Modern high carbohydrate diet; let's discuss the science behind.

Antibacterial activity:

Ketone bodies have a demonstrated antibacterial activity, it inhibit activity of many common pathogenic bacteria at normal blood/urine level.

One of the ketone bodies is acetone, this is nail remover! Don't believe what is written on the can, acetone is not toxic if it is produced endogenously by the body (don't drink it).

In a couple of days, it will put dormant the most stuborn urinary infection, the bacteria are still there but they are sort of dumb and overwhelmed...

Also, maybe (pure speculation here) the strong solvent property of the ketone bodies will help to clean your internal plumbing.

Other effect of high blood glucose:

Most bacteria love glucose "as-is", you provide them a great service when having a high blood glucose level. They don't need to try to metabolize other more difficult source of energy.

Contrary to the human body, bacterial pathogen are unicellular and lack the specialized aglomeration of cell called organ to do specialized task like providing energy compounds to others organ (like the liver).

They are "generalist" unicellular and not cooperate well each others appart when they form a biofilm, but still it is limited cooperation.

Science behind a fad. I wasn't aware that there was science behind it. Some people do better with a high carb diet while others cannot tolerate it well. It is hard to comprehend how it would feel to change back to a regular diet when you have never experienced the difference because you have lived that way all your life. Our comprehension of normal is based on past experience. People need to try to figure out what is best for them and timing of consumption is critical as is the need for companion food chemistry with some things. Metabolism has a very lot to do with this and everyone's metabolism is a little different.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

This came out a few days ago and was a bombshell for anyone taking statins. A big Pharma generated hoax.

Bacon and eggs vindicated. False information leads to $20B/year market for statins.

As usual, science and money make a bad mix.

The cluing phrase being "MODERN high carbohydrate diet". Carbs have been present and tolerated well since forever. It's just in the last years since prepackaged and GMO foods came into being that people as a whole started becoming obese and disease such as heart, cancer etc started to rise greatly.

originally posted by: StoutBroux
The cluing phrase being "MODERN high carbohydrate diet". Carbs have been present and tolerated well since forever. It's just in the last years since prepackaged and GMO foods came into being that people as a whole started becoming obese and disease such as heart, cancer etc started to rise greatly.

Dairy has quietly increased up to fifty % of the diet, this type of fat , clogs the circulatory system, it doesn't take much clogging of the small arterioles, to make the heart work a lot harder and push blood pressure way up. It also coats the pancreas, and stops the efficient delivery of insulin. Then the blood sugar goes up, For every rise in blood sugar your immune system gets compromised.Compared to a bit of bacon, a glass of milk, has five hundred times more triglycerides. So if the machine is clogged up with fat in the first place, all results can be spurious. Chemically cows milk is liquid meat, what doctor in their right mind would advise someone to eat a kilo of fatty meat a day?

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: StoutBroux
The cluing phrase being "MODERN high carbohydrate diet". Carbs have been present and tolerated well since forever. It's just in the last years since prepackaged and GMO foods came into being that people as a whole started becoming obese and disease such as heart, cancer etc started to rise greatly.

Dairy has quietly increased up to fifty % of the diet, this type of fat , clogs the circulatory system, it doesn't take much clogging of the small arterioles, to make the heart work a lot harder and push blood pressure way up. It also coats the pancreas, and stops the efficient delivery of insulin. Then the blood sugar goes up, For every rise in blood sugar your immune system gets compromised.Compared to a bit of bacon, a glass of milk, has five hundred times more triglycerides. So if the machine is clogged up with fat in the first place, all results can be spurious. Chemically cows milk is liquid meat, what doctor in their right mind would advise someone to eat a kilo of fatty meat a day?

Been there done that.

I did a 'paleo' diet reminiscent of the scisson/wolf school.

I w as strict for 30 days, ate as much as I wanted, but only meat and low carb veg. I kept cooked bacon as a snack and averaged about a pound a day. Free range, grass fed, never grain finished, etc.

I have always been skinny, but I lost 2 inches off my waist in 30 days. Was not the goal. Felt great. Was the goal.

