Anyone have years worth of ZC carnivorous?

[Paleo Donk]

Re: Random guessing on animal carbs

Animal carbs from liver are almost all glycogen, are they not? Perhaps this glycogen refills liver and muscle glycogen and isn't broken down to glucose like other plant carbs so is easier on the body.

[Guittarman03]

While the case can be made that we don't really need to consume any carbs, your body does manufacture glucose from protein in the absence of dietary carbs (gluconeogenisis).  Glucose and insulin are absolutely necessary for survival.   

My experience is that I thrive on VLC, but do poorly when going 100% carnivorous.       

Thanks Lex for a great post earlier. 

[PaleoPhil]

Thanks for that clarification, Guittarman. I meant that carbs are the only unessential dietary macronutrient to ingest, not that carbs are unessential within the workings of the body. Interestingly, if one eats an extremely low fat diet of say 10%, like Ornish recommends, the body produces more fat to make up for some of the deficit, but I don't think it's possible to survive on zero fat intake, though I could be wrong.

[Paleo Donk]

Theres a paper around that Lyle McDonald has touted that apparently shows no lower limit for saturated fat intake.

[carnivore]

I know what you mean about carbs being the only unessential [dietary] macronutrient [to ingest], Katelyn. Zero plant foods (which I'm guessing works out to under 1% of calories as carbs) has worked best for me so far and if it works best for me in the long term, I can certainly live with that. That being said, there are some people here who tried ZC or zero plant food and feel that it didn't work for them, so it's unlikely you'll convince them otherwise, just as few in the ZC forum can be convinced that raw Paleo is the way to go.

Unlike carb-containing plants, I haven't noticed any ill effects from carb-containing flesh foods like raw eggs, though the carb levels in flesh foods are very low. Raw beef liver has the highest reported carbs for a flesh food that I've seen, and even that only contains about 12% carbs  (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/beef-products/3468/2). It is significant, however, which I think is one of the reasons that strict ZCers avoid it. Interestingly, raw chicken liver contains no measurable carbs (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/poultry-products/666/2). I wonder if animal carbs are more digestible for humans than plant carbs?

Carnivores eat a small quantity of vegetable (grass, berries, stomach content, etc...). So there is no real ZC animals in the wild.
I am currently trying VLC with low carbs/starch vegetables as ZC does not work for me.

[Ioanna]

carbs are poisons to our systems

I'm not saying we CANNOT eat carbs-we can tolerate them. But we do not need ANY to thrive.

I am interested to share experiences and relevant studies, but please do not post ZIOH dogma. Most of us are familiar and choose to be here for a reason.

[Hannibal]

I am interested to share experiences and relevant studies, but please do not post ZIOH dogma. Most of us are familiar and choose to be here for a reason. 

Here you are - "Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry, 28th Edition", the best biochemical book
http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?cat=108&isbn=0071625917
If someone is familiar with that science he/she will know that carbs are not poison - they're are essential to human health.

[William]

Here you are - "Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry, 28th Edition", the best biochemical book
http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?cat=108&isbn=0071625917
If someone is familiar with that science he/she will know that carbs are not poison - they're are essential to human health.

IIRC the Bellevue study with Stefansson proved that carbs are not essential.

Lots of junk science around, and lots of carb addicts too.

[Hannibal]

IIRC the Bellevue study with Stefansson proved that carbs are not essential.

Lots of junk science around, and lots of carb addicts too.

That's ludicrous. If you say that the biochemistry is junk science you're ignorant.
The study with Stephansson lasted only one year. Several decades are enough. Besides he wasn't on zero-carb - he ate about 10-15 grams of carbs.
I'm rawpaleo LC advocate, but saying that 50 grams (for example) of carbs are poison is really unreasonable.
Look at the facts, look at the the stress on the body (kidneys, liver) while not consuming any carbs.

[PaleoPhil]

Theres a paper around that Lyle McDonald has touted that apparently shows no lower limit for saturated fat intake.

I'm not sure of the point you're getting at. You're not claiming that McDonald says that fat is an unessential macronutrient, are you (for there are other fats beyond saturated fats)?

[PaleoPhil]

Carnivores eat a small quantity of vegetable (grass, berries, stomach content, etc...). So there is no real ZC animals in the wild.
I am currently trying VLC with low carbs/starch vegetables as ZC does not work for me.

You're referring to facultative carnivores. I haven't seen any observational reports of obligate carnivores in the wild eating plant foods. Plus, sometimes indigestible plants are eaten for medicinal and purgative purposes, rather than for nutritive value, so I could imagine even obligate carnivores eating biologically inappropriate foods for those purposes. Also, if you've ever seen the feces of a coyote, wolf or other wild canine after they eat berries, you know how poorly even facultative wild carnivores tend to digest plant foods.

The vegan canard of wild canines regularly ingesting stomach contents has been refuted here multiple times. The only times facultative carnivores allegedly eat it is when they are starving or severely nutritionally deficient, and even then I've yet to see an actual documented observation in the wild. In contrast, I've observed a video of a wolf emptying out the contents of a stomach and intestines before eating the tissue. On the other hand, I have read reports of Inuits eating stomach contents apparently while not starving (but perhaps deficient in one or more nutrients?), so I wouldn't rule out occasional ingestion by wild canines for the reasons above, and more study is needed.

[Paleo Donk]

The degree to how "poisonous" carbs are is directly related to how sensitive we are to insulin. At one end we have new borns who must have heavy carb intake and who would function worse without them. At the other end we have diabetics/epileptics who cannot handle carbs and will function optimally as a carnivore. Everyone else falls somewhere in between.

Finding out what is optimal is a different story. We have all heavily convoluted the situation by eating decades worth of garbage that has us in this position. Our bodies do not work like they were intended and each one of has different problems with different methods of eating. Just because one method works for us now does not mean it would work just as well for us as small children with uncompromised systems. Our systems are all compromised in one way or the other.

Tyler seems to get sick at merely the sight of cooked foods, where I can eat cooked meat all day long for months and be in great health. William finds that pemmican is vastly superior than any other food where others have not found this to be so. This what makes the discovery so interesting. We are all so different. We each are all uniquely damaged goods and we all need uniquely different treatments to achieve superior health again. One method for all does not seem to work.

Simply saying that carbs are poisonous is too simplistic and does not take a look at the full spectrum of issues. Tyler, for instance, absolutely needs some carbohydrate intake or his system will fail. Carbs are certainly not poisonous for him, they help him maintain optimal health. Same for many other members of the forum.

I also once thought that eating meat and water would work for everyone if they gave it enough time. This is just not realistic and although just meat and water does work extremely well (and is likely optimal) for many it is not simply the solution for everyone's problems. This is where ZIOH can get people in trouble, they do not like to investigate anything other than meat and water. They are a bit too one dimensional, although their one dimention works extraordinarily well for some people.

I've noticed that ZIOH discussion forums have died down recently and almost come to a complete halt. There is very little new discussion and some members have even expressed their approval of this. When you only look at just meat and water I suppose their is very little to discuss. This is why I enjoy this forum so much is that the discussion is very broad and there is no general answer for everyone. It is multidimensional.

[carnivore]

You're referring to facultative carnivores. I haven't seen any observational reports of obligate carnivores in the wild eating plant foods. Plus, sometimes indigestible plants are eaten for medicinal and purgative purposes, rather than for nutritive value, so I could imagine even obligate carnivores eating biologically inappropriate foods for those purposes. Also, if you've ever seen the feces of a coyote, wolf or other wild canine after they eat berries, you know how poorly even facultative wild carnivores tend to digest plant foods.

The vegan canard of wild canines regularly ingesting stomach contents has been refuted here multiple times. The only times facultative carnivores allegedly eat it is when they are starving or severely nutritionally deficient, and even then I've yet to see an actual documented observation in the wild. In contrast, I've observed a video of a wolf emptying out the contents of a stomach and intestines before eating the tissue. On the other hand, I have read reports of Inuits eating stomach contents apparently while not starving (but perhaps deficient in one or more nutrients?), so I wouldn't rule out occasional ingestion by wild canines for the reasons above, and more study is needed.

I neither believe human is obligate carnivore, nor wild canine eat berries for no reason.
Do you have the links for the "vegan canard" ?

[Paleo Donk]

I'm not sure of the point you're getting at. You're not claiming that McDonald says that fat is an unessential macronutrient, are you (for there are other fats beyond saturated fats)?

Sorry, wasn't clear. No, he does not think that and has actually written a couple of very low carb books.  I think he was saying that there was no safe lower limit to saturated fats, or at least the research hasn't been done yet. The AHA recomends 7% as their upper limit. I think the body can manufacture all the saturated fat from PUFA's but not the other way around thus making PUFA's "essential". This is all in the SF wiki as well

[alphagruis]

Demonizing carbs comes as usual from people who just have no education in basic biochemistry and merely don't know what they talk about. Another good book that helps to become less ignorant is: Biochemistry by Donald and Judith G. Voet , John Wiley and Sons (1995).

Please read a little bit in this kind of books before making outrageous claims such as "carbs are poisons to our systems".
Just a few remarks as food for thought:

-It is basically logically incorrect to conclude from the fact that the biood sugar regulation system (based on the insulin, glucagon etc hormones) of many civilized people has been  definitely damaged by cooked grain based diets that carbohydrates are the culprit. The culprit is cooked grains. Period.

-Stricto-sensu ZC diets merely cannot exist actually. All living healthy organisms necessarily contain carbs and thus all food even from animals contains carbs.

-We can indeed limit our ingestion of carbs to a very small quantity. If this quantity is below the minimum we need we are capable to synthesise the needed glucose from protein. But this has a metabolic cost (synthesis needs energy, produces waste etc) and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is better than to ingest the required minimum of carbs. Actually the reverse is most likely true because of this metabolic cost.

-It is ridiculous to believe that our paleo ancestors were ZC. They didn't even know what carbs are and so couldn't select their food accordingly.

-Proteins in animals are quite often enzymatically glycated i.e. a sugar molecule must be attached to them in order to allow the protein to do what it has to do...

-Rather than reasoning in terms of food component ingestion (carbs, proteins, fats) and reductionist science it is much more appropriate to merely find out which specific whole foods to include and in which quantity or not to include in our diet (meat, fish, fowl, weggies, fruits, eggs, dairy, nuts, grains, legumes etc)      

[PaleoPhil]

Quote from: PaleoPhil on Today at 11:01:09 AM
You're referring to facultative carnivores. I haven't seen any observational reports of obligate carnivores in the wild eating plant foods. Plus, sometimes indigestible plants are eaten for medicinal and purgative purposes, rather than for nutritive value, so I could imagine even obligate carnivores eating biologically inappropriate foods for those purposes. Also, if you've ever seen the feces of a coyote, wolf or other wild canine after they eat berries, you know how poorly even facultative wild carnivores tend to digest plant foods.

The vegan canard of wild canines regularly ingesting stomach contents has been refuted here multiple times. The only times facultative carnivores allegedly eat it is when they are starving or severely nutritionally deficient, and even then I've yet to see an actual documented observation in the wild. In contrast, I've observed a video of a wolf emptying out the contents of a stomach and intestines before eating the tissue. On the other hand, I have read reports of Inuits eating stomach contents apparently while not starving (but perhaps deficient in one or more nutrients?), so I wouldn't rule out occasional ingestion by wild canines for the reasons above, and more study is needed.

I neither believe human is obligate carnivore, nor wild canine eat berries for no reason.

Please show me where I wrote that humans are obligate carnivores. I don't see that. My point was that obligate carnivores don't necessarily "eat a small quantity of vegetable (grass, berries, stomach content, etc...)," so claiming that all carnivores do is incorrect, at least as a normal part of their diet (I could imagine obligate carnivores very rarely eating some of those things, though not all, for medicinal/purgative purposes), based on the evidence I've seen. If you have alternative evidence, feel free to share it. Some of those plants have not been proven to have a dietary function even in facultative carnivores. For example, the reasons why some canines eat grass are not well understood or thoroughly researched, AFAIK. This too may be a case of medicinal/purgative use, rather than nutritional benefit, as domestic dogs seem to engage in it more than wild canines and I've witnessed dogs coughing/vomiting grass back up after eating it.

I think wild canines likely eat wild berries because they taste good to them, don't you? That doesn't mean they digest very well, and if you see their scat afterwards you'll see that they aren't. That being said, I don't think wild animals develop significant problems from occasionally eating foods their physiology is not optimally adapted to digesting, do you? As I've written in the past, I'm hoping to try some wild berries myself this summer, and I call my own approach "facultative carnivore." Vegetarian propaganda has unfortunately convinced many people that if a wild animal ever eats any plant foods, then it is not a carnivore. This is false. To get a sense of just how false this is, consider the giant panda: it is scientifically classified as a carnivore, yet 99% of its diet is bamboo shoots and leaves.

Do you have the links for the "vegan canard" ?

From http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/aajonus-vonderplanitz-interview-on-one-radio-network-with-host-patrick-timpone/msg21603/#msg21603:
Nora Gedgaudas: "... I spent a whole summer of my life living with wild wolves, less than 500 miles from the North Pole. ... I was able to watch firsthand what the wolves ate and what they didn't eat, and the organ meats were the first things to go [to be eaten] when they made a kill and what was left over--the muscle meat--was something that was ... left behind for the more subordinate animals that were just sort of picking up scraps behind the rest of the pack and just as an interesting aside, ... you hear a lot of vegans talk about when a predator makes a kill the first thing they eat is the stomach, because that's where all the water-rich vegetables are.... We actually observed the exact opposite. In fact we used ... the stomach with a wolf that was a subordinate animal that didn't have much to eat that particular summer and we tossed the stomach her way and consistently she just urinated on it and walked away, and towards the summer when she got really, really, really desperate there was one day we tossed out a stomach of an animal and she gingerly tore it open with her teeth and then shook it as hard as she could until all the stuff inside was shaken out of there, and then she basically ate the tripe."

See also Tyler's post at http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/100percent-carnivorous-really/msg3506/#msg3506

and "Myth: WOLVES INGEST THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY." http://www.rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html

If you check the sources of the stomach contents canard, you'll find that most of them originate from vegan/vegetarian propagandists, whose dogma has unfortunately infected the Internet and other mass media.

[PaleoPhil]

...Please read a little bit in this kind of books before making outrageous claims such as "carbs are poisons to our systems".
Just a few remarks as food for thought:

-It is basically logically incorrect to conclude from the fact that the suger regulation system (based on the insulin, glucagon etc hormones) of many civilized people has been  definitely damaged by cooked grain based diets that carbohydrates are the culprit. The culprit is cooked grains. Period.
...

While I agree that the "carbs are poisons" quip was extreme, the claim that the only "culprit is cooked grains" goes overboard in the other extreme. My own experience does not support the latter claim. I used to believe the standard claim that there are "good carbohydrates" that everyone can eat, yet when I cut back on these "good" carbs, my health improved. I wish it wasn't so, because it would be easier if I could eat a wider variety of foods and suffer no negative consequences, but it's something I've had to learn to live with. One of our regular members making an extreme claim that cooked grains are the only problematic carbs after several of us have shared the negative effects we've suffered from raw fruits and veggies is like a slap in the face. I'm surprised that it came from you, Alphagruis. Maybe it's not quite what you meant?

[Hannibal]

Any excess of the carbs - fruits, vegetables, honey - is bad. That's obvious.
One can handle more carbs and the other less, but eating no carbs is not the answer.

[Paleo Donk]

Does anyone know if blood sugar is even remotely affected by ingestion of carb containing organ meats? Has any ZC'er eaten just organ meat and gotten an adverse insulin reaction? Organs don't taste or look like they have any carbs in them, which should help those with insulin sensitivity issues. I am still guessing that digested glycogen is treated differntly than digested plant carbs. I also wonder how carnivores refill their glycogen stores after an intense muscle usage. Is it mainly with digested glycogen or gluconeogenesis from muscle meat?

[PaleoPhil]

Excellent questions Paleo Donk. I don't know the answers and am curious myself

Any excess of the carbs - fruits, vegetables, honey - is bad. That's obvious.
One can handle more carbs and the other less, but eating no carbs is not the answer.

I think we need more experience and research before we can come to such a definite and absolute conclusion for everyone. Maybe "no" carbs (which I assume means somewhere between 0.1% and 1% or so carbs, as I don't think absolute zero carb intake is possible, AFAIK) is the answer for some people, at least for a certain amount of time. Going to one extreme or another and claiming that absolutely everyone or absolutely no one does well on ZC seems to be the source of much of the conflict. The experience of folks at the two forums doesn't appear to support either extreme claim.

[carnivore]

Please show me where I wrote that humans are obligate carnivores. I don't see that. My point was that obligate carnivores don't necessarily "eat a small quantity of vegetable (grass, berries, stomach content, etc...)," so claiming that all carnivores do is incorrect, at least as a normal part of their diet (I could imagine obligate carnivores very rarely eating some of those things, though not all, for medicinal/purgative purposes), based on the evidence I've seen. If you have alternative evidence, feel free to share it. Some of those plants have not been proven to have a dietary function even in facultative carnivores. For example, the reasons why some canines eat grass are not well understood or thoroughly researched, AFAIK. This too may be a case of medicinal/purgative use, rather than nutritional benefit, as domestic dogs seem to engage in it more than wild canines and I've witnessed dogs coughing/vomiting grass back up after eating it.

I think wild canines likely eat wild berries because they taste good to them, don't you? That doesn't mean they digest very well, and if you see their scat afterwards you'll see that they aren't. That being said, I don't think wild animals develop significant problems from occasionally eating foods their physiology is not optimally adapted to digesting, do you? As I've written in the past, I'm hoping to try some wild berries myself this summer, and I call my own approach "facultative carnivore." Vegetarian propaganda has unfortunately convinced many people that if a wild animal ever eats any plant foods, then it is not a carnivore. This is false. To get a sense of just how false this is, consider the giant panda: it is scientifically classified as a carnivore, yet 99% of its diet is bamboo shoots and leaves.
From http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/aajonus-vonderplanitz-interview-on-one-radio-network-with-host-patrick-timpone/msg21603/#msg21603:
Nora Gedgaudas: "... I spent a whole summer of my life living with wild wolves, less than 500 miles from the North Pole. ... I was able to watch firsthand what the wolves ate and what they didn't eat, and the organ meats were the first things to go [to be eaten] when they made a kill and what was left over--the muscle meat--was something that was ... left behind for the more subordinate animals that were just sort of picking up scraps behind the rest of the pack and just as an interesting aside, ... you hear a lot of vegans talk about when a predator makes a kill the first thing they eat is the stomach, because that's where all the water-rich vegetables are.... We actually observed the exact opposite. In fact we used ... the stomach with a wolf that was a subordinate animal that didn't have much to eat that particular summer and we tossed the stomach her way and consistently she just urinated on it and walked away, and towards the summer when she got really, really, really desperate there was one day we tossed out a stomach of an animal and she gingerly tore it open with her teeth and then shook it as hard as she could until all the stuff inside was shaken out of there, and then she basically ate the tripe."

See also Tyler's post at http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/100percent-carnivorous-really/msg3506/#msg3506

and "Myth: WOLVES INGEST THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY." http://www.rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html

If you check the sources of the stomach contents canard, you'll find that most of them originate from vegan/vegetarian propagandists, whose dogma has unfortunately infected the Internet and other mass media.

Thank's Paleophil.
That's related to wolf only. What about other carnivores ?
This would explain why my dog refuses to eat intestines. Once she ate some lungs, but vomited it straight away. However, she eats very few grass nearly everyday. But actually I am not sure if she really swallows something.

Also : http://www.stevesrealfood.com/research/foodhabits.html
"From these many studies into the food habits of feral carnivores, it can be concluded that the staple diet of carnivores living in a natural setting includes other animals, carrion, and occasionally other fruits and other grasses."

[Hannibal]

at least for a certain amount of time

yes, for a certain amount of time, not the whole life!

[carnivore]

Demonizing carbs comes as usual from people who just have no education in basic biochemistry and merely don't know what they talk about. Another good book that helps to become less ignorant is: Biochemistry by Donald and Judith G. Voet , John Wiley and Sons (1995).

Please read a little bit in this kind of books before making outrageous claims such as "carbs are poisons to our systems".
Just a few remarks as food for thought:

-It is basically logically incorrect to conclude from the fact that the biood sugar regulation system (based on the insulin, glucagon etc hormones) of many civilized people has been  definitely damaged by cooked grain based diets that carbohydrates are the culprit. The culprit is cooked grains. Period.

-Stricto-sensu ZC diets merely cannot exist actually. All living healthy organisms necessarily contain carbs and thus all food even from animals contains carbs.

-We can indeed limit our ingestion of carbs to a very small quantity. If this quantity is below the minimum we need we are capable to synthesise the needed glucose from protein. But this has a metabolic cost (synthesis needs energy, produces waste etc) and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is better than to ingest the required minimum of carbs. Actually the reverse is most likely true because of this metabolic cost.

-It is ridiculous to believe that our paleo ancestors were ZC. They didn't even know what carbs are and so couldn't select their food accordingly.

-Proteins in animals are quite often enzymatically glycated i.e. a sugar molecule must be attached to them in order to allow the protein to do what it has to do...

-Rather than reasoning in terms of food component ingestion (carbs, proteins, fats) and reductionist science it is much more appropriate to merely find out which specific whole foods to include and in which quantity or not to include in our diet (meat, fish, fowl, weggies, fruits, eggs, dairy, nuts, grains, legumes etc)      

Reasoning only in terms of macronutrient can also be misleading. As protein is not the only component in meat, carb is not the only component in plant food. They are many other nutrients that can be useful or harmful. For exemple fibers : http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/butyric-acid-ancient-controller-of.html

[alphagruis]

While I agree that the "carbs are poisons" quip was extreme, the claim that the only "culprit is cooked grains" goes overboard in the other extreme. My own experience does not support the latter claim. I used to believe the standard claim that there are "good carbohydrates" that everyone can eat, yet when I cut back on these "good" carbs, my health improved. I wish it wasn't so, because it would be easier if I could eat a wider variety of foods and suffer no negative consequences, but it's something I've had to learn to live with. One of our regular members making an extreme claim that cooked grains are the only problematic carbs after several of us have shared the negative effects we've suffered from raw fruits and veggies is like a slap in the face. I'm surprised that it came from you, Alphagruis. Maybe it's not quite what you meant?

Phil, I'm quite aware of the fact that many on this forum do better upon cutting back on fruits or veggies. In particular those people with damaged blood sugar regulation may have to and probably should  do it for a while until they recover. IMO this might possibly take years and not just a few months.

But my point was that you cannot logically conclude from this peculiar situation observed on people recovering from serious health damage that a healthy diet for homo sapiens in general is better definitely ZC and suggest that carbs are problematic by themselves.
People with an injured leg cannot and should not walk for a while. Yet this doesn't mean that homo sapiens should not walk in general.

 I do not distinguish between good and bad carbs. Carbs are carbs. Cooked grains are definitely bad, raw fruit in limited quantity seems quite OK for healthy people, yet both foods are much much more than just one of their components. As I said we should concentrate on real food and find out whether they are or not healthy as a whole rather than trying to do this with their components.
IMO sentences like carbs or proteins are good or bad is non-sense.

I'm sorry that you received my remarks as a kind of provocation. I apologize. That was of course not my intent. I wanted just recall some basic science.  

  

[Paleo Donk]

Well said Alpha. It would be interesting to see how much better we handle raw (or even cooked) fruits and veggies if we do not compromise our systems with decades of cooked grains and refined sugars.  When I have kids there is a good chance I will let them eat a much higher carb diet than what I will be eating. I think it will be intersting to see how Del Fuego's kids will turn out since they eat nothing but pemmican. I am not willing to have my kids go zc, at least at first. When I say kids I mean after they have been weaned off breast milk.