"I Have Liver Issues And I Am Not Making Progress"

[TubZy]

This makes sense to me.
I haven't found a way to get that kind of regular exercise happening lately with my current life and health (much as I'd like to), and that much coffee doesn't seem to agree with me at least at the moment, but following my tastes back to more starches and less sugars has been at least consistent with more sustained energy levels. I'm not measuring sugar levels, but I'm assuming that somewhat more sustained energy is a good sign. (Other factors have changed too, so I'm not claiming it's necessarily causal).


I'm interested in your questions round this. It seems intuitively likely to me that the organs are connected to each other, and that one cannot simply address one in isolation without having consequences elsewhere. If the liver turns turns waste into water-solubles for the kidneys to remove, then it seems on the surface plausble that the kidnes would be affected by liver cleansing tactics. I've had patches of feeling like I'm getting better - more energy, clearer head - but eventually seeming to be more depleted - too thin, feeling less resilient and able to sustain myself.
I assume that my liver is a key part of my own issues - headaches and migraines are often associated with liver trouble.
But given that my fluid and electrolyte control seem to also get messed up around migraines, I imagine there could be kidney involvement, and clearly stress and adrenal involvement is part of the picture for me personally too.

Along with the direct stuff like nutrition, supplements, sunlight, breathing, etc, I expect the ways our nervous system is involved in interpreting and influencing processes plays a huge role in our health. Both real current external threats, traumas, stresses, but also anything we have a habitual emotional reaction to that associates with danger (or helplessness, or overwhelm, or isolation, etc). Presumably sustained healing would be well supported both by attending to current life conditions, but also, and perhaps just as importantly, finding ways to break those habits. 'Feelings' and emotional reactions might seem insubstantial, but presumably they affect how our nervous system directs our organs in very direct physical health affecting ways.


Isn't that a key part of why Peat recommends carrot salad, cooked bamboo shoots, mushrooms?

Maybe some people produce 2l bile day, but I'd be surprised if most make that much.

Also, practices that maintain good bowel health and transit time should help to not have the waste sit around so long waiting to be reabsorbed.


Which category does epigenetic go in from your PoV?

I rather think there is still a great deal still to be learned - we're a long way from the end of the science.
And even that which has been learned, from the PoV of the most people, is not widely and simply available - the field of nutrition is full of controversy. Furthermore, the food supply is pretty degraded (pollution, pesticides, soil demineralisation, stressful agricultural practices, non-food additives, etc), so even if one knew what would be optimal human chow, it would not be available for most people.
I'm guessing the reason I can buy cat food that is mostly grain (!) has more to do with our economic system than science showing grain is proper food for carnivores.


I do agree that addressing mineral and vitamin and other nutritional needs/deficiencies is fundamental, and probably in most cases logically comes first before considering hormone supplementation etc.
It does get a bit tricky though, when someone is run down and the full digestive system is not working well enough to make good use of the available input, and when good quality input is in short supply.


How about fasting 9-10 hours at night?


I don't think we have reliable data to say what most members here do.


+1
Caffeine clearly serves some people better than others, and it's not just about eating enough sugar etc with it.


I agree with you that there seem to be states when people need extra high amounts of some nutrients. I've heard Peat favour supplementing small amounts of niacinamide, but he's mentioned that synthetic riboflavin specifically is often problematically allergenic.

So your saying all of the hundreds of pages of ideal labs supplement logs here are not enough "reliable" data to claim that most people here take some kind of supplement?

That is exactly what I stated in my previous post in reference to allergy, being clean and pure along with not causing you any issues. I agree, if it causes you allergy issues, drop it. I talk about DMSO causing me allergenic issues all the time here, I'm not against that issue.

 

[yerrag]

Isn't that a key part of why Peat recommends carrot salad, cooked bamboo shoots, mushrooms?

Yes, he does. But he does so not so much for the fiber, but because these foods have a substances such as natural antibiotics, in which the benefits of taking them outweigh the unfavorable fiber load. The same thing can be said for eating well-oiled leaves, for the calcium content.

The article I reference to blames a diet low in fiber for gallstones. Do you agree with that statement though? In case it were true, it would behoove us to not omit or lessen fiber in the diet, but be selective with it for endotoxins concerns. Or in the case of leaves, allow for a little endotoxins because of its calcium content and to keep gallstones from forming.

Yet, isn't there another reason for gallstones? Simply a case of tissue calcification arising from calcium and hormonal imbalances?

 

[Tarmander]

I'm interested in your questions round this. It seems intuitively likely to me that the organs are connected to each other, and that one cannot simply address one in isolation without having consequences elsewhere. If the liver turns turns waste into water-solubles for the kidneys to remove, then it seems on the surface plausble that the kidnes would be affected by liver cleansing tactics. I've had patches of feeling like I'm getting better - more energy, clearer head - but eventually seeming to be more depleted - too thin, feeling less resilient and able to sustain myself.
I assume that my liver is a key part of my own issues - headaches and migraines are often associated with liver trouble.
But given that my fluid and electrolyte control seem to also get messed up around migraines, I imagine there could be kidney involvement, and clearly stress and adrenal involvement is part of the picture for me personally too.

