A calorie is not a calorie. But why?

(Bob M) #61

By the way, the ability of the biome to adapt very quickly to whatever you eat is one reason I’ve stopped worrying about. 1- I know it will adapt to whatever it is I eat. 2- I don’t want to have to continue to take in “resistant starch” or fried rice or whatever I think helps the biome for the rest of my life, when the data to support this is basically non-existent. If we get long term RCTs showing reduced death due to some manipulation of the biome, then I’ll consider it. Otherwise, I don’t worry about the biome.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #62

If you’d like to know just how much protein Keys did (or did not) feed his subjects, try The Biology of Human Starvation by Keys, et al., 1950.

When people started dying of refeeding syndrome and it became a recognised medical problem, it was concentration camp survivors under medical supervision in hospital. The problem is not the fasting per se, it is how the refeeding handles potassium levels. A couple of Dr. Phinney’s LCDU presentations (available on YouTurbe) discuss these cases, what the doctors learned, and what treatment is required to refeed successfully.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #63

It is known science, derived from Cahill’s work in the 1960’s, Starvation in Man. The body actually prioritises proteolysis over fatty acid metabolism, in a balance calculated to maximise the chances of surviving a famine. The fat stores are not consumed until fairly late in the process of starvation. The good news is that the human body is quite hardy and can sustain quite a bit of damage before giving in.

If you wish to fast for any length of time, you need to be aware of the potential risks as well as the potential benefits. When you read or listen to Phinney and Fung, you have to remember that they are coming from opposite sides of a serious debate—that is, Fung is promoting fasting, so talks up the benefits, whereas Phinney is trying to inject a note of caution into a wildly enthusiastic discussion that seems to him to avoid mentioning the risks—but what they actually say and write is strikingly similar. Even Dr. Phinney admits that fasting up to about four days is probably safe, and even Dr. Fung stresses that fasting for longer than four days should be done only under close medical supervision.

It is worth remembering that Angus Barbieri, who fasted for 382 consecutive days, was under the constant supervision of a medical team, and his doctors only agreed to allow him to fast for that long because he made a strong commitment to stopping fasting, if at any point it appeared to be harming him. Also, bearing the post-World War II experiences with refeeding concentration camp survivors in mind, the doctors were extremely careful about how they returned Mr. Barbieri to eating food.

(Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) #64

I have no scientific proof. The last time I heard it was in an Mikhaila Peterson interview with Ivor Cummings that I watched just a couple of weeks ago. She said that carnivore has done wonders for her health but her mood was actually better on traditional keto. And I remember reading a few similar remarks in social networks, but I don’t remember where.

Actually I meant “There is some dispute on whether we need fiber at all” in the sense that I’ve seen good arguments for both sides, and neither side could fully convince me. And until we know more, I’m not ready to throw out “low fiber” as an issue of the SAD. I remember reading about an analysis of 200+ populations of hunterers and gatherers, and they averaged 15-20 percent carbs. This means they did eat a lot of fiber, as carbs are always coupled with fiber in nature.

I fully agree that we have no clue yet how our gut microbiome changes and what the consequences are. The Inuit and Masai did well on an all-meat diet, but this proves only that we can do well on a no-fiber diet, not that a no-fiber diet is optimal. There clearly are some benefits from feeding our gut bacteria, and we don’t know if they just compensate problems that we wouldn’t have in the first place if we hadn’t switched to a high-carb, high-omega-6 SAD. I’ve read a report about a study (not yet published I think) where MS patients were fed some of those fatty acids produced by gut bacteria, and they improved markedly, much better than with traditional medication. The baseline was a high-carb diet of course…

I’m simply trying to see both sides. There may be a middle ground between “fiber is good” and “fiber is bad”, and it may very well be “some fiber is good for some of us”. I’m pretty certain that serotonin production in the gut is important for sleep and mood, and this may take a hit if we switch to carnivore. Maybe evolutionary it was better to be angry if there were no easy-to-harvest veggies out there, who knows? :slight_smile:

Myself, I have been nearly carnivore for a month now and may end that experiment soon. I started to suffer from severe insomnia again (which is part of my ME/CFS but got much better on keto), and the fact that it’s gradually getting worse indicates that this may not be a transition effect. (Weight loss has stalled too, but weight is only a secondary target and the stalling may be due to muscle buildup. A month is too short to tell anyway.) The only positive change I observed was that my constipation got resolved, as expected (if you know Paul Masons talks on this subject). I’ll give it a few more weeks, but at some points I’d like to see benefits that outweigh the downside. Then I’ll probably cycle back, swich to standard keto for 2-3 months to see how that affects me, and then give carnivore another go.

