The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health

[TylerDurden]

It seems that quite often there are people saying that eating zero carbs initially provided benefits, but over time 'ruined' their health.
If the moderators keep moving the evidence of these issues to a place where they won't be noticed then how are newbies looking at ZC to know ?
If keeping the critical posts in the topic cannot be tolerated, then how about a sticky post providing some warning of this, plus a reminder that there is a lot of room to be low carb without being zero carb.

Some people have failed on RZC just as others have succeeded on RZC. Putting the more hostile posts in the hot topics forum prevents people from becoming unnecessarily scared when they first try this type of diet out. No need to put a warning message - after all, we don't put out warning messages for the primal diet forum either. Low carb really belongs in the raw omnivore diet forum, imo.

[TylerDurden]

What unanswered questions, Iguana and PP?  As regards my stance re hot topics, we have to be fair to all dietary approaches. Since we do not include warning posts for the primal diet or the weston-price diet or whatever, there is no valid reason to put a warning post for RZC diets - especially when warning posts just hyterically attack a particular dietary approach in a biased way.

[van]

Phil, I would like to see where Ron recommends  400 calories a day from carbs (given a two thousand calorie a day diet).    Again, i'm not playing into the rhetoric, just interested in learning about gaining health while eating the minimum in carbs to stay in ketosis/fat burning mode.   Can we just agree to keep it to that?

[PaleoPhil]

Tyler, Iguana had asked some time ago something roughly along the lines of where people were still getting the notion to do ZC or that it is Paleo or makes any sense. I'll let him clarify and elaborate if needed, since it was his question.

Van, Here you go (I wrote "20%", not some number of grams, because that's how Dr. Rosedale put it):
"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person, 25 percent to 30 percent of calories from protein, and 60 percent to 65 percent from fat. You can get beef that is not grain-fed." - Ron Rosedale, M.D., Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects, Presented at Designs for Health Institute's BoulderFest, August 1999
Seminar, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/07/14/insulin-part-one.aspx

Did you see Dr. Rosedale recommend a significantly different figure?

I hope you'll reciprocate and answer one or more of Iguana's or my questions, even if the answer is just "I don't know." Iguana asked his question a while ago, so he seems most deserving of an answer, though you're not ZC, so you may not know where people are getting the idea that true ZC  (I doubt he was talking about seaweed or berries ) makes any sense, if anyone still thinks it does, but maybe you'll have some idea. It's strange that Iguana's question continues to be ignored as though he never asked it.

If no one still thinks that true ZC makes sense, then it would be interesting to learn where people first heard about it. I think I first heard about it from either Lex or the ZIOH ZC forum. While Lex isn't truly pure ZC, he occasionally referred to his diet that way, since his carbs were mainly limited to organs, and the ZIOH forum grudgingly accepted organs as OK in limited amounts on the diet (though several of the members tended to make fun of organs and Charles was rather negative about them and discouraged people from talking about them and Bear Stanley recommended not eating much of them, IIRC).

[van]

thanks for the quote,   would have guessed lower, especially when he described his diet over the phone to me.   Might be a starting point for most,, I don't know.  Four hundred calories would be like three baked potatoes, or four pieces of bread, or four apples....   Again, more than he described how he eats to me.      But then again, I know he advocated eating lots of low carb vegetables, which wouldn't spike insulin like the aforementioned examples of what 400 calories would look like.   Phil I see many articles on the news and else where about z or low carb diets used for all sorts of things.  Cancer being one of them that ran across the main news headlines a couple of times.  I've seen on it on talk shows ( or heard about or saw Utube clips,, I don't have a tv)   Point is it may be more a mainstream occurrence than you're aware of. 

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, it's quite strange that Paul Jaminet advocates 25% carbs and is pilloried by LC zealots, whereas Dr. Rosedale is a LC hero for advocating 20%. Go figure.  What does this tell us about the level of dogma and guru-worship in dietary circles?

I have indeed seen lots of media stuff, but it hasn't been zero carb, just low carb or ketogenic. Outside of this forum and some ZC/LC forums, ZC is still largely regarded as insane. Dr. Kurt Harris called ZCers “the Hezbollah of low-carb," even when he was VLC and a Jimmy-Moore touted "low carb doctor" himself. It's ironic that only after the problems with excessively chronic ketogenic diets are becoming increasingly apparent that some of the media and various doctors and gurus like Perlmutter, Oz and Weil are now trying to cash in and jumping on the LC/keto/butter-loving bandwagon, not realizing that its wheels are starting to come off. 