I read tons on it and believe it is the best diet for our bodies. I am now toying with the idea that vegetarianism is the best diet for our spirit. I am planning for a 30 day trial of that. Gonna be tough.

I'll let others with a better mind for instruction and explanation do the science bit, and see if I have anything worth adding.


People kept telling me how fat I would get as I consumed tons of fat, and the little I had was wasting away. Go figure.



South Park hd it right. Turn the pyramid upside down.

F*** Carbs.

Modern day high carb diet, MODERN?!

What on earth, it's not like fruits and veges are our natural diet or anything!, the human body runs on glucose, sugar sugar sugar!



Crap! Someone tell these guys their eating carbububububZ!

Remember carbs are fruits and veges and are not supposed to come in packets and they are many and both abundant and supposed to be eaten in abundance or at least till your stomach is full. Guilty by association, yes it's 2015 and it's time we all starting using discernment and intuition not fear mongering and bull S**t spreading about diets and health.

Someone mentioned wheat bell, here's a vid:



Another:



Also read The China Study, checkout Caldwell Esselstyn, John McDougall, T. Colin Campbell.

Also this vid:



Low carb diets as well as other fady sickness producing diets are promoted because they produce a market where the industry can sell you their snake oils and powders and all sorts of other rubbish you shouldn't be ingesting and it preys on the weaker people that can't discern and use their intuition to listen to their bodies.

Remember what you are guys, where you came from, we all originated in a warm tropical environment where fruit (carbs) were abundant, and you can take the man out of the environment but you can't take the environment out the man, and if you try.......well have you looked around the USA, UK and western society in general lately.

Carb up guys, carb up.

a reply to: One_Love_One_GOD


Allow me to rephrase,


F*** refined carbs !!

originally posted by: IntastellaBurst
a reply to: One_Love_One_GOD


Allow me to rephrase,


F*** refined carbs !!

Yeah i almost agree, refined grains are great sources of clean energy, just don't pour oil and salt on your white rice

Even refined sugars are great clean kals if you don't have access to whole foods, if your out on the go for instance.

It's the "carbs" that are coated/mixed/processed with rubbish i would behove caution with.

Thank you all for your comments.

I see that many believe that high carb diet is well tolerated and good but think that it is modern trend like OGM and processing that is bad. Others have the opinion that dairy products are bad.

I want to attract your attention to the Inuit and the Maasai people. The Inuit (of the past) had a diet practically devoid completly of carbonhydrate and were doing very well. I have read many story that in the past, many medical expedition were mounted to try to elucidate why the Inuit were practically devoid of cancer and many more disease. Prostate cancer was inexistent and not that there were only young men present.

For the Maasai, they were doing very well while eating practically no carb and having a diet rich in dairy product.

No comment on the notes I provided before about the biochemistry or the carbs and ketone bodies?

Also, anyone have read those two books: 'STEFANSSON, V. - The fat of the Land' and 'VOEGTLIN, W. L. - The Stone Age Diet'?

Here is a quote from 'STEFANSSON, V. - The Fat of the Land':

"Historians and archaeologists believe generally that the shift from the hunter diet, mainly of meat, to the gradually increasing carbohydrate blend of the agriculturist came less than 15,000 years ago in China and the Near East; 5,000 years ago in Greece and Italy; 2,000 years ago in England (Julius Caesar saw agriculture being introduced there by Belgic settlers); and only 1,500 years ago in Scotland. If meat needs carbohydrate and other vegetable additives to make it wholesome, then the poor Eskimos were not eating healthfully till the last few decades. They should have been in wretched state along the north coast of Canada, particularly at Coronation Gulf, when I began to live among them in 1910 as the first white man most of them had ever seen. But, to the contrary, they seemed to me the healthiest people I had ever lived with. To spread abroad the news of how healthy and happy they and I were on meat alone was a large pan of the motive for writing this book."

