Kaplods, I have to agree with you! I'm insulin resistant and from my research low-carb food plans (I won't say "diet" as it has to become a way of life forever) work best for us folks! It's hard to let sink in after a life-time of loving carbs, eating carbs and carbs being so much a part of the foods you see in magazines, in restaurants and at get-togethers. BUT...if one decides (and it is a choice) that they NEED to be healthy---this has to be the way to go. After all...I've not heard of anyone "dying" not eating carbs...but apparently one will die if they eat too many of the wrong kind (due to heart disease, diabetes etc.).

I think that eliminating carbs is a bad idea, and my guess is that doing so would have adverse effects, possibly even death. Carbs, fats, proteins - they're all important, but how you get them and in what proportions, well I think that's still up for argument.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with long-term induction. I think vegetables and fruits are extremely important sources of nutrition and need to be included in generous quantities for a healthy diet - or way of eating (I'm still used to using the word diet in its traditional meaning of what a person eats, not necessarily why they are eating it). I also believe that while a low carb diet should not be a low fat one, I don't think it should be a saturated-fat gorge-fest either. "Everything in moderation, even moderation," seems to me no less applicable to low-carb than any other philosophy.

Still, everyone is going to have their own beliefs about how much is too little or too little for general health, and for their own health specifically (and whether they even give a fig about their health). I think there's room for discussion and disagreement on the subject, as we're united in some very basic principles. The main one being that excessive carbohydrates (whatever you mean by that) has been interfering with our ability to achieve weight loss.

Actually, carbohydrates are the only macronutrient that is not required for life. You can make all the carbs you need to live out of amino acids and fat. No one would recommend you do this but it has been proven. Carbs are our only source of fiber and a number of important vitamins and other phytonutrients so eating healthy carbs is part of a healthy diet.

Yes, but when thinking of a meat only diet for humans (as opposed to critters who can make their own vitamin C), scurvy immediately comes to mind. Humans can't synthesize their own vitamin C, so have to get it somewhere - generally plant sources. The traditional Eskimo diet is about as carnivorous as a human diet gets, though generally still contains some plant sources of vitamin C like blueberries (and many if not most modern Eskimo are not eating a purely traditional diets, and now would be eating even more plant foods). I've heard that whale skin and the organs of sea mammals are high in vitamin C (if eaten raw), and muscle meat little, which cooking mostly destroys.

Since most Americans eat very little if any raw meat (let alone raw skin and organ meat), I don't think eliminating plant foods would be safe for very long. If you want to eat only meat, you would have to eat it raw and the whole critter (probably including the bones).

Kaplods are you under the impression that low carb means no vegetables? Exactly where do you think a low carb dieter gets carbs? Is there a particular low carb diet of which you are thinking?

No, my response was only, and very specifically responding to petra65's comments (which where in response to mine, which were in response to frustratedieters) regarding whether completely eliminating carbohydrates (in theory) could be done, and what health effects might ensue. Just a philisophical point, not a practical one.

OH. Yeah, I probably should have read the entire thread. Well, anywho...

Just so you know, you can survive and very well on an all meat diet. A synopsis of an experiment at the Bellvue Hospital in 1928 is discussed in Living The Low Carb Life. The guinea pigs spent a year eating anything they wanted a long as it was meat with fat, in any ratio they wanted. They did not get scurvy or a kidney disease, suffer bone loss, or die. Their cholestrol improved and they lost weight.

I am not in any way saying we should do this. I absolutely love broccoli and spinach. Even my kids love broccoli and spinach and request salad for dinner. But I do think it is interesting, very interesting.

Yes, I've read of this, but it was not a true empirical experiment, as we would consider it today. Rather Vilhjalmur Stefansson and a colleague lived on a meat-only diet for one year under medical supervision at New York's Bellevue Hospital. However Stefansson and his colleague were not, in any sense, unbiased "guinea pigs." Rather, Stefansson had studied Eskimos in the arctic, and advocated the eskimo "meat-only" diet. Also, while they received "medical supervision" I do not believe that they lived at the hospital or that their diet was in any way controlled or monitored, so we only have their "word" that they never once during that year ate anything but meat and fat. It's very possible that they failed to report occasional lapses from the diet (perhaps even believing small rare lapses to be "insignificant"). Also, there's no mention of whether beverages such as coffee or teas were consumed and whether they would have been considered significant. If not, there are many teas which would provide vitamin C. It's also possible that these two people (not laymen, but scientists) knew to eat the skin, organ meat, and of the importance of not overcooking the meat (or were doing so because they were intentionally emulating the diet of Eskimos, which was Stefansson's goal - and the purpose of the study).

Also, scurvy is an extremely slow progressing disorder, taking many months to show symptoms (by most reports up to 8). In an uncontrolled study of only two individuals, where at least one is strongly biased having a theory to prove (and for all practical purposes conductiong the study), it's hard to draw any certain conclusions.

Anectodotally, Stefansson and others have reported living on an all meat diet for many years, but whether these people were eating much organ meat and skin or how well cooked they ate their meat, and whether they occasionally (even if rarely) ate plant foods, or drank tea... has not been well-reported to my knowledge.

I believe that nutritional deficiencies in general can have unforseen consequences that take years to develop. There's much evidence that phytonutrients may be the best protection against many if not most cancers. I think there's much evidence that a person can live on only meat and fat (though doubtfully only muscle tissue) for extended periods of time, but the question "how long," hasn't truly been explored (and probably never will be due to palatability, even the most diehard carnivore tends to enjoy at least some plant-based foods (a cup of tea, a piece of fruit, or a bit of vegetable...) at least occasionallly.

