Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 84

Thread: Allergic to Carbs. Zero Carb (or at least low low carb) for Cure page 8

  1. #71
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Its because I don't see the point in arguing. The difference is I at least TRY not to tell people who have devoted themselves to high carb primal that its detrimental to their health, whereas you make it a point to intercede in any low carb thread with your OPINION that it a less optimal path. Even when the individual in question feels terrific on that path!

    These are your arguments:
    If a low carber feels like crap its cause they need carbs!
    If a low carber feels great they must need carbs and just not know it yet!
    If a high carber feels like crap its cause they were low carb too long and did too much damage so eat more carbs.
    If a high carber feels great its cause they reintroduced carbs!

    How is someone suppose to have a logical debate with that? You can't cause that is the definition of dogma.
    What are you talking about? The OP is clearly very sick. Your recommendation was to remain sick. I attempted to provide a potential solution based on what he described. I don't think he feels "great," I think he is so used to feeling ill that simply removing illness for mediocrity is being confused for "great." A man with a broken foot probably feels a lot better not walking on his broken foot. The goal should be to heal the foot so you can use it again, not prevent its healing and just stay off of it.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 08-01-2013 at 04:51 PM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  2. #72
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,730
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Ah, the "because I said so" argument. But you did a good job wrapping it in the "studies have shown" guise. It makes the fallacy sound more convincing.

    Last time I checked, human beings evolved around the Equator where fruit, starch and lean game meats tend to rule, not fatty animals. The Inuit are a very modern civilization. There are far more populations in human history eating HCLF than HFLC
    No I'll quote it for you AGAIN!!! Geese, I really don't think you to be unintelligent, thats why I saw no sense in repeating myself for the hundreth time....

    So for the zillionth time the most comprehensive data we have on this is the "Ethnographic Atlas" by Dr. George P. Murdock. Its the basis of Cordains analysis and for many published studies regarding nutrition and health of various societies.

    When analyzing the data we find that out of 229 hunter gatherer groups 46 get MORE than 85% of their calories from hunted food. Oh, before we get too far please note that Murdock indicated that gathering activities could also include the collection of small land fauna (insects, invertebrates, small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles); therefore, the compiled data may overestimate the relative contribution of gathered plant foods in the average hunter-gatherer die. So we already have over 20% of the studied peoples eating what is for all intensive purposes a VLC diet.

    So 20% of the 229 eat VLC.... I could rest my case here because this alone is enough to prove that the human organism can and will acclimate to a low carb lifestyle without breaking down into disease or ill health, but take a look at the whole of these examined. As a whole they average 70% of their calories from hunted food and 30% from gathered..... that would be a MAXIMUM of 30% carbohydrate load and quite likely to be substantially less due to the inclusion or small animals, insects...ect in the gathered group.

    I didn't feel I had to spell this out for you yet again, but there you go. All specific and even referenced for ya.

    If you want to delve into history further than what that knowledge shows then you ARE guessing! They may be educated guesses, but none the less are quite debatable. Humans surviving the ice age, following river and costal lines out of Africa....ect. All quite interesting, but I wouldn't put all my eggs in any of those baskets. I look to "wild" humans we know rather than guessing at times past.

  3. #73
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,730
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    What are you talking about? The OP is clearly very sick. Your recommendation was to remain sick. I attempted to provide a potential solution based on what he described. I don't think he feels "great," I think he is so used to feeling ill that simply removing illness for mediocrity is being confused for "great." A man with a broken foot probably feels a lot better not walking on his broken foot. The goal should be to heal the foot so you can use it again, not prevent its healing and just stay off of it.
    OP started a new thread and I already responded as to what I believe is an actionable plan for dealing with such issues. I will also say that both you and I only have a cursory knowledge of his health and all either of us can offer is broad stroke ideas. But, even with that acknowledged I stand by what I've written in his new thread.

  4. #74
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,357
    What are you arguing for? Genetics and adaptation to VLC? I already pointed out nature vs nurture, and the fact that DNA dissipates in offspring at the rate of 1 / 2 ^ (number of generations). I don't think, after all this time, and gene mutation, indirect descendants have any inclination towards a particular diet, if there ever was one to begin with and it wasn't all just out of lack of choice.

