Two Brains

We've known for decades about the vastly different consciousness found in the verbal, left half of the brain and the non-verbal right half of the brain.  The most famous initial research was done by Roger Sperry.  Sperry studied epileptic patients who had undergone a special operation to control their seizures.  This operation severs the "corpus callosum", a set of nerves that allow the two halves of the brain to talk to each other.  Sperry showed that such patients react totally differently when information is presented to their left eye or ear versus when it is presented to their right eye or ear.  Through this research, he showed that the left brain is logical and verbal, and the right brain is intuitive and visual.  Sperry won the Nobel Prize in 1973 for this work.  Here's a link to a You Tube video showing one of the patients studied by Sperry and his colleague Micheal Gazzaniga:  Video of Split Brain Patient

What is even more amazing about the experience that Jill Bolte Taylor describes in her book My Stroke of Insight is that she didn't just see an image for a few seconds with her right brain and then another image for a few seconds with her left brain.  Her left brain SHUT DOWN for over two weeks due to a near fatal stroke. And because she was a Neuro-anatomist at Harvard University, she was uniquely positioned to describe later exactly what it was like to shift all of her consciousness to the silent, intuitive, perceptive right brain.  And she found that it brought a peace and joy and feeling of oneness with the universe that sounds exactly like the experience of mystics everywhere.

Most Amazing Interview I've Ever Seen

Last week, my wife and I watched Oprah Winfrey, in her "Super Soul Sunday" show on the Oprah Winfrey Network, interview Jill Bolte Taylor, a woman who--if she could do it all over again--would choose once again to suffer a near fatal stroke that shut down half her brain for weeks.  The stroke, which she writes about in her book, "My Stroke of Insight", instantly shifted her into the state of mind that mystics of all religions spend years striving to achieve.  Taylor got more than a glimpse of this state.  She was in this state of pure bliss for weeks, and has successfully resisted returning to the habitual negative thoughts that make bliss impossible.

It's been just over 15 years since she had the stroke at the age of 37.  It took more than 7 years for her to remember a single thing that happened to her before the stroke.  And yet, she told Oprah, if she could decide whether to do it all over again she would choose to have the stroke.  She is glad to have been "reborn" a more enlightened person who her friends tell her is happier, funnier, lighter, and more compassionate than the old Jill Bolte Taylor.

Why was her stroke a "Stroke of Insight"?  Ironically, before the stroke, she worked as a researcher in Neuro-anatomy at Harvard University.  Although the stroke caused her to lose most of her memory and training, she still has obvious mastery of how the brain functions and how her stroke played a role in her experiences.   To hear her own perspective, here is a link to a video in which Taylor describes her "stroke of insight":  Jill Bolte Taylor's speech.  Also, here is her homepage:  JBT's homepage.  My summary of her experience is this: the stroke caused the left side of her brain to shut down for several weeks.  The left side of the brain is well known to be the place--the ONLY place--in the brain that describes the world in words.  When the stroke shut the left braindown, Jill had to see the world purely through her right brain.  The intuitive, spacial, artistic, emotional non-verbal right brain.  And this pure right brain perception caused her to see reality as one holy whole.  Taylor's description of the experience is no different than the descriptions I've read from Buddhists and other mystics across various cultures, religions, countries, and centuries.

It seems to me that she was a brain-damaged Buddha.  The Buddha sits in the right side of each of our brains.  Our brains don't need to be improved.  The Buddha is already there, latent, waiting to be released.  All we need to do is put our logical left brains on pause.  Just for a little while.  Then we will experience the world through our right brains.  And see reality exactly the same way that the mystics see reality.

I've read other books about research into the differences between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, especially Robert Ornstein's, "The Psychology of Consciousness".  This book describes brilliant experiments with epileptic patients whose seizures could not be controlled until surgeons cut the nerves connecting the left and right hemispheres of the brain.  When I read Ornstein's book in the 1990's, I was blown away by the clean break between the consciousness of the verbal/logical left brain and the consciousness of the intuitive/spiritual and utterly illiterate and blissful right brain. The extraordinary difference between Ornstein's research and Bolte's account is Bolte's prolonged immersion in pure right brain consciousness.

I'm grateful to Jill Taylor Bolte for sharing her experience so that the rest of us, without having to experience a life threatening stroke, can get a glimpse of the consciousness we all possess but which few of us know how to tap into. Her experience reinforces my personal philosophy that my Buddhism isn't a religion.  It's just a practice that helps me tap into something natural, concrete, and substantial:  the stuff contained in the right hand side of my skull.

It's the Donuts

It's the donuts in the infamous "Donut Burger".  It's the sweet tea.  It's the sugar she adds to all her recipes.  These are the reasons Paula Deen has developed diabetes.

I keep reading or hearing news stories blaming Deen's illness on both her tendency to use sugar and her tendency to use butter.  But butter doesn't raise your insulin levels.  Only carbs can do that.

Pick your weight loss challenge: Difficulty or Doubt?

