Results from a 30-day, all animal product, near zero carb escapade…
This 30 day experiment was pretty dang easy.
Very clear cut benefits include, first and foremost, dramatic improvement in digestion. Having to basically digest one food group and one food group only at each meal is effortless. I feel that much of the benefit of the all-meat diet can be attributed to this ? same with what many report of a vegan diet. No bloating, no gas, no pain, no indigestion, no feelings of being overly stuffed. My stomach felt like a furnace. I could have easily eaten a 1 pound steak and gone jogging immediately afterwards.
My skin also got extremely clear ? ?as clear as I’ve ever seen your skin? were the comments I got with friends on Christmas yesterday. Skin all over my body got much better. Little sunspots and blemishes all disappeared during the 30 days, and seemed to be getting even better as I was switching to primarily beef.
This brings up another point. I would like to personally thank Bruce K., who has left dozens of comments throughout this escapade. Bruce is a strong advocate of a diet that is extremely low in polyunsaturated fat, and doing an all-meat diet did allow me to really feel the difference between fat types. Pork was less desirable, more likely to make me nauseous, and eventually got cut out. Chicken and duck were terrible when I ate them, and I normally love these foods. My stomach also did not feel as good with these. Christmas yesterday and leftovers this morning (turkey and more turkey) also reminded me of how unappealing and more difficult-to-digest these meats are ? especially with that fatty, oven-roasted skin. All of the above foods are much higher in polyunsaturated fats than beef, cheese, butter, cream, and other staples that I eventually gravitated towards throughout the 30-day adventure.
Before the journey began I also had some tooth sensitivity, which really had me baffled seeing that I was following a sugarfree diet prior to no carbing. For the first 10 days my teeth were killing me, which had me even more baffled. Then, suddenly, the pain disappeared and never returned. I even went 4 days without brushing to see just how well-defended my teeth really were. They fared great.
Plus I lost weight, mostly fat, with an extreme flattening of the stomach ? while not feeling hungry once, or exercising. This is an exciting discovery for many reasons. It did strengthen the ?insulin traps calories? idea that I cover in many posts and some of the work I’ve been doing lately on the side. An all-meat diet is pretty much a sure thing for weight loss. My weight loss totaled between 4 and 5 pounds ? almost exactly 1 pound per week ? the perfect pace.
So the all-meat diet has some clear potential. It’s at least worth trying if you have:
1) Tooth decay/tooth pain
2) An inflammatory bowel disorder, such as IBS, Crohn’s, or Ulcerative colitis
3) Obesity
4) Acne
5) An addiction, particularly to sugary and floury foods
I also seem to feel lowered allergenicity and bronchial constriction upon exercising. This is not as clear as some other things, and I did have more nasal congestion throughout. There is potential application there for sure.
Lowering blood pressure is also just about a sure thing with an all-meat diet.
This is just the short list of potential uses of the diet. Of course many people follow this diet religiously and have all kinds of health improvements, swearing by it as their new way of life. This cannot be discredited. It is a real shame when people write this diet off as dangerous, when historically there is much information suggesting otherwise. A lot of people who could benefit from such a diet are kept from it, thinking that it’s akin to committing suicide or at least playing Russian Roulette. I think that’s a little dramatic, but it is quite a big shift. Still, it has great potential. For people to be closed-minded to it is unfortunate.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that anything about the diet suggested that it was somehow the ?optimal human diet. I felt good on it, but let’s not get too carried away. I do believe that for some people with certain health conditions, it could be the best option. If I had chronic indigestion, was 100 pounds overweight, a serious overeater, and prediabetic, I would not hesitate to take up the all-meat diet.
The biggest question is whether or not healing can take place, someday allowing a person to return to a mixed diet. In other words, does it improve insulin sensitivity so that carbs are better tolerated after the diet’s been followed for a month or two? If so that would be absolutely great. Few will banish themselves to nothing but meat for a lifetime. Few CAN banish themselves to nothing but meat for a lifetime, and if one returns to a more ?normal? diet and is wounded by it more than ever, then a meat diet is probably something that one should be more hesitant about jumping into. Nah mean?
Same goes for digestion. Will my digestion, even though it was excellent on meat alone, be worse than before starting? Are all my carb and fiber-fermenting intestinal bacteria gone? I don’t have much to tell you at this point, but I’m giving it my all. Instead of tiptoeing back into carbs, I’m diving into them full-throttle.
Same goes for weight as well. Will I gain the four pounds of fat I lost in an instant and then go up another 5 by the end of February? Is this just another Tom Venuto, Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle yo-yo program? That still remains to be seen. If I balloon up to 186 (current weight 172), like I did after following Venuto’s program for two weeks (yes Tom, I lost 2 pounds a week just like you said, but was flippin? starving and became a maniac afterwards, eating 4,500 calories a day for a month ? it’s what obesity researchers call ?rebound hyperphagia?). Will it be a ?Wind River Diet,? taking a strikingly-lean figure and adding 15 pounds of fat and water to it in 10 days?
Well, these conclusions are becoming anti-climatic as many of the biggest questions need follow-up observation. My hunch is that some healing took place, that I will not balloon up to worse off than I started, that my digestion will be better on a mixed diet than it was before I started, that my teeth will not start aching again within days, etc.
And you better believe I’ll be banishing myself into the wilderness with nothing but pemmican for at least a month some day. I owe that to myself after trying to do such a thing on mostly oats and cornmeal, lying awake at night to the point of insanity with an unquenchable hunger. That spoiled the whole experience man!
Thanks for following along everyone. Except for me, you are the best!
Oh yes, and also worth mentioning is that my libido left the building and what they say about low-carb diets and stank breath is the truth man. JFC. I looked good, but with raunchy breath and no desire to fornicate, what exactly is the point?
Why is it, do you think, that pork is so beloved by so many? I always here chefs saying, “oh pork, my best friend..pork fat this, bacon this”.
Is it just that the birds and pork with more polyunsaturated fats are less desired because of the all-meat diet –and do you think they would fit well with a differently balanced diet? Or like..are you going to just eat beef more often now, or no.
Pork is amazing stuff. Especially really high-quality pastured pork.
But yes, on an all-meat diet I really lost interest in all meats high in polyunsaturated fat.
There’s probably not much inherently wrong with fat from these animals, but the last thing most people need is more polyunsaturated fat. The typical American has something like an 11 to 1 ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 on the cellular level – a phenomenon triggered by eating too much omega 6. Should be more like 1 to 1. 2 to 1 tops.
For this reason, beef, lamb, game, fish and dairy are probably better fat sources all things considered.
The breath goes away, and the libido comes back…in spades ;)
Way to go – glad you kept an open mind and gave it a shot!
I suspected that, but unfortunately I’ve only got 65 hours to get my shiz together for my ‘special someone’ whom I haven’t seen since I was eating plants.
Hey Tracy! My name’s Ben. How you doin’?
Hi Matt,
i can tell you that the positive effects will not last forever ;) It depends on how your diet will be in future. I have been there and have figured out that starches are the problem, so i cut the most out. Now my diet is only meat, eggs, cheese, cream and some veggies. If you want to keep the positives you probably have to cut them too.
Way to go Matt!
Some very keen obsevations.Although the libido thing was the oposite for me (:
Scott
This is great stuff, Matt! I’ve recently discovered your blog, just in time for the start of FUMP. I’m a huge proponent of Weston A. Price principles and personal research, so way to go! I’m curious about your food budget for the last month. Did it go up, down or stay somewhat the same?
“Will my digestion, even though it was excellent on meat alone, be worse than before starting? Are all my carb and fiber-fermenting intestinal bacteria gone?”
I’ve found that restricting fiber makes me able to tolerate it more. Apparently there is a threshold. Eliminating fiber also reduced hunger and eliminated food cravings. So, you don’t want to eat too much fiber. For some people, it is best not to eat any fiber until their body’s able to heal (months or years). Keeping fiber pretty low seems like a good idea for most people, regardless,
“I don’t have much to tell you at this point, but I’m giving it my all. Instead of tiptoeing back into carbs, I’m diving into them full-throttle.”
You said you would try tapioca and some other things when your 30-day challenge was over. Tapioca is ridiculously low in fiber and PUFAs, so that would probably be the best for allowing the stomach to heal, along with potatoes, organic white sushi rice, and maybe cornstarch. Whole grains are stomach destroys and most of them also contain rancid fat, as do most dry beans, like chickpeas.
“My hunch is that some healing took place, that I will not balloon up to worse off than I started, that my digestion will be better on a mixed diet than it was before I started, that my teeth will not start aching again within days, etc.”
The restriction of fiber causes healing and weight loss, in my experience. With low-fiber or no-fiber carbs, the hunger and cravings will quickly go away, just like what you’re describing. So I don’t think it’s the meat, per se. It’s fiber and PUFA restriction that causes hunger suppression, elimination of cravings, a loss of weight, and improved digestion. PUFAs are bad news, in general. We need very little PUFAs, esp adults. Pregnant or nursing women and children need like 0.1-0.5% PUFAs by calories. Most eat 10 to 50 times that. Here is a great paper by Chris Masterjohn on just how much we need so-called EFAs.
“The true requirement for EFA during growth and development is less than 0.5 percent of calories when supplied by most animal fats and less than 0.12 percent of calories when supplied by liver. On diets low in heated vegetable oils and sugar and rich in essential minerals, biotin, and vitamin B6, the requirement is likely to be much lower than this.” He also says “For women who are seeking to conceive, pregnant, or lactating, the EFA requirement may be as high as one percent of calories. In other healthy adults, however, the requirement is infinitesimal if it exists at all.”
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/PUFA-Special-Report.html
Matt,
You said that you started noticing the benefits of eating less PUFAs right away. I have read from other sources that it takes a while to get PUFAs out of the body (maybe like two years) once they are in. Is it reasonable to expect benefits from limiting PUFAS so soon?
When you eat beef instead of chicken you will always feel better. It’s the nutrients. The PUFAs in chicken are not damaging in, it’s just veg. oils, junkfood, etc.
The raunchy breath: Perhaps you were dehydrated because of eating too much cheese (esp. salt in excess is dehydrating).
“When you eat beef instead of chicken you will always feel better. It’s the nutrients.”
What nutrients are in beef that are not in in chicken, eggs, seafood, pork, and other animal foods? The reason you feel better with beef is that it’s lower in PUFAs. Like 2-3% vs 11-25% for chicken, eggs, pork, and fatty fish.
“The PUFAs in chicken are not damaging in, it’s just veg. oils, junkfood, etc.”
Then try eating a diet high in chicken necks, chicken backs, pork belly, pork necks, fish eggs, salmon, and sardines. See what happens. Having too much PUFAs is harmful, regardless of the source, I think. You will have better health and digestion by avoiding chicken. The idea that you can’t get nutrients in chicken that you could get in beef is not very believable. You don’t need red meat for any nutrients. If you’re saying there is not enough nutrients in chicken neck and back to survive, or just eating the skin by itself, then why eat chicken at all? It’s either too low in fat or it’s much higher in PUFAs than beef.
Matt you talked about problems with your teeth. Since I started LC about 2 1/2 years ago I have increasing problems with dental calculus. I’ve never had any cavities despite a lot of sodas and others sugary stuff (before LC of course). I’ve had calculus before but it’s not getting better with LC, quite to the contrary. Any ideas?
are the polyunsaturated fats in chicken and pork really that high to avoid? I mean maybe don’t only eat these for the rest of your life but come on; if you’re eating butter, cheeses and other things high in saturated fat, would it really make a huuuge difference if you ate meat from many other sources then beef? I mean, not every other culture obviously eats beef only and can still show excellent signs of health (like cultures never having experienced the western diet)
I did some quick reading on the internet, and I’m getting price’s book soon, but i believe what seems most probable is that tooth decay is a nutrient deficient problem. Sven, do you think you eat enough fat-soluble vitamins? And if you do eat carbs – are you eating them from vegetables or do you eat bread and other things made with flour etc.; there’s more risk factors on this site
http://www.curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1005583
might be of some interest to anyone
man, am i alone on this, or is it astounding how vitamins can effect people? Getting the right amounts or not.
I think teeth and acne (or skin problems) are huuge indicators of a problem or disturbance in the body – i mean skin is our largest organ, and teeth we need to eat. They both better be healthy.
my problem is less of concern with teeth and more with acne. dammit, i just want to find a diet that will help it disappear and so I’m experimenting now with the low carb; as high fruit helped to some extent but eventually caused more acne to accumulate on my forehead. anyone have any interesting things on acne..matt, did you ever have acne? haha
Never believe to a self called guru ;) (PUFAs)
“Sven, do you think you eat enough fat-soluble vitamins? And if you do eat carbs – are you eating them from vegetables or do you eat bread and other things made with flour etc.”
I should be geeting enough fat-soluble” vitamins. I eat lots of butter and other high fat dairy (like mascarpone with more than 80% fat), 0-2 eggs a day and small amounts of liver and other organ meats. I try to avoid grains/grain products.
My main carb sources are peeled potatoes, some fruits, orange juice and vegetables.
Yeah dude I would do some heavy reading, it could be something small even in your diet. You could try taking out different things and see the effect. Check out that site or something, or maybe read some Weston Price books? He has some books on having perfect teeth, haha.
“are the polyunsaturated fats in chicken and pork really that high to avoid? I mean maybe don’t only eat these for the rest of your life but come on; if you’re eating butter, cheeses and other things high in saturated fat, would it really make a huuuge difference if you ate meat from many other sources then beef?”
Chicken fat has 10x more PUFAs than beef fat. Pork has 4-6x more. Nobody said you should never eat chicken, but I wouldn’t eat it every meal or every day like some people. Nor fatty fish. Many people like beef more than chicken, fish, pork, etc. People doing zero-carb generally seem to pick red meat over pork, fowl, and fish. Even when they get naturally raised pork like Matt, pork has different effects on the body than red meat. It’s not just an issue of PUFAs, but the biochemistry and effects. If nothing else, beef tends to have more fat than pork, chicken, fish, etc. So, unless you are adding fat from other foods, it would probably work best within a low-carb diet.
“I mean, not every other culture obviously eats beef only and can still show excellent signs of health (like cultures never having experienced the western diet)”
Research shows that limiting PUFAs helps protect agaisnt toxins, pollution, free radicals, bacteria, aging, etc. It’s not just an issue of being healthy. Anybody can be healthy if they stop eating junk, fast food, man-made chemicals, etc. But who will best be resist toxic pollution, stress, and other challenges? Those who are not over-loading themselves with far more PUFAs than they need (like 5-10g a day). Many people will eat that much in one meal or snack, by eating stuff like nuts, seeds, mayonnaise, fried chicken, bacon, fatty fish, etc. It makes sense not to eat more PUFAs than we need, and the amount needed by healthy adults is “infinitesimal if it exists at all.”
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/PUFA-Special-Report.html
are polyunsaturated fats different in grass fed and pasture raised animals, though; what about in wild boar and things like that, game, etc.
I know that grass fed beef tends to have much less fat on average
Oh yeah, I was suggesting that, like, not eating chicken all the time. I get why americans must have skewed poly-fat levels, and how eating meats higher in these fats could effect them, but it’s also the huge other part of their diet(with all of the vegetable oils). One out ways the other, and so it probably would not be a huge effect if you were to extremely limit your polys from all other sources other then meat on your levels. And you said people even lean more towards beef when they do this, so maybe that’s significant :o)
-chloe
Great commentary everyone. Where do I begin?
The food budget was almost precisely $100 per week and falling as my consumption was starting to decline. Similar to normal.
I don’t think polyunsaturated fats are outright villanous, but they are much more of a problem now after decades of veggie oil consumption. They accumulate on the cellular level. We know the levels are getting higher and higher and are way above normal. Eating more poly’s, due to omega 6 and oxidation is the last thing people need more of.
What Bruce pointed out about steering away (no pun intended) from poly meats and coming to prefer beef is absolutely obvious on an all-meat diet as far as I’m concerned. Chicken and turkey skin being the worst from a digestive standpoint.
On tooth decay, I tend to side more with Melvin Page than Weston A. Price. There is much evidence suggesting that lack of nutrients has little to do with tooth decay. In fact, doing a rice diet would probably help most people clear up tooth decay. It’s more about ‘body chemistry’ as Page discovered.
If there is tooth pain and tooth decay, something is seriously wrong. If you get tooth decay even though you can brush twice a day and go to the dentist, imagine what bacteria and yeast are able to do to your digestive tract where you cannot use any tools other than antibiotics to keep them at bay. My diet as a kid was very nutritious but also contained a lot of sugar. My teeth practically ‘melted in my mouth, not in my hand.’ Eating tons of fresh fruit, vegetables, juices, etc. and doing a lot of cleanses and things cleared my tooth decay right up, just like what happened on all meat after 2 weeks.
And yes, I feel much better than before the start of the diet after being off of it for a week now. My teeth are great, I haven’t gained an ounce (despite eating 500 grams of carbs per day for the first 4 days). My skin is still close to perfect. I have tons of energy. My digestion is awesome.
