Atkins Part 2: The merits of the Atkins diet

patch70

You said that you were eating a lot of complex carbs at the time; I'd say they were the major source of the wind as that is what intestinal bacteria prefer to use as an energy source. Take out the complex carbs and you will lose the wind.

Fixey

Good point, although I have always eaten lots of C Carbs.... but I have it on good authority that the really offence odour came courtesy of Protien....I also havnt seen anyone post that the max uptake of protien in a sitting is 30g (read that when I was Body Building), if this is correct, that would make the protien intake in Atkins suspect from what I have read (30g is about 1 Chicken breast, or about 180g of good steak I believe)

patch70

Whilst this is essentially true, it is an oversimplification for several reasons.

1. Who accurately measures their caloric intake (including kcal from all drinks and snacks where appropriate, subtracting any scraps left on the plate or in the glass etc)?
2. Who accurately measures their caloric expenditure on a daily basis for every single activity?
3. Who accurately knows what their basal metabolic energy expenditure is on a daily basis?
4. Who accurately measures changes in their metabolic rate with changes in %'s of the 3 macronutrients and changes in amount and timing of exercise?
5. Who accurately measures in a calorimeter the energy in their fecal material that they did not digest?
6. Who accurately measures the amount of kcal used by intestinal bacteria for their needs?

The person that answered yes to all these: Are you surprised that you have no friends?

7. If you have exactly the same kcal in/out but eat 5 - 6 meals a day versus 1 - 2 meals a day, then the former will either lose more or put on less than the latter.
8. If you have many more kcal in than out but eat 90% of those kcal as protein, you will lose a lot of weight (note: I am not suggesting this is healthy, just that 'kcal in - kcal out' doesn't work here).

If you are reasonably fit and want to lose a some kgs, certainly eating less and exercising more should work. If you are vastly overweight, then that simple formula probably won't work, as you can see from the rates of obesity in western populations. However, Atkins style diets probably will work (if actually adhered to). Many people don't read enough about Atkins and just add extra protein without cutting back on carbs much and wonder why it didn't work for them.
Atkins might be proved to be unhealthy with proper studies but we know already that being very overweight is definitely unhealthy. If Atkins gives you the kick start you need to start beating teh obesity thing, go for it. If followed properly you end up eventually on a diet with a good mix of carbs, protein & fat. I'd be prepared to bet that the initial very low carb period is less bad for you than years of being obese is.

Certainly the Atkins group is an industry trying to make money. But so also are many of those pushing the high carb/low fat diet. A coalition of soft drink manufacturers and sugar cane producers managed to force the WHO to increase the maximum recommended daily intake of simple carbs. Many diet studies and many arguments against high protein diets have been funded by groups such as wheat or sugar cane producers. So why are they any more believeable than Atkins?

Beastt

I appreciate your kind words as well as your input to the thread and to the overall forum. It's simply a topic I'm more than a little interested in and so I've done a bit of looking around for information. That may also lend to providing a bit more information that was requested in some cases, but hopefully not to an objectionable degree. Of course, I have formed an opinion based on what I've read and that does tend to influence the value I place on new information when I find it, especially when it seems conspicuously in the minority.

Others here also have very valuable information, some which agrees with my suspicions on the subject and some that does not.

Thank you, limerickman

davidbod

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beastt
[B]

Our bodies are exquisitely designed to burn nutrients for fuel in a very specific way. Carbohydrates are the main fuel source. When they are depleted, the body chooses fats next, the one nutrient designed specifically for storage and reserve energy. When fats are depleted, protein, the body's main structural component, is used, but only when severe depletion of carbohydrates and fats occur, a state commonly known as starvation or ketosis. Because protein for energy is primarily used to build cellular structures - not to create energy - metabolizing protein for energy is an incredibly inefficient way for the body to produce fuel.
[B][QUOTE]

Ketosis is the conversion of fat to ketone bodies. Ketone bodies are to fats what glucose is to sugars/carbs. If your body runs out of carbs / glucose then it happily switches to fat / ketone bodies. This is completely natural and occurs in most everyones body while they sleep as glycogen stores are depleted. It is not starvation which is signaled by the end of ketosis when no more fat is left and the only thing to sustain the body is protien.

