Zero carb diet

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
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

I don't care what Atkins promoted. 'Healthy carbs'? All carbohydrates must be broken down into glucose, and glucose (it doesn't matter where it's from)requires the pancreas to release insulin to properly handle this surge of sugar. Many zero-carbers consider this insulin release to be damaging (obesity, diabetes, etc.)

No, I did not adapt it myself.

Here are some links which you might find of interest:

Vilhjalmur Stefansson: Adventures in Diet

archaeological evidence for palaeolithc and neolithic subsistence

Blog on Plant Poisons

Cardiovascular and Hormonal Aspects of Very-Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diets

The Forward for: Eat Fat Grow Slim

Ketogenic Diets and Physical Performance

Exercise and Low-Carb Diets

The High Carb. Diet and Related Health Problems

For anyone who believes in the Lipid Hypothesis:
LDL Cholesterol: “Bad” Cholesterol, or Bad Science?

Some info on fiber (unnecessary and damaging to the gut)

Carbohydrate restriction improves the features of Metabolic Syndrome. Metabolic Syndrome may be defined by the response to carbohydrate restriction

[edit on 6-10-2006 by the_individualist]

And here's one from Medscape: www.medscape.com...

Very Low-Carbohydrate Diets

A recent study of very low-carbohydrate diets suggests that a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet leads to spontaneous calorie restriction due to decreased appetite.[1] Although long-term studies (1 year) have failed to find superiority in low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets that gradually reintroduce carbohydrate into the diet compared with high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets in regard to weight loss,[2,3] improvements in triglycerides (TGs)[2,3] and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C)[2] were observed at the 12-month point in patients who followed the low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet.

Similar very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets were studied by Volek and colleagues[4] in hyperlipidemic, overweight, and obese participants. Volek and colleagues found that overweight men and women with elevated TG and low HDL-C levels (features of the metabolic syndrome) who followed a very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet with approximately 10% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 60% fat had greater weight and fat mass loss, improved fasting, and postprandial TG (-39%), HDL-C (+12%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) and HDL size, apoB (-8%), apoC-I (-14%), apoC-III (-21%), apoE (-13%), lecithin cholesterol acyltransferase, lipoprotein(a), and inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein [CRP] -19%, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] alpha -7%, Lp(a) -12%) compared with patients on a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet with approximately 30% total fat and less than 10% saturated fat. The high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet showed no improvements in dyslipidemia.[4] Volek's group also found that the number of large LDL particles increased while there was a decrease in the small LDL particles (pattern B genotype) from 95% of participants to 20% of the participants with the pattern B genotype.[4]

Research conducted by Vernon and colleagues[5] involved diabetic patients who were placed on either a very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet or a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet with an anorectic agent. The high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet plus anorectic agent produced more weight loss (14.1 kg vs 9.5 kg, P < .01) in 3 months while the very low-carbohydrate, high-fat group had more favorable changes in TG (P = .02), HDL-C (P < .001), and correspondingly the TG/HDL-C ratio (P = .01).[5] Multiple case studies of type 2 diabetics on the very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet who were followed up for an average of 8 months showed significant changes in HgA1c from 10.0% to 5.9%, with half of the participants within normal limits (< 5.5%). There were also significant improvements in total cholesterol (TC), TG, TG/HDL-C ratio, and TC/HDL-C ratio after following a very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. Furthermore, diabetic patients following a very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet required close medication monitoring during the 8 months of follow-up, and 13/14 diabetic patients were able to discontinue all medications for glycemic control.[5] Yancy[6] described a 4-month, 1-arm study of diabetics who followed an 11% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 59% fat diet that resulted in 6% weight loss, a 16% decrease in HgA1c from 7.4 to 6.3, and a decreased need for diabetic medications.

Fernandez and colleagues[7] used guinea pigs to study the effect of diet on lipoprotein metabolism and atherosclerosis development. Guinea pigs are a favored animal model because their lipoprotein characteristics are similar to those of humans. In a recent study composed of 3 diet groups (low-cholesterol, high-carbohydrate; high-cholesterol, high-carbohydrate; and high-cholesterol, low-carbohydrate); the dietary cholesterol intake increased atherogenicity of both VLDL and HDL, while a carbohydrate restriction (~10%) increased the number of large LDL and decreased the concentrations of the more atherogenic smaller LDL particles. The less atherogenic

(Medscape article continued)

(larger) LDL was found to be associated with lower concentrations of cholesterol esters and inflammatory cytokines measured in the aorta of the guinea pigs.[7]

Thanks for the links. I've not read all of them, but it seems that many of them deal with very low-carb diets, while you seemed to be talking about ZERO carb diets.
Apart from the sheer monotony of eating only protein and fats, I cannot imagine doing ZERO carbs.

I've known people who cannot tolerate grains and must restrict the amount and types of carbs they consume. They do very low carb dieting.
It has proved to be a very healthy way of eating. Many of them have freed themselves of medications thought to be necessary for their health.

Well, zero is the ideal, but there are always small amounts of carbs in things like eggs and liver. Many "zero-carbers" usually call themselves "carnivores" instead partially because of this. However, there are no studies in the literature on strictly carnivorous diets, only VLC, so this is the best we have right now. But I can assure you, there is a significant group of people who follow zero-carb successfully. I refer you here:Active No Carber

Yes, VLC and carnivorous diets are most in-line with what our evolutionary path has followed, and it is definitely of huge benefit to people with food intolerances to modern products of agriculture (grains, dairy, etc.). But on top of that, many people find their weight returns to perfect levels on this diet, and so is great for obesity. And I am NOT advising any diabetics to end their medications and try this diet, but there have been cases of Type 2 diabetics who have no more need for their medications on a zero carb lifestyle due to the decreased necessity for insulin on this WOE, so it should definitely be an option worth considering.

[edit on 7-10-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 7-10-2006 by the_individualist]

Thanks again, individualist.
Personally, I don't see me going to the extreme you do. I love my fruits and homemade granola too much
But, I think any attempt we make to remove as many carbs as we can from our diets is to be applauded.
I also have the experience of people who, under medical supervision, were able to decrease their number of medications. They saw much better health and weight loss

I think that over the centuries, we have made foods that have longer and longer shelf lifes with less and less real value to our bodies.
These highly processed foods wreak havoc on our bodies.
One of the worst: HFCS :shk:

Another rather popular take is the paleo diet
www.paleodiet.com...


BTW, your activenocarber link does not work

If I remember correctly, the diet I was on suggested 30 grams of carbs daily for the the first couple of weeks then 60 grams thereafter.

[edit on 10/8/2006 by djohnsto77]

No problem! Yeah, it takes some extreme will power to just let go of the sweet tooth; it wasn't too bad for me (I had a three day hump), but on the active no carber forum, you can read quite a bit of people 'cheating' and 'binging' etc. Old habits die hard. But for every person who simply can't do it, there's someone who keeps at it strictly and would never go back.

Although I believe zero-carb/carnivorous is optimal, low-carb is way better than high, since during our evolution, every diet was low-carb, and the only carbs came mostly from fruits, honey, nuts, and maybe some veggies. I do believe that because plants are nature's chemical factories, they can have great medicinal properties, but I think if consumed on a regular basis or in large 'food-size' quantities (in other words: as a source of nutrition), these chemicals are toxic. So the only plants I would ever consume at this point is some herbal tea or extract if I were sick or something. For example: wormwood and black walnut are supposedly great for parasites, but I wouldn't eat them all the time, just if I got worms or something. Herbs beat prescription drugs and antibiotics any day!

Oh man, HFCS is by FAR one of the worst carbohydrates you can eat! It makes me cringe to think of all the kids growing up on things like fruit roll-ups and soda. Just think of all the damage they are doing to their developing bodies! :shk: And you know anything with HFCS is crap, because the only reason they add corn syrup in the first place is because it'd otherwise taste like bland garbage.

Yeah, I've read a lot of paleodiet stuff before. I actually found zero-carb through low-carb paleo. I definitely think paleo is more realistic than carnivore for most people. But I don't think it goes far enough. General paleo is a little liberal on the carbs, since some people take it to mean they can just eat all the fruit they want with a steak here and there. But low-carb paleo (real paleo), is good for anyone not willing to go down to zero. Although I'm a little wary of Cordain, as he is still blinded by low-fat dogma, and either believes or mispresents the role of fat in paleolithic diets as lower than they really were. I think the main thing most people need to do though is just cut out the processed junk! It's way out of line with our digestive system. Yeah, plants may have toxins and stuff in them, but that's far better than manufactured foods.

Also, here's a link to the active no carber forum via a zero-carb blog: zerocarbdaily.blogspot.com...

[edit on 8-10-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 8-10-2006 by the_individualist]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If I remember correctly, the diet I was on suggested 30 grams of carbs daily for the the first couple of weeks then 60 grams thereafter.

[edit on 10/8/2006 by djohnsto77]

Sounds like Atkins induction.

Im trying this low carb diet as i tend to feel vey bloated so been told this is grat for it,

only thing is for me is getting used to replacing things lol,

I eat alot of bread so getting my self off it is hard,

Trying using egg instead of bread with my bacon,

Originally posted by asala
Im trying this low carb diet as i tend to feel vey bloated so been told this is grat for it,

only thing is for me is getting used to replacing things lol,

I eat alot of bread so getting my self off it is hard,

Trying using egg instead of bread with my bacon,

Yeah, when I first started low-carbing, that was the hardest part- finding 'substitutions'. My way of doing low-carb was paleo, so I replaced salty snacks with nuts, and fruits for candy. In retrospect, this was really just a transition stage to where I'm at now (zero-carb/carnivore), but it was totally necessary. If you went back in time and told my junk-food self "In one more year, all you'll be eating is raw meat, raw eggs, and animal fat!" I would've been like "NO WAY IN HELL!!!". You have to wean yourself away from junk- slowly.

If you're planning on replacing bread with eggs, here's a recipe idea over at the active no carber forum: activenocarber.myfreeforum.org...

It tells you how to whip eggs into a sort of 'tortilla'. And I think you can also use more eggs to make a thicker mass in the likeness of bread (called like an eggwhich or something I think).

[edit on 8-10-2006 by the_individualist]

An interesting blog post I found about paleo controversies in the blog about plant poisons I posted a link to earlier in the thread: wisewitch.blogspot.com...

[edit on 8-10-2006 by the_individualist]

The really good thing about this diet is it's pretty easy to remember what to do and you can still fill yourself quite nicely. Just remember to get a salad instead of french fries, take your hamburger off the bun and it eat with a knife and fork (but you can put as much cheese and bacon on it as you want!) etc...

Oh yeah, when it comes to food and satiety on zero/low carb- I've never been more satisfied in my life. I used to be sooooo hungry all the time! Especially when I was following vegetarianism (worst dietary mistake of my life). The carbs just always messed with my brain and made me want to eat more. Like I said, carby foods were survival foods back in the day, so if you eat even a little, your body gets into survival mode and tells you to eat more, as much as you can, to cope with the expected starvation bout. But then, in our modern world, that starvation bout never comes, and all the fat you just stored from those carbs never gets burned for nutrients.

Not a good Idea! See, the human body needs a bit of EVERYTHING: Carbs, Suger, Fat, Protien, ect. The trick is balance, accoding the latest info that I'm hearing.

Tim

Originally posted by Ghost01
The trick is balance, accoding the latest info that I'm hearing.

Yea.

It's funny you (original poster) believe that all carbs are "toxic", and yet most animals live off of mostly carbs, and most doctors, nutritionists, sports trainers, militaries still advocate a diet of mostly carbs, then fat and protein. Not to mention that vegetables, fruits, legumes, have high concentrations of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, good unsaturated fats...most of which are not going to be found in meat and eggs. I don't know where you are going to be getting your vitamins from, and another very important dietary ingredient, fiber. Eating all meat and not getting any fiber from carbs will destroy your body's digestive system, and could mean serious problems in the long term such as colon cancer. There's a reason that the human body is designed the way it is...just like lions and tigers are adapted for eating only meat, we are not, our bodies are designed for processing all foods, but not primarily meat.

You better be aware of all the real "toxins" you are consuming when you eat all of your meat. Animal steroids, growth hormones, parasites, pesticides, herbicides, and other dangerous little organisms that can mess you up if you don't cook it pretty well...the reason there is so much fat on that nice piece of steak is that fat accumulates as a natural defense from all of the toxins in the animal body that I just listed...and it all gets stored in that fat. When you eat it, you eat the toxins. Any "toxins" that you think accumulate in plants are much worse in animals, because it all accumulates in their fat, in higher quantities. Oh yea, and cows get nice and big and meaty just from eating grass ( a carb), but nice and fat when they are injected with growth hormones and steroids at the farm...also, in the past when people ate meat, it consisted of almost all protein and very little fat, like it does today. Of course this is because wild animals are active, eat normal diets, and aren't given drugs in order to bulk them up. Deer, bison, rabbits, wild birds, all consist of very lean meat. You can learn a lesson here...eating carbs all day like they do, and making an effort to exercise, will keep you lean and healthy. Sitting on your ass makes you fat (commercially raised cattle, pigs, chickens). You can bet that "throughout evolution", people would have died off if they were only eating animals. Or else they would have had to make some pretty serious adaptations, which don't exist in modern humans...hence why we are not natural carnivores. Better make sure you are buying organically raised/fed cattle, although that won't help your body out in the fiber or vitamin/mineral/antioxidant department. You might think you feel great after only 3 months, but if you keep this up for a good amount of time you could develop some serious problems.

Look at any other animal in the world that's an omnivore, and most people...they all sustain themselves on a diet of mostly vegetable matter, and some meat/fish. In fact, the groups of people around the world who live the longest are those who eat mostly vegetarian diets, with seafood and no meat. The high saturated fat diet here in america has been shown to cause heart disease and plenty of other problems. And be certain that the toxins in meat are very real, and that fruit and vegetables do nothing but help your body. Remember the low/no carb diets were invented to help people lose weight (usually inactive people who never workout anyway), but they were never intended to bring about long term health. I'm not saying you should go and shovel down carbs (although lots of fruits and vegetables can't hurt you), but you need to have a balance.


[edit on 13-11-2006 by Shoktek]

Please note: My responses are in bold inside the quote box

Originally posted by Shoktek
It's funny you (original poster) believe that all carbs are "toxic", and yet most animals live off of mostly carbs,

That's because most animals are herbivorous, it's called the food chain, it looks like this

C = carnivores------->C
H = herbivores----->HHHH
P = plants-------->PPPPPPPP

That's why most animals eat plants. What you said was misleading


and most doctors, nutritionists, sports trainers, militaries still advocate a diet of mostly carbs, then fat and protein.

Sigh...when will people start to understand that "authority figures" are far from infallible?

Not to mention that vegetables, fruits, legumes, have high concentrations of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, good unsaturated fats...most of which are not going to be found in meat and eggs.

What meagre nutrition present in plant foods is interfered from absorption by the antinutrient factors that we have never evolved to metabolize. Antioxidants are abundant in meat and eggs- selenium, amino acids, zeaxanthin, to name a few. And plus, if you're that worried about antioxidants, just eat liver and heart (both rich in vitamin C). Also, excess oxidation is largely produced by toxic amounts of PUFAs that are present in your standard diet with vegetable oils, not to mention the process of carbohydrate metabolism when doing exercise, unlike fats, which are clean-burning fuels for the human body.

I don't know where you are going to be getting your vitamins from, and another very important dietary ingredient, fiber. Eating all meat and not getting any fiber from carbs will destroy your body's digestive system, and could mean serious problems in the long term such as colon cancer.

Meat is the richest source of vitamins on this planet, what the hell are you talking about. Fiber is unnecessary and actually harmful in the long run (see link I posted previously).

There's a reason that the human body is designed the way it is...just like lions and tigers are adapted for eating only meat, we are not, our bodies are designed for processing all foods, but not primarily meat.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this statement?

You better be aware of all the real "toxins" you are consuming when you eat all of your meat. Animal steroids, growth hormones, parasites, pesticides, herbicides, and other dangerous little organisms that can mess you up if you don't cook it pretty well...the reason there is so much fat on that nice piece of steak is that fat accumulates as a natural defense from all of the toxins in the animal body that I just listed...and it all gets stored in that fat. When you eat it, you eat the toxins. Any "toxins" that you think accumulate in plants are much worse in animals, because it all accumulates in their fat, in higher quantities.

I am well aware of this- the human body developed a liver and other detox organs for a reason. The problem with plant toxins is they interfere with nutrient absorption, unlike animal toxins. Also, their fat isn't that loaded with crap, because guess what: they have livers and detox pathways, too.

Oh yea, and cows get nice and big and meaty just from eating grass ( a carb), but nice and fat when they are injected with growth hormones and steroids at the farm...also, in the past when people ate meat, it consisted of almost all protein and very little fat, like it does today.

True, but again, misleading. Wild animals do have less fat, more protein, in the same cut of meat compared to a commercially raised animal. HOWEVER, our ancestors supplemented this lean muscle tissue with bone marrow, brains, and structural fats (kidney suet), all rich sources of fatty acids, which will be there no matter how "lean" the animal is. Unless, of course, it is emaciated, but I doubt our ancestors evovled off of emaciated deer, because, like you said, they get meaty and healthy off of grass.

You can bet that "throughout evolution", people would have died off if they were only eating animals.

Totally false- any plant foods were only eaten seasonally, and in small quantities; meat was THE staple of paleolithic man. Seriously, do you think there were vegetable gardens and fruit orchards just waiting to be picked during our evolution? Haha what little digestibility plants have is from agricultural influence.

Or else they would have had to make some pretty serious adaptations, which don't exist in modern humans...hence why we are not natural carnivores.

uhh...we ARE adapted to be carnivores, mine and many other's continuous health on this diet is proof that we are adapted towards carnivory

Better make sure you are buying organically raised/fed cattle, although that won't help your body out in the fiber or vitamin/mineral/antioxidant department. You might think you feel great after only 3 months, but if you keep this up for a good amount of time you could develop some serious problems.

hmmm...well, I still feel excellent after, how long now? Is it six months? Or Five? Anyways, any so-called "deficiencies" would have begun to manifest themselves at this point

Look at any other animal in the world that's an omnivore, and most people...they all sustain themselves on a diet of mostly vegetable matter, and some meat/fish.

Are we bears? No. Are we pigs? No. We are human beings. So why should we eat like these animals? Most people are living in devitalized health because of their dependence on plants for food, as evidenced by our unnaturally escalated levels of degenerative diseases.

In fact, the groups of people around the world who live the longest are those who eat mostly vegetarian diets, with seafood and no meat.

"With seafood" is NOT vegetarian. And does a longer life directly corellate with an increased QUALITY and HEALTH of life? No, of course not. Even if people are living into their hundreds, they are starving and deprived on such incomplete vegetarian diets.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by Shoktek]

[edit on 17-12-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 17-12-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 17-12-2006 by the_individualist]

Originally posted by Shoktek
The high saturated fat diet here in america has been shown to cause heart disease and plenty of other problems. And be certain that the toxins in meat are very real, and that fruit and vegetables do nothing but help your body. Remember the low/no carb diets were invented to help people lose weight (usually inactive people who never workout anyway), but they were never intended to bring about long term health. I'm not saying you should go and shovel down carbs (although lots of fruits and vegetables can't hurt you), but you need to have a balance.
[edit on 13-11-2006 by Shoktek]

NO. Saturated fat intake is inversely correlated with disease- one goes down, the other goes up. Carbohydrate and vegetable oil intake, however, is directly corellated with disease- one goes up, so does the other. Saturated fat has never been concretely shown to cause disease of any kind, such studies are pseudo-science garbage with flawed methodology and variable control. They never control for carbohydrate consumption in the supposed "high-fat" data.

Fruits and vegetables can be described in two words: worthless, and harmful. Plants are only useful as medicines, NOT as a source of nourishment. That is what meat is for.

No, Atkins was primarily intended and marketed for weight loss, but this does not mean that this is all low/zero carb is good for. That's like saying clothing is only useful for fashion; as it is marketed for this purpose, while serving many others (warmth, protection, etc.)

Oh, but I do have a balance! I eat three square meals of nutritious steak balanced out with wonderful animal fats every day !

[edit on 17-12-2006 by the_individualist]

Originally posted by the_individualist
That's because most animals are herbivorous, it's called the food chain, it looks like this

C = carnivores------->C
H = herbivores----->HHHH
P = plants-------->PPPPPPPP

That's why most animals eat plants. What you said was misleading

Yea, duh. And if you'd take the time to study the human body, you will realize that we are not pure carnivores, by nature/design... most animals out in the wild still need to consume vitamins, fiber, and minerals. This occurs when they consume a kill's digestive tract, which is something you do not do. And your entire post is misleading to anyone who reads it.

Sigh...when will people start to understand that "authority figures" are far from infallible?

Probably about the same time they give real credit to people posting (unproven) theories on forums, directing their health choices.

What meagre nutrition present in plant foods is interfered from absorption by the antinutrient factors that we have never evolved to metabolize. Antioxidants are abundant in meat and eggs- selenium, amino acids, zeaxanthin, to name a few. And plus, if you're that worried about antioxidants, just eat liver and heart (both rich in vitamin C). Also, excess oxidation is largely produced by toxic amounts of PUFAs that are present in your standard diet with vegetable oils, not to mention the process of carbohydrate metabolism when doing exercise, unlike fats, which are clean-burning fuels for the human body.

Selenium is just a needed trace element which occurs as part of certain amino acids I believe, and is not itself an antioxidant (it does support the process), nor are simply "amino acids", and I don't know about zeaxanthin showing antioxidative activity. I guess if I drink a glass of milk I'm going to get a lot of antioxidants then, because it's full of amino acids, as is any high-protein animal food source.

Meat is the richest source of vitamins on this planet, what the hell are you talking about. Fiber is unnecessary and actually harmful in the long run (see link I posted previously).

Right...find me one qualified physician or dietician who agrees with you, and then maybe you have an argument. The difference between their knowledge and yours? They have a degree in the subject, and actually are qualified to give out true, healthy information...

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this statement?

You are the one trying to prove your ingenius zero-carb carnivorous diet to the people on this forum...so far you have not done this, and have no reliable sources to support your theory.

The problem with plant toxins is they interfere with nutrient absorption, unlike animal toxins. .

Yea, yea...find me a reliable article that supports this idea. Wake up buddy...the plant "toxins" you speak of are going to be present in meat just as well as plant material, because this is what the animals consume.

True, but again, misleading. Wild animals do have less fat, more protein, in the same cut of meat compared to a commercially raised animal. HOWEVER, our ancestors supplemented this lean muscle tissue with bone marrow, brains, and structural fats (kidney suet), all rich sources of fatty acids, which will be there no matter how "lean" the animal is. Unless, of course, it is emaciated, but I doubt our ancestors evovled off of emaciated deer, because, like you said, they get meaty and healthy off of grass.

Ok...and how does this apply to the modern human's diet?

Totally false- any plant foods were only eaten seasonally, and in small quantities; meat was THE staple of paleolithic man. Seriously, do you think there were vegetable gardens and fruit orchards just waiting to be picked during our evolution? Haha what little digestibility plants have is from agricultural influence.

And you know this, because you have probably spent a lot of time studying it (maybe reading books instead of pro-carnivore diet or "caveman diet" websites)...

uhh...we ARE adapted to be carnivores, mine and many other's continuous health on this diet is proof that we are adapted towards carnivory

hmmm...well, I still feel excellent after, how long now? Is it six months? Or Five? Anyways, any so-called "deficiencies" would have begun to manifest themselves at this point

Ok. Go ahead and gamble with your health, but don't advise others to do the same. We'll see how you're doing in a few years.

Most people are living in devitalized health because of their dependence on plants for food, as evidenced by our unnaturally escalated levels of degenerative diseases.

Yea, uh huh. Complete BS. Again, find me one qualified person in the field who agrees with this idea. Tell it to my grandparents who both lived healthily over 90 years old, eating a BALANCED diet with meat, fish, vegetables, fruits, etc. And tell it to the current generation of American kids, who commonly eat more meat now than people here ever have, and who are predicted to be the first generation to die off at an earlier age than the previous.

"With seafood" is NOT vegetarian. And does a longer life directly corellate with an increased QUALITY and HEALTH of life? No, of course not. Even if people are living into their hundreds, they are starving and deprived on such incomplete vegetarian diets.

"Vegetarian" can include seafood. Again, more BS that you made up in order to further your carnivore diet theory. Tell it to all the elderly people, many of whom live very happy lives, and see what they say...and then we'll see where you are at that age, if you're even still around (doubtful).

Again.,...what are your qualifications? You read a lot of caveman diet theories, message boards, and other similar web sites? You are trying to convince yourself that your craving to eat meat without end is healthy and normal? And you also believe that your knowledge supersedes that of medical school/bio/dietary health graduates, even though almost all of them would argue against you? Did you stay at a holiday inn express last night?

Originally posted by the_individualist
NO. Saturated fat intake is inversely correlated with disease- one goes down, the other goes up. Carbohydrate and vegetable oil intake, however, is directly corellated with disease- one goes up, so does the other. Saturated fat has never been concretely shown to cause disease of any kind, such studies are pseudo-science garbage with flawed methodology and variable control. They never control for carbohydrate consumption in the supposed "high-fat" data.

Fruits and vegetables can be described in two words: worthless, and harmful. Plants are only useful as medicines, NOT as a source of nourishment. That is what meat is for.

Pretty powerful and meaningful statements, coming from a guy who knows nothing about nutrition, biology, or medical science...once again, no reliable studies or articles to support any of this BS.