Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Land of Confusion

Man, I love this video. Great cover song too.

Monday, August 28, 2006

The Atkins Website: You've Got to be Kidding Me

What in the heck is this all about? I don't know if it's a new site or if this is what they've been doing for awhile, but check out the front page flash thing. Let me know when you see a piece of meat there, ok? Pictures of grains, straberries and chocolate? This has to be the biggest farces I've ever seen. Now, check out the Atkins Nutritional Approach page and look at that picture. Bread, apples, bananas, onions, lettuce, cabbage, asparagus, milk, eggs, oh, there's some cheese, and if you look closely you can just see the top of a steak peaking out from the lower right hand area. Apparently Atkins made a detour down to south beach. His original 1972 version, comparatively, is almost militant compared to the sorry mess that Atkins is now.

Here's a perfect example of the whoredom in action. According to Livin' La Vida Low-Carb,

Now, in conjunction with a man named RIchard J. Rothstein, Dr. Vernon stands ready to answer any question related to diet, nutrition and health that you may have as it relates to livin' la vida low-carb at a brand spankin' new blog aptly titled "Ask Dr. Vernon."

Now here comes the mainstream low-fat/calories count hysteria...

Rothstein warned people to be ready to accept the truth even if it is not what they wanted to hear. This is especially true for anyone who thinks the Atkins diet is nothing more than eating all the meat, eggs, and cheese that you want. UGH!

"The Atkins Diet is not about cheeseburgers, bacon and big juicy steaks: that is one of the outrageous myths fostered by certain segments of the commercial food industry and the medical and nutrition communities that felt threatened economically and professionally by Dr. Atkins' belief in whole foods and his contempt for most processed and refined foods," he explained. "Additionally, contrary to the many myths about Atkins, many of his successful patients were practicing vegetarians so this is a site for all people who eat."

I love it! Catering to vegetarians! I think this may be the all time low point of the Atkins diet. There was another vegetarian Atkins person on an internet message board, so I'm not sure when Atkins started trying to appeal to vegetarians but that was truly the point where the Atkins diet jumped the shark. It's all downhill from here baby.

I'll give them this though, they're right about Atkins not being about cheeseburgers, bacon and big juicy steaks. It's become a sordid version of a low calorie monstrosity like South Beach. They're hoping that if somehow if they can conform to enough mainstream low-fat/low cal position on carbs, especially the so called "good" carbs that that will garner them enough support so they get the official seal of approval by the mainstream. If that happens they figure a significant pay day will be in the making, and they are connect. Unfortunately, to move in that direction they sold out and comprised every working principal of a ketogenic diet.

The other problem is that it implicitly implies that saturated fat is bad for you, or if not bad for you it should only be a fraction of your total fat intake not your primary source. It isn't a coincidence that those three items are loaded with good ol' saturated fat the kind that our bodies love. Once again we have Atkins openly siding with the "saturated fat is bad/high cholesterol" crowd that is the hardcore center of mainstream diet mythology. Eventually they'll endorse a diet that's even more liberal in carbs, people will continue having problem losing weight on the diet. If Atkins had stuck to his 1972 guns the low-carb community would have been in much better shapes, but that meant it would have been shunned completely by the mainstream. Much easier to go with the path of least resistance and sell more books and product.

Back from the Faire!

Hi folks,

I've been away because I was at the Golden Gate Faire in San Francisco for the weekend. It was a glorious time had by all and met a whole bunch of cool and wonderful people. It's so great to be able to do this kind of thing now that I can move around, but it won't be too soon before I see another strip of @#$%&* burlap that needs to be folded up!

And what a surprise it was to come home Sunday night at the end of the weekend to see 275 on the scale making it around 70 pounds lost so far.

Friday, August 25, 2006

Fiber is NOT healthy

Recently on popular low-carb blog Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Jimmy Moore was responding to an article by Jacqueline Eberstein, RN who was some sort of medical assistant to Dr. Robert Atkins. She reiterates the low-fat/high carb myth that fiber is good for you. Nothing can be further from the truth! As I stated in the comments section of this particular post:

Fiber doesn't do anything but scar the inside of your gut. All fiber does is produce copious amounts of mucus which then interferes with nutrient absorbtion. Over the course of a lifetime it creates such scaring that nutrient absorbtion is seriously compromised causing malnutrition, like in the elderly.

Then imsovain at the Active No-Carber forum posted this article, Scientists learn more about how roughage keeps you “regular”, from the Medical College of Georgia. Check this out:

If you ever wondered just how a high-fiber diet helps keep you, well, “regular,” scientists may have the answer.

Their results suggest that as these bulky foods make their way down the gastrointestinal tract, they run into cells, tearing them and freeing lubricating mucus within.

These scientists then state that somehow this constant tearing and rupturing is a "good thing", although they don't make it clear on why.

More mucus is good, says Dr. Paul L. McNeil, cell biologist at the Medical College of Georgia and corresponding author on the study published online Aug. 21 and scheduled for the September print issue of PloS Biology. “When you eat high-fiber foods, they bang up against the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract, rupturing their outer covering. What we are saying is this banging and tearing increases the level of lubricating mucus. It’s a good thing.”

The fact that consuming roughage increases mucus production was known, and years ago, Dr. McNeil discovered frequent cell injury and repair occur when we eat.

The new research ties the two together.

“”It’s a bit of a paradox, but what we are saying is an injury at the cell level can promote health of the GI tract as a whole,” says Dr. McNeil. Even though epithelial cells usually live less than a week, they are regularly bombarded, in most of us at least three times a day as food passes by. “These cells are a biological boundary that separates the inside world, if you will, from this nasty outside world. On the cellular scale, roughage, such as grains and fibers that can’t be completely digested, are a mechanical challenge for these cells,” says Dr. McNeil.

I just don't see how this makes sense. Over the long term this kind of scaring and rebuilding has to be bad on the gut. In fact, even they don't know, or don't want to know:

The scientists aren’t certain how many times cells can take a hit, but they suspect turnover is so high because of the constant injury. Potentially caustic substances, such as alcohol and aspirin, can produce so much damage that natural recovery mechanisms can’t keep up. But they doubt a roughage overdose is possible.

Eventually your gut no longer has ability to repair these cells. When that happens you will no longer be able to properly absorb nutrients, as I stated. Why take that risk? The same people telling you to eat fiber are the same ones pushing the low-fat diets, as well as misinformed low-carbers who are trying to push acceptance of low carb diets in the mainstream.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Skeptics & Contrarians

Skeptics and Contrarians:

Skeptics and contrarians: Please pay close attention- I said in the beginning that most readers will never accept and adopt a diet by simply using their mind and intelligence. It will seem for years to be somehow 'not right'. This is because your dietary habits and preferences have been socially 'prewired' in your mind, deep down, in childhood, along with all the things we must learn about our culture and the right way to live as a human being in our society. Socialisation overwrites and suppresses instinct at the instinctual level. It is hard to alter, trust me. I am offering living proof that the payoff from a successful attempt to alter it is worth the effort it takes.

If you prove to be a unique person with a high degree of self-control and a strong drive to alter the shape of your body and the state of your health, I can show the path. Neither I nor anyone else can keep you on it, that is something you and only you can do.

In many cases the ultimate diet format I talk about will not be necessary to achieve an acceptable change, but there are vast side-benefits along my path which remain hidden for a very long time before becoming apparent.

I noticed many years ago that I did not seem to be aging much, and that my body, as I got older began to look a lot different from everyone else my age that I met, no matter whether they were into fitness or just had a good body size and shape naturally. In all cases I began to pull away, and it slowly dawned on me that virtually all the 'standard changes of age' I had accepted as a natural and normal product of simply getting older were not showing up.

So I felt I had a kind of 'obligation' to let other people know about it, hence the essay on my site, and now- my participation in this thread. My approach is to treat the body as a 'black box'. It is an empirical, not cognitive process: If you input this, you can show the output is that, if you change the input, the output changes also. On this basis, you do not have to find out and define what is inside the 'black box' of your body to be able to discover and follow good nutritional practice any more than you need to know how an internal combustion engine works to drive as well as a race car champion.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Positive Acculturation

Ok, I guess I can't be too hard.

I guess I'm just luckier than most when it comes to sticking to an all-meat diet. It's not that same ol' "if it works for you, great, but everyone's different". There's noone out there reading this who can't do what I'm doing.

Why I think I'm successful thus far is because of what I call positive acculturation. My father was a truck driver for a meat company in San Francisco. All through my childhood we had tons of hamburgers, hot dogs, steaks, roasts every Sunday, Italian sausage every Friday. My parents also tended to like their meat rare so the roasts and the steaks were always pink (not raw like the way I eat it now, but very rare even by normal standards).

My mom also never forced me to eat any veggies. Never liked a single damn one of them too, except for maybe broccoli, but it had to be smothered either in butter or a cheese sauce. I don't think I volitionally ate a salad until I was 21 years old. No joking. I remember once having to eat a salad at a neighbors house when I was about 10 and I vividly remember just having to gag this stuff down because I had to clean my plate. I don't think I ate dinner over there after that.

My downfall has always been sweets and starches, as it probably is for many others too. Pasta's, candy, cakes, etc. This is why I hate the low-carb products. It's like being a severe alcoholic and then wanting to drink alcohol free beer. It's like...why? You have a serious problem with this particular substance, why voluntarily intake a fake product that's supposed to be like the substance you have the problem with. It doesn't make sense, and I've been down this road before.

At first you're measuring your portions or only having one. Then you're still "hungry" and you have a second one. Next thing you know you're having "just a taste" of the real thing, you know, a fry here, a bite of a donut or cake there. Next thing you know you're probably ingesting 100+g of carbs or more per day and the weight starts creeping back up. Worst case scenario: You decide to take a weekend off here and there and then one day you never go back and you're in the throngs of your addiction.

And the thing is, if you really want a special treat, you can actually MAKE this stuff yourself. Why pay $2.50 for some weird semi-stale chocolate bar thing with who knows what sugar alcohols and other additives like fiber to make this stuff edible? All you need is unsweetened cocoa, heavy creams, table creams, butter and a little splenda and you can make some interesting treats, even ice cream.

Atkins and the Good Carb myth

I'm sure this has been debated to death, but I just noticed that Atkins didn't get into promoting net carb counts and sugar alcohols until the 2002 re-write. Funny that that would be in the newly edited version, right about the time the Atkins products machine went into high gear. This is another example of how the low carb authors tailor their diet plans not because they're particularly healthy updates but an attempt to widen his potential book purchasing public to the veggie eaters out there. As the Bear noted, Atkins is a diet wuss. His 1972 version, which I have a copy of, is extremely close to zero carb for the most part. It allows for a salad and some veggies, but only as an option, not as a mandate to choke down 30g of carbs from broccoli.

