Author Topic: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health  (Read 27764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Inger

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
  • Gender: Female
  • 38 yo Norwegian RVAF s.-06, 90% carniv.
    • View Profile
Inger, I imagine that your diet is not all that high in fat as a percentage? But because you consume so much RAF it adds up to a nice lot of fat to provide a good base of slow release glucose? And then your metabolism must so efficient from having so many energetic but controllable electrons Krusing about that the excess proteins are easily used or disposed of  ;)



I do eat a lot fat to Alive... I guess about 60-70 % by calories, there are surely days with 80 % too in between

I add great quality raw EVOO if the seafood is not fatty.. and I can eat a lot og raw coconut oil too, lately I have not had much at all tho.
I also eat raw nuts....and raw grassfed beef fat some days. It is like candy..

I just had tongue for breakfast since long.. I do not eat it often but when, I mostly cook it gently on the wooden stove and eat it cold next day. It is about the only ting I cook... and then I sometimes eat pre cooked cold mussels. Practically everything else is raw.
I do eat a few pieces of high meat along with the meal if I happen to eat something cooked.. to just be sure I get enuf bacteria  ;)

I do drink lots of water, at least 4 liters / day from own 50 meter deep well. I am now so used to drink that much, so I do not even need to push it at all like in the beginning!

I believe ur body can lose its thirst feeling.... and it today's world with lots of man made EMF that dries our cells out... it is so important t drink a lot! But it must be good water

Offline Inger

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
  • Gender: Female
  • 38 yo Norwegian RVAF s.-06, 90% carniv.
    • View Profile
This is one interesting article about the gut flora of hunter gatherer

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hadza-hunter-gatherer-gut-microbiome/

Quote
Many of the bacteria are species that the researchers had never seen before. And even familiar microbes were present in unusual levels in the Hadza belly. “The Hadza not only lack the ‘healthy bacteria,’ and they don’t suffer from the diseases we suffer from, but they also have high levels of bacteria that are associated with disease,” Crittenden said.

What does this tell us?

We probably know nothing about how a healthy gut flora have to look like....

that is why i do not believe in unnaturally adding "starches etc" to make it like we think it should be. What if it is wrong?
What if there is some totally different things that count....
For the one being able to see behind the curtains I feel this is a big clue....


What I do think is, we should normally not leave out anything edible that grows in season where we live..... preferably wild stuff.


Offline aem42290

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Forgive me if I seem to be losing my patience throughout the following replies. I ask that you please do not take my sarcasm and cynicism personally.

been following the thread, and can see that much has already been discussed. yet one particular aspect of the opening post, hasn't seemed to have been discussed in any detail:

" the carnivorous ZC/ultra VLC diet typically calls for abhorrent amounts of daily fluid intake (wholly against what would be expected in a non-domesticated environment.) "

is it not something we can all agree upon, that humans seem to require more water compared to other comparably sized mammalian carnivores (or "omnivores" or whatever other moniker you choose)?  granted of course you can get much fluids from a fresh kill...and it would be going a bit too far to claim that these "abhorrent amounts of daily fluid intakes" would be unrealistic in a natural environment, you know considering hunter-gatherers have been long surviving with such daily fluid requirements...but i digress

anyways though has anybody else here noticed any changes in daily fluid intake, since adapting raw VLC and/or seasonal diets?

I was not referring to water consumption on raw VLC or seasonal diets. I'm not entirely certain as to why people continue to defend/reference raw VLC when I am specifically critiquing continuous raw ZC/ultra low carb diets (less than 30g carbs p/day). There is a significant difference. The raw ZC diet purposefully avoids all plant foods perpetually, and urges its followers to consume only raw animal foods for subsistence.

Quote from: eveheart
Thirst is a sign of diabetes, and monitoring my thirst levels was my primary way of monitoring my correct carb intake.

Could be diabetes, certainly. But thirst may also indicate dehydration, which has a tendency to impact those on a sustained ZC diet. The kidneys become highly effective at excreting salts from the body while in very deep ketosis. For some folks, this is not a problem; they simply heighten their sodium intake to compensate for the problems, or add in magnesium supplements to mitigate the mineral losses. I, for one, was never interested in adopting a diet that demanded supplements in order to function effectively. My understanding is that a diet which requires supplementation (be this in the form of iodine pills, Amazonian minerals, magic joojoo pills, etc.) is a rather problematic diet to begin with.

On numerous occasions, my heart problems on a ZC diet were attributed to "dehydration." In response to those statements, I thought: complete BS, considering that I was consuming a large amount of water throughout my waking hours. However, one should realize that larger amounts of water don't precisely add up to adequate hydration. In fact, drinking multiple liters a day when the body is in a deep ketogenic state may exacerbate the loss of electrolytes by accelerating excretory processes.

Quote from: Inger

What does this tell us?

We probably know nothing about how a healthy gut flora have to look like....


Inger, I find it interesting that you, as PaleoPhil mentioned earlier, are not a chronic ZCer. I would like to remind you that this post is not about calling for the intake of resistant starches, or decrying the maintenance of seasonal/LC diets. I am writing explicitly against the problems associated with a sustained ZC diet that systematically excludes all plant foods for the sake of appeasing the mystical Gods of the [insert favorite obscure exoticized population], the stupidity of unscientific Western dogma, and/or/especially the dead ex-singer of the Grateful Dead (seriously).

What we should all agree on is that, although a healthy gut flora varies from person to person, generally speaking, there are certain structural markers for health that we should remain respectful to. A dysfunctional gut flora is usually one that lacks appreciably active microbes, or which has been completely overpopulated by fungi and/or well-known problematic microorganisms (parasites, for instance.) An emptier gut flora, whether innately healthy or not, is probably not optimal for most humans. Pushing the Hadza aside as an exception (which they most clearly are), research conducted by the human gut project has shown that VLC dieters exhibit less-active gut floras than other LC humans. At this point, I'm not particularly concerned with whether X or Y bacterial strain has been found in the Hadza (an exceptional, high carb population.) Science is not all that great at relating the tiniest components of structure to incontrovertible definitions of function. Science, however, is useful for describing what a structure constitutes, and hypothesizing how differences across structures might translate to functions. For all I know, the presence of X or Y strain in my gut may indicate that I recently won the lottery at the local corner-store. Who knows what individual bacterial strains do, and more importantly, why does it matter? From an inquisitive perspective, I am interested in two primary elements:
1) The total activity levels of the human microbiome, i.e., the gut flora and other human bacterial colonies.
In relation to--
2) The empirical effects of such activity levels (How does the subject feel/experience their health?)

Is an absent or depleted gut flora optimal for human survival ? My experiences and research tell me probably not.

I was passing stools an average of two to three times per week while on my ZC experiment. And I have to admit that they weren't healthy looking stools; they were enfeebled, sad little things. My gut flora took some serious blows. I don't know if it became populated by X or Y magical bacterial entity, but what I am certain of is that the flora lost a substantial number of inhabitants, and this was demonstrated by my overall lack of bowel movements.

