The Zero Carb Myth: Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health

[TylerDurden]

I'm certainly not calling for the "banning" of the Carnivore subforum and don't want it to be banned. Like GS, I want to share and learn. I do agree with aem42290, Eric, Alive and Iguana that all civil perspectives should be allowed in all subforums, including dissent. That's the opposite of a ban.

On the contrary, you were insisting that  hysterical, science-free, dubious  "warning" threads should be put in the RZC forum, but did not insist on other forums being so afflicted.  That is almost as bad as banning a  particular dietary path.

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/raw-paleolithic-diet-for-humans/msg7678/#msg7678

Interesting to see how Tyler responded to the article back then:

 I  had a damned good reason for making that post. Nicola, another one of our orthorexics, had been constantly posting  anti-raw topics in unrelated threads, thus distracting readers from the main subject-line. Also, most of her posts involved subjects we had already extensively discussed and debunked  ages before, so, for her to bring them up all over again despite them being exposed as flawed, was foolish.

[PaleoPhil]

Sabertooth, You could try to convince others to redefine ZC as eating anything for up to 10% carbs, instead of Bear Stanley's definition, but I doubt it would be worth the headache. I suspect that Van's right that we're better off just avoiding the term ZC, rather than debating on a new definition. Besides, the VLC category normally includes ZC within it, so there's no necessity to use ZC. What carbs do you eat?

I Googled to see what the current most popular definitions of low carb and any other related terms are and found the usual disagreement. Interestingly, prominent Atkins/LC people agreed to define low carb as starting at 10% carbs and call below that "LC ketogenic" instead of VLC. They define the categories lower than most people, though. Here's a summary of what they agreed upon:

Organizing a virtual who’s who of low-carb diet research and practice, a review article published in the journal Nutrition and Metabolism last year attempted to come to a consensus on what constitutes a low-carb diet. You may recognize a few of the names featured on the expert panel shaping this definition: Dr. Richard Bernstein, Dr. Annika Dahlqvist, Dr. Richard Feinman, Uffe Ravnskov, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Eric Westman, Dr. Jay Wortman and Dr. Mary Vernon, among many others.

...we have three distinct and practical terms and definitions to use now:

Low-carb ketogenic diet (LCKD): less than 50g carbs and 10% calories daily
Low-carb diet (LCD): 50-130g carbs daily and between 10-26% of calories
Moderate-carb diet (MCD): 130-225g carbs daily and between 26-45% of calories

Source:
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/what-is-a-low-carb-diet-researchers-have-now-defined-it/6648

The cited journal article: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/9

I wouldn't want to get into a debate over which figures to use. I do think it's helpful to see what others are using to give me a rough idea of what people mean.

Tyler, I didn't insist that science-free warning threads be put in the raw carnivore/ZC forum and actually don't think that's necessary or a good idea. I just think that posts with negative experiences and information should be allowed in that section. That's what I meant about warnings--allowing differing/critical posts, which would serve as warnings about potential risks for people to make their own judgments on--not an official sticky thread.

Even aem42290 didn't insist on a warning sticky. He just suggested it as one option: "either move this post back to the ZC section, or add in a warning sticky to the ZC section directly that addresses nuanced critiques of the diet." I like the first option better.

Also, "almost as bad as banning" does not equal "banning" in anything but double-speak. Thanks for acknowledging that I didn't call for a ban.

Re: your response to Nicola, I just remembered you being less positive about ZC in the past and reporting poor results from it by you and many others and then noticed that post of yours taking issue with Bear Stanley's ZC article, which did fit with my memory on this. I seem to recall you arguing in the past that humans are obviously omnivores.

Iguana even recently found one of your past negative posts about ZC:

]I just thought I'd do an experiment with various raw spices. Part of the problem I have, currently, is that while there are many raw animal food restaurants in London(ie Japanese Sashimi restaurants), it's more difficult to be raw when eating indoors. Being able to eat raw salads and occasionally using spices means I'm more used to eating like others. For example, using raw spices can help me overcome some of the disgusting taste of various cooked foods.

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.

That's actually slightly more negative about no-plant-food diets than I am even now (though only in the technical sense that if one had access to plentiful freshly-killed raw flesh richer in carbs and prebiotics than market foods, maybe especially from deep-diving sea mammals, it might be possible to fare rather well in the long run, but even that probably wouldn't be optimal and most of us don't have that access). Ironically, at the time I thought your warnings were a bit hysterical and I even followed with some questioning posts, but now I think they were largely on target and not really that excessive. I have since learned about many more people's negative experiences with ZC and near-ZC and some of them were very seriously bad indeed. No doubt you had seen many more such cases than I had at the time. I was even going to commend you for this a while back, but coincidentally right at that time you started writing more positively about ZC for some reason. Have you changed your mind and, if so, why?

If you still agree with your statement, do you mind if I put the part I bolded in my signature? It's actually rather good.

[sabertooth]

The topic of this thread, "Why a zero carb diet is not optimal for human health," may be a truth for people who are not sick to begin with, but I don't have great health, and low-carb has given me a tool to bring my health closer to normal.

That's a good point to make, seriously how many people in perfect health will decide that they want to begin a zero carb diet in order to obtain even better health? Is there anyone out there?

Low carb and zero carb are tools that people with health problems can use to recover from serious imbalances and other metabolic disorders. The bear was diabetic and went ZC to regulate blood sugar. I had similar issues with blood sugar that resolved on a vlc diet. People with seizure disorders often can be cured on a ketogenic diet. For many people who's health is somehow damaged these low carb diets by switching the bodies main fuel source from carbs to fat is capable of triggering a rejuvenate healing responce at the cellular level. Perhaps for people who are not sick but just not feeling optimal, it may also hold some promise of health benefit.... Another point is..... for people who are already optimally adapted to a carb rich diet, VLC or ZC may not be the optimal diet.

In the end what is optimal is unique to the individual.

[PaleoPhil]

Sabertooth, I think you said in the past that you eat Artisana coconut butter, which contains a bit of carbs. Do you eat any other plant foods that contain carbs?

Seizure disorders like epilepsy are indeed a popular use for VLC/ketogenic diets. Neurological disorders seem to benefit the most. Aren't those diets usually temporary, though, rather than long-term chronic? I found this:

Commonly, at around two years on the diet, or after six months of being seizure-free, the diet may be gradually discontinued over two or three months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Discontinuation

Interestingly, two years is around the time it seems like that ZCers/near-ZCers tend to start to reporting problems and reintroducing carbs or prebiotics (and some last longer, of course). What is the record # of years in a row for someone doing ZC or near-ZC containing no plants at all?

[sabertooth]

Sabertooth, I think you said in the past that you eat Artisana coconut butter, which contains a bit of carbs. Do you eat any other plant foods that contain carbs?

I'm real finicky about what carb food I consume. I will eat salad greens of different type, and have been using some herbs and spices for flavor . I will eat tomatoes and avocados. Drink lemon water every now and then.

Recently Ive expanded to include some carbs outside of the raw paleo approved. I will use some vegtables like marinated artichoke or olives to top off a salad. Occasionally I will use some pine nuts. Green onions and other veggies I will use in very small amounts.   

This is not raw paleo but me and my girlfriend have been drinking chaga fairly heavily for the last few months, Its a tea made up of a fungus that lives on birch trees. I will grind it whole and infuse it with water and brew in a crock pot. A few of our far out Friends were raving about its properties and there may be some merit to its benefits, but since it isn't raw paleo I hadn't brought it up yet. Its suppose to contain high levels of melanin which is utilized by the body to do a number of things such as nourish the pituitary gland, and mitigate damage caused by radiation. The fibrous component contains poly saccharides which may have beneficial perbiotic qualities.

Seizure disorders like epilepsy are indeed a popular use for VLC/ketogenic diets. Neurological disorders seem to benefit the most. Aren't those diets usually temporary, though, rather than long-term chronic? I found this:
Interestingly, two years is around the time it seems like that ZCers/near-ZCers tend to start to reporting problems and reintroducing carbs or prebiotics (and some last longer, of course). What is the record # of years in a row for someone doing ZC or near-ZC containing no plants at all?

I believe that ketogenic diets actually can repare the neurological damage responsible for seizures and the diet can be stopped once healed?

I began Raw paleo on a low carb diet for the first year, then went to near zc for around a year and a half, then I did start to notice issues like low energy and decreased hunger, which lead me to reintroduce some carbs and for the last two years I am on roughly 30 to 50 grams of carbs per day. I still fluctuate between LC and ZC based on cravings. Sometimes I wont eat any vegetable carbs for a week and other times I will eat a salad every night.

[edmon171]

What about fasting? Humans are known to be extremely well adapted to long periods of famine. The ketosis that goes along with this is a zero carb ketosis by default. The gut does just fine without any fiber to ferment and the gluconeogenesis and glycerol conversion are covering all brain needs for glucose. I beleive to get the best benefit from ketosis it should mimic the fasting state as close as possible with regard to macronutrients and even be alternated with 1-5 day fasts to get the added benefits of autophagy. I've read that the heart muscle runs more efficiently on ketones and the glial cells in the brain, a huge portion of the brain by mass, can not burn glucose directly, but must convert it first. They can burn ketones directly. It seems there are going to be trade-offs in energy efficiency with whatever metabolic path is taken. I think if you are going for ketosis you should go all the way. If you are eating enough carbs of any source to cause your ketone production to cut-back or delay your adaptation to ffa ketone sparing metabolism then it is doing more harm than good. If you want to measure your carbs and protein with a digital scale and take just exactly enough to find some sweet-spot where there is no excess protein to convert to glucose and no want of glucose to trigger muscle breakdown, I don't understand why all the fuss over gluconeogenesis, but more power to you. I'd be interested to know if that makes you feel better or changes anything noticable or measurable.

[TylerDurden]

Yes, the fact that fasting involving ketosis etc., such as intermittent fasting, is so healthy does mean that all those hysterical anti-RZC posts are nonsense.

And, even PP had to admit that aem was advocating a sticky warning thread. Such threads are tantamount to a ban and a waste of time.

I note PP was highly selective in quoting me re RZC diets. I only ever attacked RZC diets at the time because there were so many fervent pro-RZC fanatics attacking other raw diets. Otherwise, I have always maintained that some do well on RZC and some do not.

As regards that quote,  it makes it clear that I do advocate raw vlc palaeo  or rawpalaeo, lc, if not RZC.

Whatever the case, hot topics forum is the best place for any topics attacking a particular raw diet.

[PaleoPhil]

What about fasting? Humans are known to be extremely well adapted to long periods of famine. The ketosis that goes along with this is a zero carb ketosis by default. The gut does just fine without any fiber to ferment and the gluconeogenesis and glycerol conversion are covering all brain needs for glucose. I beleive to get the best benefit from ketosis it should mimic the fasting state as close as possible with regard to macronutrients and even be alternated with 1-5 day fasts to get the added benefits of autophagy

Yes, intermittent fasting and intermittent ZCing do appear to be beneficial and none of my warnings were regarding it. They were regarding chronic long-term ZC.

Yes, the fact that fasting involving ketosis etc., such as intermittent fasting, is so healthy does mean that all those hysterical anti-RZC posts are nonsense.

I do IFing and intermittent ZC myself. My posts had nothing to do with that.

And, even PP had to admit that aem was advocating a sticky warning thread. Such threads are tantamount to a ban and a waste of time.

As I already pointed out, I didn't call for a sticky and don't want one, and you again ignored that aem offered it as one possible alternative along with another alternative.

Would you please stop making so many negative assumptions and ask me questions before jumping to such conclusions or if there's anything you don't understand, as I've asked you many times before? Please try to remember that you're a moderator who is supposed to set a positive example.

So do you still agree with this quote or not? It says "many people," so that should be OK, yes?

"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." http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/a-day-in-the-life-of-tylerdurden/msg12373/#msg12373

[aem42290]

On the contrary, you were insisting that  hysterical, science-free, dubious  "warning" threads should be put in the RZC forum, but did not insist on other forums being so afflicted.  That is almost as bad as banning a  particular dietary path.

I echo PaleoPhil in saying that, as a moderator, your callous and irreverent language sets a very poor example for the broader quality of exchanges on this site. And since you have been so neglectful of the scientific data in my opening post, I am going to assume that you are treating my thread as one of the "hysterical" texts. If so, then this would be the first time in my life that I have been called hysterical, and while I do take some offense to your erratic and implicitly ad-hominem condemnation, I will gladly provide you with a substantial bibliographical document to support all of my conclusions. Perhaps then your thirst for "truths" will be satisfied.

Yes, intermittent fasting and intermittent ZCing do appear to be beneficial and none of my warnings were regarding it. They were regarding chronic long-term ZC.

I'm with Edmon and PaleoPhil: I am not disputing the short-term use-value of a ZC ketogenic diet (so long as there exists an adequate understanding of the numerous variables involved in the diet's execution), and I am especially not challenging the benefits of intermittent fasting, which I engage in on a frequent basis. Rather, I am questioning the long-term health effects of a ZC diet for the majority of humans. In this sense, I am using 'optimization' to express an index of and for sustainable metabolic efficiency, which, by extension, contributes to the conditions and intricacies of establishing longevity.

I do IFing and intermittent ZC myself. My posts had nothing to do with that.

Indeed.

In the end what is optimal is unique to the individual.

I strongly disagree with this. Although it is tempting to assume that individuals should always be at the center of discussions regarding optimization and dietary health, the fact remains that core metabolic processes function in comparable manners for most humans on the planet. To offer some counterpoints: I would argue that most humans would benefit from incorporating an intermittent fasting plan in their diets; most humans would benefit from eliminating grains entirely; and most humans would benefit from ceasing the consumption of antibiotics. There is a fine line between structure and particular that I believe dietary advice must tread. In regards to optimization, this line must be drawn along the terrain of temporality. A short-term dietary success is likely to correct individual problems, but a long-term dietary failure is likely to reveal structural (i.e., human) vulnerabilities.

I'd like to continue this debate if you would indulge me, though in a more gentlemanly manner. I must say its been a while since I have researched any of this and its possible that there is new knowledge out there. This is one of those things where you can't just take any study and run with it because there are vested interests that like to fudge numbers and mislead people when health is at stake.

Of course, Edmon. We'll continue the debate. I must say that I have been rather busy as of late, and have thus been unable to post here as frequently as I'd like.

I'm going to take some time later on today to address a few of the key points brought up by others. Namely, I'd like to tackle:
1) The role of glial cells in relation to ketosis. (Edmon171)
2) Ketogenic diets as possessing healing qualities, short-term. (Sabertooth)
3) Why "differing/critical posts, which would serve as warnings about potential risks for people to make their own judgments " should be allowed in their respective forums. (PaleoPhil)
4) Epigenetic adaptations to ZC/ketogenic and high carb diets. (Sabertooth)

[PaleoPhil]

Interesting stuff, aem. I would add metabolic adaptability (aka antifragility) as another benefit of a varied diet.

It is also clear from the evidence that  HGs in palaeo times would have been forced to go RZC for lengthy periods  due to Ice-Age conditions and seasonal variation.

BTW, this ties in nicely with the topic of the Old Friends, prebiotics (like glycans) and probiotics. Scientists have been learning that one of the things that enables HGs to get through the winter with not a lot of plant foods is freezing and fermenting meats. Freezing preserves prebiotics and anaerobic fermentation actually promotes prebiotics, probiotics and carbs in meats, IIRC. This was discussed by DuckDodgers at the FTA blog links I provided in the past, such as the one in this post: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/the-zero-carb-myth-why-a-zero-carb-diet-is-not-optimal-for-human-health/msg122211/#msg122211

For example, the Eskimos and Chukchi traditionally ate anaerobically fermented raw seal, walrus or whale during the winter, which unfortunately is not common at your local markets. 

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/possible-to-ferment-fat/msg29542/#msg29542
The Chukchi, http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ea210/chukchi.htm
Fatal Botulism - Fermented Walrus Flipper, http://www.epi.hss.state.ak.us/bulletins/docs/b1990_01.htm

[TylerDurden]

Would you please stop making so many negative assumptions and ask me questions before jumping to such conclusions or if there's anything you don't understand, as I've asked you many times before? Please try to remember that you're a moderator who is supposed to set a positive example.

This is just pure equivocation. More to the point, as a moderator, I  have to make sure to criticise people for what they are actually attempting to do, rather than what they claim to be doing/meaning.

So do you still agree with this quote or not? It says "many people," so that should be OK, yes?

"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." http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/a-day-in-the-life-of-tylerdurden/msg12373/#msg12373

*sigh* I just said that at the time I was on the defensive against pro-RZC proponents who were just as fanatical as your current anti-RZC stance, so the word "many"  should really be "some", these days.  Unlike people like you, I feel every type of diet should be given the same treatment. Posting  dubious attack-threads in  one forum, but not in others is misleading and actually quite dishonest and corrupt.

[TylerDurden]

The one size does not fit all theory  really does apply. There are always exceptions here and there. For example, epileptics do surprisingly well on ketogenic diets.  Blanket statements re diet , even ones I liked, never did really come up 100% proven in all cases.

[TylerDurden]

Ah well, I am cursed. Due to worthless, profit-driven internet providers, I am now forced to wait another 5 days to get internet access again.

[Alive]

Another source of glucose is Edogenous Glucose Production during fat metabolisation.
Fats are created with a glycerol backbone, and when fats are metabolised the glycerol molecules are released. Two glycerol molecules are easily combined to make a glucose molecule, which is way easier and cleaner than converting protein to glucose.
Typically about 12% of the calories from fat are provided as glucose, so if someone on 'ZC' was burning 2000 cal of fat they would get around 240 calories of this as glucose. I imagine one great thing about this source of glucose is that it will be released only slowly as the fat is used, compared to carb consumption where there is more of an uncontrolled explosion of glucose into the bloodstream.

Regarding a ketogenic diet, we can see already that a significant amount energy can be supplied to the brain by glucose from fat metabolisation. My understanding is that so long as protein consumption is moderated then ketones will be produced from fat to provide for the glucose deficit. Now it seems obvious that if a 'ZCer' can be getting hundreds of glucose calories from fat there will be little impact on their level of ketosis of adding a few tens of calories of carbs.

So while a 'ZC' diet is ketogenic, it does not follow that a ketogenic diet must be zero carb. There is a spectrum of ketosis depth which can be traded off against any benefits from some carb consumption. 

Also if the generation of ketones for improved cognitive function is the goal then consuming short and medium chain fats are most beneficial. These can be found in coconut oil and are produced by gut bacteria when resistant starches are consumed.

So there we go - we have fats that make glucose and starches that make fat (via gut microbes).

 

[sabertooth]

Alive , you just about summed up my entire low carb approach.

High amounts of raw animal fat, moderate amount of animal protein, and a small amount of low glycemic carbs that includes coconut fat.

[Inger]

I do not quite get why I have no issues so far with high protein high fat. I eat above 100 g pure protein every single day and I feel so great! But I do heavy on seafood and just a bit raw heart or organs and fat in addition. Maybe that is why?

I really really love how I feel with such a high in seafood diet... and my skin is soft as velvet...

I have a bit high fasting blood glucose... and super great and high cholesterol and other labs are great too

It is weird that eating so much protein and having a bit high glucose still makes my AGE levels like a 5 years old. I feel like one too lol
I wonder if it is the cold and the dark that helps? And my natural living, lots of earthing and sunshine and avoiding EMF?

I just do not get it.... because I should have issues with such a high protein diet but I have none and I have done this for many years

[24isours]

Another source of glucose is Edogenous Glucose Production during fat metabolisation.
Fats are created with a glycerol backbone, and when fats are metabolised the glycerol molecules are released. Two glycerol molecules are easily combined to make a glucose molecule, which is way easier and cleaner than converting protein to glucose.
Typically about 12% of the calories from fat are provided as glucose, so if someone on 'ZC' was burning 2000 cal of fat they would get around 240 calories of this as glucose. I imagine one great thing about this source of glucose is that it will be released only slowly as the fat is used, compared to carb consumption where there is more of an uncontrolled explosion of glucose into the bloodstream.

Regarding a ketogenic diet, we can see already that a significant amount energy can be supplied to the brain by glucose from fat metabolisation. My understanding is that so long as protein consumption is moderated then ketones will be produced from fat to provide for the glucose deficit. Now it seems obvious that if a 'ZCer' can be getting hundreds of glucose calories from fat there will be little impact on their level of ketosis of adding a few tens of calories of carbs.

So while a 'ZC' diet is ketogenic, it does not follow that a ketogenic diet must be zero carb. There is a spectrum of ketosis depth which can be traded off against any benefits from some carb consumption. 

Also if the generation of ketones for improved cognitive function is the goal then consuming short and medium chain fats are most beneficial. These can be found in coconut oil and are produced by gut bacteria when resistant starches are consumed.

So there we go - we have fats that make glucose and starches that make fat (via gut microbes).

 

I've come to the same conclusion based on my research as well;
The body will convert fatty acids to glucose long before it converts protein into glucose as gluconeogenesis is indeed taxing on ones system. What I would like to eventually find out is how taxing the fatty acid conversion cycle would be. I would say it'd be considerably less harmful (if at all) to ones body than blood sugar spikes from excess glucose.

I would have to agree that true RZC, (if such a diet were even possible as I've seen mentioned on this forum that even muscle meat contains some glycogen) being quite dangerous to health as it wouldn't contain much needed vitamins and minerals from organ meat.

Based on the health benefits I've seen from eating a raw Carnivorous ketogenic diet, I would have to disagree with such a diet being less than optimal for human health.

[24isours]

Your gut bacteria will die off if you don't feed it sugar and your body will be unable to extract any nutrients from the raw meat you are eating and you will most likely experience other serious complications.

I don't see how the same bacteria that feed off of sugar would be needed to extract nutrients from meat and fat. Can you explain this?

A disgruntled ex-zero carber that has experienced a dying gut flora and heart palpitations from following a zero carb diet.

I will also get palpitations if I do not hydrate enough.

[Alive]

Inger, I imagine that your diet is not all that high in fat as a percentage? But because you consume so much RAF it adds up to a nice lot of fat to provide a good base of slow release glucose? And then your metabolism must so efficient from having so many energetic but controllable electrons Krusing about that the excess proteins are easily used or disposed of 

24isours, what is the reason that you avoid VLC plant matter, such as greens?

In some ways I prefer the Carnivorous title to ZC, since carnivorous animals like cats do regularly eat plant matter, such as grass.

[PaleoPhil]

Thanks for taking the time and having the courage to share your experience, yribaf. My understanding is that the GI bacteria feed on mostly prebiotics, rather than sugar. Sugar is fairly easily digested in the stomach and small intestine.

Someone is liable to bring up the straw man that all the gut bacteria don't die off, which is true, but misses the more important point--that many of the "good" bacteria can die off and this can leave open a sort of power-vacuum for "bad" bacteria to step in. "Good" and "bad" is an oversimplification, but I hope folks understand what I mean.

Yeah, I'm far from a veghead. LOL

[24isours]

24isours, what is the reason that you avoid VLC plant matter, such as greens?

I haven't been one to experiment much with vegetables as the way I've been eating seems to keep me content. I guess that would be the reason why I avoid them. Also, I can't really say the raw greens I've eaten are really tasty anyway. I did love my salads, cooked broccoli, spinach and rapini during my SAD days.

[PaleoPhil]

When someone says sugar or starch, red flags tend to go up for vlcers. Another way to think of resistant starch and insulin is as fat, because the gut bugs work together to convert much of these prebiotics into short-chaIn fatty acids.

[PaleoPhil]

*sigh* I just said that at the time I was on the defensive against pro-RZC proponents who were just as fanatical as your current anti-RZC stance, so the word "many"  should really be "some", these days.  Unlike people like you, I feel every type of diet should be given the same treatment. Posting  dubious attack-threads in  one forum, but not in others is misleading and actually quite dishonest and corrupt.

Do you mean you exaggerated in the past? If so, how do I know you're not doing the same now?  The "many" people you mentioned in the past would still be valid for you to indicate today, if you were not exaggerating then. Just because many of them are not active in this forum any more doesn't mean they didn't report problems in the past. If you should go inactive that wouldn't somehow invalidate the poor results you reported from RZC.

I agree w/ you that the subforum diets should be treated the same, which is why I asked that dissenting views be allowed in ALL the subforums.

[colorles]

been following the thread, and can see that much has already been discussed. yet one particular aspect of the opening post, hasn't seemed to have been discussed in any detail:

" the carnivorous ZC/ultra VLC diet typically calls for abhorrent amounts of daily fluid intake (wholly against what would be expected in a non-domesticated environment.) "

is it not something we can all agree upon, that humans seem to require more water compared to other comparably sized mammalian carnivores (or "omnivores" or whatever other moniker you choose)?  granted of course you can get much fluids from a fresh kill...and it would be going a bit too far to claim that these "abhorrent amounts of daily fluid intakes" would be unrealistic in a natural environment, you know considering hunter-gatherers have been long surviving with such daily fluid requirements...but i digress

anyways though has anybody else here noticed any changes in daily fluid intake, since adapting raw VLC and/or seasonal diets? because if anything i notice i am drinking a bit less, on a strictly raw diet; probably has something to do with my body not having to clean itself out of various toxins left and right, oh and the fact that raw meat is alot easier to digest than cooked meats. i still like to drink a fair amount of water (its something i always carry around with me)...but water consumption is not a problem so long as you plan accordingly "out in the field" so to speak (as any hunter-gatherer surely would)

[eveheart]

anyways though has anybody else here noticed any changes in daily fluid intake, since adapting raw VLC and/or seasonal diets?

Thirst is a sign of diabetes, and monitoring my thirst levels was my primary way of monitoring my correct carb intake. I never initially went to the doctor for diabetes because I knew what my symptoms meant. I got it under control myself with VLC. I did tell my doctor afterwards what I was doing, and she is in agreement. I get blood tests a few times per year, and I am pleased with the range of FBS (usually around 90). With VLC, I don't get crazy-thirsty: I drink water when I want to, but the "urge" feels normal with VLC and insatiable with higher carb intake levels.