Zero Carb and VLC/Ketogenic - A Lethal Recipe for Disaster

[Iguana]

I'm not familiar with the way Wodgina or Ioanna go about their diets

Neither am I, especially about Wodgina. The only things I ever read on his posts is grudge on women and that he surfs. LOL! 

[eveheart]

At one point I started noticing I was actually becoming hyperthyroid from such a large dose of Iodine. At time I'd have symptoms of hypothyroid as well. It wasn't until I lowered my dose down to single digit milligram levels I started feeling better. I would think that taking Iodine at such a high dose while following a RPD (assuming it contains enough glandular supportive nutrients) can actually cause problems. There have been several studies of long term high dose Iodine supplementation causing all sorts of problems for people, including autoimmune issues. Are you taking a high dose? If so, maybe this could be keeping you from seeing improvements? How is your Vitamin D level?

I get TSH, Vitamin D, and a few other blood tests done 2 - 4 times per year. My Vitamin D levels have ranged between 50 and 90 for the last 3 years. My TSH didn't budge with iodine supplementation at any level. I've paid good money to well-regarded naturopaths, and I am not pursuing that type of treatment now. I think I understand the biological premise of auto-immune disorders, but perhaps there is too much damage for treatment to yield results. I prefer seaweed and seafood over supplements. All things considered, I get lots of mileage from RPD.

I'm not telling anyone what to do or what to supplement with, or at least I don't mean to. If I come across that way I do apologize but I'm just sharing what is currently working for me and hope it can help others in some way. Thank you all for the discussion and it is great to be a part of this forum.

You did not come across wrong in any way; I just wanted to put your experience into perspective. Age, big-city pollution, and decades of vegetarianism are a significant factors for me. (I'm old enough to be your grandmother. I love saying that LOL).

Thanks for your response.

[24isours]

I get TSH, Vitamin D, and a few other blood tests done 2 - 4 times per year. My Vitamin D levels have ranged between 50 and 90 for the last 3 years. My TSH didn't budge with iodine supplementation at any level. I've paid good money to well-regarded naturopaths, and I am not pursuing that type of treatment now. I think I understand the biological premise of auto-immune disorders, but perhaps there is too much damage for treatment to yield results. I prefer seaweed and seafood over supplements. All things considered, I get lots of mileage from RPD.

Have you completely eliminated gluten, dairy, and possible allergenic foods like eggs?

You did not come across wrong in any way; I just wanted to put your experience into perspective. Age, big-city pollution, and decades of vegetarianism are a significant factors for me. (I'm old enough to be your grandmother. I love saying that LOL).

Good to hear and hey... grandmas are full of wisdom :]
I'm sure you look great for your age.

[eveheart]

Have you completely eliminated gluten, dairy, and possible allergenic foods like eggs?

I sure have, and that accounts for how well I feel. Joint inflammation is a great warning for me that a food is not right.

[TylerDurden]

Why would chufas / tigernuts be inadequate? Since it can be found wild and can be very tasty for a lot of people, what’s wrong? Our paleo ancestors certainly ate it sometimes.

  I was thinking of a  recent tribe which routinely ate lots of starchy tubers but found that they tasted vile compared to much better foods like raw wild game.

[24isours]

I sure have, and that accounts for how well I feel. Joint inflammation is a great warning for me that a food is not right.

Joint inflammation comes around if I start eating anything from the nightshade family or food high in phytic acid.

[Hanna]

Hi 24isours,

I like your posts, they give the impression that you are intelligent and rational.
However, I never understood the ZC/VLC concept. I understand Inger's reasons but even she is not ZC.
Which rationale did motivate you to go ZC? What gave you this idea? A specific disease?

[24isours]

Hi 24isours,

I like your posts, they give the impression that you are intelligent and rational.
However, I never understood the ZC/VLC concept. I understand Inger's reasons but even she is not ZC.
Which rationale did motivate you to go ZC? What gave you this idea? A specific disease?

Thank you , Hanna.

