the carnivorous diet

[stronger]

I saw this link posted at 70s Big a while back, read it all and found it very interesting, although it didn't attract much attention.

http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/Bear_s_Words_Of_Wisdom_about22.html

The writer was a soundman for the Grateful Dead and a famous LSD maker. Interesting stuff.


What do you think? To my mind, the argument supporting eskimos' survival and thriving on such a diet is pretty convincing

[Gary Gibson]

Love it!

I've recently started to try my hand at making my own meaty meals at home. I bought some vegetables to go with it out of a sense of duty...but I could sense myself just craving the spiced meat!

If I had my druthers, I swear I would just buy and cook different cuts of meat. I've only just realized what a carnivore I really am. I do still like rice, but my lifelong love of bread (and pizza) has been waning for a couple of years now.

I still LOVE whole milk and can guzzle 3/4 a gallon per day even when I'm not training.

Thanks for this link. I will be reading a lot more on that site.

(Before the 'net critics start typing away: Not saying pure carnivore is THE way. It makes at least as much sense as the Paleo eating rage and it resonates with some things I've been thinking about recently, hence my excitement.)

[Patrick]

Robb Wolf recently relayed the account of someone who went meatitarian on his blog. Here's an interweb link: http://robbwolf.com/?p=1028#comments

Shameless plug, Robb and his friend Andy Deas (sp?) run a wonderful podcast that is far more educational than most of the graduate seminars you'll find at places lousy with wrinkled men who wear tweed coats with leather arm patches. Check it out on iTunes... it's called The Paleolithic Solution.

[Dastardly]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone has some particular expertise on insulin & diabetes?

The writer of the article kept emphasising that it was not a disease and that the insulin (and especially injected insulin) is poison.

My mother is a Diabetic and has been injecting insulin for a few years. It gave good blood sugar control to begin with but she seems to be getting more & more resistant.

She has put on lots of weight and her sight has become poor from nerve/cell damage in her eyes.

All the doctors provide very little information about diet, when she was told to start taking insulin at the hospital they actually told her to eat carb-rich meals.

Her 2-3 GP's at the doctor clinic are obviously spouting the usual dietary rhetoric of reducing meat intake and saturated fat (she has high blood pressure & cholesterol too)

The more I get into training and read about diet the more I think of how poor and potentially dangerous her diet & lifestyle is. But I dont know where to find reputable information for help & advice. She is a very stubborn woman and likes to eat what she is used to. Which includes rice with main meals and at least 2 bananas everyday no matter how hard I try to convince her against it.

reading stuff like this just fills me with horror and dispair. All the stuff about insulin being poison, she injects it twice a day in the hope of preventing tissue/nerve/kidney/eye damage. But this writer suggests that the insulin itself is what causes cell damage.

[RyanH]

You may find this article interesting:

The Cure for Diabetes (http://www.menshealth.com/men/health/other-diseases-ailments/the-cure-for-diabetes/article/4a935e4e40fae010VgnVCM20000012281eac)

[homerj742]

You may find this article interesting:

The Cure for Diabetes (http://www.menshealth.com/men/health/other-diseases-ailments/the-cure-for-diabetes/article/4a935e4e40fae010VgnVCM20000012281eac)

That's a really interesting article...

[cycomiko]

I always go to soundmen of a drugged up bands for my nutritional information

[Gary Gibson]

Yes, only listen to people with degrees and never to intelligent folks with a lifetime of experience in something who've done their homework and dare speak against the popular mainstream thinking.

[cycomiko]

Or people who have consistently drugged themselves over a lifetime until they ramble endlessly providing false information for gullible morons to swallow

[Gary Gibson]

Or people who have consistently drugged themselves over a lifetime until they ramble endlessly providing false information for gullible morons to swallow

Or that.

What cock crawled into your ass tonight, cycomiko?

[cycomiko]

Nothing is in my ass, perhaps you should keep homosexual fantasies your own business.

[pfw]

In this particular case, the drugged out soundman isn't making stuff up in the throes of an acid flashback. Google Vilhjalmur Stefansson and read up on how he and a colleague ate nothing but meat for a year under medical supervision. Stefansson is the place to start to learn about the history of all-meat or VLC diets. Owsley Stanely read Stefansson's books (Fat of the Land is online somewhere) and then decided to go zero carb. Apparently, he's survived the experience.

The only reason this is controversial is that we're about three generations removed from being able to observe actual populations eating this way. If you lived on the Great Plains prior to agriculture, your diet consisted of buffalo, buffalo and more buffalo, with the occasional seasonal berry thrown in. If you lived in the Arctic, your diet consisted of seal and whale blubber along with fish. And if you didn't get killed or maimed by any of the numerous environmental hazards, you were pretty healthy. At least until the conditions you were living in broke you down.

[cycomiko]

Oo lookie, a straw man, sweet.

[pfw]

Huh?

[PVC]

Or people who have consistently drugged themselves over a lifetime until they ramble endlessly providing false information for gullible morons to swallow

Oo lookie, an ad hominem, sweet.

[cycomiko]

Oo lookie, an ad hominem, sweet.

An insult is not necessarily an ad hominem.

Fail.

[nisora33]

East asians and rice. Extremely healthy people, at least until very, very recently, still are in some places. Just saying.

The debate of fat vs. carbs and whether to include one or the other at all or in various amounts must take into account that the east asian peoples have made extensive use of rice in their diet for, well, I don't know exactly long--let's say a long fucking time--and they are known for being the longest-lived peoples on the planet.

-Stacey

[pfw]

Why? And based on what?

[nisora33]

Why? And based on what?

Quote from the OP's link:

"I figure most of what we call 'aging' is due to insulin damage to the collagen and other body structures. No carbs = no insulin. I don't heal quite as fast when injured as I did as a youngster, however. But I have few wrinkles, and my skin is still strong and elastic. "

The asian diet is full of carbs, has been for a very long time, and it is, or wasn't, uncommon for many, many east asians to see the century mark before dying.

And if you'll use the search function: I did a summary not long ago of comments Lyle McD has made; in them, he mentions that the carbs-are-bad/insulin wackos neglect to understand that even protein elicits an insulin response. Diet and our physiological responses to it are not cut-and-dry, and anyone making an extreme claim for or against something--in this case, one macronutrient over another--are oversimplifying things and likely have an agenda (READ: making money).

[stronger]

East asians and rice. Extremely healthy people, at least until very, very recently, still are in some places. Just saying.

The debate of fat vs. carbs and whether to include one or the other at all or in various amounts must take into account that the east asian peoples have made extensive use of rice in their diet for, well, I don't know exactly long--let's say a long fucking time--and they are known for being the longest-lived peoples on the planet.

-Stacey

To me all that shows is the adaptability of the human animal. Vegetarians and Vegans survive quite easily, as do people who eat plenty of diets that have little historical basis.

We'd need to find out how to account for East Asian lifespans. Perhaps they have adapted some ability to synthesize carbs differently than other people, perhaps they live despite carbs, perhaps because of them.

I'm not really concerned as much as that as I am demonstrating that a carnivorous diet is not aberrant and worked for the majority of human history (or at least a non-agricultural diet did).

Btw rice has been in the human diet for 10k years. It would be interesting to see how long it takes us to adapt to a new food. Milk for instance has only been consumed in the domesticated form for 6 or 7 thousand years, and certain populations have adapted well to it (Northern Europeans) and certain remain lactose intolerant, as they never got the chance.

[nisora33]

I'm not really concerned as much as that as I am demonstrating that a carnivorous diet is not aberrant and worked for the majority of human history (or at least a non-agricultural diet did).


I agree, a diet consisting mostly of meat is not aberrant.

The link used to illustrate the point is, well, replete with unfounded claims and chock full of hoakem.

-S.

[matclone]

And if you'll use the search function: I did a summary not long ago of comments Lyle McD has made; in them, he mentions that the carbs-are-bad/insulin wackos neglect to understand that even protein elicits an insulin response. Diet and our physiological responses to it are not cut-and-dry, and anyone making an extreme claim for or against something--in this case, one macronutrient over another--are oversimplifying things and likely have an agenda (READ: making money).


Bingo (I agree). I wonder if anyone has ever died prematurely from obsessing over what they ate (where a variety of food was in plentiful supply, as for example in the U.S.).

[Dastardly]

I realised something about the strong claims this guy was making that humans are supposed to be wholly carnivorous.

Look at our teeth!

Our teeth are mainly comprised of molars, just like a herbivore. And the few incisors/canines we have are not very sharp at all.

I think a fundamental feature of the human race is that we are total omnivores and we are very adaptable to different diets, climates & environments.

Humans have eaten anything & everything over our history. And although vegetables were seen with high suspicion in Britain till medieval times I doubt heavily that people in general would choose not to eat the array of wild fruits which grow in nearly every country, but overwhelmingly so in the tropics.

Our progress & health as a race rocketed when developing grain agriculture.

We are an adaptable omnivore, end of story. People can survive in poverty to old ages with limited food & dirty water. I think the differences between our diets in the grand scale of things is pretty negligible compared to other health issues we take for granted. Like having endless clean water to drink.

All this diet nitpicking reminds me of all the people who avoid vaccines because of the bits of mercury in them. Because they have never seen sufferers of polio, TB, smallpox & such face to face. Not realising how common these were before innoculation.

Does the ratio of meat to carbs really matter that much to anyone? We already know there are vegetarians, carnivores and mass carb eaters all in perfect health and living to 100.

The bigger issue here is probably lifestyle/activity, sugar/trans fat rich processed food, and possibly popular medication such as anti-depressants.

The diabetes in my family is highly hereditary as my mother and her three brothers who live in different countries, all on different diets, two very skinny/underweight.

I do not think diet is at all connected to causing their diabetes. But perhaps it might help treat symptoms.

[nisora33]

I realised something about the strong claims this guy was making that humans are supposed to be wholly carnivorous.

Look at our teeth!

Our teeth are mainly comprised of molars, just like a herbivore. And the few incisors/canines we have are not very sharp at all.

I think a fundamental feature of the human race is that we are total omnivores and we are very adaptable to different diets, climates & environments.

Humans have eaten anything & everything over our history. And although vegetables were seen with high suspicion in Britain till medieval times I doubt heavily that people in general would choose not to eat the array of wild fruits which grow in nearly every country, but overwhelmingly so in the tropics.

Our progress & health as a race rocketed when developing grain agriculture.

We are an adaptable omnivore, end of story. People can survive in poverty to old ages with limited food & dirty water. I think the differences between our diets in the grand scale of things is pretty negligible compared to other health issues we take for granted. Like having endless clean water to drink.

All this diet nitpicking reminds me of all the people who avoid vaccines because of the bits of mercury in them. Because they have never seen sufferers of polio, TB, smallpox & such face to face. Not realising how common these were before innoculation.

Does the ratio of meat to carbs really matter that much to anyone? We already know there are vegetarians, carnivores and mass carb eaters all in perfect health and living to 100.

The bigger issue here is probably lifestyle/activity, sugar/trans fat rich processed food, and possibly popular medication such as anti-depressants.

The diabetes in my family is highly hereditary as my mother and her three brothers who live in different countries, all on different diets, two very skinny/underweight.

I do not think diet is at all connected to causing their diabetes. But perhaps it might help treat symptoms.

Very nicely done, Dastardly. Very thoughtful post.

[stronger]

Our progress & health as a race rocketed when developing grain agriculture.

I do not think diet is at all connected to causing their diabetes. But perhaps it might help treat symptoms.

civilization is probably directly related to grain, because it's a much more efficient way to keep people fed. I'm not sure about health though, improved health may be a result of increased medical knowledge. For most of human history the causes of death have been plagues and various illnesses. Now we basically have become so rich that we die of diabetes (which is diet related from what I've read), obesity which causes heart disease etc.

It is possible to prove that the vegan-vegetarian diet is untenable because it contains no vitamin b12, which is essential. Here's a good article I found: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html#link11

[Raskolnikov]

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has been mentioned, but we should also keep in mind that different populations developed under different conditions and so might react differently to certain food sources. (Compare the rate of lactose intollerance in Scandinavia to that in China for a great example.) This is, admitedly, just a hunch, (I haven't done any research on the subject) but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, for instance, Native Americans on the whole (and even Northern Europeans, to a lesser extent) are less adapted to a high carb, grain based diet than, say, those of Asian, or even Southern European, decent.

[stronger]

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has been mentioned, but we should also keep in mind that different populations developed under different conditions and so might react differently to certain food sources. (Compare the rate of lactose intollerance in Scandinavia to that in China for a great example.) This is, admitedly, just a hunch, (I haven't done any research on the subject) but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, for instance, Native Americans on the whole (and even Northern Europeans, to a lesser extent) are less adapted to a high carb, grain based diet than, say, those of Asian, or even Southern European, decent.

I mentioned this briefly, but I think it's a great thing to look into. Things like this are just so interesting :)

[Raskolnikov]

I mentioned this briefly, but I think it's a great thing to look into. Things like this are just so interesting :)

Heck yeah they are. I remember watching a Discover Channel special on an East African pastoral tribe that relies heavily on cows (cow milk and blood, in particular) for a good chunk of it's diet. It's fascinating because those of African decent, on average, exhibit some degree of lactose intolerance, but not this particular tribe -- it's truly amazing how adaptable the human species is.

So it makes perfect sense, to me anyways, that populations with longer histories of large scale agriculture (i.e., those populations that first underwent the "Neolithic Revolution") would be more adapted to a high carb diet than, for instance, Northern Europeans, who didn't undergo the transition from meso- to neolithic until relatively recently (and in some ways remained more "paleo-esque" for a long time after that transition). It wouldn't be a shock if modern day Northern Europeans tended to fair better on a higher protein/fat diet.

To "fair better" is relative of course: It's quite obvious that an agricultural, grain based society can support a much larger population. And if not for the increased ubiquity of that practice across Northern Europe, the European continent would be a very different place. But still, the process of adapting to a grain based diet might not be "complete" in certain populations, which might explain why some do very well on a paleo-ish, or even carnivorous, diet. It's an interesting question, anyways. And it definitely speaks to the idea that human metabolism (and, therefor, the "ideal" human diet) is far from a simple, black-and-white issue.

[Dastardly]

Asking what the ideal human diet is, is like asking what it is for a Rat.

Other mammals, not just us are great omnivores.

I think the fact we are nourished so well without doing exhausting/dangerous work, making us live longer is exposing flaws in our genes.

Maybe we just werent supposed to live past 40?

And diabetes, heart disease and such are just our bodies struggling to maintain themselves for so long.

[pfw]

Working at random here.


Look at our teeth!

Our teeth are mainly comprised of molars, just like a herbivore. And the few incisors/canines we have are not very sharp at all.

I think a fundamental feature of the human race is that we are total omnivores and we are very adaptable to different diets, climates & environments.The "look at our teeth!" argument is used by everyone in this debate, and all of them are wrong.

Humans started using tools hundreds of thousands of years ago. Tools obviate the need for specialized teeth. Prior to that, we were probably persistence hunters, which basically means we ran our prey to death. We evolved from an omnivorous line by running on two feet, sweating, and making stabby sticks. Our teeth didn't need to do much at all during that evolutionary timeframe except stop being relevant to our ability to acquire food. It's instructive to note that virtually all hunter gatherer societies seek animal fat in preference to other foods; clearly, we'd like to be eating animals, but we can survive eating plants if we have to because that's our evolutionary heritage. Our teeth didn't have much to do with it.

As mentioned, grain allows civilizations to grow, but it does so at the cost of the individual. Jared Diamond wrote an essay called "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" in reference to agriculture, because while it allowed organized industrial society to flourish it did so at the cost of human health and leisure time. This is backed by most studies of pre-agricultural societies. They tended to be bigger, stronger and generally healthier than their agricultural descendants. I'm not a fan of the back to nature fad*, but the hard evidence clearly shows that prior to agriculture, individuals were healthier.

(*Thanks to agriculture, we developed science and then medicine, which allows people like me to survive various injuries instead of being left for the wolves. Doesn't make it a healthier diet, but does torpedo the whole "let's go live in a cave" utopian fantasy.)

As for diabetes, there is absolutely no way you can ignore the implication of following facts:

1) Diabetes rates have soared over the past few decades
2) We've added several hundred calories of sugar to our diets in that same timeframe

Sure, if you've got some sort of genetic problem you can get diabetes. But if you don't, you can still get it by burning out your beta cells via the over-consumption of sugar. Read Dr. Bernstein or even Taubes.




The asian diet is full of carbs, has been for a very long time, and it is, or wasn't, uncommon for many, many east asians to see the century mark before dying.

And if you'll use the search function: I did a summary not long ago of comments Lyle McD has made; in them, he mentions that the carbs-are-bad/insulin wackos neglect to understand that even protein elicits an insulin response. Diet and our physiological responses to it are not cut-and-dry, and anyone making an extreme claim for or against something--in this case, one macronutrient over another--are oversimplifying things and likely have an agenda (READ: making money).I've read most of Lyle's books. And I've read the study (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/66/5/1264.pdf) that established the insulin index. Crucially: anyone eating a carnivorous diet is eating a high fat diet, not a high protein diet. If they're eating a high protein diet they're going to get protein poisoning and die.

The study shows that if you eat a lot of unbuffered protein (see the fish), you get a strong insulin response. If, however, you focus on eating fat, you score the lowest insulin response (peanuts, eggs, cheese). For some idiotic reason the study failed to explicitly study the insulin response to fatty foods. They also neglected to study conditioned insulin response - some people will exhibit an insulin spike when drinking diet soda in anticipation of sugar, when in fact the soda delivers nothing. Then they abandoned this line of research.

I agree completely that Stanely (the bear) is spouting nonsense when it comes to the whole "no carbs = no insulin" thing. That's obvious bullshit. The real point would be "no carbs = lower blood sugar", which means less oxidative damage over time, which would mean less inflammation and generally less bad stuff. It also implies less insulin spikes, because you're not eating sugar. I also generally agree that "zero carb" is a pointless goal, but also think that it's a harmless way to live, as evidenced by the people who live that way and thrive.

As for the east asians, I'd be curious to see which population exactly you're referring to. "East asia" is a big place with lots of different diets. In my own reading I've found that for every population eating a traditional diet, there's ten authors claiming that that diet is the best one ever and everyone should eat it. These range the gamut from all-meat to the Tokelau coconut and fish diet. Ironically, all of them appear grounded in actual evidence that those populations were more or less healthy and more or less free from the diseases of civilization, so long as they ate their traditional diet.

Inevitably, though, these diets were either calorie restricted or some flavor of low carb. Both lead you to carbohydrate restriction, in an absolute sense. I've yet to find a culture that ate unlimited carbs and low fat and still thrived.

A general response to the idea that europeans are adapted to grains: no, we're not. We die of heart attacks, cancer, get diabetes and generally exhibit inflammatory responses to the foods we eat, all things that traditional dieters have much, much lower rates of. Rates of IBS, Crohn's and ulcerative colitis are rising, not falling. Undiagnosed celiac or sub-acute celiac disease is probably ten times as prevalent as we believe because everyone just accepts cramps, diarrhea and random abdominal pain as part of life.

Lactose tolerance is not a good model for grain tolerance. Lactose tolerance is just one gene that allows you to continue producing lactase - in other words, one gene that allows you to keep doing something you already can do. Humans don't possess the genes to do anything with fiber or gluten, and that hasn't changed in the past 10k years. All you can do with that stuff is tolerate it, pass it along to gut bacteria to eat and hope that you won the genetic lottery and thus have an uncommonly strong intestinal lining. If you don't, you get some flavor of immune response.

You can survive eating grains but you are not adapted to eat them.

[coldfire]

Working at random here.

The "look at our teeth!" argument is used by everyone in this debate, and all of them are wrong.

Humans started using tools hundreds of thousands of years ago. Tools obviate the need for specialized teeth. Prior to that, we were probably persistence hunters, which basically means we ran our prey to death. We evolved from an omnivorous line by running on two feet, sweating, and making stabby sticks. Our teeth didn't need to do much at all during that evolutionary timeframe except stop being relevant to our ability to acquire food. It's instructive to note that virtually all hunter gatherer societies seek animal fat in preference to other foods; clearly, we'd like to be eating animals, but we can survive eating plants if we have to because that's our evolutionary heritage. Our teeth didn't have much to do with it.

As mentioned, grain allows civilizations to grow, but it does so at the cost of the individual. Jared Diamond wrote an essay called "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" in reference to agriculture, because while it allowed organized industrial society to flourish it did so at the cost of human health and leisure time. This is backed by most studies of pre-agricultural societies. They tended to be bigger, stronger and generally healthier than their agricultural descendants. I'm not a fan of the back to nature fad*, but the hard evidence clearly shows that prior to agriculture, individuals were healthier.

(*Thanks to agriculture, we developed science and then medicine, which allows people like me to survive various injuries instead of being left for the wolves. Doesn't make it a healthier diet, but does torpedo the whole "let's go live in a cave" utopian fantasy.)

As for diabetes, there is absolutely no way you can ignore the implication of following facts:

1) Diabetes rates have soared over the past few decades
2) We've added several hundred calories of sugar to our diets in that same timeframe

Sure, if you've got some sort of genetic problem you can get diabetes. But if you don't, you can still get it by burning out your beta cells via the over-consumption of sugar. Read Dr. Bernstein or even Taubes.


I've read most of Lyle's books. And I've read the study (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/66/5/1264.pdf) that established the insulin index. Crucially: anyone eating a carnivorous diet is eating a high fat diet, not a high protein diet. If they're eating a high protein diet they're going to get protein poisoning and die.

The study shows that if you eat a lot of unbuffered protein (see the fish), you get a strong insulin response. If, however, you focus on eating fat, you score the lowest insulin response (peanuts, eggs, cheese). For some idiotic reason the study failed to explicitly study the insulin response to fatty foods. They also neglected to study conditioned insulin response - some people will exhibit an insulin spike when drinking diet soda in anticipation of sugar, when in fact the soda delivers nothing. Then they abandoned this line of research.

I agree completely that Stanely (the bear) is spouting nonsense when it comes to the whole "no carbs = no insulin" thing. That's obvious bullshit. The real point would be "no carbs = lower blood sugar", which means less oxidative damage over time, which would mean less inflammation and generally less bad stuff. It also implies less insulin spikes, because you're not eating sugar. I also generally agree that "zero carb" is a pointless goal, but also think that it's a harmless way to live, as evidenced by the people who live that way and thrive.

As for the east asians, I'd be curious to see which population exactly you're referring to. "East asia" is a big place with lots of different diets. In my own reading I've found that for every population eating a traditional diet, there's ten authors claiming that that diet is the best one ever and everyone should eat it. These range the gamut from all-meat to the Tokelau coconut and fish diet. Ironically, all of them appear grounded in actual evidence that those populations were more or less healthy and more or less free from the diseases of civilization, so long as they ate their traditional diet.

Inevitably, though, these diets were either calorie restricted or some flavor of low carb. Both lead you to carbohydrate restriction, in an absolute sense. I've yet to find a culture that ate unlimited carbs and low fat and still thrived.

A general response to the idea that europeans are adapted to grains: no, we're not. We die of heart attacks, cancer, get diabetes and generally exhibit inflammatory responses to the foods we eat, all things that traditional dieters have much, much lower rates of. Rates of IBS, Crohn's and ulcerative colitis are rising, not falling. Undiagnosed celiac or sub-acute celiac disease is probably ten times as prevalent as we believe because everyone just accepts cramps, diarrhea and random abdominal pain as part of life.

Lactose tolerance is not a good model for grain tolerance. Lactose tolerance is just one gene that allows you to continue producing lactase - in other words, one gene that allows you to keep doing something you already can do. Humans don't possess the genes to do anything with fiber or gluten, and that hasn't changed in the past 10k years. All you can do with that stuff is tolerate it, pass it along to gut bacteria to eat and hope that you won the genetic lottery and thus have an uncommonly strong intestinal lining. If you don't, you get some flavor of immune response.

You can survive eating grains but you are not adapted to eat them.

That's a very good post, pfw.

[nisora33]

If they're eating a high protein diet they're going to get protein poisoning and die.




I stopped reading here.


...

[pfw]

Maybe you should keep reading or learn what "high protein" means in the context of a zero carb diet. This isn't difficult.

Oh hell I'll spell it out since you're clearly more interested in winning the internet than understanding the point:

If you're eating a zero carb, "high protein" diet, as in 60-70%+ of your calories from protein, you're almost certainly going to get protein poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation) and, if you keep it up in the face of the warning signs like constant diarrhea, you'll kill yourself.

coldfire: Thanks.

[Raskolnikov]

Excellent post, pfw. Really interesting stuff.

[pfw]

Re-reading my post, I noticed a pretty glaring error. I said:

Humans don't possess the genes to do anything with fiber or gluten, and that hasn't changed in the past 10k years.While we don't possess the genes to do anything with fiber, gluten is just a composite protein which we readily break down into its component parts. The issue is that those proteins are associated with a host of problems, not that we can't digest it.

[matclone]

Maybe you should keep reading or learn what "high protein" means in the context of a zero carb diet. This isn't difficult.

Oh hell I'll spell it out since you're clearly more interested in winning the internet than understanding the point:

If you're eating a zero carb, "high protein" diet, as in 60-70%+ of your calories from protein, you're almost certainly going to get protein poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation) and, if you keep it up in the face of the warning signs like constant diarrhea, you'll kill yourself.



So, are you saying the Dr. Atkins diet that so many go on, is not a good idea?

[RyanH]

Low carb diets should have a lot of fat in them, but unless you're eating very lean meats, I don't think you'll get protein poisoning.

Why Low-Carb Diets Must Be High-Fat, Not High-Protein
(http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fat-not-protein.html)

[misspelledgeoff]

Atkins always had high fat. Sounds like the protein poisoning is most likely with diets 1) low in fat 2) low in water. Situation seems to be exacerbated by low temperatures.


So, are you saying the Dr. Atkins diet that so many go on, is not a good idea?

[pfw]

So, are you saying the Dr. Atkins diet that so many go on, is not a good idea?Just to add to what others have said, "high protein" is usually associated with low carb diets because "high fat", which is more accurate, would be unmarketable given the prevailing wisdom on fat. Despite this, Atkins and all properly constructed low carb diets are in fact high fat diets.

The prototypical carnivore diet is given by the Bellevue Study (http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf+html), where two men volunteered to eat a meat-only diet for one year to prove their claims about the Inuit living that way. Along the way, they induced rabbit starvation in Stefansson after just a few days of eating very lean meat (see the "PROTOCOLS" section). The fundamental problem is that converting protein into glucose to use as fuel results in the creation of a lot of waste products, which can overwhelm your kidneys. Hence, if someone decides to go carnivore and "high protein", ie only eating lean beef and chicken breasts, they can count on finding themselves in trouble pretty quickly. If you do it properly (60-80% calories from fat) this is not an issue, because then you're using fat for muscle fuel and only doing gluconeogenesis to support the basic everyday needs for glucose (red blood cells, some brain cells, etc). The rest is handled by fat and ketones.

[matclone]

Thanks for the explanations on Atkins. Makes sense.

[cycomiko]

If you're eating a zero carb, "high protein" diet, as in 60-70%+ of your calories from protein, you're almost certainly going to get protein poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation) and, if you keep it up in the face of the warning signs like constant diarrhea, you'll kill yourself.

coldfire: Thanks.

Ya ever notice that pretty much all reports around the 'rabbit starvation' concept are from a rather long time ago followed by guesses about what could be possibly causing it?

Ever wonder why PSMF do not cause 'rabbit starvation' even though they can be 90%+ protein?

Magic huh

[pfw]

Because PSMF diets are extremely hypocaloric. If protein poisoining/rabbit starvation is kidney/systemic saturation of protein metabolism by-products, eating a 100% protein diet that only provides about 500kCal probably isn't going to hit that threshold. Eating a 2000kCal diet comprised of 70% protein kCal would result in three times as much protein consumed.

Difficult to understand huh

Since you won't believe anything from ye olden days of medicine, why don't you go eat 2000kCal+ of lean beef for a week and come tell us what happens?

[nisora33]

We evolved from an omnivorous line by running on two feet, sweating, and making stabby sticks.


Okay, if our ancestors were omnivorous, I’m assuming that means they possessed the genes for dealing with grains (maybe?). Did those genes just become “switched off” in us at some point?


They tended to be bigger, stronger and generally healthier than their agricultural descendants. I'm not a fan of the back to nature fad*, but the hard evidence clearly shows that prior to agriculture, individuals were healthier.

Show us the proof.



1) Diabetes rates have soared over the past few decades
2) We've added several hundred calories of sugar to our diets in that same timeframe

Correlation doesn’t equal causation. There are many other factors to consider besides sugar.



The study shows that if you eat a lot of unbuffered protein (see the fish), you get a strong insulin response. If, however, you focus on eating fat, you score the lowest insulin response (peanuts, eggs, cheese). For some idiotic reason the study failed to explicitly study the insulin response to fatty foods.


Insulin isn't the only issue, here. Fat doesn’t need insulin to get into fat cells due to acylation stimulating protein (ASP). The presence of fat in the bloodstream alone causes ASP to go up. There's no increase in insulin but fat cell metabolism is affected, storage goes up and breakdown goes down.



A general response to the idea that europeans are adapted to grains: no, we're not. We die of heart attacks, cancer, get diabetes and generally exhibit inflammatory responses to the foods we eat, all things that traditional dieters have much, much lower rates of. Rates of IBS, Crohn's and ulcerative colitis are rising, not falling. Undiagnosed celiac or sub-acute celiac disease is probably ten times as prevalent as we believe because everyone just accepts cramps, diarrhea and random abdominal pain as part of life.

Prove it. Show us the evidence that carbs and sugars are the cause of these and that this isn't just mere correlation.




Humans don't possess the genes to do anything with fiber or gluten, and that hasn't changed in the past 10k years...You can survive eating grains but you are not adapted to eat them.


Show us.

-S.

[pfw]

It's kind of hard to condense a couple years worth of reading into one post. But I'll do my best:

grains: Grains are hard to eat without technology. You need to cook, soak and/or ferment them to neutralize the anti-nutrients present in the berry. Eating a lot of raw wheat is a great way to get pretty sick. We evolved from some proto-chimp, which if it was anything like chimps today, was a fruit preferring omnivore. Grain almost certainly didn't factor into its diet in any significant way, for the same reasons. Grain also tends to be not very nutrient dense in non-domesticated strains, meaning it's hard to get a decent meal out of it. So, no, we never had any significant adaptation to grain eating.

EDIT: Also consider the fact that obligate carnivores like cats can eat processed grains (see catfood can label) without instant death. One would never make the argument that because they can eat grains, they are adapted to do so, or that doing so is healthy for them; yet most domestic cats make it to their late teens despite occasionally getting diabetes or growing fat. In general, organisms are very good at surviving wide swings in their dietary parameters. Thriving is a different story, which is what we're addressing here.
/EDIT

All that said, some populations probably did collect and eat grain pre-agriculture. The level of effort involved means that they couldn't have used it as a staple the way we do now, or else they would have starved to death. So it's unlikely that in the timeframe where we had the ability to eat grain, we also adpated to it. Also, given that there's no "paleolithic" population that covers everyone, it's possible that those groups descended from early grain eaters would have better tolerance for them, while most other people wouldn't.

Like these folks:
http://gut.bmj.com/content/56/6/889.extract -- shows that even non-celiac individuals have immune responses to wheat proteins.

Trying to find an establishing study for statistics claiming that one in seven adults in the US is likely non-celiac gluten sensitive... failed, moving on for now.

bigger, stronger, uncut: http://hormones.gr/preview.php?c_id=127
Summary: Humans were taller back in the day. We shrank at the beginning of the neolithic and then, in the past few centuries, we've suddenly bounced back to our pre-neolithic heights on average. Obviously paleolithic humans suffered more from infectious disease and generally dangerous conditions. But if they were getting enough food from the environment they were generally healthy, as evidenced by the healthy bones they left behind.

You can also see this in contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, which while not good analogs for paleolithic humans, still manage to have decent health despite their lifestyle.

diabetes: I'm just channeling much more dedicated researchers. If you're seriously interested, you might pick up Good Calories, Bad Calories and read the studies Taubes cites studying diabetes rates in populations going through the transition from traditional to industrialized diet. The fundamental change in almost all cases (or at least all cases I can recall, both from that book and other studies) was a crowding out of complete foods with processed carbs.

If you're looking for an explanation of how chronically high circulating insulin can cause beta cell burnout, you'll have to hit the papers as well.

Insulin: I agree that insulin is not the only thing going on in human fat metabolism, but that wasn't the point being addressed. You pointed out that protein also raises insulin, which is true, but not really meaningful; the goal isn't to magically not have a major hormone in your bloodstream, but to avoid chronic overstimulation of your pancreas and avoid one of the fat storage pathways. I was pointing out that the preference for fat over protein in zerocarb diets meant that it resulted in smaller post-meal insulin spikes, and lamenting that the people behind the insulin index never saw fit to test the insulin response to fatty foods as well as the other categories, and never continued their work to test anticipatory insulin, etc.

Again, I agree that anyone who claims that "no carbs=no insulin" is clearly wrong.

diseases of civilization and grains: Condense a hundred and fifty years of research into a forum post. Heh.

Ethnographic studies, especially those which studied populations over the transition from whatever their traditional diet was to one of processed carbs and sugar, all demonstrate significant increases in diseases of civilization as the population makes the transition. The Tokelau migrant study was a good illustration of this. Here's a blogger's breakdown (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/01/tokelau-island-migrant-study-final-word.html), and the study itself can be found on some of the medical journal websites if you're interested.

To bridge the gap between correlation and causation you need to posit a mechanism, which I think has already been done: the varying immune responses to grains leads to various inflammatory disorders or sub-acute systemic inflammation, which can lead to things like arthritis, CVD, etc. That's painting with a broad brush of course. Asking me to "prove" every single connection is somewhat daunting; can you falsify any of those claims? I'll provide starting points for what I can remember and toss off in a lunch break, but this doesn't do the body of work justice.

Crohn's (which I've got), UC and various IBS can be postulated to be caused by the immune response to a by-product of starch metabolism in a particular bacterium. Eat a no-starch diet and the immune response is stopped as its cause goes away. Wolfgang Lutz claimed good results with low carb diets and Crohn's (see Life Without Bread), but never discovered the mechanism (Ebringer's post 2000 work connected the dots, but never got funding for a full test). Also a connection some types of arthritis.

Celiac is an obvious example of failure to adapt. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity is obviously hard to measure, but anecdotally it's quite prevalent, and the common immune response to wheat proteins points to a lack of full tolerance in many individuals. Could also explain some of the above bowel disorders depending on the individual.

Inflammatory theory of heart disease is taking off - postulates that the diet-heart hypothesis missed the mark and that the real problem is chronic inflammation, which you would will have if you're constantly having an immune response to wheat.

Rise in type-II diabetes concurrent with rise in calories from sugar, given the mechanism behind type-II diabetes (insulin resistance in body tissue leading to beta cells not being able to keep up) is suggestive. The fact that the doctor in the Men's Health article linked earlier has such incredible success in treating diabetes with low carb diets is also suggestive. If you want to be full out skeptical and avoid connecting the dots, I respect that impulse, but it's hard to ignore the results of people like Bernstein and Dr. Vernon on this one.

And lunch break is over.

[pfw]

Caveat (as I warm up on this stuff more keeps popping out of the depths of my brain): Kitavans.

Kitava is an island in the Pacific where the diet was something like 70% carbohydrates. They also happened to have no measurable diseases of civilization. The data is pretty sketchy on actual measurements of the same, but they prove that you if you want to eat like a pacific islander you can get away with high carb intake.

No grains, sugar or other industrial processed foods, lots of fish, coconut and yams.

[Craig B.]

Caveat (as I warm up on this stuff more keeps popping out of the depths of my brain): Kitavans.

Kitava is an island in the Pacific where the diet was something like 70% carbohydrates. They also happened to have no measurable diseases of civilization. The data is pretty sketchy on actual measurements of the same, but they prove that you if you want to eat like a pacific islander you can get away with high carb intake.

No grains, sugar or other industrial processed foods, lots of fish, coconut and yams.

Most of the arguments against the Kitavans are the "no grains". I don't eat low carb, but I eat a shit ton of fat and no grains...works for me. The Yam is a pretty innocuous food source compared to wheat. Add the Omega 6/3 ratios froma high fish/no seed oil diet and you would expect them to be healthy, from a 'paleo' perspective.

[cycomiko]

Because PSMF diets are extremely hypocaloric. If protein poisoining/rabbit starvation is kidney/systemic saturation of protein metabolism by-products, eating a 100% protein diet that only provides about 500kCal probably isn't going to hit that threshold. Eating a 2000kCal diet comprised of 70% protein kCal would result in three times as much protein consumed.

Difficult to understand huh

Lol, because all PSMF are 500kcals

oo i can see something building


Since you won't believe anything from ye olden days of medicine, why don't you go eat 2000kCal+ of lean beef for a week and come tell us what happens?

Ohhhhh, there it goes.

A man made of dried grass.

[pfw]

A PSMF is a fast by definition. I get that you're a troll and all, but you have to try harder than that.

You also don't appear to understand the concept of a strawman given the way you're applying it.

[pauld]

I've read my fair share of anthropology/archaeology, and pfw is pretty much spot on with his observations.

[cycomiko]

A PSMF is a fast by definition. I get that you're a troll and all, but you have to try harder than that.

Not trolling, but you appear challanged.

What is the magic descriptive word prior to fast?


You also don't appear to understand the concept of a strawman given the way you're applying it.

You have taken the discussion at hand, and created a new extreme in order to 'falsify' any argument.

I wonder what that is.

[cycomiko]

I've read my fair share of anthropology/archaeology, and pfw is pretty much spot on with his observations.

I have spent twenty years studying anthropology, archaeology and nutrition, and he aint 'pretty much spot on'

[PMDL]

Since you won't believe anything from ye olden days of medicine, why don't you go eat 2000kCal+ of lean beef for a week and come tell us what happens?

I was sick of eating beef, and dropped a few lbs.

That's about it.

[pfw]

I have spent twenty years studying anthropology, archaeology and nutrition, and he aint 'pretty much spot on'And yet you refuse to provide any substantive counter argument. Strange.

2000+kCal of lean beef is not an "extreme example", nor is it a strawman. It's exactly what you would be eating if you decided to be a high protein carnivore, which is what brought up protein poisoning in the first place. Your response to that conversation was to bring up fasts, which have nothing to do with the case of someone eating lean protein ad libitum, by definition. If you can find me an example of someone engaging in a PSMF where they ate as much lean beef as they wanted to feel satiated, I'd love to read it. I'd just wonder how you justified calling it a PSMF.

No one in their right mind would find themselves in this situation normally because few are stupid enough to try and eat that much lean protein and nothing else for weeks, ignoring warning signs like nausea and diarrhea. But if you dedicated yourself to being a low-fat carnivore you might pull it off.

[PMDL]

So basically you made up a scenario so extreme that it would never happen, thus having no relevance to practical dietary suggestions, and then want to use that made-up extreme as proof that your argument in favor of the opposite strategy right.

I can't imagine why he labeled that a strawman argument.

[pfw]

This is a thread about "the carnivorous diet".

Summary of this sub-thread: I made a point earlier that people eating a "carnivorous diet" eat fat preferentially, to the tune of 60-80% of calories. I further pointed out that this was intended to avoid turning excess protein to glucose. I further pointed out that eating a high-protein carnivorous diet - the example that I gave to cycomiko - could be pretty bad for you.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "practical dietary suggestions". If you want to eat only meat, make sure to eat fatty meat and not lean meat. That's pretty practical, given the context of the thread. I'm also not sure why you call this is "extreme" - for fuck's sake, this is a thread about eating only meat. Within that context, eating only lean meat is hardly "extreme". it's just stupid, for the reasons I've given. And a strawman? cycomiko hasn't actually presented a real argument yet, so technically engaging him at all is attributing to him a position he has not taken. But to call this example a strawman is not accurate, given the context we're talking in.

[cycomiko]

And yet you refuse to provide any substantive counter argument. Strange.

I am not the one making claims, so how about you support yours.


2000+kCal of lean beef is not an "extreme example", nor is it a strawman.

for an averate person 350g + of protein is extreme and it is a strawman


It's exactly what you would be eating if you decided to be a high protein carnivore, which is what brought up protein poisoning in the first place.

carnivores eat only beef?


Your response to that conversation was to bring up fasts, which have nothing to do with the case of someone eating lean protein ad libitum, by definition


is the word modified a little too challenging for you to understand?



If you can find me an example of someone engaging in a PSMF where they ate as much lean beef as they wanted to feel satiated, I'd love to read it. I'd just wonder how you justified calling it a PSMF.

You havent had much clinical experience have you


No one in their right mind would find themselves in this situation normally because few are stupid enough to try and eat that much lean protein and nothing else for weeks, ignoring warning signs like nausea and diarrhea.

Except people are eating much higher levels of protein, with lower fat than even Stefansson achieved to get his vague nonspecific symptoms and yet they are not suffering these symptoms.

[pfw]

If you could please provide an example of a person on an all-meat diet eating more lean and less fat than Stefansson without suffering problems, I'd appreciate it. If you could explain why this example counts as a PSMF as well, I'd appreciate it even more. I am genuinely interested in this stuff and since you seem convinced that there exists some example, which I cannot find myself, I would be in your debt if you could point me to it.

350g+ of protein is entirely achievable by someone who decides to eat nothing but meat, a situation on which this entire thread is predicated. That would result in 1400kCal in a day. It's likely that someone attempting to eat a low-fat meat only diet would actually eat more than that. Incidentally, why are you bringing up "average" people in a discussion about people eating nothing but meat?

You want me to support my claim that eating nothing but lean meat ad libitum can be bad for your metabolism. I provided an example earlier in the thread. Rather than provide a counter-example, you've basically just said that I'm wrong in various half sentences.

Again. I get that you're a troll. But if you'd please at least attempt to contribute, this might actually be interesting for other readers.

[Raskolnikov]

2000+kCal of lean beef is not an "extreme example", nor is it a strawman.


for an averate person 350g + of protein is extreme and it is a strawman



It's exactly what you would be eating if you decided to be a high protein carnivore, which is what brought up protein poisoning in the first place.


carnivores eat only beef?

Irony. It's fun!

I think it's pretty obvious that pfw is using lean beef as an example of a food source a high protein carnivore might consume, not that beef, per se, is what all carnivores eat. When chastising others about logical fallacies, it's probably a good idea not to use one yourself in the exact same post.

[cycomiko]

Irony. It's fun!

I think it's pretty obvious that pfw is using lean beef as an example of a food source a high protein carnivore might consume, not that beef, per se, is what all carnivores eat. When chastising others about logical fallacies, it's probably a good idea not to use one yourself in the exact same post.

Questioning somebody for using a specifically named food source and included the term *exactly* is not a logical fallacy.

Perhaps pfw should write a smidgeon clearer?

[cycomiko]

If you could please provide an example of a person on an all-meat diet eating more lean and less fat than Stefansson without suffering problems, I'd appreciate it.

you had an anecdote just above. Just like there is no actual experimental evidence supporting rabbit starvation, there is no published data on people eating 350g of low fat protein per day.

Anecdotes are all over.


If you could explain why this example counts as a PSMF as well, I'd appreciate it even more.

Have you ever had anyone into eating high protein low fat/carb ad libitum? ? they don't automagically eat unlimited amounts of meat. Their food intake is dramatically reduced - protein goes up a small amount, but nowhere near enough to meet energy requirements. Strangely enough, looking just like a correctly proportioned psmf.


I am genuinely interested in this stuff and since you seem convinced that there exists some example, which I cannot find myself, I would be in your debt if you could point me to it.

There is not any published evidence of humans eating 350g of protein per day, but i have not claimed that. There is also no real data on rabbit starvation, but you have claims about this.


350g+ of protein is entirely achievable by someone who decides to eat nothing but meat, a situation on which this entire thread is predicated.

Lol - give it a crack and see how it goes


That would result in 1400kCal in a day. It's likely that someone attempting to eat a low-fat meat only diet would actually eat more than that.

if it was nothing but meat, it wouldnt be 1400kcal


lol Incidentally, why are you bringing up "average" people in a discussion about people eating nothing but meat?

Because scientific research is built off averages, or would you prefer an unsupportable anecdote? oh wait, rhetorical questioning


You want me to support my claim that eating nothing but lean meat ad libitum can be bad for your metabolism. I provided an example earlier in the thread. Rather than provide a counter-example, you've basically just said that I'm wrong in various half sentences.

You did not provide evidence.

You provided a number of old anecdotes and an uncontrolled observational trial that had one subject eating a moderately lean diet (not low fat) suffering vague symptoms that went away.


Again. I get that you're a troll. But if you'd please at least attempt to contribute, this might actually be interesting for other readers.

I get that you are an idiot who likes to make a large number of unsupportable claims, but i am sure its interesting to readers.

[Raskolnikov]

His point: carnivores eating only lean beef will experience nasty side effects.
Your retort: carnivores don't just eat beef.

Obviously, the fact the lean meat in question comes from a cow is irrelevant -- lean beef being only an example of *exactly* what a high protein carnivore might eat. (See what I did there?) But you chose to focus on it because it's easy to knock down...just like a man made of straw might be.

[PMDL]

His point: carnivores eating only lean beef will experience nasty side effects.
Your retort: carnivores don't just eat beef.

Obviously, the fact the lean meat in question comes from a cow is irrelevant -- lean beef being only an example of *exactly* what a high protein carnivore might eat. (See what I did there?) But you chose to focus on it because it's easy to knock down...just like a man made of straw might be.

Silly cyco, only addressing the argument that was presented, instead of making things up like our mindreader here. What were you thinking?

[Raskolnikov]

Don't be silly. Do you really think the point was that high protein carnivores only eat beef? Even if, for the sake of argument, someone's reading comprehension and ability to use context clues were poor enough to make that misjudgment honestly, it's still an irrelevant point. Beef, chicken, or rabbit, the point is that too much protein and not enough fat make for a rough night -- take issue with that, not with the use of the word "beef," especially if you are going to play logic police.

[PMDL]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that "logic" entailed "filling in the gaps in the other guy's argument because he couldn't make his point".

They didn't teach that one in philosophy 101, sadly. Maybe it's in one of the more advanced classes, I don't know.

[Raskolnikov]

Actually they do. It's called the principle of charity. And considering he used "lean meat" numerous times during the same argument about a condition known as "rabbit starvation," it's hardly a gap.

[pfw]

PDML: I ignored the "carnivores only eat beef?" because it was an obvious troll that didn't warrant a response. This is the internet, not a legal brief.

cycomiko: Finally, a post I can respect.


There is not any published evidence of humans eating 350g of protein per day, but i have not claimed that. There is also no real data on rabbit starvation, but you have claims about this.

...

You did not provide evidence.

You provided a number of old anecdotes and an uncontrolled observational trial that had one subject eating a moderately lean diet (not low fat) suffering vague symptoms that went away.
Observations are data. They are the foundation of science. I agree that they do not establish truth, but they do demand explanations.

As it so happens, Stefansson appears to be the only person ever studied in clinical conditions eating a lean meat only diet. This is described in more detail in "The effects on human beings of a twelve months' exclusive meat diet", which you have to buy (or have a subscription to the journal websites) if you want to read. Relevant portion:



After preliminary studies on a mixed diet, Stefansson was put on an exclusive lean meat diet for the purpose of stying the effects of an excessively high protein, minimal fat dietary. Stefansson predicted that he would be ill in a few days, judging by his past experience in the arctic, and such proved to be the case. Although this experiment was planned for but four days, in the evening of the second day he became nauseated and developed some of the discomfort, lethargy and weakness of the knees which he experienced on an enforced lean meant diet in the North. The next day all the symptoms became intensified and diarrhea developed. This part of the experiment was of course stopped and by adding fat in tasteful quantities he fully recovered in two days.


These are not vague symptoms; they were sufficiently strong to terminate the rabbit starvation portion of the study.

N=1 does not establish a principle. But it does establish that something happened. When combined with the anecdotal evidence and the fact that Stefansson was essentially reproducing a dietary situation which had previously had similar effects, it is sufficient to generate a testable hypothesis - that excessive protein intake in the absence of other macronutrients has negative effects on the body.You claim that there is no data on people with very high protein intakes. I don't know myself so I'll take you on your word there. This means that this hypothesis has not been fully tested, except lightly in the study that established the possibility.

I concede that this shows that the actual outcome for someone eating lean meat and only lean meat is, strictly speaking, unknown. However, I believe it establishes a reasonable expectation of a negative outcome, given that it has anecdotally occurred, and was measured carefully once. If you want to be more skeptical, that's fine. But you're doing more that just being skeptical, at the moment; you're implying pretty strongly that it's true at all, which is impossible to establish absent a test of the hypothesis.


Have you ever had anyone into eating high protein low fat/carb ad libitum? ? they don't automagically eat unlimited amounts of meat. Their food intake is dramatically reduced - protein goes up a small amount, but nowhere near enough to meet energy requirements. Strangely enough, looking just like a correctly proportioned psmf.

Anecdotes are all over.
Is your claim about ad libitum lean meat only eating supported by something other than anecdote? It sounds like it is, if I'm reading your implication correctly - mind sharing?



Lol - give it a crack and see how it goes

...

if it was nothing but meat, it wouldnt be 1400kcal
Not sure what you mean here. The claim was 350g of protein, which would translate into 1400kCal if consumed, which would not provide enough energy for any decently active person. Are you saying there'd be more energy that came along with?

If our hypothetical fat phobic carnivore decided to eat eye of round or a similarly lean cut trimmed, they'd need to eat a little more than 3/4lb per meal to achieve that 350g of protein. They'd get some fat along the way to hit about 1800 kCal, maybe enough to satisfy hunger, maybe not. If not, over time, they'd eat more.

In my own carnivore days, I would eat ~1lb of ground beef for breakfast, something similar for lunch, and then usually 1lb+ of some sort of steak for dinner. That was eating meat with plenty of fat on it. I can't imagine how much lean meat it would take to achieve the same feeling of satiety. Maybe that's why I'm more prone to believe the idea of protein over-consumption... I'm guessing you've never done a VLC diet of this type for very long, and thus have no similar experience to bias your perception of the issue.

Anyway, thanks for the substantive response.