Iguana is apparently in tune with this reality that ZC is regarded as insane outside the boundaries of this little forum, which would explain why he's so puzzled by the positive and defensive comments about ZC and near-ZC that still appear in the forum at times.

So, again, how did you first hear about ZC?

[sabertooth]

Here is a question for the gallery... Is anyone here actually following a long term zero carb diet?

I personally eat a very low carb diet, and get around 30 to 50 carbs a day on average, mostly from greens, low glycemic vegetables, and coconut.

I believe that there is no such thing as a zero carb diet. Even predatory animals eat some carbs from organ meats. All the predatory fish eat some alga, and most land predators eat some foliage from time to time.

Aem- I think that in order to fully gain a wider perspective on the evolutionary history behind the ketogenic diet you must go back much further into our evolutionary past. Before we had evolved into herbivorous apes, our proto primate ancestors once lived as carnivorous insectivorian tree weasels. Perhaps even earlier before we crossed the mammalian threshold we evolved from small carnivorous lizards. There have been countless crossroads and backtracks on the road to Humanity. Anyway... my point is... that throughout the course of human evolution we have waxed and waned between carnivorous and herbivorian forms( on a spectrum, that was never static for very long). These dietary changes had nothing to do with the question of what dietary approach is optimal, instead it was primarily a question of "What changes must be made to survive when the optimal (homeostatic) diet is no longer available?"

From these past trials and tribulations, genetic lessons were learned, during countless lifetimes near starvation, and hanging on for dear life, continually living on the edge of oblivion. Through it all, The evolving DNA of Humanity has managed to pass onto our current genesis,  the inherited genetic potentialities that makes us capable of readily adapting to extreme dietary changes( at least within a natural environment)

Most generalized anecdotal data regarding the ZC diet cannot be applied to any universal conclusion regarding the question of "what constitutes the optimal diet?", because researchers are incapable of fully measuring all the variables. For example the data regarding the amount of glucose the body can produce through glycogenesis varies greatly from individuals. I think 30 grams a day is the low end estimate, produced by those who have only recently attempted to adapt to zero carb diets. If you are properly adapted then it may be possible for the human liver to produce up to 200 grams of carbs a day, this would be more than enough to optimally supply our bodily requirements. Inuits have larger livers which allows them to do this, and perhaps many of our paleolithic mammoth hunting ancestors had such adaptions as well. I dont see having to grow larger livers as a sign that the diet isn't optimal, it is merely an epigenetic adaptive change which like the enlarging of the human mind, allowed for our species to survive. 

Modern humans have grown larger pancreases which have the capacity to produce massive amounts of insulin in response to the high carb diet. Such adaptions should not be  judged as positive or negative, they are merely expressions of the genes attempts to maintain homeostasis with a changing environment. When discussing the difficulty of adapting to low carb diets I think its important to take into into consideration that many modern people have descended from the "eaters of the Grain" and are high carb adapted. Many have lost some of their adaptiveness to extreme ZC, in order to cope with the metabolic bemoans of a high carb diet.   

Perhaps a better understanding our these connections could lead us back toward a way of life that is more stable and balanced.... In the end, the results, very well depend upon the choices we make with the knowledge available as we live our lives.

[van]

Yes, it's quite strange that Paul Jaminet advocates 25% carbs and is pilloried by LC zealots, whereas Dr. Rosedale is a LC hero for advocating 20%. Go figure.  What does this tell us about the level of dogma and guru-worship in dietary circles?

I have indeed seen lots of media stuff, but it hasn't been zero carb, just low carb or ketogenic. Outside of this forum and some ZC/LC forums, ZC is still largely regarded as insane. Dr. Kurt Harris called ZCers “the Hezbollah of low-carb," even when he was VLC and a Jimmy-Moore touted "low carb doctor" himself. It's ironic that only after the problems with excessively chronic ketogenic diets are becoming increasingly apparent that some of the media and various doctors and gurus like Perlmutter, Oz and Weil are now trying to cash in and jumping on the LC/keto/butter-loving bandwagon, not realizing that its wheels are starting to come off. 

Iguana is apparently in tune with this reality that ZC is regarded as insane outside the boundaries of this little forum, which would explain why he's so puzzled by the positive and defensive comments about ZC and near-ZC that still appear in the forum at times.

