Keto-Karnivores vs. Fiber
Replies
-
I'm curious to how joining a thread stating didn't really read the information and concluding it wasn't valid constitutes as staying out of discussions. Seems like the opposite to me.
This is not a personal attack in any form. I just get ticked off by poor rhetoric.2 -
I agree with @Karlottap
I feel great doing carnivore this month and it's made me think about what I used to blame for my slight tummy troubles.
If I hadn't read past discussions about it, I probably would've never tried it. It's definitely great to see everyone's different experiences so that we can "try them on" for ourselves if we are curious.
I don't want to go without vegetables forever though. If I have to for the most part, I will. But, the microbiota stuff is very interesting and I don't doubt that if creating the right balance is possible that could be the key to being able to eat veggies without issue. That's something that definitely makes sense to me.
All I know right now, for myself, is that cutting that fiber out the last few weeks has made my digestion more like what the mainstream considers "normal". Back to a daily elimination almost like clockwork. I wasn't even expecting that result. But whatevs...3 -
Foamroller wrote: »@FIT_Goat. It might be you're right concerning Stefansson. I was taking from memory watching Stephen Phinney's lectures and reading his book.
But, I think that you slalom your rhetoric to what you find suitable ad hoc. I have noticed on several occasions that when you don't agree with something, you often shoot it down saying things along the lines of "there's no evidence...".I skimmed through this, but haven't looked into it in detail. In truth, we all know how I am going to default on this type of thing. A lot of the conclusions seem to be based on the belief that eating lots of fiber, vegetables, and fruit is healthy, therefore the effects of that diet on the gut biome are the desirable ones. Any changes from those effects are considered harmful. I don't know that this is a valid conclusion. It reminds me of the cholesterol studies.
We really don't know what a healthy biome means. There could even be a variety of healthy biomes, different ones for different diets.
But when it suits you, you have a tendency to refer to your own N=1 as evidence of your view.Ask @FIT_Goat if he starts eating fruits and veggies ~ if bad things happen to him also. Probably. So, his gut flora is damaged also...we're all in the same boat. Its Keto for the rest of our lives until someone figures out how to change our gut microbiota to "pre-damaged" era.
My gut got a lot better when I stopped eating those things. It returns to where it was when I go back. It isn't worse than it was.
For the record, I was c-section birth and had milk allergies as a baby (yes I should have known better than to keep eating it) that prevented breast feeding. So, there is that.
Please have in mind that this is the type of rhetoric that is often used to argue against lowcarbers both in the wild and in the general forum. Bla,bla,bla "no studies show lowcarb will work for everyone" and "I know someone who eats only carbs and lost a ton of weight". Which is technically right. But does it mean they are right ?
Those people drive me batty too. To be fair, most of those people will grasp for any straw that would allow them the opportunity to hear their own voice while thumping their lifestyle over another. The problem is far more with them then anyone else, IMO. No doubt some of their arguments are based on reality, but the motive behind all of their finger-pointing is rarely for the benefit of someone else. Do they REALLY care what other people eat? I doubt it. So I am not holding my breath for the world to rid itself of people with such mindset, I say just Keto-on.
5 -
I would like to clarify that I'm genuinely happy for the success you guys have with being carnivore. I believe we are all adults and as such we can show grace towards other people's lifestyle choices. It's really none of my business how someone else on the internet eats. I do however think it's important to have open minded discussions about the topic of lowcarb.4
-
Whoa, I don't know how that came across. I even acknowledged that I have two previous experiences that would give me a non-typical gut biome (birth and initial feeding).
I did read the OP (all the posts), but I didn't read it in depth. I didn't "study" it would have been more appropriate. I also didn't try and post a lot of contradictory statements saying that it was baseless. Heck, I even threw in a comment that there could be multiple healthy biomes. Maybe some do a lot better with fiber than others. We could find that our biome determines our best individual diet. I don't know.
Of what I gathered from the OP, there were significant differences between the biomes of people eating different diets. Those different biomes also had differing effects on the chemicals and fatty acids produced in the gut. Jumping from that to the idea that a diet high in fiber is best is the leap that I find unsupported.
I [emphatically] do not know enough about the biology of humans and those specific byproducts to make a fully informed opinion. That is the basic idea I had when I posted. It wasn't to say, "I didn't bother to read this and dismiss it out of hand."
As was noted, I generally stay out of pro-fiber threads and threads asking for fiber advice. I do sometimes comment in threads about poop problems, to suggest that more fiber may not be the solution, but that isn't ever meant to say that I dismiss the benefits some people experience from it. I responded because it was directed at the carnivore crowd. If it had a different title, I would have read it--I read way more than I ever respond to--but likely would have not said anything because it's not my way.
Edit to add: I am a participant in the American Gut Project. So, eventually, I may be one of the data points. I do think it is interesting stuff. I just don't think anyone really knows enough to categorize what is "good" and "bad" at this time. The conclusion of the study even suggested the same uncertainty, although it stuck to the existing assumptions.5 -
Let's all play nice ladies & gentlemen. No, I am not calling out anyone specifically; many on this forum do participate in all-animal lifestyle choices. Again, solely out of interest & the mention of low-carbohydrate diets from the article...no need to divide into keto/low carb-sects, we're all on the same side4
-
Edit to add: I am a participant in the American Gut Project. So, eventually, I may be one of the data points. I do think it is interesting stuff. I just don't think anyone really knows enough to categorize what is "good" and "bad" at this time. The conclusion of the study even suggested the same uncertainty, although it stuck to the existing assumptions.
@FIT_Goat What is the American Gut Project? I'm at a point of having to do something in this general area myself, so I'd love to know more!0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »Edit to add: I am a participant in the American Gut Project. So, eventually, I may be one of the data points. I do think it is interesting stuff. I just don't think anyone really knows enough to categorize what is "good" and "bad" at this time. The conclusion of the study even suggested the same uncertainty, although it stuck to the existing assumptions.
@FIT_Goat What is the American Gut Project? I'm at a point of having to do something in this general area myself, so I'd love to know more!
Chris Kresser had an interview with him.
He ends up taking a pro-fiber stance, but it's all very interesting info.
https://chriskresser.com/you-are-what-your-bacteria-eat-the-importance-of-feeding-your-microbiome-with-jeff-leach/
I'm pretty convinced so far that EVERYTHING is affected by the gut microbiome.
And that there are different ideal microbiome configurations.
He has some others about autoimmunity.
I'm sure there are podcasts around.
I'm always looking for others to listen, too on any subject, but this one is very interesting.
2 -
I'm pretty well convinced of this as well.baconslave wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »Edit to add: I am a participant in the American Gut Project. So, eventually, I may be one of the data points. I do think it is interesting stuff. I just don't think anyone really knows enough to categorize what is "good" and "bad" at this time. The conclusion of the study even suggested the same uncertainty, although it stuck to the existing assumptions.
@FIT_Goat What is the American Gut Project? I'm at a point of having to do something in this general area myself, so I'd love to know more!
Chris Kresser had an interview with him.
He ends up taking a pro-fiber stance, but it's all very interesting info.
https://chriskresser.com/you-are-what-your-bacteria-eat-the-importance-of-feeding-your-microbiome-with-jeff-leach/
I'm pretty convinced so far that EVERYTHING is affected by the gut microbiome.
And that there are different ideal microbiome configurations.
He has some others about autoimmunity.
I'm sure there are podcasts around.
I'm always looking for others to listen, too on any subject, but this one is very interesting.
0 -
The American Gut Project is a study of the intestinal biome of the volunteer subjects. Basically, they collect a sample and analyze your bacteria. They also ask about your recent diet, health, weight, etc. You are then anonymously added to their data.
You do get a copy of everything they find about your biome. I have mine somewhere at home. It was interesting, but at this time with current knowledge no one really knows what it all means. It is the hope, of projects like this, that we will eventually have enough data to answer the questions.2 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »Edit to add: I am a participant in the American Gut Project. So, eventually, I may be one of the data points. I do think it is interesting stuff. I just don't think anyone really knows enough to categorize what is "good" and "bad" at this time. The conclusion of the study even suggested the same uncertainty, although it stuck to the existing assumptions.
@FIT_Goat What is the American Gut Project? I'm at a point of having to do something in this general area myself, so I'd love to know more!
I'm on the Ubiome Project (although I haven't submitted a sample yet). You give them a lot of information about your health. Then you send a sample. They DNA sequence it and you are allowed to see your percentages of all the different critters you have and compare to other people's health, weight etc.
Yes, this costs money, I think about $85 or so. But if I refer you, I think we both get a discount of some sort. So, refer me!
Here is the link: Dan the Man's UBiome Discount for Both of Us!
I hope this helps,
Dan the Man from Michigan
Keto / The Recipe Water Fasting / E.A.S.Y. Exercise Program
0 -
When I first began this woe I was a "lurker" here. I read every thread, and almost every bit of information I saw recommended in the threads. Then, I used this info to find the level of low carb that works for me. I'm sure there are many out there who do the same. I like having all opinions represented. We will never know how many people . And I feel we all do this in our way, very civilly, and we tend to "play" together very well! Perception of posts are always an individual thing.
I owe my success to the support of this group! And, I continue to learn from all of you on the daily!
3 -
-
Hi folks, thanks so much for all of that.
Can any one tell me why I would choose one over the other of
http://humanfoodproject.com/
http://ubiome.com/1 -
From the ConclusionsOverview of the long-term and short-term impact of dietary fibre on the intestinal microbiome and metabolome. An agrarian diet increases faecal microbial diversity (increased Firmicutes, reduced Proteobacteria) and encourages growth of bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids (such as butyrate, acetate and proprionate) - all considered to be "good" for gut health. Western diet and high protein/low fermentable carbohydrate/fibre diets induce largely opposite changes which are theoretically "bad" for gut health. AA, aminoacid; AIEC, adherent, invasive E. coli; CHO, carbohydrate; FODMAP, fermentable oligo-, di- and monosaccharides and polyols; SCFA, short-chain fatty acids; spp., species."
Even the article acknowledges that we just don't know what these changes really mean or the impact they might have. We consider those associated with the agrarian diet to be good, and the opposite ones to be bad. But, the jury is still out. It could be the opposite. They could both be good. They could be insignificant/meaningless.
At this point in time, I think the best idea is to judge your own reaction to various amounts of different foods. If your health improves by eating certain foods, then you should eat those. If it improves by avoiding certain foods, you should avoid them. While it seems unlikely, to me, that a diet that improves your short-term health would negatively impact long-term health, it is theoretically possible. I would pick certain current health improvements over "potential" future health improvements that I might not be around to experience.1 -
Hi Fit_Goat,
I am yet to find my way around the forums, threads etc, or to find ones I have posted in..
You said above you have written about dealing with constipation - unrelated to increasing fibre (I'm Australian).. could you tell me how to find what you have written, or others have written? Thanks0 -
It is very hard to find anything. The search is very poor here. I usually reference the following study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/RESULTS: The median age of the patients (16 male, 47 female) was 47 years (range, 20-80 years). At 6 mo, 41 patients remained on a no fiber diet, 16 on a reduced fiber diet, and 6 resumed their high fiber diet for religious or personal reasons. Patients who stopped or reduced dietary fiber had significant improvement in their symptoms while those who continued on a high fiber diet had no change. Of those who stopped fiber completely, the bowel frequency increased from one motion in 3.75 d (± 1.59 d) to one motion in 1.0 d (± 0.0 d) (P < 0.001); those with reduced fiber intake had increased bowel frequency from a mean of one motion per 4.19 d (± 2.09 d) to one motion per 1.9 d (± 1.21 d) on a reduced fiber diet (P < 0.001); those who remained on a high fiber diet continued to have a mean of one motion per 6.83 d (± 1.03 d) before and after consultation. For no fiber, reduced fiber and high fiber groups, respectively, symptoms of bloating were present in 0%, 31.3% and 100% (P < 0.001) and straining to pass stools occurred in 0%, 43.8% and 100% (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Idiopathic constipation and its associated symptoms can be effectively reduced by stopping or even lowering the intake of dietary fiber.
Those eating no fiber had what everyone would consider a normal pooping habit. They went to pooping once a day without bloating or straining. Those who remained on high fiber were pooping once a week and all of them had bloating and straining.
Some fiber may help those with constipation. If it doesn't or it makes things worse, you may try reducing fiber (even to the point of eliminating it). More fat helps things move along, if you're having issues.
That sums up most of what I have posted before.1 -
Thanks for that. I pooped regularly and 1-2 a day before going low carbs, lower fibre, so its had the opposite effect.
I might have been pooping in part because my intestines were aggravated by so many foods. Mind you in 3 weeks my belly has dropped by 6cm- all the bloating going - which is a huge difference.
I will up my fats for a few days and see if that helps. Thanks
0 -
Thanks for that. I pooped regularly and 1-2 a day before going low carbs, lower fibre, so its had the opposite effect.
I might have been pooping in part because my intestines were aggravated by so many foods. Mind you in 3 weeks my belly has dropped by 6cm- all the bloating going - which is a huge difference.
I will up my fats for a few days and see if that helps. Thanks
Keep in mind that less frequent bowel movements does not necessarily equate to constipation. The key is that plus discomfort, straining, bloating, etc. Upping fat likely won't hurt, though.From the ConclusionsOverview of the long-term and short-term impact of dietary fibre on the intestinal microbiome and metabolome. An agrarian diet increases faecal microbial diversity (increased Firmicutes, reduced Proteobacteria) and encourages growth of bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids (such as butyrate, acetate and proprionate) - all considered to be "good" for gut health. Western diet and high protein/low fermentable carbohydrate/fibre diets induce largely opposite changes which are theoretically "bad" for gut health. AA, aminoacid; AIEC, adherent, invasive E. coli; CHO, carbohydrate; FODMAP, fermentable oligo-, di- and monosaccharides and polyols; SCFA, short-chain fatty acids; spp., species."
Even the article acknowledges that we just don't know what these changes really mean or the impact they might have. We consider those associated with the agrarian diet to be good, and the opposite ones to be bad. But, the jury is still out. It could be the opposite. They could both be good. They could be insignificant/meaningless.
At this point in time, I think the best idea is to judge your own reaction to various amounts of different foods. If your health improves by eating certain foods, then you should eat those. If it improves by avoiding certain foods, you should avoid them. While it seems unlikely, to me, that a diet that improves your short-term health would negatively impact long-term health, it is theoretically possible. I would pick certain current health improvements over "potential" future health improvements that I might not be around to experience.
One thing to consider, too, is that the SFA-creating microbes might not be needed in certain diets, because those diets are already sufficient in SFAs. Like everything else in life, it's all very "use it, or lose it."
Good butter, for example, is rich is butyrate (the very name of which comes from it prominence in butter). Propionic acid (main component of proprionate) is made through the breakdown of fats containing odd numbers of carbon atoms (of course, this also assumes that propionic acid is actually a good one for us to have, which there seems to be some evidence to the contrary -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propionic_acid#Biological_uses). Acetate is an ester formed by the breakdown of fats and is available in vinegar (the main component of which is acetic acid).1 -
Good point. Thanks for the reminder.Dragonwolf wrote: »One thing to consider, too, is that the SFA-creating microbes might not be needed in certain diets, because those diets are already sufficient in SFAs. Like everything else in life, it's all very "use it, or lose it."
Good butter, for example, is rich is butyrate (the very name of which comes from it prominence in butter). Propionic acid (main component of proprionate) is made through the breakdown of fats containing odd numbers of carbon atoms (of course, this also assumes that propionic acid is actually a good one for us to have, which there seems to be some evidence to the contrary -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propionic_acid#Biological_uses). Acetate is an ester formed by the breakdown of fats and is available in vinegar (the main component of which is acetic acid).Even the article acknowledges that we just don't know what these changes really mean or the impact they might have. We consider those associated with the agrarian diet to be good, and the opposite ones to be bad. But, the jury is still out. It could be the opposite. They could both be good. They could be insignificant/meaningless.
At this point in time, I think the best idea is to judge your own reaction to various amounts of different foods. If your health improves by eating certain foods, then you should eat those. If it improves by avoiding certain foods, you should avoid them. While it seems unlikely, to me, that a diet that improves your short-term health would negatively impact long-term health, it is theoretically possible. I would pick certain current health improvements over "potential" future health improvements that I might not be around to experience.
As we endeavor to determine what "works" for us and what doesn't, we do need to have a good yardstick (plus several broomsticks, perhaps)..... However, finding such a gadget is not an easy task.
It certainly has to be one that works a lot better than the failed "how are you feeling?" test (some versions of which include the "how often are you pooping?" subtest), which hasn't worked very well for timely detection of diabetes, hypertension, atherosclerosis, etc.
And, of course, we need to be open to trading up to a newer model yardstick or mousetrap, assuming we know where to find the dealers.
0 -
Foamroller wrote: »Re eskimo argument. People tend to forget the indigenous people also eat a lot of organ meats, which have all the nutrition the body needs. As demonstrated per Stefansson during his voluntary "metabolic chamber".
It's unscientific to take the results of one protocol and extrapolate that to another protocol.
Interestingly, the English guy who fought back brain cancer, Andrew Scarborough, not only went zero carb, but he also started having organ meats. In the video he said it was due to nutrients.
I think we all can agree that many in this group firsthandedly experience how what we eat impacts who we are. How would that be any different for the livestock that's been pumped with a whole cocktail of antibiotics, insulin (for rapid growth) and unknown proprietary substances ?
@Foamroller - Thanks for your interesting comments.
While I am not someone who would sit down for a meal of spleen or pancreas sausage (an odiferous treat known as Milzwurst in parts of Germany), I have to admit that Mary Roach's description of being offered raw organ meet at an Inuit meal was pretty fascinating.
(FWIW, I enjoyed the audio version - the subject in Roach's entertaining writing style was perfect on a long trip.)
0 -
I'm one of those people who does better without much fibre/plant matter in my diet. Following all animal April has actually loosened my bowels more than I would prefer. Keeping plants to about 20g of carbs per day seems to give me the best BMs.
I doubt I am normal though. I have celiac disease and a few other issues so my n=1 may not be applicable to others.
I'm not against fibre, but I am not really for it either, unless one is eating sugar/starches in a greater amount than what I do.0 -
Good point. Thanks for the reminder.Dragonwolf wrote: »One thing to consider, too, is that the SFA-creating microbes might not be needed in certain diets, because those diets are already sufficient in SFAs. Like everything else in life, it's all very "use it, or lose it."
Good butter, for example, is rich is butyrate (the very name of which comes from it prominence in butter). Propionic acid (main component of proprionate) is made through the breakdown of fats containing odd numbers of carbon atoms (of course, this also assumes that propionic acid is actually a good one for us to have, which there seems to be some evidence to the contrary -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propionic_acid#Biological_uses). Acetate is an ester formed by the breakdown of fats and is available in vinegar (the main component of which is acetic acid).Even the article acknowledges that we just don't know what these changes really mean or the impact they might have. We consider those associated with the agrarian diet to be good, and the opposite ones to be bad. But, the jury is still out. It could be the opposite. They could both be good. They could be insignificant/meaningless.
At this point in time, I think the best idea is to judge your own reaction to various amounts of different foods. If your health improves by eating certain foods, then you should eat those. If it improves by avoiding certain foods, you should avoid them. While it seems unlikely, to me, that a diet that improves your short-term health would negatively impact long-term health, it is theoretically possible. I would pick certain current health improvements over "potential" future health improvements that I might not be around to experience.
As we endeavor to determine what "works" for us and what doesn't, we do need to have a good yardstick (plus several broomsticks, perhaps)..... However, finding such a gadget is not an easy task.
It certainly has to be one that works a lot better than the failed "how are you feeling?" test (some versions of which include the "how often are you pooping?" subtest), which hasn't worked very well for timely detection of diabetes, hypertension, atherosclerosis, etc.
And, of course, we need to be open to trading up to a newer model yardstick or mousetrap, assuming we know where to find the dealers.
Detection for hypertension is the easiest - check your blood pressure once in a while. If you're prone to white coat syndrome, stop by the grocery store pharmacy and use the device there, or get a home device.
Diabetes would be easier if getting the insulin test wasn't like pulling teeth. Fasting glucose, A1C, and fasting insulin give you a pretty good picture of things, when combined (at least for relatively superficial tests).
Atherosclerosis is the most insidious one, because the only way to really know is with pretty invasive and expensive procedures (the least of which being imaging of some sort), and in my experience, the symptoms can come on so slowly that you don't know they're symptoms. Getting a regular c-reactive protein test might be a good test to do regularly, but ranks up there with the insulin test in regards to what it's like to get the doctor to run it and/or insurance to cover it. All the blood tests, so far, though, are proxy measurements, so there's not much guarantee yet.
If you can get those, "how do you feel?" gets augmented by "what do the tests say?"
Another thing, too, is that we need to stop always dismissing things as "just life," "poor genetics," or "getting older." Chronic issues don't really "just happen." There's a trigger somewhere. You just have to find where and what (easier said than done in the real world, I know, but it can literally save lives).1 -
One of the nice things about volunteering, starting next year I will get a FULL screening. That includes the imaging of the arteries and everything, as well as exhaustive blood tests (probably still not insulin though). So, it will be nice to have all that data, especially for free and done annually for a picture of change over time.0
-
Dragonwolf wrote: »All the blood tests, so far, though, are proxy measurements, so there's not much guarantee yet. If you can get those, "how do you feel?" gets augmented by "what do the tests say?"
Another thing, too, is that we need to stop always dismissing things as "just life," "poor genetics," or "getting older." Chronic issues don't really "just happen." There's a trigger somewhere. You just have to find where and what (easier said than done in the real world, I know, but it can literally save lives).
Let's hope the UCLA pre-diabetes report and recommendations for early screening will have a significant impact on awareness and on the tests insurance will cover.0 -
I'm sort of the opposite. I need the plants. But NOT grains. Grains plug me up.I'm one of those people who does better without much fibre/plant matter in my diet. Following all animal April has actually loosened my bowels more than I would prefer. Keeping plants to about 20g of carbs per day seems to give me the best BMs.
I doubt I am normal though. I have celiac disease and a few other issues so my n=1 may not be applicable to others.
I'm not against fibre, but I am not really for it either, unless one is eating sugar/starches in a greater amount than what I do.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I'm sort of the opposite. I need the plants. But NOT grains. Grains plug me up.I'm one of those people who does better without much fibre/plant matter in my diet. Following all animal April has actually loosened my bowels more than I would prefer. Keeping plants to about 20g of carbs per day seems to give me the best BMs.
I doubt I am normal though. I have celiac disease and a few other issues so my n=1 may not be applicable to others.
I'm not against fibre, but I am not really for it either, unless one is eating sugar/starches in a greater amount than what I do.
I've been quite surprised that my body is going this way. Seems weird.
Grains are not happy for me either.1
This discussion has been closed.