Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #136   ^
Old Wed, Mar-14-18, 05:15
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,367
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Marty Kendall provides a very wide-ranging review of Zero Carb diets, practitioners, and runs Dr Baker's Diet through the optimum nutrition analysis. Very long, very detailed article with some curious test results, tackle it only if you want to dig into the nitty gritty.
https://optimisingnutrition.com/201...-diet-a-review/

At the same time I found this, listening to a two part, two hour podcast with Amber OHearn on KetoWoman.

Last edited by JEY100 : Wed, Mar-14-18 at 05:23.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #137   ^
Old Wed, Mar-14-18, 09:04
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

One argument made for zero carb (or against an argument against zero carb) is that nutrients are better absorbed, or requirements are lower than the RDI on a carnivore diet. For a lot of nutrients, the recommendations don't actually have much to do with real requirements. With calcium for instance, calcium is in bones, so people basically guess at a protective effect of increasing calcium vs. osteoporosis, meanwhile, people traditionally eating a third of current recommendations didn't have osteoporosis, Dr. Fung has an earlier video where he talks about people eating 200 mg or so a day with no issues. And vitamin c--no need to explain why eating well under the recommendations isn't causing scurvy, when something like 10 mg a day of vitamin c is the established requirement, the current recommendation of 90 mg a day being arrived at "cuz antioxidants are good" and really nothing else. Not saying some people don't get therapeutic effects from higher intake, just that the non-therapeutic nutritional requirement is really not so high that you can't get it from meat, before you even get into possible reduced requirements on the diet.

The point is made that vitamin e might have a lower requirement on a low carb diet--I'd throw in something I find more likely, that it's got a lower requirement on a diet that's lower in polyunsaturated fats. Maybe there's a reason the high poly foods are also the high vitamin e foods.

Quote:
Since overt manganese deficiency has not been documented in humans eating natural diets, the FNB based the AI on average dietary intakes of manganese determined by the Total Diet Study — an annual survey of the mineral content of representative American diets (4).



I think, for me--I would take seriously those requirements that are based on um, requirements. The only way that we even know a manganese deficiency is possible is the usual way--feeding sick people refined diets, in which the nutrient is entirely missing. The question here isn't whether meat lowers the requirement for manganese, but whether it supplies sufficient manganese in the first place.

All that said, if I found myself needing to stick to a carnivore diet because it was effective vs. an immune problem like rheumatoid arthritis or something, I'd probably go with the insurance of a multivitamin, as long as I didn't find that it mucked up the therapeutic effect of the diet or something. I do the same on my ketogenic diet, I find it highly likely that the food alone gives me what I need, but the probability that the vitamin will do me harm seems low enough and the probability that I'm wrong somewhere high enough that I feel it's a reasonable precaution.
Reply With Quote
  #138   ^
Old Wed, Mar-14-18, 09:44
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,599
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Remember that the RDA is what they know prevents a deficiency disease...OR what they guess. It’s that solid 😀
Reply With Quote
  #139   ^
Old Wed, Mar-14-18, 16:00
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Marty Kendall provides a very wide-ranging review of Zero Carb diets, practitioners, and runs Dr Baker's Diet through the optimum nutrition analysis. Very long, very detailed article with some curious test results, tackle it only if you want to dig into the nitty gritty.
https://optimisingnutrition.com/201...-diet-a-review/

From that link, found this:
Quote:
While some people may benefit from restricting these compounds in their diet, I’m not sure that it’s necessary or optimal for everyone. Many stressors in life are hormetic and can make you stronger in the long term. And while the likes of oxalates can affect availability you can’t absorb nutrients if they’re not actually available in your diet. There is a trade-off between quantity and absorption. It’s hard to quantify these things but the calculations that I’ve done based on the limited data available indications that you should eat your spinach if you enjoy it.

The term hormetic doesn't apply to what makes us stronger in the long term. Instead it's a rather precise idea where a low dose is beneficial and a high dose is toxic. For whatever makes us stronger in the long term, we'd call this adaptation, i.e. the immune system fights off an intruder - which is currently making the host sick - once the intruder is defeated, the immune system has learned and will remember subsequent infections and fight it off much more quickly, resulting in much reduced symptoms in the host.

In the context where hormetic was used as counterpoint, there is no degree of not-sick:
Quote:
Nutrient bioavailability from plants is in many cases significantly compromised. Just because a plant contains a nutrient does not mean we can access it. One example: due to the oxalate within spinach, virtually none of the iron within spinach is available to the human body. As a second example, the zinc in oysters is virtually impossible to absorb if the oysters are consumed with corn tortillas.

Deficiency is deficiency is deficiency. No amount of deficiency can defeat deficiency. In math, we'd illustrate this with the equation ( -1 + -1 = -2 ).

I won't go through the rest of it, no point. My point here is that if eating only meat is genuinely beneficial, and if eating plants is genuinely detrimental, arguments should be equally genuine. On this forum especially in media/research, we regularly shoot down all kinds of BS from veggy nuts and other groups. Never mind that it's very unlikely that any of them can even begin to shoot down our arguments, what with the brain fog and all that logical ridiculousness.

As I was reading, I was thinking about two experiments. The Bellevue all-meat trial and the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment. Combined, they are eminently sufficient to shoot down all arguments against, but not necessarily adequate to support arguments in favor. In other words, we couldn't say an all-meat diet is good for you or for everybody, but we can certainly say an all-meat diet is bad for nobody. Conversely, we can say with a fair amount of certainty that an all-plant diet is probably bad for everybody, what with the Michael Pollan "mostly plants, not too much" diet the subjects in the Minnesota experiment were exposed to, and what with the subjects - plural - not just one guy, but several, and all suffered emaciation and neurosis to various but all debilitating degree. I consider these two experiment the most reliable, there's no other experiment that even gets close. Accordingly, anecdotes can't be used to support arguments either in favor or against, rather they can be explained by using these two experiments.

An example. The lyme thing with Charlene. Can't blame meat, can't blame plants. It's lyme disease, that's it for that. However, based on those two experiments, we can safely conclude that an all-meat diet was quite helpful, if not that it didn't prevent healing. On the other hand, we can be equally sure that a "mostly plants, not too much" diet would have kept her sick, if not made her sicker in parallel, what with the emaciation and neurosis. An all-meat diet here can't be said to be good for her, but an all-plant diet (or a mostly plants, not too much diet) would certainly be bad for her. See what I mean?

Then we could go into the simplest of logic. If there is no obvious sign of deficiency, then there must be adequate amounts of nutrients. What is this amount? Don't know - that's not what's actually important to know. The important thing to know is whether there's a deficiency, what's the cause, and how to fix it. Using the two experiments, we can make a fairly productive determination about that. An all-meat diet doesn't cause any obvious sign of deficiency, therefore that's not the cause, there's nothing to fix. A mostly plants, not too much diet certainly causes obvious signs of deficiency, what's the cause, how do we fix it. More meat? Maybe, protein and stuff. More fat? Most likely, fat-solubles and stuff. Less plants, i.e. plants are the cause, anti-nutrients and stuff? Can't be sure, but an all-meat diet - which contains no plants - results in "no obvious sign of deficiency, nothing to fix", so we can do a mind trick here, an all-meat diet is likely to fix whatever problems were caused by a mostly plants, not too much diet. It's a mind trick because there is no such experiment where we put people on the same diet used in the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment, got them all sick with emaciation and neuroris, then put them on an all-meat diet like in the Bellevue all-meat trial to find out what happens. What we can be sure of - no mind trick here - is that an all-meat diet won't make them any sicker - no obvious sign of deficiency, nothing to fix. See what I mean?

