[plantpositive.squarespace.com]
[plantpositive.squarespace.com]
TPNS 58-61: Ketosis Is Natural. Natural Is Good.
Monday, March 26, 2012 at 02:20PM
Plant Positive

Primitive Nutrition 58:
Ketosis Is Natural. Natural Is Good. Part I
Primitive Nutrition 58: Ketosis is Natural. Natural is Good. Part I
7:27 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

So far in my examination of low-carb diets I've shown you that they are nutritionally deficient, metabolically damaging, and unlikely to produce weight loss, if only because fats are so calorically dense. For the low-carbers, the solution to this last problem is ketosis. For them, this special metabolic state is the ultimate goal of their diets. They imagine it will effortlessly melt away all the fat they've accumulated from their prior unhealthy eating behavior.

Low carbers' zeal for ketosis has lead some to make a questionable claim which I'd like to ponder in this section. Michael Eades presents it here in his blog explaining ketosis. Of course, like many other primitive fad diet promoters, he wants you to start from the assumption that the activity pictured to the left somehow represents man's true nature and the way he has historically obtained food. I don't see any women in that photo, which should give you a clue that this isn't the whole story.

According to The Economist, among the hunter gatherers who provide the Paleo model, "men usually bring fewer calories than women, and have a tiresome tendency to prefer catching big and infrequent prey so they can show off." Eades is tapping into the same old macho vanity that has worked so well in marketing Paleo.

If you'd like to see what a group spear hunt really looks like in live action, watch this video. Somehow the artist who created Dr Eades picture forgot to include all the blood. Having read a bit about how intelligent and social elephants are, I find this unappealing to say the least. If you watch it, see if you can imagine Michael Eades participating in such a hunt.

But back to ketosis, despite his acknowledgement that ketogenic diets create a state quite a lot like starvation, he considers ketosis to be the normal human metabolism. This seems to me to be a bizarre opinion, but he isn't the only one who says this.

This is a man with a proper education in nutrition who believes ketosis is the preferred human metabolic state. He has a site called Ketotic.org. He wants you in full gloom, avoiding sweetness in general and even limiting vegetables. How can someone come to believe this? Is ketosis natural? Of course it is, just like starvation and death are natural. But is it healthy, normal and desirable? That is the subject of this section.

If you don't understand what a ketogenic diet is, I suggest you pause the video and read through this short description. Ketogenic diets are designed to deprive the body of the carbs it needs for normal metabolism. The diet has to be extreme to break the normal mechanism your body uses to burn fuel and to induce a dramatic elevation in the number of ketone bodies present in your bloodstream.

One of these ketone bodies is acetone, so someone in ketosis has breath that smells like nail polish remover.

These ketone bodies are acidic, which is why when you read the research conducted by the low carb gurus they supplement with sodium and other minerals. Without this addition, the blood may become dangerously acidic.

I don't know of any other diets that require broths. Low carbers try to make a virtue of this but it is clear this is only to minimize the adverse consequences of such an extreme diet.

The Atkins website runs down the problems attendant to this distorted diet without their supplementation ritual.

These diets are seen as mimicking the effects of starvation.

Ketogenic diets are used therapeutically today to control the seizures of epileptic children. They have been used this way for many decades. Fasting had long been known to be an effective method of seizure control. In the 1920s a doctor named Wilder recognized how metabolically similar a ketogenic diet was to fasting.

It was this similarity that gave him the idea to use this extreme diet as a tool for managing seizures.

It is not clear whether it is the reduction in blood sugar or the ketone bodies themselves that reduce seizures.

It is from observations of children subjected to such diets that most of the effects of the long term use of these diets are understood. Here, for example, we see that these diets are damaging to the bones of these children. This is only one hazard of this supposedly natural and normal diet.

Imagine little children having high cholesterol or kidney stones. That doesn't sound natural to me.

Here is a list of the potential problems kids on these diets face. I think if a similar list could be compiled for vegan diets the low carbers would find it quite damning, but somehow they still like ketogenic diets.

Despite the potential these diets offer for the treatment of epileptics, these numerous health hazards have hampered research into them.

If ketogenic diets are so natural and good, why do children abandon them at the earliest opportunity? Why do they not prefer high-fat foods when they are back on normal diets? Are these kids resisting their basic nature for some reason? Are they under the spell of Ancel Keys, too?

Eades acknowledges the similarity between ketogenic diets and starvation, but starvation is not the only circumstance in which ketosis takes place. Ketosis also takes place during uncontrolled diabetes and chronic alcoholism.

Also producing ketosis are anorexia nervosa, prolonged vomiting, and several gastrointestinal diseases. Of course, these all are unique in their own ways, but these associations should provoke a little skepticism of these diets.

As I said, the number of ketone bodies in the blood is dramatically escalated in ketosis, which are otherwise kept at very low levels by the intelligent systems of your body. You know you're in ketosis when you have ketone bodies in your urine.

This is why low carbers buy a product called ketostix. Diabetics use these to test their urine for ketone bodies. If they have them in their urine, it means their insulin is too low and blood sugar too high, and this is a serious problem. But for fad dieters, they want these ketone bodies in their urine. This brings up another question for those who think ketosis is so normal. Why should a person need to test their urine to see if they are in the preferred metabolic state? Shouldn't it be easy to keep your body in ketosis if it's preferable?

Ketosis is rather delicate, actually. Even sugar alcohols and the fillers in artificial sweeteners can provide enough carbs to knock you out of ketosis. Why should the body be so resistant to its preferred state?

There are a lot of things you can eat that will stop this supposedly preferred metabolic state, including most amino acids and even the fraction of fats which can be turned into glucose in humans.

Eades also wants you to believe ketosis is somehow efficient for your organs. He says the heart is 28 percent more efficient when it is fueled by ketones. He says this even as he admits that glucose is still required by the brain. I think it makes some sense that under conditions of starvation, it might be good for the heart to operate more efficiently. Does this mean the rest of the organs operate more efficiently on ketones, too? Is he saying this was a metabolic adaptation originating specifically in man during the Paleolithic? Look for the answers to these questions and you'll see just how far off Eades' Paleologic is.

We're going to get back to basics in Part II.

Primitive Nutrition 59:
Ketosis Is Natural. Natural Is Good. Part II
Primitive Nutrition 59: Ketosis is Natural. Natural is Good. Part II
5:22 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

Michael Eades says the heart runs more efficiently when fueled by ketone bodies. So then ketosis makes your other organs, and indeed your whole body, more efficient, right?

To answer this, let's first look at the issue of efficiency generally before we look at specific organs. Ketosis is the result of the breakdown of the normal cycle of chemical reactions most organisms, including us, use to convert nutrients into energy. Your body needs some carbohydrate for this set of reactions, called the Krebs cycle, in order to extract all the energy available from fatty acids.

This is why it is often said that fat burns on the flame of carbohydrate. Ketosis, therefore, is inherently inefficient. Not only is less energy extracted from fat than normal, the energy available in excess ketone bodies is wasted in the urine.

Ketone bodies themselves are low in energy. ATP is the elemental source of energy for all processes in your body. Glucose produces 36 ATP. Calorie-dense fat produces 146 ATP. Ketone bodies, however, only yield 22 ATP. This demonstrates the slouching approach to health of the low carbers at the most fundamental level. Do they think we have evolved to store energy so well only to later waste it? What do they think the purpose of body fat is?

Fat is there to provide energy to make survival possible in times of food scarcity. A man carrying an extra 30 lbs of fat has a whopping 130,000 calories to burn when food is unavailable. Think of this in terms of evolution and I hope you'll agree it's quite amazing that our bodies can do this so well. We've evolved to be efficient machines, and this is one example of that.

Consider that even without ketosis, fat metabolism is less efficient than carbohydrate metabolism because it requires more oxygen. Moreover, it is hardly efficient to carry around a bunch of fat you don't need all the time.

Fat is also less versatile than carbs. Your body can turn glucose into fat, but it can't convert most fat into glucose.

Lastly, ketosis wastes a lot of water, which can hardly be called efficient. Looked at from the perspective of efficiency, fat is clearly a fallback fuel for use in hard times. Your body uses carbs much more efficiently. Yet your body stores fat because it is just so good at keeping you from dying of starvation. And that is because it holds lots of calories. It would not have provided your ancestors any advantage to waste those calories. So why say ketosis is natural?

Glucose is clearly the preferred energy source. All human cells can use it. Does that seem to be an overly broad statement?

We can take it further. Glucose is the principal energy source for all living cells. Can Michael Eades say the same about ketone bodies?

Remember Eades' statement that ketones are the preferred energy source for the heart? What about the rest of your body?

Well, he said that ketones can't totally replace glucose as a fuel for the brain. He should have said that except under extreme conditions glucose is nearly the only source.

Your brain actually uses glucose disproportionately to the rest of your body, burning 25% of your glucose.

Our brains' greediness for glucose is far beyond what is seen in all other mammals.

Your brain only uses ketone bodies as a back-up power source. It has no minimum requirement for them. They can even cause your brain to work less efficiently.

What about your muscles? They're an interesting case. Your muscles store carbs in the form of glycogen. Your muscles are so stingy with glycogen, they won't share it with the rest of your body.

They keep their glycogen separate from your blood glucose regulation system.

If you engage in exercise and thereby become a more efficient machine, your muscles become better at storing glycogen to fuel them. Ketosis, on the other hand, requires the depletion of glycogen from the body. This raises a question for those who think your body prefers ketosis. Are they saying that as you become more physically fit and strong, you are also becoming increasingly metabolically broken?

At this point you know that ketogenic diets are not adequate for athletes. This is reason enough to conclude ketosis is not the preferred metabolic state.

So we know that your brain and muscles prefer glucose rather than ketone bodies from fatty acids. Let's add to that list your red blood cells, which cannot use ketone bodies or fatty acids at all. Without glucose they'll die, and without red blood cells, you’ll die.