The Eskimos whilst despite being natives tucked away from the trappings of modern society due to the high prevalence of animal fat in fact exclusive consumption of animal derived foods they actually had what was until recently thought to be a modern health problem, diabetes! They are also riddled with cancer. Yep, despite no McDonald's being in sight diabetes and cancer is a serious problem for the Eskimos as well as many other native communities where they don't have access to plant based nutrition.

They get the very modest 10mg of vit c which is just enough to ward of scurvy, the human body is so dependent on the vitamin that it starts to bleed from every orifice in the absence of it!

Now ketosis, what happens the body in ketosis is it basically shuts down, your immune system is compromised, your intellectual capacity becomes massively reduced hence why people report severe brain fog whilst in ketosis, mental problems ensue once the body runs out of glucose low mood becomes a problem, poor judgment, impulsiveness can become an issue. Chronic fatigue will start to kick in and the need for stimulant drugs like caffeine will become necessary and in turn your adrenal glands will become exhausted. Finally your metabolism will become weak due to the lack of supply of sugars and as a result the individual will lose muscle mass and gain body fat which will be made even worse when eventually they go into "auto pilot" and binge and because you have trained the body to store fat through ketosis will further increase the individuals body fat.

a reply to: One_Love_One_GOD

Wow, you cannot be more diametrically opposite to what I believe!

The Eskimos whilst despite being natives tucked away from the trappings of modern society due to the high prevalence of animal fat in fact exclusive consumption of animal derived foods they actually had what was until recently thought to be a modern health problem, diabetes! They are also riddled with cancer. Yep, despite no McDonald's being in sight diabetes and cancer is a serious problem for the Eskimos as well as many other native communities where they don't have access to plant based nutrition.

This apply to Inuit that have now adopted modern carb lifstyle. I hear this argument often and I assure you this is a myth. Inuit I use as example are the one BEFORE being initiated to carb diet. Of course now they are sick as hell on our "modern" diet.

Now ketosis, what happens the body in ketosis is it basically shuts down, your immune system is compromised, your intellectual capacity becomes massively reduced hence why people report severe brain fog whilst in ketosis, mental problems ensue once the body runs out of glucose low mood becomes a problem, poor judgment

Your info on ketosis is wrong, please do some reading on the subject. There are numerous people that say otherwise. What are your take on the effect of ketogenic diet on epilepsy? Have you checked previously provided link to Charlie Foundation?

a reply to: PeterMcFly

Yah, treating epilepsy with ketosis is as logical fallacy as much as treating cancer with radiation.

There are no cures only causes. The amount of serious impairments ketosis can cause to an individual are many, high cholesterol, constipation, slowed growth, weight gain which is 100% adipose derived, kidney stones, bone strength impairment and a high rate of fractures to name but a few.

If anyone is interested to learn about the true life of the ancient Inuit instead of conforting itself in myths and youtubes fantasies, I recomment reading chapter 2 of 'STEFANSSON, V. - The fat of the Land'. This guy have lived with them around the start of the years 1900. It is an incredible perspective of peoples living by the 'hunter' way of life.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
Thank you all for your comments.

I see that many believe that high carb diet is well tolerated and good but think that it is modern trend like OGM and processing that is bad. Others have the opinion that dairy products are bad.

I want to attract your attention to the Inuit and the Maasai people. The Inuit (of the past) had a diet practically devoid completly of carbonhydrate and were doing very well. I have read many story that in the past, many medical expedition were mounted to try to elucidate why the Inuit were practically devoid of cancer and many more disease. Prostate cancer was inexistent and not that there were only young men present.

For the Maasai, they were doing very well while eating practically no carb and having a diet rich in dairy product.

No comment on the notes I provided before about the biochemistry or the carbs and ketone bodies?

Also, anyone have read those two books: 'STEFANSSON, V. - The fat of the Land' and 'VOEGTLIN, W. L. - The Stone Age Diet'?