Last edited by M Levac : Wed, Mar-14-18 at 16:08.
Reply With Quote
  #140   ^
Old Thu, Mar-15-18, 05:44
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

the Minnesota study. Should rabbit starvation be used as evidence versus all meat? Starvation is a bad idea because it's starvation. I think it's reasonable to suppose that on an all meat diet they might have had better access to their fat stores earlier on, so it might have taken longer for them to feel real discomfort. But the model there isn't eat plants, not too much, it's eat plants,intentionally not nearly enough.
Reply With Quote
  #141   ^
Old Tue, Mar-20-18, 09:37
Unfinished Unfinished is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 36
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 236/217/185 Female 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 37%
Location: Oregon
Default

There’s a fascinating discussion of the topic going-on over at Hyperlipid.

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot....thing-much.html

Last edited by Unfinished : Tue, Mar-20-18 at 09:43.
Reply With Quote
  #142   ^
Old Thu, Apr-12-18, 06:31
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0_te7EGaes

Zero carber Michaela Peterson uses zero carb (pretty much all beef) vs. idiopathic arthritis and depression. She had hip and knee replacements at 17, so pretty bad. My Dad's a fan of her father Jordan Peterson's videos, that's how he got interested in the zero carb approach.

When it comes to food quality--I like Marty Kendall's approach in that he looks at both total nutrient availability and therapeutic necessity. Michaela's basic assumption is that she has a general intolerance to plant foods, with evidence to back it up by remissions when she tests individual foods by adding them back in. There's optimal diet, and then there's optimal diet that a person can actually tolerate.
Reply With Quote
  #143   ^
Old Sun, May-06-18, 07:23
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

http://itsthewooo.blogspot.ca/2018/...-again-low.html

Woo on Shawn Baker's blood glucose...

I'm currently on a zero carb experiment (excepting heavy cream in coffee). I'm more interested in it from an "I can have a little more protein and maintain the same level of ketosis in exchange for those carbs" route, not along the "there's no such thing as too much protein" line.

I really can't see how Baker's reasoning is anything but "a carnivore diet is healthful, so my crummy blood glucose must not mean anything." When Peter at Hyperlipid makes an argument that 104 early morning glucose paired with a normal A1c is okay, this is pretty plausible. Elevated A1c plus elevated blood glucose doesn't sound right. Interesting that it comes with low insulin.

If I was eating 3-6 times what science suggests I need in the way of protein and my blood glucose looked like his, I'd at least want to know what would happen if I cut back to say around twice my requirement. I guess he could be right that he's unique. I'd think he'd be a little curious.

Not my favourite poster boy for the carnivore diet. I have strong misgivings about an all-steak diet micronutrient-wise, overeating protein obviously addresses that, more lean meat=more of the water soluble vitamins, minerals found there.

The point Baker makes that usually with high glucose, lots of glucose is being taken up by the cells, it's within the cells that the damage gets done. He still has to establish that this isn't happening.

https://www.shawn-baker.com/the-mea...54sxfdtbqtju7eg

Shawn Baker's post on his glucose that Woo riffs off of.
Reply With Quote
  #144   ^
Old Sun, May-06-18, 10:35
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,573
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/150/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: NE WA
Default

If he has diabetes, too much protein can be a problem. I didn't know that at first & couldn't figure out why my bg was staying up even while eating 10 or fewer carbs. Someone who knows more than I do told me I was eating too much protein. So I cut the protein, added low carb vegetables & my bg is going down. And - thankfully - so is my weight. It's about time!

Now to keep it up. It's hard for someone as disorganized as me to be consistent - but I'm working on it!
Reply With Quote
  #145   ^
Old Sun, May-06-18, 11:10
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I sort of understand the motivation--I mean, if you really feel great at perform better, who wants to mess with that? At the same time, what could a little judicious tweaking hurt? Admitting okay, this is better than before, but it could be better still has worked for me.
Reply With Quote
  #146   ^
Old Sun, May-06-18, 19:27
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

About Shawn Baker. Several things going on at the same time. First thing though is that his numbers were already off before he went all-meat. In itself, that's not special, everybody's numbers are off before they go all-meat, in fact that's why they go all-meat to try to fix those numbers, well not the numbers themselves but the underlying conditions that drive those numbers.

Some alternative hypotheses.

We got the Belgian Blue cow that explains the large muscular mass yet low testosterone. Those cows don't grow large muscle mass with high testosterone, they grow it with low myostatin. Myostatin is an enzyme that inhibits muscle growth. Follistatin inhibits myostatin, to in turn allow muscle growth to occur. These two enzymes form the base regulation signals for muscle growth. Hormones that cause muscle growth act on these enzymes. If all is well, increasing these hormones will act on the enzymes to cause muscle growth. But if something's off at the enzymes, muscle growth is affected directly without first going through the hormones - we get the Belgian Blue. Maybe something similar is going on with Shawn Baker too. I'm not saying he's a genetic freak or he's injecting follistatin, I'm just illustrating a plausible mechanism that allows an otherwise freaky picture.

Shawn has a very large thoracic volume. Ima say his lungs are also very large. I mean, larger than most humans I've met. I'm talking size compared to other humans of the same total mass. So, large lung capacity, must have correspondingly high number of red blood cells to carry all that oxygen. RBC's require glucose, can't use any other fuel substrate. Therefore, high demand for glucose leads to high supply of glucose - high blood glucose. And that would be normal for this guy regardless of what he eats. Incidentally, it would also explain the high HbA1c, cuz there's just more glucose and there's just more RBC's, the two things needed to make HbA1c.

If this lung/glucose/RBC thing is true, then we have no clue how much damage is being done by presumed excess glucose to other cells. However, we can reasonably assume that the bulk of this excess glucose is used up by RBC's before any of it hits any other cell, therefore we can reasonably conclude whatever damage is being done must be on the low side of things. Thing is the presumption of damage from excess glucose is not from a pool of subjects like Shawn, but of subjects like the rest of us. It's a bit like the BMI thing that just tells the wrong story when the guy is totally lean with very high muscle mass, ya?

Then there's insulin. Well, it's low - 2.6 (on a normal range of 2.0-19.6 uIU/ml according to the lab sheet). Don't know his blood ketones, didn't look very hard, somebody tell me. Anyways, blood ketones should be very high just based on the insulin. I'm not talking 0.5-1.5. No, I'm talking 5.0-10.0. Way beyond what most of us report on this forum. Just based on the insulin number, and on the assumption of high blood ketones derived from this, Ima say his liver is working pretty much better than most people. This guy has zero problem of fuel regulation. Then based on that, he has basically no gut problem I can think of (diet, gut bugs, ya?), cuz it all starts in the gut. And then ketones loop back to the HbA1c problem, where ketones stimulate CMA, which handles glycation. At first glance this should mean HbA1c should be lower, right? In fact, it's a rate problem, not an absolute level problem. The high rate of glycation is well handled by the high rate of ketones output from the liver, in spite of the higher HbA1c level.

Then there's the absence of dietary carbs. This is a primary driver of glycation, and also a primary disruptor of all metabolism everywhere, all cells, all organs, everything. With an all-meat diet, it just ain't there - zero disruption. Glycation which comes from dietary carbs is excess glycation. With an all-meat diet, it just ain't there - zero excess. The only glucose problem we have here is endogenous, and this is an absolute level problem - it's as low as it can be. In spite of what we see in the blood, everywhere else it's as low as it can be.

All that said, if we still wanna fix those two lab numbers (high HbA1c and low testosterone), we gotta make a choice. Either we dig deep and fix them at the expense of everything else, or just say this guy doesn't need those things fixed. To illustrate the biggest problem, to cut down HbA1c, we gotta cut down dietary carbs, which he did - down to zero, in fact - which very apparently doesn't work for him. Any other ideas, people? Cuz I'm out. Cut down protein? Maybe. We're not talking about a 125-150lbs guy, like me (though now I'm fat so it's more like 180-190lbs, but you get the point). We're talking 220-240lbs, lean. Cut down total food intake? Doubtful. That's semi-starvation, comes with all kinds of nasties, though maybe not as severe for Shawn cuz it would be going from 6lbs/meat/day down to 3lbs/meat/day or something. Thing is we're trying to fix a single lab number at the expense of everything else, ya? How, reasonably, is any of this a valid method? You'll see, like me, there's no reasonably how.

The only thing that really concerns me is his low testosterone. Testosterone is involved in so much more than just muscles. On the other hand, it looks like he suffers no outward sign of low testosterone, so it doesn't concern me that much. Though this is much simpler to fix. There is a very simple and easy treatment. Triptorelin, tiny single dose, restarts the HTPA axis over a few months. And then there's HRT, but then if a single dose of triptorelin works, no need for life-long HRT. Point is, I'm not concerned that much and it's a simple fix anyway, assuming of course everything else related works as it should and it appears to be the case.

To put all this into perspective. I remember, though vaguely, a woman for whom everything went south shortly after starting an all-meat diet, and everybody on the forum was dismissing her personal experience in some way. Well, is that what we're talking about here with Shawn Baker? Did everything go south for that guy too? Hardly. It's just a couple lab numbers. Also, the things we're trying to blame an all-meat diet for were already wrong to begin with.
Reply With Quote
  #147   ^
Old Mon, May-07-18, 03:15
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

A lot of people are assuming he's cycling off of steroids and that's why his testosterone is a bit low. That's a place I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, since he's got no obvious signs of testosterone deficiency, whatever the cause of it being low is.

As far as the blood glucose goes--even within zero carb, that just leaves plants out, there are still different ways to approach things, different fat/protein ratios, different meats, different parts of the animal.

Also there's no reason to assume that if you managed to fix the blood glucose thing, everything else would go to heck.

http://cholesterolcode.com/thoughts...wn-bakers-labs/

Dave Feldman has an interesting take;

Quote:
Ironically, I just got done talking about this on Ketoconnect’s podcast (airing in a couple months). In fact, Lean Mass Hyper-responders (LMHR) are actually the most likely to have a fasting glucose in the 90s or even over 100s while also sporting a fasting insulin below 3. Moreover, this profile typically has lower blood ketones (BHB) when testing compared to their more sedentary cohorts. (I’ll have a blog post on this soon)

I myself tend to be on the borderline of a LMHR or just past the line when fully keto. In that context, I often have fasting glucose in the 90s or lower 100s and an A1c of between 5.5 and 5.7. And that’s bad, right? Creeping back toward risk of Type 2 diabetes? I certainly don’t think so given my average fasting insulin of 3 or less.

But wait — Baker is much, much higher, right? Almost 20% higher in both fasting glucose and A1c. Surely he’ll be piling up the insulin resistance as we don’t see these numbers in any other low carbers, yes?

Energy Demand Leading to Higher Glucose Sparing?
This is where I part ways with so many people in and out of LCHF. What got me into cholesterol in the first place was seeing how it was really just “ridesharing” in a larger energy metabolism. So energy delivery and homeostasis on a greater network-level scale is what I continue to find endlessly fascinating. I’ll let the Benjamin Bikmans and Michael Eades of this world tackle the finer details of the mitochondria, I want to know how the Human OS manages to traffic that energy to our cells so effectively in the first place.

Which brings us back to Baker. This isn’t any ordinary guy. He isn’t just working out for recreation, he’s an athlete’s athlete. He’s training to break these various world records in addition to a variety of other workout regimes. So if you observe (as I do) a degree of adaptive glucose sparing as being more common with low carb athletes, what do you suppose it would be like for this human cyclone?

It’s not enough to just think of where his cells are getting their energy, you have to think of how timely it needs to be at a systemic level. Is Baker more of a slow jog in the morning kinda guy? No. Is he more of an exploding HIIT adventurer that is probably keeping high muscle confusion? Yes. The latter suggests more need for glycogen stores in the muscle with a strong rotation of glucose via the liver.

This is why I asked Baker and many other low carb athletes to please do more testing for us if they (heaven forbid) get injured or for some reason can’t exercise intensively for a period of time. I suspect in such cases if all other things were equal, their fasting glucose would drop. This is what happened to me when comparing my morning glucose in and out of marathon season.


Maybe the high blood glucose is a result of all that exercise. Is that good for him? I don't know. Baker's heading a movement right now. Try this, see what happens. More experimenting to see what happens if things are approached a little different--a month of a bit less protein, a more moderate exercise regime, to see what happens, wouldn't kill the guy, and if it resulted in lower blood glucose, it would give ammo against the naysayers. Right or wrong, some people are going to see those blood glucose numbers and run the other way, people who might have been helped but will see this as evidence against zero or even just low carb.

He goes on to describe Baker's lipid profile as being actually pretty good.
Reply With Quote
  #148   ^
Old Mon, May-07-18, 03:26
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I see several testable hypotheses here. One, everything's just swell. This can be tested by waiting five or ten years and seeing if he develops complications. I like the hypothesis that he can bring down his blood sugar with some modification of his carnivore diet/exercise regime a little better.
Reply With Quote
  #149   ^
Old Mon, May-07-18, 05:22
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,367
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

With everybody and his brother weighing in on Shawn's BG, adding his own analysis here. https://www.shawn-baker.com/the-mea...54sxfdtbqtju7eg
I'm not interested enough to read an explanation of this length, but have at it guys
Another comment from Ted Naiman I am interested in was apparently on Jimmy's new podcast, but I don't listen to Jimmy's many products.

Enough of Ted's concern can be found on Twitter and FB. From JM:

Quote:
Are you a fan of the carnivore diet? Family physician Dr. Ted Naiman, MD expressed his concerns about it right in the middle of Episode 11 of The KetoHacking MD Podcast with me and Dr. John Limansky today. Several of his patients who chose to do this meat-based nutritional approach on their own have started to exhibit some troubling health signs that cannot be ignored. Dr. Naiman did note that he is not totally against people doing something like this as a short-term hack, but he has seen very specific health markers in his patients that have done it for upwards of nine months that give him pause about endorsing it as a permanent way of eating. Listen to what he has to share in this snippet and then go check out the entire episode at KetoHackingMD.com, on Apple Podcasts/iTunes at TinyURL.com/KetoHackingMD, and wherever you listen to podcasts. #carnivore #diet #meat #health #lowcarb #protein #ketohacking #doctor #healthy
Reply With Quote
  #150   ^
Old Mon, May-07-18, 05:50
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I found a little Serendipity in Naiman's revealings. My sister just got some dna results, she came in homozygous for the MTHFR variant that boogers up folate metabolism. Naiman specifically mentioned people coming in with low folate levels. In an old thread on this forum Regina Wilshire discussed this as a possible issue on muscle-meat-only carnivore diets, not necessarily an argument vs. carnivore, more of an argument for some liver, eggs etc. Is this an issue for everybody? Maybe not. Should it be ignored as a possible issue? Probably not.

A few years ago I had the most purely manic episode of my life, before then the stronger manic episodes were mixed with more schizo- stuff like auditory hallucinations, the illusion that people could hear my thoughts and vice-versa. I was taking a number of cognition-related nutrients then, trying to see if I could shake something loose social anxiety wise. Afterwards I found a small study where creatine had an antidepressant effect, but the 2 out of 10 depressives in the study who were also bipolar switched to manic. MTHFR/folate drives methylation, and the synthesis of creatine demands more methylation than all the other methylation processes combined. Methylation produces homocysteine, and creatine supplementation does decrease homocysteine levels.

I guess you could make an argument that large amounts of red meat might decrease at least the creatine fraction of folate requirement. Who knows, maybe increased dietary creatine is a factor in some of those cases like Amber O'Hearn or Michaela Peterson where all or mostly beef diets look to be working vs. depression.
Reply With Quote
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.