Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: aem42290 on May 20, 2014, 09:15:13 am

Title: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on May 20, 2014, 09:15:13 am: Initial conjectures related to life span on a ZC/VLC diet

By and large, carnivorous mammals across the world exhibit lower average lifespans than omnivorous creatures. This may be due to countless variables, but the fact that these creatures survive for smaller periods of time may indicate that mammalian bodies are not well-adapted to purely carnivorous diets, even when the carnivores have been consuming such diets for a very long time. Further, archaeological records have demonstrated that only about 25% of early humans and Neanderthals made it beyond 40 years of age. We should take into account the fact that Neanderthals and early humans were known to have consumed predominantly carnivorous diets, and that the ice age during the Neanderthal’s reign probably made the routine consumption of plant-based foods difficult. The following text critically questions the value of a ZC/VLC diet in relation to optimal human performance. If a ZC/VLC diet is not optimal for a human, then the lower life span (and increased brain size) of these ancient humans may be justified by their decreased access to abundant plant foods. Note: I will use VLC/ZC to refer to diets that consistently contain less than 30g carbohydrates on a daily basis.
***

For any intrigued readers, here is what I am doing at the moment to respond to heart issues following a fairly lengthy zero carb/very low carb diet. I have included the carefully thought-out conclusions that I arrived at to justify my actions.

After dealing with my problem, and reading up on a great deal of scientific studies and informal experiences, I've decided to cut the ZC (well, ZC insofar as there weren't any plant foods, for there were certainly a healthy amount of organs) experiment short, and start consuming a reasonable amount of carbs per day (50-100g).

Why?

The body is an intricate series of processes that are disjointed, collaborative, and oftentimes unpredictable. Historically, humans have adapted to our environments in curious manners. Any mono diet (even a near-perfectly calibrated mono meat diet) has the tendency to deal with corporal processes in a similar manner to the dreaded techniques of Western medicine: in a homogenizing, mechanical fashion. Let me unravel this bold assertion.

The following three dilemmas are fairly in alignment with the "old friends" theory that Paleophil has presented on these forums for quite some time. His call to challenge chronic ZC should intelligently be taken into consideration in light of the emergence of certain questionable physical circumstances for numerous offal-ingesting, carnivorous ZCers (myself included.) I will tie these three dilemmas into a cohesive argument at the end of this post.

First dilemma: Evolution, rapid brain expansion, and the historical transition to a predominantly carnivorous lifestyle

Having studied evolutionary anatomy, I can confidently say that the human body has not evolved in an absolutely unified manner throughout the last few millennia. If we believe the scientific disciplines (that most of us agree with on some points) in arguing that humans were primarily plant-eaters before carnivores, and that our brains became much larger during our carnivorous days, then we arrive at a conundrum: the expansion of the human brain's size occurred very rapidly, evolutionarily speaking. This initial expansion happened because a primarily herbivorous species (ancient humans equipped with a plant-oriented bacterial flora and bodily qualities prepared to metabolize plant-foods) chose to substantially increase their raw meat consumption, viz. hunting and scavenging. In response to--and in consequence of--heightened meat intake and anatomical specificities (opposable thumbs, etc.), the human brain became incredibly refined and potent. We are obviously still basking in the brain-expanding glory of this momentous carnivorous evolutionary trajectory; albeit, of course, we should question for how long we will be able to do this, collectively, considering the quality of the modern human's diet (namely, the absence of raw meats/fats/offal, as well as the presence of genetically modified, anti-nutrient-laden plant-foods.) The point here is that the enlargement of the human brain occurred, at least in an evolutionary time-scale, at an accelerated and atypical rate. Such an expansion of cognitive functions was atypical in that it did not reflect directly on our physical bodies; we did not grow massive fangs or claws to hunt down and slaughter large game; rather, we created tools, and used our newfound intellectual abilities to skillfully dispose of our subjects. Similarly, other attributes of our bodies did not evolve as quickly as our brains. Which brings me to the second dilemma.

Second dilemma: The divergent evolution hypothesis (similar to the ‘old friend’ theory)

Bacterial processes in the body account for much of the health of the human. The inhabitants of our gut flora, for one, provide us with the accoutrements necessary to digest nutrients, synthesize vitamins, neurotransmitters, and immune cells. Other bacterial-human symbiotic relationships offer what is a long list of relatively unexplored, distinctive benefits for organ systems (bacteria on the skin serve specific functions, and so on.) For the most part, the bacterial microbiome of the body is at the core of the animal’s ability to function properly. Without an optimally functioning microbiome, the human is exposed to dire environmental dangers that will rapidly deteriorate living systems. This truth has been demonstrated by numerous studies on the importance of a thriving microbiome, and the functionality of different gut floras is specifically being researched at the moment by the human microbiome project (which I urge all of us to look into, if even for the sole sake of criticism.)

Back to the brain. If we agree that the human brain indeed expanded in such a rapid manner—as is evidenced by the archaeological record—and that ancient humans decided to maximize meat intake at the potential expense of plant-foods, then what we must recognize is that the human microbiome (that is, the bacterial underpinnings of the body, such as the gut flora and other bacterial agents) of the ancestral, predominantly herbivorous humans, more likely than not failed to properly catch up to the accelerated evolution of cognitive structures—mainly because the microbiome had no need to catch up; ancient humans were still consuming at least some plant-foods. What occurred, in effect, was that the enduring plant-dependent (in that they had thrived on plant-foods for millennia) bacterial entities within the ancient human bodies were quickly, over the course of a few thousand years, forced to confront a vastly different set of digestive demands—those of predominantly carnivorous diets—in order to properly account for the newly-modified consumption practices of the rapidly changing humans. In response to such evolutionary stressors, the human microbiome, which was at one moment well-adapted to an optimal herbivorous functionality, cracked, adapted, and ceded to carnivorous demands.

The cracks and adaptations exhibited by a historically herbivorous human microbiome as it collides with a carnivorous ZC/VLC diet have appeared for different dieters in interesting forms (specifically on these forums.) Personally, I dealt with heart issues, constipation, diarrhea, and reduced bowel movements at different points throughout my VLC/ZC experiment. I followed the diet as properly as possible: minimized raw protein, increased fat, ate lots of raw offal, etc. The diarrhea and constipation were sparse, but the reduced bowel movements were constant. I attributed this, as many others have done, to the supposedly commonsensical reduction of bowel contents on a raw ZC/VLC diet. But soon I realized that even on a low fiber diet, feces is not constituted primarily by metabolic waste: feces is predominantly bacteria by mass. This made me seriously question the underlying implications of the assertion that excrement inevitably decreases when ZC/VLC. What seems to be decreasing on a ZC/VLC carnivorous diet is the actual mass of the bacterial entities in the gut. The livelihood of these organisms, which evolutionarily have remained dependent on the human’s consumption of plant-based foods, is put in peril by the absence of plant-based products.

Some will argue that the human gut flora—only a single aspect of the microbiome, but indubitably the most important—does not need plant-based foods to survive; these same people might argue that the herbivorous gut flora hypothesis is merely a myth: that humans on a ZC/VLC diet can simply reconstitute their gut floras, and create a purely carnivorous microbiome. There is no evidence to support the claim that the human gut flora, evolutionarily and historically nurtured by plant-based foods, thrives under carnivorous ZC/VLC conditions. In fact, there is a striking amount of evidence to the contrary.

According to recent research compiled by Dr. Jeff Leach, the gut flora of chronic LC dieters demonstrates fairly poor traits in relation to known optimal conditions. Truly, what we know about gut floras in rather limited compared to our general anatomical knowledge, but the fact remains that serious changes are occurring in our guts when we drastically reduce the intake of carbohydrates. These changes, taken in total and observed anecdotally and scientifically, seem to point toward a reduction in the total numbers of bacterial symbiotic agents in the guts of ZC/VLC subjects.

Third dilemma: ketosis, gluconeogenesis, brain glucose requirements, and the optimal human diet

There are numerous indicators and pieces of evidence that corroborate the above hypothesis concerning the fragmented evolution of the brain in relation to the rest of the body. In order to properly dispel the myth that ZC is the optimal human state, we will first need to consider a variety of arguments. To begin with, let’s analyze the main metabolic structures involved in the ZC diet--gluconeogenesis and ketosis--and their different properties in relation to the human brain.

A) On a very basic level, scientific studies of the brain demonstrate that it demands a certain amount of glucose each day. When in a deep ketogenic mode (as most ZC dieters are), the brain refuses to consume 100% glucose, and demands that the liver produce glucose for its minimum sustenance requirements viz. gluconeogenesis—a process which many of us are familiar with, and which involves the cleaving of amino acids to generate glucose. Gluconeogenesis is a liver-intensive process that is modulated by glucagon, cortisol, insulin, and various other interconnected hormonal pathways. The very fact that gluconeogenesis is associated to cortisol levels should send up some red flags: gluconeogenesis is tough work, and our bodies will avoid activating the metabolic pathway unless absolutely forced to do so. In fact, glucose is stored as glycogen in fairly high quantities (around 500-1000+ calories, depending on the person) in the liver, brain, and to a lesser extent, in muscles, to prevent the body from having to generate glucose via gluconeogenesis. It is evident from the body’s attempts at quarantining and preserving glucose that it does not want to have to turn water into wine (protein into glucose) constantly. Functionally, the body is far more interested in granting the brain its glucose requirements without overstressing the liver, which is already responsible for enough metabolic processes. This makes sense, because sugars aren’t too difficult to come by in most environments (arctic north excluded, but we’ll tackle that in a moment), and there’s no reason why the brain should be denied its 30g of glucose per day. Unless, of course, something has gone wrong.

B) In the deep ketogenic near-total absence of glucose, the body engages in gluconeogenesis and, to a lesser degree, the production of glucose from fatty acids, to supply the brain with its minimum glucose needs. Both are relatively tolling tasks compared to the simple absorption of free-floating blood glucose, or the consumption of glycogen for glucose. And what about the other organs? When in a deep ketogenic state, the heart will effectively utilize ketone bodies for energy, as will most other organs (although the heart itself prefers fatty acids, which haven’t been cleaved into ketones.) The functionality of the non-brain organs while in deep ketosis isn’t much of a surprise, considering that ketosis is an ancient metabolic state, and the body evolved to withstand ketogenic periods for a fair amount of time (in order to support the probable nomadic lifestyles and difficult environmental conditions of our predecessors.) Despite the capacity of the organs to utilize ketones effectively for extended periods, the brain will continue to refuse to convert entirely to a 100% ketone-driven mode. Of course, having to produce only 30g of glucose per day via gluconeogenesis is not a dire or critically exhaustive task. Carnivorous ZCers and very, very LCers will argue that this is not a stressful process at all; it is natural and beneficial. The specific stress of the generation of 30g of glucose via gluconeogenesis is not particularly relevant for my argument. Instead, the main issue here is that even when a body is in deep ketosis, the brain refuses to sacrifice its glucose requirements entirely, and it will call upon a strenuous metabolic pathway to make certain that its own needs are satisfied. The brain demands glucose—not ketone bodies. If ketosis were the default and optimal metabolic state of the human body, then why would the brain make such absurd demands?

There is a simple explanation for this: deep ketosis is not the human’s default and optimal metabolic state. We arrive at this conclusion by determining that the human’s dominant organ, the brain, refuses to survive on ketones alone, and the body will go to great extents to quarantine and protect glucose reserves, as well as produce its own glucose when no other sources are available. Instead of conceiving of deep ketosis as a default optimal state, I encourage you to understand that ketosis is a metabolic state which is mobilized to deal with the sustained absence of an organ system’s minimum nutritional/glucose requirements, and which serves to heighten certain physical processes to facilitate the procurement of the nutritional agents needed for the production of said glucose needs. Nutritional agents come in one of four forms:

1) Through the consumption of a large protein-heavy meal (not favorable, because then the body will need to switch on gluconeogenesis to make glucose from the protein that remains after feeding core skeletomuscular processes, and the excess protein will need to be excreted via the kidneys to prevent toxicity, which may place a large stress on the urinary system.) Note that various ZCers and very LCers have dealt with kidney stones in the past, and that the carnivorous ZC/ultra VLC diet typically calls for abhorrent amounts of daily fluid intake (wholly against what would be expected in a non-domesticated environment.)

As an added note, in the absence of glucose, the body calls on the kidneys to flush out stored water and electrolytes from cells (the reasons for this are various. My personal perspective is that, on a fundamental level, the body releases water because it wishes to be lighter so as to make long distance traveling while in a deep ketogenic state easier.)

2) Through the activation of the TCA cycle, and the marshaling of the acetyl-COA metabolic chain, following the consumption of a large fat-heavy meal without protein (not favorable for similar reasons as above, and in fact rather unnatural, considering that fat is almost always found with some protein.)

3) Through the ingestion of carbohydrates. (Simple, basic, and clean. Breakdown of glucose occurs in the animal cells themselves in a direct and rapid process which involves commonly discussed hormones.) Water is the end result of the burning of carbohydrates. The ingestion of carbohydrates to meet the brain’s minimum requirements is favorable because the liver does not need to actively reconfigure amino acids to produce sugar, and it is involved in this process only marginally through the storage of excess glucose, the secretion of hormones, etc.

4) Through the breakdown of body fat and lean protein tissues. (Not optimal for obvious reasons. The body does not want to consume itself. This is a desperation measure.)

Summary of dilemma #3: The human brain can only utilize ketones to a certain extent, and it requires approximately 30g of glucose daily to survive. ZC/V-VLC dieters typically stay in deep ketosis, thereby forcing their bodies to generate glucose via gluconeogenesis. In the absence of glucose, the human body activates a series of metabolic pathways that are in no way optimal or efficient from a thermodynamics perspective (the reconfiguration of amino acids to create glucose, for one, requires a substantial amount of energy). The livers and excretory systems of ZC/VLCers bear the burden of having to deal with the production of glucose from proteins (a non-optimal process), as well as shouldering the significant electrolyte changes that occur during deep ketosis, the latter of which evolutionarily may exist to simply facilitate the acquisition of glucose during difficult nutritional periods.

But what about the Inuit, whose consumption of a ZC/VLC diet has been stressed by advocates of deep ketosis constantly?

The Inuit, in those old days before the arrival of the European colonials, were able to thrive in the coldest parts of the north by making full use of their livers in the absence of glucose. In studies conducted in the 1930s, the Inuit were shown to consume large amounts of protein (250g+ per day) which exceeded their daily skeletomuscular requirements. Whether in ketosis or not (this has been a point of contention for some scholars), the large consumption of dietary protein kept the Inuit out of a fully ketogenic state, even though this metabolic reality came with an increased burden on their livers. Over the course of numerous generations and in response to the demands of a high level of protein consumption, the livers of the Inuits grew larger than those of most modern humans. Such an enlargement of the liver evidences the heightened level of stress on this particular organ due to a high protein diet. From an anatomically logical standpoint, the body will not aggrandize any component that it can use efficiently unless there is a need to augment its size in order to preserve homeostasis. In the case of the Inuit, elevated and prolonged states of gluconeogenesis made serious demands on livers, and this resulted in the general expansion of the organ. The Inuit express specific physical adaptations to a high protein, VLC/ZC diet that most followers do not possess. Even if a VLC/ZC subject consumes a low protein, high fat diet, this would still not represent an optimal metabolic state as per the basic principles which I have already discussed. The example of the Inuit is critical to emphasize because it represents the extent to which the ZC/VLC carnivorous diet is anti-optimal for most subjects; the Inuit were not in deep ketosis (in that their protein intake allowed for gluconeogenesis), and they certainly had larger livers to cope with the added metabolic stressors. One of the pitfalls of the ZC/VLC diet is that if a subject consumes too little protein, i.e., not enough to meet core daily skeletomuscular requirements, then it doesn’t matter if they eat large amounts of fat—the brain will demand its glucose, and it will pull the glucose from the very tissues of the body if it must.

Summaries and Conclusions: Making sense of the three dilemmas in concert

The first dilemma presented us with the disjointed evolution of the human body throughout the different historical moments that have led to the emergence of large and powerful brains. According to rigorous and respectable scientific studies, humans began as predominantly herbivorous mammals, and later acquired the desire to pursue predominantly animal proteins for subsistence. Beginning with the Middle Pleistocene, the brains of our ancestors increased in size substantially and swiftly, thereby reflecting the acquisition of carnivorous habits. This accelerated evolutionary increase in brain mass occurred over a period of several thousand years (documented by Ruff, Trinkaus et al. 1997), and likely was not accompanied by an accelerated evolution of the human microbiome. However, explicit symptoms of such a disjointed evolution did not emerge within ancient human populations because many of these groups consumed appreciable (30-100g+ carbohydrates) amounts of plant-based foods in addition to raw high-fat/meat/offal carnivorous diets (this is what I consider an optimal diet, for it keeps the body out of deep ketosis, in a fat-adapted state, and allows for the critically important microbiome/gut flora to subsist, and, indeed, thrive.) Alarmingly, though, within recent ZC/VLC experiments, evidence for disjointed evolution of the gut/brain systems is revealed by numerous symptoms which are both anecdotally and formally recorded. These symptoms include, for many dieters, the apparent overall reduction of bowel movements, which seems to reflect on the decrease of total bacterial biomass within otherwise healthy subjects. Purposefully limiting daily carbohydrate intake is an unheard of practice in extant and historical hunter-gatherer populations. The symptoms and evidence presented by the bodily problems of chronic ZC/VLC illuminates a particularly troubling—and at the same time scientifically fascinating—reality: while the human brain thrives on diets high in meats and fats (particularly raw meats and fats), the microbiome of our bodies does not fare particularly well under deep ketogenic/ZC/VLC conditions. Following arguments made in the second and third dilemmas, I feel that it is safe to conclude that deep ketogenic diets are not only anti-optimal for long-term subsistence (in regards to the efficiency and stress-levels placed on basic and emergency metabolic pathways, i.e., stress on the liver, kidney, etc.), but are also rather harmful to the overall health of the human subject (namely, by considerably altering the structures of a gut flora that evolved divergently in regards to other bodily organs such as the brain, and which remains nearly-exclusively dependent on nutrients derived from certain plant-based foods.)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: van on May 20, 2014, 11:17:45 am: I appreciate the thought put into this 'thesis'. May I suggest that you post this to Ron Rosedale, he has a blog, and see if he'd care to respond to your conclusions. I for one would love to see his response. I think it would add value as I'm sure, if he did respond, he would include some science to ponder over.
One of the difficulties of using say the Inuit as a barometer is that they didn't eat for longevity, except you might call it longevity of the moment, or simply to survive the day. Another way to say this is, I wouldn't use a wine drinking alcoholic to study the health benefits of wine.
There may never have been any group of peoples who knew how to use diet to maximize longevity. For sure we know of no strictly raw eating peoples.. That is why I say one has to dig deeper, or be willing to experiment with one's self. But please, blog Ron, see if he'll respond. thanks
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on May 20, 2014, 11:36:10 am: Quote from: van on May 20, 2014, 11:17:45 am
I appreciate the thought put into this 'thesis'. May I suggest that you post this to Ron Rosedale, he has a blog, and see if he'd care to respond to your conclusions. I for one would love to see his response. I think it would add value as I'm sure, if he did respond, he would include some science to ponder over.
One of the difficulties of using say the Inuit as a barometer is that they didn't eat for longevity, except you might call it longevity of the moment, or simply to survive the day. Another way to say this is, I wouldn't use a wine drinking alcoholic to study the health benefits of wine.
There may never have been any group of peoples who knew how to use diet to maximize longevity. For sure we know of no strictly raw eating peoples.. That is why I say one has to dig deeper, or be willing to experiment with one's self. But please, blog Ron, see if he'll respond. thanks

Hey, Van. Thanks for your response and for your (earlier) reply to my PM. Really appreciate it.

I agree, we do need to continue experimenting. I wrote this thesis to dispel the notion that ZC diets are optimal/healthy long term. I feel strongly about this, considering that the diet eventually took a silent and fairly insidious toll on my body. Hence why I thought it'd be meaningful to share my knowledge with this excellent community.

How would I go about posting this to his blog? Should I leave it as a comment to any specific threads?
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 20, 2014, 02:29:05 pm: This post is wholly inappropriate for the ZC forum. I will put it in the hot topics forum instead.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on May 20, 2014, 02:50:40 pm: Quote
This post is wholly inappropriate for the ZC forum. I will put it in the hot topics forum instead.

Tyler,
With all due respect, I believe that putting this post in the "hot topics" section is unjust. Inappropriate in what sense? What I have written is a reflexively critical piece that deals with ZC diets directly. Is there no place for intellectual criticism on these forums? I do believe that those on a ZC diet have the right to be exposed to what is on the other side of the fence. Moving this post to "hot topics" seems almost punitive.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Alive on May 20, 2014, 03:11:00 pm: aem42290,
I am wondering if you gained benefits initially from VLC that were worthwhile, and if you had started to very slowly increase carbs early on that might have worked well?

I have been interested in reading the research of Paul and Shou-Ching Jaminet (The Perfect Health Diet book). In regards to carbs their findings are that the ideal is 30% of energy from carbs (Typically ~600 calories), from 'safe starches' like potatoes, rice and bananas, to provide for the bodies glucose needs, and the rest from fat.

Here is Paul's investigation of ideal glucose levels for longevity and dialog with Ron Rosedale:
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/11/safe-starches-symposium-dr-ron-rosedale/ (http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/11/safe-starches-symposium-dr-ron-rosedale/)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Projectile Vomit on May 20, 2014, 06:12:14 pm: Quote
Is there no place for intellectual criticism on these forums?

From the standpoint of most of the moderators, the answer to this question is unfortunately "NO". It doesn't surprise me at all that this thread was banished to the 'Hot Topics' section, although I personally think it was fine in the ZC section.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: goodsamaritan on May 20, 2014, 10:21:26 pm: Quote from: aem42290 on May 20, 2014, 02:50:40 pm
Is there no place for intellectual criticism on these forums?

Yes, there is room for criticism, this thread was not deleted not censored, this is why this raw paleo diet forum exists and Tyler and the other mods try to keep a balance.

There are those who really follow the zero carb thing and it works for them and just to respect what is working for them, criticisms are placed in the hot topics section.

I am not a zero carber, but I respect this zero carb section.

I whole heartedly agree with many points of the very very nicely written piece. Thank you.

And I would have to agree with Tyler it still belongs to the hot topics section.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on May 21, 2014, 12:02:25 am: Quote from: goodsamaritan on May 20, 2014, 10:21:26 pm
Yes, there is room for criticism, this thread was not deleted not censored, this is why this raw paleo diet forum exists and Tyler and the other mods try to keep a balance.

There are those who really follow the zero carb thing and it works for them and just to respect what is working for them, criticisms are placed in the hot topics section.

I am not a zero carber, but I respect this zero carb section.

I whole heartedly agree with many points of the very very nicely written piece. Thank you.

And I would have to agree with Tyler it still belongs to the hot topics section.

Thank you for your kind response, GS. For the many years that I've been lurking these forums, I have consistently found your nutritional suggestions to be highly useful and well-balanced.

My point of contention remains that I believe ZCers (and ex-ZCers, such as myself) should be exposed to critical arguments directly--out of respect, even. What is respect if not the desire to take someone's actions seriously enough to critique them?

Quote from: alive on May 20, 2014, 03:11:00 pm
aem42290,
I am wondering if you gained benefits initially from VLC that were worthwhile, and if you had started to very slowly increase carbs early on that might have worked well?

I have been interested in reading the research of Paul and Shou-Ching Jaminet (The Perfect Health Diet book). In regards to carbs their findings are that the ideal is 30% of energy from carbs (Typically ~600 calories), from 'safe starches' like potatoes, rice and bananas, to provide for the bodies glucose needs, and the rest from fat.

Here is Paul's investigation of ideal glucose levels for longevity and dialog with Ron Rosedale:
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/11/safe-starches-symposium-dr-ron-rosedale/ (http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/11/safe-starches-symposium-dr-ron-rosedale/)

Thank you for this information. I will be looking into the research shortly. At a quick glance, it seems that this website offers some very intelligent pieces of advice, and that, generally, arguments are grounded in rigorous scientific studies.

As for the viability of a ZC diet, I do believe that the temporary elimination of plant-foods offers a therapeutic value for many people, specifically those who are metabolically deranged (GS has stated this before as well.) The body in deep ketosis will choose to keep only the strongest of cells. This culling process has obvious benefits. However, for the long-term subsistence of a human, the ZC diet comes attached to some critical and alarming factors.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: van on May 21, 2014, 01:08:25 am: Quote from: aem42290 on May 20, 2014, 11:36:10 am
Hey, Van. Thanks for your response and for your (earlier) reply to my PM. Really appreciate it.

I agree, we do need to continue experimenting. I wrote this thesis to dispel the notion that ZC diets are optimal/healthy long term. I feel strongly about this, considering that the diet eventually took a silent and fairly insidious toll on my body. Hence why I thought it'd be meaningful to share my knowledge with this excellent community.

How would I go about posting this to his blog? Should I leave it as a comment to any specific threads?

I don't know,, I have never entered a post there. Why not just give it a try in whatever way you think might get to him. And for the record, I wouldn't move this to hot topics. You've entered something quite valuable for all of us to ponder. The zero carb diet is a man made phenomena. I do well on a diet very very low in carbs, but better with the inclusion of foods that apparently add fiber, minerals, and prebiotics to my gut. I'm a big fan of seaweeds, garlic, leeks, radishes, pumpkin seeds, lemons (very ripe meyers for bit C) kale when it's not unappetizingly bitter, and wild greens. I will also eat in the summer a few figs, cherries, apples.... but with those, I can feel that they really detract from my energy or feeling stable throughout the day. I added this last part here to remind some here that one can still go close to zero carb and still feed one's intestines bacteria producing food, and include outside sources of trace minerals. All of which a hunter gather most likely would have included with his primary meat and fat meals.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Sorentus on May 21, 2014, 03:05:26 am: If Raw zero carb was the optimal human diet then it would make sense that you could feed the same diet for any human and have them thrive just like if you feed any cattle grass then it will heal from its grain based diet, rather its a young cattle, female or male and regardless of the specie. So if raw zero carb doesn't work for everyone, then one is allowed to question if this is truly our "optimal" diet. We human are no different, a diet that works for one should work for everyone be it that it is in line with human natural diet. Eating "safe" starches such as potato and rice make no evolutionary sense. Would you eat raw rice? of course not, birds do that.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 21, 2014, 02:28:22 pm: Quote from: aem42290 on May 20, 2014, 02:50:40 pm
Tyler,
With all due respect, I believe that putting this post in the "hot topics" section is unjust. Inappropriate in what sense? What I have written is a reflexively critical piece that deals with ZC diets directly. Is there no place for intellectual criticism on these forums? I do believe that those on a ZC diet have the right to be exposed to what is on the other side of the fence. Moving this post to "hot topics" seems almost punitive.
We have to be fair to all. Most followers of specific diets like RZC would far prefer to read positive threads on how to pursue an RZC diet or whatever than to read posts on how supposedly "dangerous" that diet is, especially when their own long-term experience re RZC is very positive. There is nothing wrong with posting controversial topics in the Hot Topics forum, where this thread is now, as that is a suitable place for that sort of thing. I have therefore not censored anything, just moved it to the right place.

We used to allow critical posts for specific dietary forums like the primal diet one, but it always led to the swamping of a particular forum by others who had found that a different raw, dietary path had worked for them. We have to acknowledge, therefore, that some people do fine on RZC diets, others on the Primal Diet or the RVLC diet, and so on...
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Inger on May 21, 2014, 06:55:04 pm: Why is it so hard to eat following the seasons? To add seasonal carbs in the summer / fall... and eat zero carb in winter..... I do not see why no one speaks of this as of yet, except of Dr Kruse.
That said, I do believe it has its benefits for many of us to eat ketogenic year round. Because we now live in a different world because of all the man made EMF

THIS is what we need to hear.. and let go of all those unnatural dogmas one way or another. Everyone could see it is unnatural to eat fruit in winter when they are not growing!
And somewhere grows not much carbs at all.... not all year long. But to abandon wild mushrooms, herbs, wild fruit, seaweeds, flowers and berries because "you have to eat raw zero carb" is very stupid IMO!

This is actually so easy... just watch the nature, she shows it all! We are just too tied to our dogmas and wrong thinking and are making it way too complicated

+ it is not only food. Actually food is just a small part of it all
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Alive on May 21, 2014, 08:42:51 pm: It seems that quite often there are people saying that eating zero carbs initially provided benefits, but over time 'ruined' their health.
If the moderators keep moving the evidence of these issues to a place where they won't be noticed then how are newbies looking at ZC to know ?
If keeping the critical posts in the topic cannot be tolerated, then how about a sticky post providing some warning of this, plus a reminder that there is a lot of room to be low carb without being zero carb.

Looking at the description for this topic it says "Not literally zero carb but eating only from the animal kingdom: muscle meats, organs, and fat of sea, sky, and land animals alike -- the raw meat diet for humans."

Eveheart is the moderator and she says that she eats low carb plant food, as does Van.
Inger likes to post here, but for her it is more about eating with the seasons and nature, and being low carb temporarily.

So this is a carnivorous / zero carb diet title seems misleading, as it is rather a low or very low carb diet.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Inger on May 21, 2014, 08:53:18 pm: Alive, I am zero carb and low carb year round.. ;)

I live in Finland and here are not much carbs at any season...

I do great with ZC in summer too, but I am crazy about everything wild!!! I love wild herbs, berries, mushrooms and flowers... but those have almost no carbs where I live.

I really believe in seasonal eating. When you do not get plenty of sunlight, carbs are going to hurt you in the long run.

And for people in high man made EMF areas around the globe, ketogenic year round....
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on May 22, 2014, 04:05:18 am: Quote from: alive on May 21, 2014, 08:42:51 pm
It seems that quite often there are people saying that eating zero carbs initially provided benefits, but over time 'ruined' their health.
If the moderators keep moving the evidence of these issues to a place where they won't be noticed then how are newbies looking at ZC to know ?
If keeping the critical posts in the topic cannot be tolerated, then how about a sticky post providing some warning of this, plus a reminder that there is a lot of room to be low carb without being zero carb.

Looking at the description for this topic it says "Not literally zero carb but eating only from the animal kingdom: muscle meats, organs, and fat of sea, sky, and land animals alike -- the raw meat diet for humans."

Eveheart is the moderator and she says that she eats low carb plant food, as does Van.
Inger likes to post here, but for her it is more about eating with the seasons and nature, and being low carb temporarily.

So this is a carnivorous / zero carb diet title seems misleading, as it is rather a low or very low carb diet.

I would like to echo sentiments expressed by Van, Alive, and Eric in pleading for the moderators to either move this post back to the ZC section, or add in a warning sticky to the ZC section directly that addresses nuanced critiques of the diet. Critical resources are necessary for people starting a ZC diet. I would have benefited greatly from reading critical topics when I first learned of ZC from these forums. I certainly didn't think to look in "Hot topics."
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: van on May 22, 2014, 07:17:34 am: I tend to agree. I think the most unnecessary statements made that should be put into 'Hot topics' are those like the ones the Phil makes declaring zc outright dangerous for all because everyone additionally need this or that. I'd rather the tone be more of,, this is my experience, and or if you experience this symptom then you might want to experiment with this. Outright declarative blanket statements should be moved though.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: eveheart on May 22, 2014, 08:40:25 am: Quote from: alive on May 21, 2014, 08:42:51 pm
So this is a carnivorous / zero carb diet title seems misleading, as it is rather a low or very low carb diet.

The forum title "Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach: Not literally zero carb but eating only from the animal kingdom: muscle meats, organs, and fat of sea, sky, and land animals alike -- the raw meat diet for humans" has been discussed before. If there were some rigid dogma about what a correct carnivorous RPD stood for, you would be absolutely correct, but there is no right and wrong here, just a very general grouping of a style that has a much lower carbohydrate content. "Lower" might mean zero, and it might mean not-zero; in either case, a lot of similarities between zero carb and VLC make the grouping useful. If opposing viewpoints were necessary each topic, then every topic should be required to post vegetarian, vegan, and cooked-food information.

For comparison of forum purity, look at the forum title "Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet: Animal products with some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix." On that forum, you might find discussion of domesticated plant foods as well as threads that could also appear under other versions of Other Paleo Diets to Suit You.

Classifying a topic does not mean that the topic has been banished or censored. Many (or most?) of us read all posts, so moving a thread to a different forum does not reduce its availability. This topic has a useful point-of-view and valid information. I hope we don't lose its focus with tangential discussions.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 22, 2014, 10:38:05 am: Quote from: aem42290 on May 22, 2014, 04:05:18 am
I would like to echo sentiments expressed by Van, Alive, and Eric in pleading for the moderators to either move this post back to the ZC section, or add in a warning sticky to the ZC section directly that addresses nuanced critiques of the diet. Critical resources are necessary for people starting a ZC diet. I would have benefited greatly from reading critical topics when I first learned of ZC from these forums. I certainly didn't think to look in "Hot topics."
Yup. I wish I had seen more warnings about the risks of chronic ZC/VLC. When I experimented with it, I thought it was a relatively harmless thing to try for a month or more. I hadn't heard of the Old Friends Hypothesis at the time. To hide away the negative reports and information by moving it into other vague subforums gives a misleadingly positive picture. More people may suffer unnecessarily as a result. It's also rather telling about ZC, indicating that it is so weak an approach that it cannot stand up to direct critical scrutiny.

On the plus side, it appears that the see-no-evil approach of shunting away negative reports and comments about ZC/VLC has had the unintended consequence of stifling that subforum. It has been rather moribund, thank goodness.

Quote from: Inger on May 21, 2014, 08:53:18 pm
I do great with ZC in summer too, but I am crazy about everything wild!!! I love wild herbs, berries, mushrooms and flowers... but those have almost no carbs where I live.

I really believe in seasonal eating. When you do not get plenty of sunlight, carbs are going to hurt you in the long run.

And for people in high man made EMF areas around the globe, ketogenic year round....
This is one thing that's so confusing about supposed "ZC". I've seen it defined so many different ways. Since when are berries and mushrooms and "seasonal eating" included in it? Berries contain significant carbs. Here's just one example of raspberries (15g of carbs in 1 cup--82% of the calories as carbs): http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/2053/2 (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/2053/2)

What next, is honey going to be classified as ZC if you keep it limited to 15g/day? ;)

When I asked at the ZIOH ZC forum (http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com (http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com)) about the documented Eskimo practice of eating berries, I was told to not discuss them. They were utterly verboten. When another member there mentioned that she was eating salad greens, which are very close to zero in carbs, and that they cured the muscle cramps that she developed on fully ZC, she was banned, as was anyone else who reported eating any carbs, or was too positive about any plant foods, or reported negative results on ZC.

Quote from: eveheart on May 22, 2014, 08:40:25 am
The forum title "Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach: Not literally zero carb
If it's "Not literally zero carb," then why call it zero carb? For most people in the world, zero still means zero. Why not just call it "Carnivorous"?

Chronic truly zero carb (as in zero or as close to zero as possible) really is a myth-based approach that has no precedent in all of human history and is thus a novel experiment which makes guinea pigs of human beings. No one can say for sure that they know that chronic ZC is safe for anyone in the long run because it's never been tried before by any human society. To pretend otherwise is unconscionable.

Where are people still getting the idea to do "ZC"? Francois asked this question before, but I don't remember if there was an answer. Lex isn't very active anymore and even he isn't truly ZC. Does any significant guru outside of Charles Washington of the ZIOH forum (which was rather moribund the last I saw) still advocate true ZC? The guru who got it going on the Internet and inspired the ZIOH forum, Bear Stanley, is dead and not very well known, so it doesn't seem likely that people are still getting the idea from him.

The one bright side of raw ZC is that there are reportedly some carbs in fresh, frozen and fermented raw meats (see http://freetheanimal.com/2014/03/disrupting-carbs-prebiotics.html (http://freetheanimal.com/2014/03/disrupting-carbs-prebiotics.html)), so "raw ZC" is technically an oxymoron and truly ZC is actually anti-raw (to get truly ZC you would have to cook everything or at least thoroughly age all raw meats without allowing them to ferment at all, if that's even possible). Unfortunately, based on the negative experiences I've seen reported and experienced from even raw ZC, it doesn't seem like rawness fully offsets the negatives of ZC.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: van on May 22, 2014, 11:17:27 am: Phil I think you're missing the point here. I don't think most of the members here care about Charles or the Bear, or even Lex for that matter as some kind of guru. What they are interested in is asking the question and experimenting with keeping carbs at a minimum and testing what healing happens within. At least this has been my agenda, of which I can report great results, and have none of the disastrous outcomes you tend to site over and over. Now granted this maybe totally because I eat seaweed on a regular basis and garlic and a few other prebiotics and have been for many many years,, even when I was on a high fruit diet. And I don't 'insist' upon my body to be able to 'handle' honey or fruit or any other form of sugar, nor am I interested in how to convert my body somehow to be able to eat sugar. I simply keep low low carbs and add non sugar foods as desired. So, can we agree to give up the hype about ZC and simply call it low, or low low carb and not worry about what Charles does or doesn't do? Then I think it would be more helpful to share what additional foods help out either with a healthy gut, or mineral balance or anything else one finds and wants to share.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: eveheart on May 22, 2014, 11:49:14 am: Quote from: PaleoPhil on May 22, 2014, 10:38:05 am
If it's "Not literally zero carb," then why call it zero carb? For most people in the world, zero still means zero. Why not just call it "Carnivorous"?

Chronic truly zero carb (as in zero or as close to zero as possible) really is a myth-based approach that has no precedent in all of human history and is thus a novel experiment which makes guinea pigs of human beings. No one can say for sure that they know that chronic ZC is safe for anyone in the long run because it's never been tried before by any human society. To pretend otherwise is unconscionable.

Where are people still getting the idea to do "ZC"?

There has been speculation about a name. Since there are people who eat Carnivorous/Zero Carb Approach, I don't think that forum needs a new name.

How about another forum in the Raw Paleo Diet To Suit You section? Call it Low-Carb Approach.

There is already an Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet: Animal products with some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix. The topics on that thread do not reflect the idea of "some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix."

"Some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix" sounds more like a Low-Carb Approach, but honestly, only some of us can source "non-domesticated" wild fruits."
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 22, 2014, 11:58:04 am: Quote from: van on May 22, 2014, 11:17:27 am
Now granted this maybe totally because I eat seaweed on a regular basis and garlic and a few other prebiotics and have been for many many years,, even when I was on a high fruit diet.
Thanks for sharing this. I do indeed suspect that the carby foods that you, Inger and Lex eat (Lex's pet food mix that contains carb-containing raw organs is another example) may help explain why you folks seem to have fared better than most people who have tried diets that were closer to truly "ZC." Even with your diets, there may be risks. Lex's results have been less than 100% positive, for example, and no one knows what will happen in the longer term, as there is no historical precedent for even Lex's approach that contains some carbs. The evidence I pointed to before indicates that even the Eskimos ate more carbs than had previously been assumed.

Quote from: van on May 22, 2014, 11:17:27 am
Phil I think you're missing the point here. I don't think most of the members here care about Charles or the Bear, or even Lex for that matter as some kind of guru.
I didn't say they did. I asked where people are getting the notion from to do ZC, and I'm particularly interested in hearing from the newer folks who haven't already shared why they're doing it/tried it. If it wasn't from Lex or Charles or the Bear, then where did they get it from, especially given all the information that's been coming out that contradicts the notion of ZC? It seems like there's more scientific evidence contradicting ZC and more reports from ex-ZCers and ex-VLCers who reported improving when they added carbs or prebiotics coming out on the Internet nearly every day now. I've only shared a fraction of it and I wouldn't have time to gather, compile and share it all. Of course, most of it involves people cooking most of their animal foods, which is the worst sort of ZC that I doubt you'd be much interested in anyway.

Also, like it or not, diet gurus do tend to be influential. Ironically, another LC guru, Dr. Rosedale, was mentioned in this very thread multiple times, including by you. Interestingly, my understanding is that even he recommends 20% of calories as carbs, which is only 5 points below Paul Jaminet's recommended avg intake and Paul Jaminet was ruthlessly criticized in LC forums as being too pro carbs (especially too pro starches)!!! l) Doesn't it seem strange that so many people got so riled up when there was just a 5 point difference?

Quote
Now granted this maybe totally because I eat seaweed on a regular basis and garlic and a few other prebiotics and have been for many many years,, even when I was on a high fruit diet.
There's another example. Seaweed is forbidden on ZC, as kelp is reported as 79% of calories as carbs: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2617/2 (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2617/2) So why defend ZC at all or take umbrage when people write less than thrilling results from it or critiques about it, given that you yourself are eating carby food? It's strange to see people who would be ridiculed on the ZIOH forum defending ZC or taking issue with critical posts about it.

Doesn't it make sense to remove ZC from the subforum title (or alternatively, to remove the contradiction from the subtitle, I suppose, if it's at least to be consistent)?

Quote
And I don't 'insist' upon my body to be able to 'handle' honey or fruit or any other form of sugar, nor am I interested in how to convert my body somehow to be able to eat sugar.
Where did anyone 'insist' that you do anything or talk about insisting that your body do something it's not ready for?

Quote
So, can we agree to give up the hype about ZC and simply call it low, or low low carb
Of course, that's what I've been asking for quite a long time, and I suggested that the "ZC" be taken out of the forum title, which was dismissed without a good explanation for the contradiction in the subtitle.

Quote
and not worry about what Charles does or doesn't do?
Huh? I said his forum is moribund. What are you talking about? All I asked is where people are getting this strange idea to do ZC. I thought Francois' question about where people are getting the notion to try a frankly bizarre and extreme dietary approach was a good one. And I'm also curious as to why some folks keep writing about doing ZC, or taking umbrage with critical posts about it, and then say that they're eating foods that contain carbs, like berries, seaweed, etc.? It's rather confusing, and it's strange to see some people still writing positively about it and some still claiming to follow this risky approach that hasn't been tested over the long run by any human society when it seems to be dying a well deserved death, though there will likely be stubborn holdouts for a long time to come, just as there are with the most extreme vegan diets.

Quote from: eveheart on May 22, 2014, 11:49:14 am
Call it Low-Carb Approach
That sounds like another good idea, and since the subtitle says it's not literally ZC, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with removing the "ZC" contradiction from the title. Either low carb or carnivorous seems fine to me. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal to make that small change and it's strange how negative the response was about it in the past.

Quote
There is already an Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet: Animal products with some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix. The topics on that thread do not reflect the idea of "some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix."
Yeah, and it's strange to see those foods discussed in diets that are referred to as "ZC" or in the context of ZC.

Quote
"Some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix" sounds more like a Low-Carb Approach, but honestly, only some of us can source "non-domesticated" wild fruits."
Yeah, that's another oddity in the titles that I noticed before. It makes it sound like there's no room for higher carb approaches in even the omnivorous section. However, given the uproar that suggesting a more consistent Carnivorous section title caused, I figured it was hopeless to request that title be also improved into one that makes more sense.

Quote from: alive on May 21, 2014, 08:42:51 pm
It seems that quite often there are people saying that eating zero carbs initially provided benefits, but over time 'ruined' their health.
If the moderators keep moving the evidence of these issues to a place where they won't be noticed then how are newbies looking at ZC to know ?
Indeed, and based on aem42290's feedback, it seems like more warnings about ZC are needed, rather than less:

Quote from: aem42290 on May 22, 2014, 04:05:18 am
I would have benefited greatly from reading critical topics when I first learned of ZC from these forums. I certainly didn't think to look in "Hot topics."
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: van on May 22, 2014, 02:02:01 pm: In short, I'm not interested in the ongoing debates. I am interested in learning from my body what happens when I don't spike insulin and what happens from maintaining fat as a primary fuel for my body, not sugar. When I used the word 'insist' I was referring to you and your attempts at eating any form of carbs and believing you needed to find a way to eat them. I should have been more direct. I also think some get misguided when they are able to put on weight with carbs (believing that they are too thin) and thus are pleased and then believe that those carbs are beneficial. Now if the majority of that added gained weight is muscle, I might agree with them. Or if they were able to keep the weight on without continual insulin spikes and didn't reduce their ability to efficiently use fat as fuel, again, all the better. But, I think we believe what suits us in the moment. So again, can we add information to this section that aids those in gaining health while eating low enough in carbs to stay primarily in ketosis, or using fat as a primary fuel source.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Iguana on May 22, 2014, 03:26:09 pm: Quote from: Eric on May 20, 2014, 06:12:14 pm
From the standpoint of most of the moderators, the answer to this question is unfortunately "NO". It doesn't surprise me at all that this thread was banished to the 'Hot Topics' section, although I personally think it was fine in the ZC section.
Hi guys,

Moderators don’t always agree between them. Myself had made PaleoPhil warning thread
Zero Carb and VLC/Ketogenic - A Lethal Recipe for Disaster (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/zero-carb-and-vlcketogenic-a-lethal-recipe-for-disaster/) STICKY in the ‘Zero Carb’ section. Another mod undid that and moved it in the ‘Hot topics’ section.

I fully agree with Eric, aem42290, PaleoPhil and Alive. Above, PaleoPhil mentioned twice that a fundamental question I asked was never answered. That’s it, and this one is far from being the only fundamental question I asked which was never answered.

People don’t and won’t change their mind, whatever evidence and facts are mentioned. Discussions go into endless loops, beat dead horses. I’m tired of this. I’ve even been accused of being dogmatic :( I’ve had enough and don’t feel like regularly contributing anymore. GS, please remove me from the moderators’ list. Thank you.

François
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 22, 2014, 07:31:05 pm: Quote from: Iguana on May 22, 2014, 03:26:09 pm
Above, PaleoPhil mentioned twice that a fundamental question I asked was never answered. That’s it, and this one is far from being the only fundamental question I asked which was never answered.
And it still remains unanswered, as do my other [above] questions.

Instead all I got was a change of subject with mischaracterizations of what I've said and think, for which I used to have something to point to in my signature about let's each speak for ourselves, but I unfortunately deleted it not long ago to make room for a warning about the more serious risks and highly negative results of chronic VLC/ZC that I learned about. It figures that a need for it would arise soon after. ;D

Actions speak louder than words. Van, the fact that you don't eat ZC says much more about what you really think about it than your words. Given that we both include some carby and prebiotic foods in our diets, there seems to be more difference in rhetoric than in action. It's also good to see you cite Dr. Rosedale, who recommends 20% of calories as carbs. I think of VLC as being below that, roughly speaking. Perhaps there is more agreement than you first thought? As for differences, it does seem like Iguana is right that there are endless loops, so perhaps we can agree to disagree on them.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 22, 2014, 08:53:33 pm: Quote from: alive on May 21, 2014, 08:42:51 pm
It seems that quite often there are people saying that eating zero carbs initially provided benefits, but over time 'ruined' their health.
If the moderators keep moving the evidence of these issues to a place where they won't be noticed then how are newbies looking at ZC to know ?
If keeping the critical posts in the topic cannot be tolerated, then how about a sticky post providing some warning of this, plus a reminder that there is a lot of room to be low carb without being zero carb.
Some people have failed on RZC just as others have succeeded on RZC. Putting the more hostile posts in the hot topics forum prevents people from becoming unnecessarily scared when they first try this type of diet out. No need to put a warning message - after all, we don't put out warning messages for the primal diet forum either. Low carb really belongs in the raw omnivore diet forum, imo.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 22, 2014, 09:01:27 pm: What unanswered questions, Iguana and PP? As regards my stance re hot topics, we have to be fair to all dietary approaches. Since we do not include warning posts for the primal diet or the weston-price diet or whatever, there is no valid reason to put a warning post for RZC diets - especially when warning posts just hyterically attack a particular dietary approach in a biased way.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: van on May 22, 2014, 10:33:23 pm: Phil, I would like to see where Ron recommends 400 calories a day from carbs (given a two thousand calorie a day diet). Again, i'm not playing into the rhetoric, just interested in learning about gaining health while eating the minimum in carbs to stay in ketosis/fat burning mode. Can we just agree to keep it to that?
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 23, 2014, 06:12:42 am: Tyler, Iguana had asked some time ago something roughly along the lines of where people were still getting the notion to do ZC or that it is Paleo or makes any sense. I'll let him clarify and elaborate if needed, since it was his question.

Van, Here you go (I wrote "20%", not some number of grams, because that's how Dr. Rosedale put it):
"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person, 25 percent to 30 percent of calories from protein, and 60 percent to 65 percent from fat. You can get beef that is not grain-fed." - Ron Rosedale, M.D., Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects, Presented at Designs for Health Institute's BoulderFest, August 1999
Seminar, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/07/14/insulin-part-one.aspx (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/07/14/insulin-part-one.aspx)

Did you see Dr. Rosedale recommend a significantly different figure?

I hope you'll reciprocate and answer one or more of Iguana's or my questions, even if the answer is just "I don't know." Iguana asked his question a while ago, so he seems most deserving of an answer, though you're not ZC, so you may not know where people are getting the idea that true ZC (I doubt he was talking about seaweed or berries :) ) makes any sense, if anyone still thinks it does, but maybe you'll have some idea. It's strange that Iguana's question continues to be ignored as though he never asked it.

If no one still thinks that true ZC makes sense, then it would be interesting to learn where people first heard about it. I think I first heard about it from either Lex or the ZIOH ZC forum. While Lex isn't truly pure ZC, he occasionally referred to his diet that way, since his carbs were mainly limited to organs, and the ZIOH forum grudgingly accepted organs as OK in limited amounts on the diet (though several of the members tended to make fun of organs and Charles was rather negative about them and discouraged people from talking about them and Bear Stanley recommended not eating much of them, IIRC).
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: van on May 23, 2014, 06:43:39 am: thanks for the quote, would have guessed lower, especially when he described his diet over the phone to me. Might be a starting point for most,, I don't know. Four hundred calories would be like three baked potatoes, or four pieces of bread, or four apples.... Again, more than he described how he eats to me. But then again, I know he advocated eating lots of low carb vegetables, which wouldn't spike insulin like the aforementioned examples of what 400 calories would look like. Phil I see many articles on the news and else where about z or low carb diets used for all sorts of things. Cancer being one of them that ran across the main news headlines a couple of times. I've seen on it on talk shows ( or heard about or saw Utube clips,, I don't have a tv) Point is it may be more a mainstream occurrence than you're aware of.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 23, 2014, 08:33:25 am: Yes, it's quite strange that Paul Jaminet advocates 25% carbs and is pilloried by LC zealots, whereas Dr. Rosedale is a LC hero for advocating 20%. Go figure. What does this tell us about the level of dogma and guru-worship in dietary circles?

I have indeed seen lots of media stuff, but it hasn't been zero carb, just low carb or ketogenic. Outside of this forum and some ZC/LC forums, ZC is still largely regarded as insane. Dr. Kurt Harris called ZCers “the Hezbollah of low-carb," even when he was VLC and a Jimmy-Moore touted "low carb doctor" himself. It's ironic that only after the problems with excessively chronic ketogenic diets are becoming increasingly apparent that some of the media and various doctors and gurus like Perlmutter, Oz and Weil are now trying to cash in and jumping on the LC/keto/butter-loving bandwagon, not realizing that its wheels are starting to come off. ;D l)

Iguana is apparently in tune with this reality that ZC is regarded as insane outside the boundaries of this little forum, which would explain why he's so puzzled by the positive and defensive comments about ZC and near-ZC that still appear in the forum at times.

So, again, how did you first hear about ZC?
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: sabertooth on May 23, 2014, 09:12:18 am: Here is a question for the gallery... Is anyone here actually following a long term zero carb diet?

I personally eat a very low carb diet, and get around 30 to 50 carbs a day on average, mostly from greens, low glycemic vegetables, and coconut.

I believe that there is no such thing as a zero carb diet. Even predatory animals eat some carbs from organ meats. All the predatory fish eat some alga, and most land predators eat some foliage from time to time.

Aem- I think that in order to fully gain a wider perspective on the evolutionary history behind the ketogenic diet you must go back much further into our evolutionary past. Before we had evolved into herbivorous apes, our proto primate ancestors once lived as carnivorous insectivorian tree weasels. Perhaps even earlier before we crossed the mammalian threshold we evolved from small carnivorous lizards. There have been countless crossroads and backtracks on the road to Humanity. Anyway... my point is... that throughout the course of human evolution we have waxed and waned between carnivorous and herbivorian forms( on a spectrum, that was never static for very long). These dietary changes had nothing to do with the question of what dietary approach is optimal, instead it was primarily a question of "What changes must be made to survive when the optimal (homeostatic) diet is no longer available?"

From these past trials and tribulations, genetic lessons were learned, during countless lifetimes near starvation, and hanging on for dear life, continually living on the edge of oblivion. Through it all, The evolving DNA of Humanity has managed to pass onto our current genesis, the inherited genetic potentialities that makes us capable of readily adapting to extreme dietary changes( at least within a natural environment)

Most generalized anecdotal data regarding the ZC diet cannot be applied to any universal conclusion regarding the question of "what constitutes the optimal diet?", because researchers are incapable of fully measuring all the variables. For example the data regarding the amount of glucose the body can produce through glycogenesis varies greatly from individuals. I think 30 grams a day is the low end estimate, produced by those who have only recently attempted to adapt to zero carb diets. If you are properly adapted then it may be possible for the human liver to produce up to 200 grams of carbs a day, this would be more than enough to optimally supply our bodily requirements. Inuits have larger livers which allows them to do this, and perhaps many of our paleolithic mammoth hunting ancestors had such adaptions as well. I dont see having to grow larger livers as a sign that the diet isn't optimal, it is merely an epigenetic adaptive change which like the enlarging of the human mind, allowed for our species to survive.

Modern humans have grown larger pancreases which have the capacity to produce massive amounts of insulin in response to the high carb diet. Such adaptions should not be judged as positive or negative, they are merely expressions of the genes attempts to maintain homeostasis with a changing environment. When discussing the difficulty of adapting to low carb diets I think its important to take into into consideration that many modern people have descended from the "eaters of the Grain" and are high carb adapted. Many have lost some of their adaptiveness to extreme ZC, in order to cope with the metabolic bemoans of a high carb diet.

Perhaps a better understanding our these connections could lead us back toward a way of life that is more stable and balanced.... In the end, the results, very well depend upon the choices we make with the knowledge available as we live our lives.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: van on May 23, 2014, 11:27:18 am: Quote from: PaleoPhil on May 23, 2014, 08:33:25 am
Yes, it's quite strange that Paul Jaminet advocates 25% carbs and is pilloried by LC zealots, whereas Dr. Rosedale is a LC hero for advocating 20%. Go figure. What does this tell us about the level of dogma and guru-worship in dietary circles?

I have indeed seen lots of media stuff, but it hasn't been zero carb, just low carb or ketogenic. Outside of this forum and some ZC/LC forums, ZC is still largely regarded as insane. Dr. Kurt Harris called ZCers “the Hezbollah of low-carb," even when he was VLC and a Jimmy-Moore touted "low carb doctor" himself. It's ironic that only after the problems with excessively chronic ketogenic diets are becoming increasingly apparent that some of the media and various doctors and gurus like Perlmutter, Oz and Weil are now trying to cash in and jumping on the LC/keto/butter-loving bandwagon, not realizing that its wheels are starting to come off. ;D l)

Iguana is apparently in tune with this reality that ZC is regarded as insane outside the boundaries of this little forum, which would explain why he's so puzzled by the positive and defensive comments about ZC and near-ZC that still appear in the forum at times.

So, again, how did you first hear about ZC?
If you're asking me, I don't remember, it was probably 8-9 years ago. And, again, I'm not interested in all the gurus, but what works, and any science that backs it up. I don't know anyone in this forum that is promoting an actual ZC diet, so I'm still puzzled why you're so fastidious with proclamations about the danger of ZC. And again, there are several regular posters here that seemingly do just fine if not excel with going low carb. So why all the fuss? And again, can we please simply describe what foods work well for any of us while maintaining a low carb diet. That is what most likely will help the most with those interested in it, vs. all the repetitious fear posts.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 23, 2014, 02:26:42 pm: The fact is that there are plenty of people doing RZC, some of them not eating any raw plant foods at all. In fact, in the past, we were so dominated by pro-RZC advocates that I felt I had to stop them from overwhelming less popular dietary genres like raw omnivore by my refusing to allow the raw omnivore forum from being removed as it was claimed, at the time, to be "pointless since hardly anyone is raw omnivore any more". The point is that dietary genres come and go in terms of popularity plus, at any one time, some dietary genres are going to happen to include more vociferous supporters than others for a variety of reasons. Point is we cannot exclude one dietary path simply because a tiny handful of people here do not want it around.

As regards Iguana's points, RZC surely is palaeo since it lies within palaeo guidelines. It is also clear from the evidence that HGs in palaeo times would have been forced to go RZC for lengthy periods due to Ice-Age conditions and seasonal variation. Perhaps palaeo HGs did not eat RZC for their whole lives but that is beside the point - indeed not even proponents like The Bear have ever eaten RZC their whole lives, anyway.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: goodsamaritan on May 23, 2014, 02:28:26 pm: I remember the time when there were so many attacks against Instincto and they also wanted a pin on the Instincto section.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 23, 2014, 02:38:19 pm: Quote from: goodsamaritan on May 23, 2014, 02:28:26 pm
I remember the time when there were so many attacks against Instincto and they also wanted a pin on the Instincto section.

Yes, I remember. Same things were said about the Primal Diet and the Wai Diet forums at other times. But because we did not allow any of those forums to be banned or whatever, we have managed to offer people a wider range of rawpaleodiets to choose from.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Alive on May 23, 2014, 06:47:44 pm: Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach
Not literally zero carb but eating only from the animal kingdom: muscle meats, organs, and fat of sea, sky, and land animals alike -- the raw meat diet for humans. (Not literally eating only from the animal kingdom, also eating some low carb greens & berries, seaweed, and fungi if desired)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Iguana on May 23, 2014, 08:49:06 pm: GS and TD, I fully appreciate that you've always supported me and I warmly thank you for that.

There was just some little clashes between you, TD, and I lately buts that's no problem, it's normal than we can't always agree.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: edmon171 on May 25, 2014, 12:13:40 pm: I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of this thesis. Writing a post that is 10 miles long does not add to its validity. Right away three glaring problems strike me. There is no account for the glycerol that is released on fat breakdown being easily converted to glucose. There is no account for glycogen consumed in muscle and organ meats converting easily to glucose. There is no account for glucose being consumed directly in fresh blood. At best, gluconeogenesis is a temporary condition that is used to provide up to 100g of glucose per day until one is fully adapted to ketosis. If you overeat protein it will also kick in to enable the excess to be stored as fat. And 30g is high, if one is in deep ketosis that number should be more like 10-15. Even up to thirty should be covered no problem by a well balanced animal food diet that includes liver every day. If one is fasting, the ketosis will likely get to be deeper and the breakdown of ones own glycerol alone should cover the 10 no problem.

The short life span in carnivores is explained by the fact that their food and their competition is trying to kill them almost every time they eat. Eventually they get old and get gouged in a hunt or a fight and succumb to an infection or bleed-out. There is no need to complicate it any further than that.

I have been vlc for 20 years and zc/zpf for the last 5. Now with RZC I can see immediate improvements on my already near-perfect state. The only problems I've had were upon breaking the ketosis or going in and out too often. When I am strict for long enough to be fully adapted I can't even catch a cold.

I've never in my life indulged in fresh vegetation myself, but I don't see any reason not to include some fresh greens in your diet if you are into being bloated, having smelly gas, and large bowel movements being constantly rushed out of your bowels. If this process makes you healthier without affecting ketosis, then I am all for it. I find things get moving just fine if I am active.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on May 25, 2014, 02:18:15 pm: Quote from: edmon171 on May 25, 2014, 12:13:40 pm
I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of this thesis. Writing a post that is 10 miles long does not add to its validity.

At what moment did I state that the validity of my post is augmented by its length? A rather weak and unnecessarily confrontational point.

Quote
There is no account for the glycerol that is released on fat breakdown being easily converted to glucose.

You must have missed the section about the acetyl CoA cycle. Or perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that glycerol is converted into pyruvate, which later becomes acetyl CoA, and finally turns into glucose (viz. a highly complex and inefficient series of metabolic interactions)? Whatever the case, you failed to properly engage with what I have written.

By the way, I will stress that the generation of glucose from fatty acids is not easy work for the human body (as you make it seem.) A recent (2011) study explored the metabolic pathways involved in the generation of glucose from acetyl CoA. Their conclusion? "Analyzing the detected pathways in detail we found that their energetic requirements potentially limit their capacity." Activating the systems that concert fatty acids and glycerol involves inefficient metabolic structures that require fair amounts of labor on behalf of the liver.

Quote
There is no account for glycogen consumed in muscle and organ meats converting easily to glucose. There is no account for glucose being consumed directly in fresh blood.

Are you aware that the glycogen in most meats turns into lactic acid shortly after slaughter?

For a very simple and clear expression of this: http://sciencewa.net.au/topics/agriculture/item/1391-muscle-glycogen-related-to-meat-quality-post-slaughter.html/1391-muscle-glycogen-related-to-meat-quality-post-slaughter.html (http://sciencewa.net.au/topics/agriculture/item/1391-muscle-glycogen-related-to-meat-quality-post-slaughter.html/1391-muscle-glycogen-related-to-meat-quality-post-slaughter.html)

If you are still not convinced:
"During the post slaughter period the muscle cells are still capable of converting glycogen to lactic acid -
the process takes about 48 hours for completion (at refrigeration temperatures) - electrical stimulation of
carcasses speeds this process so as the reactions are complete by 24 hours" (Kastner et al. 1993).

Consider the fact that very few people (myself included) in industrial societies have access to a steady supply of freshly gathered meat. Therefore, unless one is consuming an animal immediately upon securing the kill, glycogen in muscle tissue rapidly degenerates into lactic acid, and your point about deriving glucose from muscle tissue is rendered wholly moot.

Quote
There is no account for glucose being consumed directly in fresh blood.

