Keto-Karnivores vs. Fiber
Options
Replies
-
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
