Fixing Broken Metabolism - Dr. Berg

(Omar) #61

I do not disagree we should be fair.

(Doug) #62

There are often examples tending toward both extremes, even for a single person/patient. In 2007, I got osteomyelitis in two vertebrae in my back. Not sure if it was bacterial or viral - a sample of infected bone was taken, but nothing grew in the lab. Not 100% sure of the cause, but I lean heavily toward it being my wife popping a pimple on my back, right where the vertebrae are. Lesson learned, there.

I had x-rays and a CAT scan, and it looked like the bones were being eaten away, from the outside. “Oh, this is not good…” The pain was substantial, to say the least. Swelling and perhaps other forces were at work, and when there is pressure directly on the spinal nerves you know about it.

9 weeks of intravenous infusions of antibiotics, twice a day, hoping that it was a bacterial infection. Must have been, because I got better. Modern medicine, doctors, infectious disease specialists - I’m quite thankful for them.

(Running from stupidity) #63

:+1:
yes I’m out of likes again. stupid software

(Bob M) #64

What do those have to do with his viewpoints on nutrition?

I have no idea who Dr. Berg is, by the way. I just know that being “anti-vaccination” (whatever that is) doesn’t mean anything when it comes to information in nutrition.

#65

I know that different people have different moral event horizons, but if a Flat Earther tried to give me advice, I’m going to consider their advice suspect because they’re a Flat Earther. Also why would I give views to a man who’s probably sending a good chunk of that sweet view money to the Church of Scientology?

(Bob M) #66

Didn’t he also say it might not be possible to create such a study?

I know that my glucose is above 100 all day, everyday, from before or shortly after I wake up until sometime in the afternoon. My body wants it that way, because I have months of data from a continuous glucose monitor showing this pattern. If I fast multiple days, I can get under 100 in the morning, though the pattern (blood sugar going up all day until 10-noon, then going down all day until about 10pm-midnight) stays the same. So, something in my body wants higher blood sugar.

(Doug) #67

Nothing, per se.

Exactly!

(Bob M) #68

Einstein did not necessarily believe in things that I believe in, but his physics theories are correct, or at least we can’t prove they’re incorrect.

What affects me is their views on nutrition. For instance, Dr. Davis (of Wheatbelly fame) does not have a scientific approach as I see it. He often refers to things like studies done in a test tube or the like to prove his point. A study done in a test tube is questionable at best for any reason. If it were me, and I wanted to cite this, I’d give a disclaimer. He does not. You have to go look at the study to determine to what he’s referring.

To the extent I can, I try to separate their views on nutrition from their views elsewhere. Dr. Eades (Protein Power) is very conservative, and my political leanings are tending away from that. I do not, however, confuse his conservative views with his views on nutrition (as long as he does not, and as far as I can tell, he does not).

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #69

He might have, but I think his point in this case is that people keep saying that the brain needs glucose, but it’s beginning to appear that they say that on the basis of no data whatsoever.

Even if we can’t do such an experiment these days, because of ethical concerns, where did the idea of the brain’s needing glucose come from, what is it based on, and was there ever an experiment done, however unethically?

(Running from stupidity) #70

Quite a lot.

I have no idea who Dr. Berg is, by the way. I just know that being “anti-vaccination” (whatever that is) doesn’t mean anything when it comes to information in nutrition.

Of course it does. The idea that he is a moronic conspiracy theorist in one area of his life, and a good-hearted, logical thought-leader in a closely-related topic in the same general field seems extraordinarily unlikely.

Also, I’m not watching videos that funnel money to Scientology, even he he WAS a reputable source.

(Doug) #71

Speaking of conspiracy theories - I googled “the connection between chiropractors and scientology” and there is quite a lot out there.

(less is more, more or less) #72

<rubs hands> IT WORKED! I mean, er, really?

(Omar) #73

do you have a reference

thanks

(PJ) #74

Phinney is awesome. He’s probably the most officially legit guy we have in some respects. I see nothing in his video that seems inaccurate.

Something worth understanding. I have an interest in a different science field and got to know the leading researcher, a physicist. I found it interesting because despite he sees the individual’s reality of the topic, he is adamantly about “the data.” He will not say anything that does not have data to support it. He will not scoff at new ideas but he will insist that rather than running away with enthusiasm we recognize that there is not data to support it. I’ve never met anybody so absolutely “grounded in research” as this guy.