Well, for me the Zero Carb concept hadn't even come to mind until I had familiarized myself with the harmful effects cooked food has on the body. Shortly after tweaking my diet to about 50% raw I started noticing improved health. As I continued researching the harmful effects of certain foods I starting reading about anti nutrients, gluten, dairy, and food allergies. I slowly started eliminating gluten and dairy from there on and my health continued to improve (more energy, clearer thinking, better skin). At this point I had still been eating grains, nuts and vegetables. I eventually started to see my health decline while eating this way. It was becoming harder and harder to stay awake at work and I wasn't feeling as strong. After incorporating more meat into my diet (specifically red meat) I started getting stronger. By this time, my diet probably consisted of seven different things: Chicken, beef, salad, quinoa, potatoes, seeds, and nuts. I was feeling pretty good other than having bouts of inflammation in my jaw and joints, and moderate fatigue. So I started researching again and ran into the Paleo Diet (and RPD). From there on I started eliminating grains, seeds and nuts completely due to the high content of anti nutrients. The amount of preparation required to actually get nutritional value out of such foods and their harmful effects on the body just wasn't making sense to me. Then a light bulb popped up in my head... Raw food makes sense! All of these anti nutrients, toxins from cooked food, nutrients that weren't even bioavailable/digestable unless cooked.... it just didn't seem rational to continue eating this way if I wanted to achieve optimal health. So I weighed it out; when I cook this food, I'll be able to get more nutrients out of it (great!!!) but at the same time I'm still filling my body with toxins, anti nutrients, indigestible fibers that will just rot in my colon.. hmmm...
So, I decided I'll take the most nutrient dense, bioavailable, raw food to be the staple of my diet, red meat.

[aLptHW4k4y]

Whatever the case, given the poor nutritional content of foods rich in resistant starch, I can be certain that RS foods are by no means "superfoods".

You'd eat small amounts of those resistant starch foods, i.e. it is a supplement rather than a whole food to solely exist on. The nutritional content is irrelevant, as their effect comes from maintaining a happier gut. At least that's how I understand what these resistant starch proponents are saying, whether it has such a huge impact on health is a different story..

[Iguana]

I agree with aLptHW4k4y.

This fear of antinutrients is irrelevant if we follow our alimentary instinct. Anything ingested in excess becomes anti-nutrient. Dietary science has only a very fragmentary understanding of what happens in metabolism. Things are extremely complex. A stuff being nutritious or beneficial for someone at a given time in a given amount may be noxious for somebody else in the same amount.

By following our alimentary instinct, we benefit right now of the future dietary science  findings!

Excerpts of Wikipedia:
Excessive intake of required nutrients can also result in them having an anti-nutrient action.

While some clinical studies have suggested flavonoids have a role in cancer prevention, others have been inconclusive or suggested they may be harmful. Such conflicting findings have been attributed, in part, to the fact that many of the studies are retrospective in design and use a small sample size.[37]

Antinutrients are found at some level in almost all foods for a variety of reasons. However, their levels are reduced in modern crops, probably as an outcome of the process of domestication.[11] The possibility now exists to eliminate antinutrients entirely using genetic engineering; but, since these compounds may also have beneficial effects, such genetic modifications could make the foods more nutritious but not improve people's health.[12]

http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/dissecting-anti-nutrients-the-good-and-bad-of-phytic-acid
One of the easiest mistakes to make in the world of nutrition is to assume that any nutrient or substance behaves in just one way, whether it’s good or bad. Truth is, the body is much more unique and complex than we can truly understand, and stuff we eat tends to have many different functions once it’s inside of us. Every person, though sharing similar nutrient needs, is going to respond differently and accommodate foods, such as those containing phytic acid, more or less easily than others. Keep an open mind, think critically, and don’t lose sight of the forest for the trees.

http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/070111p54.shtml
A New Perspective
Food scientists have known about the existence of many antinutrients, but they are just scratching the surface when it comes to understanding these substances’ overall function in human health. A new theory is beginning to emerge that suggests low levels of antinutrients may contain beneficial properties for the body. This shouldn’t come as a surprise since a body of evidence links the consumption of whole plant foods with a range of health benefits.

“There are some misconceptions with regards to what antinutrients are and their impact on human health. By definition, antinutrients are compounds, either natural or synthetic, that prevent the utilization of nutrients,” says Rao. “As a result of this concept, antinutrients were considered by nutritionists as being undesirable and compounds that needed to be removed from our foods by processing or genetics. However, recent research has shown that what we consider as antinutrients may in fact be beneficial to our health.”

Rao points to dietary fiber as a good example of how antinutrients may actually be beneficial. Long ago, there was no known nutritional role for dietary fiber. In fact, according to Rao, researchers believed that dietary fiber could bind to minerals and some other nutrients and make them unavailable. As a result, cereal-processing technology was developed in the late 1800s to remove or reduce dietary fiber from cereals and flours.

Today, we know dietary fiber serves a very important role in human health. Fiber is now considered to play a role in preventing cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and many other chronic human diseases. “So dietary fiber, once thought to be an antinutrient, is now considered beneficial,” says Rao.

The viewpoint on antinutrients has changed to such an extent in the scientific community that Rao reports these substances are increasingly referred to as “biologically active compounds” in food.

“Our early research with dietary fiber contributed considerably to this change in thinking. Following on the dietary fiber work, we have conducted extensive research on several other so-called antinutrients, such as saponins, trypsin inhibitors, and lectins, and showed that they may play a role in the prevention of human chronic diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and several other human health disorders,” says Rao. “The question seems to be one of concentrations in terms of their effects, going from nutritional to pharmacological to toxic.”

Scientists now have a fairly good understanding of antinutrients’ mechanisms of action, but more research is needed to better understand their role in human health. Ironically, some compounds on the list of antinutrients are now referred to as “nutraceuticals” or “functional foods” because of their demonstrated beneficial effects on human health.
Perhaps in the near future, the chapter on antinutrients in nutrition textbooks will bear another name.

— Sharon Palmer, RD, is a contributing editor at Today’s Dietitian and a freelance food and nutrition writer in southern California.

[TylerDurden]

Iguana, antinutrients are vitally important. I mean, there are plenty of poisonous, toxic plants which can maim us or kill us, why should we even try to eat them?  Your idea is ridiculous, therefore.

[Iguana]

We won't try to eat them unless we are extremely hungry, and if we try we will spit them immediately: toxic plants are horribly bitter.

There are extremely few exceptions — if there are some at all, which I'm quite unsure.

Which idea of mine expressed above is ridiculous?

[TylerDurden]

Try eating part of an amanita phalloides mushroom and then tell me how ridiculous that is, that is, if you are still alive to do so!!!!!!!

[Iguana]

GCB did it in a TV appearance. He's still alive!

Edit: no, sorry it seems it was not on TV. Here is the story:
http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat2.html

_So, you would serve a “death cap” on your dinner table without turning a hair?

o After some period of rethinking, yes. That might sound surprising. That anxiety and mistrust one feels when confronted with nature precisely follows from a loss of instinct_or, rather, its having fallen into disuse. (Even I am lapsing into traditional platitudes.) That reminds me of a journalist who didn’t want to give my ideas a fair hearing. One day, she brought me a whole assortment of mushrooms from a mycologic exhibition, blindfolded me, and asked me how my nose reacted to the stimuli. In the lot, unknown to me, there was a death cap. I smelled it; it didn’t smell too strong, but was slightly off-putting_or noxious, as mycologists might say. If I had been an animal, I would have never tried it. Since I was a man, out of curiosity, I put the quarter of the cap in my mouth and I chewed it for a while to see what would happen. As I chewed on, the flavor turned increasingly musty. Though the taste was not particularly revolting, it was nonetheless bland, and somewhat sickly. I would have never swallowed it. I didn’t take things any further.

[nummi]

Isn't toxicity and lethality based on a person on a version of SAD diet?
Very much possible that which a SAD dieter finds far too toxic, perhaps even lethal, in our case could have some beneficial effect (if aside toxicity any at all), or aid against some illness or such, as we are in a better overall condition and better equipped against such effects in general. (Not into experimenting this...)
There are berries that are toxic, but then aren't berries supposed to be, evolutionarily speaking, food for animals (to spread the seeds)? Why else would they have flesh around the seeds?

[PaleoPhil]

  I was thinking of a  recent tribe which routinely ate lots of starchy tubers but found that they tasted vile compared to much better foods like raw wild game.

Tyler, instead of relying on notions about some tribe (I think it was the Hadza of Africa?), why not try them yourself, if they are available to you? Who knows, you might find that you like chufas/tigernuts, which doesn't seem out of the question, given that Iguana likes them.

[PaleoPhil]

You'd eat small amounts of those resistant starch foods, i.e. it is a supplement rather than a whole food to solely exist on. The nutritional content is irrelevant, as their effect comes from maintaining a happier gut. At least that's how I understand what these resistant starch proponents are saying, whether it has such a huge impact on health is a different story..

The main point is to feed your gut bugs in addition to yourself, yes. Also, the gut bugs in turn provide you with some important nutrients and/or improved absorption of nutrients (such as butyric acid and b vitamins), as I understand it (though I'm no expert, as I'm pretty new to it myself).

[LePatron7]

I personally would like to keep out of the VLC/ZC and higher carb debate. But in regards to resistant starch, I get very little resistant starch, if any at all.

My diet is a raw version of the specific carbohydrate diet, which strives to eliminate any and all indigestible carbohydrates (except for fiber, cellulose, etc.). I do pretty well on it. Therefore I get very little, maybe no resistant starch.

[eveheart]

My diet is a raw version of the specific carbohydrate diet, which strives to eliminate any and all indigestible carbohydrates (except for fiber, cellulose, etc.). I do pretty well on it. Therefore I get very little, maybe no resistant starch.

I took a quick peek at the SCD-legal foods list, and I saw plenty of foods that contain resistant starch. RS is just one of those common components of many plant foods, even if you are not paying any attention to it.

Are you saying that you are specifically avoiding plant foods and therefore RS, or that you are not targeting it?

[LePatron7]

I took a quick peek at the SCD-legal foods list, and I saw plenty of foods that contain resistant starch. RS is just one of those common components of many plant foods, even if you are not paying any attention to it.

Are you saying that you are specifically avoiding plant foods and therefore RS, or that you are not targeting it?

No, I stick to SCD legal foods. I thought they avoid resistant, and all starch. Which food include it?

[eveheart]

No, I stick to SCD legal foods. I thought they avoid resistant, and all starch. Which food include it?

RS is "different" - I'll let you check out some of the links to lists and definitions on your own - but it's the stuff that does not break down in digestion like a carb macronutrient and then it becomes the medium that good gut bacteria can thrive on. Trying to put a standard "starch" definition on it is misleading, because we typically think of starch = carbohydrate.

[Iguana]

Isn't toxicity and lethality based on a person on a version of SAD diet?
Very much possible that which a SAD dieter finds far too toxic, perhaps even lethal, in our case could have some beneficial effect (if aside toxicity any at all), or aid against some illness or such, as we are in a better overall condition and better equipped against such effects in general. (Not into experimenting this...)
There are berries that are toxic, but then aren't berries supposed to be, evolutionarily speaking, food for animals (to spread the seeds)? Why else would they have flesh around the seeds?

Toxicity depends on the dose. A food is beneficial when eaten in the proper amount. Go beyond that amount and it becomes at least detrimental and at worse deadly. When a stuff  is processed, cooked or mixed, it turns out to be difficult or impossible to feel what’s the right amount (it may even be nil)  and poisoning can happen.

