Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach => Topic started by: ForTheHunt on December 29, 2009, 10:22:05 pm
-
Basically my question is. Does it work long term or will you eventually get sick and possibly have heart problems?
Because I've tried raw vegan for a few years and it does not work.
-
Look at the indigenous Innuits, who have lived off the land and consumed all but meat and fat.
They were robust with the most stronger teeth on the earth.
-
There is "The Bear" who claims decades of (cooked) ZC consumption. Unfortunately, he also describes things like getting throat cancer which doesn't make one too trusting of cooked ZC.
Lex seems to have been doing ZC for several years now, and is doing fine. Some others have done it for a couple of years or so without real incident.
I'd say it's been proven that one can do ZC long-term given anecdotal reports.My only quibble is with the issue of organ-meats(ZCers seem to frown on them mostly) and the raw vs cooked and grassfed/grainfed issues - I'm not convinced that a diet consisting solely of cooked, grainfed muscle-meats is remotely healthy.
What does seem to be a concensus view is that there is a difficult transitional process the body has to go through re adaptation to zero-carb. If you do badly on zero-carb, you will generally find out after 3 weeks or so that that transitional weakness will get worse and worse over the next several weeks, while those who do well on ZC report getting more used to it and adapting fully.
-
Charles of ZIOH (where I post) is over a year, as is Suzanne and a few others. I am now at 9 months.
I have had no heart problems, no illnesses. Just great energy, more leanness, better muscle retention and defintion (while increasing calories and cutting back exercise), very clear skin, and zero hunger (no hypoglycemia, etc.)
Fatty meat is great for your health; carbs are poisons to our systems.
-
Basically my question is. Does it work long term or will you eventually get sick and possibly have heart problems?
I’d say that the answer depends on how you implement ZC. If you think you are going to eat only muscle meats and fat from grain fed meats at your local market, I think you will ultimately end up with problems. If you eat grass fed meats and include a small amount (10% or so by weight) of a wide variety of organ meats (liver, kidney, tongue, heart, spleen, pancreas, tripe, etc), then your prospects of being successful with ZC for the long term are probably pretty good.
ZC is not magic. There are significant trade-offs between ZC and VLC and I think VLC (5% to 10% of total calories from carbs) is probably the better choice for most people as long as they eat grass fed meats and organs as stated above and are willing to follow Paleo principals when choosing the carbs they eat.
I’m sure you’ve read the glowing reports. Here’s the potential bad stuff.
A good percentage of people that attempt ZC go through a period of several months that stresses the adrenals causing rapid heart beat, arrhythmia, and palpitations. If there were some hidden heart problem this could conceivably cause death. I went through this as did Craig, Martin, and several others. We ultimately got over it, but in my case it took 8 or 9 months – maybe longer.
There is also an issue with cramping. Many of us experienced severe muscle cramps, especially night time leg cramps, that lasted for a period of 3 to 9 months depending on the person. These, too, finally went away.
I experienced kidney stones as I think did another person on this forum. Research shows that there is a significantly higher incident of kidney stones for people eating ZC than the normal population. My guess is that this is due to a reduction in water intake, but no one knows for sure. I can tell you that they are excruciatingly painful. Like a dull knife ripping through your gut with someone pouring alcohol on the wound. The pain is also relentless. It can go on for hours at a time with no let up. In my case, morphine didn’t kill the pain but did make it just bearable. No other pain killer would touch it. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone.
My experience shows that the symptoms of some metabolic based diseases can be alleviated, ( high blood pressure, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, some IBD, etc), but you aren’t cured. If you suffered from any of these problems and go back to eating your old diet you will quickly begin to suffer from the problems again.
Some issues may be prevented by a ZC or VLC diet, but once progressed beyond a certain stage, the symptoms can’t be reversed. My own experience shows that BPH and baldness fall into this category.
There is a widely accepted belief that if you eat ZC you can’t gain weight. This is not true. During the first 18 months or so, your body is adapting to burning fatty acids rather than carbs as its primary fuel. Initially it is very inefficient and many of the calories you eat are discarded. However, after 18 months or so, your body will have adapted and you will again gain weight unless you keep calorie intake equal too or less than energy expenditure. In all fairness, it is easier to keep calories down as fat is very satisfying and you naturally eat less. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that just because you lose lots of weight when you initially go ZC or VLC that this will go on forever. Unfortunately it doesn’t.
Finally, I don’t believe that there is any evidence that this is a life extending diet. What little I’ve been able to find on the subject seems to point to an average lifespan of around 85 years for those eating ZC or a similar diet. The plus side is that you are very active right up to the end and maintain mental acuity, while many who eat a more varied diet heavy in carbs often live well into their 90s but suffer a high incidence of debilitating strokes, physical degeneration, and dementia for the last 10 to 15 years of their lives. Again, it’s all about trade-offs.
You will also discover that the ability to do intense physical work (heavy weight lifting, wind sprints, etc) will be reduce, but activities requiring endurance will be enhanced – more trade-offs. Including some carbs (VLC rather than ZC), seems to offer the best compromise.
I have been ZC for about 4 years now and have kept good records of my experience. You will find much of what I’ve learned along the way in my journal if you are interested. In the future I will probably take my own advice and transition back to VLC as I have found little difference in the overall health benefits of ZC over VLC, and VLC may indeed have the upper hand for the long term over a deep ketogenic diet like ZC.
Hope this helps,
Lex
-
A good percentage of people that attempt ZC go through a period of several months that stresses the adrenals causing rapid heart beat, arrhythmia, and palpitations. If there were some hidden heart problem this could conceivably cause death. I went through this as did Craig, Martin, and several others. We ultimately got over it, but in my case it took 8 or 9 months – maybe longer.
I started ZC as a desperate attempt to be rid of potentially deadly arrhythmia and palpitations. It worked, and the only recurrence was when I deliberately ate cooked carbs for three days.
I did notice the rapid heartbeat, but to me that was trivial after the arrhythmia.
There is also an issue with cramping. Many of us experienced severe muscle cramps, especially night time leg cramps, that lasted for a period of 3 to 9 months depending on the person. These, too, finally went away.
I had calf cramps - IIRC it was less than 3 months.
-
I’d say that the answer depends on how you implement ZC. If you think you are going to eat only muscle meats and fat from grain fed meats at your local market, I think you will ultimately end up with problems. If you eat grass fed meats and include a small amount (10% or so by weight) of a wide variety of organ meats (liver, kidney, tongue, heart, spleen, pancreas, tripe, etc), then your prospects of being successful with ZC for the long term are probably pretty good.
ZC is not magic. There are significant trade-offs between ZC and VLC and I think VLC (5% to 10% of total calories from carbs) is probably the better choice for most people as long as they eat grass fed meats and organs as stated above and are willing to follow Paleo principals when choosing the carbs they eat.
I’m sure you’ve read the glowing reports. Here’s the potential bad stuff.
A good percentage of people that attempt ZC go through a period of several months that stresses the adrenals causing rapid heart beat, arrhythmia, and palpitations. If there were some hidden heart problem this could conceivably cause death. I went through this as did Craig, Martin, and several others. We ultimately got over it, but in my case it took 8 or 9 months – maybe longer.
There is also an issue with cramping. Many of us experienced severe muscle cramps, especially night time leg cramps, that lasted for a period of 3 to 9 months depending on the person. These, too, finally went away.
I experienced kidney stones as I think did another person on this forum. Research shows that there is a significantly higher incident of kidney stones for people eating ZC than the normal population. My guess is that this is due to a reduction in water intake, but no one knows for sure. I can tell you that they are excruciatingly painful. Like a dull knife ripping through your gut with someone pouring alcohol on the wound. The pain is also relentless. It can go on for hours at a time with no let up. In my case, morphine didn’t kill the pain but did make it just bearable. No other pain killer would touch it. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone.
My experience shows that the symptoms of some metabolic based diseases can be alleviated, ( high blood pressure, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, some IBD, etc), but you aren’t cured. If you suffered from any of these problems and go back to eating your old diet you will quickly begin to suffer from the problems again.
Some issues may be prevented by a ZC or VLC diet, but once progressed beyond a certain stage, the symptoms can’t be reversed. My own experience shows that BPH and baldness fall into this category.
There is a widely accepted belief that if you eat ZC you can’t gain weight. This is not true. During the first 18 months or so, your body is adapting to burning fatty acids rather than carbs as its primary fuel. Initially it is very inefficient and many of the calories you eat are discarded. However, after 18 months or so, your body will have adapted and you will again gain weight unless you keep calorie intake equal too or less than energy expenditure. In all fairness, it is easier to keep calories down as fat is very satisfying and you naturally eat less. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that just because you lose lots of weight when you initially go ZC or VLC that this will go on forever. Unfortunately it doesn’t.
Finally, I don’t believe that there is any evidence that this is a life extending diet. What little I’ve been able to find on the subject seems to point to an average lifespan of around 85 years for those eating ZC or a similar diet. The plus side is that you are very active right up to the end and maintain mental acuity, while many who eat a more varied diet heavy in carbs often live well into their 90s but suffer a high incidence of debilitating strokes, physical degeneration, and dementia for the last 10 to 15 years of their lives. Again, it’s all about trade-offs.
You will also discover that the ability to do intense physical work (heavy weight lifting, wind sprints, etc) will be reduce, but activities requiring endurance will be enhanced – more trade-offs. Including some carbs (VLC rather than ZC), seems to offer the best compromise.
I have been ZC for about 4 years now and have kept good records of my experience. You will find much of what I’ve learned along the way in my journal if you are interested. In the future I will probably take my own advice and transition back to VLC as I have found little difference in the overall health benefits of ZC over VLC, and VLC may indeed have the upper hand for the long term over a deep ketogenic diet like ZC.
Hope this helps,
Lex
Thank's Lex for your honesty.
Why don't you eat any seafood/wild fish ?
-
I'd have to second that inquiry.
If innuit is an example, they have access to sea food.
Not just fish, but sea lions, walruses and whales.
There must be something very different about those creatures.
It was funny that Burger King has a documentary with arctic people in it.
They were made to taste the Burger King and Mc Donalds hamburgers and Burger King was voted as tasting better.
But the last scene was asking a man which tasted better, burger king or seal meat, and the man adamantly said it was seal meat.
But we city folk have no access to seal meat.
I wonder what kind of nutrition in seal meat vs beef.
-
I'd have to second that inquiry.
If innuit is an example, they have access to sea food.
Not just fish, but sea lions, walruses and whales.
There must be something very different about those creatures.
It was funny that Burger King has a documentary with arctic people in it.
They were made to taste the Burger King and Mc Donalds hamburgers and Burger King was voted as tasting better.
But the last scene was asking a man which tasted better, burger king or seal meat, and the man adamantly said it was seal meat.
But we city folk have no access to seal meat.
I wonder what kind of nutrition in seal meat vs beef.
Yes this might be a very important point when the inuits are invoked as an example of a people "thriving on ZC".
-Arctic sea mammals are not land mammals and one difference one can see is precisely the fairly different fat composition of blubber as compared to beef fat: less SFAs and more PUFAs (typically 10 to 20% and a few % only respectively). Moreover see mammals are wild and land mammals as beef are usually domesticated.
-Inuits most likely ate all the plant foods (berries, sea weeds...) they could gather in their harsch environment. So they were not ZC but rather VLC.
-Inuits ate actually a large variety of foods over a one year period (fishs, sea bird eggs, organs from mammals etc) and not just something like 80/20 ground beef all year round.
-
Inuits ate actually a large variety of foods over a one year period (fishs, sea bird eggs, organs from mammals etc) and not just something like 80/20 ground beef all year round.
That's really true. This kind of constant eating 80/20 of ground beef is definitely not natural.
-
Lex, thanks for the thorough and honest reply as you are one of the very few with more than a year of zc experience. I'd like to comment on several things though. Overall, at least in this post, you seem quite cautiously optimistic, making sure to point out the negatives while not necessarily giving all your positives their fair run. I suppose you'd like to err on the side of caution when it comes to touting something as a cure, possibly since you've gone through so many diets before and they have all failed you in one way or another.
ZC is not magic.
I think this depends on how you define magic. Your pre-cancerous lesions on your back have completely disappeared without treatment. This seems pretty 'magical' to me. Your BPH, although not cured, has gotten better every year and the medication you need is the lowest dosage you've had since you've started ZC. Your hair has stopped falling out and even gotten a little thicker. Your nails are tough and flexible. And there surely are many other benefits I am forgetting. To me this is magic, since it takes no modern medicine, no real thought, just eating animals.
Some issues may be prevented by a ZC or VLC diet, but once progressed beyond a certain stage, the symptoms can’t be reversed. My own experience shows that BPH and baldness fall into this category.
Sure, and it won't regrow a lost kidney or testicle either.
I experienced kidney stones as I think did another person on this forum. Research shows that there is a significantly higher incident of kidney stones for people eating ZC than the normal population.
From what I can tell the kidney stone was the only real negative associated with this diet and obviously a very serious matter. What research shows that kidney stones develop in ZC'ers. Are you referring to the epileptic kids? They consume heavily cooked grain-fed meats which could change everything. Is there any info on raw ZC kidney stones? You failed to mention here that there is a possibility that the stone was there from your previous years eating your other diets that led you to horrible health. ZC very well might have decreased the size of the stone enough where it was free to pass out. Since, literally every other aspect of your health has increased rather dramatically I would guess that this is actually it and would wager money that the next CT scan you get in a year shows a reduction of calcification in your kidneys. I'll even lay you 2-1 odds if your up for a friendly wager.
There is a widely accepted belief that if you eat ZC you can’t gain weight. This is not true. During the first 18 months or so, your body is adapting to burning fatty acids rather than carbs as its primary fuel. Initially it is very inefficient and many of the calories you eat are discarded. However, after 18 months or so, your body will have adapted and you will again gain weight unless you keep calorie intake equal too or less than energy expenditure.
I agree that on ZC you can gain weight. Though the 18 month mark is based mainly on your experiences and is certainly not something that can be applied to everyone. I stopped secreting extra ketones after about a month when I went ZC. From what I've read on the ZC board, the older you are and perhaps the sicker you were the longer it will take to fully adapt.
Finally, I don’t believe that there is any evidence that this is a life extending diet. What little I’ve been able to find on the subject seems to point to an average lifespan of around 85 years for those eating ZC or a similar diet. The plus side is that you are very active right up to the end and maintain mental acuity, while many who eat a more varied diet heavy in carbs often live well into their 90s but suffer a high incidence of debilitating strokes, physical degeneration, and dementia for the last 10 to 15 years of their lives. Again, it’s all about trade-offs.
I can't imagine there be evidence either way whether ZC extends modern day life expectancy. But, if you are less likely to get cancer, heart disease, etc then I'd guess there is a great chance you are extending your life. Do you know why a healthy ZC'er would suddenly die in their sleep if they had no disease?
