Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach => Topic started by: razmatazz on February 07, 2009, 02:13:50 am
-
After switching to Very low carb eating - eating only meat, fat, organs, and occasional raw/fermented dairy, I've become slightly underweight, which of course is straightforward as i started off eating fewer calories, and now that i'm making sure i eat enough cals, i can't gain weight cuz i'm not eating carbs to produce insulin.
But what i'm reeeally confused about is our cavemen ancestors who ate very few carbs, mainly meat. They obviousely went through periods of starvation when they couldn't find food, and probably lost some weight during that time, right? So how did they gain the fat back once they got enough food again??
Also, if the role of insulin was to store fat for utilization when food was scarce, why is more insulin released when CARBS are eaten, when we obviously didn't have access to much carby food???
I really don't get these, please someone explain!!
thanks
-
You can gain weight without carbs, it's just difficult because the body needs to convert protein into glucose and do it that way, which it doesn't do at anywhere near the rate that eating carbs gives you excess glucose.
As for primitive man, carbs and weight gain, it was probably seasonal.
-
I've found it very easy to gain weight on zero-carb (as long as I eat cooked zero-carb). Raw zero carb does indeed reduce weight (and appetite etc.)
-
your right geoff you do lose volume not so sure about weight so much. It can be a little scary! Especially when your already considered slim by todays standards (its just that carb eaters are infamed with toxins and bloated with water but this look is considered normal) You need to spend 6 months in the gym then go zero carb. You.ll be ripped.
I lost my appetite/exhausted at the 2-3 week mark but it comes back.
-
My dogs gain weight on raw zero carb. But, they are not fat; they stop eating if I feed them too much. If zero carb was meant for us, we would gain weight too. If we couldn’t stabilize our body weight, we weren’t supposed to be on this diet.
Andrew and Lex are doing fine on the diet. Lex gained weight at some point. Read his journal.
-
Well zero carb really is great for weightloss as you lose water aswell. The thing is you also lose your hunger at around the 18 day mark which really intensifies the weight loss and if your already a slim person like me, It's quite weird going from a 32 inch waist to a 30-31 and it's a little hard to get used to especially if your clothes don't fit.
Slowly you put on that bit your lost during your 'no hunger' period and stabilise and you will get your hunger/energy back.
-
It's helpful to me, reading this. Thank you for posting. I'm tempted to do this for my health, but think very low carb is better for me for now.
-
I say, eat instinctively. It's difficult b/c sometimes I instinctively want to eat lazagna. But when I first started, I ate alot of fruit - even sweet ripe fruit. I ate alot of avocados. Slowly, I started getting more and more taste for meat so that now I'm at the point where I really only eat 2 meals a day of very fatty beef, and some liver if I can find it fresh. I'll snack a bit on maybe some eggs and a few berries or tomatoes. But I probably eat less than 50 grams of carbs now in any given day. If I'm trying to put on weight, I'll start eating more bland fruits with my beef, but I realize when you do this, most of that weight ends up as fat. But it is a good way to bulk up, and I will say that when I do that, I put on muscle easier too.
But in reality, although we've spent the last few hundred thousand years in many places around the globe, we truly are monkeys that came out of the jungle. It's where the propensity of our evolution occurred, and given that, there would have been quite a bit of fruit available (much more than say Europe or the northern parts of America). No doubt the increase in brain size and our development had to do with a large increase in animal foods, and we are ideally suited to be on a fairly low carb diet, I still have to believe that we would have opportunistically eaten fruit - in between big meals of meat. I know i just feel and perform better when I'm snacking on sugar throughout the day.
Either way, just experiment, see what works, see what different effects different types of eating has on the body. As time goes by you'll know how to influence the body to do what you want it to do.
-
But in reality, although we've spent the last few hundred thousand years in many places around the globe, we truly are monkeys that came out of the jungle. It's where the propensity of our evolution occurred, and given that, there would have been quite a bit of fruit available (much more than say Europe or the northern parts of America). No doubt the increase in brain size and our development had to do with a large increase in animal foods, and we are ideally suited to be on a fairly low carb diet, I still have to believe that we would have opportunistically eaten fruit - in between big meals of meat. I know i just feel and perform better when I'm snacking on sugar throughout the day.
Um, our species is only about 200k yo. And that means we can't just go back too far to other species when considering who we are and what we eat. We are not Australopithecus any more, nor do we hang out in trees. We are bipedal omnivores, and we have been long enough that we actually require animal foods to function - ie. B-12, lots of protein, fat and their fat soluble vitamins, etc. And we do have extraordinarily large brains from that fat intake. And we do walk on two legs necessarily.
What fruit? Is it always around if no one plants it, even in the tropics? It depends. But if you had to live right now in your region (I am N TX and I believe you are south of me in the US), what could you eat? Citrus, yes, but it spoils quickly without the technology of refrigeration. If you have a root cellar, then maybe. Pecans, yes, and in the shell they will last some time. But what besides that and a few weeds could you eat, especially in winter? Not much. Fruit is a highly seasonal food - not a daily romp in carbs. If you take agriculture out of the equation, then it is very, very, minimal indeed! I was very resistant to such a low or zero carb approach in the past (read my posts as Satya the guest), but fortunately, I have an open mind. If you keep an open mind, you may see that without the planting by humans, there just would not be the fruit there is today, nor would it be as sweet.
I think when you start really looking at that, and the fact that, for instance, light skinned Northern Europeans adapted as such a mere 80k ya, you will see that we really can't go back to Africa any longer. Some people can and do thrive at in 50+ N latitude climates, and without any plants for most of the year (and same in the southern hemisphere, as I hate to neglect the fine friends we have there). We are so far beyond the jungle for all practical purposes.
-
If you keep an open mind, you may see that without the planting by humans, there just would not be the fruit there is today, nor would it be as sweet.
[/quote]
Too right. Imagine getting your sugar jolt from chokecherries or the like.
The modern cultivar is Bing cherries.
-
Um, our species is only about 200k yo. And that means we can't just go back too far to other species when considering who we are and what we eat.
By that same logic, then we could very well cook our food w/ no problems, as fire was widespread about 150-200kya. The oldest archaelogical sites in Britian and northern Europe date back about 300-400kya. No doubt these people got the propensity of their calories from animal foods, but just b/c humans evolved to eat plenty of meat does not mean that we DEvolved such that fruits are harmful or not good for us.
Heritage plays a role here too, as those whos ancestery is from the tropics are more likely to benefit from moderate amounts of varying types of fruit. Ask some of those who live in the tropics, there is plenty of fruit there - but you're right, there's less as you move north. I've been hiking all through Texas. There are mostly wild berries/nuts in varying quantities depending on location and season. I harvested grapefruit, tangerines, and lemons in Corpus over Christmas. You can pretty get some type of fresh fruit year round there.
Alot of spreading of fruit is not necessarily the result of humans. You ever seen a grape vine grow? Unless you hack away at them, they spread like crazy, overtaking whatever they grow on. My dad planted tomatoes a few years ago, and never replanted. Despite us harvesting most all of the tomatoes, they still managed to survive and do quite well despite utter neglect. And don't forget that pumkins, squash, apples, and many more fruits grow quite well even in northern latitudes.
I'm not against low carb... that's my diet. But from experience I do poorly on zero carb, and furthermore it doesn't make sense that humans across the board were solely or almost entirely zero carb. These are the exception - the inuit for eg - and even they ate seasonal nuts and berries.
But I wasn't always low carb - everyone's health and bodies are at different points. And then there's the question of herbs, the interesting chemicals they produce, and their e(a)ffects on the body. That's why I say that instincts/experimentaion will probably serve most people best in the long run (so long as you remain within the purview of raw paleo type foods).
-
By that same logic, then we could very well cook our food w/ no problems, as fire was widespread about 150-200kya. The oldest archaelogical sites in Britian and northern Europe date back about 300-400kya. No doubt these people got the propensity of their calories from animal foods, but just b/c humans evolved to eat plenty of meat does not mean that we DEvolved such that fruits are harmful or not good for us.
Actually, modern fruits are not the ones we evolved eating. They are many degrees sweeter now that they have been bred to be so. And yes, when eaten daily, year round, they can be harmful. Perhaps some people can get away with eating more fruit without problem, but that does not mean they are inherently healthy. They provide water, sugar, and limited quantities of vitamins and minerals. Avocados being a notable and unsweet exception.
Heritage plays a role here too, as those whos ancestery is from the tropics are more likely to benefit from moderate amounts of varying types of fruit. Ask some of those who live in the tropics, there is plenty of fruit there - but you're right, there's less as you move north. I've been hiking all through Texas. There are mostly wild berries/nuts in varying quantities depending on location and season. I harvested grapefruit, tangerines, and lemons in Corpus over Christmas. You can pretty get some type of fresh fruit year round there.
I am half Scot and half Swede, basically. I have very dense bones, just really thick.
Southern TX is subtropical, so this is no surprise, but are all these fruits really wild, or are they trees someone planted?
Alot of spreading of fruit is not necessarily the result of humans. You ever seen a grape vine grow? Unless you hack away at them, they spread like crazy, overtaking whatever they grow on. My dad planted tomatoes a few years ago, and never replanted. Despite us harvesting most all of the tomatoes, they still managed to survive and do quite well despite utter neglect. And don't forget that pumkins, squash, apples, and many more fruits grow quite well even in northern latitudes.
Yes I have. I have fruit trees, blackberry bushes/vines, some veg and cactus here. Neither wild grapes nor common blackberries in N TX are at all sweet, and they are available for perhaps as long as one month in the summer. My peaches, plums and apricots each produce about 2 weeks. But last year, we had a freeze and then some hail, and guess what? I got no fruit from them! Not any of them. But barring any weird weather this year, they should produce really well. Asparagus will come in soon, and I will eat that for a mere 2 weeks.
I'm not against low carb... that's my diet. But from experience I do poorly on zero carb, and furthermore it doesn't make sense that humans across the board were solely or almost entirely zero carb. These are the exception - the inuit for eg - and even they ate seasonal nuts and berries.
But I wasn't always low carb - everyone's health and bodies are at different points. And then there's the question of herbs, the interesting chemicals they produce, and their e(a)ffects on the body. That's why I say that instincts/experimentaion will probably serve most people best in the long run (so long as you remain within the purview of raw paleo type foods).
According to WA Price, the Inuit he visited did indeed dry cranberries. They preserved sorrel grass in seal oil and had a few nuts. How many carbs do you think that supplied a day on average? William lives up north and says many go without any plant foods.
Right, we humans can survive on many different foods, but that doesn't mean they are optimal. When young, we can get away with more abuse, generally. I am not zero carb; I don't know that I would ever be. Some people have improved their health dramatically on zero carb - like Lex and Andrew. Also, when I look at life without a grocery store, even here at 32 degrees N, there ain't much but cilantro, stored pecans, arugula/rocket (the arugula I planted years ago) and some planted cactus and parsley I can go consume right now from the plant kingdom. Walking around the region I could find more, but walking around expends more energy than most plants provide.
Even the deer are getting braver this time of year. A doe walked right up to me on the trail the other day. I tried to scare her off, as feeding wild animals is a bad practice. These are lean times for the herbivores.
-
No doubt these people got the propensity of their calories from animal foods, but just b/c humans evolved to eat plenty of meat does not mean that we DEvolved such that fruits are harmful or not good for us.
There is one more point I wanted to make concerning fruits and evolution besides the fact that we can't go to modern fruits to see what our ancestors consumed. And that is: There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. We need consume no carbs to survive. There is no carb deficiency disease. We do need essential fatty acids and essential amino acids from foods. We will suffer many deficiency ills without them. That should clue us in to where we are in the evolutionary scheme of things.
Yes, the propensity of our calories did and should come from animal foods. Eating fruit every day may well displace these vital animal foods. Even one banana would cause me problems.
Along these lines, I just have a really hard time considering the WAI diet as truly paleolithic. Limiting animal foods to just fish and eggs is bs for many people who happen to be allergic to such foods. And since this is a zero carb board, I don't mind saying so here. :P
-
I may have mis-stated my thoughts. I'm sure that, and it would make sense, that many people do very well on 100% animal foods (i say animal foods b/c there are carbs in muscle/organs, though minimal). It's just that it seems somewhat dogmatic to assert that everyone is the same, and that a small/moderate amount of varying fruit is less than ideal for every human on the planet. Again, ideal diet is different for many different people.
If carbs really are so bad for you, then why does human milk have a moderate amount? I realize this is a slightly flawed statement as there are enzymes that can only be digested as a baby, but I think the carbs are qualitatively different, and are still valid as an example.
Anyways, it seems we could probably agree that peoples of the north ate fruit/plant products minimally and seasonally at best, and that people of the tropics would be inclined to eat fruit on a more regular and steady basis; and that carbs aren't necessarily essential... but it could be possible they might be moderately beneficial for some?
Also realize there are many, many types of non-sweet fruits. Avocado is not just a rare example: pumpkin, squash, cucumber, peppers, olives, tomatoes, eggplant, most fruit that is non-ripe, just to name a few. Many think of these as veggies, but they're actually fruit.
Last, I don't really know what the Wai diet consists of, but yeah fish and eggs doesn't sound all that realistic for the whole of humanity.
-
Hey Guittarman,
First, I just want to say that it is an absolute joy discussing this with such a fine, intelligent individual, such as yourself. Do you play chess or racquetball per chance? I sense a competitive nature in you along with a sense of fair play. Some times rigid ideas or ego can get in the way of good reasoning. It's just nice that that hasn't happened here with us.
I agree that diet must be catered to the individual, as some people have issues with some foods that others don't (like allergic reactions, intolerances, etc.). That said, I think it's pretty clear that an omnivorous or carnivorous one is necessary long term for health. Eating the majority of foods raw is also important.
If carbs really are so bad for you, then why does human milk have a moderate amount? I realize this is a slightly flawed statement as there are enzymes that can only be digested as a baby, but I think the carbs are qualitatively different, and are still valid as an example.
This is a very good question. The macronutrient ratio of human milk will vary with the mother's diet, but it looks like carbs are about 30-40% generally. That's why is so important to eat well when pregnant/nursing. According to lipid expert Mary Enig:
http://www.westonaprice.org/children/humanmilk.html
In fact, the milk from a healthy mother has about 50 to 60 percent of its energy (kilocalories) as fat.1 The cholesterol in human milk supplies an infant with close to six times the amount most adults consume from their food.
...
The higher fat is more desirable, of course, for the developing infant. The higher fat milk will have more of the fat molecules that are needed for their many functional properties, and will also supply enough energy so that all of the protein can be used by the infant for development. Fat is spoken of as "protein sparing." Without adequate fat, the protein in human milk cannot be used.
It may be that the developing infant needs more carbs. And like you say, ideal diets may vary somewhat. Well, they might vary not only by ethnicity, but age.
I am in total agreement of the non-sweet fruits being mislabelled as vegetables. However, nightshades such as eggplant, tomato and peppers do contain alkaloids that can affect neurological functioning in humans (nicotine in the nightshade tobacco is one example). Unripe fruit can be unhealthy to eat. Ever have an unripe persimmon? Dry mouth from hell! They have to be totally mushy to eat (the common US variety anyway, name slips me now). Oh, and green tomatoes contain solanine (just like green potatoes) and can be very bad news to consume, especially raw.
The Wai Diet is listed as a Paleo diet on this very forum. That's all, I just question it as a real choice, as it is flat out high in fruit. I wasn't directing it at you, just stating an opinion about it in general.
-
The Wai Diet is technically rawpalaeo as it excludes non-rawpalaeo foods such as cooked foods, dairy(raw or pasteurised) etc. Granted, it's more restrictive in terms of only really recommending raw seafood and raw fruit, mainly, but that's most likely because of the public's hysteria over raw meats than any other reason.
-
If carbs really are so bad for you, then why does human milk have a moderate amount? I realize this is a slightly flawed statement as there are enzymes that can only be digested as a baby, but I think the carbs are qualitatively different, and are still valid as an example.
They have the enzymes to digest LACTOSE, but no other 'oses... and those lactose digesting enzymes go away within a few years (this is why there are more lactose intolerant adults than babies.. although there are a lot of babies being born with LI now..) This is also why babies have a set of teeth that fall out in a few years. Those are their 'milk teeth' that could possibly become damaged by the lactose they get. It does not contain glucose or fructose.
Baby fat = good, the more fat around their ankles and wrists the better! They also need fat for their growing brains.... babies in utero use ketones to build those brains!!
Babies were meant to drink breast milk for the first few years.... no other milk (especially cow's).
-
The Wai Diet is technically rawpalaeo as it excludes non-rawpalaeo foods such as cooked foods, dairy(raw or pasteurised) etc. Granted, it's more restrictive in terms of only really recommending raw seafood and raw fruit, mainly, but that's most likely because of the public's hysteria over raw meats than any other reason.
But it excludes major paleo foods too. It seems like the first step back into omnivore-land for former fruiterians, and it is basically fruitarian. It perpetuates the same bacterial phobias of red meats, meats that provide the backbone of RPD diets, containing nutrients such as CLA that can be found nowhere else on the planet. Not only that, it advocates the 'little meals all day philosophy,' which definitely goes against our nature, generally speaking.
http://www.waidiet.com/twd-diet.html
Our protein requirement is quite low, just enough for daily construction/maintenance, and it cannot be stored in the body anyway (only as body fat). Consuming more protein increases the load of its wasteproducts ammonium and nitrogen, which has an adverse effect on longevity. The diets of the longest living creatures are low in protein. Therefore this diet is high-carb, high-fat, low-protein. The digestion of protein can be problematic when too much fiber is ingested around the same time, so avoid eating fiber around the time (e.g. one hour before and after) when protein is consumed. The acceptable amount of fiber and time differs per individual, so experimenting is needed.
To facilitate digestion of protein it is advised to avoid being very active for about an hour after consuming a proteinous meal.
[emphasis mine]
Um, what the hell is muscle? Stored protein, that's what. It's a loopy diet. Nice that it's raw, and maybe that's the attraction, but I completely disagree that it is paleo.
-
I think it's best to be as inclusive as possible. I mean, technically, anyone who occasionally eats some sashimi or raw oysters or steak tartare is a semi-rawpalaeo of sorts. If we were too rigid that would mean excluding Weston-Price Diet advocates and even Primal Dieters for including raw dairy etc. And a lot of people go through wai-diet phases etc. before turning to this sort of diet, in the end.
-
I think it's best to be as inclusive as possible. I mean, technically, anyone who occasionally eats some sashimi or raw oysters or steak tartare is a semi-rawpalaeo of sorts. If we were too rigid that would mean excluding Weston-Price Diet advocates and even Primal Dieters for including raw dairy etc. And a lot of people go through wai-diet phases etc. before turning to this sort of diet, in the end.
Good idea to include as many as possible. Heck, I'm not all raw (50-75% currently). I'd hate to be excluded.