Along with the direct stuff like nutrition, supplements, sunlight, breathing, etc, I expect the ways our nervous system is involved in interpreting and influencing processes plays a huge role in our health. Both real current external threats, traumas, stresses, but also anything we have a habitual emotional reaction to that associates with danger (or helplessness, or overwhelm, or isolation, etc). Presumably sustained healing would be well supported both by attending to current life conditions, but also, and perhaps just as importantly, finding ways to break those habits. 'Feelings' and emotional reactions might seem insubstantial, but presumably they affect how our nervous system directs our organs in very direct physical health affecting ways.

Exactly! You have described exactly what I am attempting to get across in this thread. I have also been through that cycle, clearer mind, more energy, etc, followed by weakness and a "thinness" of vitality. That vitality is what needs to be addressed. And as you said, the organs are connected, so it can never be only kidney or only liver. It looks more like a stair stepping with each going together towards higher function. The mistake I have made in the past is assuming that cleaning the liver will address liver function. In the short term I have found this works, but in the long term, the liver gunks up again. Forcing those detox pathways to speed up lowers the load on your body...but the highways eventually slow down and traffic resumes its normal pace. Although maybe now...you are a bit older...a bit more tired...and so traffic goes a little slower then it had before you forced things to speed up.

I know I am speaking figuratively here. Take a step back and view the legions of health seekers and a pattern in a certain segment of them shows up. Those looking to clean house permanently. "If I could just find my issue...is it heavy metals? Toxins?" The liver is the general of the army, cleaning the blood, making the good stuff, getting rid of the bad stuff. Making him better seems like a smart idea. But a part of that segment of health seekers never seems to get out of that rut. Perhaps a refocus on the kidneys and adrenals is more prudent.

 

[Regina]

Exactly! You have described exactly what I am attempting to get across in this thread. I have also been through that cycle, clearer mind, more energy, etc, followed by weakness and a "thinness" of vitality. That vitality is what needs to be addressed. And as you said, the organs are connected, so it can never be only kidney or only liver. It looks more like a stair stepping with each going together towards higher function. The mistake I have made in the past is assuming that cleaning the liver will address liver function. In the short term I have found this works, but in the long term, the liver gunks up again. Forcing those detox pathways to speed up lowers the load on your body...but the highways eventually slow down and traffic resumes its normal pace. Although maybe now...you are a bit older...a bit more tired...and so traffic goes a little slower then it had before you forced things to speed up.

I know I am speaking figuratively here. Take a step back and view the legions of health seekers and a pattern in a certain segment of them shows up. Those looking to clean house permanently. "If I could just find my issue...is it heavy metals? Toxins?" The liver is the general of the army, cleaning the blood, making the good stuff, getting rid of the bad stuff. Making him better seems like a smart idea. But a part of that segment of health seekers never seems to get out of that rut. Perhaps a refocus on the kidneys and adrenals is more prudent.

Back when I used to get acupuncture for injuries, my Chinese doctor would sometimes deny me a "Calm Dragon" shot (that she would brew up custom). I loved how that shot would make me feel. A bristling, clean energetic feeling. Some days she would say, "No, not today. Calm Dragon will plunder you today.' (I think due to the liver cleansing properties of bupleurum in the formula).

 

[yerrag]

Back when I used to get acupuncture for injuries, my Chinese doctor would sometimes deny me a "Calm Dragon" shot (that she would brew up custom). I loved how that shot would make me feel. A bristling, clean energetic feeling. Some days she would say, "No, not today. Calm Dragon will plunder you today.' (I think due to the liver cleansing properties of bupleurum in the formula).

Glad you are appreciating TCM and benefiting from it. I've used some TCM, from both a Chinese practitioner and a Western practitioner. With both, it requires a certain trust in the doctor that used to be in days gone. You just don't know what's inside, but trust the doctor is going to make you feel better. I believe that would be the healing part of better, not the "feel good now" kind of better. It comes as no surprise then, when we give up trying to be our doctor, and people in this forum know what I'm talking about, we would sometimes just kinda admit we don't know enough to treat ourselves, and submit to a doctor whom we think might help.

But I also want to be careful going to a TCM, just as I would going to a conventional doctor. But with TCM, there seems to be no standard, and I don't know what I'm dealing with from TCM doctor A to TCM doctor Z. I have the impression there isn't a standard, and treatment would vary. So, you may end up with a really good doctor, and one that's really terrible.

 

[Tarmander]

Glad you are appreciating TCM and benefiting from it. I've used some TCM, from both a Chinese practitioner and a Western practitioner. With both, it requires a certain trust in the doctor that used to be in days gone. You just don't know what's inside, but trust the doctor is going to make you feel better. I believe that would be the healing part of better, not the "feel good now" kind of better. It comes as no surprise then, when we give up trying to be our doctor, and people in this forum know what I'm talking about, we would sometimes just kinda admit we don't know enough to treat ourselves, and submit to a doctor whom we think might help.

But I also want to be careful going to a TCM, just as I would going to a conventional doctor. But with TCM, there seems to be no standard, and I don't know what I'm dealing with from TCM doctor A to TCM doctor Z. I have the impression there isn't a standard, and treatment would vary. So, you may end up with a really good doctor, and one that's really terrible.

Yeah it is a bit scary. There are schools that hand out NDs and they get TCM as part of their training. If you ask them they will say they are trained in Chinese medicine...but aren't regular doctors "trained" in nutrition?