Things may be different for healthy people vs. sick people. No doubt that healthy people should do great on a carnivore diet, and probably people with specific illnesses (like metabolic syndrome). However, a machine may break in several places, and we have to find and fix what’s broken instead of a one-size-fits-it-all remedy. My guess is carnivore will work great for some people with severe health issues (be it depression or autoimmune diseases), probably for most, but do nothing for others. The potential benefits would suggest that it’s a very good idea to give it a try, but if it doesn’t work then it doesn’t work.

But to conclude: I still think carnivore is great, and I’ll still recommend carnivore as the best elimination diet for all kinds of health issues. But there is a chance that it doesn’t work for all of us.

(Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) #65

My take here is different. I suffer from ME/CFS that threatens to make me permanently bedridden, and we don’t have a clue about the pathomechanism. I simply can’t afford to dismiss potential influences on the disease. In judging different approaches, I will always consider a wide range of theories, knowing that many of them will turn out to be wrong. However, the only way to decide this is to follow these theories. And there is enough science in the connection of leaky gut, microbiome, neurotransmitters and immune system modulation.

Microbiome issues may be responsible only for 0.5% of weird diseases, but then only 0.3% of the population suffer from my disease. In fact, if something affects only a very small group in the population this makes it more likely to be responsible for my disease. If people dropped like flies from microbiome imbalances this couldn’t be the reason for my disease :slight_smile:

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #66

The best argument is that there is no known carbohydrate deficiency disease, meaning that the daily required carbohydrate intake is 0 (zero) grams.

Zoë Harcombe has an entertaining lecture on the topic:

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #67

Also, to answer the question posed in the title of this topic, the reason a calorie is not a calorie is that the body has different hormonal responses to different types of food. Food calories are not fungible. A little searching on YouTube for the lectures of Dr. Robert Lustig, a paediatric endocrinologist and food activist, will turn up several passionate (and entertaining) lectures elucidating this topic. For a dryer, but still humorous, take on the subject, the lectures of Dr. David Ludwig are à propos.

As Prof. Benjamin Bikman and others have pointed out, the laws of thermodynamics apply to metabolism, as they do in all other aspects of the universe, but the body’s hormonal responses must be taken into account. Weight maintenance is not simply a matter of “eat less, move more.” Anyone who has studied basic endocrinology knows about the effect of insulin on fat storage.

Moreover, as Gary Taubes points out, the problem with applying the First Law of Thermodynamics to human nutrition is that we generally get the direction of causation wrong. We get fat because we put ourselves in weight-gaining mode (by eating certain foods) and overeat as a result. The overeating is not per se the cause of the weight gain. After all, no sane person has ever claimed that the pubertal growth spurt is the result of eating more; we all know that the voracious appetite we experienced as teenagers was the result of our growth spurt, not the cause.

(Doug) #68

"By using a specific heating and cooking regimen, he says, the scientists concluded that “if the best rice variety is processed, it might reduce the calories by about 50-60 percent.”

Well, I’m not sure, but it sounds to me like somebody took the best-thus-far-achieved university laboratory 5-6 percent figure and misquoted it.

I don’t “hate carbs.” Believe me, to my detriment. :smile: If there’s a demonstrable need for starchy vegetables for a given individual, then fine - and let’s hope the carbs in there aren’t a problematic issue for them. Many other people do okay without them.

No argument from me on those who are “metabolically healthy.” Almost everybody could tolerate substantial amounts of “good carbs,” then. For many of us, I think that ship has sailed.

(Todd Allen) #69

One exception to this at least anecdotally is body builders often report crashing during extreme cuts suffering coldness, fatigue, lethargy, etc. suggesting low RMR despite having high lean mass.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #70

I don’t know why I have to keep saying this, but here it is again. There are no ‘good’ carbs and ‘bad’ carbs, just carbs. They are all different molecular structures of sugar, which is why scientifically they are all termed saccharides. The only difference between them is how long it takes the metabolism to break them apart into individual glucose molecules and dump the glucose into the blood stream. At most that difference is a couple hours.

The only digestible saccharide that is even slightly different is fructose, which metabolizes into both glucose and several other metabolites. And for at least 3.5 million years cellulose has been totally indigestible by humans. Eating it will not feed your gut bacteria.

There is absolutely zero need to eat any carbohydrates, since gluconeogenesis synthesizes all the glucose we need for health and well-being. Eating carbs is simply a choice.

(Scott) #71

I agree that at the end of the day they ARE carbs. I think it is Dr Bernstein didn’t call them good or bad but mentioned that some, possibly due to fiber, may be slower acting in terms of the blood sugar spike.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #72

I think it probably just has more to do with breaking down the larger molecules into simple glucose molecules. Most polysaccharides contain thousands of bonded smaller individual molecules, takes time to break them apart, so the glucose end result passes more slowly into the blood.

Here’s a fairly easily understood discussion of polysaccharide chemistry. Regarding ‘fiber’ specifically:

Dietary Fiber: Cellulose and Hemicellulose

Several definitions have been proposed for "fiber". An early definition, still quite appropriate, basically states that fiber is the portion of food derived from plant cell walls that is poorly digested by mammals." To put it another way, mammals often consume fiber, but do not themselves secrete the enzymes necessary to digest it into a form that can be absorbed. Another common definition for fiber is the non-starch polysaccharide component of foodstuffs.

The chief components of dietary fiber are cellulose and hemicellulose, both of plant origin. Pectin and pectic acid are other plant polysaccharides often present in diets.

Cellulose is a linear polymer of between 1000 and 10,000 beta-D-glucose molecules in which adjacent glucose molecules are joined covalently through beta (1-4) glycosidic bonds. The beta (1-4) bonds cause the polymer to assume a non-helical, straight structure, which is different from the helical structure imposed on starch molecules by the alpha (1-4) bonding. The non-helical structure of cellulose also promotes hydrogen bonding between cellulose molecules.

Cellulose polymers associate with one another through a huge number of hydrogen bonds to form microfibers. Microfibers interact to form cellulose fibers. A typical fiber contains roughly 500,000 cellulose molecules. The high tensile strength of cellulose fibers reflects the massive number of hydrogen bonds involved in its structure.

Hemicellulose is a heteropolymer composed of a variety of sugars, including xylose, arabinose and mannose in a branched structure. In contrast to the highly ordered structure of cellulose, hemicellulose assumes an amorphose structure and becomes highly hydrated to form a gel.

No vertebrate cell has been identified that produces an enzyme that hydrolyzes celluloses or hemicelluloses. Certainly, amylase will not cleave these two polysaccharides. Dietary fiber therefore is indigestable and passes through the small intestine essentially unchanged.

Within the large intestine (or the forestomaches of ruminants, fiber is digested by enzymes - cellulases and hemecellulases - of microbial origin, a process refered to as fermentation. Fermentation does not yield monosaccharides that can be absorbed. Rather, its chief products are short chain volatile fatty acids, which are readily absorbed and utilized for energy and lipid synthesis. Thus, if the fermentation vat is of sufficient size (i.e. herbivores), dietary fiber can be a major source of energy. 11

#73

Fair enough - just sayin’ that if you’re weren’t frying the rice to reheat it, it wasn’t RS, it was straight starch.

My own experiments have been very positive in terms of mental energy/serotonin on a couple of fronts, and I like having various options when I need a mental boost :muscle:t4: plus I just like maintaining my enteric nervous system every way I can for the long haul. My latest quest is working with cocoa butter (thanks to you!) not just for the stearic acid but also the neurotrophic wonders.

(Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) #74

I know the video, but fiber has nothing to do with carbs. Obviously it is good to relieve effects of a high carb diet, but the point is that we don’t know if the fiber has independent beneficial effects. After all our ancestors did eat a lot of fiber – most low carb practicioners (myself included) believe that per default what we ate then will be good for us now.

Again, there may be a middle ground between “fiber is good” and “fiber is bad”, and it may very well be “some fiber is good for some of us”. Arguing that healthy people do well on a no-fiber diet has little implications for sick people, what makes them sick (and distinguishes them from healthy people) may exactly the reason why they could benefit from fiber.

You’ve got to be careful with logic. If A implies B (A=if you eat carbs, B=fiber is necessary), then this does not mean that “!A” (not A) implies “!B” (if you don’t eat carbs then fiber is not necessary). It only gives that “!B” implies “!A” (if you don’t need fiber then you shouldn’t eat carbs), but it does NOT give us anything on “B” if A is not true. That is, if we don’t eat carbs then fiber may be necessary or not.

Or in english: If you eat salt (A) then you’ll have to drink water (B). If you don’t eat salt (!A) then you’ll still have to drink water. Maybe not as much, but you’ll still need it.

There is a difference between need and benefit. Plants may grow better with fertilizer, but they will grow without it. I’m not talking about processed carbs, mind you.

