All Meat Paleo Carnivore Diets Are Going Mainstream Big Time !

[stevrd]

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.

I can get behind you on this. I agree that possibly keto can be used as a short-term intervention, though I think the benefits of keto are exaggerated and it mostly should be avoided unless under the care of medical staff. Real keto diets are not a joke, I know because I've worked with epileptic children. Most people do not follow real ketogenic diets and drop out rates are high regardless. Following a legitimate keto diet (fat calories at ~80% or so), you put yourself at risk for multiple deficiencies (not fat sol vitamins), like potassium, folate, vitamin C, etc unless there is adequate plant matter in the diet from highly nutrient dense greens.

I think for the purposes of "resetting" as you say, probably IF is more beneficial than keto, and what's great is one doesn't need to be on a restrictive keto diet. But even then, I think the jury is still out for whether or not fasting is needed to "reset" or if following a more Peat-like diet is indicated for reversing diseases. If you look at William Brown following a nearly nonfat diet for 6 months, he had similar feelings of well-being possibly due to detoxing stored PUFA from tissues. Using the same logic, I think this would only be useful for short-term, but nonetheless is very compelling and should be followed-up on. Effects of Prolonged Use of Extremely Low-Fat Diet on an Adult Human Subject

I am open to the idea that fasting can be transiently beneficial, but I also don't believe that most arguments surrounding why people should fast (i.e. our ancestors did it so it must be good) are valid arguments.

 

[stevrd]

No it was another paper, here is the one he asks for, but i have to wonder why cannot he search there himself?

sci-hub.tw/10.1002/oby.21581

Well the first time you posted it you didn't post the whole studies, which makes me wonder your intentions.

 

[rei]

You know certain authorities are trying to shut down scihub? So i thought not to link directly, but apparently they don't care.

 

[stevrd]

You know certain authorities are trying to shut down scihub? So i thought not to link directly, but apparently they don't care.

Noted.

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.

Right off the bat, that study you posted above is simply a pilot study (read- preliminary study), in other words, by no means conclusive of anything. Secondly, I don't know if you were misinterpreting the paper or what, but the "fasting is 4 times better at preserving lean mass" is not a correct statement.

I'll let viewers of this forum come to their own conclusions by posting the body composition findings of the study below:

"Body weight and body composition At the end of the 8-week intervention, absolute weight change (CR 27.1 6 1.0 kg, ADF 28.2 6 0.9 kg) did not differ between groups (Table 4). However, there was a marginally significant betweengroup difference in relative weight change (CR 26.2 6 0.9%, ADF 28.8 6 0.9%, P 5 0.056). There were no significant differences in change in absolute (kg) or relative (%) FM, trunk FM, and LM over the 8-week intervention. Between the end of the 8-week intervention and the end of the 24-week follow-up (week 8-32), there were no differences in weight regain; however, the composition of weight regain tended to differ between groups. CR gained 1.2 6 0.8 kg of FM and 1.1 6 0.5 kg of LM, conversely, ADF lost 20.4 6 0.8 kg of FM (P 5 0.173 vs. CR) and gained 2.0 6 0.5 kg of LM (P 5 0.197 vs. CR). Between baseline and the end of the 24-week follow-up (baseline to week 32), there were no differences in absolute or relative weight change (Table 4) and differences in change in absolute FM (CR 22.5 6 1.1 kg, ADF 24.2 6 1.0 kg), trunk FM (CR 21.3 6 0.7 kg, ADF 22.7 6 0.6 kg), or LM (CR 21.6 6 0.6 kg, ADF 21.2 6 0.6 kg) did not reach statistical significance. However, %FM (CR 20.7 6 0.5%, ADF 22.4 6 0.5%, P 5 0.035) and %trunk FM (CR 20.3 6 0.4%, ADF 21.8 6 0.3%, P 5 0.009) decreased more in ADF, and %LM (CR 0.5 6 0.5%, ADF 2.2 6 0.5%, P 5 0.026) increased more in ADF."

So the "fasting is 4x better at preserving lean mass" is incorrect. The statement you posted to support this: "the fasting group increased by 2.2% compared to 0.5% in the calorie restriction group" is misleading. Actually the percentages you posted were observed after a 24 week follow-up. Per the authors findings above:
"There were no significant differences in change in absolute (kg) or relative (%) FM, trunk FM, and LM over the 8-week intervention."

Thus, by looking at this study, one cannot conclude that "fasting is 4x better at preserving lean mass." If you want to say that weight re-gained from short-term fasting is higher in lean mass than that would be more in line with the findings of this study, but I would be careful with this line of thinking. Let's put this into context, these researchers followed 29 people for an 8 week intervention comparing alternate day fasting to daily calorie restriction. They found no statistically significant changes in body fat % lost or lean mass change in both groups during the intervention. It was only after the follow-up where they saw any improvements in body composition in the previously fasted groups. We don't know what these people were doing from weeks 9-24 because that is not recorded.

This study of course, was not an isocaloric study, and there was a big discrepancy between the amount of calories that the alternate day fasting participants consumed vs the daily calorie-restricted participants (they ate less), thus proving my point that weight loss from fasting results from eating less, not any metabolic advantage. And furthermore, this study methodology is based off of what people said they ate. Problem with this is that people lie, so therefore because the study's poor methodology, it should not be used to make any claims. See below:

"The estimated energy deficit from weight maintenance needs over the 8-week intervention was significantly higher in ADF compared with CR (by 376 kcal/day). This would be expected to result in several kilograms greater weight loss in the ADF group; however, weight loss was only 1.1 kg greater in ADF. Possible explanations include: (1) the ADF group under-reported food intake on fast and/or fed days or (2) fasting led to a reduction in some component of non-resting energy expenditure in the ADF group (e.g., PA energy expenditure, thermic effect of food). This should be explored in future studies with more accurate assessments of EI and a more detailed assessment of components of EE."

By looking at possible explanation #2 above, could fasting even have some type of aspect of it that reduces energy expenditure (metabolic rate), we don't know for sure, but this possibility certainly doesn't support rei's hypothesis that it's "metabolically advantageous." The last sentence by the authors says it all- yes this should be explored in future study with more accurate assessments.

With all due respect, it appears that your studies that you're clinging so tightly to are not supportive of your claims, rei.

 

[rei]

We can speculate all we want. What if the change is from improved metabolic health that allows more muscle to naturally grow when plenty of calories resume? Fact is it did and is a result of the intervention. And it is in line with previous studies on fasting i remember seeing. edit: like Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: which diet regimen is more effective for weight loss? - PubMed - NCBI

These findings suggest that these diets are equally as effective in decreasing body weight and fat mass, although intermittent CR may be more effective for the retention of lean mass.

 

[stevrd]

We can speculate all we want. What if the change is from improved metabolic health that allows more muscle to naturally grow when plenty of calories resume? Fact is it did and is a result of the intervention. And it is in line with previous studies on fasting i remember seeing.

Care to comment on your misleading statement? First you said IF can "preserve" muscle mass, now you say we can speculate? If you had just admitted that it was a speculation from the beginning there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

"Fact is it did and is a result of the intervention."
How do you know that the body composition changes are a result of the intervention? Did the researchers follow these people from weeks 9-24 to account for the possibility of confounding variables? No they didn't, and therefore your guess is as good as any, you don't know for sure whether from weeks 9-24 if these people were exercising, performing resistance training, eating some other type of diet, or any number of other confounding variables, or even just by chance. The conclusion you drew is not what the study shows.

 

[rei]

All other reasons but the intervention are equally distributed in both groups and can be ignored. Starting to argue about opinions on sample size etc. were not in scope.

 

[stevrd]

All other reasons but the intervention are equally distributed in both groups and can be ignored. Starting to argue about opinions on sample size etc. were not in scope.

Ok so if all things are equal between both groups than on weeks 9 to 24 they were eating the same diet, were following the same activities of daily living, doing the same types of exercise, etc?

Honestly at this point you are just coming off as dishonest. If you can't admit that the statement you made about fasting and muscle gain is wrong and misleading than there's no point in further arguing this. This forum is about helping people through open communication and transparency, not a **** measuring contest. The only reason I post here is so that I can steer people away from unnecessary diet dogma so that people can see the light and help themselves heal. You now have revealed that you are not being helpful or honest and will argue against any data that doesn't support your view.

 

[rei]

Take any amount of people, randomize and make any intervention to one group. After ten years if you find statistically significant difference in any outcome, you know it was the intervention that caused it since it is the only thing different. It does not matter what happened during the 10 years.

 

[High_Prob]

This dude cracks me up....

""

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

i feel the body works best when put into hormetic conditions, thus no diet will ever work. I think the body likes IF, then keto, then higher carb, rinse and repeat. To stick to one thing will just create an unhealthy physiologic adaptation.

Cirion, if you're eating 4000-5000 calories/day to get your temps up; you are in a state of metabolic disaster. You've said some pretty off the wall things that aren't backed by science, particularly with respect to fasting. I have never read any legitimate study that shows cortisol level elevation prior to 72hr of fasting. I am currently doing OMAD. For how long I don't know. It's working now. When it stops working, I'll get into another hormetic framework.

My research has led to me to this fed state MTOR performance pathway vs fasted state AMPK longevity pathway balance. We need a balance to live long, but also to retain strong bones/muscle/brain tissue. Throwing insane calories into your body to keep your temps up puts you in a perpetual MTOR state which will lead to tumor growth, obesity, and decreased longevity. I would urge you to get off that excessive calorie train, and focus more on hormesis, i.e. irregular fasting protocols, cold thermogenesis, or interval training.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

This is the final draft of my daily logbook pages. Diet is obviously only one component in a shitstorm that attacks us on every front. Again, I am a hormesis proponent who feels all diets are cults and doomed to fail everyone as the body negatively adapts over time. I base everything on my performance. If I feel weak, I eat more frequently and up my carbs; if I'm putting on a little weight, I intermittent fast and go more toward keto. I think Omega 6s are bad for everyone....forever. I feel grains are fine in small quantities as long as you can tolerate them. I do great with wheat, but it seems like everyone around me struggles with it. I feel like crap on rice and potatoes so go figure.

 

[Momado965]

I don’t understand why grains are so demonized in the health world. Highly refined grains are essentially pure energy, and in my experience cause almost no problems. Mix it with fat and they digest pretty much perfectly, with zero inflammation, not too mention that they taste absolutely incredible.

People try and trick themselves into eating brown rice and quinoa, where white rice and white bread and refined pasta are where it’s at.

A life with no grains would be a less healthy life for me, not too mention a horribly less interesting dietary one too.

Then again, I’m not sure if people mean whole graind or refined grains. Refined + fat = some serious metabolic warmth and energy

Preach! Preach my pasta brethren. Preach oh father of strach for this world has sinned and forgiven the mighty bread and rice! Preach!

 

[Momado965]

This hasn't been the case for me, and others on the forum. Other than the occasional white rice, the regular consumption of grains just destroy my gut. I've been Peating since 2012, so for a while now, and my health has improved greatly, and I feel that over the years as my health has improved, I am more sensitive to the effects of stress hormones, especially serotonin. No matter what I do, if I eat grains for more than a few days in a row, my digestion gets messed up for days and it starts a stress cascade of serotonin...due to serotonin and endotoxin. And my digestive health is very good until I eat grains. I do agree that refined grains are better over unrefined, for the most part. And I did do well on them when I was new to Peat, but not anymore. I really like some grains too, but feeling good, having good sleep, good mental clarity, and good digestion matters to me the most. I just do much better with high fruit intake for my carbs. Fat, salt, with some protein, and fruit juice or stewed/cooked apples/pears does it perfectly for me and keeping me warm. But there are those who do well on white rice or lentils, etc., so in the end everyone has to listen to their bodies.

For sure. I always felt really bad on a diet skewed heavily towards fruit. I wonder what the physiological differences are that dictate whether someone is going to need more or less starch in their diet. I want to conjecture muscle mass, but there may be more going on.

The answer to both of you guys is three meaningful words. Yin and yang. If the body is too yin you wont handle yin foods well so you need yang and vise versa.

 

[Momado965]

This is the final draft of my daily logbook pages. Diet is obviously only one component in a shitstorm that attacks us on every front. Again, I am a hormesis proponent who feels all diets are cults and doomed to fail everyone as the body negatively adapts over time. I base everything on my performance. If I feel weak, I eat more frequently and up my carbs; if I'm putting on a little weight, I intermittent fast and go more toward keto. I think Omega 6s are bad for everyone....forever. I feel grains are fine in small quantities as long as you can tolerate them. I do great with wheat, but it seems like everyone around me struggles with it. I feel like crap on rice and potatoes so go figure.

Yeah I feel bad on potatos if I cook then but when I buy a bag of chips I dont. Mostly because bag of chips has 30% fat whereas when I cook my potatos it about 3%.

 

[Momado965]

There are no beneficial aspects of wheat consumption. None. Very healthy and robust people can tolerate it more or less, but it is not beneficial in any way. As Ray said: Wheat isn't made for human consumption.

Then how come humans cultivated it before the agricultural age?

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

I left this forum for a year and it's got crazy cult like, just like keto. I tried to read a bunch of threads and I just couldn't finish them. I am self-banning myself because a moderator is going to kick me off.

 

[Momado965]

I left this forum for a year and it's got crazy cult like, just like keto. I tried to read a bunch of threads and I just couldn't finish them. I am self-banning myself because a moderator is going to kick me off.

Loooooooooooooooooool!

 

[Momado965]

You're an idiot. I clearly can read research. All your links show is that one can MANAGE type II DM with a low carb diet. Why? Because lowering total glucose load, you don't need as much insulin to manage it. It does nothing to cure diabetes as evidenced by the fact that people on ketogenic diets consistently fail oral glucose tolerance tests. You're the one making ridiculous claims saying people can be "cured" by following a carnivore diet. Please present research where a carnivore diet "cures" diabetes. I am the only one here presenting biochemistry and mechanistic evidence of why the carbohydrate theory of insulin resistance is wrong. Carbs are absolutely not the cause of insulin resistance as you so vehemently state. Here is some good supporting research you're asking for:

Most recent news on the topic: NUSI Ketogenic Studies:
(1) Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men
Gary Taube's funded metabolic ward study: 17 participants in a metabolic ward for 4 weeks on a high carb baseline diet followed by 4 weeks of a ketogenic diet with clamped protein: Utilizing DLW, doubly labeled water; DXA, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, researchers measured weight loss and fat loss changes. Both diets resulted in weight loss and body fat. The isocaloric ketogenic diet phase did not show any more fat loss. The subjects lost 0.8 ± 0.2 kg (P = 0.002) of body weight over the last 15 d of the BD period (Figure 2A) with 0.5 ± 0.1 kg (P = 0.005) of this unintentional weight loss coming from body fat (Figure 2B). The body weight and composition changes indicated an overall state of negative energy balance that was calculated to be −373 ± 97 kcal/d (P = 0.002) by using standard coefficients for the energy densities of body fat and fat-free mass (18) as shown in Figure 2C. Introduction of the KD was followed by a rapid additional 1.6 ± 0.2 kg of weight loss (P < 0.0001), likely primarily the result of body water loss because fat mass decreased by only 0.2 ± 0.1 kg (P = 0.09) over the next 15 d. Over the entire 28-d KD period, the total weight lost was 2.2 ± 0.3 kg (P < 0.0001), with 0.5 ± 0.2 kg (P = 0.03) from loss of body fat. The energy imbalance during the last 2 wk of the KD was calculated to be −242 ± 94 kcal/d (P = 0.02; Figure 2C) and was not significantly different from the last 2 wk of the BD period (P = 0.33).

(2) The second NuSI-funded diet trial has arrived
12 month free-living study, where researchers told participants to eat either a high carb low fat (20g/day) or a high fat low carb (20g/day diet).
Both diets caused similar weight and fat loss at 12 months (-5.3 kg [-12 lb] for LF vs. -6.0 kg [-13 lb] for LC). These are better 12-month results than most diet trials.


In patient metabolic balance study: 19 obese adults confined to metabolic ward for two 2 week periods. The authors in this study suggest that in isocaloric diets, dietary fat restriction results in more weight loss than dietary carb restriction. This is food for thought. It obviously has it's limitations, being short-term. Using double labeled water methods and using metabolic chambers. The most sensitive method for detecting the rate of body fat change requires calculating daily fat balance as the difference between fat intake and net fat oxidation (i.e., fat oxidation minus de novo lipogenesis) measured by indirect calorimetry while residing in a metabolic chamber. Several days of the RF diet led to a steady fat imbalance of 840 ± 60 kcal/day, or equivalently 89 ± 6 g/day of body fat loss (Figure 3A), which was significantly greater than the steady rate of body fat loss of 500 ± 60 kcal/day, or 53 ± 6 g/day, achieved during the RC diet (p = 0.0002) (Figure 3A). In contrast, the RC diet led to significantly greater transient carbohydrate imbalance (Figure 3B) with little difference in protein balance (Figure 3C) compared with the RF diet.
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00350-2

8 obese subjects in a metabolic ward of the clinical research center at the univ of vermont were followed for 8 weeks with isocaloric diets. This study compares isocaloric high carb vs. ketogenic diets. Weight loss was higher for the keto group initially, which later leveled off. Fat loss was about the same in both groups. LC diet was 1% CHO. Group A lost 4.8% and group B lost 5.7% fat loss.
Comparison of carbohydrate-containing and carbohydrate-restricted hypocaloric diets in the treatment of obesity. Endurance and metabolic fuel homeostasis during strenuous exercise.

This study compares similar protein intakes and either high-carb or low-carb diets for six weeks:
https://proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-...t-loss-with-low-or-hgh-carbohydrate-diets.pdf

Noakes et al, nutrition metabolism. 83 subjects for 4 weeks. This study compares Low carb/High carb diets and fat loss. Authors conclude fat loss is similar among diets. Metabolic ward with 30% energy restricted, isocaloric diets (6000kj for 8 weeks).
Isocaloric VLCARB results in similar fat loss than diets low in saturated fat, but are more effective in improving triacylglycerols, HDL-C, fasting and post prandial glucose and insulin concentrations. VLCARB may be useful in the short-term management of subjects with insulin resistance and hypertriacylglycerolemia. % fat loss of VLCARB diet was 4.5% vs 4.0% for the very low fat diet.
Comparison of isocaloric very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low saturated fat diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk

This is a meta-analysis of 23 long-term RCTs comparing high carb and low carb diets. The authors conclude both are effective for weight loss: Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials
Our findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets are at least as effective as low-fat diets for weight loss, regardless of gender, age, length of intervention, diabetes status, and level of carbohydrate restriction. In the present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing low-carbohydrate diets with low-fat diets, we found that both diets were equally effective at reducing body weight and waist circumference. Both diets reduced participants' blood pressures, total to HDL cholesterol ratios, and total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood glucose, and serum insulin levels and raised HDL cholesterol; however, participants on low-carbohydrate diets had greater increases in HDL cholesterol and greater decreases in triglycerides but experienced less reduction in total and LDL cholesterol compared with persons on low-fat diets. These findings have important clinical and public health implications. Over the past several decades, low-fat diets have been recommended to the public for weight loss primarily because of their beneficial effects on metabolic risk factors (4). Our study suggests that low-carbohydrate diets might provide an alternative approach for weight reduction without worsening metabolic risk factors.

Its funny how you destroyed every misconception about carbs or sugar ppl have with a a couple of hundered words. Lol.