The 2nd fallacy of the low-carb diets like Atkins is the newfound emphasis on good and "wholesome" carbs. When somebody starts going on about good, healthy and wholesome carbs rest assured that they're full of crap. There are no good carbs. It's all glucose people. I don't care if it's a sugar cookie or a broccoli floret, it's all glucose and should be avoided. As Bear noted to me in 1998 (known as the Good Carb Myth):

Certainly there must be some "good" carbs. Isn't salad nutricious? You can eat a lot of it to fill you up.

Green leafy vegetables have little or no nutritive value, and are eaten as "eye food". In fact some, like celery and lettuce have less caloric value than it takes to process them through your system, like sand. Some, like spinach, contain a toxic blood poison, oxalic acid. This dangerous chemical is so high in rhubarb that the green leaves are capable of causing death. Why eat this rubbish?

I agree that there is only maybe 20 percent of the weight of "leafy greens" which is carbs, but why eat something so toxic and rough? Would you intentionally put a pinch of sand in the crankcase of your car? Older people suffer from malnutrition in spite of "excellent diets" due to the scar tissue in their intestines from a lifetime of exposure to roughage in their food. In the short term it causes the intestines to coat themselves with mucus, which also interferes with absorption of nutrients.

All plants have toxins, chemical defenses against herbivores are much older than the mechanical ones like the spines of cacti. People have struggled for hundreds of years to breed out most of these defenses, which is why you cannot grow them without pesticides.

If you doubt me, eat a cupful of wild lettuce (a very common weed), and see how long you can remain awake. It contains a glucoside, letucin, called "lettuce opium", which was bred out of the cultivated plant.
Why indeed eat this rubbish! The problem is that the low-carb book peddlers often have bought into the veggies are healthy myth, so they advocate them purely out of their own acculturation and to sell books. Unforunately, I think advocating any kind of glucose consumption, especially for morbidly obese people who want to try a low-carb diet, is wrong and misguided. I easily attribute my previously failed attempts at low carb specifically on slight but sustained glucose consumption, aided by the fako-o low carb products. Low carb products should be avoided at all costs. Not only is it full of chemical garbage but it reinforces your minds cravings on the original foods that they're supposed to be replacing. I just don't buy into the "net carbs" and sugar alcohol mumbo jumbo. I think it's just to give excuse to give yourself to eat the crap you shouldn't be eating to begin with.

That's the biggest bit of advice I can give to people on stalls and who just can't seem to lose that last 50 pounds. Drop the glucose, drop the low-carb products. When people are stalled or gaining weight the first thing I ask is what's the carb count. The problem is that Atkins has been revised to much that it's really not much of a really strict low-carb diet. Eventually people stall, stop losing weight, their acculturation kicks in so they can't shake off the glucose jones and they lose interest in the diet. Don 't underestimate the power of acculturation. It's getting a little easier for me now to make choices but at first I would always catch myself mentally conversing that I should stop at Jack In the Box for lunch.

Let's face it, Atkins has sold millions of books over the years and it's very difficult to find someone who has been doing Atkins for more than 10 years. You can probably count them on both hands, and for those who do make it long term their still packing some fat and are constantly stuggling with their weight. George Stella being a good example. Yeah, he's down from 4XX pounds but the guy isn't at his true weight and recently commented not long ago how he has to put in extra time exercizing and at the gym to keep the weight in check. Little do they realize that it's all that glucose they keep eating, yet they have to work their asses off at a gym to offset the gains in their weight.

Totally unnecessary, but hey, they love their "fresh" and "wholesome" carbs! Blech!

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

6 Months as of Today

Ok carbohydrates. You've been put on notice!

Today marks the 6 month anniversary of my newfound path. I started my 5th attempt at low-carb on February 22nd 2006. My first day was non-eventful. I skipped breakfast as I usually do, then we had a department lunch at Chili's over by where I work.

I had a cheeseburger and asked for a salad with bleu cheese dressing instead of fries. That would be the last time I ate any vegitation in the last 6 months.

A couple weeks before that I went to my doctor and was shocked when the scale hit 345 pounds. I remember weighing 327 as a sophmore in high school but that was the highest I've ever weighed. My size 50 pants weren't really fitting anymore, and the only 50's I could wear at that point were the ones with the stretch band. My only choice facing me was to get 52" pants, if I could find them, and ones that didn't cost an arm and a leg.

Also that same day I emailed the only person that I knew had the truth, the one person who had the answer and that was Bear. I delved into the emails after work that night and for the first time it all made sense. The low-carb community was also lucky to have Bear come out of hibernation and attempt to respond to other dieters about his incredible 47 years of success on an all-meat diet.

Now, 6 months down the line, I still have the same old clothes problem, only this time it's the other way. I do have some old clothes from 1999, but I'll need clothes again soon enough so I'm going with what I have. My purpose here is to lose the weight, in front of everyone online, to show that you CAN reach your true goal weight if you restrict your carbs enough. I think the biggest obstacle in a more traditional restricted carb diet is that even modest levels of carbs work against you. If I can show that your true weight awaits you, maybe others will see that those 30, 40 or 50g net carb counts are not doing them any good.


