Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
mermaiden

Low Carb Diets for Acne

I wanted to put this out there. It does help some people with their acne.

Basically, the theory behind low carb diets clearing acne is that once you get your insulin levels stabilized, your hormones are regulated properly and hormonal related problems like PCOS and acne improve.

This is the idea behind the Perricone Prescription, though I find Atkins is a good diet for acne.

I know you've all probably hear bad things about the diet, but if anyone's interested you can search for acne in the forum at http://www.lowcarb.ca/ and see for yourself how many people have been helped. There's a lot of bad press about low carb, but there's also many studies/books/personal experience in favour of it so do a little research before you dismiss it.

It's also a good diet for those with hypoglycemia, diabetes and any type of insulin/bloodsugar disorder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ONCE AGAIN.... selectively intake your carbs people. Limit grains but go for the whole grain variety, quinoa and brown rice are what I consume, as well as corn. Don't base a whole diet off grains! Don't eat in abundance unless you are an athlete and burn the energy. No need to go insane with the meats though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ONCE AGAIN.... selectively intake your carbs people. Limit grains but go for the whole grain variety, quinoa and brown rice are what I consume, as well as corn. Don't base a whole diet off grains! Don't eat in abundance unless you are an athlete and burn the energy. No need to go insane with the meats though!

100% agreed, like normal. I tend to get my carbs from potatos (red) but each 2 their own.

Just an emphasis that meat has their place in diets but in the long run you would get more problems if one a largly meat diet. You will have acid piss like a dog and your breath will smell like swamp gas like a dog because the Acid the meat produces while digesting it high. (thats y lemon goes with fish)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL please remember everyone is different metabolically. Some people rquire high meat intake for optimum health. Dont eat a diet because u think its healthy or because u believe the myths of the world. One mans food is another mans posion. Protein types simply cant make it on a vegan diet and carb types simple cant eat that much protein or fat. Listen to ur body and let it report back to u what foods are best for u.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL please remember everyone is different metabolically. Some people rquire high meat intake for optimum health. Dont eat a diet because u think its healthy or because u believe the myths of the world. One mans food is another mans posion. Protein types simply cant make it on a vegan diet and carb types simple cant eat that much protein or fat. Listen to ur body and let it report back to u what foods are best for u.

I don't understand what's funny about people sharing their dietary habits and experiences. yes, everyone requires a tailor-made diet, but people have experienced "optimum health" through taking the suggestions of others (such as nutritionists). It's true you shouldn't necessarily believe everything you are told, but why assume that everyone has an indiscriminate mind. btw how do I figure out whether I am a 'carb type' or a 'protein type', besides the "listen to your body approach" because that's kind of vague and isn't really helping me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course nothing works for everyone, but I'm just putting it out there.

I think you can figure out if you do better on protein or carbs by trying higher protein for a month, then higher carb (just changing the ratio) and see how you feel. If it's hard to keep track, write down how you're feeling and compare your notes.

In Atkins you do have whole grains in the later stages, but in smaller amounts. Like someone said, it's all about changing the ratio of protein to carbs, not eliminating them entirely. An entire carb free diet have to be meat and fats, but right from the beginning of atkins you're having 3 cups of vegetables and you add in more carbs from there in a certain order to see what your body tolerates well. You can have a few servings of whole grains, but the majority of your carbs should be coming from vegetables, berries and low sugar fruits.

Also, Atkins does not have to be a high protein/meat diet. It's more about adequate protein, fats and limiting non-vegetable carbs to a few servings instead of the recommended 11 servings a day. Medically, my recommended protein intake is 50grams for example, and on Atkins I don't usually come close to that. So I wouldn't say you gorge on protein at all, though people can do so of course, it doesn't mean they are following the diet..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theories are just that theories

Low carb diets are thought to lower insulin because without carbs there's no need for insulin

In fact one could even argue that with no carbs at all the insulin levels will be almost 0

The truth is different. Clinical studies comparing different kind of diet have never been able to show that a low carb diet lowers insulin evels more than an high fibre and low gi carbs diet

Insulin is needed by the body to control amino acids and when amino acids must enter the muscolar cell membranas to be used to buil tissue, it's insulin that does all the work

This is why for example when studies measure the REAL hematic insuling levels of people after having eaten different food they show that beed raises insulin way more than refined pasta does

No carbs diets, just animal foods and no plant foods, don't lower insulin levels at all, and in fact when the body uses fatty acids as a substrate to produce ATP insulin levels raise exponentially

There are no studies that have showed that the insulin issue is such black and white issue as carbs = insulin/no carbs = insulin ... since low carbs diets that claim that their diet will lower insulin levels are just speaking theoretically because they have never been willing to effectively measure the difference in insulin levels in subjects following the diets there's no proof that low carbs lower insulin more than other diet nor that lowering carbs will lower insulin levels since proteins are as insulin stimulating as carbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been eating a very low carb high fat diet for about 18 months. I began this diet initially to treat my various health problems, basically skin problems (acne and eczema), but also brain fog, nervousness, low energy, disturbed sleep and some more minor symptoms.