I feel quite confident that healing took place, and since I’ve experimented with no fiber diets in the past without such dramatic improvements, I can’t attribute it all to fiber removal.
But fiber has no place in a messed up digestive tract in large quantities. I don’t care what our ancestors did or did not eat. They weren’t physically and psychologically damaged by high-sugar, low-nutrient, chemical-laden, processed, oxidized, food – nor were the parents that handed them their heredity.
Oh yes, and stank breath. It got worse when I reduced caloric intake, cut salt, and began eating only red meat. That’s when the stank peaked. I wouldn’t blame it on cheese or dehydration.
And thanks Bruce for calling out the absurdity of the red meat nutrient content argument. Lack of nutrients in chicken and pork is not what causes bellyahce, nausea, and keen disinterest in those foods that becomes increasingly apparent as you go on an all-meat bender. OWWWWW!
Right now I am reading “The Thyroid Gland” by R. McCarrison.
He doesn’t seem to be much int the meat business: “Thus Watson has shown that in rats fed an exclusive diet of meat the gland continues in a state of active secretion with a loss of stored-up colloid; and if the diet is persisted in pathological effects may be produced. These are evidenced by some degree of cell exhaustion from continued hyperactivity which may lead to symptoms of sub-thyroidism. Hence it is that a mixed diet containing an abundance of vegetable is the natural und most appropriate food for man.” … “…as occur in an exclusive meat diet in which the iodine-content is very low. Under these circumstances the gland’s reserve of iodine-containing colloid is soon exhausted, the vesicles are emptied and become smaller in size and shrunken into various shapes … which is followed by degenerative changes in the parenchyma cells, atrophy, and it may be a diminution in size of the whole organ.”
I just started reading the book, but thought that quite interesting.
Yes, i did a rice diet for 1 week and my teeth get clear, my skin started to glow ;)
Chloe, I agree it would go a long way to improve health if you just eliminated all high-PUFA vegetable oils and foods which contain them, like commercial mayonnaise, salad dressing, fried food, etc. Most oils used in restaurants are high in PUFAs, like soy, corn, peanut, canola, sunflower, safflower, etc.
Also, a lot of people over-eat nuts and seeds IMO. Primitives did not eat large amounts of nuts typically. If they did, they were probably things like coconuts that are low in PUFAs. Nobody could eat a lot of nuts if they had to gather and shell them by hand. Nuts are very prone to rancidity, unless kept in the shell, and refrigerated, or used quickly. They also have anti-nutrients. Most nuts are high in PUFAs (mostly omega-6). I would be very cautious of shelled nuts, since they quickly turn rancid, and are quite easy most most to overeat. Fiber is yet another problem with them.
But you have a point that I would agree with – eating chicken would be superior to nuts, seeds, and PUFA vegetable oils most definitely. Eliminating PUFA oils, and the foods that they’re derived from would probably help a lot. I think it’s better to go beyond that and also limit animal foods that are high in PUFAs. It seems Chris Masterjohn came to the same conclusion pretty much.
Sven,
Thanks for the McCarrison quote. That is excellent. Doing an all-meat diet does feel like a train headed for exhaustion if continued for too long. Can’t deny it’s therapeutic benefit in the short term though.
“What Bruce pointed out about steering away (no pun intended) from poly meats and coming to prefer beef is absolutely obvious on an all-meat diet as far as I’m concerned. Chicken and turkey skin being the worst from a digestive standpoint.”
I also find they’re less satisfying. For ex: I could quickly eat two chicken legs (two thigh and two drumsticks), before I feel satisfied. That’s like 600 Calories or so. I would be more satisfied by 8 oz of fatty ground beef or lamb, which have about the same calories, but more fat to protein ratio. I eat chicken a few times a month, but only the air-chilled kinds, like Whole Foods or MBA Smart Chicken. I find it tastes much cleaner and fresher. Most chicken in the USA is enhanced with solution, not the air-chilled. I like it boiled with the bones and skin. I remove the meat and put the broth away to cool. Then I add fats like butter, because the boiling removes most of the fat. This is considerably easier to digest IMO than a chicken with all the fat.
I’ve noticed many people besides Matt on zero-carb or raw paleo diets seem to eat mostly red meats and lean seafood (crab, squid, shrimp, scallops, oysters, clams, cod, pollock) – not a lot of people that eat eggs, poultry, pork, and salmon as a dietary staple. When you eliminate carbs completely, I think it becomes even more important to limit PUFAs. Most people do this instinctively, IMO.
“When you eliminate carbs completely, I think it becomes even more important to limit PUFAs.”
I thought PUFAs and carbs in combination are especially problematic. Why should PUFAs cause problems on a zero-carb-diet? Inuit consumed quite some PUFAs with very little carbs.
Matt: Can you recommend any books by Melvin page?
I found something interesting about calculus:
Sir,- In response to the letter of B. Skinner (BDJ2003; 195: 231) I have also noted the increase in calculus formation in patients on high protein diets such as the Atkins diet. I have a relatively high proportion of vegetarians in my practice and in contrast these patients produce little if any calculus.
Part of my clinical examination includes the measurement of saliva pH and as a generalisation vegetarians have an alkaline pH of 7-8.5 whilst the patients on high protein diets are around the 6-6.5 range unless they are taking supplements to compensate for the stress of a high protein diet. I suspect that the answer to this lies in the body’s reaction to acideamia.
If the body becomes acidic it will bring into action the buffering systems, one of which is the phosphate system. To make phosphate available the body will break down bone and release both calcium and phosphate. If the blood has an increased concentration of free calcium and phospate then so will the saliva. A combination of free calcium, phosphate and a pH of 6-6.5 in the saliva will encourage calculus formation.
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v195/n9/full/4810683a.html
While I am not on a high protein diet my saliva pH is most likely not alkaline.
I think I had read on the weston price website an article about osteoporosis which said that to make phosphate, you need phosphorus, which meat supplies – most likely for this reason. And so if you are getting phosphorus, there should be no problem with breaking down the bones.
I also don’t think there’s really a “high protein diet” per say, not naturally anyway (you’d have to reduce a loooot of fat) – for example even half of the content of a steak without the fat cut off is marbled with fat of some sort. That’s why people are all about lean and low fat shit lately and I think it’s very silly to consider this healthy, you know, if you’re extracting something from a food that is probably there for a reason.
Atkins also had dieters who weren’t getting sufficient calories – hence first weight loss followed by weight gain; his program is only one approach to a low-carb diet.
I don’t know why there would be anything wrong with general saliva pH. If you are chewing on meat all the time – your acidity in your saliva will surely raise(or..”lower”). Just like some people eat a ton of greens and their stomach acidity also get’s more acidic. It’s all in a matter of adjustment, I think.
-Chloe
Your Body is Your Best Doctor by Melvin Page is an outstanding book. One of my favorites.
There is much more to the picture of pH than is commonly thought. When I was predominantly vegetarian I noticed massive fluctuations in pH from day to day. I don’t keep track anymore, but knowing how stabilizing protein can be to the immune system, I tend to think it’s more of an asset than a liability in and of itself.
I also have trouble believing that a low-carb diet consisting of natural foods would somehow cause bone loss unless there was something terribly wrong with you before going into it.
“I thought PUFAs and carbs in combination are especially problematic. Why should PUFAs cause problems on a zero-carb-diet?”
High-fat and high-carb is fattening, esp high-PUFA. If you eat high carb, but low fat or mostly coconut oil, it would be a lot less fattening. And maybe if you ate zero-carb, you could lose weight even on a high-PUFA diet (like Herman Taller’s). But based on Matt’s (and other people’s) experience, PUFAs are still not an ideal energy source, and you definitely do not want or need a lot of them.
“Inuit consumed quite some PUFAs with very little carbs.”
I have not seen any believable data that shows they ate high-PUFAs. I suspect the Eskimos ate 10% PUFAs at most. They also ate many organs of the animal and cooked the meats in water (or not at all). Many low-carbers eat muscle meat exclusively, so very few would eat the brain, tongue, marrow, liver, kidney, thymus, pancreas, eyes, testicles, stomach, etc. Maybe the fact they ate “very little carbs” is why they could tolerate more PUFAs. And they lived in a pristine area, unlike today’s people. They lived a different lifestyle and had a different environment. So, you can’t say their diet would be ideal in a polluted city, for someone who sits at a desk most of the day, etc.
“But based on Matt’s (and other people’s) experience, PUFAs are still not an ideal energy source, and you definitely do not want or need a lot of them.”
I agree, I just wondered if you had some biochemical reasoning.
Matt wrote:
“I also have trouble believing that a low-carb diet consisting of natural foods would somehow cause bone loss unless there was something terribly wrong with you before going into it.”
I agree. I fact there are studies that show protein has a strong positive correlation with bone strength.
I am just wondering about my calculus. Probably high phospor and calcium intake plays a role.
Who eats a high-protein diet except body builders? Some low-carb dieters eat high protein and low fat, but they’re misled. Natives didn’t eat high-protein, because they knew it caused disease without lots of fat and/or carbs to balance it. Check out Stefansson’s Bellevue Study. He came down with weakness, nausea, and diarrhea after one day eating lean meat with 44% protein or more by calories. His trouble was cured in one day of fatty meats with 19-22% protein. (about 60-66% less total protein than the lean meat diet). Excess protein will cause disease very rapidly, because the body can’t eliminate all the nitrogen waste products.
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/87/3/651.pdf
I am not talking about high protein diets, but protein in general. That study shows a positive correlation between protein and bone mass in children.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/82/5/1107
It’s a study by some guys who want to prove that a diet high in fruits/vegetables is good and a diet high in protein is bad for your bones. They didn’t succeed imho.
Matt,
you have written that your morning bad breath was gone on zero carbing. How is it now, as you re-introduced some carbs back? Did you have a layer on your tongue and it is now gone?
At the very beginning my morning breath was gone. By the third week I started having really raunchy breath.
After bingeing on white rice to get out of ketosis, my breath got much better within two days. Some color has returned to my tongue as well.
Now that it’s been two weeks since th end of the diet, I still feel better, weigh less, have better digestion, etc. I have less hunger, less cravings, etc.
I’m fairly certain that some healing occurred, despite some of the negatives I encountered.
I would be hesitant about continuing it month after month after month as if it was “the only healthy way to eat.”
I think the trouble you were having with your breath and libido was that you did not go through keto-adaptation, i.e. your body was still excreting excess ketones instead of using them as energy, thus the bad breath.
I don’t have a a ready reference but animals who eat only meat are not in ketosis, and someone following an all meat or very low carb diet should eventually adapt and come out of ketosis. It usually takes about three weeks but obviously humans are individual enough that it won’t be the same for every one.
Perhaps you would have adapted faster if you were exercising while following the diet.
“High-fat and high-carb is fattening, esp high-PUFA. If you eat high carb, but low fat or mostly coconut oil, it would be a lot less fattening.”
I’m not convinced it would be fattening at all, as evidenced by the Kitavans who had a high carb (but no grains) and low total fat (but high saturated fat diet) and were lean and quite healthy.
“Right now I am reading “The Thyroid Gland” by R. McCarrison.
He doesn’t seem to be much int the meat business: “Thus Watson has shown that in rats fed an exclusive diet of meat the gland continues in a state of active secretion with a loss of stored-up colloid; and if the diet is persisted in pathological effects may be produced. These are evidenced by some degree of cell exhaustion from continued hyperactivity which may lead to symptoms of sub-thyroidism. Hence it is that a mixed diet containing an abundance of vegetable is the natural und most appropriate food for man.” … “…as occur in an exclusive meat diet in which the iodine-content is very low. Under these circumstances the gland’s reserve of iodine-containing colloid is soon exhausted, the vesicles are emptied and become smaller in size and shrunken into various shapes … which is followed by degenerative changes in the parenchyma cells, atrophy, and it may be a diminution in size of the whole organ.” “
I think the answer to that was provided by Vihljamur Stefansson in his book _Not By Bread Alone_:
“The way in which Eskimos divide, for instance, a caribou between men and dogs has been described with some detail; here the fact is emphasized that the organ commonly spoken of as richest in vitamins, the liver, is nearly always given to the dogs?as are the sweetbreads and, indeed, all things from the body cavity except the heart and kidneys. The kidneys are usually given to children, somewhat as if they were candy.So far as I know the Eskimos of northern Alaska and northwestern Canada, and the forest Indians just to the south of them, the only condition under which they ate nearly or quite the whole caribou was in time of famine. Ceasing to give the dogs the parts which normally are theirs was that stage of a famine which immediately preceded the killing and eating of the dogs themselves. So far as present knowledge goes, there is in ordinary red meat, or in ordinary fresh fish, without the eating of anything from the body cavity, enough Vitamin C, or whatever it is that prevents scurvy, to maintain optimum health indefinitely, with a cooking to the degree which we call medium. Certainly this is true if the meat is cooked in large chunks, as with both Eskimos and northern forest Indians, rather than in thin slices, which latter style of cooking may, for all I know, decrease the potency of the scurvy-preventing factor. There is no intention to deny, of course, that cooking to medium will somewhat lessen the meat’s antiscorbutic value. What is to be said is only that even with medium cooking there appears to be left over, in fresh red meat or fresh fish, an abundance if not a superabundance of all the vitamins and of all the other factors necessary for keeping a man in top form indefinitely. If results contrary to this are obtained from experiments on guinea pigs, rats or chimpanzees, then it may be advisable to restrict the conclusions in each case to the animal from which these results were drawn.”
“
You may be right about the ketoadaptation Michael. I think I was eating such a large quantity of food in the beginning that it may have had something to do with the delay (so much excess protein for GNG).
I did exercise a little bit on the program – call it 1 hour twice a week with a little walking in addition to that. I would’ve loved to have kept it going a little longer, and will certainly experiment with it again someday.
Thanks for the Mac and Stef quotes.
“The way in which Eskimos divide, for instance, a caribou between men and dogs has been described with some detail; here the fact is emphasized that the organ commonly spoken of as richest in vitamins, the liver, is nearly always given to the dogs?as are the sweetbreads and, indeed, all things from the body cavity except the heart and kidneys. The kidneys are usually given to children, somewhat as if they were candy.”
This quote is by Charles: deceptive, and out of context. They gave the dogs every thing “from the body cavity”, EXCEPT the heart and kidney. Kidney’s the next best source of vitamins after liver probably. The heart is also rich in certain things like CoQ10. Maybe that is why Bear had a heart attack, from shunning organ meats like liver and heart due to their meager carb content.
Also, Stefansson said they ate the HEADS of the caribou, including brain, tongue, eyes, fat, etc. These are extremely rich in certain nutrients. Brain has the most cholesterol of any food – several times more than eggs. It also has a small amount of PUFAs with 9-30 times as much omega-3 as omega-6, even in conventional animals. Avoiding brain and tongue and things like that is simply psychological fear on the part of Charles and others who claim to be big carnivores. None of the tribes ate like this, nor did Stef. In his Bellevue study, he ate brain and liver, raw bone marrow, boiled ribs and meat broths, fish, chicken, etc. He did not restrict himself like Charles to a diet of muscle meat, which is a fearful way to eat, by people who are afraid of trying new things. Tongue tastes similar to roast beef, when boiled. Brain has a mild taste. A woman I’ve talked to loves eating spleen and sweetbreads. They are her favorite meats. Along with the lung, those meats offer as much Vitamin C as a citrus fruits, with no carbs. So clearly one would be getting more nutrients than in muscle meats. On my suggestion, she also tried lamb brain and thanked me for suggesting she try it raw. She eats most of her food raw due to digestion.
“So far as I know the Eskimos of northern Alaska and northwestern Canada, and the forest Indians just to the south of them, the only condition under which they ate nearly or quite the whole caribou was in time of famine. Ceasing to give the dogs the parts which normally are theirs was that stage of a famine which immediately preceded the killing and eating of the dogs themselves.”
This is a deceptive quote and it gives a false impression of how the Eskimos ate, which is what Charles intended to do, in the same way he gave a false impression of Stefansson’s diet in Bellevue, saying he ate nothing but sirloin steaks. He is an evangelist or missionary for the zero carb way of life, and will do ANY THING to promote it, even misrepresenting and omitting crucial information, like what organ meats were eaten and how the meat was cooked. For example, the Bellevue study said that Stefansson and Anderson preferred boiled meat over fried meat, ate the bone marrow raw, and ate broths. Charles said they ate 100% cooked food, and no organ meats. He’s dishonest and anyone who reads the original sources will KNOW that he’s dishonest.
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/87/3/651.pdf
Maybe this explains why Bear had throat cancer, after decades of not smoking or drinking and eating zero carb. The Bear also had a heart attack. When I brought this up, Charles said it was irrelevant to talk about Bear’s lack of heath. I’d say it is extremely relevant, There are NO examples of long-term healthy people who have eaten the diet Bear or Charles suggests for 3-4 decades. Until such a time, I would go by Stefansson said and not Charles’s distortions and omissions to make his diet more popular among the modern people who are afraid of eating anything that looks like a recognizable organ, gland, or body part.
“I’m not convinced it would be fattening at all , as evidenced by the Kitavans who had a high carb (but no grains) and low total fat (but high saturated fat diet) and were lean and quite healthy.”
I agree, but Kitvans eat fairly low-fat, supposedly 20% of calories. A few tribes eat similar food, but more fat: the Puka Puka and Tokelau. They are also healthy. All of these diets would be good – lean fish, tubers, coconut fat, fruits, root vegetables, etc. It would probably cause minimal aging and disease.
Bravo on the organs meat Bruce.
It is unfortunate that modern conditioning is so strong that even I am afraid to go off on too much of a tangent on organ meats with fear that 98% of people will steer clear of my work and miss out on health improvements that they can achieve, with or without organ meats, such as improving digestion, losing weight, overcoming addiction, and reducing their chances at developing a degenerative disease.
One of the saddest things I’ve heard someone say lately came from my friend Layla who I wrote about in my post, “Layla’s Pearly Whites.”
She was talking about eating camel growing up and how they selectively chose to eat the hump fried with the liver. She talked about the pure white fatty hump and how she loved liver. Then she said, “I don’t eat that stuff anymore. I’m an American now.”
Doh!
Yet, organ meats are a delicacy and have been since the beginning of time. Sweetbreads are f-ing unbelievable, as is liver – particularly foie gras. Can’t speak as fondly about pig brain, but hey, maybe I’ll try it raw next time. Woo ha ha ha!
I forgot to mention that Stefansson also said the Eskimos ate ALL parts of fish – head to tail, bone broths, etc. So it is odd that Charles says they fed all those organ meats to their dogs.
So, let’s recap the Eskimo diet, as Stef actually described it.
They fed all organs from the body cavity to their dogs, EXCEPT heart and kidney – two important exceptions. They gave the kidneys to children “like candy” and we can infer that somebody other than their dogs ate the heart as well.
They ate the whole head of the caribou – brain, tongue, eyes, fat, etc. They did not just waste those parts, like modern people are inclined to do.
And they ate whole fish – head to tail, boiled broth, and so forth.
But if you read Charles’s articles, you see claims like they gave the dogs ALL of the organs and they never ate organs at all. You see claims that Stefansson lived on nothing but sirloin steaks for his year at Bellevue, but the study and his own Harper’s said he ate brain, raw bone marrow, liver, boiled meat, broths, fish, chicken, and bacon. So, it’s like I’ve said. Charles sees himself as some kind of evangelist or missionary trying to spread the zero-carb gospel. He does not care if he has to bend the truth or omit details as long as he can make the world convert to his religion.
Bruce K said…
“The way in which Eskimos divide, for instance, a caribou between men and dogs has been described with some detail; here the fact is emphasized that the organ commonly spoken of as richest in vitamins, the liver, is nearly always given to the dogs?as are the sweetbreads and, indeed, all things from the body cavity except the heart and kidneys. The kidneys are usually given to children, somewhat as if they were candy.”
“This quote is by Charles:
deceptive, and out of context. They gave the dogs every thing “from the body cavity”, EXCEPT the heart and kidney.”
I don’t follow. What you are saying is exactly what the quote from Stefansson is saying,
“indeed, all things [were given to the dogs – Michael] from the body cavity except the heart and kidneys.”
I don’t see how it is deceptive and out of context unless you are saying that Charles used this quote from Stefansson deceptively and out of context. I don’t know. I have never interacted with Charles, but the quote itself is pretty clear that heart and kidney were reserved for humans and the rest of the body cavity was given to the dogs.
You have responded as if the quote is saying something different and is therefore deceptive. It is not.
The reason I used it here was not to advance anything about Charles Washington (I assume that is who you are referring to) and what he thinks is an optimal diet but to suggest that Mac might be wrong in his conclusions about a meat based diet.
Bruce K said “Kidney’s the next best source of vitamins after liver probably. The heart is also rich in certain things like CoQ10. Maybe that is why Bear had a heart attack, from shunning organ meats like liver and heart due to their meager carb content.”
While not relevant to what I posted I think the Bear’s health issues are a product of his lifestyle that he lived so many years regarding LSD and his sexual escapades. Some things you just can’t overcome with diet. Maybe you can delay them but ultimately you will breakdown.
Also it should be noted that the Bear was not and is not a zero carb guy. One quote I read about him was from a Grateful Dead band member who said when they lived briefly with the Bear he had only meat and ***bottles of milk*** in his refrigerator. All animal products for sure but nothing zero carb about that regimen.
Bruce K said “Also, Stefansson said they ate the HEADS of the caribou, including brain, tongue, eyes, fat, etc. These are extremely rich in certain nutrients.
“Brain has the most cholesterol of any food – several times more than eggs. It also has a small amount of PUFAs with 9-30 times as much omega-3 as omega-6, even in conventional animals. Avoiding brain and tongue and things like that is simply psychological fear on the part of Charles and others who claim to be big carnivores.
“None of the tribes ate like this, nor did Stef. None of the tribes ate like this, nor did Stef. In his Bellevue study, he ate brain and liver, raw bone marrow, boiled ribs and meat broths, fish, chicken, etc. He did not restrict himself like Charles to a diet of muscle meat, which is a fearful way to eat, by people who are afraid of trying new things.”
Yes, yes I agree, but this post isn’t about Charles Washington, it was about the claim of Robert Mac that meat diets are insufficient. The Stef quotes shows that is untrue.
I noticed recently that Charles Washington has posted these full quotes from Stef on his forum (which I just started to lurk at Bruce because of you), and that many people on his forum are actually very low carbers like the Bear and Stef during certain periods of his life, and not a zero carber like Charles Washington.
Bruce K said “”So far as I know the Eskimos of northern Alaska and northwestern Canada, and the forest Indians just to the south of them, the only condition under which they ate nearly or quite the whole caribou was in time of famine. Ceasing to give the dogs the parts which normally are theirs was that stage of a famine which immediately preceded the killing and eating of the dogs themselves.”
“This is a deceptive quote and it gives a false impression of how the Eskimos ate, which is what Charles intended to do, in the same way he gave a false impression of Stefansson’s diet in Bellevue, saying he ate nothing but sirloin steaks.”
Again I don’t see the deception. In seems in line with the earlier quote and is not deceptive at all given the context of this post. Again, I’m not interacting with Charles Washington, I’m juxtaposing Mac versus Stef. What Charles thinks is extraneous to my post.
It seems Stef is saying that of the body cavity itself the only organs they ate were the heart and kidney unless it was a time of famine, in which case they would eat the liver and all the other body cavity organs (and the dogs too). I don’t see what is deceptive about that. As you point out they also ate the head, which simply adds to our knowledge, but isn’t deceptive, since the head is not a part of the body cavity.
Bruce K said “He is an evangelist or missionary for the zero carb way of life, and will do ANY THING to promote it, even misrepresenting and omitting crucial information, like what organ meats were eaten and how the meat was cooked. For example, the Bellevue study said that Stefansson and Anderson preferred boiled meat over fried meat, ate the bone marrow raw, and ate broths. Charles said they ate 100% cooked food, and no organ meats. He’s dishonest and anyone who reads the original sources will KNOW that he’s dishonest.”
Yes your message about Charles is loud and clear, but again that isn’t what I was commenting on.
Also, a brief look see over at his blog and it seems he is mentioning all the things in regards to Stef you say he isn’t mentioning. No matter. My point is that I think Stef is right and Mac is wrong regarding an all meat diet.
Bruce K said “Maybe this explains why Bear had throat cancer, after decades of not smoking or drinking and eating zero carb. The Bear also had a heart attack. When I brought this up, Charles said it was irrelevant to talk about Bear’s lack of heath.”
If Charles said that, then I think he is wrong. On the other hand as I noted, there are other variables at play in the life of “The Bear.”
Bruce K said “I’d say it is extremely relevant, There are NO examples of long-term healthy people who have eaten the diet Bear or Charles suggests for 3-4 decades. Until such a time, I would go by Stefansson said and not Charles’s distortions and omissions to make his diet more popular among the modern people who are afraid of eating anything that looks like a recognizable organ, gland, or body part.”
Again the Bear is not zero carb and I think his cancer can be more easily attributed to his lifestyle. IMO, there are limits to diet after all. Plus the Bear’s diet and Charles diet are not the same, although apparently he is being lifted up as the patron saint of the zero carb movement.
Personally, I think the all meat diet sans organs is a survival mode diet which a person can do quite well on for a relatively long period of time, but it is not a lifetime diet. Nor do I think it is a **necessary** diet, although it might be a very helpful therapeutic diet. So to the extent anyone is suggesting otherwise I think that is an unwise path.
I also think from lurking over at the s=zero carb forum that they paint way too broad a brush when it comes to the detrimental effects of carbs, but that is not uncommon for the low carb/zero carb crowd.
[My diet as a kid was very nutritious but also contained a lot of sugar. My teeth practically ‘melted in my mouth, not in my hand.’]
I ate low-fiber and low-PUFA growing up, similar to Ray Peat’s advice – my foods were mainly milk, orange juice, butter, potatoes, beef, white rice, liver, lean chicken, carrots, beets, and occasional fish. Not much sugar, but the usual ice cream, chocolate, and things like that. Nothing high in PUFAs. I never brushed my teeth, except with water and I never had a cavity until after 18, when I was eating soft drinks, microwaved popcorn, potato chips, fast food, peanut butter, and other junk food. I would estimate I probably ate 5 g of fiber a day and 5 g of PUFAs a day growing up.
Michael, Bear and Charles have both said that Stefansson ate nothing but sirloin steaks and that the Eskimos gave all the organ meats to the dogs. This is fiction unless you define heart, kidneys, brain, tongue, and eyes as non-organ meats. The Eskimo also ate whole fish head to tail. So it’s ridiculous to say that they were not eating organ meats. Charles and Bear take things out of context – then accuse others of taking them out of context. He told me to read Stefansson’s book rather than quote the Bellevue study and Stef’s own article “Adventures in Diet.” That’s simply absurd. Charles just doesn’t want to hear anything that conflicts with his zero-carb religious dogma. I think he is able to make himself actually believe in lies as if they were true.
“While not relevant to what I posted I think the Bear’s health issues are a product of his lifestyle that he lived so many years regarding LSD and his sexual escapades. Some things you just can’t overcome with diet.”
He was off drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, and eating zero-carb for decades before his cancer and heart attack. And why do you say Bear was not zero-carb? Charles isn’t zero-carb either, because there’s carbohydrate even in meats. So, what is the point? The Bear ate butter, cheese, eggs, and occasional liver or brain, so therefore he got cancer?
Somebody saying that he had milk in his refrigerator decades ago does not prove that he did. Maybe they were bottles of cream. Maybe they were his girlfriend’s or something. Who knows.
Bruce,
To be honest with you I really don’t care what the Bear and Charles Washington have said regarding Stef. I didn’t quote either of them in my post.
You brought them up as something extraneous to the point I was making, that Mac was wrong and Stef was right regarding an all meat diet, and I was interacting with what you said about them as an interesting aside.
Further, whatever Charles may have said about what Stef did or did not do, the fact is he is quoting Stef on his blog, and if what you say about Charles is right, then either Charles has changed his mind since you interacted with him or he is openly contradicting himself with Stef’s material. I also just read his blog where he is giving a review of the Bellevue study which openly contradicts what you say Charles exclusively espouses.
No matter, your comments regarding Bear and Charles had nothing to do with my post nor were any of the quotes I used deceptive or out of context. They were actually quite clear. You simply missed the point and went off on an interesting tangent.
The point about Bear not being zero carb is simply that, he wasn’t zero carb. And by zero carb I mean it in the way most of us understand zero carb, eating meat alone. Even the zero carbers themselves make the distinction by classifying people who eat other animal products as “very low carbers” rather than zero carbers.
Your comment here misses the point “The Bear ate butter, cheese, eggs, and occasional liver or brain, so therefore he got cancer?” No I specifically said I believe he got cancer because of his ***lifestyle***, not his diet. In case you missed it here it is again,
“Again…I think his cancer can be more easily attributed to his lifestyle.”
As for someone mistaking cream for milk, could be, though I doubt it since it sounds like when they visited him they ate the same thing he ate.
As for him being off drugs for decades, I’m not sure how you could be any more certain about that than I could be about what was in those bottles in the refrigerator.
As for his cancer, it was something that is usually passed on by sexual activity that showed up in his throat.
As for his drug use, there is no doubt in my mind he created long term damage in his system. I think Occams razor should apply here regarding the causality of his cancer.
Well I’m done discussing Charles Washington and The Bear, since I have no interactive history with either one of them, and, more importantly, because Stefansson’s quotes stand on their own. I used them with absolutely no reference to either Charles Washington or the man known as “The Bear.”
“Further, whatever Charles may have said about what Stef did or did not do, the fact is he is quoting Stef on his blog, and if what you say about Charles is right, then either Charles has changed his mind since you interacted with him or he is openly contradicting himself with Stef’s material. I also just read his blog where he is giving a review of the Bellevue study which openly contradicts what you say Charles exclusively espouses.”
He doesn’t deny that Eskimos ate organs, but he distorts information to make it seem like they threw away most of them, and didn’t need them. He argues that it would be fine to eat nothing but ground beef for a pregnant/nursing woman and a growing children. I would like to see a study that proves this. It wouldn’t be too hard. Just get some dogs or pigs or other animals and feed them ground beef and see what happens. If he wants to go on eating an artificial diet and being afraid of eating things the Eskimos and Stefansson ate, so be it. As long as he clearly points out the facts, I will be glad. But when he tells us to ignore all of Stefansson’s observations because he has eaten meat for a little over a year and feels good, I say that “the jury is still out” on his health.
“The point about Bear not being zero carb is simply that, he wasn’t zero carb. And by zero carb I mean it in the way most of us understand zero carb, eating meat alone. Even the zero carbers themselves make the distinction by classifying people who eat other animal products as “very low carbers” rather than zero carbers.”
The distinction is meaningless, because the Eskimos may have eaten 53g of carbs from the meat alone, according to other studies.
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/83/3/747.pdf
“As for his cancer, it was something that is usually passed on by sexual activity that showed up in his throat.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Since when is throat cancer passed on by sexual activity? I agree with your statement a few posts above.
“I also think from lurking over at the s=zero carb forum that they paint way too broad a brush when it comes to the detrimental effects of carbs, but that is not uncommon for the low carb/zero carb crowd.”
Matt Stone said…
You may be right about the ketoadaptation Michael. I think I was eating such a large quantity of food in the beginning that it may have had something to do with the delay (so much excess protein for GNG).
I did exercise a little bit on the program – call it 1 hour twice a week with a little walking in addition to that. I would’ve loved to have kept it going a little longer, and will certainly experiment with it again someday.
Thanks for the Mac and Stef quotes.
______
Matt,
You are welcome.
I’m thinking about trying it myself for 30 days but not sure yet. Frankly my only motivation is to get ripped by the second week of February :-)
Years ago I did both the Atkins Induction diet and the Atkins Fat Flush protocol. I lost a lot of fat on both protocols with very little loss of lean body weight. Of course I was exercising both times (actually 3x, I did the fat flush twice).
Bruce K said…
“He doesn’t deny that Eskimos ate organs, but he distorts information to make it seem like they threw away most of them, and didn’t need them. He argues that it would be fine to eat nothing but ground beef for a pregnant/nursing woman and a growing children. I would like to see a study that proves this. It wouldn’t be too hard. Just get some dogs or pigs or other animals and feed them ground beef and see what happens. If he wants to go on eating an artificial diet and being afraid of eating things the Eskimos and Stefansson ate, so be it. As long as he clearly points out the facts, I will be glad. But when he tells us to ignore all of Stefansson’s observations because he has eaten meat for a little over a year and feels good, I say that “the jury is still out” on his health.”
Bruce as I said in my last post, I don’t care ****because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted about.****
Bruce K said “The point about Bear not being zero carb is simply that, he wasn’t zero carb. And by zero carb I mean it in the way most of us understand zero carb, eating meat alone. Even the zero carbers themselves make the distinction by classifying people who eat other animal products as “very low carbers” rather than zero carbers.”
“The distinction is meaningless, because the Eskimos may have eaten 53g of carbs from the meat alone, according to other studies.”
LOL, why don’t you give this up? If the distinction is meaningless then you are refuting yourself, since you have said throughout your responses that the Bear is zero carb. Apparently no one is zero carb.
Once again, this exchange, while interesting is meaningless in this context ****because it has absolutely nothing to do with my original post****. The only reason we are talking about it is because you introduced the Bear and Charles as a fallacious response to what I originally said.
Bruce K said
“I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Since when is throat cancer passed on by sexual activity?”
When it is cancer of the tonsils that was apparently caused by an organism that usually appears because of sexual activity. But for the last time ***none*** of this has ****absolutely anything to do with my post****.
Perhaps Matt will do a post on advocates of the Stefansson diet versus the real Stefansson diet, where this line of discussion would make more sense.
The exercise is crucial for keeping hard earned muscle IMO. I’ve read articles on fasting that said you would lose minimal muscle if you exercised. If you just lay in bed all day while fasting or eating a low-calorie diet, you lose muscle. There is no escaping. Under a calorie deficit, the body gets rid of muscle that it does not need. If you are doing hard exercise regularly, the body won’t do so.
Bruce K said…
“I’m not convinced it would be fattening at all , as evidenced by the Kitavans who had a high carb (but no grains) and low total fat (but high saturated fat diet) and were lean and quite healthy.”
I agree, but Kitvans eat fairly low-fat, supposedly 20% of calories. A few tribes eat similar food, but more fat: the Puka Puka and Tokelau. They are also healthy. All of these diets would be good – lean fish, tubers, coconut fat, fruits, root vegetables, etc. It would probably cause minimal aging and disease.
_____
Bruce,
If the reports are true that appears to be the case regarding aging and disease. In fact what I found most interesting is that apparently they are healthy right up until a few days before they die, where they fatigue for a few days and then just die in their sleep, or die of some infection very quickly. Now if you gotta go, that is the way to go!
Matt said,
“Yet, organ meats are a delicacy and have been since the beginning of time. Sweetbreads are f-ing unbelievable, as is liver – particularly foie gras. Can’t speak as fondly about pig brain, but hey, maybe I’ll try it raw next time. Woo ha ha ha!”
Now why did you have to off and mention my two favorite organ meats, sweet bread and foie gras. Both are absolutely outstanding! As for regular liver….not even close….not even close :-)
Bruce K said…
“The exercise is crucial for keeping hard earned muscle IMO. I’ve read articles on fasting that said you would lose minimal muscle if you exercised. If you just lay in bed all day while fasting or eating a low-calorie diet, you lose muscle. There is no escaping. Under a calorie deficit, the body gets rid of muscle that it does not need. If you are doing hard exercise regularly, the body won’t do so.”
Oh yes I know this from experience. I have done several long fasts and exercise makes a HUGE difference in maintaining muscle mass and in how you feel during the fast.
Even when doing intermittent fasting, for me at least, nothing quite beats exercising deep into the fasted state.
"Bruce as I said in my last post, I don't care ****because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted about.****"
Then why keep responding to say it's not relevant? The reason I brought it up is because you omitted a part of the quote, where he said they ate the head and all of its contents, as well as eating whole fish – from the head to the tail. Since you gave a quote like Charles, I thought you were quoting him. You omitted parts before or after, where he said they ate the heads and whole fish. This omission gave an impression that the only organs eaten were kidney (by children) and the heart perhaps by adults. The truth is a lot different, as you know.
"LOL, why don't you give this up? If the distinction is meaningless then you are refuting yourself, since you have said throughout your responses that the Bear is zero carb. Apparently no one is zero carb."
The Bear called his diet zero-carb (<5g to be precise). Charles describes Bear's diet as zero-carb. He doesn't say he is the only man eating zero-carb. He knows that there are carbs in the glycogen of meat. Also, Charles once said that milk wouldn't make any difference as far as a zero-carber's health. I think that post was on Jimmy's forum and he has removed most of the zero-carb posts. Now I can't find it, but I remember him saying that about milk, that a healthy person could eat it with no problem. Maybe it was in his debate with Regine Wilshire, but it is probably long gone now.
Okay, let’s see…
Ah yes, the Bear. It is pretty alarming that he had both cancer and heart disease. Even if both can be attributed to infection, there should be a diet that can boost the immune system to a state of uber protection. His health, or lack thereof, is relevant for sure. Not necessarily more dangerous than following the food pyramid, but not some kind of cure-all that many are led to think it is.
McCarrison is hesitant about all-meat. I will bring up the following details…
As I mentioned throughout FUMP, hypothyroidism is a danger of going really low in carbs for an extended period of time. Atkins mentions this. Broda Barnes says “it has been clearly established that a high protein diet lowers the metabolic rate.” Perhaps if you go high enough in fat in proportion there is no danger.
Hypothyroidism is causal, or at least correlated with immune suppression and increased propensity to infection (from sexual activity or otherwise – keep in mind it is very likely that heart disease is caused by chronic chlamydia pneumoniae (non std) infection).
The Eskimos, although fantastically healthy, were not known for longevity. This may be a meaningless detail, it may not be. We’ll never know.
The danger is calling an all-meat diet something that it isn’t…
What it is…
a potentially-therapeutic diet
What it isn’t…
The only healthy diet for mankind in which all else is a distant second
Bruce K said…
"Bruce as I said in my last post, I don't care ****because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted about.****"
Then why keep responding to say it's not relevant?"
Because it seemed to be a point you were missing.
Bruce K said, "The reason I brought it up is because you omitted a part of the quote, where he said they ate the head and all of its contents, as well as eating whole fish – from the head to the tail. Since you gave a quote like Charles, I thought you were quoting him. You omitted parts before or after, where he said they ate the heads and whole fish. This omission gave an impression that the only organs eaten were kidney (by children) and the heart perhaps by adults. The truth is a lot different, as you know."
Yes I know, but the point of my post was not to detail the full diet of the Eskimos but rather to emphasize Stef's point as opposed to Mac when he says:
"What is to be said is only that even with medium cooking there appears to be left over, in fresh red meat or fresh fish, an abundance if not a superabundance of all the vitamins and of all the other factors necessary for keeping a man in top form indefinitely. If results contrary to this are obtained from experiments on guinea pigs, rats or chimpanzees, then it may be advisable to restrict the conclusions in each case to the animal from which these results were drawn."
I think I made that pretty clear from the beginning.
Bruce K said,
"The Bear called his diet zero-carb (<5g to be precise). Charles describes Bear's diet as zero-carb. He doesn't say he is the only man eating zero-carb. He knows that there are carbs in the glycogen of meat. Also, Charles once said that milk wouldn't make any difference as far as a zero-carber's health. I think that post was on Jimmy's forum and he has removed most of the zero-carb posts. Now I can't find it, but I remember him saying that about milk, that a healthy person could eat it with no problem. Maybe it was in his debate with Regine Wilshire, but it is probably long gone now."
Yes, but as you I noted and I affirmed, if a person can eat an all meat diet and still be getting 53 carbs a day, then "zero carb" is a useless term for all of us.
From what you describe, it seems that Charles Washington is somewhat inconsistent, posting quotes from Stef and making comments that seem to undermine his basic position, although from what I read on the forum he seems more than willing to accept people who eat more like the Bear and not just like him, meaning muscle meat only.
Matt Stone said…
“Ah yes, the Bear. It is pretty alarming that he had both cancer and heart disease. Even if both can be attributed to infection, there should be a diet that can boost the immune system to a state of uber protection. His health, or lack thereof, is relevant for sure. Not necessarily more dangerous than following the food pyramid, but not some kind of cure-all that many are led to think it is.”
True, but I think Bruce’s point (and I agree) is that the Bear was/is not following the all meat diet as historically practiced and laid out by the likes of Stef. Leaving out organs is a potentially costly mistake in my opinion.
My point is that you cannot abuse your body with recreational drugs (be it LSD, crack cocaine or whathaveyou) and expect diet to protect you. Even if you stop your body may not ever fully recover and eventually break down from the prior abuse, albeit at a slower pace than otherwise.
Matt said,
“The danger is calling an all-meat diet something that it isn’t…
“What it is…
a potentially-therapeutic diet
“What it isn’t…
The only healthy diet for mankind in which all else is a distant second”
I agree 100%.
There is another danger that Bruce has pointed out, conflating an all muscle meat diet with the traditional meat diet as practiced by the Eskimos and others. I really don’t think we can draw conclusions about the meat diet by looking at the Bear since he was not eating the diet as described by Stef.
Also, IIRC, the Eskimos did eat greens seasonally and also drank alcohol, what Stef called “raw spirits.”
Michael: “Because it seemed to be a point you were missing.”
If you had not responded to what you saw as irrelevant, I would not think that.
“Yes I know, but the point of my post was not to detail the full diet of the Eskimos but rather to emphasize Stef’s point as opposed to Mac when he says:…”
I was responding to the quote you gave, and the omissions in that quote, and the fact that Charles has quoted things in similar ways to say that the Eskimos did not need organ meats and they only ate the brain and tongue because it was high in fat. If that is true, why didn’t they eat the sweetbreads (pancreas + thymus), which are also extremely fatty? He is a zero-carb church zealot. If you read his posts, you eventually see that he’s off on a massive ego trip. He claims that he is just spouting his propaganda to help people and he doesn’t make any money off it, but he’s a narcissist and attention whore, so that is his reward.
Bruce,
Again you seem to be missing the point and then go on talking about Charles. You responded to the quote I gave ****outside of the context in which I gave it**** which is why I pointed out again and again that your stuff about Charles in response ***to me*** was irrelevant.
Even the quote on its own doesn’t dismiss organs, since it seems to say the heart was very important. So at best Charles used it out of context because it refutes his idea, if true, that muscle meat is enough.
But I’m not Charles and I made it explicitly clear exactly how I was using the quote.
You can either accept that by re-reading my original post, or if that is not clear to you then you can accept my further clarification of the point, or you can keep further talking about Charles whose position you have made abundantly clear, but which is not now nor ever has been my position, which I have also made very clear.
Michael, as I’ve said and over now, your quote was incomplete and out of context. Just like some of Charles’s quotes. That was why I responded and brought him up. You seem to identify with the quote like you wrote it. Stefansson wrote it. And when details are left out, that may give false impressions to readers. I was not responding to you, but to the quote, and the facts that were omitted, which have never been in contention AFAIK. So, stop taking things personal that aren’t.
“Bruce K said…
Michael, as I’ve said and over now, your quote was incomplete and out of context.”
No it wasn’t. It communicated exactly what I wanted to communicate within the context of my post without distorting anything, as I have shown point by point throughout this thread.
“Bruce K said,
Just like some of Charles’s quotes. That was why I responded and brought him up.”
No it wasn’t like any of Charles’ quotes. Charles from what I gather was trying to demonstrate that Stefansson only ate muscle meat, period. That is misleading. I never even suggested such a thing, as the context of my post was entirely different.
“Bruce K said,
You seem to identify with the quote like you wrote it. Stefansson wrote it.”
Since I clearly set his quote off and specifically attributed it to Stefansson, it is just a figment of your imagination to think that I somehow tried to make it sound like I wrote it.
“Bruce K said,
And when details are left out, that may give false impressions to readers.”
The only person who seems to have had a false impression is you.
“Bruce K said,
I was not responding to you, but to the quote, and the facts that were omitted, which have never been in contention AFAIK.”
Of course you were responding to me, since I used the quote in my post. You simply responded out of context because you were apparently projecting your beef with Charles on to me.
If you wanted to just respond to what your perceived as a misleading quote you could have easily set it up by saying that although a meat diet as Stefansson described it can certainly be adequate, I’m not sure the quote Michael used conveys fully what the meat diet was all about. Then there would have been no question where you were coming from.
But no you were off to the races with a totally out of context and disproportionate response that still hasn’t stopped even though I said long ago the meat diet includes organs, which is mentioned in my original quote, though not all the organs mentioned by Stefansson.
And yes I did dispute the facts of how YOU used the quote in responding to me. I clearly said, and the quote clearly says, that some of the organs were used. You came back with the “except heart and kidney” response, which I still don’t understand because that was in the quote itself and I never denied it.
“Bruce K said,
So, stop taking things personal that aren’t.”
The only person that seems to have taken anything personal is you. You continue this diatribe about Charles throughout the thread that has nothing to do with me or the point I made, even calling him an attention whore.
It seems you have something personal against Charles and it makes you unable to interpret things clearly when something reminds you of that.
But again I’m not Charles, and the point I made in response to Mac and the quotes I used from Stef aren’t Charles points either, since I’m not pushing or evangelizing for an all muscle meat diet.
Whatever Mikey! I know you are here just to back up Charles Washington. In fact, Charles, is that you? Are you going by Michael now?
Ha, jus’ kiddin’ homey. Be patient with Bruce. He gets really fired up sometimes, and that is exactly why he is such an important contributor to this blog as well as to his own AV Skeptics community at Yahoo.
And thanks for your contributions here as well. They have been excellent and hope you stick around.
“No it wasn’t like any of Charles’ quotes. Charles from what I gather was trying to demonstrate that Stefansson only ate muscle meat, period. That is misleading.”
You haven’t read all of Charles’s stuff. He admits that Stefansson and the Inuits ate the head and some of the organs from the body cavity (heart and kidney), but he makes a big deal of the fact they let the dogs have the caribou liver. This is misleading, because they ate all of the fish. Also, Charles claims that none of them needed to eat organ meats, and they could have raised their children fine on nothing but ground beef. This is simply wild speculation, since no tribe ate the way Charles does. We know they ate more ogan meats than he does, starting with the tongue, brain, eyes, kidney, heart, marrow, and all parts of the fish.
“I never even suggested such a thing, as the context of my post was entirely different.”
You left out part of the quote. Charles has used the same quote and he admitted they ate the whole caribou head and all parts of the fish. His position is very absurd. I have not argued with what you said, only pointed out that they didn’t just eat hearts and give the kidneys to their children. They ate the whole head of animals, they ate bone marrow, whole fish (head to tail), broths, etc.
“Since I clearly set his quote off and specifically attributed it to Stefansson, it is just a figment of your imagination to think that I somehow tried to make it sound like I wrote it.”
I responded to the quotes, not what you said. Here you continue to take that as if it were aimed at you personally, and not merely adding and clarifying things in relation to Stefansson’s quote. That is the problem. You clearly don’t agree with Charles and neither did Stefansson and neither does Matt and neither do I, so why do you act like I said you do?
You said Charles had changed and that my criticisms were no longer valid. But his recent articles about the Bellevue Study contain the same lies. He says there was not enough calcium in the diet, but they ate boiled ribs and meat broths. The so- called scientists probably took the meat off the bone and measured the calcium in that, rather than analyze the bones they were gnawing and the broths they chewed. Neither many ate a diet of sirloin steak although Charles and Bear have both said you could live in perfect health on such a diet (sirloin steak or ground beef).
I don’t see why you’re arguing, since we seem to agree that Charles and Bear have no credibility in their claims that meat of any kind (even sirloin steak) is more than adequate for humans of all ages. He also says that Inuits have “no theories on diet”, according to Stefansson. They just ate “what tasted good.” And if you don’t like organ meats, then there’s no reason to eat them. The fact that you’ve been conditioned not to eat organ meats is apparently irrelevant to Charles. You can go on eating just muscle meats with no concerns about cancer, heart disease, or other problems resulting.
http://zerocarbforlife.com/?p=392
http://zerocarbforlife.com/?p=397
“If you wanted to just respond to what your perceived as a misleading quote you could have easily set it up by saying that although a meat diet as Stefansson described it can certainly be adequate, I’m not sure the quote Michael used conveys fully what the meat diet was all about. Then there would have been no question where you were coming from.”
That is what I did. I said they ate the head of the caribou (brain, tongue, and eyes). They ate whole fish from head to tail. They ate marrow. They did not eat a meat diet consisting of solely muscle meats with kidneys for the children and maybe occasional hearts for the adults, which is what the quote implied. Nobody seems to have had any difficulty seeing where I was coming from but you. I said that they ate more than the foods which were described in that quote and that’s never been disputed by you. You gave an incomplete quote which does nto mention all the things they ate.
“And yes I did dispute the facts of how YOU used the quote in responding to me. I clearly said, and the quote clearly says, that some of the organs were used. You came back with the “except heart and kidney” response, which I still don’t understand because that was in the quote itself and I never denied it.”
Charles has used the same quotes to say that they discarded all the organ meats from the body cavity, even though there are two obvious exceptions in the quote. He also doesn’t mention the brain, eyes, tongue, and marrow being eaten, You did not dispute my points that they ate the head and bone marrow and that they used all parts of the fish. So I still don’t understand what you’re arguing about. I think we’re all on the same page, It is of course possible Charles is right. It could be that muscle meat is somehow a complete food even for babies, pregnant woman, and nursing mothers. But that is going to need studies to prove, not the speculation of a man who has eaten such food for a little over a year and never had children or raised them on a muscle meat only (zero-carb) diet.
“It seems you have something personal against Charles and it makes you unable to interpret things clearly when something reminds you of that.”
I have something against liars who make ridiculous and false speculations about me and try to justify their diets based on people who never ate that diet. Your quotes were incomplete and they gave an erroneous impression of the foods eaten by the Eskimos. The fact that they gave some of the organs from the body cavity to dogs doesn’t mean that they ate only muscle meats, obviously. The fact there were other organ meats being eaten also seems relevant. And they weren’t frying meat in a skillet. They probably cooked it at very low temperature.