I guess I should I have noted that I'm down to 277lbs.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Agribusiness: Carb Peddlers Abound in Congress

Here's a perfect example of the uphill battle the low-carbers have in gaining mainstream acceptance for their diets.

According the the Center for Responsive Politics, these are the largest political contributors for the entire agribusiness sector for the current election cycle of 2006 (They also have data on the industry going back to 2000). There are many other contributors within the sector of agribusiness, but these are the largest. The total contributions for this cycle alone is just shy of $26 Million.

What's immediately striking, after ignoring such things as tobacco, wood, paper, cotton, meat and poultry producers since agribusiness describes a diverse range of companies, are the number of sugar/high carb producers in the top 20:

Number 1 is the Altria Group at $824,155 for the current cycle. The Altria Group includes Phill Morris as well as Kraft Foods, Inc. which makes Post cereals, Nabisco, Oreos and a whole host of carb laden goodies (or would that be baddies).

Number 2 is American Crystal Sugar at $707,117, a cooperative of sugar producers in America including United Sugars Corporation, Sidney Sugars, Inc., ProGold (corn milling) & Crystech, L.L.C.

Number 7 is Dean Foods, Inc. at $381,047, a maker of diary and soy milk products.

Number 9 is Connell Corp at $321,000, although diversified it was solely a rice and sugar producer.

Number 13 is Flo-Sun, Inc. at $271,037. is a major raw sugar producer. Here's an interesting article, also from the Center for Responsive Politics, about the owners of Flo-Sun called the Politics of Sugar. Here's another article from CNN in 1998 on Flo-Sun and the sugar industry.

Number 14 is Amercian Sugar Cane League at $262,000 a group representing the sugar growers of Lousiana.

Even if you exclude the Altria Group that means 6 out of 20, or 30%, of the largest contributors in the agribusiness sector are specifically high carb peddlers.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

The Active No-Carber Forum

Hello everyone,

If you're looking to do some extracurricular chatting about low and zero carb diets you should check out the Active No-Carber Forums. Started by Meg and followed by a group of refugees from the Bear thread at the ALC it's a nice friendly atmosphere if you like that kind of thing. We're a pretty loose bunch but if you're into that kind of thing I welcome you to stop by and check it out.

Friday, August 18, 2006

A Humble Thanks

I just want to thank you folks for taking the time to read my stuff. I've never been much of a writer and never considered it a strong point, but I like writing about zero carb. It keeps me focused and motivated in my endeavor.

In the past I've been very relaxed on my carb counts and would cheat like crazy even though my carbs were low enough to keep me losing weight. I consistently ate 50-100g per day. In the end that much glucose just pushed me over the edge and the cravings would hit and I'd find myself at Jack In The Box.

This time I went back to the Bear emails since 1998 was the biggest success I ever had and this time I GOT IT. It just clicked. Since dropping all carbs I find it much easier to stay on the diet. Now I accept that ALL glucose, in any shape or form, is nothing but poison to me. That may seem extreme, but most people don't understand what it's like to be morbidly obese all their life. My relationship with carbs may be more extreme than most people as I have zero tolerance when it comes to glucose, but even if you can handle carbs it's just not good stuff to eat.

Really, if you're 20, 30, 40, even 50 it's not hard to drop the veggies, fruits like blueberries, and low carb products. Instead of eating that stuff substitute it with beef. It's not that hard but you have to really like beef, eggs and cheese, and lots of fat. Knowing the importance of eating enough fat is very overlooked in the low-carb community. It's like in the mainstream's version of low-carb they have bought into the whole cut calorie, eat lots of "wholesome" and "healthy" veggies. They don't realize their hindering their diets by not eating enough fat. By shunning beef and particularly nice and fatty pieces of beef they miss out an important part of puzzle and that is adequate fat intake. Is that justification for a little "variety"? I don't think so. Stefansson is correct that the more you eat a whole food exclusively the more you like it. I doubted it at first and was skeptical but after about a month or so it became true.

I've lived and seen what the effects of a constant carb intake do. Now I just have to hope the damage that's been done to my body isn't that bad, but I definitely done some damage unfortunately. You can't be 300+ pounds 2/3rds of their life and not expect some repercussion. I don't want to lose it over the course of weeks and weeks, I want this crap off of me now and as soon as possible. I just don't understand why people would want to self-sabotage themselves and lose it "slowly" as if somehow that's more healthy. WTF? The good part is that is exactly what happens, naturally, when you drastically minimize the insulin factor.

The “Donut” Theory of Carbohydrates

Ok, so this isn't a major theory or anything, more like one of my ramblings.

The "Donut" Theory carbohydrates is just an amusing way of stating that the ability of humans to eat carbohydrates is a survival mechanism and not a license to eat carbs willy nilly. Think of carbs as that funny spare tire you have in the back of your car. It's smaller and funkier than your other tires, but when you have a flat and need to get from point A to point B, it'll work. It's not very safe to drive long distances on a donut, and you can't drive over a certain mile per hour, but the purpose is to get you to your next point until you get put a regular tire on your car.

Now, you wouldn't willfully put the donut on your car. That would be ridiculous. You would compromise safety and efficiency if you did. Yet, that is what millions of people do every day. Some people are driving on 4 donuts all the time, like the idiot vegetarians, and even low-carbers for the most part put the donut on for a short time, but everyday. There is absolutely no reason to each carbs, unless you were in the wild and it was a choice of eating something or starving. Fortunately, this is far and few between the case these days.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006


From Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low-Carb:

Dr. Petsko is quick to point out that the original diet of our earliest ancestors was virtually zero carbs (hey, he's talking your language now, Rob!) when humans got their carb intake through the process known as gluconeogenesis.

"Carbohydrates probably didn't come into the human diet until the baking of bread and theeating of vegetables and so forth," Dr. Petsko stated


Millions and millions of years of human evolution.

What more proof do you need that an all-meat diet is the way to go? Even if you can eat carbs and stay thin, or can "maintain" at 30-100g of carbs, the body just isn't set up to deal with insulin at even the most moderate of levels. That some people can withstand the insulin better than other doesn't mean that this is license to eat carbs. I suppose 50g is better than 400g, but really, if you can get by on 40g you're not far from eating the way the human body was developed to begin with.

Fat is your friend. Don't be shy about eating that nice fatty steak with butter on top night after night after night. I can't even tell you that you'll get used to it because because you don't get "used to" beef, you crave it immensely. The bottom line though, the caveat emptor if you will, is that you have to love meat, especially beef. Generally I find I have to eat 2 pounds of chicken to feel as satisfied as eating 1 pound of beef.

Stefansson noted that the longer you ate a whole food exclusively, the more you like it, and it's true. In the last (almost) 6 months I've eating beef probably 80+% of the time and I never tire of it. In fact I start to get edgy if I haven't had a nice piece of raw beef steak after 72 hours or so. Tonight I picked up a nice untrimmed tri-tip roast with a thick fat pad and just cut a couple thick pieces from the end for dinner. It was like eating beef for the first time all over again.

The Perfect Storm: A Socioeconomic Perspective

I don't see much chance of a much hoped for low carb revolution and mainstream acceptance that some are hoping for. We are now into our second generation of the low-fat scheme that's been nothing but a disaster, on top of the highly processed/fast food/corporate agricultural explosion that's been going on since the 1950's.

The problems with the low carb revolution theory is that I think we're dealing with major socioeconomic factors that are so deeply ingrained in our culture, both societal and business, that it will be extremely difficult to affect any major change in the mainstream view and acceptance of low carb diets in general.

Plant and vegetables have a much greater profit margin than livestock farming. With the advancements of food sciences and farming equipment you can produce lots and lots of grains, cereals and veggies with little overhead. Corporate agriculture has a very powerful lobby in congress and is highly subsidized. On the flip side there's the powerful pharmaceutical industry that also has a tremendous influence on government policy. Together with science and medicine, both private and public alike, they reinforce the low-fat SAD diet, largely with proper personnel indoctrinated with the proper mindsets. Business funds bad science and the government to reinforce the message on health and nutrition, the government and health institutions give those foods recommendations as being appropriate and healthy.

You just have to accept that the diet your on, even a moderately low-carb one, is deeply unpopular among the establishment. Advocate a Zero Carb diet and your practically persona non-grata! That somehow if there's a new pr slogan or some marketing plan to make low-carb popular isn't going to happen. The mainstream has already undermined low-carb with the South Beach Diet, although it's not much of a low-carb plan. The SAD is too ingrained in our culture for it too change dramatically in the near future. There's just no way of rationally communicating with the socioeconomic forces and infrastructure in play. The establishment will not listen.

In the end, all you can say is, "So long, and thanks for all the fish"

Monday, August 14, 2006

Calories Don't Count: The Bellevue Experiment

Here's an interesting post from Imsovain at the Active No-Carber message board. It's a post from the old Paleolithic diet list about Vilhjalmur Stefansson 's cholesterol. Back in 1928/1929 Vilhjalmur Stefansson and his adventure companion Karsten Andersen went on a controlled experiment at Bellevue Hospital in New York. Boy would I love to get a hold of "Fat of the Land". Along with the cholesterol numbers there's this interesting bit of info:

Range of daily intakes over the one year period:

2000-3000 cal/d
100-140 g protein/d
200-300 g fat/d
7-12 g carbohydrate/d (glycogen from the meat)

"In this experiment, it was found that boiled meat was preferred to fried.
Broiled steaks and chops were used, - V.S. choosing lamb frequently while
K.A. ate beef almost exclusively."

"Both subjects received considerable quantities of bone marrow at various

"The men led somewhat sedentary lives" (during the experiment)

V.S. K.A.

initial wt: 72.2 kg initial wt: 59.4 kg kg
after 1 year: 69.4 kg after 1 year: 58.0 kg

Now, 72.2 kg and 69.4kg comes out to 159 and 153 pounds respectively. Steffanson notes in his Harper's Monthly Magazine article that he came into the experiment about 10 pounds overweight and lost it all. That means at 153, and we're talking about a 48 year old man here, he needs approximately 1850 calories to maintain body weight. Karsten is even more glaring. Karsten was 128 pounds, thin, and only needed 1550 calories per day, and he too managed to lose a little and maintain body weight.

Now, let's assume they averaged 2500 calories a day, where did all these extra calories go on an all meat diet? According to the calories count crowd these guy would have been packing on the weight. Stefansson was eating an extra 700 calories over body weight every day. Karsten's was even higher. Oh, I'm sure they'll have some excuse or reason, but their own answers would undermine their own logic to begin with, and that a calorie is a calorie and eating too much fat is just as bad as eating too many carbs.