I had tremendous success with improving various of my health problems. My skin is almost totally clear! It's not dry anymore and very soft. Almost all eczemas are gone. My terrible brain fog syndrome, from which I suffered very badly, seems to be gone for good. I had a constantly clear mind for the last half year or so.

My carbohydrate intake is about between 30-50 grams a day. My protein intake is about between 100-120 grams a day. I eat lots of good fats. I always fry with coconut oil. I take one teaspoon of cod liver oil from garden of life. I eat about 3 eggs every day. I eat lots of organic raw milk butter, which luckily is available here in every health food store. I eat liver and kidneys once a week and fresh red meat, basically from gras fed animals, almost every day. I also have raw milk cheese quite often. I try to avoid processed meats as good as I can. In the last 18 months, I also almost totally avoided:

-grains

-legumes

-lactose

-processed foods

-nuts (i do eat macadamia occasionally)

-high oxalate vegetables

-high amounts of raw salads

-high amounts of fruits and berries

From the plant kingdom, I basically eat easy digestable cooked vegetables (potatoes, carrots, cauliflower, broccoli, celery, fennel etc.) and fruits (half a banana or pear at a time).

My diet is inspired by Wolfgang Lutz, Jan Kwasniewski, Weston Price Foundation, Mary and Michael Eades, Loren Cordain and many others. I'm very active on a german speaking Acne-Forum. I would say, at least 20 people there had success in improving their skin with a low carb high animal fat diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by the way: I'm too a protein type and yet I keep functioning, feeling and looking better on high levels of plant foods and low to moderate levels of animal foods and basically no meat

High levels of plant foods remain essential to me for every human being because they're the only known source of anti-oxidization or metabolic rancidification elements and more than 10.000 studies have always showed that foods like beans, vegetables and fruits have always been correlated with high longevity, better blood profiles and general health overall

Talking about oxidifixation the people I've known who used to consume a basically carnovire diet, just meat, eggs and maybe few berries looked way older then their age and they started aging quickly as they changed their diet to an almost carnivore one

Anyway I don't trust the metabolic type test out there.

The person that discovered the metabolic type (Dr. Jelley) had a different approach and it has been watered down or misunderstood by other authors. The real test should contain enough questions to take at least 3-4 hours to be completed

Metabolic Type Test

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been eating a very low carb high fat diet for about 18 months. I began this diet initially to treat my various health problems, basically skin problems (acne and eczema), but also brain fog, nervousness, low energy, disturbed sleep and some more minor symptoms.

I say whatever works for you is good

But I think we shouldn't think that stuffing ourselves with meat as if we were lion and were equipped by nature with fang and claw to kill big preys and were deficient in plat digesting enzimes is the only alternative to an unhealthy diet. A diet moderate in protein, high in fat, moderate in mean and high in fish, very high in health-promoting anti-aging plant-foods, low in high GI carbs and moderate in fruits has been proven to work as good as more drastic and uneeded choices

Loren Cordain diet which is based on what the 80% of the hunter-gatherer polution eat is 40% calories from animal foods and 60% from plant foods proving a huge intake of plants certainly not less than 1.5 pounds of raw and cooked vegetables and fruits and is very high in nuts

The OptimalDiet though is really unscientific nonsense and I have never been anyone following that diet looking good, healthy or functioning in an health manner

I'm not saying this because I want to criticize other choices but just to motivate my choice of keeping an high intake of plant foods in spite of my being a protein type (so they say) and choosing a moderate middle among the spectrum of nutrition which is as effective as the extremes, this choice seems to me to be more consistent with our nature as primates, with your anatomy and physiology, with what we know about the power of phytochemical and antioxidants, what we know about the health of people consuming a diet high in beans, veggies, fruits and nuts and what we know about the nutritional habit of earlier humans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about oxidifixation the people I've known who used to consume a basically carnovire diet, just meat, eggs and maybe few berries looked way older then their age and they started aging quickly as they changed their diet to an almost carnivore one

I don't believe in this. Look, typical meat eaters eat high amounts of processed meats and junk foods. You can't compare this to a health conscious low carb dieter, who always eats fresh meats from healthy animals with the right kind of fat.