[B][QUOTE]
People who go on high-protein diets are, in fact, starving themselves, which is why they are so successful in losing weight in the short term. But it's downright dangerous for the long term.
[B][QUOTE]

None of the low carb diets suggest following the very low carb stage beyond what would be a reasonable body fat level. It is simply a better way of attacking the fat in your body to get yourself down to a resonable fat level and onto a more advanced stage of the diet and a more balanced traditional meal. Burning more energy than you consume is the pinciple of all weight loss plans and is essentially starvation if left unchecked.

[B][QUOTE]
When the body metabolizes fats and proteins in the absence of essential carbohydrates, toxic byproducts are produced. These by-products are known as ketones or ketone bodies. When these build up to a high enough level in the body, an abnormal state known as ketosis is created. Those on high-protein diets desire ketosis, although it is abnormal and unsafe. They can tell by the way they feel, in fact, that they are going into ketosis because they feel a "high," and when they feel this "high," they know their high-protein diets are effective. In actual fact, this feeling heralds the beginning of a state of starvation.

Physiologically, ketones behave very much like psychotropic drugs. At low levels, they create a sense of euphoria - the ketotic "high" well known to high-protein dieters. At high levels, they produce sleepiness and disorientation. At even higher levels, coma can result.
[B][QUOTE]

That's complete garbage. Keton bodies are the fuel that your body is burning, not toxic by-products. None of us would be able to lose any weight at all if we couldn't go into ketosis and convert fat to ketone bodies for fuel. In a non-low carb diet when you simply burn more than you intake just what do you think is happening? Your limiting the amount of total energy so your body has to come up with it from somewhere, and that somewhere is from fats and ketone bodies. This process is how we all lose weight and trim fat no matter what diet we are on. It's just that a low carb diet does it turbo charged so to speak.

Your confusing the normal process of ketosis with ketoacidosis which occurs in Type 1 diabetese which does produce dangersous levels of ketone bodies. The body regulates the conversion of fats to ketones just like it regulates the conversion of carbs to glucose to fat. In normal healthy people these processes keep the glucose and ketone levels in check. In diabetics the glucose and ketone levels can spike leading to coma.

The rest of your post is mostly garbage as well.
]

Beastt

According to the Mosby Medical Encyclopedia;

ketosis an abnormal accumulation of ketones in the body tissues and fluid. This condition occurs in starvation, occasionally in pregnancy, and most frequently, in diabetes mellitus. ...untreated, ketosis may progress to ketoacidosis, coma and death. (underline added)

ketone bodies a group name for ketones, substances produced in the body through a normal change fats undergo in the liver. They are used as fuel in muscles. Excessive production of these bodies leads to their excretion in urine, as in diabetes mellitus. Also called acetone bodies.

ketogenic diet a diet that is high in fats and low in carbohydrates.


http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/ww..._3_3_0_4_3.html
"...fat cells dump their waste into the bloodstream in broad daylight, right along with the useful products of breaking down fat.

Most prominent among the waste products of burning fat are a group of chemicals called ketones. As long as you're burning fat, your body will be subjected to a constant dose of extra ketones in the blood, a condition referred to as ketosis. Ketones are, in the contemporary argot, toxic waste, and the prospect of subjecting yourself to a long-term dose of them is off-putting to anybody contemplating a diet."

http://www.happywomanmagazine.com/H...ss/soupdiet.htm
(Special soup diet)
"Ketone bodies can accumulate in the blood and cause dehydration, nausea, weakness, dizziness and ketones are sometimes produced by the liver at levels high enough to be toxic to the brain."

http://www.theroadlesstravelledby.com/html/diet.htm
"The average person can store about 300-400 grams of glycogen in their muscles but this glycogen is inaccessible to the brain. To use it, the body has to break down muscle fibers, which releases not only the glycogen but also ketones (toxic substances) while it destroys LEAN body mass. This is what high-protein-low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diets do."

http://www.stress-free-weight-loss.com/atkins.htm
"Ketones are toxic, they create an acidic environment within the body that damages organs like the kidneys, and can speed cell death and the possibility of cancer."




