Blog

7

1

What does your diet look like?

I'm asking because it seems that many people are still missing some nutrients and need to supplement with things such as selenium, vit k, iodine, mag, etc. Id love to just get all of this from food. But then again maybe the question to first ask is do we agree with the RDA?

flag
How do you test for adequate vits and mind? Blood test? Low blood levels of nutrients would only show up severe deficiencies imo, what about low level deficiencies? – cliff Oct 1 2011 at 19:47
Yeah a blood test like spectracell – Geoff Oct 1 2011 at 20:46
You might ask for those who take only a few supplements... – Eric Oct 1 2011 at 20:57
(1 of 2) I assume most already only take a few supplements; vit k, iodine, magnesium and maybe...vit a, vit c. I take all of these myself and just ordered a b-complex as it seems that Im low in B-12 even though I eat a lot of meat and take a liver powder supplement. Im thinking that I need to eat more "nose to tail" but Im wondering how far this needs to be taken. Will liver and bone broth cover it or does it needs to be liver, heart, bone broth, brain, seaweed, etc.. Also if it does how much and how often do these have to be consumed? Can large amounts of vegetables compensate? – Geoff Oct 1 2011 at 21:36
(2 of 2) I know that I can probably look up the RDA, then look up each item listed, then look up what vitamins are fat soluble and which are water soluble and how long they stay in the system but A) I have ADD :-) and B) I was thinking that perhaps the Paleo community and people like paul jaminet, travis culp, the quilt, melissa or stabby might disagree with the RDA and hence why they decide to eat more of X or Y. – Geoff Oct 1 2011 at 21:40
show 1 more comment

3 Answers

13

THE RDA for most things is bad and flawed and does not tie into how badly nutrient deficient our food supply really is. I think I have a great insight into this in this community because as far as I know I am one of the few "CW docs" who is now 100% paleo who test like a mad man not only on myself but on hundreds of patents a year. In that time I have found 4 patients with a Vitamin D level before any coaching who were above 45.

In six years I have found no one including fit young paleo's who had normal K2 or osteocalcin levels.

In six yrs I have found no one with a B12 level above 1000 eating any diet.

I have seen epidemics in osteoporsis with my youngest patient at 16 yrs old. The fastest growing part of osteopenics in my practice is the below 30 crowd.

I have seen record numbers of cases of hypothyroidism with multiple nutrient derangements.

I have seen unreal amounts of hormonal disruption in all age groups. The people who work for me recently have commented we now expect bad numbers because we rarely see a normal level come back.

When these things are tracked and followed there is only one answer.......either I live in a very special place where everyone is abnormal or something has caused a massive change in our biology.

I pick B. It is our food supply that has radically changed and our bodies and labs are showing it. My belief is that even eating Paleo is not enough now. I dont believe the nutrient density of foods today even equals what we had 30 yrs much less 10,000 yrs ago.

I look at this problem through my clinical optic and not as you all do. I have to deal with this daily in all walks of life.

Getting someone to paleo solve many battles no doubt. But getting them to paleo is not getting them to where they could be. If you go on most forums the questions being asked are by people doing a lot correct who still need a hack.........

You have to asked why that is the case. This is why Jack Kronk is my favorite poster here. He is asking himself why. He is doing way more right the wrong compared to most Americans. I view Jack's plight as instructive to this entire community that we can do even more if we want too. Some may not want too. That is fine by me. But for those who want more and want answers we must continue to probe why. This is why I blog and I have dedicated blogs to Jack. Jack will ultimately hack himself back to optimal and when he does that journey will teach thousands many lessons.

I believe I know why this is happening and my clinical experience has lead me to my hypothesis. This is why I treat people aggressively and shoot for straight A's and wont settle for a C or a D.

link|flag
I've recently started K2 supping at 180 mcg daily of MK7. I'd only been doing magnesium and D up till now. Are there anecdotes as far as physical feeling that one will get from K2 supping? Just wondering. – ben61820 Oct 2 2011 at 1:16
1 
Thanks doc, that is an insightful answer. So Im guessing the approach is Paleo + take out any additional foods you have an issue with + try to eat offal & range of veggies, + proper digestion and then blood tests to see where deficient and then supplement or eat to correct these deficiencies. That makes sense as not only is our soil depleted but we are also more stressed, less loved (tribes had layers and layers of connections), and more exposed to toxins then we were genetically programmed to deal with. – Geoff Oct 2 2011 at 1:42
MK7 is the wrong subfraction you want MK4 for bone and heart. – The Quilt Oct 2 2011 at 1:57
1 
and I have nothing to sell. I just share my thoughts. – The Quilt Oct 2 2011 at 2:05
1 
@quilt, you and Kresser both say the MK4 is the one that has shown better results but I can't seem to find a supplement that has the MK4 form. I'd be more than happy to buy one if you know ome. Recommendation please – ben61820 Oct 2 2011 at 2:14
show 7 more comments
7

It's so hard to just get them to put NPK back in the soil, imagine how far gone the soil is in terms of trace minerals. Every time we look some food up in the USDA database and pat ourselves on the back, we're probably actually eating some fraction of the "advertised" nutrient content. We could endeavor to eat more liver, but I don't know if we would run into hypervitaminosis A before we reached our zinc target, for example.

I think a lot of people feel like it's a "purer" experience to not take supplements or that it reflects poorly on their diets if they do, but the game has changed. We're not foraging in pristine environments, we're scavenging nutritional scraps from an irresponsible legacy.

We have some advantages as a result of avoiding foods like wheat that attack our guts and decrease its surface area, as well as avoiding antinutrients for the most part, but we're working against depleted foods shipped in an unripe state from far away in a lot of cases.

One thing I'm beginning to think is a problem in the paleo community is how many people there are who are priding themselves on how little appetite they have and how little they have to eat in a day for weight loss/maintenance reasons. Even if you're eating all meat, if the quantities are so small, there are fewer opportunities to get adequate nutrients. This is why I advocate that people force themselves to be as active as possible, even if they have no weight to lose. Alongside all of the other health benefits we're all aware of, it means more food can be eaten without fat gain and thus more nutrients can be absorbed.

This is a good question and hopefully someone will have achieved this and can tell us what they do. When I feel like I've adequately repleted the minerals lost on my vegan misadventure I'm going to get these tests run.

link|flag
Excellent post as usual and I like your third point especially. I eat much more than what many people here seem to (2500-3500 cals per day) and it's only because of that I come close to meeting my RDA in most things through food (according only to software/assumed nutrition in whole foods of course - though I do eat a lot of my own organic produce grown in rich soil full of composed horse shit, leaves and weeds). Once again I am left thinking I should supplement more... – animalcule Oct 2 2011 at 16:14
0

As Quilt noted, I think that everybody should do HEAVY supplementation, judged by RDI standards. Orthomolecular medicine practitioners are valid doctors from various felds that get disappointed by ineffective standard treatments. Those are not quacks and there is a lot of science behind it.

For more info see for example this page: http://faculty.washington.edu/ely/SciEssNutr.html

link|flag

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.