Here's a picture from Wolfgang Lutz, who has been eating a low carb high animal fat diet for about fifty years! He's now 93 years old and still quite healthy. He doesn't look bad for his age:

IPB Image

Here's a picture from Stanley Owsley, who has eaten nothing but meat for the past 47 years. Can you believe this? Meat has all the nutrients a human being needs to stay alive and be healthy:

IPB Image

Here's a picture from Jan Kwasniewski, who was eating a low carb and very high animal fat diet for the past 40 years or so:

IPB Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolfgang Lutz, Jan Kwasniewski, Blake Donaldson, Mr. and Mrs. Eades, Ray Audette, Dr. Bernstein, Mr. and Mrs. Schaub, Atkins and so many other practitioners have shown on many thousand patients over many decades that a low carb high fat diet heals - or at least has a positive influence - on various chronic ailments like diabetes I and II, overweight and underweight, heart disease, high blood pressure, arthritis, intestinal disorders (ibs, colitis ulcerosa, morbus croh, leaky gut), skin problems (acne, ekzema, psoriasis etc.), migraine, dislipidemia, nervous disorders...the list could go on.

I never found another diet, that works for so many different diseases with such a high success rate. You could never cure all this different ailments with a high plant based diet - no way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That bottom picture is mrs doubtfire and you know it. :D

You can't say here is someone who's been on x diet for x ammount of years and looks healthy, therfore thier diet is healthy. Appart from the fact that it is no form of credible proof it just doesn't stand up, i know someone who's touching 60 and not only looks great but is also in great physical condition, he has eaten pie and chips everyday of his life.

For the most part if you eat healthy you'll be healthy it doesn't matter whether is 30% carbs or 50% carbs, or whatever (i wouldn't advice 100% aviodance of any macronutrient, that to mesounds ridiculous) the one thing people should remember is that there are proponents and critics for every diet/lifestyle out there, none of whom, regardless of experience/qualifications know the whole story, human beings are far far too complex for anyone to understand completely, the aim therefore, should be, "being healthy" and along the way you may find what works best for you is low carb, high carb, pie and chips...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Nick especially on the fact that macronutrients managing is not the key

The diet I'm actually following and people like Loren Cordain or anyone involved in the epidemiological researches on healthy diet and hunther-gatherer populations and on oxidization level correlated to different dietary regime agree that worrying about macronutrients is absolutely useless because the key to health and longevity lies on the micronutrients

What I like about the dietary regime I'm following like now is that it doesn't suggest any kind of macronutrient ratio, it can be low fat or high fat, moderate protein or high protein and low carbs or high carbs ... but in this diet it is totally irrelevant and you choose whatever you prefer, because the only thing that matters in this diet are micronutrients and the formula to health that it promotes is "Health = nutrients/calories"

But nutrients mean also things like bioflavonoids, glutathione, polyphenols, beta carotenes and others only founds on plant foods.

high levels of oxidization are known to be the reason of aging and degenerative disease and high intake of plant foods are known to lower to minimal the levels of oxidization, all meat diets can't absolutely lower oxidization levels and no all-meat gurus has ever proved to have low oxidization levels, if they measured it they would result very high ... and this is unavoidable

Masai and other all animal products populations are actually known to suffer from artherio sclerosis and plaque sclerosis as it has been documented and since our ancestors had an high bone density it is known that they consumed lot of greens because you can't get enough calcium from eggs, mean and fish without milk and they didn't consume any milk of course. This is consistent with Cordain diet and what most hunter-gatherer population eat: lot and lot of plant foods

That bottom picture is mrs doubtfire and you know it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IPB Image

Here's a picture of Dr. Virginia Vetrano who is 79 and hasn't eaten any animal food for 60 years

Her diet is comprised of nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, sprouts

She travels a lot to give lectures all over the world and is a very active woman exercising intensely four times a week, her health is perfect and so are her blood works

I wouldn't follow such a restrictive diet myself but since it was said that animal foods have everything you need to stay alive and healthy it seems that plant foods have too everything you need

(althought I don't recommend it to vegan because the topic is controversial, dr. Vetrano doesn't take any vitamin B12 and has written a research where she proved that the B12 produced in the intestines (3 mg daily) is actually absorbed through the ileum ... I don't know, the fact is that it is 60 years that she doesn't eat any animal food or take supplements and her vitamin B12 levels are normal while her homocysteine levels are low)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nblx

"Health = nutrients/calories"

I totally agree, cool formula!

