• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Just got this from facebook

According to Prof Tim Noakes sports scientist, you should not burn muscle on keto diet. Perhaps John you have emptied fat cells where you had muscle as a young man? If protein helps eat more, the body does not need carbs, it makes glucose in the liver from fat. Regards Derek
My problem at the moment is by going LCHF and restricting calories I lost a lot of weight and brought BG levels down to normal but I lost in the process a lot of muscle mass that I now need to try and replace.

Having a discussion about this with my grandson he made the observation that to put weight on whether that be fat or muscle you need to be in calorific surplus so will I have to increase calories and risk getting fat again in order to develop some muscle mass back, he recons if I don't I will just keep burning fat and more muscle tissue for energy.
 
rather a delicate question but what about constipation and bowel health?
After having previously eaten lots of vegetables, then switched to virtually no plants, I came to the conclusion that the human digestive system is much better off with as little plant matter as possible going through it and that meat is what our digestive system is better suited for processing. Obviously humans are omnivores, which allowed us to survive on some kinds of plants when meat was scarce. However, all other omnivores prefer either meat or plants (although they can survive on either or both) and I think humans do better on meat than plants. If you are curious about the effects of a lack of indigestible fibre, just google "fibre menace". Like most conventional dietary advice, the idea that we need lots of fibre is flat wrong and was mostly made up based on very flimsy evidence. Same with the idea that red meat is unhealthy. And that mono- and polyunsaturated fat from oils are healthy. Etc.

And, no, I don't get constipated.
 
Last edited:
@nocarbs4me

Your stats show that you had reached Hba1C of 38.8 six moths before the switch to zero carb, Your numbers have stayed pretty much the same since that point . Given that the previous LCHF diet seems to have been achieving the same job as the zero carb diet, I'm interest to know what was the trigger for making the switch and what difference do you think it has made to your health?
 
@nocarbs4me

Your stats show that you had reached Hba1C of 38.8 six moths before the switch to zero carb, Your numbers have stayed pretty much the same since that point . Given that the previous LCHF diet seems to have been achieving the same job as the zero carb diet, I'm interest to know what was the trigger for making the switch and what difference do you think it has made to your health?
It was just an evolving way of thinking about diet that got me to all-meat. It was obvious that the standard dietary advice to eat lots of carbs was deadly for type 2 diabetics, but then I started examining all the other standard dietary advice. Upon closer examination I found virtually all the advice was not based on good science (eat whole grains, get lots of fibre, avoid red meat, avoid saturated fat, eat margirine and refined plant oil). Eventually I was down to two pieces of advice that I thought made sense: minimize sugar intake and eat lots of vegetables. I heard about people that had vastly improved their health by eating only meat, so I looked into the idea that vegetables and fruit were magically healthy. What I found was that they aren't. I heard about Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who was a Canadian arctic researcher who lived with Inuit for many years in the early 20th century and ate what they ate and noticed that he did quite well on their virtually all-animal sourced food for many years. Of course, people in the US and Canada were skeptical when he talked about it, so he and a fellow arctic researcher went on an all-meat diet for a year under medical supervision. They didn't get scurvy and, in fact, were healthier at the end of the year than they were at the start. (you can read his book about it here: http://highsteaks.com/the-fat-of-the-land-not-by-bread-alone-vilhjalmur-stefansson.pdf)

So, just for fun, and out of curiosity, I decided to try going for a year eating no plants. It went very well. Really, the big difference was how my intestines handled the new diet versus lots of vegetables - i.e. much better. I had chronic diarrhea for at least ten years (I think it started with some meals I ate in Mexico that had some nasty strain of bacteria) and that went away immediately and has never come back. After a year, I just kept going, since it was working so well.

We've been so brain-washed that you need "5 a day" to stave off cancer and cardiovascular disease that the vast majority of people will never get their head around the possibility that this advice is based on extremely flimsy evidence and isn't true. They think they can eat a diet filled with refined carbs and factory processed food, then eat a few more veg and fruit and all will be good.
 
