All Meat Paleo Carnivore Diets Are Going Mainstream Big Time !

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
You're an idiot..
Thanks. Not one link you presented was a case report of reliably curing diabetes.

VLCARB may be useful in the short-term management of subjects with insulin resistance and hypertriacylglycerolemia.
Thanks, exactly as i have been saying. Though keto or especially fasting is preferred. Low carb is mainly useful to prepare for keto and fasting IMO.

If you insist being wrong because you don't understand the studies you read it's your choice. Fact is that this one clinic has cured hundreds of patients over few years and no-one else has managed to do it, at least publish their results.

And please stop saying fasting is catabolic and makes you run on stress hormones and lose muscle, the evidence shows it is very anabolic and increases muscle mass, especially when combined with exercise.

Comparing the percentage increase in lean mass, the fasting group increased by 2.2% compared to 0.5% in the calorie restriction group, implying that fasting is 4 times better at preserving lean mass according to this measure. A randomized pilot study comparing zero-calorie alternate-day fasting to daily caloric restriction in adults with obesity. - PubMed - NCBI Yet this forum has incorrectly interpreted what RP has said and have people convinced caloric restriction is the way to go, even when it is known to fail, for more than 90% of people. I would not be surprised if 90% of those that fast succeed in their weight loss.

I can attest to keto diet inducing insulin resistance.

This misconception is so common i almost think it is done on purpose to confuse people. Diabetic insulin resistance is completely different from keto adaptation. See here how correctly interpreting the data makes "insulin resistance" actually into "increased insulin sensitivity" Even Intermittent Fasting Reduces Insulin Sensitivity (in The Obese)
 
Last edited:

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
Thanks. Not one link you presented was a case report of reliably curing diabetes.


Thanks, exactly as i have been saying. Though keto or especially fasting is preferred. Low carb is mainly useful to prepare for keto and fasting IMO.

If you insist being wrong because you don't understand the studies you read it's your choice. Fact is that this one clinic has cured hundreds of patients over few years and no-one else has managed to do it, at least publish their results.

And please stop saying fasting is catabolic and makes you run on stress hormones and lose muscle, the evidence shows it is very anabolic and increases muscle mass, especially when combined with exercise.

Comparing the percentage increase in lean mass, the fasting group increased by 2.2% compared to 0.5% in the calorie restriction group, implying that fasting is 4 times better at preserving lean mass according to this measure. A randomized pilot study comparing zero-calorie alternate-day fasting to daily caloric restriction in adults with obesity. - PubMed - NCBI Yet this forum has incorrectly interpreted what RP has said and have people convinced caloric restriction is the way to go, even when it is known to fail, for more than 90% of people. I would not be surprised if 90% of those that fast succeed in their weight loss.



This misconception is so common i almost think it is done on purpose to confuse people. Diabetic insulin resistance is completely different from keto adaptation. See here how correctly interpreting the data makes "insulin resistance" actually into "increased insulin sensitivity" Even Intermittent Fasting Reduces Insulin Sensitivity (in The Obese)

I apologize for saying you're an idiot. You're not, it's just that you're strawmanning me and others on this forum. First of all the topic of this thread is about carnivore diets and whether or not they're superior to other diets, not fasting. You introduced fasting in order to strawman me and others. Nobody is arguing against fasting. Where in any of my posts did I mention it? Fasting is clearly successful for weight loss. But this by definition is calorie restriction, in the context of weekly calorie intake. You saying that calorie restriction fails for 90% of people is actually a contradiction to your argument for IF, because IF works by calorie restriction. Show me a study where isocaloric diets comparing IF to non IF diets resulted in more weight loss/fat loss in the IF group. The only difference between IF and daily calorie restriction, is that it is a strategy of appetite control that probably is more effective than daily eating. More research needs to be done.

What is the mechanism by which carbs induce insulin resistance? Post the study showing that the clinic you're talking about is "curing" diabetes? Is it compared to anything else? Has it been replicated? Does it have a control and does it account for confounding variables? You seem to think that we are misinterpreting the research and you have all the answers. The reality is, we are not saying we have the answers because there is still a lot that is unknown in science and not studied. By you claiming to know more than us and stating that we're wrong, without even arguing our points, you're just proving your own bias and willful ignorance.


"VLCARB may be useful in the short-term management of subjects with insulin resistance and hypertriacylglycerolemia."

