Do be aware that a lot of the evidence against red meat is fundamentally flawed. There was a recent paper from Harvard that is fairly typical against red meat this part has been thoroughly castigated by an awful lot of very sensible people. I could provide more versions of the latest debunking of that research but I think if you read those you'll get the drift.StayHealthy wrote:She didn't like the large amount of meat eaten even if it was grass fed organic -(could cause heart attacks) So I do not have meat with every meal. But when I do I make sure it has no hormones and organic as possible . No veal. Lean meat and I eat lots of fish like wild salmon.
Ideally with as much cocoa solids as possible You can get 81% at Lidl if you look and there are even stronger types available if you are lucky.I am allowed a occasional treat once in awhile and I mean small treat like a piece of dark chocolate
Indeed NO ONE can get sufficient vitamin D from food. At best it can provide only about a tenth of our daily needs. We evolved as mammals that lived outdoors without clothing and those with the palest skin, least hair were best adapted to surviving in the most northerly latitudes. The evolutionary advantage pale hairless bodies provide is increased Vitamin D production 10,000 ~ 20,000iu/daily are typical, even for modern humans if you carefully expose all your skin surface for 20 mins or so at midday providing your don't burn and you cover that skin with clothing afterwards to prevent it from degradation from UVA exposure later in the day. We need those kinds of intakes because the half life of vitamin D is roughly 21 ~ 29 days. So to get through the winter (October through to March) means we have to store vitamin D3 in tissue. In the same way you can only save money after your daily income exceeds your daily expenditure so you can only store vitamin d when your daily needs have been met. This occurs around 40ng/ml 100nmol/l but to be able to measure reasonable amounts of stored vitamin D in tissue in everyone levels have to be around 60ng/ml or 150nmol/lShe felt I needed VIT D which the paleo diet is low in,
So perhaps your nutritionist can explain how your brain operates when short of fat?so I can have low fat dairy but to stay away from high processed foods and processed cheese
I think we agree on that. Paleo diets that try to mimic the diets human dna evolved to consume cannot be described as NEW diets. They depend on starting with RAW ingredients rather than processed or industrially prepared foods. Many use COCONUT oil as being the best fat to prepare food with. Because it has a lot of Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCT) it's particularly useful for anyone with brain problems. Human breast milk is also a good source of MCT so if it's good for the baby's brain development it will be good for your brain function repair/maintenance. Many people are finding it helpful for those with dementia.I be wary of people selling new diets. healthy eating is what is the best!
The problem is that there are so many variables.CaveMan wrote:I know it is not the solution for everyone, but there is so much circumstantial evidence around both in scientific studies as well as the numerous blogs, forum discussions around that someone would fund a full blown clinical trial.
Sure it's a bit like doing a car fuel economy trial comparing the performance of a range of cars without actually ensuring all the tyres of all the vehicles were properly inflated when common sense should tell you a) in this case none of the vehicles have tyres inflated to the makers specifications.CaveMan wrote:So what you are effectively saying is that the bulk of clinical trials are irrelevent, because all other body nutrient levels were not at the same ideal place when the trial was started.
That is true. The fault researches make is they assume that "HEALTHY individuals" are people who aren't on prescription medications and haven't a diagnosed chronic condition. The fact they are all individuals with varying degrees of subclinical micro nutrient deficiency and on the road to metabolic syndrome/diabetes/cancer.Would it not be the case that if all nutrient leveles were at their correct levels, it is unlikely that a trial would be required because you would be starting with a group of healthy individuals.
I'm sure it's possible to do very much better than we are doing. The trouble is the medical/nutritional research journals depend on PEER REVIEW to permit publication. So in order to get your paper published it has to suit not only the folks who fund the research, the journal that is going to host the publication but also the scrutiny of the Peer reviewers.I still believe that if you had a significant population sample and applied an appropriate dietary regimen along with a selected number of nutrients and compared those to a similar group that just used the recommended conventional drug treatment would yield useable data.
Users browsing this forum: Youarethecure