Moreover, the habit of eating something because we’ve been taught it’s nutritious and good for us should be discarded. Animals don’t behave that way: they are constantly vigilant, not only about the appearance of a danger around, predator or anything, but also in continuous interrogative state about what they should eat and not to eat. If they fail to do so, they put themselves in an inferior health state and jeopardize their chances of survival, the natural selection wiping out the weakest ones.

We are led to think that we know better than animals, that our science and knowledge place us above them. In the nutritional field, it’s a big mistake: when in an unspoiled environment, animals know better than us what to eat and what not to eat. But of course, just like ours, their instinct is mislead by artificially processed stuff which had never been in the environment before mankind spread it.         

[aLptHW4k4y]

Yes Iguana exactly, we can't just assume some food is good or bad based on what scientists have discovered by now about it's nutritional composition. Knowing how much protein, fat, vitamin B or antinutrients it has means largely nothing, because there are so many other factors, interactions and effects that have not been quantified. Going by your gut feeling about foods therefore seems like the most reliable way to determine if it's good or bad, because it has been trained and developed over millions of years. But we can't trust it over newer neolithic foods, and especially not preprocessed stuff which has been specifically tailored to trick our senses.

[24isours]

Some anti nutrients may be beneficial in small amounts, I get it but at which dose do they start having negative effects? This is of course a very complex question. It seems most of these benefits that come from anti nutrients and fiber benefit those with medical problems that are most likely caused by the SAD, no? How do these beneficial factors of anti nutrients and fibers fit into a diet like mine? Well, I don't feel the need to eat anything other than meat/fat.
Are these alimentary instincts based on foods you crave as well?
It seems the only time I crave something sweet is if I'm unable to get in some good exercise. After exercising the craving completely diminishes. The same thing happens for most people and it has to do with the increased serotonin production/release from exercise. Eating a bowl of cherries or pasta has been known to have a similar affect on serotonin. I'd rather choose exercise.

[Iguana]

Some anti nutrients may be beneficial in small amounts, I get it but at which dose do they start having negative effects?

It’s the same for every food: when we have enough of it we feel it, either by the stuff  becoming less and less tasty or by any other feeling such as a slight nausea, for example. This works well enough only with raw, unprocessed, unmixed, unseasoned paleo or nearly paleo stuff.   

This is of course a very complex question. It seems most of these benefits that come from anti nutrients and fiber benefit those with medical problems that are most likely caused by the SAD, no?

It’s possible, and we are more or less all in this case. But most wild animals also regularly eat foods containing what is called “anti-nutrients”.

How do these beneficial factors of anti nutrients and fibers fit into a diet like mine? Well, I don't feel the need to eat anything other than meat/fat.

If you’re fully satisfied that way and are never attracted by the smell of other raw foods, then maybe meat and fat are the only foods you need at this time. But such a condition normally doesn’t last more than few months. At least you should check from time to time by smelling all the other foods you stumble upon. In the wild, meat of large mammals is not always very easy to obtain!   

Are these alimentary instincts based on foods you crave as well?
It seems the only time I crave something sweet is if I'm unable to get in some good exercise. After exercising the craving completely diminishes. The same thing happens for most people and it has to do with the increased serotonin production/release from exercise. Eating a bowl of cherries or pasta has been known to have a similar affect on serotonin. I'd rather choose exercise.

Our cravings are formed by memory of previous experiences — or worse experiences with the cooked foodstuff and when on standard cooked diet — and since our needs change over time, cravings don’t necessarily reflect our current needs. We shouldn’t rely on them, but rather on our senses of smell and taste.

I don’t know about such effect of exercise, never experienced that and it’s the first time I read something like that. After a lot of exercise I’m generally hungry, not always for meat and also I don’t always have meat at home: in Europe or when traveling around the World, meat suitable for us raw paleo dieters is not easily available. Then I may have sea fish, shellfish or eggs instead. It’s very likely much safer to alternate this way. See this GCB’s post:
 http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/is-it-dangerous-to-eat-too-much-meat/msg80452/#msg80452