Let's reconsider the heart while we're looking at different organs. During normal metabolism your heart does not prefer ketone bodies. Instead, it uses fatty acids. Eades doesn't mention this.
In pondering Eades' statement that carb restriction was the norm for most of our existence as upright walking beings, with starvation being the normal metabolism, I find myself asking lots of questions. Homo developed big, energy-expensive brains on a starvation metabolism? Why would we hyper develop this uniquely glucose dependent organ in a glucose-poor environment?
Why do we seem so uniquely adapted to consuming starch?

I got to wondering, since it seems so improbable that ketosis is the normal metabolism for us, could it be the normal metabolism for any animals? After all, Eades wants us to essentially be carnivores. So are carnivores normally in a state of ketosis?

The answer is in Part III.

Primitive Nutrition 60:
Ketosis Is Natural. Natural Is Good. Part III
Primitive Nutrition 60: Ketosis is Natural. Natural is Good. Part III
6:09 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

At the end of Part II I was wondering if any animals at all stay in ketosis under normal conditions. It seems to me that carnivores are the world’s top low carbers so let's investigate them first.

Carnivores don't have much use for dietary glucose. They are so dependent on animal protein they can't synthesize some amino acids the way we can. So they must be in ketosis then, right?
Nope. Carnivores need glucose. They just make their glucose from the protein they consume.
Therefore, they consume protein not to satisfy an especially high protein requirement so much as they consume extra protein to satisfy their requirement for carbs, which are made during gluconeogenesis.

Here you see our minimum protein requirement is put in the range of 6 to 8% of calories. Cats need at least 14 to 20%, yet their protein turnover is actually slower than in other mammals. The extra protein is for making glucose. Therefore, cats on low carb diets cannot enter ketosis if given adequate protein. If a cat is in ketosis, it's either because it's diabetic or in prolonged starvation.

A protein-based diet enables cats to supply a steady stream of glucose to their tissues.
It's a good thing for them this glucose is supplied so steadily. They have insignificant liver glycogen reserves to supply glucose in between meals.

This is why a carnivore like the mink is so poorly adapted to food deprivation. It is quickly forced to break down its own body proteins to produce glucose.

What about that most low-carb, high-fat of carnivores, the polar bear. Surely they are the one species that is normally in ketosis. After all, they show a greater preference for fat than protein. Could they really be running more on glucose than ketone bodies on such a fatty diet?
Polar bears are unique, but not because they are in ketosis. They are actually using all that fat to manage their body water. Because it can be hard to get enough water to drink in the Arctic, they don't want to eat excess protein because, as you will recall from my Protein Choices videos, the digestion of excess protein requires lots of extra water to eliminate all that urea.

When polar bears are starving, they actually begin to produce more glucose. Unlike other mammals, they resist ketosis even during a fast. They seem to be capable of turning their fat into glucose, something we can't do to a significant degree.

Notice the paragraph to the left. If we look at ketosis as the back-up metabolism after normal carbohydrate metabolism breaks down, what is the back-up to ketosis? There isn't one. Even during terminal starvation, their bodies will make glucose right up until the end.

Polar bears in captivity are not fed a diet like they would consume in the wild. They are actually fed fruits and vegetables. But this isn’t their natural diet! Surely this is a form of animal abuse, right?

Actually, polar bears in captivity live considerably longer. But shouldn't an evolutionarily novel diet destroy their health? This is yet another example of how Paleologic is no substitute for experiment and observation.

If there ever were an observed human culture that normally experienced ketosis, it would have to be the Eskimos. They have eaten as close to an all-animal-flesh, polar-bear-like diet as any humans ever have. Perhaps they will be an example of Dr Eades' normal metabolism. Knowing now that polar bears are so resistant to ketosis, you might be doubtful, of this. Your doubt is justified. Eskimos don't normally develop ketosis.

This was studied all the way back in 1928. Eskimos showed no ketosis at all on their traditional diet and during starvation became only mildly ketotic.

Even after his famous year-long meat diet experiment, everyone's favorite low-carber Vilhjalmur Stefansson did not experience ketosis. His gluconeogenesis cranked up to make up for his carb deficiency.

Explorers who encountered Eskimos nearly 100 years ago remarked that they ate outrageous amounts of meat. 20 pounds of meat in a day! Low carb didn't promote satiety for the Eskimos, did it?

Eskimos ate all that meat to turn their protein into glucose, which sounds like what carnivores do. Eskimos were known to have unusually large livers, and this was speculated to be due to an adaptation to create more glucose from protein than other humans.

All that glucose probably kept them warm. The present day practice of consuming sugar to stay warm goes back a long way. Here in 1915 explorers in the Antarctic found sugar to be a necessity to tolerate the cold.

Sugary beverages are advised for use today to warm up hypothermia victims. Sugar would have been useful in any cold ice age landscape Dr Eades might be imagining, even if it was produced from protein.

Evolution helps us look at this from another angle. An understanding of the utility of high levels of blood glucose in extreme cold has lead this doctor to suggest Type 1 diabetes is the result of an adaptation to cold. Extra glucose would have prevented the formation of ice crystals in the blood.

In fact, Type 1 diabetes does have a pattern of occurrence that links it to cold weather. Evolution seems to say that cold weather requires more glucose in humans and other animals, not less.
It seems to me this is the fatal flaw of the rationale for ketogenic diets that cheerleaders like Stephen Phinney like to employ. The cold weather adaptation argument is not only ahistorical, it is metabolically backwards.

What about ketosis in naturally high-carb-eating mammals? What can we learn about ketogenic diets from them? That's where I start in Part IV.

Primitive Nutrition 61:
Ketosis Is Natural. Natural Is Good. Part IV
Primitive Nutrition 61: Ketosis is Natural. Natural is Good. Part IV
7:57 Minute Video
[www.youtube.com]

Let's look at ketosis in mammals at the other end of the carb spectrum. If Eades says our normal metabolism is ketosis, and if ketosis is the result of carbohydrate restriction, then our primate relatives, which are frugivores who do not restrict their carbs, must then be resistant to ketosis by this logic. In other words, in Eades’ mind we are natural ketotic low carbers, so ketosis must be really unnatural for primates because they eat so many carbs. But this is not the case. Primates experience ketosis a lot like us.

In the context of other species, even though we don’t enter or stay in ketosis easily, we are still on the end of the spectrum of animals that more easily enter ketosis right along with fruit-eating monkeys. On the other end of the spectrum are dogs, which have much more obvious adaptations to meat eating such as teeth built for tearing rather than grinding. Dogs resist ketosis. Farther still along this continuum would be polar bears. Considering ketosis in other species, it seems very unlikely that we would normally be ketotic low carbers.

We're like primates in another way that wrecks the ketosis-is-normal argument. You probably also know there are awful consequences to not consuming adequate vitamin C, namely scurvy. Not only are we next to fruit-eating primates in the area of ketosis, we are next to them with our need for vitamin C as well. Most mammals can synthesize their own vitamin C but primates like us can't.

A very good hypothesis to explain this is that we, like the other primates, consumed vitamin C from fruit regularly enough that our pre-homo ancestors did not need the ability to synthesize it. This created what amounts to a nutritional addiction. We need to get our vitamin C fix somehow.

Here's another evolution-based argument for carbs and fruit. It is also believed that our color perception developed from our ancestors' fruit-based diet. Advanced color vision helped them to be discerning fruit-eaters.

Low carbers may say that Eskimos received enough vitamin C to prevent scurvy in the uncooked animal tissues they ate. Cooking these meats would destroy that vitamin C, though, and we know that cooking goes back minimally around 400,000 years, which includes periods that were warmer than today. This is before the beginnings of anatomically modern humans. This timeline argues against the idea that our vitamin C requirement originated with the eating of uncooked meat. The consumption of plenty of vitamin C from fruit long before that makes a lot more sense as an explanation.

I've noticed that low carb apologist and cholesterol denier Uffe Ravnskov thinks we need higher amounts of vitamin C than what is currently recommended by most institutions. Just enough to prevent scurvy isn’t good enough for him.

I can't say I disagree. I just wonder how he and Michael Eades would see us getting high levels of vitamin C on a natural low carb, ketogenic diet...

Especially during the times in our history when our ancestors lived in warm climates. Here is a text from 1900 written by a US Army surgeon who noted that inhabitants of hot climates found meats and fats distasteful, preferring mostly vegetarian food. Is Eades saying that it is more natural for humans to live in areas that are brutally cold? Where does he think most people live?
It seems the human species concentrates more in warm places rather than cold places.

From an evolutionary perspective, it's clear the basic problem with Eades' thinking is that the capability to enter ketosis is not a uniquely human capability. It seems almost all mammals can do it to some extent, regardless of their natural diet. Therefore, ketosis metabolism must pre-date the first humans.

I would suggest another proof that ketosis is not normal is the issue of pregnancy, yet the Ketotic.org guy goes there in this blog. Without coming out and saying it directly, he tries to give the impression by presenting a handful of animal studies that ketogenic diets are appropriate for pregnancy. This man is advising women to eat a lot of saturated fat and keep carbs low during pregnancy.

This is quite irresponsible. Even Eades, while he says ketosis is the normal human state, won't condone this fanaticism. I'm not sure how he reconciles his belief in the normalcy of ketosis with how damaging ketosis is to a fetus, but at least he draws a line somewhere.

This guy, though, sarcastically mocks the lack of human studies of low carb diets during pregnancy. The studies he does cite don't help him make his case very well. The first is about glycemic load which is a non sequitur here.

He doesn't tell us he's referring to a study using a product called the "Solo GI Bar." The manufacturer of these snack bars supplied the researchers with all the bars they needed. The other low-GI foods in the study were whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes. Does he really think these researchers would approve of using this paper to promote ketogenic diets during pregnancy? That’s quite a stretch!

He says the second study he references tells us pregnant women do better with carbs kept down to 40 to 45% of calories.

He neglects to mention the women in the study had diabetes, which seems an important detail to leave out. Their carbohydrate metabolism was already broken. Do you see why I am showing you all these studies? I need you to see how trustworthy these people are.

