I've done some reading and I'm intrigued by the nutritional ketogenic diet, raw meat (zero carb) diet, and raw animal food diet principles, and want to combine them into an easy modern "very low carb animal food diet."

My plan is to get the benefits of being in nutritional ketosis, the benefits on digestion of eating less food mass because animal protein/fat is of higher quality and contains less fiber than plant foods, and the benefits of course of eating raw high quality bacteria-rich foods.

For this I am thinking of eating only high-quality organic/free range raw egg yolks (just the yolk, not the sac or the white), about 24 a day. Then I would eat about 13 oz of raw grass-fed grass-finished beef which is a 80/20 lean/fat grind, and every other day eat 1 raw wild caught atlantic salmon fillet and back off on the yolks some (the fattiest brand I can find which fits the wild caught parameter). On top of this I would also drink spring water as desired along with real sea salt (from ancient oceans which contains small amounts of calcium and potassium naturally) especially if I exercise, to act as a kind of electrolyte replenishing drink. All of the animal food would be divided into about 5 meals a day at first, working up gradually into 2-3 meals a day as my body learns to handle it.

The only major sources of carbs on such a diet would be the egg yolks, which contain 0.6 g of carbs per yolk, eating 24 yolks a day as my upper limit would put me at around 14.4 g of carbs per day, and whatever minute quantities I absorb from the raw beef and salmon. Still, that should keep me below 30 g of net carbs a day to remain in ketosis.

I'm waiting on a shipment of the beef to get here before I start, does anyone see anything wrong with my plan or something I'm missing?

At last, you have, very grudgingly admitted that some humans might be better adapted to temperate climates than hot ones. Well, that is at least a start.

It's actually a completely different thing than a cold climate, lol. My opinion on this hasn't shifted in years, your delusions of me admitting something as if I ever said anything to the contrary is truly disturbing. Do you have any recollection of what we're debating?

This is particularly short-sighted an opinion  given that it is already known that pigs have too few sweat glands so need to wallow in mud or water  primarily  in order to cool off. They also use mud as sunscreen and it is claimed they may use it for scenting. This does by no means mean they are adapted to aquatic or semi-aquatic  environments. Similiarly, the fact that humans and many other land mammals may routinely wash themselves in water or swim does not make them adapted to an aquatic environment, let alone a semi-aquatic one. Besides, what about  those humans who have adapted better  to desert environments than aquatic ones?
Here's more detailed  stuff debunking the aquatic ape theory. Not difficult to find since the Aquatic Ape theory is long discredited due to having major flaws in it:-

First of all, did you wipe that egg off your face yet, because in case you missed it, in your routine ability to google something in 5 seconds and post a link, you posted something that contradicts your entire point. Just wanted to make sure that sank in. By the way, pigs/boars also need wallowing to cleanse themselves of parasites/insects . This is just how pigs/boars are, you're the one who brought it up attempting to use them as an example of an animal with subcutaneous fat that doesn't routinely submerge in water (or mud, which is soil+water, I made it easy on your brain, see?) There is simply no other reason to be relatively naked and have subcutaneous fat, do you see that now? Or have you found an animal which is an exception? Really, just answer, because you keep avoiding these great milestones your mind must be grudgingly admitting to, yet you skip them every time to save face.

Yes, our skin (external part of our body) is adapted to water, that is exactly what wallowing/swimming indicate. Do you see that now? Don't dodge the question now Tyler (;

I realize you have an irrational fear of the term "semi aquatic", as all defensive people get this way when they are wrong and not humble enough to admit it. So let's see if you can clearly state for the record that you now see that humans require water routinely applied on the surface of their skin, like all other above-ground animals with relatively naked skin and subcutaneous fat, so that we, humans, are typical in that the skin of our bodies relies on touching water. Whether or not your ignorant mind understands the connection that our natural behavior seeks out water particles so that they can routinely come into contact with our skin (all over) makes us semiaquatic is not my problem. I can't teach you common sense.

As about the adaptations of the 3 ethnic groups, I said the only dramatic difference is skin color - elongated limbs or slightly stubbier noses/body builds don't equate to major heat losses/gains. At least not anything in comparison to skin color due to sunlight intensity in those varying areas.

What you seem to fail to comprehend is the striking similarities between all three groups - all three have extremely fat infants for example, with lots of white fat (which is the worst form for insulation and body heat, but the best form for buoyancy). I know that's a shocker to you because you're wondering how babies are floating with wet cloths being scrubbed on them. There must have been some evolutionary reason though, think hard Tyler!

By the way, hilariously, the two links you've posted as of yet to "discredit" the aquatic ape theory is one website created by a single man who personally attacks elaine morgan/AAH proponents more than he pays attention to the theory itself and the other is by cecil adams which you can read all about what kind of character he is, in his own words here, http://www.straightdope.com/pages/faq/cecil or maybe click the link "Ask the master" on his website.

Tyler, you're a joke. I'm done debating with you out of pity for you, everyone here can clearly figure it out for themselves with the information I've given and some light reading. Have fun believing your right but actually being wrong for the rest of your life, just because you have know-it-all syndrome (when really we both know that's a look-up-contrary-information-on-google-read-it-for-5-secs-then-post-it-as-if-you-read-it-before-today syndrome)

Just finished reading the rest of your post Tyler, more flimsy logic:

Again, you miss the point. Wood would not always have been available for fire. After all,  the  available wood could have been soaked by storms or flooding,  for example,  plus the Yaghans could not always have been in a position to light a fire during every  single activity they did such as hunting and foraging. So, if fire was so  absolutely essential to their survival, as you claim, how come they were able to survive at times during periods with no access to any fires, such as when hunting or foraging?

If it flooded, the wood would be the least of their problems, but alas they lived near cape horn so it wasn't a problem (use your brain).
As about rain, they had rock shelters, language, boats, and fire, but weren't smart enough to protect the wood from rain? Are you kidding me? They had at least as much intelligence as you, and even you could understand the concept of protecting your firewood from rain. Your attempts to support your imaginary facts (that they didnt use fires a lot, even though reports say they did, and you weren't there) are just getting ridiculous.

Try to hold your breath underwater and then tell me humans are semiaquatic.   I am ignorant on the subject, but I don't believe we fit the definition.

We are one of the few partly land based animals with the ability to voluntarily hold our breath, giving us temporary underwater survival.

By the way, it's quite funny you think we aren't semi-aquatic when the majority of humans the world over frequently (usually daily sometimes multiple times in a single day) bathe in water (showers, baths, rubbing down with wet cloths/hoses, or going oldschool with rivers/beaches/ponds/lakes), when we all know pets which are kept indoors and fed just as much processed food as we are, don't need or desire baths every single day unless they get really dirty from mud etc.

Is anyone else here not semi-aquatic and able to live nakedly without fires unless you want extra comfort in the subarctic climates without bathing except when it rains like a true terrestrial animal?

How about anyone here who could really rough it up and go all natural and live on a mild climate island with a beach you can bathe in every day, tropical fruit hanging from trees, not to mention the shade the trees provide, full of mussels, crabs, insect life etc you can feast on, without any fires (as what would be the point?) I mean, I've never heard of people getting stranded on tropical islands and surviving without fire, it's just not our natural habitat! But getting stranded in a subarctic climate with no fire that's a guaranteed survival right there.

In any case, you must not be very popular with the ladies when they come over and you tell them "by the way, I don't have a working shower, as I'm a land animal, not semi-aquatic. I don't need to bathe in water, I bathe in body odor."

Tyler your post is full of logical fallacies again,
Neanderthals most likely had fur, it's not nonsense. I didn't compare Neanderthals to chimps, you compared Humans to Neanderthals, I reminded you that slight DNA differences mean dramatic physiological changes (less than 1% goes from human to chimp).

I never said or implied Neanderthals had short or long lifespans, I was talking about their survival (extinction). They went extinct relatively rapidly, from when they came into existence. They didn't last long as a species when compared to other species alive today that have been around much longer than they ever were.

When I stated Neanderthals went extinct because of cold periods, I was using the latest scientific knowledge to support it, it isn't wrong. Your less-likely opinion is based on outdated information, there's no other way to look at it.

The Yaghans didn't just use fire, they used boats and animal grease also, they also were reported by early Europeans to have used "many fires." You keep insinuating they didn't as if you knew, when the only people who know are the people who actually saw and wrote about it, you're not one of those people. The records indicate "many fires", don't downplay something because it goes against what you want to believe.

It isn't likely that Neanderthals died out in a warm climate, as the most recent scientific data suggests. While no data is perfect from "what ifs", we can only go on the data we have. Everything else is absolutely meaningless speculation. If you don't agree, then don't use Neanderthals which we don't have enough data about yet in your opinion to support your flakey claims.

Fur is simply the most energy efficient method to maintain body heat on land for mammals of any significant size, which is why most land-based animals have fur no matter the climate. Subcutaneous body fat, being more expensive even though a great insulator particularly in water, is typically hoarded by aquatic or semiaquatic animal life, since they tend to have more food available to them. You can see this in many land animals that wade in water like the hippo.

In conclusion, your seemingly infinite incorrect assumptions about what I'm saying as well as your logical flaws appear to make it impossible for you to realize the common sense right under your nose. Modern humans natural/optimal habitat is not arctic or subarctic climates or anything close to it, even if we can somewhat adapt to live in those climates (with some technology) in less than 10,000 years like the Yaghans did, our population would dwindle from billions to thousands since there isn't that many cold climate areas with as much easy to find food as the Yaghans had, and their survival depended on their unique circumstances, isolated to a tiny area still with the help of boats, animal grease, fire, and language technology (practical knowledge).

There is no reason for our body to evolve subcutaneous body fat instead of fur to conserve body heat, unless we were partly aquatic. There is no land animal that has subcutaneous body fat that doesn't or didn't have a recent habitat in water or partly in water.
There is no reason for our body to evolve conscious control of our breathing (and therefore ability to speak) unless we were partly aquatic. While there are advantages to this, one person doesn't just evolve conscious breath control on land and have a great advantage (still not speaking) and then carry this genetic change over to the rest of the species. Conscious breath control doesn't directly evolve for purposes of communication, it evolves for water-survival.
Higher metabolisms and higher brown body fat equates to much higher energy needs. Much higher energy needs equates to depending on much higher food supply in any given area. Colder climates, unless accompanied by water-sources, are the world over much less rich in food supplies than warmer climates. It doesn't make any evolutionary sense to evolve higher nutritional demands, while relocating to a less abundant food supply area, unless, like the Yaghans, you are forced out of your natural habitat by enemies or some other force and forced to adapt over thousands of years (which still hasn't been shown that humans even back then could survive without technological aid, despite Tyler's fantasies about it), like modern humans today haven't been and therefore aren't adapted to such climates.

@eveheart
your post itself is a contradiction to the point you're trying to make
tylerdurden has replied just as many times as I have to the discussion (with much more repetitive "neanderthal and yaghan" themes which don't relate to the vast majority of humanity) we are debating
furthermore you are off topic, you can PM me with these personal issues you have instead of derail an ontopic debate

(posting this here so that everyone can learn from your mistake, otherwise I'd pm you)

as to what colorles contributed, it is obvious humans expanded to colder climates with the aid of technology, but this is a relatively recent change, and not the natural habitat for our bodies, the bulk of our body is still adapted to our past before that change, the climate and conditions we lived in before technology/cold climates.
when you compare the differences between caucasian, asian, etc, you can clearly see the differences - but they are not major in terms of environmental adaptation

our adaptation of paler skin for areas away from exposed areas with intense sunlight is not in itself an indication of cold adaptation - it is an indication of sun(vitamin d etc) adaptation in those areas. there are many such areas which are not cold climates, yet still have little sun. even the rainforest is an example, or a typical less-thick forest with tree cover like on many islands and mainlands. To be clear, colorles is completely wrong about Caucasians being unable to live in exposed areas, as our skin can tan quickly and there is always shade some of the time (sleeping). Furthermore, people did not jump on airplanes and hop over to africa from far away back then, you gradually migrated to some other place like to a more exposed area slowly increasing sunlight exposure.

the reason all of this is important is another matter
one that has to do with even more advanced logic than people here are displaying they are capable of
for example, if we adapted to colder environments on the fast track using technology (shortly followed by cooking, farming, etc), then our digestive system has not had a chance to genetically catch up all the way
meaning the best foods are still ones we adapted to pre-technology, as well as countless other logical deductions you can make from the truth rather than speculations on fantasies

to be completely clear, skin color (or color of hair, eyes, etc) is one of the first genetic adaptations to take place to a new environment as it isnt a complex change (white bunnies, brown bunnies, black bunnies), changing a digestive system's workings is a slower adaptation. even so, skin color has nothing to do with cold/hot climate, and everything to do with sun exposure

tyler:
yaghans used:
some minimal clothing to shelter from the elements
rock formations to shelter from the elements
boats to shelter from the elements
fires to generate heat
animal grease to shelter from the elements
defecation position as resting position to reduce surface area to keep warm

if you think this is evident of our bodies natural ability to survive in that climate, you really are as lost as I thought. on the contrary, incidentally, that is all evidence that our naked bodies, even when adapted over a lifespan to build more brown fat (which generates more heat) and have higher metabolisms, is unable without technological aid to survive in that climate. incidentally, you are completely incorrect, still, after all of these posts.

incidentally, it would be nice to know how you propose they "hunted" or got food in any way since we know they at least had knowledge of using rocks, boats, fire, clothes, and animal grease. are you proposing they "hunted" (or fished, or maneuvered) in this climate without those aids? or are you merely using them as an incorrect example to support your ridiculous position?

it is known that humans can adapt to cold and survive in cold weather, just as many other animals can adapt and survive in climates/habitats other than their natural climate/habitat, that doesn't mean that without help, luck, or severe struggle, that we are genetically adapted to that environment! seriously wake up

Some people really have no idea what a cold climate is like... sigh
here's how we deal with too-cold temperatures: hypothermia/focus bloodflow on vital organs and get frostbite (conserve and spend tons of energy)

here's how we deal with too much heat: sweating (relatively painless, only need to eat minimal energy and some water which is usually abundant in areas with fruit)

even if you have no idea what a cold climate is like, just looking at the facts should make it obvious to you we are not adapted for colder climates, but more on the warm side, despite having some resilience to temporary cold

thank you for that unrelated and abstract polar bear reference which doesn't have anything to do with humans, lol.

fact: human babies naturally hold their breath underwater, an evolutionary adaptation due to human babies being in water
fact: human babies will die in cold climates when they go for a swim and/or emerge drenched in water
obvious conclusion: naked babies don't keep behaviors having to do with swimming when they're living in a cold climate
obvious conclusion: your theory is shown to be completely bogus, without having to rely on polar bear references

ignoring infants, your theory is still invalid however, as young children are not going to huddle up all day in a burrow to survive and stay warm, and evolve that way over tens of thousands of years. you clearly know nothing about the behavior of these nearly naked (no armpit hair, genital hair, and very little body hair) young children which in nature run around and walk around to stay healthy, rather than huddle up in a shelter for 3/4 or 1/2 the year.

the fact that you cannot see that virtually all great apes have trouble with cold climates without technology is the underlying fundamental foolish ignorant belief on your part, you need to open your mind to other ideas rather than keep listening to your own delusions

Tylerdurden: We are are one of the most naked land mammals that doesn't live underground, yet your idiotic theory is that we are better adapted to cold weather than many animals which actually have furs. There is no reasoning with such a moronic view. It is one thing to stand outside in snow in still air, and a whole other thing to get blasted by wind chill, among countless other common sense facts against your delirious theory. Our sweating mechanism gives us one of the most rapid cooling mechanisms of all mammals our size when out in the heat, but yeah, we totally evolved in cold climates. Many people here don't have research under their belt so I can't label them idiotic, just ignorant, but you're actually an idiot - unable to reason despite reading a lot.

If you fast on grass fed raw milk assuming it's fresh, it's fine in moderation, and if it's even processed a little it won't hurt you nearly as bad as many other foods out there, such as heavily processed foods or grains, after all it's a raw animal food, but it's still not balanced nutritionally at all, and there are far better animal foods, like raw beef, or for hydration - raw fruit juice, which are better at their specific roles.

People can be cured of "incurable" diseases just by fasting, breathing correctly, etc. It's simply doing something better than you were before. For example, if when people go up in spaceships, they suddenly became healthier, a logical person doesn't assume that outerspace is healing, but rather that their lifestyle radically changed.

So, when you fast on nothing but raw milk, the major change here is that you aren't eating all of the worse foods you were before, not that raw milk is balanced or magically healing in any way.

Of course, to simple minded common folk, the idea that people are cured while fasting on raw milk or using pyramid crystals is undeniable proof that those diets or methods are absolutely correct. These people need to read books on logic and deduction, rather than debate with other humans.