Now, since I know there is a tendency on this forum to extend arguments to their logical extremes: Is it healthy to be pooping ten times a day, and excreting great amounts of feces with each bowel movement? Probably not, because the subject's bowel movements do not produce empirical effects that would indicate health (I'd be rather unhappy if I had to poop ten times a day, like some grain-eaters do.) Let's not get too far from sensible and well-grounded conclusions.

To reiterate, two conditions need to be met in a favorable manner in order to validate the perspective that I am arguing for: 1) gut activity levels should be substantial AND 2) these heightened activity levels should empirically demonstrate beneficial markers of health.

Inger, no one on this post is calling for you to consume vast amounts of starches to make your gut flora "healthier." Even though the Hadza, curiously enough, do consume rather large amounts of starches. (But that's probably just a coincidence, right?) If you feel fantastic on a chronic ZC diet (which, Inger, you do not engage in, so this would be impossible), then continue to do what you have been doing.

No one on this post is condemning ZC diets for their therapeutic short-term value. The key words here are "therapeutic" and "short-term." Long-term is a completely different story, especially for industrial humans who don't have access to freshly killed animal carcasses.

This applies to everyone: if you are one of the rare few who are able to obtain freshly-killed animals on a regular basis; if you are able to obtain raw blood, raw organs, and raw meat from animals whose glycogen stores have not yet converted into lactic acid (better make it quick, because the process occurs during a 48 hour period following the kill); then by all means, go ahead and adopt a raw ZC diet--even though I will still hold reservations about your decision to do so (mainly because no hunter-gatherer group in the history of the world has ever purposefully marginalized vegetables and fruits for the sake of following the "correct form" of a diet.) Your chances of succeeding might be higher than many other Rawpaleodiet forum users residing in the cities of heavily industrialized nations. When all we have access to is a crappy Whole Foods, the occasional local farmer's market, and a few farmer friends, it becomes very difficult to mirror the proper environment necessary for executing a raw ZC diet in all its [potential] glory.

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,701
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
aem42290, I do appreciate your specifying that it is that complete Raw Zero Carb or pure Carnivory that you are harping against and making it clear in this thread.

And I do appreciate other people chiming in with their experiences.

Let's all be welcoming to each other's sharing... we are a very small number of global practitioners and every experience counts.

So please don't "lose patience".

This is all good conversation.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline aem42290

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
aem42290, I do appreciate your specifying that it is that complete Raw Zero Carb or pure Carnivory that you are harping against and making it clear in this thread.

And I do appreciate other people chiming in with their experiences.

Let's all be welcoming to each other's sharing... we are a very small number of global practitioners and every experience counts.

So please don't "lose patience".

This is all good conversation.

I agree, GS. Thank you for that reminder. It's important to retain a sense of community while discussing our points. Honestly, I appreciate all of the perspectives that have been shared on this post--whether I agree with them or not. We are a very small group of people, relatively speaking, and at the heart of all of these topics resides the fact that most of us have adopted a rare and condemned diet for the sake of improving our health.

Offline eveheart

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,315
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Could be diabetes, certainly. But thirst may also indicate dehydration, which has a tendency to impact those on a sustained ZC diet. The kidneys become highly effective at excreting salts from the body while in very deep ketosis. For some folks, this is not a problem; they simply heighten their sodium intake to compensate for the problems, or add in magnesium supplements to mitigate the mineral losses. I, for one, was never interested in adopting a diet that demanded supplements in order to function effectively. My understanding is that a diet which requires supplementation (be this in the form of iodine pills, Amazonian minerals, magic joojoo pills, etc.) is a rather problematic diet to begin with.

I was responding to another poster's question about thirst, and I was hoping that I made it clear that generous carbohydrate intake was the factor in those diabetic symptoms. VLC has diabetes under control for now. Subsequent blood tests confirmed my self-diagnosis. I have never sustained or tried to sustain ZC, and I apologize that I wasn't clear about this in my post.

I do not aim for deep ketosis. Intuitively, I do not believe that early man would pass up a tasty morsel just because it did not come from an animal. I am senior in years with only 3 years RPD, and I am not expecting complete reversal of all damage that appears to have been done by years of soy-based, ultra-low fat vegetarianism. However, I am delighted by how much more active, clear-headed, and pain free I am with RPD. I have my doctor's admiration and approval, too, even down to the detail that I don't cook my meat.
"I intend to live forever; so far, so good." -Steven Wright, comedian

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Even Dr. Jack Kruse is not always down on starches: "When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." (http://www.jackkruse.com/the-epcotx-rx)

Some of the important factors in the Hadza GI microbiome are getting overlooked:

> Diverse microbiota, including some rare "species that the researchers had never seen before." (http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hadza-hunter-gatherer-gut-microbiome) Might some them be ancient heritage species?

> Soil and animal probiotics: <<“There are transfers from the soils, from the animals.” In other words, it’s not just what the Hadza eat that contribute to their remarkable gut flora, it’s where and how they are eating it, too.>> (ibid)

> Low (acidic) pH in the colon, which provides an environment that promotes beneficial bacteria and keeps potentially pathogenic bacteria in check [not mentioned in the study, but discussed elsewhere]


"The acidity level of one’s gut is what gives rise to particular species of bacteria, and I now believe it is the main determinant of whether one maximizes the benefits of supplementing with Resistant Starch and other fibers.

...meals with fat can increase circulating endotoxins, and ... the consumption of fiber along with the fat negates this effect" http://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/probiotics-survive-better-with-some-fat-its-the-ph/

"the theory is that, with the right amount and diversity of fiber, a suitably low pH can be maintained that allows beneficial microbes, and not pathogenic ones, to compete for prebiotic fiber." http://mrheisenbug.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/gut-vs-gut-this-is-how-why-resistant-starch-is-working
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline Andy Chow

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
This has to be one of the most biased, unscientific post I’ve read in a while.

“By and large, carnivorous mammals across the world exhibit lower average lifespans than omnivorous creatures.” Really? Please show any evidence of this. And even if this was true, it means nothing about the validity of a diet to optimal health. Optimal health means heath level during life, not how long that life lasts.
Mice are herbivores, but they live less long than a cat that feeds on them, if they both die of old age.

The evolutionary ideas, while “somewhat” valid as empirical evidence (is there any evidence that animals in the wild tend to eat what is best for them? I think not, but that’s a whole other can of worms I’m not opening right now). However, no one knows what earlier humans ate. It’s all guesses and suppositions. They had element “X” in their environment, it’s edible, they probably ate it. Again, why would people assume that they would eat what is good for them rather then what they might stumble upon is beyond me.

Worse, using arguments of authority is dishonest. “reading up on a great deal of scientific studies and informal experiences” What’s that supposed to mean? Every doctor I’ve ever heard talk about nutrition has claimed that fat leads to heart disease, that grains should compose the main source of caloric intake, that taking a baby aspirin is a good idea. And they are very smart people that have studied a lot, read a lot of scientific articles and have been trained by very great peers.

The body does not tend towards an optimal state. It maintains a “minimal” state. Enough to not die, nothing more. Lie down in a bed for a few months, eating the best diet you can. Your bones will still end up brittle, your muscles will be almost inexistent. Even if you eat a lot of protein and fat. Why? Because your body does the least in can if it has the option.

So the fact that gluconeogenesis and ketosis are very inefficient (on a calorific) and taxing (on the organs) is irrelevant. That’s like saying that a jet is not optimal because it consumes too much energy and stresses its components, so a bicycle is better.

If you are going to take your own arguments as a basis for optimal behavior, then you should be against exercise. After all, exercise is inefficient, it taxes many organs, including the heart, wastes energy, and produces many “dangerous” chemical reactions.

“The very fact that gluconeogenesis is associated to cortisol levels should send up some red flags” So again, are you against exercise? Exercise is strongly associated to cortisol levels. Cortisol is associated with stress. Stress is good for the body. Absence of stress is bad. Why don’t you tell astronauts how the absence of stress on their joints is good for them?

Finally, telling people that they should seriously switch their diets if they start feeling sick is irresponsible. People get sick irrespective of their diets. You trying to be an authority on what people should or should not do is laughable.

I know I said finally, but I lied. Here is some pure wisdom: The true optimal form is to be dead. Then you consume nothing, you experience no stress, and you have no chance of having any disease. But that is not what I want. I want to be as strong and vigorous as I can. I don’t seek to be free from pain and stress, I want for everything that doesn’t kill me to make me stronger. I don’t want an easy life, I want the strength to endure a hard one.

Offline aem42290

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
This has to be one of the most biased, unscientific post I’ve read in a while.

I had been waiting for someone else to pull the “unscientific” card. I'll address your concerns in their order of appearance. A bibliography is attached at the end of this response.

Quote
“By and large, carnivorous mammals across the world exhibit lower average lifespans than omnivorous creatures.” Really? Please show any evidence of this.

[http://www.demogr.mpg.de/longevityrecords/0203.htm]

This comes straight from the Max Planck institute for Demographic Research. The average life span data for each species is supported by peer-reviewed studies.

If you look through the document, you'll notice that strictly and/or predominantly carnivorous mammals exhibit lower average life spans than their omnivorous counterparts. While I don't have the time to construct a chart which explicitly compares the two groups (or which deals with the statistical significance of the data), I will pick out some quick examples that address the underlying concerns in a succinct manner:

1) Hippopotamus (omnivorous) in relation to the lion (classic, cliche example of carnivorous animal).
2) Suborder mysteceti whales (fin whales, blue whales, etc.) in relation to carnivorous whales.
3) Eurasian brown bear (predominantly omnivorous since the middle ages) in relation to the polar bear (predominantly carnivorous).

On a tangential note, it would seem that whales possess metabolic adaptations to predominantly carnivorous diets that allow them to live longer than most land carnivores. However, this all comes with a rather large caveat: within the whale groups themselves, the filter-feeders, or baleen whales, exhibit larger average life spans than the predominantly carnivorous species. For the baleens, consuming zooplankton means that phytoplankton is difficult to avoid, and indeed, perhaps even constitutes an important dietary element for the aquatic mammals. Zooplankton depends primarily on phytoplankton for survival, and the two are seldom found separated in the oceans. “The physical factor that influences zooplankton distribution the most is mixing of the water column…along the coast and in the open ocean….that affects nutrient availability and, in turn, phytoplankton production” (Lalli et al. 1993). At least for certain species such as the bowhead whale, research has demonstrated that phytoplankton is an important, if consequential, aspect of their diets. “Each adult [bowhead] whale consumes on the order of 100 metric tons of zooplankton prey, which in tum represents a much larger ( -10 times) biomass of phytoplankton” (Schell 2000). Finally, here is a quote from an accessible article which ties the levels of phytoplankton in the world's oceans to the diets of blue whales: [http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/28/phytoplankton-decline-nature].

Another user on this forum (Edmon) posited that the differences in carnivore/omnivore life spans are due to the expression of the simple mechanisms of survival involved in predatory activities. To take his claims further, the logic supporting such a statement is as follows: If a hunter feasts solely on meat, then the hunter's capacity to survive is tied directly to their hunting skills, and hunting skills are tougher to maintain than grazing faculties. Edmon argued that carnivorous animals typically die while attempting to secure their prey, in fights with other predators, and of infections/other illnesses. While we can accept such an Occam's razor-like approach to the life span problem in carnivores, and immediately cease considering a myriad variables, a series of critical, thought-provoking questions will yet remain: All things considered, why does the wild carnivore's survival functions—namely, the capacity to engage in a successful hunt, acquire nourishment, and deflect other predators, pathogens, etc.—decline at a faster rate than the omnivore's, thereby leading to observable differences in life spans? In other words, why does the carnivorous mammalian, which is supposedly well-adapted to hunting and the consumption of an all-meat diet, fail to adequately maintain its physical faculties for longer than the omnivore's? Is it simply that hunting full-time is harder work than foraging and scavenging? What does such harder work constitute, in a metabolic sense? Harder work in what specific terms? What of the omnivores, who hunt, scavenge, and forage, depending on the seasons, their needs, desires? Capturing live prey obviously involves a great deal of exertion and stressors, but are the lion's overall stressors necessarily greater than the hippo's per se?

The emergence of these questions led me to the eventual exploration of the mechanisms of action involved in the mammalian body's metabolic pathways. Before I get into the theoretical and scientific underpinnings of my section dealing with the human’s metabolic pathways, let me tackle your point regarding "the validity of a diet to optimal health:"

Quote
And even if this was true, it means nothing about the validity of a diet to optimal health. Optimal health means heath level during life, not how long that life lasts.

Since I refuse to play a game of semantics, I'm going to assign a very specific definition to my usage of the concept of optimization, so that there may be no confusion regarding what I'm referring to.

Optimization involves the process of making something as effective, sustainable, and fully-functional as possible. The optimization of a system refers to the maximization of productivity and the minimization of refuse. In the context of my discussion, optimization is directly tied to temporal sustainability, and therefore, by extension, to life span.

Simply put, the form of optimization that I seek does not only account for the short-term benefits of efficiency; I am far more compelled by the notion of efficiency as it relates to sustainability and longitudinal performance. Thus, I initially frame optimization within the context of life span because I am asking how we can optimize both the quality and duration of human life. You seem to be arguing that the quality of a life is all that matters for an organism's existence. In this sense, it does not matter whether a person lives past their forties, so long as they have experienced an acceptable level of health throughout their active moments. I disagree with this rather simplistic and limited conceptualization of health and optimization. My argument attempts to push beyond the strictly qualitative domain and into the temporal and quantitative.

Quote
Mice are herbivores, but they live less long than a cat that feeds on them, if they both die of old age.

I’m not exactly certain as to why you are bringing up herbivorous mice. At no point did I address the life spans of herbivorous species. However, if we want to go down that road, then I will note that large mammalian herbivores, such as ruminants, do tend to live longer than large carnivores (where ‘large’ refers to animals bearing an average body weight of over 150 lbs.), if subjects are allowed to die strictly of old age. But—and this is a huge but—the encephalization quotients, as do the brain sizes, of herbivores (Deaner et al. 2007; Nelson et al. 2001) tend to be much lower than omnivores and carnivores, thereby revealing an apparent deficit in the cognitive abilities of the herbivorous group—which would make sense from an evolutionary perspective that considers brain growth as tied to the consumption of animal proteins and fats.) Of course, we can get into extended and unfruitful discussions of what constitutes intelligence within a particular species. For the sake of simplicity, I am using the rubrics of the encephalization quotient and total brain size to describe mental processes as they become appreciable to our human understandings of intellect.

Quote
The evolutionary ideas, while “somewhat” valid as empirical evidence (is there any evidence that animals in the wild tend to eat what is best for them?

It does not matter whether you believe that “animals in the wild tend to eat what [is or isn’t] best for them.” (Although there are numerous people on this forum—“instinctos”—that will strongly dispute this point in relation to human evolution.) The point of my discourse is to emphasize the fact that countless years of human evolutionary adaptations have laid the biological foundations for the execution of a potential diet which utilizes rational, historically-valid reasoning to provide the body with its optimal requirements. You are attacking my usage of evolutionary ideas by mobilizing a completely unrelated assertion. Evolutionary theories do not ipso facto rely on optimization apparatuses to describe animal bodies; evolutionary theories present us with frameworks for approaching the adaptations and survival dynamics that allow for the reproduction, transformation, and destruction of a species. I am drawing on evolutionary theories insofar as they reveal the present conditions of human metabolic pathways, and allow for us to make informed judgments regarding the optimal means by which to expand the living performance of bodies. I am not, as you crudely assume, drawing on evolutionary theories to supply evidence for the supposed “natural” existence of optimization mechanics in the “wild.” Do not misconstrue my words.

Quote
However, no one knows what earlier humans ate. It’s all guesses and suppositions. They had element “X” in their environment, it’s edible, they probably ate it. Again, why would people assume that they would eat what is good for them rather then what they might stumble upon is beyond me.


Absolutely irrelevant to my argument. I highly doubt that ancient humans were thinking of how to grow larger brains when they decided to hunt other animals. I would not be so naïve and foolish to claim this. Rather, the evolutionary result of the ancient human’s dietary decisions contributed, directly and indirectly, to the development of specific bodily facets—namely, the larger brain. Evolution is not akin to optimization, but dietary optimization theories must draw on evolutionary knowledge to pass grounded judgments. Your failure to grasp my assertions makes me wonder whether you even read my opening post before engaging in this unfounded collection of attacks.

Quote
Worse, using arguments of authority is dishonest. “reading up on a great deal of scientific studies and informal experiences” What’s that supposed to mean? Every doctor I’ve ever heard talk about nutrition…

I don’t even feel the need to quote that statement in its entirety. Your ad hominem tactics are infuriating, at the very least, and, at most, rather disheartening. Considering the overt assaults on my character, if your response to my post were to appear in a scholarly journal, I would feel no need whatsoever to offer you a rebuttal. Thankfully, this is a public forum, and I’ll gladly humor your offensive reply for the sake of fostering public knowledge.

I am not marshaling “arguments of authority” in any way whatsoever. If your definition of arguments of authority means that I declared my knowledge of the subject that I am describing, then yours is truly an atypical approach to the expression. The reason why I stated that I read up on a significant number of scientific studies and informal experiences is because I did. As for informal experiences, my own encounter with a sustained ZC diet has led to heart issues that I am still recovering from. At several moments throughout my ZC experiment, I was dealing with ridiculous and unexplainable palpitations; my extremities were becoming cold, my emotions were receding, and I was consistently irritable. If you would like to talk about the problems that others have experienced while on a sustained ZC diet, just ask PaleoPhil about the symptoms that he dealt with. On Carbsane and other forums, informal evidence for symptoms of what has been termed “VLC/ZC torpor” have emerged as well. PaleoPhil, I’m sure, would be glad to provide you with actual links to the pages where people talk about their problems while on ZC diets.

Regarding the formal underpinnings of my theories, I have drawn on specific scientific studies which demonstrate the inefficient properties of gluconeogenesis (Hendrick et al. 1990; Veldhorst 2009; Veldhorst 2012; Baba et al. 1994) while in a deep ketogenic state (Tagliabue A 2012), and relative to glucose metabolism (Mcdonald 1998; Prince et al. 2013); as well as revealing the difficulties associated with the production of glucose from fatty acids (Kaleta et al. 2011); and the limitations on the potentially therapeutic overall uptake of ketones by the brain (Devivo et al. 1978; Seyfried et al. 2003; Lahanna et al. 2009; Cahill 2006). All of these studies address periods of deep ketosis as exceptional for the mammalian body, with Lahanna (2009) and Seyfried (2003) particularly making use of such exceptional circumstances to augment the validity of their experimental procedures. Taken in tandem, these studies point to the short-term therapeutic benefits of a ZC or VLC diet (for the metabolically deranged, epileptic, etc.), but direct us toward challenging the long-term metabolic stressors that arise from the sustained inefficiencies of the aforementioned key metabolic pathways. I will return to this last point soon.

Quote
The body does not tend towards an optimal state. It maintains a “minimal” state. Enough to not die, nothing more. Lie down in a bed for a few months, eating the best diet you can. Your bones will still end up brittle, your muscles will be almost inexistent. Even if you eat a lot of protein and fat. Why? Because your body does the least in can if it has the option.


The body tends toward homeostasis, which is absolutely different from the “minimal” caloric state that you are describing. Your definition of minimal begs interrogation. If you are defining the human’s basal caloric requirements as being constitutive of a minimal state or set-point, then even at this level, homeostasis involves a conglomerate of intensely erratic, fluctuating processes. Homeostasis is about balancing and stabilizing the entropic reactions of a semi-structured body. Confronted with an obviously necessary minimal caloric intake (which is about the only minimal element of a human existence), the entropic body incessantly attempts to adapt and respond to the chaos generated both by and within metabolic processes.
Homeostasis, for one, cannot be separated from hormesis, which details the body’s responses to disordered metabolic chains. Even the subject lying on a bed will be exposed to organic stressors (atrophy, etc.) that cause their body to reflexively manipulate key metabolic pathways in response to sedentary functions. Oftentimes, these metabolic pathways involves seriously disruptive physical processes that make maximum use of inefficient metabolic structures, such as gluconeogenesis and ketosis, and which may not contribute to the optimal health of the subject, but which certainly allow for the subject to survive and adapt.
This is all to say that what you perceive as the body doing “enough to not die,” is actually the body doing enough to survive and reproduce; and there is a massive, indisputable difference between these two expressions. Your fatalistic approach to human existence is wholly unsupported by science. Humans have been shown to possess psychological and physical regulatory mechanisms that further the pursuit of reproduction, survival, and survival beyond reproduction. The body does the most it can to survive and reproduce, not the least it can to ward off death. The body, in fact, is not concerned with life and death--this Christian dichotomy that so many scientists submit to. The human body, the mammalian, animal body, is invested in the protection of reproductive faculties that are inextricably bound to the adaptive survival of an entropic organism. Survival is about adaptation and reproduction, not death and a minimalistic quality of degeneration.

 
Quote
So the fact that gluconeogenesis and ketosis are very inefficient (on a calorific) and taxing (on the organs) is irrelevant. That’s like saying that a jet is not optimal because it consumes too much energy and stresses its components, so a bicycle is better.

The underlying logic here is absolutely flawed. You moved from A to B without adequately connecting the two thoughts.

A) "The body does not tend towards an optimal state. It maintains a “minimal” state."
B) "So the fact that gluconeogenesis and ketosis are very inefficient (on a calorific) and taxing (on the organs) is irrelevant.

So, “if the body does not tend towards an optimal state,” then “the fact that gluconeogenesis and ketosis are very inefficient…and taxing on the organs….is irrelevant.”

What? How have you established the irrelevance of point B in relation to point A? In legal-speak, this is what we call a non-sequitur.

The notion of a minimal state serves no purpose in addressing the particular metabolic inefficiencies of gluconeogenesis and ketosis. As I stated above, the only minimal state in the human body is the basal need for calories that defines survival. To reiterate: optimization, as per my discussion, entails rationally reflecting (an anti-‘natural’ process) on the specific qualities of metabolic pathways so as to determine their maximum performance levels in relation to life spans and health.

Quote
That’s like saying that a jet is not optimal because it consumes too much energy and stresses its components, so a bicycle is better.

Do you really want to get into the thermodynamics of using petroleum to power jets? I'm just going to marginalize this. By all means, keep believing that jet planes are efficient machines.

Quote
If you are going to take your own arguments as a basis for optimal behavior, then you should be against exercise. After all, exercise is inefficient, it taxes many organs, including the heart, wastes energy, and produces many “dangerous” chemical reactions.

Now we are getting deeper into ad-hominem territory. That's fine, though. I'll play along.
To begin with, I am not against exercise, and at no point did I imply or state this. Most exercise does not involve a sleuth of chronic stressors, and exercise satisfies many of the hormetic requirements of a homeostatic system. Hormesis, though, is not the same as systematic degeneration. Provided that a body is properly nourished, exposure to exercise allows for the optimization of life span and health viz. the enhancement of metabolic flexibility. Many forms of exercise satisfy the conditions of adaptive and sustainable optimization that I embrace within my writings. I am, without a doubt, against endurance training, for I believe (as do other scholars) that it places undue stress on the organ systems of the human body (Benito et al. 2011; Wilson et al. 2011). Do you see the difference here? There is a huge gap between short-term hormetic stressors and chronic degenerative stressors.

Quote
The very fact that gluconeogenesis is associated to cortisol levels should send up some red flags” So again, are you against exercise? Exercise is strongly associated to cortisol levels. Cortisol is associated with stress. Stress is good for the body. Absence of stress is bad. Why don’t you tell astronauts how the absence of stress on their joints is good for them?

You are foolishly misconstruing my arguments. I am not claiming that short-term stressors are unnecessary for human health; I am writing against the long-term stressors emerging from a chronic ZC diet and its inefficient metabolic pathways. The reason why cortisol sends up a red flag in relation to gluconeogenesis is because while in a deep ketogenic diet, a subject is constantly engaged in gluconeogenesis, and therefore exhibits elevated cortisol levels (Swain et al. 2012). Dichotomizing stress as good/bad is a ridiculous proposition. Stress is neither good nor bad; stress is a physical signifier that directs our attention toward bodily processes that may indicate the absence or presence of particular adaptive mechanisms. I have opted to question which adaptive mechanisms are optimal for both longevity and maximum health.

However, if you want to argue along the dichotomy of “stress is good” and the “absence of stress” is bad, you’d do best to research how the body deals with the elevated cortisol levels of exercise. A little hint: as the body becomes used to stressors, cortisol levels begin to decrease. Chronically elevated cortisol levels are a serious problem, leading to heart disease, etc., but cortisol released in response to short-term stressors allows for the body to adapt to the demands of exercise.

Retrieved from: [http://www.livestrong.com/article/86687-exercise-cortisol-levels].

Negative Effects [of cortisol]
Unfortunately, the negative effects of cortisol outweigh the positive. Cortisol has an immunosuppressive effect, meaning that if your body constantly has high levels of cortisol, you are more susceptible to illness or infection. Also, because cortisol is a response to stress and the goal is to increase fuels in the blood, it will increase blood calcium by inhibiting bone formation and decreasing intestinal calcium absorption. This may result in a decrease in bone density over time. Cortisol also inhibits the pathway that releases sex hormones (gonadotropins), so if you are constantly stressed, you may experience a decreased libido and, in some cases, infertility or difficulty conceiving. Women who have high levels of cortisol in combination with low body weight may have amenorrhea (loss of menstrual cycle).
Training Effects
Because cortisol is released in response to stress, exercise training will increase the threshold of cortisol release. For example, if you begin an exercise program walking at a 20-minutes per mile pace, cortisol will be released at that intensity. However, as your training progresses and you begin walking at a 15-minutes per mile rate, the body will not perceive the 20-minutes per mile pace to be as stressful and will not release as much cortisol.


Quote
Finally, telling people that they should seriously switch their diets if they start feeling sick is irresponsible. People get sick irrespective of their diets. You trying to be an authority on what people should or should not do is laughable.

Using the internet’s anonymity to make hostile, assumptive statements against my intents involves a great deal of cowardice, to say the least.

When did I say that anybody should stop eating a ZC diet? I was trying to help others on this forum by presenting my theories and understandings of the problematic attributes of a chronic ZC diet. I am not trying to brainwash or control anyone. Do whatever you want. If you feel fantastic and want to continue on the ZC diet, then by all means, go right on ahead. I am presenting people with my understanding of what an optimal human diet does and does not contain, and my conclusions are, despite what you may believe, supported by science.

Quote
I know I said finally, but I lied. Here is some pure wisdom: The true optimal form is to be dead. Then you consume nothing, you experience no stress, and you have no chance of having any disease.

The so-called purity of your wisdom leaves much to be desired.

Quote
But that is not what I want. I want to be as strong and vigorous as I can. I don’t seek to be free from pain and stress, I want for everything that doesn’t kill me to make me stronger. I don’t want an easy life, I want the strength to endure a hard one.

I applaud you on the rhetorical flourish; truly, I was nearly brought to tears.

Works cited
Baba, H., Zhang, X. J., & Wolfe, R. R. (1994). Glycerol gluconeogenesis in fasting humans. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.), 11(2), 149-153.

Benito, B., Gay-Jordi, G., Serrano-Mollar, A., Guasch, E., Shi, Y., Tardif, J. C., ... & Mont, L. (2011). Cardiac Arrhythmogenic Remodeling in a Rat Model of Long-Term Intensive Exercise TrainingClinical Perspective. Circulation, 123(1), 13-22.

Cahill Jr, G. F. (2006). Fuel metabolism in starvation. Annu. Rev. Nutr., 26, 1-22.

Deaner, R. O., Isler, K., Burkart, J., & van Schaik, C. (2007). Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 70(2), 115-124.

Devivo, D. C., Leckie, M. P., Ferrendelli, J. S., & McDougal, D. B. (1978). Chronic ketosis and cerebral metabolism. Annals of neurology, 3(4), 331-337.

Hendrick, G. K., Frizzell, R. T., Williams, P. E., & Cherrington, A. D. (1990). Effect of hyperglucagonemia on hepatic glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis after a prolonged fast. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology And Metabolism, 258(5), E841-E849.

Iwaniuk, A. N., Nelson, J. E., & Pellis, S. M. (2001). Do big-brained animals play more? Comparative analyses of play and relative brain size in mammals. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(1), 29.

Kaleta, C., de Figueiredo, L. F., Werner, S., Guthke, R., Ristow, M., & Schuster, S. (2011). In Silico Evidence for Gluconeogenesis from Fatty Acids in Humans PLoS Computational Biology, 7 (7) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002116

Lalli, C.M. and Parsons, T.R. (1993). Biological Oceanography, an Introduction. 30 Corporate Drive, Burlington, MA 01803: Elsevier. p. 314. ISBN 0-7506-3384-0.

LaManna, J. C., Salem, N., Puchowicz, M., Erokwu, B., Koppaka, S., Flask, C., & Lee, Z. (2009). Ketones suppress brain glucose consumption. In Oxygen Transport to Tissue XXX (pp. 301-306). Springer US.

McDonald, L. (1998). The ketogenic diet. A complete guide for the dieter and practitioner. Austin TX: Morris Publishing.

Prince, A., Zhang, Y., Croniger, C., & Puchowicz, M. (2013). Oxidative Metabolism: Glucose Versus Ketones. In Oxygen Transport to Tissue XXXV(pp. 323-328). Springer New York.

Schell, D. M. (2000). Declining carrying capacity in the Bering Sea: isotopic evidence from whale baleen. Limnology and Oceanography, 45(2), 459-462.

Seyfried, T. N., Sanderson, T. M., El-Abbadi, M. M., McGowan, R., & Mukherjee, P. (2003). Role of glucose and ketone bodies in the metabolic control of experimental brain cancer. British journal of cancer, 89(7), 1375-1382.

Ebbeling CB, Swain JF, Feldman HA, Wong WW, Hachey DL, Garcia-Lago E, Ludwig DS. (2012). Effects of dietary composition on energy expenditure during weight-loss maintenance. 27; 307(24):2627-34.

Tagliabue A, Bertoli S, Trentani C, Borrelli P, Veggiotti P (2012). Effects of the ketogenic diet on nutritional status, resting energy expenditure, and substrate oxidation in patients with medically refractory epilepsy: a 6-month prospective observational study. Clin Nutr 31(2):246–249

Veldhorst, M. A., Westerterp-Plantenga, M. S., & Westerterp, K. R. (2009). Gluconeogenesis and energy expenditure after a high-protein, carbohydrate-free diet. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 90(3), 519-526.

Veldhorst, M. A., Westerterp, K. R., & Westerterp-Plantenga, M. S. (2012). Gluconeogenesis and protein-induced satiety. British Journal of Nutrition,107(4), 595.

Wilson, M., O'Hanlon, R., Prasad, S., Deighan, A., MacMillan, P., Oxborough, D., ... & Whyte, G. (2011). Diverse patterns of myocardial fibrosis in lifelong, veteran endurance athletes. Journal of Applied Physiology, 110(6), 1622-1626.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 04:17:07 am by aem42290 »

Offline Alive

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 736
    • View Profile
Note regarding brain sizes

It is not fundamentally the nutrition an animal receives that drives its species brain size, it is the benefits a larger brain gives them to be more successful in their environmental niche.

Carnivorous fish have larger brains the vegetarian fish because you have to be smarter to hunt than graze.
Social animals have larger brains because they have to participate in complex social behaviour.
Apes have large brains to cope with their complex societies, a little hunting, and some tool making.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:07:16 am by alive »

Offline colorles

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
needless to say in the wild, most mammalian carnivores will not pass up the opportunity to consume carbs. of course this consumption is seasonal, and would be considered a "treat"

the way i look at it, i'm fine eating as many carbs as i could safely eat, without degenerative reactions and stressors to the body. in other words, how much carbs can the human body safely handle, without the insulin system being overtaxed hence diabetes, plaque formation in the arteries, weakened immune system,ect so on so forth? to what extent can the human body take advantage of this carbohydrate energy source, and suffer none or inconsequential side-effects?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 08:47:32 am by colorles »

Offline aem42290

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
needless to say in the wild, most mammalian carnivores will not pass up the opportunity to consume carbs. of course this consumption is seasonal, and would be considered a "treat"

the way i look at it, i'm fine eating as many carbs as i could safely eat, without degenerative reactions and stressors to the body. in other words, how much carbs can the human body safely handle, without the insulin system being overtaxed hence diabetes, plaque formation in the arteries, weakened immune system,ect so on so forth? to what extent can the human body take advantage of this carbohydrate energy source, and suffer none or inconsequential side-effects?

That's a fantastic question, Colorles. Personally, I now choose to consume around 75-80g of carbs per day (in the form of fruits and raw starches--definitely never any empty carbs), although this number fluctuates depending on daily exercise intensity. I seldom measure how many carbs I eat, unless I am engaged in an active experiment, or if my curiosity has been piqued by some readings. I believe that it was Alive that pointed me to Paul Jaminet's website (I thank him for this greatly). Jaminet states that in order to achieve optimal levels of metabolic flexibility, the inclusion of carbs in a diet should account for  20-30% of daily total caloric needs. Jaminet's number is a bit on the high end for my liking, and I have found that I am typically satisfied with 15-20% of my calories coming from healthy carbs.

I would definitely be curious to hear from others, though~

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,007
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
needless to say in the wild, most mammalian carnivores will not pass up the opportunity to consume cabs. of course this consumption is seasonal, and would be considered a "treat"

the way i look at it, I'm fine eating as many cabs as i could safely eat, without degenerative reactions and stresses to the body. in other words, how much cabs can the human body safely handle, without the insulin system being overtaxed hence diabetes, plaque formation in the arteries, weakened immune system,etc so on so forth? to what extent can the human body take advantage of this carbohydrate energy source, and suffer none or inconsequential side-effects?

It depends upon the individual. Some people have the ability to live on ungodly levels of refined carbohydrates without breaking down until much later in life. There is some adaptation which allows one to produce huge amounts of insulin and utilize sugars as the primary energy source.

Hypoglycemia runs in my family, and my mother for as sick as she is , is still able to keep low blood sugar even though she drinks a half gallon of soda pop, and eats white bread and potatoes every day.