I also agree with your take on meat, I've personally found a reduction in animal protein to be beneficial as well.

Fruit such a one piece a day doesnt prove a problem for me, but anymore than that daily does, but thats just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That bottom picture is mrs doubtfire and you know it. :D

You can't say here is someone who's been on x diet for x ammount of years and looks healthy, therfore thier diet is healthy. Appart from the fact that it is no form of credible proof it just doesn't stand up, i know someone who's touching 60 and not only looks great but is also in great physical condition, he has eaten pie and chips everyday of his life.

I never said, the pictures proof anything. It was just a reply to danny, who claimed that ALL meat eaters age faster and look older.

For the most part if you eat healthy you'll be healthy it doesn't matter whether is 30% carbs or 50% carbs, or whatever (i wouldn't advice 100% aviodance of any macronutrient, that to mesounds ridiculous) the one thing people should remember is that there are proponents and critics for every diet/lifestyle out there, none of whom, regardless of experience/qualifications know the whole story, human beings are far far too complex for anyone to understand completely, the aim therefore, should be, "being healthy" and along the way you may find what works best for you is low carb, high carb, pie and chips...

Well, after all, we are all human beings, we all have - more or less - the same physiology. It's not possible that one individual is best adapted to low carb, while others are better adapted to veganism. I admit, that there are individual differences in the response to diets. But this is not due to totally different physiologies. It's because, we all have different food allergies, intolerances, metabolic disturbances etc. There's also a long term adaptation to various diets involved. For example, a veganist has big difficulties digesting meat. But this is not because he is not adapted to it as a human being. It's because he's not used to it anymore. His body doesn't produce the enzymes anymore for digesting meat completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That bottom picture is mrs doubtfire and you know it. :D

You can't say here is someone who's been on x diet for x ammount of years and looks healthy, therfore thier diet is healthy. Appart from the fact that it is no form of credible proof it just doesn't stand up, i know someone who's touching 60 and not only looks great but is also in great physical condition, he has eaten pie and chips everyday of his life.

For the most part if you eat healthy you'll be healthy it doesn't matter whether is 30% carbs or 50% carbs, or whatever (i wouldn't advice 100% aviodance of any macronutrient, that to mesounds ridiculous) the one thing people should remember is that there are proponents and critics for every diet/lifestyle out there, none of whom, regardless of experience/qualifications know the whole story, human beings are far far too complex for anyone to understand completely, the aim therefore, should be, "being healthy" and along the way you may find what works best for you is low carb, high carb, pie and chips...

lmao your right its Mrs Doubtfire, I nearly caughed up my wheatgrass laughing!

You cant judge a book by its cover! Great physical condtions isnt a prerequisit of diet. Its like saying you can lose weight by eating Mars bars. You can lose weight eating mars bars aslong as you dont eat more calories than you consume!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I like about the dietary regime I'm following like now is that it doesn't suggest any kind of macronutrient ratio, it can be low fat or high fat, moderate protein or high protein and low carbs or high carbs ... but in this diet it is totally irrelevant and you choose whatever you prefer, because the only thing that matters in this diet are micronutrients and the formula to health that it promotes is "Health = nutrients/calories"

But nutrients mean also things like bioflavonoids, glutathione, polyphenols, beta carotenes and others only founds on plant foods.

I would say, both are important: macronutrients AND micronutrients. The amount carbohydrates you consume will determine how much insulin is secreted and this has a huge impact on other hormones.

high levels of oxidization are known to be the reason of aging and degenerative disease and high intake of plant foods are known to lower to minimal the levels of oxidization,

This is a highly reductionistic view. Most antioxidants in the body are not derived directly from food but are produced by the body itself, like superoxid-dismutase, catalase, glutathion-peroxidase, alpha-lipoic acid etc. Animal foods have high amounts of precursors, that the body needs to produce these antioxidants, like sulfur-containing amino-acids and b-vitamins.

all meat diets can't absolutely lower oxidization levels and no all-meat gurus has ever proved to have low oxidization levels, if they measured it they would result very high ... and this is unavoidable

Come on, this is not proven! If it were true, you would develop within a short time a lot of degenerative diseases on high animal food diet. But it's not what we see in people who are eating this way. It's quite the opposite. It's actually slowing down degenerative diseases.

Masai and other all animal products populations are actually known to suffer from artherio sclerosis and plaque sclerosis as it has been documented...