Robb Wolf has some good talks on youtube about metabolic flexibility, and he speaks my heart. Essentially he says that the world is not black and white, and “just avoid carbs” is an approach that is too simple, even though it’s necessary for people who have eaten too much carbs for decades. The problem is that we don’t know how reversible MetS is. We certainly regain insulin sensitivity with time, but will our Kraft patterns revert back to normal (type I)? Will a ketogenic diet impede our ability to tolerate carbs? We don’t know yet.

There are two variables: Your lean body mass and your relative RMR (to muscle mass). If a normal person increases muscle mass his RMR will increase roughly proprtionally to the muscle mass (much quicker than if he increases fat mass).

However, any sub-caloric nutrition on a high carb will drop the relative RMR (resting energy expenditure per muscle mass). I don’t know anything about bodybuilding, maybe they eat low fat and high protein, which would explain why they have a low relative RMR.

Because it is wrong, plain and simple. Or to be more precise: It’s an oversimplification that leaves out crucial aspects. You can’t argue that fire is bad just because a house on fire is undesirable.

Yes, in the end all carbs are converted to monosaccharides, but there is a metabolic difference between processed carbs (especially sugar) and naturally occuring carbs embedded in fiber. It does matter how quickly the carbs pass through your system, because our liver and pancreas have a capacity to handle a certain amount of carbs, easily. Overwhelm them and you’ll get sick.
But it’s not only speed: The fiber will add fatty acids through our gut microbiome to the mix that aid our immune system, and naturally carbs come with vitamins and antioxidants. Bottom line: If we eat fruit or starchy vegetables then they contain stuff to clean up the damage from the sugar and starch. Through refinining we eliminate the cleanup stuff and keep only the damaging stuff. (Watch Robert Lustig if you don’t believe this.)

And most importantly: The dose makes the poison. Evolution designed us to eat a certain amount of (unprocessed) carbs, it’s fairly ridiculous to assume that carbs are detrimental in any quantity. If they were, we would have evolved into carnivores. (And no, the inuit did not eat a ketogenic diet.) It’s always a question of the right balance. Omega-6 fatty acids are essential for life, we will die if we don’t eat them. Obviously they are bad if we consume too much, especially 30-fold too much (as in the SAD). It’s the same with carbs. We eat 5 times as much carbs as our ancestors, and have multiplied the effect on our metabolism with refining and additives in processed food. It doesn’t take rocket science to see that this is bad. And if we have developed MetS then it will be better to eliminate carbs completely. I’m with you there.

So if we eat SAD we set our house on fire (too much carbs, processed, additives). However, there is nothing wrong with a controlled fire to keep you warm.

Interesting. Did you eat rice, and in which quantities? I also just ordered cocoa butter and will try creating some keto treats. Got to protect my daughter from the dark side :slight_smile:

(bulkbiker) #75

Which food has one without the other?

(Scott) #76

Fiber delutes carbs

(Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) #77

Refined carbs and processed food. Carbs but no fiber.
Salad. Fiber but virtually no carbs.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #78

You realize, of course, that ‘fiber’ is cellulose, an indigestible carbohydrate. Yes, you can eat other carbs without cellulose, but you can’t eat ‘no carbs’ when you eat cellulose. You could say ‘no digestible carbs’. If you want to experience this, eat a ‘salad’ of grass. Let us know what happens.

(bulkbiker) #79

You do realise that in the US the fibre is included in the carb count don’t you…?
So fibre is a “carb”

(Doug) #80

Paul, okay - but in reality not much protein is really lost - witness all the people who don’t lose much lean mass when fasting, or even appear to gain it (presumably heavily influenced by the vastly greater growth hormone secretion), based on DEXA scans. I remember Phinney projecting out in time as far as nitrogen excretion, protein loss, etc., but he was assuming that the first couple days of a fast are replicated practically ad infinitum, when in reality the net protein usage and excretion tails off really quickly.

Even there, that’s really not what struck me - it was the tone like “After just one day of fasting, you will start decimating your vital organs.” And to me, that’s a complete bunch of BS.

After just one day of fasting, you begin to lose body protein from lean tissue – from places like muscle, heart, liver, and kidneys.

–There’s what is said. And - strictly speaking - yes, perhaps (?) they can claim that. Because some protein is indeed lost from some lean tissue. But that does not mean it’s going to be from the vital organs mentioned, and it appears that point is deliberately obscured, as is the fact that conditions after one day of fasting change massively, as a fast goes into multiple days, and especially into “many” days. I just can’t believe that Phinney or Volek wrote that. It really sounds like sensationalist copy from an over-zealous intern, if anything. :smile: