The burden of proof would be on the one making the positive assertion here, i.e. that undigestible carbs are necessary.
Logic, rational thinking, and proof apply to and deal with that which exists, not to that which does not exist.
Saying, “Prove me wrong,” is not proof.
There are essential fatty acids - see wikipedia which provides a reasonable summary
There are essential amino acids - again wikipedia provides a nice round up
The reason that there are essential amino acids and essential fatty acids is because the body is unable to manufacture these from other materials - they must therefore be consumed.
There are no essential carbohydrates because the very small amount of glucose actually required by the body can be synthesised by gluconeogenesis.
What Bunny keeps banging on about is feeding the microbiome to enable it to produce butyrate etc. These may be nice to have if you are host to the right gut microbiome and it works well for you. They cannot be essential because we do not die without these resistant starches.
I am really glad Bunny has found something which works for her. If I ate cold potato regularly I would be out of ketosis and fat and ill in no time. I cannot eat other resistant starches because I am intolerant to grains, so I won’t be trying those.
I wish Bunny would accept that we are all different and most of us here cannot tolerate the level of carbs that would be delivered along with the resistant starch and are doing just fine with the things that work for us.
Each of us is an n=1 experiment to a large extent and each of us can advise others about what we have found works for us.
Scientific literature is never going to say “undigestible carbohydrates are not necessary”. That is not how science works as Bunny should already know. “Science” might deliver a study on whether there are any measurable benefits from consumption of resistant starch over a period of several weeks or months. The study would almost certainly be conducted in rodents and would therefore have little of any interest to this debate.
Generally though you only get funding for scientific study if there is money to be made from the results. The absence of any such results in the scientific literature says more about the state of scientific funding than it does about the science itself.
Organic ripe fruit that is also high in polyphenols. Berries and stone fruits come to mind. We don’t need carbohydrates per se but polyphenols extent lifespan, prevent candida proliferation when consuming fruit carbs and prevent diseases associated with eating burnt food. Polyphenols also thin the blood efficiently and keep blood sugar in check. - I lived in Italy and people buying fruit and seafood at the street market were always the healthiest while I remember once an overweight woman at the supermarket trying to fight her addictive urges from buying a bag of cookies. I’ve never seen this addictive effect with fruit.
If you’re going to pull the natural card. Then you should let go of the coffee since coffee isn’t essential either. For the sake of being logically consistent.
Where in @amwassil ‘s post does he “pull the natural card”? I cannot see where he does that @anon81060937.
You are WRONG.
You’re telling someone who has THOUSANDS of blood, urine, breath ketone readings and thousands of blood sugar tests that I don’t know how to test something?
I have had FOUR (or five?) blood sugar meters, TWO blood ketone meters. I bought a year’s supply of a CGM from Sweden so that I could test my blood sugar.
An example:
This is seven YEARS of blood pressure data:
These are SOME of the tests I’ve taken for myself. I paid for the vast majority of them myself. Note the yellow are fasting 4.5 days. Note the 2/29/16 to 3/4/16 tests, where I was trying to determine why my previous 4.5 day test caused weird results. This was way before Dave Feldman burst onto the scene. Note also the tests on 6/14/19 and 6/17/19, which cost me about $1,000 dollars out of my own pocket. This was a test of Dave Feldman’s theories:
These are the three DEXA scans I’ve had done, cost $500 out of pocket:
This is my CAC scan, $100 out of pocket:
When you say I’m wrong because I tested incorrectly, I can tell you right now you’re WRONG. I have been testing things on my own body before you knew what keto even was.
To show you how long I’ve been testing, here’s the beginning of my spreadsheet: I started testing 2.5 years after starting low carb/keto.
Here’s the end of my spreadsheet (only taking breath ketones lately, as I no longer consider data to be useful):
That’s right: almost 2,200 samples.
Here’s only a minor amount of my spreadsheet directed to resistant starch and prebiotics:
I tried several different starches, tiger nuts, heated and cooled potatoes, heated and cooled rice (latter two cause HIGH blood glucose), etc. I tried multiple different probiotics, including fermented foods (many), even “soil based” probiotics. NO BENEFIT, ONLY DETRIMENTS.
I have tested apple cider vinegar’s effect on my blood sugar; compared results of two Keto Mojos (lots of errors); compared different blood sugar meters; compared Keto Mojos and Precision Xtra ketone meters, liver recovery protocol, iodine protocol, you name it. Does “high” protein cause high blood sugar (No). Does high fat cause higher ketones (unclear; too much error in ketone measurements)?
I’ve forgotten more things I’ve tested than you’ll ever test.
I can confidently say that NO ONE other than somebody like Dave Feldman has done more testing than I have. NO ONE.
(NOTE: When I say I have had a copy of a meter, I actually bought two: one for work and one for home. So, I have a Keto Mojo at work and at home; a Precision Xtra at work and at home; a Bayer Contour Next Ez at work and at home; two different FreeStyle Libre meters, one from Sweden, one from the US, etc.)
For me your spread sheets are not what I was asking for (because it is a lot of placebo to begin with and proves nothing).
No, it’s like pointing out that just because we can’t prove that little green men from Mars won’t land on our planet tomorrow, it does not constitute proof of their existence nor that they are coming.
Your body can also use your own body parts for essential fatty and amino acids however that’s not what the we are talking about?
Then answer the question?
Playing the off topic game will get you no where with me.
You either can or you can’t?
If you insist on the proof of a negative, then you are nowhere, to begin with.
For example, you can’t prove that there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy. That however, is no proof of their existence. Yet you are proceeding as if the opposite is true, and that such things matter.
Natural card = Humans can make their own carbohydrates and therefore it’s unnatural to consume even a small amount of carbohydrates from whole foods. - He pulled the card indirectly.
Exactly avoid the question with nonsense?
Let’s repost for clarification:
I would like one person to show me where it states in the scientific literature …that undigestible carbohydrates are not necessary?
And then I’m going show you the how and why, they and you, are wrong and how your interpretation of what they are actually saying is wrong?
Where it states “carbohydrates“ in the sense they “…are not necessary…” is true to a certain extent but they are talking about the refined carbohydrates and simple carbohydrates because such a person making said statement may not fully understand the difference between complex carbohydrates and simple carbohydrates so you then get people parroting untested hypothetical statements that are later being regarded as fact because a few people who only eat meat had some good results (short term) and very deadly results (long-term; 20 years later?) from what I have seen, so we have no idea that “…undigestible carbs are not necessary…” the science is pointing in the opposite direction of such hypothetical theories?
Instead of parroting other people please explain how “undigestible carbohydrates are not necessary?” Show me the scientific literature and if you cannot maybe the dog ate it? Maybe it’s under the bed? Maybe it got lost in last weeks trash?
If you’re asserting that they are necessary, then it’s up to you to prove it. Asking for the proof of a negative is nonsensical. We know that our livers can make glucose - the relatively small amount that we really do need.
Do you genuinely misunderstand to that extent? I wonder, because you seem to have this issue a lot.
You make the claim, you prove the claim. This is hardly a revolutionary idea in terms of discussions.
(And just dumping the top 10 scraped Google links in a post is not proof.)
I’m asking a very specific question and yet to see anyone answer them specifically? Instead they go on about things that have nothing to do with what I’m asking?
That tells me they or you cannot do it?
You can only shield the originator of such nonsense for so long?
Show me where it states “…carbohydrates are not necessary?..” Then show me where it states “…undigestible carbohydrates are not necessary?..” All instances in any literature?
Are we just trying to sustain human life (survival) or are we trying to sustain human health (longevity)? In the sense “. …something is not necessary?.
There is no such a thing as essential foods only essential nutrients?