No, it's not! Maybe, this is what you can read in propagandistic veganism books. But this is no scientific fact. In fact, traditional living masai (they eat only full-fat-milk, blood and meat) have the healthiest cholesterol level ever measured and artheriosklerosis was completely absent.

Studies of African tribes have shown that intakes of enormous amounts of animal fat not necessarily raises blood cholesterol; on the contrary it may be very low. Samburu people, for instance, eat about a pound of meat and drink almost two gallons of raw milk each day during most of the year. Milk from the African Zebu cattle is much fatter than cow's milk, which means that the Samburus consume more than twice the amount of animal fat than the average American, and yet their cholesterol is much lower, about 170 mg/dl (38).

According to the view of the Masai people in Kenya, vegetables and fibers are food for cows. They themselves drink half a gallon of Zebu milk each day and their parties are sheer orgies of meat. On such occasions several pounds of meat per person is not unusual. In spite of that the cholesterol of the Masai tribesmen is among the lowest ever measured in the world, about fifty percent of the value of the average American (39).

Shepherds in Somalia eat almost nothing but milk from their camels. About a gallon and a half a day is normal, which amounts to almost one pound of butter fat, because camel's milk is much fatter than cow's milk. But although more than sixty percent of their energy consumption comes from animal fat, their mean cholesterol is only about 150 mg/dl, far lower than in most Western people (40).

http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth3.htm

and since our ancestors had an high bone density it is known that they consumed lot of greens because you can't get enough calcium from eggs, mean and fish without milk and they didn't consume any milk of course. This is consistent with Cordain diet and what most hunter-gatherer population eat: lot and lot of plant foods

You don't need a lot of calcium for high bone density. It's true, that meat has lower calcium levels, but it's in a highly absorbable form! It's much better absorbed than from plant foods. Animal foods also gives a lot of important minerals for strong bones, like strontium. How do you know, that our ancestors ate so much plant food? Don't forget, that most edible plant foods were only seasonally available. During stone age, they didn't have these higly cultured vegetables and fruits, that we find today in supermarkets. They were probably much less edible and lower in sugar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... it seems that plant foods have too everything you need ...

No, plant foods have not enough

- sulfur-containing amino acids (methionine, cysteine, taurine...) and other healthy amino acids (carnitine, carnosine etc.). Sulfur-containg amino acids are VERY important for digestion and detoxification. For instance, you need taurine for bile acid production. Taurine is only available in animal proteins. That's why fat digestion is impaired in vegans.

- certain minerals (zinc and iron)

- essential omega-3 long-chain fatty acids: epa, dha (conversion from ala to epa and dha is too low)

- b-vitamins (no b12 is available from plant foods), some other b-vitamins are too low.

- fat soluble vitamins (no vitamin a and d). beta-carotene is no substitute for preformed vitamin a, as conversion from beta-carotene to retinol is low and vegans have low vitamin a level.

Read here:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-a...html#vit%20B-12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diet sould and used to flow with the seasons. Nowadays it seems constant year round.

This is a section from Leo's book, sorry if your reading this Leo:

Seasonal cycles

Your body also goes through cycles acroding to the season. Your body has adaptive mechanisms to best adjust to the food supplies and environmental stresses the different season present.

In the spring your body is geared up for deep tissue cleansing from the toxins that built up during the winter. This is when cleansing herbs like dandelion, yellowdock and burdock are growing everythwere. This is when your diet should be a cleansing type diet. This is when you should do most of your internal cleansing.

During this time a lower calorie diet consisting of cleansing foods such as raw vegtables, fruit and cleansing herbs is most ideal. Heavy protein and fat food should be consumed in minor quantities at this time. Interstingly enough isnt this the type of food nature provides at the time?

Ever notice how people get sick when spring rolls around? For instance you will notice many flu and cold like symptoms as the temperature warms up from the winter. The reason for this is because over the winter your body has slowed down its metabolic rate energy is conserved and deep cleansing is put of for the spring. Then spring rolls around and you metabolic rate is speeded back up, and your body starts to go into cleansing mode. You have a winters build up of congestion that needs to be cleaned out. This is why it is critical that this time of year your diet is cleansing. If you shift your diet to a cleansing diet not only will you not get sick, you will also lose any weight built up over the winter. In addition to that you'll set your metabolic rate to burn higher carbohydrate, faster burning foods that summer supplies.