So, again, how did you first hear about ZC?

  If you're asking me, I don't remember, it was probably 8-9 years ago.    And, again, I'm not interested in all the gurus, but what works, and any science that backs it up.     I don't know anyone in this forum that is promoting an actual ZC diet, so I'm still puzzled why you're so fastidious with proclamations about the danger of ZC.    And again, there are several regular posters here that seemingly do just fine if not excel with going low carb.  So why all the fuss?   And again, can we please simply describe what foods work well for any of us while maintaining a low carb diet.  That is what most likely will help the most with those interested in it,   vs. all the repetitious fear posts. 

[TylerDurden]

The fact is that there are plenty of people doing RZC, some of them not eating any raw plant foods at all. In fact,  in the past, we were so dominated by pro-RZC advocates that I felt I had to stop them from overwhelming less popular dietary genres like raw omnivore by my refusing to allow the raw omnivore forum from being removed as it was claimed, at the time,  to be "pointless since hardly anyone is raw omnivore any more". The point is that dietary genres come and go in terms of popularity plus, at any one time, some dietary genres are going to happen to include more vociferous supporters than others  for a variety of reasons. Point is we cannot exclude one dietary path simply because a tiny handful of people here do not want it around.

As regards Iguana's points, RZC surely is palaeo since it lies within palaeo guidelines. It is also clear from the evidence that  HGs in palaeo times would have been forced to go RZC for lengthy periods  due to Ice-Age conditions and seasonal variation. Perhaps palaeo HGs did not eat RZC for their whole lives but that is beside the point - indeed not even proponents like The Bear have ever eaten RZC their whole lives, anyway.

[goodsamaritan]

I remember the time when there were so many attacks against Instincto and they also wanted a pin on the Instincto section.

[TylerDurden]

I remember the time when there were so many attacks against Instincto and they also wanted a pin on the Instincto section.

Yes, I remember. Same things were said about the Primal Diet and the Wai Diet forums at other times. But because we did not allow any of those forums to be banned  or whatever, we have managed to offer people a wider range of  rawpaleodiets to choose from.

[Alive]

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. (Not literally eating only from the animal kingdom,  also eating some low carb greens & berries, seaweed, and fungi if desired)

[Iguana]

GS and TD, I fully appreciate that you've always supported me and I warmly thank you for that.

There was just some little clashes between you, TD, and I lately buts that's no problem, it's normal than we can't always agree.

[edmon171]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of this thesis. Writing a post that is 10 miles long does not add to its validity. Right away three glaring problems strike me. There is no account for the glycerol that is released on fat breakdown being easily converted to glucose. There is no account for glycogen consumed in muscle and organ meats converting easily to glucose. There is no account for glucose being consumed directly in fresh blood. At best, gluconeogenesis is a temporary condition that is used to provide up to 100g of glucose per day until one is fully adapted to ketosis. If you overeat protein it will also kick in to enable the excess to be stored as fat. And 30g is high, if one is in deep ketosis that number should be more like 10-15. Even up to thirty should be covered no problem by a well balanced animal food diet that includes liver every day. If one is fasting, the ketosis will likely get to be deeper and the breakdown of ones own glycerol alone should cover the 10 no problem.

The short life span in carnivores is explained by the fact that their food and their competition is trying to kill them almost every time they eat. Eventually they get old and get gouged in a hunt or a fight and succumb to an infection or bleed-out. There is no need to complicate it any further than that.

I have been vlc for 20 years and zc/zpf for the last 5. Now with RZC I can see immediate improvements on my already near-perfect state. The only problems I've had were upon breaking the ketosis or going in and out too often. When I am strict for long enough to be fully adapted I can't even catch a cold.

I've never in my life indulged in fresh vegetation myself, but I don't see any reason not to include some fresh greens in your diet if you are into being bloated, having smelly gas, and large bowel movements being constantly rushed out of your bowels. If this process makes you healthier without affecting ketosis, then I am all for it. I find things get moving just fine if I am active.

[aem42290]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy any of this thesis. Writing a post that is 10 miles long does not add to its validity.

At what moment did I state that the validity of my post is augmented by its length? A rather weak and unnecessarily confrontational point.

There is no account for the glycerol that is released on fat breakdown being easily converted to glucose.

You must have missed the section about the acetyl CoA cycle. Or perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that glycerol is converted into pyruvate, which later becomes acetyl CoA, and finally turns into glucose (viz. a highly complex and inefficient series of metabolic interactions)? Whatever the case, you failed to properly engage with what I have written.

By the way, I will stress that the generation of glucose from fatty acids is not easy work for the human body (as you make it seem.) A recent (2011) study explored the metabolic pathways involved in the generation of glucose from acetyl CoA. Their conclusion? "Analyzing the detected pathways in detail we found that their energetic requirements potentially limit their capacity." Activating the systems that concert fatty acids and glycerol involves inefficient metabolic structures that require fair amounts of labor on behalf of the liver.

There is no account for glycogen consumed in muscle and organ meats converting easily to glucose. There is no account for glucose being consumed directly in fresh blood.

Are you aware that the glycogen in most meats turns into lactic acid shortly after slaughter?

For a very simple and clear expression of this: http://sciencewa.net.au/topics/agriculture/item/1391-muscle-glycogen-related-to-meat-quality-post-slaughter.html/1391-muscle-glycogen-related-to-meat-quality-post-slaughter.html

If you are still not convinced:
"During the post slaughter period the muscle cells are still capable of converting glycogen to lactic acid -
the process takes about 48 hours for completion (at refrigeration temperatures) - electrical stimulation of
carcasses speeds this process so as the reactions are complete by 24 hours" (Kastner et al. 1993).

Consider the fact that very few people (myself included) in industrial societies have access to a steady supply of freshly gathered meat. Therefore, unless one is consuming an animal immediately upon securing the kill, glycogen in muscle tissue rapidly degenerates into lactic acid, and your point about deriving glucose from muscle tissue is rendered wholly moot.

There is no account for glucose being consumed directly in fresh blood.

Ah, I've heard this one before. To frame the question in a familiar context: Do you know how much sugar is in the blood of a  a typical human's body? About 82 mg/dl to 110 mg/dl (4.4 to 6.1 mmol/l) following the successful digestion of a meal. Other mammals aren't too far off from these numbers. This means that an adult human male with about 5 liters of blood at 100mg/dl will have a measly 5g of glucose in their blood at most moments throughout the day. 5 grams of glucose is very little, even on a ZC diet. So, If you were to drink a whole 5 liters of mammalian blood, you'd get 5g or so of glucose. Quite a trivial source of glucose, considering how difficult raw blood is to obtain for most ZCers.

At best, gluconeogenesis is a temporary condition that is used to provide up to 100g of glucose per day until one is fully adapted to ketosis.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate this claim? Unless you are asserting that the human brain can run on ketones exclusively, your statement is completely inaccurate. Gluconeogenesis is not a "temporary" phase for ZC dieters; it is a constant process that must be accounted for within a metabolic environment that is forced to meet the needs of a glucose-dependent organ (the brain.) So far, studies demonstrate that the brain, even when fully keto-adapted, requires 30-50g of glucose to function properly.

Albeit misconstrued, your argument regarding glycerol does not get away from the fact that the conversion of fatty acids to glucose is an energy intensive process in relation to the absorption of sugars from carbohydrates.  In the context of my piece, optimization is related directly to metabolic efficiency at numerous levels. I am not arguing against a LC diet (so long as LC provides at least 30g glucose per day.) I am decrying the naive and historically unnatural pursuit of a long-term, completely ZC diet (carried out in industrial settings) that ignores all plant foods for the sake of trendiness, ignorance, or unreflexivity. 

The short life span in carnivores is explained by the fact that their food and their competition is trying to kill them almost every time they eat. Eventually they get old and get gouged in a hunt or a fight and succumb to an infection or bleed-out. There is no need to complicate it any further than that.

I'll write a response to this later.

As an afterthought, before you approach this thread with such a dismissive disposition, I would urge you to seriously research the processes that you are narrowly describing. To be frank, I am glad that ZC is working for you. As Francois (Iguana) once said on these forums: we (the imagined human species) are honored to have you as an experimenter in the name of superior health. Thank you for subjecting yourself to the conditions of a dietary plan that very few humans in the history of our planet have exposed themselves to. If things continue to go well for you, then so be it. If matters take a turn for the worse, then consider taking into account some of the points that I have made.

[edmon171]

Thank you for this response. I do appreciate that you have done some research regarding this. If my earlier post seemed a bit agressive, it was. Just as your post was very condescending towards the zc camp. I just felt that several important concepts were overlooked to make an argument seem more plausible and that you were making the offense of assuming causality when there is only correlation with things such as lifespan and other points. I suppose the purpose of a thesis is to make an assumption, but there are just so many here. The concept of preferring pathways for their lack of energy requirement alone is not relevant in today's society with plentiful food available. I would be more concerned with whether they are doing damage along the way or not.

 Yes I am aware of muscle glycogen converting with rigormortis, I mentioned it as it applies to eating freshly killed meat and the contribution is small when compared to eating liver, the glycogen of which remains in tact.

I'd like to continue this debate if you would indulge me, though in a more gentlemanly manner. I must say its been a while since I have researched any of this and its possible that there is new knowledge out there. This is one of those things where you can't just take any study and run with it because there are vested interests that like to fudge numbers and mislead people when health is at stake.

[goodsamaritan]

Thank you for this response. I do appreciate that you have done some research regarding this. If my earlier post seemed a bit agressive, it was. Just as your post was very condescending towards the zc camp. I just felt that several important concepts were overlooked to make an argument seem more plausible and that you were making the offense of assuming causality when there is only correlation with things such as lifespan and other points. I suppose the purpose of a thesis is to make an assumption, but there are just so many here. The concept of preferring pathways for their lack of energy requirement alone is not relevant in today's society with plentiful food available. I would be more concerned with whether they are doing damage along the way or not.

 Yes I am aware of muscle glycogen converting with rigormortis, I mentioned it as it applies to eating freshly killed meat and the contribution is small when compared to eating liver, the glycogen of which remains in tact.

I'd like to continue this debate if you would indulge me, though in a more gentlemanly manner. I must say its been a while since I have researched any of this and its possible that there is new knowledge out there. This is one of those things where you can't just take any study and run with it because there are vested interests that like to fudge numbers and mislead people when health is at stake.

I'm glad a pro ZC practitioner stood up to be counted.
Of course we would like to hear more from you.
We all learn from one another.

[van]

I agree with GS,   this is good stuff.  Years ago I read enough to follow research of this kind.  But not having a biological/medical background, I found at most, that after reading a journal piece that I would be heavily influenced to believe what I had just read, and that I had little foundation of knowledge to test what was being presented.   So please, let the discussion begin,with the hopes that both of you can agree to red flag literature that may be suspicious of bias.   And thanks now for your time involved to research and post.

[sabertooth]

Edmon

I would also like to hear more details about someone who has been low carb to ZC for 20 years. You seem to be very articulate and your experience would be helpful to many others like myself who are on a very low carb diet.

There may be circumstances which allows some one to be better suited to such a diet than others.

For starters I would like to know
What is your genetic heritage?
What kind of diet did your ancestors live on?
What kind of food where you raised on growing up?

All this things and many more could affect ones ability to adapt to a ZC diet?

[PaleoPhil]

I agree with GS, Van and Sabertooth--interesting thread! I appreciate the effort that aem42290 and others have put into it. I hope no one minds my lengthy response; there is so much to respond to from Sabertooth, Van, Tyler and Edmon171.

I believe that there is no such thing as a zero carb diet. Even predatory animals eat some carbs from organ meats.

Bingo! Excellent post, Sabertooth. And when meats are fresh and eaten raw, or raw fermented, or fresh-frozen, one can get some carbs from the meat, blood, connective tissues (skin, ligaments and tendons) and even blubber as well:

"Eskimos actually consume more carbohydrates than most nutritionists have assumed. Because Eskimos frequently eat their meat raw and frozen, they take in more glycogen than a person purchasing meat with a lower glycogen content in a grocery store. The Eskimo practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment into carbohydrates."

From: Principles and Issues in Nutrition, Yiu H. Hui, Ph. D., 1985, p. 91, http://books.google.com/books?id=ospqAAAAMAAJ

See also:
http://freetheanimal.com/2014/03/disrupting-carbs-prebiotics.html
http://caloriesproper.com/?p=4488

Unfortunately, the carbs and prebiotics get more depleted in the modern food system, so aem42290's point about getting some carbs from other sources when freshly-killed meat is not a significant part of the diet makes sense. Maybe the fact that you raise, butcher and eat fresh some of your meat and eat all of it raw is one reason you seem to have fared better than some other carnivore dieters, especially the cooked carnivores.

Aem- I think that in order to fully gain a wider perspective on the evolutionary history behind the ketogenic diet you must go back much further into our evolutionary past. Before we had evolved into herbivorous apes, our proto primate ancestors once lived as carnivorous insectivorian tree weasels.

In addition to insects, the shrew-like and lemur-like ancestors of the first primitive primates (called Plesiadapiforms), are believed to have also consumed fruits and fermented tree nectars and saps:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/07/29/tiny-tree-shrews-live-on-alcohol-but-never-get-drunk/#.U36mQvk7ttg
http://www.livescience.com/7540-tree-shrew-sober-drinking-day.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/animals-like-to-get-drunk
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070201-primates.html

---

how did you first hear about ZC?

If you're asking me, I don't remember, it was probably 8-9 years ago.

OK, so we have an unknown source along with Bear Stanley and Charles Washington as the sources of the ZC notions. Stanley and Washington were influenced by Vilhjalmur Stefansson. Stefansson didn't tell people to eat truly ZC (it would have greatly hindered the popularity of his diet, for one thing), but he is the most cited source of evidence by them. Does anyone know of any other sources? I'd be especially interested in any scientific ones.
 
Given that Dr. Rosedale recommends 20% carbs, we know the ZC diet doesn't come from him. I suspect that some people assume he recommends lower than 20% carbs, which may help explain some of the confusion around ZC and VLC topics.

And, again, I'm not interested in all the gurus, but what works, and any science that backs it up.

I'm interested in the science too, so if you have any science re: ZC, please do share it. I hope you'll appreciate that I shared some science articles above.

You seem to appreciate at least one guru--Dr. Rosedale--and I also don't mind discussing his views and info. I told him before that I liked how he debated Paul Jaminet in a civil and scientific manner, unlike so many who railed against Jaminet.

I don't know anyone in this forum that is promoting an actual ZC diet,

It did seem like it had come to that until edmon171 spoke up. I welcome his input.

so I'm still puzzled why you're so fastidious with proclamations about the danger of ZC.

My posts were aimed not to anyone who doesn't think warnings are necessary or are not interested in the topic, but to folks like aem42290 and anyone else who is. Edmon171 also doesn't seem to mind the discussion. It wouldn't be much of a discussion if we were only allowed to hear from defenders of ZC, would it?

And again, there are several regular posters here that seemingly do just fine if not excel with going low carb.

Are you aware that my diet is LC? If not, it might help explain why you interpreted some of my posts in ways that were not intended.

And again, can we please simply describe what foods work well for any of us while maintaining a low carb diet.  That is what most likely will help the most with those interested in it,   vs. all the repetitious fear posts.

If that's what you wish to discuss, why not make a thread with that topic? I think there's room for both discussions and don't believe in silencing dissent from folks like aem42290, and I like what Iguana, Eric, Alive and Sabertooth contributed to the discussion and don't consider it all "repetitious fear posts". I also welcome the perspective of you, edmon171, Inger and others.

---

The fact is that there are plenty of people doing RZC, some of them not eating any raw plant foods at all.

We have heard from one. Like GS, I'm glad he spoke up and I'd be interested in hearing from others.

In fact,  in the past, we were so dominated by pro-RZC advocates that I felt I had to stop them from overwhelming less popular dietary genres like raw omnivore by my refusing to allow the raw omnivore forum from being removed as it was claimed, at the time,  to be "pointless since hardly anyone is raw omnivore any more".

Interesting. Thanks for your efforts.

Point is we cannot exclude one dietary path simply because a tiny handful of people here do not want it around.

I'm certainly not calling for the "banning" of the Carnivore subforum and don't want it to be banned. Like GS, I want to share and learn. I do agree with aem42290, Eric, Alive and Iguana that all civil perspectives should be allowed in all subforums, including dissent. That's the opposite of a ban.

---

There is no account for the glycerol that is released on fat breakdown being easily converted to glucose. There is no account for glycogen consumed in muscle and organ meats converting easily to glucose.

So you agree with Sabertooth, aem42290 and me that fresh raw animal carcasses obtained by Paleo HG's were not truly zero carb?

I've never in my life indulged in fresh vegetation myself

I too am interested in your input. Do you mean you've never eaten any fresh veggies for your entire life? What about non-fresh?

What's your take on these "carnivore diet" rules of Bear Stanley?

> "2) Eat nothing from the vegetable world whatsoever. (Very small amounts of flavourings such as garlic/chillies/spices/herbs which may be added, are not ‘food’)."

> "5) Eat liver and brains only very infrequently- they are full of carbs." [This appears to be the source of using the term "zero carb" instead of carnivore.]

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/raw-paleolithic-diet-for-humans/msg7678/#msg7678

Interesting to see how Tyler responded to the article back then:

Nicola, could you PLEASE only post these absurd articles in the Hot Topics forum where they belong?! I'll move them there now.

What would you guess was the % of calories as carbs in the diets of coastal northern Alaska Eskimos in the early 1970's, while they were still getting most of their food from hunting/fishing and before they moved into villages and started eating much more modern foods?

[van]

I think we all can agree there's really no ZERO carb diet.  But rather diets that vary in the amount of carbs eaten along with varying amounts of fat and protein.    How about moving on from this endless debate about ZERO carb and focus on what effects various levels of low carb have,, whether it be carb or 100 carb.   

[PaleoPhil]

I think we all can agree there's really no ZERO carb diet.

I hope so, and I hope that no one will use the term RZC or ZC to describe a RVLC diet they're following/promoting in the future. Let's leave that term to the coctivores at the ZIOH forum who seem to be the only ones really aiming for as close to ZC as they can get.

But rather diets that vary in the amount of carbs eaten along with varying amounts of fat and protein.    How about moving on from this endless debate about ZERO carb and focus on what effects various levels of low carb have,, whether it be carb or 100 carb.

Go ahead, shoot. What do you think the right intake of carbs is for you or in general, if any, and why?

What do you think about Dr. Rosedale's 20% recommendation? Coincidentally, I use his 20% figure as a rough cut-off for defining VLC (roughly below that), but am open to other suggestions on that. Interestingly, 20% is also the minimum that Paul Jaminet recommends, and it's also roughly equal to the 100 grams of carbs that Mark Sisson has as the lower limit of "effortless weight maintenance" on his "Carb Curve" (assuming a 2000 calorie diet and ignoring the effects of prebiotics and other factors) so they actually appear to agree on that. Often the actual numbers show less difference than the rhetoric and debates would suggest. I don't measure my carb intake that specifically myself (beyond a rough idea of what foods I need to eat for me to avoid torpor and other issues and to improve and maintain my metabolism, glucose tolerance and overall health), but am interested in your take on it.

[sabertooth]

It would make these discussions easier if we could agree on the definition of the concept of ZC and low carb.

Perhaps we should vote on creating a sliding scale to classify the divergent versions of low carb dieting.

Low carb = 20% to 30% of caloric intake

Very low carbs= 10% to 20% of caloric intake

Zero carbs= Under 10% of caloric intake

Then perhaps a sub group of ZC to distinguish between carnivores who get some carbs from organs, and others who eat a minimal amount of low carb prebiotic veggies. 

Personally I move between categories. Sometime I will eat very close to ZC and will feel fine for a while, until I start getting signs of low blood sugar. Othertimes I will eat more carbs and will feel great for a few days, until I reach a point where the plant fiber and carbs interfere with fat digestion and I begin to feel a carb overload. I try to maintain a balance at around 10% of total calories from carbs.

These are rough numbers and I have no idea of the exact numbers, and do not try to limit my diet based on numbers. Instead I regulate what I eat instinctively. My cravings let me know what I need to eat and when. If I feel that I ate to much protein during my last meal I will eat more fat with the next.

There is a feeling of low blood sugar I get around the second day without any carbs, when this occurs I well eat a small salad with mixed greens or drink a couple of raw eggs with lemon water and will feel instantly refreshed. 

Carbs will often increase my appetite and I will gorge, afterward I wont eat again for a full day.

 

[jessica]

Why would you agree to define a standard for something that includes a term (zero carb) that was jua determined not to exist.  Just use a specific percentile for each case and realize you can't standardize something as individual and dynamic as diet.

[eveheart]

For me, knowing the percentage of carbohydrates that I eat has no benefit. My goal with low carb has been to control inflammation, insulin secretion and blood sugar levels. What I have learned about restricting my own carbohydrate intake are details like how much protein is too much and what symptoms signal too much carbohydrates. At first, I paid attention to protein and carbohydrate grams per meal, but it didn't take long to play it by feel.

The topic of this thread, "Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health," may be a truth for people who are not sick to begin with, but I don't have great health, and low-carb has given me a tool to bring my health closer to normal.