Author Topic: Bacteria/zero-carb conundrum  (Read 5251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Bacteria/zero-carb conundrum
« on: September 27, 2008, 05:39:11 pm »
On our sister-forum, rawpaleodiet, I read a post which reminded me of something. Raw zero-carbers always seem to claim that the gut loses all its bacteria once you go zero-carb as the bacteria are only needed to digest carbs. However, why then do the Inuit and other zero-carber tribes always go in for large amounts of bacteria-rich aged, raw meats(ie "high-meat","high fish" etc.). The fact that they eat such aged raw meat often is an indication that they do actually need the bacteria, after all. Any comments from zero-carbers, here?
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline wodgina

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,304
  • Opportunistic Carnivore
    • View Profile
Re: Bacteria/zero-carb conundrum
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2008, 09:32:22 pm »
On our sister-forum, rawpaleodiet, I read a post which reminded me of something. Raw zero-carbers always seem to claim that the gut loses all its bacteria once you go zero-carb as the bacteria are only needed to digest carbs. However, why then do the Inuit and other zero-carber tribes always go in for large amounts of bacteria-rich aged, raw meats(ie "high-meat","high fish" etc.). The fact that they eat such aged raw meat often is an indication that they do actually need the bacteria, after all. Any comments from zero-carbers, here?

Is that true? only carbs need bacteria? how do you know when your gut loses bacteria do you not digest blueberries etc?
The Inuit sure went out of their way to make high meat didn't they? dogs also go out of their way to bury bones etc
I sometimes crave certain tastes such as vinegar which can be replicated in a way from high-ish liver (could possibly be carb cravings) I like the tangy taste of almost high ground beef also.

Maybe 'high' meat works better on zero carb people? less competition from carb loving bacteria which don't produce the 'high' effect.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 09:38:06 pm by wodgina6722 »
“Integrity has no need of rules.”

Albert Camus

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Bacteria/zero-carb conundrum
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2008, 12:20:46 am »
Are you suggesting the only benefit of bacteria in the system is aiding the digestion of carbohydrates? I find this hard to believe, if high meat does give concentration and mood benefits obviously the enzymes or other chemicals in the putrefied meat is aiding with neurotransmitters and therefore probably also other parts of the body.

Also another benefit of bacteria is that they take up all the "real estate" in your system and prevent "bad bacteria" and other microbes from gaining hold. Imo that is why raw foodists have such high immunity to infectious diseases, that coupled with the lack of heavy toxin load that can be dislodged from an infection.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Bacteria/zero-carb conundrum
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2008, 12:42:36 am »
I wasn't personally suggesting that bacteria are only useful as regards digesting carbs. it's just that this is a common claim made by some raw zero-carbers(such as Jeff Wissler/Craig? among others) - they also claim that a zero-carbers's gut would be virtually sterile, in the long-term, due to lack of carbs entering the digestive-system. They usually point to the fact that zero-carbers find digesting carbs increasingly difficult, when they go off the wagon, and sugest that this is due to a lack of the necessary bacteria in the gut. My own view would be that it merely suggests that carb-oriented bacteria are done away with on zero-carb, and that meat-oriented bacteria remain.

I just wanted those on raw, zero-carb who subscribe to the above theory to give a more detailed explanation of it. Certainly, the fact that the Inuit go in for high-meat in such large quantities, indicates that the claim is wrong.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline stevesurv

  • Boar Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Bacteria/zero-carb conundrum
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2008, 06:43:41 am »
I think having a sterile gut is nonsense and would be extremely dangerous because our gut flora plays a key role in the function of our immune system.


http://mkburton.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/symbiotic-gut-bacteria-reprogram-our-immune-system/

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Bacteria/zero-carb conundrum
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2008, 10:55:26 pm »
I agree with you guys, the most sensible answer to the carb-digesting difficulties of a zero-carber would be that their gut is selecting for protein and fat digesting bacteria and selecting out bacteria that need carbs. Bacteria are constantly entering the system and being selected for in the system, if there is no food for them they will starve or leave the system, but once you put the food there they will be selected for again. It would be extremely interesting to somehow get a sample of gut flora from different people on different diets and also on the same person on a carb heavy and zero carb diet and compare them.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk