Guys,
Sorry I don't want to be mean (really) but I think these types of discussions (what is ZC, with or without organs etc) are kind of tiresome.
Exactly--the frequent debates caused by the combination of all that confusion and dissension over ZC plus the fact that no one is truly zero carb makes the term worthy of burying so that there will be less discussion about it. I think the reason the term survives is that it's convenient to write just two letters, but if we could get alternative acronyms going, like RC (raw carnivore), RPC (raw pure carnivore), and RM (raw meat) I think there's a chance that would eventually improve both understanding and harmony.
I eat only animal foods (meat, fat, eggs, organs) and have never felt better in my life.
Liar! (joke)
What I wanted to say is: I am glad that I was part of ZIOH, b/c that's were I met katelyn and she was one of the main drivers for me to have my meal at night - and both ZC and WD is, what is working best for my body and mind!
Great attitude! You reminded me of another potential reason why the term "ZC" may cause irritation to some members here. ZIOH has given ZC bad associations. Some, like you, had bad experiences at ZIOH and may not enjoy being reminded of the place with the favorite term of it's members. Is this the case for anyone? I know I found some of the extreme dogmatism there offputting.
So why the talk how you define ZC? Is it really important?
Nicole
Not really on its own, but the frequent discussions you complained about that "ZC" causes is a real issue here. Time to kill it and end the problem for good, I say. Let's leave "ZC" to ZIOH and come up with better terms here. My guess is that most of the people here who call themselves ZCers actually eat some foods that contain more than 1% carbs, such as beef liver and eggs, so that the term does not describe their WOE well anyway.
Thanks for the input, Nicole.