Quick question regarding Protein/Fat ratio

[miles]

Are you saying that people don't break down fat into ketones for energy? - this is the standard accepted view of low carb diets.

Well it's not the dietary fat being broken down but the body fat. Dietary dietary fat is important for 'non-energy' purposes. The body fat could have been formed from dietary protein/carbs/fat. Pure animal body fat is difficult for the body to process in much quantity - it takes a lot to process it which isn't found within itself. This is different to dairy, nuts, fatty fruit.

People are using stored glycogen together with their stored body fat. Someone with an abundance of carbs in their diet wont be making use of the full potential of their body fat. They're still burning it, but they don't need to use all of its components so some are discarded. If someone is just eating animals, they don't have the abundance of dietary carbs, so their body uses more of the components from the body fat which they're burning, along with the stored glycogen formed from the small amounts of dietary carbs, and the dietary protein. The body fat they're burning could have been formed from a mixture of fat and protein. Only a small amount of fat is needed for those non-energy purposes though. Fat(animal body fat) is a wonderful concentrated source of energy, but there isn't much else in it, so the body can't handle processing much of it. Meat on the other hand is full of everything needed to process itself and to process fat.

Most people I've heard of who are eating only animals long term and feeling good, are eating mostly meat(meat doesn't just = muscle), with just as much fat as their body can easily handle, without getting slowed down. Dairy doesn't count, as it contains the meat/fruit within itself, it contains what is necessary for itself to be processed, so doesn't take much from the body and your body can handle loads of it. If you're eating mostly meat, your body's still converting the protein into fat, as well as the fat into fat, and the protein in to glycogen and even some of the fat into glycogen, and running off of them both together.

[Josh]

I really don't know where you get that from mate. This article from Eades explains how we use dietary fat.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/metabolism-and-ketosis/

You can only use stored glycogen for a week or less then you hit the wall. If you're on a ketogenic diet, your body fat will shoot down until you start adapting to using fat for energy.

People like Lex on here are eating 70-80% calories of fat by ratio, and if you go to a cooked zero carb forum they often advocate something similar.

What do you mean meat has what you need to break down fat? Water you can drink.

I'm really not getting at you personally, it just seems that you make these assertions that are out of step with everything else and I want to know where your information comes from.

[miles]

Interesting article, but as far as I can see it only supports what I said.

"you’re liver"

[Josh]

Miles:

Well it's not the dietary fat being broken down but the body fat

The article mentions breakdown of protein to glucose, and says you can get a little energy from body fat

Thus a starving person can get a little glucose from the fat that is released from the fat cells, but not nearly enough. The lion’s share has to come from muscle that breaks down into amino acids,

However then Ketogenesis takes over:

Ketones are basically water soluble (meaning they dissolve in blood) fats that are a source of energy for many tissues including the muscles, brain and heart. In fact, ketones act as a stand in for sugar in the brain

Ketones come from breaking down fat, dietary fat, and they are a substitute energy source instead of glucose. Hence why low carb dieters get more energy from fat not protein.

As the liver breaks down the fat to release its energy to power gluconeogenesis, the conversion of protein to sugar, it produces ketones as a byproduct.

[miles]

Ketones come from breaking down...dietary fat

It doesn't say that. It says fat(which comes from the body fat).

__________________

Everything which it does say is in line with what I said.


The body fat is triglycerides. It says you can get glucose from the glycerol part of the triglycerides, and that in the absence of abundant dietary carbs, the body will produce ketones from the fatty acid tails, in the process of converting protein into glucose.

This is why the meat part is the most important. If you're eating animals only, you're getting your glucose predominantly from protein, so if you're not eating enough meat, it's coming out of your muscles, and you won't have much energy(because your body wants to limit the break-down of the muscles). The fat however, can come fine from your body fat. You want to eat only as much fat as you can take in without it making you feel sluggish. You need some dietary fat for anabolic stuff, and besides it's concentrated so it's great for energy, but you can also make body fat from the meat, and past the amount of fat which your body can easily manage, it's easier to do so. The body's producing ketones only alongside gluconeogenesis, so the protein is the limiting factor in your metabolism. Therefore the need for dietary protein comes first before the fat, but you want(and need, but not as much as you should want) the fat alongside it of course. The meat also is more full of micro nutrients than the fat.. The fat in energy terms, in what quantity your body can easily handle is fantastic, but to process it your body needs nutrients which are not contained in the fat, so it's a drain beyond a certain point in that sense as well.

[Josh]

It doesn't explicitly say that it's dietary fats nevertheless that's what it means and this is the common view of what's going on in ketosis.

Just look around.

A perception developed that getting energy chiefly from dietary protein rather than carbohydrates causes liver damage and that getting energy chiefly from dietary fats rather than carbohydrates causes heart disease and other health problems. This view is still held by the majority of those in the medical and nutritional science communities.[57][58][59] However, it is now widely recognized that periodic ketosis is in fact normal, and that ketosis provides a number of surprising benefits, including neuroprotection against diverse types of cellular injury.[60]
People who eschew low carbohydrate diets cite hypoglycemia and ketoacidosis as a risk factor, but these are only problematic for people such as diabetics, who have impaired regulation of gluconeogenesis and ketone metabolism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet#Ketosis_and_insulin_synthesis:_what_is_normal.3F


I'm not going to split hairs about the wording of the article.

AFAIK neither of us are scientists...if you think that something different is going on with ketosis then again where do you get the information from?

[miles]

I get my information from resources such as those you are citing. Everything you're linking supports what I've been saying..

I am a scientist, in the purest sense. Though not: "a person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences", which is what you mean.

[Josh]

What resources?

It seems like you have a thing about not giving your reasoning or information, like we're just going to accept it, and making your answers shorter and shorter.

I'm sorry if I've made you feel attacked or threatened somehow before, but I'm really not into any of that kind of game, or any macho bollocks.

I've always liked that this forum because people can have intelligent debates and call each other about stuff if they think it's off.

If I'm wrong then why? I'm not a scientist and the wiki article for example mentioned using dietary fats, but you seemed to clearly say that only body fat was used for energy.

So if you think that's wrong or I have stated the difference wrongly then how about explaining it, not giving a cryptic one line answer.

[miles]

I've read lots of things, and they all contribute to my understanding, but I don't remember the sources.. Everything I read contributes to my understanding, even if just by impacting or expanding upon my previous understanding, including the article you linked.

How could one get sustained energy from dietary fat in the form of animal body fat? You would have to be eating it constantly, or you would have to absorb it all into your blood from the intestines and have it stay there, in such a great quantity that it would last you, which would kill you. The energy has to be stored somewhere first..

[Josh]

A lot of zero/low carbers eat a high fat diet to get energy, and as far as I can make out from the articles posted it's because this fat breaks down to ketones which are an energy source replacing glucose.

If you think there's a misunderstanding in what I'm saying then say it, if not I don't think the discussion is going anywhere.

[miles]

The liver requires energy to convert the protein to glucose. The energy comes from fat. As the liver breaks down the fat to release its energy to power gluconeogenesis, the conversion of protein to sugar, it produces ketones as a byproduct.

^From the first article you linked.^

The body is primarily converting protein into glucose. In order to convert the protein into glucose, a process which requires energy, the body uses the glycerol from stored body-fat. This process of gluconeogenesis occurs in the liver, so when the glycerol part of the triglyceride is used up, the fatty acid tails are released straight into the liver, where they are converted into ketones. The ketones are being produced alongside the glucose from the gluconeogenesis, in order to limit the amount of protein which must be broken down. The gluconeogenesis comes first, the release of the fatty acid tails into the liver is a byproduct of this conversion of protein into glucose, and the liver then utilises these by-products by converting them into ketones which can supplement the energy provided by the glucose, thus reducing the amount of protein which must be broken down. The gluconeogenesis comes first though.

[Josh]

Right, now I now where you're coming from. I understand that gluconeogenesis is involved in ketone production, but afaik you've got the wrong end of the stick if you think that protein is the main fuel in low carb high animal product diets...it's not what most writers seem to think anyway.

Ok ketones are a 'byproduct' of breaking down the protein in a sense, but if the net energy from ketones is higher then for practical purposes the fat is the main energy source, no?

Simple reasoning would seem to suggest that if people on a zero carb diet are eating 80% fat by calories, then practically speaking the fat is the main fuel source.

This seems to be confirmed by things like Lex's journal when he states that after moving to a higher ratio of fat, he had lower energy for a while until his body adapted further to get more energy from fat.

So it seems clear to me that people can and do get energy from fat.

To come back to one of your original points:

It is the meat which provides the energy, the water, along with material for building. The dietary fat is important for building, but you don't need much for that. Pure fat is very hard to process in large quantities, it has to sit around for ages..

People obviously are getting energy from fat not just gluconeogenesis, and I think that a lot of low carbers do eat a lot of fat not just lean meat...although there may be a lot that eat less and do well as you and Tyler mention.

Do you disagree with this or do you think that they shouldn't get energy from fat even though they are now?

You talk about eating lamb yourself, you may know lamb muscle meat is 60% fat by calories so not exactly lean.

So are you saying that it's better to get energy from gluconeogenesis and if so why?

[miles]

I'm not saying that glucose provides more energy than ketones on an animal only diet, but that protein is the limiting factor. As one becomes better at using the ketones, they will get more of their energy from fat and I understand that, but it's always reliant upon the protein, so in that sense protein is the primary energy source. However good one becomes at utilising ketones, it's always going to be limited by their protein intake, just to a lesser extent the more adapted one becomes. This means that consumption of meat, not fat, is always the limiting factor, as long as one has body fat(above a drastic minimum level, at which point metabolism shall be limited by both protein and fat). This is of course beyond the minimal quantity of fat one must intake for other purposes. Of course, the way I'm saying, if one isn't intaking enough fat they will gradually lose body fat and will therefore want to increase their dietary fat intake to bolster it, but it's not urgent. Eating fat will not give one extra energy, as their metabolism is only limited by their protein intake in the short/medium term, but fat must be consumed in order to maintain the body fat, which will be used up whilst one is using gluconeogenesis. The body is not worried about using body-fat in the short/medium term, the comfortable range for body-fat is quite large, in comparison to the comfortable range for muscle, as body-fat is largely for storage.

As one becomes more adapted to using ketones, they will not burn more fat... They will only receive a greater amount of energy from the same quantity of fat, thus meaning they do not need so much protein. However well adapted to using ketones for energy you become, gluconeogenesis still requires the same amount of glycerol, and so the same amount of triglyceride, which leaves the same amount of fatty-acid tails being released into the liver, and the same amount of ketones being produced. It's just one's ability to utilise them which increases, so less are eliminated from the body.

This means that fat intake, beyond a minimal amount, is of secondary importance.. You don't need much fat in the moment. Of course, this means that you will eat away at your own body fat stores, but this is not a problem... It just means you need to consume enough fat overall to keep them topped up. Dietary fat, at the moment of eating it doesn't give you any energy, as there's only so much fat which can be present in the blood anyway without causing you health problems. The fat used to fuel gluconeogenesis, the by-products of which are converted to ketones, comes from your stored body-fat, not from the fat which you've just eaten. The protein however, does come from the meat you've just eaten, unless it is not available in which case it will be taken from your muscle. If you are deriving much of your protein from your muscles for an extended period(without taking in protein to form more muscle tissue), you will have a decrease in energy as your body does not want to break down its muscles too much.

[Josh]

I think I understand what you're saying, that the relationship of gluconeogenesis to ketogenesis means that the energy from fat is theoretically limited by the amount of protein.

However, you would need to quantify these things to make an argument for eating less fat.

You seem to be saying that it's useless or counterproductive to eat fat over a certain amount so we should eat more protein, but then it depends what the limit is. How do you translate your idea to actual ratios?

It seems that if Lex was transitioning from 70/30 ratio to 80/20 and gradually got more energy from fat on 80/20 that this high amount of fat is not outside the theoretical limit you believe in..if he was getting too much fat anyway, then he should not notice any difference transitioning..or experience negative effects from extra fat.

And how would you answer the 'crowbar' arguments...that hunters appear to seek out fatty animals, and inuit would store and eat large amounts of fat...if it was fine to eat a minimal amount.

[miles]

It's initially only the quantity of fat utilised which would be limited by the intake of protein, but yes eventually the energy gained from fat would too be limited by the protein. If one were to become perfectly adapted to using ketones, wasting none(or as few as it is possible to waste), then they could not utilise any more fat as a percentage of total energy metabolism than they already were.

I'm presently unable to quantify/translate to ratios.

When Lex transitioned from 70/30 to 80/20, you say he had an initial drop in energy followed by a subsequent prevailing increase. The important question(I think) for how this relates to what I'm saying would be: Are his energy levels on 80/20 equal to, or greater than when he was on 70/30? If his energy levels are equal, then this suggests that he had already adapted to 80/20 whilst he was on 70/30 but was just using his fat stores to spare protein, but if it is greater then this would suggest the increase in energy was actually provoked by the switch, which could be at odds with what I'm saying. Though I think I've also heard Lex mention that he drinks large amounts of water and has very soft, runny/fatty bowel movements, which could suggest that some of his adaptations are more to do with handling excess fat, than with making use of it..?

I'm afraid I've not heard of this 'crowbar' specifically, but... In wild animals the ratio of fat is generally low, as they need to be as efficient as possible for survival, and will also themselves just generally be using up their stores between feasts. Thus people too would always be running low on stored body fat, and so always looking to top it up as much as they could. With the assumption that these hunters would be seeking out the fattier animals by instinct as opposed to any dietary philosophy, we could postulate that this was due to an actual craving for fat, which would mean they had already run down their stored fat to some extent and were looking to replace it. I suppose it's also possible that the fact that fattier animals could be easier to catch could play a part in some situations, like how the san bushmen chose to chase the Kudu with the largest antlers in that persistence hunting video.

How much fat do the esqimaux really eat? It doesn't look like an excessive amount to me from what I've seen. And the fact that they store it(assuming you mean outside their body), shows that they are not eating it all. Who wouldn't store excess fat if they had it, and it wasn't an inconvenience to do so? If they were to ever fall upon lean times, they would start to run low on their own body fat stores and could use the externally stored fat. When I've seen eskimo people eating raw meat they always mention how the meat makes them warm/increases their metabolism. The fat is crucial to allow this process to keep going, and a major part of it, but the protein is the catalyst.

They also store slain animals in caches if they're unable to eat them all before moving on. But they don't store the meat for long separately, showing they eat it all up.

Also... There may be some differences between us and the eskimos. I'm aware that some types of fat, brown fat(which I believe human babies typically have more of than adults), can be burned directly to produce heat, I don't know if exposure to such cold climates could have led them to develop more of this kind of fat. Or if by 'store..large amounts of fat', you meant in their body, then that could I suppose be for insulation.

[Josh]

Hi Miles. As I understand it he felt no particular overall increase in energy, nor a drop just readjusting. Funny isn't it talking about our single experimental subject for raw paleo/zc that has bothered to use the scientific method on himself. I wonder what he thinks!

Maybe I can clarify what I'm saying. Let's say a ratio of 70/30 is higher than your predicted limit of energy from ketones. So a maximum amount of ketones is being produced.

Then he switches to 80/20. No more ketones can be produced, do you agree? So shouldn't his energy level stay exactly the same afterwards or worsen from negative effects of extra fat. The fact that he experienced an increase after suggests to me that he still had improvement available, and was not over a limit in ketone production.

