RRM wrote:
Ha, ha,
The teeth are not just for killing, also for EATING.
With our teeth, animal tissue gets stuck between them.
At least animal tissue didn´t cause me a tooth erosion like fruit. Nick had also teeth issues with this diet.
And there isn´t ANY evolutionary disadvantage of ¨teeth filled with animal tissue¨.
Sure, but our digestive is more that in between carnivores and herbivores, as we naturally eat both plant foods and animal food.
So do you think that plant foods were a big part of the Homo-like species diet, leading to a decrease in human guts´s size? It doesn´t make sense. Neither fruit nor leaves were a big part of our diet
Why would ancient apes discontinue eating leaves but continue to eat fruit?
Because these are easier to digest.
So our human tract evolved FIRST, and THEN we realized that leaves were not easy to digest?
It´s because animal foods formed the bulk of our diet! Not fruit! Not leaves!
Again, our digestive system is not that of a carnivore.
I hope you can agree to that...
I agree 100%. But that doesn´t mean that fruit was always available and RAF in little quantities.
According to anthropologic research paleolithic humans were mainly carnivores.
Anthropologic research is devided.
What do you mean?
Our digestive system at least is not that of a carnivore.
That proves that raw-muscle meat is not for humans, not that we should eat fruit and little RAF.
Protein evokes insulin secretion as well.
As does fat.
All bad, i think not.
I agree.
Its about balance. Particularly this diet (doing it right) minimizes insulin peaks and overall insulin secretion.
I don´t need even a study to know that this is true if you compare Wai´s diet to the SAD. But I need the test of a low-carb vs. Wai´s diet.
Here you had your answer already.
Less TOTAL insulin.
I know!
It may be low when compared to the SAD, but the total insulin load it´s higher when eating carbs than when eating protein or fat.
And the insulin levels may be lower than in the SAD because Wai´s diet prevents overeating, but the total insulin load is higher than in a low-carb diet, at isocaloric levels. No?
Did you ever measure your insulin and blood-glucose levels? Or somebody else on this diet? I would love you could present me the evidence for me to alternate Wai´s diet and my current one. But I would need to watch out my erosion carefully. Now I have it in ¨stand by¨ with my current keto diet.
I know that Wai´s diet hasn´t been tested, but do you know of any human study evaluating this pattern of frequent meals? Dr. John Berardi, one of the world´s more famous nutritionist/trainner proposes an eating schedule of meals every 2-3 hours because he says that it provides better blood glucose and insulin control, but I am not aware of any clinical trial to support his view.
As far as I know, only internittent fasting, CR restricion and ketogenic diets have shown to improve blood glucose and insulin regulation in both human and animal studies.
Some amino acids have glucogenic properties; I already know that.
Not some. Most.
I agree here.
So, neither glucose nor ketone bodies from proteins have an effect on ketosis?
Dont you see that this does not make any sense?
Glucose inmediately inhibits ketosis in the liver.
KB from protein don´t contribute to ketosis development. Why it doesn´t make sense? KB derived from fat metabolism DO have an effect on ketosis development.
Did you revise the sources I have mentioned. The first parts of Lyle McDonald´s book The ketogenic diet can be downladed for free! Make a google search.
You don´t necessarily need to eat MORE protein to be in ketosis, as you seem to believe.
No, I never claimed that.
What I claim, is that there are 3 macro-nutrients: carbs, protein and fat.
If you decrease the amount of carbs, the share of protein and fat will go up alomst automatically, unless you try to restrict protein intake by limiting your food choice even more.
Why zero nitrogen balance can be mantained with standard amounts of dietary protein after 3 weeks on a keto diet? Doesn´t the body use more fatty acids and ketone bodies (derived from fats not from AA) instead of glucose, when compared to an individual that is not keto-adapetd?
I didn´t make a test, but I found that if you don´t zip from OJ regularly you loose lean muscle mass and feel lows in energy together with hunger for sweet foods.
So, you by doing our diet wrongly (opposed to our advice), you conclude that the results from that stem from our diet?
No, you didn´t read the comlpete post. I didn´t say that if you zip OJ frequently you will experience muscle loss. I did it both ways.
I just wanted to give my experience that when you are keto-adaptd and you don´t eat, you are less hungry and experience no lows in energy and no muscle loss (at least appreciable by my eyes).
That doesnt at all mean that muscle turnover is greater on our diet.
Only that when you are keto-adapted, you can better cope with less glucose.
Exactly. You just misunderstood my first statement or I didn´t say it correctly, or both.
And why do you think this happens? Because glucose requrements DO decrease, or not?
I also eat fish, not only fruits ... So, we are talking that IT IS a high protein diet?
No, because fruit is MUCH lower in protein than zooplankton and fish, and you eat OJ+sugar and little RAF.
And you think that size size, metabolic rate and heart beat have nothing to do with protein contents of their diet?
All is intertwined. You cannot simply skip protein from the equation.
It´s interwinded when studying the SAME species under a certain dietary intervention, not when comparing DIFFERENT species.
if you believe that herbivores live longer than species eating high-protein diets, explain how.
Nitrogen load.
See? That´s ALL YOUR theory, not mine. Where is the evidence? I told you to bring examples from nature and you didn´t, maybe because even just a single one came into your mind.
A cat can live more than two times the lifespan of a rabbit, although they both have similar size. Just that example between a carnivore and an herbivore shows how far away from the truth YOUR theory is. A lion lives more than a cow, and a dog more than a goat. A carnivorous bear lives more than a bison.
Your theory ONLY is true when citing in a SELECTIVE way only longed lived herbivores - like elephants or hippos - IGNORING the other examples in which longed lived mammals eating high-protein diets double or triplicate the lifespan of many other herbivores – like killer whales vs. llamas - as a more accurate observation of nature clearly shows.
Your claim reminds me to Ancel Key´s infamous study, in which he showed an association between animal fat consumption and CHD in some countries. But if we observe many other countries that he didn´t mention, the correlation simply dissapears, leaving his supposed theory looking like a childish statement.
So even a cow isn´t metabolizing carbs.
Excuse me?
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no glucose in the cow's blood being metabolized?
No, what I said is that cows and the rest of ruminant species don´t absorb dietary glucose from their digestive tract, because the only molecules that can be absorbed through it are water and short chain FA; well and vitamins, ions, minerals, etc. Of course that those short chain FS are converted to feed the brain, RB cells, etc.
It is clear that, for us, eating carbs all day IT IS artificial.
So, early humans never walked through areas containing fruit-bearing trees; they never picked and ate fruits throughout the day?
Thats all unnatural?
Of course. That scenario didn´t occur every day. Fruit is prone to seasonal variation. During he glaciation period where paleo humans lived, fruit was abundant?
You cannot narrow down health to those markers.
Thats an oversimplification.
Well, show me another tested way of predicting aging rate. I don´t know any.
I understand you want to narrow down health to ketosis, but I hope you will consider that health is multi-factorial.
No. Of course that health is multifactorial. We need also vigorous exercise (not aerobic prolongued; harmful), adequate rest, pure air, sunshine, love hapiness, etc. All are equally important. I have obtained better health benefits from exercise than from diets. And I perform better on a keto diet.
On the other hand, I think that you give too much importance to 100%RAW than to the factors I have mentioned or to other factors in diet also. I think that´s more narrow minded, but I am nopt the owner of the truth. We may have different views.
You may induce caloric restriction and ketosis by eating only 2 hamburgers a day, but that doesnt mean that eating hamburgers makes us healthier.
Of course not. Do that and you will be seriously malnourished.
The nutrient-intake aspect is another hing that I consider to be better on an animal food based diet than on Wai´s.
Are you saying that high-protein low-carb diets aren´t better than high-carb diets?
Absolutely. Its a blatant oversimplification.
I mean a natural paleo low-carb high-protein diet vs. a high-carb diet (grains).
A diet of mainly grilled meat is certainly worse than a diet of mainly canned juice.
Although a diet of mainly grilled-meat, in an IF context, may cause mild vit C deficit in the long-run, I think that with a mainly canned juice diet you will have serious deficiencies, not mild-like.
You simply assume that following this diet correctly you will not achieve improved glucose control and insulin sensitivity.
No, that´s not my only concern about the Wai´s diet, but it would be interesting to test it in humans.
Here are some human clinical trials showing that high-protein diets don´t cause damage:
They dont show that.
They very selectively compare.
Your claim above is infinitely wider than what all of them showed.
How?
If you aren´t convinced show me why high-protein diets are bad OR cause kidney damage OR decrease aging in HUMANS.
We will compare the studies.
A comparison of healthy omnivores eating 100 grams or more of protein per day with long-term vegetarians eating 30g or less of protein per day concluded that both groups had similar kidney function and that the unrestricted protein diet does not significantly affect kidney function with "normal aging" in healthy subjects.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... /149/1/211
What does this say about the lifetime nitrogen load? The kidneys dont have to filter out ammonium.
Again, why do you assume that a high-protein diet will cause damage? Show well-controlled trials proving your point.
Follow up of kidney failure patients?
THATS your argument?
If kidneys are being DESTROYED by high-protein diets, as many health commentators say, how on earth can kidney-patients IMPROVE on such a detrimental, kidney-destructive diet!!
The high carb diet, I guess it was high in grains?
If you want to use scientific studies, you need way more specific ones.
Maybe you can bring them.
It´s natural for SOME (i.e. the fruitarian bat) but not for all of those species, including us.
So, you really think that fruits/carbs are not part of our natural diet?
As I said, only in occasional circumstances. Clearly not every day.
Our genome is the one of hunter gatherers who evolved eating mainly animal foods.
Hunter gatherers...
Hunter (relatively ill-equiped)
and?
gatherers....
of what?
Of fruit and honey maybe, but not every day.
Sure, we have been eating meat.
Does it show how much?
Yes! Much more than on Wai´s diet. Cehck for Cordain´s references to Homo-like beings bone isotopic analysis.
So, vitamin B3, among others, is no essential nutrient either?
About cholesterol, we are saying the same things with different words. I mean the strict definition of ¨essential¨.
Increased cholesterol intake may resolve the issue but low cholesterol intake is never the cause of low cholesterol level?
Not if sufficient fats are provided, not necessarily brains and egg yolks. The inability to lower cholestrol significantly by restricting its intake is a fact. Check Ravnsvok studies. When all the variables are controlled, SFA tend to raise blood cholesterol total levels.
studies showing benefits from supplementing cholesterol doesn´t exist.
So, this study does not exist?
Dufour F, Liu QY, Gusev P, Alkon D, Atzori M. Cholesterol-enriched diet affects spatial learning and synaptic function in hippocampal synapses. Brain Res 2006; 1103(1):88-98.
[/b]
Do you have a human study?
Anyway, thank´s for the study! It´s interesting how the hippocampus neurons are protected by dietary cholesterol! The same region in the brain that is significatly protected by Intermittent fasting Mattson et al).
Even it´s an animal study It seems of value.
If you are interetsed I can give you many studies showing benefits from ketones, which have neuroprotective action in rats.
Meat is the only rich source of L-carnitine. Their properties are more than inetresting. Eating only a few egg yolks will clearly deprive you from ingesting this valious amino acid.
Meat is the only rich source of L-carnitine. Their properties are more than inetresting. Eating only a few egg yolks will clearly deprive you from ingesting this valious amino acid.
The sources you quote dont support your claims.
So egg yolks provide carnitine in optimal amounts?
Sure, animal food provides you with essential nutrients, in as much as fruits do.
If you compare an apple to liver and brain you must be kidding.
Great decreases in creatine muscle content were found in healthy men who switched to a lacto-ovo vegan diet. I don´t think that some egg yolks and a little fish contain ALL nutrients in optimal amounts.
You can THINK whatever you want.
I guess you think that more is always better.
Not necessarily. But If the nutrient improves recovery, performance or well-being in amounts that can´t be obtained by little RAF, of course!
Optimal creatine levels can be achieved by supplementation or better, by eating sufficient red meat. Show me evidence with yolks or fish.
What is the optimal level?
The highest level?
Creatine supplementaion benefits are well-known in athletes. Again, if I obtain benefits by eating more meat than just a few egg yolks or fish in recovery, is because my cells need of that nutrient, don´t you think? I am talking of healthy exercise, not marathoners, because you come to say that exercise increases free-radical damage (I have read Waisays).
We naturally eat animal food, sure.
We can also synthetize taurine.
Seems there is more nuance here than regarding vitamin C, no?
The vit C issue is quite interesting. Just because our ancestors could mate and leave descendance under a mild-vit C deficient diet (meat based), doesn´t mean that is the ideal amount, like many people eating carnivorous diets seem to believe. Dr. Rath documented atherosclerosis cure in humans by ascorbic acid supplementation. I prefer to supplement it and not take it from massive fruit quantitites. I know that this is artificial, but I have obtained the bst benefits with keto diet supplemented too. Not with Wai´s. I also obtained benefits from drinking mineral-rich bone/veggie broths - I don´t eat plants - and from beverages like teas and others. I don´t think taht fruit provides minerals in optimal quantities, given that actual soils are nutrient-depleted.
Why? Because it contains toxins, as opposed to raw beef.
Again, read what I read about HCAs and lab animals and answer my questions on the subject.
Just peel your fruits (and dont consume grains etc).
No, but the toxic pesticides that are in the peel touched the fruit, and those are the same pesticides that cause cancer in lab animals when given at doses 1,000,000 X higher! So we should eat a diet 100%PESTICIDE-FREE!
Tell me, did our ancestors ever thrive on raw meat, you think?
Raw organs like brains, bone marrow, eggs and other soft animal foods yes. But throwing away the muscle-meat because it was too tough (adult animal, not tender as a premium cut) didn´t increase survival chances!!
Cooking allowed humans to eat those parts and maximizing energy obtention from food sources.
I've got to read it again.