In Staying Power, it says that there's no need for carbohydrates, and mentions that a number of societies thrive on very low levels of plant food, but points out that they (that's plants, not carbs per se) are helpful in acid-alkali balance, so in the long term they help to maintain healthy bones. Meat and grains tend to be acid-forming, and many veggies alkaline-forming.



So, as I understand it, they're not saying that carbs are essential, but that there are health benefits to some of the substances found in plants, that just happen to have some carbs along with the other stuff. But fibre doesn't seem to be a particular concern. And it's not that you can't live without plants in your diet, but there are advantages to including some (and taste is one, but not the only one).

Larry and Mitra, I KNEW I could count on you guys for input! THANKS!!!

In part, it could be a simple matter of semantics. Carbs are not necessary for a healthy life, but a diet with some carbs (from certain vegetables), could be superior to one with no carbs at all, because of substances vegetables contain that animal foods do not. I believe Eades himself says something to this effect somewhere in one of his blog entries, that there is a tradeoff between the harm carbs can do on the one hand, and the positive things they can do (because of phytochemicals) on the other.

BawdyWench, you've already heard that Mike Eades is evolving toward the idea that the conventional wisdom of 25-35g/day of fiber per day might not be as necessary as we've all been told...there are some recent studies (drawn off the giant 'Nurses' Health Study') that examined fiber intake in large groups of women for many years. For instance, one study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncologists (ASCO) June meeting wasn't able to conclude that the 25-35g/day fiber intake level offered any more preventative benefits against breast and colon cancer development than fiber intakes of 10-15g/day. IOW, the jury is being asked to rethink fiber consumption in light of evidence newer than the dates of publication of either PP or PPLP.



Actually, it would be the other way around...the first 'fiber' man likely consumed was probably nuts, seeds and fruits like berries. Veggies (i.e. the wild stuff that preceeded cultivated vegetables) and wild grains came after that...but there is a lot of fiber in nuts and seeds, and I've recently been reminded how many seeds there are in black raspberries...



I don't think it's either PP or PPLP's 'ultimate goal,' although I do think both plans are very careful to lead people in a structured way to eating a broader range of foods as they gain control over their health issues. Why? It's a bit of marketing, and a bit of science, and a bit of reality. We are omnivores, opportunistic eaters, and most of us thrive on variety. I think it's suggested that people transitioning to maintenance can slightly increase their carb intake to increase long-term compliance; as Dodger notes, it helps with variety and for many people, variety is what will make things work long term. If people won't stick with some level of carb control because they're bored with the food choices--well, an eating plan will only be effective if people are willing to stick with it. If they keep taking 'vacations' from their plan because they just gotta have (fill in the blank), then long-term effects and compliance become issues. So it only makes sense to build in the ability to include those personal 'gotta have that' as the person makes progress with health improvements. Flexible plans are appealing. You've-gotta-give-this-up-forever plans are immediately daunting. Which would most people be most likely to choose? I'm guessing the flexible plan...

When it comes to transition/maintenance, the max recommended carb levels of 'approximately equal to or less than your minimum daily recommended protein intake' are still only a slight increase over Phase I-II 30-55g ECC levels, especially slight in the context of the typical American diet's carb levels of 250g+. And if that keeps people controlling their carbs while getting adequate protein, then it's not too hard to reconcile that approach at all, if the ultimate goal is compliance with the eating plan...

jmo, of course.

Well, this all makes sense. Carbs are not necessary, but they add variety and enable people to stay on plan, even in maintenance. I can accept that. I can also accept that scientific opinions can change over time when new information comes along.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I am a devoted fan of the Eades and their work, and this apparent disparity has always kind of bothered me.

early man probably also ate dirt or things that were dirty I should say - we might have to get to the plants themselves -- also unless you are eating all parts of the animal, including insects & grubs & such, you could be missing things that plants otherwise supply. He might have even eaten partially fermented stomach contents of herbivores.

We might also have different microflora than early man - and we've got to feed 'em. They will make Vit K for us -- but we've got to feed them with stuff we don't digest - like plant residues perhaps or a few sugars? We need to keep colonized with the benign so the malignant don't take over.

also - many years ago I read Linus Pauling & Vit C - we require it and we don't make it - we lost that ability long ago in contrast to most other animals - his theory was that we likely lost the ability because we were eating it in over-abundance over a long period of time - probably leaves - lots and lots of leaves - and berries.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles...-vitamin-c.html

i dont agree with that

well, lets state that humand dont need carbs

its been known that vitamine c was made from glucose, if we dont consume anymore carbs, we cant make any vitamine C, and boom we lost our ability in evolution

so - you are saying that proto-humans used to eat more carbs and make Vit C and then ate less carbs and THEREFORE lost the ability to make Vit C ?

they could still make glucose from selected amino acids if they really needed it to keep this pathway active.

and that this makes more sense than:
1) we used to make Vit C
2) we started eating a rich source of Vit C
3) we then, over time, lost the ability to make Vit C as individuals with that mutation did not have a disadvantage and had some sort of selective advantage

We lost our ability to do what?


Touche.

Back to the original questions in this post.
I think the "No carb vs. 25 grams per day" apparent inconsistency has been adequately dealt with. So on to the rest.The problem here is the meaning of the word "meat". In the last hundred plus years, we have gone from meat meaning EVERYTHING eatable in the animal to meaning JUST the muscles. There is an expression in Iowa, "every thing but the squeal" when telling what parts of the hog were used. For example, my dad loved "pickled pigs feet". Then the intestines were flushed out and then used as the casing for sausage. The sausage was everything else that was not cut up as specific cuts like hams, ribs, bacon and chops. There was/is even something called "head cheese" which is the flesh off the head that has been cooked so it falls off, then mixed with ?? and made into what looks like a chunk of cheese, but with pork inside.

We know that many vitamins are fat soluble and thus are stored in the fat in us and animals. Minerals will be in things like the thyroid glands (in the sausage? or head cheese? or ?? - but NOT wasted or made into pet food) so eating the WHOLE animal meant that you did not need the plant sources of those nutrients. The animal having eaten them has them stored in their body tissues. The Intuit survived the winter because of this storage of vitamins and minerals in the things they ate. Note, it is told that when the crew of Adamson (think that is the correct name) refused to eat some things raw, they got scurvy because the cooking destroyed the vitamin C in those parts, but Adamson ate the raw like the Intuit and did not.

This confuses me as it seems "upside down", but I to have some "issues" with salads. Mine being that they will "kick" on me, especially if eaten for supper. I pretty much have only one veggie, that is brockelly , though I will eat coleslaw and a few other things when I am not eating at home. I take lycopene (my tomato substitute) and several other supplements/vitamins/minerals to meet my anti-oxidant needs. I DO take ALL the recommended supplements in PPLP (that is 6, so you have to read carefully to get all of them since they are not always all listed together). I "wash" them down with a 16 Oz. glass of water which helps me get enough water for the day.
Here again is a problem with the meaning of a word, in this case "constipation". The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines constipation as "abnormally delayed or infrequent passage of usually dry hardened feces", while too many people just think it is very firm stools. In PPLP, the Drs. Eades have a Table that compares Man, Dogs, and Sheep (page 10) or man versus a carnivore and a herbivore. Of course, we compare MUCH more closely to the dog. And in the row titled "Volume of Feces" the man and dog have the same, Small-Firm, but the sheep has, Voluminous, and they are similar to cows.

Since less than 1% of our population are farmers, it is likely that over half of the population had NO idea what a cows feces are like. Remember they are ruminant herbivores - 100% veggies. The average stool is about the consistency of soft serve ice cream. The "firmest" I have ever seen would compare to soft peanut butter. Frequently, especially in the spring having eaten fresh new grass and spring onions, it is so liquid it can hardly be distinguished from a urine stream if it were not for the color. That for a human would be a BAD case of diarrhea, something we do NOT want!

I can speak with the voice of experience on "constipation" as I had it every time I traveled as a young man. When I started low-carbing it took a year to adjust my system and intake to where I am now, a place most would consider constipated. BUT not by the definition, just by the firmness of the stool. When I am able to maintain my normal routine, I am regular and do not have "dry" feces. Now they are very firm and vary from acorns to walnuts in size but pass with ease. I actually LIKE the stools that way. One wipe and I am done, barely anything on the tissue. I was trying increasing my vitamin C and a new supplement - OOPS! back to "peanut butter" stools, as my sister described them. HATE THEM!! takes forever to get wiped clean! UGH!!

Three things that seem to be critical to regular bowel function. WATER, of course!! FAT/OIL, which lubricates the plumbing well when you eat it in sufficient quantity. And MAGNESIUM, SO important that the Drs. Eades say that if they were asked to name JUST ONE supplement they would recommend, they would say MAGNESIUM! In fact, they have a whole chapter in PPLP just on magnesium, they consider it so important.

Lots of things can be used to soften the stool, but why do it if you are regular and can pass the stool with normal effort. I guess that since we are feed like a cow, we get used to "sh**ing" like a cow and think anything different is bad. When it is just a matter of changing and then getting used to the "new" way of working.

OFF-SUBJECT (sort of) story about adapting to a new way.
Everyone (almost) likes chocolate, and there have been recent studies released indicating beneficial things in coca/chocolate. BUT chocolate is loaded with sugar, just what we DO NOT NEED! Now somewhere I read that Montezuma, the Aztec emperor reputedly drank 50 cups a day at the time Hernando Cortes came to his court. But it was unsweetened, BITTER! Shopping for groceries one day, while going down the isle to get some olive oil I got stopped by the baking chocolate. So I looked at a package and it did not say sugar, just chocolate and cocoa. So thought "Why not buy some?" so I did. At home I tried a nibble, WOW!! it WAS BITTER!! So I thought "swill it in your mouth with some half and half." That cut the bitter to a tolerable level and after the first package I was eating small pieces as desert from time to time with not problem. I have now gotten so I can bite off a chunk a bit bigger than a chocolate "kiss" and often have it all gone and have only taken the initial sip plus a few more rather than a sip every few seconds like the beginning.

I got "taken off" whole milk gradually by my wife back in the day when fat was BAD. Before I thought skim milk tasted like chalk - still does now. I have now gone to half and half for my "dairy" drink. I had to prove to my sister that it has fewer carbs than whole milk - DUH! you have replaced half the milk with cream that is ALL fat, no lactose. AND it SURE tastes BETTER!!!

Time to end this "missive"

Had some the day before yesterday, with mustard.

Mixed with ??

?? = gelatin. (And salt and garlic.) If you cook bones with cartilage along with the head and the gelatin in them leeches off into the water. Or you can just add some unflavored gelatin to the mix.

Top Ten Nutritional Myths ...Number 3 deals with fiber.

Whether or not it's true he provides an interesting perspective and lots of interesting sources.

You know, the more I read and experience, the more I'm swayed that fiber really isn't as "necessary" as advertised.

Fascinating article. It's written in kind of a rebellious way (that's not the right word, but maybe you get what I mean), but it reinforces what I've been reading and thinking for the past several years.

Thanks so much for posting it.

I've been thinking about this alot since I poop 1-2 times daily now and that has NEVER been the way for me.I have always have been gassy and have that "full" feeling. Now, although I still have a gut, I don't feel it. I feel flat. Now I do eat my veggies because I love them. But if I ever want to do a fast. I would do the meat and egg fast. Drop the vegetables.

Hey Bawdy, I ate at a restaurant of the Weekend that would be so up your alley. It is called Ruth Chris's Steak house. It is rather pricey and it is a simi formal restaurant. But everything is ala-carte. I had 2 petite sirloins topped with shrimp medallians ( about3 shrimp per medallian ) I had a side of aspargus with hollandaise sauce. The reason I said this would be up your alley is you could have just had the steak and shrimp without further negotiating. I did use this as an ocasion to cheat...I split a creme broulee with my husband. Hey, it was our anniversary okay. I probably had about 4 lucious teaspoons. There's got to be a low carb version of this.