Ah, I've heard this one before. To frame the question in a familiar context: Do you know how much sugar is in the blood of a a typical human's body? About 82 mg/dl to 110 mg/dl (4.4 to 6.1 mmol/l) following the successful digestion of a meal. Other mammals aren't too far off from these numbers. This means that an adult human male with about 5 liters of blood at 100mg/dl will have a measly 5g of glucose in their blood at most moments throughout the day. 5 grams of glucose is very little, even on a ZC diet. So, If you were to drink a whole 5 liters of mammalian blood, you'd get 5g or so of glucose. Quite a trivial source of glucose, considering how difficult raw blood is to obtain for most ZCers.

Quote
At best, gluconeogenesis is a temporary condition that is used to provide up to 100g of glucose per day until one is fully adapted to ketosis.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate this claim? Unless you are asserting that the human brain can run on ketones exclusively, your statement is completely inaccurate. Gluconeogenesis is not a "temporary" phase for ZC dieters; it is a constant process that must be accounted for within a metabolic environment that is forced to meet the needs of a glucose-dependent organ (the brain.) So far, studies demonstrate that the brain, even when fully keto-adapted, requires 30-50g of glucose to function properly.

Albeit misconstrued, your argument regarding glycerol does not get away from the fact that the conversion of fatty acids to glucose is an energy intensive process in relation to the absorption of sugars from carbohydrates. In the context of my piece, optimization is related directly to metabolic efficiency at numerous levels. I am not arguing against a LC diet (so long as LC provides at least 30g glucose per day.) I am decrying the naive and historically unnatural pursuit of a long-term, completely ZC diet (carried out in industrial settings) that ignores all plant foods for the sake of trendiness, ignorance, or unreflexivity.

Quote
The short life span in carnivores is explained by the fact that their food and their competition is trying to kill them almost every time they eat. Eventually they get old and get gouged in a hunt or a fight and succumb to an infection or bleed-out. There is no need to complicate it any further than that.

I'll write a response to this later.

As an afterthought, before you approach this thread with such a dismissive disposition, I would urge you to seriously research the processes that you are narrowly describing. To be frank, I am glad that ZC is working for you. As Francois (Iguana) once said on these forums: we (the imagined human species) are honored to have you as an experimenter in the name of superior health. Thank you for subjecting yourself to the conditions of a dietary plan that very few humans in the history of our planet have exposed themselves to. If things continue to go well for you, then so be it. If matters take a turn for the worse, then consider taking into account some of the points that I have made.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: edmon171 on May 25, 2014, 06:49:48 pm: Thank you for this response. I do appreciate that you have done some research regarding this. If my earlier post seemed a bit agressive, it was. Just as your post was very condescending towards the zc camp. I just felt that several important concepts were overlooked to make an argument seem more plausible and that you were making the offense of assuming causality when there is only correlation with things such as lifespan and other points. I suppose the purpose of a thesis is to make an assumption, but there are just so many here. The concept of preferring pathways for their lack of energy requirement alone is not relevant in today's society with plentiful food available. I would be more concerned with whether they are doing damage along the way or not.

Yes I am aware of muscle glycogen converting with rigormortis, I mentioned it as it applies to eating freshly killed meat and the contribution is small when compared to eating liver, the glycogen of which remains in tact.

I'd like to continue this debate if you would indulge me, though in a more gentlemanly manner. I must say its been a while since I have researched any of this and its possible that there is new knowledge out there. This is one of those things where you can't just take any study and run with it because there are vested interests that like to fudge numbers and mislead people when health is at stake.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: goodsamaritan on May 25, 2014, 08:26:47 pm: Quote from: edmon171 on May 25, 2014, 06:49:48 pm
Thank you for this response. I do appreciate that you have done some research regarding this. If my earlier post seemed a bit agressive, it was. Just as your post was very condescending towards the zc camp. I just felt that several important concepts were overlooked to make an argument seem more plausible and that you were making the offense of assuming causality when there is only correlation with things such as lifespan and other points. I suppose the purpose of a thesis is to make an assumption, but there are just so many here. The concept of preferring pathways for their lack of energy requirement alone is not relevant in today's society with plentiful food available. I would be more concerned with whether they are doing damage along the way or not.

Yes I am aware of muscle glycogen converting with rigormortis, I mentioned it as it applies to eating freshly killed meat and the contribution is small when compared to eating liver, the glycogen of which remains in tact.

I'd like to continue this debate if you would indulge me, though in a more gentlemanly manner. I must say its been a while since I have researched any of this and its possible that there is new knowledge out there. This is one of those things where you can't just take any study and run with it because there are vested interests that like to fudge numbers and mislead people when health is at stake.

I'm glad a pro ZC practitioner stood up to be counted.
Of course we would like to hear more from you.
We all learn from one another.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: van on May 25, 2014, 11:32:55 pm: I agree with GS, this is good stuff. Years ago I read enough to follow research of this kind. But not having a biological/medical background, I found at most, that after reading a journal piece that I would be heavily influenced to believe what I had just read, and that I had little foundation of knowledge to test what was being presented. So please, let the discussion begin,with the hopes that both of you can agree to red flag literature that may be suspicious of bias. And thanks now for your time involved to research and post.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: sabertooth on May 26, 2014, 06:14:23 am: Edmon

I would also like to hear more details about someone who has been low carb to ZC for 20 years. You seem to be very articulate and your experience would be helpful to many others like myself who are on a very low carb diet.

There may be circumstances which allows some one to be better suited to such a diet than others.

For starters I would like to know
What is your genetic heritage?
What kind of diet did your ancestors live on?
What kind of food where you raised on growing up?

All this things and many more could affect ones ability to adapt to a ZC diet?
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 26, 2014, 06:59:50 am: I agree with GS, Van and Sabertooth--interesting thread! I appreciate the effort that aem42290 and others have put into it. I hope no one minds my lengthy response; there is so much to respond to from Sabertooth, Van, Tyler and Edmon171.

Quote from: sabertooth on May 23, 2014, 09:12:18 am
I believe that there is no such thing as a zero carb diet. Even predatory animals eat some carbs from organ meats.
Bingo! Excellent post, Sabertooth. And when meats are fresh and eaten raw, or raw fermented, or fresh-frozen, one can get some carbs from the meat, blood, connective tissues (skin, ligaments and tendons) and even blubber as well:

Quote
"Eskimos actually consume more carbohydrates than most nutritionists have assumed. Because Eskimos frequently eat their meat raw and frozen, they take in more glycogen than a person purchasing meat with a lower glycogen content in a grocery store. The Eskimo practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment into carbohydrates."

From: Principles and Issues in Nutrition, Yiu H. Hui, Ph. D., 1985, p. 91, http://books.google.com/books?id=ospqAAAAMAAJ (http://books.google.com/books?id=ospqAAAAMAAJ)
See also:
http://freetheanimal.com/2014/03/disrupting-carbs-prebiotics.html (http://freetheanimal.com/2014/03/disrupting-carbs-prebiotics.html)
http://caloriesproper.com/?p=4488 (http://caloriesproper.com/?p=4488)

Unfortunately, the carbs and prebiotics get more depleted in the modern food system, so aem42290's point about getting some carbs from other sources when freshly-killed meat is not a significant part of the diet makes sense. Maybe the fact that you raise, butcher and eat fresh some of your meat and eat all of it raw is one reason you seem to have fared better than some other carnivore dieters, especially the cooked carnivores.

Quote
Aem- I think that in order to fully gain a wider perspective on the evolutionary history behind the ketogenic diet you must go back much further into our evolutionary past. Before we had evolved into herbivorous apes, our proto primate ancestors once lived as carnivorous insectivorian tree weasels.
In addition to insects, the shrew-like and lemur-like ancestors of the first primitive primates (called Plesiadapiforms), are believed to have also consumed fruits and fermented tree nectars and saps:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/07/29/tiny-tree-shrews-live-on-alcohol-but-never-get-drunk/#.U36mQvk7ttg (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/07/29/tiny-tree-shrews-live-on-alcohol-but-never-get-drunk/#.U36mQvk7ttg)
http://www.livescience.com/7540-tree-shrew-sober-drinking-day.html (http://www.livescience.com/7540-tree-shrew-sober-drinking-day.html)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/animals-like-to-get-drunk (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/animals-like-to-get-drunk)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070201-primates.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070201-primates.html)

---

Quote
how did you first hear about ZC?
Quote from: van on May 23, 2014, 11:27:18 am
If you're asking me, I don't remember, it was probably 8-9 years ago.
OK, so we have an unknown source along with Bear Stanley and Charles Washington as the sources of the ZC notions. Stanley and Washington were influenced by Vilhjalmur Stefansson. Stefansson didn't tell people to eat truly ZC (it would have greatly hindered the popularity of his diet, for one thing), but he is the most cited source of evidence by them. Does anyone know of any other sources? I'd be especially interested in any scientific ones.

Given that Dr. Rosedale recommends 20% carbs, we know the ZC diet doesn't come from him. I suspect that some people assume he recommends lower than 20% carbs, which may help explain some of the confusion around ZC and VLC topics.

Quote
And, again, I'm not interested in all the gurus, but what works, and any science that backs it up.
I'm interested in the science too, so if you have any science re: ZC, please do share it. I hope you'll appreciate that I shared some science articles above.

You seem to appreciate at least one guru--Dr. Rosedale--and I also don't mind discussing his views and info. I told him before that I liked how he debated Paul Jaminet in a civil and scientific manner, unlike so many who railed against Jaminet.

Quote
I don't know anyone in this forum that is promoting an actual ZC diet,
It did seem like it had come to that until edmon171 spoke up. I welcome his input.

Quote
so I'm still puzzled why you're so fastidious with proclamations about the danger of ZC.
My posts were aimed not to anyone who doesn't think warnings are necessary or are not interested in the topic, but to folks like aem42290 and anyone else who is. Edmon171 also doesn't seem to mind the discussion. It wouldn't be much of a discussion if we were only allowed to hear from defenders of ZC, would it?

Quote
And again, there are several regular posters here that seemingly do just fine if not excel with going low carb.
Are you aware that my diet is LC? If not, it might help explain why you interpreted some of my posts in ways that were not intended.

Quote
And again, can we please simply describe what foods work well for any of us while maintaining a low carb diet. That is what most likely will help the most with those interested in it, vs. all the repetitious fear posts.
If that's what you wish to discuss, why not make a thread with that topic? I think there's room for both discussions and don't believe in silencing dissent from folks like aem42290, and I like what Iguana, Eric, Alive and Sabertooth contributed to the discussion and don't consider it all "repetitious fear posts". I also welcome the perspective of you, edmon171, Inger and others.

---

Quote from: TylerDurden on May 23, 2014, 02:26:42 pm
The fact is that there are plenty of people doing RZC, some of them not eating any raw plant foods at all.
We have heard from one. Like GS, I'm glad he spoke up and I'd be interested in hearing from others.

Quote
In fact, in the past, we were so dominated by pro-RZC advocates that I felt I had to stop them from overwhelming less popular dietary genres like raw omnivore by my refusing to allow the raw omnivore forum from being removed as it was claimed, at the time, to be "pointless since hardly anyone is raw omnivore any more".
Interesting. Thanks for your efforts.

Quote
Point is we cannot exclude one dietary path simply because a tiny handful of people here do not want it around.
I'm certainly not calling for the "banning" of the Carnivore subforum and don't want it to be banned. Like GS, I want to share and learn. I do agree with aem42290, Eric, Alive and Iguana that all civil perspectives should be allowed in all subforums, including dissent. That's the opposite of a ban.

---

Quote from: edmon171 on May 25, 2014, 12:13:40 pm
Quote from: edmon171 on May 25, 2014, 12:13:40 pm
There is no account for the glycerol that is released on fat breakdown being easily converted to glucose. There is no account for glycogen consumed in muscle and organ meats converting easily to glucose.
So you agree with Sabertooth, aem42290 and me that fresh raw animal carcasses obtained by Paleo HG's were not truly zero carb?

Quote from: edmon171 on May 25, 2014, 12:13:40 pm
I've never in my life indulged in fresh vegetation myself
I too am interested in your input. Do you mean you've never eaten any fresh veggies for your entire life? What about non-fresh?

What's your take on these "carnivore diet" rules of Bear Stanley?

> "2) Eat nothing from the vegetable world whatsoever. (Very small amounts of flavourings such as garlic/chillies/spices/herbs which may be added, are not ‘food’)."

> "5) Eat liver and brains only very infrequently- they are full of carbs." [This appears to be the source of using the term "zero carb" instead of carnivore.]

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/raw-paleolithic-diet-for-humans/msg7678/#msg7678 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/raw-paleolithic-diet-for-humans/msg7678/#msg7678)

Interesting to see how Tyler responded to the article back then:
Quote from: TylerDurden on November 26, 2008, 07:38:53 pm
Nicola, could you PLEASE only post these absurd articles in the Hot Topics forum where they belong?! I'll move them there now.
What would you guess was the % of calories as carbs in the diets of coastal northern Alaska Eskimos in the early 1970's, while they were still getting most of their food from hunting/fishing and before they moved into villages and started eating much more modern foods?
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: van on May 26, 2014, 07:33:08 am: I think we all can agree there's really no ZERO carb diet. But rather diets that vary in the amount of carbs eaten along with varying amounts of fat and protein. How about moving on from this endless debate about ZERO carb and focus on what effects various levels of low carb have,, whether it be carb or 100 carb.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 26, 2014, 08:24:43 am: Quote from: van on May 26, 2014, 07:33:08 am
I think we all can agree there's really no ZERO carb diet.
I hope so, and I hope that no one will use the term RZC or ZC to describe a RVLC diet they're following/promoting in the future. Let's leave that term to the coctivores at the ZIOH forum who seem to be the only ones really aiming for as close to ZC as they can get.

Quote
But rather diets that vary in the amount of carbs eaten along with varying amounts of fat and protein. How about moving on from this endless debate about ZERO carb and focus on what effects various levels of low carb have,, whether it be carb or 100 carb.
Go ahead, shoot. What do you think the right intake of carbs is for you or in general, if any, and why?

What do you think about Dr. Rosedale's 20% recommendation? Coincidentally, I use his 20% figure as a rough cut-off for defining VLC (roughly below that), but am open to other suggestions on that. Interestingly, 20% is also the minimum that Paul Jaminet recommends, and it's also roughly equal to the 100 grams of carbs that Mark Sisson has as the lower limit of "effortless weight maintenance" on his "Carb Curve" (assuming a 2000 calorie diet and ignoring the effects of prebiotics and other factors) so they actually appear to agree on that. Often the actual numbers show less difference than the rhetoric and debates would suggest. I don't measure my carb intake that specifically myself (beyond a rough idea of what foods I need to eat for me to avoid torpor and other issues and to improve and maintain my metabolism, glucose tolerance and overall health), but am interested in your take on it.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: sabertooth on May 26, 2014, 09:18:37 am: It would make these discussions easier if we could agree on the definition of the concept of ZC and low carb.

Perhaps we should vote on creating a sliding scale to classify the divergent versions of low carb dieting.

Low carb = 20% to 30% of caloric intake

Very low carbs= 10% to 20% of caloric intake

Zero carbs= Under 10% of caloric intake

Then perhaps a sub group of ZC to distinguish between carnivores who get some carbs from organs, and others who eat a minimal amount of low carb prebiotic veggies.

Personally I move between categories. Sometime I will eat very close to ZC and will feel fine for a while, until I start getting signs of low blood sugar. Othertimes I will eat more carbs and will feel great for a few days, until I reach a point where the plant fiber and carbs interfere with fat digestion and I begin to feel a carb overload. I try to maintain a balance at around 10% of total calories from carbs.

These are rough numbers and I have no idea of the exact numbers, and do not try to limit my diet based on numbers. Instead I regulate what I eat instinctively. My cravings let me know what I need to eat and when. If I feel that I ate to much protein during my last meal I will eat more fat with the next.

There is a feeling of low blood sugar I get around the second day without any carbs, when this occurs I well eat a small salad with mixed greens or drink a couple of raw eggs with lemon water and will feel instantly refreshed.

Carbs will often increase my appetite and I will gorge, afterward I wont eat again for a full day.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: jessica on May 26, 2014, 10:37:36 am: Why would you agree to define a standard for something that includes a term (zero carb) that was jua determined not to exist. Just use a specific percentile for each case and realize you can't standardize something as individual and dynamic as diet.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: eveheart on May 26, 2014, 11:57:12 am: For me, knowing the percentage of carbohydrates that I eat has no benefit. My goal with low carb has been to control inflammation, insulin secretion and blood sugar levels. What I have learned about restricting my own carbohydrate intake are details like how much protein is too much and what symptoms signal too much carbohydrates. At first, I paid attention to protein and carbohydrate grams per meal, but it didn't take long to play it by feel.

The topic of this thread, "Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health," may be a truth for people who are not sick to begin with, but I don't have great health, and low-carb has given me a tool to bring my health closer to normal.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 26, 2014, 03:07:28 pm: Quote from: PaleoPhil on May 26, 2014, 06:59:50 am
I'm certainly not calling for the "banning" of the Carnivore subforum and don't want it to be banned. Like GS, I want to share and learn. I do agree with aem42290, Eric, Alive and Iguana that all civil perspectives should be allowed in all subforums, including dissent. That's the opposite of a ban.
On the contrary, you were insisting that hysterical, science-free, dubious "warning" threads should be put in the RZC forum, but did not insist on other forums being so afflicted. That is almost as bad as banning a particular dietary path.

Quote
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/raw-paleolithic-diet-for-humans/msg7678/#msg7678 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/raw-paleolithic-diet-for-humans/msg7678/#msg7678)

Interesting to see how Tyler responded to the article back then:

I had a damned good reason for making that post. Nicola, another one of our orthorexics, had been constantly posting anti-raw topics in unrelated threads, thus distracting readers from the main subject-line. Also, most of her posts involved subjects we had already extensively discussed and debunked ages before, so, for her to bring them up all over again despite them being exposed as flawed, was foolish.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 27, 2014, 01:51:17 am: Sabertooth, You could try to convince others to redefine ZC as eating anything for up to 10% carbs, instead of Bear Stanley's definition, but I doubt it would be worth the headache. I suspect that Van's right that we're better off just avoiding the term ZC, rather than debating on a new definition. Besides, the VLC category normally includes ZC within it, so there's no necessity to use ZC. What carbs do you eat?

I Googled to see what the current most popular definitions of low carb and any other related terms are and found the usual disagreement. Interestingly, prominent Atkins/LC people agreed to define low carb as starting at 10% carbs and call below that "LC ketogenic" instead of VLC. They define the categories lower than most people, though. Here's a summary of what they agreed upon:
Quote
Organizing a virtual who’s who of low-carb diet research and practice, a review article published in the journal Nutrition and Metabolism last year attempted to come to a consensus on what constitutes a low-carb diet. You may recognize a few of the names featured on the expert panel shaping this definition: Dr. Richard Bernstein, Dr. Annika Dahlqvist, Dr. Richard Feinman, Uffe Ravnskov, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Eric Westman, Dr. Jay Wortman and Dr. Mary Vernon, among many others.

...we have three distinct and practical terms and definitions to use now:

Low-carb ketogenic diet (LCKD): less than 50g carbs and 10% calories daily
Low-carb diet (LCD): 50-130g carbs daily and between 10-26% of calories
Moderate-carb diet (MCD): 130-225g carbs daily and between 26-45% of calories

Source:
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/what-is-a-low-carb-diet-researchers-have-now-defined-it/6648 (http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/what-is-a-low-carb-diet-researchers-have-now-defined-it/6648)

The cited journal article: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/9 (http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/9)
I wouldn't want to get into a debate over which figures to use. I do think it's helpful to see what others are using to give me a rough idea of what people mean.

Tyler, I didn't insist that science-free warning threads be put in the raw carnivore/ZC forum and actually don't think that's necessary or a good idea. I just think that posts with negative experiences and information should be allowed in that section. That's what I meant about warnings--allowing differing/critical posts, which would serve as warnings about potential risks for people to make their own judgments on--not an official sticky thread.

Even aem42290 didn't insist on a warning sticky. He just suggested it as one option: "either move this post back to the ZC section, or add in a warning sticky to the ZC section directly that addresses nuanced critiques of the diet." I like the first option better.

Also, "almost as bad as banning" does not equal "banning" in anything but double-speak. Thanks for acknowledging that I didn't call for a ban.

Re: your response to Nicola, I just remembered you being less positive about ZC in the past and reporting poor results from it by you and many others and then noticed that post of yours taking issue with Bear Stanley's ZC article, which did fit with my memory on this. I seem to recall you arguing in the past that humans are obviously omnivores.

Iguana even recently found one of your past negative posts about ZC:
Quote from: TylerDurden on May 24, 2009, 04:43:43 am
]I just thought I'd do an experiment with various raw spices. Part of the problem I have, currently, is that while there are many raw animal food restaurants in London(ie Japanese Sashimi restaurants), it's more difficult to be raw when eating indoors. Being able to eat raw salads and occasionally using spices means I'm more used to eating like others. For example, using raw spices can help me overcome some of the disgusting taste of various cooked foods.

As regards plants, I have had enough personal experience that makes it clear that raw plants, especially fruits, are essential for optimum human health, albeit in small quantities. No plant-food whatsoever in the diet, at best greatly reduces physical performance, and, for many people such as myself, it causes very terminal health-problems in the long run.
That's actually slightly more negative about no-plant-food diets than I am even now (though only in the technical sense that if one had access to plentiful freshly-killed raw flesh richer in carbs and prebiotics than market foods, maybe especially from deep-diving sea mammals, it might be possible to fare rather well in the long run, but even that probably wouldn't be optimal and most of us don't have that access). Ironically, at the time I thought your warnings were a bit hysterical and I even followed with some questioning posts, but now I think they were largely on target and not really that excessive. I have since learned about many more people's negative experiences with ZC and near-ZC and some of them were very seriously bad indeed. No doubt you had seen many more such cases than I had at the time. I was even going to commend you for this a while back, but coincidentally right at that time you started writing more positively about ZC for some reason. Have you changed your mind and, if so, why?

If you still agree with your statement, do you mind if I put the part I bolded in my signature? It's actually rather good.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: sabertooth on May 27, 2014, 02:25:05 am: Quote from: eveheart on May 26, 2014, 11:57:12 am

The topic of this thread, "Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health," may be a truth for people who are not sick to begin with, but I don't have great health, and low-carb has given me a tool to bring my health closer to normal.

That's a good point to make, seriously how many people in perfect health will decide that they want to begin a zero carb diet in order to obtain even better health? Is there anyone out there?

Low carb and zero carb are tools that people with health problems can use to recover from serious imbalances and other metabolic disorders. The bear was diabetic and went ZC to regulate blood sugar. I had similar issues with blood sugar that resolved on a vlc diet. People with seizure disorders often can be cured on a ketogenic diet. For many people who's health is somehow damaged these low carb diets by switching the bodies main fuel source from carbs to fat is capable of triggering a rejuvenate healing responce at the cellular level. Perhaps for people who are not sick but just not feeling optimal, it may also hold some promise of health benefit.... Another point is..... for people who are already optimally adapted to a carb rich diet, VLC or ZC may not be the optimal diet.

In the end what is optimal is unique to the individual.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 27, 2014, 02:32:32 am: Sabertooth, I think you said in the past that you eat Artisana coconut butter, which contains a bit of carbs. Do you eat any other plant foods that contain carbs?

Seizure disorders like epilepsy are indeed a popular use for VLC/ketogenic diets. Neurological disorders seem to benefit the most. Aren't those diets usually temporary, though, rather than long-term chronic? I found this:

Quote
Commonly, at around two years on the diet, or after six months of being seizure-free, the diet may be gradually discontinued over two or three months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Discontinuation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Discontinuation)
Interestingly, two years is around the time it seems like that ZCers/near-ZCers tend to start to reporting problems and reintroducing carbs or prebiotics (and some last longer, of course). What is the record # of years in a row for someone doing ZC or near-ZC containing no plants at all?
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: sabertooth on May 27, 2014, 03:06:23 am: Quote from: PaleoPhil on May 27, 2014, 02:32:32 am
Sabertooth, I think you said in the past that you eat Artisana coconut butter, which contains a bit of carbs. Do you eat any other plant foods that contain carbs?

I'm real finicky about what carb food I consume. I will eat salad greens of different type, and have been using some herbs and spices for flavor . I will eat tomatoes and avocados. Drink lemon water every now and then.

Recently Ive expanded to include some carbs outside of the raw paleo approved. I will use some vegtables like marinated artichoke or olives to top off a salad. Occasionally I will use some pine nuts. Green onions and other veggies I will use in very small amounts.

This is not raw paleo but me and my girlfriend have been drinking chaga fairly heavily for the last few months, Its a tea made up of a fungus that lives on birch trees. I will grind it whole and infuse it with water and brew in a crock pot. A few of our far out Friends were raving about its properties and there may be some merit to its benefits, but since it isn't raw paleo I hadn't brought it up yet. Its suppose to contain high levels of melanin which is utilized by the body to do a number of things such as nourish the pituitary gland, and mitigate damage caused by radiation. The fibrous component contains poly saccharides which may have beneficial perbiotic qualities.

Quote from: PaleoPhil on May 27, 2014, 02:32:32 am

Seizure disorders like epilepsy are indeed a popular use for VLC/ketogenic diets. Neurological disorders seem to benefit the most. Aren't those diets usually temporary, though, rather than long-term chronic? I found this:
Interestingly, two years is around the time it seems like that ZCers/near-ZCers tend to start to reporting problems and reintroducing carbs or prebiotics (and some last longer, of course). What is the record # of years in a row for someone doing ZC or near-ZC containing no plants at all?

I believe that ketogenic diets actually can repare the neurological damage responsible for seizures and the diet can be stopped once healed?

I began Raw paleo on a low carb diet for the first year, then went to near zc for around a year and a half, then I did start to notice issues like low energy and decreased hunger, which lead me to reintroduce some carbs and for the last two years I am on roughly 30 to 50 grams of carbs per day. I still fluctuate between LC and ZC based on cravings. Sometimes I wont eat any vegetable carbs for a week and other times I will eat a salad every night.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: edmon171 on May 27, 2014, 03:10:18 pm: What about fasting? Humans are known to be extremely well adapted to long periods of famine. The ketosis that goes along with this is a zero carb ketosis by default. The gut does just fine without any fiber to ferment and the gluconeogenesis and glycerol conversion are covering all brain needs for glucose. I beleive to get the best benefit from ketosis it should mimic the fasting state as close as possible with regard to macronutrients and even be alternated with 1-5 day fasts to get the added benefits of autophagy. I've read that the heart muscle runs more efficiently on ketones and the glial cells in the brain, a huge portion of the brain by mass, can not burn glucose directly, but must convert it first. They can burn ketones directly. It seems there are going to be trade-offs in energy efficiency with whatever metabolic path is taken. I think if you are going for ketosis you should go all the way. If you are eating enough carbs of any source to cause your ketone production to cut-back or delay your adaptation to ffa ketone sparing metabolism then it is doing more harm than good. If you want to measure your carbs and protein with a digital scale and take just exactly enough to find some sweet-spot where there is no excess protein to convert to glucose and no want of glucose to trigger muscle breakdown, I don't understand why all the fuss over gluconeogenesis, but more power to you. I'd be interested to know if that makes you feel better or changes anything noticable or measurable.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 27, 2014, 03:39:04 pm: Yes, the fact that fasting involving ketosis etc., such as intermittent fasting, is so healthy does mean that all those hysterical anti-RZC posts are nonsense.

And, even PP had to admit that aem was advocating a sticky warning thread. Such threads are tantamount to a ban and a waste of time.

I note PP was highly selective in quoting me re RZC diets. I only ever attacked RZC diets at the time because there were so many fervent pro-RZC fanatics attacking other raw diets. Otherwise, I have always maintained that some do well on RZC and some do not.

As regards that quote, it makes it clear that I do advocate raw vlc palaeo or rawpalaeo, lc, if not RZC.

Whatever the case, hot topics forum is the best place for any topics attacking a particular raw diet.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 27, 2014, 07:11:30 pm: Quote from: edmon171 on May 27, 2014, 03:10:18 pm
What about fasting? Humans are known to be extremely well adapted to long periods of famine. The ketosis that goes along with this is a zero carb ketosis by default. The gut does just fine without any fiber to ferment and the gluconeogenesis and glycerol conversion are covering all brain needs for glucose. I beleive to get the best benefit from ketosis it should mimic the fasting state as close as possible with regard to macronutrients and even be alternated with 1-5 day fasts to get the added benefits of autophagy
Yes, intermittent fasting and intermittent ZCing do appear to be beneficial and none of my warnings were regarding it. They were regarding chronic long-term ZC.

Quote from: TylerDurden on May 27, 2014, 03:39:04 pm
Yes, the fact that fasting involving ketosis etc., such as intermittent fasting, is so healthy does mean that all those hysterical anti-RZC posts are nonsense.
I do IFing and intermittent ZC myself. My posts had nothing to do with that.

Quote
And, even PP had to admit that aem was advocating a sticky warning thread. Such threads are tantamount to a ban and a waste of time.
As I already pointed out, I didn't call for a sticky and don't want one, and you again ignored that aem offered it as one possible alternative along with another alternative.

Would you please stop making so many negative assumptions and ask me questions before jumping to such conclusions or if there's anything you don't understand, as I've asked you many times before? Please try to remember that you're a moderator who is supposed to set a positive example.

So do you still agree with this quote or not? It says "many people," so that should be OK, yes?

"No plant-food whatsoever in the diet, at best greatly reduces physical performance, and, for many people such as myself, it causes very terminal health-problems in the long run." http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/a-day-in-the-life-of-tylerdurden/msg12373/#msg12373 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/a-day-in-the-life-of-tylerdurden/msg12373/#msg12373)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on May 28, 2014, 02:18:06 am: Quote from: TylerDurden on May 26, 2014, 03:07:28 pm
On the contrary, you were insisting that hysterical, science-free, dubious "warning" threads should be put in the RZC forum, but did not insist on other forums being so afflicted. That is almost as bad as banning a particular dietary path.

I echo PaleoPhil in saying that, as a moderator, your callous and irreverent language sets a very poor example for the broader quality of exchanges on this site. And since you have been so neglectful of the scientific data in my opening post, I am going to assume that you are treating my thread as one of the "hysterical" texts. If so, then this would be the first time in my life that I have been called hysterical, and while I do take some offense to your erratic and implicitly ad-hominem condemnation, I will gladly provide you with a substantial bibliographical document to support all of my conclusions. Perhaps then your thirst for "truths" will be satisfied.

Quote
Yes, intermittent fasting and intermittent ZCing do appear to be beneficial and none of my warnings were regarding it. They were regarding chronic long-term ZC.

I'm with Edmon and PaleoPhil: I am not disputing the short-term use-value of a ZC ketogenic diet (so long as there exists an adequate understanding of the numerous variables involved in the diet's execution), and I am especially not challenging the benefits of intermittent fasting, which I engage in on a frequent basis. Rather, I am questioning the long-term health effects of a ZC diet for the majority of humans. In this sense, I am using 'optimization' to express an index of and for sustainable metabolic efficiency, which, by extension, contributes to the conditions and intricacies of establishing longevity.

Quote
I do IFing and intermittent ZC myself. My posts had nothing to do with that.

Indeed.

Quote
In the end what is optimal is unique to the individual.

I strongly disagree with this. Although it is tempting to assume that individuals should always be at the center of discussions regarding optimization and dietary health, the fact remains that core metabolic processes function in comparable manners for most humans on the planet. To offer some counterpoints: I would argue that most humans would benefit from incorporating an intermittent fasting plan in their diets; most humans would benefit from eliminating grains entirely; and most humans would benefit from ceasing the consumption of antibiotics. There is a fine line between structure and particular that I believe dietary advice must tread. In regards to optimization, this line must be drawn along the terrain of temporality. A short-term dietary success is likely to correct individual problems, but a long-term dietary failure is likely to reveal structural (i.e., human) vulnerabilities.

Quote from: edmon 171
I'd like to continue this debate if you would indulge me, though in a more gentlemanly manner. I must say its been a while since I have researched any of this and its possible that there is new knowledge out there. This is one of those things where you can't just take any study and run with it because there are vested interests that like to fudge numbers and mislead people when health is at stake.

Of course, Edmon. We'll continue the debate. I must say that I have been rather busy as of late, and have thus been unable to post here as frequently as I'd like.

I'm going to take some time later on today to address a few of the key points brought up by others. Namely, I'd like to tackle:
1) The role of glial cells in relation to ketosis. (Edmon171)
2) Ketogenic diets as possessing healing qualities, short-term. (Sabertooth)
3) Why "differing/critical posts, which would serve as warnings about potential risks for people to make their own judgments " should be allowed in their respective forums. (PaleoPhil)
4) Epigenetic adaptations to ZC/ketogenic and high carb diets. (Sabertooth)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 28, 2014, 06:57:26 am: Interesting stuff, aem. I would add metabolic adaptability (aka antifragility) as another benefit of a varied diet.

Quote from: TylerDurden on May 23, 2014, 02:26:42 pm
It is also clear from the evidence that HGs in palaeo times would have been forced to go RZC for lengthy periods due to Ice-Age conditions and seasonal variation.
BTW, this ties in nicely with the topic of the Old Friends, prebiotics (like glycans) and probiotics. Scientists have been learning that one of the things that enables HGs to get through the winter with not a lot of plant foods is freezing and fermenting meats. Freezing preserves prebiotics and anaerobic fermentation actually promotes prebiotics, probiotics and carbs in meats, IIRC. This was discussed by DuckDodgers at the FTA blog links I provided in the past, such as the one in this post: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/the-zero-carb-myth-why-a-zero-carb-diet-is-not-optimal-for-human-health/msg122211/#msg122211 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/the-zero-carb-myth-why-a-zero-carb-diet-is-not-optimal-for-human-health/msg122211/#msg122211)

For example, the Eskimos and Chukchi traditionally ate anaerobically fermented raw seal, walrus or whale during the winter, which unfortunately is not common at your local markets. ;D

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/possible-to-ferment-fat/msg29542/#msg29542 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/possible-to-ferment-fat/msg29542/#msg29542)
The Chukchi, http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ea210/chukchi.htm (http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ea210/chukchi.htm)
Fatal Botulism - Fermented Walrus Flipper, http://www.epi.hss.state.ak.us/bulletins/docs/b1990_01.htm (http://www.epi.hss.state.ak.us/bulletins/docs/b1990_01.htm)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 28, 2014, 06:55:36 pm: Quote from: PaleoPhil on May 27, 2014, 07:11:30 pm
Would you please stop making so many negative assumptions and ask me questions before jumping to such conclusions or if there's anything you don't understand, as I've asked you many times before? Please try to remember that you're a moderator who is supposed to set a positive example.
This is just pure equivocation. More to the point, as a moderator, I have to make sure to criticise people for what they are actually attempting to do, rather than what they claim to be doing/meaning.
Quote
So do you still agree with this quote or not? It says "many people," so that should be OK, yes?

"No plant-food whatsoever in the diet, at best greatly reduces physical performance, and, for many people such as myself, it causes very terminal health-problems in the long run." http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/a-day-in-the-life-of-tylerdurden/msg12373/#msg12373 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/a-day-in-the-life-of-tylerdurden/msg12373/#msg12373)
*sigh* I just said that at the time I was on the defensive against pro-RZC proponents who were just as fanatical as your current anti-RZC stance, so the word "many" should really be "some", these days. Unlike people like you, I feel every type of diet should be given the same treatment. Posting dubious attack-threads in one forum, but not in others is misleading and actually quite dishonest and corrupt.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 28, 2014, 06:59:26 pm: The one size does not fit all theory really does apply. There are always exceptions here and there. For example, epileptics do surprisingly well on ketogenic diets. Blanket statements re diet , even ones I liked, never did really come up 100% proven in all cases.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on May 28, 2014, 07:00:30 pm: Ah well, I am cursed. Due to worthless, profit-driven internet providers, I am now forced to wait another 5 days to get internet access again.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Alive on May 28, 2014, 08:01:00 pm: Another source of glucose is Edogenous Glucose Production during fat metabolisation.
Fats are created with a glycerol backbone, and when fats are metabolised the glycerol molecules are released. Two glycerol molecules are easily combined to make a glucose molecule, which is way easier and cleaner than converting protein to glucose.
Typically about 12% of the calories from fat are provided as glucose, so if someone on 'ZC' was burning 2000 cal of fat they would get around 240 calories of this as glucose. I imagine one great thing about this source of glucose is that it will be released only slowly as the fat is used, compared to carb consumption where there is more of an uncontrolled explosion of glucose into the bloodstream.

Regarding a ketogenic diet, we can see already that a significant amount energy can be supplied to the brain by glucose from fat metabolisation. My understanding is that so long as protein consumption is moderated then ketones will be produced from fat to provide for the glucose deficit. Now it seems obvious that if a 'ZCer' can be getting hundreds of glucose calories from fat there will be little impact on their level of ketosis of adding a few tens of calories of carbs.

So while a 'ZC' diet is ketogenic, it does not follow that a ketogenic diet must be zero carb. There is a spectrum of ketosis depth which can be traded off against any benefits from some carb consumption.

Also if the generation of ketones for improved cognitive function is the goal then consuming short and medium chain fats are most beneficial. These can be found in coconut oil and are produced by gut bacteria when resistant starches are consumed.

So there we go - we have fats that make glucose and starches that make fat (via gut microbes).

:)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: sabertooth on May 28, 2014, 11:02:14 pm: Alive , you just about summed up my entire low carb approach.

High amounts of raw animal fat, moderate amount of animal protein, and a small amount of low glycemic carbs that includes coconut fat.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Inger on May 29, 2014, 01:48:36 am: I do not quite get why I have no issues so far with high protein high fat. I eat above 100 g pure protein every single day and I feel so great! But I do heavy on seafood and just a bit raw heart or organs and fat in addition. Maybe that is why?

I really really love how I feel with such a high in seafood diet... and my skin is soft as velvet...

I have a bit high fasting blood glucose... and super great and high cholesterol and other labs are great too

It is weird that eating so much protein and having a bit high glucose still makes my AGE levels like a 5 years old. I feel like one too lol
I wonder if it is the cold and the dark that helps? And my natural living, lots of earthing and sunshine and avoiding EMF?

I just do not get it.... because I should have issues with such a high protein diet but I have none and I have done this for many years
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: 24isours on May 29, 2014, 01:52:40 am: Quote from: alive on May 28, 2014, 08:01:00 pm
Another source of glucose is Edogenous Glucose Production during fat metabolisation.
Fats are created with a glycerol backbone, and when fats are metabolised the glycerol molecules are released. Two glycerol molecules are easily combined to make a glucose molecule, which is way easier and cleaner than converting protein to glucose.
Typically about 12% of the calories from fat are provided as glucose, so if someone on 'ZC' was burning 2000 cal of fat they would get around 240 calories of this as glucose. I imagine one great thing about this source of glucose is that it will be released only slowly as the fat is used, compared to carb consumption where there is more of an uncontrolled explosion of glucose into the bloodstream.

Regarding a ketogenic diet, we can see already that a significant amount energy can be supplied to the brain by glucose from fat metabolisation. My understanding is that so long as protein consumption is moderated then ketones will be produced from fat to provide for the glucose deficit. Now it seems obvious that if a 'ZCer' can be getting hundreds of glucose calories from fat there will be little impact on their level of ketosis of adding a few tens of calories of carbs.

So while a 'ZC' diet is ketogenic, it does not follow that a ketogenic diet must be zero carb. There is a spectrum of ketosis depth which can be traded off against any benefits from some carb consumption.

Also if the generation of ketones for improved cognitive function is the goal then consuming short and medium chain fats are most beneficial. These can be found in coconut oil and are produced by gut bacteria when resistant starches are consumed.

So there we go - we have fats that make glucose and starches that make fat (via gut microbes).

:)

I've come to the same conclusion based on my research as well;
The body will convert fatty acids to glucose long before it converts protein into glucose as gluconeogenesis is indeed taxing on ones system. What I would like to eventually find out is how taxing the fatty acid conversion cycle would be. I would say it'd be considerably less harmful (if at all) to ones body than blood sugar spikes from excess glucose.

I would have to agree that true RZC, (if such a diet were even possible as I've seen mentioned on this forum that even muscle meat contains some glycogen) being quite dangerous to health as it wouldn't contain much needed vitamins and minerals from organ meat.

Based on the health benefits I've seen from eating a raw Carnivorous ketogenic diet, I would have to disagree with such a diet being less than optimal for human health.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: 24isours on May 29, 2014, 03:18:41 am: Quote
Your gut bacteria will die off if you don't feed it sugar and your body will be unable to extract any nutrients from the raw meat you are eating and you will most likely experience other serious complications.

I don't see how the same bacteria that feed off of sugar would be needed to extract nutrients from meat and fat. Can you explain this?

Quote
A disgruntled ex-zero carber that has experienced a dying gut flora and heart palpitations from following a zero carb diet.
I will also get palpitations if I do not hydrate enough.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Alive on May 29, 2014, 03:46:47 am: Inger, I imagine that your diet is not all that high in fat as a percentage? But because you consume so much RAF it adds up to a nice lot of fat to provide a good base of slow release glucose? And then your metabolism must so efficient from having so many energetic but controllable electrons Krusing about that the excess proteins are easily used or disposed of ;)

24isours, what is the reason that you avoid VLC plant matter, such as greens?

In some ways I prefer the Carnivorous title to ZC, since carnivorous animals like cats do regularly eat plant matter, such as grass.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 29, 2014, 03:49:23 am: Thanks for taking the time and having the courage to share your experience, yribaf. My understanding is that the GI bacteria feed on mostly prebiotics, rather than sugar. Sugar is fairly easily digested in the stomach and small intestine.

Someone is liable to bring up the straw man that all the gut bacteria don't die off, which is true, but misses the more important point--that many of the "good" bacteria can die off and this can leave open a sort of power-vacuum for "bad" bacteria to step in. "Good" and "bad" is an oversimplification, but I hope folks understand what I mean.

Yeah, I'm far from a veghead. LOL
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: 24isours on May 29, 2014, 04:02:02 am: Quote
24isours, what is the reason that you avoid VLC plant matter, such as greens?

I haven't been one to experiment much with vegetables as the way I've been eating seems to keep me content. I guess that would be the reason why I avoid them. Also, I can't really say the raw greens I've eaten are really tasty anyway. I did love my salads, cooked broccoli, spinach and rapini during my SAD days.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 29, 2014, 04:13:27 am: When someone says sugar or starch, red flags tend to go up for vlcers. Another way to think of resistant starch and insulin is as fat, because the gut bugs work together to convert much of these prebiotics into short-chaIn fatty acids.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 29, 2014, 04:32:21 am: Quote from: TylerDurden on May 28, 2014, 06:55:36 pm
*sigh* I just said that at the time I was on the defensive against pro-RZC proponents who were just as fanatical as your current anti-RZC stance, so the word "many" should really be "some", these days. Unlike people like you, I feel every type of diet should be given the same treatment. Posting dubious attack-threads in one forum, but not in others is misleading and actually quite dishonest and corrupt.
Do you mean you exaggerated in the past? If so, how do I know you're not doing the same now? The "many" people you mentioned in the past would still be valid for you to indicate today, if you were not exaggerating then. Just because many of them are not active in this forum any more doesn't mean they didn't report problems in the past. If you should go inactive that wouldn't somehow invalidate the poor results you reported from RZC.

I agree w/ you that the subforum diets should be treated the same, which is why I asked that dissenting views be allowed in ALL the subforums.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: colorles on May 29, 2014, 11:12:08 am: been following the thread, and can see that much has already been discussed. yet one particular aspect of the opening post, hasn't seemed to have been discussed in any detail:

" the carnivorous ZC/ultra VLC diet typically calls for abhorrent amounts of daily fluid intake (wholly against what would be expected in a non-domesticated environment.) "

is it not something we can all agree upon, that humans seem to require more water compared to other comparably sized mammalian carnivores (or "omnivores" or whatever other moniker you choose)? granted of course you can get much fluids from a fresh kill...and it would be going a bit too far to claim that these "abhorrent amounts of daily fluid intakes" would be unrealistic in a natural environment, you know considering hunter-gatherers have been long surviving with such daily fluid requirements...but i digress

anyways though has anybody else here noticed any changes in daily fluid intake, since adapting raw VLC and/or seasonal diets? because if anything i notice i am drinking a bit less, on a strictly raw diet; probably has something to do with my body not having to clean itself out of various toxins left and right, oh and the fact that raw meat is alot easier to digest than cooked meats. i still like to drink a fair amount of water (its something i always carry around with me)...but water consumption is not a problem so long as you plan accordingly "out in the field" so to speak (as any hunter-gatherer surely would)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: eveheart on May 29, 2014, 12:49:20 pm: Quote from: colorles on May 29, 2014, 11:12:08 am
anyways though has anybody else here noticed any changes in daily fluid intake, since adapting raw VLC and/or seasonal diets?

Thirst is a sign of diabetes, and monitoring my thirst levels was my primary way of monitoring my correct carb intake. I never initially went to the doctor for diabetes because I knew what my symptoms meant. I got it under control myself with VLC. I did tell my doctor afterwards what I was doing, and she is in agreement. I get blood tests a few times per year, and I am pleased with the range of FBS (usually around 90). With VLC, I don't get crazy-thirsty: I drink water when I want to, but the "urge" feels normal with VLC and insatiable with higher carb intake levels.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Inger on May 29, 2014, 02:42:46 pm: Quote from: alive on May 29, 2014, 03:46:47 am
Inger, I imagine that your diet is not all that high in fat as a percentage? But because you consume so much RAF it adds up to a nice lot of fat to provide a good base of slow release glucose? And then your metabolism must so efficient from having so many energetic but controllable electrons Krusing about that the excess proteins are easily used or disposed of ;)

I do eat a lot fat to Alive... I guess about 60-70 % by calories, there are surely days with 80 % too in between

I add great quality raw EVOO if the seafood is not fatty.. and I can eat a lot og raw coconut oil too, lately I have not had much at all tho.
I also eat raw nuts....and raw grassfed beef fat some days. It is like candy..

I just had tongue for breakfast since long.. I do not eat it often but when, I mostly cook it gently on the wooden stove and eat it cold next day. It is about the only ting I cook... and then I sometimes eat pre cooked cold mussels. Practically everything else is raw.
I do eat a few pieces of high meat along with the meal if I happen to eat something cooked.. to just be sure I get enuf bacteria ;)

I do drink lots of water, at least 4 liters / day from own 50 meter deep well. I am now so used to drink that much, so I do not even need to push it at all like in the beginning!

I believe ur body can lose its thirst feeling.... and it today's world with lots of man made EMF that dries our cells out... it is so important t drink a lot! But it must be good water
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Inger on May 29, 2014, 04:00:46 pm: This is one interesting article about the gut flora of hunter gatherer

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hadza-hunter-gatherer-gut-microbiome/ (http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hadza-hunter-gatherer-gut-microbiome/)

Quote
Many of the bacteria are species that the researchers had never seen before. And even familiar microbes were present in unusual levels in the Hadza belly. “The Hadza not only lack the ‘healthy bacteria,’ and they don’t suffer from the diseases we suffer from, but they also have high levels of bacteria that are associated with disease,” Crittenden said.

What does this tell us?

We probably know nothing about how a healthy gut flora have to look like....

that is why i do not believe in unnaturally adding "starches etc" to make it like we think it should be. What if it is wrong?
What if there is some totally different things that count....
For the one being able to see behind the curtains I feel this is a big clue....

What I do think is, we should normally not leave out anything edible that grows in season where we live..... preferably wild stuff.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on May 30, 2014, 12:25:04 am: Forgive me if I seem to be losing my patience throughout the following replies. I ask that you please do not take my sarcasm and cynicism personally.

Quote from: colorles on May 29, 2014, 11:12:08 am
been following the thread, and can see that much has already been discussed. yet one particular aspect of the opening post, hasn't seemed to have been discussed in any detail:

" the carnivorous ZC/ultra VLC diet typically calls for abhorrent amounts of daily fluid intake (wholly against what would be expected in a non-domesticated environment.) "

is it not something we can all agree upon, that humans seem to require more water compared to other comparably sized mammalian carnivores (or "omnivores" or whatever other moniker you choose)? granted of course you can get much fluids from a fresh kill...and it would be going a bit too far to claim that these "abhorrent amounts of daily fluid intakes" would be unrealistic in a natural environment, you know considering hunter-gatherers have been long surviving with such daily fluid requirements...but i digress

anyways though has anybody else here noticed any changes in daily fluid intake, since adapting raw VLC and/or seasonal diets?

I was not referring to water consumption on raw VLC or seasonal diets. I'm not entirely certain as to why people continue to defend/reference raw VLC when I am specifically critiquing continuous raw ZC/ultra low carb diets (less than 30g carbs p/day). There is a significant difference. The raw ZC diet purposefully avoids all plant foods perpetually, and urges its followers to consume only raw animal foods for subsistence.

Quote from: eveheart
Thirst is a sign of diabetes, and monitoring my thirst levels was my primary way of monitoring my correct carb intake.

Could be diabetes, certainly. But thirst may also indicate dehydration, which has a tendency to impact those on a sustained ZC diet. The kidneys become highly effective at excreting salts from the body while in very deep ketosis. For some folks, this is not a problem; they simply heighten their sodium intake to compensate for the problems, or add in magnesium supplements to mitigate the mineral losses. I, for one, was never interested in adopting a diet that demanded supplements in order to function effectively. My understanding is that a diet which requires supplementation (be this in the form of iodine pills, Amazonian minerals, magic joojoo pills, etc.) is a rather problematic diet to begin with.

On numerous occasions, my heart problems on a ZC diet were attributed to "dehydration." In response to those statements, I thought: complete BS, considering that I was consuming a large amount of water throughout my waking hours. However, one should realize that larger amounts of water don't precisely add up to adequate hydration. In fact, drinking multiple liters a day when the body is in a deep ketogenic state may exacerbate the loss of electrolytes by accelerating excretory processes.

Quote from: Inger

What does this tell us?

We probably know nothing about how a healthy gut flora have to look like....

Inger, I find it interesting that you, as PaleoPhil mentioned earlier, are not a chronic ZCer. I would like to remind you that this post is not about calling for the intake of resistant starches, or decrying the maintenance of seasonal/LC diets. I am writing explicitly against the problems associated with a sustained ZC diet that systematically excludes all plant foods for the sake of appeasing the mystical Gods of the [insert favorite obscure exoticized population], the stupidity of unscientific Western dogma, and/or/especially the dead ex-singer of the Grateful Dead (seriously).

What we should all agree on is that, although a healthy gut flora varies from person to person, generally speaking, there are certain structural markers for health that we should remain respectful to. A dysfunctional gut flora is usually one that lacks appreciably active microbes, or which has been completely overpopulated by fungi and/or well-known problematic microorganisms (parasites, for instance.) An emptier gut flora, whether innately healthy or not, is probably not optimal for most humans. Pushing the Hadza aside as an exception (which they most clearly are), research conducted by the human gut project has shown that VLC dieters exhibit less-active gut floras than other LC humans. At this point, I'm not particularly concerned with whether X or Y bacterial strain has been found in the Hadza (an exceptional, high carb population.) Science is not all that great at relating the tiniest components of structure to incontrovertible definitions of function. Science, however, is useful for describing what a structure constitutes, and hypothesizing how differences across structures might translate to functions. For all I know, the presence of X or Y strain in my gut may indicate that I recently won the lottery at the local corner-store. Who knows what individual bacterial strains do, and more importantly, why does it matter? From an inquisitive perspective, I am interested in two primary elements:
1) The total activity levels of the human microbiome, i.e., the gut flora and other human bacterial colonies.
In relation to--
2) The empirical effects of such activity levels (How does the subject feel/experience their health?)

Is an absent or depleted gut flora optimal for human survival ? My experiences and research tell me probably not.

I was passing stools an average of two to three times per week while on my ZC experiment. And I have to admit that they weren't healthy looking stools; they were enfeebled, sad little things. My gut flora took some serious blows. I don't know if it became populated by X or Y magical bacterial entity, but what I am certain of is that the flora lost a substantial number of inhabitants, and this was demonstrated by my overall lack of bowel movements.

Now, since I know there is a tendency on this forum to extend arguments to their logical extremes: Is it healthy to be pooping ten times a day, and excreting great amounts of feces with each bowel movement? Probably not, because the subject's bowel movements do not produce empirical effects that would indicate health (I'd be rather unhappy if I had to poop ten times a day, like some grain-eaters do.) Let's not get too far from sensible and well-grounded conclusions.

To reiterate, two conditions need to be met in a favorable manner in order to validate the perspective that I am arguing for: 1) gut activity levels should be substantial AND 2) these heightened activity levels should empirically demonstrate beneficial markers of health.

Inger, no one on this post is calling for you to consume vast amounts of starches to make your gut flora "healthier." Even though the Hadza, curiously enough, do consume rather large amounts of starches. (But that's probably just a coincidence, right?) If you feel fantastic on a chronic ZC diet (which, Inger, you do not engage in, so this would be impossible), then continue to do what you have been doing.

No one on this post is condemning ZC diets for their therapeutic short-term value. The key words here are "therapeutic" and "short-term." Long-term is a completely different story, especially for industrial humans who don't have access to freshly killed animal carcasses.

This applies to everyone: if you are one of the rare few who are able to obtain freshly-killed animals on a regular basis; if you are able to obtain raw blood, raw organs, and raw meat from animals whose glycogen stores have not yet converted into lactic acid (better make it quick, because the process occurs during a 48 hour period following the kill); then by all means, go ahead and adopt a raw ZC diet--even though I will still hold reservations about your decision to do so (mainly because no hunter-gatherer group in the history of the world has ever purposefully marginalized vegetables and fruits for the sake of following the "correct form" of a diet.) Your chances of succeeding might be higher than many other Rawpaleodiet forum users residing in the cities of heavily industrialized nations. When all we have access to is a crappy Whole Foods, the occasional local farmer's market, and a few farmer friends, it becomes very difficult to mirror the proper environment necessary for executing a raw ZC diet in all its [potential] glory.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: goodsamaritan on May 30, 2014, 12:43:37 am: aem42290, I do appreciate your specifying that it is that complete Raw Zero Carb or pure Carnivory that you are harping against and making it clear in this thread.

And I do appreciate other people chiming in with their experiences.

Let's all be welcoming to each other's sharing... we are a very small number of global practitioners and every experience counts.

So please don't "lose patience".

This is all good conversation.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on May 30, 2014, 12:58:26 am: Quote from: goodsamaritan on May 30, 2014, 12:43:37 am
aem42290, I do appreciate your specifying that it is that complete Raw Zero Carb or pure Carnivory that you are harping against and making it clear in this thread.

And I do appreciate other people chiming in with their experiences.

Let's all be welcoming to each other's sharing... we are a very small number of global practitioners and every experience counts.

So please don't "lose patience".

This is all good conversation.

I agree, GS. Thank you for that reminder. It's important to retain a sense of community while discussing our points. Honestly, I appreciate all of the perspectives that have been shared on this post--whether I agree with them or not. We are a very small group of people, relatively speaking, and at the heart of all of these topics resides the fact that most of us have adopted a rare and condemned diet for the sake of improving our health.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: eveheart on May 30, 2014, 01:14:44 am: Quote from: aem42290 on May 30, 2014, 12:25:04 am
Could be diabetes, certainly. But thirst may also indicate dehydration, which has a tendency to impact those on a sustained ZC diet. The kidneys become highly effective at excreting salts from the body while in very deep ketosis. For some folks, this is not a problem; they simply heighten their sodium intake to compensate for the problems, or add in magnesium supplements to mitigate the mineral losses. I, for one, was never interested in adopting a diet that demanded supplements in order to function effectively. My understanding is that a diet which requires supplementation (be this in the form of iodine pills, Amazonian minerals, magic joojoo pills, etc.) is a rather problematic diet to begin with.

I was responding to another poster's question about thirst, and I was hoping that I made it clear that generous carbohydrate intake was the factor in those diabetic symptoms. VLC has diabetes under control for now. Subsequent blood tests confirmed my self-diagnosis. I have never sustained or tried to sustain ZC, and I apologize that I wasn't clear about this in my post.

I do not aim for deep ketosis. Intuitively, I do not believe that early man would pass up a tasty morsel just because it did not come from an animal. I am senior in years with only 3 years RPD, and I am not expecting complete reversal of all damage that appears to have been done by years of soy-based, ultra-low fat vegetarianism. However, I am delighted by how much more active, clear-headed, and pain free I am with RPD. I have my doctor's admiration and approval, too, even down to the detail that I don't cook my meat.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 30, 2014, 07:08:33 pm: Even Dr. Jack Kruse is not always down on starches: "When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." (http://www.jackkruse.com/the-epcotx-rx (http://www.jackkruse.com/the-epcotx-rx))

Some of the important factors in the Hadza GI microbiome are getting overlooked:

> Diverse microbiota, including some rare "species that the researchers had never seen before." (http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hadza-hunter-gatherer-gut-microbiome (http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hadza-hunter-gatherer-gut-microbiome)) Might some them be ancient heritage species?

> Soil and animal probiotics: <<“There are transfers from the soils, from the animals.” In other words, it’s not just what the Hadza eat that contribute to their remarkable gut flora, it’s where and how they are eating it, too.>> (ibid)

> Low (acidic) pH in the colon, which provides an environment that promotes beneficial bacteria and keeps potentially pathogenic bacteria in check [not mentioned in the study, but discussed elsewhere]

"The acidity level of one’s gut is what gives rise to particular species of bacteria, and I now believe it is the main determinant of whether one maximizes the benefits of supplementing with Resistant Starch and other fibers.

...meals with fat can increase circulating endotoxins, and ... the consumption of fiber along with the fat negates this effect" http://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/probiotics-survive-better-with-some-fat-its-the-ph/ (http://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/probiotics-survive-better-with-some-fat-its-the-ph/)

"the theory is that, with the right amount and diversity of fiber, a suitably low pH can be maintained that allows beneficial microbes, and not pathogenic ones, to compete for prebiotic fiber." http://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/gut-vs-gut-this-is-how-why-resistant-starch-is-working (http://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/gut-vs-gut-this-is-how-why-resistant-starch-is-working)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Andy Chow on June 01, 2014, 10:27:23 am: This has to be one of the most biased, unscientific post I’ve read in a while.

“By and large, carnivorous mammals across the world exhibit lower average lifespans than omnivorous creatures.” Really? Please show any evidence of this. And even if this was true, it means nothing about the validity of a diet to optimal health. Optimal health means heath level during life, not how long that life lasts.
Mice are herbivores, but they live less long than a cat that feeds on them, if they both die of old age.

The evolutionary ideas, while “somewhat” valid as empirical evidence (is there any evidence that animals in the wild tend to eat what is best for them? I think not, but that’s a whole other can of worms I’m not opening right now). However, no one knows what earlier humans ate. It’s all guesses and suppositions. They had element “X” in their environment, it’s edible, they probably ate it. Again, why would people assume that they would eat what is good for them rather then what they might stumble upon is beyond me.

Worse, using arguments of authority is dishonest. “reading up on a great deal of scientific studies and informal experiences” What’s that supposed to mean? Every doctor I’ve ever heard talk about nutrition has claimed that fat leads to heart disease, that grains should compose the main source of caloric intake, that taking a baby aspirin is a good idea. And they are very smart people that have studied a lot, read a lot of scientific articles and have been trained by very great peers.

The body does not tend towards an optimal state. It maintains a “minimal” state. Enough to not die, nothing more. Lie down in a bed for a few months, eating the best diet you can. Your bones will still end up brittle, your muscles will be almost inexistent. Even if you eat a lot of protein and fat. Why? Because your body does the least in can if it has the option.

So the fact that gluconeogenesis and ketosis are very inefficient (on a calorific) and taxing (on the organs) is irrelevant. That’s like saying that a jet is not optimal because it consumes too much energy and stresses its components, so a bicycle is better.

If you are going to take your own arguments as a basis for optimal behavior, then you should be against exercise. After all, exercise is inefficient, it taxes many organs, including the heart, wastes energy, and produces many “dangerous” chemical reactions.

“The very fact that gluconeogenesis is associated to cortisol levels should send up some red flags” So again, are you against exercise? Exercise is strongly associated to cortisol levels. Cortisol is associated with stress. Stress is good for the body. Absence of stress is bad. Why don’t you tell astronauts how the absence of stress on their joints is good for them?

Finally, telling people that they should seriously switch their diets if they start feeling sick is irresponsible. People get sick irrespective of their diets. You trying to be an authority on what people should or should not do is laughable.

I know I said finally, but I lied. Here is some pure wisdom: The true optimal form is to be dead. Then you consume nothing, you experience no stress, and you have no chance of having any disease. But that is not what I want. I want to be as strong and vigorous as I can. I don’t seek to be free from pain and stress, I want for everything that doesn’t kill me to make me stronger. I don’t want an easy life, I want the strength to endure a hard one.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on June 02, 2014, 03:40:55 am: Quote from: Andy Chow on June 01, 2014, 10:27:23 am
This has to be one of the most biased, unscientific post I’ve read in a while.

I had been waiting for someone else to pull the “unscientific” card. I'll address your concerns in their order of appearance. A bibliography is attached at the end of this response.

Quote
“By and large, carnivorous mammals across the world exhibit lower average lifespans than omnivorous creatures.” Really? Please show any evidence of this.

[http://www.demogr.mpg.de/longevityrecords/0203.htm]

This comes straight from the Max Planck institute for Demographic Research. The average life span data for each species is supported by peer-reviewed studies.

If you look through the document, you'll notice that strictly and/or predominantly carnivorous mammals exhibit lower average life spans than their omnivorous counterparts. While I don't have the time to construct a chart which explicitly compares the two groups (or which deals with the statistical significance of the data), I will pick out some quick examples that address the underlying concerns in a succinct manner:

1) Hippopotamus (omnivorous) in relation to the lion (classic, cliche example of carnivorous animal).
2) Suborder mysteceti whales (fin whales, blue whales, etc.) in relation to carnivorous whales.
3) Eurasian brown bear (predominantly omnivorous since the middle ages) in relation to the polar bear (predominantly carnivorous).

On a tangential note, it would seem that whales possess metabolic adaptations to predominantly carnivorous diets that allow them to live longer than most land carnivores. However, this all comes with a rather large caveat: within the whale groups themselves, the filter-feeders, or baleen whales, exhibit larger average life spans than the predominantly carnivorous species. For the baleens, consuming zooplankton means that phytoplankton is difficult to avoid, and indeed, perhaps even constitutes an important dietary element for the aquatic mammals. Zooplankton depends primarily on phytoplankton for survival, and the two are seldom found separated in the oceans. “The physical factor that influences zooplankton distribution the most is mixing of the water column…along the coast and in the open ocean….that affects nutrient availability and, in turn, phytoplankton production” (Lalli et al. 1993). At least for certain species such as the bowhead whale, research has demonstrated that phytoplankton is an important, if consequential, aspect of their diets. “Each adult [bowhead] whale consumes on the order of 100 metric tons of zooplankton prey, which in tum represents a much larger ( -10 times) biomass of phytoplankton” (Schell 2000). Finally, here is a quote from an accessible article which ties the levels of phytoplankton in the world's oceans to the diets of blue whales: [http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/28/phytoplankton-decline-nature].

Another user on this forum (Edmon) posited that the differences in carnivore/omnivore life spans are due to the expression of the simple mechanisms of survival involved in predatory activities. To take his claims further, the logic supporting such a statement is as follows: If a hunter feasts solely on meat, then the hunter's capacity to survive is tied directly to their hunting skills, and hunting skills are tougher to maintain than grazing faculties. Edmon argued that carnivorous animals typically die while attempting to secure their prey, in fights with other predators, and of infections/other illnesses. While we can accept such an Occam's razor-like approach to the life span problem in carnivores, and immediately cease considering a myriad variables, a series of critical, thought-provoking questions will yet remain: All things considered, why does the wild carnivore's survival functions—namely, the capacity to engage in a successful hunt, acquire nourishment, and deflect other predators, pathogens, etc.—decline at a faster rate than the omnivore's, thereby leading to observable differences in life spans? In other words, why does the carnivorous mammalian, which is supposedly well-adapted to hunting and the consumption of an all-meat diet, fail to adequately maintain its physical faculties for longer than the omnivore's? Is it simply that hunting full-time is harder work than foraging and scavenging? What does such harder work constitute, in a metabolic sense? Harder work in what specific terms? What of the omnivores, who hunt, scavenge, and forage, depending on the seasons, their needs, desires? Capturing live prey obviously involves a great deal of exertion and stressors, but are the lion's overall stressors necessarily greater than the hippo's per se?

The emergence of these questions led me to the eventual exploration of the mechanisms of action involved in the mammalian body's metabolic pathways. Before I get into the theoretical and scientific underpinnings of my section dealing with the human’s metabolic pathways, let me tackle your point regarding "the validity of a diet to optimal health:"

Quote
And even if this was true, it means nothing about the validity of a diet to optimal health. Optimal health means heath level during life, not how long that life lasts.

Since I refuse to play a game of semantics, I'm going to assign a very specific definition to my usage of the concept of optimization, so that there may be no confusion regarding what I'm referring to.

Optimization involves the process of making something as effective, sustainable, and fully-functional as possible. The optimization of a system refers to the maximization of productivity and the minimization of refuse. In the context of my discussion, optimization is directly tied to temporal sustainability, and therefore, by extension, to life span.

Simply put, the form of optimization that I seek does not only account for the short-term benefits of efficiency; I am far more compelled by the notion of efficiency as it relates to sustainability and longitudinal performance. Thus, I initially frame optimization within the context of life span because I am asking how we can optimize both the quality and duration of human life. You seem to be arguing that the quality of a life is all that matters for an organism's existence. In this sense, it does not matter whether a person lives past their forties, so long as they have experienced an acceptable level of health throughout their active moments. I disagree with this rather simplistic and limited conceptualization of health and optimization. My argument attempts to push beyond the strictly qualitative domain and into the temporal and quantitative.

Quote
Mice are herbivores, but they live less long than a cat that feeds on them, if they both die of old age.

I’m not exactly certain as to why you are bringing up herbivorous mice. At no point did I address the life spans of herbivorous species. However, if we want to go down that road, then I will note that large mammalian herbivores, such as ruminants, do tend to live longer than large carnivores (where ‘large’ refers to animals bearing an average body weight of over 150 lbs.), if subjects are allowed to die strictly of old age. But—and this is a huge but—the encephalization quotients, as do the brain sizes, of herbivores (Deaner et al. 2007; Nelson et al. 2001) tend to be much lower than omnivores and carnivores, thereby revealing an apparent deficit in the cognitive abilities of the herbivorous group—which would make sense from an evolutionary perspective that considers brain growth as tied to the consumption of animal proteins and fats.) Of course, we can get into extended and unfruitful discussions of what constitutes intelligence within a particular species. For the sake of simplicity, I am using the rubrics of the encephalization quotient and total brain size to describe mental processes as they become appreciable to our human understandings of intellect.

Quote
The evolutionary ideas, while “somewhat” valid as empirical evidence (is there any evidence that animals in the wild tend to eat what is best for them?

It does not matter whether you believe that “animals in the wild tend to eat what [is or isn’t] best for them.” (Although there are numerous people on this forum—“instinctos”—that will strongly dispute this point in relation to human evolution.) The point of my discourse is to emphasize the fact that countless years of human evolutionary adaptations have laid the biological foundations for the execution of a potential diet which utilizes rational, historically-valid reasoning to provide the body with its optimal requirements. You are attacking my usage of evolutionary ideas by mobilizing a completely unrelated assertion. Evolutionary theories do not ipso facto rely on optimization apparatuses to describe animal bodies; evolutionary theories present us with frameworks for approaching the adaptations and survival dynamics that allow for the reproduction, transformation, and destruction of a species. I am drawing on evolutionary theories insofar as they reveal the present conditions of human metabolic pathways, and allow for us to make informed judgments regarding the optimal means by which to expand the living performance of bodies. I am not, as you crudely assume, drawing on evolutionary theories to supply evidence for the supposed “natural” existence of optimization mechanics in the “wild.” Do not misconstrue my words.

Quote
However, no one knows what earlier humans ate. It’s all guesses and suppositions. They had element “X” in their environment, it’s edible, they probably ate it. Again, why would people assume that they would eat what is good for them rather then what they might stumble upon is beyond me.

Absolutely irrelevant to my argument. I highly doubt that ancient humans were thinking of how to grow larger brains when they decided to hunt other animals. I would not be so naïve and foolish to claim this. Rather, the evolutionary result of the ancient human’s dietary decisions contributed, directly and indirectly, to the development of specific bodily facets—namely, the larger brain. Evolution is not akin to optimization, but dietary optimization theories must draw on evolutionary knowledge to pass grounded judgments. Your failure to grasp my assertions makes me wonder whether you even read my opening post before engaging in this unfounded collection of attacks.

Quote
Worse, using arguments of authority is dishonest. “reading up on a great deal of scientific studies and informal experiences” What’s that supposed to mean? Every doctor I’ve ever heard talk about nutrition…

I don’t even feel the need to quote that statement in its entirety. Your ad hominem tactics are infuriating, at the very least, and, at most, rather disheartening. Considering the overt assaults on my character, if your response to my post were to appear in a scholarly journal, I would feel no need whatsoever to offer you a rebuttal. Thankfully, this is a public forum, and I’ll gladly humor your offensive reply for the sake of fostering public knowledge.

I am not marshaling “arguments of authority” in any way whatsoever. If your definition of arguments of authority means that I declared my knowledge of the subject that I am describing, then yours is truly an atypical approach to the expression. The reason why I stated that I read up on a significant number of scientific studies and informal experiences is because I did. As for informal experiences, my own encounter with a sustained ZC diet has led to heart issues that I am still recovering from. At several moments throughout my ZC experiment, I was dealing with ridiculous and unexplainable palpitations; my extremities were becoming cold, my emotions were receding, and I was consistently irritable. If you would like to talk about the problems that others have experienced while on a sustained ZC diet, just ask PaleoPhil about the symptoms that he dealt with. On Carbsane and other forums, informal evidence for symptoms of what has been termed “VLC/ZC torpor” have emerged as well. PaleoPhil, I’m sure, would be glad to provide you with actual links to the pages where people talk about their problems while on ZC diets.

Regarding the formal underpinnings of my theories, I have drawn on specific scientific studies which demonstrate the inefficient properties of gluconeogenesis (Hendrick et al. 1990; Veldhorst 2009; Veldhorst 2012; Baba et al. 1994) while in a deep ketogenic state (Tagliabue A 2012), and relative to glucose metabolism (Mcdonald 1998; Prince et al. 2013); as well as revealing the difficulties associated with the production of glucose from fatty acids (Kaleta et al. 2011); and the limitations on the potentially therapeutic overall uptake of ketones by the brain (Devivo et al. 1978; Seyfried et al. 2003; Lahanna et al. 2009; Cahill 2006). All of these studies address periods of deep ketosis as exceptional for the mammalian body, with Lahanna (2009) and Seyfried (2003) particularly making use of such exceptional circumstances to augment the validity of their experimental procedures. Taken in tandem, these studies point to the short-term therapeutic benefits of a ZC or VLC diet (for the metabolically deranged, epileptic, etc.), but direct us toward challenging the long-term metabolic stressors that arise from the sustained inefficiencies of the aforementioned key metabolic pathways. I will return to this last point soon.

Quote
The body does not tend towards an optimal state. It maintains a “minimal” state. Enough to not die, nothing more. Lie down in a bed for a few months, eating the best diet you can. Your bones will still end up brittle, your muscles will be almost inexistent. Even if you eat a lot of protein and fat. Why? Because your body does the least in can if it has the option.

The body tends toward homeostasis, which is absolutely different from the “minimal” caloric state that you are describing. Your definition of minimal begs interrogation. If you are defining the human’s basal caloric requirements as being constitutive of a minimal state or set-point, then even at this level, homeostasis involves a conglomerate of intensely erratic, fluctuating processes. Homeostasis is about balancing and stabilizing the entropic reactions of a semi-structured body. Confronted with an obviously necessary minimal caloric intake (which is about the only minimal element of a human existence), the entropic body incessantly attempts to adapt and respond to the chaos generated both by and within metabolic processes.
Homeostasis, for one, cannot be separated from hormesis, which details the body’s responses to disordered metabolic chains. Even the subject lying on a bed will be exposed to organic stressors (atrophy, etc.) that cause their body to reflexively manipulate key metabolic pathways in response to sedentary functions. Oftentimes, these metabolic pathways involves seriously disruptive physical processes that make maximum use of inefficient metabolic structures, such as gluconeogenesis and ketosis, and which may not contribute to the optimal health of the subject, but which certainly allow for the subject to survive and adapt.
This is all to say that what you perceive as the body doing “enough to not die,” is actually the body doing enough to survive and reproduce; and there is a massive, indisputable difference between these two expressions. Your fatalistic approach to human existence is wholly unsupported by science. Humans have been shown to possess psychological and physical regulatory mechanisms that further the pursuit of reproduction, survival, and survival beyond reproduction. The body does the most it can to survive and reproduce, not the least it can to ward off death. The body, in fact, is not concerned with life and death--this Christian dichotomy that so many scientists submit to. The human body, the mammalian, animal body, is invested in the protection of reproductive faculties that are inextricably bound to the adaptive survival of an entropic organism. Survival is about adaptation and reproduction, not death and a minimalistic quality of degeneration.

Quote
So the fact that gluconeogenesis and ketosis are very inefficient (on a calorific) and taxing (on the organs) is irrelevant. That’s like saying that a jet is not optimal because it consumes too much energy and stresses its components, so a bicycle is better.

The underlying logic here is absolutely flawed. You moved from A to B without adequately connecting the two thoughts.

A) "The body does not tend towards an optimal state. It maintains a “minimal” state."
B) "So the fact that gluconeogenesis and ketosis are very inefficient (on a calorific) and taxing (on the organs) is irrelevant.

So, “if the body does not tend towards an optimal state,” then “the fact that gluconeogenesis and ketosis are very inefficient…and taxing on the organs….is irrelevant.”

What? How have you established the irrelevance of point B in relation to point A? In legal-speak, this is what we call a non-sequitur.

The notion of a minimal state serves no purpose in addressing the particular metabolic inefficiencies of gluconeogenesis and ketosis. As I stated above, the only minimal state in the human body is the basal need for calories that defines survival. To reiterate: optimization, as per my discussion, entails rationally reflecting (an anti-‘natural’ process) on the specific qualities of metabolic pathways so as to determine their maximum performance levels in relation to life spans and health.

Quote
That’s like saying that a jet is not optimal because it consumes too much energy and stresses its components, so a bicycle is better.

Do you really want to get into the thermodynamics of using petroleum to power jets? I'm just going to marginalize this. By all means, keep believing that jet planes are efficient machines.

Quote
If you are going to take your own arguments as a basis for optimal behavior, then you should be against exercise. After all, exercise is inefficient, it taxes many organs, including the heart, wastes energy, and produces many “dangerous” chemical reactions.

Now we are getting deeper into ad-hominem territory. That's fine, though. I'll play along.
To begin with, I am not against exercise, and at no point did I imply or state this. Most exercise does not involve a sleuth of chronic stressors, and exercise satisfies many of the hormetic requirements of a homeostatic system. Hormesis, though, is not the same as systematic degeneration. Provided that a body is properly nourished, exposure to exercise allows for the optimization of life span and health viz. the enhancement of metabolic flexibility. Many forms of exercise satisfy the conditions of adaptive and sustainable optimization that I embrace within my writings. I am, without a doubt, against endurance training, for I believe (as do other scholars) that it places undue stress on the organ systems of the human body (Benito et al. 2011; Wilson et al. 2011). Do you see the difference here? There is a huge gap between short-term hormetic stressors and chronic degenerative stressors.

Quote
The very fact that gluconeogenesis is associated to cortisol levels should send up some red flags” So again, are you against exercise? Exercise is strongly associated to cortisol levels. Cortisol is associated with stress. Stress is good for the body. Absence of stress is bad. Why don’t you tell astronauts how the absence of stress on their joints is good for them?

You are foolishly misconstruing my arguments. I am not claiming that short-term stressors are unnecessary for human health; I am writing against the long-term stressors emerging from a chronic ZC diet and its inefficient metabolic pathways. The reason why cortisol sends up a red flag in relation to gluconeogenesis is because while in a deep ketogenic diet, a subject is constantly engaged in gluconeogenesis, and therefore exhibits elevated cortisol levels (Swain et al. 2012). Dichotomizing stress as good/bad is a ridiculous proposition. Stress is neither good nor bad; stress is a physical signifier that directs our attention toward bodily processes that may indicate the absence or presence of particular adaptive mechanisms. I have opted to question which adaptive mechanisms are optimal for both longevity and maximum health.

However, if you want to argue along the dichotomy of “stress is good” and the “absence of stress” is bad, you’d do best to research how the body deals with the elevated cortisol levels of exercise. A little hint: as the body becomes used to stressors, cortisol levels begin to decrease. Chronically elevated cortisol levels are a serious problem, leading to heart disease, etc., but cortisol released in response to short-term stressors allows for the body to adapt to the demands of exercise.

Retrieved from: [http://www.livestrong.com/article/86687-exercise-cortisol-levels].

Negative Effects [of cortisol]
Unfortunately, the negative effects of cortisol outweigh the positive. Cortisol has an immunosuppressive effect, meaning that if your body constantly has high levels of cortisol, you are more susceptible to illness or infection. Also, because cortisol is a response to stress and the goal is to increase fuels in the blood, it will increase blood calcium by inhibiting bone formation and decreasing intestinal calcium absorption. This may result in a decrease in bone density over time. Cortisol also inhibits the pathway that releases sex hormones (gonadotropins), so if you are constantly stressed, you may experience a decreased libido and, in some cases, infertility or difficulty conceiving. Women who have high levels of cortisol in combination with low body weight may have amenorrhea (loss of menstrual cycle).
Training Effects
Because cortisol is released in response to stress, exercise training will increase the threshold of cortisol release. For example, if you begin an exercise program walking at a 20-minutes per mile pace, cortisol will be released at that intensity. However, as your training progresses and you begin walking at a 15-minutes per mile rate, the body will not perceive the 20-minutes per mile pace to be as stressful and will not release as much cortisol.

Quote
Finally, telling people that they should seriously switch their diets if they start feeling sick is irresponsible. People get sick irrespective of their diets. You trying to be an authority on what people should or should not do is laughable.

Using the internet’s anonymity to make hostile, assumptive statements against my intents involves a great deal of cowardice, to say the least.

When did I say that anybody should stop eating a ZC diet? I was trying to help others on this forum by presenting my theories and understandings of the problematic attributes of a chronic ZC diet. I am not trying to brainwash or control anyone. Do whatever you want. If you feel fantastic and want to continue on the ZC diet, then by all means, go right on ahead. I am presenting people with my understanding of what an optimal human diet does and does not contain, and my conclusions are, despite what you may believe, supported by science.

Quote
I know I said finally, but I lied. Here is some pure wisdom: The true optimal form is to be dead. Then you consume nothing, you experience no stress, and you have no chance of having any disease.

The so-called purity of your wisdom leaves much to be desired.

Quote
But that is not what I want. I want to be as strong and vigorous as I can. I don’t seek to be free from pain and stress, I want for everything that doesn’t kill me to make me stronger. I don’t want an easy life, I want the strength to endure a hard one.

I applaud you on the rhetorical flourish; truly, I was nearly brought to tears.

Works cited
Baba, H., Zhang, X. J., & Wolfe, R. R. (1994). Glycerol gluconeogenesis in fasting humans. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.), 11(2), 149-153.

Benito, B., Gay-Jordi, G., Serrano-Mollar, A., Guasch, E., Shi, Y., Tardif, J. C., ... & Mont, L. (2011). Cardiac Arrhythmogenic Remodeling in a Rat Model of Long-Term Intensive Exercise TrainingClinical Perspective. Circulation, 123(1), 13-22.

Cahill Jr, G. F. (2006). Fuel metabolism in starvation. Annu. Rev. Nutr., 26, 1-22.

Deaner, R. O., Isler, K., Burkart, J., & van Schaik, C. (2007). Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 70(2), 115-124.

Devivo, D. C., Leckie, M. P., Ferrendelli, J. S., & McDougal, D. B. (1978). Chronic ketosis and cerebral metabolism. Annals of neurology, 3(4), 331-337.

Hendrick, G. K., Frizzell, R. T., Williams, P. E., & Cherrington, A. D. (1990). Effect of hyperglucagonemia on hepatic glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis after a prolonged fast. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology And Metabolism, 258(5), E841-E849.

Iwaniuk, A. N., Nelson, J. E., & Pellis, S. M. (2001). Do big-brained animals play more? Comparative analyses of play and relative brain size in mammals. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(1), 29.

Kaleta, C., de Figueiredo, L. F., Werner, S., Guthke, R., Ristow, M., & Schuster, S. (2011). In Silico Evidence for Gluconeogenesis from Fatty Acids in Humans PLoS Computational Biology, 7 (7) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002116

Lalli, C.M. and Parsons, T.R. (1993). Biological Oceanography, an Introduction. 30 Corporate Drive, Burlington, MA 01803: Elsevier. p. 314. ISBN 0-7506-3384-0.

LaManna, J. C., Salem, N., Puchowicz, M., Erokwu, B., Koppaka, S., Flask, C., & Lee, Z. (2009). Ketones suppress brain glucose consumption. In Oxygen Transport to Tissue XXX (pp. 301-306). Springer US.

McDonald, L. (1998). The ketogenic diet. A complete guide for the dieter and practitioner. Austin TX: Morris Publishing.

Prince, A., Zhang, Y., Croniger, C., & Puchowicz, M. (2013). Oxidative Metabolism: Glucose Versus Ketones. In Oxygen Transport to Tissue XXXV(pp. 323-328). Springer New York.

Schell, D. M. (2000). Declining carrying capacity in the Bering Sea: isotopic evidence from whale baleen. Limnology and Oceanography, 45(2), 459-462.

Seyfried, T. N., Sanderson, T. M., El-Abbadi, M. M., McGowan, R., & Mukherjee, P. (2003). Role of glucose and ketone bodies in the metabolic control of experimental brain cancer. British journal of cancer, 89(7), 1375-1382.

Ebbeling CB, Swain JF, Feldman HA, Wong WW, Hachey DL, Garcia-Lago E, Ludwig DS. (2012). Effects of dietary composition on energy expenditure during weight-loss maintenance. 27; 307(24):2627-34.

