Again with the carb cycling - right or wrong?

[atomicspacebunny]

A picture? You can’t be serious?

Maybe a link to picture?

[MarkGossage]

Try google?
Dietary reference intakes for energy… not too hard to type even for you surely…
You could even copy and paste it. It’s page 275 half way down.

[anon81060937]

Dietary reference intakes for energy

If you’re going to cut and paste. At least don’t cherry pick.

Clinical Effects of Inadequate Intake
The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed. However, the amount of dietary carbohydrate that provides for
optimal health in humans is unknown. There are traditional populations
that ingested a high fat, high protein diet containing only a minimal
amount of carbohydrate for extended periods of time (Masai), and in
some cases for a lifetime after infancy (Alaska and Greenland Natives,
Inuits, and Pampas indigenous people) (Du Bois, 1928; Heinbecker, 1928).
There was no apparent effect on health or longevity. Caucasians eating an
essentially carbohydrate-free diet, resembling that of Greenland natives,
for a year tolerated the diet quite well (Du Bois, 1928). However, a detailed
modern comparison with populations ingesting the majority of food energy
as carbohydrate has never been done.
It has been shown that rats and chickens grow and mature successfully on a carbohydrate-free diet (Brito et al., 1992; Renner and Elcombe,
1964), but only if adequate protein and glycerol from triacylglycerols are
provided in the diet as substrates for gluconeogenesis.

ap·par·ent·ly

1. as far as one knows or can see.

I found the last part to be true for me.

[Polly1]

Again your response is in the form of gibberish, Bunny.

We are not talking about apoptosis, or autophagy, or even recycling of cellular materials. We are talking about whether carbohydrates are an essential food group. There is no carbohydrate which the human body must ingest or die.

[PaulL]

I believe the point was not that it is “unnatural” to consume carbohydrate, but rather that consuming carbohydrate is “unnecessary.”

The word “natural” is a bit too slippery to use with precision in scientific debate. It generally is intended to convey some sense of approval of the the thing labeled “natural.” This use of the word, unfortunately, obscures the point that there are a lot of poisons (hydrogen cyanide and curare, to give just two examples) that are compounds occurring in nature, and we don’t consider them beneficial. There are also a number of natural compounds that are helpful at one dose and deadly at another. Heck, even water can be deadly if consumed in excess!

I would say that, from an evolutionary standpoint, the way in which dietary glucose is handled in the human body is very reminiscent of the preparations some animals make to get ready for hibernation. Much of what is consumed gets stored, and satiety signaling is suppressed, in order to encourage getting even fatter. The problem with modern human society is that this storage process is never usually followed by an extended fast, such as would be the case during hibernation.

Please note that this way of looking at the picture is leaving out of consideration the disastrous consequences of allowing advanced glycation end-products to form, or the damage caused by chronically elevated insulin levels.

[MarkGossage]

The disagreement was about “essential”
Bunny tells us that we’ll all die of cancer without resistant starch (an unsubstantiated hypothesis).
The rest of us said that there are no “essential” carbohydrates which the piece I quoted supports.
I didn’t cherry pick anything.
Apology accepted.

[PetaMarie]

I’ve had enough. How many threads have to devolve into this? This is an official warning, stop it. Disengage, ignore, walk away. You guys know the exact buttons to press on one another to illicit a reaction and you’re saying the same things over and over.

[atomicspacebunny]

There is no carbohydrate which the human body must ingest or die.

Really?

Two examples (there are many others) although rare:

Pancreatitis?

Carnitine Palmitoyltransferase 1A Deficiency? (this comes from people only eating meat and fat, and they pass it on to their children or infant children and they die because they cannot get enough carbohydrates so they die of starvation?)

If you cannot eat meat and fat there would nothing left to eat and you die?

The disagreement was about “essential”
Bunny tells us that we’ll all die of cancer without resistant starch (an unsubstantiated hypothesis).
The rest of us said that there are no “essential” carbohydrates which the piece I quoted supports.
I didn’t cherry pick anything.
Apology accepted.

Really?

[1] ”…“Red meat and resistant starch have opposite effects on the colorectal cancer-promoting miRNAs, the miR-17-92 cluster,” said Karen J. Humphreys, PhD, a research associate at the Flinders Center for Innovation in Cancer at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia. “This finding supports consumption of resistant starch as a means of reducing the risk associated with a high red meat diet.” …” …More

[2] “…MicroRNAs (miRNAs) encoded by the miR - 17 - 92 cluster and its paralogs are known to act as oncogenes. Expression of these miRNAs promotes cell proliferation, suppresses apoptosis of cancer cells, and induces tumor angiogenesis. …” …More

[3] “…a lot of the microbiome bacteria that are fermenting a variety of fermentable fibres start to leave and you actually start to get bacteria cropping up that ferment amino acids.” These amino acid fermenting bacteria are known as putrefactive bacteria. Two products of putrefactive bacteria, putrescine and cadaverine, are best known for literally smelling like death. They are also genotoxins known to damage the DNA inside your colon cells. …” …More

[4] mir-17-92, a cluster of miRNAs in the midst of the cancer network

[5] Dietary Manipulation of Oncogenic microRNA Expression in Human Rectal Mucosa: A Randomized Trial: “… High red meat (HRM) intake is associated with increased colorectal cancer risk, while resistant starch is probably protective. Resistant starch fermentation produces butyrate, which can alter microRNA (miRNA) levels in colorectal cancer cells in vitro; effects of red meat and resistant starch on miRNA expression in vivo were unknown. This study examined whether a HRM diet altered miRNA expression in rectal mucosa tissue of healthy volunteers, and if supplementation with butyrylated resistant starch (HRM+HAMSB) modified this response. In a randomized cross-over design, 23 volunteers undertook four 4-week dietary interventions; an HRM diet (300 g/day lean red meat) and an HRM+HAMSB diet (HRM with 40 g/day butyrylated high amylose maize starch), preceded by an entry diet and separated by a washout. Fecal butyrate increased with the HRM+HAMSB diet. Levels of oncogenic mature miRNAs, including miR17-92 cluster miRNAs and miR21, increased in the rectal mucosa with the HRM diet, whereas the HRM+HAMSB diet restored miR17-92 miRNAs, but not miR21, to baseline levels. Elevated miR17-92 and miR21 in the HRM diet corresponded with increased cell proliferation, and a decrease in miR17-92 target gene transcript levels, including CDKN1A. The oncogenic miR17-92 cluster is differentially regulated by dietary factors that increase or decrease risk for colorectal cancer, and this may explain, at least in part, the respective risk profiles of HRM and resistant starch. These findings support increased resistant starch consumption as a means of reducing risk associated with an HRM diet. …” …More

[6] Resistant Starch can Reduce Colorectal Cancer Risk

[7] “…Current research shows that there are certain naturally-occuring chemicals in red meat that cause it to be carcinogenic. For example, when a chemical called haem is broken down in the gut, N-nitroso chemicals are formed and these have been found to damage the cells that line the bowel, which can lead to bowel cancer …” …More

[8] Interactions between the MicroRNAs and Microbiota in Cancer Development: Roles and Therapeutic Opportunities

[petert]

I’ve had enough. How many threads have to devolve into this? This is an official warning, stop it. Disengage, ignore, walk away. You guys know the exact buttons to press on one another to illicit a reaction and you’re saying the same things over and over.

Four hours later Bunny posts her usual list of scraped links. (only one edit, though. Still, early days)

[Polly1]

So I dived into the rabbit hole and followed one of Bunny’s links.

I chose footnote [6] Resistant Starch can Reduce Colorectal Cancer Risk which took me to an article rather than a paper which talked about a study involving 23 men. (At least this one was not a rodent study)

The third paragraph of the article started with the words “Red meat is known to increase colorectal cancer” - which was also a hypertext link to [you have probably guessed already] a webpage hosted by Harvard Health Publishing. This organisation has become notorious in recent years for pushing a vegan agenda.

The findings of any “scientist” who already knows the outcome have to be suspect.

I do not take anything seriously when I can see the political agenda or detect commercial influence.

I will not be following any more of the links and it may simply be confirmation bias on my part that I don’t find either article convincing. There are probably published papers behind these articles and they are where people should be looking to see if the data and the methodology hold up to scrutiny. I however simply cannot be bothered to waste my Sunday doing that.

I look forward to the findings of the Harvard carnivore study which has recruited thousands of carnivores this spring.

