so, zero carb folks...
Options
Replies
-
What benefits does 0 carb over? I also wonder why not eat any veggies?
The benefits are different for everyone. Most people quickly lose any desire for sweets. Your hunger signals are more in check. Weight tends to normalize. Some have reported reduction in allergies. I seem to be experiencing that, but I can't be sure that it's not just because there aren't low allergens right now. You stop tracking anything. I don't count carbs. I don't count anything. There's no macros to worry about, no fiber to subtract, no ketones to consider. You eat meat until you're full. Meal planning is simple and cooking is quick. I'm having a meat. There's nothing with it. There's really no fancy preparation to do to it either. It sounds boring, and in a way it isn't exciting, but it's also strangely comfortable and easy to accept. A lion doesn't get bored with zebra meat. You don't crave variety because your body isn't missing anything it needs. A lot of craving comes from the fact that you're lacking some nutrient and your body wants more, and/or different, food until that need it met.
Why not eat any vegetables? This is a good question. Personally, it is because my opinion of vegetables has shifted radically from the standard. While most people see vegetables as falling on a range from "healthy to not so healthy" (say for example spinach would be healthy and corn would be not so healthy but still better than nothing), I see vegetables ranging from, at best, "neutral" down to, "harmful." While most people would class a baked potato as "fairly" healthy, I consider it down with the harmful. Actually, my list of "neutral" vegetables seems to grow smaller and smaller the more I investigate them. It used to include spinach and the cruciferous veggies (the keto approved ones), but based on their metabolic and digestive effects, I currently think they're less harmful than many vegetables (like corn) but probably aren't harmless.
Vegetables are not required for health. We can get all the nutrients we need for health from meat, even if we don't resort to eating organ meats. While it appears that some nutrients are less plentiful in meat, what amount is there is highly absorbable and easily utilized by the body. Those vegetables which have seemingly high sources of nutrients, often include substances which hinder absorption and what is absorbed often requires inefficient conversion to make it useful. Take iron, for example. Trying to get all your iron from spinach alone would be asking for trouble unless you carefully adhered to some best practices. You would want to eat a source of vitamin C with that spinach, because that's going to make the iron more absorbable. Without the vitamin C (or eating meat with the spinach), you'll get almost no usable iron absorbed. What little does make it into your blood will be nonheme iron, which is only 10% as useful as heme iron (from meat). The same holds true for most other nutrients.
While meat does appear to be low on some of the RDAs, those are based on a mixed diet and the assumption that you're getting some of that amount from plants. A meat diet also reduces the need for some nutrients. B1 requirements, for example, are lower because a large quantity of B1 is used for carbohydrate metabolism.
What about the two biggies, vitamin C and fiber, both of which are nonexistent in animal sources? We are convinced that both of these are essential for health. If you don't consume enough vitamin C, you'll quickly develop scurvy. But, that's only partly true. If you don't consume enough vitamin C, while eating carbohydrates and unfresh foods, you will quickly develop scurvy. Scurvy can be prevented, and even cured, with nothing but fresh meat. While fresh meat doesn't have vitamin C in it, it has an antiscorbutic (as in it prevents/cures scurvy) effect. Wikipedia suggest that fresh meat does contain trace amounts of vitamin C, I've found little support for that. In any case, whether it does or does not, the effect is the same. Eating fresh meat, not heavily cooked, is enough to avoid scurvy.
Fiber is classed as an antinutrient. Not only does it provide no nutrition for us, it can hinder the absorption of other nutrients. It also can irritate the bowel, cause or worsen constipation, and often has other unpleasant side effects (it's not a coincidence that I no longer fart). It is not required for regularity, it can even cause problems with it. There's been studies that show removing all sources of fiber can help improve/cure some forms of constipation. I have had, essentially, no fiber for 3/4s of a year, and I am as regular as I have ever been.
Alright, I think I've rambled enough for the time being. You're welcome to reject any or all of this as crazy ramblings of a lunatic. "Broccoli is bad for you?! What a madman!"
thank you for taken the time to explain all of this.
I'm new to all of this so any information helps me gain a perspective to begin research.
I looked into it a little more last night and saw some articles that it is not a long term plan but can be used in the short term. Is that your experience as well or do you feel this can be a long term method.
(please don't take any of my questions as judgement)0 -
-
What benefits does 0 carb over? I also wonder why not eat any veggies?
The benefits are different for everyone. Most people quickly lose any desire for sweets. Your hunger signals are more in check. Weight tends to normalize. Some have reported reduction in allergies. I seem to be experiencing that, but I can't be sure that it's not just because there aren't low allergens right now. You stop tracking anything. I don't count carbs. I don't count anything. There's no macros to worry about, no fiber to subtract, no ketones to consider. You eat meat until you're full. Meal planning is simple and cooking is quick. I'm having a meat. There's nothing with it. There's really no fancy preparation to do to it either. It sounds boring, and in a way it isn't exciting, but it's also strangely comfortable and easy to accept. A lion doesn't get bored with zebra meat. You don't crave variety because your body isn't missing anything it needs. A lot of craving comes from the fact that you're lacking some nutrient and your body wants more, and/or different, food until that need it met.
Why not eat any vegetables? This is a good question. Personally, it is because my opinion of vegetables has shifted radically from the standard. While most people see vegetables as falling on a range from "healthy to not so healthy" (say for example spinach would be healthy and corn would be not so healthy but still better than nothing), I see vegetables ranging from, at best, "neutral" down to, "harmful." While most people would class a baked potato as "fairly" healthy, I consider it down with the harmful. Actually, my list of "neutral" vegetables seems to grow smaller and smaller the more I investigate them. It used to include spinach and the cruciferous veggies (the keto approved ones), but based on their metabolic and digestive effects, I currently think they're less harmful than many vegetables (like corn) but probably aren't harmless.
Vegetables are not required for health. We can get all the nutrients we need for health from meat, even if we don't resort to eating organ meats. While it appears that some nutrients are less plentiful in meat, what amount is there is highly absorbable and easily utilized by the body. Those vegetables which have seemingly high sources of nutrients, often include substances which hinder absorption and what is absorbed often requires inefficient conversion to make it useful. Take iron, for example. Trying to get all your iron from spinach alone would be asking for trouble unless you carefully adhered to some best practices. You would want to eat a source of vitamin C with that spinach, because that's going to make the iron more absorbable. Without the vitamin C (or eating meat with the spinach), you'll get almost no usable iron absorbed. What little does make it into your blood will be nonheme iron, which is only 10% as useful as heme iron (from meat). The same holds true for most other nutrients.
While meat does appear to be low on some of the RDAs, those are based on a mixed diet and the assumption that you're getting some of that amount from plants. A meat diet also reduces the need for some nutrients. B1 requirements, for example, are lower because a large quantity of B1 is used for carbohydrate metabolism.
What about the two biggies, vitamin C and fiber, both of which are nonexistent in animal sources? We are convinced that both of these are essential for health. If you don't consume enough vitamin C, you'll quickly develop scurvy. But, that's only partly true. If you don't consume enough vitamin C, while eating carbohydrates and unfresh foods, you will quickly develop scurvy. Scurvy can be prevented, and even cured, with nothing but fresh meat. While fresh meat doesn't have vitamin C in it, it has an antiscorbutic (as in it prevents/cures scurvy) effect. Wikipedia suggest that fresh meat does contain trace amounts of vitamin C, I've found little support for that. In any case, whether it does or does not, the effect is the same. Eating fresh meat, not heavily cooked, is enough to avoid scurvy.
Fiber is classed as an antinutrient. Not only does it provide no nutrition for us, it can hinder the absorption of other nutrients. It also can irritate the bowel, cause or worsen constipation, and often has other unpleasant side effects (it's not a coincidence that I no longer fart). It is not required for regularity, it can even cause problems with it. There's been studies that show removing all sources of fiber can help improve/cure some forms of constipation. I have had, essentially, no fiber for 3/4s of a year, and I am as regular as I have ever been.
Alright, I think I've rambled enough for the time being. You're welcome to reject any or all of this as crazy ramblings of a lunatic. "Broccoli is bad for you?! What a madman!" thank you for taken the time to explain all of this.
I'm new to all of this so any information helps me gain a perspective to begin research.
I looked into it a little more last night and saw some articles that it is not a long term plan but can be used in the short term. Is that your experience as well or do you feel this can be a long term method.
(please don't take any of my questions as judgement)
Four words: Owsley "The Bear" Stanley0 -
The body will still produce insulin for assimilation of protein, and for regulating internal ketone and glucose production (provided you don't have Type 1 Diabetes or advanced Type 2 Diabetes). It will (or should) be far lower levels than someone with more carbs in their diet.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Only if you're eating a bunch of lean meats. If you go with the kinds of meats that Goat eats, you end up with a roughly 60/40 f/p split. Not far off from most LC ways of eating, really (though a little high protein for keto). That's because the mantra is still "fat first, then protein."
I usually end up around 73% fat / 27% protein and often it's closer to 80% / 20%. I focus on fatty meats and don't drain fat off. I eat all the fat from any cut. I will even pour my bacon drippings back over my burgers (or spread some on my burgers) if they're particularly dry. thank you for taken the time to explain all of this.
I'm new to all of this so any information helps me gain a perspective to begin research.
I looked into it a little more last night and saw some articles that it is not a long term plan but can be used in the short term. Is that your experience as well or do you feel this can be a long term method.
(please don't take any of my questions as judgement)
Long term 100%. I am following the advice of a guy who went by the name Bear. He ate this way for over 50 years. There are others who have done it for almost two decades and many who are around a decade that I talk with. Actually, almost all the serious people about this way of eating consider me a relative newb. The general experience groups break down as:- Totally new: Less than 30 days
- Pretty new: Less than 6 months
- Has the basics: Less than a year
- Experienced: Less than 5 years
- Long term veterans: 5+ years
These are my categorizations, but generally, those are the big groups people tend to fall in. I'm still in the "Has the basics" grouping. In a few months, I'll have completed my first full year.
I intend on eating this way for the rest of my life, or until the "Great Bovine Uprising" where I am sentences to life as a vegan for crimes against cow-manity.
Thats an interesting question too. I know that the ammonia breath comes from ketoacidosis which is different from ketosis. However if you are ingesting only meats does your body still produce insulin in the same manner?
This is interesting and needs more research. Bear was convinced that you didn't produce insulin eating this way. I am not convinced. Protein has a well established insulinogenic effect. It's considerably less than the effect of carbs, but it does exist. It isn't something that I consider significant enough to worry about. Honestly, there's no way to live and avoid eating foods that will stimulate insulin production in some manner.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »What benefits does 0 carb over? I also wonder why not eat any veggies?
The benefits are different for everyone. Most people quickly lose any desire for sweets. Your hunger signals are more in check. Weight tends to normalize. Some have reported reduction in allergies. I seem to be experiencing that, but I can't be sure that it's not just because there aren't low allergens right now. You stop tracking anything. I don't count carbs. I don't count anything. There's no macros to worry about, no fiber to subtract, no ketones to consider. You eat meat until you're full. Meal planning is simple and cooking is quick. I'm having a meat. There's nothing with it. There's really no fancy preparation to do to it either. It sounds boring, and in a way it isn't exciting, but it's also strangely comfortable and easy to accept. A lion doesn't get bored with zebra meat. You don't crave variety because your body isn't missing anything it needs. A lot of craving comes from the fact that you're lacking some nutrient and your body wants more, and/or different, food until that need it met.
Why not eat any vegetables? This is a good question. Personally, it is because my opinion of vegetables has shifted radically from the standard. While most people see vegetables as falling on a range from "healthy to not so healthy" (say for example spinach would be healthy and corn would be not so healthy but still better than nothing), I see vegetables ranging from, at best, "neutral" down to, "harmful." While most people would class a baked potato as "fairly" healthy, I consider it down with the harmful. Actually, my list of "neutral" vegetables seems to grow smaller and smaller the more I investigate them. It used to include spinach and the cruciferous veggies (the keto approved ones), but based on their metabolic and digestive effects, I currently think they're less harmful than many vegetables (like corn) but probably aren't harmless.
Vegetables are not required for health. We can get all the nutrients we need for health from meat, even if we don't resort to eating organ meats. While it appears that some nutrients are less plentiful in meat, what amount is there is highly absorbable and easily utilized by the body. Those vegetables which have seemingly high sources of nutrients, often include substances which hinder absorption and what is absorbed often requires inefficient conversion to make it useful. Take iron, for example. Trying to get all your iron from spinach alone would be asking for trouble unless you carefully adhered to some best practices. You would want to eat a source of vitamin C with that spinach, because that's going to make the iron more absorbable. Without the vitamin C (or eating meat with the spinach), you'll get almost no usable iron absorbed. What little does make it into your blood will be nonheme iron, which is only 10% as useful as heme iron (from meat). The same holds true for most other nutrients.
While meat does appear to be low on some of the RDAs, those are based on a mixed diet and the assumption that you're getting some of that amount from plants. A meat diet also reduces the need for some nutrients. B1 requirements, for example, are lower because a large quantity of B1 is used for carbohydrate metabolism.
What about the two biggies, vitamin C and fiber, both of which are nonexistent in animal sources? We are convinced that both of these are essential for health. If you don't consume enough vitamin C, you'll quickly develop scurvy. But, that's only partly true. If you don't consume enough vitamin C, while eating carbohydrates and unfresh foods, you will quickly develop scurvy. Scurvy can be prevented, and even cured, with nothing but fresh meat. While fresh meat doesn't have vitamin C in it, it has an antiscorbutic (as in it prevents/cures scurvy) effect. Wikipedia suggest that fresh meat does contain trace amounts of vitamin C, I've found little support for that. In any case, whether it does or does not, the effect is the same. Eating fresh meat, not heavily cooked, is enough to avoid scurvy.
Fiber is classed as an antinutrient. Not only does it provide no nutrition for us, it can hinder the absorption of other nutrients. It also can irritate the bowel, cause or worsen constipation, and often has other unpleasant side effects (it's not a coincidence that I no longer fart). It is not required for regularity, it can even cause problems with it. There's been studies that show removing all sources of fiber can help improve/cure some forms of constipation. I have had, essentially, no fiber for 3/4s of a year, and I am as regular as I have ever been.
Alright, I think I've rambled enough for the time being. You're welcome to reject any or all of this as crazy ramblings of a lunatic. "Broccoli is bad for you?! What a madman!" thank you for taken the time to explain all of this.
I'm new to all of this so any information helps me gain a perspective to begin research.
I looked into it a little more last night and saw some articles that it is not a long term plan but can be used in the short term. Is that your experience as well or do you feel this can be a long term method.
(please don't take any of my questions as judgement)
Four words: Owsley "The Bear" Stanley
You know what I'm finding interesting so far in my journey on this. Its becoming more apparent that our digestive systems may be more closely linked with the feline digestive system. I'm curious to learn more because there has also been a sharp increase of the instances of diabetes and inflammatory bowl diseases in cats, linked to the low quality high carbohydrate foods produced by the pet food companies. I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about two of the oldest living cats and that their owner fed them a diet of bacon, and eggs.
Also interesting to me is how I've read in several different places that cancer tumors thrive off of glucose, is this commonly accepted in the scientifice community? If so, then why is it not recommended to reduce glucose as part of a treatment plan for those with cancer?
Could it be that eating the SAD we are actually causing the rate of the occurences of these illnesses to increase? Have there been studies done on cultures that do not eat the same way we do, that would provide more insight?
Off to Google 0 -
The lack of ammonia is intriguing. All of your glucose needs have to be met by gluconeogenesis. Where's all the waste ammonia going? Your body must up regulate some processes to deal with it. Freaky.
OK, I know you don't want to hear it, but my biggest long-term concern would be cancer. Even Bear got cancer. Your IGF-1 must be high, not to mention the potential toxins in animal fat. And lack of antioxidants in your diet. But your risks probably aren't much different than the general population.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »What benefits does 0 carb over? I also wonder why not eat any veggies?
The benefits are different for everyone. Most people quickly lose any desire for sweets. Your hunger signals are more in check. Weight tends to normalize. Some have reported reduction in allergies. I seem to be experiencing that, but I can't be sure that it's not just because there aren't low allergens right now. You stop tracking anything. I don't count carbs. I don't count anything. There's no macros to worry about, no fiber to subtract, no ketones to consider. You eat meat until you're full. Meal planning is simple and cooking is quick. I'm having a meat. There's nothing with it. There's really no fancy preparation to do to it either. It sounds boring, and in a way it isn't exciting, but it's also strangely comfortable and easy to accept. A lion doesn't get bored with zebra meat. You don't crave variety because your body isn't missing anything it needs. A lot of craving comes from the fact that you're lacking some nutrient and your body wants more, and/or different, food until that need it met.
Why not eat any vegetables? This is a good question. Personally, it is because my opinion of vegetables has shifted radically from the standard. While most people see vegetables as falling on a range from "healthy to not so healthy" (say for example spinach would be healthy and corn would be not so healthy but still better than nothing), I see vegetables ranging from, at best, "neutral" down to, "harmful." While most people would class a baked potato as "fairly" healthy, I consider it down with the harmful. Actually, my list of "neutral" vegetables seems to grow smaller and smaller the more I investigate them. It used to include spinach and the cruciferous veggies (the keto approved ones), but based on their metabolic and digestive effects, I currently think they're less harmful than many vegetables (like corn) but probably aren't harmless.
Vegetables are not required for health. We can get all the nutrients we need for health from meat, even if we don't resort to eating organ meats. While it appears that some nutrients are less plentiful in meat, what amount is there is highly absorbable and easily utilized by the body. Those vegetables which have seemingly high sources of nutrients, often include substances which hinder absorption and what is absorbed often requires inefficient conversion to make it useful. Take iron, for example. Trying to get all your iron from spinach alone would be asking for trouble unless you carefully adhered to some best practices. You would want to eat a source of vitamin C with that spinach, because that's going to make the iron more absorbable. Without the vitamin C (or eating meat with the spinach), you'll get almost no usable iron absorbed. What little does make it into your blood will be nonheme iron, which is only 10% as useful as heme iron (from meat). The same holds true for most other nutrients.
While meat does appear to be low on some of the RDAs, those are based on a mixed diet and the assumption that you're getting some of that amount from plants. A meat diet also reduces the need for some nutrients. B1 requirements, for example, are lower because a large quantity of B1 is used for carbohydrate metabolism.
What about the two biggies, vitamin C and fiber, both of which are nonexistent in animal sources? We are convinced that both of these are essential for health. If you don't consume enough vitamin C, you'll quickly develop scurvy. But, that's only partly true. If you don't consume enough vitamin C, while eating carbohydrates and unfresh foods, you will quickly develop scurvy. Scurvy can be prevented, and even cured, with nothing but fresh meat. While fresh meat doesn't have vitamin C in it, it has an antiscorbutic (as in it prevents/cures scurvy) effect. Wikipedia suggest that fresh meat does contain trace amounts of vitamin C, I've found little support for that. In any case, whether it does or does not, the effect is the same. Eating fresh meat, not heavily cooked, is enough to avoid scurvy.
Fiber is classed as an antinutrient. Not only does it provide no nutrition for us, it can hinder the absorption of other nutrients. It also can irritate the bowel, cause or worsen constipation, and often has other unpleasant side effects (it's not a coincidence that I no longer fart). It is not required for regularity, it can even cause problems with it. There's been studies that show removing all sources of fiber can help improve/cure some forms of constipation. I have had, essentially, no fiber for 3/4s of a year, and I am as regular as I have ever been.
Alright, I think I've rambled enough for the time being. You're welcome to reject any or all of this as crazy ramblings of a lunatic. "Broccoli is bad for you?! What a madman!" thank you for taken the time to explain all of this.
I'm new to all of this so any information helps me gain a perspective to begin research.
I looked into it a little more last night and saw some articles that it is not a long term plan but can be used in the short term. Is that your experience as well or do you feel this can be a long term method.
(please don't take any of my questions as judgement)
Four words: Owsley "The Bear" Stanley
You know what I'm finding interesting so far in my journey on this. Its becoming more apparent that our digestive systems may be more closely linked with the feline digestive system. I'm curious to learn more because there has also been a sharp increase of the instances of diabetes and inflammatory bowl diseases in cats, linked to the low quality high carbohydrate foods produced by the pet food companies. I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about two of the oldest living cats and that their owner fed them a diet of bacon, and eggs.
Also interesting to me is how I've read in several different places that cancer tumors thrive off of glucose, is this commonly accepted in the scientifice community? If so, then why is it not recommended to reduce glucose as part of a treatment plan for those with cancer?
Could it be that eating the SAD we are actually causing the rate of the occurences of these illnesses to increase? Have there been studies done on cultures that do not eat the same way we do, that would provide more insight?
Off to Google
I have a cat currently on a grain free diet. By that I mean he eats people tuna because grain free cat food is ridiculously expensive and I have 2 cats.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »What benefits does 0 carb over? I also wonder why not eat any veggies?
The benefits are different for everyone. Most people quickly lose any desire for sweets. Your hunger signals are more in check. Weight tends to normalize. Some have reported reduction in allergies. I seem to be experiencing that, but I can't be sure that it's not just because there aren't low allergens right now. You stop tracking anything. I don't count carbs. I don't count anything. There's no macros to worry about, no fiber to subtract, no ketones to consider. You eat meat until you're full. Meal planning is simple and cooking is quick. I'm having a meat. There's nothing with it. There's really no fancy preparation to do to it either. It sounds boring, and in a way it isn't exciting, but it's also strangely comfortable and easy to accept. A lion doesn't get bored with zebra meat. You don't crave variety because your body isn't missing anything it needs. A lot of craving comes from the fact that you're lacking some nutrient and your body wants more, and/or different, food until that need it met.
Why not eat any vegetables? This is a good question. Personally, it is because my opinion of vegetables has shifted radically from the standard. While most people see vegetables as falling on a range from "healthy to not so healthy" (say for example spinach would be healthy and corn would be not so healthy but still better than nothing), I see vegetables ranging from, at best, "neutral" down to, "harmful." While most people would class a baked potato as "fairly" healthy, I consider it down with the harmful. Actually, my list of "neutral" vegetables seems to grow smaller and smaller the more I investigate them. It used to include spinach and the cruciferous veggies (the keto approved ones), but based on their metabolic and digestive effects, I currently think they're less harmful than many vegetables (like corn) but probably aren't harmless.
Vegetables are not required for health. We can get all the nutrients we need for health from meat, even if we don't resort to eating organ meats. While it appears that some nutrients are less plentiful in meat, what amount is there is highly absorbable and easily utilized by the body. Those vegetables which have seemingly high sources of nutrients, often include substances which hinder absorption and what is absorbed often requires inefficient conversion to make it useful. Take iron, for example. Trying to get all your iron from spinach alone would be asking for trouble unless you carefully adhered to some best practices. You would want to eat a source of vitamin C with that spinach, because that's going to make the iron more absorbable. Without the vitamin C (or eating meat with the spinach), you'll get almost no usable iron absorbed. What little does make it into your blood will be nonheme iron, which is only 10% as useful as heme iron (from meat). The same holds true for most other nutrients.
While meat does appear to be low on some of the RDAs, those are based on a mixed diet and the assumption that you're getting some of that amount from plants. A meat diet also reduces the need for some nutrients. B1 requirements, for example, are lower because a large quantity of B1 is used for carbohydrate metabolism.
What about the two biggies, vitamin C and fiber, both of which are nonexistent in animal sources? We are convinced that both of these are essential for health. If you don't consume enough vitamin C, you'll quickly develop scurvy. But, that's only partly true. If you don't consume enough vitamin C, while eating carbohydrates and unfresh foods, you will quickly develop scurvy. Scurvy can be prevented, and even cured, with nothing but fresh meat. While fresh meat doesn't have vitamin C in it, it has an antiscorbutic (as in it prevents/cures scurvy) effect. Wikipedia suggest that fresh meat does contain trace amounts of vitamin C, I've found little support for that. In any case, whether it does or does not, the effect is the same. Eating fresh meat, not heavily cooked, is enough to avoid scurvy.
Fiber is classed as an antinutrient. Not only does it provide no nutrition for us, it can hinder the absorption of other nutrients. It also can irritate the bowel, cause or worsen constipation, and often has other unpleasant side effects (it's not a coincidence that I no longer fart). It is not required for regularity, it can even cause problems with it. There's been studies that show removing all sources of fiber can help improve/cure some forms of constipation. I have had, essentially, no fiber for 3/4s of a year, and I am as regular as I have ever been.
Alright, I think I've rambled enough for the time being. You're welcome to reject any or all of this as crazy ramblings of a lunatic. "Broccoli is bad for you?! What a madman!" thank you for taken the time to explain all of this.
I'm new to all of this so any information helps me gain a perspective to begin research.
I looked into it a little more last night and saw some articles that it is not a long term plan but can be used in the short term. Is that your experience as well or do you feel this can be a long term method.
(please don't take any of my questions as judgement)
Four words: Owsley "The Bear" Stanley
You know what I'm finding interesting so far in my journey on this. Its becoming more apparent that our digestive systems may be more closely linked with the feline digestive system. I'm curious to learn more because there has also been a sharp increase of the instances of diabetes and inflammatory bowl diseases in cats, linked to the low quality high carbohydrate foods produced by the pet food companies. I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about two of the oldest living cats and that their owner fed them a diet of bacon, and eggs.
Also interesting to me is how I've read in several different places that cancer tumors thrive off of glucose, is this commonly accepted in the scientifice community? If so, then why is it not recommended to reduce glucose as part of a treatment plan for those with cancer?
Could it be that eating the SAD we are actually causing the rate of the occurences of these illnesses to increase? Have there been studies done on cultures that do not eat the same way we do, that would provide more insight?
Off to Google
I have a cat currently on a grain free diet. By that I mean he eats people tuna because grain free cat food is ridiculously expensive and I have 2 cats.
I have 5 on grain free, it's expensive for sure. after losing one of mine to ketoacidoses after four years of treating his diabetes that was caused by feeding him garbage, I can't let them eat anything else.
Make sure your's is getting the other nutrients needed, especially taurine.0 -
Also interesting to me is how I've read in several different places that cancer tumors thrive off of glucose, is this commonly accepted in the scientifice community? If so, then why is it not recommended to reduce glucose as part of a treatment plan for those with cancer?
Could it be that eating the SAD we are actually causing the rate of the occurences of these illnesses to increase? Have there been studies done on cultures that do not eat the same way we do, that would provide more insight?
Off to Google
The fact that cancer tumors thrive off glucose is commonly accepted, but not acknowledged. By which I mean that they use a test that uses radioactive markers in sugar to look for tumors, but if you ask most of them if glucose intake fuels tumor growth, they'll tell you no. It isn't recommended to reduce glucose as part of the treatment plan because a low carb diet can't be patented. (I'll refrain from going off on the full rant of medicine as a business)
As for question 2, search for Weston A. Price.
0 -
Should I decide to go ZC, any suggestions for keeping my husband from having a heart attack? He even makes me take veggies out camping because he doesn't think it's healthy to just eat meat, coconut oil, & coffee.0
-
Interesting stuff...l thanks to all0
-
The lack of ammonia is intriguing. All of your glucose needs have to be met by gluconeogenesis. Where's all the waste ammonia going? Your body must up regulate some processes to deal with it. Freaky.
OK, I know you don't want to hear it, but my biggest long-term concern would be cancer. Even Bear got cancer. Your IGF-1 must be high, not to mention the potential toxins in animal fat. And lack of antioxidants in your diet. But your risks probably aren't much different than the general population.
He got cancer, because his tonsils were housing HPV, which is known to cause cancer (cancer prevention is one of the big selling points of Gardasil, an HPV vaccine for women). The second-hand smoke he originally attributed it to probably didn't help matters. He also attributed his zero carb diet for the fact that its growth had been slowed and it was still treatable, despite the advanced stage it was at.
Tim Ferriss and Dr. Peter Attia actually go into detail on the metabolism of cancer, which has been shown to be largely glucose mediated -- http://fourhourworkweek.com/2014/01/28/cancer-treatment/ From what little I've looked into it, it seems that IGF-1 itself isn't enough to promote cancer (it promotes it, because it's a growth hormone...that's about it), but rather increased IGF-1, insulin, and maybe other growth hormones combined with a high presence of glucose (which makes sense when you also consider that people with insulin resistance have an increased risk of cancer pretty much across the board, because what comes with insulin resistance? More blood glucose). IGF-1 may be a mediator, but cancer chooses glucose over fatty acids. I don't think anyone's claimed that zero carb equates to being immune to cancer (unlike some other ways of eating...), but there's not really any evidence that it causes or increases risk of cancer.
Also, animal sources actually have a pretty high level of antioxidants and anti-cancer agents. Butyric Acid, for example, is anti-cancer. It's found in grass fed butter. It also has anti-inflammatory properties. Grass fed butter and pastured eggs are also high in vitamin E, a known antioxidant, as are certain fish (namely Cod and Tuna). You can minimize toxins by eating lower on the food chain when applicable, and by eating wild or pastured animals.
As for gluconeogensis, don't forget that the body also down-regulates the amount of glucose it needs to begin with. When you're fat adapted, you no longer need 120g just for your brain, but more like 40g. You also can go to higher intensities of workouts before switching to burning sugar, the body becomes more efficient at running on ketones and free fatty acids.0 -
-
I meant lack compared to some veggies. There was some evidence from an archaeological dig that our ancestors enjoyed reindeer meat. More omega-3's than salmon. 0
-
Bear had many factors that could have contributed to his cancer, probably the biggest being the HPV already mentioned. There was also smoke exposure from his years working the the Dead. I also wonder if chemical exposure played some role. The manufacturing of LSD involves several "not nice" chemical reactions and byproducts. He was manufacturing large amounts in a home-brewed lab. I think we'll never know what actually caused the cancer. Bear did claim that his doctor was shocked at how little it had spread and grown, which Bear attributed to lack of glucose. I am pretty convinced that this way of eating has anti-cancer benefits. Not saying it makes me immune. But, populations eating this way had very, very low cancer rates and research about glucose and cancer suggests there's a link.
As for antioxidants, some important facts have already been discussed. The other major thing to remember is that when you remove carbs, refined grains, vegetable oils, and plants... you have also removed most of the sources of free radicals and other damaging agents that you need the antioxidants to mitigate. If I no longer have a car, I don't need to worry about regularly changing the oil and other maintenance issues.0 -
The IGF-1 theory is that everybody gets cancer cells eventually, but reduced levels of IGF-1 can keep them from growing. The glucose metabolism of cancer seems somewhat controversial -- the cells may be more adaptable than we think, but keto is becoming an accepted adjunct therapy. Like I said, you're probably at no greater risk than us SAD folk.
There's also gastrointestinal cancer associated with a group in Poland that was on a long-term mostly-meat diet (the "Optimal Diet"). It might have been the kind of meat they were eating.0 -
Works fine for me.
Lately my meals have been
Breakfast: 1/2 pound 75/25% ground beef plus 2-slices of bacon (plus some grease)
Lunch: 1/2 pound 75/25% ground beef plus 2-slices of bacon (plus some grease)
Dinner: 12oz - 1.5 pounds of chuck steak/beef.
My bill isn't bad, in my eyes. A day like that runs me $7.75 a day or about $55 a week. I could get it lower. Eating more bacon and/or eggs would make it cheaper for me. But, this is well within my budget.
I feel great.
Yes, there is a transition period. Even going from keto to zero. But, it's mild and short.
Sorry I am not more detailed right now. Just on my way to bed. I'll probably elaborate more tomorrow.
Do you have a rough idea of how many grams of protein that equates to? Total newbie here. I haven't even started yet. Prolly another week! But in the Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living the author basically said to make sure you don't go overboard on protein. For me, prolly 150g/day. Over that and I would start producing glucose? If you need more calories, make it fat? Does that sound right? I know that the zero carb is a minority, but to me it's appealing in it's simplicity. So simple. Maybe not always easy, but certainly simple. Thank you for your time!
0 -
Hmm, some study into the IGF-1 information makes me think that I'd rather take my chances with it being too high than with it being too low. In the end, it doesn't matter. If you look at all the various cancer risk factors and how they changed when I changed to eating this way, the vast majority of the risk factors went down. If this one risk factor went up, it's not enough to offset the improvements in all the other areas.0