You will also discover that the ability to do intense physical work (heavy weight lifting, wind sprints, etc) will be reduce, but activities requiring endurance will be enhanced – more trade-offs. Including some carbs (VLC rather than ZC), seems to offer the best compromise.
This is the one area of the diet that concerned me the most. I searched endlessly through the medical journals, without success, to find a good answer here. There was only one study done on ZC athletes that I am aware of with that being the 6 weeks bicycle study done by Phinney. There was one line in it about the cyclists not being able to sprint as well, but this was not directly measured, just an observation. The study was done for only 6 weeks as well so the cyclists might needed a lot longer to adapt. They were also probably fed cooked grain-fed beef which might make a difference as well. So, I don't take too much from that I study
I never was ZC long enough to get the full impact of whether my performance would have decreased, but my progress was almost surreal on ZC. I lifted heavy weights for low reps and progressed nearly every work out. Even now, if you check my journal, during my first week back being ZC I am lifting very heavy weights. I even had one of my best days ever at the time when I am supposed to be my weakest. So with regards to weightlifting, at least in the short run (less than 6 months) I have not been affected. I haven't really sprinted but will be getting involved playing sports soon so I should be able to test this as well. Also, Charles sprints frequently and has an incredible 400m time for his age, so there is evidence that neither sprinting or weightlifting is compromised.
I’d say that the answer depends on how you implement ZC. If you think you are going to eat only muscle meats and fat from grain fed meats at your local market, I think you will ultimately end up with problems. If you eat grass fed meats and include a small amount (10% or so by weight) of a wide variety of organ meats (liver, kidney, tongue, heart, spleen, pancreas, tripe, etc), then your prospects of being successful with ZC for the long term are probably pretty good.
I think eating cooked grain-fed meat over the course of a lifetime is a potentially mammoth mistake and the factor that is most highly overlooked on the ZC board. They have gone this far but won't eat the best quality meat??? This makes no sense to me. Are you really willing to risk your health on this potentially huge factor?
-
Again, it’s all about trade-offs.
This is the way I see all aspects of life, not only diet. Another idea that I hold is that, "The best is the enemy of the good." In other words, "sometimes in people's search for the best, they over look the good."
You have given a good report on both positive and negative aspects. A person has to decide for themselves whether the changes they have made are of more benefit to them then their old methods. Many of us have come from lifestyles which were not the healthiest before, and have sought an answer to our problems, whatever they are for each individual.
For the most part, starting to eat VLC 6 years ago provided me with the greatest benefit of health in a very short time frame. What I have experienced in the last few months by trying to go further has not helped me. It has created new problems and questions. with no apparent benefits. Trying to go all pemmican a couple of months ago surprized me when I failed. You may have also read Nicola's post, and mine in ZIOH about my experience with eating a large amount of crab meat. I can't tell you how scary it was to have dark brown urine. Since I told my Doctor, friends and family what happened, try telling them the problem isn't diet related. They have all heard about Atkins' destroys kidneys. Since I am the only one they know of that has eaten this way long term, I am their proof that it is true. These 2 events are a possible turning point in what I may be doing in the near future.
I have also found that eating ZC and raw foods in public is like wearing a neon sign board. I don't like to seek attention, but it is unavoidable when a person eats this way. If I sneeze, it must be because of what I am doing. The fact that my BP, cholesterol levels, weight and other problems got better, it must be because I'm unique, not because I'm eating better. So, sometimes the trade offs are more like a consequence rather than a direct relationship. The social aspects of this style of eating is important to me. It was far easier for me to justify VLC.
It is very much about the trade offs. It is time again with the new year approaching, to re-evaluate what has worked, and what hasn't for me.
Tom
-
Why don't you eat any seafood/wild fish ?
Fish and poultry don't satisfy my hunger like red meat. They are way to lean. I do eat them on occasion, but not often. I don't have access to blubber or seal fat and I doubt that the Inuit would do well without these traditional foods as well.
There is also some evidence that late paleo man ate mostly terrestrial animals and very little fish even when living close to the ocean. Humans are terrestrial animals and this makes me believe that most of their food would have been terrestrial as well. Native Americans depended on Buffalo herds and elk on the North American plains, and humans originally evolved on the African Savanna where there are large herds of animals and few fish. To assume that fish is our ideal food because a single group of humans that have little access to any other source of food is eating what is available in their environment is not all that convincing to me. I certainly believe fish is better than wheat, but not convinced that it is better than red meat from grass eating animals.
Just my opinion. You'll have to make up your own mind on the matter,
Lex
-
I do not believe in the whole 'trade off' thing going ZC.. Unless the infrequent berries i was eating during my ZC time was giving me superpowers, I found no lack of energy anywhere.
-
I do not believe in the whole 'trade off' thing going ZC.. Unless the infrequent berries i was eating during my ZC time was giving me superpowers, I found no lack of energy anywhere.
Some experience it more than others.
-
Charles of ZIOH (where I post) is over a year, as is Suzanne and a few others. I am now at 9 months.
....
Charles claimed here - http://blog.zeroinginonhealth.com/?page_id=2 - that he started ZC in the Fall of 2007.
The traditional Inuit avoided the kidney stone problem on VLC, including the Greenland Inuit at just 1% of calories coming from carbs. In my research I've come across some clues as to how they managed this. They reportedly drank ungodly amounts of water and had unusually high magnesium levels. Water and magnesium are two of the most consistently cited preventatives of kidney stones.
Eating ZC requires knowledge and taking precautions, probably including ingesting plentiful water and sufficient magnesium, and perhaps keeping calcium and phosphate relatively low (common ingredients in stones that can be consumed by ZCers; oxalates, another common stone ingredient, are apparently low in any ZC diet). My hope is to incorporate some carbs in the future, for variety, social reasons, and to add a safety margin. My recent experiments with testing some carbs have so far not been as promising as I'd hoped. It was quite surprising to see how quickly I get negative results from small amounts. I'm thinking that my carbs of the future will have to be the most Paleo I can find--perhaps wild berries and a couple types of low-sugar wild-growing domesticated fruits in season. Luckily I have access to these. If it goes well I might also add a little bit of low-sugar organic fruit in season and maybe even dry some of the berries for out-of-season eating. I'm planning on testing this more extensively this summer.
-
Lex, my ability to do intense weightlifting has INCREASED on zero carb.
-
I don't see the purpose in ever eating carbs. We weren't designed to eat them. Social reasons, variety, etc. are all acculturation. Meat tastes better than any paleo carbs. I have no problem going out and being social. To each his own, but I think thinking of carbs as a "someday reward" is the wrong outlook.
-
I don't see the purpose in ever eating carbs. We weren't designed to eat them. Social reasons, variety, etc. are all acculturation. Meat tastes better than any paleo carbs. I have no problem going out and being social. To each his own, but I think thinking of carbs as a "someday reward" is the wrong outlook.
What makes you think we are not designed to eat carbs?
Carbs are everywhere in the nature, from plants to animals. Life would simply not be possible without carbs. One cannot imagine that our paleo ancestors never eat them, depending of course on the location and season of the year.
I believe many can't handle carbs (like me) because of the poor quality of today's carbs food. Modern fruits and vegetables are nearly empty calorie, with too much fructose, which makes them toxic, especially for compromised metabolism.
-
What makes you think we are not designed to eat carbs?
Experience.
Ate carbs, got sick. Ate pemmican, got well.
Bear had 47 years of experience when he wrote that carbs are poison.
-
Experience.
Ate carbs, got sick. Ate pemmican, got well.
Bear had 47 years of experience when he wrote that carbs are poison.
What a ridiculous generalization!
-
Experience.
Ate carbs, got sick. Ate pemmican, got well.
Bear had 47 years of experience when he wrote that carbs are poison.
Hmm, and both the Bear and you advocate smoking.
-
Experience.
Ate carbs, got sick. Ate pemmican, got well.
Bear had 47 years of experience when he wrote that carbs are poison.
Bear does not look healthy at all. And he got cancer...Not the best example to follow...
-
Bear ain't raw, and there were no anti-smoking loonies in the paleolithic.
I would not be surprised if it were discovered that they also drank coffee.
-
The bear has the disadvantage of about 400 sickly generations of ancestors. Thats 90% of the equation on his looks.
-
I don't see the purpose in ever eating carbs. We weren't designed to eat them.
I disagree klowcarb. That's just plain non-sense from a scientific point of view. Remind's me of the quite similar relevant statements made by vegans also after only a few months on their diet that "we weren't designed to eat meat" :)
Things are not that simple and by far, unfortunately. Might make us a little bit uncomfortable but avoids to be unnecessarily fooled.
Please read carefully the much more cautious and nicely balanced comments made earlier in this thread by Lex about his most interesting and useful carnivorous experiment. We should all take these comments as an example and work along these lines if we really want to progress.
We do not yet even know if there is something like "an ideal or best diet" for homo sapiens.
-
From biochemical point of view long-term zero-carb is very unhealthy.
Difference between VLC and ZC is huge.
I was wrong when I said that the diet of Inuits was ZC - it was VLC, with some zero-carb periods of time
-
Bear ain't raw, and there were no anti-smoking loonies in the paleolithic.
I would not be surprised if it were discovered that they also drank coffee.
Very funny as usual, William. Probably the Inuits got the coffee beans from their HG friends in central America by international shipping services. :)
-
Was there any source of (non-animal) carbs during the ice ages?
The tribes that live in northern Siberia eat nothing but meat as far as i know, there was a BBC documentary about them and when they showed em eating a meal, i didn't see anything but meat (cooked). Does blood contain carbs? The 1st thing they did after killing an animal was boiling and drinking the blood, that seemed to be their favorite part.
-
Organ-meats, shellfish contain some carbs.
Squids, for example, contain 3 g of carbs in 100 g, so if you eat 0,5 kg you will have 15 g.
100 g of whelks - 8 g of carbs
100 g of abalones - 6 g of carbs
100 g of mussels - 4 g of carbs
100 g of surimi fish - 7 g of carbs
liver, kidney, tongue - 1-4 g of carbs
-
You should read a book called the blood type diet.
I definitely don't agree that carbohydrates are poison. The thing is though, depending on where you live, who your ancestors were and what food they had access too is what matters.
According to the book, the people with blood type O should be eating very low carbs and be in a ketogenic state. How ever when it comes to people with B blood type they say they should be eating fruits and carbs, etc and avoiding excessive meat consumption.
I live in Iceland, and hardly anything grows here. It just makes perfect sense that I should be eating lots of fish and meat, because that's what we have abundance of. While someone who lives in thailand obviously has a massive access to fruits and veggies and there for is more suited to eat and digest that.
O blood type is the hunter blood type and B is a gatherers blood type.
Anyway this book made huge sense to me and I suggest you check it out.
-
From biochemical point of view long-term zero-carb is very unhealthy.
Difference between VLC and ZC is huge.
I was wrong when I said that the diet of Inuits was ZC - it was VLC, with some zero-carb periods of time
What carb foods were they eating?
Like stated above, I live in Iceland and there is no natural carb food here. Sure in the summer there is a tiny tiny tiny amount of blueberries I could pick, but that's it. And it's the same in Greenland.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious where they'd be getting their carbs from then.
-
Very funny as usual, William. Probably the Inuits got the coffee beans from their HG friends in central America by international shipping services. :)
Coffee is native to northeastern Africa.
-
so if there is carbs in meat, then you should eat a carnivorous diet, instead of a ZC diet? :P
-
What carb foods were they eating?
Variety of berries, contents of the stomachs, shellfish, fish and organ-meats, which contain some small amount of carbs
-
Variety of berries, contents of the stomachs, shellfish, fish and organ-meats, which contain some small amount of carbs
Eggs...
-
... The tribes that live in northern Siberia eat nothing but meat as far as i know, there was a BBC documentary about them and when they showed em eating a meal, i didn't see anything but meat (cooked). Does blood contain carbs? ...
Maybe they did not eat ZC every meal or not all year long or their snacks might have been berries.
..., shellfish contain some carbs.
Squids, for example, contain 3 g of carbs in 100 g, so if you eat 0,5 kg you will have 15 g.
100 g of whelks - 8 g of carbs
100 g of abalones - 6 g of carbs
100 g of mussels - 4 g of carbs
100 g of surimi fish - 7 g of carbs...
I believe the carbs in surimi is from potatoes.
http://www.epicurious.com/tools/fooddictionary/entry?id=4823 (http://www.epicurious.com/tools/fooddictionary/entry?id=4823)
What are whelks? How many g(ram)s does an abalone weigh? Can you eat them when they're small?
-
Variety of berries, contents of the stomachs, shellfish, fish and organ-meats, which contain some small amount of carbs
It may contain a few grams of carbs but I'd hardly call it "carbs" if you know what I mean.
-
I believe the carbs in surimi is from potatoes.
That could be true.
What are whelks? How many g(ram)s does an abalone weigh? Can you eat them when they're small?
Whelk - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whelk
I eat small squids and they are fine. I haven't eaten whelk or abalone.
-
It may contain a few grams of carbs but I'd hardly call it "carbs" if you know what I mean.
Carbs are carbs. If someone is 100% carnivore doesn't mean he/she is zero-carb. Zero-carb is 100% muscle-meats and fat.
-
...Whelk - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whelk
I eat small squids and they are fine. I haven't eaten whelk or abalone.
Thank you.
... According to the book, the people with blood type O should be eating very low carbs and be in a ketogenic state. How ever when it comes to people with B blood type they say they should be eating fruits and carbs, etc and avoiding excessive meat consumption.
I live in Iceland, and hardly anything grows here. It just makes perfect sense that I should be eating lots of fish and meat, because that's what we have abundance of. While someone who lives in thailand obviously has a massive access to fruits and veggies and there for is more suited to eat and digest that.
O blood type is the hunter blood type and B is a gatherers blood type.
Anyway this book made huge sense to me and I suggest you check it out.
The book can be interesting, but perhaps not altogether correct. Worth reading, to take the author's point of view and experience into consideration.
I know people with type O blood who swear by carbs being what helped them recover their health.
I know ninety-year old people of blood type B who swear by non fat skim milk, fish and poultry giving them their daily strength.
Of course without modern medical doctors and medical technology or houses or heating or airplanes or whatever else they may choose to take advantage of, or with impotence or miscarriages, these persons may not carry their line on. Only time tells and that's just reality.
I also know people who do not have type O blood who experience best health while practicing VLC (over medium carb).
-
Eggs...
Which eggs have carbs?
-
The blood-type diet has been thoroughly debunked by the anecdotal experiences of people on this board. There've been type Bs complaining of dairy-intolerance, type Os not doing well on zero-carb(me) etc.Besdies, the author of the blood-type diet has changed his mind and written some other variation on his past theories, so is even more discredited by that.
-
Which eggs have carbs?
Chicken eggs, for example - 1 g. In raw egg yolks it's 4 g.
-
The blood-type diet has been thoroughly debunked by the anecdotal experiences of people on this board. There've been type Bs complaining of dairy-intolerance, type Os not doing well on zero-carb(me) etc.Besdies, the author of the blood-type diet has changed his mind and written some other variation on his past theories, so is even more discredited by that.
That's really true. I'm type A and I do very well with meat and fat.
-
Chicken eggs, for example - 1 g. In raw egg yolks it's 4 g.
actually it's around 0.4g per egg. Not that it matters at all. I find it extremely strange if people intend to skip eggs because it has a tiny amount of carbs. It's still carnivorous :)
-
Humans have no essential carbohydrate requirement. We NEED water, protein and fat. I'm not saying we CANNOT eat carbs-we can tolerate them. But we do not need ANY to thrive.
-
Humans have no essential carbohydrate requirement. We NEED water, protein and fat. I'm not saying we CANNOT eat carbs-we can tolerate them. But we do not need ANY to thrive.
What about liver? It's pretty high in carbs. It's also extremely high in Vitamins A, C, and B-12.
-
I know what you mean about carbs being the only unessential [dietary] macronutrient [to ingest], Katelyn. Zero plant foods (which I'm guessing works out to under 1% of calories as carbs) has worked best for me so far and if it works best for me in the long term, I can certainly live with that. That being said, there are some people here who tried ZC or zero plant food and feel that it didn't work for them, so it's unlikely you'll convince them otherwise, just as few in the ZC forum can be convinced that raw Paleo is the way to go.
Unlike carb-containing plants, I haven't noticed any ill effects from carb-containing flesh foods like raw eggs, though the carb levels in flesh foods are very low. Raw beef liver has the highest reported carbs for a flesh food that I've seen, and even that only contains about 12% carbs (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/beef-products/3468/2). It is significant, however, which I think is one of the reasons that strict ZCers avoid it. Interestingly, raw chicken liver contains no measurable carbs (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/poultry-products/666/2). I wonder if animal carbs are more digestible for humans than plant carbs?
-
I think that 'sugar' is worse for you than 'carbs'.
-
Re: Random guessing on animal carbs
Animal carbs from liver are almost all glycogen, are they not? Perhaps this glycogen refills liver and muscle glycogen and isn't broken down to glucose like other plant carbs so is easier on the body.
-
While the case can be made that we don't really need to consume any carbs, your body does manufacture glucose from protein in the absence of dietary carbs (gluconeogenisis). Glucose and insulin are absolutely necessary for survival.
My experience is that I thrive on VLC, but do poorly when going 100% carnivorous.
Thanks Lex for a great post earlier.
-
Thanks for that clarification, Guittarman. I meant that carbs are the only unessential dietary macronutrient to ingest, not that carbs are unessential within the workings of the body. Interestingly, if one eats an extremely low fat diet of say 10%, like Ornish recommends, the body produces more fat to make up for some of the deficit, but I don't think it's possible to survive on zero fat intake, though I could be wrong.
-
Theres a paper around that Lyle McDonald has touted that apparently shows no lower limit for saturated fat intake.
-
I know what you mean about carbs being the only unessential [dietary] macronutrient [to ingest], Katelyn. Zero plant foods (which I'm guessing works out to under 1% of calories as carbs) has worked best for me so far and if it works best for me in the long term, I can certainly live with that. That being said, there are some people here who tried ZC or zero plant food and feel that it didn't work for them, so it's unlikely you'll convince them otherwise, just as few in the ZC forum can be convinced that raw Paleo is the way to go.
Unlike carb-containing plants, I haven't noticed any ill effects from carb-containing flesh foods like raw eggs, though the carb levels in flesh foods are very low. Raw beef liver has the highest reported carbs for a flesh food that I've seen, and even that only contains about 12% carbs (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/beef-products/3468/2). It is significant, however, which I think is one of the reasons that strict ZCers avoid it. Interestingly, raw chicken liver contains no measurable carbs (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/poultry-products/666/2). I wonder if animal carbs are more digestible for humans than plant carbs?
Carnivores eat a small quantity of vegetable (grass, berries, stomach content, etc...). So there is no real ZC animals in the wild.
I am currently trying VLC with low carbs/starch vegetables as ZC does not work for me.
-
carbs are poisons to our systems
I'm not saying we CANNOT eat carbs-we can tolerate them. But we do not need ANY to thrive.
I am interested to share experiences and relevant studies, but please do not post ZIOH dogma. Most of us are familiar and choose to be here for a reason.
-
I am interested to share experiences and relevant studies, but please do not post ZIOH dogma. Most of us are familiar and choose to be here for a reason.
Here you are - "Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry, 28th Edition", the best biochemical book
http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?cat=108&isbn=0071625917
If someone is familiar with that science he/she will know that carbs are not poison - they're are essential to human health.
-
Here you are - "Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry, 28th Edition", the best biochemical book
http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?cat=108&isbn=0071625917
If someone is familiar with that science he/she will know that carbs are not poison - they're are essential to human health.
IIRC the Bellevue study with Stefansson proved that carbs are not essential.
Lots of junk science around, and lots of carb addicts too.
-
IIRC the Bellevue study with Stefansson proved that carbs are not essential.
Lots of junk science around, and lots of carb addicts too.
That's ludicrous. If you say that the biochemistry is junk science you're ignorant.
The study with Stephansson lasted only one year. Several decades are enough. Besides he wasn't on zero-carb - he ate about 10-15 grams of carbs.
I'm rawpaleo LC advocate, but saying that 50 grams (for example) of carbs are poison is really unreasonable.
Look at the facts, look at the the stress on the body (kidneys, liver) while not consuming any carbs.
-
Theres a paper around that Lyle McDonald has touted that apparently shows no lower limit for saturated fat intake.
I'm not sure of the point you're getting at. You're not claiming that McDonald says that fat is an unessential macronutrient, are you (for there are other fats beyond saturated fats)?
-
Carnivores eat a small quantity of vegetable (grass, berries, stomach content, etc...). So there is no real ZC animals in the wild.
I am currently trying VLC with low carbs/starch vegetables as ZC does not work for me.
You're referring to facultative carnivores. I haven't seen any observational reports of obligate carnivores in the wild eating plant foods. Plus, sometimes indigestible plants are eaten for medicinal and purgative purposes, rather than for nutritive value, so I could imagine even obligate carnivores eating biologically inappropriate foods for those purposes. Also, if you've ever seen the feces of a coyote, wolf or other wild canine after they eat berries, you know how poorly even facultative wild carnivores tend to digest plant foods.
The vegan canard of wild canines regularly ingesting stomach contents has been refuted here multiple times. The only times facultative carnivores allegedly eat it is when they are starving or severely nutritionally deficient, and even then I've yet to see an actual documented observation in the wild. In contrast, I've observed a video of a wolf emptying out the contents of a stomach and intestines before eating the tissue. On the other hand, I have read reports of Inuits eating stomach contents apparently while not starving (but perhaps deficient in one or more nutrients?), so I wouldn't rule out occasional ingestion by wild canines for the reasons above, and more study is needed.
-
The degree to how "poisonous" carbs are is directly related to how sensitive we are to insulin. At one end we have new borns who must have heavy carb intake and who would function worse without them. At the other end we have diabetics/epileptics who cannot handle carbs and will function optimally as a carnivore. Everyone else falls somewhere in between.
Finding out what is optimal is a different story. We have all heavily convoluted the situation by eating decades worth of garbage that has us in this position. Our bodies do not work like they were intended and each one of has different problems with different methods of eating. Just because one method works for us now does not mean it would work just as well for us as small children with uncompromised systems. Our systems are all compromised in one way or the other.
Tyler seems to get sick at merely the sight of cooked foods, where I can eat cooked meat all day long for months and be in great health. William finds that pemmican is vastly superior than any other food where others have not found this to be so. This what makes the discovery so interesting. We are all so different. We each are all uniquely damaged goods and we all need uniquely different treatments to achieve superior health again. One method for all does not seem to work.
Simply saying that carbs are poisonous is too simplistic and does not take a look at the full spectrum of issues. Tyler, for instance, absolutely needs some carbohydrate intake or his system will fail. Carbs are certainly not poisonous for him, they help him maintain optimal health. Same for many other members of the forum.
I also once thought that eating meat and water would work for everyone if they gave it enough time. This is just not realistic and although just meat and water does work extremely well (and is likely optimal) for many it is not simply the solution for everyone's problems. This is where ZIOH can get people in trouble, they do not like to investigate anything other than meat and water. They are a bit too one dimensional, although their one dimention works extraordinarily well for some people.
I've noticed that ZIOH discussion forums have died down recently and almost come to a complete halt. There is very little new discussion and some members have even expressed their approval of this. When you only look at just meat and water I suppose their is very little to discuss. This is why I enjoy this forum so much is that the discussion is very broad and there is no general answer for everyone. It is multidimensional.
-
You're referring to facultative carnivores. I haven't seen any observational reports of obligate carnivores in the wild eating plant foods. Plus, sometimes indigestible plants are eaten for medicinal and purgative purposes, rather than for nutritive value, so I could imagine even obligate carnivores eating biologically inappropriate foods for those purposes. Also, if you've ever seen the feces of a coyote, wolf or other wild canine after they eat berries, you know how poorly even facultative wild carnivores tend to digest plant foods.
The vegan canard of wild canines regularly ingesting stomach contents has been refuted here multiple times. The only times facultative carnivores allegedly eat it is when they are starving or severely nutritionally deficient, and even then I've yet to see an actual documented observation in the wild. In contrast, I've observed a video of a wolf emptying out the contents of a stomach and intestines before eating the tissue. On the other hand, I have read reports of Inuits eating stomach contents apparently while not starving (but perhaps deficient in one or more nutrients?), so I wouldn't rule out occasional ingestion by wild canines for the reasons above, and more study is needed.
I neither believe human is obligate carnivore, nor wild canine eat berries for no reason.
Do you have the links for the "vegan canard" ?
-
I'm not sure of the point you're getting at. You're not claiming that McDonald says that fat is an unessential macronutrient, are you (for there are other fats beyond saturated fats)?
Sorry, wasn't clear. No, he does not think that and has actually written a couple of very low carb books. I think he was saying that there was no safe lower limit to saturated fats, or at least the research hasn't been done yet. The AHA recomends 7% as their upper limit. I think the body can manufacture all the saturated fat from PUFA's but not the other way around thus making PUFA's "essential". This is all in the SF wiki as well
-
Demonizing carbs comes as usual from people who just have no education in basic biochemistry and merely don't know what they talk about. Another good book that helps to become less ignorant is: Biochemistry by Donald and Judith G. Voet , John Wiley and Sons (1995).
Please read a little bit in this kind of books before making outrageous claims such as "carbs are poisons to our systems".
Just a few remarks as food for thought:
-It is basically logically incorrect to conclude from the fact that the biood sugar regulation system (based on the insulin, glucagon etc hormones) of many civilized people has been definitely damaged by cooked grain based diets that carbohydrates are the culprit. The culprit is cooked grains. Period.
-Stricto-sensu ZC diets merely cannot exist actually. All living healthy organisms necessarily contain carbs and thus all food even from animals contains carbs.
-We can indeed limit our ingestion of carbs to a very small quantity. If this quantity is below the minimum we need we are capable to synthesise the needed glucose from protein. But this has a metabolic cost (synthesis needs energy, produces waste etc) and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is better than to ingest the required minimum of carbs. Actually the reverse is most likely true because of this metabolic cost.
-It is ridiculous to believe that our paleo ancestors were ZC. They didn't even know what carbs are and so couldn't select their food accordingly.
-Proteins in animals are quite often enzymatically glycated i.e. a sugar molecule must be attached to them in order to allow the protein to do what it has to do...
-Rather than reasoning in terms of food component ingestion (carbs, proteins, fats) and reductionist science it is much more appropriate to merely find out which specific whole foods to include and in which quantity or not to include in our diet (meat, fish, fowl, weggies, fruits, eggs, dairy, nuts, grains, legumes etc)
-
Quote from: PaleoPhil on Today at 11:01:09 AM
You're referring to facultative carnivores. I haven't seen any observational reports of obligate carnivores in the wild eating plant foods. Plus, sometimes indigestible plants are eaten for medicinal and purgative purposes, rather than for nutritive value, so I could imagine even obligate carnivores eating biologically inappropriate foods for those purposes. Also, if you've ever seen the feces of a coyote, wolf or other wild canine after they eat berries, you know how poorly even facultative wild carnivores tend to digest plant foods.
The vegan canard of wild canines regularly ingesting stomach contents has been refuted here multiple times. The only times facultative carnivores allegedly eat it is when they are starving or severely nutritionally deficient, and even then I've yet to see an actual documented observation in the wild. In contrast, I've observed a video of a wolf emptying out the contents of a stomach and intestines before eating the tissue. On the other hand, I have read reports of Inuits eating stomach contents apparently while not starving (but perhaps deficient in one or more nutrients?), so I wouldn't rule out occasional ingestion by wild canines for the reasons above, and more study is needed.
I neither believe human is obligate carnivore, nor wild canine eat berries for no reason.
Please show me where I wrote that humans are obligate carnivores. I don't see that. My point was that obligate carnivores don't necessarily "eat a small quantity of vegetable (grass, berries, stomach content, etc...)," so claiming that all carnivores do is incorrect, at least as a normal part of their diet (I could imagine obligate carnivores very rarely eating some of those things, though not all, for medicinal/purgative purposes), based on the evidence I've seen. If you have alternative evidence, feel free to share it. Some of those plants have not been proven to have a dietary function even in facultative carnivores. For example, the reasons why some canines eat grass are not well understood or thoroughly researched, AFAIK. This too may be a case of medicinal/purgative use, rather than nutritional benefit, as domestic dogs seem to engage in it more than wild canines and I've witnessed dogs coughing/vomiting grass back up after eating it.
I think wild canines likely eat wild berries because they taste good to them, don't you? That doesn't mean they digest very well, and if you see their scat afterwards you'll see that they aren't. That being said, I don't think wild animals develop significant problems from occasionally eating foods their physiology is not optimally adapted to digesting, do you? As I've written in the past, I'm hoping to try some wild berries myself this summer, and I call my own approach "facultative carnivore." Vegetarian propaganda has unfortunately convinced many people that if a wild animal ever eats any plant foods, then it is not a carnivore. This is false. To get a sense of just how false this is, consider the giant panda: it is scientifically classified as a carnivore, yet 99% of its diet is bamboo shoots and leaves.
Do you have the links for the "vegan canard" ?
From http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/aajonus-vonderplanitz-interview-on-one-radio-network-with-host-patrick-timpone/msg21603/#msg21603:
Nora Gedgaudas: "... I spent a whole summer of my life living with wild wolves, less than 500 miles from the North Pole. ... I was able to watch firsthand what the wolves ate and what they didn't eat, and the organ meats were the first things to go [to be eaten] when they made a kill and what was left over--the muscle meat--was something that was ... left behind for the more subordinate animals that were just sort of picking up scraps behind the rest of the pack and just as an interesting aside, ... you hear a lot of vegans talk about when a predator makes a kill the first thing they eat is the stomach, because that's where all the water-rich vegetables are.... We actually observed the exact opposite. In fact we used ... the stomach with a wolf that was a subordinate animal that didn't have much to eat that particular summer and we tossed the stomach her way and consistently she just urinated on it and walked away, and towards the summer when she got really, really, really desperate there was one day we tossed out a stomach of an animal and she gingerly tore it open with her teeth and then shook it as hard as she could until all the stuff inside was shaken out of there, and then she basically ate the tripe."
See also Tyler's post at http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/100percent-carnivorous-really/msg3506/#msg3506
and "Myth: WOLVES INGEST THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY." http://www.rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html
If you check the sources of the stomach contents canard, you'll find that most of them originate from vegan/vegetarian propagandists, whose dogma has unfortunately infected the Internet and other mass media.
-
...Please read a little bit in this kind of books before making outrageous claims such as "carbs are poisons to our systems".
Just a few remarks as food for thought:
-It is basically logically incorrect to conclude from the fact that the suger regulation system (based on the insulin, glucagon etc hormones) of many civilized people has been definitely damaged by cooked grain based diets that carbohydrates are the culprit. The culprit is cooked grains. Period.
...
While I agree that the "carbs are poisons" quip was extreme, the claim that the only "culprit is cooked grains" goes overboard in the other extreme. My own experience does not support the latter claim. I used to believe the standard claim that there are "good carbohydrates" that everyone can eat, yet when I cut back on these "good" carbs, my health improved. I wish it wasn't so, because it would be easier if I could eat a wider variety of foods and suffer no negative consequences, but it's something I've had to learn to live with. One of our regular members making an extreme claim that cooked grains are the only problematic carbs after several of us have shared the negative effects we've suffered from raw fruits and veggies is like a slap in the face. I'm surprised that it came from you, Alphagruis. Maybe it's not quite what you meant?
-
Any excess of the carbs - fruits, vegetables, honey - is bad. That's obvious.
One can handle more carbs and the other less, but eating no carbs is not the answer.
-
Does anyone know if blood sugar is even remotely affected by ingestion of carb containing organ meats? Has any ZC'er eaten just organ meat and gotten an adverse insulin reaction? Organs don't taste or look like they have any carbs in them, which should help those with insulin sensitivity issues. I am still guessing that digested glycogen is treated differntly than digested plant carbs. I also wonder how carnivores refill their glycogen stores after an intense muscle usage. Is it mainly with digested glycogen or gluconeogenesis from muscle meat?
-
Excellent questions Paleo Donk. I don't know the answers and am curious myself
Any excess of the carbs - fruits, vegetables, honey - is bad. That's obvious.
One can handle more carbs and the other less, but eating no carbs is not the answer.
I think we need more experience and research before we can come to such a definite and absolute conclusion for everyone. Maybe "no" carbs (which I assume means somewhere between 0.1% and 1% or so carbs, as I don't think absolute zero carb intake is possible, AFAIK) is the answer for some people, at least for a certain amount of time. Going to one extreme or another and claiming that absolutely everyone or absolutely no one does well on ZC seems to be the source of much of the conflict. The experience of folks at the two forums doesn't appear to support either extreme claim.
-
Please show me where I wrote that humans are obligate carnivores. I don't see that. My point was that obligate carnivores don't necessarily "eat a small quantity of vegetable (grass, berries, stomach content, etc...)," so claiming that all carnivores do is incorrect, at least as a normal part of their diet (I could imagine obligate carnivores very rarely eating some of those things, though not all, for medicinal/purgative purposes), based on the evidence I've seen. If you have alternative evidence, feel free to share it. Some of those plants have not been proven to have a dietary function even in facultative carnivores. For example, the reasons why some canines eat grass are not well understood or thoroughly researched, AFAIK. This too may be a case of medicinal/purgative use, rather than nutritional benefit, as domestic dogs seem to engage in it more than wild canines and I've witnessed dogs coughing/vomiting grass back up after eating it.
I think wild canines likely eat wild berries because they taste good to them, don't you? That doesn't mean they digest very well, and if you see their scat afterwards you'll see that they aren't. That being said, I don't think wild animals develop significant problems from occasionally eating foods their physiology is not optimally adapted to digesting, do you? As I've written in the past, I'm hoping to try some wild berries myself this summer, and I call my own approach "facultative carnivore." Vegetarian propaganda has unfortunately convinced many people that if a wild animal ever eats any plant foods, then it is not a carnivore. This is false. To get a sense of just how false this is, consider the giant panda: it is scientifically classified as a carnivore, yet 99% of its diet is bamboo shoots and leaves.
From http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/aajonus-vonderplanitz-interview-on-one-radio-network-with-host-patrick-timpone/msg21603/#msg21603:
Nora Gedgaudas: "... I spent a whole summer of my life living with wild wolves, less than 500 miles from the North Pole. ... I was able to watch firsthand what the wolves ate and what they didn't eat, and the organ meats were the first things to go [to be eaten] when they made a kill and what was left over--the muscle meat--was something that was ... left behind for the more subordinate animals that were just sort of picking up scraps behind the rest of the pack and just as an interesting aside, ... you hear a lot of vegans talk about when a predator makes a kill the first thing they eat is the stomach, because that's where all the water-rich vegetables are.... We actually observed the exact opposite. In fact we used ... the stomach with a wolf that was a subordinate animal that didn't have much to eat that particular summer and we tossed the stomach her way and consistently she just urinated on it and walked away, and towards the summer when she got really, really, really desperate there was one day we tossed out a stomach of an animal and she gingerly tore it open with her teeth and then shook it as hard as she could until all the stuff inside was shaken out of there, and then she basically ate the tripe."
See also Tyler's post at http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/100percent-carnivorous-really/msg3506/#msg3506
and "Myth: WOLVES INGEST THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY." http://www.rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html
If you check the sources of the stomach contents canard, you'll find that most of them originate from vegan/vegetarian propagandists, whose dogma has unfortunately infected the Internet and other mass media.
Thank's Paleophil.
That's related to wolf only. What about other carnivores ?
This would explain why my dog refuses to eat intestines. Once she ate some lungs, but vomited it straight away. However, she eats very few grass nearly everyday. But actually I am not sure if she really swallows something.
Also : http://www.stevesrealfood.com/research/foodhabits.html
"From these many studies into the food habits of feral carnivores, it can be concluded that the staple diet of carnivores living in a natural setting includes other animals, carrion, and occasionally other fruits and other grasses."
-
at least for a certain amount of time
yes, for a certain amount of time, not the whole life!
-
Demonizing carbs comes as usual from people who just have no education in basic biochemistry and merely don't know what they talk about. Another good book that helps to become less ignorant is: Biochemistry by Donald and Judith G. Voet , John Wiley and Sons (1995).
Please read a little bit in this kind of books before making outrageous claims such as "carbs are poisons to our systems".
Just a few remarks as food for thought:
-It is basically logically incorrect to conclude from the fact that the biood sugar regulation system (based on the insulin, glucagon etc hormones) of many civilized people has been definitely damaged by cooked grain based diets that carbohydrates are the culprit. The culprit is cooked grains. Period.
-Stricto-sensu ZC diets merely cannot exist actually. All living healthy organisms necessarily contain carbs and thus all food even from animals contains carbs.
-We can indeed limit our ingestion of carbs to a very small quantity. If this quantity is below the minimum we need we are capable to synthesise the needed glucose from protein. But this has a metabolic cost (synthesis needs energy, produces waste etc) and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is better than to ingest the required minimum of carbs. Actually the reverse is most likely true because of this metabolic cost.
-It is ridiculous to believe that our paleo ancestors were ZC. They didn't even know what carbs are and so couldn't select their food accordingly.
-Proteins in animals are quite often enzymatically glycated i.e. a sugar molecule must be attached to them in order to allow the protein to do what it has to do...
-Rather than reasoning in terms of food component ingestion (carbs, proteins, fats) and reductionist science it is much more appropriate to merely find out which specific whole foods to include and in which quantity or not to include in our diet (meat, fish, fowl, weggies, fruits, eggs, dairy, nuts, grains, legumes etc)
Reasoning only in terms of macronutrient can also be misleading. As protein is not the only component in meat, carb is not the only component in plant food. They are many other nutrients that can be useful or harmful. For exemple fibers : http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/butyric-acid-ancient-controller-of.html
-
While I agree that the "carbs are poisons" quip was extreme, the claim that the only "culprit is cooked grains" goes overboard in the other extreme. My own experience does not support the latter claim. I used to believe the standard claim that there are "good carbohydrates" that everyone can eat, yet when I cut back on these "good" carbs, my health improved. I wish it wasn't so, because it would be easier if I could eat a wider variety of foods and suffer no negative consequences, but it's something I've had to learn to live with. One of our regular members making an extreme claim that cooked grains are the only problematic carbs after several of us have shared the negative effects we've suffered from raw fruits and veggies is like a slap in the face. I'm surprised that it came from you, Alphagruis. Maybe it's not quite what you meant?
Phil, I'm quite aware of the fact that many on this forum do better upon cutting back on fruits or veggies. In particular those people with damaged blood sugar regulation may have to and probably should do it for a while until they recover. IMO this might possibly take years and not just a few months.
But my point was that you cannot logically conclude from this peculiar situation observed on people recovering from serious health damage that a healthy diet for homo sapiens in general is better definitely ZC and suggest that carbs are problematic by themselves.
People with an injured leg cannot and should not walk for a while. Yet this doesn't mean that homo sapiens should not walk in general.
I do not distinguish between good and bad carbs. Carbs are carbs. Cooked grains are definitely bad, raw fruit in limited quantity seems quite OK for healthy people, yet both foods are much much more than just one of their components. As I said we should concentrate on real food and find out whether they are or not healthy as a whole rather than trying to do this with their components.
IMO sentences like carbs or proteins are good or bad is non-sense.
I'm sorry that you received my remarks as a kind of provocation. I apologize. That was of course not my intent. I wanted just recall some basic science.
-
Well said Alpha. It would be interesting to see how much better we handle raw (or even cooked) fruits and veggies if we do not compromise our systems with decades of cooked grains and refined sugars. When I have kids there is a good chance I will let them eat a much higher carb diet than what I will be eating. I think it will be intersting to see how Del Fuego's kids will turn out since they eat nothing but pemmican. I am not willing to have my kids go zc, at least at first. When I say kids I mean after they have been weaned off breast milk.
-
It would be interesting to see how much better we handle raw (or even cooked) fruits and veggies if we do not compromise our systems with decades of cooked grains and refined sugars.
I've once seen a movie about modern HG pigmees in Africa collecting and then gorging on honey. They apparently were capable to handle it quite well. But it's probably a fairly rare event for them to get so much sugar at once.
-
I've once seen a movie about modern HG pigmees in Africa collecting and then gorging on honey.
And some long-living people (over 100 years) that lived in mountainous Georgia who ate the honey-combs with larvae and wood that was attached to them
-
However, she eats very few grass nearly everyday. But actually I am not sure if she really swallows something.
Yes, I have seen domesticated dogs which eat grass quite often. The ones I saw tended to spit it up later. The sense I get from my readings and observations is that wild canines eat it less frequently, possibly because of better overall diet, though I don't have a supporting link.
Also : http://www.stevesrealfood.com/research/foodhabits.html
Thanks for the link. Coyotes, foxes, and wolves are facultative carnivores (carnivores that ordinarily eat some plant foods), so there's no surprise that they were found to eat some plant foods.
It's interesting to see that my guess that obligate carnivores might eat some grass ("I could imagine obligate carnivores very rarely eating some of those things, though not all, for medicinal/purgative purposes") is confirmed in this article. No nutritional benefit is posited in the article (it states: "Nutritional benefits of this grass for the cougar are unknown"; "The nutritional value of grass in the bobcat’s diet, however, has not been determined"), so my speculation remains that it may have a medicinal/purgative purpose(s).
There's no evidence in the article of stomach content ingestion by any of those carnivores, so that remains unsupported as a typical behavior in the wild.
The only thing that surprised me a bit in that article was the quote that grass was "found frequently enough to be considered a food item" in Bobcats, though the actual frequency is not reported and no nutritive benefit was posited. It would be interesting to see more research on why it is eaten this frequently. Still, you're not going to argue that we should eat grass, are you? I know at least one person here eats wheat grass, but that doesn't seem like a wise practice to me. Do any primates eat grass stalks or shoots in the wild?
I found this source that supports my speculation about a medicinal/purgative purpose for grass eating among obligate carnivores:
Where Tigers eat grass
National | Ahmedabad | India Updated On: 11/10/2008
http://www.4to40.com/newsat4/index.asp?id=2227
"Not many know, but carnivores have an instinctive way of regulating their digestive system, like dogs, by feeding on green grass after a heavy meat diet. Veterinary experts managing zoos, thus give a diet break to the big cats once every week, to defy the popular Hindi proverb -- Sher bhi kabhi ghaas khata hai kya? (Does a lion ever eat grass?)
"All carnivores eat grass every week. The grass makes them throw up and cleanses the stomach and the rest of the digestive system. Whenever the beasts feel that there is some infection in their stomachs, they eat grass to flush these ailments out," says Dr RK Sahu, superintendent of the Kankaria zoo. In Ahmedabad zoo these cats devour at least 110 kg of meat everyday. In winters each lion needs 10-12 kgs of meat while its summer needs are between 8-10 kgs.
Lions, tigers and leopards in the wild, chase and hunt food, thus giving themselves the much needed workout, unlike zoo animals, and yet eat meat only twice or thrice a week. Big cats in the zoo lead very comfortable and sedentary lives. Every day between 10.30 am and 11 am they are fed, without having to move a muscle.
"Since they do not get much of exercise we decided to give them a break once every week. So every Friday they are seen devouring grass on the day to cleanse their systems and the zoo is closed to visitors," said Sahu. This zoo has a pair of lions, two pairs of tigers and leopards."
To understand why the fact that canines and humans eat some plant foods doesn't necessarily make them omnivores (though humans may be, but the evidence and understanding of physiology doesn't seem sufficiently clear yet to come to a firm conclusion--there is actually evidence listed here http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7l.shtml and elsewhere that humans may be naturally facultative faunivores), I think the giant panda example is the best. Despite eating 99% plant foods it is a carnivore! What could possibly make it any clearer that eating some plant foods does not necessarily make a species an omnivore, much less a herbivore/frugivore?
-
But my point was that you cannot logically conclude from this peculiar situation observed on people recovering from serious health damage that a healthy diet for homo sapiens in general is better definitely ZC and suggest that carbs are problematic by themselves.
I agree that it's too early to draw the conclusion that either carbs are always problematic by themselves for all people or that ZC is no good in the long run for anyone. The two extremes are not sufficiently supported yet, in my opinion. Neither can I rule either out completely. That's why we have forums like this one, to share our results so we can try to figure out what works for whom. If we already had all the answers re: carbs, there wouldn't be much to discuss on the sujbect.
IMO sentences like carbs or proteins are good or bad is non-sense.
Yes, they are overly simplistic from a scientific perspective, but from an everyday life perspective, I think we know what people basically mean when they say that carbs are bad for them. For example, in my case I haven't found any carb-containing plant food I can tolerate on a daily basis without some negative effects. So for me so far a "plant carbs are bad for me" claim would be understandable. I just wouldn't claim it necessarily applies to anyone else on that basis.
I'm sorry that you received my remarks as a kind of provocation. I apologize. That was of course not my intent. I wanted just recall some basic science.
Thanks for the explication, I figured and hoped you didn't mean it in quite the way it came across literally.
Heh, heh, my friend Katelyn sure started up one heck of a discussion, didn't she? Maybe we were overdue for another round of debate on carbs. It has provided me some nice new info on carnivore behavior and helped crystallize some of my thoughts on things. I just hope it doesn't get too heated.
-
I've once seen a movie about modern HG pigmees in Africa collecting and then gorging on honey. They apparently were capable to handle it quite well. But it's probably a fairly rare event for them to get so much sugar at once.
Honey is one of the more puzzling and interesting Paleo foods to me. Certain experts appear to write it off completely as obviously unhealthy and not something one should ever ingest, but the honey that's discussed is usually commercial heated honey. Rarely is rare honey examined, and even less rarely is honeycomb and grubcomb, which are what HG's actually eat.
I don't do well on raw honey myself (and yes, it's guaranteed by the apiary as completely unheated, though I haven't actually examined their operation), but I don't rule out that it could be slightly more beneficial than negative for healthy people when grubcomb is included. As others have discussed, when weighing the net health result, one should look at the whole food (including the grubcomb), not just one of its components (the fructose). However, it's also possible that the fructose content is so high as to outweigh the benefits of the other ingredients, even when raw. In the latter case, the reason HGs do well while eating it would probably be attributed to the counteracting benefits of the other foods in the diet, the seasonality of the honey, and it's relative scarcity as compared to meats, fruits and greens.
-
I agree that it's too early to draw the conclusion that either carbs are always problematic by themselves for all people or that ZC is no good in the long run for anyone. The two extremes are not sufficiently supported yet, in my opinion. Neither can I rule either out completely. That's why we have forums like this one, to share our results so we can try to figure out what works for whom. If we already had all the answers re: carbs, there wouldn't be much to discuss on the sujbect.
Yes, we have to be cautious otherwise we might be easily fooled.
My present guess is that we are probably capable to thrive on fairly different diets ranging from VLC to diets with much more carbs provided the food is essentially raw unprocessed.
To come back to biochemistry I'm very deeply impressed to see that remarkable pathways involving a lot of very specific enzymes exist that
-on the one hand when needed synthesizes glucose in a series of steps from specific aminoacids coming from digestion (gluconeogenesis) .
-on the other hand when needed converts fructose in a series of steps into a specific chemical that can enter into the Krebs cycle to produce energy or other useful chemicals.
And of course there is also the anaerobic glycolysis pathway. This is what supports my guess. I can't believe that evolution would keep these most remarkable pathways over so many generations if they were not highly useful in the lifes of our paleo ancestors.
-
...And of course there is also the anaerobic glycolysis pathway. This is what supports my guess. I can't believe that evolution would keep these most remarkable pathways over so many generations if they were not highly useful in the lifes of our paleo ancestors.
I can. Evolution only needs to get people beyond reproductive age. Most people want more than that. Look at the giant panda. It has multiple health issues and may even go extinct because of the combination of loss of habitat with a poor reproductive rate even in the wild--yet natural selection left it and at least one prior ancestor on a poorly-adapted diet for millions of years. The undersexed giant panda (and at least one other example I covered elsewhere) suggests that nature sometimes doesn't perfectly adapt animals in every way to a new diet even after millions of years. This could be the key to why at least some people do poorly on cooked foods even after 250,000 or more years of cooking by humans. In some ways we seem to have only scratched the surface of knowledge of the nutrition, health and physiology of humans and other animals.
-
The degree to how "poisonous" carbs are is directly related to how sensitive we are to insulin. At one end we have new borns who must have heavy carb intake and who would function worse without them. At the other end we have diabetics/epileptics who cannot handle carbs and will function optimally as a carnivore. Everyone else falls somewhere in between.
Finding out what is optimal is a different story. We have all heavily convoluted the situation by eating decades worth of garbage that has us in this position. Our bodies do not work like they were intended and each one of has different problems with different methods of eating. Just because one method works for us now does not mean it would work just as well for us as small children with uncompromised systems. Our systems are all compromised in one way or the other.
Tyler seems to get sick at merely the sight of cooked foods, where I can eat cooked meat all day long for months and be in great health. William finds that pemmican is vastly superior than any other food where others have not found this to be so. This what makes the discovery so interesting. We are all so different. We each are all uniquely damaged goods and we all need uniquely different treatments to achieve superior health again. One method for all does not seem to work.
Simply saying that carbs are poisonous is too simplistic and does not take a look at the full spectrum of issues. Tyler, for instance, absolutely needs some carbohydrate intake or his system will fail. Carbs are certainly not poisonous for him, they help him maintain optimal health. Same for many other members of the forum.
I also once thought that eating meat and water would work for everyone if they gave it enough time. This is just not realistic and although just meat and water does work extremely well (and is likely optimal) for many it is not simply the solution for everyone's problems. This is where ZIOH can get people in trouble, they do not like to investigate anything other than meat and water. They are a bit too one dimensional, although their one dimention works extraordinarily well for some people.
I've noticed that ZIOH discussion forums have died down recently and almost come to a complete halt. There is very little new discussion and some members have even expressed their approval of this. When you only look at just meat and water I suppose their is very little to discuss. This is why I enjoy this forum so much is that the discussion is very broad and there is no general answer for everyone. It is multidimensional.
This is such a nice synthesis... Can I quote you in my blog?
-
I just find carbohydrates useless for (1) health (2) optimal body composition (3) variety (4) taste. I love eating just meat. I agree that there are "trace" carbs in pure animal foods, and that is all that we need.
It is undeniable that we need fat, water and protein to live. If someone wants to eat carbs, fine, but carb-eating is completely unnecessary. I've never been so lean AND strong, had such a flat stomach, soft hair, clear skin, boundless energy and NO HUNGER as the Bear said would occur for those who stick to ZC (I'm at 9 months).
I just see adding carbohydrates to a ZC diet as kind of tragic. Carbohydrates are not a reward for the body in any sense. Fatty meat is delicious and nourishing. Why would anyone who is adapted WANT anything else? I feel so sorry for the posters on LCF and ALC who are still on the LC cycle of feeling "deprived" and "hungry." Of course--carbohydrates make you hungry and make you crave, and contribute nothing to health, energy and great body composition (unless you want to be counting calories).
I am happy to eat a lot of meat, lift heavy weights and look and feel my absolute leannest and strongest. I am so glad to not be hungry anymore, eating on my schedule to MY convenience. Being ZC is a lifesaver.
-
This is such a nice synthesis... Can I quote you in my blog?
Quote away, you'd make my day.
Also, Phil, I think human beings could possibly suffer a similar fate as pandas. We are becoming less and less reproductive. Our inability to reproduce healthy offspring is going to continue to escalate if nothing is done about all the refined carb consumption. I've heard that 1 in 3 children born in the US after 2000 will develop early onset diabetes with that rate rising to 1 in 2 children for minorities. Obese and diabetic women have a much harder chance giving birth to children much less healthy children. I think this cycle of obese diabetics giving birth to children even more prone to diabetes and obesity (not to mention other birth defects) could ultimately end us.
-
I can. Evolution only needs to get people beyond reproductive age. Most people want more than that. Look at the giant panda. It has multiple health issues and may even go extinct because of the combination of loss of habitat with a poor reproductive rate even in the wild--yet natural selection left it and at least one prior ancestor on a poorly-adapted diet for millions of years. The undersexed giant panda (and at least one other example I covered elsewhere) suggests that nature sometimes doesn't perfectly adapt animals in every way to a new diet even after millions of years. This could be the key to why at least some people do poorly on cooked foods even after 250,000 or more years of cooking by humans. In some ways we seem to have only scratched the surface of knowledge of the nutrition, health and physiology of humans and other animals.
This has littke to do with the idea I wanted to convey. My reasoning was not in usual terms of more or less perfect adaptation to a new diet. By the way I don't think that homo sapiens or other species can ever adapt to cooked food to a similar degree as they had adapted to raw unprocessed food. Adaptation in our minds is indeed much more than reproductive success and survival in darwinian terms. In the latter perspective homo sapiens with his neolithic diet has actually been tremendously successful up to now as compared to paleo HGs. Even if this is likely to change in the future because of systematic unprecedented further food degradation in the last half century.
What I wanted to point out is that when one looks at our "outfit" from a biochemistry point of view we have clearly and simultanenously the abilities to
- metabolize fructose and glucose or other sugars and take advantage of them in various ways if they are present in our diets.
- to produce glucose from amino-acid if there is not enough in our diets and our diet provides essentially protein and fat only.
If our ancestor's diet had never included fruit for instance, the first pathway (fructose metabolism) should have been progressively lost and the genes coding for the relevant enzymes turned into pseudo-genes unable to code for active enzymes. That's usually the fate of everything that is no longer useful in biology because of genetic drift.
On the other hand if our ancestor's diet had systematically included enough carbs every day, the second pathway (glucose synthesis from amino-acids) should have been progressively lost and the genes coding for the relevant enzymes turned into pseudo-genes unable to code for active enzymes.
So this strongly suggests that we are probably quite capable to adapt both to different diets (with different contents in carbs for instance) and a diet that varies seriously over the weeks and months of a one year period as one might expect when one takes into account the drastic constraints imposed by nature in the absence of civilization.
I'm on a raw paleo diet for more than 11 years now. Usually it is rather omnivore with some fruit, nuts and weggies but I sometimes eat only meat and fat or seafood for one or two weeks. I cannot observe any positive (or negative) effects without plant carbs except slower bowel movements as one might expect. Apparently I'm capable to adapt easily to these changes as did IMHO our paleo ancestors.
I was never a vegan or more generally fond of too restrictive diets. So in contrast to other people of this forum, having never experienced the dramatic adverse effects of veganism, I do not feel the need to switch to the other extreme namely ZC ( VLC in fact, ZC isn't possible). Yet I can do it apparently if needed and I find the experience of those who do it of great interest. But again we should refrain from drawing hasty conclusions from such experiments in particular when on such a restrictive diet for a few months only.
-
Has any animal lost the metabolic pathways to utilize glucose? Even carnivores like dogs and cats eat relatively high carb diets these days and manage to live decent lives. Don't many of these house pets actually crave sweets?
-
Even carnivores like dogs and cats eat relatively high carb diets these days and manage to live decent lives.
Cats are obligate carnivores, so they do very bad on no-meat diet. Dogs do better and can eat pasta and rice, although their health won't be good, they will probably be obese, diabetic, etc.
-
What I wanted to point out is that when one looks at our "outfit" from a biochemistry point of view we have clearly and simultanenously the abilities to
- metabolize fructose and glucose or other sugars and take advantage of them in various ways if they are present in our diets
What I mean is, given the example of the giant panda, fruit-eating chimps, and other evidence, I think that's suggestive, not conclusive.
If our ancestor's diet had never included fruit...
I think that everyone agrees that our ancestors' diets included fruit at various times in the past, to greater and lesser degrees. That doesn't seem to be a matter of dispute. It also doesn't guarantee that fruit is an optimal part of our current diet, though it suggests it might be. Clearly, the example of caries-prone frugivorous chimps in the wild suggests that too much fruit can be a bad thing (at least for people who don't want caries, dental plaque, gingivitis, etc.), and I think we're in agreement on that also.
So this strongly suggests that we are probably quite capable to adapt both to different diets
Yes, where I am still unclear is whether we are facultative faunivores who can digest plants better than most or all of the other facultative faunivores, or omnivores who are better equipped to digest meats than most or all of the other omnivores. We seem to be on the edge of the two categories, which is part of what makes for so much interesting debate. I think our ability to straddle both categories may be part of what enabled humans to survive and eventually overpopulate. Maybe scientists will eventually even create a new category just for homo sapiens and proto-humans that lies in-between the other two.
Where some confusion tends to come in, I think, is many people seem to assume that carnivore/faunivore automatically means zero plant foods, and therefore any animal that eats some plant foods in addition to fauna, or has some ability to digest them, is automatically an omnivore. Facultative carnivores/faunivores do eat some plant foods, and one has reportedly been eating 99% plant foods or thereabouts since the dawn of the species (and before in its ancestor). So simply showing some ability to digest glucose or starch does not appear to prove omnivorous physiology. It looks like it's more complicated than that, though I'm admittedly no expert on physiology.
Even if it were known absolutely for sure that humans have an omnivorous physiology and are best classified as omnivorous, I don't think that guarantees that everyone or even anyone will do best on a diet rich in plant foods, for we could be on the meat-heavy edge, physiologically, of omnivory and it could also be that today's plant foods have become too degraded to provide the same level of nutrition as in the past (and the same could be true for the meats, too, but I suspect less so).
-
I don't know for sure if any animal lost the glycolysis pathway, but it is most unlikely. Even in wild carnivores a minimum of glucose is synthesized and made available for some specific tasks.
Apparently glycolysis is the only way found by nature to get a large amount of energy in a very short time such as required to escape from a predator as a prey or to catch a prey as a predator. Or in the case of humans for instance during sprints up to 400m in field athletics. Glycolysis is a fermentation that can take place rapidly without oxygen in case of a short but very intense effort in contrast to fat burning in mitochondria which is a fairly slower process that needs an appropriate supply in oxygen and is ideal in case of a prolonged less intense effort such as heart activity, middle or long distance running etc.
Anaerobic glycolysis is however much less efficient than fat burning in terms of total energy yield. It is noteworthy that it is the preferred mode to obtain energy in cancer cells as opposed to normal cells that rely generally on aerobic fat oxidation. Thus an excess of glucose in diet is certainly unhealthy and favors cancer cells and the overall inefficient and normally inappropriate anaerobic glycolysis pathway.
-
Even if it were known absolutely for sure that humans have an omnivorous physiology and are best classified as omnivorous, I don't think that guarantees that everyone or even anyone will do best on a diet rich in plant foods, for we could be on the meat-heavy edge, physiologically, of omnivory and it could also be that today's plant foods have become too degraded to provide the same level of nutrition as in the past (and the same could be true for the meats, too, but I suspect less so).
I actually rather contend the assertion that we do best on a diet rich in animal food. :)
This should be clear enough, though. I never advocated a diet rich in plant foods.
Yet, once more let me emphasize, this does not mean what some people seem to believe or contend here that "we do best on a diet exclusive of all plant foods i.e. ZC" which is precisely at the origin of the present discussion. At least not yet though I do not dismiss this possibility...
-
I just see adding carbohydrates to a ZC diet as kind of tragic. Carbohydrates are not a reward for the body in any sense. Fatty meat is delicious and nourishing. Why would anyone who is adapted WANT anything else? I feel so sorry for the posters on LCF and ALC who are still on the LC cycle of feeling "deprived" and "hungry." Of course--carbohydrates make you hungry and make you crave, and contribute nothing to health, energy and great body composition (unless you want to be counting calories).
I am happy to eat a lot of meat, lift heavy weights and look and feel my absolute leannest and strongest. I am so glad to not be hungry anymore, eating on my schedule to MY convenience. Being ZC is a lifesaver.
You said you lift heavy weights on zc. For the past 8 months I've been eating lots of carbs for insulin/glycogen, but haven't really experienced great results in the gym, although admittedly I've been doing more gymnastics type workouts than heavy lifting, and doing 5 days a week of that (not enough rest time).
But recently I read a book by Jason Ferruggia, basically saying if your goal is size and strength, you should be lifting 5-8 reps to failure, 2 sets per exercise; doing basic compound movements, squats, deads, and large pushing/pulling exercises for the upper body. I've only been doing this the past couple weeks but it's worked out pretty good, I'm adding weight/reps every time I step in the gym now.
Is this type of workout what you mean when you say heavy lifting? I'm curious to see if I can keep adding strength on VLC, so for the first time since June I got back in ketosis. I've read all kinds of material that talks about how a ketogenic diet will tend to bring your strength down, but I'm not so sure that any of those people have tried for more than a week or two. Did it take you to adapt before your strength levels returned and began improving? Do you make sure to eat anything right after your workout or does it not seem to matter much?
-
Is this type of workout what you mean when you say heavy lifting? I'm curious to see if I can keep adding strength on VLC, so for the first time since June I got back in ketosis. I've read all kinds of material that talks about how a ketogenic diet will tend to bring your strength down, but I'm not so sure that any of those people have tried for more than a week or two. Did it take you to adapt before your strength levels returned and began improving? Do you make sure to eat anything right after your workout or does it not seem to matter much?
I do free weights and cables, and a few machines. I'm thinking of reps as low at 6 but never more than 12 (for some back cable moves).
I have added muscle definition and strength and gotten leaner since going ZC, but PARTICULARLY since eating one large meal a day and going raw. I feel much more energetic and strong from raw meat, but cooked ZC meat still works for me, but not my preference.
I eat .5 lbs of GB before lifting, and then I do not eat anything until it is time for the evening meal at 9PM. I don' tbelieve in specific pre or post workout meals. I just eat meat. I immediately felt more energy when I INCREASED calories and going raw. I love my lflatabs, my waist, my shoulders and back strenth now.
-
...When I have kids there is a good chance I will let them eat a much higher carb diet than what I will be eating. I think it will be intersting to see how Del Fuego's kids will turn out since they eat nothing but pemmican. I am not willing to have my kids go zc, at least at first. When I say kids I mean after they have been weaned off breast milk.
Have you ever seen a poop blueberry? Children cannot digest plant matter -- they poop it right out, whole and intact. I guess blending up the plants might help, but it's still mostly indigestible to babies. Why would you do this to them?
-
Quote from: Paleo Donk on January 02, 2010, 01:32:32 PM
...When I have kids there is a good chance I will let them eat a much higher carb diet than what I will be eating. I think it will be intersting to see how Del Fuego's kids will turn out since they eat nothing but pemmican. I am not willing to have my kids go zc, at least at first. When I say kids I mean after they have been weaned off breast milk.
Del Fuego's kids look great! So healthy looking, attractive and smiley!
-
Have you ever seen a poop blueberry? Children cannot digest plant matter -- they poop it right out, whole and intact. I guess blending up the plants might help, but it's still mostly indigestible to babies. Why would you do this to them?
I don't get these kind of posts. Are you implying that I am purposely going to sabotage my children's health by allowing them to eat fruit if they so please? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - I wouldn't force my children to eat fruit but if they showed an interest in it I would let them have it after a certain age. I understand that infants cannot digest anything outside of mothers milk and raw meat. I ate plenty of fruit growing up without ever having a problem or even pooping out a blueberry or having any digetion problems. I'm far from convinced that a healthy child without compromised systems should eat nothing but animal foods.
Phil, Del Feugo's kids do look good, though that means very little right now only that this diet doesn't kill small children. Though I remember him writing that they were very well behaved and have never visited a doctor. I'd really be interested in their height, weight, intelligence, etc.. seeing as they are likely the only children that have ever lived on earth to eat nothing but pemmican after being weaned. The one visual I find most interesting is the extraordinarly brilliant blond hair his kids had though Del fuego and his wife are both brunette.
Also, on the matter of fruit, Del Fuego even mentioned that he would eat a fruit if his body felt like it.
What would your plan be for feeding your own kids?
-
I'm far from convinced that a healthy child without compromised systems should eat nothing but animal foods.
Yes, I agree. Such statements are just ridiculous ideology. Not science. The truth is that we don't know yet what the "best" diet is if such a best diet exists indeed.
-
...
Phil, Del Feugo's kids do look good, though that means very little right now only that this diet doesn't kill small children. Though I remember him writing that they were very well behaved and have never visited a doctor. ...
Yes, and they have good facial bone structure, and my Paleo nephews are the best behaved in their classes, and the heavy-meat-eating (I'm guessing much of it raw) Evenk children in Siberia are reportedly very well behaved and healthy ("Children who hardly cry and never get ill." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ec5liNhGHI --the child in this video cries softly for just a few seconds and then is quickly happy again when his mother attends to him).
What would your plan be for feeding your own kids?
Me? Breast milk for as long as feasible (preferably 3 years or more) try introducing ground raw meat and fat at 6 months or so, raw pemmican as road food. Introduce organs when safe. Later on maybe let them try some wild berries. For school I'd probably have to let them eat more foods to avoid ridicule.
-
I'm rather wary of this quasi-WAPF notion of breastfeeding past the age of 2. I mean, technically, once babies have grown their teeth, they shouldn't really need to be breastfed any more, and it's just really weird to read about mothers breastfeeding their children till the age of 9 etc.. Granted, in earlier times, tribeswomen breastfed for 2 years, but that was more to do with the fact that breastfeeding has a contraceptive component.
-
Hey guys.
I just recieved my suet I ordered and you know when you eat a steak and the fat near the skin is always so sweet, buttery and melts in your mouth? Totally yummy! And then inside the steak there is sometimes this gritty, non tasty, non melting type of fat that to be honest feels kinda gross?
Anyway suet tastes and feels just like that. And to be honest it just feels kinda unnatural seeing as it doesn't melt in my mouth.
So I'm curious what are your oppionions on suet? Is it safe? Because it feels like this stuff would just clog up my arteries even if it's raw.
The reason why I'm a bit scared of it is because my heart has been feeling a bit off since I started being carnivorous. I don't get palputations but it just feels kinda "heavier" and like it's working a lot harder. To be honest it scares me a little bit.
-
If I were you, I would follow my gut feeling.
-
(just wanted to bump this to the 11th page so it would get more views)
Hey guys.
I just recieved my suet I ordered and you know when you eat a steak and the fat near the skin is always so sweet, buttery and melts in your mouth? Totally yummy! And then inside the steak there is sometimes this gritty, non tasty, non melting type of fat that to be honest feels kinda gross?
Anyway suet tastes and feels just like that. And to be honest it just feels kinda unnatural seeing as it doesn't melt in my mouth.
So I'm curious what are your oppionions on suet? Is it safe? Because it feels like this stuff would just clog up my arteries even if it's raw.
The reason why I'm a bit scared of it is because my heart has been feeling a bit off since I started being carnivorous. I don't get palputations but it just feels kinda "heavier" and like it's working a lot harder. To be honest it scares me a little bit.
-
The reason why I'm a bit scared of it is because my heart has been feeling a bit off since I started being carnivorous. I don't get palpitations but it just feels kinda "heavier" and like it's working a lot harder. To be honest it scares me a little bit.
It happens.
When I went strict raw zero carb/high fat I noticed a rapid heartbeat. Since my problem was/is heart disease this was not welcome, but as long as there are no palpitations/arrhythmias I lived with it.
It gradually goes back to normal; others have noticed the same thing.
-
I'm rather wary of this quasi-WAPF notion of breastfeeding past the age of 2. I mean, technically, once babies have grown their teeth, they shouldn't really need to be breastfed any more, and it's just really weird to read about mothers breastfeeding their children till the age of 9 etc.. Granted, in earlier times, tribeswomen breastfed for 2 years, but that was more to do with the fact that breastfeeding has a contraceptive component.
Actually, some groups breastfed until much later...I'm thinking of some Native American tribes, in particular, around the Great Lakes, although there may have been others.
-
...my heart has been feeling a bit off since I started being carnivorous. I don't get palputations but it just feels kinda "heavier" and like it's working a lot harder. To be honest it scares me a little bit.
I find that eating a lot of Omega-3s tends to control this. They make the blood flow more easily.
-
So I'm curious what are your oppionions on suet? Is it safe? Because it feels like this stuff would just clog up my arteries even if it's raw.
Fat does not dissolve in water and it does not dissolve in blood. The fat you eat will never ever be in your blood. That's the biggest misconception out there. What is in your blood are lipo-proteins and triglycerides which are very different from the solid white animal fat. Google fat digestion for more details.
Also, fat does not dissolve in saliva that's why it sticks and feels rubbery. Heated fat on the other hand does feel more like butter.
-
I'm rather wary of this quasi-WAPF notion of breastfeeding past the age of 2. I mean, technically, once babies have grown their teeth, they shouldn't really need to be breastfed any more, and it's just really weird to read about mothers breastfeeding their children till the age of 9 etc.. Granted, in earlier times, tribeswomen breastfed for 2 years, but that was more to do with the fact that breastfeeding has a contraceptive component.
I didn't get the notion from WAPF and didn't even know they advocated that. I got it from scientists' reports on HGs--I believe it was Cordain, Eaton, Lee, Leakey, etc. However, 3 years was just a guesstimate, as I'm not thoroughly convinced it's necessary to go much beyond 6 months if one weans the child to raw or near-raw meat/fat/organs. For example, Gray-Hawk Audette weaned at that age and turned out exceptionally well, according to Ray (though I know you don't buy his claims). Breastmilk does provide a useful alternate source of food to HGs when animal flesh is scarce in the wild and it is very healthy food for infants, but if it got to be a hassle and the baby seemed fine on raw meat and fat, then I would be fine with that too. The real problem comes in when people feed their infants formula, cow/soy milk, cereal, etc.
-
(just wanted to bump this to the 11th page so it would get more views)
Hey guys.
I just recieved my suet I ordered and you know when you eat a steak and the fat near the skin is always so sweet, buttery and melts in your mouth? Totally yummy! And then inside the steak there is sometimes this gritty, non tasty, non melting type of fat that to be honest feels kinda gross?
Anyway suet tastes and feels just like that. And to be honest it just feels kinda unnatural seeing as it doesn't melt in my mouth.
So I'm curious what are your oppionions on suet? Is it safe? Because it feels like this stuff would just clog up my arteries even if it's raw.
The reason why I'm a bit scared of it is because my heart has been feeling a bit off since I started being carnivorous. I don't get palputations but it just feels kinda "heavier" and like it's working a lot harder. To be honest it scares me a little bit.
I don't like beef suet most of the time. That is, I've gotten 1 or 2 sources which tasted OK, but most are so bland and tasteless that I nowadays only eat raw suet if other raw animal foods are not immediately available. I don't view it as a superior fat, quite the contrary. I far prefer raw marrow or raw tongue or raw fatty muscle-meat such as leg of mutton(all grassfed/organic, of course). If I could get hold of suet from wild animals, I might go for that but beef suet is an inferior food AFAIAC.
As for the heart-palpitations etc., everyone seems to go through severely increased stresses on the body when undergoing raw ZC. Some people get through it, after enduring many months of these trials - others, such as myself, just get worse and worse and never recover, and have to give it up sooner or later or end up in the morgue.
-
it's just really weird to read about mothers breastfeeding their children till the age of 9 etc.. Granted, in earlier times, tribeswomen breastfed for 2 years, but that was more to do with the fact that breastfeeding has a contraceptive component.
BTW, 2 years is the shortest amount of time I've seen listed for HG groups. The average seems to be around 3-4 years and some go beyond that if they don't have another child in the meantime.
As for the "weirdness," that's a social factor. Breastfeeding beyond 1 or 2 years seems "weird" to many moderners (and in the recent past, many American doctors actually advised mothers to skip it altogether and use formulas instead) because it's generally no longer practiced in the modern world, except in rare cases, and we have an abundance of food that eliminates its survival value. To HGs, breastfeeding for 2, 3, 4 or more years seems perfectly natural because they seem to look at it as "It's good food, so why not use it?"
This subject was discussed before in this forum and I think someone claimed the numbers I gave for HGs were too low (I think I gave a range of 2-7 years) and said that 6 years was the minimum for HGs, with 9 years as the actual upper range. It's interesting that my figures have now been faulted as both too low and too high. I could see some HGs possibly going to 9 years, but 2 years is too low to be an avg--it's more the lower end of the range than an avg. I also question this idea of the chief reason for HG women breastfeeding for more than 6 months was as a contraceptive. What's your source on this?
In the last discussion someone suggested I inquire about it with my local La Leche League, which I did and I posted the response. I found it on my PC, so here it is again:
Hi Phil,
Thank you so much for contacting La Leche League of Burlington. This is such a fascinating
question and really brings out the point that breastfeeding is not merely a biological function but
is strongly influenced by culture. I think the reason you've found varying ranges is because the
ranges varied. Katherine Dettwyler, of Texas A&M University, has studied and written on the
"natural" age of weaning. Based on various biological factors and comparing humans to
primates, a "natural" age of weaning might be anywhere between 2 1/2 and 7 years of age. Baby
teeth were once referred to as "milk" teeth; children begin to lose their first teeth between the
ages of 5 and 7. www.kathydettwyler.org/detwean.html
The longer duration of breastfeeding helps the child spacing and increases the likelihood of that
child reaching adulthood.
According to Meredith Small, author of Our Babies, Ourselves, the !Kung San people of the
Kalahari Desert, Botswana, are "some of the last remaining hunters and gatherers on earth." They
are a semi-nomadic people still living for the most part a traditional, for them, lifestyle. The
children nurse for four years. The Ache of Paraguay are a people who were traditionally hunter
gatherers in a forest habitat and have been living in reservations for the last 40 years. Their
current lifestyle "combines settled horticulture with long treks into the forest. These treks
basically present the same restrictions, opportunities and dangers that living in the forest
presented only a few years ago." The children here nurse for two years. "Ache women have an
average of eight live births, much more than the !Kung San people [or] other South American
Indian groups."
On the other hand, I recently read in The Spirit of the English Language by John Wulsin that
Chaucer probably nursed until he was five. Juliet, of Romeo and Juliet nursed until the age of
three.
I hope this answers your question.
warm regards,
Laura McCormick
In summary, breastmilk is a nutritious source of animal food that some cultures continue using up to the age of seven and maybe even beyond, but if you have plentiful raw meat and fat available it may not be necessary beyond the age of 6 months.
-
The most common figure I heard about was 2 years. For one thing, child mortality is very high in HG societies, so spacing births at really long intervals from each other is not a good idea(breastfeeding has a strong contraceptive effect, so I reckon that that must be the primary reason for breastfeeding). What I meant was that, technically, on a natural level, as soon as infants have their first teeth appear properly, then there is no biological requirement for breastfeeding any more as they can eat the various foods without issue(indeed wild animals commonly routinely start with breastfeeding, then progress on to regurgitating food for the youngsters, and get them to eat prey well before they stop being infants.
-
The most common figure I heard about was 2 years. For one thing, child mortality is very high in HG societies, so spacing births at really long intervals from each other is not a good idea
That is the opposite of what Laura McCormick wrote, so do you think that she was lying?
Please quote credible source(s) for your statement.
-
That is the opposite of what Laura McCormick wrote, so do you think that she was lying?
Given that she's part of an organisation that favours long-term breastfeeding far beyond the norm , I'd say it's extremely likely that she is likely to be prone to exaggeration, if not lying.
Please quote credible source(s) for your statement.
Here's a source mentioning 2.9 years as being average age of weaning for hunter-gatherers:-
"1. Hunter-gatherer children typically had a much longer age at weaning than what is considered normal in the western world. Studies of five hunter-gatherer societies (!Kung, Ache, Inuit, Australian Aborigines, and Hadza) reveal the average age of weaning to be 2.9 years (Eaton SB et al. Women's reproductive cancers in evolutionary context. Quart Rev Biol 1994;69:353-67.)" taken from:-
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/faqs/
-
What would your plan be for feeding your own kids?
...
Me? Breast milk for as long as feasible (preferably 3 years or more) try introducing ground raw meat and fat at 6 months or so, raw pemmican as road food. ...
I'm rather wary of this quasi-WAPF notion of breastfeeding past the age of 2. ...
I didn't get the notion from WAPF and didn't even know they advocated that. I got it from scientists' reports on HGs--I believe it was Cordain, Eaton, Lee, Leakey, etc. However, 3 years was just a guesstimate, as I'm not thoroughly convinced it's necessary to go much beyond 6 months if one weans the child to raw or near-raw meat/fat/organs.
The most common figure I heard about was 2 years. For one thing, child mortality is very high in HG societies, so spacing births at really long intervals from each other is not a good idea....
Here's a source mentioning 2.9 years as being average age of weaning for hunter-gatherers:-
"1. Hunter-gatherer children typically had a much longer age at weaning than what is considered normal in the western world. Studies of five hunter-gatherer societies (!Kung, Ache, Inuit, Australian Aborigines, and Hadza) reveal the average age of weaning to be 2.9 years (Eaton SB et al. Women's reproductive cancers in evolutionary context. Quart Rev Biol 1994;69:353-67.)" taken from:-
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/faqs/
Correct Tyler, that's one of MY sources (an article by Dr. Eaton et al from Dr. Cordain's website--both of whom I mentioned above) and is actually the specific reference I was thinking of when I mentioned the 3 years figure, and I think it was the first one I read years ago. I rounded the 2.9 to 3 years (2.9 is closer to 3 than 2). So are you acknowledging that 3 years is a more accurate HG avg than 2 and that it's a natural figure not just a weird quasi-WAPF notion? If you do acknowledge that the Eaton 2.9 year number is accurate, why did you originally say you're "wary of this quasi-WAPF notion of breastfeeding past the age of 2"? It's amazingly ironic that you criticized the notion as coming from WAPF, whereas I hadn't seen their discussion of it, and then you cite one of my sources where I DID get the notion from. Instead of "quasi-WAPF notion", I guess you could call it my "quasi-Eaton notion."
The Eaton 3 year figure is actually one of the more conservative estimates, with others going higher (such as those in the Laura McCormick letter I reposted--which I notice you didn't answer William's question on). Plus, I wrote of trying to introduce solid foods at 6 months, whereas Naomi Aldort, Ph.D. went much further than that right in this forum, saying that <<Many babies breast-feed exclusively are not interested in anything else for a couple of "YEARS" not months. That's best for them.>> (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/weaning/msg21441/#msg21441). And here's where I got taken to task for using the conservative 3 year figure, instead of 6 or more years: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/weaning/msg21447/#msg21447
-
When I said 2 years, I meant around 2 years, not by their 2nd birthday. As for claims for higher ages, I was suggesting that hunter-gatherer tribes only breastfed for longer for unnatural reasons(ie to delay further pregnancies in the meantime due to the contraceptive nature of breastfeeding), not because it was best for the child. Not only do a baby's growing teeth cause problems re breastfeeding(as some mothers mention) but , as I pointed out re wildlife, weaning comes quite early in childhood among wild animals with cubs etc. quickly being fed on regurgitated food, being encouraged to eat prey caught by the mother etc.
Whatever the case, I really don't want a situation where it becomes forum policy to encourage breastfeeding up till the age of puberty or whatever age the extremists in LaLeche encourage(I've so far heard of the age of 9 being commonly mentioned). We have enough hasslefrom the general public over the raw-meat-issue, there's no need for us to just be anti-Establishment purely for its own sake, without reasonable cause.
-
Milk is for babies.. when you're 5+ you're not a baby anymore, shit, when you get teeth you're hardly a baby anymore.. I know they 'call' them milk teeth, but that doesnt mean you're supposed to drink milk as long as you have those teeth haha..
I imagine a reason they would have breastfeed longer is because its 'free food'.
-
I love that word "weaning" and use it often when encouraging people to cut out all raw dairy from their diet. It's a timely reminder that they are now adults and that wild animals do not continue drinking raw milk past a certain point in their infancy.
-
Hope you don't mind a lot of questions on this, Tyler, as it's a subject I don't know much about beyond the observational reports on HGs, like those of Eaton et al.
I only mentioned what I might theoretically do because I was asked. Like I said, the 3 year figure was just a guesstimate I threw out based on Eaton and other scientists and I only meant it as supplementary breastfeeding, not exclusive. I have no firm commitment to any period beyond 6 months. This appears to be a somewhat emotional subject, probably because it involves children. I got taken to task for not using a 6-9 years figure and now it looks like I took a bit of heat for stating a guesstimate of 3 or more years instead of 2 or 2.9 (and I was thinking I would play it by ear and maybe it would work out to around 3, maybe a little more up to 3.5 or 4 years and maybe less down to 6 months--as apparently with Gray-Hawk--all depending on how my theoretical infant actually responded and what the mother's needs were). It's all rather puzzling to me. Looks like I stepped into a minefield and it may be better to refuse to answer questions on the subject. ;)
When I said 2 years, I meant around 2 years, not by their 2nd birthday.
OK, and by 3 years I didn't mean that 2.9 years was way too low, so it sounds like we basically agree that 2.9 years is a reasonable figure for at least some HGs. Like I said, beyond 6 months I view it as probably a supplementary food rather than necessarily an exclusive one, so my view may not be nearly as different from yours as you thought.
I think the most important thing is what replaces the breastmilk. If it's the SAD, then up to 7 years of supplemental breastfeeding might be theoretically beneficial. If it's raw meat and fat, then I think the 6 month weaning of Gray-Hawk looks reasonable, but I don't have a firm opinion either way.
As for claims for higher ages, I was suggesting that hunter-gatherer tribes only breastfed for longer for unnatural reasons(ie to delay further pregnancies in the meantime due to the contraceptive nature of breastfeeding), not because it was best for the child.
Not only do a baby's growing teeth cause problems re breastfeeding(as some mothers mention) but , as I pointed out re wildlife, weaning comes quite early in childhood among wild animals with cubs etc. quickly being fed on regurgitated food, being encouraged to eat prey caught by the mother etc.
I thought the baby's teeth problem was described as mainly a problem of discomfort for the mothers, rather than harm to the children? Do you have any evidence directly supporting contraception as the primary reason for HG breastfeeding beyond a certain age and at what age does it kick in? I know there is evidence supporting the partial contraceptive ability of breastfeeding, but is there evidence supporting it as substantially more important than all other reasons; that is, showing HGs engaged in breastfeeding past one or two years with the primary aim of contraception, rather than as a secondary benefit? Are there no other benefits to be obtained by breastfeeding beyond 2 years than contraception (which may be of benefit even to moderners, BTW)? My memory's not clear on this, but I think 2 years is the minimum age for the child to be able to walk and keep up with a nomadic tribe, so a mother is free to have another child, right? Are you saying the primary reason after that is contraception?
I'm not aware of any reported harm to the child from breastmilk up to the age of 7 (the high range I've seen, though Rawzi mentioned 9 years as the high range for trad. Inuits), other than the potential for social stigma and maybe psychological maternal dependence (and I don't know when if ever these kick in for HG children whose mothers are eating healthy diets). Have you seen any reports on this?
Whatever the case, I really don't want a situation where it becomes forum policy ...
As for forum policy, you'd have to take that up with GS, as I don't control that. Maybe you mean you don't want to see advocacy of breastfeeding beyond 2.9 years become part of the norm here?
to encourage breastfeeding up till the age of puberty or whatever age the extremists in LaLeche encourage(I've so far heard of the age of 9 being commonly mentioned).
All the La Leche League sources I've seen (to which the paleodiet.com website and someone here directed me--so all my initial sources were Paleo-related) so far mentioned 2 to 7 years, which is also what the observational studies of HGs by scientists indicate. So far I've only seen RawZi mention 9 years, but maybe she got that from LLL? I don't know much about LLL and didn't know they were considered extremists by some, though the WAPF apparently disagrees with them.
We have enough hasslefrom the general public over the raw-meat-issue, there's no need for us to just be anti-Establishment purely for its own sake, without reasonable cause.
Do you view any recent posts in this forum as "anti-Establishment purely for its own sake," or is that just a fear you have that might theoretically develop? I certainly don't write or do anything just to be anti-establishment. I go wherever the facts lead me and I don't care if the facts are not popular with the establishment and I also don't care if they ARE popular with the establishment. I'm not going to lie just to please the "establishment" and I'm not going to ignore the facts if they do line up with what the establishment wants. If you have evidence, present it. Evidence is much more likely to persuade me than your opinions and fears.
-
Milk is for babies.. when you're 5+ you're not a baby anymore, shit, when you get teeth you're hardly a baby anymore.. I know they 'call' them milk teeth, but that doesnt mean you're supposed to drink milk as long as you have those teeth haha..
You raise a good question. Why ARE they called milk teeth (ie, what is the origin and original meaning of the term, what inspired it)? It's a term I have only a vague recollection of hearing before I read mention of it in that email.
I imagine a reason they would have breastfeed longer is because its 'free food'.
That was my guess as to the primary reason too (and healthy free food at that, with other reasons like contraception being secondary). It seems reasonable to me, but I'm a simple man, so maybe I'm missing something and I'm open to evidence pointing elsewhere.
Folks, I'm going where you send me on this. Someone told me to check with LLL, so I did. Now someone's suggesting their info is laughable...so present something else and I'll check it out. It's not complicated. Provide the evidence and I'll examine it. The fact that the LLL's sources tend to be scientific reports on HGs seems impressive, but they tend to be old sources that I can't access the original documents for. So if someone has the original documents the LLL cited or other scientific sources and could provide them or some context from them, that would be constructive. I remember coming across stuff on this about HGs in several anthropology articles and books, and my recollection is that 3-4 years were the most common weaning ages mentioned, and I believe the reason given for BF up to 2 or so years was so the child could keep up with the nomadic tribe, but I don't remember a reason for after that, and I unfortunately didn't save the references.
I'm open minded on this and many other subjects. As Socrates said, "All I know is that I know nothing (with certainty)." I ask questions, seek evidence, check it out, ask more questions, pose hypotheses, get feedback, etc. I don't hold to any dogma and have trouble comprehending the mindset of those who do. You'll impress me more with evidence and logic than insults, jokes, dogma, magic, Bible quotes, political agendas, etc. Everything beyond evidence and logical reasoning seems to be variations of hocus-pocus.
-
...
...
...
... Do you have any evidence directly supporting contraception as the primary reason for HG breastfeeding beyond a certain age and at what age does it kick in? I know there is evidence supporting the partial contraceptive ability of breastfeeding, but is there evidence supporting it as substantially more important than all other reasons; that is, showing HGs engaged in breastfeeding past one or two years with the primary aim of contraception, rather than as a secondary benefit? Are there no other benefits to be obtained by breastfeeding beyond 2 years than contraception (which may be of benefit even to moderners, BTW)? My memory's not clear on this, but I think 2 years is the minimum age for the child to be able to walk and keep up with a nomadic tribe, so a mother is free to have another child, right? Are you saying the primary reason after that is contraception?
I'm not aware of any reported harm to the child from breastmilk up to the age of 7 (the high range I've seen, though Rawzi mentioned 9 years as the high range for trad. Inuits), other than the potential for social stigma and maybe psychological maternal dependence (and I don't know when if ever these kick in for HG children whose mothers are eating healthy diets). Have you seen any reports on this?
...
All the La Leche League sources I've seen (to which the paleodiet.com website and someone here directed me--so all my initial sources were Paleo-related) so far mentioned 2 to 7 years, which is also what the observational studies of HGs by scientists indicate. So far I've only seen RawZi mention 9 years, but maybe she got that from LLL? I don't know much about LLL and didn't know they were considered extremists by some, though the WAPF apparently disagrees with them.
Do you view any recent posts in this forum as "anti-Establishment purely for its own sake," or is that just a fear you have that might theoretically develop? I certainly don't write or do anything just to be anti-establishment. I go wherever the facts lead me and I don't care if the facts are not popular with the establishment and I also don't care if they ARE popular with the establishment. I'm not going to lie just to please the "establishment" and I'm not going to ignore the facts if they do line up with what the establishment wants. If you have evidence, present it. Evidence is much more likely to persuade me than your opinions and fears.
I didn't get that part from LLL. A Rawist on another raw forum put up information like that, and I (back then a couple years ago) had then found confirmation on Google. The woman who had posted back then nurse each of her kids about five years. She has since taken up cooked grains to eat and share with her family. She said several of the years she was nursing she ate mostly (raw) meat from reindeer and such and everything else what she called primal (berries I guess).
As far as contraception, I'm sure it must work pretty well, but in the world these days I'm not going to suggest to depend on it.
I have attended LLL meetings and got assistance from them, but don't remember anyone nursing toddlers in front of me. I was also involved in playgroups and other organizations where I have seen women nurse four year olds in front of me. I thought it was strange, but if it works for them, so be it.
-
I didn't get that part from LLL. A Rawist on another raw forum put up information like that, and I (back then a couple years ago) had then found confirmation on Google.
The only source I could find mentioning 9 years was this one, and it is directly from the LLLI, so I doubt Tyler will take this seriously and I wish there was a better source myself:
"In ancient India, influenced by the belief that the longer a child nursed the longer he would live, mothers usually nursed their children as long as possible, often seven or even nine years sometimes. In Tsinghai, China, mothers observed in 1956 were still nursing for several years, five years not being unusual, or until another child was born. In Inner Mongolia in 1951, children nursed two or three years, nor was it rare that a six- or seven-year-old would want to nurse for a bit of reassurance." (Bumgarner, Norma Jane, Mothering Your Nursing Toddler. Schaumburg, Illinois, USA: LLLI, 1982; 67-68. http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/priscilla_colletto.html)
I have attended LLL meetings and got assistance from them, but don't remember anyone nursing toddlers in front of me. I was also involved in playgroups and other organizations where I have seen women nurse four year olds in front of me. I thought it was strange, but if it works for them, so be it.
Conceptions of what's strange tend to be socially based. What's strange today may be "normal" tomorrow. According to all the sources I've seen, it wasn't that long ago that mothers were nursing their children for 2 years or longer. Did the LLL folks seem extreme or fanatical?
-
I think the most important thing is what replaces the breastmilk. If it's the SAD, then up to 7 years of supplemental breastfeeding might be theoretically beneficial. If it's raw meat and fat, then I think the 6 month weaning of Gray-Hawk looks reasonable, but I don't have a firm opinion either way.
I remember 1 poster on another forum pointing out that breastfeeding is pointless on a SAD diet, or indeed any cooked diet, as the nutritional value of the breast-milk is then almost nil. I disagreed with the person at the time, but when I thought about it, the only benefits of breast-milk, if the mother is on a poor diet, are the beneficial bacteria, hormones and enzymes and similiar co-factors. The obvious assumption is that while such hormones etc. might be useful(and designed) for a young baby re building a suitable supply of healthy bacteria etc., they are largely worthless for any older child. And, in such circumstances, the child is better placed to eat a healthy diet of soild foods.
I thought the baby's teeth problem was described as mainly a problem of discomfort for the mothers, rather than harm to the children?
Naturally, it bothers the mother, not the child. Teeth-worn nipples are rather more painful a symptom than mere "discomfort". But the obvious point is that once a child grows teeth, it is naturally designed to start eating solid foods(albeit perhaps regurgitated etc. foods at first)
Do you have any evidence directly supporting contraception as the primary reason for HG breastfeeding beyond a certain age and at what age does it kick in? I know there is evidence supporting the partial contraceptive ability of breastfeeding, but is there evidence supporting it as substantially more important than all other reasons; that is, showing HGs engaged in breastfeeding past one or two years with the primary aim of contraception, rather than as a secondary benefit? Are there no other benefits to be obtained by breastfeeding beyond 2 years than contraception (which may be of benefit even to moderners, BTW)? My memory's not clear on this, but I think 2 years is the minimum age for the child to be able to walk and keep up with a nomadic tribe, so a mother is free to have another child, right? Are you saying the primary reason after that is contraception?
Of course. You have to bear in mind that for hunter-gatherers, breastfeeding was the ONLY effective contraceptive method without the Pill, so it was a major consideration. Plus, hunter-gatherers are well-known to deliberately breastfeed their children frequently during the day:-
http://tropej.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/28/1/1
which apparently enhances the contraceptive effect of breastfeeding(prolactin levels in breast-milk are apparently key to contraception).
I'm not aware of any reported harm to the child from breastmilk up to the age of 7 (the high range I've seen, though Rawzi mentioned 9 years as the high range for trad. Inuits), other than the potential for social stigma and maybe psychological maternal dependence (and I don't know when if ever these kick in for HG children whose mothers are eating healthy diets). Have you seen any reports on this?
There are plenty of sensationalist reports in the media focusing on really weird mothers breastfeeding up till the age of 9, even 10, last I checked. I don't think one can reasonably claim that such behaviour is remotely normal or doesn't affect the child. Breastfeeding might be normal for a child unable to feed itself properly, but as soon as it's able to do so, creating any sort of artificial dependence on the Mother is going to cause Oedipus-complex related issues. I know some parents are reluctant to let their children grow up and see them as eternal children, but this is a bizarre extreme version thereof.
All the La Leche League sources I've seen (to which the paleodiet.com website and someone here directed me--so all my initial sources were Paleo-related) so far mentioned 2 to 7 years, which is also what the observational studies of HGs by scientists indicate. So far I've only seen RawZi mention 9 years, but maybe she got that from LLL? I don't know much about LLL and didn't know they were considered extremists by some, though the WAPF apparently disagrees with them.
There are plenty of online mentions of breastfeeding children in modern developed world till 8 and 9. And that's only those who aren't secretive about the practice. As for forum-policy, I do think there's a fine line between good nutrition for a child and child-abuse. I mean, rawists already have in a few cases got into trouble in the family courts simply for feeding their children on raw diets, I don't think we should make things worse by just being contrarian and doing something simply because hunter-gatherers do it. Like I said before, hunter-gatherers are constricted by different pressures than we are in the modern, developed world, so have entirely different reasons for practices such as breastfeeding for unnaturally longer periods, re contraception or whatever. In this regard, it makes much better sense to follow the common-sense shown in the animal kingdom who are more natural in their way of life than hunter-gatherer tribes.
-
In this regard, it makes much better sense to follow the common-sense shown in the animal kingdom who are more natural in their way of life than hunter-gatherer tribes.
Do you really believe that animals have common sense?
-
Do you really believe that animals have common sense?
They have instinct which is much the same.
-
I remember 1 poster on another forum pointing out that breastfeeding is pointless on a SAD diet, or indeed any cooked diet, as the nutritional valuie of the breast-milk is then almost nil. I disagreed with the person at the time, but when I thought about it, the only benefits of breast-milk, if the mother is on a poor diet, are the beneficial bacteria, hormones and enzymes and similiar co-factors. The obvious assumption is that while such hormones etc. might be useful(and designed) for a young baby re building a suitable supply of healthy bacteria etc., they are largely worthless for any older child. And, in such circumstances, the child is better placed to eat a healthy diet of soild foods.
Once again you're discussing stuff I didn't mention. Straw men are much easier to handle than actual questions and points people raise, but nobody learns much this way. Of course "a healthy diet of solid foods" is superior to breastmilk "on a SAD diet." Where did I say otherwise?
Naturally, it bothers the mother, not the child.
My question was regarding the child. I'm still waiting for evidence of harm to the child. If you don't have any beyond your opinions, then please just say so.
Of course. You have to bear in mind that for hunter-gatherers, breastfeeding was the ONLY effective contraceptive method without the Pill, so it was a major consideration. Plus, hunter-gatherers are well-known to deliberately breastfeed their children frequently during the day:-
http://tropej.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/28/1/1
which apparently enhances the contraceptive effect of breastfeeding(prolactin levels in breast-milk are apparently key to contraception).
It's good pieces of data like this that I'm after. Thanks! This is a good start. It's at least somewhat suggestive that contraception could theoretically have been the primary motivation, though not conclusive. If you find anything that talks about the contraceptive effect being more important to the HGs than the food value, let me know.
There are plenty of sensationalist reports in ...
I can understand your concern about protecting the forum from avoidable ridicule, but concerns expressed about fear of potential ridicule don't answer my questions or provide me with data or logic, which is what I'm generally after. Besides, do we really want to base our analysis on what the media thinks rather than the facts?
There are plenty of online mentions of breastfeeding children in modern developed world till 8 and 9. And that's only those who aren't secretive about the practice.
Yeah, I'm skeptical of the claims of the claimed benefits of breastfeeding beyond 7 yrs. That seems pretty clear. What I don't know is whether there's any benefit between 6 months and 7 yrs beyond a convenient supplemental food source that is healthy when it comes from mothers eating a RPD, or whether there's any serious ill effects on the children during that period. So far from the sources you've provided me, there are no reported ill effects on the children after up to 2.9 years of breastfeeding by a HG mother. The only
As for forum-policy, I do think there's a fine line between good nutrition for a child and child-abuse.
Where's the evidence? Claims of child abuse without evidence seem like irresponsible hysteria. We ran into that years ago here in VT where the state moved in on a religious sect and took their children away, claiming their traditional practices were harmful and damaging to the children. When the psychiatrists and physicians examined the children they could find nothing wrong with them. The sect sued the state and won millions of dollars.
I mean, rawists already have in a few cases got into trouble in the family courts simply for feeding their children on raw diets, ....
I'm not sure which ones you're referring to. In the articles I read, the children were severely malnourished or even starving. One even died from starvation. If you have evidence of breastfeeding of HG children beyond 2 years resulting in malnutrition or starvation, then by all means present it. That would be very persuasive indeed.
I don't think we should make things worse by just being contrarian
Again, that's a straw man that I'm not advocating.
In this regard, it makes much better sense to follow the common-sense shown in the animal kingdom who are more natural in their way of life than hunter-gatherer tribes.
The practices of animals can be informative, but are not necessarily directly applicable to human beings. This is why ALL the evidence should be examined, not just animals or just HGs or just Stone Agers or just moderners--ALL of it. Ignoring evidence simply because it doesn't support our assumption would be unscientific. Surely you're not advocating ignoring the HG evidence or whatever Stone Ager evidence there might be.
-
Once again you're discussing stuff I didn't mention. Straw men are much easier to handle than actual questions and points people raise, but nobody learns much this way. Of course "a healthy diet of solid foods" is superior to breastmilk "on a SAD diet." Where did I say otherwise?
You specifically suggested that extended breastfeeding for 7 years could make up for the disadvantages of being on an unhealthy SAD diet. I pointed out that many WAPF-style mothers disagreed with this and had suggested that breastmilk from a mother on a nutritionally deficient diet was largely worthless(except in the first few months where some hormones, enzymes, co-factors could be useful, but with extended breastfeeding being pointless re overall nutrition. Oh, there's one thing I forgot to mention in my previous post:- breastmilk is an excellent carrier for infection, in other words if the mother gets ill, the breastfeeding baby will very also get that health-problem - a very good reason to limit breastfeeding. Indeed one reason for the rise in HIV in Africa among children is due to breastfeeding. And then there's the issue of industrial contaminants in human breast-milk, re PCBs etc.
My question was regarding the child. I'm still waiting for evidence of harm to the child. If you don't have any beyond your opinions, then please just say so.
You know as well as I do that there is very little information re the benefits or harm of such long-term extended breastfeeding since it is so very rarely practised in the modern world, so one can't cite official studies either way. Most people view extended breastfeeding with understandable contempt as it's a way the mother uses to infantilise the child and prevent it from growing up. Also, there is the obvious aspect of child-abuse:- I mean children tend to get sexual feelings well before puberty, so breastfeeding to 8 or 10, could clearly be seen to encourage incest.
I can understand your concern about protecting the forum from avoidable ridicule, but concerns expressed about fear of potential ridicule don't answer my questions or provide me with data or logic, which is what I'm generally after. Besides, do we really want to base our analysis on what the media thinks rather than the facts?
The simple fact is that it isn't the media that is the instigator of claims against extended breastfeeding, it's the public at large, who view it as a form of child-abuse, for obvious reasons. So, it would be foolish for us to arbitrarily adopt practices which the general public view as unhealthy without just cause.
Where's the evidence? Claims of child abuse without evidence seem like irresponsible hysteria. We ran into that years ago here in VT where the state moved in on a religious sect and took their children away, claiming their traditional practices were harmful and damaging to the children. When the psychiatrists and physicians examined the children they could find nothing wrong with them. The sect sued the state and won millions of dollars.
I presume you were referring to the Mormon Fundamentalists in Texas, I thought that some of them had been arrested. As for the issue of breastfeeding in the courts, like I said, it's very rare that a case has turned up given the unpopularity of breastfeeding, but children have been placed into foster-care as a result.
I'm not sure which ones you're referring to. In the articles I read, the children were severely malnourished or even starving. One even died from starvation. If you have evidence of breastfeeding of HG children beyond 2 years resulting in malnutrition or starvation, then by all means present it. That would be very persuasive indeed.
I was not referring to the raw vegan cases. I was specifically referring to some cases mentioned over the years by Primal-Diet-/rawpalaeo-eating mothers on other lists who mentioned how their fathers would bring up the matter of raw-feeding their children in the divorce-courts in order to get custody. I suspect they got away with it, partly because mothers are usually given preference in child custody-battles, but it doesn't help if we start recommending dodgy practices that aren't even really related to diet, as that just makes life unnecessarily more difficult for rawpalaeos. Since a healthy rawpalaeodiet of solid foods is preferential for a child than extended breastfeeding and avoids inevitable accusations of child-abuse, so it is better to recommend the former than the latter.
The practices of animals can be informative, but are not necessarily directly applicable to human beings. This is why ALL the evidence should be examined, not just animals or just HGs or just Stone Agers or just moderners--ALL of it. Ignoring evidence simply because it doesn't support our assumption would be unscientific. Surely you're not advocating ignoring the HG evidence or whatever Stone Ager evidence there might be.
Like I said before, wild animals are a far better example.Unlike wild animals, HGs are not subject to natural selection so commonly practice unnatural behaviours such as self-mutilation(a commmon savage trait), plus HGs have adopted Neolithic practices in all cases, to some extent. The only time I would ever consider modern HG evidence to be usefuL(and then only as tenth-rate evidence) is when relevant data from the palaeolithic era is nonexistent by comparison.