Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??

[PaleoPhil]

We need omega 6s and omega 3s, but sugar?  Never.

It's looking like we don't need any omega 6 fatty acids other than arachidonic acid either:

http://thepaleodiet.com/pdf/flaxseed_oil/The%20essentialityofarachidonicacidanddocosahexaenoicacid.pdf

Arachidonic acid usually comes from animal sources (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachidonic_acid) anyone surprised?

[Raw Kyle]

I haven't been following this thread (apologies) but would like to ask a question of the ts. If insulin spikes do not cause insulin resistance, what does?

[PaleoPhil]

... But don't forget that even on a ZC diet, your body runs on glucose (and fatty acids)...

So when some people say ZCers "need" [carbs] because they can't get any glucose unless they ingest it, it's therefore not [necessarily] true, since the body is still able to get glucose even from a ZC diet, yes?

[JaredBond]

(..."ts"?  Oh, thread starter!  That means me.  I'm used to the term "OP"...)

Hi RawKyle!  I get my new ideas from Matt Stone primarily, and I have to admit, even he has not gotten too much into the mechanics of how all this works. Basically he thinks insulin resistance is a result of low metabolism, which can be caused by a number of things.  The basic idea is that low metabolism is a like a state of hibernation, where, for some reason, the body thinks it should be storing fat and conserving energy.  When the body is getting this signal from hormones, such as low leptin, high estrogen, high serotonin, low T3, high cortisol, or whatever, there's nothing you can do to stop it without addressing those hormones.  I'm pretty sure he's even suggested that the body causes its own state of insulin resistance, as a response to the hypothalamus being leptin resistant and not getting the leptin signal (which I say in turn is probably caused by some other hormone).  See, it's trying to store fat by raising insulin, because it's getting that message from other hormones.

He focuses on leptin, since it is said to be the "master hormone" that controls fat storage and metabolism (thyroid hormone).  What he and many scientists are saying causes leptin resistance (which refers to the hypothalamus specifically not getting the leptin signal from the fat cells) are:

1) Polyunsaturated fat
2) Excessive Fructose Consumption
3) Dieting – and other factors that contribute to high cortisol levels [as a result of stress, caffeine, and chronic inflammation, which is where the polyunsaturated fats come in, as well as chronic bacterial infections, which occur as a result of chronically low body temperature, which is a vicious cycle]
4) Nutrient Deficiency

In his own words:  "The only problem is, leptin research is in its infancy, so the cause of leptin resistance and what can be done to overcome it remains very primitive and limited.  ...If I knew nothing of the causes of leptin resistance and had to simply guess by retracing the major shifts in the diet and lifestyle since the pre-obesity era, it would seem that an overworked, overstressed, sleep-deprived, polluted population fed on a nutrient poor diet with an unprecedented amount of fructose, caffeine, and omega 6 polyunsaturated fat in the diet would somehow be the cause."

Also, I don't think Matt Stone has even mentioned serotonin and estrogen.  I added in those ideas from Ray Peat (raypeat.com) who mostly concurs with Matt Stone's idea that low body metabolism is a central cause of most of our diseases.  There are estrogen-like compounds in legumes (soy, peanuts) as well as plastics, and while serotonin is a reaction to stress, which I've already mentioned, we may be increasing it even more as a society by taking SSRI antidepressants.  I would also add alcohol as a possible aggrivator (smoking, maybe).

But, why not the simple answer of carbs?  Well, I thought it was a little condescending when Matt Stone says that low carb theory "is the easiest one to disprove", but he's kind of right.  Based on evidence around the world, there are loads of examples of people eating high carb diets who never develop obesity or insulin resistance.  Even most of Weston Price's cultures were moderate to high carb.

In addition to this, as mentioned previously in this thread, low carb diets seem to cause insulin resistance, as evidenced by people having higher than normal fasting blood sugars on low or even zero carb diets.  This is further confirmed by people, including Dr. Atkins, reporting low body temperature on low carb diets, indicating low thyroid function (aka low metabolism).  This brings me to the reason I came here today-- I wanted to share with you (also posted on Matt Stone's blog) yet another low carb horror story that was saved by carbs.  This guy stuck to a purely zero-carb carnivorous diet for 2 years... if that isn't a enough time to properly "adjust", I don't know what would be.

See:  http://www.carnivorehealth.com/main/2010/7/14/i-used-to-think-matt-stone-was-a-douche-i-was-wrong.html

The theory I've heard for exactly how a low carb diet may lower metabolism is: excess protein consumption simulates breakdown of our own muscle tissue in times of stress by cortisol, and muscle meat has an abnormally high amount of tryptophan, which is converted to serotonin.  Also, protein and fat is very satiating, so we end up eating less calories than we need for body maintenance (why is it we get sick eating pure saturated fat?  I don't know).  It's a little shaky, but the proof is in the pudding.  My best advice is to follow your feelings instead of theory and dogma.  I mean, theory is good-- completely unquestioningly following our feelings has been the downfall of our society (if you do believe there's a downfall).  Just, don't punish yourself based on theory, because our feelings are there for a reason.

[Paleo Donk]

I'm starting to like Matt Stone less and less, though I am very thankful that I have read quite a bunch of his work. I think he is getting his nuts off in a huge way attacking low-carb. There are so many traditional peoples around the world from the inuits to the masai that are doing so well with low-carb that discounting it completely is very unfair and borderline fraudulent. I'm not denying that people (mainly previous western dieters - take me for instance) have issues with low-carb its just not so simple to discount an entire way of eating because he stumbled across some method that seems to work in the short run. Stone himself has barely been on the diet for more than a year and even his temperature dropped the last month before the milk diet. I think he gets away easy by blaming white sugar. I think those with issues with low-carb have much deeper lying metabolic disturbances that are masked by adding "good" and "clean" carbohydrate sources. I'll give him credit for coming up with something that is working in the short-run. But it is very far from being proven to work long term.

[JaredBond]

The Masai drink a lot of milk.  Now, I know it's higher fat milk than ours, but still, that's a significant amount of carbs.  (Also, they did have plaques in their arteries, even if they didn't actually get strokes or heart attacks.)

The Inuit were not as healthy as some people think.  There have been some reports that they lived to very old ages, but Matt Stone believes the reports from Vilhjalmur Stefansson are more credible.

"...Stefannson said that Eskimo women were getting old in their twenties, and that at the age of 60 they looked as old as Europeans did at 80. He was a well informed anthropologist, and his observations were probably accurate. The Eskimos he observed ate large amounts of fish, and other unsaturated fats, and sometimes ate highly decayed fish. An accelerated rate of aging would be expected from such a diet, because of the toxic lipid peroxides...."
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml

"They also had issues with hemorrhagic stroke, had problems with premature aging and weight gain (amongst the women) - all signs of excess PUFA consumption."
http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2009/09/carb-wars-final-episode.html

No doubt they had excellent bone structure from getting massive amounts of minerals and fat soluble vitamins, but... these reports are not so good.  There was more, but I couldn't find the quotes.  I haven't read Stefannson's stuff myself.  Matt Stone has remarked that they have very fat faces with a ruddy complexion-- something low-carbers will associate with a carb diet.  Probably their diet did suit them better for a life up in the snow, but I wouldn't recommend it for anywhere else.

I know Matt Stone's cocky, but until I find a better source of information, I'll refer people to him.  He does an amazing amount of reading, and his specific combination of ideas appears to be original.

I personally have come to believe there's no problem with sugar (fructose in particular), as long as there is no deficiency of vitamins and minerals in the diet to make up for it, so my stance is even HARDER to swallow!  Matt Stone has said that of all the possible causes of disease, he is the least sure about fructose.  He has suggested that it is the combination of fructose and O6 that causes problems, but I find this convoluted.  The best evidence I have is the simple fact that we have such a strong taste for it; but actually, I'm supposed to be working on a school research project that investigates the actual evidence against fructose more carefully.

[JaredBond]

You guys, I just read something mindblowing (which is usual when I read Ray Peat articles).

In tune with talking about high glucose levels, and alternate ways to think about what's happening with insulin resistance...

"The simplest illustration of how inflammation relates to the organism's resources was an experiment in which blood glucose was varied, while an animal was exposed to chemicals that varied from mildly irritating to potentially deadly. When the animal had very low blood sugar, the mildest irritant could be deadly, but when its blood glucose was kept very high, even the deadly antigens were only mildly irritating."
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/ms.shtml

Wow... high blood glucose protected an animal from an inflammatory response.  This is not the first time I've heard good things about high glucose.  (Probably the first was from Russell Blaylock when he said that high glucose protects against excitotoxicity.)

This is just like when they tried to pass off that elevated cholesterol is what clogs arteries.  Instead, I'm more prone to believing that cholesterol is elevated in response to whatever problem is going on, perhaps to repair cells for instance, or make hormones.  It's also similar to how they're claiming uric acid causes metabolic syndrome.  But uric acid is an antioxidant (although it's undeniably harmful as concentrations get high enough for it to form crystals).  Perhaps all these changes we monitor during metabolic syndrome are not uncontrollable outcomes, but purposeful responses by the body to counteract whatever the real underlying problem is (including high blood pressure, high triglycerides...).  That may include elevated glucose.  Perhaps the body purposely makes the cells insulin resistant in order to raise glucose, in order to protect the body against inflammation, stress, or whatever.

(A flaw in this theory is that people like Michael Eades say that insulin levels slowly climb over time to match the progressive insulin resistance of the cells, which would seem counter-productive.  I wonder if there are studies showing this, since they usually don't measure blood levels of insulin directly, because there is an extremely small amount.)

(Also what's always puzzled me is that, in metabolic syndrome, the fat cells seem NOT to get insulin resistant, since they are the ones collecting all the glucose.)

I've heard that high blood levels of glucose are bad in many ways.  Perhaps this strategy is a last resort of the body's, and it is never meant to get too high.  At least concerning AGEs, I think glucose may be over-feared.  Ray Peat has said that lipid peroxides (from polyunsaturated fats) are 23 times more likely to form AGEs than glucose (fructose being 10 times more likely, but it only lasts a minute or two in the blood stream).

Sorry if I'm getting things mixed up, but I had to share that with you.

[Paleo Donk]

Are you really trying to argue that the inuit lived with poor health and made it for thousands of years in the arctic with a poor diet that they were not adapted to? You won't find a group of people in perfect health if thats what you are looking for. The kitavans with all their potatoes and great health still die in their mid 50's on average, which is right about the average lifespan of pre-contact inuits iirc. You can quote all the negative information you want but it would be beneficial to weigh both sides equally. Clearly the inuit (as well as a multitude of other low-carb peoples) had many, many more positive signs of health than negative.

Matt Stone has very questionable logic and reasoning skills as I see mistakes quite often. He thinks that since mothers milk has carbohydrates that this proves that humans are designed to eat carbs as adults. The problem with this is that carnivorous mammal milk has significant carb content and herbivore milk has significant fat content, yet they each consume foods in adulthood that have little carbs or fat.

There are so many people across the board that do well with low-carb diets. You cannot argue that everyone does poorly with low-carb. This clearly isn't the case. I believe it would be more appropriate to say that there a multitude of diets that can lead humans to great health.  These diets have some things in common such as no processed sugars or oils and no processed grain products and food prepared using traditional methods.

Do you really think his low-carb bashing is completely reasonable and fair?

I'm not a low-carb(especially the way most SAD do it - heavily cooked grain fed meats and cheeses) fanatic and do realize the issues people face with it. I faired poorly on zero-carb, but I'm not going to senselessly bash it because it did not work for me and certainly not cherry pick the data until I find a solid case against it.

[carnivore]

So when some people say ZCers "need" [carbs] because they can't get any glucose unless they ingest it, it's therefore not [necessarily] true, since the body is still able to get glucose even from a ZC diet, yes?

Yes, the body can survive on a ZC diet, as it makes glucose from protein and fat. 

[PaleoPhil]

Well said, PD.

Jared, there's so many questionable claims and speculations here that it would take a long time to respond to them all. Tyler will probably address it when he gets back. Some of these claims and opinions have been refuted before in this forum, which you might find by searching. For now I'll just say that Stefansson wasn't right about everything and Stone and Peat aren't either. I recommend going to the source--the Inuit themselves (and don't study just the Inuit, which is a common limitation--check out the other Arctic and subArctic peoples like the Namgis, Chukchi, Evenks, etc. as well--and tropical peoples like the Kitavans too, whom Prof. Lindeberg has some interesting reports on). Find anthropology books, documentaries, etc. that show the every day lives of indigenous peoples and writings where they are directly interviewed, and understand that even sources that try very hard to be accurate can get some things wrong. Try to get as much from the horse's mouth as you can, and from multiple sources with different agendas. For some contrasting views to compare with Stone's and Peat's, check out Dr. Kurt G. Harris, Stephan Guyenet, Peter of Hyperlipid and Dr. William Davis.

Moderners have been saying many incorrect things about the Real Peoples for many years. For example, some people go overboard in claiming perfect health for the traditional Inuit, but others exaggerate their health problems. The truth seems to be somewhere in between.

[Hans89]

I think when talking about the Inuit, the extreme living conditions they live under should be taken into account. Those might well speed up aging imho. Another example for low carb people would be some Native Americans WAP described - http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets/628-guts-and-grease.html - It would be interesting to know if they showed signs of premature aging, too.

[miles]

HEY! He mentioned that high blood glucose protected some organism from something! On another post recently, someone noticed that some organism(a human, or multiples) had higher blood glucose on ZC! MARVEL!

[KD]

I know Matt Stone's cocky, but until I find a better source of information, I'll refer people to him.  He does an amazing amount of reading, and his specific combination of ideas appears to be original.

I personally have come to believe there's no problem with sugar (fructose in particular), as long as there is no deficiency of vitamins and minerals in the diet to make up for it, so my stance is even HARDER to swallow!  Matt Stone has said that of all the possible causes of disease, he is the least sure about fructose.  He has suggested that it is the combination of fructose and O6 that causes problems, but I find this convoluted.  The best evidence I have is the simple fact that we have such a strong taste for it; but actually, I'm supposed to be working on a school research project that investigates the actual evidence against fructose more carefully.

I think this is one area of life where originality with data interpretation doesn't carry much sway with me.

Any casual followers could probably all see some problems ahead for Danny, but nonetheless, it is totally wrong how he's now been exploited as some kind of test case for an entire ideology by Sisson (perhaps others) and now Stone. seeing since Matt is in no way a professional, it makes little sense to call that un-professional, but that is how it is. Stone's big thing seems to be placing stigma on things that yield 'temporary benefits' like low-carb yet he has no long term studies on his own 'clients' other than temperature raises and orthorexia cures. He can go only to cite basically 'healthy' SWD eaters who have high temperature and single the few that not-so-paradoxically have none of the abhorrent problems that seem to plague all spectrum of the health community as evidence of berst long term health? [buzz]...

I think the elephant in the room is that we are not Inuits, we are not Kitavans. we need a contemporary strategy that both works nutritionally and corrects any other issues with tissue toxicity. RAF/RLC/RZC/PrD these are tool sets that are available. I'd go as far to say personally that there is no way any of the extremes being promoted from pemmican to fruit diets can possibly carry the same nutrition (less important) and repair or healing (more important) that they did 100's of years ago where the latter would be almost unnecessary. This makes all the difference. Yet those peoples never would practice such extreme approaches, even if they had minimal availability so it seems even if our issues were only nutritional, we might consider tweaking things somewhat even prior to negative signs.

If people arn't seeing such extreme approaches as temporary healing processes, it probably IS likely they will end up on Matt's doorway or someone similar or give up entirely eventually. Maybe this might turn out ok for them, and there is probably something to glean from asking questions of both LC and Matt. As mentioned about logical fallacies, Body temp doesn't begin to address these things. I can guarantee I can raise my bodytemp with any cooked food almost instantly. Does that make it good for my health? as long as it passes some other qualifier of fructose or fiber levels? Is very low temp/coldness in extremities a bad sign? almost definitely. is 100 degree temp healthy, its no indicator of health IMO (mine is 99 right now, was super low on high-carb,). Kudos for reading books, but he is all over the map way more then ever using present examples of fruitarians who he vehemently criticizes on some things, to prove other issues he is raising. Its just totally bogus in terms of putting together research. I think its good to have his opinion in the mix, and I'm not saying I would never follow his advice, but I have a major marrow bone to pick with people that change money for health services that they don't have basic life experience with never-mind amateur research. There is no way anyone has it right and there is always need for smart critics, but, proceed with caution.

if he's right on body temp being more important than eating healthy food I'll eat my hat. lucky for me its made out of potatoes.

[PaleoPhil]

...I think the elephant in the room is that we are not Inuits, we are not Kitavans. we need a contemporary strategy that both works nutritionally and corrects any other issues with tissue toxicity. RAF/RLC/RZC/PrD these are tool sets that are available. I'd go as far to say personally that there is no way any of the extremes being promoted from pemmican to fruit diets can possibly carry the same nutrition (less important) and repair or healing (more important) that they did 100's of years ago where the latter would be almost unnecessary. This makes all the difference. Yet those peoples never would practice such extreme approaches, even if they had minimal availability so it seems even if our issues were only nutritional, we might consider tweaking things somewhat even prior to negative signs.

You got it right on the second try. Neither the Inuits nor the Kitavans ever practiced the extremes of an all-pemmican diet or a fruitarian diet. These are "contemporary strategies."

I try not to worry much about what other people choose to eat. It's when people try to force their ways on others that I tend to take exception. Danny is old enough to make his own choices. Matt Stone's claims don't match my experience so far, but if it works for Danny, great. Danny also continues to seek other balancing opinions, like that of Lex, as you may have noticed from his blog.

[KD]

You got it right on the second try. Neither the Inuits nor the Kitavans ever practiced the extremes of an all-pemmican diet or a fruitarian diet. These are "contemporary strategies."

I see how you might have misconstrued that, but to me they are both right. The worst is probably to cite a native or ancient culture, and do something that is clearly artificial and limited. At the same time, the idea of appropriating any culture's nutrition - no matter how faithful in substance - is not necessarily going to be the best strategy for a contemporary human. I think this is illustrated well by WAP without resorting to speculations on carbs or no carbs. Ultimately It doesn't really matter what the richness in micro or macro-nutrients because they lived then and had different requirements, toxicity, and environmental factors. Not to mention there is some usable model for almost every WOE this way, and clearly they don't all work, or work the best for everyone in a contemporary setting. In this sense, its impossible to not have a 'contemporary strategy' by definition of making due with contemporary situations. The alternative would be acting anachronistically or of ignorance, like a bird making a nest out of cardboard. The best diet on paper might not create the best health, and one that might seem to contain toxic components might be the best for cleaning up internal issues. This is my opinion, but I believe it to be right.

[TylerDurden]

Re Stefansson mention:- Stefansson got it wrong quite a lot when, for example, claiming that the Inuit did not eat much in the way of raw meat as a proportion of their diet - other anthropologists are of the opposite opinion. He was also wrong(possibly even fraudulent) as regards the blond eskimoes claim, and so on. So, his claim re the Inuit aging rapidly are unlikely to be correct, given that it is a very  extreme claim and unsupported by others.

[Raw Kyle]

This is not the first time I've heard good things about high glucose

And by that you mean high blood glucose, right? I think a few posts back you said fasting bg is higher on people with low carb diets.

Anyway, thanks for the response to my question, it gave me some things to think about.

[JaredBond]

Are you really trying to argue that the inuit lived with poor health and made it for thousands of years in the arctic with a poor diet that they were not adapted to?

Not poor health, but premature aging and shortened lifespan.  I'm not really sure that they would care about this-- it would take some pretty weird-minded people to live in the snow and relative isolation all the time.  Their short stature and fatness may have been a result of their diet, but it suits them better for life in the cold anyways.

You won't find a group of people in perfect health if thats what you are looking for. The kitavans with all their potatoes and great health still die in their mid 50's on average, which is right about the average lifespan of pre-contact inuits iirc. You can quote all the negative information you want but it would be beneficial to weigh both sides equally. Clearly the inuit (as well as a multitude of other low-carb peoples) had many, many more positive signs of health than negative.

I did not know that about the Kitavans... you sure those aren't the modern Kitavans you're talking about?

Anyways, I'm not talking about "perfect" health, I'm just talking a lot better than dying in your 50s-60s, which you seem to acknowledge of the Inuits.  If low carb, or even zero carb, really is that superior, shouldn't there be examples of these people that are at the very top of the standards that Weston Price observed?  Aside from the ones you named, and I've refuted, PaleoPhil seems to have posted more societies in Arctic regions, mentioned the Kitavans (are you suggesting they were low carb?), and someone mentioned Native Americans, but it sounds like the actual ages were not verified.  This does not sound too compelling.  Then of course there is the theoretical diet of the hominids and Neanderthals, but at least for the human lineage, the diets can't be verified.

....I believe it would be more appropriate to say that there a multitude of diets that can lead humans to great health....

Do you really think his low-carb bashing is completely reasonable and fair?

Maybe so.  As I've said though, I think it's too easy for people who read Eades, Taubes, Groves, Gedgaudas, etc, and think, "This diet could not possibly harm me-- how could it, when it is the natural diet of our species??".  The truth is, there is possibility for harm; in fact, it now seems to me that most long-term lowcarbers come to that conclusion (Jimmy Moore).  I'll just take your word for it that it is working for some people (or at least, stops their more severe symptoms).  People get so riled up after the veil has been lifted from them about saturated fat and cholesterol that they enthusiastically rally on Eades and Taubes.  But the thing is, it was a long while before I heard of any dissent to the low carb theory, at least any that wasn't completely ignorant of the SF/cholesterol truth.  In fact, I think the first time was when Eades spotlighted Anthony Coplo on his blog.  I still respect Eades, but I really wasn't impressed with how he handled the situation, so I investigated.  Next was when Tom Naughton allowed Matt Stone to do a guest post on his blog. (http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/02/04/guest-post-matt-stone-of-180degreehealth/)  I was shocked to hear comments from people finally coming out of the woodworks, talking about their less-than-satisfactory results with low carb.

So that's what I'm being here: The voice of dissent to the low carb theory.  This site was one of the sites I used to frequent.  I never went all the way with doing completely raw (I did try a whole raw steak a few times), but this was the community that I held in mind when I thought of what the ideal diet should be.  I admit, I didn't investigate too thoroughly-- I now see that a lot of you are not completely low carb.  But if someone needs it spelled out to them (such as me) that there is dissent to the low carb theory, and that low carb may even be harmful, that's what this thread is.

I apologize that I've come here, a place where a lot of you are serious researchers, when I'm not that motivated to look more into this myself.  I have read the comments though, and, if not for me, they're probably great for anyone else who is wanting to look more deeply into this issue.  I'll continue to check this thread to see if there's something that seriously challenges my current stance, but I'm sorry that I'm not going to go out of my way.  (I also have a thread here for people who are wanting to expand their jaws/heads, as that is my predicament.)

Particularly, PaleoPhil, I was interested to hear about the pandas, so I'll just ask this... have they tried feeding pandas meat or something, in an attempt to improve their fertility?  If that works, I may consider that there's a better diet for humans, even if very few native peoples have been known to follow it.

(Raw Kyle:  yes)

[PaleoPhil]

I see how you might have misconstrued that, but to me they are both right. The worst is probably to cite a native or ancient culture, and do something that is clearly artificial and limited. At the same time, the idea of appropriating any culture's nutrition - no matter how faithful in substance - is not necessarily going to be the best strategy for a contemporary human. I think this is illustrated well by WAP without resorting to speculations on carbs or no carbs.

I'm a bit confused by your wording and I think you may have misconstrued what I wrote. I agree with what I think you're trying to say--that perfect emulation of a single HG group's diet, such as the Inuit or Kitavans, is impossible in the modern world. Is that what you're trying to get at? I think maybe what you mean is that some people read a little bit about these peoples and then make the enormous leap into thinking that if some pemmican or fruit is good then a ton must be even better, yes? It's also important to point out, however, that these are modern ideas that aren't found in traditional societies. So even if the intention of pemmican/fruit eaters is to emulate, in reality they aren't emulating. So imperfect modern emulations of traditional Inuit and Kitavan diets don't prove that traditional Inuit and Kitavan diets were harmful for Inuits and Kitavans, as critics often claim; they only prove that the emulations tried didn't work for those who tried them. The biggest errors tend to be made by people like DurianRider, who see one or two people following their own twisted versions of Aajonus Vonderplantitz's already-eccentric version of a primal diet and jump to the conclusion that their imperfect results prove that all primal diets and all meat eating must be bad.

It's also important to bear in mind that while traditional Inuit and Kitavan diets may have been superior to the SAD, that doesn't prove that they were perfectly optimal even for Inuits and Kitavans, and perhaps you were trying to say that also? Plus, any perfectionism can create problems. Do you agree?

WAP covered a wide range of diets, including some Neolithic ones, such as in Switzerland, so it's not surprising that he recommended some questionable Neolithic foods. For example, he recommended whole wheat despite the fact that only one of the peoples he studied (as I recall) ate much of it (the Swiss) and he recommended eating lots of dairy as a sort of miracle food, despite the fact that most of the people he studied didn't eat any (at least not in his presence)! So in reality WAP wasn't so much of an emulator as someone who used observations to inspire his own theories. It seems that when people who think they are emulators go off on their own tangents that they get into more trouble than they do from the emulation itself. They grab a few snippets of knowledge from observation or reading and then run with it off into fairy land.

So emulation in and of itself doesn't seem to actually the worst problem. Rather, it seems that the practical impossibilities of trying to emulate in a very different habitat than the one trying to be emulated plus modern high theories that get in the way appear to be the bigger problems. AFAIK, no American is able to perfectly emulate an Inuit or Kitavan diet. So the crux of the problem appears to be in people thinking they can emulate without missing key aspects of the diet being emulated, rather than in their actually engaging in perfect emulation. It's a subtle but important distinction.

So while I agree that it doesn't make perfect sense for an American to try to emulate exactly the diet of hunter gatherers in the Arctic or the tropics, which have different native flora and fauna and more abundant sources of wild foods than where I live, and it's not something I've ever tried to do. People who promote WAP and WAPF diets (there are differences between the two), pemmican diets and fruitarianism don't appear to be claiming to be trying to do that either, exactly. From what I've seen, they are simply incorporating some selected lessons learned from the diets of animals, HGs or traditional Neolithic peoples, and then running with them and making their own new claims. In other words, they are mixing high theory and scientific reductionism with partial emulation and disregarding the personal experiences of the people they're trying to influence (like you and me). When people like you and me report that they're claims haven't worked for us, they hold to their dogmas and assume we must have done something wrong. So there are a combination of factors in the problem. It seems more of a stew of problems than an extract.

Ultimately It doesn't really matter what the richness in micro or macro-nutrients because they lived then and had different requirements, toxicity, and environmental factors.

Right, that's part of what I was trying to get at. So the crux of the problem isn't that Inuit and Kitavan diets necessarily weren't healthy, it's more that we cannot emulate them perfectly. However, the Inuit and Kitavan diets can give us clues to how to eat better than the SAD, and all of us here are following most of those clues. I think that's what most people do. I can't actually think of a single case of anyone who claims they are trying to precisely emulate an Inuit or Kitavan diet. That's a charge that tends to get thrown at the people who eat RPD, but I haven't seen anyone here actually say that they're trying to do that and since I don't read minds I don't assume that they are trying to do that.

Not to mention there is some usable model for almost every WOE this way, and clearly they don't all work, or work the best for everyone in a contemporary setting. In this sense, its impossible to not have a 'contemporary strategy' by definition

Correct, which is why perfect emulation isn't the real problem, whereas thinking one can emulate could be, but again, I haven't seen anyone claim they are trying to perfectly emulate anyone's diet. Are you aware of a single such example? If we can't cite a single example, then it seems to be much ado about nothing.

[KD]

Correct, which is why perfect emulation isn't the real problem, whereas thinking one can emulate could be, but again, I haven't seen anyone claim they are trying to perfectly emulate anyone's diet. Are you aware of a single such example? If we can't cite a single example, then it seems to be much ado about nothing.

My impression was that you thought I meant contemporary methods as only a negative labeling in comparison to the real 'successes' of ancient wisdom. As in, obviously things like frutarian are contemporary modes of thinking. But what I was saying was that contemporary modes of thinking are in fact good and unavoidable, but people like Matt Stone or Pemmicaners or fruit eaters are misusing past ideas still or misinterpreting present science in select cases to apply broadly.

I meant WAPF and not WAP, so that was my mistake. I meant that even through their present work might be far healthier than SWD, it might not be enough for many people to heal from modern problems. This is precisely why the other tools like raw (while not necessarily present in HG's as the bulk of their diet) might be of added benefit for present humans, even if humans could live more or less healthfully on other foods for thousands of years. This is NO indicator this is enough now. This seems to be the major example/point of argument without needing to delve into any past speculation. I might have a hard time convincing someone 5-10,000 years ago that cooking is completely bad, but I should be able to use present science and personal or anecdotal evidence of faster and more productive healing on raw foods. Whether that makes it the BEST diet in terms of living a happy healthy socially integrated life, I do not know. But it is certainly a better conversation in my mind than others citing HG's to prove the healthfulness of starches or cooked meats. It really only goes so far in terms of value is the point.

I'm not sure perfectionism is the issue per se. But do think what you touched on about people having the more (or tons less) of whatever thing is a common mentality. I don't think lackadaisical attitude will get one very far if they want to make serious changes, although subtle improvements over time is usually good. In this I think Stone and others have some valid criticism in this department in terms of orthorexic behavior, but there are also misunderstandings here about RAF, mainly because he/them has no serious experience.

I'm a bit confused by your wording and I think you may have misconstrued what I wrote. I agree with what I think you're trying to say--that perfect emulation of a single HG group's diet, such as the Inuit or Kitavans, is impossible in the modern world. Is that what you're trying to get at?

No, I don't think emulation is impossible of all WAP (not WAPF in this case ) type peoples, unless one wants heavily factor in wild foods or get really snippy about soil quality of raised foods, but it is more or less possible in other ways. I just think fundamentally its flawed anyway as far as what is most healing in our current setting and requirements.

As for understanding others diets, of course there is tremendous value in that. I'm always interested in 'new' information surfacing on Inuits and Kitavans's and these do impact my choices, but at the end of the day I don't believe emulating their diet or attempting to will automatically bring health. I think that is the difference. And Stone is as guilty here as pemmicaners and fruit eaters in that respect, only without the 'extremes'.

[pioneer]

I know all of you guys want to either prove your own theories or find facts about neolithic and paleolithic tribes as well as more recent tribes but has anyone ever thought of looking at what we know about animals. PEOPLE, humans are animals too. Society constantly tries to convince us humans that we are somehow different than the animal kingdom, that we are not animals, that for some strange reason, every other animal can be exposed to an array of bacteria, but we need to be sterile, and also, that we need to brush our teeth to keep them. That way of thinking is pure lunacy. Anyone who says "oh, we cant compare ourselves to animals, we're human", has to realize, HELLO? 99% of scientific lab study is done on animals. Almost no scientific advancements were ever made without the use of animals. Therefore, scientists were treating animals bodies much like humans bodies for a long time.

Dont get me wrong, I know animals differ, but wouldnt it be safe to say a heart is a heart, hormones are hormones, bacteria is bacteria, etc? There are major differences (warm/ cold blooded, mammals, marsupials, carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, etc...) but why cant society see that we are animals and our bodies function like them. Once people realize that, we all just need to figure out what we are, which is primarily omnivore, but we can survive off of carnivore just fine. The closer one gets to the equator, the likelyhood of more vegetation consumption and carb consumption occurs. Vice versa, the further from the equator, the more animal, less plant we generally consume. Would it not be safe to say that maybe we need to consider all these factors instead of always doing the "he said, she said" thing when it comes to which tribe ate what and so on?

[Hans89]

I think that actually Matt Stones' current recommendations are pretty mainstream: high carb, low fat, about 1g of protein per kg of bodyweight, maximize omega-3 vs. omega-6. Carbs mostly starches, but fruit are allowed, as are desserts in moderation. In what he differs is advocating (temporary!) overfeeding and abstaining from excercise, and his strong stance against calorie restriction.

I'm currently using his recommendations for reducing insulin resistance and food intolerances because I will have to eat some SAD food in the near future and my past reaction to it was devastating. Right now I seem to have improved at least somewhat, except dairy is still a no-no as it basically stops my digestion.

[pioneer]

and his strong stance against calorie restriction.

that is one thing I agree with. I think we humans just need to eat the right foods til we are full and not call it quits in the middle of a meal. We didnt evolve that way. If anything we cavemen wouldve wanted to store the most energy possible.

[Raw Kyle]

that is one thing I agree with. I think we humans just need to eat the right foods til we are full and not call it quits in the middle of a meal. We didnt evolve that way. If anything we cavemen wouldve wanted to store the most energy possible.

But "cavemen" wouldn't have had an unlimited supply of food, be able to choose when they feel like they're finished with eating, and when they want to have their next meal.

[PaleoPhil]

Sorry for the length of this post. There's a lot of apparent misconceptions to respond to here.

First I'll try to make something clear re: this forum section. It's not really a truly "ZC" section, since the title says the following:

"Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach: Not literally zero carb but eating only from the animal kingdom: muscle meats, organs, and fat of sea, sky, and land animals alike -- the raw meat diet for humans."

And that would include eggs, insects, grubs, etc. Some purist ZCers avoid liver, eggs and shellfish due to the carbs they contain. Since that isn't advocated in the title, then some ZCers might not consider ZC to be officially a part of this forum. Still, ZCers are welcome here if they're civil.

My impression was that you thought I meant contemporary methods as only a negative labeling in comparison to the real 'successes' of ancient wisdom.

I didn't think you meant that, no.

I don't want to get pulled into defending Matt Stone, all-pemmican-eaters, fruitarians, the WAPF, all low carbers or anyone else for that matter. If you're truly interested in the real reasons why I eat a very low carb diet, let me know (the assumptions made in this thread are way off target in my case; my signature is supposed to be a big hint, but it seems like a number of people have either missed it or ignored it). If you want to know why Matt Stone, Danny Roddy, or anyone else eat the way they do, why not ask them instead of speculating about it here? I still have seen no evidence that any single individual is trying to perfectly mimic the diet of any particular people, just assumptions, speculations and opinions, and thus the claim of mindless Inuit or Kitavan mimicking still seems like much ado about nothing.

But do think what you touched on about people having the more (or tons less) of whatever thing is a common mentality.

Yes, and that seems to be more typical of modern people, because I haven't come across an example of it in writings and documentaries on hunter gatherers.

In this I think Stone and others have some valid criticism in this department in terms of orthorexic behavior, but there are also misunderstandings here about RAF, mainly because he/them has no serious experience.

Before you assume that others are motivated by orthorexia or blind emulation [edit: not that you've necessarily ever accused anyone of orthorexia--I'm just questioning the validity and usefulness of this term in general and warning against its use], bear in mind that both these accusations have been broadly thrown at this forum in the recent past before you arrived here, which presumably would include you now that you've joined and presumably follow a RPD. If it wasn't ethically or factually right for people to assume these motivations would be true for you, then perhaps you shouldn't make the same mistake?

BTW, I predicted back in 9/16/09 in my self-quote below that the orthorexia insult would get thrown at Paleo dieters of all stripes and that there would be much infighting and this appears to have come to pass. I apparently decided not to post this quote at the time, probably because I was fed up with the negative vibes and thought it might just inspire negative retorts. I'm increasingly becoming fed up with the latest round of bad vibes directed at low carbers, but since not responding didn't work and since my prediction was interestingly accurate, I'll finally post it:

Since Paleo dieters of ALL stripes come in for some harsh criticism from mainstream society, and all will likely be called "extreme," or "obsessed," or "orthorexic," at some point, you might think that Paleo dieters will know better than to cast such stones at each other, but I predict there will be much infighting. Internecine wars are often the most bitter.

And it's not just RPDers who have been targeted by the orthorexia label. As I recall, the guy who coined the term first applied it to some raw vegans and was inspired to come up with the term by a raw vegan who he claims died from her diet. Most who wield the term don't seem to know much about it or the criteria that the originator developed to determine who qualifies as orthorexic. As I expected, the term is being wielded by and against dieters of many different stripes and eventually the followers of all diets with any substantial following will likely be targeted. It's much easier to label someone as orthorexic than to provide evidence or refute points. I wonder what RPDers will be called next? Maybe some combination of orthorexia and emulation like orthoremulans?

No, I don't think emulation is impossible of all WAP (not WAPF in this case ) type peoples, unless one wants heavily factor in wild foods or get really snippy about soil quality of raised foods,

Which of the WAP peoples is it possible to emulate exactly in the USA? Perhaps one of the more modern groups like the old-fashioned among the Swiss? I could see that. What do you think are the elements of traditional diets that are impossible to emulate? Do you think that wild foods and soil quality are not significant factors in nutrition?

I just think fundamentally its flawed anyway as far as what is most healing in our current setting and requirements.

What specifically about the diets of WAP-type peoples is "fundamentally flawed" from the standpoint of "our current setting and requirements" and can you include an example of one of these peoples that you mean?

at the end of the day I don't believe emulating their diet or attempting to will automatically bring health.

Do you know anyone who does believe that emulating a particular HG group's diet (like the Inuits or Kitavans or other people) will "automatically" bring them optimal health? For example, are you claiming that re: Matt Stone or Danny Roddy?

I know all of you guys want to either prove your own theories or find facts about neolithic and paleolithic tribes as well as more recent tribes ....

If I'm one of the "guys" you're talking about, then I'll fill you in that my main motivation for being here is to learn and share so as to increase my understanding of what works best for me in both diet and lifestyle, and in return maybe some will find some of what I've written to be useful to them also. If not, then I guess the benefit is all mine. Are you surprised that my main motivation is not to prove my own theories or just to find facts about various peoples? Who do you think this is true of? If you don't want to state a name publicly, then feel free to send me a PM.

Evidence from hunter-gatherer tribes and Paleolithic digs are just one aspect of that (not the end-all and be-all) and should be expected in a forum called "RawPaleoForum", shouldn't it? Does discussion of it irritate you? Can you explain what specifically motivated your comment? What brought you to this way of eating?

but has anyone ever thought of looking at what we know about animals.

I certainly have and have written extensively about it on this forum, which is why I'm puzzled as to why you would ask that question. Maybe you missed all my posts on giant pandas, wolves, chimps, monkeys, gorillas, tarsiers, and other animals?

I think we would indeed be well served by learning more about animals in the wild because then we would learn things like that they aren't completely free of the "diseases of civilization" like dental caries, hairloss, poor sex drive and infertility.

Society constantly tries to convince us humans that we are somehow different than the animal kingdom, that we are not animals, that for some strange reason....

Precisely, and I think this also partly underlies why many people don't want to think of hunter-gatherer or Stone Age peoples as knowing some things that we don't or living better in some ways than we do, because we tend to think of them as being closer to animals and to want to cut off all ties with the animal world so we can maintain this notion of being superior to and apart from the animal world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that Stone Age life was perfect or that we can emulate it perfectly or any other of the canards that get thrown at this forum and Paleo dieters in general by people who haven't tried a Paleo approach.

Would it not be safe to say that maybe we need to consider all these factors instead of always doing the "he said, she said" thing when it comes to which tribe ate what and so on?

That's basically what I have been saying all along--I utilize all relevant sources of information. Do you see a problem with someone sharing what a certain tribe ate, or with lack of evidence given to support claims made by people who say that certain tribes ate certain foods, or just with the arguing over it?

Not poor health, but premature aging and shortened lifespan.  I'm not really sure that they would care about this-- it would take some pretty weird-minded people to live in the snow and relative isolation all the time.  Their short stature and fatness may have been a result of their diet, but it suits them better for life in the cold anyways.

Jared, you speak as though you know much about the Inuit. Can you explain a little more about what you mean and provide a source or two to back these opinions about Inuits being "weird-minded", in "relative isolation all the time" and being fat? Are you talking about traditional Inuits of the past, or the ones of today eating modern foods?

Anyways, I'm not talking about "perfect" health, I'm just talking a lot better than dying in your 50s-60s, which you seem to acknowledge of the Inuits.

Are you talking about average lifespan? What is your source for this information and what is your view for why the figures are in that range?

If low carb, or even zero carb, really is that superior, shouldn't there be examples of these people that are at the very top of the standards that Weston Price observed?  Aside from the ones you named, and I've refuted, PaleoPhil seems to have posted more societies in Arctic regions, mentioned the Kitavans (are you suggesting they were low carb?)

No, I wasn't suggesting that the Kitavans are low carb and I have never limited myself solely to examples of peoples or animals that eat much like me. I more frequently mention people of Arctic and temperate regions because their experience is more relevant to what has worked for me than people in tropical regions. Learning a lot about high-carb eating peoples wouldn't do me much good because I don't do well on high carb diets, though I do learn something about them in case it provides additional clues.

I do low carb because it works for me, and if I'm going to do it I may as well try to do it right and learn from those who have been doing it for many thousands of years, as well as other information sources, rather than try to figure it out completely on my own, don't you agree? Isn't that part of why you're here too, because such information shared in forums like this one might be useful to you too? Or is none of the information here of any use to you?

Then of course there is the theoretical diet of the hominids and Neanderthals, but at least for the human lineage, the diets can't be verified.

They are not purely theoretical--there is some hard evidence, but it is limited. I agree that we should be careful when we speculate beyond the evidence, and recognize that we are speculating.

Maybe so.  As I've said though, I think it's too easy for people who read Eades, Taubes, Groves, Gedgaudas, etc, and think, "This diet could not possibly harm me-- how could it, when it is the natural diet of our species??".

Agreed, and I think over-reliance on one or two gurus is actually far more common than over-reliance on the diets of one or two tribes of the present or past. One of the things that attracted me to this forum is that it isn't run by or devoted to a single guru.

The truth is, there is possibility for harm; in fact, it now seems to me that most long-term lowcarbers come to that conclusion (Jimmy Moore).

Most of the low carbers that I'm familiar with have talked about potential pitfalls (such as Dr. Kurt Harris, Richard Nikoley and Mark Sisson). Are there not potential pitfalls to all diets, including your own? Isn't it possible to screw up any dietary approach? Even the Instinctos like Burger talk about mistakes one can make in applying their approaches.

I'll just take your word for it that it is working for some people (or at least, stops their more severe symptoms).

And "I'll just take your word for it that" what you're doing works for you. I think we need to do that if we're going to have civil discourse here. Besides, following a RPD is not easy and there's a lot of social pressure to not do it--so it's not likely that anyone would lie about obtaining benefits from it and follow it in spite of experiencing only harm from it.

People get so riled up after the veil has been lifted from them about saturated fat and cholesterol that they enthusiastically rally on Eades and Taubes.

True, and do you also recognize that those who don't do well on LC get riled up against Eades and Taubes and those who speak positively of them and of LC diets in general (are you familiar with Tyler Durden's posts, for example )?

But the thing is, it was a long while before I heard of any dissent to the low carb theory, at least any that wasn't completely ignorant of the SF/cholesterol truth.

Interesting, my experience has been quite the opposite. I was proselytized re: the high-carb USDA food pyramid and vegetarianism decades before I heard about Atkins, Taubes and other low carb proponents. I ate moderate-to-high carb diets with lots of "healthy whole grains, fruits and vegetables" during those decades before I tried a low carb approach. From my registration on this forum and ever since I've been reading tons of posts attacking ZC/VLC/LC and proponents of lower-carb diets, as well as attacks on proponents of carbs. Lately the anger against LC seems to be building (which is surprising with Tyler gone ). The flames from both sides of the carb debate do get tiresome at times and I prefer the more rational and evidence-based approach at another forum, but they don't have nearly as much info on the raw and Paleo aspects of diet, so I put up with the bickering here. Some low carbers got so fed up with the anti-LC bashing that they left this forum, so it's strange that you're apparently not noticing that side of the coin. Tyler frequently insults low carbers but at least he provides some evidence to back his claims. It's the posts that rely solely on opinions and are vague that I find to be the least useful on both sides of the debate.

So that's what I'm being here: The voice of dissent to the low carb theory.  This site was one of the sites I used to frequent.  I never went all the way with doing completely raw (I did try a whole raw steak a few times), but this was the community that I held in mind when I thought of what the ideal diet should be.  I admit, I didn't investigate too thoroughly-- I now see that a lot of you are not completely low carb.

Don't you think that setting yourself up as the "voice of dissent to the low carb theory" is a tad presumptuous, especially given that you have admitted that you "didn't investigate too thoroughly"? Wouldn't it be better to focus more on seeking first to investigate and understand before you seek to teach us with your voice of dissent?

Did you not notice Tyler Durden's posts? He was a voice of dissent and tirades against low carb long before you arrived here and he is one of the two prominent leaders here, the other being GoodSamaritan who AFAIK also does not consider himself low carb (he eats plenty of tropical fruits), but he isn't as aggressive about it. Given that neither of our two leaders is low carb, where did you get this idea that this was a LC-oriented forum? This forum is nowhere near as pro-LC/ZC as true LC forums like ZIOH and Dirty Carnivore (although it is of course more LC than vegan/vegetarian forums).

But if someone needs it spelled out to them (such as me) that there is dissent to the low carb theory, and that low carb may even be harmful, that's what this thread is.

You've mentioned "low carb theory" multiple times. I think that's part of where you're misunderstanding. I don't eat low carb solely because of some high theory. I do so mainly because it works for me. Isn't that why you eat the way you do? Why would you make a different assumption about others?

I apologize that I've come here, a place where a lot of you are serious researchers, when I'm not that motivated to look more into this myself.

Thanks for being candid about that, and it explains a lot, but do you expect people to take you seriously as the self-appointed "voice of dissent to the low carb theory" if you're "not that motivated to look more into" it?

I'll continue to check this thread to see if there's something that seriously challenges my current stance, but I'm sorry that I'm not going to go out of my way.

Nothing of what you've written seriously challenges what I have found to work for me and if you're not going to put much effort into considering the various possibilities, then I'm not going to go out of my way to investigate your dissents either. There is an overabundance of opinions on the Internet. What is lacking is motivated investigators who thoroughly examine and test possibilities and provide evidence to back their hypotheses and conclusions. Lex Rooker and Dr. Kurt Harris are a couple of the people who do the due diligence from the LC camp, and Stephan Guyenet is someone who does it from the moderate-carb camp. The Kitavans are a decent example of a people that seem to be doing well on high carb, though I haven't seen a really good explanation yet of how people do well on high carb diets--but I am open to that possibility for some people.

Particularly, PaleoPhil, I was interested to hear about the pandas, so I'll just ask this... have they tried feeding pandas meat or something, in an attempt to improve their fertility?

Not to specifically test fertility rates, that I know of, though some articles report that some zoos do feed limited animal foods to giant pandas. It would be interesting to know what the fertility rates of giant pandas fed some animal foods are compared to those fed only plant foods. If you learn any more about this, please let me know.

Unfortunately, scientists' efforts at improving captive giant panda fertility have focused more on medicinal treatments, with little success (such as the herbal medicine and Viagra testing reported on here: "Even Pandas Suffer From Impotence," http://www.mrsafaris.com/free-pictures-wild-animals.html). Sound familiar?

I did read that female pandas in the wild will seek out nonplant foods when it's the season for them to get pregnant, perhaps drive by hormones? I wasn't able to find the article again, however. Perhaps this drive is somewhat offset by the giant panda's genetic meat-tasting deficiency (see below), thus keeping fertility rates even in the wild low? The giant panda is a mysterious and intriguing animal that warrants more study.

Did you read any of my posts on giant pandas? I'm not going to repost them or post links to them, because some of them are easy to find and I figure that if someone isn't willing to search for them then they probably aren't really interested. I've wasted time in the past re-posting things and posting links for people who ignored them anyway, so I'm trying to avoid that.

Panda genome unveiled
DNA clues suggest little inbreeding, surprise on the bamboo diet
By Laura Sanders
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/50736/title/Panda_genome_unveiled

"The panda genome gives clues to understanding the panda’s strict bamboo diet. It turns out that pandas have mutations in two copies of a taste gene called T1R1, which encodes a protein that senses the savory taste of meats, cheeses, broths and other high-protein foods. These mutations may have robbed pandas of the ability to taste meat, pushing them toward their bamboo diet, the researchers suggest.

Pandas possess all the requisite genes for digesting meat, but none of the genes required for digesting bamboo, Wang and colleagues found. The researchers guess that pandas rely entirely on communities of gut microbes for extracting nutrients from bamboo."