Unless we WANT to gain weight. ie Sumo wrestlers..

Exactly 2bthinner..

There are times where gaining would be advantageous (pregnancy and for babies )....It would pretty easy to guess that anyone here on this board though is not looking to do that.

People could keep their carbs levels low enough to be in balance (not gaining) or even losing though...as many here on the board do.

Breast milk macronutrient composition studies I've read show consistency between populations that are otherwise consuming different diets - that is they're fairly consistent for fat, protein and carbohydrate. Differences are found in micronutrients - ie Japanese women tend to have higher levels of omega-3 in their BM than we do; Indian (subcontinent) women tend to have more folate and less B12.

Over time studies show that composition changes as a baby grows - the ratio of fat, carbohydrate and protein changes as growth progresses in the infant. Energy as percentage of calories - protein declines, fat increases, carbohydrate declines from 3 to 6 months; but in absolute terms, by grams, protein increases slightly (higher weight = higher protein requirement), fat is stable and carbohydrate decreases slightly.

The most pressing demand for an infant is fat & cholesterol - it is what drives brain development....without adequate fat, infant brains can't grow properly.....carbohydrate provides the ability to lay fat, energy and additional fat for the brain, and protein is for lean mass development and found in BM at levels based on the infant weight - in absolute terms, over time, protein increases by grams, carbohydrate is the macronutrient that compensates and declines as protein rises and fat remains stable for quite some time and then it slowly declines.........I can't remember which study it was, but one I read found that by one-year, in a BM-exclusive infant, protein is by weight and about 15-20% of calories, fat is approximately 45-50% of calories and carbohydrate is approximately 35-40% of calories.

I'm mostly french, but have 1/16th Attakapas Indian in me. The Attakapas were known to be canibals. So, if people like me would eat like their ancestors, there would be less people around to argue about diets.......

Thought experiment: Why would one die, what would cause their demise, if they eliminate carbohydrate?

Growth hormone increases lean mass and bone density, it decreases fat stores.....thus, insufficent on its own, for proper infant growth and development.

We don't know that gaining weight is normal for women who are pregnant. However, since they do, we assume it is normal. But then, not because it's normal that we should help it along by eating carbohydrate. If anything, eating carbohydrate during pregnancy is harmful to both the mother and fetus because of its effect on insulin and subsequent internal nutrient status. We say that carbohydrate causes internal starvation, it's no less true for pregnant women.

Baby: 6-8 pounds
Placenta: ~2 pounds
Amniotic fluid: ~2 pounds
Uterus: ~2 pounds
Maternal breast tissue: ~2 pounds
Maternal blood volume increase : 4 pounds
Fluids in maternal tissue: 4 pounds
Maternal fat and nutrient stores for lacation: 5-7 pounds

Total = 27 to 30 pounds

Pregnancy itself induces a state of insulin resistance specifically to allow for weight gain in the mother (laying fat for lactation needs) and flow of nutrients to the fetus for growth and development.

ETA: Excess carbohydrate in pregnancy is a problem.

I'd really like to know your credentials in making statements like these. Or is this just your opinion as a man?

I can't see how it could not be considered normal. Even women who fight against it still gain. That true pregnancy weight does release post partum pretty easily. Most women will gain real weight in the process too though...which is most likely diet related.

...but I will say that there is a strong drive to eat carbohydrates during pregnancy. Fats and proteins are often nauseating to women...especially early on.

My credentials are irrelevant. Are your credentials relevant when you speak of manly things?

There is a strong drive to eat carbohydrate anyway. Be you a man, woman, child, whatever. Carbohydrate is addictive. Pregnancy merely exacerbates this addiction.

There is a condition called gestational diabetes. I have a hard time believing that it's a normal state. If diabetes is normal for a pregnant woman, why is it abnormal for anybody else?

Zero carb is sustainable. That's what we've concluded. Now we're just trying to score on side points of little importance.

I do not speak of things relevant to men only.

I do not have an opinion on things that I have no experience with.

ML and a few other ZCers have this bizarre notion that carbohydrates must be exactly either 100% good for you or 100% bad. This is completely ridiculous and also very dangerous at the same time. I owned him badly here in another board with how I defined what food was. He pretty much left the thread there after.

I think I can extrapolate further upon what is food and what is not. First, we need a definition of what food is before we can even examine it. But, it appears that it is the literal defining of what food is that is giving us trouble right now. I believe that we must define food differently for each person. I don't like to think of absolutes and prefer to define things probabilistically.

Perhaps we can come up with a measure that will let us know how frequent we can partake in such food that will allow us within reason to continue our lives with the same or better health than before eating such food. There are a multitude of factors that need to be looked at here before assigning any probabilities. Given that nearly no one is sensitive to eating animals, we need to look at the carbohydrate and its ability to drive insulin, which leads to other deleterious effects. This sensitivity to insulin is probably the greatest factor in determining how a potential food is going to feed the body. Now, this sensitivity can depend on a number of things - how acclimated is your particular culture/heritage to carbohydrate consumption, how refined has the carbohydrate been in your diet thus far in your life, what your mother ate during pregnancy, etc...

An example might help here. For instance, these islanders mentioned above appear to be lean and healthy on their high-carb diets. So, depending on what age they are, a tuber that they eat may be able to provide them with proper nutrition say 70% of the time. If they increased their carbohydrate consumption to something like 90% they would surely suffer and their health would deteriorate. We could label such tuber 70% food for native islander. This same tuber though, could cause ZCers, who are extremely sensitive to insulin's effects, some damage immediately and must be eaten 0% of the time and thus be labeled "non-food". You can put all foods on a individualistic scale of this sort. Raw meat on everyone's scale is going to be around 100%, meaning everyone can eat this anytime they want without consequence. Pure sugar may range from 0-40 depending on the person. Some people can just get away with eating whatever they want.

This is an extremely broad generalization and the numbers here are meaningless and are just used to make a point. This is also not to say that any diet besides just meat could be optimal. I think the optimal diet is right around 100% meat. The point I'm making here is that stuff that we eat "within reason" will provide ample nourishment with no health problems at the moment they are eaten should be considered food for that individual. For some of us, eggs, cheese and cream all vary a small amount in the proportion that they should be eaten. Some are 0 and some are much greater.

Also, if we are starving and have not eaten for days, then nearly everything becomes food. Our body will be nourished to a better state almost immediately by the ingestion of anything, even refined sugar. So the tuber that was 0% now becomes 100%. I think long-distance bike riders will eat cookies and the such once they get tired. The body is likely burning everything quite fast at that stage.

I subsequently created a hypothetical situation and posed a question to easier see what exactly other ZCers thought of their "non-food" carbohydrates.

Ok here's the simple scenario I created-
Lets say you get stranded on a deserted island somehow and the only thing to eat is this endless fruit orchard where you can eat whatever fruit you want. Lets also say, there is no source of meat on this island and that you will not get rescued for 6 months. Do you think eating the fruit will increase your chances of surviving?

and here's one response I got