There's a lot in his journal I can't really go through it now, but I found this:

Hi Halotek,
When on an 85%+ fat as calories diet I never did drop down to low levels of ketones.  They were always level 4+ (160 or greater) and I remained on the high fat diet for about 5 months.  As you state, it was when I upped the protein at the end of the experiment (or maybe more importantly, dropped the fat) that ketones dropped back down to trace or between zero and trace

So that suggests that ketone production continues at high levels of fat (even if they're being wasted)

Most people would consider 85/15 ratio high, so if this is under the limit of ketone production it's not really an argument for higher protein for energy, right?

I'm not sure about your idea that ketone production only comes from body fat. As I understand it the liver can store triglycerides from dietary fat which then become ketones, and fat cells can store them as well. I don't pretend to be a biologist though I just try to use the reasoning I have available.

A 'crowbar' argument just means there is theoretical ideas, and then there are practical arguments from what you can see happening.

You mention that most ZC/VLCers do well on higher protein. I've been kicking around forums for a while and to me it seems the other way. Most people believe you can get energy from fat and go for a higher fat ratio.

However, I accept that Tyler says he does well on more protein, and maybe others. I don't know how much carb he eats or if he measures.

Maybe the take home message is that we should avoid giving advice with bald statements as if we know the truth and be more humble, and that goes for everyone including me as everyone can get wrapped up in what they think they know. Newbies are just looking for the 'right answer' and there isn't one. I think you should reevaluate giving statements as if they're fact when a lot of people are doing something different, but I accept this applies to me as well so if I do it then call me out.

[miles]

Maybe the take home message is that we should avoid giving advice with bald statements as if we know the truth and be more humble, and that goes for everyone including me as everyone can get wrapped up in what they think they know. Newbies are just looking for the 'right answer' and there isn't one. I think you should reevaluate giving statements as if they're fact when a lot of people are doing something different, but I accept this applies to me as well so if I do it then call me out.

I like to hear everyone's opinion.

Hearing everyone's opinions allows one to form a more balanced understanding of their own.

[Josh]

I don't mean that you are a newbie. I mean that if someone comes on this forum and hears "fat won't give you more energy" or "people on high fat diets use a lot of fat for energy" they'll probably take it as a fact not knowing the complexity of our world. So I think we have a responsibility to not sound so certain.

[KD]

this is all totally backwards.

if someone is

a.) already burning fat primarily as fuel - which is empirically and scientifically definitive as a process not a instant mutable choice or preference or to be argued.

b.) AND not taking in much carbs

they are not going to increase their protein over fat precisely because...

- protein is entirely unnecessary and theoretically harmful after certain levels

- protein is not important or efficient for energy - potentially will effect glucose and possibly jeopardize the desired process in addition to being inefficient already, so short of increasing carbs (which WOULD bring them back to using carbs/glucose - inarguable) they have to eat fat in higher amounts for overall calories, because there are only the three macronutrients to begin with. Some people do claim higher energy from higher fat intake, but even if all the fat is not being used as direct energy, you have to eat something and for whatever reason there is just three things.

The other huge component is that - for most people- being unwell means needing extra fats than what one might need in nature. the actual muscle meat protein is only needed repair in this respect so eating fat means more proteins for repair and not being burned uselessly and inefficiently for fuel, so again you have this totally backwards. ask any person on the street in regards to fat and protein which one is stored energy and which one is building blocks.

All the anecdotal stuff will point to people doing extremely poorly on high protein low carb diets and whatever successes I've seen reducing animal protein and raising dietary fat. Other evidence suggests that ALL people on the planet require at least some dietary fat for mere existence (and likely animal fat) probably high levels for thriving (weston price) and not at all animal protein. Obviously some animal protein is probably ideal, but the dietary fat in absence of animal protein, is far more conclusively health promoting than the reverse which virtually never happens in societies or nature corresponding with low carbs.

Plenty of people consume no or little animal protein and very little dietary protein % and as long a they have carbohydrates they will have usable energy. Take all the carbohydrates away from these people and replace with protein and see how they fare. As per my statement above regarding raw vegetarians, I know plenty that eat 70-80% fat or higher and no animal protein and do better than high varb vegs and vegans. People eat mediocre plant fats like oils, avo, nuts, seeds, various fruit-nut butters coconuts, and some eat alot of dairy fat. IMO Most people will do poorly on this because it is vegetarian, and also because it can never be a truly fat burning diet, but despite being mislead in some ways, they are aware this provides them with a more stable and less toxic energy than through excess protein or carbs, particularly raw fruit carbs which can reak havok in modern toxic internal environment. At one time, the higher fat limited fruit camps once dominated the raw vegan thing. I Assume its still pretty split now. veg proteins, fat, and carbs, all have their respective problems in excess, but although the plant fats are the safest, they still suck and its understandable that the popularity of the high fruit ( back to quick toxic energy) have grown exponentially.

Just because people will get a certain level of fat from eating muscle meats does not mean they are engaged in the most healthy or efficient process. To answer the original post, I think its OK to say that some people don't have to stress about supplemental fat form suet or marrow (honestly I do think this only applies when eating >100 g or so carbs - even for basic performance). I mean just getting off modern foods is going to free up alot of energy, but this does not mean its the fast track for long term performance or short term healing.  Ultimately the animal protein part is less necessary. To me this is totally conclusive, so when limiting carbs (if that is ones choice) the answer is just obvious.

[Josh]

What you say seems to make sense to me KD, but Tyler says he does well on more protein, so he's hardly going to change if it doesn't fit with his real world experience. I don't know if he's eating >100g carb a day.

I think in the interests of a good forum it's best to at least present the possibility of other viewpoints, even if we strongly believe in ours.

[KD]

What you say seems to make sense to me KD, but Tyler says he does well on more protein, so he's hardly going to change if it doesn't fit with his real world experience. I don't know if he's eating >100g carb a day.

I think in the interests of a good forum it's best to at least present the possibility of other viewpoints, even if we strongly believe in ours.

heh, I don't think i'm going to try to change tylers mind nevermind personal habits. I wrote the same thing about 5 times about this not being a zero carb issue at all, despite the fact that very few people on this site are actually purely ZC and many emphasize external animal fats.

The ultimate irony about your statement is when people make any claim about dairy or such things in regards to improving their health plenty of hardline people: instinctos etc.. will quote that "one can survive eating donuts coffee and cigarettes but it still seem healthy," then you ask about basic things like athletic performance, bodyweight or issues corresponding with high fruit diets and they will point to the absolutely most minimum statistics, while denying people that actually have cured diseases through other dietary protocols of which would have been neglected under these theories.

So its ok to say X is bad even when people have authentic positive claims, but whenever some macro nutrient ratio or fruit consumption is under attack one can just say: oh well I feel fine so I win. (not attacking tyler here, but your logic)

I just don't understand how stating the absolute minimum based on what is workable an acceptable strategy in such a scientific and result based argument. I doubt people will get off easily with claiming the OJ fast cleansed their acne or any other thing in a candida thread, without the actual engagement of everyone elses experiences in addition to science. In other words, speaking form experience is good, but it doesn't cut the mold for all circumstances.

all my posts acknowledged that his POV was applicable while the typecasting was not. In some ways, presenting your own experience can be highly detrimental, because people have different issues and requirements. So despite the fact that the high-fat mantra seems to be the one in higher regard with the other theories being the minority - I think my viewpoint is perhaps a bit more open.

[Josh]

I'm not saying there's no place for the discussions, I just think that if I want the 'other side' not to make bald statements like 'you don't need much fat' that I have to do the same.

'I feel x, but some people hold that y'

By their lights, they're right even if I completely disagree with it, so we should all be a bit less forceful to make the forum a better place for us, and the confused newbs.

That would apply to everyone. Maybe it's an impossible ideal, but I really don't want this forum to go to shit as it gets bigger, and just become a ego war.

[KD]

No one really knows whether ZC, VLC, Or LC are the healthiest approach, but emphasizing fats over protein is going to be the conscious choice in all these approaches, not just the ones that exclude plants entirely.
 

I think you are playing unnecessary devils advocate here. Given the right pitch, I'm willing to believe we run off sun energy and that eating meat delivers the souls of animals to our 4 humor engines. but if we are talking about triglycerides and glucose, you can't reinterpret the common usage of these concepts, nor can you say well 'everything is everything' when both the known science and peoples experience show noticeable differences and some have serious requirements or consequences associated with.

Like many members here, I would be happy eating lean meats and fruits and mono meals till my brain or balls shrivel up but sometimes in between that I would feel god awful, so while its correct to say some might 'do fine' on low fat low carb diets, its just plain incorrect to say that adding dietary fat is a 'RZC' issue or that meat is an ideal fuel when this goes against BOTH science and empirical and anthropological results to how the body functions BEST.

I believe if I quoted consistantly the long term frutarians, Primal Dieters, and Standard dieters I met that feel great and insisted on such as an arguing tool only then would conversations become fruitless. Don't see where the ego thing comes in here. Sorry if my post seemed so definitive. I'm willing to accept with the right argument that even LC in general is not the right thing long term, but it would be for reasons far different than 'meat is like water' when fats are again - the known lubricants. If you have suggestions to how I can put aside dispelling this information or frame in another way, let me know.

[TylerDurden]

Well, actually, there are plenty of RZCers here, with them being a very powerful minority(30-40 percent?). I suppose one could quibble and arbitrarily call someone like Lex or Wodgina a VLCer because they eat a few carbs on pretty rare occasions, but that would be extreme. Besides, a number of genuine VLCers eat so few carbs that they function like RZCers re ketosis etc.


As for my comment re raw omnivores not needing to worry re nutrients like fats, that is generally the case, as almost all raw omnivores either will be eating sufficient raw fats and/or sufficient raw carbs to be healthy,  simply by accident(they would hardly be eating liquid protein supplements or the like). So loading on extra raw fats or raw carbs is pointless.

[KD]

Well, actually, there are plenty of RZCers here, with them being a very powerful minority(30-40 percent?). I suppose one could quibble and arbitrarily call someone like Lex or Wodgina a VLCer because they eat a few carbs on pretty rare occasions, but that would be extreme. Besides, a number of genuine VLCers eat so few carbs that they function like RZCers re ketosis etc.

ok, I do disagree with your categorization here but other than paleo dieters, you have as i've said Primal Dieters, WAPD followers, vegans, and just countless traditional peoples who emphasize fat (even when they are not ketogenic) so even though we are talking mostly in regards to energy, you can't just say whole categories of food are pointless just because one can survive without them. This is totally ridiculous on a health forum, where people should be eating the healthiest foods per their properties and considering foods and macro-nutrients per their health issues, not just *whatever* foods are (possibly) workable and not poisonous.

basically when you make these statements what you are saying is, no matter what someones health issues are there will be virtually no difference in health or health progress from eating any range of fats or carbs as long as they are in acceptable ranges. That given the same person that increasing or lowering their fat and carbs and or protein would make no difference whatsoever and that added nutrition or lack of other issues in food left out - would not factor in at all? this can't possibly be correct on any level.

I think I will bow out of refuting that one but on a closing note re: protein supplements, you can't just pick one study with holes in it to justify things all the time. Theres plenty of peoples whole LC philosophies that are based on problems with what you are saying, with protein and with carbs. doesn't mean they are right, but the issues are not just with isolated proteins or refined sugars so that can't be your own rationale against them because they aren't going on those. Virtually everyone's protein intake here from my appraisal is over some 'specialists' acceptable ranges FWIW, so to say these issues are just pointless because they don't result in instant death...is just rather too dismissive of both simple and complex issues around health.