Then summer rolls around. The temperatures hot and the days are long. Food is abundant and you body dosnt have to deal with the environmental stress of the cold of winter. As a result your metabolic rate shifts into high gear. Higher metabolic rates call for faster burning carbohydrates. Summer diets favour alot more carbohydrates then usual your calorie intake will alot higher now then the spring time cleanse diet. Your body's furnace is burning hot, and you need to feed it. If you were to eat a winter diet of heavy slower burning foods at this time what you would be doing is slowing way down your metabolic rate, like throwing sogy logs on a burning fire, effectivly slowing it down and making it burn cooler. Doing this again and again over the years will make you fat.

When winter rolls around tempertures get cooler. In the past food supplies would have started to get scarce and as an adaptive mechanism your metabolic rate slows way down to conserve energy. Fast burning high carbohydrate foods arnt going to cut it now. The winter diet should be higher in slow burning heavier foods such as higher protein foods, nuts, grains, soups and root vegtables. And isnt this what nature provides?

This would be the worse time to do deep body cleansing.

So with understanding this you can see how stupid it is to try to perscribe one diet? All these Fad diets out there are trying to perscribe one diet that you should constantly follow. Well thats not how nature works. Thats not the way your body works.

So respect your body...it has millions of years of genetic programing behind it...dont fight it, but work with your bodys natural cycles and it will reward you with excellent health.

---------

I had to type all this out and my hands hurt now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I like about the dietary regime I'm following like now is that it doesn't suggest any kind of macronutrient ratio, it can be low fat or high fat, moderate protein or high protein and low carbs or high carbs ... but in this diet it is totally irrelevant and you choose whatever you prefer, because the only thing that matters in this diet are micronutrients and the formula to health that it promotes is "Health = nutrients/calories"

But nutrients mean also things like bioflavonoids, glutathione, polyphenols, beta carotenes and others only founds on plant foods.

I would say, both are important: macronutrients AND micronutrients. The amount carbohydrates you consume will determine how much insulin is secreted and this has a huge impact on other hormones.

This is not true, no one has ever been able to show that as the carbs are lowered the insulin secretion lowers esponentially and no carbs diet still stimulate high levels insulin production. The point is that insulin is not a carb hormones but a protein hormones too, the body can't use amino acids if insulin is not secreted and that's why any time protein are eaten high levels of insulin are secreted. So much that beef stimulates post prandial insulin secretion more than refined white pasta

The all-meat or super-low-carb gurus have never been able to prove otherwise, they just speak from a deductive point of view, a deductive point of view based on a naive and wrong premise, that insulin is used by the body especially for carbs uptake

high levels of oxidization are known to be the reason of aging and degenerative disease and high intake of plant foods are known to lower to minimal the levels of oxidization,

This is a highly reductionistic view. Most antioxidants in the body are not derived directly from food but are produced by the body itself, like superoxid-dismutase, catalase, glutathion-peroxidase, alpha-lipoic acid etc. Animal foods have high amounts of precursors, that the body needs to produce these antioxidants, like sulfur-containing amino-acids and b-vitamins.

the levels produced by the body are not effective against oxidization as the diets very low in vegetables and high in animals are correlated with clinically measured high levels of oxidization. That's why paleo gurus like Cordain or Audette or low carb gurus like Atkins have always said that vegetables are a must and saying otherwise is ignoring a body of research of more than 500.000 studies.

it's a well known fact that using some literature managing you can prove anything

that's because you'll find all kind of studies proving something and it's the reason why serious researchers have confidence only in those theories that are backed up not by one study alone but the majority of the literature.

besides it's not like "if something is good for producing health-promoting elements ... the more the better" the amount of protein necessary to produce the body anti oxidative elements are easily covered with any kind of diet and it's not like if you have 300 grams of protein instead of 200 you produce more antioxidant, it doesn't work like this not that mention is zulphur containing amino acids have oxidative powers

all meat diets can't absolutely lower oxidization levels and no all-meat gurus has ever proved to have low oxidization levels, if they measured it they would result very high ... and this is unavoidable

Come on, this is not proven! If it were true, you would develop within a short time a lot of degenerative diseases on high animal food diet. But it's not what we see in people who are eating this way. It's quite the opposite. It's actually slowing down degenerative diseases.

All people in the western world have high levels of oxidization yes they're not falling dead like flies

So no, even if they have high levels of oxidization it doesn't mean that they have to experience chronic and serious diseases and as you said the body produces its own less effective antioxidants

Masai and other all animal products populations are actually known to suffer from artherio sclerosis and plaque sclerosis as it has been documented...

No, it's not! Maybe, this is what you can read in propagandistic veganism books. But this is no scientific fact. In fact, traditional living masai (they eat only full-fat-milk, blood and meat) have the healthiest cholesterol level ever measured and artheriosklerosis was completely absent.

No, scientific ... like you make a checu up of the Masai tribes and you see that atheriosclerosis exist among the members of the villages. I read a bunch of studies showing that Masai had sclerotic plaques and atheriosclerosis but I can't find them right now ... i don't remember the author, years ... it has been sometime ago .. I will look for them

I agree that vegan books often have propagandistic wrong information and exaggerated conclusion from one of two studies that ignore a whole body of literature that say otherwise, but guess what ... the carnivores and meat eating crowd have their propagandistic material too: exaggerated claims, unproven conclusion, fallacious deduction, plain lies and misunderstanding of studies or outdates and weak references.

There's no doubt that Masai are anyway healthier than the average western guy but they are not free from atheriosclerosis like other hunter-gatherer populations that follow the kind of diet that Cordain oulines in his book, which rapresent the "average" diets 80% of the hunter-gatherer population leaving the extremes and rare exceptions aside like the all meat populations and the all plants and vegetables matter populations

and since our ancestors had an high bone density it is known that they consumed lot of greens because you can't get enough calcium from eggs, mean and fish without milk and they didn't consume any milk of course. This is consistent with Cordain diet and what most hunter-gatherer population eat: lot and lot of plant foods

You don't need a lot of calcium for high bone density. It's true, that meat has lower calcium levels, but it's in a highly absorbable form! It's much better absorbed than from plant foods. Animal foods also gives a lot of important minerals for strong bones, like strontium. How do you know, that our ancestors ate so much plant food? Don't forget, that most edible plant foods were only seasonally available. During stone age, they didn't have these higly cultured vegetables and fruits, that we find today in supermarkets. They were probably much less edible and lower in sugar.

it's true that what our ancestors used to eat will always remain speculation and the truth may be completely different from what everyone has always imagined

But many researchers nowadays considers the word Ice Age a misnomer, in fact no one has ever proved that what we imagine as an Ice Age as even occured. What they think nowadays it's that the earth tilted in its axis making colder places hotted and hot places colder

The majority of site (again leaving the extremes aside) are located in zones that are mild climate and rich in vegetation nowadays (although you can't find plants and fruits rests plenty of nuts shells rest have been found on those sites). Anyway those zones were warmer in the past and it known that the variety of plant foods that we have todays is just 5% of what our ancestors had available. It has been estimated that in the stone age man had access to a varity of 500 fruits and plants alone, especially tender wild leaves

There's no proof that fruits were less sugary, in fact where I live there are tons of natural occurring wild fruits (they haven't been cultivated, exported, planted, breeded) they have been there always in the woods and hills of my country and they are simply and naturally sweet even the one who are a bit sour

Although it is impossible so far to predict what paleolithic humans used to eat and the point is that each small group used to eat different things, a paleonthologist Dec Twohig has claimed that nowadays it is possible to analyze fossil feces found on paleo sites to understand what they were eating. According to Twohig the results of this analysis showed that earlier humans used to eat not much meat and several plant matters.

Twohig is neutral having no kind of paleodiet, vegan or low-carb agenda to promote

It's actually just an umproven theory so far that human was a great predator, many experts nowadays think that this isn't true that that we hunted small mammals and ate lot of fish. According to some paleontologists we evolved along the water (they reached this conclusion observing the places where paleo sites are located) making fish the staple animal protein and meat nothing more than a supplement, not to mention that they were probably scavengers and not hunters

it's interesting that those hunter-gatherer populations whose staples are fruits and nuts and whose "job" consist in finding them and picking them in a not so fruity environment work on average 12 hours weekly having huge amount of time to make arts, paint, play, make rituals ...

The hunting based populations work lot more than that and have lot less free time

I have always thought this is interesting because it puts at rest once and for all the myth that hunting allowed us to have more free time because gathering was too time consuming.

Since because of our features like height, ability to see most shades of colours, grasping hands, long arms we're actually naturally suited to gathering with ease making it easier than hunting

it also puts at rest the myth that we modern humans have a lot of free time, the truth is that no one who isn't a slave has ever worked so much as the modern humans do everyday in factories, offices, supermarkets and whatever .... even though I agree that the cultivation of grains and the dependance on a good crop and that kind of diet based on grains ruined our existence deeply creating things like classes discriminations, sexism, racism, power abuse, poverty and many other problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe, that nuts was a staple food during stone age. If this was true, we would be much better adapted to nuts. Most nuts have very high amounts of omega-6 and very few omega-3. Consuming large amounts of nuts would throw your omega-3/omega-6 ratio out of balance. Nuts are also very hard to digest. Most people get flatulance, when they ingest large amounts of nuts. It's because starches in nuts are very hard to break down. Nuts contain also large amounts of antinutrients (lectins, phytic acid, etc.). Furthermore, the protein quality of nuts is very low. They have not enough sulfur-containing amino acids.

If our ancestors survived with nothing but seeds, nuts, fruits and vegetables, how does it come that human beings still have such a hard time digesting it??

It's quite obvious that our ancestors must have moved toward carnivorism at least 2 1/2 million years ago. The increased consumption of animal food parallels a marked increase in brain size. Our large brain could only evolve with large amounts of animal fat:

About 2.5 million years ago, there is evidence that animal foods began to occupy an increasingly prominent place in our ancestor's subsistence. Decreased molar size, less mandibular and cranial robusticity, and alterations in incisor shape all suggest greater emphasis on foods requiring less grinding and more tearing, such as meat.

An increasing proportion of meat in the diet would obviously have provided more animal protein, a factor perhaps related to the stature increase which appears to have accompanied the transition from Australopithecines through Homo habilis to H. erectus, (McHenry, 1992) but greater availability of animal fat was probably a more important dietary alteration. Even crude Oldowan stone tools would have allowed early humans access to brain and marrow from a broad range of animals obtained by scavenging or hunting - including some species larger than those from which chimpanzee hunters preferentially extract brain tissue and marrow fat. These and other carcass fats were probably prized by the early hominids as they are by recently-observed modern human hunter-gatherers. (Steffanson, 1960) More animal fat in the diet meant not only additional energy, but also a source of ready-formed long chain PUFAs, including AA, DTA(docosatetraenoic acid (DTA, C22:4, w-3), and DHA. These three fatty acids together make up over 90% of the long chain PUFA (i.e. the structurally significant and biochemically active fat) found in the brain gray matter of all mammalian species. (Sinclair, 1975)

A cardinal feature of human evolution has been development of increasing brain size: Homo sapiens cranial capacity is thrice that of Australopithecus afarensis. A prime selective force driving this increase was almost certainly the complex nature of social interactions among early hominids. There is, however, no a priori reason to assume that such interactions, at first, differed much from those of chimpanzee and gorilla ancestors. Social complexity was thus a necessary, but insufficient, selective pressure acting to increase brain size. Another necessary factor was probably adequate dietary substrate to allow formation of brain tissue. (Crawford, 1992) The limiting raw materials, AA, DTA and DHA, could have been provided by animal tissues as hunting and/or scavenging activities assumed greater importance in human subsistence. (Eaton, 1998) Increasing complexity of interpersonal and social interactions together with availability of animal tissues - to provide the necessary structural lipid - constituted a unique psychonutritional nexus which may explain human brain expansion.

Dramatic nutritional, anatomic, and behavioral changes accompanied hunting and scavenging: division of labor by sexes, increased day range, reduced sexual dimorphism, decreased gut size, greater stature and increasing brain size. (Leonard & Robertson, 1994; Aiello & Wheeler, 1995) However, it is important to recognize that these changes were gradual. H. habilis evolved into H. erectus over the course of several hundred thousand years and this rate of cultural change, in all likelihood, allowed for concomitant genetic modification. The behavior, subsistence and biological characteristics of anatomically modern Late Paleolithic humans differed strikingly from those of H. habilis, but these changes developed over a 2.5 million year period. In contrast, subsequent comparably dramatic changes in both behavior and subsistence have occurred with far greater rapidity, almost certainly overmatching the capacity of genetic evolution to keep pace.

http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/confe...eaton/eaton.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that Masai are anyway healthier than the average western guy but they are not free from atheriosclerosis like other hunter-gatherer populations that follow the kind of diet that Cordain oulines in his book, which rapresent the "average" diets 80% of the hunter-gatherer population leaving the extremes and rare exceptions aside like the all meat populations and the all plants and vegetables matter populations

The research of Loren Cordain is very flawed, especially when it comes to saturated fatty acids and heart disease. Loren Cordain's interpretation of paleolithic nutrition is a "politically" correct one. I guess, he is a proponent of the lipid-theory, because he wants to be accepted within the majority of the scientific community. The lipid-theory is completely wrong and has been disproved by a very large body of evidence. Check out the site of the cholesterol-sceptics:

www.thincs.org

Also see, what the Weston A Price Foundation has to say about Loren Cordain's flawed theories:

http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/paleodiet.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×