Wai should be high in animal foods and low in fruit/carbs

[mario91]

No one on a keto diet is eating processed bacon and prepackaged meals, cmon... (when I say no one I don't mean 0%, but close to). Why you keep insisting on such an insane argument. People on keto are 100% conscious of the junk food problem. Some are eating home-cooked muscle meat, following the advise of all the shill keto MDs, but that's already a lot better than everything else except raw keto.

There have been studies 100 years ago that a keto diet was extremely efficient in relieving epilepsy. Which is also related to blood sugar, like most modern diseases.

[mario91]

All carbs trigger insuline, junk or not. Junk are definitely much worse due to higher glycemic rates, carcinogens and inflammatory factors, but it's clearly more than a question of junk food, since, like I said, most modern disease is related to blood sugar. If I lived in a tropical tribe, far away from all the pollution, radiation and chemicals, I'd have no problem eating all the carbs I wanted. In my current situation, not so much.

[panacea]

There are many people on keto, including myself at times in the past when I was starting out and my family members, who eat a lot of 'junk' or processed keto foods, it is extremely common. There's entire reddit groups, facebook groups, etc with people posting junk or processed or low quality keto foods for their keto lifestyle. Some people on keto get almost all their fat from plant oils, or heated and rendered animal fats, and so on. And the atkins/convenience meals are a big deal here, there are even 'keto friendly' snacks sold in stores. Who do you think buys these things? People on keto diets. If they didn't these items wouldn't command such popular and dominating areas on the shelves of major grocery stores.

Here's a nice example of some 'allowed' keto fast foods from a very popular keto website resource, from an even more popular keto diet guru:
https://www.ruled.me/wp-content/uploads ... t-food.pdf

Particularly illuminating is the last page, where it says what to look for in grocery stores:

■ Meat and Cheese Packs
■ Hard Boiled Eggs
■ Canned/Packaged Tuna
■ Pre-packaged Salads
■ Parmesan Crisps
■ Pre-cooked Bacon
■ Heavy Cream + Butter + Coffee
■ Raw Green Veggies + Dip

The meat packs that are in US stores are so lean and processed it makes people sick if they try to live on it exclusively even for a couple of days. Pre-cooked bacon is extremely cooked, so as to prevent any kind of lawsuit for bacteria fears, and the rest is pretty self explanatory.

[mario91]

Fair enough, I admit I'm wrong on that point then, but I still stand by the rest.

[panacea]

Did you know that predators which kill and eat their meat-based prey on the spot are consuming plenty of carbs in the form of glycogen? Rigor mortis is what depletes the carbohydrates in stored meats, slaughtered/butchered and left for awhile. Many animals are also slaughtered in an already glycogen depleted state (for human consumption). So, there's really nothing unnatural about animal-food based carbohydrates.

[mario91]

And how many carbs per weight are present in such meat? I'm curious to know, but I bet it isn't your 200 grams a day or the 300/400 or a fruit or even most modern diets. Plus, I'm not saying that some carbs aren't natural. It's just that in the modern day, with all the stupidly insane toxicity everywhere, we will benefit from a low-carb diet, even lower than our natural diet. It's like people who have diarrhea and need to go on boiled fish and potatoes for the next week (according to common knowledge at least). We're presently in that state.

[panacea]

I can't really find much data on how much is in land mammal meat, but I found this for marine meat (such as what the eskimos ate), due to the weather there also, they could preserve more of the glycogen just because of the cold, and because it's a marine creature. In addition, some of their fermentation processes actually increased the carb content of their animal food.

Inuit actually consume more carbohydrates than most nutritionists have assumed. Because Inuit frequently eat their meat raw and fresh, or freshly frozen, they can obtain more carbohydrates from their meat, as dietary glycogen, than Westerners can.

The Inuit practice of preserving a whole seal or bird carcass under an intact whole skin with a thick layer of blubber also permits some proteins to ferment, or hydrolyze, into carbohydrates.

Furthermore, the blubber, organs, muscle and skin of the marine mammals that the Inuit ate have significant glycogen stores which assist those animals when oxygen is depleted on prolonged dives.

For instance, when blubber is analyzed by direct carbohydrate measurements, it has been shown to contain as much as 8--30% carbohydrates.

While postmortem glycogen levels are often depleted through the onset of rigor mortis, marine mammals have a much delayed onset of rigor mortis, even in warm conditions, presumably due to the high content of oxymyoglobin in the muscle that may permit aerobic metabolism to continue slowly for some time after the death of the animal.

Additionally, in cold conditions, glycogen's depletion is halted at -18 °C (-0.4 °F) and lower temperatures in comminuted meat.

Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine

[panacea]

If we look at a nutrition label for raw milk



That is 50% of your calories from fat exactly, 30% from carb, and 22.5% from protein, if all you ate was milk. Now I'm going to try and find what the ratios are in human milk...

[mario91]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6019055/
"Glycogen is a ubiquitous fuel source stored in the cytosol of cells, occupying 2% of the volume of cardiac cells, 1%–2% of the volume of skeletal muscle cells, and 5%–6% of the volume of liver cells"

I'm not in any way denying that the Innuit get up to 20% of their calories from carbs (yet they're still on ketosis, probably from being fat adapted). I'm only saying that we have the luxury of being able to do a low-carb diet and, for the reasons I've already explained, we should do it.

[panacea]

OK for human milk:
58% calories are fat, 39% calories carb, 6% protein. It's interesting to me that there's so little protein, even at the stage of life when you would think growth demands for it would be high.

Also volume doesn't really mean anything, as far as I understand physics, mass is what matters, not volume.. you could have very dense masses or not in the same volumes.

[mario91]

Milk is for babies, you need carbs for growth. Keep growing in a toxic world and you get sick.

[panacea]

You are oversimplifying what carbs do, carbs and fat can interchangeably be used to grow, or not. There are body builders that are keto, and ones that aren't keto. Milk is not just for babies, that's like saying wolves shouldn't eat a calf because it's a different species.. we all know how the food chain works right? If it's food then other animals that can digest that food, can use it as food. Milk, meat, doesn't matter.

Protein is a human requirement, I was just surprised that babies require so little, but it may be because they drink relatively so much milk, that they get enough. So if a 14 lb baby drank 32 oz of breast milk they'd get 10 g of protein, that's pretty high compared the DRI of protein for adults at 0.36 grams per pound (200 lb man = 72 g protein minimum). 14 lb baby = 5g protein minimum, but they get twice that.

[mario91]

You know that that's not what I meant (on milk). Fruit is human food as well, but in the toxic modern environment you'll benefit from restricting it. Also because your ancestors only ate it 3 months per year.

[mario91]

And you also know very well what I meant by "growth". It's about the speed of it, not presence vs total absence.

[panacea]

I still don't know what you mean by the speed of growth vs any other kind of growth. What are you talking about?

To the best of my ability, it seems like what you said is that drinking milk would make you grow like a baby does, and get sick, which made zero sense to me, so I assumed you actually meant that it would make you bulk up, which makes more sense, but simply isn't true, that's a function of how much energy you put in vs how much you use, not a function of what type of energy (fat vs carb) you put in. A baby grows not because of what you feed it, but because the DNA of the baby and the organs of the baby makes it grow, as best it can, no matter what you feed it, if you give it the building blocks it needs and enough energy.