That doesn't make sense. A substance that is wholesome and good for us in the absence of carbohydrate wouldn't just spontaneously turn toxic when carbohydrate is introduced. If anything, fat will mitigate the toxic effects of carbohydrate. In my opinion, the worst diet contains no fat and lots of carbs.

Martin,

Read the link I provided (herectical) and then let me know what you think. He lists the four diet zones. I have one of K's books, and he says better to go Japanese diet (low fat, high carb) than mixed diet, but high fat, low carb is the best. Dr K argues high fat and high carb is worst possible diet.

Here is a link on caffeine, which Ray Peat argues is thyroid healthy.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/caffeine.shtml

Yes there will be damage, but I don't think that glucose by itself overloads our anti-oxidation mechanism. I guess it depends on how much damage you are prepared to accept. I do not intend on living forever. I might as well enjoy the ride while I'm here. I enjoy eating some carbs as part of my diet.

Patrick

Good for you. But don't delude yourself about the nature of carbohydrate. It is toxic and it's merely a question of absolute quantity.

Thanks for the link Matt. Truly interesting reading (no sarcasm). He still sound like a person who wants to find good things in Caffeine and of course there are. But again, he is sidestepping the issue of chronic consumption.

He makes the case himself that "In this culture, what we desperately need is a recognition of the complexity of life...The truth is that we aren’t sure what they “aren’t essential” for. Until we have more definite knowledge about the organism I don’t think we should categorize things so absolutely as drugs or nutrients.".

It's complex and true chronic long term experiments have not been done. But the evidence toward the bad effects of chronic over stimulation (Caffeine or other stimulant) of the endocrine system is there.

Patrick

There are people in the world who have done well on a high carb, high fat, sufficient protein diet. But they ate that way from childhood. Whether the damage of a lifetime of SAD can be reversed through this same diet, that's another question. That's assuming there actually is any damage, I guess. It could just be a matter of genetic expression, in a lot of cases.
The theory that all carb is poison, to all people, doesn't sit well with me. Taubes points out that you can't assume, just because adding vitamin c to the diet may prevent scurvy, that insufficient vitamin c was the cause of scurvy in the first place. Switching to a very high fat, moderate protein diet reversed some "toxic" effects. Borderline high blood pressure, back pain, gut fat, etc. But I don't know for a certainty that it was the presence of the carb in my diet, or the (relative) absence of saturated fat, or the presence of trans fats, or omega 6 fatty acids, or the lack of any one of the nutrients rightnow is experimenting with. Even going back to the vitamin c, if carbohydrates cause the body to waste the stuff, this may just mean we were meant to eat carbohydrate foods that happen to be relatively high in vitamin c. That a diet that approximates the fasting metabolism is sparing of certain vitamins is after all pretty much a necessity after all, otherwise we'd die of deficiencies long before starvation.
That's what I like about eating a near-carnivorous diet; my biggest dilemma is whether or not I should eat the bones.

After reading not long ago about 'real broth' and how having the bones cooked in it made such a difference, I have seriously wondered if I should ask my local tiny grocer butchers for some bones. I mean to put in my pressure cooker with other stuff and make broth with. Is that a gross idea? Do you think they would think I was weird? Maybe I could tell them it was for my dog or something.

It just seems like another kind of potentially healthy supplement.

If I did this, what kind of bones should I ask for, any ideas?

Usually people use beef bones, or chicken bones. Ask the meat dept at your grocer for some soup bones. Save any chicken bones for cooking in water, to make broth. All the instructions on how to, are on the internet with a Google search.

I'm not sure why anyone would think you're weird. I've been making stocks my entire life -- and really any bones work. For chickens, just save the chicken carcass when you roast whole chickens. I collect bones off people's plates as well. For pork stock, neck bones and feet are best, but I don't waste pigs feet for stock Those I cook in sauerkraut. For beef stock, a mix of bones is best. Neck if you can get it. Tail is good as well. I cannot stand fish stock so I don't make it, but I'm sure it's pretty much the same principle.

Roasting the bones first brings out a lot more flavor. I personally just cook bones down without added vegetables, but I think most people add carrots, celery, onion, and bay leafs to their broths and stocks. I flavor my stocks for when I use them.

I use a pressure cooker and cook at 15 pounds for an hour, then let it cool down to room temperature naturally. I've read that this destroys nutrients, but it certainly makes for a flavorful stock. And it tastes MUCH better than bullion.

My husband is in excellent health - really healthy, lean, fit - he eats a lot of saturated fat with me, plus as I mentioned before starch - rice and potatoes mostly. He doesn't eat anything else apart from meat/veg/berries/fat/starch - all our added fat is from butter/tallow.

He was not that way on a high carb low fat diet which is the way we ate for awhile (vegan - me - horrid) - he did have a little meat at work in the day, but he gained belly fat eating tons of beans/rice/veg with very little added fat. Me I lost muscle and gained fat round my middle.

He is now leaner than ever eating lots of fat and starch.

So for him it is the animal fat content of the diet and eating natural starches that seems to work very well. However, he has never had a weight problem per se. He has eaten very well all his life.

However, in case that should incur mumbles of how it's ok for those without a broken metabolism, my own experience has been that I haven't ever been significantly overweight but right now on low-carb I am heavier than ever, and keep on slowly gaining. That just isn't right is it? I would say that my metabolism was faster when I first started low-carb than it is now. I eat high fat as well. I am too scared to start eating lots of potatoes, and I'm definitely not going to eat low-fat ever again, but I am starting to seriously wonder why I can no longer even eat a moderate amount of carbs (say from nuts) without gaining. When I first started low-carbing I could eat lots of nuts and veggies and berries and I would lose.

Just thinking aloud as usual - but I think it is relevant no?

Well Loops, I think you should really read Matt Stone's eZines here (membership is free). I truly believe that you would see the light.

Patrick

I don't know either. But what I do know with an unwavering certainty is that the removal of carbohydrate from my diet and the addition of fat meat to my diet returned me to good health in short order. I'm not the only one either. The removal of carbohydrate and the addition of fat meat produces the same result for everybody regardless of the starting diet unless of course the diet was already devoid of carbs and contained plenty of fat meat.

Loops, maybe some of the vegan stuff had metabolic effects that affect you gradually now even though you aren't eating that way (hard to say). Or you're getting older and your metabolism isn't allowing as much food as before, for reasons unrelated to diet.

But now that I think about it, I don't like that theory. Not that it's impossible, just that it's a little cultish to think that WayX is the right way even when results say its wrong.

There is a saying I like: "If what you're doing isn't working for you, do something else." It's hilariously obvious yet humans have such a problem with it. We do something, it doesn't work or stops working, so we just assume it'll change or we do it harder.

I'm not saying drop 'low-carb' per se, I'm just saying there's a zillion ways to 'do' lowcarb, from quantity of macronutrients, to percentages of macronutrients, to specific food choices or avoidances, to various prepackaged 'plans'. Whatever it is that you are doing now, if you are gradually gaining bodyfat on it, it doesn't sound like that's what's right for you. Probably it's not easy figuring out why, or what is (something that's taking me a long time to fathom but I'm probably just dim), but I'm an optimist, I think if one is willing to flex and experiment that answers can be found.

Well then why did I stop losing when I tried that? If I let my carbs get too low, I will not lose and will actually gain weight as do some others here. I have between 50-100 g of carbs each day, sometimes more. I did briefly try a mostly meat diet (yes, fatty meat) and I felt terrible and gained weight.