Please don't quote me unless you understand the context. The quote above is from a study talking about "short-term management" using VLCARB. You seem to interpret management = cure. Again as I stated above, it's pretty obvious if one decreases total carbohydrate/glucose load than he will reduce the amount of insulin needed. No surprise there.
 
Last edited:

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
The links I posted are relevant to your request because they show that there is no difference in fat loss between keto/low carb diets vs high carb diets. If the carbohydrate theory of insulin resistance were true, than fat loss would be superior in the keto and low carb groups than in the high carb groups. This has not been shown. Insulin levels is a poor predictor of adiposity. Whether you have normal or low levels of insulin is irrelevant to weight loss. Again, I have posted several RCT involving metabolic wards and isocalorie diets in the methodology. What this shows is that all diets are effective while in a calorie deficit. Whether you choose to do low carb/keto, high carb/low fat, or intermittent fasting, it is the calorie deficit that causes weight loss, not the particular diet. And if you can't see this to be an incontrovertible truth than I am sorry for you.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
First of all the topic of this thread is about carnivore diets and whether or not they're superior to other diets, not fasting.
Carnivore diet is a kind of fasting. It may very well be superior to any standard diet for a majority of the population (the ones with metabolic syndrome or some other condition that benefits from it).

Show me a study where isocaloric diets comparing IF to non IF diets resulted in more weight loss/fat loss in the IF group. The only difference between IF and daily calorie restriction, is that it is a strategy of appetite control that probably is more effective than daily eating. More research needs to be done.

That is so wrong. I just posted two studies that examine exactly what you asked for Best Human Diet? There Is None! and it is clear as day at this point that the body needs times of eating, and times of not eating (fasting). Calories are irrelevant and caloric restriction is harmful.
 

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
Carnivore diet is a kind of fasting. It may very well be superior to any standard diet for a majority of the population (the ones with metabolic syndrome).



That is so wrong. I just posted two studies that examine exactly what you asked for Best Human Diet? There Is None! and it is clear as day at this point that the body needs times of eating, and times of not eating (fasting).

So just to clarify you won't post an actual legitimate study comparing isocaloric diets of IF and regular calorie restricted diets?

Also, if you're going to post a study, please don't post just the abstract. I have give you the respect to post complete studies because as any scientist knows the abstract may not tell the whole story. Can you please share the complete studies?
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
By the way, I am not disagreeing with you about intermittent fasting. I think it can be a very powerful strategy for weight loss and the research supports it. If you read my post above, all I am saying is it is not superior in the context of isocaloric daily calorie restriction. It is an effective weekly/monthly calorie restriction tool because it helps you control appetite and eat less overall. This is why it's effective.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
It is available for free on scihub, for now. To keep it that way i won't post a link.

all I am saying is it is not superior in the context of isocaloric daily calorie restriction. It is an effective weekly/monthly calorie restriction tool because it helps you control appetite and eat less overall.
Don't say it, because it is wrong :) Both practice and studies show that the body responds differently to caloric restriction and IF.
 
Last edited:

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
It is available for free on scihub, for now. To keep it that way i won't post a link.


Don't say it, because it is wrong :) Both practice and studies show that the body responds differently to caloric restriction and IF.

You're strawmanning me again. I am speaking in the context of weight loss, which you conveniently removed from the quote you copied of me. IF is not superior to other diets if in the context of weight loss, controlling for calories. Now if you want to argue that IF may have health benefits irrespective of weight loss, than I can possibly agree with you on that. I would have to see more research. But let's be more clear about context. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that IF is superior other diets for weight loss purposes, but I'll say this again, unless you can show me a study showing isocaloric IF is superior to isocaloric daily calorie reduced diet, then this is wrong. Again, in the context of weight reduction, IF is a form of calorie restriction. In your own post above, you stated that IF is better than calorie restriction, and that calorie restriction is harmful. But by definition (since weight loss from IF works via calorie restriction) you're contradicting yourself to say that calorie restriction is harmful, and that IF gets a free pass. They both work through the same mechanism.

And I will present some evidence below to support my argument that IF is not superior to other calorie-controlled diets for weight loss/fat loss purposes.

INTERMITTENT FASTING AND HUMAN METABOLIC HEALTH
From the link above you will find a review of fasting literature, of which researchers compare alternate day fasts and regular calorie restricted diets. The authors made the below conclusions.