After reading Gary Taubes book, "Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It", I've concluded that there are two basic challenges to losing weight.  It depends on your diet.  If you eat lots of carbohydrates, the challenge will be how DIFFICULT it is to lose weight.  If you go with low carbs, losing weight will be easy, but you will be haunted by DOUBT.

If you eat the typical American diet, a diet recommended by your doctor, or one of the diets that most experts consider healthy, such as the diets by Dr. Ornish, you will eat too many carbohydrates.  Insulin will be elevated, such that your body will be inclined to maintain a high level of fat.  You can starve yourself but that is DIFFICULT.  You can exercise and burn off some of the fat.  But studies show that, if your insulin is high, your body will fight back.  It doesn't want to lose fat.  If you burn fat with exercise, your body will make you extra hungry to persuade you to eat again to replace the fat.  Your body will also make you feel lethargic, trying to force you to be sedentary, so that it can redirect any calories you eat to replacing the fat that you burned.  As long as your carb intake is high, weight loss may be possible, but it will be DIFFICULT.  You'll either feel hungry or you'll force yourself to exercise in spite of feeling no energy.

If you eat low carbs, on the other hand, losing weight is easy.  Your fat "thermostat" is set on low.  Your body wants to store less fat.  When you eat, your body wants you to either build muscle or burn the fuel with physical activity.  You feel energy that makes it easy to exercise.  But you are haunted by DOUBT.  All the experts tell you that, "Obviously, you are eating fat and will get fat.  Your cholesterol will rise.  You'll clog your arteries."  These experts will quote the American Heart Association, and the AHA will quote other experts, who quote other experts, but nobody cites any convincing, unbiased, scientific experiments.  The best studies I've seen favor the low carb position.  But can all those experts be wrong?  Can all these doctors be wrong?  When you eat a low carb diet, the biggest challenge you face, the thing that is most likely to cause you to give up, is DOUBT.

First, lose the weight. Then silence the critics.

I've lost 8 pounds since I started a low carb diet 9 days ago.  I'll continue with very low carbs until my Body Mass Index (BMI) falls well within the "Normal" range.  What they call "Normal" is actually quite thin, but I still hope to get at least into the upper half of the range.  See the following hyperlink:  "BMI Calculator".

Once I lose the weight, then what?  Then I have to silence the critics.  Most "experts"--doctors, the American Heart Association, the US Department of Agriculture with it's "Food Pyramid"--most of these experts condemn low carb diets.  Do I think that the conventional wisdom is wrong?  

Yes.  Personally I think the minority of experts and studies cited in books such as "Why We Get Fat and What to Do About it", by Gary Taubes, make a far more convincing case.  Here, for example, is a link to a Stanford University study comparing low carb Atkins to other diets:  A to Z Diet Study.    The study evaluated over 300 people who followed 5 popular diets for a year.  The study unexpectedly found people who followed an Atkins Diet had far better cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure than those who followed higher carb diets, such as those of Dr. Ornish, whose diet most experts regard as far healthier.  Here is a quote from the "A to Z Diet Study":  The recent trials, like the current study, have consistently reported that triglycerides, HDL-C, blood pressure, and measures of insulin resistance either were not significantly different or were more favorable for the very-low-carbohydrate groups.

Although I believe that, when it comes to low carb diets, the majority of experts are wrong and the minority are right, although I buy the arguments of Taubes, Atkins, and other low carb advocates, I can't help but feel the heat of the critics.  They make me have doubts.  So once I reach my target weight, I need to silence them, or at least to silence the doubts they plant in my head.

I've been eating nothing but meats, proteins, cheese, and almost all vegetables except carrots, corns and root vegetables such as potatoes.  I'll keep doing this for a month or two until I'm at my target weight.  Then I'll start to hear critics in my head.  

• Dr. Oz will say, "What about anti-oxidants from fruit?"  No problem.  I'll add back in the fruits with the most anti-oxidants per carb:  berries such as raspberries, blackberries, and blueberries.  They'll go great with my salads.  
• Mediterranean and Flat Belly Diet advocates will say, "Are you getting enough healthy fats?"  I can respond that I'm already getting Omega 3 fatty acids from leafy greens.  But I'm happy to use olive oil in dressings and cooking, to eat avocados.  I love walnuts and almonds in my salads and my yogurt and as a snack.  And, whenever possible, I eat fish rather than hamburger or steak.
• The Complex Carb advocates will say, "How can you get enough fiber?"  I can respond that I have a ton of vegetables and a little bit of fruit each day.  And I might be willing to sprinkle high fiber oat bran in my yogurt to give it some crunch.
• Finally the French will say, "But monsieur!!!!!  Studies show a link between longer lifespans and enjoyment of 1-2 alcoholic beverages per day.  Our approach in France is especially healthy because of the antioxidant resveratol in our red wine".  I'll reply:  Voila!  I have a solution!  I'll have a glass or two of red wine every day.  As long as my weight doesn't go up, I'm willing to make this sacrifice to silence the French.

At this point, what do the critics have left to throw at me?  The lack of cookies, crackers, pasta, desserts, potatoes, rice, sweet fruits, and other sugars and starches in my diet?  Sorry, but none of these provide essential nutrients that I can't get elsewhere in my diet.  And, due to their sugars and starches, they are the root cause of obesity, diabetes, and are linked to cancer and other illnesses rarely seen in low carb cultures.  As a final act to silence the critics, I'll schedule a full lipids blood test with my doctor and fully expect to find better cholesterol and triglycerides than in last year's test.

2.5 Million Years of Low Carb Diets

The conventional wisdom is that low carbohydrate diets are a "fad", an extreme deviation from a normal, healthy, human diet.  One of the points that Gary Taubes makes in his book, "Why we Get Fat and What to Do About It", is that humans have eaten low carb diets for almost all of their 2.5 million years of existence.

For 99.6% of that 2.5 million years, humans were hunter-gatherers.  In 2000, Loren Cordain and others published their analysis of the diets of hunter-gatherers in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  Here is a hyperlink to the original article: Plant-animal subsistance ratios . . . in Hunter-Gatherer Diets.  The authors compared the diets of 229 hunter-gather populations that survived long enough past 1900 to have their diets documented by anthropologists.  They undertook this study to estimate the likely, typical nutritional content of human hunter-gather diets for the last 2.5 million years.

From the documentation, they estimated the level of carbohydrates, protein, and fat in the diet of these hunter-gathering societies all over the world.  They concluded that most of these populations ate high protein and fat and relatively low carbs.  Thus the diet that many assume to be a fad is actually the way people have eaten for most of human history.

Sugar, Starch, and Beer Belly

Does overeating make us fat?  No.  Fat makes us overeat.

This is a key theme in Gary Taubes book, "Why we Get Fat".  The cycle of being overweight starts with hormones.  Hormones set the body's target level of fat.  Not just for a few people with diabetes or other upsets.  Hormones set the fat target for every person or animal at any point in their lives.

Once the target for fat is set, if the target is set high--if the body decides to have a lot of fat--the body will feel hungry until we eat enough to maintain that fat.  Fat, then, causes overeating.  This defies the conventional wisdom that overeating causes fat.  Quite the opposite.

What if we ignore the root cause of fat--hormonal imbalance--and try to "burn" the fat with exercise?  According to Taubes, research shows this almost never works.  The exercise literally causes us to "work up an appetite".  The hormones are still calling the shots, ensuring that we eat again to return the fat to target.  We either eat more or get lethargic to conserve whatever calories come in so that they can be redirected to the body's goal of staying fat.

Taubes cites many studies, but the ones I found most compelling involved laboratory rats.  If their hormones were manipulated to set a high target for body fat, they did whatever was needed to build up this fat.  If their calories were restricted, first they would get more and more sedentary so that calories would go to building fat.  Further calorie restrictions would cause the rats to preserve fat at the expens of  weak muscles and bones, smaller brains, and weaker hearts.  In a few experiments in which they were starved, they DIED fat.  Hopefully these cruel experiments are never repeated, but they do make a point.

So what to do about this?  The most important hormone to control, by keeping it at the lowest level possible, is insulin.  The only way to minimize insulin it to eat fewer carbohydrates.  The author shows tremendous research supporting the idea that low carb diets are by far the most effective way to reduce fat with a variety of health benefits.

Taubes book is a big part of the reason I started a low carb diet yesterday.

Raising the Bar for the New Year

This is my New Year's Resolution:  raise my typical, weekly "Good Habits" score from 70% to 80%.

What is my "Good Habits" score?  This is a system I started about 2 years ago and described in a past post ("Geeks Guide to Discipline").  It's a Geeky way of keeping myself honest.  It's an Excel file in which I track how often I'm doing the things, like exercising, that I think I should be doing.

Here's how it works.  There are 4 good habits that I want to track.

1. Exercise
2. Meditation
3. Writing in a journal or blog
4. Healthy diet

On any given day, if I do any of these things, I give myself 1 point in my Excel sheet.  I can earn up to 4 points per day and 28 points per week (4 x 7).  

My goal is less than 100% per week.  I don't expect to be successful in all 4 areas every day.  I don't want to be that much of a perfectionist.  I want to be free to have a few too many beers some days or to skip exercise or meditation or writing if I worked a lot of hours or I had a bad day.  So my goal in 2010 and 2011 was just 70%.  If I got 20 out of the 28 possible points in a week, I would meet my 70% goal.  The chart above are my actual results for all of 2011.  I averaged about 68%, just short of my goal.  I had some bad weeks, especially when traveling on business, and I had good ones too.

In 2012, I'm raising the bar.  80%.  I need 25 out of 28 points.  I'm starting a low carbohydrate diet/lifestyle change tomorrow that will help me reach the new target because I think my diet will be good almost every day.  Wish me luck!