Once again, dietary fat will not make you fat. Calories do not matter on an all meat diet and your fat intake must be high. Stefansson early on received too much lean meat and was starting to feel sick. Once they upped the fat content he felt better and improved. The ratio of their diet for the Bellvue Experiment was 80% fat/20% protein.

When people like Jonny Bowden tell you, "Calories are not the whole story, true. But they do count. And if you eat 10,000 calories a day of high-fat, high-protein food, you will gain weight and anyone who says differently is selling you the Brooklyn Bridge." you can rest assured that HE is the one that's trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge my friends, and at $50 a pop too...KA-Ching!! What a joker! Well..I guess it's just like they say, there's one born every minute, and apparently willing to pay $49.99 for a 4-CD set. No wonder this guy is looking for a new PR and marketing slogan and to shy away from the "low-carb"'s probably hurting or restricting his sales or potential market. These guys come across as being on your side and doing good things, but in the end they do more harm than good by continuing to perpetrate lies like calories count, the same lie that drives the whole low-fat hysteria.

The closest that any of these guys got to the truth was Atkins in 1972, and even that version is largely discarded and discredited even among the low carb community.

Friday, August 11, 2006

More Meat (and Egg) Porn

Dinner was absolutely it is every night. Since I hadn't eaten since the night before I cut me a nice big thick piece of bottom round, with 4 eggs cooked in about a 1/4 stick of unsalted butter. It was just slightly cool in the center.

What more do you need? Supplements, IMO, are a rip off. If you're taking them it's because what you think you're eating isn't giving you what you need. That's probably true for some of the menus I've seen posted, both low-carb and regular dieters. A nice hunk of raw beef and eggs give you everything you need. It's my multivitamin.

DSO is Coming To Town

You better not pout
You better not cry
You better not shout
I'm telling you why
DSO is coming to town

October 5-7, 2006 at the Fillmore! This is quite possibly the greatest cover band ever. Check these guys (and gal) out when they come through your neck of the woods. Take a listen to this version of the Jerry Garcia Band's version of Sisters & Brothers.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

My Meal "Plan"

Here is generally what I eat on any given day.

Breakfast: Beef and/or 4 eggs, maybe some cheese
Lunch: Beef and/or 4 eggs, maybe some cheese
Dinner: Beef and/or 4 eggs, maybe some cheese

I find that two meals a day is suffient to keep my satisfied, and if I eat breakfast I'll tend to skip lunch and vice versa. I guess I eat about 1-2 pounds of meat a day and roughly 8 eggs and 8oz of various cheeses. When I feel like having a dessert on the rare occasion I'll make my favorite chocolate table cream mousse.

I don't weight or measure anything, and I don't force myself to eat. The notion that some people have to eat 5-6 times a day is a mistake, and frankly I find it a little weird and consider it an eating disorder. It's an unnatural obsession with food. Think about it. You have a whole schedule dedicated to eating at particular times and I see no benefit in doing such a thing. Once you get adapted to a zero carb diet you may find yourself eating once a day. I find that I can go as long as 30 hours without eating before I get anykind of hunger pangs. There simply is no reason for a constant intake of food.

There is absolutely no need for variety. That was a concern at first but then you just get into a groove and it becomes second nature. I think at the 6 month mark here I actually enjoy beef more now than I did at the beginning.

The other thing I recommend is switching to unsalted butter. At first switching to unsalted butter and not putting salt on my steak was a little shocking. You really get used to that intense flavor, but once the salt jones leaves you really come to appreciate the real flavor of food. Unsalted butter is fresher and creamier than salted butter with a much much better texture. I've also come to really appreciate the sweet taste of fresh raw beef too. With food this good, why cover it up with salt? Occasionaly I may use other seasonings or garlic but to honest, I just like it pan fried, raw in the middle.

It's also important to eat beef raw or as rare as possible. I pan fry mine in a ridged cast iron skillet that gives me those cool grill lines on the steak. Turning it 90 degrees on a side gives it that nice checkerboard patter that you see on steaks at a steak house. The protein in the meat is best raw and you should never get the inside of your steak highter than 104 degrees, the temperature where the nutrient and proteins start becoming compromissed.

Here I am, 6 months down the road, started at 345 and now I'm down to 279.8 as of this morning. I no longer obsess on food, what I want to eat, what I'll have for dinner, etc.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Oh Meat Sweet Meat

Ahhhhh...after living 4 days on chicken and pork, I finally had a nice bleu steak and eggs for dinner tonight. After four days I get REAL twitchy if I don't get my beef. Don't get me wrong, I liked the chicken and pork (my wife can do things with spices and flavor that I just don't do for myself), it was very tasty, albeit well cooked, but it was way better than giving myself and excuse to not eat from the animal kingdom. To be honest, cravings for carbs at this point really is minimal. So far I just haven't cheated at all. Occasionally I'll get a minor pang, like when I was working the beverage tent at the Ren Faire selling drinks and ice cream sandwiches, but then I just remind myself that it's crap and it goes away.

I'm someone who always had a good excuse for a planned cheat, telling myself I'll get back on tomorrow, and sometimes I did. Next thing you know I'd myself driving home from Jack In The Box with 6 tacos, 2 jr bacon cheeseburgers, maybe with an order of onion rings thrown in. What's even worse is that an hour or two later I would raid the fridge again! Fricking insane! I see know that I'm powerless to the evil carb, like an alcoholic's relationship to booze really. Sadly, there's millions of people out there just like me, unable to understand how bad their addiction is and the damage carbs do to their particular metabolisms. This is exactly what carbs are though. Poison that kills you in the relative long term, like booze.

This is why there is no "good carb". That Atkins changed his plan after the first edition was an attempt to sell more and books by creating more mainstream acceptance by increasing and outright advocate moderate carb and veggie consumption. This division and controversy was very apparent at the Bear thread. Many low-carbers were outright hostile to proclamations that all carbs were nasty and unnecessary. In the end, Atkins sold out to dietary expediency rather than stand by his principles in the first edition of his book.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Insulin and Fat Storage

Dietary fat does not make you fat. Never thought a simple statement would provoke such controversy. The notion that calories count and that idea that there's an acceptable carb level arise because of a basic misunderstanding of how the body uses food for energy and future energy.

Basically it comes down to insulin. When you eat glucose (carbs) insulin is excreted by the pancreas in response. Now, insulin does many things, but primarily it deals with excess glucose, first using what's needed for immediate energy, then it goes to the liver, then it's stored into adipose tissue. Not only is it the storage mechanism for adipose tissue, but it also blocks fatty acids from being used, in other words, it tells your body to stop burning fat and go into "store fat from carbs" mode.

In other words, eating zero (or very low) carbs stimulates the fat burning process because there's no excessive insulin being produced telling your body to stop burning reserves in the fat stores (adipose tissue). This is what I keep trying to tell people on "maintenance" who are eating 50g-100g of carbs a day. Even at that level you're still provoking the insulin response. This is just my hunch, but this is what I think happens. The idea that there's some "critical carb level" is crapola. Is eating 100g of carbs per day better than 400g? Absolutely. Is 100g of carbs a day a healthy level? I don't think so.

Maintaining a relatively low level of carbs over the course of time leads to increased weight gain. What I think happens is that constant, even if small, provocation of insulin increases over time as more and more amounts are needed to metabolize and deal with the 50g of carbs. That's why people have to go into "induction" mode every once in a while because they're still eating too many carbs. In the end it's just self-sabatoge, and not only that, but the constant excretion of insulin in the body is just not health in general.

Now, there is no other mechanism that gets fat from diet into adipose tissue. Some dietary fat, very very little, can be stored by a "concentration-dependent manner by a transmembrane transport protein", but that is not the kind of body fat we're talking about. This is why the "calories count" camp is wrong wrong wrong. They can do the calorie math until the kobes come home but it still doesn't change the fact that insulin is THE storage mechanism of fat in adipose tissue.

Richard Mackarness in Eat Fat, Grow Slim (1958) notes in his chapter "Objections to High-Fat Diets"

The effectiveness of high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets in obesity will continue to be surprising so long as people continue to regard body fat as an inert slab of suet stored round the hips and in the other fat depots.

The fatty tissues of the body are not inert at all. Together they make up a highly active organ (the "fat organ") with definite functions comparable to those of the liver.

This "fat organ " is concerned especially with the energy needs of the body.

It shrinks under conditions of low food intake and increases when intake is high.

From this most people assume that the fat organ is simply a passive calorie store.

But this assumption is wrong. The fat organ is not passive. It has a rich blood supply and is in a constant state of activity entering into minute-to-minute metabolic changes throughout the body.

This activity can be increased or decreased by many factors, particularly by the kind of food we eat. Carbohydrate (starch and sugar) is the forerunner of excess fat in the fat organ.

On a diet devoid of carbohydrate, there is little stimulus to the "fat organ" to make extra fat. It is doubtful, in fact, whether fat in the diet can add to the weight of the "fat organ," except during recovery from starvation.

On the contrary it seems that a high fat intake depresses the manufacture of fat in the body, while increasing itutilizationon as fuel.

In other words (and this is the key to Banting and all slimming) the fatty tissues can only become overweight through making fat from carbohydrate.

These statements are based on experimental work begun by Hausberger and Milstein in the Departments of Anatomy and Biochemistry at the Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia.

They reported their findings in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, in 1955, as follows:

"Fasting or feeding a high-fat diet abolished lipogenesis (fat formation) in adipose tissue and reduced glucose oxidation markedly lipogenesis increased to the highest levels on a high-carbohydrate, fat-free diet."

They found also that in the experimental animals (rats) with which they were working, fat formation took place mainly in the adipose tissues. Massoro in Boston and Mayer and Silides at Harvard have confirmed these findings, working with tissue slices. More recent work on human subjects seems to show that these observations are also true for man.

Utilisation of radio-glucose (glucose "tagged" with radioactivity so that its metabolism can be followed) by adipose tissue has been investigated under various nutritional conditions. Fasting or feeding a high-fat diet has been found to diminish the formation of fat from carbohydrate.

Stop eating carbohydrate and eat fat instead and you will not only stop getting fat, but will get thinner.

I wonder if the follow ups were ever done? My guess is that it's hard to find honest research on high fat diets after the low-cal, low-fat craze started in the 70's or so.

Bottom line? Dietary fat doesn't make you fat, but it's the insulin secreted from glucose intake. No carbs, no insulin, no extra body fat.

Back From The Faire!

Hey there guys and gals,

I'm back from the Willits Renaissance Faire that happened this weekend. One of the best things about hitting the zero carb path is that me and my wife could finally start to participate in the Renaissance Faire scene. We like to do volunteer work for Rusty Sword Productions, helping out here and there, and in my case, cleaning trash and doing odd tasks. Great way to have fun and get some good ol' excersize. There is no way that either of us could have done this a year ago. Here's a plug for my wife, this is her little Ren Faire page: Lusty Wenches and the Lairds who Worship Them, showing just how much fun we really have!

For those in the bay area, come on out to the Golden Gate Renaissance Festival in Golden Gate Park August 26-27, 2006. C'mon and join the fun and get your medieval on :)

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

The "30 in 30" Challenge and the Misconception of Fat Metabolism

This was partially a comment I left at Jimmy Moore's Livinlavidalocarb blog but I felt it had to be stressed here as well:

If Jimmy drops his carbs to virtually zero and stops eating all the low carb products he would reach his goal weight in 30 weeks let alone just 30 pounds. I blogged about this a little while back. Dietary fat will not make you fat. I certainly support Jimmy in his endeavor but to be honest I think he's too attached to the low carb products. People can say sugar alcohols don't count and that fiber can be deducted and net carb this and net carbs that, but I think in the end they're only fooling themselves by doing adjusted carb counts. Also, the notion that it has to occur over a long period time is just a mental justification/acculturation to keep the carb count high at 50g a day. Even if you frame it in Atkins, why not just cut the carbs down to induction level and just lose the 30 pounds and be done with it, and maintain your weight on induction level?

That's not a slam or anything, but sometimes there's no other way to say the truth. He's certainly not alone either, as lots of people can't shake the carb addiction. All I know is that I've been veggie/starch/sugar/fruit free for 5 1/2 months with no cheats or fake-o products, eating only from the animal kingdom and I'm someone who;s NEVER been strict on a low carb diet even though I still lost weight. Beyond just weight loss I feel that there's too much at stake to have continued exposing my system to the constant onslaught of insulin, and toxins like soybean and wheat.

That aside, there is a simple way for Jimmy to get to his true goal weight within a year. You see, there is no mechanism in the body to take dietary fat and put it into adipose tissue. Calories, as Invisible Blogger insists otherwise, are NOT a factor until you've reached your true natural goal weight. That calories count is a common misunderstanding on how fat metabolism works, which is the basis of the "low fat" diet.

Don't believe me? I went on a weight watchers "deal a meal" plan for 2 months in 1995 and was really strict in my choices. I forced down lots of veggies, kept my fat low and over the course of two GRUELLING months I lost like 10 pounds, and that was also with working out and excersizing. My wife joined me and she lost even less weight. She was a vegetarian before that and she actually GAINED weight. I've heard other accounts of obese people going vegetarian and actually gaining weight.

Obese people like myself and Jimmy are extremely sensitive to carbs. I can gain a pound just by looking at a donut. The same thing that's happening to Jimmy is probably the same thing that happened to me on a calorie restricted low fat diet. I was probably excersizing and working out just enough to burn whatever weight I was gaining on a high (good) carb diet. If it wasn't for his exercise Jimmy would probably be closer to 270-280 right now instead of 240. He's most likely burning just enough calories to maintain, and apparently even gain, weight. This is why the low-fat diet is such a failure to most people who aren't trying to lose 10 vanity pounds. Even with calorie restriction the body is still storing excess glucose into adipose tissue because of insulin and how fat metabolism really works.

Drop the carbs and the weight comes off effortlessly and rapidly. I've been on a low-carb diet and when I'm my strictest, like this time, I dropped 30 pounds in the first month and a half alone. I'm now down 60 pounds after 5 1/2 months. Why? Because dietary fat can not be converted and stored to fat in adipose tissue. Eating lots of dietary fat in the absence of carbs by people with extra body fat will actually stimulate the fat burning process. It will raise your metabolism causing you to burn fat even faster. Carbs also interfere with muscle growth while fat stimulates muscle growth (check out Vince Gironda). Throwing carbs into your diet and provoking insulin responses throws a monkey wrench in this process.

It's best to avoid carbs not just for weight reasons but also for health reasons.There is no reason to eat carbohydrates. Even low to modest levels of carbs and the insulin it provokes hinders the fat burning process, causes the arteries to scar and works against building muscles. Carbs are to be avoided at all costs.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

UPDATE: Top 5 Reasons Not to Eat Carbohydrates

4. Toxins

Reader lcforevah passed on this interesting webpage about plant toxicity, from (oh man, sometimes irony can be brutal!). Excellent list of many types of plants and their particular toxins. Vegetation that's noted:

Turnip Greens
Mustard Greens
Green Beans

WTF?!?! Please tell me how this garbage is supposed to be good for you again? Phytonutrients! Anti-Oxidents! Pure crappola!

Happy Birthday Jerry!

We miss ya. Even though I was too young to experience peak era Grateful Dead I was still fortunate to see the last 5 years of the band. There were some strong points during that time; 1991, late 1992 and 1993 all had some excellent shows. The times I really miss the most are the Jerry Garcia Band shows at the Warfield. The JGB required a certain taste, it was no Grateful Dead, but the mellow vibes and the mellow crowds, not to mention seeing Jerry is a smallish room, made all the difference.

I salute one of the greatest (and most underated) guitarists and songwriters in rock and roll.