food comes close to its enjoyment, it has become my entertainment food that thankfully makes me healthy. Oddly though I never really fancy it until I take the first bite, "what shall I have for dinner, not steak again, I just can't face it" melts into "yum".
Back in the day when I was even more of an idiot I used to love smoking a cigarette after a cooked breakfast. Now, 20 years after quitting I cannot think of anything more disgusting.
My point is that you can get used to any food and get a hit from it, but swampy SAD food is everywhere, considered "heart healthy" due to its Omega 6 content, widely accepted as food and cheap. I don't see this changing for many many years.
I actually made myself sick of steak haha. Even though I was quite good at it (reverse sear, basting, drying it in the fridge for 3 days to reduce moisture, salting, tried sous vide and didn't like it, even used a benzomatic to sear the outside a few times...)
Not fair to blame SAD for fried foods. Frying has been used around the world for cooking food as well as a way to use and consume the oils/fats.
The widespread availability of cheap sugar is new in the past few hundred years. Highly processed seed oils is much more recent and not well studied.
Maybe the biggest factor in obesity is our consistent food supply. Perhaps people stayed slim while eating less than ideal diets because a famine would come along every several years. Or there was a “hunger season” every year when the last years crop was eaten but the new crops or gardens weren’t yet producing.
Has deep frying been used widely? I think maybe in certain areas/cultures, but I'm not familiar with THAT many deep fried "traditional" foods. Could be wrong, though. I suspect it has increased dramatically, similar to sugar.
I don't think my grandparents experienced many famines or hunger seasons, and they were very slim. Were there famines in 2000? Cause obesity has exploded since then.
Very nice post. You basically hit on a ton of explanations given by academic economics papers on why we have obesity (food prep time, working mom, gains from trade, etc.) The “cooking skill” angle was new for me and spot-on. Sadly no economics papers talk about linoleic acid, but I’m working on changing that 😄
One thing I think you missed (or didn’t emphasize enough) is that Big Food has optimized the content of SAD foods to 1) provide “bliss” as you mentioned; 2) evade regulations; and 3) maximize profit. They have entire R&D labs devoted to achieving these ends. It’s downstream of science in a different sense: academic food scientists publish papers about resilience/properties of ingredients and then Big Food R&D labs deploy that for profit. I don’t believe the food scientists ever think about the nutritional implications; they just want the right texture/shelf-life/nutrition/etc that will satisfy the regulations. And they definitely don’t think about what their foods are displacing.
Another factor could be popular culture. Not only is SAD food cheaper or more entertaining, but it’s “cooler.” In part this is Big Food’s fault for “celeb-washing” their products. Of course I want to drink Sprite if I see Kobe Bryant “obeying his thirst.”
In the end, the number one problem is information. Consumers don’t know what’s in their food, and nutrition labels aren’t much help—what exactly are “natural and artificial flavors”? Moreover, consumers (and probably also scientists) have no idea what the long-run nutrition implications are of the particular mixture of ingredients in their food. It seems clear by now that fortification and enrichment aren’t equal to the original nutrient matrix.
I think even upstream of "what's in the food" and "nutrition labels"... what are we even supposed to look for? Currently, Science (tm) will tell you the exact opposite of what I believe. Based on that, more information would actually be harmful to the consumer. At least an uninformed consumer will get something accidentally right.
My understanding is that their products are “par-fried” in seed oils prior to final heating in tallow. And that their fries and chicken are fried in different types of fats. But I may be wrong. I know that Steak & Shake is that way.
Buffalo Wild Wings also supposedly fries everything in tallow. Also Outback’s blooming onion.
In the end I don’t really trust any restaurant because I don’t believe they have enough control over their supply chain to make any guarantees.
Yea I've heard enough questionable things about Popeyes that I still wouldn't consume it. And in the end it's fried CHICKEN and chicken is going to be 20% LA of the fat.. if they used tallow to fry beef, I'd be game.
Same deal. Cooking at home or purchasing things that are unfakeable is the way to go.
"Ancestral diet" proponents say "if only we eat fat that comes from animals" then everything will be better. Except, industrialization fattens up these animals as quickly as possible. The cows, chickens, and pigs are not allowed to free range, nor allowed to be lean like a poor farmer's chickens are (from first hand witness to these facts in Mexico and Philippines). These are made fat by chemicals, by add 'hormones', by cheap seeds and grains, all to get these as fat as quickly as possible. I have personally sourced my own cows and pigs directly from the farmer, back when I was carnivore, and I can say it is not easy, and doing the processing myself to avoid the cross contamination is hard work. These animals were made fat by 'unnatural' methods - a grass fed, grass finished cow will be 20-30% less weight, and far leaner, with far less fat percentage. Beef tallow and pig lard are not healthy fats - these are fats that bioaccumulate the toxins in a sequestered form within the fats.
Animals, including mammals, are lean when free range. Only marine mammals have a layer of fat, as well as the winter prepared animals have a layer of fat as a portable pack of calories to burn during the lean months or during hibernation. All other mammals are lean during their life times. Fat is unnatural.
Water can store energy, and when it does it becomes structured. Which is amazing, and 'pushes' out toxins out of the zone of exclusion. Water has memory, water transmits and receives information. (read the 4th phase of water). Water allows high levels of thinking (whereas fat in the blood slows down blood flow and thought processes), and high level of athletic functioning.
Fat is not helpful. Animals have a baseline fat level, and that is all they need their entire lives. Fat makes diabetes worse, makes heart disease worse (see Esselstyn showing causation), and ALL CHRONIC conditions worse. Deep frying forces out the water, essentially fully dehydrating the food. Cooking, and baking also push out the water. Read Agent131711, and https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-vitamin-d-paradox-what-they-dont for a good examination of how Vitamins were made up, after industry needed to dispose of a new waste product - which makes all 'fat soluble' vitamins suspect. Why is is easier to get fatty foods, and even nuts and avocados than to buy fresh fruits and veggies from convenience stores. Some say shelf life, except we have the ability to transport fresh foods huge distances in refridgerated trucks, and we can wash these with ozone or chlorine dioxide to extend the shelf life of these fruits. There is no "will" to make available "water" whereas fats are pushed on everyone.
Eat only foods with the original waters still inside, in large quantities, and one will lose weight and get healthier. Avoid fats and oils, and one will get healthier.
Can you provide any resources for this? Everything that you are saying makes sense to me. I LOVE fatty food though, unsurprising due to evolution, and I just find it so hard to give up my butters and oils. But I agree wholeheartedly. And don't even bring up the nut BUTTERS. Where and WHEN would we have constant access to NUTS like this year round? No wonder I can't lose weight! It feels so hopeless to me sometimes because the idea of food being boring really leaves me in distress. We are so surrounded and entrenched in these DRUG FOODS and it makes me angry!!! But I hear you and believe you to be correct.
1. Wild mammals absolutely accumulate fat. It's well known that e.g. caribou, elk, and other animals are lean in the spring and fatten up for winter. They will have thick fat caps and their bones will have more fat.
2. If fat is so bad, why does carnivore/keto work for a certain number of people? Say 30% of those who try it if I had to guess. Why does a 90% fat diet work better than anything else for me?
3. The structured water stuff is pretty woo to me. There's much better support for high fat diets than this.
4. Agreed that deep frying might inherently be problematic.
5. Fat makes diabetes & heart disease worse? You can cure diabetes on a keto diet, and I've seen people revers their CAC score on it. I'd much rather believe Amber O'Hearn than Esselstyn.
Isn't water available to everyone everywhere nearly for free?
I never lost weight eating food with "original water" except heavy cream, which is 65% water and 35% fat or so.
Our bodies are smart. When we have toxins in our environment, and these come into our bodies, our bodies want to deal with these. Those that can be excreted (solids via bowels, liquids via urine and sweat) are done so. Those very dangerous are encapsulated within shells we mislabel as cancer (after which the body sends in allies of fungus and parasites which have been proven to break down toxins - and the body can then excrete these weakened toxins in its normal pathways).
The toxins which are not too dangerous are stored in fat cells.
When a few toxins are consumed, these are shunted to the bodies normal supply of fat already stored on and around the body.
When more toxins are consumed, the body sends signals to eat more fat and calories such that these increased toxins can be stored in these new fat cells.
We have insatiable hunger when we are consuming more toxins (ingest, inhale, absorb, inject).
We cannot lose weight when we are consuming ongoing toxins.
We cannot lose weight if the release of stored toxins will harm our bodies when these are released as-is in the blood supply.
Only if we reduce the toxins, to a safer form, can we lose weight.
Our bodies use fat as a protective mechanism, to protect us from toxins/chemicals freely moving throughout our bodies.
Hypothesis: Will the extensive use of oxidizers (ozone, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide) directly reduce stored toxins in fat cells, as well in the blood? If yes, will that cause the body to then reduce the fat stores, without increase in exercise as well as without decreased caloric consumption?
Methods: Spray Chlorine dioxide on the skin, soak in very low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (0.005%), cause a weight reduction, as well as appetite reduction?
Possibly you reduced your toxin intake (via elimination) such that your body did not need the 70 pounds, but still needed the excess you still have on your body.
Possibly your body (liver) could reduce 70 pounds of toxins to forms it could excrete BUT the remaining toxins could not be reduced to a safe form it could handle. Such that your body refuses to release the remaining fat in order to protect you from these very bad toxins freely floating in your system. [I am working on the idea of using oxidizers to help my body break apart the chemicals stored in the fats, and the ‘reduced’ forms can then be excreted via the liver, out of the body, and thus the fats used to store these bad chemicals are thus not needed and can be safely ‘demobilized.’]
Again, better than anything else - an effortless 70lbs weight loss eating ad-lib is considered a miracle. It's much better than even the best GLP-1 drugs do in the best responders.
What were the toxins that I avoided? I am open to the idea, I just need more than a vague "toxins" to test or confirm/disprove.
So far, my best idea is that the toxin is linoleic acid, because we already know that it's stored in body fat (it's fat) and we know I still have a relatively high amount of it from OmegaQuants. That's why I don't see the need to speculate about other toxins until we can disprove this theory.
[1] Winter mammals are preparing to largely fast during winter. The fat is simply stored calories. Fat is built up to survive the lower temperatures, and the accumulated snow covering up their food supplies. The fat does not offer health advantages beyond stored calories. We know that obese animals, of all types, are going to have more co-morbidities and more chronic conditions, JUST LIKE HUMANS ARE.
[2] Elimination is the reason for success. Eliminate inputs, by stopping processed foods, which stops most added chemicals via the mouth (ingestion). Your fat loss stalled, showing the carnivore did not solve your fat accumulation issue. Your blog shows this.
[3] structured water. My view is that we are electrical beings. We have batteries through out our bodies. Our muscles are one of these. When we exercise, our muscles act as piezo electrical producers, and this charge is stored in the water of the muscles. Our cells need a certain charge range to function normally. When this charge goes lower, then those cells malfunction or have delayed repair. When these cells get added charge, then these can heal/repair. Food that is low ph has a low charge, high ph is a high charge. Food that is exposed to the sun has a charge inside its water, when ingested, this charge is distributed through our vessels throughout our bodies. When we breath, we are not breathing in oxygen, we are breathing in charge found in the aether (as the medium within which charge can be transported). Proof of this is that we are told nitrogen [7 protons] is smaller than oxygen [8 protons] , thus nitrogen should be preferentially absorbed over oxygen in the lungs.
[4]deep frying is dehydrating the water out, and leaving in heated oils
[5]Yes. Try this yourself. Do a 100 gram glucose tolerance test. First with a 80% calories from fat. Then a 2 week wash out, and do a 80% carb calories from fat.
Keto artificially keeps glucose low, and does NOT cure diabetes - which is defined as having an elevated glucose tolerance test over the two hour time period. Esselstyn followed up these 200 men for 5 years, using real world metrics (heart attacks, strokes, deaths). Remember, when we are looking at dying, the real metric is NOT dying.
CAC score ... this is NOT how diabetes is diagnosed. The glucose tolerance test is how diabetes is determined.
Amber O'Hearn had a mood disorder that was diagnosed as bipolar. She became a 'data researcher' ... you and I are also data researchers. She does not treat sick men who have heart attacks and strokes. She wrote and published a book. If you would rather trust her, than Esselstyn's study of 200 sick men, followed for over 5 years, using death and heart attacks and strokes as end points ... then I have to disagree with your 'hero' choice.
WATER is everywhere. Not clean water. Polluted. Chemicals and toxins, and bacteria (oh my).
You never lost weight ... except heavy cream. Have you been able to use heavy cream to continue to lose weight continually to your target weight? No, by your own blog admission. Thus heavy cream is not your long term answer.
I myself did lose weight by caloric restriction, and 3 hours of cardio on an elliptical every day for 6 months. 0.3 pounds lost per day, every day. I got to my target weight. BUT I reverted to my high fat/low water food lifestyle, so I gained the fat back.
TRY IT! Get most of your calories from 'original water' found in fruits and vegetables. Its not easy to do, since our tastebuds have been manipulated to 'crave' high oil/dehydrated/low water foods (it takes me a long time to get away from the high fat cravings - which I am slowly getting successful at not even craving).
1. That was not the point - the point was, there are absolutely fat animals in the wild.
2. I gained 100lbs without eating nearly any processed foods. I never lost weight on carnivore. I lost 70lbs eating a 90% fat diet. If anything, high-fat is the ONLY thing that has been successful for me.
5. I have. Even on deep keto (90% fat) my glucose tolerance is excellent and I passed the test and a Kraft test.
Keto can absolutely cure diabetes. I know CAC isn't diabetes, it's heart disease - point being you can do keto for a long time and have zero CVD issues.
> Thus heavy cream is not your long term answer.
But it's the best answer so far. If you have a better idea, please let me know - I've tried pretty much everything, and everything else worked way worse than heavy cream.
I did caloric restriction and did not lose weight.
I have tried it! It didn't work. Repeatedly. I mean, I have a whole blog about it.
[1] which ones, that are wild? exclude aquatic mammals, and exclude winter-preparation fat
[2] partially successful. Agreed. Not all the way. What's missing?
[5] impressive.
Heavy cream worked for you, to lose 70 pounds. But now you are searching for another answer. I suggest the toxicity fat storage and retention as a built in protective mechanism theory
Caloric restriction - I too did this, via water fasting, and it did not keep the weight down.
1. Why exclude those? The point is, "do fat animals exist in nature" and the answer is clearly yes. Maybe people in certain regions didn't have access to very much fatty meat, but certain people, including my ancestors, clearly did.
2. More successful than anything else. Miraculous, really. I don't know what's missing, that's why I'm running all these diet experiments.
5. Not that impressive; it's just doing "keto right" - cut out seed oils, no excess protein.
Yea, I'm looking for other solutions. Maybe there isn't one, who knows. But my current theory (excess stored linoleic acid) will take several years to disprove. Either I find something else in the meantime, or I'll have to wait until my LA% is low enough that it no longer excuses being overweight.
>The mysterious part about strange attractors like the Lorenz Attractor is that we can throw pretty much any number into an equation or system of equations, and if we plot them, they form strangely non-random patterns like the butterfly above. It’s mysterious because we didn’t exactly design these equations to produce butterfly pictures on purpose, it just sort of.. happens.
fwiw, strange attractors are a minority of attractors in dynamical systems, and your description is more consistent with SAD-analogues being a fixed-point attractor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor#Fixed_point
the broader point about economic forces (supply & demand both) converging on SAD is well made
Good point. The endpoint is carageenan and HFCS deep fried in corn oil as the entirety of the diet.
"Many traditional foods are less swampy than the average SAD food. "
Tie into with Cuisine and Empire (https://substack.com/home/post/p-166902514 , fantastic book and review) and you see that also, historic foods (other than the subsistence peasant diets which were often close to mono-diets) changed a ton! There's a cool part in the book where it is revealed that high class Spain in maybe the 1400s (?) was just exclusively pastries - everything was made into a pastry for every meal. And then a few years later that changed entirely, and then later changes again as they incorporate new world foods.
And yet I don't think there's anyone who noted any kind of effects from this - and you'd think there'd be decent data on it for the nobility (we have good data on who died in battle, and extrapolate economic data from that) if they were having radically different health outcomes as a result.
Thanks, I'll check it out
I propose a new movement : MFBA (Make Food Boring Again). The dopamine hit with SAD is just too high. The goals of MFBA is to eat simple only from base ingredients : (a bag of) vegetables + a cut of meat/chicken/fish. No sauces, no salt, no detectable sweetness, no processing, simple cooking techniques, cheap and no dopamine hit to speak of. Get your entertainment somewhere else (outside of food).
The question is, is that actually the issue in absence of metabolically active/bad foods like seed oils and possibly fructose and more?
Maybe "boring food" is a band-aid.
I do like a good dash of garlic salt on my meat, though …
Out of curiosity, and not entirely on topic for the post, do you avoid olive oil as well?
I believe Ex’s take is that olive oil is bad because it is routinely cut with seed oils, so he avoids it. (Same for avocado.)
Even if it was guaranteed to be pure, I think Ex would still avoid it because it’s up to 10% linoleic acid natively.
This
SAD: The Standard Allovertheworld Diet
Haha more and more, yes
I'd agree with you that most modern food tends to end up looking pretty SAD; however, what are your thoughts on the historical versions of these? For instance, pan fried chicken made at home (that's been a thing since at least the mid-1700s)? My immediate fat-guy thought was Scotch eggs, which again, is breaded and fatty, and has been around since at least 1809. I think the issue with the SAD to me is your point on the chemically processed, seed oil filled, fast foody type versions of these things. The long and the short of it seems to be that food made at home, of any stripe, is better than food from a restaurant.
On that stuff I'm not sure. It could be that these types of food were always bad per se, but people didn't eat enough of them/not regular enough for the same bad effects that we see today. E.g. if pan fried chicken and scotch eggs is your only bad foods, and you eat them once a week each, maybe that's fine but if you ate them all day every day, not fine.
It could also be that these foods are fine per se if you're not in a metabolically ruined context like high seed oil consumption, or microplastics, or whatever. Maybe those people could've eaten pan fried chicken and scotch eggs all day because they didn't fry the chicken in seed oils, but in lard, and the pigs weren't fed corn & soy bean, so their lard was way less PUFA'd.
If our modern versions of these foods are really worse, it would be due to some specific changes like swapping out the fats in them.
In short, WHY is "food made at home" better than food made in a restaurant?
I have reached a level of perfection in preparing and cooking beef that literally no food comes close to its enjoyment, it has become my entertainment food that thankfully makes me healthy. Oddly though I never really fancy it until I take the first bite, "what shall I have for dinner, not steak again, I just can't face it" melts into "yum".
Back in the day when I was even more of an idiot I used to love smoking a cigarette after a cooked breakfast. Now, 20 years after quitting I cannot think of anything more disgusting.
My point is that you can get used to any food and get a hit from it, but swampy SAD food is everywhere, considered "heart healthy" due to its Omega 6 content, widely accepted as food and cheap. I don't see this changing for many many years.
I actually made myself sick of steak haha. Even though I was quite good at it (reverse sear, basting, drying it in the fridge for 3 days to reduce moisture, salting, tried sous vide and didn't like it, even used a benzomatic to sear the outside a few times...)
Not fair to blame SAD for fried foods. Frying has been used around the world for cooking food as well as a way to use and consume the oils/fats.
The widespread availability of cheap sugar is new in the past few hundred years. Highly processed seed oils is much more recent and not well studied.
Maybe the biggest factor in obesity is our consistent food supply. Perhaps people stayed slim while eating less than ideal diets because a famine would come along every several years. Or there was a “hunger season” every year when the last years crop was eaten but the new crops or gardens weren’t yet producing.
Has deep frying been used widely? I think maybe in certain areas/cultures, but I'm not familiar with THAT many deep fried "traditional" foods. Could be wrong, though. I suspect it has increased dramatically, similar to sugar.
I don't think my grandparents experienced many famines or hunger seasons, and they were very slim. Were there famines in 2000? Cause obesity has exploded since then.
Very nice post. You basically hit on a ton of explanations given by academic economics papers on why we have obesity (food prep time, working mom, gains from trade, etc.) The “cooking skill” angle was new for me and spot-on. Sadly no economics papers talk about linoleic acid, but I’m working on changing that 😄
One thing I think you missed (or didn’t emphasize enough) is that Big Food has optimized the content of SAD foods to 1) provide “bliss” as you mentioned; 2) evade regulations; and 3) maximize profit. They have entire R&D labs devoted to achieving these ends. It’s downstream of science in a different sense: academic food scientists publish papers about resilience/properties of ingredients and then Big Food R&D labs deploy that for profit. I don’t believe the food scientists ever think about the nutritional implications; they just want the right texture/shelf-life/nutrition/etc that will satisfy the regulations. And they definitely don’t think about what their foods are displacing.
Another factor could be popular culture. Not only is SAD food cheaper or more entertaining, but it’s “cooler.” In part this is Big Food’s fault for “celeb-washing” their products. Of course I want to drink Sprite if I see Kobe Bryant “obeying his thirst.”
In the end, the number one problem is information. Consumers don’t know what’s in their food, and nutrition labels aren’t much help—what exactly are “natural and artificial flavors”? Moreover, consumers (and probably also scientists) have no idea what the long-run nutrition implications are of the particular mixture of ingredients in their food. It seems clear by now that fortification and enrichment aren’t equal to the original nutrient matrix.
I think even upstream of "what's in the food" and "nutrition labels"... what are we even supposed to look for? Currently, Science (tm) will tell you the exact opposite of what I believe. Based on that, more information would actually be harmful to the consumer. At least an uninformed consumer will get something accidentally right.
Not sure I'd thought about this so clearly before but makes total sense. Race to the bottom in yet one more area. Another reason to hate modernity.
Nitpick: Popeyes fries everything in tallow
My understanding is that their products are “par-fried” in seed oils prior to final heating in tallow. And that their fries and chicken are fried in different types of fats. But I may be wrong. I know that Steak & Shake is that way.
Buffalo Wild Wings also supposedly fries everything in tallow. Also Outback’s blooming onion.
In the end I don’t really trust any restaurant because I don’t believe they have enough control over their supply chain to make any guarantees.
Yea I've heard enough questionable things about Popeyes that I still wouldn't consume it. And in the end it's fried CHICKEN and chicken is going to be 20% LA of the fat.. if they used tallow to fry beef, I'd be game.
Same deal. Cooking at home or purchasing things that are unfakeable is the way to go.
Water is good
Fat/Oil of any type is bad
"Ancestral diet" proponents say "if only we eat fat that comes from animals" then everything will be better. Except, industrialization fattens up these animals as quickly as possible. The cows, chickens, and pigs are not allowed to free range, nor allowed to be lean like a poor farmer's chickens are (from first hand witness to these facts in Mexico and Philippines). These are made fat by chemicals, by add 'hormones', by cheap seeds and grains, all to get these as fat as quickly as possible. I have personally sourced my own cows and pigs directly from the farmer, back when I was carnivore, and I can say it is not easy, and doing the processing myself to avoid the cross contamination is hard work. These animals were made fat by 'unnatural' methods - a grass fed, grass finished cow will be 20-30% less weight, and far leaner, with far less fat percentage. Beef tallow and pig lard are not healthy fats - these are fats that bioaccumulate the toxins in a sequestered form within the fats.
Animals, including mammals, are lean when free range. Only marine mammals have a layer of fat, as well as the winter prepared animals have a layer of fat as a portable pack of calories to burn during the lean months or during hibernation. All other mammals are lean during their life times. Fat is unnatural.
Water can store energy, and when it does it becomes structured. Which is amazing, and 'pushes' out toxins out of the zone of exclusion. Water has memory, water transmits and receives information. (read the 4th phase of water). Water allows high levels of thinking (whereas fat in the blood slows down blood flow and thought processes), and high level of athletic functioning.
Fat is not helpful. Animals have a baseline fat level, and that is all they need their entire lives. Fat makes diabetes worse, makes heart disease worse (see Esselstyn showing causation), and ALL CHRONIC conditions worse. Deep frying forces out the water, essentially fully dehydrating the food. Cooking, and baking also push out the water. Read Agent131711, and https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-vitamin-d-paradox-what-they-dont for a good examination of how Vitamins were made up, after industry needed to dispose of a new waste product - which makes all 'fat soluble' vitamins suspect. Why is is easier to get fatty foods, and even nuts and avocados than to buy fresh fruits and veggies from convenience stores. Some say shelf life, except we have the ability to transport fresh foods huge distances in refridgerated trucks, and we can wash these with ozone or chlorine dioxide to extend the shelf life of these fruits. There is no "will" to make available "water" whereas fats are pushed on everyone.
Eat only foods with the original waters still inside, in large quantities, and one will lose weight and get healthier. Avoid fats and oils, and one will get healthier.
Can you provide any resources for this? Everything that you are saying makes sense to me. I LOVE fatty food though, unsurprising due to evolution, and I just find it so hard to give up my butters and oils. But I agree wholeheartedly. And don't even bring up the nut BUTTERS. Where and WHEN would we have constant access to NUTS like this year round? No wonder I can't lose weight! It feels so hopeless to me sometimes because the idea of food being boring really leaves me in distress. We are so surrounded and entrenched in these DRUG FOODS and it makes me angry!!! But I hear you and believe you to be correct.