    Environment plays a large part in how one should eat. Do you really think those societies would not be consuming copious amounts of carbs from fruit assuming they had the choice? We have the ability to rise above that, and this day and age, stress is numerous in many ways, and that diet simply does not have a desirable effect.
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  5. #75
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,730
    Actually you simply stated "nature vs nurture"..... hell you coulda been talking about alcoholism rates for all I knew

    And I would say its Choco arguing for one diet. I'm simply arguing for the value of including LC in the array of diets one may choose from and still manifest good health.

    Here is the thing. I'm actually a huge fan of many ideas circulating that address chronic stress, allostatic load, and the like, but there is always a give and take. AGE's for instance are a stress, but also work in communication via cellular pathways. Stress is a tricky word/concept. How much is just enough.... some is necessary, even the kind not initially considered hormetic. Bah, this would get too wordy and I'm not up to it. But you've been into this stuff long enough so you understand what I'm getting at I'm sure. I probably couldn't even put my thoughts on this together and make a single post on it if I wanted to.

    Bottom line for me: If you have an issue eating Primal carbs YES you are ill. But you don't HAVE to eat many carbs to be well. SO ..... 2+2=4 . Its palliative to the current condition and IMO has the capacity to be part of the cure.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 08-01-2013 at 06:57 PM.

  6. #76
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,357
    True. Like you, I get tired of elaborating on things sometimes.

    Stress in response to life is a natural thing, and is not unhealthy, it's only when it's compounded by environmental problems, toxic waste, estrogens and chemicals in everything, excess sedentary lifestyles, poor sleep, being a wage slave, etc; that a stressful diet like prolonged fasting, or emulating starvation via ketosis gets to be a problem. It's a vicious cycle. Stress is a word that sums up too many things.

    I don't feel that VLC is harmful if done right, but I believe that most people won't be able to handle a diet that liberates a bunch of toxins from their cells. I find that, fasting is no problem for me anymore, because I've become nutrient replete, and taken actions against my previous poor diet. I still feel that high carb is a superior choice, given what you mention about anthropology, but this is left up to the individual because as said before there are many variables involved, even if we're organically similar in many ways. That whole nature vs nurture thing again.
    Last edited by Derpamix; 08-01-2013 at 07:03 PM.
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  7. #77
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    No I'll quote it for you AGAIN!!! Geese, I really don't think you to be unintelligent, thats why I saw no sense in repeating myself for the hundreth time....

    So for the zillionth time the most comprehensive data we have on this is the "Ethnographic Atlas" by Dr. George P. Murdock. Its the basis of Cordains analysis and for many published studies regarding nutrition and health of various societies.

    When analyzing the data we find that out of 229 hunter gatherer groups 46 get MORE than 85% of their calories from hunted food. Oh, before we get too far please note that Murdock indicated that gathering activities could also include the collection of small land fauna (insects, invertebrates, small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles); therefore, the compiled data may overestimate the relative contribution of gathered plant foods in the average hunter-gatherer die. So we already have over 20% of the studied peoples eating what is for all intensive purposes a VLC diet.

    So 20% of the 229 eat VLC.... I could rest my case here because this alone is enough to prove that the human organism can and will acclimate to a low carb lifestyle without breaking down into disease or ill health, but take a look at the whole of these examined. As a whole they average 70% of their calories from hunted food and 30% from gathered..... that would be a MAXIMUM of 30% carbohydrate load and quite likely to be substantially less due to the inclusion or small animals, insects...ect in the gathered group.

    I didn't feel I had to spell this out for you yet again, but there you go. All specific and even referenced for ya.

    If you want to delve into history further than what that knowledge shows then you ARE guessing! They may be educated guesses, but none the less are quite debatable. Humans surviving the ice age, following river and costal lines out of Africa....ect. All quite interesting, but I wouldn't put all my eggs in any of those baskets. I look to "wild" humans we know rather than guessing at times past.
    Out of the 7 countries in this study, we can clearly see saturated fat intake is correlated with increased rates of heart disease.

    Remember that one? The problem is, there are more than 7 countries on Earth.