Another interesting note on consuming pure carbohydrate, if you consume only refined carbohydrates, without any proteins or fats you will wasrte a way and die faster than if you ate nothing at all.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 11:12:40 am by sabertooth »
A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
The longest-lived whales are deep-diving whales. They have the highest peak levels of CO2 in their blood (and in their environments, given that they dive the deepest, where the CO2 is highest and the oxygen lowest), and higher-than-avg levels of animal starch in their tissues (for example, the muktuk skin/fat layer towards the back end of deep-diving whales contains significant animal starch), both of which apparently help them accomplish deep dives. CO2 is reportedly anti-aging and tissue-regenerating (in the right proportions, of course).

Mole rats, bats and tardigrades are also long-lived animals, and they also reportedly tend to have higher CO2 and lower oxygen than avg in their environments, and presumably their tissues.

Exploring Overlooked Natural Mitochondria-Rejuvenative Intervention: The Puzzle of Bowhead Whales and Naked Mole Rats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18072884

Optimization involves the process of making something as effective, sustainable, and fully-functional as possible. The optimization of a system refers to the maximization of productivity and the minimization of refuse. In the context of my discussion, optimization is directly tied to temporal sustainability, and therefore, by extension, to life span.
When ZCers force their bodies to follow the less efficient metabolic pathways of converting protein or ketones into energy, instead of the more easily metabolized carbs or butyrate (such as from prebiotic-fed bacteria), this produces more of the "refuse" you mentioned. Did you have lactic acid in mind?
Quote
"Free fatty acids suppress mitochondrial respiration (Kamikawa and Yamakazi, 1981), leading to increased glycolysis (and the production of lactic acid) to maintain cellular energy." http://www.abioenergeticview.com/2-2

"Butyrate pretreated cells displayed a modulation of glutamine metabolism characterized by an increased incorporation of carbons derived from glutamine into lipids and a reduced lactate production. The butyrate-stimulated glutamine utilization is linked to pyruvate dehydrogenase complex since dichloroacetate reverses this effect. Furthermore, butyrate positively regulates gene expression of pyruvate dehydrogenase kinases and this effect involves a hyperacetylation of histones at PDK4 gene promoter level. Our data suggest that butyrate exerts two distinct effects to ensure the regulation of glutamine metabolism: it provides acetyl coA needed for fatty acid synthesis, and it also plays a role in the control of the expression of genes involved in glucose utilization leading to the inactivation of PDC." Butyrate elicits a metabolic switch in human colon cancer cells by targeting the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20715114

Carnivorous wild animals also consume carbs when they eat a fresh kill raw, both in the tissues (animal starch) and in the GI tract contents. The tissue carb content in fresh kills is reportedly higher than in supermarket meats.

Some other sites beyond Carbsane's that have VLC/ZC failure stories and success stories when people added more reasonable amounts of carbs back into their diets include http://anthonycolpo.com , www.freetheanimal.com, http://www.raypeatforum.com, http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/forum.php, www.betterhealthclue.com (formerly www.dirtycarnivore.com, until too many people reported problems with VLC/ZC, including the site owner), http://180degreehealth.com , http://donmatesz.blogspot.com , and www.archevore.com.

There would be plenty of failure stories at the ZCer forum (forum.zeroinginonhealth.com), except that the site owner deletes them.  ;D

Quote
"Depriving your body of a required metabolite and forcing it to adapt to same is pretty much a stress by definition."
- Kurt Harris, MD, http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/7/thoughts-on-ketosis-ii.html
Quote
“Defnitely I share Paul [Jaminet's] discomfort with very low carb diets especially over the long-term because when you go very very low carbohydrate, you tend to reduce leptin. And certainly when you start from a place of excessive leptin or leptin resistance, then it’s a good thing. That’s why people see benefits over the short term when they first adopt VLC diets or [Ketogenic Diet] approaches. But over the longterm the reduced leptin causes thymus atrophy and the thymus gland is crucial in the function of adaptive immune system because it’s the gland that matures T lymphocytes, which are huge components of the adaptive immune system.”
- Sarah Ballantyne, PhD, http://www.superhumanradio.com/download-the-autoimmune-panel-discussion.html

Metabolic flexibility is a good term. Why wouldn't someone want to be metabolically flexible?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 12:21:49 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline Alive

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 736
    • View Profile
That's a fantastic question, Colorles. Personally, I now choose to consume around 75-80g of carbs per day (in the form of fruits and raw starches--definitely never any empty carbs), although this number fluctuates depending on daily exercise intensity. I seldom measure how many carbs I eat, unless I am engaged in an active experiment, or if my curiosity has been piqued by some readings. I believe that it was Alive that pointed me to Paul Jaminet's website (I thank him for this greatly). Jaminet states that in order to achieve optimal levels of metabolic flexibility, the inclusion of carbs in a diet should account for  20-30% of daily total caloric needs. Jaminet's number is a bit on the high end for my liking, and I have found that I am typically satisfied with 15-20% of my calories coming from healthy carbs.

I would definitely be curious to hear from others, though~


aem42290, I am very pleased to hear this has been useful for you  :)

I am following my instincts and eating as much low sugar fruit and starchy raw vegetables as tastes good.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,998
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Do you mean you exaggerated in the past? If so, how do I know you're not doing the same now?  The "many" people you mentioned in the past would still be valid for you to indicate today, if you were not exaggerating then. Just because many of them are not active in this forum any more doesn't mean they didn't report problems in the past. If you should go inactive that wouldn't somehow invalidate the poor results you reported from RZC.

I agree w/ you that the subforum diets should be treated the same, which is why I asked that dissenting views be allowed in ALL the subforums.
Like I said before, we cannot allow dissent as it is nearly always of the hysterical variety.  More the point, interest in a wide variety of diets waxes and wanes with the advent of every  new diet book or  scientific finding. Such trivialities are not relevant to a particular diet which does not change so easily. Plus, the various dietary forums are small and are meant more for discussing aspects of that particular diet. Attacking those rawpaleo diets should, by contrast, go to the hot topics forum instead.


As regards the first accusation of yours, this is pure equivocation. I had retaliated against many pro-RZCers at the time so I had no choice but to exaggerate. Now, I obviously do not have such a need.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Thanks for acknowledging five years later that you were exaggerating back then. Maybe five years from now we'll learn what you're true current views are.  ;D If you could unapologetically exaggerate back then as it suited your needs, you could do so again.

Did you respond about what you think the specific starchy foods were that humans have amylases for? Sorry if you did already, I don't remember a clear direct answer.
I think it's obvious that humans are omnivores.  I mean we have teeth(molars) designed for eating plants, plus amylase for starches etc.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:20:14 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline 24isours

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Quote
The very fact that gluconeogenesis is associated to cortisol levels should send up some red flags: gluconeogenesis is tough work, and our bodies will avoid activating the metabolic pathway unless absolutely forced to do so

To those of you who think Gluconeogenesis requires high cortisol levels, read this:

http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketogenic-diets-and-stress-part-i.html
3 Years on a Strictly Raw Ketogenic Carnivorous Diet.
*Currently still on a Ketogenic diet but have now incorporated raw vegetables.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,998
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Thanks for acknowledging five years later that you were exaggerating back then. Maybe five years from now we'll learn what you're true current views are.  ;D If you could unapologetically exaggerate back then as it suited your needs, you could do so again.
Pathetic pedantry as I was being quite obvious re exaggeration way back when. Whatever the case, I will always defend this board from being overrun by hysterical  science-free posts of the sort suggested. Plus we need to be fair to all and allow each forum to have a decent chance.
Quote
Did you respond about what you think the specific starchy foods were that humans have amylases for? Sorry if you did already, I don't remember a clear direct answer.
A few raw tubers.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,007
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
To those of you who think Gluconeogenesis requires high cortisol levels, read this:

http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketogenic-diets-and-stress-part-i.html

I don't give much credence to the idea that ketogenic diets require high cortisol levels to maintain. Perhaps for those who arnt well adapted and are constantly going in and out of ketosis it could cause periodic elevations of cortisol, but even this should be little cause for concern, it is a natural reaction which is the low carb equivalent of an insulin spike .High Insulin level can be even more detrimental than high cortisol.

Once Gluconeogenesis is established then insulin levels drop down triggering a metibolic shift that allows the conversion of fats and proteins to stabilize so that cortisol spikes are no longer needed to maintain blood sugar levels.
A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
A few raw tubers.
Amylase for tubers, eh? Based on ZC guru Bear Stanley's writings, I'll bet he wouldn't agree:

"Seven Simple Rules For The Human Carnivore
1) Eat only from the animal world. ..." http://highsteaks.com/carnivores-creed/owsley-the-bear-stanley/seven-simple-rules-for-the-human-carnivore/

"The common house-cat is used in human anatomy classes as a substitute for the very expensive human cadaver because the internal organs are, in size and shape, relative length of intestines, type of stomach, kidneys, liver etc are nearly IDENTICAL to human. In other words, we have the 'guts' of a carnivore as well as the dentition of one type of carnivorous lineage." - Bear Stanley, http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/archive/what-do-you-think-of-this__o_t__t_1948.html

I think you're more right on that than the Bear.

Speaking of the Bear, the forum where he first spread the word on his version of ZC carnivory and sparked the ZC phase is another example of the decline of ZC - the forum is nearly moribund, with no posts since January: http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/index.php
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 10:55:09 am by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,998
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Diets come and go due to the appearance/disappearance of gurus,  books etc. The Bear died a while back, so it is hardly a surprise if his forum became defunct.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
It wasn't Bear's forum, it's owner was just inspired by Bear's ideas and Bear had a thread there. They said that it had become rather moribund a couple years before Bear died. It it looks it had become so moribund that there was just a brief mention of Bear's death, with no discussion of it.

It does demonstrate what a mistake it is to tie a diet more to a person than to concepts, though the ZIOH forum attempted to do the latter. I think ZIOH is the only ZCer forum left and that is relatively inactive too. Does anyone know of another?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 06:53:42 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline 24isours

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Quote
Could be diabetes, certainly. But thirst may also indicate dehydration, which has a tendency to impact those on a sustained ZC diet. The kidneys become highly effective at excreting salts from the body while in very deep ketosis. For some folks, this is not a problem; they simply heighten their sodium intake to compensate for the problems, or add in magnesium supplements to mitigate the mineral losses. I, for one, was never interested in adopting a diet that demanded supplements in order to function effectively. My understanding is that a diet which requires supplementation (be this in the form of iodine pills, Amazonian minerals, magic joojoo pills, etc.) is a rather problematic diet to begin with.

It is proven that adding in some carbohydrates to ones diet does indeed make it easier for one to hold onto sodium (making the need for extra sodium less important than one who isn't in ketosis). In my opinion, if one was able to get their hands on blood and fresh meat these extra requirements of minerals wouldn't be of much importance. One of the keys to my success in eating a Carnivorous diet may very well be the fact that my meat does come with considerable amounts of blood. I also make sure to  supplement 3/4 of a teaspoon of sea salt a long with my meal, a long with a few milligrams of Iodine per day. If I was eating raw thyroid a few times a week , I wouldn't think Iodine supplementation would be necessary.

I've mentioned in previous posts about carbohydrates increasing production of thyroid hormones; which in some cases could be the reason why some people feel better adding in carbohydrates. Possibly adding in extra iodine would replace the need for extra carbohydrates to boost this process as my body will be creating thyroid hormone through what I would consider a more 'natural' process rather than getting the boost of hormones from added carbohydrates in the diet.

Quote
On numerous occasions, my heart problems on a ZC diet were attributed to "dehydration." In response to those statements, I thought: complete BS, considering that I was consuming a large amount of water throughout my waking hours. However, one should realize that larger amounts of water don't precisely add up to adequate hydration. In fact, drinking multiple liters a day when the body is in a deep ketogenic state may exacerbate the loss of electrolytes by accelerating excretory processes.

Thyroid hormone is associated with many different metabolic functions. Perhaps it's relation with electrolyte balance could be another reason why I do not seem to suffer with such problems. However, if I do consume too much protein I will notice palpitations if I do not consume enough water. This may be attributed to the toxic effects of too much protein and also the bodies response to eliminating such toxins.




Quote
You are foolishly misconstruing my arguments. I am not claiming that short-term stressors are unnecessary for human health; I am writing against the long-term stressors emerging from a chronic ZC diet and its inefficient metabolic pathways. The reason why cortisol sends up a red flag in relation to gluconeogenesis is because while in a deep ketogenic diet, a subject is constantly engaged in gluconeogenesis, and therefore exhibits elevated cortisol levels (Swain et al. 2012). Dichotomizing stress as good/bad is a ridiculous proposition. Stress is neither good nor bad; stress is a physical signifier that directs our attention toward bodily processes that may indicate the absence or presence of particular adaptive mechanisms. I have opted to question which adaptive mechanisms are optimal for both longevity and maximum health.

The only time cortisol is involved during the process of gluconeogenesis is when blood sugar levels go down low enough to induce a hypoglycemic state. Cortisol is called in to act upon in such an emergency to help restore blood sugar levels to a normal level. When adequate protein is consumed on a ketogenic diet, hypoglycemia hasn't been known to be a problem.

(http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketogenic-diets-and-stress-part-i.html)
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 05:53:23 am by 24isours »
3 Years on a Strictly Raw Ketogenic Carnivorous Diet.
*Currently still on a Ketogenic diet but have now incorporated raw vegetables.

Offline political atheist

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Re: The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health
« Reply #99 on: August 17, 2014, 01:51:37 am »
aem42290,
I am wondering if you gained  benefits initially from VLC that were worthwhile, and if you had started to very slowly increase carbs early on that might have worked well?

I have been interested in reading the research of Paul and Shou-Ching Jaminet (The Perfect Health Diet book). In regards to carbs their findings are that the ideal is 30% of energy from carbs (Typically ~600 calories), from 'safe starches' like potatoes, rice and bananas, to provide for the bodies glucose needs, and the rest from fat.

Here is Paul's investigation of ideal glucose levels for longevity and dialog with Ron Rosedale:
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/11/safe-starches-symposium-dr-ron-rosedale/

i wouldnt listen to anybody who tells you that rice(GMO), banana(its like eating white sugar) are safe carbs to eat. LOLOLOL

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk