Lex's Journal

[Satya]

But one has to be careful. I could probably get away with eating a wild hare carcass in a more wacky setting like California or Hawaii(judging from reports), but here in the UK, it's not a good idea to be too eccentric, in this regard.

Tyler, I must say that the idea of watching you eat a whole, wild hare sans fur would be a bit over the top, even in my book (and I am a nut from CA).  However, I am sure that the pleasure of your company would make the dead bunny fade from my mind in no time.  Well, unless we started discussing the proper bolting techniques of it or something. 

Here in the US, I think the focus on food has gone to an extreme in some circles.  In some settings, it seems that unhealthy, obese gluttons are more interested in having company for their miserable eating habits than truly nurturing guests with fine food and hospitailty.  These folks are easily offended because refusal to partake of the feast is seen as an indictment of their lifestyle.  And this has to be handled very carefully, imo.  It IS really sad to witness really destructive behavior with food or drink in a friend or family member.  What to do?  Enable them by gorging out and risk becoming dysfunctional about lunch too?  Or stand back and appear snobbishly aloof?  It is these situations that I try to avoid like the plague, unless the group of people is large enough to blend in more readily.

[lex_rooker]

I make you an offer, just to help eliminate the salt thing completely for MY mind, my girlfriend and I would be happy to have you and your wife as our guests to dinner at Greenfields Brazilian BBQ in West Covina.  Any time that fits your dietary experiments is fine, preferably after the fair later in October or even in November.  Besides what what would be I'm sure a stimulating and informative dinner conversation, I really want to see a skinny guy put a real hurt on the "all you can eat" experience. 

E-
I've eaten at Greenfields, Roda Vida (no longer in business), and Amazon (in Fullerton) and all their food is quite salty.  May I offer an alternative?  I'll take you and your wife to Wood Ranch.  I think their steaks are better than Ruth Chris, Gulliver's, Morton's, or any other high-end steak house.  Last time I went I had two 16oz ribeyes, and a full rack of Baby Back ribs.  I was a major topic of conversation among the staff at that visit. No one had ever eaten that much food before, much less all meat.  One of the issues with the Brazilian BBQs is that I can't order the meat rare.  At best it's medium well.  I much prefer my beef as rare as possible.

I also think you are wrong about how long it would take adapt to carbs to avoid your symptoms.  We keto adapt at least most of the way in as little as a week.  Sure it takes quite a bit longer to FULLY adapt, but I shouldn't think full adaption would be needed to deal with the carbs adequately.  It doesn't quite make sense in a paleo world where I'm certain we would have seasonal carb ups well in advance of what you did.  In temperate climate there would be periodic fruit explosions where I'm sure we would have eaten till we popped.  It's a lot easier to hunt fruit.  Perhaps in those climates we have also supplemented hunting with various tubers and such thus keeping us ready for the seasonal sugar fest.  I don't know.   Of course there is also the BG rise that you get while on meat only.  That would make it seem that you are at least a bit in the game of processing carbs.  Lots of questions still unanswered.  I'm sure there are lots questions left unasked. 

I'm no longer convinced that paleo humans ate as much plant material as we've been lead to believe.  Take a look at this link: http://www.biblelife.org/woman7700.htm  and 7,000 years was not all that long ago.  I have no idea if there is anything further on this subject, however, it is interesting that the idea that humans have always included significant amounts of plant foods, especially seasonal fruits, in their diet, is seldom challenged.  If the information in the above link is accurate, then maybe we are really top level carnivores and not omnivores at all. 

Think about our pets.  Today we routinely feed our dogs and cats commercial pet food that is comprised mostly of grains.  Because they've eaten grain based food from the time they were weaned, know no other food, often reject raw meat in favor of the more familiar grain based food, and don't immediately die from eating a diet of grains, does this prove that dogs and cats are vegetarians?    How is this different from the environment that we humans are raised in today?  We grow up eating grain based foods from the time we are weaned, we don't know anything else, and we pass the same dietary aberrations on to our children generation after generation after generation.

I'm well aware that cats and dogs occasionally chew on grass, but if you observe their feces, you'll find that it passes through undigested.  The total amount of grass consumed is such a small part of their diet that is is almost unmeasurable in terms of volume or weight and truly infinitesimal as percent of calories.

At least for now, it seems the best course for the zerocarber is to periodically (such period, yet to be determined) have sufficient carbs to keep the metabolism ready to successfully handle the occasion social event.  Assuming of course it doesn't knock you off the wagon that is.

If we reject the premise that humans are omnivores, and adopt the idea that we may have evolved as top level carnivores, then why would we want to eat carbs at all, unless our meat supply were to disappear and it becomes a matter of survival?  Food for thought.....

Lex

[Erasmus]

I've eaten at Greenfields, Roda Vida (no longer in business), and Amazon (in Fullerton) and all their food is quite salty.  May I offer an alternative?  I'll take you and your wife to Wood Ranch.  I think their steaks are better than Ruth Chris, Gulliver's, Morton's, or any other high-end steak house.  Last time I went I had two 16oz ribeyes, and a full rack of Baby Back ribs.  I was a major topic of conversation among the staff at that visit. No one had ever eaten that much food before, much less all meat.  One of the issues with the Brazilian BBQs is that I can't order the meat rare.  At best it's medium well.  I much prefer my beef as rare as possible.

A valid point about the well-doneness.  Being a BBQ fan, I forgot about that point.  Though you can get to med-rare if you limit yourself to the larger hunks of meat and have the servers bring the spit to you before they would normally put it back on the fire.  But enough of that silliness, better that Ruths Chris you say?  I think I could forgo the salt experiment.   I'm sure I could talk the GF into a steak outing.  At the very least it would stop her from pestering me for yet more steak.  You see we only eat it 3 or 4 times a week.  I'll get back to you when the schedule lightens up.  It would seem the GF will be out of commission due to a surgery late this month.  Nothing serious, just annoying.

I'm no longer convinced that paleo humans ate as much plant material as we've been lead to believe.  Take a look at this link: http://www.biblelife.org/woman7700.htm  and 7,000 years was not all that long ago.  I have no idea if there is anything further on this subject, however, it is interesting that the idea that humans have always included significant amounts of plant foods, especially seasonal fruits, in their diet, is seldom challenged.  If the information in the above link is accurate, then maybe we are really top level carnivores and not omnivores at all. 

I have no doubt that we are top level carnivores.  But by the same token, I have no doubt that we ate whatever we could.  This would in part explain why we exist everywhere.  In the wild, most animals eat whatever they can just to survive.  Plants, I suspect specifically tubers, would have provided survival rations when game was sparse.  Then there is the whole sweet tooth thing.  Nature is not one to be frivolous.  Of this is all conjecture.  Just like all the other "experts".

Think about our pets.  Today we routinely feed our dogs and cats commercial pet food that is comprised mostly of grains.  Because they've eaten grain based food from the time they were weaned, know no other food, often reject raw meat in favor of the more familiar grain based food, and don't immediately die from eating a diet of grains, does this prove that dogs and cats are vegetarians?    How is this different from the environment that we humans are raised in today?  We grow up eating grain based foods from the time we are weaned, we don't know anything else, and we pass the same dietary aberrations on to our children generation after generation after generation.

I'm well aware that cats and dogs occasionally chew on grass, but if you observe their feces, you'll find that it passes through undigested.  The total amount of grass consumed is such a small part of their diet that is is almost unmeasurable in terms of volume or weight and truly infinitesimal as percent of calories.

I feed my dogs raw meat.  My GF really enjoys the uh... sound of bones being crunched.   They are absolutely healthier and happier on raw.  They would probably be even better off if I were to use Slankers and the like.  But I go through 4 pounds of food a day, they'll make due on commercial critters. 

Like most raw food feeders, I am very well acquainted feces.  So much so that I pay attention to the stuff I find on our walks.  Coyote scat often contains berry seeds when the are available.  And "theBear" not withstanding, canids are more carnivore than we are.  Does it amount to a lot of calories? No.  But it does show that carnivores will eat what they can.  Why wouldn't we?

If we reject the premise that humans are omnivores, and adopt the idea that we may have evolved as top level carnivores, then why would we want to eat carbs at all, unless our meat supply were to disappear and it becomes a matter of survival?  Food for thought.....

I hate the term omnivore.  It's a silly thing.  If you go out into the woods a look around, nearly everything you see is edible by something.  And yet 99% of all of that "food" is completely inedible to us.  1% is hardly "omni" in my book.  Nope, we are carnivores plain and simple. 

As to why we should eat carbs?  In a vacuum we shouldn't.  But we don't live in a vacuum as you pointed out.  All I was saying was that if we want to go with the flow socially, then it might be best to keep our bodies in a state that the occasional social gathering doesn't make us pay the price for good week afterward.  Your symptoms were hardly mild.  And as bad as you felt on the outside I'm sure the inside was taking a beating as well.  The real questions are, "how much is enough?" and "is that too much to be worth it?".  As for the first, I have no idea.  The second, well that's a personal call.

-E

[lex_rooker]

E-
All thoughts well reasoned.

I did a major project for a kennel and dog trainer who wanted to convert their dogs to raw foods.  Great success.  Unfortunately, this is not the norm for the average pet owner who think's they're doing right by purchasing pet chow at the market or the latest designer food for their animals.

Yup, social pressure can be intense, and it is probably a good reason for most people to include a small amount of carbs in their normal diet.  I was just playing the devil's advocate and pushing a few buttons to see where it would lead.

I seldom eat steaks (once or twice a month), but when I do, I want really good ones.  Just my opinion of course, but Wood Ranch is tops.

Let me know if/when you'd like to get together.  Anytime is fine with me.  You're also welcome to drop by just to meet and chat anytime.  I'm usually home working on some project or other.

Lex

[lex_rooker]

I'm reproducing a post from Kristelle's Journal as well as my reply as it goes to the heart of the experiment that I'm performing and some observations that I haven't made in print before.  On Kristelle's journal I did not "quote" all of her intital post as it was available directly above my response, but I'm doing so here so that readers will have the full context of my comments.

Ok well...I just realized where I went wrong all this time and I've been zero-carbing mostly for about 1 year now. I was eating too much fat! I had mentioned that earlier in my journal but did not give it enough time. Now, it's crystal clear.

Since reducing my fat intake to about 60-65% (and that seems to be even a little too much right now), I feel like a new person. In other words, I feel amazing. My problems had nothing to do with cooking, nothing at all and my theory was wrong. I'm still struggling a little with abdominal cramps, some bloating but overall, I can't complain. If the indigestion persists in the following days, I plan to reduce fat intake even further.

Interestingly, my ketones have reduced. And thinking back, when protein was higher and fat lower, my weight was less. The more fat I ate, the heavier I became. No doubt about this. That's strange considering protein supposedly converts to glucose to a greater extent than fat because if that were the case, shouldn't I be gaining weight on more protein instead?? I personally don't believe in protein gluconeogenesis, doesn't hold up in my own experience and Charles, from http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/index.php had some interesting things to say about this today...

"Francis Benedict's study from 1915 was on a subject who fasted for 31 days. This study remains the most complete of all balance studies in spite of many inadequate analytical methods. He demonstrated that for the first 5 or 6 days of fasting, a small component to the fuel of respiration was provided by carbohydrate and then none at all. After that, it was all about fat and protein. Fat contributed 85% and protein 10%. Benedict remarked that fat was the most abundant and and possibly expendable.

Many problems were unexplained and the general belief in gluconeogenesis was directly under fire. The brain supposedly requires 120-130 grams of glucose daily, although the IOM report that Taubes cited says that really only 100 grams are required. The extra 30 was set as a precaution. Everyone agrees that ketones can provide 75 grams, but they dispute is over the last 25 grams.

Total carbohydrate stores are barely adequate for 1 day's supply for cerebral function and gluconeogenesis must provide this amount. However, data shows that gluconeogenesis falls far short. Nitrogen (protein) excretion in several days decreases to 10 grams per day and in more prolonged fasting, it decreases to levels approaching 3 grams per day.

We all know of people who have fasted considerable longer than 7 days.

This renders impossible rendering more than several grams of glucose even if all amino acids were glucose producing.

The body doesn't use up the limited supply of protein it has making glucose for those tissues that need it which means that the brain has to be using something else. The 100 grams of glucose requirement is more a belief than it is science since it obviously has not been shown in rigorous testing.

Let's put this gluconeogensis from too much protein idea to rest. If you are gaining weight on your zero-carb diet, it has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of protein you're eating. Protein conversion is too expensive and can be toxic since that results in more nitrogen which would build ammonia in the blood and kill you. I was under the impression that the muscles didn't use ketones but indeed they do. They use more than what reserchers thought.

The next problem that is equally frustrating to researchers is the very one that MAC and I were discussing just the other day. What is the signal that mobilizes just the quantity of free fatty acid needed by the liver and carcass from fat tissue and likewise, what is the signal to muscle which directs mobilization of muscle protein as amino acid into the blood to be removed by liver (and kidney) during gluconoeogenesis? In other words, when the liver "goes after the muscles" to get protein, what gets rid of the nitrogen that's left over?

There are two schools of thought. The first is that insulin (its level) is the primary mediator (not surprising) and some think it is something in the brain which signals the release of peripheral fuel using neural pathways via the central nervous system. This means that the only time that the body would convert protein for energy would be if there were no fat or ketones available, so one would have to be fasting for more than nine months before this would occur. Again, the Bear is very astute.

The researchers tend to equate fasting and diabetes because in one case, insulin is low. In the other case, insulin is not effective due to the high level. This makes a huge difference to me, but the researchers seem to think they are somehow equivalent. The Bear also noted that these two cases were in no way similar.

Taubes provided David Kipnis's studies showing how fat tissue is exquisitely sensitive to insulin and we know that insulin fascilitates release of free fatty acids in response to the changing levels. The Randle cycle, which describes the glucose-fatty acid metabolism informs us how insulin levels effect the release of free fatty acids. This is well-known to all of us zero-carbers because we have no dietary glucose (or very little) and our fatty acids are not inhibited from circulating by insulin. Yet we all know that if we provide a glucose load, the fatty acids will decrease in circulation and the majority of the glucose will be stored.

Another note I found interesting, was that Benedict determined that if a man has enough fatty acids at the start, he may survive a fasting period of 6 to 9 months and probably even longer. At the end of 30 days of fasting, fat provides 90 percent of calories and protein only provides 10%. On an 8 day fast, fat provides 86% and protein provides 14%. On a 40-day fast, fat provides 95-97% and protein only provides 3%. The subjects on the 40-day fast were all obese.

For a man to survive a fast, protein conservation is critical, particularly in a primeval setting where maintaining muscle mass would be necessary. This is why we zero-carbers don't have to live in the gym. If we go once or twice per week, we are not in danger of losing our muscle mass. One-third to one-half loss of total body nitrogen is barely compatible with survival. This is the same for all the animals in the kingdom.

This leaves open the question as to what fuel supplies the gluconogenic precursor to provide the brain its necessary fuel. The probable answer is that the brain gradually decreases its utilization of glucose and uses ketones and hydroxybutyrate to become the most important fuels.

In conclusion, the question of how much the brain needs really depends on the state of the body at the time and the availability of peripheral fuels just as it does with regard to weight management. Insulin is the primary regulator of most of these processes so when contemplating your zero-carb regimen, it's important and prudent to focus on insulin first. If you do this, you will enjoy great health regardless of weight loss."

Very interesting Kristelle.  Your experience is the same as mine.  I did feel consistently better at the 65% fat level.  I also had to cut my food consumption down significantly or I gained weight.  If you will remember, it was not uncommon for me to eat 2 lbs of food per day at 65% fat.  With my current experiment at 80+% fat I'm only eating 600g or less to maintain the same weight - and even then, trying to get that much high fat food down is a struggle.

What I started out to prove or disprove was Taubes contention that if no carbs were in the diet, then you could not gain weight.  This is clearly not the case as both you and I have demonstrated.  We have shown that all else being equal, more fat, more weight gain.  I also must temper this a bit by stating that the amount of weight gain from eating excess fat is far less than when consuming the same amount of calories as carbs, but a high fat low protein diet will cause weight gain.

I'm not sure that I go along with your ideas on GNG.  My direct experience clearly demonstrates that the larger the ratio of protein I eat in a meal, the higher my blood glucose rises after the meal - the glucose has to be coming from somewhere.  You seem to base your conclusions on the fact that when you eat a higher ratio of protein you loose weight, yet if the GNG theory were correct, the higher glucose levels from GNG should cause weight gain.  Maybe it is this basic assumption that is in error.

My experience does confirm that BG rises more after a high protein meal which to me supports the idea that GNG does occur, but my experience also shows that with a very high fat intake of 80% or more, where BG doesn't rise nearly as high as when I my fat intake is 65% or so, I gain weight.  This makes me question the basic assumption that it is only excess BG that causes the body to store fat.  If this assumption is not true, (and both our experiences seem to support that it is not true), then it's back to the drawing board, for all the rest of your conclusions are based on this one assumption being true.

Bottom line is, we've demonstrated Taubes basic assertion - no dietary carbs - no fat storage, to be untrue.  This throws suspicion on the underlying assumption that it is only excess BG that causes fat storage and/or that fat is only stored when insulin is high.  This is one reason that the experiment that I proposed with Elli, to eat only fat for a couple of meals and measure BG, Ketones and whatever else I could, is so interesting to me.

Hmmm, another thought just occurred to me.  Taubes actually stated that it was Alpha Glycerol Phosphate (AGP) that allowed the creation of triglycerides which is the way that the body mobilizes fat to move it into and out of storage.  He stated that a primary source of AGP was through the metabolism of BG in the presence of insulin and therefore reasoned that no carbs = low BG = low insulin = low ability to store fat.

But another thing we know is that the AGP molecule is the hub around which a triglyceride molecule is formed and therefore when we release body fat it is in the form of triglycerides.  Once the fatty acids are released from the triglyceride molecule the AGP is again available to pick up more fatty acids and create a new triglyceride.  Now if our body is using the fatty acids as fuel then the AGP probably won't find free fatty acids so when it makes it to the liver it will be converted to glucose.

But what about the dietary fat we eat.  Is it in the form of triglycerides?  and if it is, then doesn't the dietary fat itself provide its own AGP to create the necessary conditions for storage as body fat without the need for carbs, glucose, or insulin?  This idea seems to explain my observations, and would also validate Taubes theory because Taubes only stated that the storage of body fat needed AGP.  If the necessary AGP is part of the dietary fat itself, then this may allow fat to be stored as well.  This does not disprove the theory that excess glucose in the presence of insulin will create AGP causing fat storage, only that this is not the only source for AGP.

Lex

[boxcarguy07]

Lex, I have a question for you...

with the added organs included in Slanker's D+C food, do you ever eat any additional organs? Or do you find that the amount in your D+C is enough?
I'm seriously considering getting some of the D+C to save on costs

[Kristelle]

Lex,

Have you ever eaten just muscle meat (no organs) that you are sure was "untouched" (no spices, no additives, no sugar, no sauce), like at a restaurant and seen a rise in blood glucose thereafter? Because I know that in your mix, you have organ meats, a source of glucose (glycogen). 

[lex_rooker]

with the added organs included in Slanker's D+C food, do you ever eat any additional organs? Or do you find that the amount in your D+C is enough?
I'm seriously considering getting some of the D+C to save on costs

Keith,
I seldom eat individual organs.  The main reason is that I believe that variety is critical to success.  Individual organs each have their own flavor and intensity.  I found that, just like everyone else, I often chose what I liked the taste of rather than assuring that I got a broad mix. 

There is a popular theory that says taste is driven from the body's nutritional needs, and what I like the taste of most likely has the nutrients my body requires at the moment.  I think this is so much hogwash.  I much prefer the taste chocolate chip cookies and ice cream to just about anything else.  Does this mean that my body needs chocolate chips?  When these were a big part of my diet they sure tasted good but most of the time I felt terrible.

D&C works for me.  It is made from a wide varitey of grass fed meats including organs, and it is inexpensive.  The only issue that some have is that it does not have the USDA inspector's stamp of approval.  Well, neither does meat we hunt for ourselves, and most of the cases of e-coli and salmonella come from USDA inspected meat and produce.  Nuf said....

Lex

[boxcarguy07]

Thanks for the response Lex.
It seems like with the variety of organs they use in the mix (liver, kidney, and spleen) that it would be enough variety. I'm not sure how much organ meat they put in there (they say it's just a little) but if you're eating it every day then it probably adds up to be enough organs, huh?


And yeah, I couldn't care less about the USDA stamp or whatever. 

[lex_rooker]

Have you ever eaten just muscle meat (no organs) that you are sure was "untouched" (no spices, no additives, no sugar, no sauce), like at a restaurant and seen a rise in blood glucose thereafter?

Yes.  Every month I have 2 and sometimes 3 formal lunches scheduled with friends and old co-workers.  We always eat at a steakhouse and I always order 2 lbs of ribeye steak cooked as rare as they will make it with no seasoning.  On these few days per month this becomes my one meal for that day.  Since I've been on the 80+% fat diet, it is on these "steak days" that BG spikes highest, consistently 10+ points higher within 3 hours after eating than when eating my high fat rations.  Ribeye steaks are usually 60% to 65% calories from fat.

Also,  When I was consistently eating a 65% to 70% calories from fat (30%-35% protein) diet, my average BG was around 105.  When I converted to 80+% calories from fat (15% - 20% protein) average BG dropped to around 90.  That's a drop of 15 points, and yet I gained weight.

Lex

[Kristelle]

Aren't ribeyes fattier than that?
According to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl,
fat is 74% of calories and that's when it's trimmed to 0' fat.

Also, the weight gain from increased fat intake strangely feels to me like water weight. Perhaps, ketosis (or too many ketones in the body) affects water distribution or retention...speculation on my part.

From http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/16

"Amino acids derived from protein are converted to glucose through gluconeogenesis. In 1915, Janney reported that 3.5 g of glucose were produced from 6.25 g of ingested meat protein [11]. Thus, theoretically and actually, for every 100 g protein ingested, 56 g of glucose can be produced. For other proteins the range of glucose produced was 50–84 g.

However, in 1924, Dr. MacLean in England gave 250 g meat, which contains ~50 g protein to a subject with type 2 diabetes whose fasting glucose concentration was ~280 mg/dl [12]. Following ingestion of the beef, the glucose concentration remained stable for the 5 hours of the study. When the subject was given 25 g glucose on a separate occasion, the amount of glucose that theoretically could have been produced from the 50 g protein in the 250 g meat, the glucose concentration increased to nearly 600 mg/dl.

With this [12] and other information [13-18], several years ago, we determined the glucose and insulin responses to 50 g of protein given in the form of lean beef to 8 normal subjects [19] and 7 subjects with type 2 diabetes [20]. When normal subjects ingested the 50 g protein, the plasma glucose concentration remained stable during the 4 hours of the study. When subjects with type 2 diabetes ingested 50 g protein, not only was the glucose stable, it actually decreased (Figure 2).


Figure 2. Glucose (left panel) and insulin (right panel) response to 50 g protein, given in the form of very lean beef to 8 normal subjects (bottom, broken lines) and 7 subjects with type 2 diabetes (top, solid lines).

In normal subjects there was a modest increase in insulin concentration. However, when subjects with type 2 diabetes ingested protein, the insulin concentration increased markedly (Figure 2).

In normal subjects, the insulin increase was only 30% of that to 50 g glucose [19], but in people with type 2 diabetes, it was equal, i.e. 100% [20]. In addition, ingestion of 50 g beef protein had very little effect on glucose production either in normal subjects [21] or in people with type 2 diabetes [22].

The studies cited above were single meal studies testing the effect of dietary protein alone. From these and other studies we concluded that in people with type 2 diabetes, dietary protein is a potent insulin secretagogue. In addition, protein does not increase blood glucose. Protein actually decreases blood glucose, even though amino acids derived from digestion of the protein can be used for gluconeogenesis. Subsequently we demonstrated that dietary protein acts synergistically with ingested glucose to increase insulin secretion and reduce the blood glucose response to the ingested glucose in people with type 2 diabetes [20,23].

In order to determine the effect of substituting protein for carbohydrate in mixed meals over an extended period of time we designed a study in which we increased the protein content of the diet from 15% in the control diet to 30% in the test diet, i.e. we doubled the protein content of the diet [24]. To accommodate the increase in protein, we decreased the carbohydrate content from 55% in the control diet to 40% in the test diet. Since 56 g of glucose could be produced from each 100 g protein ingested [11], the carbohydrate in the diet, plus the glucose produced from the additional protein, would represent a potential carbohydrate content of 48%. The fat content was 30% in both groups. Twelve people with untreated type 2 diabetes were randomized in a crossover design in which they were on each diet for 5 weeks with a washout period in between. The diets were isocaloric, the subjects were weight stable, and all food was provided.

The plasma glucose concentrations during the 24-hour period at the end of the 5 weeks on the control diet, or 5 weeks on the high protein diet, are shown in Figure 3. The blood sampling was started at 8 am. Breakfast, lunch, dinner and snack are shown on the X-axis. The differences appear modest. However, when these data are integrated over 24 hours, using the fasting glucose concentration as baseline, the integrated glucose area actually was reduced by 38% on the high protein diet (Figure 4).


Figure 3. Plasma glucose response in 12 subjects with type 2 diabetes. The response to the control diet (15% protein) is shown in the top, dotted red line. The response to the test diet (30% protein) is shown in the bottom, solid black line).

Figure 4. Net 24-hour integrated glucose (left) and insulin area responses (right) to ingestion of a 15% protein (red bar) or 30% protein (black bar) diet in 12 subjects with type 2 diabetes.

In spite of the lower integrated glucose area, the integrated insulin area response was increased by 18% when compared to the control (15% protein) diet results.

Most importantly, with the 30% protein diet, the % total glycohemoglobin (%tGHb) decreased from 8.1 to 7.3 (? = 0. (Figure 5). It decreased from 8.0 to 7.7% during the control (15% protein) diet (? = 0.3). The difference was statistically significant by week 2.


Figure 5. % total glycohemoglobin response to a 15% protein diet, (top, broken red line) and a 30% protein diet (bottom, solid black line) in 12 people with type 2 diabetes.

In summary, increasing dietary protein from 15% to 30% of total food energy at the expense of carbohydrate resulted in an increased integrated insulin concentration, a decreased 24 hour integrated glucose concentration, and a decreased %tGHb.

These data were presented in 2004 at the Kingsbrook Conference on Nutritional and Metabolic Aspects of Low Carbohydrate Diets [25], and an adaptation of that presentation was later published [26]."

From http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-1-6.pdf

"This lack of increase in blood glucose concentration following
the ingestion of protein was confirmed by Conn
and Newburgh in 1936 [3]. These investigators fed a relatively
enormous amount of beef, i.e. 1.3 pounds of beef,
which is the equivalent of ~136 g of protein and which
should yield 68 g of glucose, to a normal subject with a
fasting blood glucose of 65 mg/dl and to a subject with
diabetes whose fasting blood glucose concentration was
150 mg/dl. In neither case was there an increase in blood
glucose concentration over the 8 hours of this study. However,
when the same subjects were given 68 g of glucose,
there clearly was an increase in glucose concentration in
both cases.
That ingested protein did not raise the blood glucose was
largely ignored, in spite of this evidence in the scientific
literature. Indeed, in his textbook in 1945 [4], Dr. Joslin,
one of the most influential diabetologists at that time, was
still counseling dietitians and patients to consider 56% of
dietary protein as if it were carbohydrate."

From http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/3/1040

"As expected, when the subjects ingested only water (fasting controls) there was a gradual decrease in serum glucose concentration over the 8 h of the study (33). When the subjects ingested 50 g beef protein there was a small initial and transient increase in glucose, but by 2.5 h the glucose concentration had decreased and continued to decrease until the end of the study. Over the last 5.5 h, the concentration was slightly less than when only water was ingested (Fig. 1)."

"As indicated previously, it has been reported several times that protein ingestion does not raise the circulating glucose concentration or raises it only modestly (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). The reason for this has been unclear.

In 1971, it was suggested that protein ingestion did not raise the circulating glucose concentration because an increased production and release of glucose from the liver was balanced by an increased uptake and utilization of glucose by peripheral tissues (34). The mechanism proposed was that an increased circulating glucagon concentration, resulting from the ingestion of protein, would stimulate glucose production from amino acids in the liver. The increased insulin concentration resulting from the ingestion of protein then would stimulate peripheral tissues, primarily skeletal muscle, to remove the glucose produced and to store it as glycogen (34). The latter is a well known effect of high concentrations of insulin. However, using direct hepatic vein catheterization techniques, a significant increase in glucose production in the splanchnic bed after protein ingestion could not be demonstrated either in dogs (35) or in humans (36). "



 

[TylerDurden]

Thanks for the response Lex.
It seems like with the variety of organs they use in the mix (liver, kidney, and spleen) that it would be enough variety. I'm not sure how much organ meat they put in there (they say it's just a little) but if you're eating it every day then it probably adds up to be enough organs, huh?


And yeah, I couldn't care less about the USDA stamp or whatever. 

So Lex just eats liver, kidney and spleen, and no other organs?

[boxcarguy07]

Are you asking me? Umm, well, those are the organs they add to the D+C mix, and Lex just said that he seldom eats any other organs, so I guess so 

[Elli]

So Lex, are you ready for a heroic experiment yet ?

[lex_rooker]

Kristelle,
Lots of facts from lots of sources, what I'm interested in is the conclusions YOU'VE drawn from reading these studies.  I want to know the reasoning that lead you to your conclusions.  I'm interested in whether you have performed your own experiments and have well documented data that supports your findings.  This way I can attempt to duplicate what you've done and see if I get similar results.

I'm fine with facts, but I'm not sure of the point you are attempting to make unless you tell me what it is, and then demonstrate step by step the reasoning you used to explain how the data (and/or studies) you've presented have lead you to that specific conclusion.  Most powerful of all is when you define and present the results of your own well documented experiment.  What I find interesting is when you can demonstrate how published facts have lead you to a novel and interesting conclusion that is not mentioned in the studies, or the results of some personal experimentation that demonstrates that what you've read or a conclusion you've drawn is accurate (or not). 

Published studies I can get from Google or a text book, and as is evident in my journal, I often find that results from my own experiments are at odds with published studies as well as my own theories and expectations.

Lex

[lex_rooker]

So Lex just eats liver, kidney and spleen, and no other organs?

Tyler,
As I understand it, Slanker's Dog & Cat food has a bit of every part of the cow in it except the moo.

[lex_rooker]

So Lex, are you ready for a heroic experiment yet ?

Elli,
Still trying to get my arms around this one.  The experiment itself is not physically difficult, however, I'm not sure if the short duration will really tell us much.  I never do an experiment unless I have a clear understanding of what I'm trying to prove or disprove.  Mary Massung has provided me with some results of experiments she's done on fat metabolism and I'm studying her work to see if there is something there that I can leverage.

Another interesting idea poped into my head when I read a post in Kristelle's journal where she gained weight from eating a very high fat diet.  I've experienced similar results since I went 80/20 fat/protein. Others haven't experience this same result, however, they consume much of their fat from plant sources.  That got me to thinking that plant based fats and animal based fats may be metabolized differently by our bodies, due not to the differences in the molecular chains of the free fatty acids themselves, but from the makeup of the complex moleclues like triglycerides that animals use to bind, transport, and store fatty acids, and plants don't.  The idea that Alpha Glycerol Phosphate may be present in dietary animal fat but not dietary fat from plant sources might account for why you can gain weight on a very high fat low protein diet when no carbs are consumed if the fat is animal based.  It's all a bit of a puzzler at this point.

I'm intrigued with this but have a bit of research to do before I define the scope of the experiment.

Lex

[Nicola]

Lex, I am following people on meat&fat and water reporting that Kristelle may be right about high fat!

How do you feel in your body and your metabolism and with what do you feel best (mind and body);

1). the way you did eat (raw, lower fat)
2). the way you are eating now (raw, high fat)
3). on those days that you eat steak (a little cooked)
4). when you could not eat your menu (eggs, bacon, cheese, fruit...)

Nicola

[lex_rooker]

Lex, I am following people on meat&fat and water reporting that Kristelle may be right about high fat!

Nicola, Could you be a little more specific by what you mean by Kristelle being right about high fat?  I'm not sure what you are referring too.  She has stated she feels much better when she eats a diet containing less fat and feels that a very high fat diet has contributed to weight gain.  My findings are similar to hers.  Is this what you mean?

How do you feel in your body and your metabolism and with what do you feel best (mind and body);

1). the way you did eat (raw, lower fat)
2). the way you are eating now (raw, high fat)
3). on those days that you eat steak (a little cooked)
4). when you could not eat your menu (eggs, bacon, cheese, fruit...)

Not exactly sure what you are looking for here but I'll do my best to answer.

1.  I think I felt best when eating the lower fat diet with 60% to 70% of calories as fat.

2.  I'm now eating 80+% of calories as fat.  This has caused weight gain unless I eat about 1/2 the amount of food I did on the lower fat protocol.  I don't feel bad, but I do feel a bit more sluggish - not as energetic.

3.  I don't see much difference in the way I feel on a day-to-day basis regardless of what I eat on any specific day.  One meal in a ten day period that is lower fat doesn't seem to have much effect on how I feel, but I can measure a difference in the way that blood glucose behaves on the day that I eat the lower fat steak.  BG rises higher on the days that I eat a lower fat meal.  I also find I can eat much more food and this could be part of the reason that BG goes higher.  I can easily eat a full 1,000g of lower fat steak, but have difficulty eating more than 600g of the higher fat meat mix.

4.  When eating foods other than meat/fat/water, like during the week where I ate mostly cafeteria style breakfast foods, I didn't notice much difference for the first 2 or 3 days.  On about the fourth day I started feeling puffy and bloated.  My feet and ankles started to swell up and my hands were puffy and stiff in the morning upon arising.  Energy also dropped dramatically.  Again, I didn't feel much difference either mentally or physically after just one or two meals.  It took several days of these other foods before I really started to feel the effects. 

Another interesting thing is that I had already been eating the high fat diet protocol for almost 3 months and as mentioned above, I haven't felt as energetic as before moving to higher fat.  However, eating the eggs, cheese, bacon, and sausage as my main food for a full week really made me feel terrible and I was glad to get back to the high fat meat mix.

As you can probably tell, I'm looking forward to the end of my 4 month commitment so I can return to my lower fat protocol.

Let me know if I missed anything,

Lex

[Kristelle]

I posted those articles because they are at odds with your and others' experiences with meat eating. Because I wanted to know if you had any explanation for why that might be...I'm confused. Maybe there is an alternative explanation for why BG increases following protein intake, maybe something else is making it go up but the simple and most obvious explanation is...protein!

I remember during my high-fat days eating high fat macadamia nuts or avocados very occasionally. I would get the exact same symptoms as I would with animal fats, especially the abdominal aches and bloating. I thought it was due to the fiber but to me, the symptoms resembled more those of eating excess fat.

[lex_rooker]

I posted those articles because they are at odds with your and others' experiences with meat eating. Because I wanted to know if you had any explanation for why that might be...I'm confused. Maybe there is an alternative explanation for why BG increases following protein intake, maybe something else is making it go up but the simple and most obvious explanation is...protein!

No other explaination except protein in my case as the only things in my diet are protein, fat, and water.  I guess there is a minimal amount of carbs in the form of glycogen and other forms of glucose in the meat, however, there are no plant sources of carbs and the meat mix is consistent.  Also, the rise in BG is more pronounced when eating steak which has much less fat than my normal mix, and it doesn't have any organ content that might have a larger hidden glucose content.

Maybe my all-fat-all-the-time experiment will reveal something once I figure out how to approach it.

lex

[Satya]

It might be a matter of too little protein, as opposed to too much fat that is causing the weight gain and sluggishness in Lex and Kristelle.  The body needs a certain amount everyday, and I can't help but think about vegetarians who gain weight on a lower protein diet when I read about this.  If it is a matter of not enough protein mass in the diet per day, Gary Taubes may still be somewhat be correct that high fat won't cause weight gain; well, with the caveat that adequate protein must be consumed.  It might be a worthwhile experiment.

Lex, do take care if you attempt a fat fast for any length of time.  Even the Atkins fat fast had 10% protein, iirc.  I hope you go back to the lower fat protocol first for a time to prepare for all fat eating.

BTW, how is your exercise program coming along?

[lex_rooker]

It might be a matter of too little protein, as opposed to too much fat that is causing the weight gain and sluggishness in Lex and Kristelle.  The body needs a certain amount everyday, and I can't help but think about vegetarians who gain weight on a lower protein diet when I read about this. 

I don't think it is a matter of too little protein because, even though I may eat more food (hence more protein), the sluggishness and weight gain just get worse, especially over time.  To me, it seems related to the total amount of fat consumed.  When I reduced total food consumed, weight dropped again and energy did increase but not to the levels of lower fat days, so there may be a minimum level of protein necessary to maintain energy which I'm not getting with the reduce amount of food.

If it is a matter of not enough protein mass in the diet per day, Gary Taubes may still be somewhat be correct that high fat won't cause weight gain; well, with the caveat that adequate protein must be consumed.  It might be a worthwhile experiment.

I went back and checked what Taubes actually said and it wasn't that high fat would not cause weight gain, but that a lack of Alpha Glycerol Phosphate (a primary source of which is the metabolism of BG in the presence of insulin) would interfere with the ability to create triglycerides which are required to transport and store body fat and therefore weight gain would not occur.

If the dietary fat itself contained Alpha Glycerol Phosphate, then the body could use it to create the triglycerides necessary to transport and store body fat and you could gain weight.  It may also be that the digestive process is not an efficient way for AGP to enter the system so the weight gain only seems to occur when very large amounts of fat are consumed.  Another interesting idea is that Alpha Glycerol Phosphate would only be present in animal fat and not in plant based fats.  I know of several people who consume a large percentage of their diets as plant oils and fats and do not gain weight, however they don't seem to maintain robust health without added carbs in their diet either.

Lex, do take care if you attempt a fat fast for any length of time.  Even the Atkins fat fast had 10% protein, iirc.  I hope you go back to the lower fat protocol first for a time to prepare for all fat eating.

Still working on an approach for this test.  Based on the evidence from Kristelle that her experience confirms my experience, I need to decide exactly what I'm testing and how to go about it.

BTW, how is your exercise program coming along?

Actually very well (considering that I detest jogging).  I took a litttle over a week off, felt guilty, and when I went back out it was very easy.  I think a big part of it was that my knees and ankels got a good rest.

[Satya]

Lex, what is your protein intake currently?  If you are jogging with some pep, then perhaps you are getting enough of it.

[lex_rooker]

Lex, what is your protein intake currently?  If you are jogging with some pep, then perhaps you are getting enough of it.

Between 80 and 90 grams per day.