I think most clinical research allow the participants to come and go and depend on the accuracy and honesty of the participant. As doctors, I think the two guys who were part of the experiment would know this. All these years, when we read reports on those studies that lasted ten years, the people aren't captive in a research lab.

It would be interesting to find out if they were drinking tea. I will definitely try to find the research paper.

Neither participant were medically trained I believe (Stefansson was an anthropologist). Research methods are much more vigorously controlled today than they were 80 years ago. Most importantly, by modern standards, a study would be considered deeply flawed if any of the participants had a stake in the outcome (even knowing the purpose of a study by subject or researcher is known to skew results). Not to mention, even if the study were perfectly controlled by modern standards, very few conclusions can be drawn from a study of only two individuals (particularly as they were both male, and probably of similar age). All we truly can say is the Stefansson and his colleage suffered no apparent harm from eating primarily or perhaps even exclusively only meat for one year. That's far from saying that most, many, or even any human can live for years or a lifetime on a meat-only (particularly a fat and muscle-tissue only) diet. There just isn't much research to prove that. It's a theoretical possibility, but I think ultimately impractical as you're unlikely to find anyone naturally eating this way, or anyone willing to participate in rigorous research.

Yeah, that's true about the studies then and now. Today, we ridicule reasearch that doesn't use a double blind study. I also know what you mean about the study being performed on males. Like women don't need research, too. And they didn't stay at the hospital for the entire year. But they had to come in for body fluid analysis and other tests.

I think they would get a lot of participants if they did this study again. I would probably sign up on principle alone.

And thanks for the information about organ meats. I am going to do mor research on this. You know, usually when I buy whole chickens, they don't even include the organ meats. When I was a kid, the gizzard was the best part. I don't like liver though, so I'm not missing that part. Bleh. Just the thought of liver make me want to barf.

Is brain considered an organ meat?

I bet the research couldn't be done today, as it would probably be considered unethical (because of possible negative consequences - even though there's no proof that there would be any, there's a good chance and that might be enough to keep anyone from doing the research). That is,
unless they were able to study a group of people already eating only meat (say an extreme no-carb diet became popular).

Even so, if they could do the research, I wonder how many people could stick with it for a year let alone longer. I bet a lot would drop out fairly quickly. I know I certainly would. I like meat, but I'm a variety addict, and love condiments (most of which contain at least minimal carbs, except salt and maybe fish sauce), and couldn't live without salad for a year.

Actually, I can't go "too" low carb because I'm on metformin (which lowers blood sugar). Although even when I first tried Atkins as a teenager, induction made me very lightheaded and ill. I also remember trying an even more extreme low-carb fad diet (pretty much meat, fish, chicken, eggs, and water) - with extremely unpleasant results.

Brains are an organ meat - though I've never tried them. I love well-prepared liver, and gizzards - yum. My dad used to make a great chicken gizzard dish. I think he simmered them in wine and onions. Then there was a restaurant in LaSalle, IL that made an amazing fried chicken gizzard appetizer. I don't know how they got fried gizzards that tender, must have simmered them first. They served them with an amazing barbecue sauce (not particularly low carb considering the tempura style batter and the barbecue sauce, but so good!)

I still get lightheaded if I don't eat enough in a day. At one point last year, I used to keep almonds around for times when I was stuck at work without food. But nuts are such a hand-to-mouth just can't eat one serving, that I had to stop buying them.

It is just so amusing to me that when I counted calories to lose weight, I would eat too much. And now that I don't care how many calories I get, I have to make sure I get enough. Go figure.

I agree with you Kaplod...I think it's "common sense" that a healthy well-balanced diet equipped with protein, essential fats, complex carbs (veggies), fruits, grains & legumes IN MODERATION is how humans were meant to survive. I, for one, used Atkins as a way to get my "carb addiction" under control. Induction works great to do that...but even Dr. Atkins recommends several phases of the diet (which include all of the above) and I think alot of people forget that. They just stay on induction (cuz everybody's lookin' for the quick fix/weight loss). I believe that most people who stay on induction fall into the yo-yo dieting arena. It is not possible to exists on induction for extended periods of time (which Dr. Atkins himself warns against in his book). I believe that Dr. Atkins methodology was to help folk gain control over their eating habits in the end...eating sensibly, well-balanced. YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT...simply put. Obviously the more naturally healthy foods you put in your body the healthier you'll be. In other words...although, an orange and spinach both have Vitamin C...I do not believe it wise to eliminate the orange (saying..well, they both have Vitamin C...so I don't need the orange) cuz the orange has other valuable nutrients that the spinach doesn't and visa versa...they are both imperative to health/well-being.

In summary put a well-balanced diet equipped with all four food groups and regular exercise (i.e., aerobic/anaerobic) = heathly, lean and fit YOU! Just my two cents...and opinion. BTW, I'm not sure it's wise to gauge our eating habits with test studies done on guinny pigs and cavemen!...for goodness sakes'...sometimes science just goes too far! :lol:

Has anyone read this very popular E-book, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle...I've heard it very good, but haven't read it yet? Joyce

Usually, I think it's not science's problem, but the rest of us. I'm sure many of the researchers just shake their head when they see how their research is being misinterpreted and misused by the general public. One study (even if done on people) would never be used by a scientist as "proof" of anything. Rather it's only with multiple studies with similar results, that a scientist have confidence in their results, and what the results might mean in terms of causation or usefulness in prediction. The reports in the media, though are not written by the scientists, they're written by laymen and journalists and suddenly you get a headline in a woman's magazine like "bras give you breast cancer." (Because one study found that women who wear bras are much more likely to get breast cancer - yeah, but do you think it could be that women who DON'T wear bras tend to have very small breasts, and perhaps less breast tissue might logically mean a lower risk of breast cancer).