If you're depleting your glycogen stores during a normal sleep period, then I must assume that what you're really doing is called "hibernation". That would suggest a person would be burning 1200-1600 calories simply to maintain a basal metabolic rate during the sleep period. Using the accepted, standard formula, you'd be talking about a person weighing in excess of 300 pounds. Now, whereas 300 pounds may not be outside the norm for someone in dire need of losing weight, note that I used the 300 gram figure rather than 400 for stored glycogen, (which accounts for that stored in the muscles, but not in the blood, liver or food still in the digestive system). Also note that I allowed an 8-hour sleep period but figured caloric metabolization at the standard 24-hour rate. People burn fewer calories during sleeping hours than during wakeful hours due to a reduced metabolic rate. Using the less conservative end of the scale, you're looking at someone closer to 400 pounds. I think it's arguable that "everyone" fits into your scenario.

Utilizing some ketone bodies for fuel is, as you say, perfectly natural. When you reach the state of ketosis, (by medical definition), you have surpassed the natural process and put the body into what it perceives as the beginning stages of starvation. At this point the ketone bodies begin to reach a dangerous level. The body switches to fat when the preferred fuel source, carbohydrates, are depleted. It stands to reason that the body is designed to use fat primarily as a backup fuel source. In order for someone with an excess of fatty tissue to lose the unwanted fat, it will be necessary for some to be burned. The key to doing this without imposing the risks caused by ketosis, (meaning abnormal levels of ketone bodies), is to decrease caloric intake but supply a reasonable degree of carbs in the diet. Weight loss is slower but much safer.



The whole point of the initial phase of the low-carb diets is to throw the dieter's body into a state of ketosis. The level of ketone bodies required to reach ketosis is the cause for all of the concern regarding low-carb diets. It creates a rapid initial weight loss while the dieter continues to consume enough calories to not feel hungry. It looks like a system having all of the benefits of dieting with none of the negatives. As the old saying goes, "if it seems to good to be true...".



See the above few references to the toxicity of excessive ketone bodies. Ketone bodies are a normal part of metabolizing fat IF not caused by the complete or near complete lack of the body's preferred fuel, carbohydrates. There needs to be a balance. This is much like the argument about fish. The body needs omega-3 fatty acids. Some kinds of fish contain omega-3 fatty acids. Therefore, the conclusion is quickly drawn that these kinds of fish should be included often in a healthy diet. Of course, fish, being fat-based also act as filters in their watery habitat and rapidly begin building concentrations of the pollutants in the water around them. The concentration of organo-halogens, (DDT is one example), heavy metals and other pollutants routinely reaches levels exceeding 70,000 times that contained in the water. If you want to put concentrations of the toxins found in polluted waterways into your body, the fish living in those waterways are the quickest way. It's best not to overlook the adverse affects when considering the positives.

Please keep in mind when you refer to the information contained in my post as, "complete garbage", that I didn't make this stuff up nor did I do studies with two hampsters in my garage. Many of the people who did the research are some of the top nutritionists in the world. This doesn't mean they can't be wrong but if you follow the logic, compare it to the findings and add to that some of the anecdotal/statistical evidence, the case against low-carb diets is pretty strong. One might also take a look outside the scope of weight loss at the case against high concentrations of red meat and other fat and cholesterol laden foods which are often the first choice of low-carb dieters. Such foods have an undeniable link to heart disease, (including heart attack), stroke, diabetes, kidney disease and many forms of cancer.



Simply burning fat doesn't put you into a true state of ketosis. Ketosis is the abnormally high accumulation of ketone bodies in the body tissues and fluid. "Abnormally" is the key word and ketosis is reached by restricting carbohydrates to force metabolization of fats rather than letting it occur naturally at a moderate level.



I'm not confusing anything with ketoacidosis. If I were, I might have used the term "ketoacidosis" which I'm quite familiar with. It is true, however, that some of the processes induced by low-carb diets have similarities with some of the processes which occur with diabetes mellitus. This in itself might give one pause when considering the affects of the diet.

The body attempts to regulate conversion of fats to ketones and does so quite well in most cases. However, when the primary fuel source, (carbohydrates) are missing or in very short supply, the body still has to produce energy. Energy is a great thing to have when you need to keep the heart pumping, the lungs working and the brain functioning. You can't just stop producing energy because you've run out of carbohydrates and converting more fat may cause dangerous levels of ketones to be produced.



You're entitled to your opinion.

davidbod

Everythng you have quoted is based on the absolute extreme edge of ketosis and more accurately ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis is ketosis that produces toxic levels in highly acidic concentrations and is very dangerous but only occurs in people who cannot regulate the process of ketosis just like these same people, diabetics, cannot regulate the level of glucose or insulin.

Again normal people do not have a problem and the body will not produce a toxic level of ketones in the body. The body only produces enough ketones for fuel and stores an appropriate amount in muscle tissue just like glycogen. When the body does over produce ketones they are placed in the urine and excreted.

Man has been on this Earth for a long time and the amount of time we have had refrigerators, grocery stores etc. is insignificant. The amount of carbs that are readily available and consumed today is much more than would have been available even 100 years ago. So until very recently we have been using stored fat as fuel on a regular basis, and this is completely normal.

No one on a low carb diet, unless diabetic, acoholic or in some other way abnormal, will produce a toxic level of ketones.

Beastt

Obviously, what you've read has convinced you that everything I've read is wrong. As I've explained, I'm quite familiar with ketoacidosis, diabetic coma, insulin shock, etc. The information I posted and the numerous references I left were in regard to ketosis, not ketoacidosis. If you check Atkins, they'll tell you that the goal of the first 2 weeks of the diet is to put your body into a state of ketosis. Obviously there are a great many "experts" who disagree with your stance on the subject. That's fine. Perhaps you know more about the topic than they do or perhaps you've just chosen to believe things they don't believe.

Since you mentioned refrigeration, next time you're looking into your refrigerator, take a moment to mentally go through those items that would become inedible most quickly if not refrigerated. What you will find is that those items highest in fats and protein will be the items that go bad most quickly. (i.e. meat, milk, eggs). Now open some of your cupboards and take a look at the unrefrigerated items, (bread, cereals, pastas, etc.) How many of these items are primarily carbohydrates? Unless you have a very strange stock of food on hand, you'll find that your fats and proteins are under refrigeration while your carbohydrates are far less likely to require refrigeration.

Which would you rather eat, an uncooked stalk of celery or loaf of bread that had been left out for 12-hours or an uncooked steak that had been left out for half that length of time? Cooking the steak will buy you some time but I doubt you're going to want it after a day or two. Animals with physiologies designed for such foods often eat rotted meat with no problem. That same rotted meat would likely kill you. Meat, poultry and dairy are in high demand for those on low-carb diets.

All of which means that when you look back to a time when we didn't have adequate refrigeration methods, we must have relied more on carbohydrates as the main stay of our diets than fats and proteins. This also fits with human physiology. Physically, (skin, teeth, saliva, digestive acids, nails, digestive length and texture), we're far more like the other animals with diets rich in carbohydrates and low in fats.

If you look at the most prominent diseases/disorders, (heart disease, strokes, diabetes, osteoporosis, kidney failure, etc.) you'll also find a strong tie to fat-rich, protein-heavy diets. You'll also find that in areas of the world where the human populations rely primarily on low-fat, high-carb diets, these diseases are all but unheard of as is obesity.

davidbod

Here's a good link from the diabetic community on ketosis.

http://www.survivediabetes.com/ketosis.htm

patch70

I (still) don't agree with these opinions. I would say we are closer to carnivores than herbivores in most respects. Our 'most traditional' diet is that of the caveman who tended to eat meats and a few fruits or grains. They didn't have refrigerators so they hunted ~daily.
The non-nomadic lifestyle has only been in the last 11,000 years and started in the Indus Valley because that is one area that has grasses that can be cultivated (eg wheat, millet). Most places on earth have little or no cultivatable grasses that are edible for humans.
Places in the world that are high in heart disease, diabetes etc are places where diets are high in everything, not just protein and fat. They are also places with more sedentary lifestyles. Places with high carb, low protein diets also tend to have higher rates of malnutrition and early deaths from respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases. As their sanitation & vaccination and primary health care improve, their life expectancy also does as does their risk of heart disease etc. Maybe those things are inevitable until you reduce their impact and then start dying from cancers instead? Yes those places may not have much obesity but they also have often inadequate calories and non-sedentary lifestyles.

Beastt

You may not agree but physiology isn't an opinion and human physiology would suggest quite strongly that we are more suited to a low-fat/protein diet.

Throughout the animal kingdom these physiological signs are among those that help scientists to classify and catagorize animals. It's also important to note that most high-fat, (low-carb) diets rely heavily on meat and other animal-based foods.

1. Claws
Meat-eater: Yes
Leaf/grass eater: No
Fruite eater: No
Humans: No

2. Pores on the skin
Meat-eater: No
Leaf/grass eater: Yes
Fruit eater: Yes
Humans: Yes

3. Sharp, pointed front teeth to tear flesh
and hold prey
Meat-eater: Yes
Leaf/grass eater: No
Fruit eater: No
Humans: No,
Our canines and incisors are very blunt compared with those of a carnivore.

4. Size of Salivary glands
Meat eater: Small
Leaf/grass eater: Large, well developed
Fruit eater: Large, well developed
Humans: Large, well developed

5. Enzyme ptyalin present in saliva
Meat eater: No
Leaf/grass eater: Yes
Fruit eater: Yes
Humans: Yes
Ptyalin is predigestive enzyme effective on grains and fruits

6. PH of saliva
Meat eater: Acid
Leaf/grass eater: Alkaline
Fruit eater: Alkaline
Humans: Alkaline

7. Strength of digestive acids
Meat eater: Copious, strong hydrochloric acid
Leaf/grass eater: Stomach acid 20 times less strong than that found in meat eaters
Fruit eater: Stomach acid 20 times less strong than that found in meat eaters
Humans: Stomach acid 20 times less strong than that found in meat eaters

8. Length of digestive tract
Meat eater: Approximately 3 times the body length
Leaf/grass eater: Approximately 10 times the body length
Fruit eater: Approximately 12 times the body length
Humans: Approximately 12 times the body length
Short digestive tracts with smooth walls assure that meat is passed through the body before decay begins to release carcinogenic substances.



Much has been assumed about what prehistoric man ate. Movies quite popularly show them running about with spears and stone weapons and subsisting primarily on a heavy meat diet. Such is the trend in Hollywood. Actual evidence seems to slowly be revealing the inaccuracies of such a depiction.

http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/
http://www.all-creatures.org/mfz/my...-earlydiet.html
http://www.diet-i.com/diets/caveman...lithic-diet.htm
http://members.aol.com/xvxwcxvx/diethistory.html
http://www.viva.org.uk/goingveggie/top20.html

Of course just as many links can be found showing an opposing view but the idea that early man subsisted on a diet based primarily on meat seems to be declining while the idea that eating meat is a more recent development is on the increase.

What recorded history is showing is that meat consumption is on the increase and has been for decades. One might wonder what would cause a species to choose the decline of consumption of animal tissues then at some point, reverse this trend. One might also wonder, assuming that man was at one time more physically suited to hunting and digesting meat, what would have caused him to begin losing that ability if he did indeed continue to consume it. Nature's trend is to adapt, not to evolve counter to continued practices.

Consider for a moment the first man or man-like species, before the development of tools. What would they eat? Even today with camouflage, scents, trucks, ATVs, rifles, scopes, spotting scopes, calls, stands and all other sorts of tools in his arsenal, the average person makes a very poor hunter. Take away all of the tools and tricks and what are the chances that man would not starve if attempting to subsist on a meat-based diet? Does this not suggest that man must have eaten primarily those things easiest to catch, (i.e. plants), before developing tools that would increase his chances of a successful hunt? In nature there is a very clear budget for every creature to follow. The hunter cannot afford to expend more energy than will be obtained from a hunt, if successful. The potential for injury when hunting is certainly much higher than that from gathering. Being injured at a time when sanitation, medicine and basic first aid were unknown could and would often lead to death or permanent debilitation. Simply stated, plants are a safer food source. Of course if you suggest that man hunted daily, surely his skill level would rise. But the daily expenditure of calories, especially in colder climates would mean that man would require a success rate that is, even for today's hunter with the best of tools, unlikely. It would seem that there is a reason that nature did not see fit to endow man with natural hunting tools, (i.e. speed, claws & long, sharp teeth).



Roots, tubers, seeds, leaves, (although grass blades are simply a modified leaf), some bark, certain fungus, berries, fruits, melons and squash are all potential sources of nutrition and all can be found growing naturally even today. This doesn't mean it was easy to find a meal, but in many cases, finding one based on plant materials was not only easier but safer than going one on one with a desperate animal.

I'm not big on the Bible, in fact, I find it to be wholey unbelievable for the most part but as Thomas Jefferson is credited to have said, "certain teachings in the Bible are as diamonds in a dung-heap." I find Gensis 1:29 to be worthy, at least, of a moment's read; And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."



As many nutritionists are beginning to recognize, the diseases we now face in the developed nations are not diseases of deficiency, but diseases of excess. I believe this is true as you have pointed out. But the point that man not only shows a physiology inconsistent with a high-meat diet but shows a continuing and growing trend toward diseases and disorders linked to such a diet shouldn't be ignored. Nor should people be encouraged to pursue diets which are even higher in what appears from many research results to be the primary culprits in these diseases/disorders.

A short list of diseases which are commonly prevented, consistently improved and sometimes cured by a low-fat, vegetarian diet include; Strokes, Heart disease, Kidney stones, Breast cancer, Prostate cancer, Pancreatic cancer, Cervical cancer, Stomach cancer, Diabetes, Hypoglycemia, Peptic ulcers, Constipation, Hiatal hernias, Diverticulosis, Gallstones, Hypertension, Salmonellosis, Trichinosis, Osteoporosis, Colon cancer, Ovarian cancer, Endometrial cancer, Kidney disease, Hemorrhoids, Obesity, Asthma, and Irritable colon syndrome.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to add the seemingly shocking rise in gastric upsets linked to stomach acids (acid reflux, etc.) to the list. Since true carnivores produce a stomach acid much stronger than non-carnivores it might be suggested that the proper digestion of meat requires stronger acids. It might also then follow that humans, in an involuntary attempt to adapt to their meat-based diet are beginning to produce greater quantities of stronger stomach acids which the protective lining of the gastric tract is incapable of properly guarding the delicate tissues against. Then again, there is always advertising which may be blowing the incidents of these disorders out of proportion.

Colon cancer is a disease that is clearly on the rise in this country, (the United States), and this is quickly and easily linked to the length of the human digestive system as well as the puckered walls of the colon. Meat turns to a waxy putty-like substance in the human digestive system and as such, doesn't move through quickly or readily. This leads to the "five pounds of undigested red-meat" said to be carried in the bowels of the average American male over 50 years of age. A picture of one of these "impacted turds" can be seen at www.rotten.com. The meat literally rots inside the human body and in doing so produces a number of known carcinogens. The colon utilizes dietary fiber to assist in sweeping contents through the bowels. The sum dietary fiber from meat, eggs, milk, poultry and fish is zero. A friend watched a relative slowly die in the hospital from colon cancer. They witnessed the human fecal matter expelled from the mouth in the latter stages when the duodenum could no longer serve its purpose. Not a pleasant way to die.



In the few areas of the world where obtaining sufficient protein is a problem, malnutrition certainly does play a role in premature death. Such is not the case in the U.S. or any other developed nation that I'm aware of. Do you know of anyone who has been diagnosed with kwashiokor? Ever heard of the disease outside of my mention of it on this forum? Kwashiokor is the proper term for the disorder arising from insufficient dietary protein. Chances are, unless you're living without running water and electricity and are never sure where your next meal is coming from or if you will even eat in the next 24 hours, it's not a concern for you.

You can get all the protein you need and more without resorting to high-protein/high-fat diets. In fact, you can eat a diet based on nothing but plant sources, pay no attention to protein intake and still consume more than the necessary dietary protein to maintain good health, even if you're very active or even if you happen to be a professional body-builder.

Here are just a few examples of protein content of non animal-based foods.


Soy bean sprouts: 54%
Lentils: 29%
Garbanzo beans: 23%
Broccoli: 45%
Lettuce: 34%
Onions: 16%
Potatoes: 11%
Wheat (hard red): 17%
Oatmeal: 15%
Brown rice: 8%
Lemons: 16%
Cherries: 8%
Grapes: 8%
Peanuts: 18%
Almonds: 12%
Cashews: 12%

Source: "Diet for a New America" - John Robbins

Consider that studies show the minimum necessary protein to be 2 - 10% for humans and you can see that it's nearly impossible to consume any realistic diet and not ingest sufficient protein.

Any one of these points can be taken aside individually and intelligently and convincingly argued against. When taken as whole, the tool we call denial is perhaps the most effective argument.

Denial isn't always a bad thing. Without it we would draw a conclusion once, then fail to revisit the issues. It is often in these follow-up visits that we find the error of our earlier conclusions.

patch70

Very interesting reply and obviously a lot of effort put into it!

Regarding the 'caveman diet': some of your references don't back up your argument.
eg., (From http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html )
The essentials of the Paleolithic Diet are:
Eat none of the following:
· Grains- including bread, pasta, noodles
· Beans- including string beans, kidney beans, lentils, peanuts, snow-peas and peas
· Potatoes
· Dairy products
· Sugar
· Salt
Eat the following:
· Meat, chicken and fish
· Eggs
· Fruit
· Vegetables (especially root vegetables, but definitely not including potatoes or sweet potatoes)
· Nuts, eg. walnuts, brazil nuts, macadamia, almond. Do not eat peanuts (a bean) or cashews (a family of their own)
· Berries- strawberries, blueberries, raspberries etc.

And:
Around 10,000 years ago, an enormous breakthrough was made- a breakthrough that was to change the course of history, and our diet, forever. This breakthrough was the discovery that cooking these foods made them edible- the heat destroyed enough toxins to render them edible. Grains include wheat, corn, barley, rice, sorghum, millet and oats. Grain based foods also include products such as flour, bread, noodles and pasta. These foods entered the menu of New Stone Age (Neolithic) man, and Paleolithic diet buffs often refer to them as Neolithic foods.
The cooking of grains, beans and potatoes had an enormous effect on our food intake- perhaps doubling the number of calories that we could obtain from the plant foods in our environment.

Therefore diets high in grains beans and potatoes (GBP):
· Contain toxins in small amounts
· Have a high glycemic index (ie have a similar effect to raw sugar on blood glucose levels)
· Are low in many vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and phytosterols- ie they are the original "empty calories"
· Have problems caused by the GBP displacing other foods

(And from: http://www.nutritionreporter.com/stone_age_diet.html )
Carbohydrates. Early humans obtained about half of their calories from carbohydrates, but these carbohydrates were rarely grains. Most carbohydrates came from vegetables and fruit.

Protein and Fat. Early humans consumed about 30 percent protein, although it varied with the season and geographic location. Much of this protein came from what people now call "game meat" - undomesticated animals, such as deer and bison.

Based on contemporary studies of hunter-gatherer societies, early humans consumed relatively large amounts of cholesterol (480 mg daily), but their blood cholesterol levels were much lower than those of the average American (about 125 mg per deciliter of blood)

Plus, we had 100,000's of years where evolution/adaptation favoured survival of the fittest - who were the best hunters. We have had only 11,000 years of eating grains/grasses with a higher carbohydrate content. This is not enough time for any significant evolution.



That physiological argument is fairly dubious and I am sure has been written originally by someone with an agenda to push eg a vegetarian. There is definitely not substantive evidence that protein and fat are the primary culprits of our diseases of excess. There is only low level evidence and these do not tell us whether it is excess of protein & fat or excess of everything inluding carbs also. That doesn't mean they are not - just that there is not the evidence (yet?) to say that statement. There is also research - again, not high level evidence though, about the problems of excess carbohydrates.



Again, most of this is not evidence-based! You cannot say that certain diets have changed these on their own. You don't know how much lifestyle factors eg exercise, not smoking, living in less polluted areas are involved in the cardiovascular diseases and osteoporosis. What you have said is true only for constipation, diverticular disease, some (but not all) sufferers of irritable bowel syndrome & haemorrhoids. Salmonellosis and trichinosis are due to poor cooking technique! There is no evidence about the cancers you listed being improved nor osteoporosis. There is weak evidence about kidney stones with diets high in certain things eg phosphate & oxalate, but mainly in those with a familial predisposition who are not drinking enough fluid.



Very emotive argument but that undigested red meat stuff is just not true. The people I have operated on with impacted fecal material are the little old ladies whose diets consisted of white bread and tea. Fecal matter coming out the mouth will eventually happen in anyone with a distal bowel obstruction, whether it is caused by cancer, post-surgical adhesions or a cork up the clacker! Yes dietary fibre is important but a diet low in this does not mean the diet is high in meat so you cannot blame meat here.



Yes! I have worked in Kenya as a doctor and have treated people with kwashiorkor and I have lived in Ghana from where the word originates. As you said, it is virtually unheard of in the developed world. Yes it is easy to get enough protein to get by but that doesn't mean that we should all be on lowish protein high carb diets. By your argument, the fact that carbohydrate deficiency is extremely rare means we could all safely survive on a low carb diet?