It was just an evolving way of thinking about diet that got me to all-meat. It was obvious that the standard dietary advice to eat lots of carbs was deadly for type 2 diabetics, but then I started examining all the other standard dietary advice. Upon closer examination I found virtually all the advice was not based on good science (eat whole grains, get lots of fibre, avoid red meat, avoid saturated fat, eat margirine and refined plant oil). Eventually I was down to two pieces of advice that I thought made sense: minimize sugar intake and eat lots of vegetables. I heard about people that had vastly improved their health by eating only meat, so I looked into the idea that vegetables and fruit were magically healthy. What I found was that they aren't. I heard about Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who was a Canadian arctic researcher who lived with Inuit for many years in the early 20th century and ate what they ate and noticed that he did quite well on their virtually all-animal sourced food for many years. Of course, people in the US and Canada were skeptical when he talked about it, so he and a fellow arctic researcher went on an all-meat diet for a year under medical supervision. They didn't get scurvy and, in fact, were healthier at the end of the year than they were at the start. (you can read his book about it here: http://highsteaks.com/the-fat-of-the-land-not-by-bread-alone-vilhjalmur-stefansson.pdf)

So, just for fun, and out of curiosity, I decided to try going for a year eating no plants. It went very well. Really, the big difference was how my intestines handled the new diet versus lots of vegetables - i.e. much better. I had chronic diarrhea for at least ten years (I think it started with some meals I ate in Mexico that had some nasty strain of bacteria) and that went away immediately and has never come back. After a year, I just kept going, since it was working so well.

We've been so brain-washed that you need "5 a day" to stave off cancer and cardiovascular disease that the vast majority of people will never get their head around the possibility that this advice is based on extremely flimsy evidence and isn't true. They think they can eat a diet filled with refined carbs and factory processed food, then eat a few more veg and fruit and all will be good.

the problem with the inuit hypothesis is that the inuits in fact did die relatively young , and that their bones when looked at later seemed to have damages to a very high degree because of malnutritience, and that they did in fact also die from heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases... I also remember when I used to live in Greenland that visiting family members thought that the elderly inuits looked so agile and could do so many things that european elderly people was no longer able to... the matter was though that these elderly people had gotten elderly from a harsh life about a decade or two before Europeans and in general did look old compared in real age and therefor was considered much older than they infact were..

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
to get enough vitamin C the eskimoes do eat the eyes raw from the seals ... and a lot of other kinds of raw eating of whale skin and so on
 
the problem with the inuit hypothesis is that the inuits in fact did die relativly young , and that their bones when looked at later seemed to have damages to a very high degree because of malnutritience, and that they did in fact also die from Heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases... I also remember when i used to live in Greenland tha visiting Family members thought that the elderly inuits looked so agile and could do so many things that European elderly people was no longer able to... the matter was though that these elderly people had gotten elderly from a harsh life about a decade before europeans in general did look old compared in real age and therefor was considered much older than they infact were..

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That's ok if you don't believe it. I'm not going to stop you from eating your 5 a day if that's what you believe you need. There's not much point in looking at Inuit health after European contact. They immediately began trading furs and ivory for flour and sugar (among other things). I don't think anyone would argue that they are healthier now that they eat a more western diet compared to their traditional diet. (Interestingly, I know of an Inuk and a Cree who switched to all-meat recently - both women seem to be doing well on a diet that's pretty close to their ancestral diet). Also, the Europeans brought communicable diseases the Inuit had no immunity to (definitely average life span reducing). The proof of the pudding is in the eating: modern, western people on all-animal diets are mostly very healthy (although there are not very many of us). There is certainly a lot more evidence for it than the Inuit, who managed to do quite well for several thousand years on virtually all meat diets in a rather harsh environment.
 
Maybe, but I don't eat any of that and I don't have scurvy. Check this out: https://zerocarbzen.com/vitamin-c/

I think you should just eat what you want to, but because of what I have been informed with I think I would be bad not giving you the chance to know the same... a lot of people have problems with digesting some kinds of vegetables ... which on the other hand is not an argument that meat in overload is healthy... I too love a good red steak... and some meat ..... the best is though to know when old romatic myths are debunked and not real science...
As I have understood the science of meat-eating it is not like dangerous in short term , but in the longer run because of what damage the meat-protiens do in our arteries, well maybe make our lives shorter than it could have been., I do not say to anyone they should not eat meat, I do it myself... but I think it is not based in science that meal only is healthy as a diet
 
I think you should just eat what you wan´t to but because of what I have been informed with I think I would be bad not giving you the chance to know the same... a lot of people have problems with digesting some kinds of vegetables ... which on the other hand is not an argument that meat in overload is healthy... I too love a good red steak... and some meat ..... the best is though to know when old romatic myths are debunked and not real science...
Yes, I already know that the idea that vegetables are a miracle health food is a romantic myth not based in science, even though it's been drummed into us for decades as being true.
 
Yes, I already know that the idea that vegetables are a miracle health food is a romantic myth not based in science, even though it's been drummed into us for decades as being true.

where did I speak of vegetables ?
 
One of the reasons I am asking is that my morning sugars seem to be getting worse. I've been eating under 40 g carbs, the diet is going well 20 + kilos but this morning I had a spike at about 45 minutes after breakfast. Breakfast was a fried duck egg on a bed of 20g fresh spinach 10g and chia seeds with a tiny bit of tomato and onion ( 20 grams). The only thing I can think of that might have changed is eating the spinach fresh instead of fried in a n omelette. I'm wondering if I'm.so sensitive to carbs I need to.give up entirely and was wondering how to go about it. Fo you just eat the meat with no dressings at all?
 
the problem with the inuit hypothesis is that the inuits in fact did die relatively young , and that their bones when looked at later seemed to have damages to a very high degree because of malnutritience, and that they did in fact also die from heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases... I also remember when I used to live in Greenland that visiting family members thought that the elderly inuits looked so agile and could do so many things that european elderly people was no longer able to... the matter was though that these elderly people had gotten elderly from a harsh life about a decade or two before Europeans and in general did look old compared in real age and therefor was considered much older than they infact were..

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And I don't put much stock in opinions about meat from vegans. They tend to be a tad biased. Dr. McDougall has come up with a diet that he calls "starch based" that is mostly starch (rice, potatoes, pasta, etc) with virtually no fat and also no animal products. He recommends this diet for diabetics. No thanks.
 
One of the reasons I am asking is that my morning sugars seem to be getting worse. I've been eating under 40 g carbs, the diet is going well 20 + kilos but this morning I had a spike at about 45 minutes after breakfast. Breakfast was a fried duck egg on a bed of 20g fresh spinach 10g and chia seeds with a tiny bit of tomato and onion ( 20 grams). The only thing I can think of that might have changed is eating the spinach fresh instead of fried in a n omelette. I'm wondering if I'm.so sensitive to carbs I need to.give up entirely and was wondering how to go about it. Fo you just eat the meat with no dressings at all?
It's quite simple: eat mostly meat (I eat mostly beef, non-organic, non-grass finished), some other animal based food like bacon, eggs, cheese and seafood) and drink water (black coffee or coffee with some heavy cream is ok). Salt, pepper, some spices is ok. Hot sauce is ok. Of course, if you are not producing enough insulin, even a no carb diet will result in high blood glucose.
 
And I don't put much stock in opinions about meat from vegans. They tend to be a tad biased. Dr. McDougall has come up with a diet that he calls "starch based" that is mostly starch (rice, potatoes, pasta, etc) with virtually no fat and also no animal products. He recommends this diet for diabetics. No thanks.

well good argument... how about the many statistics that shows meateater die much more from cardiovascular deseasess than do vegetarians and especially compared to vegans.... do you think they are al tampered with too ?
 
well good argument... how about the many statistics that shows meateater die much more from cardiovascular deseasess than do vegetarians and especially compared to vegans.... do you think they are al tampered with too ?

On that point alone, i think that any stats that exist are impossible to compare - since all the 'meat-eaters-die-from-heart-problems' is likely because of the carbs they eat with the meat. But the carbs in their diet probably weren't even recorded, cos, you know, wholegrains and carbs are good for is, arent they? :banghead:

There are some surefire bad ways of eating - and a high carb + high fat + high meat diet is BAD. Beyond that, the stats don't tell you much at all. :)
 
Back
Top