    Again, what is your point? I don't care which 229 hunter gatherer groups specifically chosen to fit a predetermined conclusion were in this fantastic "study." Human beings came from warm-weather climates. Most traditional societies that exist today rely heavily on carbohydrate. HFLC diets mirror starvation metabolism. HFLC diets cause higher levels of stress hormones on average because stress hormones are what break amino acids into glucose via gluconeogenesis. Stress increase is a rule of HFLC dieting. Free fatty acids cause lactic acid buildup. HFLC diets cause increased lactic acid formation. HFLC diets cause insulin resistance.

    All facts.

    Surviving vs thriving. I don't care about cherrypicked information to support a predetermined agenda using epidemiology. It isn't real. What's real is how the human body reacts to food on a cellular level, and free fatty acids have a massive handicap regarding energy production vs glucose.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  8. #78
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    And I would say its Choco arguing for one diet. I'm simply arguing for the value of including LC in the array of diets one may choose from and still manifest good health
    What I'm arguing is that this thread was created by a man that has significant health issues, and you'd rather support the conditions causing these health issues than break your paradigm.

    I rarely argue for HFLC dieting because there is rarely a reason to be on a HFLC diet. There is very little they do well and a whole lot they do poorly. Do you ever see me comment in threads where people are successful eating HFLC diets do you? You always see me in threads where people are struggling with this lifestyle due to HFLC dieting. Maybe that's why? Comparatively, I see you coming into threads where people are killing themselves restricting carbohydrate suggesting they continue killing themselves. This is one of those examples.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 08-01-2013 at 07:27 PM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  9. #79
    abc123's Avatar
    abc123 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Posts
    170
    Whoa, real quick.

    First off, "allergic" was more of a metaphor in describing the inflammation, histamine-induced type reactions after I would eat starch. I don't think I'm literally allergic to an entire family of macronutrient. "Highly-Sensitive" would be the proper tone for my symptoms I guess.

    I did start this thread quite a while back, around 16 months ago? A few changes & improvements in my symptoms since then.

    I doubt I'd be diagnosed as deathly sick, but certaintly guilty of eliminating quality food options & becoming intolerant/resistent over time. I totally agree with Choco, eliminating the carbohydrate all together isn't solving the root of the problem. I don't think its running from it either, simply taking a break from the power of insulin to recover. I'm an athletic ectomorph that has pounded sugar, starch & gluten for years. When I hit 28-29, my lifestyle calmed down & my stressed gut needed a break. Which I think is all Neckhammer is suggesting. Hey, I needed to enlist in the 4 R's. Remove, Repair, Restore, Replace. I'm sure Choco agrees with this strategy?

    Not being able to properly utilize carbohydrate means something is wrong. I think this is true, I should be able to handle moderate carbohydrate intake.

    You both agree on many principles, but I think you're arguing about 2 different things. Choco defends the carbohydrate & its well-deserved. My grandfather exchanged vegetables & fruit for "penrose sausages, cheese dip & spoonfuls of butter". He lost weight quickly, glowed with joy, then he dropped dead of a heart attack. Clean carbohydrate is a weapon for going from good to great. Max-out performance, totally agree.

    But for a celiac, leaky gut or the metabolically challenged, isn't starch & insulin an aggressive hormone that we can afford to side-line for a bit? Insulin is like a drug to me, I need to take it with caution. But I'm not going out for the football team, I simply want to be able to handle starch, not rely on it.

    My goal is to reverse some damage, then re-introduce to properly digest any natural food I ingest. Max out my immune system.

    Thank you for the feedback! You are all very inspiring to my growth!
    Last edited by abc123; 08-01-2013 at 08:06 PM.

  10. #80
    patski's Avatar
    patski is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Suburbs of Toronto
    Posts
    1,239
    abc123,

    I had an interesting email conversation with Paul Jaminet of The Perfect Health diet. In his research, he's found carbs are absolutely necessary for good gut health. This is why he recommends starch with every meal.

    I'm quoting directly from his email to me:

    "One effect of very low-carb diets is you impair gut barrier integrity which is maintained with carbs. That creates a leaky gut followed by food sensitivities."

    Some food for thought. I wrecked my health being low carb for a very long time. Start thinking outside the box.
    A Post-Primal PrimalPat

    Do not allow yourself to become wrapped up in a food 'lifestyle'. That is ego, and you are not that.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •