Gone Zero Carb.

[CC's left foot]

You may want to do some more research about specific macronutrient types and their health effects before embarking on such an extreme diet. There's plenty of evidence showing that the grain fed meats today are unhealthy compared to the meat of animals raised on their natural diets. The type of fat in the meat is just as important as the amount and the farmed meat of today is much different from the wild meat of the past.

By all means post your info, I would be interested to see the data. What qualities are different in grassfed beef vs cornfed?

To answer the Q about my workout, I used to do 4 days/week of mainly cardio, and I have backed it off to 2 days/week of half cardio half weights. I could do the same as before, but I don't want to burn out (I was close to doing so).

 

[Endorphinaddict]

By all means post your info, I would be interested to see the data. What qualities are different in grassfed beef vs cornfed?

To answer the Q about my workout, I used to do 4 days/week of mainly cardio, and I have backed it off to 2 days/week of half cardio half weights. I could do the same as before, but I don't want to burn out (I was close to doing so).

it explains the difference (in chickens) on the faq

 

[anaconda]

It works for the Eskimos (AKA Snow-Mexicans) and whatnot...

lool at snow mexicans!

 

[MikeMartial]

What qualities are different in grassfed beef vs cornfed?

CC, if you're seriously going to undertake this, you need to have a soild grasp on the reasoning behind consuming strictly grassfed, free range, organic meat. THAT will be the make or break in your experiment.

The basis of this is micronutrient content and high-quality EFAs. If you're simplifying your diet down to zero carb, meaning no fruits and vegetables, you still NEED the micronutrients. These CAN be obatins from fish/beef/poultry, as long as it hasn't been fed a garbage diet of typical farm-raised feed. The same thing goes for essential fatty acids; corn-fed cattle are going to be compeltely devoid of omega 3s and unaturally high in omega 6 EFAs. Inverse for grassfed.

IF your meat sources are organic free range grassfed, then, and ONLY then, can you thrive on a zero carb diet. If you actually try this diet buying conventionally farm-raised meat, your going to do more harm than good.

 

[Monger]

Honestly, I don't really get the low to zero carb things. Even if you take all the paleo stuff to heart, research has still shown that most paleo humans consumed 22-40% of their energy from carbohydrates. Ya, it wasn't grains and whatnot but that's still a very moderate amount of glucose and fructose, in my opinion. Even if you only ate veggies as a carb source... it would take a shit load to hit 22% in carbs for daily intake. The idea that carbs are somehow unhealthy or cause abnormal weight gains and diseases is ridiculous in the context of moderation and a calorie controlled diet. I can understand a persons argument against grains (though I don't agree with it) but against fruits and veggies?? Makes no sense to me.

I

 

[LuckyCharms]

I followed a low carb diet for 8 months, back in the 90's.
It worked for weight-loss.


Chessy eggs for breakfast.
Chicken salads for lunch, blue cheese dressing.
Water w/lemon.
Dried salmon and some almonds for snacks.
Grilled meat, with like, asparagus w/butter and another salad.
Fresh berries in heavy cream for dessert.


This worked very well. As long as I didn't really go out into the world. I was able to make eating out work for me, but at some point, you go on vacation, rediscover tempura and it's all over.....

For those 8-months, I did not have any gas.
(heavy sigh)




Now I eat more balanced, whole grains, but pasta only sparingly.
Save all my bad food for lunchtime. (silent death fahts....)

Watch portions and really try not to eat/snack/beverage w/calories past 7pm.




Good luck, CC's left foot!
I really hope your plan works well for you.

 

[Monger]

Ya, but it's a lot easier to control calories when you remove an entire macronutrient from your diet.

 

[CC's left foot]

Honestly, I don't really get the low to zero carb things. Even if you take all the paleo stuff to heart, research has still shown that most paleo humans consumed 22-40% of their energy from carbohydrates. Ya, it wasn't grains and whatnot but that's still a very moderate amount of glucose and fructose, in my opinion. Even if you only ate veggies as a carb source... it would take a shit load to hit 22% in carbs for daily intake. The idea that carbs are somehow unhealthy or cause abnormal weight gains and diseases is ridiculous in the context of moderation and a calorie controlled diet. I can understand a persons argument against grains (though I don't agree with it) but against fruits and veggies?? Makes no sense to me.

I

 

[CC's left foot]

CC, if you're seriously going to undertake this, you need to have a soild grasp on the reasoning behind consuming strictly grassfed, free range, organic meat. THAT will be the make or break in your experiment.

The basis of this is micronutrient content and high-quality EFAs. If you're simplifying your diet down to zero carb, meaning no fruits and vegetables, you still NEED the micronutrients. These CAN be obatins from fish/beef/poultry, as long as it hasn't been fed a garbage diet of typical farm-raised feed. The same thing goes for essential fatty acids; corn-fed cattle are going to be compeltely devoid of omega 3s and unaturally high in omega 6 EFAs. Inverse for grassfed.

IF your meat sources are organic free range grassfed, then, and ONLY then, can you thrive on a zero carb diet. If you actually try this diet buying conventionally farm-raised meat, your going to do more harm than good.

So specifically which fatty acids and nutrients am I missing on an all meat diet comprising partly of cornfed beef?

 

[Monger]

Part of the reason why ZC is scientifically sound is that amount of calories consumed are not relevant to fat loss. Only the type of calories are relevant.

LoL, ok.

 

[MikeMartial]

So specifically which fatty acids and nutrients am I missing on an all meat diet comprising partly of cornfed beef?

Nutrients? Examine their diet. Take a cow for example, and think of what it eats. Typical grain products like corn, wheat and barely, along with any additives they deem necessary due to dietary insufficiency. Keep in mind I'm talking about feedlot cattle that stand around all day and just eat from a trough. I know I'm sounding like a tree-hugging nutbar demonizing feedlots, but that meat is garbage.

"Vitamins: Vitamins are not included in the table. The only vitamin of general practical importance in cattle and sheep feeding is the vitamin A value (vitamin A and carotene) in feeds. This depends largely on maturity and conditions at harvest, and the length and conditions during storage. Thus, it is probably unwise to rely entirely on harvested feeds as a source of vitamin A value.
<!--end paragraph--> <!--begin paragraph-->Where roughages are fed that contain good green color or are being fed as immature, fresh forages (e.g., pasture), there will probably be sufficient vitamin A value to meet animal requirements. Other vitamins, if required, should be supplied as supplements."

From: Typical Composition Of Feeds For Cattle And Sheep

I'm sure you're familiar with "marbling"; the intramuscular fatty deposits that the USDA grades meat on. This isn't natural. This is caused by an over consumption of grain-based products, and is absent in grass-fed beef. I've got over 50 lbs of deer in my freezer, and it is completely devoid of marbling. There is a decent amount of fat on a deer carcass, but it's visceral, not intramuscluar, and certainly not bright white like what's found on commercial cuts of meat. I won't even get into the pharmaceuticals that are routinely given to commercial cattle and poultry.

Human Marbling Open Water Chicago

As far as essential fatty acids, I commented on that already.

The same thing goes for essential fatty acids; corn-fed cattle are going to be completely devoid of omega 3s and unnaturally high in omega 6 EFAs. Inverse for grassfed.

I'm not telling you NOT to do this, I'm just saying get educated before you do this, and understand the differences in food quality versus 100 years ago when Vilhjalmur Stefansson did the first trial run.

 

[Mathias]

On the contrary, there are arguments like these...

"What the animal eats is not going to matter so far as nutritive value is concerned, so long as the animal was healthy. A plant may indeed be dependent on its nutrition, but the animals we use for food have the ability to manufacture in their bodies or with the aid of commensal organisms living in their intestines, many if not all of the nutritive substances they require which may fall missing in their diet. Food animals are herbivores, they live on feed which has the lowest level and format of organic-nutrient value on the planet- they are highly evolved, complex organisms which are specialised in converting low value feed into high value meat. Any proposal that the nutrient quality of meat is different due to what the animal is fed is only propaganda serving a special interest, like the organic farming mob. There is no nutritional difference between 'organic' meat and any other kind- except of course, the cost per unit to the buyer."

"Cattle are raised on range or pasture land for most of their lives (usually 12-18 months), then transported to a feedlot for finishing. These cattle usually spend about three to six months in a feedlot, during which time they gain between 2.5 and 4 pounds per day.When cattle get fat

 

[anaconda]

they gain between 2.5 and 4 lbs a day? that cant be healthy lol.

 

[big ugly bear]

How will you get all of your vitamin c and such?

Actually I've just been reading a book today on omega 3s in the diet. The book claims many 20th/21st century illnesses are down to a lack of omega 3s. Within the text it mentioned how sailors on board ships were dying of scurvy through a lack of vitamin c, back when adventurers first took off from Europe. By adding oranges, etc to the diet, many lives were saved. The author's point, was that like in the case of vit c, we will realise eventually that a diet deficient in O3s (which constitiutes a large portion of the brain and is important to all cellular activity in the body) has caused many 20th century diseases of the brain such as bipolar, depression, psychosis, ADD, etc.

I'd be interested to see how the TS gets on with the diet, but at the first sign of trouble I would jump straight back onto the fruits and vegetables.

I think if we look at the diet man has lived on for millions of years, barring the last 10,000 since the agricultural revolution, we can see that meat (wild game, not farmed animals), fish, nuts, fruits and vegetables are what we are genetically accustomed to eat. The jury is still out on foods relating to the Agricultural revolution- such as cow's milk (70% of the world's pop is still lactose intolerant), cheese, yogurt, wheat, grains, etc.

I don't care how convincing the arguments are for not eating fruit due to carbs, etc, there is no way I would omit them from my diet no matter which authority was advising me to do so. I think it's common sense that we eat them, as we came down from the trees eating them millions of years ago. These were the first foods we were eating as mammals. I think I'm right in saying that although man is adaptable (which is why most europeans can handle cow's milk), the more recently a food has been added to the diet of man, then genetically we have less chance of being able to handle it.

In response to the advice I received on this board re shifting stubborn fat, I have since followed the advice to get my carbs only from fruits and vegetables. Thus my carb intake has dropped by not eating w/w pasta and w/w bread. In may sound silly, but I think I'm looking leaner already in just a few days. Fat can't be lost that rapidly, so maybe I was bloating even from eating small amounts of grains. Two things I have noticed, I keep getting a splitting headache (which happened last year when I followed the Anabolic Diet which is the same one the TS is now following) even though I never normally get them and also, I am urinating a lot more frequently than normal- this is prob the reason for looking leaner.

Thoughts?

 

[CC's left foot]

Actually I've just been reading a book today on omega 3s in the diet. The book claims many 20th/21st century illnesses are down to a lack of omega 3s. Within the text it mentioned how sailors on board ships were dying of scurvy through a lack of vitamin c, back when adventurers first took off from Europe. By adding oranges, etc to the diet, many lives were saved. The author's point, was that like in the case of vit c, we will realise eventually that a diet deficient in O3s (which constitiutes a large portion of the brain and is important to all cellular activity in the body) has caused many 20th century diseases of the brain such as bipolar, depression, psychosis, ADD, etc.

This is a topic of interest. Scurvy and other scurvy-like diseases do not appear on a total meat diet. Meat has very little vitamin C, so it's clear that it's not a vitamin C deficiency. It is possible that carbohydrates hinder vitamin absorption resulting in deficiency.

I'd be interested to see how the TS gets on with the diet, but at the first sign of trouble I would jump straight back onto the fruits and vegetables.

There are plenty of people out there who have eaten this diet for years and have no adverse effects. Obviously if something severe happens I would look at the causes, but I am not expecting anything like that.

I think if we look at the diet man has lived on for millions of years, barring the last 10,000 since the agricultural revolution, we can see that meat (wild game, not farmed animals), fish, nuts, fruits and vegetables are what we are genetically accustomed to eat. The jury is still out on foods relating to the Agricultural revolution- such as cow's milk (70% of the world's pop is still lactose intolerant), cheese, yogurt, wheat, grains, etc.

You are omitting the fact that fruits and veggies you can buy today bear almost no resemblance in quality or quantity to naturally occurring pre-ag plants. For example: Apples are about double the size and 5x as sweet, nuts are far easier to get in quantity, and when was the last time you saw wild spinach growing, let alone enough to eat a huge handful a day? It is also documented that primitive cultures hunting meat will kill the fattest animal they can find. Most likely due to the larger amount of energy that can be gotten from such a specimen.

I don't care how convincing the arguments are for not eating fruit due to carbs, etc, there is no way I would omit them from my diet no matter which authority was advising me to do so. I think it's common sense that we eat them, as we came down from the trees eating them millions of years ago. These were the first foods we were eating as mammals. I think I'm right in saying that although man is adaptable (which is why most europeans can handle cow's milk), the more recently a food has been added to the diet of man, then genetically we have less chance of being able to handle it.

Thoughts?

I think what is common sense is eating what nourishes the body the most. Sugars and carbs of any type have the least nutrition, hence it is common sense to eat as little of them as is comfortable. It has also been noted by anthropologists that humanity's rise in intelligence coincided with an increase in meat consumption.

 

[big ugly bear]

This is a topic of interest. Scurvy and other scurvy-like diseases do not appear on a total meat diet. Meat has very little vitamin C, so it's clear that it's not a vitamin C deficiency. It is possible that carbohydrates hinder vitamin absorption resulting in deficiency.



There are plenty of people out there who have eaten this diet for years and have no adverse effects. Obviously if something severe happens I would look at the causes, but I am not expecting anything like that.



You are omitting the fact that fruits and veggies you can buy today bear almost no resemblance in quality or quantity to naturally occurring pre-ag plants. For example: Apples are about double the size and 5x as sweet, nuts are far easier to get in quantity, and when was the last time you saw wild spinach growing, let alone enough to eat a huge handful a day? It is also documented that primitive cultures hunting meat will kill the fattest animal they can find. Most likely due to the larger amount of energy that can be gotten from such a specimen.



I think what is common sense is eating what nourishes the body the most. Sugars and carbs of any type have the least nutrition, hence it is common sense to eat as little of them as is comfortable. It has also been noted by anthropologists that humanity's rise in intelligence coincided with an increase in meat consumption.

Scurvy doesn't appear on a total meat diet? That's exactly the type of diet that scurvy was discovered in the first place. As I said, sailors in the 14th and 15th century, who no doubt had access to better quality meat than today (re pesticides and hormones, etc), lived on nothing but meat (salted to preserve it of course), eggs, fish, butter and cheese, etc. They had no access to fresh fruits and veg, and hence they contracted scurvy. The simple addition of citrus fruits prevented a vit c deficiency.

I agree wtih you that carbs in the modern sense are not nutrient dense and are easy to omit from the diet, but we are talking about bread, rice, pasta, etc. The amount of carbs one consumes just from fruits and vegetables is quite low. I think even Chris Aceto said something like, "I'd be surprised if anybody ever became overweight through eating fruits and veggies". I'm inclined to believe that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water by putting fruits and veg in the same category as bread, pasta, etc. The nutrient benefits of fruit and veg is so well documented and vital to our health.

I read years ago in the NAtional Geographic about how modern man's brain had enlarged due to eating meat, and I actually used to use the argument to convince my sister that she was doing herself a great disservice by being a vegetarian. I am big believer in the value of meat, so you I don't need to be persuaded of it's value. All I am pointing out is that I can't see how eating say 300-400 calories from fruit and vegetables per day in ADDITION to your current diet would be a bad thing. I think it'd be a good insurance policy.

Also what you have to remember with all diet books, is that each one is just as convincing as the one before it and they all tend to cherry pick scinetific studies to support their work. The only way of dealing with this is to not opt for extremes, rather seek a moderate path, because if you get it wrong, you are likely to get it VERY wrong with anything taken to extremes. Let common sense and moderation prevail.

I don't know much about how apples, etc differ from pre-ag plants, but I'd be interested to read something about it. Do you have a source?

 

[anaconda]

Scurvy doesn't appear on a total meat diet? That's exactly the type of diet that scurvy was discovered in the first place. As I said, sailors in the 14th and 15th century, who no doubt had access to better quality meat than today (re pesticides and hormones, etc), lived on nothing but meat (salted to preserve it of course), eggs, fish, butter and cheese, etc. They had no access to fresh fruits and veg, and hence they contracted scurvy. The simple addition of citrus fruits prevented a vit c deficiency.

I agree wtih you that carbs in the modern sense are not nutrient dense and are easy to omit from the diet, but we are talking about bread, rice, pasta, etc. The amount of carbs one consumes just from fruits and vegetables is quite low. I think even Chris Aceto said something like, "I'd be surprised if anybody ever became overweight through eating fruits and veggies". I'm inclined to believe that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water by putting fruits and veg in the same category as bread, pasta, etc. The nutrient benefits of fruit and veg is so well documented and vital to our health.

I read years ago in the NAtional Geographic about how modern man's brain had enlarged due to eating meat, and I actually used to use the argument to convince my sister that she was doing herself a great disservice by being a vegetarian. I am big believer in the value of meat, so you I don't need to be persuaded of it's value. All I am pointing out is that I can't see how eating say 300-400 calories from fruit and vegetables per day in ADDITION to your current diet would be a bad thing. I think it'd be a good insurance policy.

Also what you have to remember with all diet books, is that each one is just as convincing as the one before it and they all tend to cherry pick scinetific studies to support their work. The only way of dealing with this is to not opt for extremes, rather seek a moderate path, because if you get it wrong, you are likely to get it VERY wrong with anything taken to extremes. Let common sense and moderation prevail.

I don't know much about how apples, etc differ from pre-ag plants, but I'd be interested to read something about it. Do you have a source?

Nice post.

 

[CC's left foot]

Scurvy doesn't appear on a total meat diet? That's exactly the type of diet that scurvy was discovered in the first place. As I said, sailors in the 14th and 15th century, who no doubt had access to better quality meat than today (re pesticides and hormones, etc), lived on nothing but meat (salted to preserve it of course), eggs, fish, butter and cheese, etc. They had no access to fresh fruits and veg, and hence they contracted scurvy. The simple addition of citrus fruits prevented a vit c deficiency.

Sailors typically ate the cheapest and easiest to store goods: grains and sugars. If they got a very tiny piece of cured meat (most likely nutritionally void by the preserving process), it would have been a very small piece. How do you explain the evidence of all meat eaters never getting scurvy unless they ate portions of refined carbs as well? I assure you there is no citrus in the arctic.

I agree wtih you that carbs in the modern sense are not nutrient dense and are easy to omit from the diet, but we are talking about bread, rice, pasta, etc. The amount of carbs one consumes just from fruits and vegetables is quite low. I think even Chris Aceto said something like, "I'd be surprised if anybody ever became overweight through eating fruits and veggies". I'm inclined to believe that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water by putting fruits and veg in the same category as bread, pasta, etc. The nutrient benefits of fruit and veg is so well documented and vital to our health.

Vital to health? Well documented? I seriously doubt it. Show me trials that prove they are required for healthy life compared to a very low carb diet and I will change my ways.

I read years ago in the NAtional Geographic about how modern man's brain had enlarged due to eating meat, and I actually used to use the argument to convince my sister that she was doing herself a great disservice by being a vegetarian. I am big believer in the value of meat, so you I don't need to be persuaded of it's value. All I am pointing out is that I can't see how eating say 300-400 calories from fruit and vegetables per day in ADDITION to your current diet would be a bad thing. I think it'd be a good insurance policy.

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing. But perhaps it would make no difference. Perhaps it would harm the body's nutrient uptake. I don't know. But I do know that they aren't necessary for health.

Also what you have to remember with all diet books, is that each one is just as convincing as the one before it and they all tend to cherry pick scinetific studies to support their work. The only way of dealing with this is to not opt for extremes, rather seek a moderate path, because if you get it wrong, you are likely to get it VERY wrong with anything taken to extremes. Let common sense and moderation prevail.

I don't read diet books... If you really want to read a book about the hard science of this, take a look at Good Carbs Bad Carbs by Taubes. Agree or disagree, you will be fascinated by the scientific data.

I don't know much about how apples, etc differ from pre-ag plants, but I'd be interested to read something about it. Do you have a source?

I don't have a single source, but nearly all cultivars of fruits and vegetables we eat were developed in the last few hundred years, mainly for increased size and sugar content. You can look up such info for individual species. Wild tomatoes, for example, are very small and hard, and are not sweet.

 

[Mathias]

I just came accross this, it's rather interesting....

The Real Diabetic Diet

The Real Diabetic Diet

2-3 hours after I'd eat, I'd feel seriously anxious and like I was going to pass out dead where I stood if I didn't eat something.

I've come to the conclusion, like the NY Times article "What if it was all a big fat lie", that America has been misinformed and mislead for the last 30 years or so. Lots and lots of people are on "low-fat, low calorie" diets and yet obesity and Type II Diabetes are at record levels.

The ironic thing about the ADA and all these "health" organizations is that they all have some form of vested interest in the drug companies. I'm not siding with Kevin Trudeau necessarily. Kevin Trudeau is a fraud and has been scamming people for years now. However he does make a couple of good points about the drug companies. Why should the drug companies want you to cure anything? If you take something and it cures whatever you have, the drug company isn't going to profit much. Drug companies, just like Fast Food chains, are worried about QUARTERLY PROFITS, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE TELLS YOU.

I've experimented myself with "the other hypothesis", low-carb diets, and this is the only thing that has come along in the last 4 years that has even remotely addressed my blood sugar problem. However, there is a problem with this hypothesis. Think about it. If restricting carbohydrates causes our health to improve relative to the amount we ingest, would it not make sense (if we were able to survive without them) to completely cut them out? Would that not be optimal?

So, I am now carbohydrate-free. I only eat meat. I do not eat vegetables, fruit, grains, sugar, bread, pasta, cereal, or anything related. The only thing I eat is meat. I do not eat organ meats for their high starch content either. All I eat is red meat, chicken or pork.

No matter what anyone tells you, fat is NOT the enemy. Insulin and carbohydrates ARE. I've tried that "low-fat" garbage twice in my life and replaced it with carbs. Both times my body became a fragile shell, and basically fell apart. I have pictures to prove it.

Low-fat diets are unhealthy. Fat is essential, and the U.S. has brainwashed people into believing that fatty acids make people fat. I mean, it sorta goes together. Overweight people are called "fat", so they must be eating too much "fat". What the U.S. failed to understand was that in order to store this fat you need insulin. People who are overweight, especially in the belly, have way too much insulin in their system.

They have not only the overproduction of insulin from the pancreas, but the insulin stored in the fat tissue in their body. So it becomes a cycle. Insulin tells your brain to crave more carbs, and the more carbs you eat the more insulin you need. No matter how much fat you cut out of your diet, you will continue to be overweight until you fix the insulin issue. Fat (actually it is the ketone bodies the fatty acids are converted to by the liver) is actually a great source of fuel for the body, once you've switched over your ****bolism.

Once you cut the carbs to a certain level (5 grams or less per day) your body enters a state of ketosis. Ketosis is NOT dangerous if you go through it correctly. Ketosis is a normal healthy state of the human body. Ketoacidosis is the one that is dangerous. This happens in diabetic people where their body can no longer use its insulin at all, so even though you technically have a dangerously high blood sugar, your body can't use any of that glucose for fuel because the insulin has to work in order for the sugar to be driven into the cells for energy. This is when you have to either begin taking insulin shots, or die.

Contrary to popular belief this diet does NOT induce long term ketosis. Only the few of us who are strictly carnivore can testify to this, but the body adapts to the ketones anywhere from 2-3 weeks to a few months from the day you drop carbohydrates. Your body begins using the ketones for fuel instead of converting blood sugar to fatty acids. The few parts of the brain that require straight blood glucose get a steady, very controlled supply as the liver converts protein and fat into glucose through gluco-neogenesis.

This is my idea of what the real cure for Now that I've found out I was at stage one of Type II Diabetes, I've been doing lots and lots of research on what to do to reverse this. "Reactive Hypoglycemia" or "insulin resistance" as it's usually called has been destroying me for 3-4 years now, without me actually realizing what it was.

This is always tightly controlled, as your blood sugar will never vary on this diet. Your body will only convert what it needs to survive which is about 5 grams of glucose per day.

I've been reading studies that show that your brain and heart actually run 25 percent more efficient off the body's own ketones, rather than blood sugar. The catch is, though, that you have to eat lots of fat and make sure you get some form of saturated fat. If not, you will become very ill because Fat is now the primary source of energy for the rest of your body. And lots of water. It's optimal to get about 150-250 grams of fat per day (65-70 percent being saturated, yes that's right SATURATED).

Saturated fat is not the devil America has made it out to be. It's eating saturated fat in conjunction with a high carb diet that is dangerous.

Look at the chemistry of fats. There are three main types of free fatty acids. Saturated, mono-unsaturated and poly-unsaturated. Saturated fats have all of their bonds occupied by hydrogen, so oxygen can not infiltrate the molecule. Mono-unsaturated fatty acids have one unoccupied double bond, and poly-unsaturated fats have multiple unoccupied bonds. Oxygen infiltrates the unoccupied bonds and therefore oxidizes the molecule.

This is the secondary cause of premature aging, called oxidation and free radical production, right behind high insulin levels. High insulin and oxidation are what make people look so sick when they age.

The need for "anti-oxidants" is reduced on this diet. Insulin damage and high blood sugar combined with eating all this vegetable oil and trans fat garbage is what creates a lot of oxidative stress in our bodies. Of course there's also pollution and just the mere fact that we exist and have to breathe oxygen.

But you don't need to supplement anything on this diet. Look up the Stefansson experiment. He ate nothing but meat and came out on the other end healthier than before, with no supplementation. Meat only prevents scurvy because meat has just enough vitamin C to stave off scurvy.

Make sure you eat it rare or raw if possible. Cooking destroys a lot of nutrients in the meat tissue, although according to Stefansson this is not required for optimal health.

Despite our teeth, despite what many believe humans are carnivores first with an ability to ingest a small amount of carbohydrates. The problem is we've based our diets around carbohydrates and our bodies have not had enough time to adapt to this.

This is the cure for diabetes. Meat only. Only eat from the animal kingdom. If you're insulin dependent you can minimize the amount of insulin you have to inject. If you're non-insulin dependent you can return your body to normal again. I can go days without food now and not feel hungry. It takes a little while of eating this way, but it's WELL worth it once you get past the first few weeks of adjustment.

Try it out!

 

[Mathias]

Hair Loss and Insulin Resistance

Describing my theory on what causes male pattern baldness.

I believe that the testosterone/DHT theory is true. However, it is only part of the picture. I believe that high levels of insulin, and even worse insulin resistance are the core cause of this conversion locally in the scalp.

High levels of insulin significantly lower if not totally cut off two other hormones. Glucagon and Sex Hormone Binding Globulin. Glucagon is basically insulin's adversary, also produced in the same part of the pancreas. Glucagon removes artherosclerotic plaques, lowers triglycerides and improves overall blood flow.

SHBG is the more important thing relating to hair loss though. Without it, testosterone is "free", free to be converted into DHT or be used by the body for its other important uses. When SHBG is not in the blood stream in the quantities the body normally would require, I am of the opinion that allot of this excess free testosterone is then converted in the scalp to DHT. It has been shown that BOTH free T and DHT adversely affect hair follicles. More SHBG means much less free T.

People will come back at me with the fact that 1. many balding people are not actually insulin resistant. and 2. some insulin resistant people are not balding.

My responses would be 1. Some people are obviously less tolerant of high insulin levels than others and 2. this is where the genetic factor of baldness comes in. The androgens.

The people who are insulin resistant but are not balding lack the Alpha reductase and androgens to convert t to DHT locally. If you have elevated insulin levels, and DO have the capacity to convert T to DHT locally, you will bald.

This, I believe, is the connection between insulin resistance syndrome and male pattern baldness. Remember with insulin resistance you have astronomically high amounts of insulin in your system because you are eating a very high carbohydrate diet which would shoot your insulin levels up too high anyway, and your cells are to whatever degree resistant to its effects, so the pancreas has to produce more and more and more for the cells to utilize the blood glucose for energy.

Don't believe what ANYONE tells you about low-carb/zero-carb. Here's the list of "degenerative diseases" I have cured eating only meat, (yes, NO veggies at all):

Anxiety disorder
Depression
Insulin resistance/type II first stage
Reactive hypoglycemia/type II first stage
Overweight
Fatigue
Social anxiety
Memory loss
Overall appearance of aging
Circulatory problems.

I should mention that since going to eating only meat, and zero vegetation or grains, my blood flow is that of a brand new baby. I'm not kidding. For the last few years since developing my blood sugar problems and hair loss when I would lift my arms for even a few seconds they would begin losing feeling FAST.

I never remember that from when I was younger, and when I would sit on the toilet my legs would lose feeling within 1-2 minutes (not completely, but they would begin to fall asleep). Now? After a month of this way of eating I can lift my arms over my head to do over 10 min. of Tom's advanced SE and I still have perfect blood flow to both of them. When I'm on the toilet I can sit there for what seems like forever and my legs don't fall asleep at ALL.

Another thing that happens is, When you become diabetic, as I was at the first stage of diabetes, your nerves in your hands and feet will begin to die off. Mostly because of very restricted blood flow to these areas. The skin right at my toe nails on three of my toes, including the big toe, on my right foot had become black and dead. It was gross to look at and I didn't make the correlation until I read up on diabetes complications.

Wouldn't you know that since doing this all meat diet the skin in these areas has begun to regenerate itself and has color again!?!?! Not to mention I've had a blister, that I thought was just a callus, on that same foot that actually hurts now.

Our paleolithic ancestors did NOT eat anything but meat. The so called "paleodiet" you see on websites is so wrong it's ridiculous. Eating only lean meat and lots of veggies will kill you because fat is the most important nutrient your body needs. In fact, saturated fat, is the healthiest you can eat. Saturated fat will only cause problems if you're eating high carb diets. Saturated fat CAN NOT oxidize in the blood because all of its bonds are occupied, so oxygen can not get in to oxidize the fatty acid. Fatty acids and cholesterol MUST oxidize before ANYTHING bad can happen. This process is elminated when you stop eating carbs, and eat only meat.

The neolithic era was when humans began consuming vegetation. This was the very beginning of the process that led to todays obesity and diabetes epidemic.

An all-meat diet does NOT induce long-term ketosis. For the first few weeks you will have excess ketones in your urine. This is because your body is in conversion mode. Your body is so used to burning sugar for fuel, it will struggle for a while to find its new fuel source, fat. After a few weeks your body will adjust to this new way of life and begin burning the ketones for fuel, so you will come out of ketosis. This is a normal and healthy condition.

You will feel horrible at first, because of this switch over process. But once you're switched over, if you're diligent, you will feel like a brand new person with the ****bolism and energy of a 10 year old.

People will try to tell you that your body needs carbohydrates because your brain can only run on glucose. Certain parts of your brain can only run on glucose, true. However, what they fail to mention is that your body can convert both fat and protein into glucose through gluconeogenesis. As long as you are consuming enough calories, protein and fat you won't lose muscle mass, and your brain will function perfectly.

That's another thing they'll try to stuff down your throat. They will tell you that protein catabolism speeds up on this diet. What they also fail to mention is that at the same time, protein synthesis ALSO speeds up. My belief is that the breaking down of protein is due to the de-junking of cells, something I read from a doctor a while back. The extra protein synthesis is due to the higher amount of protein in the diet (which is NOT dangerous by the way) and 1. the higher overall adrenaline amount (not adrenaline/cortisol flashes, this is totally different) and 2. the much higher human growth hormone in the blood. Yes, if you want a natural way to seriously boost HGH, an all meat, high fat diet is the way to do it.

High protein diets are not dangerous, and never have caused kidney or liver disease. The only time high protein diets are bad for your kidneys is if they are in conjunction with a high carbohydrate diet, through a process called glycation. The glycated proteins, because of the huge amount of insulin and glucose, are what damage your kidneys. This is the connection between diabetes and kidney disease.

I read of someone who has eaten nothing but unprocessed fatty meat for 47 years, and is still going. He's built great muscle, started building the muscles at FIFTY FIVE, and people tell him all the time he looks like he's in his 30's when he is in his 60's.

I believe we have all been lied to. I've never been a conspiracy theorist. However, after following the low-fat mantra twice in my life and watching my body basically implode on itself both times, I have experienced this lie first hand.

The very thing the diabetes association and heart association are telling you to eat to cure what ails you, is the very thing that will kill you if you follow it.

They are wrong. DEAD wrong. Anyone who tells you that zero carb or low-carb is dangerous, is seriously misinformed. How did the inuits or our paleo ancestors survive for all those millions of years on exclusively meat if it's "so dangerous" for you?