"Three of the eight trials summarized above compared modified fasting regimens to simple energy restriction.12,15,18 As shown in Table 2, the weight loss regimens were either 1200–1500 kcals12 or 25% energy restriction per day.15,18 One of these studies instituted weekly exercise goals.12 In only one case did the fasting regimen result in significantly more weight loss than a standard weight loss diet (4.1%).12 In two of these studies, there was significantly reduced insulin concentrations compared with energy restriction, but no other differences in biomarker concentrations. The 12-week, controlled weight loss trial found that modified fasting regimen combined with an exercise protocol produced significantly superior weight loss results (6.5%) compared to fasting alone (3.2%) or exercise alone (1.1%).16"

"Results from these intervention trials of modified fasting regimens suggest that these eating patterns result in weight loss, with modest and mixed effects on glucoregulatory markers, lipids and inflammatory markers. However, there is little evidence to suggest that modified alternate day fasting produces superior weight loss or metabolic changes in comparison to standard energy restriction regimens."


Here is another study showing this:
Effect of Alternate-Day Fasting on Weight Loss, Weight Maintenance, and Cardioprotection Among Metabolically Healthy Obese Adults: A Randomized Cli... - PubMed - NCBI

"Among the 100 participants (86 women and 14 men; mean [SD] age, 44 [11] years), the dropout rate was highest in the alternate-day fasting group (13 of 34 [38%]), vs the daily calorie restriction group (10 of 35 [29%]) and control group (8 of 31 [26%]). Mean weight loss was similar for participants in the alternate-day fasting group and those in the daily calorie restriction group at month 6 (-6.8% [95% CI, -9.1% to -4.5%] vs -6.8% [95% CI, -9.1% to -4.6%]) and month 12 (-6.0% [95% CI, -8.5% to -3.6%] vs -5.3% [95% CI, -7.6% to -3.0%]) relative to those in the control group. Participants in the alternate-day fasting group ate more than prescribed on fast days, and less than prescribed on feast days, while those in the daily calorie restriction group generally met their prescribed energy goals. There were no significant differences between the intervention groups in blood pressure, heart rate, triglycerides, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, insulin resistance, C-reactive protein, or homocysteine concentrations at month 6 or 12. Mean high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at month 6 significantly increased among the participants in the alternate-day fasting group (6.2 mg/dL [95% CI, 0.1-12.4 mg/dL]), but not at month 12 (1.0 mg/dL [95% CI, -5.9 to 7.8 mg/dL]), relative to those in the daily calorie restriction group. Mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly elevated by month 12 among the participants in the alternate-day fasting group (11.5 mg/dL [95% CI, 1.9-21.1 mg/dL]) compared with those in the daily calorie restriction group."

Alternate-day fasting did not produce superior adherence, weight loss, weight maintenance, or cardioprotection vs daily calorie restriction."

So from the above research, not only is IF not better than other diets for weight loss, it appears to not have superior metabolic or cardioprotective benefits. Furthermore, it actually resulted in significantly elevated LDL levels. I would take this with a grain of salt, but still worth further research consideration. In the context of weight loss IF has not been shown to be superior and if it is any better than other diets, it has to do with appetite control, not some metabolic advantage.

Again if you want to talk about the benefits of IF outside of the context of weight loss, then we can do that, but let's stick to one topic at a time.

BTW I checked scihub, only found an abstract. How can I find the whole study without a link? I went on the site and opened up a pdf, was still just an abstract.

 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
OK, so now i have only shown that IF compared to caloric restriction spares muscles, maintains metabolic rate and doubles visceral fat loss. It also treats metabolic syndrome. You cling to "no difference in total weight loss". I say that is only due to the design of the studies and that the difference is obvious.

And since you could not find the study i went to check again and actually saw that scihub does not care about people sharing links, so here you have it

url to share this paper:
sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.cmet.2018.04.010

Do you have a case report for carnivore/keto curing diabetes?
Sorry, it was only fasting in the report. But one of the authors has talked how they also use keto with patients that cannot fast.
 
Last edited:

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
OK, so now i have only shown that IF compared to caloric restriction spares muscles, maintains metabolic rate and doubles visceral fat loss. It also treats metabolic syndrome. You cling to "no difference in total weight loss". I say that is only due to the design of the studies and that the difference is obvious.

And since you could not find the study i went to check again and actually saw that scihub does not care about people sharing links, so here you have it

url to share this paper:
sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.cmet.2018.04.010


Sorry, it was only fasting in the report. But one of the authors has talked how they also use keto with patients that cannot fast.

By what metric do you consider being "cured" by diabetes? By my standards if you have to stay on a keto diet after you're "cured" then you are not "cured" and it is only managing diabetes. And I'm not arguing that keto can't help to manage DM, it certainly can, but it is because of less glucose load meaning less insulin needed(management). So yes keto can treat or manage but can it really cure?

I read the study above. I don't have the time to go into all the details right now, but there are plenty of reasons why that study is by no means conclusive evidence of your points. Firstly, it is the first study of it's kind, a controlled feeding trial, and had a very small sample size of 8 people. The authors in the study themselves point out several limitations in the methodology, especially since glucose tolerance was only tested once per day. It is interesting that blood pressure decreased during the experiment, which is certainly beneficial, but prior studies have not shown this to happen. So since this study is one of the first of it's kind in humans, as the authors of the study say themselves it would need to be replicated in order to make any such claims of being superior for metabolic/cardiovascular health. But I certainly am open to the idea that in the context of weight maintenance, one could possible receive these advantages with intermittent fasting. And this is not what my main argument was about. So in this context I mostly agree with you.

Furthermore, to emphasize my point on weight loss, the authors of the study go on to say "eTRF lowers the desire to eat in the evening, which may facilitate weight loss." So your own study proves my point, that weight loss from time-restricted eating, IF, whatever you want to call it does so by lowering desire to eat (i.e. appetite management), and not by any metabolic advantage. Whether or not the action of possible insulin modulation plays a role has yet to be elucidated. Actually, the authors of the study you posted are presenting the evidence for their claims in a non-dogmatic way and are not making any conclusive claims.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Again, I go back to my 2 year experience on keto. When I tried to introduce carbs again, it was not pretty. I definitely became a "fat burner" after all the time on keto and could not metabolize carbs well at all. If that's not the definition of insulin resistance I do not know what is. Eating a diet high in dietary fat activates the randle cycle, this has been discussed countless time by haidut and others here. I do believe the impact of the randle cycle is lessened by someone who has metabolic flexibility, but unhealthy people do not have metabolic flexibility and metabolic flexibility is, in my opinion, restored by eating a high carb lower fat diet and then slowly bringing some fat back in.

Keto CAN and DOES temporarily stave off SYMPTOMS, but does not fix the PROBLEMS. Thus people can and do feel better to a degree when dropping the carbs, because they've removed the response from them entirely. But carbs are not bad. The problem is you, not the carbs. Merely avoiding the carbs does not make you metabolize them better. That's a silly statement by any stretch of the imagination. If I want to get better at anything, I should avoid it? That makes no sense whether we're talking about metabolism, or if we're talking about sports, or whatever.

Following on steve's line of thought, I don't consider a diabetes "cure" a "cure" unless you can eat an ample amount of carbohydrates without issue.
 
Last edited:

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
I go by what the authors of the fasting for diabetes case report have said. Which is that their patients can resume eating carbs and most don't need any medication, none need insulin.

whatever you want to call it does so by lowering desired to eat (i.e. appetite management), and not by any metabolic advantage.

This is completely in conflict with
We demonstrate for the first time in humans that eTRF improves some aspects of cardiometabolic health and that IF's effects are not solely due to weight loss.

This study specifically found metabolic advantage, not necessarily net weight loss.

cirion: yeah, i am not arguing that keto is optimal for everyone, it is more like an intervention to reset the acquired metabolic dysregulation, much like fasting. This study showed quite clearly that even when FFA went up insulin resistance went down. So the FFA theory of diabetes is strongly argued against.
 

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
I go by what the authors of the fasting for diabetes case report have said. Which is that their patients can resume eating carbs and most don't need any medication, none need insulin.



This is completely in conflict with

This study specifically found metabolic advantage, not necessarily net weight loss.

Define what "metabolic advantage" means in the context of weight loss? How about the person who coined the term?
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Also, do you have a link to the full study you shared so we can look at whether or not fasting preserves muscle mass?
A randomized pilot study comparing zero-calorie alternate-day fasting to daily caloric restriction in adults with obesity. - PubMed - NCBI
The above is just an abstract and says nothing about preserving muscle on alternate day fasts.

he did... Sci-Hub | Early Time-Restricted Feeding Improves Insulin Sensitivity, Blood Pressure, and Oxidative Stress Even without Weight Loss in Men with Prediabetes. Cell Metabolism, 27(6), 1212–1221.e3 | 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.04.010

I have to be honest I haven't read the whole thing yet. I suppose I should to give it fair credence.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom