It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zero carb diet

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I have been on zero carb way of eating for the past three months, and it has been the best thing I have done for my health. In case you didn't know, animal products are the only foods which do not contain carbohydrates (aside from liver and milk, the former of which is acceptable on occasion). Basically avoid anything from the plant kingdom, and eat any no-carb animal foods. It is partially based on the idea that carbohydrate consumption is harmful to the human body (contrary to what many believe).

So any comments , questions, insights etc.?

[edit on 4-10-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 4-10-2006 by the_individualist]




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I say knock yourself out! You'll find out soon enough that eating nothing but animal products is just as harmful.

I'm on a low (bad) carb diet and high (good) carb diet. I eat meat maybe twice a week along with fruits, nuts, and vegetables every day.

Peace



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
just as harmful as what? Zero-carbers consider all carbs bad, since they all get broken down into sugar. It doesn't matter if they're "complex" or "simple". Zero-carbers also consider anything from the vegetable kingdom toxic and nutritionally inferior to the dense nutrition of animal foods. Vegetables and nuts contain numerous toxins (oxalates in spinach is an example) and fruits are mostly bred for high sugar content these days.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Robert Atkins died. I thought the fad diet went with him.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I would think that any diet that stresses "zero" anything would be bad for you. Our bodies need certain items to develop and completely cutting them out is just as bad as having too many. For instance a no fat diet can be harmful because we need fat for proper brain function. Low fat is ok though. All things in moderation, my dear.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Atkins was a joke. The only reason he included any carbs at all in his diet was to appeal to the mainstream and get rich off of it.

Carbohydrates are unnecessary for normal human functioning. You really only need them as a growing infant (which is why mammalian milk has carbs). Your body can manufacture what small amount of glucose it needs (for cells that lack mitochondria) out of fats and proteins. A zero carb diet is high fat, moderate protein. Saying that because cutting out fat is bad, cutting out anything is bad is a hasty generalization. And low fat is mostly a scam to be able to get the populace to buy nutritionally inferior products.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
You mention cutting out most plant items. What about all of the wonderful minerals that plants provide? I still think that anything that swings too far to the right or too far to the left is just not wise.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Most? No, I meant all plant foods. Any minerals found in plants can be found (in much greater quantities) in the flesh of bovines. Lol, yeah, I'm that kind of 'extreme' person, I guess. Plants may have some nutrition in them, but with those few nutrients (which are not as readily utilized by your body as animal food nutrients) you get a dose of harmful plant toxins, too. Animals can use mechanical means to defend themselves. They can run, hide, fight. But plants can't do this, so how do they defend themselves? They produce harmful chemicals to keep predators away. Modern agriculture has bred many of these plant defenses away, which is why one has to use pesticides, but the chemicals still remain in small (and significant) quantities.

And one has to wonder: agriculture has only existed for about 10,000 years. This is not nearly enough time to evolve the digestive apparatus required for newly introduced food items (like grains). And due to the higher toxicity of paleolithic plants, we probably would have only consumed them in times of starvation.

Zero-carbers believe that human beings are a carnivorous species with a limited ability to digest plant material. We believe that we are not true omnivores like pigs and rats. In other words, our minimal capacity to consume plant foods is merely a survival mechanism for hard times when we couldn't catch our prey.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 4-10-2006 by the_individualist]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
That's the only diet that ever worked for me. I lost like 50 lbs. and kept it off for years. Unfortunately I've backslid over the be past few couple and gained most of it back.

I also think it's healthy, just take your multivitamin pill and some fiber to keep things moving and everything should be fine.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_individualist
We believe that we are not true omnivores like pigs and rats.


An interesting choice of Animals.
After all we don’t want to be like a dirty rat or a filthy pig.




And one has to wonder: agriculture has only existed for about 10,000 years. This is not nearly enough time to evolve the digestive apparatus required for newly introduced food items (like grains). And due to the higher toxicity of paleolithic plants, we probably would have only consumed them in times of starvation.



Our digestive system resembles an herbivore’s much more than that of a carnivore.
Like herbivores our intestinal tract is several times the length of our body. Carnivores have a much smaller intestinal tract, usually only 3 times the body length so that so rapidly decaying meat can pass.
Look at out teeth carnivores don’t have molars.

Humans are omnivores, not carnivores not herbivores.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Our digestive tract is nothing like an herbivores. Length really isn't the determining factor of what a digestive system is designed for. And the rotting meat thing is a myth propagated by the likes of vegetarian activist groups like PETA. Meat does not rot in your system unless you cook the living tar out of it (at that point, the proteins are denatured and only the minerals survive). If you eat your meat rare/raw, it will digest perfectly fine.

Our dentition is really not a good indicator of what we should eat, as our mouths are primarily designed for speech. We do not need big, sharp teeth, because we have the intelligence and physical dexterity to craft spears and knives to kill for us. We have been crafting tools since before we were even Homo sapiens. That aside, my teeth can tear meat just fine (much better than it can grind plants). The only carnivores with the big teeth and claws are in the order Carnivora. There are numerous other examples (although not mammals) of carnivorous species who lack large, sharp teeth and other similar prey-catching apparatus, like jellyfish and penguins.

A true omnivore can thrive off of either plants or animals. We cannot. The traditional Inuit are proof that we can survive solely off of meat and fat, whereas vegans needing to supplement their diets is proof that we cannot naturally survive off of plants alone. True omnivores posess the apparatus necessary to extract full nutrition from either plants or animals. We do not. Our supposed omnivory is a survival mechanism to pull us through lean times where animals were scarce. In other words, optimal carnivores, opportunistic omnivores.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 4-10-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 4-10-2006 by the_individualist]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   




Now here's a dog's:


Note the lack of a caecum in both humans and dogs.

Cows have four stomachs designed to deal with plant cell walls and material: the reticulum, rumen, omasum and abomasum. We have one. Dogs have
one. While dogs have much more concentrated hydrochloric acid, this is for digestion of bones and they come from a family that has always been carnivorous. We evolved from insectivores, so we had less hydrochloric acid to start out with when we started scavenging and hunting.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
That's the only diet that ever worked for me. I lost like 50 lbs. and kept it off for years. Unfortunately I've backslid over the be past few couple and gained most of it back.

I also think it's healthy, just take your multivitamin pill and some fiber to keep things moving and everything should be fine.


Yes, this diet is perfect for normalizing your weight. Especially for the overweight. Even though it is void of carbohydrates, one can still gain weight on it. I was underweight when I started this diet, but since then I have gained about 25 pounds and stopped there. I am now at a perfect weight (about 160-165 for 5'11"- no muscle). It works by converting some of your protein intake into glucose (gluconegenesis I think it's called), which then can get stored in your cells and converted to fat. You make your body do this by eating less fat, which forces it to convert protein for fuel. Although converting protein into glucose leaves behind some damaging by-products (moreso than just turning carbs into glucose), so one only wants to do this for temporary weight gain, not as a permanent plan. Fat is a much more clean-burning fuel than protein.

It is definitely healthy. On the safe side, a multi might be good, but it is unnecessary (unless you live in a polluted area, with smokers, etc.), and I know a lot of people are dependent on fiber, but it too is unnecessary. I have had no fiber intake for three months, and I can have a bowel movement just fine- no straining or anything. The stool of an omnivorous or herbivorous individual is full of dead bacteria (you need the bacteria to digest the plant fiber and cellulose, otherwise it gets lodged in your gut), so stools are volumous and frequently passed. But a carnivorous human does not play host to so much bacteria (they are still there, just not nearly as much), and so will pass smaller stools less frequently (typically every three days or so).



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I eat tums like there's no tomorrow.I have suffered from chronic heartburn since i was a small child,like two or three times a day.
A few years ago i went on a zero carb diet for about 3 months.Not only did the weight drop off alot quicker than i expected,but i didnt have heartburn(or nearly as much gas)the entire time i was on the zero carb diet.
I was amazed,and felt a lot better.When i eat i tend to feel tired and irratable,especially after a large meal.(lots of carbs)
But i didn't get that from a zero carb diet.
Only bad side effect i noticed was,when i got hungry,i had to eat.It was like having low blood-sugar,i would get tired and shaky.
Needless to say,a zero carb diet is hard to maintain.Especially if you run a pizza parlor like me



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Yeah, a carnivore simply doesn't have the bacterial population present to produce a lot of gas and other by-products. Hunger is non-existent on zero carb, as hunger pangs are signs of low blood glucose. And since a carnivore only eats possible substrates of glucose, the body will convert it as needed. You'll never have too much or too little. I can eat whenever I want, as often as I want. I could eat once a day, or six times a day, it doesn't matter, because my BG is dead steady! Were you eating a lot of fat? ( The ideal is 70-80% calories from fat, the rest from protein), because fat is the satiation factor on zero carb. If you don't eat enough fat, satiation is hard to come by. Yeah, those carbs can be tempting, especially when you're surrounded by them all the time, but I personally have no desire for them anymore.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by the_individualist]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
No, i wasnt getting that kind of fat intake,mine was more like 80%protein,15%fat,and i ate salad.My energy levels were far more even then they are now.I didnt spike and plunge like i do now.I wasnt getting tired mid day.
What do you eat to get 80% of your calories from fat?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Oh, that's probably why you were getting hungry! Even a little smidge of carbs (from the salad) can set your BG off a little. And you probably weren't getting enough satiation on that low of fat. Yeah, my energy is like that of a six year old's again. I actually started doing bodyweights again about a month ago, since I have sooo much extra energy (haha maybe I'll actually be able to rebuild what little muscle I had that I lost when I was vegetarian).

I eat either butter or suet (the latter is preferred, as it does not have casein or lactose in it and has more nutrients). I just eat it plain, right off the stick or out of the tub, as I like to think of fat as a food in itself, not just an extra thing you put on the meat. I personally can handle butter just fine (I have a lot of northern European in me), but I would definitely not recommend it. I would recommend going to a butcher or meat-plant and getting tubs of suet, as firstly, it is much easier digested and does not cause allergic reactions like butter, and secondly, it usually has more important fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K) and minerals. If one on this diet does use butter though, they must be sure it is unsalted, as salt interferes with fat metabolism (which is disastrous on a diet like this, since you depend on fat for all your energy). And you will have an excess of sodium, as you will be getting enough from meat.

It sounds like you were running off of gluconegenesis, which although more steady than carbohydrates for fuel, is still not as sustaining and clean-burning as fat. Also keep in mind that protein is toxic unless digested with either fat or carbohydrate.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Yeah,i don't think i can eat fat sticks for breakfast lunch and dinner.
I'm curious about protein being toxic without fat or a carb with it.I would imagine that it wouldn't matter what you ate it with,it would still be toxic.
I wonder how well the human body would do on say,a fish only diet?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Zero carb diet?
Is there really ANY such thing?

Shortly before his death, I was made aware of Dr Atkins and his wonderful approach to healty way of eating, the LOW carb way.
Dr Atkins did NOT promote a zero carb diet :bnghd:
I lost a bit of weight and have managed to keep most of it off.
Anyone who thinks that way has been misinformed.
He realized the importance of healthy carbs in a human diet.


ok, individualist, is this some diet you adapted for yourself...or is there some real science behind it. If so, please proved links



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I'm not a biochemist, so I don't know the exact mechanism how protein is toxic alone, etc., but supposedly you need either fats or carbohydrates to digest it properly. It's probably some chemical reaction between the two. I believe it too, because I feel sick if I don't eat enough fat with my steak (although this could be cause by a lot of things I'm sure). The Inuit that the anthropolgist Vilhjalmur Stefansson stayed with in the early 1900's ate nothing but boiled fish throughout the winter, and they did just fine. I would think all-fish wouldn't be as good as all-beef, though, since the nutrients in fish cells aren't as close to the cells our mammalian bodies need.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join