Re: are vegetables healthy?

March 3, 2009

> Raw milk is alkaline forming.

Based on what? How are you figuring?

Dairy is acid forming according to the PRAL list.

March 3, 2009

It depends on the dairy...

Pasteurized milk is too high in phosphorous so the calcium doesn't absorb. 1

cup of raw mill has 300mg of cal, mag, 200-300mg of pottasium, so I would say

that makes it alkaline.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:32 PM, " cbrown2008 " <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> Raw milk is alkaline forming.

Based on what? How are you figuring?

Dairy is acid forming according to the PRAL list.

March 3, 2009

I foregot to put it on the list.

Lauric Acid: have up to 6 tblspns of extravirgin coconut oil. 2 with each meal.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2009, at 11:17 AM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

This is actually from . He wanted to me post this to NN since

apparently he can't cut and paste from his i-phone.

______

The Raw Meat Carnivore based Optimal Diet revision

Based on this bone broth is essential to our health. Dr. JK swears

that one can cure himself of many degenerative diseases and have

optimal health with fat and bone marrow broth.

www.homodiet.netfirms.com

Take your height in centimeters and subtract 100. Add 10% if you have

a big frame and detract 10% if you have a small frame. That is your

protein intake. 2.5-3.5X is your fat intake. Have 50-100mg of carbs

a day or an equal ratio to protein. Have mostly starches. Have raw

meat/fat and eat your plant carbs cooked/fermented/raw. Avoid gluten.

Depending on the period our ancestors cooked their vegetables,

fruits, starches, or fermented them. If not they would consume very

small quanitites. There is recorded evidence that the homo sapien's

species brain was 8% bigger some 50,000-40,000 years ago. when

we had an all raw animal meat/fat diet. During this period we

consumed nuts, fruits, and veggies raw in small quantities. Alot of

the time they weren't even available in various regions due to an ice

age. Athropologists look back to what they believe to be the orginal

place our species started out at, the African savanah. In this hot

climate there were very few plant sources our species could actually

consume. We depended on ruminant species that ate grass and insect,

eggs. Our brains had decreased by 8%

10,000 years ago when we got into agriculture and consumed a

considerable amount more plant sources. Our brains had decreased 3%

30,000 years ago probably because man started eating more plants

realizing they were more bioavailable by cooking them. Our stomachs

weren't really made to break down plants that efficiently

The best source of nutrients are ruminant animals such as the cow.

Have between 4-8 eggs a day, preferably pastured. Have an ounce of

liver a day or dessicated liver. Have a mutli organ such as

www.drrons.com organ delight or if you have access have the real stuff

which is 100X better. Have a pair of cow or buffallo testicles once

a month or take dr ron's

supplements. Brown recommends buffallo testicles. He reps

200 dumbell presses on each arm at 60 years old. He states his

strength dramatically increases after consuming " rocky mountain

oysters. "

Have a 1/2 tspn of butter oil and fclo from www.greenpastures.com

It's better to get all you omega 3s and fatty acids from pastured

grassfed cows. It's better if eating raw but try not to cook over

medium rare if you want to cook it. Gelatin helps produce hydrophibic

acid which is destroyed when cooking meat Have eggs sunny side up or

seperate the white from the

egg, eat the yolk raw and cook the white. Aajonus Vanderplonitz says

his raw eating helped him develop a built physique and he hasn't

touched a weight in 19 years. You don't need nearly the level of most

vitamins and minerals if you reduce your carb intake.

Most nutrients can be obtained from

The following animal sources:

Raw Butter fat, tallow, bone broth, raw milk, oysters, grassfed

liver, cow testicles, muscle meats of cow, clams, cartilage, joint

tissue, fermented unpasteurized hard cheese, shell fish, fish, High

vitamin butter oil, fermented cod liver oil, Chicken and cow feet in

broth for gelatin and silicone.

Here's is a list of minerals you won't be getting enough of if you

only consume animal foods.

Other sources or information to help

Clarify:

Pottasium: vegetables, especially dulse, can also be obtained from

milk and meat/organs but not nearly as high a quanitity. Maine

seaweed company sells dulse but it appears to have flouride in it.

Don't know why. Beets and potatoes are excellent sources too. Kiwi

and pineapple great sources.

Manganese: butterfat, dairy, eggs, meat in trace amounts

Germanium: garlic, ginseng, mushrooms, onions, and the herbs aloe

vera, comfrey and suma

K2: hard cheese, liver, natto all have different mk forms of k2.

It's argued mk4, concentrated in grassfed liver and grassfed

centrifuged butter, are the best sources. www.greenpastures.com

Vitamin P: peppers, grapes, buckwheat, and white peal of citrus

fruits, seabuckthorn berry

Vitamin E: found in various foods but wheat germ oil is the most

potent source also containing vitamin F. It is said the vitamin F

is the more potent of the two antioxidants and is protected by

vitamin E. Seabuckthorn berry

Cytokinins: Buko juice (green coconut water.

Vitamin C: can be found in the stomach tissue of animals and in

various fruits. The best sources are camu camu, amla berry, and

seabuckthorn berry. I would rather consume the whole fruit rather

than a liquid or a powder. If I were to do this I would want it to

be rich in added digestive enzymes and probiotics.

B15 and B17:grains, seeds, grasses, sprouts, buckwheat, legumes,

fruit seeds. Apples and apple seeds are a great source. Macademia

nuts are great too.

Oleic Acid: beef tallow. Make pemmican that is 20% protein muscle

meat and 80% fat from beef tallow. Have tallow as 20-60% of your

fat consumption.

Enzymes: 1tblspn of raw bee pollen a day and 1tspn of raw bee honey

with each meal, grapes, figs, avacados, dates, bananas, papaya,

mangos, kiwi, pineapple, unrefined olive oil and other unrefined oils.

Probiotics: culture milk with kefir to make it more absorbable.

Depending on what region you are from this may be the best way to do

it.

Fermented foods: Kimchi, kombucha, beet kvass, and kefir raw milk are good.

Silica Hydride and negative hydrogen ion: glacial milk and microhydrin

Beta carotene: three organic/biodynamic carrots a day

Resvratrol: Glass of aged quality red wine a day. Red grapes. May

or may not be beneficial.

And various other herbs and antioxidants that do misc.

Gelatin/lemon squeeze/quality fermented apple cider vinegar/white

wine/raw butter mix helps with the absorption of nutrients in bone

broth and joint health

Carbohydrates: Starches are the optimal source of plant carbs.

Research has shown any other type of carb literally dramatically

decreases the strength of the immune system. Various plant sugars

reduced the immune system by 50% at 100g of intake and lasted for five

hours. Have only one serving of fruit a day. Vegetables are ok

because they are low carb and nutrient dense. Have apples, dulse,

root vegetables, red cabbage, beets, buko juice, acid porrige*

(starch), sprouted oat porrige* (starch), noni juice, pineapple,

papaya, watermelon, kiwi, Berlin sourdough spelt bread* (starch), raw

milk/colostrum, glucose from animal tissue, potatoes (starch), and

various other vegetables/fruits etc. *contains gluten. May want to

avoid.

Other nutrients: GLA(black currant seed oil) some people who grew up

near the coast may need, antioxidants,herbs, and trace minerals such

as sundried Celtic seasalt.

Any thoughts. This was kinda cut up from the book Nourishing

Traditions. This would support the raw food optimal diet I am putting

together.

Dulse may be too high in Iodine. So other sources of potassium may

be preferred. You may only want small amounts of iodine such as in

mcgs rather than mgs. I read from one site that since the flouride

from dulse is naturally occuring it is healthy. Some people claim that

150mcg of iodine is all you need where as others say over 12mg of

iodine/iodide in combination is more optimal. Iodide/Iodine is

concentrated in seaweed and shellfish. It's arguable that it is

best derived in shellfish as man does better to let the animals first

predigest his nutrients. Some say man needs high quanitities

because our species originally lived near the coast and ate shellfish.

Others say, including the bible, that shellfish and seaweed are to be

avoided. Leviticus literally states that nothing is to be consumed

from the water that does not contain scales. Seaweed concentrates

flouride, b12 analogues, iodine/iodide, to ward off other creatures

from eating it. Maybe it is poisonous in higher quantities. What do

you think? This may mean we may want to get our iodine intake from

raw milk, chicken, and scaley fish instead.

hidden; } #ygrp-msg p span { color: #1E66AE; font-weight: bold; } div#ygrp-mlmsg

#ygrp-msg p a span.yshortcuts { font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10px;

font-weight: normal; } #ygrp-msg p a { font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10px; }

#ygrp-mlmsg a { color: #1E66AE; } div.attach-table div div a { text-decoration:

none; } div.attach-table { width: 400px; } -->

March 3, 2009

-Okay, gotcha! sometimes i think i should move because i can't imagine the local

animals are getting many healthy grass right now. i look at those photos on US

Wellness Meats web site and feel very jealous. it is very brown here right now.

> >

> > i am just wondering how many i actually need in my diet?

>

> So let me play the devil's advocate here, you don't **need** any

> vegetables in your diet. All you **need** is food from animals who

> have eaten a good source of plant foods :-)

>

> > w/ talk of

> > anti-nutrients and food chemicals, plus the fact that I am trying to

> > eat locally, i just wonder which ones to eat and how much.

Where do i find these special preparation techniques? do i need to ferment

everything? and for instance, do i peel all fruit and veggies that can be

peeled? what about a salad of greens, cucs, tomatoes and herbs? are raw veggies

okay or should they all be fermented or cooked? i do go to some effort to eat

veggies because they really don't appeal to me so if i don't need them, the heck

w/ them!

>

> If you are going to eat them, eat what is available this time of the

> year and make sure you prepare them in a way that minimizes any risks

> and maximizes the nutrition.

well, no plans really. i have been off gluten for 1 month. as you may recall, i

was doing some research about proper preparation of breads because i so wanted

to have bread in my life, but i have tested gluten intolerant and casein

intolerant by enterolabs and based on my research on the WAPF GFCF, i decided to

go gluten free. so for now, i am using rice mostly for a grain and some gluten

free oats and corn. i am using these to transition and would ideally like to go

much lower grain.

casein is another story. i am going to go CF for a month to see if i notice any

difference. i do hate to eliminate it, but i will if it seems to have negative

impact. i think i am fine w/ kefir, butter and cream, but raw milk doesn't seem

so good for me. so we will see. apparently the enterolab test for casein is for

the conventional pasteurized milk version and they have no idea how it applies

to raw milk consumption according to what they have told me.

in the meantime, i am trying to eat more meat, eggs, and coconut oil.

>

> > I am also

> > totally revamping my diet to go gluten free and possibly casein free

> > and low grain, so what to eat?

>

> What are your plans for being gluten free yet low grain?

>

> > living in colorado, the only local

> > veggies I have right now are beets, onions, potatoes, turnips and

> > carrots and I am at the bottom of the barrel of those. so really, i

> > just have kimchee and some frozen pureed squash and frozen tomatoes. i

> > will look into freezing more veggies for next winter, though. but

> > that's it until probably sometime in may

>

> Well there you go. Eat what is available. I would keep the kimchee

> consumption to the condiment level. Root vegetables are probably your

> best choice most of the year any way.

>

> > for fruit, i have some local

> > frozen peaches and i have been buying apples and bananas at the store.

Okay, so where do i find out about problematic food compounds? someone sent me

the info for the failsafe diet or some version of that i believe on this list.

is that what you are referring to? yeah, i just started buying the apples and

bananas again because i was feeling guilty about not eating fruits!

>

> If you are worried about potential problematic compounds in foods look

> no further than apples. Bananas seem less than optimal because you

> can't buy them tree-ripened. Fruits, IMO, should definitely be eaten

> seasonally (i.e. for just a small part of the year) because of the

> type of sugar (fructose) they contain.

>

thanks, , and all who responded to my question!

>

> --

> It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

> many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

> to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

> you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

> percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

> personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

>

> - Ferriss

>

March 3, 2009

Have you read Nourishing Traditions? That is probably the best book when it

comes to preparing animals and plants. It also talks about fermenting.

The raw paleo group doesn't like to ferment...I wonder why. They're more about

optimal health moreso than strickly paleo. You may want to look into the

Neolythic diet.

Maybe you are allergic to milk and grains if you have been consuming pasteurized

for a long time. Try some of the grain recipes in Nourishing Traditions that

soak, sprout, and predigest the grains. Try making clabbered milk or culture

your milk with raw honey and kefir.

There may be that chance your body cannot handle gluten, milk, period.

Other foods you may have a problem with: eggs, try removing the egg white due to

avidin or have fish eggs instead; shellfish, have scaley fish high in iodine

instead; seaweed, nuts; and too much fish due to pufa content, have the lean

fish such as wild red salmon. Have some oysters for zinc. Have some clams for

b12.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2009, at 3:38 PM, " lisa_mc_connell " <mmlisa2@...> wrote:

-Okay, gotcha! sometimes i think i should move because i can't imagine the local

animals are getting many healthy grass right now. i look at those photos on US

Wellness Meats web site and feel very jealous. it is very brown here right now.

> >

> > i am just wondering how many i actually need in my diet?

>

> So let me play the devil's advocate here, you don't **need** any

> vegetables in your diet. All you **need** is food from animals who

> have eaten a good source of plant foods :-)

>

> > w/ talk of

> > anti-nutrients and food chemicals, plus the fact that I am trying to

> > eat locally, i just wonder which ones to eat and how much.

Where do i find these special preparation techniques? do i need to ferment

everything? and for instance, do i peel all fruit and veggies that can be

peeled? what about a salad of greens, cucs, tomatoes and herbs? are raw veggies

okay or should they all be fermented or cooked? i do go to some effort to eat

veggies because they really don't appeal to me so if i don't need them, the heck

w/ them!

>

> If you are going to eat them, eat what is available this time of the

> year and make sure you prepare them in a way that minimizes any risks

> and maximizes the nutrition.

well, no plans really. i have been off gluten for 1 month. as you may recall, i

was doing some research about proper preparation of breads because i so wanted

to have bread in my life, but i have tested gluten intolerant and casein

intolerant by enterolabs and based on my research on the WAPF GFCF, i decided to

go gluten free. so for now, i am using rice mostly for a grain and some gluten

free oats and corn. i am using these to transition and would ideally like to go

much lower grain.

casein is another story. i am going to go CF for a month to see if i notice any

difference. i do hate to eliminate it, but i will if it seems to have negative

impact. i think i am fine w/ kefir, butter and cream, but raw milk doesn't seem

so good for me. so we will see. apparently the enterolab test for casein is for

the conventional pasteurized milk version and they have no idea how it applies

to raw milk consumption according to what they have told me.

in the meantime, i am trying to eat more meat, eggs, and coconut oil.

>

> > I am also

> > totally revamping my diet to go gluten free and possibly casein free

> > and low grain, so what to eat?

>

> What are your plans for being gluten free yet low grain?

>

> > living in colorado, the only local

> > veggies I have right now are beets, onions, potatoes, turnips and

> > carrots and I am at the bottom of the barrel of those. so really, i

> > just have kimchee and some frozen pureed squash and frozen tomatoes. i

> > will look into freezing more veggies for next winter, though. but

> > that's it until probably sometime in may

>

> Well there you go. Eat what is available. I would keep the kimchee

> consumption to the condiment level. Root vegetables are probably your

> best choice most of the year any way.

>

> > for fruit, i have some local

> > frozen peaches and i have been buying apples and bananas at the store.

Okay, so where do i find out about problematic food compounds? someone sent me

the info for the failsafe diet or some version of that i believe on this list.

is that what you are referring to? yeah, i just started buying the apples and

bananas again because i was feeling guilty about not eating fruits!

>

> If you are worried about potential problematic compounds in foods look

> no further than apples. Bananas seem less than optimal because you

> can't buy them tree-ripened. Fruits, IMO, should definitely be eaten

> seasonally (i.e. for just a small part of the year) because of the

> type of sugar (fructose) they contain.

>

thanks, , and all who responded to my question!

>

> --

> It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

> many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

> to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

> you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

> percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

> personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

>

> - Ferriss

>

March 4, 2009

yes, i have. but i am talking about more in depth methods of preparation or

avoidance of certain foods. such as, should i be peeling my potatoes and why?

should i soak my greens in vinegar for an hour before cooking (did i read that

here?)? should i be avoiding raw apples (michael mentioned that apples could be

a problematic food)? these are the types of questions i have that it dosn't seem

that NT mentions.

thanks!

lisa

>

> Have you read Nourishing Traditions? That is probably the best book when it

comes to preparing animals and plants. It also talks about fermenting.

>

March 4, 2009

>

> ,

>

> > In Fat of the Land, Steffenson says the first nations people didn't

> > consider fruits and vegetables " proper human food " . But of course we

> > don't know very much about the life expectancy or overall health of

> > these people. Although most reports indicated that without the

> > presence of " modern foods of commerce " , they were very healthy and

> > lived long lives. But we don't have health or longevity data that

> > meets modern standards of rigor.

>

> But even if they did live long and healthy lives, there are other

> groups that did consider fruits and vegetables " proper human food " and

> live apparently long and healthy lives. So the data per se wouldn't

> answer the question of what we should adopt as the ideal diet.

Quite true. In fact there is no data that answers the question of whether adding

fruits and veggies to their diet would have made them live longer.

> > Taubes in Good Calorie, Bad Calorie makes a strong case against

> > carbs. Most vegetables are mostly carbs. I would recommend you read

> > this book.

>

> I like him, but when it comes to carbs, IMO, he paints with way too

> broad a brush, but that is not unusual for " low-carbers "

> > I would say the answer really depends on a couple of factors. If you

> > have a hard time controlling your weight, I would recommend a low-carb

> > diet to see if that helps. Many popular vegetables are high in carbs.

> > Taubes talks about some people who are so sensitive to carbs that

> > eating a single apple in a low-carb diet can stop their weight loss.

> > But of course this is an extreme example.

> >

> > Also keep in mind that is appears that carbs increase our requirements

> > for certain vitamins like the Bs and C so it's important to realize

> > that if you are eating starchy veggies for the vitamins, that the

> > carbs themselves are an anti-nutrient of sorts.

>

> Obviously there is a place for low carb, but more and more " low-carb "

> seems to be developing its own " this is the only way mentality. " You

> simply cannot draw such a conclusion from the work of Price, not to

> mention the research of others.

Taubes speaks very highly of Dr. Price's work. I think Price's work is appealing

to low carb advocates because it clearly demonstrates that diets high in animal

fats are healthful.

But almost all the peoples Price studied ate quite a lot of carbs. And Dr. Price

didn't think there was anything wrong with carbs per se. He even used carbs in

his caries healing protocol. But he did recognize that refined carbs like sugar

and white flour are harmful.

Taubes is not advocating zero carbs. Most of his work is focused on exposing the

low quality of science in nutrition, obesity and chronic disease research. It's

clear from his work that sugar, white flour and beer are the most dangerous

carbs because of how they manipulate insulin levels.

His basic thesis is that if you're over weight you're eating too many carbs.

This was common knowledge from 1865-1960s, it only seems weird now because of

the low-fat crusade that Keys started.

Taubes also points out that nutrition research in particular is currently more

like religion than it is like science. I agree that some low-carb people are

fanatics.

However, if you have any chronic disease or are over weight, I would recommend

reducing your carb intake.

Anthropological data seems to indicate that many groups of primitives will eat

nothing but meat if it's available in sufficient quantity. Even when times are

lean, they will start to eat less desirable parts of animals that would

normally go to their dogs. Then they will eat their dogs. Then when no animals

are around, they will eat fruits and vegetables. So this desire to eat meat

seems pretty strong. And you can either interpret this as degenerate or astute.

I think they are astute as animal based food is far more nutritious than

vegetable based food.

I think meat has chronically been in short supply. I know this seems impossible

when you go to the grocery store. But one theory states that agriculture was

developed in part because of over hunting. Even the Mastidon appears to have

been hunted into extinction by faunivorous humans. For centuries in Europe, the

land tenant system kept farmers so poor they couldn't afford to raise, and

therefore eat much meat. During the late 19th and early 20th century, there was

a meat shortage because of rapid population growth, the depression and WW II. So

I think carbs have always been a caloric backup/supplement.

But there is also the issue of carb-carving. Carbs make you hungry because they

raise your insulin level. And they also produce responses in the brain similar

to addictive drugs. So carbs have many important factors that have kept them on

the menu.

> > The other concern I have about anything from the vegetable kingdom is

> > genistein. All plants contain sterols which are hormones. Some are

> > similar to estrogen, like genistein. Many plants CAN contain genistein

> > and some have rather high quantities. But there has not been a lot of

> > testing, although because of recent interest in genistein, more is

> > being published all the time. The reason I say " can " is that the

> > levels seem to vary by species, variety, crop, field, season, etc.

>

> So is this a function of depleted soils?

I don't really know what cultural practices or other factors affects genistein

levels in plants. I would tend to think depleted soils would result in lower

genistein. However, I could see pesticide's endrocrine distrupting trait affect

the levels as well.

>

> --

> It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

> many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

> to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

> you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

> percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

> personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

>

> - Ferriss

>

March 4, 2009

> >

> > > hi all,

> > >

> > > i am just wondering how many i actually need in my diet? w/ talk of

> > > anti-nutrients and food chemicals, plus the fact that I am trying to

> > > eat locally, i just wonder which ones to eat and how much. I am also

> > > totally revamping my diet to go gluten free and possibly casein free

> > > and low grain, so what to eat? living in colorado, the only local

> > > veggies I have right now are beets, onions, potatoes, turnips and

> > > carrots

> >

> > I really like the Polish Dr. Kwasniewski, and he says minimal carbs

> > from root veg are the best. So you are doing great for this time of

> > year. His ammounts are, at most, take your ideal weight in pounds,

> > times .8 and that is grams of carb per day. Starch is best.

> >

> > He says leafy veg are okay if you like animal fodder. This is why I

> > like this plan.

> >

> > But you do have to have lots of sat fat to help with the glucose too.

> >

>

March 4, 2009

NT recommends not to exceed one apple a day. There are all kinds of facts

thrown around the book. I'll just look around in the index in the back of the

book. There's a lot of stuff in that book.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2009, at 6:25 PM, " lisa_mc_connell " <mmlisa2@...> wrote:

yes, i have. but i am talking about more in depth methods of preparation or

avoidance of certain foods. such as, should i be peeling my potatoes and why?

should i soak my greens in vinegar for an hour before cooking (did i read that

here?)? should i be avoiding raw apples (michael mentioned that apples could be

a problematic food)? these are the types of questions i have that it dosn't seem

that NT mentions.

thanks!

lisa

>

> Have you read Nourishing Traditions? That is probably the best book when it

comes to preparing animals and plants. It also talks about fermenting.

>

March 4, 2009

I would recommend reading " Good Calorie, Bad Calorie " if you want a better

understanding of the role carbs play in nutrition, obesity and chronic disease.

Eating a low carb diet, like any diet requires careful planning.

A common problem is that if the ratio of protein to fat is wrong, you can get

very ill. Dr. Steffanson talks of this often in The Fat of the Land. Many people

report a significant difference between a 60/40 diet vs an 80/20 diet (fat/pro).

60/40 can lead to cramping, diarrhea, nausea, head ache.

Another common problem is your gall bladder may not be up to the task of a high

fat diet. If you get pains in your gall bladder, try slowly switching from high

carb to high fat. High carb diets can lead to gall bladder disease.

Yet another problem is that some people just don't like fat. The texture or

flavor is a turn off. My wife will gag if she can detect even a small lump of

fat. I'm the opposite. I buy fat by the pound, slice it and warm it up when I

grill my meat. I love it. To each their own.

Yet another problem is that carbs are addictive and ubiquitous so it can be

really hard to avoid them. Plus our carb focused food supply doesn't provide a

lot of low carb snack options.

Also keep in mind that just because a high carb diet is well tolerated, doesn't

mean it won't lead to a whole host of chronic diseases. This is well documented

in GCBC.

Many low carb diets before Atkins started with a fast. This may be better

tolerated than " the induction " . Keep in mind that a low carb diet is a fast of

sorts. This is why it's effective for weight loss. When you fast, your body

switches to ketosis, just like a low carb diet.

>

> > I wonder about the Atkins " induction " folks. Not to say you did it

> > this way but from what I have seen of the way many people have tried

> > " induction " with al the funky fats, lean meats, and other

> > questiionable (though low carb) food. Its no wonder they feel as bad

> > as they do.

>

> It must be my day to agree with you.

> shiver me timbers at the fake foods and lean meats and questionable

> foods that seem to be okay in some circles.

> My only no-no was not getting enough fat (naked refined fat grosses me

> out. Well except butter on potatoes) Not enough porterhouses I guess.

> And even eggs, I had a limit. I definitely didn't give enough

> transition time and knowing what I know now, I would never counsel

> myself to do such a sudden metabolic gear change anyway ( " induction " ).

>

March 4, 2009

Paleolithic fruits would have been lower in carbs compared to modern fruits.

We've been selectively breeding fruits for sweetness for millenia.

Caloric intake would normally be sufficient to satisfy hunger, but hunger is

lower on a low carb diet or maybe it's better to say that carbs leads to higher

hunger levels.

> >

> > Do these authors provide evidence that you can completely go

> without any carbs? Does your body learn to more efficient in it's

> ability to convert to glucose.

>

> The fact that you can't go without glucose, but you can go without

> carbs maybe depending on what you eat - that is more of a basic

> physiology thing. Just Google Images " metabolism krebs cycle " and

> you'll find all kinds of explanations.

>

> here's just one

>

> http://images.google.com/imgres?

> imgurl= & i

> mgrefurl=http://www.bmb.leeds.ac.uk/teaching/icu3/lecture/14/index.htm

> & usg=___ZUD2zXJ0NLkXhxCy58crVMXSOE= & h=500 & w=500 & sz=11 & hl=en & start=13 & t

> bnid=cn6eCNbElU2u_M: & tbnh=130 & tbnw=130 & prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkrebs%

> 2Bcycle%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dstrict%26client%3Ddell-usuk%

> 26channel%3Dus%26ad%3Dw5

>

March 4, 2009

I don't know about total gluten, but my experience with baking yeast-free breads

indicates that gluten is rapidly destroyed 12-16 hours to the point that the

bread won't rise.

> >

> > perhaps not as much as the USDA recommends

> >

> > Yes, the definition of " low carb " is all over the place.

> > Is less than the USDA, low carb?

> >

> > AFAIK, " low " carb is 60g/day or less (as low as 20g/day for those

> > starting

> > Atkins). The point of low carb is to be in ketosis, at least to me. I

> > don't do well in ketosis at all. I would call what I do " moderate "

> > carb,

> > and anything over the USDA " excess " carb.

> >

> > -Lana

> >

March 4, 2009

,

Have you read Good Calorie, Bad Calorie? It should answer many of your questions

about carbs.

Why eat all meat/fat raw? Many hunter cultures cook most their meat medium rare,

although they do also eat some raw.

> >

> > > I wonder about the Atkins " induction " folks. Not to say you did it

> > > this way but from what I have seen of the way many people have tried

> > > " induction " with al the funky fats, lean meats, and other

> > > questiionable (though low carb) food. Its no wonder they feel as bad

> > > as they do.

> >

> > It must be my day to agree with you.

> > shiver me timbers at the fake foods and lean meats and questionable

> > foods that seem to be okay in some circles.

> > My only no-no was not getting enough fat (naked refined fat grosses me

> > out. Well except butter on potatoes) Not enough porterhouses I guess.

> > And even eggs, I had a limit. I definitely didn't give enough

> > transition time and knowing what I know now, I would never counsel

> > myself to do such a sudden metabolic gear change anyway ( " induction " ).

> >

>

March 15, 2009

> You

> can lose weight on a high carb diet with normal activity without any

> crazy caloric restriction or funky exercise routines.

You think this is true for everyone, ? What are you calling normal

activity, high carb, crazy caloric restriction, or funky exercise?

I know lots of women who have failed on their versions of such a description.

March 23, 2009

What about the role of protein? Hadn't seen it emerge in the discussion thread.

Kind regards,

March 23, 2009

> My guess is very few of the women you are referring to adopted the

> traditional carb diet, certainly not in its entirety.

Very true. Although an exception can be made for women who try to follow

McDougall. They seem to have an awful time - follow the program, but don't see

results.

Which makes me wonder if the damage done by the SAD can be undone by the TCD.

Did TCD people ever cope with insulin resistance, non-alcoholic fatty liver

disease, or depleted minerals from sugar use? I usually think that a diet that

is healthy forever like the TCD, can be used to restore health, but I wonder if

that's possible.

Connie

March 23, 2009

All calories that we consume go into four basic places. Heat, Work, Fat or

Muscle. Each person has a unique distribution into these four places. Naturally

thin people can eat as much as much as they want because their metabolism

diverts most calories to heat and work. This is why they are thin and more

active. They are not thin because they are more active, the causual arrow points

in the other direction. Natural athletes divert to heat, work and muscle which

is why they are more active and more muscular. Obese people divert mostly to fat

which is why they are sedentary. They are not obese because they are more

sedentary, again the causal arrow points in the other direction.

But not all calories are created equal. Carbs raise blood sugar which triggers

insulin release. Insulin stimulates appetite and fat storage. Low carb diets

keep insulin low, appetite low and fat storage low.

Calories restriction causes everyone's metabolism to slow down, this is an

adaption for survival. This is why calories restriction (dieting) rarely works

in the long term. Exercise stimulates appetite by increasing energy

requirements.

You gotta read GCBC, Taubes spells all this out and will make you realize that

much of what you assume to be true about dieting, obesity and metabolism is

probably wrong, or at least is not supported with any science.

>

> Dan,

>

> > I was reading that two thirds of of carbs in high carb diets convert to fat.

>

> What kind of high carb diets? One of the points of my post is just

> saying " high carb " doesn't tell us anything.

>

> > It's better to limit carb intake to one third and have fat as the other two

> > thirds. It's also much cheaper on the budget and better for your health

> > Your body will have more energy for it as fat is a better source of ATP than

> > carbs and is the preffered fuel for your mitochondria.

>

> Then you need to expand your reading, beginning with the groups I listed.

>

> >

> > Fatty foods taste better too.

>

> Like your comments about the taste of kefir, this is highly

> subjective. Nor does high carb mean the absence of fatty food.

>

> --

> " Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

> reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

> to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

> Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

> radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

> automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

>

> Kramer

>

March 24, 2009

>

> I just threw out some science. The body burns glycogen even with a high fat

diet. I think moderate carb high fat is ideal for an active individual. It

would be nice to get a chart that shows what types of calories get burned with a

high fat moderate carb diet based on various activities at various weight

ranges.

>

> As an athlete I will still consume moderate carb. If I were sedentary I

wouldn't exceed 72-110g of carbs a day.

>

> Based on the evidence it would be wise to consume a 2-1 fat to carb calorie

ratio for athletics.

>

> Yours Truly,

> Dan Holt

Dan, I don't know what the source of the science is--you have a tendency to

quote figures about how much " the body " burns or needs of something without

establishing the basis for this (or by citing some dietary guru who may or may

not know what he is talking about). You seem to be relying upon false

assumptions about fat metabolism that still, unfortunately, inform modern

nutritional science despite the fact that they have been decisively refuted for

a half century or so.

Taubes' book does not just provide yet another dietary scheme brought down from

the mountain, but looks at the evidence--and the strength of the evidence--

regarding carbohydrates and separates out the dominant conclusions that evade or

ignore this evidence.

Relevant here is the notion that carbs are needed to power our muscles and the

allegedly harmful effect of low carb diets. The book is exhaustive, but a few

relevant excerpts:

" From the 1920s through the 1960s, a series of discoveries in the basic science

of fat metabolism led to a revolution in the understanding of the role of

insulin and the regulation of fat tissue in the human body. This era began with

a handful of naive assumptions: that fat tissue is relatively inert (a " garbage

can, " in the words of the Swiss physiologist Bernard Jeanrenaud); that

carbohydrates are the primary fuel for muscular activity (which is still

commonly believed today); and that fat is used for fuel only after being

converted in the liver into supposedly toxic ketone bodies. The forty years of

research that followed would overturn them all--but it would have effectively no

influence on the mainstream thinking about human obesity (p. 382). "

There follows a very interesting section about the fluid status of fat reserves,

something that tends to be interrupted with obesity and ignored by those warning

about the need for athletes to ingest enough carbs. In any event:

" There are three distinct phases of the revolution that converged by the

mid-1960s to overturn what Bruch called the " time-honored assumption that fat

tissue is metabolically inert, " and the accompanying conviction that fat only

enters the fat tissue after a meal and only leaves it when the body is in

negative energy balance (p. 382). "

1st phase: fat tissues have distinct structures and are in a continual state of

flux and are not mere repositories. The 2nd phase involves the Krebs cycle and

showed that fats and proteins supply fuel for muscle tissue and that carbs were

not the preferred fuel. This research suggested that fat tissues were not a

" savings account, " but a " coin purse " for ready use (something that gets

interrupted in carb-stimulated obesity, hence the cells are starving and signal

the body to eat more and move less). The third phase " established the dominant

role of fatty acids in supplying energy for the body, and the fundamental role

of insulin and adipose tissue as the regulators of energy supply " (p. 385).

" As early as 1907, the German physiologist Adolf Magnus-Levy had noted that

during periods of fasting between meals " the fat streams from the depots back

again into the blood...as if it were necessary for the immediate needs of the

combustion processes of the body. " A decade later, Francis Benedict reported

that blood sugar provides only a " small component " of the fuel we use during

fasting, and this drops away to " none at all " if our fast continues for more

than a week. In such cases, fat will supply 85 percent of our energy needs, and

protein the rest, after its conversion to glucose in the liver. Still because

the brain and central nervous system typically burn 120 to 130 grams of glucose

a day, nutritionists insisted (as many still do) that carbohydrates must be our

primary fuel, and they remained skeptical of the notion that fat plays any role

in energy balance other than as a long-term reserve for emergencies. "

" Among physiologists and biochemists, any such skepticism began to evaporate

after Wertheimer's review of fat metabolism appeared in 1948. It vanished after

the 1956 publication of papers by Dole at Rockefeller University,

Gordon at NIH, and Sigfrid Laurell of the University of Lund in Sweden that

reported the development of a technique for measuring the concentration of fatty

acids in the circulation. All three articles suggested that these fatty acids

were the form in which fat is burned for fuel in the body. The concentration of

fatty acids in the circulation, they reported, is surprisingly low immediately

after a meal, when blood-sugar levels are highest, but then increases steadily

in the hours that follow, as the blood sugar ebbs. Injecting either glucose or

insulin into the circulation diminishes the level of fatty acids almost

immediately. It's as though our cells have the option of using fatty acids or

glucose for fuel, but when surplus glucose is available, as signaled by rising

insulin or blood-sugar levels, the fatty acids are swept into the fat tissue for

later use. The concentartion of circulating fatty acids rises and falls in

" relation to the need " for fuel... " (pp. 385-386).

A key point to notice here is the disconnect between what physiologists and

biochemists were uncovering about the hormonal regulation of fat and energy and

how nutritionists continued to use a very reductive, non-fluid conception of

what the body needs from dietary sources. , this reminds me of your modus

operandi here, tallying up how much your body " needs " from diet by looking at

what body parts (brains, muscles) use during the day, when the evidence suggests

that the body is very good at utilizing fat and protein in place of carbs.

Of course, it's possible that an athlete may perform better on high or moderate

carbs, but there is absolutely no evidence right now that that is the case and

lots of suggestive evidence that this is not true. And the point about long-term

consequences for athletes is an important one. I used to play basketball 4 hours

a day, six days a week, and a high carb, vegan diet seemed to help at the time.

But I developed allergies, asthma, and other inflammatory conditions, which I've

begun to reverse with a healthier diet. I only play basketball twice a week now,

but at high intensity and I haven't noticed any drop off in energy (and an

increase in strength) since I cut carbs.

None of this says that in a healthy individual whose metabolism has not already

been disregulated, that traditional carbs would be damaging. But the key suspect

in the host of diseases of civilization seem to be tied to the effect of

excessive and/or refined carbs in disrupting homeostatic regulation of

metabolism. And there certainly seems to be no evidence that active or athletic

people need the amount of carbs you have suggested.

Best,

Bill

March 24, 2009

> You just sighted experts saying that the

> brain and central nervous system utilize 120-130g of glucose a day.

> That would mean I want to consume at least that much in carbs.

Dan this is a common misconception.

The body can make 120g of glucose, given enough protein and fat and glycogen.

You do not have to get it all from dietary carb.

However, why use gluconeogenesis and making carbs from the glycerol in

triglycerides for every single little glucose, when some dietary glucose is

okay. That's why most low carb writers allow 50+ grams of dietary carb a day.

Connie

March 25, 2009

>

> You just sighted experts saying that the brain and central nervous system

utilize 120-130g of glucose a day.

>

> That would mean I want to consume atleast that much in carbs.

That's exactly what it doesn't say. Read it again--_nutritionists_ thought that,

mistakenly thinking that if the brain requires it, you need it from dietary

sources, but not the experts on the actual biochemistry. Taubes' point is that

nutritional science completely ignored the actual biochemistry of how your body

provides glucose for the brain lacking dietary sources, something that is

absolutely necessary that the body does to insulate itself from having to have a

constant glucose input. So Taubes' point is that the actual evidence is that you

do not need 120-130 grams from dietary sources. See the relevant passage below:

> " Still because the brain and central nervous system typically burn 120 to 130

grams of glucose a day, nutritionists insisted (as many still do) that

carbohydrates must be our primary fuel, and they remained skeptical of the

notion that fat plays any role in energy balance other than as a long-term

reserve for emergencies. "

>

*******************-->

>__ " Among physiologists and biochemists, any such skepticism began to evaporate