The Maasai would have minimal amounts of Dairy and their life style would tend to burn much of it off. Where did they get the Cows from anyway . Then when they did get some from white settlers they wouldn't have milked them all year round. What other food comes with a growth hormone telling cells to divide, and the fat to fuel the cells division .Not forgetting the fact that a super high oestrogen content is included because of the constant lactation. Then we wonder why the sperm content of the western male is dropping, along with a feminisation due to high oestrogen levels.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
About the Warburg hypothesis, it say that cancer cell are cell having their mitochondria damaged. As mitochondria is an essential organel for the mechanism of programmed suicide, cancerous cell having a damaged mitochondria are immortal.

Also, if a cell have it's mitochondria damaged, it cannot use metabolic mode dependant on proper functionning of the mitochondria. Cancerous cell are under obligation to use metabolic mode based on anaerobic fermentation, i.e. use blood glucose in a low efficiency energy production way. But it crank up this mechanism in overdrive...

Basically, the Warburg hypothesis tell us that cancerous cell need glucose in blood to survive and multiplicate. If the glucose level in blood is low, they won't have a favorable environment to thrive.

But other non cancerous cell of the body that have normal functionning mitochondria are able to switch to others metabolic mode when glucose is sparse, like using fatty acid or ketones bodies.

Conclusion: low level of glucose mean no party time for cancerous cell, but business as usual for normal healthy cell!

Just a few comments on this. Mitochondria are responsible for releasing molecules that trigger apoptosis, but they also have the far more important task of completing the process of cellular respiration, among other things.

Cells having damaged mitochondria are not immortal. Damaged mitochondria would in fact trigger apoptosis. If they are deactivated in some way or if a cell is unable to detect mitochondrial damage, then possibly that could lead to cancerous growth.

Obviously a cancerous cell needs glucose to replicate. So do all of our cells.

The remainder is a rather large misrepresentation of the Warburg hypothesis. A simple explanation, from wiki:

"In oncology, the Warburg effect is the observation that most cancer cells predominantly produce energy by a high rate of glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation in the cytosol, rather than by a comparatively low rate of glycolysis followed by oxidation of pyruvate in mitochondria as in most normal cells.[4][5][6] The latter process is aerobic (uses oxygen). Malignant, rapidly growing tumor cells typically have glycolytic rates up to 200 times higher than those of their normal tissues of origin; this occurs even if oxygen is plentiful."

Essentially, the difference isn't that glucose is used, it's what happens to the end product of glycolysis. Furthermore, it isn't a phenomena linked causatively to cancer, it seems to be more of a side product of other mechanisms that lead to it. This is a previous post of mine from some years ago on the topic:

originally posted by: hypervalentiodine
reply to post by Rustami

 

[snip]...his cancer hypothesis (called the Warburg effect) is not actually accepted as being an underlying cause for all cancers. It certainly accepted that the switch to non-oxidative energy production in cancer cells occurs in a lot of cases, but it is not the cause for the cancer itself. What is known is that cancer arises from mutations in what are called oncogenes, although a fundamental cause for all cancer is yet unknown, if it even exists.

[snip]

Back to the Warburg effect, which these claims seem to rely upon. It is possible that the switch from mitochondrial respiration to cytosolic (inside the cell, outside the nucleus and other organelles) glycolysis in response to low oxygen environs, I do not think it is likely. Tumours have an amazing propensity to sustain the formation of blood vessels surrounding them - in fact, it's essential - giving them a pretty good supply of nutrients and that other important thing that blood has in it (it's called oxygen). More probable is that cancer cells shut down production in the mitochondria, which forces the cell to produce energy anaerobically. The reason they might do this is because mitochondria play a key role in cell induced death (apoptosis) - shut the mitochondria down, you stop the cell from killing itself in response to damage or other metabolic shifts. When I was doing my undergraduate I had to present a poster on a tumour suppressor protein, p53, which has the responsibility of inducing formation of one of the proteins that plays a key role in mitochondrial energy production chain (the protein is called COX4). What they found is that cells that had a mutation in the gene switched to "Warburg metabolism" and almost always resulted in cancer formation. What I am trying to say is that somehow feeding yourself more oxygen isn't going to help.

You can pretty much substitute 'more oxygen' with 'low glucose' in that last sentence.