Nancy:

The PHD hypothesis seems to be that low thyroid is usually a consequence of some sort of malnutrition -- often protein or glucose deficiency -- which causes the body to downregulate metabolism generally in order to conserve resources.  As I said, look into the posts linked from that one.

I know people who have substantially decreased their thyroid medication purely from low-dose iodine supplementation (kelp), and I think I agree with the Jaminets that increasing the dosage slowly is the way to go.

As far as being scared to up the starch because you might gain pounds: if you're VLC or keto right now, an instantaneous gain over the first 2-3 days of eating more starch is glycogen/water weight, not fat gain.  However, some people genuinely find that starch >50g/day puts themselves on the hunger rollercoaster. 

My advice is to ALWAYS eat that starch as the last component of an otherwise complete meal of protein and fat.  I know people for whom this is a delicate balancing act: too little starch and they get dry mouth/eyes, too much and they get hungry all the time.  Usually this happens to people who aren't performing any glycogen-depleting exercise...I don't know if this is your case or not.

Asclepius:

It's poor soil in general, but rich for the area: most of the Sierras has no 'soil' per se, just gray decomposed granite (sand) scoured by many a glacier.  The areas with the best wildflowers have red sand, decomposed from more recent volcanic eruptions, and presumably richer in minerals.  They're also near seasonal streambeds fed from snowmelt.

However, we're still talking about high altitude (over 8000 feet) and very harsh conditions: these areas are covered with snow for much of the year, subject to massive winter storms, and the flowering window comes during the relatively short amount of time during which it doesn't freeze at night.  (Lupines and mule's ears will grow a couple thousand feet lower, but Indian paintbrush, columbines, and the others are resolutely alpine.)

"Its ironic that garderners strive to create the conditions for such
vigorous growth and such a riot of colour – and yet here it is, in the
wild, with no 'human management', no artificial irrigation, no
fertilisers nor pesticides."

Consider that our aesthetic tastes, like our metabolism, were not created by 'civilization'.  They were created by nature.

John:

The clinical trials of Paleo diets have just started...and though they're short-term, they're all quite successful so far.  (They're also done with Cordain-ish lean meat diets...I don't know any trials of high-fat functional paleo.)

That's a great point about low-carb being functional paleo until a few decades ago!

Asclepius:

Ouch!  Apparently the reflex of deer to jump in front of speeding vehicles is shared by the other ungulates.  And it's hard to comprehend just how fast antelope can move if you haven't seen them spooked like that.  Thanks for the link!

Tyler:

I find it interesting that Stephan has used a large number of Seth Roberts' references, particularly Cabanac (see the "Science" page at sethroberts.net), while coming to very different conclusions about the nature of the problem and its solution.  Since I've only read his online information, not the book, I don't feel qualified to judge Dr. Roberts' work at this time...but what I've read so far makes a lot more sense to me than FRH.

Diane:

Eating is a very fundamental expression of our social and cultural identity...and the modern American diet says a lot about modern America. 

Speaking personally, I think it's important to understand where food comes from, because otherwise it's easy to forget evolutionary context and descend into nutritionism.  Furthermore, I feel that if we're going to eat meat, we should be honest about where it comes from and how we get it.  If we admit that a diet based primarily on animal products (by calories, not necessarily by bulk) is optimally healthy, then we must admit an evolutionary history of getting animal products.  And since supermarkets are a recent invention, that means hunting.

But as I've said before, you're more than welcome to take the advice and discard the packaging.

Sam:

That's an excellent point: much of the 'controversy' is driven by those who want to market themselves as having Invented a Bold New Theory of Obesity.

My opinion remains that this is both unnecessary and counterproductive.  Usually the existing science is more than adequate to explain observed reality, and I'm happy to continue exploring and explaining it -- with no claims to having "invented" a new way of eating or living.  There are seven billion people in the world, and the odds that we're so smart that we've had a thought not one of them has ever had before, particularly on a well-researched topic like obesity, are slim indeed. 

This is especially true when citing scientific literature.  If we're citing peer-reviewed science that makes the case we're making, especially when it's from decades ago, we have no claim to originality.