Most nuts are super high in linoleic acid, so nut butter is basically seed oil.
Eh, I largely disagree.
1. Wild mammals absolutely accumulate fat. It's well known that e.g. caribou, elk, and other animals are lean in the spring and fatten up for winter. They will have thick fat caps and their bones will have more fat.
2. If fat is so bad, why does carnivore/keto work for a certain number of people? Say 30% of those who try it if I had to guess. Why does a 90% fat diet work better than anything else for me?
3. The structured water stuff is pretty woo to me. There's much better support for high fat diets than this.
4. Agreed that deep frying might inherently be problematic.
5. Fat makes diabetes & heart disease worse? You can cure diabetes on a keto diet, and I've seen people revers their CAC score on it. I'd much rather believe Amber O'Hearn than Esselstyn.
Isn't water available to everyone everywhere nearly for free?
I never lost weight eating food with "original water" except heavy cream, which is 65% water and 35% fat or so.
Toxin Theory of Fat gain/retention
Our bodies are smart. When we have toxins in our environment, and these come into our bodies, our bodies want to deal with these. Those that can be excreted (solids via bowels, liquids via urine and sweat) are done so. Those very dangerous are encapsulated within shells we mislabel as cancer (after which the body sends in allies of fungus and parasites which have been proven to break down toxins - and the body can then excrete these weakened toxins in its normal pathways).
The toxins which are not too dangerous are stored in fat cells.
When a few toxins are consumed, these are shunted to the bodies normal supply of fat already stored on and around the body.
When more toxins are consumed, the body sends signals to eat more fat and calories such that these increased toxins can be stored in these new fat cells.
We have insatiable hunger when we are consuming more toxins (ingest, inhale, absorb, inject).
We cannot lose weight when we are consuming ongoing toxins.
We cannot lose weight if the release of stored toxins will harm our bodies when these are released as-is in the blood supply.
Only if we reduce the toxins, to a safer form, can we lose weight.
Our bodies use fat as a protective mechanism, to protect us from toxins/chemicals freely moving throughout our bodies.
Hypothesis: Will the extensive use of oxidizers (ozone, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide) directly reduce stored toxins in fat cells, as well in the blood? If yes, will that cause the body to then reduce the fat stores, without increase in exercise as well as without decreased caloric consumption?
Methods: Spray Chlorine dioxide on the skin, soak in very low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (0.005%), cause a weight reduction, as well as appetite reduction?
Then how did I lose 70lbs eating a 90% fat diet?
Why only 70 lbs?
Possibly you reduced your toxin intake (via elimination) such that your body did not need the 70 pounds, but still needed the excess you still have on your body.
Possibly your body (liver) could reduce 70 pounds of toxins to forms it could excrete BUT the remaining toxins could not be reduced to a safe form it could handle. Such that your body refuses to release the remaining fat in order to protect you from these very bad toxins freely floating in your system. [I am working on the idea of using oxidizers to help my body break apart the chemicals stored in the fats, and the ‘reduced’ forms can then be excreted via the liver, out of the body, and thus the fats used to store these bad chemicals are thus not needed and can be safely ‘demobilized.’]
Again, better than anything else - an effortless 70lbs weight loss eating ad-lib is considered a miracle. It's much better than even the best GLP-1 drugs do in the best responders.
What were the toxins that I avoided? I am open to the idea, I just need more than a vague "toxins" to test or confirm/disprove.
So far, my best idea is that the toxin is linoleic acid, because we already know that it's stored in body fat (it's fat) and we know I still have a relatively high amount of it from OmegaQuants. That's why I don't see the need to speculate about other toxins until we can disprove this theory.
Great. I appreciate back and forth.
[1] Winter mammals are preparing to largely fast during winter. The fat is simply stored calories. Fat is built up to survive the lower temperatures, and the accumulated snow covering up their food supplies. The fat does not offer health advantages beyond stored calories. We know that obese animals, of all types, are going to have more co-morbidities and more chronic conditions, JUST LIKE HUMANS ARE.
[2] Elimination is the reason for success. Eliminate inputs, by stopping processed foods, which stops most added chemicals via the mouth (ingestion). Your fat loss stalled, showing the carnivore did not solve your fat accumulation issue. Your blog shows this.
[3] structured water. My view is that we are electrical beings. We have batteries through out our bodies. Our muscles are one of these. When we exercise, our muscles act as piezo electrical producers, and this charge is stored in the water of the muscles. Our cells need a certain charge range to function normally. When this charge goes lower, then those cells malfunction or have delayed repair. When these cells get added charge, then these can heal/repair. Food that is low ph has a low charge, high ph is a high charge. Food that is exposed to the sun has a charge inside its water, when ingested, this charge is distributed through our vessels throughout our bodies. When we breath, we are not breathing in oxygen, we are breathing in charge found in the aether (as the medium within which charge can be transported). Proof of this is that we are told nitrogen [7 protons] is smaller than oxygen [8 protons] , thus nitrogen should be preferentially absorbed over oxygen in the lungs.
[4]deep frying is dehydrating the water out, and leaving in heated oils
[5]Yes. Try this yourself. Do a 100 gram glucose tolerance test. First with a 80% calories from fat. Then a 2 week wash out, and do a 80% carb calories from fat.
Keto artificially keeps glucose low, and does NOT cure diabetes - which is defined as having an elevated glucose tolerance test over the two hour time period. Esselstyn followed up these 200 men for 5 years, using real world metrics (heart attacks, strokes, deaths). Remember, when we are looking at dying, the real metric is NOT dying.
CAC score ... this is NOT how diabetes is diagnosed. The glucose tolerance test is how diabetes is determined.
Amber O'Hearn had a mood disorder that was diagnosed as bipolar. She became a 'data researcher' ... you and I are also data researchers. She does not treat sick men who have heart attacks and strokes. She wrote and published a book. If you would rather trust her, than Esselstyn's study of 200 sick men, followed for over 5 years, using death and heart attacks and strokes as end points ... then I have to disagree with your 'hero' choice.
WATER is everywhere. Not clean water. Polluted. Chemicals and toxins, and bacteria (oh my).
You never lost weight ... except heavy cream. Have you been able to use heavy cream to continue to lose weight continually to your target weight? No, by your own blog admission. Thus heavy cream is not your long term answer.
I myself did lose weight by caloric restriction, and 3 hours of cardio on an elliptical every day for 6 months. 0.3 pounds lost per day, every day. I got to my target weight. BUT I reverted to my high fat/low water food lifestyle, so I gained the fat back.
TRY IT! Get most of your calories from 'original water' found in fruits and vegetables. Its not easy to do, since our tastebuds have been manipulated to 'crave' high oil/dehydrated/low water foods (it takes me a long time to get away from the high fat cravings - which I am slowly getting successful at not even craving).
1. That was not the point - the point was, there are absolutely fat animals in the wild.
2. I gained 100lbs without eating nearly any processed foods. I never lost weight on carnivore. I lost 70lbs eating a 90% fat diet. If anything, high-fat is the ONLY thing that has been successful for me.
5. I have. Even on deep keto (90% fat) my glucose tolerance is excellent and I passed the test and a Kraft test.
Keto can absolutely cure diabetes. I know CAC isn't diabetes, it's heart disease - point being you can do keto for a long time and have zero CVD issues.
> Thus heavy cream is not your long term answer.
But it's the best answer so far. If you have a better idea, please let me know - I've tried pretty much everything, and everything else worked way worse than heavy cream.
I did caloric restriction and did not lose weight.
I have tried it! It didn't work. Repeatedly. I mean, I have a whole blog about it.
[1] which ones, that are wild? exclude aquatic mammals, and exclude winter-preparation fat
[2] partially successful. Agreed. Not all the way. What's missing?
[5] impressive.
Heavy cream worked for you, to lose 70 pounds. But now you are searching for another answer. I suggest the toxicity fat storage and retention as a built in protective mechanism theory
Caloric restriction - I too did this, via water fasting, and it did not keep the weight down.
Your blog is great, and honest.
1. Why exclude those? The point is, "do fat animals exist in nature" and the answer is clearly yes. Maybe people in certain regions didn't have access to very much fatty meat, but certain people, including my ancestors, clearly did.
2. More successful than anything else. Miraculous, really. I don't know what's missing, that's why I'm running all these diet experiments.
5. Not that impressive; it's just doing "keto right" - cut out seed oils, no excess protein.
Yea, I'm looking for other solutions. Maybe there isn't one, who knows. But my current theory (excess stored linoleic acid) will take several years to disprove. Either I find something else in the meantime, or I'll have to wait until my LA% is low enough that it no longer excuses being overweight.