Phinney is like that. Nothing he said in that talk contradicted fasting. He didn’t say there was ‘no benefit’ he said here is the data about known issues with it. And he pointed out up front not only that it did have some known benefits (short term) but – to me this is the MOST IMPORTANT question – that we do not yet have PR research documenting what happens AFTER long term fasts – how much of that metabolic reduction, that nitrogen (protein) loss, is recovered? – and that could make all the difference. Maybe the body recovers that, and maybe it recovers even more. That would change the whole picture.

(Edited to add: there is always LBM lost in fasting, even after recovery. But there is a possibility that, like a corporate layoff, it’s for the best. As long as it’s not too extreme, and fat loss is larger, and the metabolism is not damaged after-recovery. The Biggest Loser, of course, was calorie restriction, and it’s the only ‘data’ he had on this, but it’s not close enough for me to consider avoiding fasting.)

Refeeding syndrome is major and the longer the fast and the worse it’s done the more it can hurt, seriously injure, and even kill people. It deserves more attention and much more emphasis with guidelines. It’s by far the most dangerous part of extended fasting.

It’s said on Fung’s forum that he recommends 10 days “because that gets the best compliance” (the forum officially does not support any longer fast though I see mentions of others) although he sometimes assigns 14 for the seriously ill. I suspect that aside from compliance it also reduces the chance that refeeding will kill someone and indirectly wreck his life.

I read a book written in 1910-1911 by Upton Sinclair, and a book written in 1934 (rev 1950) by Herbert Shelton. Dr. Shelton had supervised over 25,000 fasts at the point where he wrote that! And several other docs he refers to several times in the book also had large experience with this. They did it for health, only minimally for fat loss, since the number of people fat (and the degree) in 1934 was pretty dramatically less than now. His fasts were long and expected physical Herx symptoms in major ways. Although the book got a little boring in the middle (repetitive) because he was rebutting many popular claims, critics, and others he felt were inaccurate of the time – which we don’t care about now – still on the whole it’s a great book (cheap on kindle) and presents a much more serious, health-based, and detailed review of fasting than I think most of the modern enthusiasm includes. In part because nowdays any doc has to worry about getting sued so aside from ‘blood sugar’ ‘obesity’ ‘autophagy’ they can’t say much, like the gradual autophagy-effects on body systems and parts that are unwell (but which takes real time, sometimes 1-2 (in rare cases 3) months). It also focused on a ‘complete’ fast which means until the body finishes its cycle, the tongue clears and the ‘genuine hunger’ returns (we are talking, generally, six days to 1-2 months).

Try to talk to anybody anywhere about extended fasts and mostly all you get is moralizing about why you shouldn’t. Even articles online devolve into that. My point is only that the world of fasting in 1910 and 1934 and 1950 was pretty extensive and had a rather different approach and outlook than what we have now. It’s worth seeing the difference, if you’re really interested in fasting.

Phinney’s good. He stays with the data. We need researchers like that. We also need people with enthusiasm for pushing the boundaries and driving the layman experiments and then the research experiments on new stuff. There’s room for everyone. This field is niche of niche as it is. Not exactly overcrowded. :slight_smile:

(Omar) #75

isn’t Dr Phinney who said about the biggest loser participants that they had irreversible metabolic damage.

that is a very big statement to make.

(PJ) #76

Dr. Phinny pointed to peer reviewed data. The data says their metabolisms are very low even 5 years after and despite regaining the weight. That is not a big statement on his part, it’s just an observation of the documented facts, in this case.

The problem, as he himself has pointed out, is that we do not yet have research. He mentioned Dr. Volek was working on that. The only research available was on caloric restriction, not fasting, that’s the one he pointed to, because it’s the best we’ve got so far.

But of course, CR is not fasting. So, it has limits in terms of whether we should assume it’s the same until proven otherwise, or assume it’s not the same because a/ we hope it’s not or b/ we’ve seen in the layman’s world empirical or anecdotal evidence that it’s not.

He was in a conference with endless people waxing wide-eyed on the glory of fasting. He just wanted to point out some things glossed over. I think it’s good he did that. It doesn’t diss fasting to respect what little we know and observe what we don’t.

At least… as I see it. :slight_smile:

(less is more, more or less) #77

Third-Party sourcing of your attribution will be most helpful for context and accuracy.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #78

Prof. Bikman talks about whether or not the brain needs glucose at 22:10:

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #79

I believe it was Kevin Hall, actually, though Dr. Phinney may have been referring to Hall’s study.

(Omar) #81

Thanks Paul