In the meantime the jury is out on whether red meat is causative of colorectal cancer and whether resistant starch consumption can improve the risk of colorectal cancer in consumers of red meat. (incidentally I bet there is a very odd definition of “red meat” if you get access to the original paper)

What the jury is not considering is whether carbohydrates are necessary.

Bunny cites a very particular rare medical condition and pancreatitis as her evidence that because sufferers benefit from having access to carbohydrates as they are unable to metabolise certain fats for energy then carbohydrates are essential. I am afraid that this simply does not apply in the general population.

We humans have evolved to run on fats [ketones] but have the backup available of being able to run on carbohydrates [sugars] when times are hard and not enough fatty meat is available.

The problem with the western diet today is that for commercial interests we are all running on the backup plan most of the time and are rarely using the principal fuel source. That is why people have become fat and sick.

This is a group of wonderful and enlightened people, who thanks to the Keto Dudes, have a place online to offer help and support for improving our own health and weightloss. When occasionally answering questions posed to the group I tend to tell people what worked for me, but with a caveat that we are all different and what works for me might not be the thing which works for you. Generally keeping carbs below 20g per day has people achieve ketosis, some people can eat more carbs than this and stay in ketosis.

I find it frustrating to be bombarded with statements of fact about carbohydrates [in particular] backed up with a “show me the science” narrative which when you dig down does not actually have the “science” behind it at all.

I am comfortable with my way of eating but there are a lot of people new to this who might be frightened into giving up their best chance at achieving metabolic robustness because of the “show me the science” pronouncements.

I do not intend to attack Bunny personally, nor I believe do any of the others who challenge some of her posts. I believe that we feel we cannot let some of her posts go unchallenged simply because they do not stand up to the rigour of analysis and because the underlying pseudo science is so potentially damaging to the will of a new follower of this way of eating.

We are here to help people improve their health, not frighten them into resuming a standard american diet.

[MarkGossage]

1000%

[atomicspacebunny]

I believe that we feel we cannot let some of her posts go unchallenged simply because they do not stand up to the rigour of analysis and because the underlying pseudo science is so potentially damaging to the will of a new follower of this way of eating.

I personally would not want to be guinea pig for the pseudo science of eating only meat and fat when you can clearly see red meat causes cancer in many ways without resistant starch creating a mucosal barrier as seen over and over again in the cancer research and other research not just the Harvard link you mention.

I have already seen three people die from the Optimal Dieters Association of cancer and all of the intestinal tract at the same time from only eating meat and fat without resistant starch from complex carbohydrates and I would not follow in their footsteps?

Three people lost their life at the same-time practicing exactly what we do here on the forum, that’s no mere coincidence by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to denial?

Think about it, what are the chances of 3 people who are dead from the same-thing? I don’t care what science you think you are following, that’s proof enough for me.

Thinking there is a vegan agenda (or whatever the thinking is?) behind every piece of research is beyond paranoid thinking and when you see the same results on a microRNA level from unbiased cancer research it is what you call empirical cross-validation and has nothing to do with the “pseudoscience“ you so gloriously try to accuse others of practicing?

[ElmosUzi]

I would like one person to show me where it states in the scientific literature …that undigestible carbohydrates are not necessary?

I would like one person to show me where it states in the scientific literature …that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not necessary.

[atomicspacebunny]

Uhm what does that mean, I can make no sense of your post?

[MarkGossage]

Oh so Jaminet is your new Berg…

I see no zero carb eating mentioned as part of the Optimal diet

[ElmosUzi]

To argue that undigestible carbohydrates are necessary is the same as arguing that The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

[atomicspacebunny]

Well then explain the science behind what you mean?

Why is resistant starch not an essential nutrient (it makes ketones?) not required or should not be required, where are your references to support your side of things that do and do not exist?

[PaulL]

Here is Dr. Phinney’s take on the matter, at 24:15:

[atomicspacebunny]

Does not matter if it is zero carb or not or some carb (30 grams of carbohydrate to be precise; Optimal Dieters Association), the point being there was no resistant starch in a diet that consisted mostly of eating meat and fat?

Do you really think there is going to be a difference? Not a hard guess?

[MarkGossage]

I found this part stunning in its stupidity too…

He followed a “zero carb diet” with lots of vegetable and gave himself scurvy…
He then calls this a "zero carb diet " proving that the man is an idiot…
yet I’m supposed to believe what he writes…?