Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: JaredBond on July 02, 2010, 04:58:50 pm

Title: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 02, 2010, 04:58:50 pm
Well, well, that's the pillar of the low carb theory, isn't it?  Well, what if that's wrong?

I used to be low carb, and I'm here to try to dig anyone else out who has been sucked into it.  Low-carb is the conclusion of some seemingly really smart people-- Michael Eades and Gary Taubes for instance.  The research seems to all support it.  Archeology seems to support it.  So what's the deal?

Well, I don't have time to explain, but I highly recommend you check out www.180degreehealth.com.  I know we're all desperate here.  I have not found the answer to my health woes yet.  But I believe this low-carb thing can actually be harmful.  Matt Stone discusses in his free e-book why that is.

As for the archeology and anthropology supporting paleo, consider this: It is entirely plausible that humans have at least been eating various potato-like root vegetables and cooking them around the world since the dawn of time.  It's not that hard to believe that we naturally have eaten starch, as hominids probably got calories from whatever source they could.  There are plenty of observed hunter-gather tribes that have eaten up to 80% or so carbs and were in fabulous health.  (Those are the ones you don't hear about from low carb sources.)  Matt Stone gives these examples in his free ebook and blog.

The main thing that I have learned from all this is that we need to trust our feelings more.  Our body has feelings for a reason.  Please do not do restrictive dieting.  I even eat sugar again (which he doesn't recommend, but I do).  I'm taken away my acne by merely avoiding omega 6 and polyunsaturates in general, which does not require much willpower at all.

My best explanation for the ills of the world at this point are toxins (including unnatural PUFAs), and malnutrition (perhaps even caused by chronic undereating).

And also, I know there are some people out there, like Lex Rooker, or diabetics, who've found that low carb is the only thing that works for them.  Some people are not able to handle changing blood sugar levels, and are forced to do low carb.  But I believe as Matt Stone does that this is a crutch, and does not address the underlying problem.  My sympathies go to those people, because I don't have an answer for them; but I don't believe low carb is something that everyone should do because of their marginal success.

Discuss.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on July 02, 2010, 09:08:09 pm
I  did not know I was suffering from hypo-glycemic episodes on a daily basis until I tried high fat - low carb.

I thought hypo-glycemic episodes were normal.
Normal when I grew up on SAD, on raw vegan, on fruitarian.

Now I'm sooo happy.  I don't get them anymore.

High fat, low carb has helped my 5 year old girl control her tooth decays.  Even if she eats mostly cooked.

Just like everything in life, it all depends on your point of view and stage in your life.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on July 02, 2010, 09:37:37 pm
Quote
180DegreeHealth is about increasing dietary freedoms, and increasing food tolerances. The ideal
end goal for everyone is to be able to eat the greatest variety of foods, properly digest the
greatest variety of foods, properly metabolize the greatest variety of foods, and experience great
health with the absolute minimum number of dietary restrictions and limitations.

From the ebook you are advertising.

This is what my friend healer Vander Gaditano tries to do to his patients.  He manipulates them in all manners possible to raise them up from being almost dead, the usual stage 4 cancers.

But it all depends on the disease.

And even for healthy people, it depends on your goals in life.

Keep going at it Matt, I love your fighting research spirit.

Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 02, 2010, 11:44:48 pm
Yes and I encourage anyone on here to not just accept any authors information, to study and find what makes the most sense for you, the individual is the best route. On this forum and many other cooked paleo forums, we generate most of our premises from evolution. An no I'm not even talking about coming from monkeys or apes of that matter, of that I'm still skeptical. Im talking about an even simpler way of looking at it, evolution within a species, which is downright real and factual. I dont want to get into an evolution debate here, but the only validity of evolution from what I'm concerned is within a species. IDK if we came from apes (another species) or not, but there is pretty much only theories for it. I digress, anyway we paleo eaters believe that where our ancestors came from is generally the best diet, but some times it is impossible to know so we then experiment. The truth of the matter is, in nature, the closer one gets to the equator, the more carbhydrates one will consume. Now this is not true in all cases, Im speaking of tribes in general. The further from the equator, one is forced to eat considerable amounts of flesh and fat because of less edible plant life. Im tired of people talking like a certain diet is one size fits all, we are all different and need to realize that. It is quite possible that africans lived on a heavier plant based diet than europeans and Europeans ate a heavier animal based diet.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Nation on July 03, 2010, 12:21:20 am
Well, well, that's the pillar of the low carb theory, isn't it?  Well, what if that's wrong?


I couldn't give a rat's ass about insulin, resistance and people's theories about it. We eat a diet high in meat because we feel better on it, and that diet happens to be low carb, eating low-carb was never the primary goal/focus.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 03, 2010, 12:40:04 am
I couldn't give a rat's ass about insulin, resistance and people's theories about it. We eat a diet high in meat because we feel better on it, and that diet happens to be low carb, eating low-carb was never the primary goal/focus.

Not to mention that a high meat diet is...a high glucose diet, as the body converts the majority of amino acids into glucose...
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 03, 2010, 12:58:44 am
When amino acids are converted into glucose through gluconeogenesis, both insulin and glucagon increase, and glucagon balances the effects of insulin so you can't negatively increase insulin in gluconeogenesis. In fact, when gluconeogenesis occurs, a positive anabolic environment occurs. Insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the body, thats why all the bodybuilders are on it. However it is both anabolic towards muscle and fat so it can be a bad thing for fat storing (not that storing fat is always bad though). But when glucagon goes up and balances insulin, a great muscle building environment is given. I dont recommend this to everyone, I personally dont like to store glycogen because then I burn glucose instead of fat, but I know many who tried high protein diets before and exploded with muscle size and strength while staying lean, even better than the carbo loaders.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 03, 2010, 01:10:35 am


As for the archeology and anthropology supporting paleo, consider this: It is entirely plausible that humans have at least been eating various potato-like root vegetables and cooking them around the world since the dawn of time.  It's not that hard to believe that we naturally have eaten starch, as hominids probably got calories from whatever source they could.  There are plenty of observed hunter-gather tribes that have eaten up to 80% or so carbs and were in fabulous health.  (Those are the ones you don't hear about from low carb sources.)  Matt Stone gives these examples in his free ebook and blog.

In my opinion, it doesnt even matter if we dont know whether we used fire or not because of this: We know by modern science that heating foods creates many toxins that are harmful to the body such as AGES, Acrylamides, Arsenic, and much more so that right there tells you to not cook food. Also, we know that heating foods destroys enzymes, bacteria, oxidises fat, and denatures protein all either harmful to the body, or renders nutrients un-utilizable. We know that the growth of cancer cannot cease or reverse without pancreatin and many other important enzymes found in raw food. We know that if one stops consuming sugar, cancer cannot grow at all because it needs the presence of glucose. What more modern scientific info do you need to understand that this RAW diet is the best either high or low carb.




 I'm taken away my acne by merely avoiding omega 6 and polyunsaturates in general, which does not require much willpower at all.

I agree that omega 6 are bad as science has confirmed that over 60% of plaque is oxidised vegetable oils (mostly omega 6 acids). Truth be told, cooking, sugar, and omega 6 are mostly the culprits.

Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 03, 2010, 03:23:17 am
What sort of sugar are you talking about pioneer? Are you ZC?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Paleo Donk on July 03, 2010, 03:27:02 am
I've read quite a bit of Matt Stone the past few months and skimmed through his free e-book. I haven't seen anyone else mention his name on this forum so there might not be a lot of discussion here.

I'll give you my overall view of him first - He's a good storyteller who isn't afraid make very bold statements that don't give you the full or accurate picture of what is really going on. I'll give him credit for experimenting with a large variety of ways to eat, but he unfairly bashes certain diets (low-carb being the main one). Very clearly there are multitudes of people (I have read literally hundreds of journals) that are having enormous success with low-carb and more importantly there are many indigenous cultures (masai, samburu, islanders of tokleau, inuits, nenet, mongolians, plains indians and many others) around the globe who have fared very well for thousands of years low-carbing.

His "solution" to all your problems is to raise your metabolism, which is similar to saying that you must keep breathing to keep you alive. Yes, increasing body temperature is important and this is a probably a good indicator of health, which has not been really discussed much by other paleo/low-carb heroes. I like that he has his own unique way of curing poor health, basically eat all the non-refined sugar, non-omega 6, non-fructose sources you want and make sure you eat any time you are thinking of food. Do this until your morning body temperature is above 98 degrees and weight has stabilized. During this time make sure you rest as much as possible - sleep well, get out in the sun, do not exercise. Many people have had success with this approach, though it is all very short term - just a few months. I think Stone himself has barely been eating this way for a year and even in this time frame he has experimented about.

I think his solution might have some merit and his long term diet doesn't really differ that much than paleo. Eat what you like but keep stay away from certain foods. No need to count fat or carbs. I think its a no brainer that a high calorie diet will increase body temperature. Your body is trying very hard to burn through all the excess calories and I'm not sure how much actual healing is taking place. It could be just another temporary solution to the problem. Even Matt's body temperature dropped the last few months though he gets away with this by saying he was eating lots of sugar and what not.

In the end, I think the overeating solution is merely temporary just like he claims those that have the carb honeymoon. Its the same thing happening here.

Also, he has disturbingly bad logical miscues that I see him repeat over and over again. One of his more famous lines of thought is that since human breast milk has quit a bit of carbs in it then humans are clearly meant to consume lots of carbs. The trouble with this is that carnivorous mammal milk also has a decent chunk of carbs in it but they consume nearly zero carbs once adults. Cows milk also has loads of fat but their diet of grass has no fat in it so clearly looking at breast milk as a indicator of macronutrient profile for adults is a mistake. I see errors of reasoning like this nearly all the time.

Now it seems I am down on Stone but this is not true. I really appreciate his alternate views and have somewhat tried out his high everything diet myself. Low-carb failed me as well and I think that there is much more behind the problem than just macronutrient ratios that cause those who initialy do well with low-carb to fail long term. Biliary insufficiency, mercury poisoning, other toxins and of course whether the food is cooked and from pastured sources can make huge differences and very few of the paleo crowd ever really touch these issues. Also, too much protein might be an issue.

Since this is a discussion forum, so you don't have to command people to discuss in the future.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 03, 2010, 04:35:33 am
I personally am zero carb with some veggies sometimes, but I dont go around saying its right for everyone, it just works for me and many others. I was referring to glucose when I said cancer needs sugar to grow, and it is true, it was discovered by a cancer researcher in the 70's and many people dont know it. I cant remember the guy's name but I'll try to find it and let you guys know, maybe I'll start a new topic about it.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: NEUROSPORT on July 03, 2010, 10:14:07 am
High fat, low carb has helped my 5 year old girl control her tooth decays.

my grandma had her first tooth filling at age 33.  my friend is 30 years old and never had one, and he doesn't even brush his teeth.

i don't understand what is such a big deal about controlling tooth decay in a 5 year old.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 03, 2010, 11:44:21 am
Brushing your teeth does not mean shit, and no animal was ever meant to brush their teeth. I do it not for whitening or health purposes, but to avoid slime, but I only use AV's toothpaste protocol not the store made toxic stuff which can actually give you decay. I think of it as a cycle where you use toothpaste/ eat sugar, get decay, go to the dentist, get a filling, use toothpaste/ eat sugar, get decay, got to the dentist, get a filling, and so on. Im not talking conspiracy theories here, but it definitally makes dentistry more $. You can brush your teeth all you want but if ur eating tons of sugar and shit food, your teeth will rot. It is all diet related, you can cure acne, tooth decay, etc.. all through diet.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: RawZi on July 03, 2010, 03:54:37 pm
my grandma had her first tooth filling at age 33.  my friend is 30 years old and never had one, and he doesn't even brush his teeth.

i don't understand what is such a big deal about controlling tooth decay in a 5 year old.

    In the Philipines where gs is, people eat a lot of rice.  Eating grain all too often is causative in osteoporosity and tooth caries.  Also, I've known Philipinos IRL, and all too often well meaning loving relatives give the babies literal sugar water, just sugar and water, they call it juice.  Their teeth rot right out at two years old.  Of course he should be concerned about his daughter, wouldn't you if you lived in the Philipines and had a daughter?

    I have relatives in their nineties who've never had cavities.  They've eaten steaks almost their whole lives, thick and juicy every day.  They're not fat phobic like you are, how you recommend tons of fiber to absorb the fat.

    Why do you name your grandmother.  Why 30?  Are you younger with a cavity or two already?  What about insulin?  Any direct experience for you?  What does neurosport mean, head games?  Eat some brain, the quality fat will help function.  Early man did.  My parents did.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 04, 2010, 05:20:15 pm
I couldn't give a rat's ass about insulin, resistance and people's theories about it. We eat a diet high in meat because we feel better on it, and that diet happens to be low carb, eating low-carb was never the primary goal/focus.

That's fair enough.  I recommend that if you feel good doing something, keep doing it.  I mainly posted this because there are people out there who are cornered into thinking this is the only healthy diet, because they've become afraid of insulin or blood sugar (both of which are only a problem when they are chronically elevated).
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 04, 2010, 05:33:25 pm
Not to mention that a high meat diet is...a high glucose diet, as the body converts the majority of amino acids into glucose...
cancer cannot grow at all because it needs the presence of glucose.

Looks like we have a conflict here..............

Also, you might not want to train the body to get its glucose from proteins, as it will more readily convert your lean body tissue to glucose when you're not eating.  So I've heard.

Somewhat related:  A high fructose diet could be considered a high fat diet, since the fructose is almost entirely converted to fat by the liver.

Thanks for the commentary everyone.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 04, 2010, 11:58:17 pm
That is somewhat true, as the fructose spikes insulin, the cells readily store fat. However, I do not believe that this is the same case with consuming dietary fat. The opposite is true, Insulin regulates fat metabolism, it is like a switch. When you consume carbohydrates, insulin increases a certain amount depending on the GI and Glycemic load of the carb. Then a certain amount energy is used from the carbohydrate, when there is excess enery, the energy is stored as fat and glycogen, then later on when we havent eaten for a while, the stored energy is used in the form fat, and in the form of glycogen through anerobic bursts. Without insulin we could not store fat because it is literally the regulator of fat. So the low fat theorists actually have their information reversed, but I digress. When I said that cancer needs sugar to grow, I literally meant it, modern science has ignored a mid 1900 researcher (which I still need to find again and tell you guys) who won a nobel prize for figuring out that without sugar in the body cancer cannot manifest. This is because cancer grows only in an anerobic (without oxygen) environment. In an oxygen environment cancer cells die. It just so happens that glycogen is very anerobic, so it is used in the production of cancer.

As for the training the body to get it's glucose from proteins, I dont see anything wrong with that and never did. And its not "training" the body per say, its just another way to get glucose. Theories out there about ketoacidosis, harmful effects of ketones, and muscle wasting have only been made on whole cloth through speculation. part of the muscle wasting theory holds true and part doesnt. Heres why: picture I consume only 50g of protein today and no carbs, well hell Im gonna need some glucose so my body uses that consumed protein and since not enough glucose can come from 50g of protein, my body pulls from my protein stores and muscle wasting occurs. This is what all the "smart" nutrition gurus use to convince people to consume more grains and carbs. Here's the other side of the story they dont tell you. Lets say my friend Jonny eats 300g of protein that day. What happens is protein is used for repair, hormonal production and all the other countless uses amino acids are used for. Then since an abundance of protein is eaten, some of it is stored as glycogen through gluconeogenesis and used as glucose for the brain and other parts that need glucose, but it does not spike your insulin so much that he stores huge amounts of fat, yes a little fat can be stored but in a healthier way. Anyway, Jonny was able to build his body with protein and have sufficient energy from glucose without spiking insulin so there is no insulin resistance to build up over time.

On another note: many people visualize our brains just consuming endless amounts of glucose so everyone goes "oh no, if I dont consume enough carbs, my brain wont have any energy and I wont be able to think." This is also one of the most bogus theories around as well. Truth is, science knows and has known for decades that our brains run 2/3 on fat in the form of ketone bodies, and only 1/3 on glucose.

I am sorry for the long write up and hope I didnt bore anyone, but nutrition is my passion and I like to find and tell only the truth. I really hope that helped you understand more about protein, fat, glucose, and insulin Jared Bond. Please ask us any other questions you want on this forum. I know a lot, but there are plenty on this forum who know more than me. I'm still a newbie my self (3 months) on this raw diet but come from a nutrition backround.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: KD on July 05, 2010, 12:39:13 am
I really hope that helped you understand more about protein, fat, glucose, and insulin Jared Bond. Please ask us any other questions you want on this forum. I know a lot, but there are plenty on this forum who know more than me. I'm still a newbie my self (3 months) on this raw diet but come from a nutrition backround.

Actually most of this - no matter how well intentioned - like the posts in the Steffanson thread are as guilty as appropriating simplistic false science that anyone can read on the internet and being similarly condescending.

the fact is that excess protein is converted to glucose, and is unnecessary and possibly harmful and at the very least inefficient.

Dinosaurs bones have been shown to have fossils of brain tumors so it is not simply a condition of sugars or modernization, so that is reductionist at its worst. the very fact that most HG's survive long lives without cancer is useful but not at all bearing or distinguishing between high or low carb diets. The common denominator for most is the foods of civilization, and eating and living  in ways that either inhibit or exacerbate rapid mutogenic breakdown that is actually somewhat natural. Theres reasonable science to suggest a high animal fat diet, is helpful for both this natural process and buffering against the pollutants of the contemporary era. Excess glucose, while possibility not spiking insulin levels seeing since the body would have to convert it? (I'm not sure on that myself) is not by any means a prevention against cancer.

Somewhat related:  A high fructose diet could be considered a high fat diet, since the fructose is almost entirely converted to fat by the liver.

genius. you are totally right, the only issue is the body only needs a little bit of glucose to function.

As far as Matt Stone, I would really be skeptical of anyone who has whole lists of followers on diets that he himself has negligible experience with. Not only is that incredibly irresponsible, its borderline illegal to charge money for what is basically medical advice. The actual parameters which he gauges success, are incredibly skewed by the fact that he recommends all kinds of toxic foods that raise body temperature artificially. That said, its not confusing to me that some people do better than on LC or other raw and/or vegan protocols. Often people are in some kind of healing crisis and trying to force some dogmatic way of eating down their own throat, and basically making no progress or harming themselves physically or mentally. Its certainly helpful to step outside that and look at the bigger picture of health.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 05, 2010, 01:05:12 am
Ive gotten the sources I stated from real science and peer reviewed journals so it is not just dogmatic science. I have previousely stated that when insulin goes up after gluconeogenesis, glucagon does as well, which does not when just sugar is consumed. Glucagon balances the effects of insulin so carbs from protein is way better than carbs from any other source. They have done studies where people have gone ketogenic and completely stopped cancer growth (but it did not reverse it) so it is very related to carbohydrates. The cancer did not reverse in those patients because the study was only done on the correlation of sugar with cancer. Had those patients eaten a raw diet full of proteolytic and systemic enzymes cancer would have been gone within months. Im not in any way saying carbs are bad (cooked ones are). Im saying that if you have cancer, its not a bad idea to go ketogenic.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 05, 2010, 01:22:25 am
Dinosaurs bones have been shown to have fossils of brain tumors so it is not simply a condition of sugars or modernization, so that is reductionist at its worst. the very fact that most HG's survive long lives without cancer is useful but not at all bearing or distinguishing between high or low carb diets. The common denominator for most is the foods of civilization, and eating and living  in ways that either inhibit or exacerbate rapid mutogenic breakdown that is actually somewhat natural. Theres reasonable science to suggest a high animal fat diet, is helpful for both this natural process and buffering against the pollutants of the contemporary era. Excess glucose, while possibility not spiking insulin levels seeing since the body would have to convert it? (I'm not sure on that myself) is not by any means a prevention against cancer


I never said sugar caused cancer, I said it cannot grow without the anerobic environment glucose gives in the body. When oxygen is present cancer cells die. Have you ever heard of anyone with heart cancer, or any muscle cancer for that matter? No; why? because muscles are always moving and full of oxygen. The places with the least oxygen have the cancer. Also cancer is caused by inflammation, just like pretty much every disease. The chinese and Germans have known this for over 100 years. Any kind of inflammation can cause cancer. The chinese found that their water torture formed tumors at the spot of contact when done repeatedly over time. People who smoke have lung cancer because they are inflaming their lungs every day. Alcoholics have liver cancer and cirrhosis of the liver because alcohol causes inflammation and excess toxins in the liver. The reason why this has not been addressed so much in the US is because of liability issues here. Ive gone to other countries and the liability is not the same there so health issues are generally way more honest. But yes other cultures have known this for a long time: inflammation causes cancer. One interesting fact is that many (and I mean a lot) of athletes have dropped dead by heart attacks during marathons and such. Why? because excess aerobic exercise causes inflammation. And some people are so addicted to exercise, they cause so much inflammation that their arteries scar with fibrosis and their arteries literally close. People have believed in the past that most marathoner's deaths were due to hyponatremia (the huge loss of sodium) however this is rarely true and mostly due to heart attacks. As a matter of fact, science has proven that after roughly 30min of aerobic exercise, the heart gets no benefit in return and the opposite effect occurs. That means that after 30 min aerobic exercise only hurts you. Cancer= inflammation and fibrosis, take away them and we're good. What takes away them? Enzymes which we get in our raw diet. Doesnt it make sense that the raw diet is superior? I love the simplicity of understanding it.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: KD on July 05, 2010, 02:42:13 am
I never said sugar caused cancer
without sugar in the body cancer cannot manifest. Lets say my friend Jonny eats 300g of protein that day.

I tend to agree that there are problems with aerobic exercise, even so, the way you are describing things is inaccurate and hyperbolic. 30 minutes a day the absolute maximum? There is no way this has been 'proven', or can correlate entirely to types activity especially when you are clearly on the side of diet being an corresponding factor.

Im saying that if you have cancer, its not a bad idea to go ketogenic.
this doesn't appear to be very honest, you were using cancer as a reason to avoid carbohydrate consumption and that high protein (glucose) did not have issues associated with it.

I never said sugar caused cancer, I said it cannot grow without the anerobic environment glucose gives in the body. When oxygen is present cancer cells die. Have you ever heard of anyone with heart cancer, or any muscle cancer for that matter? No;

I love the simplicity of understanding it.

Sarcoma found in the legs arms and neck muscle tissue is in the top 5 cancers found in children, then there is brain cancer and skin cancer is certainly exposed to oxygen. I have heard of heart cancer, its present in humans.  your theory is wrong.

None of these processes are as simplistic or absolute as you make them out to be , Jared asked something very basic and you responded with a bunch of typical dogma as with the last thread of high fat diets and carbohydrates. high glucose form protein might not be as damaging as certain kinds of carbs or processed or cooked carbs, but for some as he mentioned it might not make much of a difference. such high protein for jonny is not ketogenic, so therefore does not correspond to your cancer study anyway.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 05, 2010, 03:23:38 am
http://www.ted.com/talks/eva_vertes_looks_to_the_future_of_medicine.html

watch this video and you will see that cancer only manifests and/ or metastesis in non skeletal muscle. This is one of the most insightful videos I have ever seen and was a treat to find. Rarely ever does cancer grow or metastesize in in skeletal muscle which constitutes over 50% of the body. According to her, it is very rare to get cancer in skeletal muscle. This has already been known in germany and china over 100 years like i said previous. Skeletal muscle is able to control angiogenesis and tumors through the blood vessels.

And you read my reply wrong. There are numerous studies showing that 30 min of aerobic exercise AT A TIME is harmful. It is quite obvious that I meant 30 min at a time not throughout the day, that would be preposterous.

Sorry that I went off of topic after attempting to help JaredBond, and no I dont try to simplify it, but do realize that conventional knowledge can be just as skewed as our theories so I try to philosophize and problemetize what society takes for granted. This is my theory, take it or leave it. I think cancer starts off as inflammation, the body tries to fix the problem by discarding bad cells but has trouble, the bad cells are driven and grown by estrogen, tumor is present, cancer. That is just my theory. Did I say it was fact? no but I am learning and hope to understand it some day. Its cool that you disagree with me, and I think that is what this forum is all about. I love to debate with people and many times learn a lot from them, or they learn a lot from me. I'll have to look into the aerobic theory and cancer some more because I am a little skeptical as well, but it is strange how 50% of our bodies are skeletal muscle which has the most oxygen and does not get cancer. But I do think it is more complex than just oxygen.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Paleo Donk on July 05, 2010, 04:27:06 am
Pioneer - otto warburg
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 05, 2010, 08:15:44 am
Quote from: carnivore on July 02, 2010, 05:40:04 PM
Not to mention that a high meat diet is...a high glucose diet, as the body converts the majority of amino acids into glucose...
Quote from: pioneer on July 02, 2010, 06:10:35 PM
cancer cannot grow at all because it needs the presence of glucose.

Looks like we have a conflict here..............

There is always some glucose in your blood anyway, whether you consume carbohydrates or not. There is an ideal level which the body attempts to maintain, is there not?

Isn't it just that, when not consuming carbs it is much easier for the body to control the blood-sugar and keep it at this level, whereas when consuming carbs, if the body isn't in good condition it can have trouble controlling the levels. Also, isn't one of the reasons carbs cause inflammation because they cause increased hormone production(whether just insulin, or also from the metabolism boost)? Because when the hormones are used they are still active, but just not in the intended way(so can cause undesirable effects) so they need to be flushed out by the liver, and if it isn't functioning properly the hormones can cause un-intentional reactions which lead to inflammation. Also if excess hormones are produced the liver would need to flush them out as well.

Ive gotten the sources I stated from real science and peer reviewed journals so it is not just dogmatic science. I have previousely stated that when insulin goes up after gluconeogenesis, glucagon does as well, which does not when just sugar is consumed. Glucagon balances the effects of insulin so carbs from protein is way better than carbs from any other source. They have done studies where people have gone ketogenic and completely stopped cancer growth (but it did not reverse it) so it is very related to carbohydrates. The cancer did not reverse in those patients because the study was only done on the correlation of sugar with cancer. Had those patients eaten a raw diet full of proteolytic and systemic enzymes cancer would have been gone within months. Im not in any way saying carbs are bad (cooked ones are). Im saying that if you have cancer, its not a bad idea to go ketogenic.

1. Not all stuff published in peer-reviewed journals is good..?
2. Isn't Glucagon the one which heralds the conversion of glycogen in to glucose?

Insert Quote
Quote from: pioneer on Yesterday at 06:22:25 PM
I never said sugar caused cancer
Quote from: pioneer on Yesterday at 04:58:17 PM
without sugar in the body cancer cannot manifest. Lets say my friend Jonny eats 300g of protein that day.

There's always sugar though, whether you eat it or not..?
Sarcoma found in the legs arms and neck muscle tissue is in the top 5 cancers found in children, then there is brain cancer and skin cancer is certainly exposed to oxygen. I have heard of heart cancer, its present in humans.  your theory is wrong.

But... In inflammation, the body is quarantining an area, stopping the flow of blood cells and thus oxygen...? People can certainly get inflammation in their muscles can't they? So if they get inflammation in their muscles there would be no oxygen. Inflammation hurts, because your cells are not getting oxygen and so are dying, right?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 05, 2010, 08:22:57 am

But... In inflammation, the body is quarantining an area, stopping the flow of blood cells and thus oxygen...? People can certainly get inflammation in their muscles can't they? So if they get inflammation in their muscles there would be no oxygen. Inflammation hurts, because your cells are not getting oxygen and so are dying, right?


Yeah I think that makes a lot of sense. Experimental medicine right now is using oxygen and blood blasting and it is working very well. But then I guess anything's better than kemo. I wonder if heat would work too as I know heat pads support blood flow to an area and speeds up healing, could heating the area of cancer bring blood flow and oxygen? Far fetched idea I know.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Paleo Donk on July 05, 2010, 08:52:50 am
Whats interesting about low-carb and especially zero-carb diets is that from many of the people who have taken time to measure their blood glucose levels (Lex obviously being the greatest example) have reported for the most part fasted bg levels around 100 mg/dl which is higher than the 85-90 level which is supposedly the standard for a healthy western dieter. Lex has gone into great detail in his journal about what he thinks is happening to his bg levels for different levels of his fat/protein diet. IIRC, when he was eating a 'normal' (as compared to his high-fat experiment) fat/protein mix, 100 mg/dl is around the level of glucose in the blood where insulin begins to get released and starts to store glucose out of the blood. His bg never really varied much more than 10 points in either direction.

So, whats interesting is that since cancer necessarily feeds on sugar, it is possible that a zero-carb diet promotes cancer more so than an American heart association diet for those who able to keep their fasting bg in a normal range. Obviously, things are much more complicated than this but still it is likely that low-carbers do have total blood glucose levels (calculated from area under the curve) at higher levels than other dieters.

What was also very interesting of note with Lex's experiments was when he experimented with a higher fat percentage (and I believe lower protein amounts). His blood glucose levels began to exhibit a more normal patter - they fell before meals and were slightly elevated after and during the fasted state were lower than 100.

What I can guess from the above is that its possible that since all excess protein is eventually converted to glucose that those who intake extra protein will have have trouble getting blood glucose levels to more normal ranges. This could have been the reason that Lex's bg levels remained high. There was always a supply of amino acids that were more than what the body needed for repair and thus were converted to glucose in at a fairly regular interval and slow enough so that bg levels were so constant and barely varied.  

Basically what I am saying is that its possible that any diet with excess protein will always keep bg levels slightly elevated, since storing protein is hardest on the body and most taxing - It uses the most calories to process protein (thermal effect of food). Also Lex has lowered his protein intake to about 90g per day and has fasting bg levels around 90 last I checked.

Anyways this is just lots of random guessing but I tend to want to believe that lower fasting bg levels are optimal and that chronically elevated bg could be potentially dangerous in the long run. It would interesting to see what fasting bg levels are for those who eat lots of carbs and lots of protein - like athletes or bodybuilders. Is it ever possible to have normal bg levels with a high protein intake?

I also want to assume that since protein conversion to energy is metabolically expensive that the body never 'wants' to make this conversion and must decide whether its better to keep the amino acids in the blood or convert them. Perhaps once the body deems excess amino acids in the blood to be interrupting other processes it makes the conversion.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 05, 2010, 09:50:34 am
I think what your saying is true. However I dont know about the Bg levels. Before I was ZC my fasting blood glucose was 110, now its 90. You could say that some times SAD dieters have real low BG because the insulin spikes store fat so quick that soon after a high glycemic meal your blood sugar would drop much lower than normal. I basically just assume that any BG level on a RPD must not be bad.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Guittarman03 on July 05, 2010, 10:01:11 am
Hey guys, been awhile since I've been on, glad to see some new faces.  So this is slightly off topic, but I was reading this thread and suddenly realized that a lot of our opinions on implementing RPD are probably shaped by something we rarely take in to account...

Time of year and climate in which we live.  Allow me to explain:

In colder temperatures your blood thickens up to store heat, in the summer it thins out to accomplish the opposite.  Not only that, you loose salts and electrolytes more readily in dry arid environments than in cooler wetter ones.  Thus, you have greater need for replacement of salts, potassium, and the like. 

Now one of the coolest things I have enjoyed about low carb diet (ketosis in particular), is the ridiculous heat output, and how it could be cold outside but I always feel warm (touched on by Paleo Donk).  Conversely, one of the coolest things about eating watery fruit (doesn't even have to be alot) is how I'm never thirsty, even if drinking less than 8oz of water in a day [disclaimer:  that is true only if I'm not in the desert where it's 5-10% humidity].

So putting this all together, it seems reasonable to suggest that during summer time, you should up your intake of watery fruit, and during the winter time, you should lower your intake of carbs.  If you're experimenting with low carb in 100+ degrees, you might find it unsuitable, whereas if it's 30 degrees, you're more likely to think it's great.

So what I'm saying is there are often factors which affect our experiences and experiments which are overlooked: opinions formed, conclusions drawn, arguments debated, all the while not realizing that there are additional factors that explain the differing results. 
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: KD on July 05, 2010, 10:11:24 am

There's always sugar though, whether you eat it or not..?
But... In inflammation, the body is quarantining an area, stopping the flow of blood cells and thus oxygen...? People can certainly get inflammation in their muscles can't they? So if they get inflammation in their muscles there would be no oxygen. Inflammation hurts, because your cells are not getting oxygen and so are dying, right?


my best understanding is that there are multiple 'functions' of cancer in addition to its obvious causes:inflammation  either naturally or from irritating pollutants (direct like asbestos or indirect like power lines). depending on the source it can cause impact on direct organs or distort already faulty misfiring cellular mutation that is fueled by fermentation of both natural and corrupt sugars including excessive glucose. By 'functions' I mean it is apparent that one reason tumors occur in various locations is because they are dispensable and not because that area is affected by organ specific toxins or stress in that area. An obvious example is the reproductive organs which can become storehouse of toxic buildup. Its also important to point out that mood and attitude are some of the most closely linked of all factors with cancer, especially considering that most in the population eat varying degrees of the same improper diets and are exposed to most of the same (again except for direct causes like asbestos and smoking).

so while a proper raw low carb diet might indeed be the best for defeating cancer, the whole point in referencing cancer was to promote a low carb diet, which is inaccurate, especially since the OP was already specifically addressing HGs who largely avoid most disease despite their cooked moderate carb intake. People might be able to counter cancer in a variety of therapies (ironically I think oxygen therapy has merit), but many of these have sources in the medical model of suppressing disease rather than facilitating its progression and healing, so it makes little sense to quote therapies that slam high fat/high protein and use them to promote a low carb diet. The simplest points are that done appropriately, there is overwhelming evidence that a raw diet that is low in carbs, is the proper protocol for the sick to get proper rest and to rebuild tissue with the proper materials without the stress of insulin cooking and natural fermentation. Likely this make it possibly an ideal one for the well, but as the OP points out, is all fairly irrelevant if ones own empirical evidence are showing that their vitals are effected negatively at least by the particular version that they are doing.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 05, 2010, 10:19:30 am
I totally agree with what you just said. I should have never explained it in a way to promote a low carb diet, but rather a raw diet in general because surely a moderate carb raw diet would probable heal too as the carbs are better carbs than general SAD carbs. I just wonder, would a low carb or ZC cooked diet cease cancer as well? If so, it would be at least a good start to help people.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 07, 2010, 02:34:43 pm
Hi guys, me again.  Sorry for the last post-- I was kinda just being a smart alec with the "glucose conflict" thing (even though KD did defend me).  I know that blood glucose on a LC/ZC will not spike as much as eating carbs, and that is the proposed difference.  However, you guys did bring up an interesting point about fasting glucose levels on a LC/ZC diet often being higher than normal, as with Lex Rooker.  This reminds me of this blog post I came across a while ago:  http://sharingthemagic.blogspot.com/2009/07/zero-carb-and-blood-sugar-elevation.html.  This lady was going nuts because her fasting blood glucose was rising past 100 mg/dl on a completely zero carb diet.  At the time, I thought it had to be an anomoly or hoax; but when Matt Stone, after a month of high carb eating (and no substantial exercise) reported lowering his fasting glucose to 67 mg/dl, and had a 1-hour postprandial reading of 75 mg/dl after eating a 100g carb baked potato, I became aware that it might not be as simple as eat carbs>>blood glucose.

So to take pioneer's question seriously, as to whether or not a cancer patient should be on a low carb diet, (which does make some sense on the surface, even though glucose is present at all times), we should consider this point.  Is it better to have glucose spikes, or chronically elevated glucose?  Also, pioneer, I'm glad you recognize other factors in cancer, such as estrogen.  I currently believe Ray Peat on this (raypeat.com).
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 07, 2010, 02:51:21 pm
the fructose spikes insulin
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this.  Fructose doesn't affect blood glucose, and therefore doesn't provoke insulin.  That's why they recommend it for diabetics.  Fructose is thought to be involved in insulin resistance however, in the long term, though I am skeptical of that.

On another note: many people visualize our brains just consuming endless amounts of glucose so everyone goes "oh no, if I dont consume enough carbs, my brain wont have any energy and I wont be able to think." This is also one of the most bogus theories around as well. Truth is, science knows and has known for decades that our brains run 2/3 on fat in the form of ketone bodies, and only 1/3 on glucose.
Yes, this is a good point to remember.  "There is no necessary (dietary) carbohydrate" is the championing phrase of the low carbers.  However, almost every cell can still use glucose, and there may be a point to using calories that aren't protein or fat (or ketone).  I'm sorry that I haven't a clue as to why that might be, but evidence of my own experience, and what I posted above, suggests there's something more to the story.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 07, 2010, 09:15:21 pm
Check out this video on fructose. It all goes to the liver whereas glucose only 20% goes there. Fructose is more toxic.
IMO fructose is just as bad as any other sugar. And what exactly do you mean when you say it doesnt affect blood glucose and provoke insulin? Because banana and watermelon are both high GI and will spike your insulin fast. And insulin resistance comes from a long term diet of high GI carbohydrates. In nature, we couldnt even become insulin resistant if we tried, there would never be enough fruit to consume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXCvduiAbs
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 08, 2010, 01:34:38 am
Check out this video on fructose. It all goes to the liver whereas glucose only 20% goes there. Fructose is more toxic.

IMO fructose is just as bad as any other sugar. And what exactly do you mean when you say it doesnt affect blood glucose and provoke insulin? Because banana and watermelon are both high GI and will spike your insulin fast. And insulin resistance comes from a long term diet of high GI carbohydrates. In nature, we couldnt even become insulin resistant if we tried, there would never be enough fruit to consume.

Protein also all goes to the liver, that does not make them automatically toxic.
If you don't eat too much carbs in one sitting, then they will be used for energy and/or to replenish glycogen stores. No problem.
The trouble begins when you eat too much carbs for your current needs : insuline spikes, conversion to glycerol and triglycerids, etc. That's what happened systematically with starch (SAD), and can also happened if you indulge in fruits.
But you'll have also BIG troubles if you eat too much meat or fat in one sitting.

So there is no good or bad macronutrients. It is just a question of energy requirement management!
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 08, 2010, 01:50:14 am

As for the archeology and anthropology supporting paleo, consider this: It is entirely plausible that humans have at least been eating various potato-like root vegetables and cooking them around the world since the dawn of time.  It's not that hard to believe that we naturally have eaten starch, as hominids probably got calories from whatever source they could.  There are plenty of observed hunter-gather tribes that have eaten up to 80% or so carbs and were in fabulous health.  (Those are the ones you don't hear about from low carb sources.)  Matt Stone gives these examples in his free ebook and blog.

In my opinion, it doesnt even matter if we dont know whether we used fire or not because of this: We know by modern science that heating foods creates many toxins that are harmful to the body such as AGES, Acrylamides, Arsenic, and much more so that right there tells you to not cook food. Also, we know that heating foods destroys enzymes, bacteria, oxidises fat, and denatures protein all either harmful to the body, or renders nutrients un-utilizable. We know that the growth of cancer cannot cease or reverse without pancreatin and many other important enzymes found in raw food. We know that if one stops consuming sugar, cancer cannot grow at all because it needs the presence of glucose. What more modern scientific info do you need to understand that this RAW diet is the best either high or low carb.




 I'm taken away my acne by merely avoiding omega 6 and polyunsaturates in general, which does not require much willpower at all.

I agree that omega 6 are bad as science has confirmed that over 60% of plaque is oxidised vegetable oils (mostly omega 6 acids). Truth be told, cooking, sugar, and omega 6 are mostly the culprits.



Sugar and omega 6 (and 3...) are part of a healthy diet, as long as they are not eaten in excess (according to the body requirements).
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on July 08, 2010, 09:20:51 am
Sugar and omega 6 (and 3...) are part of a healthy diet, as long as they are not eaten in excess (according to the body requirements).

We need omega 6s and omega 3s, but sugar?  ??? Never.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 08, 2010, 10:13:35 am
I obviously didnt mean we dont need omega 6. But instead of the ratio of 6 & 3 being 20:1 like today, it would be a lot healthier to be 2:1 like in paleo days and in nature. Also, how is it bad to consume a lot of fat in one sitting? Clearly every macro has their limits, but how much is too much?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 08, 2010, 10:33:52 pm
We need omega 6s and omega 3s, but sugar?  ??? Never.

Sugar is as important as fat. Sugars (especially glucose) are a fast but short lasting energy, while fat is a slow but long lasting energy. That's basic biochemistry!!
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 08, 2010, 10:43:09 pm
Sugar is as important as fat. Sugars (especially glucose) are a fast but short lasting energy, while fat is a slow but long lasting energy. That's basic biochemistry!!

Yeah, I get that, but you know what she really meant, Dietary Sugar, not sugar in general. We need glucose no matter what source it comes from, and that includes protein. Therefore, we have no dietary need for food with carbohydrates or sugar as we can get it through protein.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 08, 2010, 10:46:11 pm
Also, how is it bad to consume a lot of fat in one sitting? Clearly every macro has their limits, but how much is too much?

Because you can't precisely manage your energy requirement in one or 2 big meals per day, whatever your diet.
We are not carnivore, we live longer than them, and we don't sleep one entire day (or more) after the meal to proceed all the protein (that comes with the fat).
So gorging cannot be healthy!
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 08, 2010, 10:55:23 pm
Yeah, I get that, but you know what she really meant, Dietary Sugar, not sugar in general. We need glucose no matter what source it comes from, and that includes protein. Therefore, we have no dietary need for food with carbohydrates or sugar as we can get it through protein.

Protein digestion is very hard on the body (especially liver) because of the nitrogen load. So it is clearly not healthy to rely on neoglucogenesis to meet our glucose requirement.
It is much better to use directly the nutrients from the food we eat than to make our body works to convert some nutrients into others (like protein into glucose or fructose into fatty acids, etc.). Protein should be used only to meet our amino acids requirements.
 
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: dsohei on July 08, 2010, 11:08:47 pm
we are not carnivore, although you are named carnivore!
haha!

lately, i agree. i used to be able to eat 1 or 2 large meals a day, now i have to eat more smaller lighter meals in order to break down the protein without overtaxing my system. true story :)
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 08, 2010, 11:09:58 pm
IMO, I dont think that protein is hard on the liver at all. That nitrogen hypothesis has no validity and is shouted out by dietary nutritionists who want people to eat more whole grains and less meat. The inuit, lived 97% on an animal diet full of protein and no one ever had liver problems, many live/ lived to over 100 years old eating almost 100% animal. The Maasai ate a high protein diet as well consisting of meat, milk and blood. Many of us humans were genetically adapted to eat much protein, and others were not. Many african tribes are mainly vegetarian, and that is fine because they have been that way throughout evolution. I am of scandinavian descent up north where there would have never been enough fruit or veggies to supply even 10% of my calories from carbs, so my ancestors ate a high protein diet. On another note, I dont think it is that simple to say that just because nitrogen in the liver is high it is bad to eat a lot of protein. I just dont think humans evolved to have liver problems by eating the main food in our evolutionary diet, just like god didnt put saturated fat on animals to give us a heart attack.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 08, 2010, 11:31:22 pm
IMO, I dont think that protein is hard on the liver at all. That nitrogen hypothesis has no validity and is shouted out by dietary nutritionists who want people to eat more whole grains and less meat. The inuit, lived 97% on an animal diet full of protein and no one ever had liver problems, many live/ lived to over 100 years old eating almost 100% animal. The Maasai ate a high protein diet as well consisting of meat, milk and blood. Many of us humans were genetically adapted to eat much protein, and others were not. Many african tribes are mainly vegetarian, and that is fine because they have been that way throughout evolution. I am of scandinavian descent up north where there would have never been enough fruit or veggies to supply even 10% of my calories from carbs, so my ancestors ate a high protein diet. On another note, I dont think it is that simple to say that just because nitrogen in the liver is high it is bad to eat a lot of protein. I just dont think humans evolved to have liver problems by eating the main food in our evolutionary diet, just like god didnt put saturated fat on animals to give us a heart attack.

Almost all our ancestors (including the 'healthiest") during neolithic cooked their food, that does not make cooking a healthy habit, I think you will agree with me on this point.
By the same token, the fact that human have recently spread all over the globe does not mean that they have totally adapted to the (lack of) food they have found locally, especially in extreme situations like the inuits. And cooking is just a way to compensate for the lack of appropriate raw food. The human body has evolved many metabolic mechanisms to cope with different food situations, shortage or excess, but that does not imply that we should artificially reproduce these situations!

Biochemistry is much more reliable that speculations on our recent hunter gatherer ancestors.

If you are not convinced by the toxicity of nitrogen wastes (ammonia and uric acid), search for urea cycle on the web.
Also look at Lex's journal and his kidney stones episode.  -[

Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: alphagruis on July 09, 2010, 02:35:24 am
We need omega 6s and omega 3s, but sugar?  ??? Never.

Once you will have prolonged your present strict "ZC" diet over many generations and your kids and kids of your kids demontrate that they remain  healthy with comparable lifespans as people on less restrictive RP diets your daring arrogant claim will be mine :)

 I cannot definitely exclude this possibility but for many reasons as pointed out by carnivore it's fairly unlikely.   
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Nation on July 09, 2010, 04:33:12 am
I would like to know how it is possible to get 25% of your calories from carbs when you're in the wild. Apparently, there are african tribes with a diet of 75% carbs, how is that possible?  I live next to a produce market and i'd find it very difficult to live all my life on a 75% plant diet (excluding grains), it requires eating serious amount of fruit, at least a dozen of pieces of high-calorie fruit everyday, wild edibles/leaves/etc contain pretty much no calories so what do these tribes actually eat? Common sense tells me every tribe in the world eats 95% + animal food.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on July 09, 2010, 04:57:44 am
I eat one big meal a day and my digestion is great on ZC. Somehow I manage to lift weights, hike and do cardio and maintain 13-15% bodyfat. Hmm, guess it is working.

I am not having children, but plenty of ZCers are.  :)
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 09, 2010, 05:25:07 am
I eat one big meal a day and my digestion is great on ZC. Somehow I manage to lift weights, hike and do cardio and maintain 13-15% bodyfat. Hmm, guess it is working.

I am not having children, but plenty of ZCers are.  :)

You look nice klowcarb, that's great!  ;)
Go on with your diet!
But don't forget that even on a ZC diet, your body runs on glucose (and fatty acids)...
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 09, 2010, 06:52:47 am
Because you can't precisely manage your energy requirement in one or 2 big meals per day, whatever your diet.
We are not carnivore, we live longer than them, and we don't sleep one entire day (or more) after the meal to proceed all the protein (that comes with the fat).
So gorging cannot be healthy!

We don't sleep an entire day or more... Because our lives are based on a diet of grains(or other starchy), even if we don't eat them... I could eat a massive amount of beef, and then sleep for a day, happily... But then we would become reclusive, because it's not how other people are... Shame though. Whenever I eat beef, I can feel that I could eat many kilos of it. I never eat quite enough to sleep on though, but I can feel that I could if I ever ate enough =/
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 10, 2010, 09:45:57 pm
I would like to know how it is possible to get 25% of your calories from carbs when you're in the wild.

Root vegetables/tubers.  I've heard of many HG cultures that have this as their main source of calories.

Also, the very first European explorers in North America reported huge Native American agricultural societies.  One said that there were such large networks of crops that one could walk through them for "days on end" with no interruption.  This lifestyle got abandoned when plagues swept through North America faster than it was explored.  I don't know about the validity of this figure, but it is estimated that 80% to 90% of the people on the North American continent were wiped out by disease before any explorers ever reached them.  Of course, there is evidence of terrible malnutrition, such as with the Hardin Villagers;  but my point is, agriculture is certainly possible with very little technology.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 14, 2010, 08:07:28 am
We need omega 6s and omega 3s, but sugar?  ??? Never.
It's looking like we don't need any omega 6 fatty acids other than arachidonic acid either:

http://thepaleodiet.com/pdf/flaxseed_oil/The%20essentialityofarachidonicacidanddocosahexaenoicacid.pdf

Arachidonic acid usually comes from animal sources (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachidonic_acid) anyone surprised?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Raw Kyle on July 14, 2010, 08:26:30 am
I haven't been following this thread (apologies) but would like to ask a question of the ts. If insulin spikes do not cause insulin resistance, what does?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 15, 2010, 07:56:51 am
... But don't forget that even on a ZC diet, your body runs on glucose (and fatty acids)...
So when some people say ZCers "need" [carbs] because they can't get any glucose unless they ingest it, it's therefore not [necessarily] true, since the body is still able to get glucose even from a ZC diet, yes?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 16, 2010, 12:32:34 pm
(..."ts"?  Oh, thread starter!  That means me.  I'm used to the term "OP"...)

Hi RawKyle!  I get my new ideas from Matt Stone primarily, and I have to admit, even he has not gotten too much into the mechanics of how all this works. Basically he thinks insulin resistance is a result of low metabolism, which can be caused by a number of things.  The basic idea is that low metabolism is a like a state of hibernation, where, for some reason, the body thinks it should be storing fat and conserving energy.  When the body is getting this signal from hormones, such as low leptin, high estrogen, high serotonin, low T3, high cortisol, or whatever, there's nothing you can do to stop it without addressing those hormones.  I'm pretty sure he's even suggested that the body causes its own state of insulin resistance, as a response to the hypothalamus being leptin resistant and not getting the leptin signal (which I say in turn is probably caused by some other hormone).  See, it's trying to store fat by raising insulin, because it's getting that message from other hormones.

He focuses on leptin, since it is said to be the "master hormone" that controls fat storage and metabolism (thyroid hormone).  What he and many scientists are saying causes leptin resistance (which refers to the hypothalamus specifically not getting the leptin signal from the fat cells) are:

1) Polyunsaturated fat
2) Excessive Fructose Consumption
3) Dieting – and other factors that contribute to high cortisol levels [as a result of stress, caffeine, and chronic inflammation, which is where the polyunsaturated fats come in, as well as chronic bacterial infections, which occur as a result of chronically low body temperature, which is a vicious cycle]
4) Nutrient Deficiency

In his own words:  "The only problem is, leptin research is in its infancy, so the cause of leptin resistance and what can be done to overcome it remains very primitive and limited.  ...If I knew nothing of the causes of leptin resistance and had to simply guess by retracing the major shifts in the diet and lifestyle since the pre-obesity era, it would seem that an overworked, overstressed, sleep-deprived, polluted population fed on a nutrient poor diet with an unprecedented amount of fructose, caffeine, and omega 6 polyunsaturated fat in the diet would somehow be the cause."

Also, I don't think Matt Stone has even mentioned serotonin and estrogen.  I added in those ideas from Ray Peat (raypeat.com) who mostly concurs with Matt Stone's idea that low body metabolism is a central cause of most of our diseases.  There are estrogen-like compounds in legumes (soy, peanuts) as well as plastics, and while serotonin is a reaction to stress, which I've already mentioned, we may be increasing it even more as a society by taking SSRI antidepressants.  I would also add alcohol as a possible aggrivator (smoking, maybe).

But, why not the simple answer of carbs?  Well, I thought it was a little condescending when Matt Stone says that low carb theory "is the easiest one to disprove", but he's kind of right.  Based on evidence around the world, there are loads of examples of people eating high carb diets who never develop obesity or insulin resistance.  Even most of Weston Price's cultures were moderate to high carb.

In addition to this, as mentioned previously in this thread, low carb diets seem to cause insulin resistance, as evidenced by people having higher than normal fasting blood sugars on low or even zero carb diets.  This is further confirmed by people, including Dr. Atkins, reporting low body temperature on low carb diets, indicating low thyroid function (aka low metabolism).  This brings me to the reason I came here today-- I wanted to share with you (also posted on Matt Stone's blog) yet another low carb horror story that was saved by carbs.  This guy stuck to a purely zero-carb carnivorous diet for 2 years... if that isn't a enough time to properly "adjust", I don't know what would be.

See:  http://www.carnivorehealth.com/main/2010/7/14/i-used-to-think-matt-stone-was-a-douche-i-was-wrong.html

The theory I've heard for exactly how a low carb diet may lower metabolism is: excess protein consumption simulates breakdown of our own muscle tissue in times of stress by cortisol, and muscle meat has an abnormally high amount of tryptophan, which is converted to serotonin.  Also, protein and fat is very satiating, so we end up eating less calories than we need for body maintenance (why is it we get sick eating pure saturated fat?  I don't know).  It's a little shaky, but the proof is in the pudding.  My best advice is to follow your feelings instead of theory and dogma.  I mean, theory is good-- completely unquestioningly following our feelings has been the downfall of our society (if you do believe there's a downfall).  Just, don't punish yourself based on theory, because our feelings are there for a reason.

Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Paleo Donk on July 16, 2010, 01:27:38 pm
I'm starting to like Matt Stone less and less, though I am very thankful that I have read quite a bunch of his work. I think he is getting his nuts off in a huge way attacking low-carb. There are so many traditional peoples around the world from the inuits to the masai that are doing so well with low-carb that discounting it completely is very unfair and borderline fraudulent. I'm not denying that people (mainly previous western dieters - take me for instance) have issues with low-carb its just not so simple to discount an entire way of eating because he stumbled across some method that seems to work in the short run. Stone himself has barely been on the diet for more than a year and even his temperature dropped the last month before the milk diet. I think he gets away easy by blaming white sugar. I think those with issues with low-carb have much deeper lying metabolic disturbances that are masked by adding "good" and "clean" carbohydrate sources. I'll give him credit for coming up with something that is working in the short-run. But it is very far from being proven to work long term.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 16, 2010, 02:34:31 pm
The Masai drink a lot of milk.  Now, I know it's higher fat milk than ours, but still, that's a significant amount of carbs.  (Also, they did have plaques in their arteries, even if they didn't actually get strokes or heart attacks.)

The Inuit were not as healthy as some people think.  There have been some reports that they lived to very old ages, but Matt Stone believes the reports from Vilhjalmur Stefansson are more credible.

"...Stefannson said that Eskimo women were getting old in their twenties, and that at the age of 60 they looked as old as Europeans did at 80. He was a well informed anthropologist, and his observations were probably accurate. The Eskimos he observed ate large amounts of fish, and other unsaturated fats, and sometimes ate highly decayed fish. An accelerated rate of aging would be expected from such a diet, because of the toxic lipid peroxides...."
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml

"They also had issues with hemorrhagic stroke, had problems with premature aging and weight gain (amongst the women) - all signs of excess PUFA consumption."
http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2009/09/carb-wars-final-episode.html

No doubt they had excellent bone structure from getting massive amounts of minerals and fat soluble vitamins, but... these reports are not so good.  There was more, but I couldn't find the quotes.  I haven't read Stefannson's stuff myself.  Matt Stone has remarked that they have very fat faces with a ruddy complexion-- something low-carbers will associate with a carb diet.  Probably their diet did suit them better for a life up in the snow, but I wouldn't recommend it for anywhere else.

I know Matt Stone's cocky, but until I find a better source of information, I'll refer people to him.  He does an amazing amount of reading, and his specific combination of ideas appears to be original.

I personally have come to believe there's no problem with sugar (fructose in particular), as long as there is no deficiency of vitamins and minerals in the diet to make up for it, so my stance is even HARDER to swallow!  Matt Stone has said that of all the possible causes of disease, he is the least sure about fructose.  He has suggested that it is the combination of fructose and O6 that causes problems, but I find this convoluted.  The best evidence I have is the simple fact that we have such a strong taste for it; but actually, I'm supposed to be working on a school research project that investigates the actual evidence against fructose more carefully.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 16, 2010, 07:51:29 pm
You guys, I just read something mindblowing (which is usual when I read Ray Peat articles).

In tune with talking about high glucose levels, and alternate ways to think about what's happening with insulin resistance...

"The simplest illustration of how inflammation relates to the organism's resources was an experiment in which blood glucose was varied, while an animal was exposed to chemicals that varied from mildly irritating to potentially deadly. When the animal had very low blood sugar, the mildest irritant could be deadly, but when its blood glucose was kept very high, even the deadly antigens were only mildly irritating."
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/ms.shtml

Wow... high blood glucose protected an animal from an inflammatory response.  This is not the first time I've heard good things about high glucose.  (Probably the first was from Russell Blaylock when he said that high glucose protects against excitotoxicity.)

This is just like when they tried to pass off that elevated cholesterol is what clogs arteries.  Instead, I'm more prone to believing that cholesterol is elevated in response to whatever problem is going on, perhaps to repair cells for instance, or make hormones.  It's also similar to how they're claiming uric acid causes metabolic syndrome.  But uric acid is an antioxidant (although it's undeniably harmful as concentrations get high enough for it to form crystals).  Perhaps all these changes we monitor during metabolic syndrome are not uncontrollable outcomes, but purposeful responses by the body to counteract whatever the real underlying problem is (including high blood pressure, high triglycerides...).  That may include elevated glucose.  Perhaps the body purposely makes the cells insulin resistant in order to raise glucose, in order to protect the body against inflammation, stress, or whatever.

(A flaw in this theory is that people like Michael Eades say that insulin levels slowly climb over time to match the progressive insulin resistance of the cells, which would seem counter-productive.  I wonder if there are studies showing this, since they usually don't measure blood levels of insulin directly, because there is an extremely small amount.)

(Also what's always puzzled me is that, in metabolic syndrome, the fat cells seem NOT to get insulin resistant, since they are the ones collecting all the glucose.)

I've heard that high blood levels of glucose are bad in many ways.  Perhaps this strategy is a last resort of the body's, and it is never meant to get too high.  At least concerning AGEs, I think glucose may be over-feared.  Ray Peat has said that lipid peroxides (from polyunsaturated fats) are 23 times more likely to form AGEs than glucose (fructose being 10 times more likely, but it only lasts a minute or two in the blood stream).

Sorry if I'm getting things mixed up, but I had to share that with you.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Paleo Donk on July 16, 2010, 10:00:58 pm
Are you really trying to argue that the inuit lived with poor health and made it for thousands of years in the arctic with a poor diet that they were not adapted to? You won't find a group of people in perfect health if thats what you are looking for. The kitavans with all their potatoes and great health still die in their mid 50's on average, which is right about the average lifespan of pre-contact inuits iirc. You can quote all the negative information you want but it would be beneficial to weigh both sides equally. Clearly the inuit (as well as a multitude of other low-carb peoples) had many, many more positive signs of health than negative.

Matt Stone has very questionable logic and reasoning skills as I see mistakes quite often. He thinks that since mothers milk has carbohydrates that this proves that humans are designed to eat carbs as adults. The problem with this is that carnivorous mammal milk has significant carb content and herbivore milk has significant fat content, yet they each consume foods in adulthood that have little carbs or fat.

There are so many people across the board that do well with low-carb diets. You cannot argue that everyone does poorly with low-carb. This clearly isn't the case. I believe it would be more appropriate to say that there a multitude of diets that can lead humans to great health.  These diets have some things in common such as no processed sugars or oils and no processed grain products and food prepared using traditional methods.

Do you really think his low-carb bashing is completely reasonable and fair?

I'm not a low-carb(especially the way most SAD do it - heavily cooked grain fed meats and cheeses) fanatic and do realize the issues people face with it. I faired poorly on zero-carb, but I'm not going to senselessly bash it because it did not work for me and certainly not cherry pick the data until I find a solid case against it.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 16, 2010, 10:53:53 pm
So when some people say ZCers "need" [carbs] because they can't get any glucose unless they ingest it, it's therefore not [necessarily] true, since the body is still able to get glucose even from a ZC diet, yes?

Yes, the body can survive on a ZC diet, as it makes glucose from protein and fat. 
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 17, 2010, 12:03:26 am
Well said, PD.

Jared, there's so many questionable claims and speculations here that it would take a long time to respond to them all. Tyler will probably address it when he gets back. Some of these claims and opinions have been refuted before in this forum, which you might find by searching. For now I'll just say that Stefansson wasn't right about everything and Stone and Peat aren't either. I recommend going to the source--the Inuit themselves (and don't study just the Inuit, which is a common limitation--check out the other Arctic and subArctic peoples like the Namgis, Chukchi, Evenks, etc. as well--and tropical peoples like the Kitavans too, whom Prof. Lindeberg has some interesting reports on). Find anthropology books, documentaries, etc. that show the every day lives of indigenous peoples and writings where they are directly interviewed, and understand that even sources that try very hard to be accurate can get some things wrong. Try to get as much from the horse's mouth as you can, and from multiple sources with different agendas. For some contrasting views to compare with Stone's and Peat's, check out Dr. Kurt G. Harris, Stephan Guyenet, Peter of Hyperlipid and Dr. William Davis.

Moderners have been saying many incorrect things about the Real Peoples for many years. For example, some people go overboard in claiming perfect health for the traditional Inuit, but others exaggerate their health problems. The truth seems to be somewhere in between.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 17, 2010, 01:12:58 am
I think when talking about the Inuit, the extreme living conditions they live under should be taken into account. Those might well speed up aging imho. Another example for low carb people would be some Native Americans WAP described - http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets/628-guts-and-grease.html (http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets/628-guts-and-grease.html) - It would be interesting to know if they showed signs of premature aging, too.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 17, 2010, 01:31:15 am
HEY! He mentioned that high blood glucose protected some organism from something! On another post recently, someone noticed that some organism(a human, or multiples) had higher blood glucose on ZC! MARVEL!
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: KD on July 17, 2010, 08:48:53 am

I know Matt Stone's cocky, but until I find a better source of information, I'll refer people to him.  He does an amazing amount of reading, and his specific combination of ideas appears to be original.

I personally have come to believe there's no problem with sugar (fructose in particular), as long as there is no deficiency of vitamins and minerals in the diet to make up for it, so my stance is even HARDER to swallow!  Matt Stone has said that of all the possible causes of disease, he is the least sure about fructose.  He has suggested that it is the combination of fructose and O6 that causes problems, but I find this convoluted.  The best evidence I have is the simple fact that we have such a strong taste for it; but actually, I'm supposed to be working on a school research project that investigates the actual evidence against fructose more carefully.

I think this is one area of life where originality with data interpretation doesn't carry much sway with me.

Any casual followers could probably all see some problems ahead for Danny, but nonetheless, it is totally wrong how he's now been exploited as some kind of test case for an entire ideology by Sisson (perhaps others) and now Stone. seeing since Matt is in no way a professional, it makes little sense to call that un-professional, but that is how it is. Stone's big thing seems to be placing stigma on things that yield 'temporary benefits' like low-carb yet he has no long term studies on his own 'clients' other than temperature raises and orthorexia cures. He can go only to cite basically 'healthy' SWD eaters who have high temperature and single the few that not-so-paradoxically have none of the abhorrent problems that seem to plague all spectrum of the health community as evidence of berst long term health? [buzz]...

I think the elephant in the room is that we are not Inuits, we are not Kitavans. we need a contemporary strategy that both works nutritionally and corrects any other issues with tissue toxicity. RAF/RLC/RZC/PrD these are tool sets that are available. I'd go as far to say personally that there is no way any of the extremes being promoted from pemmican to fruit diets can possibly carry the same nutrition (less important) and repair or healing (more important) that they did 100's of years ago where the latter would be almost unnecessary. This makes all the difference. Yet those peoples never would practice such extreme approaches, even if they had minimal availability so it seems even if our issues were only nutritional, we might consider tweaking things somewhat even prior to negative signs.

If people arn't seeing such extreme approaches as temporary healing processes, it probably IS likely they will end up on Matt's doorway or someone similar or give up entirely eventually. Maybe this might turn out ok for them, and there is probably something to glean from asking questions of both LC and Matt. As mentioned about logical fallacies, Body temp doesn't begin to address these things. I can guarantee I can raise my bodytemp with any cooked food almost instantly. Does that make it good for my health? as long as it passes some other qualifier of fructose or fiber levels? Is very low temp/coldness in extremities a bad sign? almost definitely. is 100 degree temp healthy, its no indicator of health IMO (mine is 99 right now, was super low on high-carb,). Kudos for reading books, but he is all over the map way more then ever using present examples of fruitarians who he vehemently criticizes on some things, to prove other issues he is raising. Its just totally bogus in terms of putting together research. I think its good to have his opinion in the mix, and I'm not saying I would never follow his advice, but I have a major marrow bone to pick with people that change money for health services that they don't have basic life experience with never-mind amateur research. There is no way anyone has it right and there is always need for smart critics, but, proceed with caution.

if he's right on body temp being more important than eating healthy food I'll eat my hat. lucky for me its made out of potatoes.







Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 17, 2010, 11:23:53 am
...I think the elephant in the room is that we are not Inuits, we are not Kitavans. we need a contemporary strategy that both works nutritionally and corrects any other issues with tissue toxicity. RAF/RLC/RZC/PrD these are tool sets that are available. I'd go as far to say personally that there is no way any of the extremes being promoted from pemmican to fruit diets can possibly carry the same nutrition (less important) and repair or healing (more important) that they did 100's of years ago where the latter would be almost unnecessary. This makes all the difference. Yet those peoples never would practice such extreme approaches, even if they had minimal availability so it seems even if our issues were only nutritional, we might consider tweaking things somewhat even prior to negative signs.
You got it right on the second try. Neither the Inuits nor the Kitavans ever practiced the extremes of an all-pemmican diet or a fruitarian diet. These are "contemporary strategies."

I try not to worry much about what other people choose to eat. It's when people try to force their ways on others that I tend to take exception. Danny is old enough to make his own choices. Matt Stone's claims don't match my experience so far, but if it works for Danny, great. Danny also continues to seek other balancing opinions, like that of Lex, as you may have noticed from his blog.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: KD on July 17, 2010, 12:42:14 pm
You got it right on the second try. Neither the Inuits nor the Kitavans ever practiced the extremes of an all-pemmican diet or a fruitarian diet. These are "contemporary strategies."



I see how you might have misconstrued that, but to me they are both right. The worst is probably to cite a native or ancient culture, and do something that is clearly artificial and limited. At the same time, the idea of appropriating any culture's nutrition - no matter how faithful in substance - is not necessarily going to be the best strategy for a contemporary human. I think this is illustrated well by WAP without resorting to speculations on carbs or no carbs. Ultimately It doesn't really matter what the richness in micro or macro-nutrients because they lived then and had different requirements, toxicity, and environmental factors. Not to mention there is some usable model for almost every WOE this way, and clearly they don't all work, or work the best for everyone in a contemporary setting. In this sense, its impossible to not have a 'contemporary strategy' by definition of making due with contemporary situations. The alternative would be acting anachronistically or of ignorance, like a bird making a nest out of cardboard. The best diet on paper might not create the best health, and one that might seem to contain toxic components might be the best for cleaning up internal issues. This is my opinion, but I believe it to be right.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: TylerDurden on July 17, 2010, 02:21:29 pm
Re Stefansson mention:- Stefansson got it wrong quite a lot when, for example, claiming that the Inuit did not eat much in the way of raw meat as a proportion of their diet - other anthropologists are of the opposite opinion. He was also wrong(possibly even fraudulent) as regards the blond eskimoes claim, and so on. So, his claim re the Inuit aging rapidly are unlikely to be correct, given that it is a very  extreme claim and unsupported by others.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Raw Kyle on July 17, 2010, 10:18:50 pm
This is not the first time I've heard good things about high glucose

And by that you mean high blood glucose, right? I think a few posts back you said fasting bg is higher on people with low carb diets.

Anyway, thanks for the response to my question, it gave me some things to think about.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 17, 2010, 11:25:43 pm
Are you really trying to argue that the inuit lived with poor health and made it for thousands of years in the arctic with a poor diet that they were not adapted to?
Not poor health, but premature aging and shortened lifespan.  I'm not really sure that they would care about this-- it would take some pretty weird-minded people to live in the snow and relative isolation all the time.  Their short stature and fatness may have been a result of their diet, but it suits them better for life in the cold anyways.

You won't find a group of people in perfect health if thats what you are looking for. The kitavans with all their potatoes and great health still die in their mid 50's on average, which is right about the average lifespan of pre-contact inuits iirc. You can quote all the negative information you want but it would be beneficial to weigh both sides equally. Clearly the inuit (as well as a multitude of other low-carb peoples) had many, many more positive signs of health than negative.
I did not know that about the Kitavans... you sure those aren't the modern Kitavans you're talking about?

Anyways, I'm not talking about "perfect" health, I'm just talking a lot better than dying in your 50s-60s, which you seem to acknowledge of the Inuits.  If low carb, or even zero carb, really is that superior, shouldn't there be examples of these people that are at the very top of the standards that Weston Price observed?  Aside from the ones you named, and I've refuted, PaleoPhil seems to have posted more societies in Arctic regions, mentioned the Kitavans (are you suggesting they were low carb?), and someone mentioned Native Americans, but it sounds like the actual ages were not verified.  This does not sound too compelling.  Then of course there is the theoretical diet of the hominids and Neanderthals, but at least for the human lineage, the diets can't be verified.

....I believe it would be more appropriate to say that there a multitude of diets that can lead humans to great health....

Do you really think his low-carb bashing is completely reasonable and fair?

Maybe so.  As I've said though, I think it's too easy for people who read Eades, Taubes, Groves, Gedgaudas, etc, and think, "This diet could not possibly harm me-- how could it, when it is the natural diet of our species??".  The truth is, there is possibility for harm; in fact, it now seems to me that most long-term lowcarbers come to that conclusion (Jimmy Moore).  I'll just take your word for it that it is working for some people (or at least, stops their more severe symptoms).  People get so riled up after the veil has been lifted from them about saturated fat and cholesterol that they enthusiastically rally on Eades and Taubes.  But the thing is, it was a long while before I heard of any dissent to the low carb theory, at least any that wasn't completely ignorant of the SF/cholesterol truth.  In fact, I think the first time was when Eades spotlighted Anthony Coplo on his blog.  I still respect Eades, but I really wasn't impressed with how he handled the situation, so I investigated.  Next was when Tom Naughton allowed Matt Stone to do a guest post on his blog. (http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/02/04/guest-post-matt-stone-of-180degreehealth/)  I was shocked to hear comments from people finally coming out of the woodworks, talking about their less-than-satisfactory results with low carb.

So that's what I'm being here: The voice of dissent to the low carb theory.  This site was one of the sites I used to frequent.  I never went all the way with doing completely raw (I did try a whole raw steak a few times), but this was the community that I held in mind when I thought of what the ideal diet should be.  I admit, I didn't investigate too thoroughly-- I now see that a lot of you are not completely low carb.  But if someone needs it spelled out to them (such as me) that there is dissent to the low carb theory, and that low carb may even be harmful, that's what this thread is.

I apologize that I've come here, a place where a lot of you are serious researchers, when I'm not that motivated to look more into this myself.  I have read the comments though, and, if not for me, they're probably great for anyone else who is wanting to look more deeply into this issue.  I'll continue to check this thread to see if there's something that seriously challenges my current stance, but I'm sorry that I'm not going to go out of my way.  (I also have a thread here for people who are wanting to expand their jaws/heads, as that is my predicament.)

Particularly, PaleoPhil, I was interested to hear about the pandas, so I'll just ask this... have they tried feeding pandas meat or something, in an attempt to improve their fertility?  If that works, I may consider that there's a better diet for humans, even if very few native peoples have been known to follow it.

(Raw Kyle:  yes)
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 17, 2010, 11:33:38 pm
I see how you might have misconstrued that, but to me they are both right. The worst is probably to cite a native or ancient culture, and do something that is clearly artificial and limited. At the same time, the idea of appropriating any culture's nutrition - no matter how faithful in substance - is not necessarily going to be the best strategy for a contemporary human. I think this is illustrated well by WAP without resorting to speculations on carbs or no carbs.
I'm a bit confused by your wording and I think you may have misconstrued what I wrote. I agree with what I think you're trying to say--that perfect emulation of a single HG group's diet, such as the Inuit or Kitavans, is impossible in the modern world. Is that what you're trying to get at? I think maybe what you mean is that some people read a little bit about these peoples and then make the enormous leap into thinking that if some pemmican or fruit is good then a ton must be even better, yes? It's also important to point out, however, that these are modern ideas that aren't found in traditional societies. So even if the intention of pemmican/fruit eaters is to emulate, in reality they aren't emulating. So imperfect modern emulations of traditional Inuit and Kitavan diets don't prove that traditional Inuit and Kitavan diets were harmful for Inuits and Kitavans, as critics often claim; they only prove that the emulations tried didn't work for those who tried them. The biggest errors tend to be made by people like DurianRider, who see one or two people following their own twisted versions of Aajonus Vonderplantitz's already-eccentric version of a primal diet and jump to the conclusion that their imperfect results prove that all primal diets and all meat eating must be bad.

It's also important to bear in mind that while traditional Inuit and Kitavan diets may have been superior to the SAD, that doesn't prove that they were perfectly optimal even for Inuits and Kitavans, and perhaps you were trying to say that also? Plus, any perfectionism can create problems. Do you agree?

WAP covered a wide range of diets, including some Neolithic ones, such as in Switzerland, so it's not surprising that he recommended some questionable Neolithic foods. For example, he recommended whole wheat despite the fact that only one of the peoples he studied (as I recall) ate much of it (the Swiss) and he recommended eating lots of dairy as a sort of miracle food, despite the fact that most of the people he studied didn't eat any (at least not in his presence)! :o So in reality WAP wasn't so much of an emulator as someone who used observations to inspire his own theories. It seems that when people who think they are emulators go off on their own tangents that they get into more trouble than they do from the emulation itself. They grab a few snippets of knowledge from observation or reading and then run with it off into fairy land.

So emulation in and of itself doesn't seem to actually the worst problem. Rather, it seems that the practical impossibilities of trying to emulate in a very different habitat than the one trying to be emulated plus modern high theories that get in the way appear to be the bigger problems. AFAIK, no American is able to perfectly emulate an Inuit or Kitavan diet. So the crux of the problem appears to be in people thinking they can emulate without missing key aspects of the diet being emulated, rather than in their actually engaging in perfect emulation. It's a subtle but important distinction.

So while I agree that it doesn't make perfect sense for an American to try to emulate exactly the diet of hunter gatherers in the Arctic or the tropics, which have different native flora and fauna and more abundant sources of wild foods than where I live, and it's not something I've ever tried to do. People who promote WAP and WAPF diets (there are differences between the two), pemmican diets and fruitarianism don't appear to be claiming to be trying to do that either, exactly. From what I've seen, they are simply incorporating some selected lessons learned from the diets of animals, HGs or traditional Neolithic peoples, and then running with them and making their own new claims. In other words, they are mixing high theory and scientific reductionism with partial emulation and disregarding the personal experiences of the people they're trying to influence (like you and me). When people like you and me report that they're claims haven't worked for us, they hold to their dogmas and assume we must have done something wrong. So there are a combination of factors in the problem. It seems more of a stew of problems than an extract.

Quote
Ultimately It doesn't really matter what the richness in micro or macro-nutrients because they lived then and had different requirements, toxicity, and environmental factors.
Right, that's part of what I was trying to get at. So the crux of the problem isn't that Inuit and Kitavan diets necessarily weren't healthy, it's more that we cannot emulate them perfectly. However, the Inuit and Kitavan diets can give us clues to how to eat better than the SAD, and all of us here are following most of those clues. I think that's what most people do. I can't actually think of a single case of anyone who claims they are trying to precisely emulate an Inuit or Kitavan diet. That's a charge that tends to get thrown at the people who eat RPD, but I haven't seen anyone here actually say that they're trying to do that and since I don't read minds I don't assume that they are trying to do that.

Quote
Not to mention there is some usable model for almost every WOE this way, and clearly they don't all work, or work the best for everyone in a contemporary setting. In this sense, its impossible to not have a 'contemporary strategy' by definition
Correct, which is why perfect emulation isn't the real problem, whereas thinking one can emulate could be, but again, I haven't seen anyone claim they are trying to perfectly emulate anyone's diet. Are you aware of a single such example? If we can't cite a single example, then it seems to be much ado about nothing.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: KD on July 18, 2010, 12:29:01 am
Correct, which is why perfect emulation isn't the real problem, whereas thinking one can emulate could be, but again, I haven't seen anyone claim they are trying to perfectly emulate anyone's diet. Are you aware of a single such example? If we can't cite a single example, then it seems to be much ado about nothing.


My impression was that you thought I meant contemporary methods as only a negative labeling in comparison to the real 'successes' of ancient wisdom. As in, obviously things like frutarian are contemporary modes of thinking. But what I was saying was that contemporary modes of thinking are in fact good and unavoidable, but people like Matt Stone or Pemmicaners or fruit eaters are misusing past ideas still or misinterpreting present science in select cases to apply broadly.

I meant WAPF and not WAP, so that was my mistake. I meant that even through their present work might be far healthier than SWD, it might not be enough for many people to heal from modern problems. This is precisely why the other tools like raw (while not necessarily present in HG's as the bulk of their diet) might be of added benefit for present humans, even if humans could live more or less healthfully on other foods for thousands of years. This is NO indicator this is enough now. This seems to be the major example/point of argument without needing to delve into any past speculation. I might have a hard time convincing someone 5-10,000 years ago that cooking is completely bad, but I should be able to use present science and personal or anecdotal evidence of faster and more productive healing on raw foods. Whether that makes it the BEST diet in terms of living a happy healthy socially integrated life, I do not know. But it is certainly a better conversation in my mind than others citing HG's to prove the healthfulness of starches or cooked meats. It really only goes so far in terms of value is the point.

I'm not sure perfectionism is the issue per se. But do think what you touched on about people having the more (or tons less) of whatever thing is a common mentality. I don't think lackadaisical attitude will get one very far if they want to make serious changes, although subtle improvements over time is usually good. In this I think Stone and others have some valid criticism in this department in terms of orthorexic behavior, but there are also misunderstandings here about RAF, mainly because he/them has no serious experience.

I'm a bit confused by your wording and I think you may have misconstrued what I wrote. I agree with what I think you're trying to say--that perfect emulation of a single HG group's diet, such as the Inuit or Kitavans, is impossible in the modern world. Is that what you're trying to get at?

No, I don't think emulation is impossible of all WAP (not WAPF in this case :) ) type peoples, unless one wants heavily factor in wild foods or get really snippy about soil quality of raised foods, but it is more or less possible in other ways. I just think fundamentally its flawed anyway as far as what is most healing in our current setting and requirements.

As for understanding others diets, of course there is tremendous value in that. I'm always interested in 'new' information surfacing on Inuits and Kitavans's and these do impact my choices, but at the end of the day I don't believe emulating their diet or attempting to will automatically bring health. I think that is the difference. And Stone is as guilty here as pemmicaners and fruit eaters in that respect, only without the 'extremes'.

Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 18, 2010, 11:52:25 am
I know all of you guys want to either prove your own theories or find facts about neolithic and paleolithic tribes as well as more recent tribes but has anyone ever thought of looking at what we know about animals. PEOPLE, humans are animals too. Society constantly tries to convince us humans that we are somehow different than the animal kingdom, that we are not animals, that for some strange reason, every other animal can be exposed to an array of bacteria, but we need to be sterile, and also, that we need to brush our teeth to keep them. That way of thinking is pure lunacy. Anyone who says "oh, we cant compare ourselves to animals, we're human", has to realize, HELLO? 99% of scientific lab study is done on animals. Almost no scientific advancements were ever made without the use of animals. Therefore, scientists were treating animals bodies much like humans bodies for a long time.

Dont get me wrong, I know animals differ, but wouldnt it be safe to say a heart is a heart, hormones are hormones, bacteria is bacteria, etc? There are major differences (warm/ cold blooded, mammals, marsupials, carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, etc...) but why cant society see that we are animals and our bodies function like them. Once people realize that, we all just need to figure out what we are, which is primarily omnivore, but we can survive off of carnivore just fine. The closer one gets to the equator, the likelyhood of more vegetation consumption and carb consumption occurs. Vice versa, the further from the equator, the more animal, less plant we generally consume. Would it not be safe to say that maybe we need to consider all these factors instead of always doing the "he said, she said" thing when it comes to which tribe ate what and so on?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 18, 2010, 09:36:48 pm
I think that actually Matt Stones' current recommendations are pretty mainstream: high carb, low fat, about 1g of protein per kg of bodyweight, maximize omega-3 vs. omega-6. Carbs mostly starches, but fruit are allowed, as are desserts in moderation. In what he differs is advocating (temporary!) overfeeding and abstaining from excercise, and his strong stance against calorie restriction.

I'm currently using his recommendations for reducing insulin resistance and food intolerances because I will have to eat some SAD food in the near future and my past reaction to it was devastating. Right now I seem to have improved at least somewhat, except dairy is still a no-no as it basically stops my digestion.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 18, 2010, 11:21:24 pm
and his strong stance against calorie restriction.



that is one thing I agree with. I think we humans just need to eat the right foods til we are full and not call it quits in the middle of a meal. We didnt evolve that way. If anything we cavemen wouldve wanted to store the most energy possible.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Raw Kyle on July 19, 2010, 01:56:15 am
that is one thing I agree with. I think we humans just need to eat the right foods til we are full and not call it quits in the middle of a meal. We didnt evolve that way. If anything we cavemen wouldve wanted to store the most energy possible.

But "cavemen" wouldn't have had an unlimited supply of food, be able to choose when they feel like they're finished with eating, and when they want to have their next meal.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 19, 2010, 06:14:57 am
Sorry for the length of this post. There's a lot of apparent misconceptions to respond to here.

First I'll try to make something clear re: this forum section. It's not really a truly "ZC" section, since the title says the following:

"Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach: Not literally zero carb but eating only from the animal kingdom: muscle meats, organs, and fat of sea, sky, and land animals alike -- the raw meat diet for humans."

And that would include eggs, insects, grubs, etc. Some purist ZCers avoid liver, eggs and shellfish due to the carbs they contain. Since that isn't advocated in the title, then some ZCers might not consider ZC to be officially a part of this forum. Still, ZCers are welcome here if they're civil.

My impression was that you thought I meant contemporary methods as only a negative labeling in comparison to the real 'successes' of ancient wisdom.
I didn't think you meant that, no.

I don't want to get pulled into defending Matt Stone, all-pemmican-eaters, fruitarians, the WAPF, all low carbers or anyone else for that matter. If you're truly interested in the real reasons why I eat a very low carb diet, let me know (the assumptions made in this thread are way off target in my case; my signature is supposed to be a big hint, but it seems like a number of people have either missed it or ignored it). If you want to know why Matt Stone, Danny Roddy, or anyone else eat the way they do, why not ask them instead of speculating about it here? I still have seen no evidence that any single individual is trying to perfectly mimic the diet of any particular people, just assumptions, speculations and opinions, and thus the claim of mindless Inuit or Kitavan mimicking still seems like much ado about nothing.

Quote
But do think what you touched on about people having the more (or tons less) of whatever thing is a common mentality.
Yes, and that seems to be more typical of modern people, because I haven't come across an example of it in writings and documentaries on hunter gatherers.

Quote
In this I think Stone and others have some valid criticism in this department in terms of orthorexic behavior, but there are also misunderstandings here about RAF, mainly because he/them has no serious experience.
Before you assume that others are motivated by orthorexia or blind emulation [edit: not that you've necessarily ever accused anyone of orthorexia--I'm just questioning the validity and usefulness of this term in general and warning against its use], bear in mind that both these accusations have been broadly thrown at this forum in the recent past before you arrived here, which presumably would include you now that you've joined and presumably follow a RPD. If it wasn't ethically or factually right for people to assume these motivations would be true for you, then perhaps you shouldn't make the same mistake?

BTW, I predicted back in 9/16/09 in my self-quote below that the orthorexia insult would get thrown at Paleo dieters of all stripes and that there would be much infighting and this appears to have come to pass. I apparently decided not to post this quote at the time, probably because I was fed up with the negative vibes and thought it might just inspire negative retorts. I'm increasingly becoming fed up with the latest round of bad vibes directed at low carbers, but since not responding didn't work and since my prediction was interestingly accurate, I'll finally post it:

Quote
Since Paleo dieters of ALL stripes come in for some harsh criticism from mainstream society, and all will likely be called "extreme," or "obsessed," or "orthorexic," at some point, you might think that Paleo dieters will know better than to cast such stones at each other, but I predict there will be much infighting. Internecine wars are often the most bitter.

And it's not just RPDers who have been targeted by the orthorexia label. As I recall, the guy who coined the term first applied it to some raw vegans and was inspired to come up with the term by a raw vegan who he claims died from her diet. Most who wield the term don't seem to know much about it or the criteria that the originator developed to determine who qualifies as orthorexic. As I expected, the term is being wielded by and against dieters of many different stripes and eventually the followers of all diets with any substantial following will likely be targeted. It's much easier to label someone as orthorexic than to provide evidence or refute points. I wonder what RPDers will be called next? Maybe some combination of orthorexia and emulation like orthoremulans? ;)

Quote
No, I don't think emulation is impossible of all WAP (not WAPF in this case :) ) type peoples, unless one wants heavily factor in wild foods or get really snippy about soil quality of raised foods,
Which of the WAP peoples is it possible to emulate exactly in the USA? Perhaps one of the more modern groups like the old-fashioned among the Swiss? I could see that. What do you think are the elements of traditional diets that are impossible to emulate? Do you think that wild foods and soil quality are not significant factors in nutrition?

Quote
I just think fundamentally its flawed anyway as far as what is most healing in our current setting and requirements.
What specifically about the diets of WAP-type peoples is "fundamentally flawed" from the standpoint of "our current setting and requirements" and can you include an example of one of these peoples that you mean?

Quote
at the end of the day I don't believe emulating their diet or attempting to will automatically bring health.
Do you know anyone who does believe that emulating a particular HG group's diet (like the Inuits or Kitavans or other people) will "automatically" bring them optimal health? For example, are you claiming that re: Matt Stone or Danny Roddy?

I know all of you guys want to either prove your own theories or find facts about neolithic and paleolithic tribes as well as more recent tribes ....
If I'm one of the "guys" you're talking about, then I'll fill you in that my main motivation for being here is to learn and share so as to increase my understanding of what works best for me in both diet and lifestyle, and in return maybe some will find some of what I've written to be useful to them also. If not, then I guess the benefit is all mine. :) Are you surprised that my main motivation is not to prove my own theories or just to find facts about various peoples? Who do you think this is true of? If you don't want to state a name publicly, then feel free to send me a PM.

Evidence from hunter-gatherer tribes and Paleolithic digs are just one aspect of that (not the end-all and be-all) and should be expected in a forum called "RawPaleoForum", shouldn't it? Does discussion of it irritate you? Can you explain what specifically motivated your comment? What brought you to this way of eating?

Quote
but has anyone ever thought of looking at what we know about animals.
I certainly have and have written extensively about it on this forum, which is why I'm puzzled as to why you would ask that question. Maybe you missed all my posts on giant pandas, wolves, chimps, monkeys, gorillas, tarsiers, and other animals?

I think we would indeed be well served by learning more about animals in the wild because then we would learn things like that they aren't completely free of the "diseases of civilization" like dental caries, hairloss, poor sex drive and infertility.

Quote
Society constantly tries to convince us humans that we are somehow different than the animal kingdom, that we are not animals, that for some strange reason....
Precisely, and I think this also partly underlies why many people don't want to think of hunter-gatherer or Stone Age peoples as knowing some things that we don't or living better in some ways than we do, because we tend to think of them as being closer to animals and to want to cut off all ties with the animal world so we can maintain this notion of being superior to and apart from the animal world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that Stone Age life was perfect or that we can emulate it perfectly or any other of the canards that get thrown at this forum and Paleo dieters in general by people who haven't tried a Paleo approach.

Quote
Would it not be safe to say that maybe we need to consider all these factors instead of always doing the "he said, she said" thing when it comes to which tribe ate what and so on?
That's basically what I have been saying all along--I utilize all relevant sources of information. Do you see a problem with someone sharing what a certain tribe ate, or with lack of evidence given to support claims made by people who say that certain tribes ate certain foods, or just with the arguing over it?

Not poor health, but premature aging and shortened lifespan.  I'm not really sure that they would care about this-- it would take some pretty weird-minded people to live in the snow and relative isolation all the time.  Their short stature and fatness may have been a result of their diet, but it suits them better for life in the cold anyways.
Jared, you speak as though you know much about the Inuit. Can you explain a little more about what you mean and provide a source or two to back these opinions about Inuits being "weird-minded", in "relative isolation all the time" and being fat? Are you talking about traditional Inuits of the past, or the ones of today eating modern foods?

Quote
Anyways, I'm not talking about "perfect" health, I'm just talking a lot better than dying in your 50s-60s, which you seem to acknowledge of the Inuits.
Are you talking about average lifespan? What is your source for this information and what is your view for why the figures are in that range?

Quote
If low carb, or even zero carb, really is that superior, shouldn't there be examples of these people that are at the very top of the standards that Weston Price observed?  Aside from the ones you named, and I've refuted, PaleoPhil seems to have posted more societies in Arctic regions, mentioned the Kitavans (are you suggesting they were low carb?)
No, I wasn't suggesting that the Kitavans are low carb and I have never limited myself solely to examples of peoples or animals that eat much like me. I more frequently mention people of Arctic and temperate regions because their experience is more relevant to what has worked for me than people in tropical regions. Learning a lot about high-carb eating peoples wouldn't do me much good because I don't do well on high carb diets, though I do learn something about them in case it provides additional clues.

I do low carb because it works for me, and if I'm going to do it I may as well try to do it right and learn from those who have been doing it for many thousands of years, as well as other information sources, rather than try to figure it out completely on my own, don't you agree? Isn't that part of why you're here too, because such information shared in forums like this one might be useful to you too? Or is none of the information here of any use to you?

Quote
Then of course there is the theoretical diet of the hominids and Neanderthals, but at least for the human lineage, the diets can't be verified.
They are not purely theoretical--there is some hard evidence, but it is limited. I agree that we should be careful when we speculate beyond the evidence, and recognize that we are speculating.

Quote
Maybe so.  As I've said though, I think it's too easy for people who read Eades, Taubes, Groves, Gedgaudas, etc, and think, "This diet could not possibly harm me-- how could it, when it is the natural diet of our species??".
Agreed, and I think over-reliance on one or two gurus is actually far more common than over-reliance on the diets of one or two tribes of the present or past. One of the things that attracted me to this forum is that it isn't run by or devoted to a single guru.

Quote
The truth is, there is possibility for harm; in fact, it now seems to me that most long-term lowcarbers come to that conclusion (Jimmy Moore).
Most of the low carbers that I'm familiar with have talked about potential pitfalls (such as Dr. Kurt Harris, Richard Nikoley and Mark Sisson). Are there not potential pitfalls to all diets, including your own? Isn't it possible to screw up any dietary approach? Even the Instinctos like Burger talk about mistakes one can make in applying their approaches.

Quote
I'll just take your word for it that it is working for some people (or at least, stops their more severe symptoms).
And "I'll just take your word for it that" what you're doing works for you. I think we need to do that if we're going to have civil discourse here. Besides, following a RPD is not easy and there's a lot of social pressure to not do it--so it's not likely that anyone would lie about obtaining benefits from it and follow it in spite of experiencing only harm from it.

Quote
People get so riled up after the veil has been lifted from them about saturated fat and cholesterol that they enthusiastically rally on Eades and Taubes.
True, and do you also recognize that those who don't do well on LC get riled up against Eades and Taubes and those who speak positively of them and of LC diets in general (are you familiar with Tyler Durden's posts, for example :D )?

Quote
But the thing is, it was a long while before I heard of any dissent to the low carb theory, at least any that wasn't completely ignorant of the SF/cholesterol truth.
Interesting, my experience has been quite the opposite. I was proselytized re: the high-carb USDA food pyramid and vegetarianism decades before I heard about Atkins, Taubes and other low carb proponents. I ate moderate-to-high carb diets with lots of "healthy whole grains, fruits and vegetables" during those decades before I tried a low carb approach. From my registration on this forum and ever since I've been reading tons of posts attacking ZC/VLC/LC and proponents of lower-carb diets, as well as attacks on proponents of carbs. Lately the anger against LC seems to be building (which is surprising with Tyler gone ;) ). The flames from both sides of the carb debate do get tiresome at times and I prefer the more rational and evidence-based approach at another forum, but they don't have nearly as much info on the raw and Paleo aspects of diet, so I put up with the bickering here. Some low carbers got so fed up with the anti-LC bashing that they left this forum, so it's strange that you're apparently not noticing that side of the coin. Tyler frequently insults low carbers but at least he provides some evidence to back his claims. It's the posts that rely solely on opinions and are vague that I find to be the least useful on both sides of the debate.

Quote
So that's what I'm being here: The voice of dissent to the low carb theory.  This site was one of the sites I used to frequent.  I never went all the way with doing completely raw (I did try a whole raw steak a few times), but this was the community that I held in mind when I thought of what the ideal diet should be.  I admit, I didn't investigate too thoroughly-- I now see that a lot of you are not completely low carb.
Don't you think that setting yourself up as the "voice of dissent to the low carb theory" is a tad presumptuous, especially given that you have admitted that you "didn't investigate too thoroughly"? Wouldn't it be better to focus more on seeking first to investigate and understand before you seek to teach us with your voice of dissent?

Did you not notice Tyler Durden's posts? He was a voice of dissent and tirades against low carb long before you arrived here and he is one of the two prominent leaders here, the other being GoodSamaritan who AFAIK also does not consider himself low carb (he eats plenty of tropical fruits), but he isn't as aggressive about it. Given that neither of our two leaders is low carb, where did you get this idea that this was a LC-oriented forum? This forum is nowhere near as pro-LC/ZC as true LC forums like ZIOH and Dirty Carnivore (although it is of course more LC than vegan/vegetarian forums).

Quote
But if someone needs it spelled out to them (such as me) that there is dissent to the low carb theory, and that low carb may even be harmful, that's what this thread is.
You've mentioned "low carb theory" multiple times. I think that's part of where you're misunderstanding. I don't eat low carb solely because of some high theory. I do so mainly because it works for me. Isn't that why you eat the way you do? Why would you make a different assumption about others?

Quote
I apologize that I've come here, a place where a lot of you are serious researchers, when I'm not that motivated to look more into this myself.
Thanks for being candid about that, and it explains a lot, but do you expect people to take you seriously as the self-appointed "voice of dissent to the low carb theory" if you're "not that motivated to look more into" it?

Quote
I'll continue to check this thread to see if there's something that seriously challenges my current stance, but I'm sorry that I'm not going to go out of my way.
Nothing of what you've written seriously challenges what I have found to work for me and if you're not going to put much effort into considering the various possibilities, then I'm not going to go out of my way to investigate your dissents either. There is an overabundance of opinions on the Internet. What is lacking is motivated investigators who thoroughly examine and test possibilities and provide evidence to back their hypotheses and conclusions. Lex Rooker and Dr. Kurt Harris are a couple of the people who do the due diligence from the LC camp, and Stephan Guyenet is someone who does it from the moderate-carb camp. The Kitavans are a decent example of a people that seem to be doing well on high carb, though I haven't seen a really good explanation yet of how people do well on high carb diets--but I am open to that possibility for some people.

Quote
Particularly, PaleoPhil, I was interested to hear about the pandas, so I'll just ask this... have they tried feeding pandas meat or something, in an attempt to improve their fertility?
Not to specifically test fertility rates, that I know of, though some articles report that some zoos do feed limited animal foods to giant pandas. It would be interesting to know what the fertility rates of giant pandas fed some animal foods are compared to those fed only plant foods. If you learn any more about this, please let me know.

Unfortunately, scientists' efforts at improving captive giant panda fertility have focused more on medicinal treatments, with little success (such as the herbal medicine and Viagra testing reported on here: "Even Pandas Suffer From Impotence," http://www.mrsafaris.com/free-pictures-wild-animals.html). Sound familiar?

I did read that female pandas in the wild will seek out nonplant foods when it's the season for them to get pregnant, perhaps drive by hormones? I wasn't able to find the article again, however. Perhaps this drive is somewhat offset by the giant panda's genetic meat-tasting deficiency (see below), thus keeping fertility rates even in the wild low? The giant panda is a mysterious and intriguing animal that warrants more study.

Did you read any of my posts on giant pandas? I'm not going to repost them or post links to them, because some of them are easy to find and I figure that if someone isn't willing to search for them then they probably aren't really interested. I've wasted time in the past re-posting things and posting links for people who ignored them anyway, so I'm trying to avoid that.

Quote
Panda genome unveiled
DNA clues suggest little inbreeding, surprise on the bamboo diet
By Laura Sanders
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/50736/title/Panda_genome_unveiled

"The panda genome gives clues to understanding the panda’s strict bamboo diet. It turns out that pandas have mutations in two copies of a taste gene called T1R1, which encodes a protein that senses the savory taste of meats, cheeses, broths and other high-protein foods. These mutations may have robbed pandas of the ability to taste meat, pushing them toward their bamboo diet, the researchers suggest.

Pandas possess all the requisite genes for digesting meat, but none of the genes required for digesting bamboo, Wang and colleagues found. The researchers guess that pandas rely entirely on communities of gut microbes for extracting nutrients from bamboo."
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: KD on July 19, 2010, 08:49:37 am
uh, phil nice to see you blow your spout over nothing, I never accused anyone of being orthorexic. I said one of the ONLY things I agreed about with Stone is that he would be there for the orthorexic and failed dogmatic believers. If you aim is to not be dogmatic or take things personally, you certainly failed in this last post. Not all topics are 100% about what the sub-forum definitions are about. If anything this topic was not well placed as it is not about ZC at all but LC and other metabolic issues. Of course in every case I was talking about contemporary people and their choices, so it matter little that HGs don't obsess over their diet. I happen to believe wild foods and soil quality are of high importance, but in terms of what I am speaking about - accounting for present issues - those nutrients arn't necessarily of greatest importance to other things. Before your try to gestapo what that means which should be obvious: I mean even given the exact kinds of food transplanted through time, it wouldn't make those diets 100% workable as a healing mechanism for contemporary people, even though people time and time again will make that argument. Although the converse: lack of such quality lack-of does make those options even less enticing even if they can be proved 'scientifically' or in WAP fashion as sustainable. To me that is the error. I don't think that is negligible, or only effects 'extremes'. If people want to disagree with that, that is fine. it certainly isn't a criticism of ZC or LC.

I don't know how else I could interpret 'you got it right the second try' when my first point was 'we need a contemporary strategy' and you responded with labeling extremes as 'contemporary strategies' like I was promoting a similar mindset. Obviously I meant the idea of adapting principals directly from other cultures as cure-alls, not the the cultures themselves were necessarily flawed (although I believe they were and were 'fortunate' for lack of a better term). I'd rather not name names, but I can think of a tremendous amount of people who think exactly what you asked re: this issue. if anything the WAPF does. Many go as far to be critical of raw in-particular specifically based on these issues. so its not exactly like finding a needle in a haystack.

I'd like to respond to some of the other stuff, but I'll let the respective posters have a go.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 19, 2010, 10:57:48 am
uh, phil nice to see you blow your spout over nothing, I never accused anyone of being orthorexic. I said one of the ONLY things I agreed about with Stone is that he would be there for the orthorexic and failed dogmatic believers.
That's what I was talking about--I don't think orthorexia is a constructive term ever--I didn't mean that you had literally accused someone here of being orthorexic. Sorry I wasn't more clear about that and I hope you didn't take anything personally. I wasn't "blowing a spout" when I wrote it, I was actually chillin' O0 and enjoying some good food. I just think it is a term that we should try to nip in the bud and avoid using here, even when applied vaguely to unknown people, and especially when there is no hard evidence or self-admittance, but it's probably unstoppable. Your mention of it was an opportunity to post something I probably should have said months ago about it, but that unfortunately seems to have confused you into thinking I was talking specifically and only about you, and I can see how you would have gotten that impression.

Quote
If you aim is to not be dogmatic or take things personally, you certainly failed in this last post.
I didn't take anything personally and I don't see how what I wrote was dogmatic. I'm just trying to encourage folks not to use the label orthorexia in this forum, as I think it will only lead to bad things, but my guess is that it's unstoppable and it will be particularly unstoppable if someone can get it made into a clinical diagnosis and make money off of selling drugs to treat it. I don't intend to censure it, if that's what you're concerned about.

Quote
  Not all topics are 100% about what the sub-forum definitions are about. If anything this topic was not well placed as it is not about ZC at all but LC and other metabolic issues.
I don't have a problem with it being here--and I'm not saying that just because I'm not a ZCer; I wouldn't have a problem with a critique of VLC or carnivore in this forum either. Critiques can be useful for putting one's ideas to the test and getting new information. Plus, Tyler decided that it's OK for criticisms of dietary approaches to be posted within the sections dedicated to them, after he initially opposed that. That being said, I do try to encourage substance and specifics and don't want to see flaming in this forum I've been assigned to moderate.

Quote
Of course in every case I was talking about contemporary people and their choices, so it matter little that HGs don't obsess over their diet.
By "contemporary people", are you talking here about the Swiss that WAP observed? I'm not sure what the HG comment is about.

Quote
I happen to believe wild foods and soil quality are of high importance, but in terms of what I am speaking about - accounting for present issues - those nutrients arn't necessarily of greatest importance to other things. Before your try to gestapo what that means which should be obvious: I mean even given the exact kinds of food transplanted through time, it wouldn't make those diets 100% workable as a healing mechanism for contemporary people, even though people time and time again will make that argument. A
Gestapo? And you said I was spouting over nothing and taking things personally? Since trying RPD and posting here I've been accused of a lot of things, but never Gestapo tactics. Don't you think that's just a wee bit overboard?

I guess I need your point simplified further, because I'm not sure I'm fully understanding exactly what it is that you see as obvious. Can you give me a specific example and are you saying that no past diet beyond a certain number of years ago would work for anyone today? In other words, what do you see as the specific problems with contemporary people trying all or part of the past diets? Aren't we all doing it to some extent if we're doing raw Paleo diets? Is the problem you're trying to describe more one of ignoring some original contexts and taking things to extremes than of any learning from past diets? Do you see any of the past diets as being workable in the past and has something changed since then to make them unworkable for anyone today? I'm not trying to suggest any position or criticism on this, just seeking to understand.

Quote
I mean even given the exact kinds of food transplanted through time, it wouldn't make those diets 100% workable as a healing mechanism for contemporary people, even though people time and time again will make that argument.
Can you give an example of where someone has made that argument? That might help explain what you mean.

Quote
Although the converse: lack of such quality lack-of does make those options even less enticing even if they can be proved 'scientifically' or in WAP fashion as sustainable. To me that is the error. I don't think that is negligible, or only effects 'extremes'.
I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding you here. I'm trying to understand--maybe it would help if you told me what you think is workable and sustainable?

Quote
I don't know how else I could interpret 'you got it right the second try' when my first point was 'we need a contemporary strategy' and you responded with labeling extremes as 'contemporary strategies' like I was promoting a similar mindset.
What I meant was, I believe you got it right when you said, "Yet those peoples [Inuits and Kitavans] never would practice such extreme approaches," whereas your earlier wording about "we are not Inuits, we are not Kitavans" after talking about all-pemmican and all-fruit diets wasn't as good, because it didn't seem particularly relevant and could give the impression that you were suggesting that these diets somehow derive from those people, when in reality they are modern innovations, as I think you agree (but please do correct me if I misunderstood).

Quote
Obviously I meant the idea of adapting principals directly from other cultures as cure-alls, not the the cultures themselves were necessarily flawed ....
OK, thanks for clarifying that.

Quote
(although I believe they were and were 'fortunate' for lack of a better term)
Could you be a little more specific, please?

Quote
I'd rather not name names, but I can think of a tremendous amount of people who think exactly what you asked re: this issue. if anything the WAPF does. Many go as far to be critical of raw in-particular specifically based on these issues. so its not exactly like finding a needle in a haystack. ....
So do you mean here that some leaders (or maybe followers here) of the WAPF are critical of eating certain foods raw? If so, which foods? My experience with WAPF leaders and devoted followers is that they tend to get angry when anyone says anything negative about raw dairy products, but I didn't know that they had a major problem with some other aspect of raw eating.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 19, 2010, 11:01:35 am
I'll break this trend here and admit it's safe to say everyone here believes in Raw food eating, whether RPD or Primal, they are raw foods. Low carb, high carb, low fat, high fat should be the individuals business. Low carb happens to work great for me but it wont always favor in others. Some fare well on higher carb diets. Until anyone has enough sufficient information (facts) to prove that a certain macro nutrient ratio is universally applicable to all people, I think this has reached a stalemate. I have always respected the fact that in general, there is not a one size fits all macro ratio per say. Do what works for you and Im not saying anyone does, but dont judge others for what works for them because it didnt work for you or it doesnt correspond with your theories. The main thing I like about this forum is the people here generally hate conventional nutritional and medical practices and theories as do I. We should be exposing these crooks more and work together.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 19, 2010, 11:12:14 am
Paleo phil, I respect the fact that you try to clarify people's points and come to a resolution. With what I've seen, it seems you are very much interested in this RPD as am I. You should write a book or do something productive with all your knowledge.

I myself am writing a nutrition philosophy book as I am continuously learning every day. The way I see it, we write a lot on this forum every day so what makes writing a book so much harder? Im on page 50 of mine and it didnt take too long. Of course it is a long process and you do have to find all the facts and sources but it doesnt have to be a stressful process. I only write on days my thoughts are together. I digress, however I think many RPDers can agree that there is too much unused knowledge and wisdom from some of the smart people on this forum as yourself and many others. Spread the word and help others.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: KD on July 19, 2010, 11:52:23 am
The gestapo thing, that was a joke in reference to the endless questions and remarks that I should be as clear as possible as to not get more, not necessarily being 'evil'.  -X

It is totally possible that a healthy diet from the past would allow someone today to be completely healthy. The only thing I'm pointing out is it might not for many. The reason wouldn't necessarily be poor nutrient quality or any other food based factors but be due mostly to contemporary internal and external environment. Many people do in fact rely on manufacturing a diet that they feel is the most conducive (based on HG's or anthropology) for all mankind without acknowledging methods and other WOE's that might be right - right now for them to actually get healthy. That is why I give some credence to Matt despite the other flaws I see with his specifics, and for being guilty of the same overall tradition=health mindset. I cannot make that any more clear. It is usually not a matter of accepting things but dismissing tools because they seem unnatural or have no precedent in people that obviously didn't need them.

As an example in terms of logic only that we can all see fault in: raw vegans who are not pro modern fruit, believe at one time we could get all our nutrients and energy needs from plants, but those plant sources became depleted and therefore they need to supplement with concentrated sources. So for them, the failure is not in the diet, but in the physical effects of the planet on their food sources. In the case of RPD, There is more realism towards our needs I believe. There might be other various issues that don't discount the diet per se, and some may be due to deficiencies in practice (lack of fresh meat, blood etc...), quality (poor contemporary game, or pastured animals) but some might very well be due to the way the particular diet itself is constructed. It may not still with tweaking even be the best diet for an individual as Jared mentioned, even if we had a window to the past and it proved people thrived on the same methods. I guess Paleo Diet generally might be in the same category if someone took the typical hygiene stance that given the proper materials, it can basically heal all problems. I unfortunately don't have any surefire non-diet related healing methods to share (although I have my theories), but I do believe diets themselves can be altered to give various results. As I said these might not line up with what is the "best" (as in purist) paleo or ZC or LC diet on paper.

as for Inuits and Kitavans, I wasn't referring just to the extreme 'offshoots'. I think even if Kitavans didn't exist there would still be fruit eaters today and if the Inuits didn't exist there would still be people eating only ground beef. This is my best guess, either way we did not grow up eating 100% healthy food (whatever that is) in a clean environment to clean parents of endless prior generations and those are extremely important as factors so we are not them. HGs were fortunate with their inheritance and environment, and therefore, could eat a wider variety of macronutrients or natural toxins via cooking without the same symptoms as us. One major factor in particular in re: to the topic of sugar would be pre-existing fungus.

as for WAPF being critical of raw, that isn't what I meant but it was a separate idea after mentioning that WAPF believe traditional diets will bring health. On top of that many other health proponents (and I'd agree to a large extent WAPF based on the few clashes with Aajonus I am aware of - To my knowledge they are in the very least bacteria and parasite phobic.) see no point in raw because traditional people lived healthfully cooking there food. To me this is a clear cut way of how this logic of past works poorly.

As for orthorexia, I'll have to agree that its an amorphous term that applies to a wide variety of 'symptoms' and generalizations, but I do think it is very real. If someone is 100% secure in their health choices, I don't see why claims of orthorexia would bother them. And since raw foodists concern is usually increased health (sometimes at all costs) and not a lowered body weight, it is probably the most present eating disorder. Generally eating healthy and being discerning about diet is one type of orthorexia by default which is fairly meaningless, but there are other types that can be totally crippling for the individual and their success on a particular WOE in a cyclical fashion.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 19, 2010, 12:31:48 pm
for now paleo phil, I am thinking just an e book, however one never knows whether something could come out of it. It actually is not going to be much about paleo, but rather exposing dietary and medical myths and their false philosophies. I read a few philosophy books in the past year and they changed my life. I learned to never just accept the norm and always challenge certain beliefs.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 19, 2010, 07:59:49 pm
Jared, you speak as though you know much about the Inuit.

   No, I don't, I'm broadly speculating and taking for granted what people have said who've actually read the texts.  (On that note, I'll keep in mind that Tyler Durden said Stefansson may not be that credible).

Don't you think that setting yourself up as the "voice of dissent to the low carb theory" is a tad presumptuous, especially given that you have admitted that you "didn't investigate too thoroughly"?

   Well, that's why I pointed people to Matt Stone, he's a bit more motivated to investigate than I am.

   I thought I explained myself pretty well.  I see that there are a lot of differing views on this forum as a whole, but when someone like me comes along who is completely sold on the Eades/Taubes insulin theory, and are just trying to get better, we tend to only read more about what fits in our current beliefs.  I browsed this specific sub-forum to see if I could find any dissenting threads, and I didn't see any, so that's why I've posted.  A thread headline like mine would have really caught my attention, as it was the core belief of why I was forcing myself to eat low-carb.

Isn't that part of why you're here too, because such information shared in forums like this one might be useful to you too? Or is none of the information here of any use to you?

   Well, I did come pretty sure about my position, and my goal was to help people get out of low-carb, who might not really be feeling all that great about it.  But I was curious to see what information people might bring up.  I figured the subject is at least relevant to this sub-forum.

Nothing of what you've written seriously challenges what I have found to work for me...

   Sure, one of the main things I'm urging people to do is to trust their feelings more.  I did notice your signature quotes.  If you're feeling good, continue doing what you're doing.  In my case though, low carb did not feel good, but I kept on with it because the evidence seemed unshakable.  A lot of people here are desperate too, if they are willing to depart from modern conventions so much.  It's not unreasonable to think that people may be going against their feelings out of desperation.

   As short-sighted as I may have been, I did not believe there was an alternative to low carb.  I know that's not the opinion of this board in general, but I was led on by the aforementioned authors.  As Micheal Eades said in an interview, "I can't imagine a person who I wouldn't recommend a low-carb diet to."  I don't mean to eradicate low-carb or carnivorous for everyone, but I'm at least challenging the idea that it should be for everyone.

Did you read any of my posts on giant pandas?

   I did click a link you gave and found that it had already gone drastically off topic   -\


I think that actually Matt Stones' current recommendations are pretty mainstream: high carb, low fat, about 1g of protein per kg of bodyweight, maximize omega-3 vs. omega-6. Carbs mostly starches, but fruit are allowed, as are desserts in moderation. In what he differs is advocating (temporary!) overfeeding and abstaining from exercise, and his strong stance against calorie restriction.

   Yes, "going down the rabbit hole", as he says.  (That is.... after we've already been down the "first" rabbit hole.)  Probably the most drastic difference from mainstream recommendations is the vegetable oil issue.  Coming out of low-carb, it's hard to see that the woes of the world could be due to anything less than monumental, but really these oils do permeate the SAD.  Also as he says, the mainstream does promote under-eating, over-exercising, over-working, abundant caffeine (and alcohol) usage, tons of sugar (which I don't think is too terrible in moderation), and RDAs that are far too low.

   Also what Matt doesn't go into is all the toxins in our world, which I think play a huge part in the diseases of civilization.  Even in the days of WAP-- could it be that the metals leaching into canned goods could have been part of the degeneration?  Maybe cookware too?  I used to be afraid of the "small" stuff.  Then I got into macronutrients, and I thought it was the "big" stuff.  Now, it's the "small" stuff again with me.  For example, I just found out from a cheap test that there are some heavy metals in my water.  I have yet to find out exactly which ones.  Also, pretty much anything from a store has been manufactured in stainless steel vats.  Some stainless steel alloys leach nickel, which is very toxic, according to Ray Peat.  I would think that acidic things will leach the most.  Ray Peat says that if the stainless steel is magnetic, then it's the type that doesn't have nickel in it.


But "cavemen" wouldn't have had an unlimited supply of food, be able to choose when they feel like they're finished with eating, and when they want to have their next meal.

   Ah, I thought I had posted something about this in this thread, but it turns out it was in another thread.  (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/raw-weston-price/fixing-narrow-palates-and-cranial-deformities/msg39218/#msg39218)

"The thing is, it's entirely plausible that prehistoric humans/hominins were smarter than we're making them out to be, in terms of processing and storing food.  Hunger is a feeling that we work to avoid, and they probably did too.  I take it even farther-- I think that agriculture was not out of their means as well.  The concept is pretty self evident, if you want more of a plant that feeds you.  Grains are questionable because they are so small and inedible-- I think our first attention to grains started with beer actually.  It's also not a leap to think that hominins might have messed around with leaving things in water, and found that mashed-up seeds did something.  As they've hypothesized with the Egyptians, bread came soon after, originally intended as a storage device to harbor the beer-making yeast in the raw center.

I even wonder why humans have such a sweet tooth, when apparently, at least in most places in the world, there is such a short supply of fructose.  Well, with all of those graphs of how low sugar and honey consumption was pre-1850, I think one source they probably are not accounting for is jams and jellies.  This is actually where I think people have been getting their fructose throughout history.  It was probably a good way to store and concentrate the calories from large yields of fruit.  Trade is certainly plausible too, just like Lewis and Clark found networks trading sea-salt (pretty sure).  And wasn't it the Native Americans that showed the Europeans how to make maple syrup?  What should we trust more: the numbers or our senses?"


I'll break this trend here and admit it's safe to say everyone here believes in Raw food eating... 

Well, I didn't want to start a thread refuting everything, but I did intend Matt Stone's site to change some minds about all types of restrictive eating, and includes the all raw thing.  You really can't eat a lot of calories without cooking (well, except for the banana-lady).  And I believe, despite what the experts say, that cooking has probably been with us since pre-human days.

The main thing I like about this forum is the people here generally hate conventional nutritional and medical practices and theories as do I. We should be exposing these crooks more and work together.

Same here.  I like your signature quote btw.  One of my favorites: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”  -Thomas Jefferson
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 19, 2010, 10:05:20 pm
thats a great quote too. I made this quote up "Health does not come from a capsule, a pill, or any drug for that matter. Health comes from within, it comes from habitual change, and above all else, it comes from the desire to live free."
- Steven F Smith

It could be made better though.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 19, 2010, 10:46:15 pm
   
   Well, I did come pretty sure about my position, and my goal was to help people get out of low-carb, who might not really be feeling all that great about it.  But I was curious to see what information people might bring up.  I figured the subject is at least relevant to this sub-forum.

   Sure, one of the main things I'm urging people to do is to trust their feelings more.  I did notice your signature quotes.  If you're feeling good, continue doing what you're doing.  In my case though, low carb did not feel good, but I kept on with it because the evidence seemed unshakable.  A lot of people here are desperate too, if they are willing to depart from modern conventions so much.  It's not unreasonable to think that people may be going against their feelings out of desperation.

   As short-sighted as I may have been, I did not believe there was an alternative to low carb.  I know that's not the opinion of this board in general, but I was led on by the aforementioned authors.  As Micheal Eades said in an interview, "I can't imagine a person who I wouldn't recommend a low-carb diet to."  I don't mean to eradicate low-carb or carnivorous for everyone, but I'm at least challenging the idea that it should be for everyone.

I second that!
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 20, 2010, 01:44:43 am
And I believe, despite what the experts say, that cooking has probably been with us since pre-human days.

Can you elaborate on that?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on July 20, 2010, 04:59:53 am
I second that!

If low carb is not for everyone, we'd be born with an essential carbohydrate requirement. Guess what? We aren't.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 20, 2010, 05:53:09 am
klowcarb, I somewhat agree with you. The times when I am ketogenic I feel the best, but it doesnt mean everyone will get results like mine or yours. My friend tried low carb and was always fatigued. But who knows he only tried it for a month, maybe if he had given it more of a chance it wouldve worked for him. I dont know if we were made to be low carb beings or not but we certainly can survive healthfully without them. I dont actually think it is a big deal consuming dietary carbs as gluconeogenesis ensures you always have carbohydrates in your body, its just that carbs from protein seems to make people's blood sugar more balanced in general.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: dsohei on July 20, 2010, 07:08:01 am
my initial results when going very low carb have been fatigue, and in some instances extreme anger and seriousness. i consider this to be from all the stimulatory proteins, without benefit of relaxing proteins.
now,i know this isnt exact or scientific, but when i eat some carbs/sugar/etc to balance out the protein/fat diet, i enjoy being alive much more.
dont get me wrong, i really dislike carbing out, and protein foods are my favorite.
but the hormonal system, is so damn complex, i dont think people will comply with a "logically healthy" diet if they are feeling like shit.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on July 20, 2010, 09:10:51 am
dsoshei, what was your fat percentage? I know people who have taken longer to adapt to low carb (not nec. ZC, but VLC) and felt better on more fat. Too much protein = fatigue.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 20, 2010, 09:11:59 am
yeah, I mean we all crave sugar so for some thats a subconscious excuse to eat it, but if it makes you feel better than by all means do it. My initial low carb(ketogenic) diet was fatigue but after a good 2 weeks I felt more energy than ever. I think it is the way your body has to get used to using ketones and fat for energy. It is commonly called the ketone energy shift.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 20, 2010, 09:14:57 am
klowcarb, what you think about 30-35%protein and 65-70% fat? This is what I have found is the best for myself. I am a very physical being though and do much exercise so sometimes I up protein to 40%, but I love how all the fat is perfect fuel for my hormones. People neglect the fact that fat and cholesterol make testosterone, something I desperately need high for my lifestyle.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 20, 2010, 09:16:59 am
Too much fat seems to decrease circulation, Klowcarb.. It is confusing when people just talk about 'high fat', 'lots of fat', 'more fat', because the people who are saying 'you need to eat loads of fat', are people who see not that much fat as being loads, so some people actually do eat loads of fat(following this advice), and then get problems like bloating, decreased circulation etc...

The amount of fat(I believe) you consume, Klowcarb, I would have considered just a normal amount already, so before, hearing you say that I would have ended eating much more than you.

But I dunno shitaki mushrooms.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on July 20, 2010, 09:24:47 am
klowcarb, what you think about 30-35%protein and 65-70% fat? This is what I have found is the best for myself. I am a very physical being though and do much exercise so sometimes I up protein to 40%, but I love how all the fat is perfect fuel for my hormones. People neglect the fact that fat and cholesterol make testosterone, something I desperately need high for my lifestyle.

My fat ranges from 65-75% and the rest protein. I think that is perfect if you are active. I would advise higher fat for less active individuals who do not need as much protein.  I am also, as you know, very active. I strength train 3 x a week, do bodyweight exercises and fasted cardio.

Please call me Katelyn  :D
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: dsohei on July 20, 2010, 10:32:04 am
dsoshei, what was your fat percentage? I know people who have taken longer to adapt to low carb (not nec. ZC, but VLC) and felt better on more fat. Too much protein = fatigue.

i feel like i am gorging on fat - coconut oil/milk, fatty fish, EGGS, EVOO (have not bought suet or marrow yet). the fat also causes fatigue/sleepiness but subdues the extreme anger. i have been thinking lately that maybe i am eating too much protein, but i can never sense the cut off between enough and too much until way after the fact and the negative symptoms are in effect.

in the future when i attempt VLC/LC/ZC (raw or cooked) i am gonna be prepared and stock up on essentials from a clean, local source that i enjoy the taste of first.

 i have been reading matt stone and martin berkhin (leangains.com) and the idea of a set daily eating window (IF) and cyclical carb re-feeds seems to get some pretty amazing results for some people. although if this is only short term and is borrowing from peter to pay paul, i don't know.

but man, i just wish i had energy!
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 20, 2010, 11:43:09 am
Jared, you speak as though you know much about the Inuit.
Quote from: Jared
No, I don't, I'm broadly speculating and taking for granted what people have said who've actually read the texts.
There's a lot of misinformation about Inuits and others out there, so if you're going to write about them then I recommend trying to get info as directly from the source as you can, rather than relying on what others have posted.

Quote
(On that note, I'll keep in mind that Tyler Durden said Stefansson may not be that credible).
Yes, I think Tyler does post a lot on the errors of people like Stefansson, WAP, Taubes and Wrangham. It looks like you agree with Tyler on some things, such as wanting to warn folks away from ZC, though Tyler disagrees with Matt Stone on several key issues.

Quote
Well, that's why I pointed people to Matt Stone, he's a bit more motivated to investigate than I am.
OK, then I guess we could say that Matt is the voice of dissent and he does fill the bill, because he disagrees with probably every other "expert" out there. I've been curious about cooked tubers and wondering about what their precursors were (perhaps wild African roots that are edible raw?), in large part because of the fact that every HG group that has access to tubers eats them. Interestingly, I learned that tubers can be made edible without cooking by drying and pulverizing them, which Wrangham conveniently doesn't appear to have mentioned in his book, if my search was thorough enough.

I think, however, that tubers probably became more important as the numbers of megafauna declined. What do you think hominids ate for starches before the advent of cooking? Was it sun-dried yams, wild roots, rhizomes, corms, ...?

Quote
I see that there are a lot of differing views on this forum as a whole,
Yup.

Quote
but when someone like me comes along who is completely sold on the Eades/Taubes insulin theory, and are just trying to get better, we tend to only read more about what fits in our current beliefs.
I can't speak for others, but that's not what I do.

Quote
I browsed this specific sub-forum to see if I could find any dissenting threads, and I didn't see any, so that's why I've posted.
Ah, that explains things. You'll find more dissents and trashing of ZC in the general discussion section.

Quote
A thread headline like mine would have really caught my attention, as it was the core belief of why I was forcing myself to eat low-carb.
This may be how you can provide the most value here--in sharing where you went wrong as a warning to others. I definitely don't think people should force themselves to continue a particular diet for an extended period if it isn't working for them and they continue to deteriorate. The only reason I do VLC is because nothing else has worked as well. If I could eat more carbs without any ill effects I would. I love fruits--especially berries and red grapes.

Quote
Well, I did come pretty sure about my position, and my goal was to help people get out of low-carb, who might not really be feeling all that great about it.  But I was curious to see what information people might bring up.
FYI: folks tend to get turned off by people who are too sure of their position and seem to come across as lecturing them, no matter how well intentioned.

Quote
Sure, one of the main things I'm urging people to do is to trust their feelings more.
I think maybe you mean trust their experience/results more, as feelings may not always coincide with real results? For example, sometimes the results are hidden and aren't detected until a blood test or x-ray reveals them.

Quote
In my case though, low carb did not feel good, but I kept on with it because the evidence seemed unshakable.
This kind of sharing makes for some of the best posts. I agree that it's important to pay more attention to what your body is telling you than what a selection of studies says, especially in the longer term. There are studies and "experts" supporting every major dietary viewpoint.

Quote
A lot of people here are desperate too, if they are willing to depart from modern conventions so much.
Correct, as Tyler's quote says in my signature: "no one would touch this type of diet unless they'd tried everything else and this diet alone worked". It would be more accurate to say "unless they'd tried lots of other diets...," but the gist is right.

Quote
As short-sighted as I may have been, I did not believe there was an alternative to low carb.
You mean you never encountered vegetarianism, veganism, raw veganism, fruitarianism, 80-10-10, the USDA food pyramid, Ornish, Oz, DurianRider and other higher-carb approaches and proponents?

Quote
I don't mean to eradicate low-carb or carnivorous for everyone, but I'm at least challenging the idea that it should be for everyone.
I agree with that--do what works for you and also be aware of what your body is telling you. I would add that people may want to consider getting bloodwork and urinalysis testing done at least once after they've been on a new diet for a while to make sure they aren't running into any problems they don't notice. This is how many vegans end up either changing their diet or adding supplements.

Did you read any of my posts on giant pandas?
Quote from: Jared
I did click a link you gave and found that it had already gone drastically off topic
OK, but did it start out with any relevant info? There are several. I don't mean any of my posts to be the final word, BTW. That's not the way I think (science is more about an endless series of questions, observations and hypotheses than achieving final answers) and there's a lot more I could learn about giant pandas and other animals.

Quote
Probably the most drastic difference from mainstream recommendations is the vegetable oil issue.  Coming out of low-carb, it's hard to see that the woes of the world could be due to anything less than monumental, but really these oils do permeate the SAD.  Also as he says, the mainstream does promote under-eating, over-exercising, over-working, abundant caffeine (and alcohol) usage, tons of sugar (which I don't think is too terrible in moderation), and RDAs that are far too low.
I think most LCers, including me, actually agree with him on all that. Did you get a different impression somewhere? As a matter of fact, I agree with him more than you on these issues, since you apparently partly disagree with him on sugar. Maybe I should be trying to convince you to listen to Mark? ;)

Quote
Also what Matt doesn't go into is all the toxins in our world, which I think play a huge part in the diseases of civilization.
While I think this is overemphasized by a small fringe, my general approach is to skeptically question everything new. Once I realized that our modern diet was screwed up and that some aspects of ancient diets were beneficial, I wondered what else modern civilization had gotten wrong. I started questioning a lot of my basic assumptions and learned that there was indeed a LOT that modern Mother Culture got wrong. I'm thinking that maybe my book should be an encyclopedia that tries to catalogue as much of it as I can.

Quote
Some stainless steel alloys leach nickel, which is very toxic, according to Ray Peat. I would think that acidic things will leach the most.  Ray Peat says that if the stainless steel is magnetic, then it's the type that doesn't have nickel in it.
FYI: Ray Peat and Matt Stone aren't particularly influential here, so if you want to persuade folks away from RZC, you're probably going to have to cite some other sources.

....

Quote
I even wonder why humans have such a sweet tooth, when apparently, at least in most places in the world, there is such a short supply of fructose.
I think that's why. Sweet foods were relatively scarce, so having a sweet tooth didn't cause major problems for our ancestors.

Quote
  Well, with all of those graphs of how low sugar and honey consumption was pre-1850, I think one source they probably are not accounting for is jams and jellies. This is actually where I think people have been getting their fructose throughout history.
I think you mean since the invention of jams/jellies, rather than all history. Honey and whole fruit consumption goes much further back--predating H. sapiens.

Quote
And wasn't it the Native Americans that showed the Europeans how to make maple syrup?  What should we trust more: the numbers or our senses?"
My senses tell me that jams/jellies, maple syrup and honey all effect me very negatively and are very addicting for me, for whatever reason. It stinks, because I really enjoy raw honey.

Quote
Well, I didn't want to start a thread refuting everything, but I did intend Matt Stone's site to change some minds about all types of restrictive eating,
Well, the least restrictive eating is the SAD. Don't you at least think we should be more restrictive than that? By now you should also realize that all of us here have tried less restrive eating in the past and it didn't work for us.

Quote
And I believe, despite what the experts say, that cooking has probably been with us since pre-human days.
No offense intended, but I don't particularly care what you or anyone else "believes". Opinions carry little weight with me. I'm more interested in your actual experiences and any other evidence you can provide. Opinions are just so much hot air to me, except as speculations upon which to build and test hypotheses. They are usually a waste of bandwidth. I'd prefer to read more about what you're trying, how it's working for you, and anything unusual you've learned about the natural world.

Too much fat seems to decrease circulation, Klowcarb..
In my case increasing animal fat intake increased my circulation, for what it's worth. It's amazing how differently various people respond to macronutrients.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 20, 2010, 12:02:03 pm
Yeah, I mean I do very very well on my high fat ratios. The cool thing about fat is its not as bad to eat as everyone thinks. Just a cup of grassfed fat from the whole foods butcher is roughly 2000kcal, not that calories even are an accurate way of measuring the energy of food though, but still all Im saying is that one doesnt need to eat lbs of fat a day to get enough. I never eat more than a lb of fat a day. I think a good way of measuring macros is weighing them. I also like using grams, to see how many grams of a macro there is in a food. I dont know how accurate calories are and no one really does. Way I see it, I eat when Im hungry, stop when Im full, and as long as the food is good (Raw) I dont have a problem. I have easily eaten over 7000 calories some days and not gained a lb of fat and put on much muscle. Maybe its my body type but I think that blows the calorie theory out the window. I have always been a hardgainer until this diet, not anymore :D
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 20, 2010, 01:05:59 pm
If low carb is not for everyone, we'd be born with an essential carbohydrate requirement. Guess what? We aren't.

This kind of misinformation should not exist on a forum like this one.
Glucose is simply the priority fuel used by the muscles for quick energy. Some tissues like the brain also prefer glucose.
It is why the body converts protein and fat into glucose on a lowcarb diet to fulfill its requirement.
So we are obviously born with an essential carbs requirement!
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Savage on July 20, 2010, 03:10:24 pm
This kind of misinformation should not exist on a forum like this one.
Glucose is simply the priority fuel used by the muscles for quick energy. Some tissues like the brain also prefer glucose.
It is why the body converts protein and fat into glucose on a lowcarb diet to fulfill its requirement.
So we are obviously born with an essential carbs requirement!



No, you're wrong, she's right.

The dietary requirement for carbohydrates is ZERO.

And if all you people like carbs so much, what are you doing in the Zero Carb forum? Are you lost?

Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 20, 2010, 09:50:34 pm

No, you're wrong, she's right.

The dietary requirement for carbohydrates is ZERO.

And if all you people like carbs so much, what are you doing in the Zero Carb forum? Are you lost?



Haha, yeah we are talking about the DIETARY requirement of carbohydrates not the internal requirement. The dietary requirement is zero. My friend has been ketogenic, and no carbs for 2 years, he is healthy as can be, I am considering switching over to keto as well, I have liked it in the past.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: carnivore on July 20, 2010, 11:47:53 pm

No, you're wrong, she's right.

The dietary requirement for carbohydrates is ZERO.

And if all you people like carbs so much, what are you doing in the Zero Carb forum? Are you lost?

I have nothing against zerocarb, especially when it works...
With this kind of reasoning, you can also pretend for example that saturated fatty acids are not required as the body can manufacture it...
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: JaredBond on July 20, 2010, 11:57:25 pm
And I believe, despite what the experts say, that cooking has probably been with us since pre-human days.

Can you elaborate on that?

Well, as Paleo Phil will point out, it is just my unfounded supposition, but I brought it up because it goes hand in hand with the carb issue.  Really, you can't get a significant amount of carbs without cooking.  (And actually, agriculture as well, if you consider that there weren't that many carb-heavy fruits until we started selectively planting things, as I understand.)  It was, for me, one of the main pillars of why people were never intended to eat carbs.  But once the other pillar was shaken (insulin fear), I realized that this one is not too substantial either.  Now, I know this must be rustling feathers here, being that this is the RAW Paleo Forum.  If you want to argue about AGEs and enzymes, that's a different matter.  What I'm concerned with here is, did people do it?  Maybe even, did hominids do it?  And for me, it seems very plausible that, as early as the brain capacity could allow, hominids could recognize the value of fire for warmth and light at night.  And cooking probably came soon after.  Root vegetables being the easiest-- you just sit them by the fire.  I don't really see why, if people had fire, they wouldn't cook them.  It frees up so many more calories and neutralizes the toxins.

The evidence, as far as I know, is scant on the issue either way.  I actually did take an anthropology class, and the only thing they mentioned for how we "know" when they started using fires was the lowest depth of ash layers at hominid sites.  And maybe they didn't find charred bones before a certain time period (if at all?).  There are too many holes to say that we really know anything.  As if a handful of sites can give us an accurate picture of what was going on everywhere.  For the bones thing-- well, they could've had fire but didn't cook meat (or, not that thoroughly).  And so on.

Also, there may be no need for dietary carbohydrates.  But most will agree there is such thing as too much protein.  So, if we figure that we do in fact need a lot of calories, as Matt Stone proposes, that leaves us eating a lot of butter or tallow, and so on.  Why is it that we can eat a ton of sugar, no problem (big gulp sodas anyone?), but a few tablespoons of saturated fat alone makes us sick?  I don't know.  Also, as Matt Stone points out, why is it that a baked potato alone is not very appetizing, but it is with some butter and sour cream?  There's got to be a good reason (actually potatoes are supposedly a moderate source of protein), but all I can say is, I feel better with starches in my diet.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Savage on July 21, 2010, 12:50:05 am
but all I can say is, I feel better with starches in my diet.

If you feel better with starches, eat them.

This is where you need to be: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/

Do carbs also cause a difficulty with English and/or mental retardation ? Or is it an individual thing?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 21, 2010, 01:52:29 am
I dont know about the mental retardation-carb correlation but surely the degeneration of the last few generations with white sugars, flours, and other cooked carbs accompanied with the ridiculous amount of vaccines are causing ADD, ADHD, and many mental issues including autism. >:
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: actionhero on July 21, 2010, 05:00:07 am
Why is it that we can eat a ton of sugar, no problem (big gulp sodas anyone?)

Really? LOL

Data from the 2007 National Diabetes Fact Sheet (the most recent year for which data is available)

Total: 23.6 million children and adults in the United States—7.8% of the population—have diabetes.

Diagnosed: 17.9 million people

Undiagnosed: 5.7 million people

Pre-diabetes: 57 million people

no problem?

but a few tablespoons of saturated fat alone makes us sick?

Because saturated fat is extremely powerful. Just a little bit can power a body for a loooong time and give insane amounts of both constant and explosive energy. Sugar doesn't even come close to what it's like to be fueled by raw saturated fat.

If you want to keep eating cooked food and weird plants it's OK but don't pretend that it will give you more health, energy and vitality because it won't.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 21, 2010, 09:15:55 am
Well, as Paleo Phil will point out, it is just my unfounded supposition, but I brought it up because...
Why would you bring something up and lecture others about it that is based on your "unfounded supposition". I'm slightly interested to learn what motivates people to do that, because I've noticed it a lot in forums--especially fruitarian and raw vegan forums, for some reason. Do you feel compelled to do it?

Try putting the shoe on the other foot--ask yourself if you would like to be lectured about the benefits of LC and the horrors of high carb by someone who was basing it on their unfounded supposition and doing so in a forum section dedicated to high carb diets.

Quote
it goes hand in hand with the carb issue.  Really, you can't get a significant amount of carbs without cooking.
Perhaps you can't, but I can. I recommend replacing your "you's" with "I's". Like most free human beings, I don't appreciate being dictated to and I'm losing interest in your posts.

Quote
...What I'm concerned with here is, did people do it?  Maybe even, did hominids do it?  And for me, it seems very plausible that, as early as the brain capacity could allow, hominids could recognize the value of fire for warmth and light at night.  And cooking probably came soon after.
You still haven't answered the question posed by at least two people of when "time immemorial" was. How long ago do you think cooking started?

Quote
Root vegetables being the easiest-- you just sit them by the fire.  I don't really see why, if people had fire, they wouldn't cook them.
Yesterday I learned that African yams are often sun-dried and pulverized, then commonly eaten without cooking (though the mash can also be cooked and boiling yams is more common than sun-drying them). So fire-cooking tubers is not essential.

Quote
It frees up so many more calories and neutralizes the toxins.
100% of the toxins?

Quote
Why is it that we can eat a ton of sugar, no problem (big gulp sodas anyone?), but a few tablespoons of saturated fat alone makes us sick?
Who is we? That's not true for me. You're starting to sound like an 811er.

Quote
...I can say is, I feel better with starches in my diet.
Good, that's the sort of honest sharing that is generally much more valued than dictating to others what is good for them.

As others have suggested, I think you would be more at home at a different forum. Why are you wasting time here?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on July 21, 2010, 10:23:04 am
Jared,

You may not have noticed it but this is the Zero Carb section of this forum.

Come join us at http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/ if you need plant matter in your diet.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: KD on July 21, 2010, 10:45:47 am

:(
Painful!!
Can not eat delicious food.
The body is very thin.
cool haiku

Shouldn't this whole thing just be moved to Hot Topics instead? The main points seem to be not at all about raw-omnivory, but the pros and cons of raw, and the analysis of things like cooked starches in regard to insulin, which is really a challenge to conventional LC wisdom and deals little with ZC or raw.

I think Jared makes intelligent points but there is too much subject matter being battered around. Too much confusion with grouping criticisms by suggesting what could give possible health and not necessarily remarks about how doable ZC or LC is. There is plenty of criticism of various LC or ZC methods on RPF, including peoples personal experiences without the need for 'shepards', so I think its better to concentrate on 'small'  (ha) topics like above, in general sub-forums, especially if it is going to degenerate into hashing out these ideological issues.

Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 21, 2010, 11:04:56 am
If a high carb diet suits you well than fine, but dont lecture me about the dangers of low or zero carb, my friend had horrible digestive problems and she couldnt heal it without going low carb. Diabetics need low carb diets. For seizures and epilepsy, the keto (ZC) diet is used. In fact, when the atkins diet was introduced it saved many people's lives with epilepsy and it wasn't even raw. Dont lecture us that ZC or low carb is unhealthy, I think there is plenty of proof that says otherwise. However just as I am saying that Low carb diets work for some people, some people as yourself either dont favor well on them or just convince themselves that they dont because they cannot see a world with low carbs in it. I mean hell, carbs are everywhere, some people just cannot quit them. Sugar is after all a class 1 drug, literally. That's the very reason they put sugar in cigarettes, because it is addicting. People who go on low carb initially have sugar withdrawal effects. You cannot eat a significant amount of carbs in nature. Jared, have you ever been out in the wild for a period of time. If you had, you should have found that it is nearly impossible to get much carbs. Try finding carbs in the winter, they're nowhere in sight, and trust me, I've tried. Is this to say that we humans were meant to die, or be really unhealthy in the winter because we have ZC diets? I highly doubt it. It seems to me that carbs is only a seasonal thing for the most part. It is also a earth positional factor as well, like how people closer to the equator have more access to carbohydrates than people up north.

People generally tend to forget that we were once bare ass naked in the woods with only a few tools to hunt with, not all the agricultural tools we have today. Therefore one should know that we would never have a significant access to carbs in nature.

It just all makes sense to me and I dont understand how some people cannot see it. We are closest related to carnivores. Our digestive system was not meant do digest cellulose by fermentation like other animals such as cows do. Last time I checked, we only have one stomach like lions, wolves, and bears, not like herbivores. Think about it like this ya'll: SHit feeds microorganisms, fungus and humus, fungus and humus feed plants, plants feed herbivores, and herbivores feed omnivores and carnivores.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 22, 2010, 01:20:17 am
Jared,

As a victim of LC/ZC, what macronutrient ratio do you find optimal for your health now?

thnx

Yuri
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on July 22, 2010, 05:19:49 am
You cannot eat a significant amount of carbs in nature. Jared, have you ever been out in the wild for a period of time. If you had, you should have found that it is nearly impossible to get much carbs. Try finding carbs in the winter, they're nowhere in sight, and trust me, I've tried. Is this to say that we humans were meant to die, or be really unhealthy in the winter because we have ZC diets? I highly doubt it. It seems to me that carbs is only a seasonal thing for the most part. It is also a earth positional factor as well, like how people closer to the equator have more access to carbohydrates than people up north.


It just all makes sense to me and I dont understand how some people cannot see it. We are closest related to carnivores. Our digestive system was not meant do digest cellulose by fermentation like other animals such as cows do. Last time I checked, we only have one stomach like lions, wolves, and bears, not like herbivores. Think about it like this ya'll: SHit feeds microorganisms, fungus and humus, fungus and humus feed plants, plants feed herbivores, and herbivores feed omnivores and carnivores.

Fantastic!
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 22, 2010, 06:50:32 am
....Shouldn't this whole thing just be moved to Hot Topics instead? The main points seem to be not at all about raw-omnivory, but the pros and cons of raw, and the analysis of things like cooked starches in regard to insulin, which is really a challenge to conventional LC wisdom and deals little with ZC or raw.
Good point. Since Jared is really using this thread to promote the Matt Stone diet that is neither raw, nor Paleo, I've moved it to Hot Topics and added "Matt Stone HED" to the title to clarify it.

[Side note: it is possible, however, to make a raw version of the Matt Stone diet, I think, by sun-drying tubers and eating raw dairy products instead of pasteurized, but Jared hasn't argued for that.]
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 22, 2010, 09:51:43 pm
It just all makes sense to me and I dont understand how some people cannot see it. We are closest related to carnivores.

Umm no... our digestive tract resembles that of an omnivore, not that of a carnivore.

Quote
Our digestive system was not meant do digest cellulose by fermentation like other animals such as cows do. Last time I checked, we only have one stomach like lions, wolves, and bears, not like herbivores. Think about it like this ya'll: SHit feeds microorganisms, fungus and humus, fungus and humus feed plants, plants feed herbivores, and herbivores feed omnivores and carnivores.

Yet there are animals such the maned wolf that doesn't do well on an all-meat diet even though he seems to be a carnivore. The distinction isn't as easy as you think - carnivore vs. herbivore. That's why the whole thing is so damn confusing.

Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 22, 2010, 09:54:51 pm
Really, you can't get a significant amount of carbs without cooking.  (And actually, agriculture as well, if you consider that there weren't that many carb-heavy fruits until we started selectively planting things, as I understand.)

There are wild tubers like sago or arrowroot that could have been used pre-farming afaik

Quote
For the bones thing-- well, they could've had fire but didn't cook meat (or, not that thoroughly).  And so on.

IMHO it would make a lot of sense that people cooked tubers first and ate their meat raw, as cooking improves tubers A LOT and does nothing to make meat more digestible or nutritious, the opposite is the case.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 22, 2010, 09:55:50 pm
Yesterday I learned that African yams are often sun-dried and pulverized, then commonly eaten without cooking (though the mash can also be cooked and boiling yams is more common than sun-drying them). So fire-cooking tubers is not essential.

So interesting. Where did you find this?
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on July 22, 2010, 10:15:00 pm
Well, as Paleo Phil will point out, it is just my unfounded supposition, but I brought it up because it goes hand in hand with the carb issue.  Really, you can't get a significant amount of carbs without cooking.  (And actually, agriculture as well, if you consider that there weren't that many carb-heavy fruits until we started selectively planting things, as I understand.)  It was, for me, one of the main pillars of why people were never intended to eat carbs.  But once the other pillar was shaken (insulin fear), I realized that this one is not too substantial either.  Now, I know this must be rustling feathers here, being that this is the RAW Paleo Forum.  If you want to argue about AGEs and enzymes, that's a different matter.  What I'm concerned with here is, did people do it?  Maybe even, did hominids do it?  And for me, it seems very plausible that, as early as the brain capacity could allow, hominids could recognize the value of fire for warmth and light at night.  And cooking probably came soon after.  Root vegetables being the easiest-- you just sit them by the fire.  I don't really see why, if people had fire, they wouldn't cook them.  It frees up so many more calories and neutralizes the toxins.

The evidence, as far as I know, is scant on the issue either way.  I actually did take an anthropology class, and the only thing they mentioned for how we "know" when they started using fires was the lowest depth of ash layers at hominid sites.  And maybe they didn't find charred bones before a certain time period (if at all?).  There are too many holes to say that we really know anything.  As if a handful of sites can give us an accurate picture of what was going on everywhere.  For the bones thing-- well, they could've had fire but didn't cook meat (or, not that thoroughly).  And so on.

Also, there may be no need for dietary carbohydrates.  But most will agree there is such thing as too much protein.  So, if we figure that we do in fact need a lot of calories, as Matt Stone proposes, that leaves us eating a lot of butter or tallow, and so on.  Why is it that we can eat a ton of sugar, no problem (big gulp sodas anyone?), but a few tablespoons of saturated fat alone makes us sick?  I don't know.  Also, as Matt Stone points out, why is it that a baked potato alone is not very appetizing, but it is with some butter and sour cream?  There's got to be a good reason (actually potatoes are supposedly a moderate source of protein), but all I can say is, I feel better with starches in my diet.

What I can contribute to this topic is that concept of Jared Diamond in Guns Germs and Steel.

The healthiest, most peaceful, most long lived people are no match for the thugs, the war freaks, the invaders who had superior foods such as potatoes and other high carb portable sources.  Jared Diamond gave examples of tribes who wiped out the neighboring tribes because they had this warfare advantage.

So abundance of food is one thing.  It's not ideal food.  These high carb stuff may not be optimal, but it is good at warfare.  We need to think of evolution multi-dimensionally.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 22, 2010, 11:30:30 pm
Umm no... our digestive tract resembles that of an omnivore, not that of a carnivore.

Yet there are animals such the maned wolf that doesn't do well on an all-meat diet even though he seems to be a carnivore. The distinction isn't as easy as you think - carnivore vs. herbivore. That's why the whole thing is so damn confusing.



Well when you put it like that, believe me I do realize that in nature there is no such thing as a 100% carnivore except maybe a few animals. Wolves even eat grass from time to time, and bears eat berries. I get that. However, we could debate about this all day and I'm sure you've heard this before: our stomachs are longer than that of other carnivores yes, however, we have the same amount of hydrochloric acid as many other carnivores such as wolves. Yes wolves stomachs are shorter than ours and have a higher concentration (this is what so many vegans and vegetarians argue) however our stomachs have just as much hcl even though it is longer. When you say our tract resembles that of an omnivore, please elaborate on this. I am not saying that we are 100% carnivore, but ask yourself to pick between a herbivore and a carnivore and we are definitally closer to the carnivore.
Title: Re: Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 23, 2010, 12:55:58 am
I am not saying that we are 100% carnivore, but ask yourself to pick between a herbivore and a carnivore and we are definitally closer to the carnivore.

That argument is just ridiculous though. Say your trying to classify a mule. You can classify it as a horse, a donkey or as a mule. Your argument is like saying "but it's more like a donkey" instead of saying "it's a mule." It doesn't matter if you think humans are closer to carnivores or to herbivores. Humans are omnivores, period.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 23, 2010, 01:10:07 am
Hans: So, a carnivore which can eat, and may sometimes eat vegetable matter, is not a carnivore but an omnivore, even though it's a carnivore?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 23, 2010, 02:13:27 am
Hans: So, a carnivore which can eat, and may sometimes eat vegetable matter, is not a carnivore but an omnivore, even though it's a carnivore?

exactly, this discussion is preposterous. Like trying to differentiate a mule with a horse? I dont see how that has any relevance to this topic, nor a good analogy for the matter. Just like you're saying I "think" we're carnivores, I can turn that around and say you "think" we're omnivores but it doesnt change the facts one bit. Once again, could you please elaborate on how we resemble omnivores more than carnivores. I.E. the best way to go about that would be to give me an example of an omnivore in nature and show me how we are closer to the omnivore than the carnivore.

Remember, like actionhero once said, and this is my favorite quote: animals are real food, plants and everything else is just supposed to keep us alive till we find real food.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 23, 2010, 02:18:14 am
so a lion is an omnivore because it sometimes eats fruit?
a dog is an omnivore because it sometimes eats grass?
I guess chimps and gorillas are omnivores too because they sometimes eat flesh?
Hell! EVERYTHING IS AN OMNIVORE!
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 23, 2010, 06:05:08 am
Hans: So, a carnivore which can eat, and may sometimes eat vegetable matter, is not a carnivore but an omnivore, even though it's a carnivore?

No.... no idea where you got that from...
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 23, 2010, 06:28:50 am
exactly, this discussion is preposterous. Like trying to differentiate a mule with a horse? I dont see how that has any relevance to this topic, nor a good analogy for the matter.

Is it that hard? You're comparing humans to herbivores and carnivores, which ignores the existence of another category, omnivores, which humans are considered to fall into.

Quote
Just like you're saying I "think" we're carnivores, I can turn that around and say you "think" we're omnivores but it doesnt change the facts one bit.

Yes, and the fact most everybody agrees on is that humans are omnivores. I haven't really seen anybody contest this, except for vegans and people talking about how humans are more like a wolf than a cow, conveniently leaving out that there is a third category. Both appear to considerably push the facts in order to make them fit their agenda.

Quote
Once again, could you please elaborate on how we resemble omnivores more than carnivores. I.E. the best way to go about that would be to give me an example of an omnivore in nature and show me how we are closer to the omnivore than the carnivore.

carnivores have short bowels and round stomachs, herbivores have bigger stomachs or several of them and long bowels. Human stomach shape is in between, as is the length of the bowels. Human teeth are also a mixture. Incissors and molars look very much like the teeth of sheep, which are notably missing the canines humans have. Dogs (carnivore) have premolars which humans don't have and only a few molars far back. Obviously, the human digestive tract is between the two, as is that of other omnivores like pigs, mice etc.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 23, 2010, 06:31:12 am
I was mentioning the maned wolf, because from his appearance, he is a carnivore (I'm not sure how he is classified normally.) But in spite of that, he eats up to 50% vegetable food! And he needs vegetable food to be healthy. Doesn't this somewhat fly into the face of meat being the only "real" food?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on July 23, 2010, 06:35:21 am
Humans should be thankful to be omnivores. Because of this ability, we can survive during harsh times without animal food. Even without much water, we can drink animal blood.  When we dream of our best meals it always turns out to be some animal feast.

But we are getting off topic.

Shouldn't we go back to Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 23, 2010, 06:42:31 am
Doesn't this somewhat fly into the face of meat being the only "real" food?

not really because you can survive entirely on meat, but you can't survive entirely on vegetables. Steffannson proved that at bellevue hospital.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 23, 2010, 06:44:25 am
When we dream of our best meals it always turns out to be some animal feast.



haha yeah, and we caveman didnt draw bananas or apples in caves, we drew big mammoths and other animals we hunted. Obviousely animal was the primary concern when it came to fuel.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on July 23, 2010, 07:07:05 am
I believe humans are optimally carnivores, but can be omnivores. We are omnivores closest on a spectrum to carnivore. We are furthest from herbivore.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 23, 2010, 08:26:21 am
Umm no... our digestive tract resembles that of an omnivore, not that of a carnivore.

Yet there are animals such the maned wolf that doesn't do well on an all-meat diet even though he seems to be a carnivore. The distinction isn't as easy as you think - carnivore vs. herbivore. That's why the whole thing is so damn confusing.

Hans: So, a carnivore which can eat, and may sometimes eat vegetable matter, is not a carnivore but an omnivore, even though it's a carnivore?

No.... no idea where you got that from...
There is some truth in what both of you are saying. There is a long-running debate both within the dietary community and among scientists over whether humans should be classified as carnivores or omnivores. In my icon caption is the term "facultative carnivore", which is what a growing number of scientists and lay people think humans are, but "omnivore" is still more commonly applied to humans. Facultative carnivores are basically carnivores that eat more plants than the occasional grass or herb (example: canids). Just because an animal eats some plants doesn't automatically make it an omnivore.

Google (and even Wikipedia at times) are your friends. The first hit on "carnivore" says this:

"Animals that depend solely on animal flesh for their nutrient requirements are considered obligate carnivores while those that also consume non-animal food are considered facultative carnivores.[2] Omnivores also consume both animal and non-animal food, and apart from the more general definition, there is no clearly defined ratio of plant to animal material that would distinguish a facultative carnivore from an omnivore, or an omnivore from a facultative herbivore, for that matter.[3] A carnivore that sits at the top of the foodchain is an apex predator." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore

So this is one of the main reasons why the topic is so confusing and so hotly debated--there's NO set distinction between facultative carnivore and omnivore. It's more a philosophical distinction than an objective one. Omnivore is such a vague and confusing term that some scientists have dispensed with it. However, certain animals do tend to be popularly thought of as omnivores, at least in a de facto sense, if not in a morphological one.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that the terms carnivore and omnivore have multiple meanings depending on what is being described: taxonomy, morphology or diet. The same animal can have different designations among these categories. For example, the giant panda is labeled as a carnivore for taxonomy and morphology purposes, but as an herbivore for describing what it regularly eats.

I don't want to get directly involved in taking a position in the debate (my caption is meant only to indicate how I live and how my body seems to function, not necessarily what I think the optimal WOE is for all or what the precise morphological label should be for humans), as I've already explored this issue quite a bit in other threads and I'm not seeing anything new in this thread on it. Plus this discussion should be probably be continued at one of the threads dedicated to the topic, or a new thread, as it is starting to hijack this thread. I just thought I would be well suited to explain facultative carnivory, given my icon caption. :)
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on July 23, 2010, 02:40:58 pm
Informative post as always, PaleoPhil.

I believe that the carnivore vs. omnivore discussion is in fact somewhat relevant to the topic, as a diet low in carbs will almost inevitably be a carnivorous one, while one high in carbs will be an omnivorous one. One of the benefits that are attributed to a LC/ZC which is mainly a diet of animal flesh is the lack of insulin spikes. If these insulin spikes do not contribute to the development of diabetis, then that benefit isn't actually one. At the same time, insulin spikes are an argument against carbohydrate in the diet, if insulin spikes are benign, though, we may well be supposed to eat a lot of carbs, i. e. be omnivorous rather than carnivorous.

Obviously low carb or zero carb diets make you feel better if you have problems with hypoglycemia / diabetis. That seems to be established. However, it does not remedy the problem. Matt Stone holds that it rather exacerbates it, which is also my experience. I thought if I just stay away from carbs, my body will recover and I will be able to tolerate them better. However, after abstaining from carbs, much lesser quantities of them made me feel bad, which led to my inability to digest any kind of "normal food", basically anything except animal flesh made me miserable.

Because of circumstances I will soon have to eat some "normal" meals, maybe for an extended time, so I got very interested when I read that Matt's HED could make that possible for me without feeling like shit. Trying to eat a diet high in (cooked) starches made me feel bad at first, but now my body seems to tolerate it much better. While previously an intake of any small amount of carbs made me feel off, I can now eat like 500g of carbs a day with diminishing and already minor discomfort. Obviously this makes me wonder if the low carb / carnivorous approach is the correct one.

I think the insulin spike issue might be THE reason why people come to believe that humans should eat animal flesh exclusively or almost exclusively in the first place. All the other explanations come with that and are somewhat stretching the facts in order to give the humans as pure animal flesh eaters theory more of a theoretical basis.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on July 23, 2010, 03:23:58 pm
I'll share my experience.

When I grew up on high carb all my life, I thought that shaking hands and extreme hunger before major meals was a NORMAL thing.

It was only when I tasted a low carb diet did I realize that those where hypoglycemic episodes I experienced all my life.

I did not know any better in the old days because I never experienced having steady energy with low carb.

So when I make mistakes with my diet and I go a high carb day and I experience a hypoglycemic episode, it makes me feel terrible and irritable because I now know that hypoglycemia episodes suck and are not normal.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 23, 2010, 09:59:37 pm




 Obviously this makes me wonder if the low carb / carnivorous approach is the correct one.


You mean it makes you wonder if the carnivorous diet is right for you? Right? Because I sure as hell know that I and many others fair just fine on the carnivorous diet. I for one, unlike you, dont really feel like shit eating cooked starches, so I am doing this solely for health purposes, not depending on how I feel after a meal. Its the same thing as saying you dont feel like shit after smoking a cigarette, but that doesnt mean the cigarettes wont accumulate toxins and cause cancer over time. People say that stuff all the time, "well I dont feel that bad so I dont need to change my diet". Thats a load of bologna, and just because you dont feel like shit doesnt mean your body isnt wreaking havoc on the inside.

I respect your interest in how insulin spikes may or may not cause insulin resistance, however this whole topic doesnt really tell me more than I already know. Even if insulin spikes dont cause insulin resistance, so what? We know the difference between macro nutrients and how they rise insulin. And, we know that cooked high carbohydrate diets cause type two diabetes because they directly correlate to type two.
Fat= some or zero effect on raising insulin
protein= some effect on raising insulin, after gluconeogenesis, both inslin and glucagon go up, indicating a blood sugar spike, but glucagon balances the insulin
sugar= much effect on raising insulin

Scientists studied the avg insulin level of a certain age group, and other hormones over 50 years ago. Guess what, insulin was much much lower. Forgive me for not remembering the study's name, I need to find it. Today, that same age brackets insulin level is much higher than it used to be over 50 years ago. SO what gives? are high carbohydrate diets the cause? Well, we know that with the help of industrialized factory farming, we americans nationally and annually eat 15 times more sugar than we used to according to the new york times. Also, the ratio of fat to sugar decreased very much. Since 1900, fat barely increased at all, maybe 2 or 3 times what it was, even with the rise in population. So the real correlation between a certain macronutrient and type two/ insulin resistance has already been established. It is cooked carbohydrates. Science does not know whether or not raw carbohydrates will cause type two diabetes because there has never been tests on it, but what is known is that many raw frugarians, among other issues incured type two diabetes, so apparently one can get type two from a raw fruit diet. Science knows excess carbohydrates causes type two diabetes and insulin resistance. Maybe the insulin spikes dont cause insulin resistance, maybe they do. However, that does not exempt the fact that a high carbohydrate diet causes insulin resistance.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: dsohei on July 24, 2010, 02:02:25 am
pioneer and others, do you think all carbs are the same, or that perhaps different carbs are processed differently within the body? i know that they are all sugar, but there is a difference between a sweet potatoe and molasses.

low carb does make me feel better in the short term, but i feel i need some carb refeeding to produce serotonin.
thoughts?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on July 24, 2010, 06:59:55 am
The are all different.
I don't look at carbs as carbs.
I look at the food itself.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on July 24, 2010, 07:09:36 am
Hans' argument is not scientific but psychological. He was doing great on very low carb, and in fact, his body rewarded him by making him sick when he ate junk, i.e. carbs. But he WANTED to be "normal" and eat "normal" people food, which is of course, rubbish. Since he WANTED to eat these "normal" foods that make others look fat, skinny fat and gross, he justified a NEED for carbs. Thus he justified that he NEEDED carbs so that he could tolerate the junk when he ate it. That makes sense. If you want to eat junk and be mediocre, might as well eat that which makes you mediocre. You are, after all, what you eat.  :D
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 24, 2010, 07:28:54 am
Informative post as always, PaleoPhil.
Thanks!

Quote
I believe that the carnivore vs. omnivore discussion is in fact somewhat relevant to the topic, as a diet low in carbs will almost inevitably be a carnivorous one, while one high in carbs will be an omnivorous one. One of the benefits that are attributed to a LC/ZC which is mainly a diet of animal flesh is the lack of insulin spikes. If these insulin spikes do not contribute to the development of diabetis, then that benefit isn't actually one.
That's a false assumption in my case. I've already listed my numerous other problems beyond diabetes that were rapidly reduced from the start by cutting down on Paleo carbs that I had thought were "healthy" for me based on the claims of people like you. If you're interested in what some of them are, feel free to check out my journal.

Quote
At the same time, insulin spikes are an argument against carbohydrate in the diet, if insulin spikes are benign, though, we may well be supposed to eat a lot of carbs, i. e. be omnivorous rather than carnivorous.
By "supposed to eat" do you mean what will promote the modern human-invented goals of optimal health and longevity, or do you mean the typical diet of an animal in the indigenous wild habitat of its origin (which doesn't necessarily promote "optimal" health)?

Quote
Obviously low carb or zero carb diets make you feel better if you have problems with hypoglycemia / diabetis. That seems to be established. However, it does not remedy the problem. Matt Stone holds that it rather exacerbates it
Maybe in the long run he's right, maybe not. I don't find "Matt Stone says so" to be a convincing argument.

Quote
which is also my experience.
That's something I take more seriously than arguing from authority--someone speaking from personal experience.

Quote
I thought if I just stay away from carbs, my body will recover and I will be able to tolerate them better. However, after abstaining from carbs, much lesser quantities of them made me feel bad, which led to my inability to digest any kind of "normal food", basically anything except animal flesh made me miserable.
As Lex and I have said repeatedly, if going without plant carbs causes any problems, we'll just gradually reintroduce some--which I have actually already tried (with mostly, but not all, negative results so far) because I WANT TO EAT CARBS (how many times do I have to explain that?). Heck, I ate a small handful of red grapes (man do I love firm red and black grapes!) and blueberries at the cafeteria at work today (I'll just try to offset that small amount of plant carbs by taking a bit more zinc and magnesium and brushing my teeth more thoroughly, to try to avoid potential small amount of acne, dental crud, poor sleep, muscle tension, ...). Plus, for whatever reason, no one ever seems to acknowledge that Lex and I eat some animal carbs from liver and eggs. If carbs are helpful for the health, then animal carbs should help too, right? So don't worry about me.

I have also explained repeatedly that my improvements from cutting carbs occurred right from the start and that trying to increase them again in the very early going (to confirm that it was the carb reduction that helped) produced the same negative symptoms then that they produce now. Again and again I've explained that my symptoms from carbs didn't begin only after I'd been VLC for an extended period, but people continue to imply that assumption. My words seem to be falling on deaf ears, as it were. It's as if folks are more interested in arguing or in promoting Matt Stone's ideas than they are in understanding anything I've written. Will you please acknowledge that you have read that I had problems with plant carbs from the start and that I didn't only develop major problems from plant carbs after I'd been VLC for an extended period and that you understand this? Thanks.

I am already aware that ZC/VLC can eventually further reduce one's ability to handle carbs, probably due at least in part to dying off of carb-eating gut flora. I haven't noticed this yet, but perhaps that's because I'm VLC instead of ZC, or perhaps not enough time has elapsed. This potential issue is one reason why I've been trying to find carbs I can handle beyond liver and eggs. I get flack from Katelyn for experimenting with carbs at all, and I get these lectures from folks like you on the other side about the dangers of VLC/ZC. I'm walking the middle path between the two extremes and so far it's been going rather well, though I still think there's room for improvement and I like keeping an open mind.  

Quote
Because of circumstances I will soon have to eat some "normal" meals, maybe for an extended time, so I got very interested when I read that Matt's HED could make that possible for me without feeling like shit.
Yes, that's another reason I've given to Katelyn and other zealous ZCers for why I experiment with plant carbs--for social and convenience reasons. My past experiments with cooked tubers didn't go well, but the example of the Kitavans did spark my curiosity months ago, so I've been tinkering with cabbage and ginger and an occasional radish or two (all three of which range between 83-86% of calories as carbs) and thinking about trying more of other starch-containing plants that are edible without cooking or drying, such as scallion, garlic, wasabi, and bok choy (I don't handle onions well, though). I was planning on buying one or two of these veggies on my next food shopping trip. I hope that will help get the pro-carb zealots off my back (unfortunately, it will likely get Katelyn back on my back again--good thing she's light ;) ). I'm not convinced there's an absolute necessity to eat cooked tubers (after all, no hominid ate cooked tubers for the millions of years before cooking developed), but I'm not against trying them again some day in the future as well.

Quote
Trying to eat a diet high in (cooked) starches made me feel bad at first, but now my body seems to tolerate it much better. While previously an intake of any small amount of carbs made me feel off, I can now eat like 500g of carbs a day with diminishing and already minor discomfort.
And I have read numerous people report that gradually re-introducing carbs into their diet rapidly resolved the problems they had from ZC. If their reports of rapid benefits from plant carbs are true, then there are no worries for me--if I develop any problems from VLC I can just gradually reintroduce carbs into my diet, as supported by the claims of the omnivores themselves. So relax and enjoy yourself and don't worry so much about trying to convince every VLCer/ZCer to quickly change their ways before they've even developed any new problems.

Quote
Obviously this makes me wonder if the low carb / carnivorous approach is the correct one.
I think everyone's different and human beings are more adaptable than most animals, don't you? Somehow both the Chukchi and the Kitavans seem to do fairly well on very different diets. Whether either could do even better on the other's diet is an open question.

Quote
I think the insulin spike issue might be THE reason why people come to believe that humans should eat animal flesh exclusively or almost exclusively in the first place.
As I've mentioned countless times, my reason for doing VLC is because it is what has worked best for me (see my signature). To each his/her own.

Quote
All the other explanations come with that and are somewhat stretching the facts in order to give the humans as pure animal flesh eaters theory more of a theoretical basis.
I'm really losing patience with the endless repetition of this sort of assumption by multiple zealous carb proponents. Remember what happens when we assume?

I'll share my experience.

When I grew up on high carb all my life, I thought that shaking hands and extreme hunger before major meals was a NORMAL thing.

It was only when I tasted a low carb diet did I realize that those where hypoglycemic episodes I experienced all my life.
Same here, GS.

...low carb does make me feel better in the short term, but i feel i need some carb refeeding to produce serotonin.
thoughts?
I've noticed that people who eat mod/high carbs or dairy tend to say things like "I feel I need...". Coincidence? I don't know. For myself, I don't do things because I feel I need to do them, but for multiple rational reasons--such as because self-experimentation (trying the food in my diet AND trying a diet that does NOT include the food) has demonstrated them to work for me and because rational explanations suggest how they could work and why it would be healthy in the long run. I look for convergences of suggestive factors--my experience + logic + science + suggestive commonalities among the experiences of others that make sense in light of the other three categories of factors.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 24, 2010, 12:18:29 pm
pioneer and others, do you think all carbs are the same, or that perhaps different carbs are processed differently within the body? i know that they are all sugar, but there is a difference between a sweet potatoe and molasses.

low carb does make me feel better in the short term, but i feel i need some carb refeeding to produce serotonin.
thoughts?

you get that just the same from gluconeogenesis, also, serotonin is even more better stimulated by fat than sugar, thats why depressive people do better with more fat.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 24, 2010, 10:43:01 pm
not really because you can survive entirely on meat, but you can't survive entirely on vegetables. Steffannson proved that at bellevue hospital.

Are you sure,mate? Have you ever heard about the experiments with all potato diet (http://www.google.com.ua/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=21&ved=0CBQQFjAAOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC1252113%2Fpdf%2Fbiochemj01140-0284.pdf&ei=9f1KTILsDM7xOeSYpZMP&usg=AFQjCNHZ5J3HKDGj6QZ23YzYq6hzZTIdoA&sig2=Zfd4aVFq07ZustxREewyAw)?

"One landmark experiment carried out in 1925 on two healthy adults, a man 25 years old and a woman 28 years old, had them live on a diet primarily of white potatoes for 6 months (A few additional items of little nutritional value except for empty calories -- pure fats, a few fruits, coffee, and tea -- were supplemented in their diet). The report stated, “They did not tire of the uniform potato diet and there was no craving for change.” Even though they were both physically active (especially the man) they were described as, “…in good health on a diet in which the nitrogen (protein) was practically solely derived from the potato.”
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: dsohei on July 25, 2010, 02:07:59 am
you get that just the same from gluconeogenesis, also, serotonin is even more better stimulated by fat than sugar, thats why depressive people do better with more fat.

1- how much (extra?) protein is required to simulate carbs from gluconeogenesis?
2- which fats stimulate serotonin production best without causing lethargy and drowsiness?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 25, 2010, 05:14:23 am
less-saturated fats?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 25, 2010, 07:30:03 am
Are you sure,mate? Have you ever heard about the experiments with all potato diet (http://www.google.com.ua/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=21&ved=0CBQQFjAAOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC1252113%2Fpdf%2Fbiochemj01140-0284.pdf&ei=9f1KTILsDM7xOeSYpZMP&usg=AFQjCNHZ5J3HKDGj6QZ23YzYq6hzZTIdoA&sig2=Zfd4aVFq07ZustxREewyAw)?

"One landmark experiment carried out in 1925 on two healthy adults, a man 25 years old and a woman 28 years old, had them live on a diet primarily of white potatoes for 6 months (A few additional items of little nutritional value except for empty calories -- pure fats, ....

This one cracks me up. Pure fats are critical for good nutrition, not "empty calories." Do you believe that fats are "empty calories", Rawlion? I don't have a problem with people trying a diet heavy in cooked tubers. If that's what you want to do, go for it and report your experience. However, like others I am a bit concerned about how your diet seems to jump all over the place in wild extremes. Most troubling is the 6 day fast you mentioned recently.

From that study: "THE potato is a very important constituent of the diet of many civilised nations, and it may be considered to furnish, with bread, the bulk of the food of the rural population of such countries as Poland and Russia. There is little doubt that the Polish or Russian peasant is nevertheless very healthy and able to do extremely hard work under trying conditions." Sorry, but diets rich in potatoes and bread don't work well for me. YMMV. Plus, I'll take the health of Kitavans, Zhu/whasi, Chukchi, Evenks and other HGs and pastoralists over that of Russian peasant farmers any day. Anyone who has read this forum for more than a few months should be aware that HGs tend to have lower rates of chronic disease than peasant farmers.

On the other hand, many hunter-gatherer peoples encountered in modern times were found to eat some form of cooked tuber and do well healthwise, such as the famous Kitavans I mentioned. Plus, digging sticks for yams have been found dating back to at least 40,000 B.C. (Timeline of dietary shifts in the human line of evolution, www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml, though that's also reportedly around the time that human stature and brain size began to decline, IIRC). The problem is when modern people start carrying this to extremes and make all sorts of false assumptions about the motivations and experiences of those who aren't currently eating a tuber-rich diet, and start lecturing anyone who eats differently than they do about what they should be doing, and even setting themselves up as experts (as Matt Stone seems to be doing).

BTW, re: the biochemistry, I'll reinforce that I wasn't disagreeing with Alphagruis' analysis. It sounds like it matches what KGH has explained in the past. It's just that in the real world, some people like me don't do well when they eat 100g or even 50g of carbs a day, for whatever reason (though I'm still experimenting). Textbook science can be useful, but real world experience is more applicable to real world results than textbook formulas. When real world results don't quite match textbook hypotheses, it's time to go back to the drawing board and try to come up with an explanation. KGH's hypothesis on this was that we who don't fare well on even small amounts of carbs are probably insulin resistant.

Alphagruis and Gary Taubes have also suggested something that I've been experimenting with--that the type of carbs may be the problem. Taubes and others have suggested that maybe fructose is the main problem when it comes to carbs. KGH has even called fruit "tree candy." Fruits are heavily promoted in this forum. I tried fresh, raw organic fruit again and my experience does appear to match the tree candy claim (for me--I'm not applying that to anyone else--others here thrive on them). So other than a tiny occasional fruit cheat, the focus of my recent carb experimentation has been animal and veg carbs (liver, eggs, cabbage, ginger, and other veg). Cooked tubers didn't work well for me in the past, but the tuber-eating HGs and Danny Roddy do have me curious about traditional low-and-slow cooked tubers. I'm even more curious about the predecessors of cooked tubers--starchy veg that is edible raw, though it's hard to eat enough of them to get much carbs.

For the cooked tuber proponents I have a question, why not first try starchy veg that is edible and palatable raw before trying cooked tubers? Is it because it's hard to get much carbs from them? I input seaweed, chicory root, garlic, cabbage, radishes, mixed salad greens, eggs, liver, and kelp into Fitday and it's difficult to get above 2 or 3% (25g/day) of calories as carbs. No wonder these foods don't bother me noticeably.

One of the issues I face is that cooked tubers are fine for people like Stone and Taubes who can handle plentiful butter and dairy. For whatever reason, I continue to have problems with dairy, though less than in the past. So for me that means either eating tubers without butter, which doesn't appeal to me, or frying them. I do occasionally eat french fries at restaurants (though most restaurant fries are too crappy tasting to eat many of) or when my mother makes them (home made are hard to pass up :) ). Is anyone arguing that I should eat french fries or potato chips if that's the only way that dairy-free tubers appeal to me? Before the domestication of animals, Africans obviously ate their tubers without butter. Has anyone tried a more traditional way of processing tubers that produced a product that tasted good? Apparently traditional techniques involved one or more of soaking, sund-drying, pulverizing, low-and-slow baking or boiling.

Another issue for me is I don't like the strange sweetness of American sweet potatoes or yams and don't know how people eat them other than maybe in stews to cut the sweetness (and that means going whole-hog with the cooking), or in pies to give them a more normal-tasting sweetness. It's not like the nice sweetness of fruits. So for me, tubers means either white potatoes or maybe African yams, if they are ever sold in my area (so far I haven't seen them at the tiny Asian markets in my area), or maybe some other tuber I haven't tried yet.  

Still another issue for me is that when I eat too much foods beyond raw meat, fat and organs, the mildly euphoric feeling of well being I get from the latter goes away, and that feeling is not something I want to give up if I don't have to. Does anyone get it from any food other than raw meat, fat and organs? I've never noticed it from any other food.

Other things I'm curious about are, if cooked tubers are such an essential part of the human diet, then how did humans survive and thrive before their introduction and why do they taste like crap without cooking and then adding butter or frying or mixing into stews, whereas meat and fruit taste great raw on their own?

So far, as far as my experience and observations are concerned, there seem to be at least six strikes against cooked tubers:
1) humans and all primates survived and thrived for millions of years without them
2) they taste mediocre to me unless they have something added like butter, salt and black pepper or are cooked in unhealthy ways like high-heat frying (as with french fries and potato chips)
3) not all HGs and traditional peoples eat them even today
4) even HGs that eat them regard them as inferior to honey, meat and fruit
5) they don't give me the mildly euphoric feeling I get from eating raw meat/fat/organs and they actually appear to cancel it out
6) they violate nature's principle of keeping things simple (natural, wild, and unprocessed)

The only thing going for cooked tubers from my perspective that I've seen so far is that some traditional peoples and some modern individuals appear to do well on them and they go back a fair amount of time in human history. However, even there the experiences of modern individuals who do well on them, like Matt Stone and Danny Roddy, are very different from mine. For example, Matt and Danny report being cold on a VLC diet, whereas I got much warmer when I started eating lots of animal fat, and I even get more visible warm steam coming out of my mouth in the winter when I eat more animal fat. Matt's experiences have been so frequently opposite of my own that I quickly lost interest in his blog, despite my early hope that he might have beneficial tips to offer me. I'm not saying that Matt is wrong about everything, just that his experience has been very different from my own, for whatever reason. Matt even eats grains, whereas I've found wheat to be the worst of all foods for me.

And as for the example of traditional peoples who eat tubers, from what I've seen, most moderners who cite their example don't process the tubers in traditional ways. How can they be sure they're getting the same benefits? It seems to me that they've complicated things by introducing new variables and haven't accounted for potential differences in long-term results. The same question that is often posed to carnivores could also be posed to folks who used modern methods to cook and proho knows what damage they might be doing to themselves in the longer run?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 25, 2010, 08:05:56 am
Hey Phil. Have you ever tried having the occasional day where you only eat vegetation, and no meat?

There is a big change in the digestive system, between animal and vegetable. The body will produce lots of hormones to induce the chemical changes, which then need to be flushed out after use. Then the chemicals created need to be changed back/forth as you switch between the two types, and all of this leaves your liver with less energy to do the flushing with, so you will have expired hormones flowing through you system, which could be causing your problems. I think if you leave enough time between switching between vegetable and animal you will be fine. That would be at least a day/24hrs though I would think, if not more...

I could be wrong, but I think you should consider that possibility...
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 25, 2010, 10:06:00 am
Hey Phil. Have you ever tried having the occasional day where you only eat vegetation, and no meat?
Yeah, on a couple days where I ran out of meat and eggs. It was pretty lousy. It was unsatisfying and I felt like I didn't eat a real meal, do you know what I mean? I felt worse than usual and my digestion was worse. I had to eat some sugar from honey to settle my stomach. It reminded me of how I felt during my past brief vegetarian experiments, only not as bad because I wan't eating grains and have a better overall level of health now.

I actually handle greens and veg best when I eat them with meats, despite what people say here. Interestingly, Koreans and even chimps often eat their meat with raw greens (leaves). Korean raw meat in lettuce is called ssam. (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2506/4044741157_bbd06b6ebd_o.jpg) Chimps stuff leaves in their mouths, then put meat in with the leaves, eating the two together.

So eating greens with meats may be a practice that goes back millions of years in human history and I guess I'm not alone.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 25, 2010, 10:41:35 am
This one cracks me up. Pure fats are critical for good nutrition, not "empty calories." Do you believe that fats are "empty calories", Rawlion?
Well, strictly speaking fats ARE empty calories as they contain very little vitamins and almost no minerals. But it doesn't mean they are nutritionally useless.

However, like others I am a bit concerned about how your diet seems to jump all over the place in wild extremes. Most troubling is the 6 day fast you mentioned recently.
It sounds like as if I had nothing to do and decided to embark on water fast for some self fancied reasons. In fact, this is the result of prolonged zero carbing. During the past several months I've been getting sick, by common standards, at least once every fortnight. And the last cold and strep throat were so severe that I was barely able to even drink water. I had no option but to abstain from foods until I got a little better. And it took me 6 days for the pain to subside.

As for the extremes and consistency... I am still zeroing but with each passing day I am rapidly loosing confidence in this paleo fantasy...
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 25, 2010, 10:44:21 am
1- how much (extra?) protein is required to simulate carbs from gluconeogenesis?
2- which fats stimulate serotonin production best without causing lethargy and drowsiness?

1- that depends on the person and their activity level, hormones, cell replacement, health, vitality, and many other variables. It depends upon one's protein requirement, then the extra is converted to sugar and fat. Yes, miles is right, saturated fat stimulate seratonin best, that is why depressed people love eating it. If only they used that as an anti depressant, but then big pharma wouldnt be making money off their BS drugs.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 25, 2010, 11:02:28 am
Well, strictly speaking fats ARE empty calories as they contain very little vitamins and almost no minerals. But it doesn't mean they are nutritionally useless.

So what? you could say the same about protein and carbs as well. I think you got it mixed up. Protein, fat, and carbs are macro nutrients not micro nutrients like vitamins and minerals are. Also, calories is the dumbest way of looking at things, as Im sure you're already realizing this.

Another thing is I dont care whether that potato study was done or not, it still doesnt explain the reason why without protein and fat you DIE. Especially fat is important for normal functioning. Most of us here know, you cant make hormones without fat, girls cant have babies, and guys are infirtile as well. No testosterone, no estrogen, no progesterone = death. Also, your brain would shut down due to the fact that it is primarily composed of cholesterol, that is why so many people on low fat diets get depressed. Science has known for over 50 years that putting someone on a high fat diet immediately reverses depression because of fat's relationships with seratonin, dopamine, and cholesterol. Your immune system shuts down without fat and protein. Im sorry mate but a low sex drive and low recovery ability doesnt sound right for me. Maybe you think you can handle having low testosterone, but I cant. All that study proves is that the human body is amazing in its ability to survive for a period of time. Repeat that same study for 3 years, and everyone in it would die. Also, we dont even know the other variables, the people in the study could have already been extremely fat and muscular giving their body nutrients from itself, and feeding off itself.

Anyone with just a little knowledge of biology and nutrition knows that protein can convert to fat and sugar, fat can convert to ketones, and carbs can convert to fat. However carbs cannot convert to protein, so anyone on a potato diet would have extreme protein deficiency. And the fat they obtain from the potatoes doesnt even come close to the fat they would get from actual fat.

Someone on a potato diet would be bloated all the time due to the fact that carbs retain much water. They would be hungry all the time, because no leptin signal= you never get full or satisfied. So they would just keep eating and eating and not be satisfied.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 25, 2010, 11:05:36 am
1- that depends on the person and their activity level, hormones, cell replacement, health, vitality, and many other variables. It depends upon one's protein requirement

No, it mainly depends upon glucose requirement for brain and CNS and whether you are keto adapted or not.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Cinna on July 25, 2010, 05:53:24 pm
I actually handle greens and veg best when I eat them with meats, despite what people say here. Interestingly, Koreans and even chimps often eat their meat with raw greens (leaves). Korean raw meat in lettuce is called ssam. Chimps stuff leaves in their mouths, then put meat in with the leaves, eating the two together.

So eating greens with meats may be a practice that goes back millions of years in human history and I guess I'm not alone.

PaleoPhil, I'm glad you mentioned this. I haven't tried eating raw greens with raw meat because of what I've read around here, but I'm going to try it out. :)  At least, just based on thought and no personal experimentation yet, I think a bit of raw greens could make eating raw meat more interesting, just as a bit of raw meat could make eating a bunch of raw greens much more interesting. I loved steak salads when I used to eat them...
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 25, 2010, 06:10:53 pm
Pioneer: "(A few additional items of little nutritional value except for empty calories -- pure fats, a few fruits, coffee, and tea -- were supplemented in their diet)."
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 25, 2010, 11:07:48 pm
Pioneer: "(A few additional items of little nutritional value except for empty calories -- pure fats, a few fruits, coffee, and tea -- were supplemented in their diet)."

Ah, then the study was bullshit. When an experiment is performed, you take 1 variable and compare it to another, or you single out a variable and observe how it reacts. Neither were done in the study for the potato diet.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 25, 2010, 11:13:26 pm
No, it mainly depends upon glucose requirement for brain and CNS and whether you are keto adapted or not.

We are both right. I hope you know the brain mainly runs on fat, science has confirmed it, it is a proven fact. 2/3 on fat to be precise. Takes about 1 week on average to get keto adapted, as I have studied many peoples results using ketostix. But yes it does depend upon protein requirement as well. If my cells need more repair then you due to more exercise, I obviously will need more protein.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 25, 2010, 11:51:02 pm
Why are you still doing ZC when you report nothing but problems from it and regard it as a "paleo fantasy"?
Well, you are right, it has come too far and some radical changes are needed.

Do you mean you're doing pure ZC and avoiding even liver and egg whites?
Yes, mostly ZC.

And why are you eating ZC while arguing for cooked tubers?
I though I could express my thoughts regardless of my race, religion or diet.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: actionhero on July 26, 2010, 12:14:44 am
Does this Matt Stone guy even eat raw meat? If you can't even tell the difference between raw meat and cooked meat then what the hell are going around telling people to eat cooked potatoes, rice or grains. If you don't do well on RZC/VLC then try normal RPD with predominantly fruit and raw meat. If you don't do well on fruit try raw honey or raw milk for some carbs. Going back to cooked tubers, rice and grains is surely a step back in the wrong direction. I mean if RPD can't heal you why do you think semi SAD will?

Also I just read that KGH started eating rice krispies for breakfast.[FACE PALM] Well at least he's avoiding fructose-laden EVIL fruit.   
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Paleo Donk on July 26, 2010, 03:14:55 am
(http://www.roflcorner.com/wp-content/gallery/facepalm/FacePalm.jpg)

Yuri, I thought you were eating heaps of blackcurrants?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 26, 2010, 03:56:28 am
PaleoPhil, I'm glad you mentioned this. I haven't tried eating raw greens with raw meat because of what I've read around here, but I'm going to try it out. :)
Sure, that's a good approach--try it and see how it goes for you, and please report the results.

Quote
At least, just based on thought and no personal experimentation yet, I think a bit of raw greens could make eating raw meat more interesting, just as a bit of raw meat could make eating a bunch of raw greens much more interesting. I loved steak salads when I used to eat them...
Yeah, I eat lots of grassfed ground beef (with suet or marrow or egg yolks), and sometimes I like to eat it with greens because it provides some texture variety and more chewiness--especially if I'm not eating chewy suet with it--and the flavor and moisture of the meat make salad oil unnecessary. I have also found that greens can somewhat ameliorate the bitterness and dryness of overcooked meat when that's all that is available.

A documentary I saw speculated that chimps sometimes eat meat with leaves to let the flavor of the meat soak into the leaves and thus make the meat flavor last longer so they can savor it, as it is one of their favorite foods, along with honey (and these two foods also tend to be the favorites of humans--along with grubcomb, which is probably more difficult for chimps to access, since I've only seen chimps jab sticks into hives to extract honey, not pull out whole combs like humans do). I don't notice that soaking effect, but maybe that's because the blood is drained from animals sold as meat in American markets. I also wonder if there's something more to it for chimps beyond extending flavor.

The idea that meat and veg shouldn't be eaten together appears to come from the Natural Hygiene movement, as described by one of its proponents, Aajonus Vonderplanitz:

"On a raw diet that is high in meat enzymes are easily produced and most any combination is digestible, except combining vegetation and meats, including vegetable juice, because they neutralize the acid fluid and bacteria that digest meat." http://drbass.com/aajonus.html

I haven't noticed any negative effect on my digestion by eating meat and veg together, though meat digests easier for me than veg, with or without the veg. I also haven't seen much in the way of evidence supporting this Natural Hygiene claim, though I don't rule out the possibility.

I though I could express my thoughts regardless of my race, religion or diet.
Sure, you can express your thoughts--no one has said that you cannot--but don't you agree that it's rather unusual for someone to argue for eating cooked tubers while following a severely strict raw ZC diet? Why the disconnect?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on July 26, 2010, 03:59:08 am
Also I just read that KGH started eating rice krispies for breakfast.[FACE PALM] Well at least he's avoiding fructose-laden EVIL fruit.   

I have a good deal of respect for KGH and find it difficult to believe this, Actionhero.  Whilst I don't dispute your claim I'd be very interested in knowing your source of this information?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 26, 2010, 04:39:35 am
Dr. Harris does admit to eating rice krispies, half and half, sweet potatoes and American yams here: http://www.carnivorehealth.com/main/2010/7/14/i-used-to-think-matt-stone-was-a-douche-i-was-wrong.html?currentPage=2#comments. He reports doing it because ketosis was suppressing his appetite too much and he was "vaguely feeling suboptimal." He also gives good counter arguments, which match my own thinking, to Matt Stone's views and agrees with Matt in areas that I also agree with Matt (except that I find Matt's negative style more off-putting than entertaining, but maybe I'll get used to that, and if he adds future info that is more relevant to my experience I would put up with it and read his blog anyway).

My own experience so far has been more like Lex's and Del Fuego's than Matt Stone's or Dr. Harris' (pretty much the opposite of Matt's). I tried unflavored, unsweetened rice cakes, cooked tubers and pastured ghee in the past and didn't do well with any of those. Plus, my more recent experiments with upping fruit again also didn't go well. Still, I'd like to see if carbs might help boost my bulking further beyond what I achieved with ZC, but unfortunately, it's very difficult to get carb intake above a few percent a day if one doesn't eat the above foods--which is probably a major reason why KGH eats them. What I've been doing recently is limiting fruits to small handfuls eaten with fat once or twice a week and eating some veggies that contain some carbs (though not much), like cabbage, ginger, mixed greens, etc. Another issue I face is that I don't like the taste of many veggies. Yet another problem is that I'm liking egg whites less and less and fat more and more so that I usually just eat the yolks now--thus eliminating another source of carbs. On the bright side, liver tastes better to me, so I'm eating more of that and maybe that should be my focus.

I'm in a sort of catch-22 situation where I'm naturally lean and undermuscled but the cooked tubers, dairy and rice that Matt and KGH and others suggest for avoiding starvation mode and bulking up don't work well for me. I'm interested in other suggestions on this. I'm also trying to keep at the bulking exercises like squats and dead lifts and trying to get more sleep.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Paleo Donk on July 26, 2010, 06:06:07 am
The yolk has 5x as many carbs as the white 3.5% vs .7%.

I wish Dr. Harris and others would be upfront about their consumption. I feel as though they are purposefully hiding info. At least to me it does not feel genuine.  Perhaps others disagree?

Phil, have you ever monitored calories for any length of time? Have you ever experimented with overeating (while vlc) and monitoring your weight? It does seem at the least somewhat troublesome to me that you are 5'11 135 with some belly flab. Did you gain any weight when eating significant amounts of fruit? It would be likely that you gain a little bit of water weight with some carb consumption. I think you make an interesting case with such a low body-weight and perhaps poor absorption of calories, though otherwise in good health as reported. If you aren't gaining weight with excessive calories then it might be useful to measure the calorie content of your stool to see how much is passing through you. Maybe you have some huge parasites eating all your food?

I don't have any suggestions but have lots of questions so hopefully you can get to the bottom of this.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 26, 2010, 07:42:09 am
The yolk has 5x as many carbs as the white 3.5% vs .7%.
Cool, thanks.

Quote
I wish Dr. Harris and others would be upfront about their consumption. I feel as though they are purposefully hiding info. At least to me it does not feel genuine.  Perhaps others disagree?
He seems honest to me. I think he probably either just recently introduced the rice krispies or didn't think it was necessary to report them, since he had already reported eating other technically nonPaleo foods like half and half and cooked tubers and many Paleo dieters think of rice as being relatively benign (as I once did until I cut rice cakes back out of my diet and fared better--though I'll still occasionally eat some rice if it's mixed in with something else at a restaurant or friend's house).

Quote
Phil, have you ever monitored calories for any length of time? Have you ever experimented with overeating (while vlc) and monitoring your weight? It does seem at the least somewhat troublesome to me that you are 5'11 135 with some belly flab.
Yes, I do put on weight when I overeat, even on ZC, despite the claims at ZIOH. However, I do tend to hit a plateau at a little over 140 lbs and then I lose weight rather easily if I don't keep at it. The ZIOH claim re: that would be that I'm falling back to my natural weight at 130-135 (which is where I ranged between the ages of 18-30). However, I think nearly everyone (except maybe Tyler and Katelyn) will agree that my weight would be considered overly thin for my height. I've seen people criticize Ray Audette for being too thin and I'm thinner than him.

Quote
Did you gain any weight when eating significant amounts of fruit?
Early on in my heavy-carb-eating days I did put on a lot of weight and reached 179 lbs, possibly more. However, I got sicker and sicker and very flabby, with a belly bulging out over my pants, so I cut back on portion sizes and tried to follow a "healthy" diet as prescribed by a nutritionist. I became even more ill and lost some more weight probably due more to declining digestion than anything. When I went Paleo early on I was rather LC mainly because I prefer LC-type Paleo foods (other than fruit, and I hadn't discovered raw honey yet). I lost more weight but my muscles became more defined and I was stronger and dramatically healthier. However, I was thin enough at that point that my mother encouraged me to eat more fruits and starchy veg like squashes and tubers to put on weight. That seemed reasonable to me, and I read about how Kitavans and others eat plenty of tubers and fruit and many fellow Paleo dieters claimed these foods were good. However, as I gradually ate more of these foods to try to bulk up and fit in, my symptoms gradually started to worsen again. Instead of gaining weight, I lost more and fell to my lowest weight ever. At the time I wrote off my initial amazing improvements followed by gradual increase of some symptoms to initial relief to my immune system followed by a return of some immune system sensitivity and saw it as a sort of normal drop to a plateau. But the symptoms continued to worsen, so I started to search for solutions and I thought back to what I was eating when I was doing well. To summarize--cutting down on carbs again produced the greatest benefits.

Quote
Maybe you have some huge parasites eating all your food?
I haven't seen any evidence of parasites in my stools and Tyler actually indicated that parasites don't have much effect on weight or other issues in someone eating RPD. I actually wonder whether helminthic therapy would help calm my immune system further and thus maybe help me put on weight, but my guess is that I am more in need of beneficial gut bacteria than beneficial parasites, as I have a lifelong history of GI problems and I was given multiple doses of antibiotics for cystic acne and UTI's by misguided physicians.

The only raw Paleo foods I've seen that provide more than 5% of calories as carbs are fruits, honey and one report on beef liver (it said 12%--others said 0-4%). Are there any others?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 26, 2010, 10:08:01 am
Does this Matt Stone guy even eat raw meat? If you can't even tell the difference between raw meat and cooked meat then what the hell are going around telling people to eat cooked potatoes, rice or grains. If you don't do well on RZC/VLC then try normal RPD with predominantly fruit and raw meat. If you don't do well on fruit try raw honey or raw milk for some carbs. Going back to cooked tubers, rice and grains is surely a step back in the wrong direction. I mean if RPD can't heal you why do you think semi SAD will?

Also I just read that KGH started eating rice krispies for breakfast.[FACE PALM] Well at least he's avoiding fructose-laden EVIL fruit.   

People generally have this mentality because whatever malady or sickness they have, they expect to find some miracle diet to immediately cure it. Curing/ Healing takes time and some people cant wait even a year for that. People are just impatient.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 26, 2010, 10:14:53 am
Still, I'd like to see if carbs might help boost my bulking further beyond what I achieved with ZC, but unfortunately, it's very difficult to get carb intake above a few percent a day if one doesn't eat the above foods--which is probably a major reason why KGH eats them.

You're a smart guy, but trust me, trying to gain muscle by carbing up is not the answer. All that does is make people appear to have more muscle when all they really have is a bigger gut, more water weight, and more glycogen. I am against the notion of trying to put on muscle through insulin. Insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the body yes, but it doesnt mean it is the best way to go about it. I have never gained more muscle in my life when I started eating kilos of raw red meat every day. I just started eating mostly meat and very little coconut and honey and my gains took off. I think Im a natural carnivore. I digress, however dont try to gain muscle through glycogen and insulin, you want lean muscle with raw testosterone. Hey, if all else fails, eat testicles.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 26, 2010, 02:58:12 pm
Yuri, I thought you were eating heaps of blackcurrants?

That had to be ended right on the second day as fruits/berries hurt the teeth too much.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on July 26, 2010, 04:05:03 pm
Dr. Harris does admit to eating rice krispies, half and half, sweet potatoes and American yams here: http://www.carnivorehealth.com/main/2010/7/14/i-used-to-think-matt-stone-was-a-douche-i-was-wrong.html?currentPage=2#comments. He reports doing it because ketosis was suppressing his appetite too much and he was "vaguely feeling suboptimal." He also gives good counter arguments, which match my own thinking, to Matt Stone's views and agrees with Matt in areas that I also agree with Matt (except that I find Matt's negative style more off-putting than entertaining, but maybe I'll get used to that, and if he adds future info that is more relevant to my experience I would put up with it and read his blog anyway).

Thanks for the link PP.  That's a useful blog that I wasn't aware of.  I need to go back and read it again as I've so far only skimmed it at 2am this morning.  Whilst I do appreciate his honesty, I must say, I'm rather disappointed in KGH.  What on earth possesses such an intelligent man with a wealth of knowledge on the subject of human health & diet to start eating such obvious junk food?!

I've been out of the forum/blog loop for 6 months or so and upon my return am most surprised to learn that carbs, cooked carbs and carb loading seem to be the hot topic of the day!  What on earth happened?  What groundbreaking new revelations did I miss?

What I've been doing recently is limiting fruits to small handfuls eaten with fat once or twice a week and eating some veggies that contain some carbs (though not much), like cabbage, ginger, mixed greens, etc.

Ginger, garlic, greens etc are probably fine to add if you have no issues with these foods but, of course, aren't going to help with bulking up.  I consume these myself in small quantities and am contemplating re-introducing homemade sauerkraut again for it's celebrated digestive benefits.  I'm not sure introducing cabbage to one's diet in other forms is a good idea, however.

I'm staggered by your weight gain difficulties PP and had no idea this was such an issue for you.  But, like pioneer, I don't think looking to carbs is going to provide you with a healthy solution.  You have a bright and investigative mind and I'm sure you'll eventually discover the right path for yourself.  But, in my humble opinion, I think your own health & dietary history along with a pre-disposed genetic inheritance are probably at the root of it along with some ongoing digestive/assimilative issues (stomach acid, liver/biliary blockages, parasites/flukes, candida, physical issues eg hernia, damaged villi etc).

Please excuse my lack of current awareness but, besides the weight issue, did you run into other problems on ZC/VLC?  What was the motivation behind a move towards cooked carbs?  Where does all of the research and knowledge on cooked foods, as often quoted by Tyler, fit into your thoughts on this?  Again, I've obviously missed some important information in my absence but why do you think even raw paleo carbs (eggs, liver etc) are what's required?

You sound as though you're on the right lines now looking at ways to improve your GI capabilities.  It may just require great patience on a RPD if there's extensive damage requiring healing.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 26, 2010, 04:55:14 pm
If you don't do well on RZC/VLC then try normal RPD with predominantly fruit and raw meat. If you don't do well on fruit try raw honey or raw milk for some carbs. Going back to cooked tubers, rice and grains is surely a step back in the wrong direction.

Why do you think that RAW fruits or honey are superior to COOKED starches (i.e. buckwheat)?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: actionhero on July 26, 2010, 07:03:14 pm
Why do you think that RAW fruits or honey are superior to COOKED starches (i.e. buckwheat)?

Where do cooked starches grow? The very notion that you have to alter them in such a drastic way tells us that they are not meant for human consumption. On a healthy body you will know what does a body good and what not. Anything cooked does NOT do a body good. You'll survive on it but never thrive.

What on earth possesses such an intelligent man with a wealth of knowledge on the subject of human health & diet to start eating such obvious junk food?!

That's what you get when you believe more in data on paper than in your own experience of reality. Let KGH do raw paleo for one month and he'll have a different story to tell. But he probably won't. All the research says fructose is metabolic poison therefore fruit is nothing more than candy from trees.   
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: cliff on July 26, 2010, 10:05:22 pm
Why do you think that RAW fruits or honey are superior to COOKED starches (i.e. buckwheat)?

Look at the nutrition for 100g of buckwheat then compare it to 100g of any fruit.  That's why fruit is superior, honeys superior imo because its more paleo and much easier to digest
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 26, 2010, 10:43:36 pm
Look at the nutrition for 100g of buckwheat then compare it to 100g of any fruit.  That's why fruit is superior.
So yes, you should have checked the nutrients, antinutrients/toxins, and fructose levels before posting this.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: cliff on July 26, 2010, 10:58:42 pm
So yes, you should have checked the nutrients, antinutrients/toxins, and fructose levels before posting this.

Fruits don't contain anti nutrients(buckwheat does), the nutrition of most fruits is superior to buckwheat and more suited towards human physiology.  Why would fructose levels matter?  Fructose is fruit sugar, nothing bad with the unrefined amount in fruits.

Explain to us how fruit is not superior to buckwheat please

lets not forget buckwheat is a seed, i.e. not paleo.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 26, 2010, 11:24:16 pm
Although surfing the Internet is NOT paleo, I highly recommend using this  (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/)website for nutrient and this  (http://www.whfoods.com/foodstoc.php)for antinutrient search.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 26, 2010, 11:50:45 pm
Why would a ripe fruit have significant anti-nutrients in the meat? The fruit-bearer 'wants' you to eat the fruit-meat when it's ripe... Anti-nutrients don't taste nice.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 27, 2010, 12:12:57 am
rawlion, I think your right about some things, but wrong about others. First off, thanks for giving that first site, I will be using that now, unless I find that it is inaccurate. Second, where are the antinutrient databases at WHfoods. Third, I've been on WHfoods many times and it is an anti paleo and RPD website. It touts that grains are good and red meat will give you heart disease and saturated fat will kill you. This is just downright stupid information even for cooked red meat and fat. Raw red meat and fat will never give one problems. I dont know how you could think buckwheat is better than fruit though. First of all, correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt buckwheat an Asian plant and only comes from asia. Last time I checked you or I werent Asian so we wouldnt even have access to it until trade began about 1000 years ago. I'll admit, out off all the grains/ seeds, it is one of the least harmful, but it is still a grain. As many of us are starting to find out, seeds are very estrogenic, and that is obviously a dead giveaway that it is not meant to be eaten by both men and women. Excess estrogen gives men testosterone and reproductive problems, and in women it gives reproductive and fibrosis problems. Think about it, seeds are little uterises. Eating pollen would be a better choice since it is pro testosterone and in chinese medicine they have been using bee and pine pollen for thousands of years.

I'm sure you know by now that there are a vast amount of antinutrients and anti reproductive agents in grains and seeds such as enzyme inhibitors, lectins, trypsin inhibitors, lignans, estrogen, and more. ANd thats just if they're raw. Cook them and you've got AGE's, Heterocyclic Amines, Lipid Peroxides, and many other carcinogens as well. There is a whole wealth of problems with grains and seeds so I advise you all to stay away. Hell, even my doctor knows this(I have a cool doctor). He tells all his patients to stay away from all grains and seeds period. When I first went to him a year ago, I had a copper deficiency that was offsetting my iron absorption and utilization as well, because copper and iron work together. I had this deficiency because I was eating too many nuts. Nuts are high in zinc and most times low in copper. In other words I was eating so much zinc that it was offsetting copper. SO my doc told me to not consume nuts at all and guess what, within a month my malabsorption of iron was gone and my copper level went up. By the way many people dont realize this but nuts are seeds, and vise versa.

It is quite clear that nuts, seeds, legumes, and grains do not provide the right micronutrient values or ratios for human consumption.

We were put on this earth to eat a specific diet. It just so happens that meat and meat fat has all the right ratios of micronutrients and can never give us deficiencies. I believe fruit has this as well, but I havnt done my research on this.

rawlion, you are right about fructose being like poison though. No, Im not saying that fruit is unnatural to eat, but in nature we would never have access to much of it. Thats what mother nature intended. We werent meant to have access to a lot of fruit every day, in fact most of the time it was seasonal. This video shows how fructose was a small part of our diet hundreds of years ago, but now it is a huge part of our diet causing an array of issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXCvduiAbs
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on July 27, 2010, 02:50:57 am
Most fruits, just like the vegetables, contain hefty amounts of antinutrients. This  (http://www.whfoods.com/mateljanview.php)FAQ covers the most common ones, such as oxalates, goitrogenic substances, allergens, purines , pesticide residues, and nightshades.

Buckwheat is neither grain nor seed. Its a starchy fruit believe it or not.

But ZC, VLC, and LC don't work for everyone. The least toxic carb, the unheated honey, contains 50% of fructose.

The question remains if SUGAR, even RAW, is superior to COOKED STARCH...
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 27, 2010, 03:27:29 am
In my opinion, sugar in general is not good, either cooked or raw. It is not even a comparison though that cooked starches are the worst. The amount of carcinogens in cooked starches are astronomical, people say cooked meat is bad, cooked starches are way worse. AV even says they are the worst.

The oxalate arguement is always humorous to me as most plant matter either fruit or vegetable either has oxalates or readily converts to oxalates in the body. Even the vitamin c in raw meat converts to oxalates I believe. So what is the solution to that, not eating at all? IMO I think the oxalate theory is bullshit and only a few very rare conditions are known to be relieved by oxalate restriction. If you're worried about oxalates then you better give up all plant matter and eat a strictly meat diet.

I did not know that buckwheat was a fruit, but that doesnt expel the fact that the flours went under processing at high temperatures. If you're going to eat buckwheat, eat the whole plant.

The pesticide residue problem can be solved by simply organic or growing your own veggies like I do. There are allergens in almost everything, but only certain ones affect people and it is true that you can cure allergies. Most people are allergic to gluten and many to maize. Meat doesnt have allergens so you're safe there. Do you think that there are no buckwheat or cooked starch allergies? Buckwheat is very allergenic in Asia where it is widely consumed, check this http://www.allallergy.net/fapaidfind.cfm?cdeoc=199

Also, I dont think I really understand your last question. Most cooked starches are either sugar outside the body to begin with, or rapidly convert to sugar inside the body. Most cooked starches spike your insulin so this is indicative of simple sugar. Yes some fruits spike insulin as well. I guess what I am saying is cooked starches = sugar, so your question doesnt make sense.
People generally refer carbs to being seperate from simple sugar. The truth is carbs are sugar and vise versa, period. The only difference is how fast they get into the bloodstream. After all, its not like carbs and sugar are different molecules, they are by nature both COH.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: cliff on July 27, 2010, 03:46:16 am
Most fruits, just like the vegetables, contain hefty amounts of antinutrients. This  (http://www.whfoods.com/mateljanview.php)FAQ covers the most common ones, such as oxalates, goitrogenic substances, allergens, purines , pesticide residues, and nightshades.

Certain fruits contain oxalates probably in small quantities as oxalate is most concentrated in leaves/stems.  If your afraid of the insignificant amount in berries and certain fruits then avoid those fruits.  I would probably avoid the oxalate containing fruits anyways because there pretty acid when under ripe which most will be if store bought

Buckwheat is neither grain nor seed. Its a starchy fruit believe it or not.

Buckwheat is a seed, at least the part you eat is.  Its a fruit in the sense that nut is a fruit but its a seed

But ZC, VLC, and LC don't work for everyone. The least toxic carb, the unheated honey, contains 50% of fructose.

Then eat honey?  Are you afraid the fructose will kill you?  If you can't tolerate fruits or honey and need carbs I guess your only option is starch

he question remains if SUGAR, even RAW, is superior to COOKED STARCH...

Starch is sugar?  It doesn't matter if you eat buckwheat, potatoes, candy bars or fruit its all gonna be turned into the same thing in your body for the most part.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: michaelwh on July 27, 2010, 04:28:45 am
Then eat honey?  Are you afraid the fructose will kill you?  If you can't tolerate fruits or honey and need carbs I guess your only option is starch

There is another option -- fresh raw milk. If you're not allergic to it, then it's probably going to be much healthier for you than cooked starch. It contains no fructose, and since the carbs are balanced with fat and protein, they won't spike insulin as much as fruit/honey/starch.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: cliff on July 27, 2010, 04:36:28 am
There is another option -- fresh raw milk. If you're not allergic to it, then it's probably going to be much healthier for you than cooked starch. It contains no fructose, and since the carbs are balanced with fat and protein, they won't spike insulin as much as fruit/honey/starch.

Then you have to deal with the problems of dairy which are far worse then moderate amounts of fruit sugar(imo).

Another tip that can help if your intolerant to carbs, only eat them after a workout or physical exercise.  This should help
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 27, 2010, 04:36:39 am

Starch is sugar?  It doesn't matter if you eat buckwheat, potatoes, candy bars or fruit its all gonna be turned into the same thing in your body for the most part.

Absolutely, most people dont know this simple concept, sugar, carbs, starch are all COH, it just depends on the molecule configuration.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 27, 2010, 04:42:59 am
Another tip that can help if your intolerant to carbs, only eat them after a workout or physical exercise.  This should help

Nice, someone who knows about training nutrition eh? I have been using that concept for a while eating 1 piece of fruit a day only after a workout and it works great for me. Also, the common misconception that carbs are good for energy is false, therefore all those breakfast cereal commercials stating that their cereals will give you energy for work is bullshit. Many who know even a little about insulin and blood sugar will agree that carbohydrates are good for making you tired. Therefore, sometimes I like to eat my carbs before bed time. The best breakfast nutrients are protein and fat. You need the protein because when you wake up you are anemic because the fast at night caused red blood cell cannibalism. You need the fat for sustained energy.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on July 27, 2010, 05:17:28 am
I've gained  the leanest, real muscle on ZC. If I were trying to put on more muscle and wanted to stay ZC/VLC, I would drink raw milk mixed with organic, low carb whey or casein. I don't care if it isn't Paleo, at least it is not grains, starches, fruit or vegetables. And just to up calories for a bit.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 27, 2010, 06:40:25 am
I've gained  the leanest, real muscle on ZC. If I were trying to put on more muscle and wanted to stay ZC/VLC, I would drink raw milk mixed with organic, low carb whey or casein. I don't care if it isn't Paleo, at least it is not grains, starches, fruit or vegetables. And just to up calories for a bit.

but why do that when you could up the calories by just eating meat fat or bone marrow. Raw coconut cream is cool too.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on July 27, 2010, 09:01:45 am
You are right, Pioneer, I would choose coconut over regular milk. I was thinking of Phil. I already eat bone marrow, but was thinking of ways to get more protein in.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 27, 2010, 09:17:23 am
why not more meat for protein? Eggs?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 27, 2010, 12:09:01 pm
Thanks for the link PP.  That's a useful blog that I wasn't aware of.  I need to go back and read it again as I've so far only skimmed it at 2am this morning. ... Whilst I do appreciate his honesty, I must say, I'm rather disappointed in KGH.  What on earth possesses such an intelligent man with a wealth of knowledge on the subject of human health & diet to start eating such obvious junk food?!
You're welcome.

Yes, it is excellent.

In the past I even included unsweetened rice cakes with almond butter in my diet as a treat (which was a mistake), so I'm not one to be casting stones on this. If you're interested, you could ask him.

Quote
I've been out of the forum/blog loop for 6 months or so and upon my return am most surprised to learn that carbs, cooked carbs and carb loading seem to be the hot topic of the day!  What on earth happened?  What groundbreaking new revelations did I miss?
The latest guru fad--Matt Stone is the hot guru right now, apparently (even Danny Roddy is taking some, though not all, of his advice now)--and Tyler and Lex are away, so they aren't here to bring us back to our senses. ;)

Quote
Ginger, garlic, greens etc are probably fine to add if you have no issues with these foods but, of course, aren't going to help with bulking up.  I consume these myself in small quantities and am contemplating re-introducing homemade sauerkraut again for it's celebrated digestive benefits.  I'm not sure introducing cabbage to one's diet in other forms is a good idea, however.
I agree that these foods don't seem to make any major noticeable difference, at least so far. After I ran the numbers on them I can see why they don't give me as much problems as fruits, squash or tubers. The carb levels of these veggies is surprisingly low.

I think ginger will be a keeper, but it looks like just a smidgeon of raw shallot was not a good move. I'd forgotten how strong and acidic they are. I had it in my head that they were substantially mellower than onions, but I think that's because they're generally reserved for stews and such. My ears and head are still burning hours after eating some bits of shallot as a condiment.

Quote
I'm staggered by your weight gain difficulties PP and had no idea this was such an issue for you.
Heh, heh, not so much for me as for other folks like my lady friend and mother who never seem to tire of telling me to put on more weight--as much as another 50-60 lbs! Admittedly, I'm hovering around where my weight was for most of my adult life before I started really falling apart. I'll be disappointed if I can't bulk up somewhat more, though. I wouldn't be surprised if Matt Stone and Mark Sisson would say it's a sign I'm still doing something wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised. On the other hand, my grandfather was as strong as iron and nearly as thin as me. Then again, I'm not nearly as strong as he was, but I'm hoping some tweaking and more time will help.

I can certainly outwalk most folks at this point, though I was always a pretty good walker (aside from when I was really feeling lousy). In my Vivo Barefoot shoes I'm very quiet, and my alertness has improved, and I tend to walk faster and with longer strides (long legs) than others, which has resulted in my unintentionally catching up quickly and silently on folks in the woods or hallways without being noticed and startling them. It used to be that brain fog, uncontrollabe daydreams (which I detested--not like in the books where daydreaming is supposed to be some kind of great thing--I'm glad to be rid of them), fatigue and bent spine resulted in other people sneaking up on me, catching me unawares and even startling me. I'm much less easily startled now. I feel more like the predator and less like the prey. My balance is also better than it has ever been and I can balance on logs in the woods better than I could in my youth.

Quote
I think your own health & dietary history along with a pre-disposed genetic inheritance are probably at the root of it along with some ongoing digestive/assimilative issues (stomach acid, liver/biliary blockages, parasites/flukes, candida, physical issues eg hernia, damaged villi etc).
You may be right, but I don't think I have quite enough interest to thoroughly test all those hypotheses. Speaking of the hernia, that has been doing amazingly well. It's to the point where a new physician might be hard to convince that I ever had anything beyond a very mild laxity in the tissues. I never imagined it could heal so much.

Quote
Please excuse my lack of current awareness but, besides the weight issue, did you run into other problems on ZC/VLC?  What was the motivation behind a move towards cooked carbs?
My constipation improved at first on ZC, but then returned to as it was and is still with me. Luckily, my IBS has not returned. I tried adding back in cooked carbs like squashes and tubers back when I was eating cooked Paleo omnivore, in part to try to bulk up, a la Matt Stone, but before I encountered his blog. It didn't work. Instead, my semi-Paleo version of the HED damaged my digestion and worsened my IBS and I ended up falling to my lowest weight ever. This is the sort of potential danger from an inflammatory diet like HED that I think KGH is warning against.

Quote
Where does all of the research and knowledge on cooked foods, as often quoted by Tyler, fit into your thoughts on this?
Good question and I asked something similar of the HED proponents without getting an answer, AFAIR. Why would humans need cooked tubers, oats and rice when they managed to survive for millions of years without them? It seems to be an unnecessary level of complexity that perhaps should be relegated to a last resort.

Quote
Again, I've obviously missed some important information in my absence but why do you think even raw paleo carbs (eggs, liver etc) are what's required?
The main point in their favor is that I get nearly as good a feeling of euphoric well being from eating raw liver as I do from raw grassfed beef and suet, I'm gradually learning to like the taste of liver, most HG groups highly value liver and other organs, Stone Agers appear to have preferentially eaten organs and fats, and carnivores like big cats and canids preferentially eat organs (and probably fats, though I haven't seen much on the latter yet, because the nature experts still think that protein is the key macronutrient instead of fat, so they tend to ignore fat).

Quote
You sound as though you're on the right lines now looking at ways to improve your GI capabilities.  It may just require great patience on a RPD if there's extensive damage requiring healing.

Good luck!
You may well be right. It can be trying at times when I see other folks like Martin Bearslayer rapidly develop muscles after adopting a carnivorous diet and evolutionary fitness regime, but I can see from his early overweight photos that he was starting with more muscle mass. Once the weight melted off him, it revealed the muscle that was already there, plus what he added. So I try not to set my expectations too high. Besides Ben Fury thinks I should be focusing on further straightening my spine before upping the weights, so I don't compress the already bent spine. It makes sense to me. My spine does seem to be straightening further, based on my stretches and yoga poses, but at a slow rate.

I'd like to be doing my chin-ups too, which might help the spine, but my bar didn't fit in the doors of my new condo. I need to keep my eyes open for a good chin-up branch in the woods, I think, and remember to use it. The woods are one of my favorite environs anyway, along with streams, lakes, rivers and meadows at the edge of woods. Do you ever get a tingling sense (particularly in the mornings) near a natural body of water or in the woods? It's not scientific, but I get the feeling that my body is instinctively reacting to an environment that is more like the original natural environment humans adapted to.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 27, 2010, 05:46:01 pm
I have been wondering lately if I am parasite-infested from when I ate 'SWD'.. Particularly my liver. Is there any way that parasites die or leave by themselves..?

(separate)Hey by the way, when you kill an animal, first thing you check is the liver right, and then you eat it first if it's healthy, and then eat the rest. But what do you do if the liver is unhealthy looking? Do you just gut the animal and eat the rest, do you leave the whole thing, or do you cook it?

Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: cliff on July 27, 2010, 09:50:01 pm
I've gained  the leanest, real muscle on ZC. If I were trying to put on more muscle and wanted to stay ZC/VLC, I would drink raw milk mixed with organic, low carb whey or casein. I don't care if it isn't Paleo, at least it is not grains, starches, fruit or vegetables. And just to up calories for a bit.

Sounds like a eating disorder to me
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: pioneer on July 27, 2010, 11:27:00 pm
I have been wondering lately if I am parasite-infested from when I ate 'SWD'.. Particularly my liver. Is there any way that parasites die or leave by themselves..?

(separate)Hey by the way, when you kill an animal, first thing you check is the liver right, and then you eat it first if it's healthy, and then eat the rest. But what do you do if the liver is unhealthy looking? Do you just gut the animal and eat the rest, do you leave the whole thing, or do you cook it?



Absolutely, from what I've been told and what I've read, parasites leave the body if there is no degenerative, or toxic tissue to feed off of, but I may be wrong. It is true though that parasites are the janitors of the earth so their job is to get rid of sick animals not healthy ones. If you get yourself healthy, you shouldnt worry. The way I see it is, I dont care if something is inside of me as long as everything is functioning right. You would know if you had an uncontrollable parasite. Most of us already have parasites anyway in small numbers, its when they get large & reproduce when you have a problem.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on July 28, 2010, 04:03:31 am
Hi Phil,

Good to hear from you!  Glad to hear you're making gains in some areas and are gradually getting there with fine tuning the diet.  I can certainly relate to the issues you have with carbs as I have similar problems myself.  On the occasions that I throw caution to the wind and indulge in a little fruit, honey or other carbs I end up regretting it!  I think you sound even more sensitive to it than I though!  Up until now I've been quite happy ticking along on VLC/ZC with a few herbs, onions, ginger, garlic thrown in.  But this sudden hysteria about carbs has got me thinking that, perhaps, I should attempt to include a little more.

Like you, I've been checking the numbers and the grams of carbohydrate per 100 grams of various contenders is certainly extremely low.  I read on another thread Alphagruis (who's opinion I greatly respect) mentioning 50-100g as a minimum level of carbohydrate to aim for.  I'm going to start experimenting with various recipes of raw veg and, possibly, low sugar fruits and see how I get on.  I used to make a dish in my raw vegan days of courgette 'pasta' in a tomato sauce.  The ingredients would include: 2-3 courgettes (2g carb per 100g), 3-4 large tomatoes (4g per 100g), a handful of sun-dried tomatoes (56g per 100g!) along with some salad leaves, garlic etc.  I think one meal like this per day (if tolerated) would be sufficient to achieve the minimum carb level suggested along with a selection of flavourings with the main meat meal.

Have you tried sun-dried tomatoes?  If tolerated, it appears that they'd be a great carb source for you and may be worth a try.  Raspberries seem low with just 4g sugars (12g carbs) per 100g so could maybe be tolerated as, perhaps, could red pepper (6g carb/100g), fermented red cabbage sauerkraut (7g carb/100g), scallions (7g carb/100g). 

I was also thinking about blood?!  A quick Google search found some bovine blood composition analysis results from the 1930s indicating seemingly substantial quantities of sugars along with a host of minerals.  Perhaps this would be worth investigating further?  Not quite as tempting as fruit and honey, granted, but it may help achieve those 50g levels!   :)


In the past I even included unsweetened rice cakes with almond butter in my diet as a treat (which was a mistake), so I'm not one to be casting stones on this. If you're interested, you could ask him.

I think KGH is a little too busy to bother with my questioning on this.  The odd treat is acceptable and I'm sure we all do it occasionally (and regret it afterwards!) but it sounded like the rice krispies and half/half was a regular part of his regime?!  Each to his own but I just find it odd.

Quote
The latest guru fad--Matt Stone is the hot guru right now, apparently (even Danny Roddy is taking some, though not all, of his advice now)--and Tyler and Lex are away, so they aren't here to bring us back to our senses. ;)

Thanks for the update.  I saw the guy's site and I can appreciate the appeal in some respects I suppose.  Let's hope Lex & Tyler return soon so we can get some normality back around here!! :)

Quote
I'll be disappointed if I can't bulk up somewhat more, though. I wouldn't be surprised if Matt Stone and Mark Sisson would say it's a sign I'm still doing something wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised. On the other hand, my grandfather was as strong as iron and nearly as thin as me. Then again, I'm not nearly as strong as he was, but I'm hoping some tweaking and more time will help.

I get the impression that your body has a great deal of healing to do so expect patience to be required as your greatest virtue.  A little tweaking to get the program right for your own body, continued dedication and great amounts of time and I'm sure you'll slowly notice improvements.  As you mentioned, it's probably also important that you don't set your expectations to high.  You may always remain relatively thin determined by your genetic inheritance and level of pre-RPD damage but as long as you're fit, strong and healthy this shouldn't be a problem to you or loved ones.

Quote
I can certainly outwalk most folks at this point,... I feel more like the predator and less like the prey. My balance is also better than it has ever been and I can balance on logs in the woods better than I could in my youth.

Glad to hear it!  There's progress for you!  I think walking is the best form of exercise available.  My father and uncle (aged 75 and 82 respectively) both think nothing of walking 10-15 miles on a stroll.  They consider a serious walk to be 20-25 miles in a day!  They've always eaten 'sensibly' and haven't engaged in other exercise at all besides cycling long distances in their youth.  But, walking has been a fundamental part of their lives.  They both look 20 years younger than they are and are mentally & physically sharper and stronger than many in their 30s with no known health problems.  My father still travels and works in London as director of a large insurance company.  So, keep up the walking!  :)

Quote
Speaking of the hernia, that has been doing amazingly well. It's to the point where a new physician might be hard to convince that I ever had anything beyond a very mild laxity in the tissues. I never imagined it could heal so much.

That's fantastic news!  Is that purely from diet or have you utilised other therapies?  I have a suspected hiatus hernia which is exasperating my digestive capacities and have an appointment booked next week to see a chiropractor having read that many have had the condition 'cured' with a particular manipulation.

Quote
Why would humans need cooked tubers, oats and rice when they managed to survive for millions of years without them? It seems to be an unnecessary level of complexity that perhaps should be relegated to a last resort.

My sentiments precisely.

Quote
My spine does seem to be straightening further, based on my stretches and yoga poses, but at a slow rate.

Have you tried Egoscue Method?  You've probably read me mention it previously but this may help with straightening the spine.  I have before/after photos of my 3 months of daily Egoscue exercise and the difference in my posture is staggering!

Quote
I'd like to be doing my chin-ups too, which might help the spine, but my bar didn't fit in the doors of my new condo.

I bought one recently made by a guy local to me here in Norfolk, England.  It's a brilliant device and fits onto most doorways without requiring any fixings.  I don't know if he ships Internationally but you can check it out here: http://www.powertrainer.co.uk/ (http://www.powertrainer.co.uk/)

Quote
The woods are one of my favorite environs anyway, along with streams, lakes, rivers and meadows at the edge of woods. Do you ever get a tingling sense (particularly in the mornings) near a natural body of water or in the woods? It's not scientific, but I get the feeling that my body is instinctively reacting to an environment that is more like the original natural environment humans adapted to.

Here, here!  Along with mountains, these are my favourite places.  I dream of just taking off and living a natural life in the forest.  Perhaps one day...
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: miles on July 28, 2010, 05:07:43 am
How old are you Michael? Also.. I think when hungry is the best time to shop at the supermarket, as you can tell what you really want...

Does anyone know how much difference there is, between the amount of blood left in joints of meat, compared to to what would be available from a fresh kill..? Also I remember something about the sugars degrading fast..?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on July 28, 2010, 06:08:03 am
How old are you Michael?
Well, that's a rather personal question miles!  ;)  I'm 39 in a couple of months (that's me about 30 years ago in my pic!) :)  I've been eating this way since Dec 2000 and have been a member of this wonderful forum since Sept 2008, I believe.

Quote
Also.. I think when hungry is the best time to shop at the supermarket, as you can tell what you really want...
ha ha :)  I suppose that depends on one's metabolic health and whether one has issues with sugar.  Certainly, it was never a good idea for me years ago and, I believe, the statement remains valid for many people still eating a SAD diet.

Quote
Does anyone know how much difference there is, between the amount of blood left in joints of meat, compared to to what would be available from a fresh kill..? Also I remember something about the sugars degrading fast..?
I certainly don't know, miles, but I would assume that there's a huge difference.  I only ever manage to salvage a few mouthfuls of blood from my joints of meat whilst I would expect the blood volume of large animals to far exceed that of humans - much of which, I expect, would be available from a fresh kill.

BTW, I do enjoy the sharpness, profoundness and often concise wit of your posts!   :)
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 28, 2010, 07:39:34 am
....But this sudden hysteria about carbs has got me thinking that, perhaps, I should attempt to include a little more.
It does provide an opportunity to experiment and compare your results to others that are doing it. One possible benefit that does make some sense is keeping carb-eating bacteria alive so one doesn't become even more intolerant of carbs, but there are potential side effects as well. These fads come and go on diet forums. My guess is that after some people see that HED isn't a cure-all for everyone the fad will die down somewhat.

Quote
Like you, I've been checking the numbers and the grams of carbohydrate per 100 grams of various contenders is certainly extremely low.  I read on another thread Alphagruis (who's opinion I greatly respect) mentioning 50-100g as a minimum level of carbohydrate to aim for.  I'm going to start experimenting with various recipes of raw veg and, possibly, low sugar fruits and see how I get on.
Yes, it seems to be impossible to eat that much carbs without eating fruits or cooked/dried tubers or more modern carbs. Since my fruit experiments haven't gone well, I've been considering trying dried African yams at some point, but first I would need to find some and I would also like to know more about how to process them in traditional fashion, in case there are any other steps. I've seen mention of soaking or fermenting.

Quote
 I used to make a dish in my raw vegan days of courgette 'pasta' in a tomato sauce.  The ingredients would include: 2-3 courgettes (2g carb per 100g), 3-4 large tomatoes (4g per 100g), a handful of sun-dried tomatoes (56g per 100g!) along with some salad leaves, garlic etc.  I think one meal like this per day (if tolerated) would be sufficient to achieve the minimum carb level suggested along with a selection of flavourings with the main meat meal. Have you tried sun-dried tomatoes?
Thanks for asking first instead of just telling me to eat tomatoes, like some folks seem to do. :D Unfortunately I don't handle tomatoes well, which is another reason it's so hard to include carbs in my diet. Some carb fans don't seem to take individual problems like this into account (plus tomatoes are a nightshade and linked by Dr. Cordain to leaky gut syndrome, so not generally recommended in my book, except as an occasional treat).

Quote
Raspberries seem low with just 4g sugars (12g carbs) per 100g so could maybe be tolerated
Ah, my beloved raspberries. Sadly, not well tolerated. Doesn't stop me from cheating with berries or grapes once a week or two. My current compromise is to allow myself to grab a serving-spoon full of berries or grapes with olive oil once a week at work, but not buy them for home.

Quote
as, perhaps, could red pepper (6g carb/100g)
Another nightshade and another food I don't do well on (though not as badly as green pepper, which is a digestion nightmare for me :D ).

Quote
fermented red cabbage sauerkraut (7g carb/100g)
Yeah, I gave that a go while you were away. It didn't cause any problems, but it didn't help any and I don't care for the taste. Surprisingly, raw cabbage hasn't given me any problems, my grandmother used to love it and I find that now I like it quite a bit too (didn't used to as a kid).

Quote
scallions (7g carb/100g).
Yeah, that's one of my current veggies. Surprisingly low in total carbs per serving, like the other roots that are edible raw.

Quote
I was also thinking about blood?!  A quick Google search found some bovine blood composition analysis results from the 1930s indicating seemingly substantial quantities of sugars along with a host of minerals.
I knew about the minerals and salts, but not the sugars. That's interesting. Do you have the link?

Quote
Perhaps this would be worth investigating further?  Not quite as tempting as fruit and honey, granted, but it may help achieve those 50g levels!   :)
Let me know if you find a source. I've been interested in blood for a while now. I might make my own gluten-free air-dried raw fermented blood sausages, if I can get a grassfed source.

Quote
I think KGH is a little too busy to bother with my questioning on this.
I'll bet someone will harass him over it and he'll eventually explain it further anyway.

Quote
 The odd treat is acceptable and I'm sure we all do it occasionally (and regret it afterwards!) but it sounded like the rice krispies and half/half was a regular part of his regime?!
Yes, it sounds like a new regular part of his diet. Doesn't work for me either, but to each his own, yes. I'm trying to resist the temptations to criticize people who provide overall very good free information and who's overall views are similar to mine--not always succeeding, but trying. The Internet has a tendency to encourage overly critical and argumentative talk and it's a trap I've fallen into from time to time. There's a fine line between constructive debate and destructive arguments.

Quote
Thanks for the update.  I saw the guy's site and I can appreciate the appeal in some respects I suppose.  Let's hope Lex & Tyler return soon so we can get some normality back around here!! :)
Heh, heh. Yeah, never thought I'd look forward to the return of Tyler. ;)

Quote
I get the impression that your body has a great deal of healing to do so expect patience to be required as your greatest virtue.
Luckily it is one, to the point of being a weakness. There are times I need to speak up and complain or question a little more at times so as to not be ignored or remain in ignorance. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. For example, I went too long on 30-35% carbs before trying VLC, and thus suffered needlessly. I was too heavily influenced by the pro-fruit/veg talk of people like Dr. Cordain, Dr. Lindeberg, PaleoFood forum members, family and friends. It has taught me to be even more skeptical than I already was and focus more on personal experimentation and listening to my own body.  

Quote
You may always remain relatively thin determined by your genetic inheritance and level of pre-RPD damage but as long as you're fit, strong and healthy this shouldn't be a problem to you or loved ones.
That's what I tell them, with no luck in influencing them yet. I suspect they see calming words like those as excuses. Many people see things through a negative lense when they're worried about something.

Quote
"Quote
Speaking of the hernia, that has been doing amazingly well. It's to the point where a new physician might be hard to convince that I ever had anything beyond a very mild laxity in the tissues. I never imagined it could heal so much."
That's fantastic news!  Is that purely from diet or have you utilised other therapies?  I have a suspected hiatus hernia which is exasperating my digestive capacities and have an appointment booked next week to see a chiropractor having read that many have had the condition 'cured' with a particular manipulation.
My hernia improvement hasn't varied with amount of exercise and I've been emphasizing walking, sprinting, yoga, Theraband, squats and deadlifts more lately and less of abdominal exercise, yet the improvement has continued. The most amazing thing is that it has happened in spite of a return of the usual level of chronic constipation. In my case it seems that the inguinal hernia and constipation are both mainly results of my diet rather than the constipation being the cause of the hernia. It doesn't surprise me, as scientists and physicians often mistake a symptom for a cause.

Quote
Have you tried Egoscue Method?  You've probably read me mention it previously but this may help with straightening the spine.  I have before/after photos of my 3 months of daily Egoscue exercise and the difference in my posture is staggering!
Yes, I did try that and liked the static back pose and do it when I'm doing yoga, Pilates and Esther Gokhale poses at home. Thanks for the reminder. I just did it again, along with pelvic tilt and shoulder stand, as my back and legs were a little tired and slightly tense from chair-sitting today. If only I could squat at work. :P

I bought one recently made by a guy local to me here in Norfolk, England.  It's a brilliant device and fits onto most doorways without requiring any fixings.  I don't know if he ships Internationally but you can check it out here: http://www.powertrainer.co.uk/ (http://www.powertrainer.co.uk/)[/quote]Yes, brilliant design. Do you think it would fit over a door with a top-frame-piece 5" tall and 7" thick?

Quote
Here, here!  Along with mountains, these are my favourite places.  I dream of just taking off and living a natural life in the forest.  Perhaps one day...
Aye, mountains too--and even plains if I can hunt, live in a tepee, and there's a body of water. I'd like to retire to a place with wilderness, hunting and fishing.

[/quote]
....I suppose that depends on one's metabolic health and whether one has issues with sugar.  Certainly, it was never a good idea for me years ago and, I believe, the statement remains valid for many people still eating a SAD diet.
And even on RPD. My body tells me to buy and eat lots of sugary honey and fruit, if I see it, just like it does all male hunter gatherers that live in areas with honey and fruit, and get dental plaque and acne outbreaks every time as a result. Luckily, I have the discipline to usually ignore my body while shopping. :)

Quote
I certainly don't know, miles, but I would assume that there's a huge difference.  ....
Yes, the amount of blood from a small seal in the Anthony Bourdain / Inuit video was extensive.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Nation on July 28, 2010, 06:13:31 pm
Michael, how did you hear about this diet in 2000?  I had never even heard of it until recently and i've been reading curezone and other similar forums since the early 2000's.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on July 28, 2010, 06:31:36 pm
Hi Phil,

First things first.  The pull-up bar!  :) Would you be able to provide a sketch of the frame so I can fully appreciate precisely what you mean?  Does the top part of the frame protrude 7" from the wall or did you mean the depth of the entire frame was 7"?  If it's the latter then it should be fine.  I don't think the 5" height would be an issue.  The depth of my whole frame is about 6".  The frame itself is parallel to the wall and only the architrave protrudes - just a centimetre or two.  In my case, and I suppose in most cases, the legs rest on top of the architrave although the weight is transferred to the front bar which presses into the frame/opposite vertical architrave.  I think the guy has a video on the website and would probably be able to answer your question more reliably but I'm happy to help further.  Also, if the guy won't ship Internationally I'd be happy to pick one up from him (if possible) and send it to you myself if necessary.

Quote
Since my fruit experiments haven't gone well, I've been considering trying dried African yams at some point, but first I would need to find some and I would also like to know more about how to process them in traditional fashion, in case there are any other steps. I've seen mention of soaking or fermenting.
I wonder if it would be worth contacting Sally Fallon for some ideas?  I used to communicate with her 12 years ago in my WAP days (long before she was so well known) and she was always so friendly & helpful.  She even invited me to stay at her house to attend the US WAPF annual conference!  :)

Quote
Thanks for asking first instead of just telling me to eat tomatoes, like some folks seem to do.  Unfortunately I don't handle tomatoes well, which is another reason it's so hard to include carbs in my diet. Some carb fans don't seem to take individual problems like this into account (plus tomatoes are a nightshade and linked by Dr. Cordain to leaky gut syndrome, so not generally recommended in my book, except as an occasional treat).
No problem Phil.  I wouldn't dream of telling you or anyone else what to do.  I agree with your much recently expressed sentiments about the, perhaps unintentional, dictatorial, dogmatic and unnecessarily argumentative posts.
That's a shame you don't handle tomatoes.  I'm fortunate in that they don't seem to bother me - although I could be wrong.  As I understand it, some people are more sensitive to the alkaloids in nightshades than others.  I've long been conscious of the nightshade issue but probably haven't paid it enough attention so hadn't thought about or become aware of Dr. Cordain's link with leaky gut syndrome.  I don't consume much in the way of nightshades but it may be an idea to experiment cutting them out myself and see what happens!

Quote
Ah, my beloved raspberries. Sadly, not well tolerated. Doesn't stop me from cheating with berries or grapes once a week or two. My current compromise is to allow myself to grab a serving-spoon full of berries or grapes with olive oil once a week at work, but not buy them for home.
My favourite too along with gooseberries (a nightshade!).  I do occasionally indulge too but do notice the negative effects.  Probably wise not to buy them yourself.  My partner and I have taken to buying as many as 6 large boxes of frozen Scottish raspberries from a local farm shop on our way to collect raw jersey cream (for her!) from my friends organic farm.  When you do next indulge (and I limit it to perhaps once every month or two) I would strongly recommend serving the raspberries frozen and pouring lots of raw jersey cream over them.  It sets instantly into the most incredible raspberry ice-cream!!   :)  Sorry for the temptation!   >D

Quote
I knew about the minerals and salts, but not the sugars. That's interesting. Do you have the link?
I haven't read it myself yet as it would benefit from printing but here's a link to the pdf I found: http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/336.pdf (http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/336.pdf)

Quote
I might make my own gluten-free air-dried raw fermented blood sausages, if I can get a grassfed source.
Sounds like a wonderful idea!  Something I've started thinking about with my new fancy mincer although I hadn't considered adding blood!

Quote
I was too heavily influenced by the pro-fruit/veg talk of people like Dr. Cordain, Dr. Lindeberg, PaleoFood forum members, family and friends. It has taught me to be even more skeptical than I already was and focus more on personal experimentation and listening to my own body. 
This is a lesson many of us need to learn.  Even Lex has spoken about travelling the wrong dietary paths and misplacing his faith in some of the 'gurus'.  I believe a healthy, questioning skepticism coupled with an open mind and a commitment to rigorous and rational investigation is a very wise approach to attain.  From reading your comments on this forum I believe you're getting close to achieving this position.

Quote
my back and legs were a little tired and slightly tense from chair-sitting today. If only I could squat at work.
That's interesting.  This is something I've been seriously thinking about recently - the dangerous implications of chairs!  Not only do they promote poor posture and weak disfunctional bodies, I suspect they also encourage a tired and lazy mind.  I've worked in various physically demanding outdoor jobs and, far too many, office desk based roles.  The contrast in energy and attitude between many of these workers is distinct!  I was recently thinking about designing/inventing an office desk which allowed workers only to stand at it!  Imagine an office full of people standing to do their paperwork, operate their computers and use their telephones!?  I think it would result in an absolute revolution in the workplace - healthy, energetic, pro-active workers, massive reductions in sick-time costs etc.  Well, that's given my idea away!!  :)
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on July 28, 2010, 06:53:14 pm
Michael, how did you hear about this diet in 2000?  I had never even heard of it until recently and i've been reading curezone and other similar forums since the early 2000's.

Hi Nation,  It wasn't precisely this diet.  Around 1997 (following years of vegetarianism and eventually raw veganism) I first started reading WAP's Nutrition & Physical Degeneration, Edward Howells, TL Cleave etc, a little later Sally Fallon's book with who I used to discuss my thoughts.  I began eating a WAP inspired diet which gradually became increasingly raw and then, largely due to allergies & the move to raw, dropping things like grains.  I'm not sure when I first read AVs book but I think it was around 2001.  This just further solidified my own thoughts and experiences and moved me closer to a largely all meat diet.  Unfortunately, it was a few years after that which saw me finally give the raw dairy up as a bad job.  Having said that, I have recently reintroduced raw butter again due to difficulties sourcing good suet, marrow etc.
 
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 29, 2010, 12:06:36 pm
Quote
raw jersey cream over them.
I don't handle dairy too well either. A few years ago I was off the charts on the antibody test for nearly every aspect of dairy. I had antibodies to most foods. The assistant who called me about the results was amazed at all the high numbers and told me "You'd better get in here." When my father was tested in his youth, similar results were found. He eliminated the worst offenders and his antibodies were much lower than mine when last tested--probably in part because he didn't develop the GI problems and leaky gut I did, which exacerbates the effect of antigens on the system.

Some people develop enough antibodies and severe enough reactions to most or all foods that they end up dying if their healthcare practitioners can't reduce the sensitivities. One physician finally succeeded by injecting into a woman's colon some feces in saline solution from her husband, to repopulate her gut flora. It was in the news recently.

Quote
I was recently thinking about designing/inventing an office desk which allowed workers only to stand at it!  
Long before us, Thomas Jefferson recognized the problem and built his own stand-up desk. I was just thinking today that I look forward to the day, if I live to see it, that computers are just some hologram in the air in front of us and we can stand, squat, recline, or walk (but not jog--see Sisson and De Vany on why not to jog chronically) on a treadmill while working. The software transcription will also need to be good enough to forego pen and paper.

So blood contains a quite a few important nutrients--carbs, minerals, salt, etc. Maybe the carbs in blood, liver, and fermented stomach contents are the carbs I'm designed to eat, more than fruit and tuber carbs? The guesses that the carbs in human mother's milk and the problems some have on ZC apparently don't necessarily prove that everyone requires plant carbs now that we know that there are multiple sources of animal carbs. Instead of saying that carbs in the animals our ancestors ate demonstrate our need for fruits or tubers, it's much simpler and more direct to say that they suggest our need for those very same animal carbs. If this is the case then foods like liver, sauerkraut and homemade gluten-free raw aged blood sausage might be very beneficial foods. There's already lots of info on the benefits of liver and fermented veg, we're just missing knowledge about blood and blood products. I'm getting the sense that exsanguinating animals and discarding the blood was another major blunder of (some) modern societies, though I have more to learn on this subject. It wasn't long ago that blood sausage was a common food for my ancestors in the British Isles and at least some French gourmet chefs apparently still don't bleed their chickens.

This is quite a clue you've given me, Michael. Exactly what I look for in forums and blogs. Thanks, and big up yuhself mi bredda!
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: nicole on July 30, 2010, 02:02:45 am
Okay, yes I have noticed alot of the vegan customers are gay or lesbians too. The lesbians are usually dikes.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on July 30, 2010, 05:40:38 am
I don't handle dairy too well either....
That's a shame.  I don't either so my indulgences are rare.  But, your sensitivity sounds worse than mine so total avoidance is probably wise.

Quote
One physician finally succeeded by injecting into a woman's colon some feces in saline solution from her husband, to repopulate her gut flora. It was in the news recently.
?!?  Is that for real?!

Quote
Long before us, Thomas Jefferson recognized the problem and built his own stand-up desk.
Damn!  Someone always steals my brilliant ideas even those of the past!  :)

Quote
I was just thinking today that I look forward to the day, if I live to see it, that computers are just some hologram in the air in front of us and we can stand, squat, recline, or walk (but not jog--see Sisson and De Vany on why not to jog chronically) on a treadmill while working. The software transcription will also need to be good enough to forego pen and paper.

I think you'll live to see this Phil.  I used to work as a software developer and seeing the capabilities now compared to when I was a 12 year old computer geek just astounds me!
Thanks for the Sisson and De Vany link.  I'll look into that.  I know KGH and others don't advocate distance running.  After months of egoscue preparation and building up my feet with barefoot/minimalist footwear, I've finally recently started running for the first time in my life but once a week is sufficient.  I'm not convinced, yet, that this is harmful if one is eating RPD.  Just for the record, I was amazed at my progress.  Having been very inactive for a long time (besides walking and cycling) I was expecting to be finished by the end of my road!  But, incredibly, I ran 4 miles through the woods and fields non-stop and even had enough in the tank for a sprint finish!!  That's years of RPD for you!  :)


Quote
So blood contains a quite a few important nutrients--carbs, minerals, salt, etc. Maybe the carbs in blood, liver, and fermented stomach contents are the carbs I'm designed to eat, more than fruit and tuber carbs?
I think you're right!

Quote
The guesses that the carbs in human mother's milk and the problems some have on ZC apparently don't necessarily prove that everyone requires plant carbs now that we know that there are multiple sources of animal carbs. Instead of saying that carbs in the animals our ancestors ate demonstrate our need for fruits or tubers, it's much simpler and more direct to say that they suggest our need for those very same animal carbs.
Yes!

Quote
If this is the case then foods like liver, sauerkraut and homemade gluten-free raw aged blood sausage might be very beneficial foods. There's already lots of info on the benefits of liver and fermented veg, we're just missing knowledge about blood and blood products. I'm getting the sense that exsanguinating animals and discarding the blood was another major blunder of (some) modern societies, though I have more to learn on this subject.
This opens up a whole new world of adventure doesn't it!?!  :)

Quote
It wasn't long ago that blood sausage was a common food for my ancestors in the British Isles and at least some French gourmet chefs apparently still don't bleed their chickens.

I can add to that, up until quite recently boiled pig's blood in an intestine was also a common food here in the UK.  It's known as 'black pudding' and used to be a staple on the menu in 'builder's cafes'.  My brother used to eat it every week!  I believe such foods are common place among many cultures.

Quote
This is quite a clue you've given me, Michael. Exactly what I look for in forums and blogs. Thanks, and big up yuhself mi bredda!

Glad to hear it Phil!  I really hope your further research on this path leads you to the promised land!  :)  Keep us posted!  Of course, if I have further information I will share it with you too.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 01, 2010, 01:07:53 am
On the other side of the coin of KGH, De Vany and others who discourage chronic jogging, there is the amazing example of the Taramuhara. Like you, I suspect that jogging isn't so bad if you're eating well, and especially if you jog on natural, rough, hilly terrain, but it seems reasonable that a more fractal method like walking interspersed with sprinting would be superior.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on August 01, 2010, 04:48:45 am
PaleoPhil, I agree and I particularly enjoyed your wonderfully descriptive phrase 'fractal method'.  I think that's precisely it and would of been precisely what would've been required in the HG lifestyle - without, of course, implying that 'paleolithic re-enactment' is a worthy goal.  'Chronic jogging' has a ring of unnatural falsity about it and exists only in a world of nike-air trainers and air-conditioned running mill zombies.  In my opinion, it would bare little resemblance with methods employed, for example, in persistence hunting.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 01, 2010, 11:21:00 am
"Quote
One physician finally succeeded by injecting into a woman's colon some feces in saline solution from her husband, to repopulate her gut flora. It was in the news recently."

?!?  Is that for real?!
Yes: How Microbes Defend and Define Us: Dr. Alexander Khoruts had run out of options, The New York Times, July 12, 2010. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13micro.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=general&src=me)

.... 'Chronic jogging' has a ring of unnatural falsity about it and exists only in a world of nike-air trainers and air-conditioned running mill zombies.  In my opinion, it would bare little resemblance with methods employed, for example, in persistence hunting.
Precisely. Wild animals (and that includes humans in the wild) do not move in straight lines on smooth surfaces at slow, even paces, particularly not when they're fleeing the apex predator of nature, whom they have learned to fear--homo sapiens sapiens.

....I think, perhaps, a little harsh to judge PaleoPhil as another addict however.  My own understanding is that he's concerned with discovering the most viable means of raising carb intake to 5% of calories in line with the current thinking.  Based on the science, it appears that the protein-to-glucose conversion efficiency rate is inadequate (perhaps even dangerous?) and the wise thoughts of KGH, alphagruis' and others on the subject, I think, need serious consideration.

My perspective is that the jury is still out on our dietary requirement for carbohydrate. ....
I haven't ruled out either possibility. I'm trying out both hypotheses to see which works better for me. So far the no-need-for-carbs side is winning (though I'm not saying that my experience applies to anyone else and I do wonder if finding carbs I can handle in larger quantities would enable me to bulk up more). I haven't noticed any benefits from carb intake of any sort. However, some carbs don't appear to cause me any noticeable problems (namely, animal carbs from liver and eggs and the small amounts of carbs that nonstarchy veg like cabbage and ginger contain). Whether that's a clue to some sort of need for those small amounts of carbs, I don't know. Those foods contain nutrients that have been identified as valuable for humans, so the value may all be in those nutrients, rather than the carbs. Raw beef liver is the only (slightly) carby food that I feel really good after eating, the way I do with raw meat and animal fat. Sugar can give me a buzz/high, but it's not the same good feeling of well being. I've never seen the promoters of carbs report getting the well-being feeling from plant carbs that people like me report getting from raw meat and animal fat and "high meat". The high I get from coffee when I haven't drank it in a while is better than that from sugar, but it's still not the feeling of euphoric well being I get from raw meat/fat. Coffee and sugar tend to increase my muscle tension, whereas raw meat and fat relax my muscles.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on August 01, 2010, 11:31:35 pm
"Quote
One physician finally succeeded by injecting into a woman's colon some feces in saline solution from her husband, to repopulate her gut flora. It was in the news recently."
Yes: How Microbes Defend and Define Us: Dr. Alexander Khoruts had run out of options, The New York Times, July 12, 2010. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13micro.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=general&src=me)

Thanks for the link to the article Phil.  That was all very interesting.  Call me an old cynic but I got the distinct impression that the research being conducted on the microbiome is all aiming towards producing new, profitable medical products and interventions that can be sold to the SAD eating populace rather than using the knowledge gained to encourage a more microbiome friendly human existence.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 02, 2010, 02:31:17 am
...Call me an old cynic but I got the distinct impression that the research being conducted on the microbiome is all aiming towards producing new, profitable medical products and interventions that can be sold to the SAD eating populace rather than using the knowledge gained to encourage a more microbiome friendly human existence.
Correctamundo! You think like me. :D

It's the same thing with celiac disease and gluten intolerance. Instead of thinking how to get gluten out of people's diets, the industry, medical and governmental leaders work on ways to genetically alter wheat and invent drugs to enable celiacs to go back to eating wheat. The profit motive (which includes public and secret contributions to politicians as well as ordinary sales margins) is still priority #1 in the modern world--and I admit that as someone with libertarian tendencies.

I posted in another thread a listing of lamb blood being extremely low in carbs, so the blood angle seems to be a dead end as far as carbs are concerned. If anything, Paleo blood consumption would argue for higher protein consumption rather than carbs.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on August 02, 2010, 03:18:28 am
Correctamundo! You think like me. :D

Oh, that's reassuring.  Thanks.  I was beginning to think I was getting paranoid!  :)

Quote
The profit motive (which includes public and secret contributions to politicians as well as ordinary sales margins) is still priority #1 in the modern world

And the only way we can ever change this is if enough people 'wise up'!  But, the tools they employ are seemingly too powerful and too ingrained (mental/physical weakening of populace via food, water, vaccines etc, TV, wage-slave lifestyle etc)

Quote
I posted in another thread a listing of lamb blood being extremely low in carbs, so the blood angle seems to be a dead end as far as carbs are concerned. If anything, Paleo blood consumption would argue for higher protein consumption rather than carbs.

Oh great.  Well done.  I'll try to find that other post.  Unfortunately, that sounds like disappointing news and perhaps further indication that this 5% calories by carbs argument is not viable.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on August 02, 2010, 03:19:32 am
So far the no-need-for-carbs side is winning (though I'm not saying that my experience applies to anyone else and I do wonder if finding carbs I can handle in larger quantities would enable me to bulk up more). I haven't noticed any benefits from carb intake of any sort. However, some carbs don't appear to cause me any noticeable problems (namely, animal carbs from liver and eggs and the small amounts of carbs that nonstarchy veg like cabbage and ginger contain).

 :) :) :D :D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Guittarman03 on August 15, 2010, 05:10:47 am
You guys have left out one significant source of carbs that aren't plant derived...

Bugs!

I know gross.  I tried to grow crickets once and failed, but I have eaten them.  Crunchy.  Add some seasoned salt and you've pretty much got popcorn.

I tend to think insects would have been eaten often in paleo days, but some people on the forum would disagree. 

Probably somewhat impractical, but hey, it's always an option.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 15, 2010, 05:35:04 am
I'm aware that insects were eaten in Paleo days, but other than honey ants, what evidence is there that any of them contain substantial carb %'s?

At this link they don't even bother to mention the carbs in insects: http://www.grubco.com/Nutritional_Information.cfm. Perhaps because the carb levels are insignificant?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on August 21, 2010, 02:18:04 am
Hans' argument is not scientific but psychological. He was doing great on very low carb, and in fact, his body rewarded him by making him sick when he ate junk, i.e. carbs. But he WANTED to be "normal" and eat "normal" people food, which is of course, rubbish. Since he WANTED to eat these "normal" foods that make others look fat, skinny fat and gross, he justified a NEED for carbs. Thus he justified that he NEEDED carbs so that he could tolerate the junk when he ate it. That makes sense. If you want to eat junk and be mediocre, might as well eat that which makes you mediocre. You are, after all, what you eat.  :D

Think about these points:
Vegans feel crappy when they eat meat after abstaining from it for a long time - Is that their body rewarding them by making them sick from eating "junk", i.e. meat? Or maybe they lose the ability to digest wholesome food because they don't eat it for too long?
About fat, skinny fat and gross - look at durianrider... he eats nothing but carbs. Or look at the Kitavans.
About mediocrity - I fail to see how making carbs make anyone mediocre. Care to give an example?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 22, 2010, 04:41:08 am
....I bought one recently made by a guy local to me here in Norfolk, England.  It's a brilliant device and fits onto most doorways without requiring any fixings.  I don't know if he ships Internationally but you can check it out here: http://www.powertrainer.co.uk/ (http://www.powertrainer.co.uk/)
I put in an order today and noticed this after I placed my order: "Note to non-mainland U.K and ROI customers - due to the size and weight of the packages, we are charged extra by our courier to deliver to non-mainland U.K and ROI addresses. This amount extra is £6.00 and you should select the appropriate option from the drop down menu above the buy now button." So they do ship outside the UK, but I didn't notice this drop down menu on the Paypal order page.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on September 01, 2010, 05:17:48 am
Glad to hear it Phil.  I hope you managed to sort out the little ordering detail.  I'll be very interested to hear what you think of the PowerTrainer and how you get on with it.

BTW, on the topic of insulin spikes, I still haven't done the honey blood sugar test as I'm reluctant to eat any honey at the moment following recent excruciating teeth problems.  With my 12 year old daughter spending a week with me in her school holidays I've regrettably eaten too many foods usually regimentally avoided.  This has included small amounts of fruit, honey and cooked restaurant meals.  The consequence has been extreme tooth problems culminating in a dentist visit today and an unavoidable short course of antibiotics.  On a positive note, he did actually say that the receding gums I've previously mentioned here were not that bad!  Perhaps some progress!  :)

How are things with you now on the subject of including some carbs in your diet?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 01, 2010, 06:12:31 am
We always have some CLOVE OIL at home for tooth pain.
Bought mine at the Indian grocery.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on September 01, 2010, 06:41:42 am
Yes, same here gs.  It's a powerful analgesic.  I got through an entire bottle during this particular episode but, unfortunately, it wasn't even touching the pain after a while. 

I hate the thought of using antibiotics and wonder at the possibilities of leaving any such bacterial infections to 'do their necessary cleaning'.  But, I also weigh up such thoughts with the argument that a short 5 day course followed by sufficient probiotics may actually be less harmful than the pain and stress I've been suffering.  I'm beginning to think that the damage which has been caused to my teeth by poor dietary choices in my youth and subsequent dentistry damage is always going to cause me problems no matter how good my diet has been and continues to be.  It has made me vulnerable to even the slightest deviation.  It seems that perfect health is difficult to attain following previous assault and sometimes one is going to be forced to compromise one's rigid beliefs.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 01, 2010, 06:51:17 am
Glad to hear it Phil.  I hope you managed to sort out the little ordering detail.  I'll be very interested to hear what you think of the PowerTrainer and how you get on with it.
They canceled my order without explanation--probably because there was no drop-down option to add S&H for foreign orders like their website claimed. I emailed twice asking for instructions on how to order from USA, but didn't receive a reply. They apparently don't want my business!

Quote
On a positive note, he did actually say that the receding gums I've previously mentioned here were not that bad!  Perhaps some progress!  :)
If you haven't already done so, check out Stephen Guyenet's dental advice (which focuses on getting plenty of fat soluble nutrients--especially A, D3 and K2--and minerals).

Quote
How are things with you now on the subject of including some carbs in your diet?
Pretty lousy. In all my experimentation the only carby food that I have fared decently on is wild Main blueberries (and I seem to do better if I eat a lot of animal fat with them, a la Yupik Eskimo Akutaq); and even with those I have to limit my intake somewhat to avoid BG spikes.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 01, 2010, 07:00:08 am
Let's assume for a moment that Matt Stone and Danny Roddy are correct that humans are able to digest cooked starches well and benefit from them healthwise. Let's also assume that Tyler is right about cooking only going back 250,000 years or so (or that Wrangham's 1.9 million years is not enough time for humans to have mostly adapted to eating cooked starches, which is not far-fetched given that giant pandas haven't fully adapted to bamboo leaves and roots after over 6 million years). This scenario would seem to suggest that there was a starchy raw precursor food that hominids ate before cooking starch that could have enabled major adaptation to starches before the advent of cooking.

So I thought about what raw foods could have provided starch before cooking. This is all I've been able to come up with so far, which is not very convincing:

Stone Age food / Today's equivalent

> Fermented grass in animal stomach contents / Small amounts of sauerkraut and other fermented (aka cultured) raw veggies
> Roots that are edible raw / Carrots, onions, radish, horseradish, parsnip, ginger, garlic, ...

Can anyone add any starchy Paleo foods that are edible raw to this list?
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Raw Kyle on September 01, 2010, 07:32:46 am
Can anyone add any starchy Paleo foods that are edible raw to this list?

Unripe fruit. Most wild fruits have more starch and seeds and less sugar than store bought relatives. Wild bananas, for example, are very starchy little red fruits that are eating by animals well before they can fully ripen. So if you ate them in the wild most likely you'd be eating a decent amount of starch.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on September 01, 2010, 08:18:33 am
Pretty lousy. In all my experimentation the only carby food that I have fared decently on is wild Main blueberries (and I seem to do better if I eat a lot of animal fat with them, a la Yupik Eskimo Akutaq); and even with those I have to limit my intake somewhat to avoid BG spikes.

Glad to hear the toxins don't agree with you.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 01, 2010, 09:09:31 am
Let's assume for a moment that Matt Stone and Danny Roddy are correct that humans are able to digest cooked starches well and benefit from them healthwise. Let's also assume that Tyler is right about cooking only going back 250,000 years or so (or that Wrangham's 1.9 million years is not enough time for humans to have mostly adapted to eating cooked starches, which is not far-fetched given that giant pandas haven't fully adapted to bamboo leaves and roots after over 6 million years). This scenario would seem to suggest that there was a starchy raw precursor food that hominids ate before cooking starch that could have enabled major adaptation to starches before the advent of cooking.

So I thought about what raw foods could have provided starch before cooking. This is all I've been able to come up with so far, which is not very convincing:

Stone Age food / Today's equivalent

> Fermented grass in animal stomach contents / Small amounts of sauerkraut and other fermented (aka cultured) raw veggies
> Roots that are edible raw / Carrots, onions, radish, horseradish, parsnip, ginger, garlic, ...

Can anyone add any starchy Paleo foods that are edible raw to this list?

Yes I can.
Yon ate some of this with me too.
It was a root crop, but not a carrot.
It was called a YACON.

(http://www.candida-cure-recipes.com/images/Yacon.jpg)

and

(http://www.veperu.com/gastronomia/imagenes/yacon.jpg)

absolutely raw, absolutely no cooking.

----------

Another are many varieties of Bananas are more starchy than sugary, especially if ripened on the tree and picked and eaten.
(http://marionsilver.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/saba.jpg)

These SABA Bananas are super abundant in my country.  There would have been a never ending supply of saba bananas for paleo man.  He'd be sick of it and go hunting for meat.

Also guavas, ripened on tree, picked and eaten immediately.
(http://urbanhomestead.org/journal/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/guavas.jpg)

Raw corn, freshly picked and eaten immediately.


Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Guittarman03 on September 03, 2010, 09:08:44 am
100 grams of cricket contains: 121 calories, 12.9 grams of protein, 5.5 g. of fat, 5.1 g. of carbohydrates, 75.8 mg. calcium, 185.3 mg. of phosphorous, 9.5 mg. of iron, 0.36 mg. of thiamin, 1.09 mg. of riboflavin, and 3.10 mg. of niacin

http://www.onlyinternet.net/preceptor/rm118/advbio/2007-8/insectlab07.htm

So I guess it's not alot, but its more than insignificant.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on September 16, 2010, 04:20:14 am
They canceled my order without explanation--probably because there was no drop-down option to add S&H for foreign orders like their website claimed. I emailed twice asking for instructions on how to order from USA, but didn't receive a reply. They apparently don't want my business!

Really?!  That's incredible!  I realise that you may've decided against purchase now due to poor service but if you'd like me to get one for you and forward it on myself it's no problem - just let me know.

Quote
If you haven't already done so, check out Stephen Guyenet's dental advice (which focuses on getting plenty of fat soluble nutrients--especially A, D3 and K2--and minerals).

Thanks, yes I have read that.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think it's obtaining and assimilation of the minerals that's aggravating my problem due to limited foods sources and poor absorption due to previous health problems.  I've got A, D3, K1, MkIV K2 etc covered (assuming they're sufficiently assimilated!) but am still struggling for sufficient Ca/Mg sources - hence my other post about dried herbs.  Of course, I realise that dried herbs are probably non-paleo but my ability to obtain the required insects, bones and seafood is limited.

Quote
Pretty lousy. In all my experimentation the only carby food that I have fared decently on is wild Main blueberries (and I seem to do better if I eat a lot of animal fat with them, a la Yupik Eskimo Akutaq); and even with those I have to limit my intake somewhat to avoid BG spikes.

Remind me - are you doing ok in general on ZC/VLC?  Is the carb requirement, for you, purely due to the recent talk (Stone, Harris, Roddy et al) of eating the arbitrary 50g carbs to keep out of starvation mode?

So I thought about what raw foods could have provided starch before cooking....Can anyone add any starchy Paleo foods that are edible raw to this list?

Kyle and gs made useful suggestions I suspect.  gs, are those yacon similar to sweet potato?  Are you aware of any anti-nutrients they may contain?  Sweet potato can be eaten raw but with toxins such as trypsin inhibitor it's not necessarily a good idea long-term. 

Of course, there's still the potential for fresh blood that we discussed previously too.  It seems that insects are not signifiant with respect to carbs unless one considers eating 500g - 1kg of them per day.  I see them as having provided more as a source of protein and minerals.

I'm still not convinced the assumptions are correct.

Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 16, 2010, 10:01:12 am
Really?!  That's incredible!  I realise that you may've decided against purchase now due to poor service but if you'd like me to get one for you and forward it on myself it's no problem - just let me know.

Thanks, yes I have read that.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think it's obtaining and assimilation of the minerals that's aggravating my problem due to limited foods sources and poor absorption due to previous health problems.  I've got A, D3, K1, MkIV K2 etc covered (assuming they're sufficiently assimilated!) but am still struggling for sufficient Ca/Mg sources - hence my other post about dried herbs.  Of course, I realise that dried herbs are probably non-paleo but my ability to obtain the required insects, bones and seafood is limited.
Organ meats all contain calcium too, with tripe containing a significant amount, and marrow some unknown amount. There's also Dr. Ron's bone meal that is supposed to be high quality, but I have no way of testing it. My favorite source of calcium is dried salted mackerel from a local Asian food store. I like the crunchewiness. I've never noticed any benefits from any form of calcium, though, and some forms constipate me worse. However, I've read here and there that Stone Agers ate a lot of calcium, but rarely is it said what they ate to give them the calcium. Fiber and carbs can bind with calcium and block its absorption, so if you aren't eating a lot of fiber and carbs your calcium needs are probably much less than a SAD eater.

Quote
Remind me - are you doing ok in general on ZC/VLC?
I'm doing VLC and doing OK, though even the small amount of plant carbs (around 1-4% of calories) I'm eating does give me mild negative symptoms--much less severe than when I was eating plentiful carbs, of course. To take one symptom as an example: when I first cut out gluten and went cooked Paleo, the dead skin on my back, shins, eyebrows and bottoms of my feet decreased substantially and I happened to be eating fairly low carb, because carby "Paleo" and semi-Paleo foods like winter squash and tubers and big fruits like melons were too much bother and too large and time consuming for a single person who didn't love them to bother with. Then I was influenced into eating more plant carbs like fruits and winter squashes by loved ones, thinking it was safe to do so based on the writings of Cordain and others. Unfortunately my health relapsed and the dead skin returned. Now, the dead skin on the bottom of my feet is completely gone and most of the dead skin elsewhere is gone as well.

I still have constipation, some continued hairloss, underweight and undermuscled.

Quote
Is the carb requirement, for you, purely due to the recent talk (Stone, Harris, Roddy et al) of eating the arbitrary 50g carbs to keep out of starvation mode?
No, I was doing it before I read their writings on it. I didn't know that Harris had even wrote about starvation mode. I think I remember him saying that eating around 5% of calories as carbs is more efficient than eating ZC. However, I find when my plant carb intake gets above around 3-4% I start getting negative symptoms--and they aren't new symptoms, like many carb advocates try to claim. I've had the symptoms for a long time, they improved immediately when I started cutting back on carbs from around the 30-40% of calories range, they continued to improve with each incremental decrease in plant carb intake, and they worsen within less than 24 hours if I add back in too much plant carbs--and the symptoms quickly resolve again if I once again cut back on the carbs.

Like Lex I don't think that he or I and some other people have any carb requirement. I'm basically experimenting because I haven't reached Lex's level of success yet and my constipation is not resolving as quickly as his did, IIRC.

I'm neither a ZC zealot nor a fruit fanatic. I abhor zealotry in general, but if it turns out that only an extreme diet works for me in the longer run, then so be it.

Quote
Kyle and gs made useful suggestions I suspect.  gs, are those yacon similar to sweet potato?
I've been keeping my eye out for tubers and roots that are edible raw since before Matt Stone got popular. I finished my ZC experiment and started experimenting with adding back in various carbs before Danny became enamored of Matt, though Danny's and Stephen Guyenet's discussions of the subject have added to my interest. So far all I've found is daikon radish root, and it's good enough to stay on my menu. I haven't read much of Matt's stuff beyond learning what he was advocating and what was posted in this forum because his experience has been almost opposite mine in nearly every way and thus of little relevance to me. Danny at least does well on lots of meat, animal fat and pemmican, like I do. Matt gets warmer from eating starches and carbs whereas I get colder on carbs and instead get warmer on animal fats. Matt apparently can eat wheat whereas wheat is the worst of all foods for me. In these and other matters, my experience comes much closer to that of you, Lex, Dr. Harris, Michael Eades, Peter of Hyperlipid, Gary Taubes, and others. They provide more than enough material for me to read. One area where Matt and I are apparently similar is with dairy, which Matt seems to also fair poorly on--even raw milk--though it sounds like he has much less problems with it than I do.

Quote
Are you aware of any anti-nutrients they may contain?  Sweet potato can be eaten raw but with toxins such as trypsin inhibitor it's not necessarily a good idea long-term.
Don't let the veg-heads and fruit fans fool you. ALL plants contain antinutrients, even fruits. If they didn't they wouldn't survive long in the wild. Those antinutrients are critical chemical defense mechanisms. Of course, the flora fiends give antinutrients politically correct terms like "phytonutrients." Remember, antinutrients don't have to be instant lethal poisons to be antinutrients and human beings are better adapted to some than others. Antinutrients are neither pure evil nor completely benign.

Quote
Of course, there's still the potential for fresh blood that we discussed previously too.  It seems that insects are not signifiant with respect to carbs unless one considers eating 500g - 1kg of them per day.  I see them as having provided more as a source of protein and minerals.
Yeah, once humans got pretty large and got pretty good at hunting megafauna, insects and other little critters became a somewhat inefficient food source for such large human animals that had better options. However, insects and other microfauna remain in the human diet to this day and I do think that consumption of insects and other small animals is a crucial part of our ancestral and genetic heritage.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: klowcarb on September 18, 2010, 07:39:03 am

I'm neither a ZC zealot

But it's so much fun!  ;)
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on September 20, 2010, 06:10:24 am
Organ meats all contain calcium too, with tripe containing a significant amount, and marrow some unknown amount. There's also Dr. Ron's bone meal that is supposed to be high quality, but I have no way of testing it. My favorite source of calcium is dried salted mackerel from a local Asian food store.

Thanks for the suggestions.  Mackerel appears to be a reasonable source of Mg - 76mg per 100g fresh.  Dried, of course, would be significantly more!  I wonder if I should consider home-drying lots of mackerel fillets at low temperature as a regular Mg source?  Hmm, that's got me thinking.  Thanks.  I suppose the quantities of protein consumed may become an issue if eating large amounts of dried fish along with regular meat consumption.

Quote
I've read here and there that Stone Agers ate a lot of calcium, but rarely is it said what they ate to give them the calcium. Fiber and carbs can bind with calcium and block its absorption, so if you aren't eating a lot of fiber and carbs your calcium needs are probably much less than a SAD eater.

Yes, this is extremely annoying!  It's an issue that seems to get glossed over.  Certainly, the fact that I consume very little fiber, phytates etc does ensure that my requirement is greatly reduced.

Quote
I'm doing VLC and doing OK, though even the small amount of plant carbs (around 1-4% of calories) I'm eating does give me mild negative symptoms--much less severe than when I was eating plentiful carbs, of course...I still have constipation, some continued hairloss, underweight and undermuscled... I find when my plant carb intake gets above around 3-4% I start getting negative symptoms...Like Lex I don't think that he or I and some other people have any carb requirement. I'm basically experimenting because I haven't reached Lex's level of success yet and my constipation is not resolving as quickly as his did, IIRC...In these and other matters, my experience comes much closer to that of you, Lex, Dr. Harris, Michael Eades, Peter of Hyperlipid, Gary Taubes, and others. 

How long have you been eating RAF now Phil and how old are you? As far as I can recall you've only been on the forum for the last year or so and, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're in your forties aren't you?  I'm 38 and have been eating a RAF based diet for 10 years now.  I still have issues.  I've had to conclude that healing is a s-l-o-w process the speed of which is inversely proportional to the amount of damage inflicted in previous years.  Perhaps time and patience are your greatest resources now.  Your intolerance of carbs may be due to previous damage and may eventually resolve OR maybe any significant level of carbs in the human diet is simply not relevant and we're searching for something that never existed?

I am baffled by your constipation issues Phil, particularly, as this is not something I've ever experienced eating this way.  With luck, the coconut butter is going to help you with this.  Would you consider raw dairy butter as I've always understood this to be effective in this respect?  I do also find it strange that you remain underweight and undermuscled.  I certainly consider myself slim but not underweight.  Unless consuming vast quantities of raw dairy, I simply don't greatly fluctuate in body weight.  But, despite generally very low levels of exercise, I do find that the diet alone keeps me very well toned and muscled.  There must be some kind of absorption issues or existing intestinal injury going on for you which, in time, I'm sure will improve.  You are your own greatest researcher and I'm confident that you'll resolve any remaining issues eventually!


Quote
I didn't know that Harris had even wrote about starvation mode.

I recall him speaking of it as a commentator on someone else's blog (possibly Roddy's?).  I can't recall if he's specifically covered the issue on PaNu.  Unfortunately, I don't find I have enough time to follow any of the blogs as closely as I'd like.

Quote
Don't let the veg-heads and fruit fans fool you. ALL plants contain antinutrients, even fruits. If they didn't they wouldn't survive long in the wild. Those antinutrients are critical chemical defense mechanisms... Antinutrients are neither pure evil nor completely benign.

Yes, I've become increasingly aware of this only over the last couple of years of participating in this forum.  Interestingly, I have cut nightshades out of my diet too now.  Up until a few weeks ago I had usually been eating small quantities of peppers, tomatoes, cayenne etc with my meats (and even occasional potatoes if eating a cooked restaurant meal or Christmas dinner!).  Those high alkaloid levels seem to have substantial potential deleterious effects upon our health and, I must admit, I have been feeling better as a result.


Quote
However, insects and other microfauna remain in the human diet to this day and I do think that consumption of insects and other small animals is a crucial part of our ancestral and genetic heritage.

Yes, I agree.  I'm particularly squeamish when it comes to insects, unfortunately, so I doubt if it's something I'll ever experiment with!  :)
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 20, 2010, 06:59:17 am
Thanks for the suggestions.  Mackerel appears to be a reasonable source of Mg - 76mg per 100g fresh.  Dried, of course, would be significantly more!  I wonder if I should consider home-drying lots of mackerel fillets at low temperature as a regular Mg source?
I thought about home drying, but that would probably be too smelly indoors.

Quote
How long have you been eating RAF now Phil and how old are you? As far as I can recall you've only been on the forum for the last year or so and, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're in your forties aren't you?  I'm 38 and have been eating a RAF based diet for 10 years now.  I still have issues.  I've had to conclude that healing is a s-l-o-w process the speed of which is inversely proportional to the amount of damage inflicted in previous years.
Not good news, oh well. But didn't Lex's improvements come quicker than that?

Quote
I am baffled by your constipation issues Phil, particularly, as this is not something I've ever experienced eating this way.  With luck, the coconut butter is going to help you with this.  Would you consider raw dairy butter as I've always understood this to be effective in this respect?
Yes, I wish to try that some day. I'm not a fan of the taste and mouth feel of cold or room-temp butter, but I'd force it down as a medicinal.

Quote
I do also find it strange that you remain underweight and undermuscled.  I certainly consider myself slim but not underweight.
It's particularly frustrating when some people talk about how their muscles popped out with little effort within months, sometimes even with no significant exercise. I think this is probably relatively natural and people like me either have low-muscle genes or have some continued defect in system functioning, such as inadequate gut flora. On the bright side, while I don't have the defined abs of others (I think my spinal malalignment may contribute to that), the area of my former inguinal pre-hernia (it was bulging but not torn) has become more defined.

Quote
There must be some kind of absorption issues or existing intestinal injury going on for you
Yes, you read my mind. ;) We seem to think much alike.

Quote
which, in time, I'm sure will improve.
I hope you're right and I always remain optimistic about such things, even when the physicians tell me that improvement is impossible.


Quote
I didn't know that Harris had even wrote about starvation mode.

I recall him speaking of it as a commentator on someone else's blog (possibly Roddy's?).  I can't recall if he's specifically covered the issue on PaNu.  Unfortunately, I don't find I have enough time to follow any of the blogs as closely as I'd like.

[/quote]Yes, I've become increasingly aware of this only over the last couple of years of participating in this forum.  Interestingly, I have cut nightshades out of my diet too now.  Up until a few weeks ago I had usually been eating small quantities of peppers, tomatoes, cayenne etc with my meats (and even occasional potatoes if eating a cooked restaurant meal or Christmas dinner!).  Those high alkaloid levels seem to have substantial potential deleterious effects upon our health and, I must admit, I have been feeling better as a result.[/quote]Yes, it was disappointing to cut out another category of food, and I was loathe to do so (and thus put off trying it too long), but I find a more restricted diet is not as bad as I imagined it would be. I think that most of even the Paleo/Primal/LC experts underestimate the subtle damage that many plant foods can do when eaten year-round without offsetting the antinutrient buildup with clay or other detoxicants (note: when I speak of detoxicants, I speak of things that absorb plant antinutrients and carry them out of the body and thus avoid or reduce negative symptoms, rather than the different sort of "detox" in which people claim that nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, emaciation, dental cavities, etc. must be "detox" symptoms without knowing what's going on inside the person), especially in people whose systems are already damaged. I think that seasonal eating plus indigenous knowledge about the best detoxicants for various plants are two areas that modern diets tend to be weak in.

Quote
Yes, I agree.  I'm particularly squeamish when it comes to insects, unfortunately, so I doubt if it's something I'll ever experiment with!
Hee, hee. I ate an ate that was climbing on a wood sorrel plant, and it tasted sweet like the wood sorrel. Not much of a meal, though. African termites would be more concentrated in number and fat-rich.

Thanks for the input. Very valuable as usual.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on September 20, 2010, 07:57:51 am
I thought about home drying, but that would probably be too smelly indoors.

Yes, I'm assuming that you don't have room for a dehydrator in your - as previously described - small apartment either do you?  Perhaps a worthy investment when you move to a larger home.  I find my dehydrator invaluable!

Quote
Not good news, oh well. But didn't Lex's improvements come quicker than that?

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news!  But, it's good to have realistic expectations even with something as wonderful as RPD.  Also, I was excessively damaged to begin with despite my age.  So, as I believe you often say, YMMV.  I do believe Lex's improvements were much quicker although I can't recall quite the number of years he's been eating this way.  I suspect, being of an older generation, he would have been blessed with a much stronger constitution than myself too.  I was the first generation of growing up on pure junk food and suffered it's early consequences.

Quote
Yes, I wish to try that some day. I'm not a fan of the taste and mouth feel of cold or room-temp butter, but I'd force it down as a medicinal.

That's interesting.  I used to hate butter growing up and couldn't have even a smidgeon of it anywhere near my food.  I'd never eaten it since until getting into AV's dietary ideas.  I adore raw, grass-fed butter and can eat it alone in substantial quantities without difficulty!

Quote
It's particularly frustrating when some people talk about how their muscles popped out with little effort within months, sometimes even with no significant exercise.

Sorry to frustrate you further!  :)  That has certainly been my experience.  I probably have as good or better physique than most exercise intensive men in their 20s entirely due to this diet despite little exercise other than walking, cycling and occasional tibetan yoga.  I think that when you resolve or overcome the root issues you seem to be suffering Phil then you, too, will experience these wonderful benefits.

Quote
Yes, you read my mind. ;) We seem to think much alike.

It does seem that we share many thoughts and experiences.  I've greatly enjoyed your addition to the forum over the last year Phil and, like most others I'm sure, put great value in your contributions.

Quote
I hope you're right and I always remain optimistic about such things, even when the physicians tell me that improvement is impossible.

Indeed, the physicians tell us much that has no foundation in the truth.  There may be a few small details that need ironing out for you but you are most certainly on the right path to achieving the level of health you desire and overcoming most, if not all, of any remaining issues you face.

Quote
Yes, it was disappointing to cut out another category of food, and I was loathe to do so (and thus put off trying it too long), but I find a more restricted diet is not as bad as I imagined it would be. I think that most of even the Paleo/Primal/LC experts underestimate the subtle damage that many plant foods can do when eaten year-round without offsetting the antinutrient buildup with clay or other detoxicants

I agree.  I believe this is certainly something that I've underestimated myself.  I've long been aware of the complications of nightshades, for instance, but only seriously began considering excluding them entirely following your recent comments.  I have also found it very easy to adapt to an increasingly restricted diet.  In fact, I have little desire for anything but meat and fat most of the time now!

Quote
I think that seasonal eating plus indigenous knowledge about the best detoxicants for various plants are two areas that modern diets tend to be weak in.

I believe you're right!  There is so much such wonderful knowledge that has been carelessly lost.  We're a part of a movement piecing together some of this knowledge and uncovering the truth.

Quote
I ate an ate that was climbing on a wood sorrel plant, and it tasted sweet like the wood sorrel. Not much of a meal, though. African termites would be more concentrated in number and fat-rich.

Really?!  Incredible!  I find it amazing what some of you guys on here can eat and it makes me feel quite inadequate.  Could you imagine yourself eating termites, crickets, etc?

Quote
Thanks for the input. Very valuable as usual.

Thanks to you too Phil.  I find our discussions of great value and, despite years of learning/experimenting about human health, I find that you often provide me with useful information I was unaware of or set my mind off to explore a matter previously unconsidered!  It's a great exchange!  :)
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on September 20, 2010, 10:31:17 am
Quote
I ate an ate [ant] that was climbing on a wood sorrel plant, and it tasted sweet like the wood sorrel. Not much of a meal, though. African termites would be more concentrated in number and fat-rich.

Michael wrote: "Really?!  Incredible!  I find it amazing what some of you guys on here can eat and it makes me feel quite inadequate.  Could you imagine yourself eating termites, crickets, etc?"Yeah, no problem. Some other insects are supposed to taste rather good. For example, some insects reportedly taste of nuts, though it likely depends on what they eat. There's a guy at the Dirty Carnivore forum who has eaten some insects and found they tasted very good.

It makes sense given that scientists believe that all primates are descended from a creature that resembled a tree shrew or similar primate and was an omnivore that ate insects and other small critters and fruits, as I recall. Humans are relatively closely related to the insect-eating carnivorous (faunivorous) tarsier as well as the better-known less carnivorous primates, but you won't hear vegans or vegetarians talk about that.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on September 20, 2010, 01:40:12 pm
Quote
I ate an ate [ant] that was climbing on a wood sorrel plant, and it tasted sweet like the wood sorrel. Not much of a meal, though. African termites would be more concentrated in number and fat-rich.

Michael wrote: "Really?!  Incredible!  I find it amazing what some of you guys on here can eat and it makes me feel quite inadequate.  Could you imagine yourself eating termites, crickets, etc?"Yeah, no problem. Some other insects are supposed to taste rather good. For example, some insects reportedly taste of nuts, though it likely depends on what they eat. There's a guy at the Dirty Carnivore forum who has eaten some insects and found they tasted very good.

It makes sense given that scientists believe that all primates are descended from a creature that resembled a tree shrew or similar primate and was an omnivore that ate insects and other small critters and fruits, as I recall. Humans are relatively closely related to the insect-eating carnivorous (faunivorous) tarsier as well as the better-known less carnivorous primates, but you won't hear vegans or vegetarians talk about that.

We could use an insect eating guide with pictures.  Start a thread!
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Michael on September 21, 2010, 03:14:34 am
Good idea gs!  An insect eating thread would be brilliant.  You sound qualified for the job PaleoPhil?!  :)

Quote
Could you imagine yourself eating termites, crickets, etc? Yeah, no problem. Some other insects are supposed to taste rather good. For example, some insects reportedly taste of nuts, though it likely depends on what they eat. There's a guy at the Dirty Carnivore forum who has eaten some insects and found they tasted very good.

You're far more adventurous than I when it comes to eating then!  I'm intrigued at the thought of eating insects (and expect it would get me over my uncomfortableness with them) but am not sure I could bring myself to do it.  Perhaps thoroughly prepared, chopped up and cooked hidden in a curry sauce but on their own?!!  How does the D.C guy eat them?

You often give me the impression you've done your research on paleontology etc.  I don't know a great deal about this subject to be honest.  That's interesting that evidence suggests we're derived from a tree shrew and related to that wonderful creature - the tarsier!  They live entirely on insects, birds and small mammals don't they?

On the subject of vegans (and drifting off topic somewhat), I was reading an article on raising children on vegan diets in my partner's Green Parent magazine over my beef/butter lunch today! :)  I'm in no position to judge them as I, too, was in a similar place with my beliefs and outlook in the past but the manner in which they're feeding their children from birth and the level of false information they've 'educated' themselves with is scary!  The poor children look so unhealthy in the photos and yet the parents seem convinced they're physically and mentally advanced compared to their peers?!  I suppose if their peers are eating SAD then this is a possibility but it's a shocking state of affairs.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on October 07, 2010, 01:42:43 am
http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010/10/befriending-insulin.html (http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010/10/befriending-insulin.html)

Matt's latest post. Quite interesting.

Quote
Insulin also works on an axis with the catecholamines – which includes cortisol. When insulin goes up, adrenal activity falls. When insulin goes down, adrenal activity picks up. Keep insulin too low for too long and you run the risk of adrenal fatigue. You are also likely to increase the activity of cortisol (which, unlike carbohydrate ingestion, actually DOES cause insulin resistance) by keeping insulin levels suppressed, which increases insulin resistance, decreases testosterone, decreases fat burning, and otherwise takes you ever-closer to metabolic syndrome.

Exactly what happened to me I guess. I had adrenal fatigue to begin with, eating low-carb made me feel awesome at first, but aggravated the problem. Interestingly, I felt the best when I was still eating some cooked rice and vegetables but with a lot of raw meat. After some months, the incredible energy I had felt at first waned. At the same time, insulin resistance increased to the point that any carbs were causing me big problems. My body however wouldn't let me go zero carb either because it didn't agree with me frying my adrenals. Eating 40-50 bananas a day restored my insulin sensitivity but caused me bowel problems in the long run. The initial bloating and gas diminished after a while but then came back with a vengeance.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 08, 2010, 10:04:41 am
I agree with matt stone on the need for carbohydrates.
 
From a healer's perspective, increasing metabolism is important, and this can be done pretty quickly with a high everything diet, even with cooked.  My professional healer friend Vander does this all the time with his patients and it works.  Yes, even for cancer it works.  Cancer is not always a fungus.

Back to healing people with insulin insensitivity, it is well known in the healing community that nutrition may be lacking in insulin insensitive people /  diabetics.  The easy solution is to give them those minerals they lack and then they get to process insulin properly.  Easy as pie.

For example, you diabetic type 2 people can just munch on bitter melon fruit every day and regain your insulin sensitivity.

Another healer I know recom mends blendering the bitter melon every morning and be done with it in one glass.

So for those of you who do want to experience the benefits of eating carbs again, just eat bitter melon.  If you cannot find it in your markets, just get the bitter melon tea and drink it regularly.

Don't like bitter melon? Juice your greens.

I believe it is important we are flexible for our own long term survival.  We should be able to swing from low carb to high carb as the need arises.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: TylerDurden on October 08, 2010, 02:27:08 pm
Interesting info, Hans89; I had suspected as much re RZC and adrenal fatigue, given my past negative experiences with RZC. Raw low carb did not however affect my past adrenal-related issues to any extent.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hans89 on October 08, 2010, 04:28:38 pm
It could also explain Yuri's breakdown he described in his diary since intermittant fasting is also supposed to be taxing on the adrenals.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: TylerDurden on October 08, 2010, 04:43:37 pm
It could also explain Yuri's breakdown he described in his diary since intermittant fasting is also supposed to be taxing on the adrenals.
The strange thing is that Intermittent Fasting actually improved my adrenal-related health problems. I guess everyone is different.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on October 09, 2010, 12:46:33 am
It could also explain Yuri's breakdown he described in his diary since intermittant fasting is also supposed to be taxing on the adrenals.
And I assure you there are a lot of other unfortunate people who were crippled by intermittent fasting.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: majormark on October 09, 2010, 10:07:05 pm
Matt's latest post. Quite interesting.
"Insulin also works on an axis with the catecholamines – which includes cortisol. When insulin goes up, adrenal activity falls. When insulin goes down, adrenal activity picks up. Keep insulin too low for too long and you run the risk of adrenal fatigue. You are also likely to increase the activity of cortisol (which, unlike carbohydrate ingestion, actually DOES cause insulin resistance) by keeping insulin levels suppressed, which increases insulin resistance, decreases testosterone, decreases fat burning, and otherwise takes you ever-closer to metabolic syndrome."

Anybody know why should the adrenal activity increase when insulin production is down? What's the point?



Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 09, 2010, 10:22:47 pm
This may help:

http://www.newtreatments.org/hypo.php
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: rawlion on October 10, 2010, 02:22:18 am
Anybody know why should the adrenal activity increase when insulin production is down? What's the point?
It is possible that the adrenal hormones (cortisol and adrenaline) are required for gluconeogenesis.
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: majormark on October 10, 2010, 05:22:52 am
This may help:

http://www.newtreatments.org/hypo.php

Interesting, but doesn't really explain why.

It is possible that the adrenal hormones (cortisol and adrenaline) are required for gluconeogenesis.

The fact that cortisol is required does not necessarily mean it will lead to adrenal fatigue.

I remember Aajonus talking about how cooked foods are very taxing to the glands. Maybe some people have them a little "fried" and they experience those symptoms. Carnivores don't get adrenal fatigue and neither did original Inuits (or at least nobody complied).

Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Alomonger Pete on October 10, 2010, 06:36:59 pm
This guy's site is well worth checking out: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=459
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: Hannibal on December 31, 2010, 10:13:49 pm
Quite interesing
Does Insulin Deserve A Bad Reputation? The Low-Carb Experts Weigh In
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/does-insulin-deserve-a-bad-reputation-the-low-carb-experts-weigh-in/9458
Title: Re: Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??
Post by: PaleoPhil on January 01, 2011, 05:33:45 am
I read some of the responses and I like the fact that Mark Sisson focused on the bigger picture of what actually works for most of his clients and readers rather than the reductionist debates in the blogosphere over which is the most important single factor - insulin or leptin or calories or something else (like Mark, I have been noticing increasing claims in the blogosphere that leptin is the main villain rather than insulin). He then does concede that he focuses on insulin, but says it's only because he finds this focus works for his clients rather than to claim that insulin is the only factor or to win debates in the blogosphere.

I also like that Tom Naughton focused on what actually works for him and how the growing fad that starches like rice, potatoes and pasta work for everyone didn't work for him. Chris Masterjohn also recently noted that he tried sweet potatoes and didn't fare well on them: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Paul-Shou-Ching-Jaminet-Perfect-Health-Diet-Review.html. So it seems that one size does not fit all.

People like easy magic cures and sound bites and diet book authors are basically forced to prescribe a single approach for everyone, but what it seems to boil down to is each individual finding out what works for them. If there were one thing I would like to see more emphasis on in Paleo and traditional diet books and blogs I think it would be this and warnings along the lines of "the basic diet approach I recommend in this book/blog may not meet your specific needs and you may need to customize it to better suit your individual needs, which means doing the hard work of tracking the effects of foods on your body, listening to how your body responds to foods, and educating yourself on recognizing signs of food sensitivity and nutrient deficiency, learning about potential dietary pitfalls, getting exercise and sufficient sleep, learning about posture and other health topics and maintaining a rich social life." Being assigned work to do is not what people want to here, but in my experience it has paid dividends.

On the other hand, it may be good that someone somewhere is debating the minutiae in case it generates some new insights and some of these debates spark my curiosity now and then. :) One thing I wonder about from this debate is whether the success some (not all) people (such as Matt Stone) report from intermittent leptin refeeds or overfeeds could be due to some sort of natural fractal effect along the lines of how some (not all) report benefits from intermittent sprinting, intermittent heavy-weight-lifting, intermittent fasting, etc.?