Here are some facts the Ketotic.org guy won't tell you. Ketone bodies are likely to induce birth defects.

This is why groups assisting women to have successful pregnancies want them to test their urine. They want them to make sure they aren't in ketosis.

For a while Robert Atkins himself recommended his awful diet to pregnant women.

He eventually learned that his diet could damage a fetus. He then changed his mind.

If we are talking pregnancy, once again, we can look for clues in evolution that show us what proper nutrition looks like. Fruit-eating primates start to become ketotic during times of fruit scarcity. Females vary their fertility so that they are more likely to conceive when there is plenty of fruit around.

We don't have to consider evolution to know that ketosis is not desirable, though. As I stated earlier, we know that children suffer ill-effects from these diets, including slowed growth, kidney stones and fractures.

We also have animal studies that show they can derange metabolism toward more accumulation of visceral fat.

And that they interfere with the hormones insulin and leptin.

Ketogenic diets also produce some of the very worst known risk factors for heart disease, which correlate with the degree of ketosis.

Top obesity researchers have found ketogenic diets have no benefit over other weight-loss diets. To the extent they seem to work, it is believed this is simply due to the lower caloric intake most people consume on them. Here's one reference for that.

And here's another.

Comparing a ketogenic diet to a less extreme low-carb diet, the ketogenic diet is not better for weight loss. A ketogenic diet is, however, worse for cholesterol, inflammation, and emotional well-being.

And low-carb diets themselves are hard on emotional well-being.

Put it all together and you can see why a fad diet promoter needs to appeal to your inner disordered eater with language like this. "On a low-carb diet you can feast and starve all at the same time." This is the lazy, confused, magical thinking of low-carb in a single sentence. Gullible diet chasers desperate for a quick and easy fix at any long-term cost, exit here. All others proceed to a sustainable and healthy approach based on whole plant foods.

I have plenty more of Michael Eades in the next section of the Primitive Nutrition Series. What can we learn from diet in China? And just how ridiculous can Michael Eades get? This may give you a headache, folks. You have been warned.
[plantpositive.squarespace.com]

Peace and Love..........John

The dangers of ketogenic diets:

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

[www.youtube.com]

a vid exposing the verbal ketogenic scam. A phd writes a science fiction book glorifying the ketogenic diet but never seen a single patient. It is all a tower of cards full of pretty theory with no track record.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2014 10:01PM by Panchito.

my point is not that it's not doable, but at the cost of eating non whole foods , stimulants, damaging organs, need for salt, and producing acetone.



"gluconeogenesis is an energetically costly pathway of protein metabolism with energy costs that are estimated to amount to 20%"

[ajcn.nutrition.org]

"The human body requires glucose for the brain and nervous system, and a diet that has very few or no dietary carbohydrates forces it to generate this glucose from protein through gluconeogenesis, with an efficiency of approximately 57% (protein and carbohydrate are approximately equal in calorific value; each has about four kilocalories per gram, but gluconeogenesis can produce only 57g of glucose from 100g of protein)."

thus explaining lower activity levels and/or need for stimulants.

It's funny, really, that there was a talk by a professor where I recall him condescendingly saying that the carbohydrate metabolism pathway was unnecessary, implying that fats/proteins were preferred. And all the students got a big belly laugh out of it. The truth, of course, is that glucose use is SO IMPORTANT, that ALTERNATIVE pathways were developed as a backup. But the cooked FAT/PROTEIN ingesting genius could not see that, since that would entail him giving up his precious meat.

Just playing devil's advocate here. No need to call names. Besides, I'm sure that your arguments are scientifically iron-clad. How do you explain Zach Bitter? I'm not saying that Zach is on a ketogenic diet (who is?), but I am saying that he clearly thrives on a high-fat diet. First link is more about his achievements, second link is focused on his diet and includes copies of his blood-work.

[running.competitor.com]

[zachbitterrunning.blogspot.com]

I have seen him cited before and you will note his use of stimulants and sugar laden energy gels. Why does he need them?

Where does it say that he NEEDS those things? You're simply deflecting from the question which is why is a high-fat consuming athlete like Zach able to accomplish herculean athletic feats despite your claims? As long as we're on the topic of coffee, why does vegan athlete Rich Roll "need" coffee and various vegan, fat containing junk foods? [www.vegbelly.com]

Can we get back to the original question now?

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have seen him cited before and you will note his
> use of stimulants and sugar laden energy gels. Why
> does he need them?

>Where does it say that he NEEDS those things?

ok, why does he use them?


> You're simply deflecting from the question which is why is a high-fat consuming athlete like Zach able to accomplish herculean athletic feats despite your claims?


My claims do not include use of stimulants and sugar gels.


>As long as we're on the topic of coffee, why does vegan athlete Rich Roll "need" coffee and various vegan, fat containing junk foods? [www.vegbelly.com]

because he's a food addict and because he's not all raw which causes lower energy levels?

why didn't alan and his wife NEED those things running a marathon a day around Oz at age 70?

I never claimed that athletes can't perform at a high-level on vegan or even raw diets. Clearly, and if what they're telling us is the truth, Rich Roll, Scott Jurek, and Arnstein do pretty well.

What I asked is why--despite your claims that a high-fat diet is essentially crippling and fatal--are more and more athletes thriving on fats? It's a simple question.

Anyway, I'm done with you. I'm not Temp. I won't spend my days humoring your deflections. Either answer my question or I assume that you have no answer.

What about (ex-vegan) world-class cycyclist Dave Zabriskie, Timothy Olson, and gold medal triathlete Simon Whitfield? Why are they thriving instead of dying as a result of fatty diets?

[www.mensjournal.com]

if you read the second link, he admits (after being questioned about the incongruence of the results) to fast before doing his blood test to get better numbers.

[zachbitterrunning.blogspot.com]

Quote

I was in a fasted state when the blood was drawn, and being well fat-adapted this could very well have been the case. In short, I was fasted, fat adapated, and had recently worked out, so likely during this time the LDL's were being metabolized by the cells as fast as the liver was spitting them out.

bacon is not bad when you fast for a month afterwards



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2014 07:15PM by Panchito.

I think we both know that being in a fasted state would not alter his blood work that much. He would still have exceptional numbers. Besides, what does "fasted state" mean in this case? That he skipped breakfast? That's the most likely scenario or very close to it, especially since he worked-out while in a "fasted state."

So, the question remains, why are world-class athletes setting god-like standards on high-fat diets and not dropping dead as you guys claim/hope?

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if you read the second link, he admits (after
> being questioned about the incongruence of the
> results) to fast before doing his blood test to
> get better numbers.
>
> [zachbitterrunning.blogspot.com]
> -carb-vs-high-fat.html
>
> I was in a fasted state when the blood was drawn,
> and being well fat-adapted this could very well
> have been the case. In short, I was fasted, fat
> adapated, and had recently worked out, so likely
> during this time the LDL's were being metabolized
> by the cells as fast as the liver was spitting
> them out.
>
>
> bacon is not bad when you fast for a month
> afterwards

Dietary fat is chronic issue. Meaning, it takes time (long term) to screw yourself. He's not been that long doing the 'experiments.' And yes, fasting of course changes blood results. Most high fat people relly on fasting to 'balance' the negative effects. It is the same with Mercola and recomending intermitent fasting. Why not mentione the inuit diet (high fat) and their low life expentancy (the disease % jumps)?

"Why not mentione the inuit diet (high fat) and their low life expentancy (the disease % jumps)?"

Not all fats are created equal (mono/poly fats, omega-3/omega-6, animal fats/plant fats, raw fats/cooked fats). But you don't eat fats, right, you just supplement with them?

One, the Inuit have little to no access to fruits and vegetables. All of the athletes I've mentioned eat copious amounts of vegetables at the very least. They don't simply live on whale lard. Two, every marginalized native population has a shorter lifespan than their colonizers because of a lack of access to western medicine, which, believe it or not, actually corresponds to increased lifespans. This is especially true in the realm of emergency medicine. There's also unemployment, depression, alcoholism, drug use, smoking, suicide, etc. which contribute to this.

"Native Americans require medical care and have health concerns similar to many other United States demographics. From all ages of American Indians or Alaska Natives, approximately 12% were found to be in fair or poor health in 2005.[23] There are known health disparities between the Native American population and the rest of the United States. Reasons for these health disparities include 'cultural barriers, geographic isolation, inadequate sewage disposal, and economic factors.'"

"Native American infants suffer from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome at double the rate of their white counterparts."


"The life expectancy of a Native American man is 71 years, six below the expectancy of a white male in the United States. Women fare at a similar level, with their death rate growing 20% over fifteen years of American national decline.[25] The leading causes of death among Native Americans (American Indians and Alaskan Natives) are heart disease, cancer and unintentional injury. The rate of suicide is also a significant concern, as it is above the American national average."

[en.wikipedia.org]

Properly educated people take a holistic approach to every problem. They don't simply look at diet and think that they have the answer.

Once again, why are these athletes thriving despite your claims to the contrary? Why do you use this site to spread fear-based mythos? I'm fully on board with the ethical considerations at hand (don't hurt animals), but why resort to shoddy, half-baked arguments when promoting those ethics?

If the diet does catch up to them over time, would you care to present some case studies which prove this? My thinking is that a world-class athlete burns it all anyway. Do you think that they would be on that diet if they were sedentary internet jockeys?





Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dietary fat is chronic issue. Meaning, it takes
> time (long term) to screw yourself. He's not been
> that long doing the 'experiments.' And yes,
> fasting of course changes blood results. Most high
> fat people relly on fasting to 'balance' the
> negative effects. It is the same with Mercola and
> recomending intermitent fasting. Why not mentione
> the inuit diet (high fat) and their low life
> expentancy (the disease % jumps)?

Once again...misleading conclusions based on partial information typical of diet 101 thinking in this thread. It's not as black and white as many see it. Many factors need to be taken into account from a broad range of studies covering many issues.

>What I asked is why--despite your claims that a high-fat diet is essentially crippling and fatal--are more and more athletes thriving on fats? It's a simple question.

I don't know who you're talking to. I certainly did not claim that a high fat diet is essentially crippling and fatal.

I have no idea about how many athletes are thriving on fats until I investigate that .


I did respond to your example runner by stating that I think a person should be able to perform without stimulants and sugar gels if he is claiming to be low carb.



>What about (ex-vegan) world-class cycyclist Dave Zabriskie, Timothy Olson, and gold medal triathlete Simon Whitfield? Why are they thriving instead of dying as a result of fatty diets?

again, stop exaggerating. thanks for the references, I suspect they engage in the same practices as the other runner.

HH,

You are misrepresenting me
"despite your claims that a high-fat diet is essentially crippling and fatal"

unless you are referring to panchito.

Here is one example for you.

[anthonycolpo.com]

I look forward to your response.

I never said that any of the athletes I mentioned are carb-free or even low-carb. I said that they consume plenty of fat. Of course attempting to use only fat or carbs as fuel is a disaster waiting to happen. At the very least, these guys are consuming loads of fruit and veg. It's amazing to me how you people create these over-blown scenarios where incredibly successful athletes are killing themselves by eating nothing but fat. It's as if everything must be in the extreme or it didn't happen, diet included. That's simply not the case. Of course they eat carbs. And why would they lie about their diets? Piles of sponsorship money are available to them in the form of sugar and carb laden energy bars, etc., yet they go around lying about not being carb fanatics? It makes no sense.

"I don't want people to think I eat no carbs. I do eat them I just do it strategically (before, during, or right after a workout)." --Zach Bitter

I'm assuming that he works out quite a bit so carbs are definitely coming in on a regular basis. He does claim to be low carb, but it's sort of hard to match carb to fat calories when you're eating so much fat. I'd be willing to bet that in volume there's more veg on his plate than there is fat. Even Sisson's "primal" food pyramid has produce as the basis of the diet, totally contradicting the simplified, fear-based narrative that gets shilled around here. [grokette.files.wordpress.com]

Take a look at optimized fat metabolization for a better understanding of his nutrition strategy.

P.S. I'm training to run some races (half-marathons and 10Ks) this fall. In the last twenty-four hours I ate a few pieces of organic dark chocolate. Better call the World Anti-Doping Agency before I taint the sport. I'm also pretty sure that my adrenals are shutting down as I write this. Too much druggy stimulation from that chocolate I suppose.

P.P.S. Unless you're an incredibly hot (albeit annoying) woman, I'm not really interested in continuing with this merry-go round of verbal foreplay. You're not answering my question!

1. As I have shown several times, they are not low carb.

2.It matters more what they eat for training and races

3. I do not deny that someone who typically eats butter and bacon can perform athletically.

4. They are by omission, misrepresenting their diet, as colpo showed with some digging, and YES, some are represented by low carb product placements, and do not wish to irritate their sponsors. They have a rep as a low carb guy, and as a result get benefits.

5. Could they be eating HIGHer fat overall and performing well? I have no dispute
with that, and who cares? but because of 1. 2. And 4. Above , your assertion is not valid on its face. They are not in fact low carb WHEN it counts.

One more "youre not answering my question"? Even though it was answered several times?

Then we both agree that the commonly held assertion on this board that eating fat is a death sentence is total bunk. Thanks for upholdng the voice of reason.

HH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then we both agree that the commonly held
> assertion on this board that eating fat is a death
> sentence is total bunk. Thanks for upholdng the
> voice of reason.


based on your statement above, we agree. but I don't know who was making that assertion.

HH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then we both agree that the commonly held
> assertion on this board that eating fat is a death
> sentence is total bunk. Thanks for upholdng the
> voice of reason.

Yes. The main protections for higher fat diets are nitric oxide and anti oxidants (particularly various phytocehmicals), very very powerful protection from these two things. Other good protectors are exercise used to induce upregulation nitric oxide and of superoxide dismutase expression. Other protectors are good levels of omega 3's which can be used in conjunction with high calcium/potassium/B9/zinc/iron/copper to create EPA/DHA which in turn creates an anti inflammatory action via prostaglandins. It doesn't seem to be so much the ALA which has anti inflammatory action, it is the long chain omega 3 fatty acids. Taking high magnesium foods is also helpful. The Cytochrone P450 in brown seaweed also plays a very important role in reducing oxidisation for many reasons.

It is almost certainly believed now that disturbed flow mediated dilitation caused through activation of blood clotting factors FVIIc and FVIIa causes oxidation to occur, and this is highly believed to be causing the damage from high fat diets. This oxidation idea is now very close to being accepted as fact.

In sum....the sproutarian diet sets forth conditions to be the most protective of any diet in regards to high fat diets. I say this for very good reason, namely, the superpowereful anti oxidant phytochemicals like glucosinolates which have been shown to have an anti oxidant action far longer lasting and powerful than the usual highly protective vitamins C and E used in reducing damage from high fat diets. There are also other abundant phytochemicals and anti oxidents abundant in a sprout diet that far surpasses other diets. There is also the sea vegetables and algaes nutrients and inducers of enzymes etc, and a diet that sets conditions up to enable the body to manufacture various hormones to regulate inflammatory responses that would be very difficult to do with other vegan diets.

I could go on and on with this, but basically, if you have lots of high anti oxidant and phytochemical foods like grasses, FRESH green vegetables, broccoli sprouts and other green sprouts, flax/chia sprouts, sea weeds, certain green algaes, good omega 3 - 6 balance, good mono - poly fat balance, and exercise, you place yourself in a very good position to do a higher fat diet.

Sound science will be presented in coming months to back all of this up. I only post some basic details here, but in time the explanations will be lengthy and thorough, because there is much more to the story behind how we can protect ourselves from higher fat diets.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2014 12:05AM by The Sproutarian Man.

Another important thing to do would be to have a nice big green sprout salad before a high fat meal, in particular the wonderful daikon radish mircogreens, broccoli sprouts, grasses, seaweeds/algaes, or at least juice the greens.

For high fat nuts and seeds it would be a good idea to sprout those seeds to get the benefit of phytochemicals and also to reduce fat levels by roughly 20% after sprouting for two days, or sprout for 4 days and reduce fat levels by roughly 50%. Why? Because fatty acids don't appear to activate blood clotting factor 7 and impede flow mediated dilitation leading to the possible oxidation damage of high fat diets which cause CAD, and yes, sprouting reduces fat concentration in the high fat seeds. This allows us to still get the benefit from the master nutrition of the sprouted seeds without having to reduce them to paltry levels like Dr Esselstyn suggests in his peer reviewed papers. See...Dr Esselstyn doesn't appear to be telling the whole story about fat diets because he just says "no oil" and to eat nuts and seeds sparingly, but there are safety measures we can implement with proven protection of artery damage.

For the menacing nuts we can always ferment them once per week to reduce fat levels. Besides, nuts are usually high in mono fats and have unbalanced nutrition, so only a weekly feast is recommended.


Some pretty powerful information in the last two posts about taming the big boogey man called `fat'. Yes, we can tame many savage beasts in the diet, so lets do it.

And to end it, lets finish off with my beloved Dr Esselstyn so we remember not to overdo the fats too much. But if you overdo the fats, have those green salads/algaes and seaweeds, and do some exercise after dinner.

Here he is, my old mate, Dr Caldwell Esselstyn. He is said to follow a strict vegan diet too, and lots of greens. And such a wonderful strong voice with bucket loads of charisma.

[www.youtube.com]


Sproutarian men can get a strong voice like the docs too....many times l sound just like him. Lots of hormones and goodies. Voices can go from weak to strong, deep and booming. Dr Brian's booms also, and so does John Kohler's. All those raw fresh grown greens.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2014 12:55AM by The Sproutarian Man.

A really important point Dr Esselstyn points out is Rudell's study which showed that having good cholesterol ratios doesn't mean you are safe from coronary disease. And is also suggests that the average medical doctor is a real dill when it comes to recommending preventions for CAD.

And eventhough the heart research center may act like dills, they have some excellent studies. But Thomas Lee wasn't a complete dill either, because the story isn't all about fat, it is also about eating more raw greens....something of which the doc doesn't touch on in the video, so people can get scared and get the wrong idea.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2014 01:15AM by The Sproutarian Man.

"In sum....the sproutarian diet sets forth conditions to be the most protective of any diet in regards to high fat diets."

Except for the Conductivity Diet. You can still watch the videos on how to do that for $11 on Tavis' site. The difference is that the Conductivity Diet can be eaten by travelers, it is highly portable, and unlike the sproutarian diet the food tastes fantastic and is very easy to prepare.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "In sum....the sproutarian diet sets forth
> conditions to be the most protective of any diet
> in regards to high fat diets."
>
> Except for the Conductivity Diet. You can still
> watch the videos on how to do that for $11 on
> Tavis' site. The difference is that the
> Conductivity Diet can be eaten by travelers, it is
> highly portable, and unlike the sproutarian diet
> the food tastes fantastic and is very easy to
> prepare.

Yes, l would actually be interested how Tavis does this. The herbs that break down the fat sounds very interesting.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "In sum....the sproutarian diet sets forth
> conditions to be the most protective of any diet
> in regards to high fat diets."
>
> Except for the Conductivity Diet. You can still
> watch the videos on how to do that for $11 on
> Tavis' site. The difference is that the
> Conductivity Diet can be eaten by travelers, it is
> highly portable, and unlike the sproutarian diet
> the food tastes fantastic and is very easy to
> prepare.


I'm guessing turmeric and milk thistle are involved?

I don't know why the Conductivity Diet works but I'm sure the herbal tonic are a big part of the equation. I never heard him mention milk thistle, which seems very strange, but he really didn't get into elaborating on much before he faded back into private life.

The only two things in his list of tonics that I couldn't deal with were olive leaf tonic the Red Desert brand clay tonic ...

[www.i-amperfectlyhealthystore.com]