 

[Regina]

Glad you are appreciating TCM and benefiting from it. I've used some TCM, from both a Chinese practitioner and a Western practitioner. With both, it requires a certain trust in the doctor that used to be in days gone. You just don't know what's inside, but trust the doctor is going to make you feel better. I believe that would be the healing part of better, not the "feel good now" kind of better. It comes as no surprise then, when we give up trying to be our doctor, and people in this forum know what I'm talking about, we would sometimes just kinda admit we don't know enough to treat ourselves, and submit to a doctor whom we think might help.

But I also want to be careful going to a TCM, just as I would going to a conventional doctor. But with TCM, there seems to be no standard, and I don't know what I'm dealing with from TCM doctor A to TCM doctor Z. I have the impression there isn't a standard, and treatment would vary. So, you may end up with a really good doctor, and one that's really terrible.

You really have to sift or get 'word of mouth' recommendations to find a really good one. This lady practiced 20 yrs in Beijing Women's Hospital before coming to the US. She was a good diagnostician and could always tell me what I had eaten, (so weird). I used to eat horribly and over-train aikido and get tons of injuries. She used acupuncture needles connected to laser and red light all sustained for 45 minutes for my sprained joints. She would take my pulses and say, "Oh you had donuts again for breakfast." (yep I had)

 

[Amazoniac]

Here's some more info for those that are struggling for unknown reasons.
It only takes an inability to digest casein or insufficient protein to make the stereotyped diet associated with our domesticator similar to a diet that is used to fatten up lab animals' livers: plenty of fructose, coconut oil, not enough methionine, not enough choline, but also sedentarism. High-protein and eggs are two important aspects unless the intuition tells not to do so.
There are people that thrive on variations of it, but they don't seem to be pushing it in attempt to make it work.

Search for "lipotropic factors/agents"

Wolters Kluwer - Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease

"For nonruminant animals, a diet deficient in choline has major consequences including hepatic, renal, pancreatic, memory, and growth disorders (8). In most animals, choline deficiency results in liver dysfunction. Large amounts of lipid (mainly triglycerides) can accumulate in liver and eventually fill the entire hepatocyte. Fatty infiltration of the liver starts in the central area of the lobule and spreads peripherally. This process is different from that occurring in kwashiorkor or essential amino acid deficiency, in which fatty infiltration usually begins in the portal area of the lobule. Lipid accumulation within hepatocytes begins within hours after rats are started on a choline-deficient diet, peaks within the first 6 months, and then diminishes as liver becomes fibrotic (120). Fatty liver occurs because triacylglycerol must be packaged as very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) to be exported from liver, and phosphatidylcholine is required for VLDL formation (121–123). Activation of proliferator-activated receptor Diokine (PPARcharlie) receptors decreased the severity of choline deficiency–induced steatosis (124). Choline-deficient humans have diminished plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (derived from VLDL) (125) and elevated plasma homocysteine concentrations when they are challenged with a methionine load (82). This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that in humans, as in other species, choline is required for VLDL secretion."

"In animals, renal function is also compromised by choline deficiency (8); abnormal concentrating ability, free water reabsorption, sodium excretion, glomerular filtration rate, renal plasma flow, and gross renal hemorrhage are noted. Infertility, growth impairment, bony abnormalities, decreased hematopoiesis, and hypertension have also been reported to be associated with diets low in choline content (8). In addition, pancreatic function can be compromised in animals fed methyl-donor–deficient diets (126). Choline appears to be needed for normal carnitine transport into tissues (127–130), and choline deficiency is associated with decreased serum and urinary carnitine concentrations (131, 132)."

"Rats and mice fed a choline-deficient (and methyl-deficient) diet first accumulate large amounts of lipid in the liver that diminish as the liver becomes fibrotic, followed by foci of enzyme-altered hepatocytes that are similar to those induced during initiation of cancer with one of many different chemical carcinogens (120, 202–205). In choline deficiency, these altered foci of hepatocytes, which express y-glutamyltranspeptidase (206) and the placental form of glutathione S-transferase (207), precede the formation of adenomas and hepatocellular carcinomas (208). A diet containing 0.8% added choline completely prevented the development of cancer in experimental animals (209). Choline deficiency also sensitizes to hepatic carcinogens such as aflatoxin B1 (210), and it sensitizes to breast carcinogens such as dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA) (210), or DMBA and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (211), as well as procarbazine (212). For example, after treatment with procarbazine, mammary tumor incidence increased by more than 50% in male rats fed a choline-deficient diet compared with rats on a choline-adequate diet and treated with the drug (212)."​

https://www.researchgate.net/profil..._Nutrition/links/00463522603a36807a000000.pdf

"Total hepatic folate content decreased 31% after rats were 2 weeks on a choline-deficient diet, and an elongation of the glutamate chains of the folates was observed, which suggests prolonged retention time within liver (152). Rats fed diets deficient in both methionine and choline for five weeks had hepatic folate concentrations half those of controls (83). During choline deficiency, hepatic S-adenosyl-methionine concentrations also decreased as much as 50% (7, 135, 155, 190)."

"In the human (187), rat (106), hamster (70), guinea pig (161), pig (17, 54), dog (13, 14, 79), and monkey (81), choline deficiency results in liver dysfunction owing to massive accumulation of triacylglycerol within the hepatocyte (21, 106, 107, 178, 179). In rats, fatty liver begins within hours to days after initiation of a choline-deficient diet (43)"

"Choline-deficient humans have diminished plasma LDL cholesterol (187). This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that in humans, as in other species, choline is required for VLDL secretion."

"Choline is the only single nutrient for which dietary deficiency causes development of hepatocarcinomas without any known carcinogen (121). Interestingly, choline-deficient rats not only have a higher incidence of spontaneous hepatocarcinoma, but they are markedly sensitized to the effects of administered carcinogens (121). Choline deficiency is therefore considered to stimulate both cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting activities. Several mechanisms have been suggested for the cancer-promoting effect of a diet devoid of choline. In the choline-deficient liver, a progressive increase in cell proliferation occurs that is related to regeneration of liver after parenchymal cell death (32, 33, 121). Cell proliferation (with an associated increasedrate of DNA synthesis) could be responsible for the greater sensitivity to chemical carcinogens (64). Stimuli for increased DNA synthesis, e.g. hepatectomy and necrogenic chemicals, increase carcinogenesis. However, the overall rate of liver cell proliferation could be dissociated from the rate at which preneoplastic lesions form during choline deficiency (154). This possibility suggests that cell proliferation is not the sole condition acting as a promoter of liver cancer. Methylation of DNA is important for the normal expression of genetic information. Undermethylation of DNA, observed during choline deficiency (despite adequate dietary methionine), may be responsible for carcinogenesis (48, 105). Another proposed mechanism derives from the observation that when rats eat a choline-deficient diet, increased lipid peroxidation occurs within liver (148). Lipid peroxides in the nucleus may be a source of free radicals that could modify DNA and cause carcinogenesis. Recently, we proposed that choline deficiency perturbs PKC signal transduction, thereby promoting carcinogenesis. As discussed above, choline deficiency causes massive fatty liver (see section entitled "Hepatic Secretion of Very Low-Density Lipoprotein")."

"Malnourished humans, in whom stores of choline, methionine, and folate have been depleted (37, 153), also appear to need more dietary choline than did our healthy adult subjects. The liver is the primary site for endogenous synthesis of choline. Alcoholics with liver cirrhosis have diminished plasma choline concentration and fatty liver, which resolves when patients are supplemented with choline (37)."

"Conditions that enhance hepatic triglyceride synthesis (such as carbohydrate loading) increase the requirement for choline needed for export of triglyceride from liver (31). Thus, treatment of malnourished patients with high-calorie parenteral nutrition solutions at a time of depleted choline stores might enhance the likelihood of hepatic dysfunction."​

 

[Tarmander]

Here's some more info for those that are struggling for unknown reasons.
It only takes an inability to digest casein or insufficient protein to make the stereotyped diet associated with our domesticator similar to a diet that is used to fatten up lab animals' livers: plenty of fructose, coconut oil, not enough methionine, not enough choline, but also sedentarism. High-protein and eggs are two important aspects unless the intuition tells not to do so.
There are people that thrive on variations of it, but they don't seem to be pushing it in attempt to make it work.

Search for "lipotropic factors/agents"

Wolters Kluwer - Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease

"For nonruminant animals, a diet deficient in choline has major consequences including hepatic, renal, pancreatic, memory, and growth disorders (8). In most animals, choline deficiency results in liver dysfunction. Large amounts of lipid (mainly triglycerides) can accumulate in liver and eventually fill the entire hepatocyte. Fatty infiltration of the liver starts in the central area of the lobule and spreads peripherally. This process is different from that occurring in kwashiorkor or essential amino acid deficiency, in which fatty infiltration usually begins in the portal area of the lobule. Lipid accumulation within hepatocytes begins within hours after rats are started on a choline-deficient diet, peaks within the first 6 months, and then diminishes as liver becomes fibrotic (120). Fatty liver occurs because triacylglycerol must be packaged as very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) to be exported from liver, and phosphatidylcholine is required for VLDL formation (121–123). Activation of proliferator-activated receptor Diokine (PPARcharlie) receptors decreased the severity of choline deficiency–induced steatosis (124). Choline-deficient humans have diminished plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (derived from VLDL) (125) and elevated plasma homocysteine concentrations when they are challenged with a methionine load (82). This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that in humans, as in other species, choline is required for VLDL secretion."

"In animals, renal function is also compromised by choline deficiency (8); abnormal concentrating ability, free water reabsorption, sodium excretion, glomerular filtration rate, renal plasma flow, and gross renal hemorrhage are noted. Infertility, growth impairment, bony abnormalities, decreased hematopoiesis, and hypertension have also been reported to be associated with diets low in choline content (8). In addition, pancreatic function can be compromised in animals fed methyl-donor–deficient diets (126). Choline appears to be needed for normal carnitine transport into tissues (127–130), and choline deficiency is associated with decreased serum and urinary carnitine concentrations (131, 132)."

"Rats and mice fed a choline-deficient (and methyl-deficient) diet first accumulate large amounts of lipid in the liver that diminish as the liver becomes fibrotic, followed by foci of enzyme-altered hepatocytes that are similar to those induced during initiation of cancer with one of many different chemical carcinogens (120, 202–205). In choline deficiency, these altered foci of hepatocytes, which express y-glutamyltranspeptidase (206) and the placental form of glutathione S-transferase (207), precede the formation of adenomas and hepatocellular carcinomas (208). A diet containing 0.8% added choline completely prevented the development of cancer in experimental animals (209). Choline deficiency also sensitizes to hepatic carcinogens such as aflatoxin B1 (210), and it sensitizes to breast carcinogens such as dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA) (210), or DMBA and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (211), as well as procarbazine (212). For example, after treatment with procarbazine, mammary tumor incidence increased by more than 50% in male rats fed a choline-deficient diet compared with rats on a choline-adequate diet and treated with the drug (212)."​

https://www.researchgate.net/profil..._Nutrition/links/00463522603a36807a000000.pdf

"Total hepatic folate content decreased 31% after rats were 2 weeks on a choline-deficient diet, and an elongation of the glutamate chains of the folates was observed, which suggests prolonged retention time within liver (152). Rats fed diets deficient in both methionine and choline for five weeks had hepatic folate concentrations half those of controls (83). During choline deficiency, hepatic S-adenosyl-methionine concentrations also decreased as much as 50% (7, 135, 155, 190)."

"In the human (187), rat (106), hamster (70), guinea pig (161), pig (17, 54), dog (13, 14, 79), and monkey (81), choline deficiency results in liver dysfunction owing to massive accumulation of triacylglycerol within the hepatocyte (21, 106, 107, 178, 179). In rats, fatty liver begins within hours to days after initiation of a choline-deficient diet (43)"

"Choline-deficient humans have diminished plasma LDL cholesterol (187). This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that in humans, as in other species, choline is required for VLDL secretion."

"Choline is the only single nutrient for which dietary deficiency causes development of hepatocarcinomas without any known carcinogen (121). Interestingly, choline-deficient rats not only have a higher incidence of spontaneous hepatocarcinoma, but they are markedly sensitized to the effects of administered carcinogens (121). Choline deficiency is therefore considered to stimulate both cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting activities. Several mechanisms have been suggested for the cancer-promoting effect of a diet devoid of choline. In the choline-deficient liver, a progressive increase in cell proliferation occurs that is related to regeneration of liver after parenchymal cell death (32, 33, 121). Cell proliferation (with an associated increasedrate of DNA synthesis) could be responsible for the greater sensitivity to chemical carcinogens (64). Stimuli for increased DNA synthesis, e.g. hepatectomy and necrogenic chemicals, increase carcinogenesis. However, the overall rate of liver cell proliferation could be dissociated from the rate at which preneoplastic lesions form during choline deficiency (154). This possibility suggests that cell proliferation is not the sole condition acting as a promoter of liver cancer. Methylation of DNA is important for the normal expression of genetic information. Undermethylation of DNA, observed during choline deficiency (despite adequate dietary methionine), may be responsible for carcinogenesis (48, 105). Another proposed mechanism derives from the observation that when rats eat a choline-deficient diet, increased lipid peroxidation occurs within liver (148). Lipid peroxides in the nucleus may be a source of free radicals that could modify DNA and cause carcinogenesis. Recently, we proposed that choline deficiency perturbs PKC signal transduction, thereby promoting carcinogenesis. As discussed above, choline deficiency causes massive fatty liver (see section entitled "Hepatic Secretion of Very Low-Density Lipoprotein")."

"Malnourished humans, in whom stores of choline, methionine, and folate have been depleted (37, 153), also appear to need more dietary choline than did our healthy adult subjects. The liver is the primary site for endogenous synthesis of choline. Alcoholics with liver cirrhosis have diminished plasma choline concentration and fatty liver, which resolves when patients are supplemented with choline (37)."

"Conditions that enhance hepatic triglyceride synthesis (such as carbohydrate loading) increase the requirement for choline needed for export of triglyceride from liver (31). Thus, treatment of malnourished patients with high-calorie parenteral nutrition solutions at a time of depleted choline stores might enhance the likelihood of hepatic dysfunction."​

Great post. I have wanted to say something like this, but you put it much better then I. High fat high sugar, which seems to be a staple of Ray's ideas on healing damaged tissues, is often used in labs to cause diabetes and fatty liver, like you said. It was a constant wall I seemed to run into. After reading some of Chris Masterjohn's work, he points out that certain European populations have a hard time converting methionine into choline, or whatever the process is. Which means...eat all the meat you want, it may not give you the liver health that eggs and liver will. Since I read that something like 6 weeks ago, I have seriously upped my eggs and liver intake while lowering other meat. Sometimes 5 egg yolks (not whites) a day, and liver every other day. Definitely seen some improvements but I think six months will give a better idea.

The other thing I want to mention is calcium. That is such a scary mineral, at least for me. I have constant blood sugar monitoring, and the amount of insulin I need to bring down a blood sugar after 1/4 teaspoon of calcium is kind of redic. Every time I tried to go high calcium before, I was spooked off it and stuck to lower amounts. But somehow, after being on the increased choline, it felt right this time, and I have been consuming about a tsp and a half of egg shell a day. Lo and behold, slowly it seems my blood sugars are acclimating, and if I do not take the calcium, my blood sugars crash.

My unscientific brain understands calcium this way: You need calcium to balance out Phos...if ATP is produced, and gives stabilization, energy, or whatever, then you need calcium to balance that out. If the calcium is not there, you will always have an energy throttle. Your body will never want to produce that much energy because of the stress of pulling calcium from your bones to neutralize it.

 

[Amazoniac]

I posted some time ago a link discussing how some minerals are used as buffers to regulate acidity to the point of compromising some other parts. Calcium is one of them, and I suspect that it's involved in the demineralization of teeth that someone posted ihopegiraffeisok about, mentioning how dairy was a problem that only disappeared after calcium supplementation.
My hypomoderated brain thinks that if you push excess sugar, dairy or whatever else, basically anything that gives people acne, which goes beyond your capacity, the wasting effect isn't neutral, it creates imbalances that have to be dealt with; if it involves acidification (which happens to be common in hypopboydism) there are minerals being used for that purpose and you develop a deficiency despite eating an adequate diet. Since minerals don't occur alone, their counterpart becomes even more relevant when there's a propensity for wasting: calcium phosphate, sodium chloride, etc. Minerals that are associated with a safe organic or amino acid should be easier to handle but still aren't neutral.

 

[Amazoniac]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...te_cancer_A_Brief_summary_of_the_epidemiology

Increased calcium and dairy product consumption has been suggested to enhance risk of prostate cancer,1 with possible biological mechanisms including the propensity of high calcium intake to decrease serum levels of vitamin D

 

[tara]

So your saying all of the hundreds of pages of ideal labs supplement logs here are not enough "reliable" data to claim that most people here take some kind of supplement?

Many of the members posting in those threads have contributed multiple posts in one or more of those threads. Have you tallied how many separate members? I haven't, but at a hunch I'd be hazarding at most a few hundred, not thousands. Some may have a brief experiment rather than ongoing habits. Not that it's insignificant, but still, not necessarily most.

Yes, he does. But he does so not so much for the fiber, but because these foods have a substances such as natural antibiotics, in which the benefits of taking them outweigh the unfavorable fiber load. The same thing can be said for eating well-oiled leaves, for the calcium content.

I've understood him to promote fibre as important for carrying away the substances in the bile that we don't want to reabsorb, as well as the endotoxins etc. I think he recommends those types specifically because he sees them as less likely to cause other difficulties, such as excessively overfeeding the gut microbes. The natural antibiotics in carrots, for instance, mean that they aren't quite so quick to be turned into more endotoxin as soon as they hit the gut.

Another tactic he occasionally mentions, not for every day use for everyone, but for some particular situations, is activated charcoal - also to absorb and carry out the toxins in the gut that might otherwise be absorbed or reabsorbed.

The article I reference to blames a diet low in fiber for gallstones. Do you agree with that statement though?

I don't think I have enough expertise to have a well-founded answer to that question. But I would be skeptical about it being the only factor. I can imagine that a combination of a low fibre diet with an inflamed and sluggish gut could contribute to problems related to excessive reabsorption of the substances in the bile. I think there might be other things about the input into the system that affect gallstone formation too.
Personally, I used to pretty much believe the more fibre the healthier. I've had times when my gut has not appreciated that approach.
What with reading here and 'Fibre Menace', I no longer hold the view that the more the better for every body, nor that all kinds of fibre are always helpful.
My current choice is to eat a lot less of the whole grains, pulses and raw veges than I used to, but I still aim to eat some fibre daily in the form of one or more of raw carrot salad, raw or cooked fruit, cooked veges, oat porridge and sometimes other things.

But I'm quite willing to believe that some people can maintain pretty good health with little fibre if they have little or no gut inflammation, good transit speed, and reasonable bulk travelling through. Possibly even milk can form sufficient bulk.

Yet, isn't there another reason for gallstones? Simply a case of tissue calcification arising from calcium and hormonal imbalances?

idk atm

 

[Jack Roe]

And even that which has been learned, from the PoV of the most people, is not widely and simply available - the field of nutrition is full of controversy

I don't think it is, really. I mean, people can be maintained in a healthy state for long periods of time, and poor health is largely a class thing---people with University education are far less likely to experience poor health. Now, is it the University education causing this, or is it that whatever causes the ability to go to University also causes good health? And I would say that it is good nutrition. And take the extreme ends of the spectrum---obese white trash eating lots of refined flour, low-mineral content crapola with lots of sugar every day. But is the problem the refined flour and sugar, or is it the lack of sufficient mineral nutrition?

I once had a similar talk with my dentist---now I've never had a cavity in 30 odd years, but he says that most of his patients by this time have started the general path to degenerate dentition. His remark was "of course, everyone's teeth would be fine if they ate a healthy, balanced diet. But nobody does that." Most people are convinced that their eating habits are "OK" and that the real issue is the need for some supplement (thyroid, this, that or the other)---and supplemnts are good, if you use them to get all of your "microminerals"---the "macrominerals" P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, Cl (did I miss any?) obviously won't fit into supplements, tho people who have experimented with "soylent," a food product that combines oat flour, olive oil and the minerals in appropriate amounts, along with whey protein, etc. have done pretty well on it. When I looked into it, the major complaint was "ugh, this tastes terrible, I can't do this, it's boring," not "ugh, I feel terrible." Most people who stuck with it ended up feeling pretty good.

"It does get a bit tricky though, when someone is run down and the full digestive system is not working well enough to make good use of the available input, and when good quality input is in short supply."

If your digestive system is not working, you're pretty much dead. So it is a matter of degree, and the Internet is full of people who have self-diagnosed with "SIBO", "Candida Overgrowth" and all sorts of things that have _very little medical basis_. The Internet exists to sell advertising or to sell consults with practitioners who may or may not be regulated; and if regulated, the regulation tends to mean they did some certificate course over however many years and that they have to stick within very general guidelines. And when a "profession" doesn't have Rx/Surgery privileges, it's very difficult to ever pin down malpractice.

I mean, I asked the OP here a straight question: why do you think you have liver issues. He tells me he really thinks he has kidney issues. OK, why does he think that? Then he decide he doesn't want to chat anymore, which is his prerogative, but telling yourself that you have liver/kidney issues without any labs suggesting such a state, that's borderline hypochondriasis.

The other thing I notice here is that most of the people on these websites are white people. Not all, but most. Is that because they're English language? I don't know. I do know that I grew up in one of the most "multicultural" cities in the world, and you just don't see the numbers of fat, dumpy asian or east indian ladies as you do white ladies. And one would suspect this is partly dietary, unless whites are just hopelessly genetically defective. So these fat, dumpy white ladies have children with poor eating habits---or they force poor eating habits on their kids like that "StrongMom" character whose poor husband posted. I focus on the women because it's women who do the majority of cooking and caregiving for children in most societies, so a woman who can't feed herself, God help her kids. Add to that the serious amounts of low-grade fetal alcohol poisoning in the west, that we only started caring about in the mid 1980s, and it's just an utter ***t-show, which is why the Chinese (and East Indians, wherever they go) are eating "white" people alive. In fact, most minorities perform better than white people, because white people _eat ***t and expect to be healthy_.

"I'm guessing the reason I can buy cat food that is mostly grain (!) has more to do with our economic system than science showing grain is proper food for carnivores."

There are good and bad pet foods. The food our little dog eats is all meat, except for the vitamins/minerals added because the liver and other meat wouldn't be sufficient. He has never had any health problems (except when he was eating a grain-based product, so I agree there). As I said, people who do "soylent," from what I can tell their issue tends to be the monotony of eating one thing, not that they get sick eating 100% DV of everything. Reading lots and lots of this "internet health" stuff, I see plenty of people focused on this supplement and that supplement, but very few do I see saying "OK, I need to get 100% DV of all of the vitamins/minerals, as well as sufficient protein." The fat/carb ratio, that is prob. a bit less important, because that is just energy to be burned. I know healthy people who eat high fat, I know healthy people who eat high carb.

Our society trains most people to be "nice" not "smart." In China/India, if you're nice, it doesn't mean much, you've got to be smart to get enough $$$ to get to Canada or somewhere else livable. The joys of living in a multilcultural city, you get to meet lots of smart people, and what msot of them have in common is that they eat "healthy, balanced diets."

 

[TubZy]

Many of the members posting in those threads have contributed multiple posts in one or more of those threads. Have you tallied how many separate members? I haven't, but at a hunch I'd be hazarding at most a few hundred, not thousands. Some may have a brief experiment rather than ongoing habits. Not that it's insignificant, but still, not necessarily most.

I've understood him to promote fibre as important for carrying away the substances in the bile that we don't want to reabsorb, as well as the endotoxins etc. I think he recommends those types specifically because he sees them as less likely to cause other difficulties, such as excessively overfeeding the gut microbes. The natural antibiotics in carrots, for instance, mean that they aren't quite so quick to be turned into more endotoxin as soon as they hit the gut.

Another tactic he occasionally mentions, not for every day use for everyone, but for some particular situations, is activated charcoal - also to absorb and carry out the toxins in the gut that might otherwise be absorbed or reabsorbed.


I don't think I have enough expertise to have a well-founded answer to that question. But I would be skeptical about it being the only factor. I can imagine that a combination of a low fibre diet with an inflamed and sluggish gut could contribute to problems related to excessive reabsorption of the substances in the bile. I think there might be other things about the input into the system that affect gallstone formation too.
Personally, I used to pretty much believe the more fibre the healthier. I've had times when my gut has not appreciated that approach.
What with reading here and 'Fibre Menace', I no longer hold the view that the more the better for every body, nor that all kinds of fibre are always helpful.
My current choice is to eat a lot less of the whole grains, pulses and raw veges than I used to, but I still aim to eat some fibre daily in the form of one or more of raw carrot salad, raw or cooked fruit, cooked veges, oat porridge and sometimes other things.

But I'm quite willing to believe that some people can maintain pretty good health with little fibre if they have little or no gut inflammation, good transit speed, and reasonable bulk travelling through. Possibly even milk can form sufficient bulk.


idk atm

No, I have not gone through hundreds of pages of threads to calculate every single unique member. Given that majority of the most viewed threads currently all have to do with some sort of supplement or another, there is definitely more evidence that people do consume some sort of supplement whether it be thyroid, aspirin or even a simple B vitamin/gelatin/collagen. Just click on most viewed or replied, and you will see majority of threads that are titled with some sort of supplement, the interest is there.

What evidence do you have the most people don't consume at least one supplement? Btw, the original argument that was made wasn't based on how often a person consumes a supplement (whether ongoing or experimental) but demonized all supplements in general as they were synthetic and dangerous.

 

[Tarmander]

I mean, I asked the OP here a straight question: why do you think you have liver issues. He tells me he really thinks he has kidney issues. OK, why does he think that? Then he decide he doesn't want to chat anymore, which is his prerogative, but telling yourself that you have liver/kidney issues without any labs suggesting such a state, that's borderline hypochondriasis.

You just don't get it man.

Do you realize, that you are on a health forum where people are pursuing individual goals,swapping stories about what works, and arguing that most of this is unnecessary? Like that is an argument you can make you know, more power to ya....You can come in here and tell stories about cocaine habits without poor outcomes, and how it's all really quite simple...

However you do not seem to recognize the self contradictory nature of what your saying. This is why I chose to stop talking with you. You are intellectually smart, but have that inexperienced blindness. You are in the forum "toxins and detoxification"...and basically saying "stop talking I have it all figured out." It's like telling people "words have no meaning," or some paradoxical nonsense.

There are basic assumptions that you must make to have discussions in this thread, and they are pretty damn robust, and why would anyone want to talk with you if you don't refute them and offer something better?

Assumptions like: "And even that which has been learned, from the PoV of the most people, is not widely and simply available - the field of nutrition is full of controversy" (basically Peat canon)

and blood test ranges generally being inaccurate. (peat canon again)

or Kidney and Liver dysfunction showing up before blood tests, perhaps using methods in Chinese medicine. (RPF stuff)

Now if you disagree, then by ALL means, make your case against those assumptions. That is the whole point of THIS thread. To change an assumption about liver and kidney health I have and I believe others share.

You could make a thread titled "If your digestion is broken, you are dead, and there is not much in between." Or "Not worrying about all these supplements will do better for your health then taking them."

But, I am not going to waste any more time with someone who cannot see the self contradictory nature of their speech. I have laid out the assumptions in the OP, it's all there...people are attempting to cleanse their liver, they are missing the kidney angle, this is why I think this is the case, this is my personal experience, what do others think? Coming in and saying "ehh, all that is crap, super simple, whole lot about nothing." ...Well have fun with that.

 

[Daniel11]

No, I have not gone through hundreds of pages of threads to calculate every single unique member. Given that majority of the most viewed threads currently all have to do with some sort of supplement or another, there is definitely more evidence that people do consume some sort of supplement whether it be thyroid, aspirin or even a simple B vitamin/gelatin/collagen. Just click on most viewed or replied, and you will see majority of threads that are titled with some sort of supplement, the interest is there.

What evidence do you have the most people don't consume at least one supplement? Btw, the original argument that was made wasn't based on how often a person consumes a supplement (whether ongoing or experimental) but demonized all supplements in general as they were synthetic and dangerous.

Im interested to know what percentage of people on all these threads have fully regained their health or are doing significantly better?

 

[Daniel11]

Larch Arabinogalactan is a multifunctional fiber with several unique characteristics, its positive biochemical actions come form the synergy of the beneficial effects it exhibits. Because arabinogalactan has a range of low, mid and high molecular weight polysaccharides it produces a broad range of positive physiological actions including lowering absorption of ammonia.

“Vince et al have suggested arabinogalactan might have clinical value in the treatment of porto-systemic encephalopathy because of this ability to lower the generation and subsequent absorption of ammonia.8”

“In general, it may be said that "low" molecular weight polysaccharides (5,000-15,000) tend to produce more of an anti-inflamatory, anti-complementary, anti-allergy effect (25,46); whereas "high" molecular weight polysaccharides (75,000-125,000) produce more reticuloendothelial stimulation (21,24) and monocyte-enhanced natural killer cytotoxicity (1). The "mid" weight polysaccharides (15,000-50,000) seem to act in an altogether different way, enhancing carbon and other types of toxin clearance by macrophages (24). The molecular weights of the major fractions of larch arabinogalactan are 16,000 (low/mid) and 100,000 (high) which perhaps explain its peculiarly diverse actions.”

“Arabinogalactans are useful for therapeutic treatment of infections caused by pathogenic microorganisms, particularly intestinal bacteria, such as Gram-negative types. Treatment with arabinogalactan is particularly applicable to bacterias of the Enterobacteriaceae type such as Escherichia coli bacteria, particularly those strains manifesting K88+ fimbrae. Arabinogalactans were shown to have dramatic effects on bacterial adherence (45).”

Larch arabinogalactan: clinical relevance of a novel immune-enhancing polysaccharide. - PubMed - NCBI

Here is full article.

http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/4/2/96.pdf

I take 1Tbs 2x a day,

Eclectic Institute, Larix Arabinogalactan, 12 oz (340.5 g)

 

[TubZy]

Im interested to know what percentage of people on all these threads have fully regained their health or are doing significantly better?

There are plenty of logs, not going to cherry pick for you so read away

Logs

 

[Daniel11]

There are plenty of logs, not going to cherry pick for you so read away

Logs

I did not ask you to cherry pick, i asked if you knew what percentage of people on these threads have gotten much better, your the one that keeps talking about these threads like your very familiar with them, so i would think that the amount of people that regained their health or got much better would be the first thing on your mind when you read them...

Im curious because the many threads i have read i do not see that many people getting significantly better with vitamins, caffeine or other supplements.

 

[TubZy]

I did not ask you to cherry pick, i asked if you knew what percentage of people on these threads have gotten much better, your the one that keeps talking about these threads like your very familiar with them, so i would think that the amount of people that regained their health or got much better would be the first thing on your mind when you read them...

Im curious because the many threads i have read i do not see that many people getting significantly better with vitamins, caffeine or other supplements.

Gotten better as in what? recovered liver function? recovered from infection? hypothyroidism? PFS? I have no idea what kind of answer you are looking for with such a broad general question, if you actually looked into some of logs, everyone is recovering from something different, whether it be infection, hypothyroidism, PFS, cancer, liver issues, stress, high estrogen, low T etc.

I thought we agreed to disagree like you stated, yet you are asking me to do research for you and spoon feed you information yet trying to low ball and insult me at the same time lmao, so I'll say it again go back through the logs, there is also a "search" button on the forum and search for keywords for a specific illness/disease/health issue that you are specifically looking for that someone has recovered from and you can make the determination for yourself.