Zero Carb and VLC/Ketogenic - A Lethal Recipe for Disaster

[Hanna]

My experience with vlc or zc is that it takes some skill, as in especially  not overeating protein, finding multiple sources of animal and vegetable fat as a mainstay, finding good sources of traces minerals if not eating from the ocean, utilizing organs, including sources of Vit-c and some plants for additional minerals and possibly fibre.    I've utilized sea weeds and include occasional greens, radishes, garlic, leeks, lettuces...  and exercise daily.   

So you eat or ate ZC/VLC? How many carbs do or did you eat? How long have you eaten this way? Don’t you drink milk?

But rather than dismiss vlc or zc,  I think it would be more useful to investigate where those who  'failed' trying went wrong.  My guess is you look deep enough you'll find something. 

I agree with Phil on that:

when a radically new dietary approach is proposed, such as a diet chronically very low in carbs (and resistant starch), the burden of proof lies on those proposing it.

The same goes for raw food diets in general: It' still an experiment.
BTW, what’s wrong with coconuts?

[Iguana]

Van, you have an ingenious and inventive mind!

I agree, they probably ate anything that they found, and didn't think twice.  However, when food supply was plentiful, as in devouring a large beast, whether or not they labeled meat as protein and so on,  they would have discovered as we do here, that too much of one type of food would leave them feeling less than optimal.

How could we eat too much of one type of unprocessed, non spiced wild food?

But for myself, who experimented with simply eating by taste and smell etc. ,,  I find that using some discipline and not eating as much sugary foods as would be dictated by taste and smell has done me a world of good.  And the same is holding true with using discipline with not eating meat or proteins to satiety, but by cutting down on the 'number' of grams and instead using fat as fuel.

Of course, we are better off when using some discipline with modern foods artificially selected to taste better during several hundreds generations. Moreover, constantly having a refrigerator full of various foods available in large amounts is an artificial condition making some discipline  an absolute need. The obvious solution would be to live in the wilderness and have to hunt and gather ourselves all our food… Who’s willing to do that? Some instinctos have done such an experiment, but for a limited duration only.

As for eating fat to completely replace carbs, it might be fine as long as you have a reliable source of suitable fats and if you can eat and digest amounts of fats sufficient to suppress all need for carbs without problems. Frankly, I never met these conditions lastingly.

Again, early ancestors had little if any concept on longevity.

We don’t know: animals don’t seem to have either but nevertheless most of them live much longer than “just long enough to procreate and pass along hunting and survival skills” as you say below.

They lived meal to meal.  We on the other hand, especially informed by the internet and millions of other curious minds around the planet, can use information with experience to potentially go one step farther potentially towards living long healthy aware lives than those early ancestors eating meal to meal in the wild.

Many of them certainly lived longer and better lives than most of us, “knowledgeable and informed” civilized people. Thinking that we know how and can improve nature is one of the most fundamental mistakes humanity has ever done.

That said, we can nevertheless use the information we have to avoid the mistakes done in the past ever since we use fire.   

    Too often we look to them for the answers.   Nature never intended them to live well into their nineties, but just long enough to procreate and pass along hunting and survival skills while living in communal groups. 

See my above answer.

Cheers
François

[TylerDurden]

Raw food diets have been around for a 100 years plus, so there is no  "burden of proof" required. Same goes for zero-carb, and especially low-carb diets,  which have been successfully practised by various arctic tribes for many millenia. By contrast, this resistant starch nonsense is a wholly new, nonsensical  gimmick with virtually no solid scientific data backing it, so definitely does need a  lot more evidence to back it before it can remotely gain any credibility whatsoever.

Incidentally, it is a false statement to state that  raw foods are "just an experiment".  Not only have they been going on for  over a century,  not  even counting the fact that many tribes ate mostly raw foods in their diets for millenia,  but there is now so much overwhelming scientific evidence to show that cooking creates harmful toxins, that raw animal/raw plant-food  food diet can be considered  to be a  "proven" diet.

[Iguana]

Wouldn’t it be appropriate to say that raw paleo diet is a counter-experiment? About 10,000 years ago the human kind launched itself in a vast experiment (which is running away out of control) by systematically cooking food, drinking animal milk and adopting cereal grains as a staple. This is the real experiment, something that had never been done by any species during billions years of life on Earth.

On the other hand, the zero carb diet is a real experiment too since it’s something that had never been done by anyone in his right mind, as Phil rightly said. It’s not paleo, it’s an ideology which has nothing to do with a paleo diet. 

Arctic tribes have been on low-carb, not on zero carb — but your post implicitly agrees with that.

[PaleoPhil]

Hey folks, can we please try to keep debating to a minimum in this journal, and focus more on asking questions about what I've posted and sharing related experiences (and experiences that contradict mine are quite welcome)? I created the recent ZC/VLC thread so folks could do more of the debating stuff there, and even there I hope there will also be questions and shared experiences.

There are lots of questions too, and I'll try to get to answering them all.

Ok, I did split the posts around this one from your journal and transfered them here.
Iguana

[24isours]

Wouldn’t it be appropriate to say that raw paleo diet is a counter-experiment? About 10,000 years ago the human kind launched itself in a vast experiment (which is running away out of control) by systematically cooking food, drinking animal milk and adopting cereal grains as a staple. This is the real experiment, something that had never been done by any species during billions years of life on Earth.

On the other hand, the zero carb diet is a real experiment too since it’s something that had never been done by anyone in his right mind, as Phil rightly said. It’s not paleo, it’s an ideology which has nothing to do with a paleo diet. 

Arctic tribes have been on low-carb, not on zero carb — but your post implicitly agrees with that.

You're insisting that zero carb is an experiment done by only those not in the right frame of mind and unheard of. Well, you thinking 10 grams of carbohydrates in the form of berries or from other sources per day is enough to significantly keep the Inuit anymore healthier doesn't seem quite logical. Also, ten grams of carbohydrate is not enough to stop production of ketones.

[TylerDurden]

Arctic tribes have been on low-carb, not on zero carb — but your post implicitly agrees with that.

  Arctic tribes have, at the very least, in certain cases, been regularly zero-carb for many months at a time.  Past a certain point  northwards, the only plant life, if at all, would have occurred only during the few weeks of summer, otherwise not at all.

[van]

So you eat or ate ZC/VLC? How many carbs do or did you eat? How long have you eaten this way? Don’t you drink milk?
I agree with Phil on that: The same goes for raw food diets in general: It' still an experiment.
BTW, what’s wrong with coconuts?

Nothing wrong with coconuts, it's just a limited version of fat, as opposed to animal.    I don't drink milk now for about ten years.  I don't really do the math with carbs, but the amounts might be 30-60?    It's been over eight years at least Vlc.   And about forty being raw.

[TylerDurden]

Nothing wrong with coconuts, it's just a limited version of fat, as opposed to animal.    I don't drink milk now for about ten years.  I don't really do the math with carbs, but the amounts might be 30-60?    It's been over eight years at least Vlc.   And about forty being raw.

So how many years was that raw vegan or fruitarian and how many RVAF with raw dairy?

[van]

Kind of a mixed bag;   I was instincto for about five years,  had goats and got most of my calories from them for about twelve, and now vlc/close to zc for more than eight.  But in the beginning is where I ruined my health with raw pretty much raw vegan with lots of fruit.  Oh, after the goats I did about two years of 80/20, which was also a disaster.  And then there was that one plus year stint at macro way back when... learned to make some pretty good rice though.

[Iguana]

You're insisting that zero carb is an experiment done by only those not in the right frame of mind and unheard of. Well, you thinking 10 grams of carbohydrates in the form of berries or from other sources per day is enough to significantly keep the Inuit anymore healthier doesn't seem quite logical. Also, ten grams of carbohydrate is not enough to stop production of ketones.

Sorry, for me zero means zero = 0. A minute amount of a particular food can have a major health significance. I don’t know how much berries an Inuit eats, but they are also very found of seals’ liver which contains carbs and they eat intestines as well plus all the edible plants they can find. Wikipedia:
“While it is not possible to cultivate native plants for food in the Arctic, the Inuit have traditionally gathered those that are naturally available. Grasses, tubers, roots, stems, berries, fireweed and seaweed (kuanniq or edible seaweed) were collected and preserved depending on the season and the location.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]"

So, they are not “zero carb”, but low carb. They eat that way ever since childhood, and as Phil pointed out, “Inuit studied in the 1970s were found to have abnormally large livers, presumably to assist in this process” (Wikipedia), so there must have been a gradual adaptation over several generations. They are probably at the extreme limit of human adaptability to a cold climate and to a low carb diet.

  Arctic tribes have, at the very least, in certain cases, been regularly zero-carb for many months at a time.  Past a certain point  northwards, the only plant life, if at all, would have occurred only during the few weeks of summer, otherwise not at all.

There’s no question that some individuals can withstand a “zero carb diet” during many months without problems. The troubles may arise only after some years of being permanently on such a diet. 

[van]

experience shows me that there's little difference between zero and low low carb...  I think this is nit picking here.     The point that should be focused on is keto adaptation,  the body's ability to preferentially use fat as fuel and it's ability to, and the resultant transformations that happens in the body.    Whether it's zero or low, the same ability holds true for me.  In fact my energy or feeling balanced and centered is better the closer I stay towards zero.    Iguana I understand your situation where abundant fats aren't available in your area.  And I can empathize  for that.   You'd probably have to go north to find animals/sea food with accessible fat.   Without having lived the experiment, it can only be conjecture on your part..    And like all thought,  the understanding is in the experience.     With my five years of experimenting with instincto,  no one ever even suggested upping my intake of fat and thus reducing my intake of sugars.   In fact I only saw one time someone at Montrame, a woman, eat fat alone,  ( I think I mentioned before that she was treating herself with some disease..).  She ate probably 6-8 ounces.   I remember how I thought to myself,  how gross,, the thought of eating fat all by itself.  Little did I know. 

[24isours]

Sorry, for me zero means zero = 0. A minute amount of a particular food can have a major health significance. I don’t know how much berries an Inuit eats, but they are also very found of seals’ liver which contains carbs and they eat intestines as well plus all the edible plants they can find

Okay then, so according to you I am not zero carb as I eat a little over an ounce of beef liver per day. That is 1.5 grams of carbs.
How about when they ran out of plant food or when it wasn't available? There will always be more questions to ask and I think this debate could continue on forever..

Like Van says, staying in ketosis is what we strive for. I know I could stay in ketosis even if I had started eating a few servings of greens or berries per day but I personally don't see a need to do so.

I'm done debating.

[PaleoPhil]

No, I'm saying it is possible that one of the reasons for megafauna extinction was because we hunted them all.

And these extinctions occurred much farther back than 10,000 years, and once they were extinct they were no longer available to be eaten and other foods had to be consumed.

One hundred grams of wild blueberries (alaska native) only contains about 10 grams of carbohydrate.

Wouldn't the example of Eskimo wild berry eating suggest eating similar foods today (such as cranberries, wild Maine blueberries, or wild black raspberries, for example, which are all available to me), rather than avoiding all berries? How does one get the notion to eat zero carbs from a population that ate some carbs?

Plus, Stefansson normally included some potatoes in his diet (outside of his temporary all-meat phases like the one-year Bellevue Experiment) and in his recommended protocol and he also reported witnessing inland Eskimos eating wild potatoes. Plus, Eskimos traditionally also ate other carb-containing foods like roots, animal stomach contents, glycogen-rich fresh raw liver, eggs, and tree saps and barks. Why would we use their example to justify avoiding these foods that they ate?

I find that using some discipline and not eating as much sugary foods as would be dictated by taste and smell has done me a world of good.

Sure, same here. One nice thing about resistant starch is that it's not sugary at all. Instead, it generates butyrate, a fat, so one could think of it as a fat. Another nice thing about the butyrate RS generates is that it helps modulate blood sugar and the immune system so that sugars don't cause as much damage.

Not everyone is as harmed by sugary foods as I am, so I don't just assume that my low carb tolerance is natural or normal. I looked to see if there was any way to address the underlying problems causing the carb intolerance, instead of just coddling it with a very restricted diet forever. I found something in RS that seems to be helping.

experience shows me that there's little difference between zero and low low carb...  I think this is nit picking here.

If there's little difference, then why not eat those small amounts of carbs? Why bother restricting the diet more severely than even the Eskimos traditionally did just to attain zero carbs without significant additional benefit? Don't you like some carby foods? If a little bit doesn't do harm and you find them tasty, why not eat the amount you say makes "little difference"?

Overall health doesn't involve just the health of the external shell of the human body -  it also involves internal elements, such as the gut microbiome. Have any of the people who are assuming that they're doing great on VLC/ZC gotten their gut microbiome checked, or their IGM or IGG antibody levels? According to this physician, there may be problems that you're not even aware of:

You won’t know what’s wrong with you until it progresses to the point of severe immune deficiency. For example, I developed IgM deficiency, igg subclass deficiency and hypocomplementemia after, let’s see hardcore 12 months(?) of ketosis. What symptoms do I have? None except a chronic runny nose that’s only midly bothersome. My Vit D is at 80 and I don’t take flu shots and I don’t have respiratory infections. But the low-grade runny nose is constant all seasons. Plus I react to airborne particles and have umpteen food allergies. That’s why I keep saying, you really don’t know how you’re jeopardizing your health. Just because it feels good doesn’t mean you’re healthy. That’s why the carbs ad libitum argument is flawed. You might be on top of the world VLCing but you have no idea what it’s doing to your immune system.

Autoimmunity and immunodeficiency are stealthy and creepy disease states; you’ll only be made of its encroachment through specialized blood tests and the appearance of mild and vague symptoms, which in many cases you won’t be able to connect to VLCing. Think of it as a frog being boiled alive on your stovetop.

- Spanish Caravan, http://freetheanimal.com/2014/02/ketogenic-diets-news.html#comment-558674

Brady, Miles, Lowenherz, and me have all been provided (by multiple people who remember these cases) as examples of people who fared better when they added some carby food or some sort of plant food back into their diet. Listing these examples doesn't mean that these were the only examples. Anyone who has read this forum for some years knows there were more. Feel free to list all the counter examples you like, preferably (where possible) supported with objective evidence, like basal temperature, resting heart rate, fasting blood glucose, post prandial BG, gut microbiome test results, triglycerides, LDL, LDL-P, immune system test results, ... --not just opinions, excuses and hypotheses.

Rosedale has treated diabetic patients for over 25 years with vlc.  I would suggest contacting him to verify your results/suspicions.

Interesting coincidence that you should mention Dr. Rosedale. I have read some of his blog, watched one of his presentations and chatted with him briefly in Internet comments in the past and commended him and Paul Jaminet on their civil and informative debates. Are you aware that Dr. Rosedale's carb recommendation (at around 20% of calories as carbs, on avg) is only 5 points lower than the safe-starch-guy Paul Jaminet's (at around 25% of calories as carbs, within a range of 20-30+%)?

My guess is that there is value in RS, and, that you've something else going on within. I have read where constipation has been a problem for you.  Peristalsis happens by at least two mechanisms;  one being the acidic level in one's colon which triggers peristalsis, and another is simply pressure put on the colon wall by feces themselves.

And one of the interesting things about peristalsis is that butyrate in the colon, generated by bacteria, helps to promote it. Resistant starch and other prebiotics fill in so many missing pieces of the puzzle that there is just too much to cover without making it my full time career.

I use to buy directly from a culture scientist  who made bacterial cultures for companies all over the world.  One of which he received a patent for that literally helped solve South Korea's problem of stomach ulcers due to bad stomach bacteria.  They incorporated his bacterial strain into yogurts that are sold like candy out of vending machines throughout Korea.   He and I speculated as to whether it made sense to actually go to Africa and collect fece samples from the healthiest Masai tribesmen living as close to their natural ways.  Then isolate the strains of bacteria, and grow them to be sold as a probiotic here in the US.   I still think it had merit.

The current general thinking is that using probiotics to help generate more bacteria in the gut isn't likely to work well if one isn't feeding the bacteria. There's also some thinking that probiotics don't actually populate the gut with bacteria, but work in another way. If true, that would explain how probiotics using dead bacteria could work.

I haven't heard about the probiotic you mentioned, but I have scoured the Internet in the past for the most highly touted probiotics, some supported by studies, and tried several of them and even wrote a bit about this in the past, though I don't remember if I put anything in my journal, specifically. Right now I'm using Prescript-Assist, which is currently touted as one of the best and has a study supporting it. I haven't noticed any benefits like I have with RS, but I haven't given up on probiotics, despite the past failures with it, sometimes expensive. I also eat some probiotic foods. So I'm on board with you on probiotics.

And I do think that the bacteria in the colon science is going to be the Big health possibility of the future.  Should be an interesting ride  for you.

Agreed, thanks.

[paper_clips43]

Okay then, so according to you I am not zero carb as I eat a little over an ounce of beef liver per day. That is 1.5 grams of carbs.
How about when they ran out of plant food or when it wasn't available? There will always be more questions to ask and I think this debate could continue on forever..

Like Van says, staying in ketosis is what we strive for. I know I could stay in ketosis even if I had started eating a few servings of greens or berries per day but I personally don't see a need to do so.

I'm done debating.

It looks like you have a great amount of muscle and weight 24isours! That is awesome and surprising to me since you are low carb. Also I noticed from your picture you have a mole on the right side of your face. Has that always been there? If so has it gotten better or worse since you started low carb?

The only reason I ask is because it is on your liver line.
When I started low carb I got a mole on my liver line as well and since I stopped eating low carb for about a year now I finally have seen it mostly disappear.

Everyone is different though...

[TylerDurden]

It seems that some people are finding it impossible to comprehend that the fact that some Inuit tribes further south etc. may have had  access to a little bark or whatever does not change the fact that other Inuit tribes had no such access being far  away from such sources. I doubt people would, anyway, get out of ketosis if they only had very occasional access to raw plants in small quantities per person. More to the point, during the Ice Age it must have been even more difficult for tribes migrating across the ice-fields to gain access to plant foods in any significant quantity.

As for the 4 people mentioned as being supposed "proof", I don't want to belabour the point, but I know that other members  have at various  times in the past  suggested that those very  4 people were simply  orthorexic(among some others like Nicola), rather than being  genuine cases of failure at every different  dietary variant  they inevitably  switched to every so often.

I always wonder about the carbs in raw liver. if one is eating the whole animal plus the liver as well, then surely it is impossible to get out of ketosis(providing one is eating normal daily amounts of food, of course!).Perhaps carbs from an animal source are not the same as carbs from plant sources?

[PaleoPhil]

Where did anyone claim that no Inuit tribes had little access to plant foods (I have pointed to the Greenland Inuit myself in the past as having diets especially low in plant foods, though even they were not traditionally completely zero carb), or that the four examples provided by Inger, Hannah, Iguana and me were "proof" of anything? Van asked for examples and we responded (and as Hannah pointed out, there were more).

Your own reported experience with VLC was hardly a resounding success, yet even that would not be "proof", nor will there ever be universally accepted "proof" when it comes to diets. One thing you can be sure of is that the debates will go on forever.

If you think that VLC/ZC is so great, why don't you return to it? Actions speak louder than words. A success story would be more persuasive than opinions. I gave VLC a longer try than you did, after all.

[24isours]

And these extinctions occurred much farther back than 10,000 years, and once they were extinct they were no longer available to be eaten and other foods had to be consumed.

I'm sure other animals went extinct because of our hunting. An example would be the American Bison that became nearly extinct and there were probably countless others before. Human biology in a way proves this if you think about how much more adapted we've become through the years to use meats and fats as energy and how we utilize nutrients in meats and fats significantly better than those in plant foods. Ever take a look at the Carotene to Retinol conversion rate? In some people the conversion rate is about 29:1.

Wouldn't the example of Eskimo wild berry eating suggest eating similar foods today (such as cranberries, wild Maine blueberries, or wild black raspberries, for example, which are all available to me), rather than avoiding all berries? How does one get the notion to eat zero carbs from a population that ate some carbs?

It was an experiment that wound up working. I do like berries and I may even eat some on occasion when summer comes but I don't find them necessary really. Either way I'd be sure to stay in ketosis as it is very beneficial in multiple ways (one being muscle building).

If there's little difference, then why not eat those small amounts of carbs? Why bother restricting the diet more severely than even the Eskimos traditionally did just to attain zero carbs without significant additional benefit? Don't you like some carby foods? If a little bit doesn't do harm and you find them tasty, why not eat the amount you say makes "little difference"?

Overall health doesn't involve just the health of the external shell of the human body -  it also involves internal elements, such as the gut microbiome. Have any of the people who are assuming that they're doing great on VLC/ZC gotten their gut microbiome checked, or their IGM or IGG antibody levels? According to this physician, there may be problems that you're not even aware of:

Great point and I will look more into this, thanks. Like I said, I just don't find it necessary as this time.

[24isours]

It looks like you have a great amount of muscle and weight 24isours! That is awesome and surprising to me since you are low carb. Also I noticed from your picture you have a mole on the right side of your face. Has that always been there? If so has it gotten better or worse since you started low carb?

Why is it surprising? Thanks I get to the gym often - it is part of my job.

That mole has been there forever. It hasn't changed much until I started going raw - it seems to be getting lighter over the years actually if that is what you meant by getting better.

The only reason I ask is because it is on your liver line.
When I started low carb I got a mole on my liver line as well and since I stopped eating low carb for about a year now I finally have seen it mostly disappear.

Everyone is different though...

Interesting.. it was in the same area?

[PaleoPhil]

I'm sure other animals went extinct because of our hunting. An example would be the American Bison that became nearly extinct and there were probably countless others before.

Yup, I do agree that hunting and meat eating were a part of the lives of ALL primates and even created a thread making that point a while ago (it was called something like "all primates hunt and eat meat," IIRC). I just don't buy the notion that H. sapiens were predominantly zero carb. Plant foods were also consumed for millions of years. I also don't buy the notion that humans or any primates were ever "vegetarians" that avoided eating all flesh from animals and insects.

It was an experiment that wound up working. I do like berries and I may even eat some on occasion when summer comes but I don't find them necessary really.

And I don't find completely avoiding berries, which evidence suggests have been part of the human diet for millions of years, to be necessary. There seems to be plenty of room for middle ground.

Either way I'd be sure to stay in ketosis as it is very beneficial in multiple ways (one being muscle building).

One thing that rarely gets discussed by either extreme of the macronutrient wars is that there are ways to stay ketogenic while at the same time feeding the gut bacteria. I've been exploring my notes on that a bit in the last few days. It's not necessary to starve the gut bacteria to stay ketogenic, so I don't see the point of starving them.

Great point and I will look more into this, thanks. Like I said, I just don't find it necessary as this time.

Thanks, I'm not so much interested in persuading folks like you who seem to be doing well (who knows, maybe you are doing a type of ketogenic diet that works and doesn't starve the gut bugs) as I am in sharing some concerning info with the folks who are noticing problems (like one or more of high and rising FBG and post-prandial BG, basal temp. below 97.8, poor carb tolerance, cold extremities, etc.) and only seeing people tell them to keep doing more of the same, or "just eat more fat," or take megadoses of Mg or iodine, or such.

I suspect that eating raw and eating plenty of organs helps avoid the problems of VLC/ZC, but I don't have strong evidence re: that. It's more of a hunch. It doesn't seem to be entirely protective, however, because even Lex Rooker, a longtimer raw VLCer, and one of the more successful ones, reported high FBG and somewhat high A1C, IIRC.

[paper_clips43]

Why is it surprising? Thanks I get to the gym often - it is part of my job.

That mole has been there forever. It hasn't changed much until I started going raw - it seems to be getting lighter over the years actually if that is what you meant by getting better.




Interesting.. it was in the same area?

Just because I lost all my muscle when I went low carb.

Yes it was in the exact same area and one above it connecting to the nose.

That line gets more noticeable when I have too much fat and not enough carbs.

Whens the last time you got your labs done? And would you consider posting them?

[TylerDurden]

Where did anyone claim that no Inuit tribes had little access to plant foods (I have pointed to the Greenland Inuit myself in the past as having diets especially low in plant foods, though even they were not traditionally completely zero carb), or that the four examples provided by Inger, Hannah, Iguana and me were "proof" of anything? Van asked for examples and we responded (and as Hannah pointed out, there were more).

Your own reported experience with VLC was hardly a resounding success, yet even that would not be "proof", nor will there ever be universally accepted "proof" when it comes to diets. One thing you can be sure of is that the debates will go on forever.

If you think that VLC/ZC is so great, why don't you return to it? Actions speak louder than words. A success story would be more persuasive than opinions. I gave VLC a longer try than you did, after all.

Some open equivocation in the first part of the response, but anyway.

As for my own experience of RVLC, it WAS indeed  a "resounding success".  It had only one minor flaw re reduced effectiveness of anaerobic exercise, otherwise it was all positive.As for the absurd nonsense re my not returning to it yet, well that is only due to social pressure on me to eat  more raw plant foods in accordance with modern doctors' guidelines - I accept the pressure as I would rather eat more raw plant foods than eat any cooked foods.

[Iguana]

A  "resounding success" ? Looks like it's you who wrote that:

As regards plants, I have had enough personal experience that makes it clear that raw plants, especially fruits, are essential for optimum human health, albeit in small quantities. No plant-food whatsoever in the diet, at best greatly reduces physical performance, and, for many people such as myself, it causes  very terminal health-problems in the long run.

I've done c.3 raw, zero-carb trials., each lasting c. 5-6 weeks or so, the last one being  a couple of years or so ago(2-3?). I've been doing rawpalaeo(LC or VLC) for 8 years, in general. I'm afraid that people have been making wrong assumptions, as my allexperts.com page was rather unclear on the issue(up till now, a lot of people seem to have gotten the erroneous impression that I was doing a 100% raw, fatty organ-meats diet or something.


Basically, every time I went zero-carb , I would experience the following effects:- at first, for the first 2 weeks, I'd get greater focus/alertness, and greatly decreased physical performance/endurance. Then, after that, by the 3rd week, I would quickly  get decreased alertness, chronic fatigue, panic attacks, ravenous hunger(for carbs) and I would have to struggle to force myself to eat even tiny amounts of raw animal food. After several weeks of this, I would get deep black circles under the eyes and loose, weakened  teeth - both kinds of symptoms I had before going rawpalaeo(and during my raw-dairy-phase). I'd lose a lot of weight due to the lack of appetite and the ravenous hunger for carbs interfered with my daily life, to a huge extent.I'd also get panic-attacks(especially on one occasion, when while zero-carb I tried some heated suet, for taste-reasons, but at other times as well. I'd , in addition, feel forced to drink vast amounts of mineral-water, due to excessive thirst, but no amount of water was enough as I really needed some raw fruit, instead. By the 5th/6th weeks, life became an absolute hell, getting additional headaches etc. etc.,  and I would feel literally like I was dying, so I had no choice but to give up on raw, zero-carb or face hospitalisation, and, eventually, death.

I remember hearing something being claimed on various diet-forums about how going zero-carb puts an excessive strain on one's glandular system. So that, presumably, people with a reasonably healthy glandular system, from the get-go, might be fine on it, whether for a period or even  in the long-term. But anyone who has ever had issues with their (adrenal/thyroid etc.) glands in the past(which is a majority of those on SAD-diets, IMO), even if they've healed as a result of raw foods, night be well advised to stay away from zero-carb like the plague.

I am not suggesting that zero-carb is automatically a disaster for everyone. What concerns me, though, is this:- most Arctic tribes do eat berries in summer, even if they eat practically 99-100% meats, raw or cooked, at other times. They , presumably, also eat the fermented stomach-contents(ie plant-matter) of the animal-carcasses they cut up. So, 100% carnivorous diet for life, for humans, may be  rarer than expected.

Plus, a lot of people do very badly on zero-carb, raw or otherwise, judging from reports of RPDers. I'm not the only one. Though, I'll grant that the overwhelming majority of people do better on raw,low-carb(<35%) than raw, high-carb(like Instincto)(80%+ raw plant-foods).

While there are individual differences in adaptation or non-adaptation to zero-carb, the evidence re loss of physical performance is pretty much across the board - I'm assuming you do low-level exercise so don't notice much difference? Certainly, I (and a number of raw athletes on other groups) have noticed a distinct, massive drop in physical performance when cutting out all carbs from the diet, such as having no endurance or losing physical strength. Plus most photos of long-term zero-carbers show them to be rather too light of weight and not very muscular(indeed same happens to me when I've been extremely VLC or 0 carb) , requiring quite some time to recover from very harsh exercise etc..  This is in stark contrast to the widely reported massive physical attributes/exercise-levels of Palaeo tribespeople, (re evidence of bones), which seems to imply, IMO, that these Cro-Magnon  must have had some carbs in their diet. To date, it has been pointed out that no modern athlete nowadays follow a genuine zero-carb diet, which rather proves things.

[TylerDurden]

As usual, iguana, you completely ignored my point. I had actually only done badly on raw zero carb, whereas I did fine on raw, very  low carb, as mentioned in the passages you quoted. I do also accept that many people do fine on raw, zero-carb, I just  usually add that a number of people just cannot handle raw zero carb in any way, that's all. Raw, very-low carb diets are  absolutely fine for most people.

[Iguana]

So, according to you and contrary to what Van an 24isours say, there's a fundamental difference between the outcome with raw very low carb (RVLC) which is absolutely fine and is diametrically opposed to raw zero carb (RZC), which often results in total disasters. Do I get it right this time? 

Could you give us clue as where about this sharp but absolutely critical threshold between ZC and very VLC would stand? Is 1 ppm (part per million) of carbs already VLC? Or would 0.01% of carbs be a minimum to cross the borderline between the ZC inferno and the VLC paradise? Or is it 1%? 10%? Percents in weight? In volume? In calories?