Tagliabue A, Bertoli S, Trentani C, Borrelli P, Veggiotti P (2012). Effects of the ketogenic diet on nutritional status, resting energy expenditure, and substrate oxidation in patients with medically refractory epilepsy: a 6-month prospective observational study. Clin Nutr 31(2):246–249

Veldhorst, M. A., Westerterp-Plantenga, M. S., & Westerterp, K. R. (2009). Gluconeogenesis and energy expenditure after a high-protein, carbohydrate-free diet. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 90(3), 519-526.

Veldhorst, M. A., Westerterp, K. R., & Westerterp-Plantenga, M. S. (2012). Gluconeogenesis and protein-induced satiety. British Journal of Nutrition,107(4), 595.

Wilson, M., O'Hanlon, R., Prasad, S., Deighan, A., MacMillan, P., Oxborough, D., ... & Whyte, G. (2011). Diverse patterns of myocardial fibrosis in lifelong, veteran endurance athletes. Journal of Applied Physiology, 110(6), 1622-1626.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Alive on June 02, 2014, 04:07:36 am: Note regarding brain sizes

It is not fundamentally the nutrition an animal receives that drives its species brain size, it is the benefits a larger brain gives them to be more successful in their environmental niche.

Carnivorous fish have larger brains the vegetarian fish because you have to be smarter to hunt than graze.
Social animals have larger brains because they have to participate in complex social behaviour.
Apes have large brains to cope with their complex societies, a little hunting, and some tool making.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: colorles on June 02, 2014, 08:37:09 am: needless to say in the wild, most mammalian carnivores will not pass up the opportunity to consume carbs. of course this consumption is seasonal, and would be considered a "treat"

the way i look at it, i'm fine eating as many carbs as i could safely eat, without degenerative reactions and stressors to the body. in other words, how much carbs can the human body safely handle, without the insulin system being overtaxed hence diabetes, plaque formation in the arteries, weakened immune system,ect so on so forth? to what extent can the human body take advantage of this carbohydrate energy source, and suffer none or inconsequential side-effects?
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: aem42290 on June 02, 2014, 09:18:26 am: Quote from: colorles on June 02, 2014, 08:37:09 am
needless to say in the wild, most mammalian carnivores will not pass up the opportunity to consume carbs. of course this consumption is seasonal, and would be considered a "treat"

the way i look at it, i'm fine eating as many carbs as i could safely eat, without degenerative reactions and stressors to the body. in other words, how much carbs can the human body safely handle, without the insulin system being overtaxed hence diabetes, plaque formation in the arteries, weakened immune system,ect so on so forth? to what extent can the human body take advantage of this carbohydrate energy source, and suffer none or inconsequential side-effects?

That's a fantastic question, Colorles. Personally, I now choose to consume around 75-80g of carbs per day (in the form of fruits and raw starches--definitely never any empty carbs), although this number fluctuates depending on daily exercise intensity. I seldom measure how many carbs I eat, unless I am engaged in an active experiment, or if my curiosity has been piqued by some readings. I believe that it was Alive that pointed me to Paul Jaminet's website (I thank him for this greatly). Jaminet states that in order to achieve optimal levels of metabolic flexibility, the inclusion of carbs in a diet should account for 20-30% of daily total caloric needs. Jaminet's number is a bit on the high end for my liking, and I have found that I am typically satisfied with 15-20% of my calories coming from healthy carbs.

I would definitely be curious to hear from others, though~
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: sabertooth on June 02, 2014, 09:31:07 am: Quote from: colorles on June 02, 2014, 08:37:09 am
needless to say in the wild, most mammalian carnivores will not pass up the opportunity to consume cabs. of course this consumption is seasonal, and would be considered a "treat"

the way i look at it, I'm fine eating as many cabs as i could safely eat, without degenerative reactions and stresses to the body. in other words, how much cabs can the human body safely handle, without the insulin system being overtaxed hence diabetes, plaque formation in the arteries, weakened immune system,etc so on so forth? to what extent can the human body take advantage of this carbohydrate energy source, and suffer none or inconsequential side-effects?

It depends upon the individual. Some people have the ability to live on ungodly levels of refined carbohydrates without breaking down until much later in life. There is some adaptation which allows one to produce huge amounts of insulin and utilize sugars as the primary energy source.

Hypoglycemia runs in my family, and my mother for as sick as she is , is still able to keep low blood sugar even though she drinks a half gallon of soda pop, and eats white bread and potatoes every day.

Another interesting note on consuming pure carbohydrate, if you consume only refined carbohydrates, without any proteins or fats you will wasrte a way and die faster than if you ate nothing at all.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 02, 2014, 09:57:54 am: The longest-lived whales are deep-diving whales. They have the highest peak levels of CO2 in their blood (and in their environments, given that they dive the deepest, where the CO2 is highest and the oxygen lowest), and higher-than-avg levels of animal starch in their tissues (for example, the muktuk skin/fat layer towards the back end of deep-diving whales contains significant animal starch), both of which apparently help them accomplish deep dives. CO2 is reportedly anti-aging and tissue-regenerating (in the right proportions, of course).

Mole rats, bats and tardigrades are also long-lived animals, and they also reportedly tend to have higher CO2 and lower oxygen than avg in their environments, and presumably their tissues.

Exploring Overlooked Natural Mitochondria-Rejuvenative Intervention: The Puzzle of Bowhead Whales and Naked Mole Rats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18072884 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18072884)

Quote from: aem42290 on June 02, 2014, 03:40:55 am
Optimization involves the process of making something as effective, sustainable, and fully-functional as possible. The optimization of a system refers to the maximization of productivity and the minimization of refuse. In the context of my discussion, optimization is directly tied to temporal sustainability, and therefore, by extension, to life span.
When ZCers force their bodies to follow the less efficient metabolic pathways of converting protein or ketones into energy, instead of the more easily metabolized carbs or butyrate (such as from prebiotic-fed bacteria), this produces more of the "refuse" you mentioned. Did you have lactic acid in mind?
Quote
"Free fatty acids suppress mitochondrial respiration (Kamikawa and Yamakazi, 1981), leading to increased glycolysis (and the production of lactic acid) to maintain cellular energy." http://www.abioenergeticview.com/2-2 (http://www.abioenergeticview.com/2-2)

"Butyrate pretreated cells displayed a modulation of glutamine metabolism characterized by an increased incorporation of carbons derived from glutamine into lipids and a reduced lactate production. The butyrate-stimulated glutamine utilization is linked to pyruvate dehydrogenase complex since dichloroacetate reverses this effect. Furthermore, butyrate positively regulates gene expression of pyruvate dehydrogenase kinases and this effect involves a hyperacetylation of histones at PDK4 gene promoter level. Our data suggest that butyrate exerts two distinct effects to ensure the regulation of glutamine metabolism: it provides acetyl coA needed for fatty acid synthesis, and it also plays a role in the control of the expression of genes involved in glucose utilization leading to the inactivation of PDC." Butyrate elicits a metabolic switch in human colon cancer cells by targeting the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20715114 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20715114)

Carnivorous wild animals also consume carbs when they eat a fresh kill raw, both in the tissues (animal starch) and in the GI tract contents. The tissue carb content in fresh kills is reportedly higher than in supermarket meats.

Some other sites beyond Carbsane's that have VLC/ZC failure stories and success stories when people added more reasonable amounts of carbs back into their diets include http://anthonycolpo.com , (http://anthonycolpo.com) www.freetheanimal.com (http://www.freetheanimal.com), http://www.raypeatforum.com (http://www.raypeatforum.com), http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/forum.php, (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/forum.php) www.betterhealthclue.com (http://www.betterhealthclue.com) (formerly www.dirtycarnivore.com (http://www.dirtycarnivore.com), until too many people reported problems with VLC/ZC, including the site owner), http://180degreehealth.com , (http://180degreehealth.com) http://donmatesz.blogspot.com , (http://donmatesz.blogspot.com) and www.archevore.com (http://www.archevore.com).

There would be plenty of failure stories at the ZCer forum (forum.zeroinginonhealth.com), except that the site owner deletes them. ;D

Quote
"Depriving your body of a required metabolite and forcing it to adapt to same is pretty much a stress by definition."
- Kurt Harris, MD, http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/7/thoughts-on-ketosis-ii.html (http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/7/thoughts-on-ketosis-ii.html)
Quote
“Defnitely I share Paul [Jaminet's] discomfort with very low carb diets especially over the long-term because when you go very very low carbohydrate, you tend to reduce leptin. And certainly when you start from a place of excessive leptin or leptin resistance, then it’s a good thing. That’s why people see benefits over the short term when they first adopt VLC diets or [Ketogenic Diet] approaches. But over the longterm the reduced leptin causes thymus atrophy and the thymus gland is crucial in the function of adaptive immune system because it’s the gland that matures T lymphocytes, which are huge components of the adaptive immune system.”
- Sarah Ballantyne, PhD, http://www.superhumanradio.com/download-the-autoimmune-panel-discussion.html (http://www.superhumanradio.com/download-the-autoimmune-panel-discussion.html)

Metabolic flexibility is a good term. Why wouldn't someone want to be metabolically flexible?
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Alive on June 02, 2014, 11:56:36 am: Quote from: aem42290 on June 02, 2014, 09:18:26 am
That's a fantastic question, Colorles. Personally, I now choose to consume around 75-80g of carbs per day (in the form of fruits and raw starches--definitely never any empty carbs), although this number fluctuates depending on daily exercise intensity. I seldom measure how many carbs I eat, unless I am engaged in an active experiment, or if my curiosity has been piqued by some readings. I believe that it was Alive that pointed me to Paul Jaminet's website (I thank him for this greatly). Jaminet states that in order to achieve optimal levels of metabolic flexibility, the inclusion of carbs in a diet should account for 20-30% of daily total caloric needs. Jaminet's number is a bit on the high end for my liking, and I have found that I am typically satisfied with 15-20% of my calories coming from healthy carbs.

I would definitely be curious to hear from others, though~

aem42290, I am very pleased to hear this has been useful for you :)

I am following my instincts and eating as much low sugar fruit and starchy raw vegetables as tastes good.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on June 02, 2014, 02:33:27 pm: Quote from: PaleoPhil on May 29, 2014, 04:32:21 am
Do you mean you exaggerated in the past? If so, how do I know you're not doing the same now? The "many" people you mentioned in the past would still be valid for you to indicate today, if you were not exaggerating then. Just because many of them are not active in this forum any more doesn't mean they didn't report problems in the past. If you should go inactive that wouldn't somehow invalidate the poor results you reported from RZC.

I agree w/ you that the subforum diets should be treated the same, which is why I asked that dissenting views be allowed in ALL the subforums.
Like I said before, we cannot allow dissent as it is nearly always of the hysterical variety. More the point, interest in a wide variety of diets waxes and wanes with the advent of every new diet book or scientific finding. Such trivialities are not relevant to a particular diet which does not change so easily. Plus, the various dietary forums are small and are meant more for discussing aspects of that particular diet. Attacking those rawpaleo diets should, by contrast, go to the hot topics forum instead.

As regards the first accusation of yours, this is pure equivocation. I had retaliated against many pro-RZCers at the time so I had no choice but to exaggerate. Now, I obviously do not have such a need.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 02, 2014, 07:07:44 pm: Thanks for acknowledging five years later that you were exaggerating back then. Maybe five years from now we'll learn what you're true current views are. ;D If you could unapologetically exaggerate back then as it suited your needs, you could do so again.

Did you respond about what you think the specific starchy foods were that humans have amylases for? Sorry if you did already, I don't remember a clear direct answer.
Quote from: TylerDurden on February 05, 2011, 04:09:15 pm
I think it's obvious that humans are omnivores. I mean we have teeth(molars) designed for eating plants, plus amylase for starches etc.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: 24isours on June 02, 2014, 08:23:59 pm: Quote
The very fact that gluconeogenesis is associated to cortisol levels should send up some red flags: gluconeogenesis is tough work, and our bodies will avoid activating the metabolic pathway unless absolutely forced to do so

To those of you who think Gluconeogenesis requires high cortisol levels, read this:

http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketogenic-diets-and-stress-part-i.html (http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketogenic-diets-and-stress-part-i.html)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on June 02, 2014, 09:57:56 pm: Quote from: PaleoPhil on June 02, 2014, 07:07:44 pm
Thanks for acknowledging five years later that you were exaggerating back then. Maybe five years from now we'll learn what you're true current views are. ;D If you could unapologetically exaggerate back then as it suited your needs, you could do so again.
Pathetic pedantry as I was being quite obvious re exaggeration way back when. Whatever the case, I will always defend this board from being overrun by hysterical science-free posts of the sort suggested. Plus we need to be fair to all and allow each forum to have a decent chance.
Quote
Did you respond about what you think the specific starchy foods were that humans have amylases for? Sorry if you did already, I don't remember a clear direct answer.
A few raw tubers.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: sabertooth on June 02, 2014, 11:33:35 pm: Quote from: 24isours on June 02, 2014, 08:23:59 pm
To those of you who think Gluconeogenesis requires high cortisol levels, read this:

http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketogenic-diets-and-stress-part-i.html (http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketogenic-diets-and-stress-part-i.html)

I don't give much credence to the idea that ketogenic diets require high cortisol levels to maintain. Perhaps for those who arnt well adapted and are constantly going in and out of ketosis it could cause periodic elevations of cortisol, but even this should be little cause for concern, it is a natural reaction which is the low carb equivalent of an insulin spike .High Insulin level can be even more detrimental than high cortisol.

Once Gluconeogenesis is established then insulin levels drop down triggering a metibolic shift that allows the conversion of fats and proteins to stabilize so that cortisol spikes are no longer needed to maintain blood sugar levels.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 03, 2014, 10:47:32 am: Quote from: TylerDurden on June 02, 2014, 09:57:56 pm
A few raw tubers.
Amylase for tubers, eh? Based on ZC guru Bear Stanley's writings, I'll bet he wouldn't agree:

"Seven Simple Rules For The Human Carnivore
1) Eat only from the animal world. ..." http://highsteaks.com/carnivores-creed/owsley-the-bear-stanley/seven-simple-rules-for-the-human-carnivore/ (http://highsteaks.com/carnivores-creed/owsley-the-bear-stanley/seven-simple-rules-for-the-human-carnivore/)

"The common house-cat is used in human anatomy classes as a substitute for the very expensive human cadaver because the internal organs are, in size and shape, relative length of intestines, type of stomach, kidneys, liver etc are nearly IDENTICAL to human. In other words, we have the 'guts' of a carnivore as well as the dentition of one type of carnivorous lineage." - Bear Stanley, http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/archive/what-do-you-think-of-this__o_t__t_1948.html (http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/archive/what-do-you-think-of-this__o_t__t_1948.html)

I think you're more right on that than the Bear.

Speaking of the Bear, the forum where he first spread the word on his version of ZC carnivory and sparked the ZC phase is another example of the decline of ZC - the forum is nearly moribund, with no posts since January: http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/index.php (http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/index.php)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: TylerDurden on June 03, 2014, 02:16:09 pm: Diets come and go due to the appearance/disappearance of gurus, books etc. The Bear died a while back, so it is hardly a surprise if his forum became defunct.
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on June 03, 2014, 06:48:00 pm: It wasn't Bear's forum, it's owner was just inspired by Bear's ideas and Bear had a thread there. They said that it had become rather moribund a couple years before Bear died. It it looks it had become so moribund that there was just a brief mention of Bear's death, with no discussion of it.

It does demonstrate what a mistake it is to tie a diet more to a person than to concepts, though the ZIOH forum attempted to do the latter. I think ZIOH is the only ZCer forum left and that is relatively inactive too. Does anyone know of another?
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: 24isours on June 23, 2014, 04:49:55 am: Quote
Could be diabetes, certainly. But thirst may also indicate dehydration, which has a tendency to impact those on a sustained ZC diet. The kidneys become highly effective at excreting salts from the body while in very deep ketosis. For some folks, this is not a problem; they simply heighten their sodium intake to compensate for the problems, or add in magnesium supplements to mitigate the mineral losses. I, for one, was never interested in adopting a diet that demanded supplements in order to function effectively. My understanding is that a diet which requires supplementation (be this in the form of iodine pills, Amazonian minerals, magic joojoo pills, etc.) is a rather problematic diet to begin with.

It is proven that adding in some carbohydrates to ones diet does indeed make it easier for one to hold onto sodium (making the need for extra sodium less important than one who isn't in ketosis). In my opinion, if one was able to get their hands on blood and fresh meat these extra requirements of minerals wouldn't be of much importance. One of the keys to my success in eating a Carnivorous diet may very well be the fact that my meat does come with considerable amounts of blood. I also make sure to supplement 3/4 of a teaspoon of sea salt a long with my meal, a long with a few milligrams of Iodine per day. If I was eating raw thyroid a few times a week , I wouldn't think Iodine supplementation would be necessary.

I've mentioned in previous posts about carbohydrates increasing production of thyroid hormones; which in some cases could be the reason why some people feel better adding in carbohydrates. Possibly adding in extra iodine would replace the need for extra carbohydrates to boost this process as my body will be creating thyroid hormone through what I would consider a more 'natural' process rather than getting the boost of hormones from added carbohydrates in the diet.

Quote
On numerous occasions, my heart problems on a ZC diet were attributed to "dehydration." In response to those statements, I thought: complete BS, considering that I was consuming a large amount of water throughout my waking hours. However, one should realize that larger amounts of water don't precisely add up to adequate hydration. In fact, drinking multiple liters a day when the body is in a deep ketogenic state may exacerbate the loss of electrolytes by accelerating excretory processes.

Thyroid hormone is associated with many different metabolic functions. Perhaps it's relation with electrolyte balance could be another reason why I do not seem to suffer with such problems. However, if I do consume too much protein I will notice palpitations if I do not consume enough water. This may be attributed to the toxic effects of too much protein and also the bodies response to eliminating such toxins.

Quote
You are foolishly misconstruing my arguments. I am not claiming that short-term stressors are unnecessary for human health; I am writing against the long-term stressors emerging from a chronic ZC diet and its inefficient metabolic pathways. The reason why cortisol sends up a red flag in relation to gluconeogenesis is because while in a deep ketogenic diet, a subject is constantly engaged in gluconeogenesis, and therefore exhibits elevated cortisol levels (Swain et al. 2012). Dichotomizing stress as good/bad is a ridiculous proposition. Stress is neither good nor bad; stress is a physical signifier that directs our attention toward bodily processes that may indicate the absence or presence of particular adaptive mechanisms. I have opted to question which adaptive mechanisms are optimal for both longevity and maximum health.

The only time cortisol is involved during the process of gluconeogenesis is when blood sugar levels go down low enough to induce a hypoglycemic state. Cortisol is called in to act upon in such an emergency to help restore blood sugar levels to a normal level. When adequate protein is consumed on a ketogenic diet, hypoglycemia hasn't been known to be a problem.

(http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketogenic-diets-and-stress-part-i.html (http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketogenic-diets-and-stress-part-i.html))
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: political atheist on August 17, 2014, 01:51:37 am: Quote from: Alive on May 20, 2014, 03:11:00 pm
aem42290,
I am wondering if you gained benefits initially from VLC that were worthwhile, and if you had started to very slowly increase carbs early on that might have worked well?

I have been interested in reading the research of Paul and Shou-Ching Jaminet (The Perfect Health Diet book). In regards to carbs their findings are that the ideal is 30% of energy from carbs (Typically ~600 calories), from 'safe starches' like potatoes, rice and bananas, to provide for the bodies glucose needs, and the rest from fat.

Here is Paul's investigation of ideal glucose levels for longevity and dialog with Ron Rosedale:
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/11/safe-starches-symposium-dr-ron-rosedale/ (http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/11/safe-starches-symposium-dr-ron-rosedale/)

i wouldnt listen to anybody who tells you that rice(GMO), banana(its like eating white sugar) are safe carbs to eat. LOLOLOL
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: Iguana on August 17, 2014, 03:51:22 am: Quote from: political atheist on August 17, 2014, 01:51:37 am
banana(its like eating white sugar)

How is that? Is sugar cane identical to white refined industrial sugar too, according to you?? l)
Title: Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
Post by: PaleoPhil on May 11, 2015, 06:54:57 am: Quote from: PaleoPhil on June 03, 2014, 10:47:32 am
... Speaking of the Bear, the forum where he first spread the word on his version of ZC carnivory and sparked the ZC phase is another example of the decline of ZC - the forum is nearly moribund, with no posts since January: http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/index.php (http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/index.php)
It seems the Zeroiningonhealth zero carb forum of Charles Washington that was inspired by Bear Stanley has also been defunct since some time before 19 Jan 2014: http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-457723.html (http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-457723.html)

It was replaced with a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/105005229541718 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/105005229541718)