As far as "high-carb" Paleo being low-carb in reality, definitely.  The Jaminets recommend perhaps 15-20% of calories from "safe starches", which is perhaps 250-500 calories (or 63-120 grams) at typical caloric intakes.  There's 280 calories (70g) of sugar in one 16oz Rockstar energy drink.

eddie:

I've emphasized the difference myself: low-carb is primarily a side effect of paleo, not the endpoint.  But Dr. Eenfeldt is correct: both of us have something to learn from the other...and, of course, without Gary Taubes we'd probably still be stuck thinking cholesterol and saturated fat were bad for us.

As far as set points, I'm not saying they don't exist!  What I'm saying is that "set point" is the word we use when we don't know why a system returns to equilibrium. 

As far as exercise, I believe it's important -- not because it makes you lose weight directly, but because it maintains the metabolic flexibility that allows you to burn fat at rest instead of glucose.  And to that end, short, intense exercise is better than "jogging" or any "cardio" work, which is mostly useless.  (Walking is great for other reasons.)

Juan:

You're not a "first-time caller" by any means...you've been around longer than anyone except Tim, Cornelius, or Bodhi (where are they, anyway?)

Yes, it's become fashionable to pillory Gary Taubes lately...for many, it's just another version of what Sam said, which is people trying to claim originality for marketing reasons.

"Many people love prime rib of beef, for example, and find it very
rewarding and palatable, yet no-one in his/her right mind blames that
sort of food on the fattening of the world."

Agreed.  Any hypothesis that requires us to define pate de foie gras and prime rib as not "rewarding" or "palatable" is prima facie bankrupt.  As I've said before, "wanting" and "liking" can only be parsed in the context of satiation, satiety, and willpower.

JS

PS: I'll respond to the rest of you soon, but right now I have to go run some errands and eat dinner.  Thank you all for the support and feedback!

Wayne:

I greatly appreciate the vote of confidence!

Yes, the glossing over of hunger is puzzling.  People don't say "I want to become obese and diabetic."  They become obese and diabetic because they're constantly hungry. 

Anyway, the best compliment you can give is to forward my articles to others -- and if you want to support my efforts, you can buy a copy of The Gnoll Credo and/or use my referral link to make your Amazon purchases.  The monthly checks do help me keep gnolls.org updated and ad-free.

daniel:

Well said.

Greg:

Yes, low blood sugar appears to be a major driver of hunger.  I have an interesting hypothesis around that which I'm not yet ready to present.

As far as the consequences of chronically elevated blood sugar, I think the "time under the curve" may be more important than absolute level.  (Warning: speculation ahead)  It seems likely that our bodies are relatively well equipped to repair any damage caused by a normal level of fasting blood sugar.  So the damage might not be caused by high-carb in itself...it might be the constant influx of carbs ("7-11 servings per day", "eat lots of small meals") keeping blood sugar continually elevated.  I note that the Pacifc Islanders that we're so often beaten over the head with ("CARBS ARE FINE FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE OF 150 KITAVANS") have very different eating patterns than the typical American.

Of course, right now this is just plausible speculation...but I think we can all imagine it presented as established fact by some in the paleosphere.  This is part of what I'm cautioning against.

"Following Hyperlipid's emphasis, I'd love to know the MECHANISM for
heart disease risk factors and elevated blood pressure due to food
tasting good."

That's another good point.  If carb-obesity isn't true, we still have to explain why obesity is such a strong risk factor for these diseases.  There are a lot of missing steps between dopamine signaling and (for instance) arterial calcification. 

Paul:

If you actually price out the amount of food you can fix for the price of McDonalds or KFC, you'll realize that they're not necessarily such a great value.  A Big Mac only has 3.2 ounces (90g) of meat in it, and hundreds of calories worth of bun, "cheese", and "special sauce".  Hamburger is perhaps $3 a pound here, less in bulk or on sale...how about 1/2 pound of hamburger, a $1 head of lettuce for the "bun" and a big salad, and a few cents worth of condiments instead?  Just saying.

"Those people seemed to think that they were owed something, that they could have something for nothing."

It's called "the dole".

Creating a permanent dependent underclass is never a good idea.  You're trading short-term security for a guarantee of long-term societal dysfunction.

JKC:

That's because it's true.  If you're conscious enough to understand the issue, odds are you haven't fallen prey to it either.

JS

More soon...you've all been contributing such thoughtful comments that I feel the need to respond with care.