Go zero carb

[MeDieViL]

hi, i have been lurking around on some low carb boards lately, and finally made the conclusion that a diet cotaining only minimal ammount of carbs (less then 5 grams) seems to be the healthiest, all kinds of health benefits seem to occur at such a diet

for ppl that are intrested
http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/index.php
a forum with lots of good information
besides i dont own the board or something, was just posting this for the interested ppl
my nickname there is WesleyT;)

[Shadow]

Wesley - According to the research provided by the Drs Eades in their books, there is no advantage to going below 30 net carbs per day :). Not only is a diet below 30 net carbs going to be restrictive, you will also miss out on a lot of nutrients from fruits and vegetables. Just some 'food' for thought ;).

[MeDieViL]

Wesley - According to the research provided by the Drs Eades in their books, there is no advantage to going below 30 net carbs per day :). Not only is a diet below 30 net carbs going to be restrictive, you will also miss out on a lot of nutrients from fruits and vegetables. Just some 'food' for thought ;).red meat provides all nutrients
i dont agree with the no benefit thing, everyone notices a major improvement
i agree 10 might not be better then 30, but zero carb seem to have lots of benefits
look and read around on the board like i did, and make your conclusions:)

[Mitra]

Many of the people here have read other bulletin boards as well as various research results. I've waded through a large chunk of The Bear's writings in the past. We're here because we ended up deciding that the approach the Eadeses recommend is the one we favour. We do discuss research findings that might lead to questioning or changing the recommendations, but this board is set up to discuss Protein Power, not zero carb, low fat, vegan, or any one of the numberless dietary approaches that each has their fervent advocates.

You're welcome to join in here, and eat carbs or not as your personal choice, but this board is about Protein Power, which is not a zero carb approach, but a controlled carb approach.

[MeDieViL]

Many of the people here have read other bulletin boards as well as various research results. I've waded through a large chunk of The Bear's writings in the past. We're here because we ended up deciding that the approach the Eadeses recommend is the one we favour. We do discuss research findings that might lead to questioning or changing the recommendations, but this board is set up to discuss Protein Power, not zero carb, low fat, vegan, or any one of the numberless dietary approaches that each has their fervent advocates.

You're welcome to join in here, and eat carbs or not as your personal choice, but this board is about Protein Power, which is not a zero carb approach, but a controlled carb approach.i know i know lol, i kist posted this for ppl that are not aware of this and might wonna try it out
no need to get mad:D

[cmcole]

Thank you, however, for interjecting with information, and not just opinion.

[Bogie]

Bogie is NOT going to give up splenda or half and half in his coffee.

Bogie would get very irritable.

Bogie would start listening to the voices...

[Gaelen]

Bogie is NOT going to give up splenda or half and half in his coffee. Bogie would get very irritable. Bogie would start listening to the voices...

Man, Bogie--did I mention that it's good to have you back! ;)

[Niobe]

Bogie is NOT going to give up splenda or half and half in his coffee.

Bogie would get very irritable.

Bogie would start listening to the voices...

The voices aren't all bad. They have good ideas sometimes. ;)

[scott123]

I can't imagine life without broccoli or cauliflower.

Or cream... or cheese...

Or nuts!

[Belfrybat]

I could never do that as very low carb does not agree with me. Besides, in order to get all your nutrients from meat sources you have to eat the whole animial. Including delicasies like pancreas, brains, stomach contents and such. :eek: I'll take a nice combination of veggies to get the extra nutrients I need anytime rather than some parts of the animal. On the other hand, give me liver, kidneys, and heart anytime.

[Gabriel Guzman]

red meat provides all nutrients
i dont agree with the no benefit thing, everyone notices a major improvement
i agree 10 might not be better then 30, but zero carb seem to have lots of benefits
look and read around on the board like i did, and make your conclusions:)


Meat doesn't provide all nutrients... unless there is now Vitamin C in mean, for example (granted, there is a pinch of VitC in chicken liver and lamb brain, not nearly enough to sustain daily VitC needs). Meat, or animal protein for that matter, provide complete protein and a lot of good things. That's not to say that when the circumstances are adverse (i.e. no access to any sort of carbohydrate whatsoever), one can go on without them.

Regarding benefits... I can help but say show me the data. Reducing carbohydrate intake does have a boat load of health benefits. Research has shown that even a modest decrease in carbohdyrate intake has a lot of benefits. Even poorly designed studies that have tried to 'disprove' the benefits of carbohdyrate restriction show health in provement in those that eat less carbs. On the other hand, despite the health benefits, a 'zero' approach when is not necessary has the potential of decreasing compliance, which is ultimately what makes people stay on any nutritional plan for life.

This plan is not about eliminating (except as I said, when the circumstances so demand it) but about controlling and managing, which for some means significant reduction of carbohydrate intake to levels such as 30 gr ECC and for some others a little more depending on other factors, such as exercise. There hasn't been a study that I'm aware of, that shows that cholesterol levels keep improving in a direct relationship with carbohdydrate intake. Once insulin is under control, so is cholesterol synthesis and there is no difference between 30 gr or zero gr of carbohydrate and insulin homeostasis. Nonetheless, I'm always open to discuss any new information on the subject.

Though unintended, the 'zero' approach is one of those concepts that has contributed to the bad reputation of 'low-carb' and 'carbohydrate control' nutritional approaches. Most people think of it as 'deprivation'. If you ask anyone on the streets what comes to their mind when they think of a 'low-carb' diet, for example, the first thing they say is 'I can't live without any carbs...' already implying that carbohydrate control necessarly means 'zero' carbs. Right there, there is the first mental block to really find out the benefits of reducing carbohdyrates to a level in which they are no longer the bulk of what they eat.

While our physiology has evolved to thrive in foods that are protein and fat-rich, it has also evolved to make us ommivores for a good reason and we can deal with vegetables just as well, but the vegetables that were available were not the starchy type. What we aren't wired for is to live on a starch-alone food source, and of course never on a refined carbohydrate one either.

There is a big difference between saying that we can do just fine without dietary carbohydrate and saying that we must eliminate them from the diet. In my opinion, is never a good thing to deal in absolutes without solid data to back it up... even then, dealing in absolutes denies the basic purpose of science, which is the continuous adjustment of our behavior based on newly acquired knowledge.

[LisaS]

It seems to me, you pretty much need to eat the whole animal and unpleasant (to me) animals. If you eat offal, insects, grubs, eyes, etc. Similarly, you might need to eat a lot of small animals (fish, birds, small mammals) with soft bones to chew - perhaps lots of raw meat too. you might be just fine nutrient-wise - but I'm not going to eat that way. Muscle meat from cows, chickens, pigs and eggs probably isn't going to do it.

I too wonder about things like Vit C. Pauling reasoned that we lost our ability to make Vit C because we found a food-based supply over a long enough period of time to select for non-Vit C production. He thought it was probably leaves (maybe chewed all day long for their water content) and possibly small fruits. It wasn't because meat was supplying it for us. Strict carnivores still make their own Vit C, as far as I know.

[Reverie]

Bogie would start listening to the voices...

The Bear dude actually SEES music coming out of speakers. I think someone had a few too many magic mushrooms.

[Gabriel Guzman]

I don't know if strict carnivores do, but humans among other animals lack the enzyme responsible for synthesis of ascorbic acid. Pauling may have been onto something.

If we think about it, before 1750s, when scurvy was a common occurence among sailors on long sea voyages (even though they had plenty of fish to eat), it wasn't until citrus juice was included that such condition was prevented.

[mcsblues]

I imagine that fresh fish only occasionally featured on the menu on long sea voyages - the normal fare would have been salt beef and bread. It was the method of preserving the beef (and the associated loss of nutrients) that led to scurvy, just as later explorers were to find that the method of preserving citrus juices was critical - or the scurvy prevention was lost. Arctic explorers and people like Stephansson soon learned (from the locals) that fresh meat/fish solved the problem just as Cook et al had with limes.

All that being said the Bear's extreme lifestyle is of minor interest but certainly doesn't provide in any good reason to abandon low carb vegetables and fruit.

[Bogie]

I've got 4 15" subwoofers in Bogie's Bunker... I can see the music (at least the low end...). Gotta replace my hanging screen, because on hard hits, it ripples...

[Gabriel Guzman]

Arctic explorers and people like Stephansson soon learned (from the locals) that fresh meat/fish solved the problem just as Cook et al had with limes.

Like I said... That's not to say that when the circumstances are adverse (i.e. no access to any sort of carbohydrate whatsoever), one can go on without them.

[hawk]

Bogie, Is the sofa also on a movable platform with computerized sync so that when a bomb goes off on the screen, the sofa shakes ? Or when the plane banks , the sofa's end lifts up ?

[mcsblues]

Like I said... That's not to say that when the circumstances are adverse (i.e. no access to any sort of carbohydrate whatsoever), one can go on without them.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here - the Bear would say (and for once he is sort of right ;)) that the scurvy thing is a bit of a furphy (oops not sure that will translate - try red herring?). The amount of Vit C that you need to avoid scurvy is minimal (I recall someone recently saying 15mg?) You can easily get this much from fresh meat (or fish) - but early sailors clearly didn't. But what he cannot comprehend is anyone choosing to eat, not just to prevent obvious diseases of deficiency, but for optimal nutrition (perhaps with the aid of supplements) and in so doing gathering even greater (perhaps long term) benefits to health, that may be imperceptible in a shorter time frame.

[Bogie]

I've actually got four "bass shaker" transducers bolted to the sofa frame. When the dinosaur stomps, you know it... When the earth moves, you feel it... hey, wait a minute.... NEVER watch porn on a 92" screen...

[hawk]

Our basement has two stacks of speakers with four 15's and with two 18's in each bass bottom and four stacks of amps . Only one subwoofer. But a stack of Marshall bass amps and a four top speaker box. Four 15 inch monitors. But it's not for movies. It's for a live 16 piece rock and roll band with 6 horns. There are evenings when the pictures are all crooked on the walls upstairs. Just waiting for the plaster to crack.

[paleogirl]

Sorry to get off the speaker topic!...

I think the 'no extra benefit below 30g' that the Eades' stated is probably quite true for most people, but the fact that we all have different carb thresholds for our maintenance level I think means it also makes sense that the other benefits of low carb also happen at a different carb level for everyone. And for some of us, that level is super low.

Personally, I have to be eating under 20g to lose any weight (and even then it's not guaranteed), and under 10 to hit the full-on fat burning holy grail of ketosis. This is of course not to say that ketosis is the goal of Protein Power, just that for some of us the massive benefits of a low carb diet (the energy, the feeling of well-being, the stabalised blood sugar, the lack of cravings) don't properly come into play until we're in it. And for me, that point is at <10g. The days I eat that way I feel amazing, so I can totally see why Wesley feels that if low carb is good, lower carb is even better. I appreciate this is not the case for most people, and if you can get the benefits at 30g+ then you should (I would!), but for those of us who are extremely carb sensitive, going lower can make all the difference, not just to weight loss but to psychological well-being, blood-sugar control, energy levels, etc.

[Gabriel Guzman]

I have to learn how to speak Aussie... :) What I meant is that one can go on without dietary carbs if circumstances so demand it, just like Stephansson when he lived with the Inuit. They clearly don't have any trouble. But we're not Inuit and to our good fortune too, we have other sources of VitC available and don't need to go 'zero' carb under the impression that it's 'better' or provides more benefit than an already controlled amount (say 30-40 gr ECC).

[mcsblues]

It seems even without a translator we agree! :)

[momuvfour]

I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are alot of people out there that buy in to the zero carb theory.:confused: I guess I'm not one of them. If it works for you go for it.:nod: Judy

[cmcole]

Yes, there are those who stick to a carnivorous diet with no apparent complications, while others cannot maintain that lifestyle for long.

As we are learning here, each person is different, and what works for me may not work very well for you, regarding carb levels.

[MeDieViL]

i'm interested in going zero carb with both IF, without carbs hunger would go away, so it actually comes quite naturally
its pretty interesting

[Gaelen]

i'm interested in going zero carb with both IF, without carbs hunger would go away

Hunger is a perfectly normal mechanism built into our bodies to help us survive.

While many of us have issues, physical or emotional, with controlling appetite, and while lowering carbs controls the hormones that incite appetite and therefore help us control hunger, going 'zero carb' is not a magic bullet to hunger control. Some of the triggers of 'hunger' are mental or emotional conditioning, sensory stimulation and plain old habit.

As others have mentioned, the cultures that typically ate/eat little or no plant-based foods eat the entire animal. Eggs, organ meats and offal were are all vital parts of those diets--and they all have carbs. Stomachs contained un- or partially-digested contents, typically vegetation. Cultures that got their protein from marine life ate/eat shellfish and sea vegetables, all of which have carbs. 'Zero carb' is pretty much a modern assumption that conveniently disregards the way these cultures really ate--and the fact that they had to work for their food, not pick it up at the local Piggly Wiggly. ;)

[deirdra]

As others have mentioned, the cultures that typically ate/eat little or no plant-based foods eat the entire animal. Eggs, organ meats and offal were are all vital parts of those diets--and they all have carbs. Stomachs contained un- or partially-digested contents, typically vegetation. Cultures that got their protein from marine life ate/eat shellfish and sea vegetables, all of which have carbs.Are there good studies that give amounts or percents of carbs in such diets?

[MeDieViL]

Hunger is a perfectly normal mechanism built into our bodies to help us survive.

While many of us have issues, physical or emotional, with controlling appetite, and while lowering carbs controls the hormones that incite appetite and therefore help us control hunger, going 'zero carb' is not a magic bullet to hunger control. Some of the triggers of 'hunger' are mental or emotional conditioning, sensory stimulation and plain old habit.

As others have mentioned, the cultures that typically ate/eat little or no plant-based foods eat the entire animal. Eggs, organ meats and offal were are all vital parts of those diets--and they all have carbs. Stomachs contained un- or partially-digested contents, typically vegetation. Cultures that got their protein from marine life ate/eat shellfish and sea vegetables, all of which have carbs. 'Zero carb' is pretty much a modern assumption that conveniently disregards the way these cultures really ate--and the fact that they had to work for their food, not pick it up at the local Piggly Wiggly. ;)i dont agree with that, if you go zero carb, your hunger will disappear, even if you love to eat, and even if you were overweight

zero carb makes a big difference then 10 gram or carbs, a major difference really;)
you can allways try it, but i doubt you will

[Gaelen]

Are there good studies that give amounts or percents of carbs in such diets?

Actually, yes, there probably are. In the laziest possible search method, I plugged "paleolithic dietary research" into Google and got 10 pages of unique hits. I only had time to review the hits on the first page, which included 20 hits giving me pages of pointers to research articles. I'm sure there's plenty of hard and soft research information out there (for anyone willing to do their homework) which would trump the song-and-legend benefits surrounding zero carb approaches that most ZC advocates advance as true...I found enough in one link on one page to disprove the notion that hunter/gatherer societies were zero-carb.

This link (http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-9d.shtml) to some of Loren Cordain's work describes several rationalizations/replies about the paleolithic diet and reference potential meat-to-vegetable matter percentages. At least two articles disprove one set of percentages (more vegetables than meat) by advancing their own sets, some as high as 20-25% carbs. None of the research mentioned on the linked page indicates that any hunter/gatherer society ate zero carbs; in fact, nearly all of the papers theorize that those diets included opportunistic carb consumption (i.e. carbs in season, such as berries, grasses, roots, etc.) not to mention the naturally occurring carbs in shellfish, marine life, and organ meats. That was one hit from the 200+ that came up in the search, and it points to at least 20 research papers and studies. ;)

[Gaelen]

i dont agree with that, if you go zero carb, your hunger will disappear, even if you love to eat, and even if you were overweight

research? studies? actual proof?
or is this personal theory based on song, legend and second-hand information from internet posts which are unsubstantiated? ;)

Anecdotal evidence is not equal to proof.

As an example, I have gone zero FOOD twice in the last 18 months for periods > 7 days. I was kept hydrated, by I didn't take in any calories, either orally or by IV. 'Hunger' only 'disappeared' when I was heavily medicated or anesthetized. When awake, the smell (and sometimes the sight) of certain types of food could made me hungry, even though I couldn't eat. However, I don't expect anyone to take my response and apply it to themselves as 'what will happen' when you stop eating carbs, as some ZC advocates do about their own experiences. YMMV.

As for going ZC myself? Not likely. I eat eggs and shellfish and organ meats, and they all contain carbohydrates.

[MeDieViL]

proof?
all the ppl that tried it, srry if that aint scientifical evidence, but everyone on the zero carb diet confirms what i am saying

[Gabriel Guzman]

So basically what you're looking for is some sort of confirmation that 'zero' provides more benefits than, say, 30 gr ECC, because you think it does, regardless of the lack of documented evidence. A lot of people who believe in 'zero' fat have the same argument and swear for it. What distinguishes this plan from others is precisely the body of evidence that back up its principles. "Information alone is not knowledge” and, at least in the nutrition field, that has led to the misconceptions in which the current dietary guidelines are based. In the end, however, some people will do what they want to not based on what it is, but on what they feel it is.

[Inez]

Could someone please cite chapter and verse where the Eades discuss the studies that prove that there is no benefit to eating under 30 carbs a day? My copies of their books are well worn, but I do not remember them discussing this and I've seen it mentioned a couple of times here, so I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction. I know that the lower in carbs I go, the better I feel. When I get down around 15 (net) carbs a day, I feel fantastic, although it is quite restrictive. 20 carbs is do-able, but when I start getting up over 30 carbs a day I just don't have the energy that I do at the lower levels. Any help in locating these citations would be greatly appreciated!

[Mitra]

I'm not aware that they do discuss studies that prove there's no benefit below 20g, I thought they just said that had been their experience with the many patients they've seen, though I can't remember where I've seen it.

In Protein Power, in the FAQ section, it says that cutting down below phase 1 levels of 7-10g per meal probably won't speed your weight loss. They then mention Stefansson and say that it's not dangerous to avoid carbs.

In Staying Power, they say, "So as far as not eating any carbohydrates, yes, you could, but you'd miss out on good sources of balancing alkaline foods, miss out on some of the phytonutrients and antioxidants found in plant foods that you need to be truly healthy, and miss out on the variety that will make it easy to stick to your plan for life." Also, "Traditional Eskimos get almost no plant material in their diet and little or no carbohydrates. They sometimes do suffer bone loss over a lifetime but not in the short run. Studies have shown that bone loss doesn't occur at all on a meat-based diet that also includes fruits and vegetables to balance the protein and fat. Meat, fish, eggs, and cheese cause an acid load on the body that over decades can weaken bones." Sorry, but they don't list the studies they're referring to.

Personal experiences seem to vary from those, like you, who feel best on very low carb levels, and those, like me, who get weak and shaky after a few days below 40g.

[Inez]

Thanks, Mitra! I couldn't imagine living without vegetables and fruits, but there are certainly enough very low carb choices to keep staying in the 20-carb range easy and enjoyable. A 1/4 cup serving of fruit is very satisfying to me now (except when I go strawberry picking!).

[arc]

From comments in Dr. Mike's Butter, Bacon and Lard blog:


Comments

Jimmy Moore made a similar post yesterday. Boy do I love posts like these. I guess I'm the exception to the rule :) This is generally a play to the mainstream to show that even low-carbers eat veggies too.

For the last 7 months and 1 week I've been on an all meat diet, 80+% of my diet centers on beef and cheese. I probably eat around 5-7 pounds of beef a week.

Stefansson was right when he said that the more you eat a whole food exclusively the more you like it. Every piece of beef I eat tastes just as good as the last. In essence, variety is for the mind, not the body. The need for variety is a mental remnant of acculturation and the reality that if you eat a single type of veggie you'll end up getting sick (spinach for example, e coli scare aside).

I definitely believe that if you're morbidly obese that eliminating all glucose is the key. Even on a standard low-carb diet, eating broccoli, etc, I would still get massive cravings. Veggies contain toxins as a natural defense and really should be avoided entirely and whatever vitamins and nutrients are in them are poorly absorbed.

That's not even mentioning that fiber should be avoided as well as it scars the gut and causes malabsorption over the course of time, which is why old people end up getting thin and sickly after a lifetime of scraping.
Bottom line: Be proud of your meat (double entendre aside :P)!

Hi Robb--

I somehow knew that this post would bring you out of the woodwork:-)

I agree with you completely. I, myself, am on a meat diet most of the time. But, most people aren't willing to take that step. If the low-carb diet were presented as an all meat diet there would be very few takers and it would have a really bad rap.

In my opinion a low-carb diet high in nutrient dense vegetables is a better option that the high-complex-carbohydrate, low-fat diet alternative. Anything we can use to get people to make the switch is of great value.

Best--

MRE

[Karen J]

Yes, Dr Mike did indeed write "I, myself, am on a meat diet most of the time."

If it is too restrictive for you, and you are not enjoying it, then don't do it. But honestly- if folks are feeling so terrific on an all meat diet, enjoying it and enjoying life, then what's the harm? I don't get the Vitamin C thing- there are far more vitamin deficiencies when eating the standard high carb, low fat diet. Maybe The Bear is getting enough vitamin C from the spice rub. ;)

If a guy (Mr. Owlsey) can eat meat, meat, meat for 47 years and live to be 71, it only proves to me that meat didn't kill him. N=1 can sometimes provide some valuable insight. Remember the guy in the nursing home who ate 25 eggs a day?

I do agree that it would be too restrictive for most people. Especially those programmed to eat a certain way, or at certain times, by a lifetime of acculturation.