A day in the life of TylerDurden

[TylerDurden]

Why?  It's just as political a task to peer review something as anything else these days.  Who do you think the 'peers' are??

The very first consideration of any peer reviewer is what the study will do for his/her own research program. If it helps, they get positive reviews, if it doesn't it gets negative reviews. A close second is personal history which there almost always is.  An unbiased peer review does not exist. It only takes one negative critique (justified or not at all justified) to keep a journal from publishing someone's work.

My point is that bias tends to be eliminated(mostly) when paper after paper shows the same thing. Food-science reports in favour of saturated fats are few and far between, with multiple studies damning it. One can argue that the interpretation is wrong, that saturated-fat-heavy foods just happen to contain lots of heat-created toxins from cooking so that it's not the saturated fat per se which is the trouble, but that's about it. The alternative is to go in for the usual pro-low-carb conspiracy theories, which is even less likely.

[TylerDurden]

The vast majority of people avoid animal fat like the plague, and use vegetable oil instead. They choose lean cut of meat and often prefer  "fat free" food.

Most of the people I know who eat SAD-type diet eat fast-food which is very fatty indeed(eg:- fatty bacon in a typical english breakfast,fatty lamb meat in kebabs etc.). It's only the vegetarian-leaning types who prefer cutting off the fat and being hyper-keen on lean.

There is no butter with steak tartare, and it always comes with something (often french fries with salad in France).

Well, every single time I've gone to a restaurant to eat steak tartare(often Hungarian but also other nationalities) I have only ever received a plate of raw, minced meat plus a raw egg on the top with(often but not always) a bit of (pasteurised) butter on the side. Maybe it's a French thing to add the fries.

[carnivore]

Most of the people I know who eat SAD-type diet eat fast-food which is very fatty indeed(eg:- fatty bacon in a typical english breakfast,fatty lamb meat in kebabs etc.). It's only the vegetarian-leaning types who prefer cutting off the fat and being hyper-keen on lean.

Well, every single time I've gone to a restaurant to eat steak tartare(often Hungarian but also other nationalities) I have only ever received a plate of raw, minced meat plus a raw egg on the top with(often but not always) a bit of (pasteurised) butter on the side. Maybe it's a French thing to add the fries.

My point was to say that meat and carbs come together since thousands of years. Eating them separately is "the exception of the rule" like you wrote.
Heavy meat eaters always eat a good proportion of other things.
BTW, can you provide some links about these studies ?

On the french TV, the advertisings for food always show a warning saying that "one should not eat too much sugar, fat and salt". The food that are promoted are always full of these stuffs! Difficult to eat animal products without some unhealthy stuffs.

[PaleoPhil]

Tyler, what would you estimate is the range of percent carbs, fat and protein in your diet by calories?

I'm still interested to know. Don't get me wrong--I'm not claiming there's necessarily a magic ratio, I'm just getting confused by what seem like contradictory points at times and trying to understand where you're coming from and what it is exactly that you're advocating.

[invisible]

Most of the people I know who eat SAD-type diet eat fast-food which is very fatty indeed(eg:- fatty bacon in a typical english breakfast,fatty lamb meat in kebabs etc.). It's only the vegetarian-leaning types who prefer cutting off the fat and being hyper-keen on lean.

But dude when these people drop the carbs and make their entire diet cooked fat, eaitng heaps of cheese, butter, cooked grain beef, bacon and eggs etc their health improves (relatively). No study exists where people's health has got worse from going low carb on those foods.

The mainstream push that 'red meat' is bad - that's it (if this is considered a consensus then how can you eat raw food? The 'consensus' is that raw meat will kill you immediately). There are hundreds of articles released about the dangers of red meat, however these are NEVER backed by controlled studies only very arbitrary observations. All controlled studies fully support that cooked low carb is superior to any other type of cooked diet.

[TylerDurden]

But dude when these people drop the carbs and make their entire diet cooked fat, eaitng heaps of cheese, butter, cooked grain beef, bacon and eggs etc their health improves (relatively). No study exists where people's health has got worse from going low carb on those foods.

The mainstream push that 'red meat' is bad - that's it (if this is considered a consensus then how can you eat raw food? The 'consensus' is that raw meat will kill you immediately). There are hundreds of articles released about the dangers of red meat, however these are NEVER backed by controlled studies only very arbitrary observations. All controlled studies fully support that cooked low carb

What a load of b*ll*cks!!! Actually, studies have shown again and again that one can get nasty side-effects on zero-carb diets(what they call ketogenic diets). Also, such factors as the drop in physical performance in sports while on zero-carb have also been studied.

The irony is that while there are numerous comments by nutritionists about the dangers of raw, red meat, studies on the dangers of raw meat are few and far between, and there are plenty of studies supporting the consumption of raw, GRASSFED meat as long as one isn't eating raw, grainfed meats.

[TylerDurden]

My point was to say that meat and carbs come together since thousands of years. Eating them separately is "the exception of the rule" like you wrote.
Heavy meat eaters always eat a good proportion of other things.
BTW, can you provide some links about these studies ?

On the french TV, the advertisings for food always show a warning saying that "one should not eat too much sugar, fat and salt". The food that are promoted are always full of these stuffs! Difficult to eat animal products without some unhealthy stuffs.

Well, we can agree on the issue re meat and carbs usually going together, other than certain exceptions.

Re studies:- I'm not sure what you mean. There are 1000s of studies damning saturated fats. The reference re the notion that saturated fat may be less to blame than heat-created toxins from cooking, comes from this study:-

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6474.long

[TylerDurden]

I'm still interested to know. Don't get me wrong--I'm not claiming there's necessarily a magic ratio, I'm just getting confused by what seem like contradictory points at times and trying to understand where you're coming from and what it is exactly that you're advocating.

It all depends. I used to have rigid ratios of anywhere from 0% to 25% at times. These days, I veer from having mostly fruit for a week or two(usually only when high-quality raw  meat sources are scarce as  I increasingly  can't stand cooked meat or substandard grainfed raw meat) to sometimes eating only meats for a week at a time(never more than that). But I suppose my fruit-intake is more usually between 5-15%, so 10% basically. Increasing that fruit-intake doesn't harm me unless I eat only raw fruit for 3+ weeks or so.

[carnivore]

Well, we can agree on the issue re meat and carbs usually going together, other than certain exceptions.

Re studies:- I'm not sure what you mean. There are 1000s of studies damning saturated fats. The reference re the notion that saturated fat may be less to blame than heat-created toxins from cooking, comes from this study:-

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6474.long

Studies showing that cooked meat is damaging (and not the junk that is always eaten with it) ?

[carnivore]

It all depends. I used to have rigid ratios of anywhere from 0% to 25% at times. These days, I veer from having mostly fruit for a week or two(usually only when high-quality raw  meat sources are scarce as  I increasingly  can't stand cooked meat or substandard grainfed raw meat) to sometimes eating only meats for a week at a time(never more than that). But I suppose my fruit-intake is more usually between 5-15%, so 10% basically. Increasing that fruit-intake doesn't harm me unless I eat only raw fruit for 3+ weeks or so.

What symptoms do you suffer from with grainfed raw meat ?

[carnivore]

What a load of b*ll*cks!!! Actually, studies have shown again and again that one can get nasty side-effects on zero-carb diets(what they call ketogenic diets). Also, such factors as the driop in physical performance in sports while on zero-cabr have also been studied.

The irony is that while there are numerous comments by nutritionists about the dangers of raw, red meat, studies on the dangers of raw meat are few and far between, and there are plenty of studies supporting the consumption of raw, GRASSFED meat as long as one isn't eating raw, grainfed meats.

Please, provide links of studies showing nasty side-effects and drop in physical performance on zero-carb diets !

[TylerDurden]

What symptoms do you suffer from with grainfed raw meat ?

Personally, I have never managed to hold raw grainfed meat down without vomiting. I did try, very early on in the diet,  raw,intensively-farmed grainfed meat, but it was so foul-tasting that I had to vomit immediately  and give up until I eventually found wildcaught  foods like fresh swordfish etc. Others get more nasty symptoms, as described in past posts.

[TylerDurden]

Here's a vague reference to side-effects on ketogenic (ZC) diets(doesn't cover all of them, last I checked):-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Adverse_effects


As regards the studies done on the dangers of meats, they are everywhere and easy to find so a simple googling should suffice. Large numbers of studies show that the higher the (cooked) meat-intake is in one's diet the greater is the risk to health.It's generally irrelevant as to the other dietary factors, as, inevitably, the more meat is consumed in the diet, the less people eat of other foods(meat is more satiating, for one thing). To take 1 example, if someone eats 30% of his diet as cooked meat and then increases his meat-intake to 50% of his diet, then, by extension, the foods making up what was 70% of his diet before, now only make up the other 50% of his diet. Simple mathematics.

[carnivore]

Here's a vague reference to side-effects on ketogenic (ZC) diets(doesn't cover all of them, last I checked):-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Adverse_effects


As regards the studies done on the dangers of meats, they are everywhere and easy to find so a simple googling should suffice. Large numbers of studies show that the higher the (cooked) meat-intake is in one's diet the greater is the risk to health.It's generally irrelevant as to the other dietary factors, as, inevitably, the more meat is consumed in the diet, the less people eat of other foods(meat is more satiating, for one thing). To take 1 example, if someone eats 30% of his diet as cooked meat and then increases his meat-intake to 50% of his diet, then, by extension, the foods making up what was 70% of his diet before, now only make up the other 50% of his diet. Simple mathematics.

The ketogenic diet is based on dairies and MCT oil. How do you know that it's the low carbs that caused the adverse effects of this diet, and not these unhealthy fat ?
For instance, hypoglycaemia is probably caused by the small and medium chain triglycerides that are metabolised like sugar.

Dr. Jan Kwasniewski. has very good results with his cooked diet high in fat, moderate in protein and low in carbs. Cooked meat don't seem to be so unhealthy in Poland :

"In practice, the diet has shown to be unbelievably very effective measures to cure many sick people from the diseases considered in contemporary medicine incurable. Dr. Jan Kwasniewski has cured thousands of people suffering from various illnesses as Buerger's disease, arthritis, Gastrointestinal disorder, obesity, diabetes and many others applying his "Optimal Diet" and "Selective Currents" to some of them.
An estimated more then two million people are already on the optimal diet. Most of these people live in Poland, though news of the diet has spread throughout the world. There are many optimal eaters in the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Canary Islands and many various countries in Europe and even in Oman.
There are diseases that the medical establishment is even today enable to cure is diabetes. No diabetic who opted for a method commonly applied in modern medicine can eliminate the disease, but 80% of those who have chosen the optimal diet will overcome their disease and that the remaining 20% are going to be better, though not perfect, health.
In 1999 the Polish Cultural Union in Vienna Austria recommended Dr. Jan Kwasniewski as a candidate to Swedish Nobel Prize in medicine."

[TylerDurden]

AFAIK, the optimal diet also contains lots of dairy. Indeed, it's the principal fat in that diet.

As regards ketogenic diets, the fact that the carbs are so low as to allow ketosis, means that the carb-levels in dairy(or oysters or mussels, or liver, for that matter)are too low to have any significant effect in the diet.

[carnivore]

AFAIK, the optimal diet also contains lots of dairy. Indeed, it's the principal fat in that diet.

Dairy is not the principle fat in the Optimal diet : egg yolks and pork are. (and there is no MCT oil). If cooked meat/fat was so unhealthy, how could a diet based precisely on these foods have so good results ?

As regards ketogenic diets, the fact that the carbs are so low as to allow ketosis, means that the carb-levels in dairy(or oysters or mussels, or liver, for that matter)are too low to have any significant effect in the diet.

You wrote "that one can get nasty side-effects on zero-carb diets(what they call ketogenic diets)". How do you know that it's the low level of carbs in these diets that caused the troubles (and not the food itself) ?

[TylerDurden]

Dairy is not the principle fat in the Optimal diet : egg yolks and pork are. (and there is no MCT oil). If cooked meat/fat was so unhealthy, how could a diet based precisely on these foods have so good results ?

Incorrect. here is an example of dairy(pasteurised) being promoted as a very important fat on the Optimal Diet:-

http://www.thenutritionmd.com/

Dairy is routinely promoted in Optimal Diet circles, so you're facing a lost cause, there!!! LOL!!

-

You wrote "that one can get nasty side-effects on zero-carb diets(what they call ketogenic diets)". How do you know that it's the low level of carbs in these diets that caused the troubles (and not the food itself) ?

Because, logically, one has to assume that the majority of foods in a particular unhealthy diet is the leading cause of health-problems. When a particular food is increased(or minimised), such as cooked meat, and the higher the intake of that food the worse the health-problems become(as according to all the studies), then one can draw the obvious conclusion, that it is not the increasingly smaller portions of trans-fats or carbs that are the problem, but the continually-increasing portions of cooked-meats that are the main problem. Simple mathematics, really.

[carnivore]

As regards the studies done on the dangers of meats, they are everywhere and easy to find so a simple googling should suffice. Large numbers of studies show that the higher the (cooked) meat-intake is in one's diet the greater is the risk to health.It's generally irrelevant as to the other dietary factors, as, inevitably, the more meat is consumed in the diet, the less people eat of other foods(meat is more satiating, for one thing). To take 1 example, if someone eats 30% of his diet as cooked meat and then increases his meat-intake to 50% of his diet, then, by extension, the foods making up what was 70% of his diet before, now only make up the other 50% of his diet. Simple mathematics.

It's your job to provide evidences of your claims, not ours !

[carnivore]

Incorrect. here is an example of dairy(pasteurised) being promoted as a veyr importaqnt fat on the Optimal Diet:-

http://www.thenutritionmd.com/

Dairy is routinely promoted in Optimal Diet circles, so you're facing a lost cause, there!!! LOL!!

I don't see the relation between this MD who promotes a low fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables, and Kwasniewski's Optimal diet which emphasis egg yolk and fatty meat (butter/heavy cream is also recommended, but dairy is not the main fat as you wrongly believe).

Because, logically, one has to assume that the majority of foods in a particular unhealthy diet is the leading cause of health-problems. When a particular food is increased(or minimised), such as cooked meat, and the higher the intake of that food the worse the health-problems become(as according to all the studies), then one can draw the obvious conclusion, that it is not the increasingly smaller portions of trans-fats or carbs that are the problem, but the continually-increasing portions of cooked-meats that are the main problem. Simple mathematics, really.

As long as I don't see theses studies, I prefer these mathematics :
Some studies show that a high cooked meat consumption can cause health problems, but as some lowcarb diets based on cooked meat (ZC, Optimal diet, etc.) have proven to be healthy, I conclude that it's not the cooked meat that is unhealthy, but what comes with it (mainly refine carbs).

[TylerDurden]

It's your job to provide evidences of your claims, not ours !

That's where you're wrong! It's actually  YOUR job to prove that you 're right, given that the number of studies backing your claims are tiny by comparison to the well-known vast multitude that back up my claims re the dangers of cooked-meats. You not only have to (convincingly) criticise general studies damning cooked-meat-consumption within the population, but also  criticise  the numerous studies showing the extra cost to health of consuming AGE-rich toxins in cooked meats. In short, you're dead in the water, scientifically-speaking.

[TylerDurden]

I don't see the relation between this MD who promotes a low fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables, and Kwasniewski's Optimal diet which emphasis egg yolk and fatty meat (butter/heavy cream is also recommended, but dairy is not the main fat as you wrongly believe).

*Sigh* You're not going to do well trying to convince us that Kwasniewski doesn't highly recommend dairy(fat). Here's a link to the English-language website of the Optimal Diet:-

http://homodiet.netfirms.com/

On that website, he cites egg-fat as the most superior fat, followed by butter-fat and cream-fat, followed, lastly and very leastly at the very bottom,
, by fat from other (animal-) sources.

As long as I don't see theses studies, I prefer these mathematics :
Some studies show that a high cooked meat consumption can cause health problems, but as some lowcarb diets based on cooked meat (ZC, Optimal diet, etc.) have proven to be healthy, I conclude that it's not the cooked meat that is unhealthy, but what comes with it (mainly refine carbs).

Low-carb diets have by no means been proven to be healthy, overall. All they have shown is an improvement re diabetes and a couple of similiar conditions, while still showing massive health-problems in other respects. In short, blaming a tiny component of low-carb diets, such as trans-fats or refined sugars, for the negative effects sustained under the massive load of cooked-meat-consumption, is just dishonest. This reminds me of the pathetic excuses made by the Weston-Price Foundation when their guru, Stephen Byrnes died at the tender age of 41,despite the fact that he was following a so-called "healthy"   low-carb cooked diet, free of trans-fats and  refined sugars.

[carnivore]

*Sigh* You're not going to do well trying to convince us that Kwasniewski doesn't highly recommend dairy(fat). Here's a link to the English-language website of the Optimal Diet:-

http://homodiet.netfirms.com/

On that website, he cites egg-fat as the most superior fat, followed by butter-fat and cream-fat, followed, lastly and very leastly at the very bottom,
, by fat from other (animal-) sources.

"Chemically, the best are long-chain fully saturated fatty acids, that is to say, solid fats of animal origin"
"The best fats are of animal origin, solid fats, eaten within natural animal tissues."

Butter does not qualify according to theses statements, it is why it is not the *main* fat in this diet, although it is indeed recommended.
 

Low-carb diets have by no means been proven to be healthy, overall. All they have shown is an improvement re diabetes and a couple of similiar conditions, while still showing massive health-problems in other respects. In short, blaming a tiny component of low-carb diets, such as trans-fats or refined sugars, for the negative effects sustained under the massive load of cooked-meat-consumption, is just dishonest. This reminds me of the pathetic excuses made by the Weston-Price Foundation when their guru, Stephen Byrnes died at the tender age of 41,despite the fact that he was following a so-called "healthy"   low-carb cooked diet, free of trans-fats and  refined sugars.

Stephen Byrnes had been diagnosed with AIDS and suffered numerous health problems until he died due to the drugs he was given.

[carnivore]

That's where you're wrong! It's actually  YOUR job to prove that you 're right, given that the number of studies backing your claims are tiny by comparison to the well-known vast multitude that back up my claims re the dangers of cooked-meats. You not only have to (convincingly) criticise general studies damning cooked-meat-consumption within the population, but also  criticise  the numerous studies showing the extra cost to health of consuming AGE-rich toxins in cooked meats. In short, you're dead in the water, scientifically-speaking.

You also have a multitude of studies to prove that high cholesterol is caused by animal fat, that fruits and vegetables are healthy or that saturated fat is unhealthy.
It is not the number of studies that proves something!
I think the experience has more value than often biased scientific studies.

[William]

You also have a multitude of studies to prove that high cholesterol is caused by animal fat, that fruits and vegetables are healthy or that saturated fat is unhealthy.
It is not the number of studies that proves something!
I think the experience has more value than often biased scientific studies.

Here is proof that the earth is flat:http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/ 

[TylerDurden]

You also have a multitude of studies to prove that high cholesterol is caused by animal fat, that fruits and vegetables are healthy or that saturated fat is unhealthy.
It is not the number of studies that proves something!
I think the experience has more value than often biased scientific studies.

Re the cholesterol issue:- While there were many studies backing both sides of the cholesterol debate, there are, by contrast, very few studies backing the notion that a low-carb cooked diet is healthy. That means that, so far, the only thing cooked low-carb proponents can resort to is citing lame conspiracy theories.