22

votes

beginnings of paleo civil war?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created August 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM

wow, seems like a paleo civil war has broken out with scattered fighting in the comment sections on different blogs.

i'm sympathetic to the lc and vlc adherants- i used to be one of them. as i stated in another thread, i do believe going lc or vlc is a VERY useful tool in healing many metabolic functions. it was a useful tool in the first phase of healing my lifelong obesity. i just no longer see it as necessary for people to stay there. i think there are some questions that need to answered and i have n=1 and some other anecdotal evidence but i haven't seen a full-blown clinical study that answers them.

*in talking about obesity, i'm not referring to people with leptin deficiency, prader-willi or any other rare deficiencies which cause them to put on weight. i'm speaking about run of the mill metabolic syndrome induced obsesity.

can someone be so metabolically damaged that even after regaining leptin sensitivity, they can't intake clean starchy carbs at least moderately(`100g/day)?

is it possible that after the optimal healing of metabolic pathways using lc and vlc(i know that i'm making broad assumptions but they're from my experiences and a good amount of observation) that perpetually eating lc and vlc becomes detrimental to the metabolic pathways by making it intolerable to even benign starchy carbs?

i'd like to hear opinions from both sides. though the questions are a big leading and i have my own views on this, i'm open to being convinced otherwise...

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 13, 2011
at 02:02 AM

I see both things. As a long time LCer I see what the Loon is speaking of. It's everywhere. A clear bias against LC in favor of a tuberific diet. I also see what ben is speaking of and I have never seen an LCers specifically denigrated for his/her dietary choice. Just he opposite as ben says. So it's a strange mix. It seems on a personal, individual level the community can appreciate the results of an LC diet but in general there seems to be a sense that it is a second-class diet to be sure.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 10:19 PM

and oops, that was supposed to be oops. I guess my brain would run better if I ate more tubers

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:07 PM

Just a minute there, kiddo! I may be an ageist, but i'm far from old! :>

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:02 PM

opps, that was thought.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:02 PM

Well, to me that looks like selective looking. Just do a though experiment here. Imagine you are coming to this site as a VLC'er and just start reading posts. You'll soon start to see things like "deranged" "carb-phobic". Then there are the endless statements, "I eat all those potatoes and I'm fine..." and all sorts of comments about the many ways the LC'ers are deranged and an assumption of all the terrible vices they did to themselves with their diet. At least in the CW world, they are only accused of gluttony and sloth.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:55 PM

Well, I upvoted you cause you're old! (no really, there is no substitute for having gone around the block a couple of times.)

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:29 PM

BTW, just for reference my carbs were in the 150gm/day range for 15 years.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:16 PM

Cliff, put another way is that for 15 years I thought I had found the motherlode. With the Zone I left a trail of skinny people (40 at one corporation) so my methodology was invincible. That high horse got shot out from under me and so now I'm riding the LC/VLC high horse. With a narrow window of time carbs may look alright. I have friends who still eat sugar and white bread with the attitude that everything is fine so far, so it must be OK. I'm saying keep an open mind. I no longer recommend the Zone for this and other reasons, such as lectins, gluten, etc.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 12, 2011
at 02:47 PM

I'd agree with you. especially the last part. I have found that a lot of LCers after a while of LCing and essentially not caring about sheer quantity of calories are somewhat shocked and reluctant to realize that after those huge initial losses they do once again have to start playing by the rules as it were and doing some kind of energy-intake tracking.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 02:08 PM

Travis, I ate an apple everyday for about 35 years, a grapefruit almost every morning or if not that, 1-1/2 cups of blueberries and sometimes some grapes, like 10 or 15. After my bout with TG I dropped things like bananas, melons and the more high glycemic fruits. So this went on for about 15 years. Any grains I had were whole and in moderation in accordance with Zone specs. How much fructose was in bread or other foods I had would be speculation. Fructose intake is near zero now and may be that way for some time.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 01:55 PM

Cliff, what I'm saying is just because you're not having problems with carbs now doesn't mean you won't. I'm not saying it will happen to everybody. I'm saying keep your eyes open. What seems OK for a while might not be in the long run, like the guy falling off the building - "Everything's fine so far!" Exercise - I was a runner for 35 years. Still run but only shorter distances with my dogs but have been a hiker, a biker and gym rat since my Vietnam days. Exercise is my religion. I'm in better shape than most people less than half my age. Most people think I'm in my early 50s.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 12, 2011
at 01:18 PM

i think the taubes-guyenet showdown is kind of a natural apex of what has been slowly brewing for awhile. i agree with both statements with one difference. i think once the metabolism is healed, one can use starch just as effectively to fuel the body. i think to keep body composition that one will have to lay back on some of the fat to keep calories/energy balance in check.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 12, 2011
at 01:14 PM

@ben i think that if you're going by a archevore style diet, stephan definitely fits into what many of us would consider paleo.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 12, 2011
at 01:12 PM

stabby, i think you're definitely on point with this.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 12, 2011
at 12:53 PM

@Travis, great answer. I'd just like to really agree that given our modern-day general avoidance for tastes like those found in offal (read: liver) many LCers, even in the paleo world, are eating perhaps too much muscle meat. I simply think the importance of vitamin/nutrient-packed organs really needs to be hammered home in the LC community, be they paleo or not.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 12, 2011
at 12:50 PM

@loon, I'm sorry I have to agree with cliff here. I spend a good amount of time on this board. It is rare that anyone demonizes people for doing well on LC. Conversely usually it's congratulated. That is not, however, mutually exclusive with people at the same time noting that one does not need to stay on LC or that one might do better with other ways of eating. I fear that there is simply a bit of defensiveness in the LC crew because after years of avoiding one macro it would be understandable if there is some reticence to use it again.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 12, 2011
at 12:27 PM

I'd like to piggyback on Melissa's comment and just note that neither Stephan nor Taubes has ever stated they are "paleo" themselves, overtly even associated themselves with anything paleo-related, etc. In fact SGuyanet has been definitely more a presence in WAP circles for years than anything Paleo.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on August 12, 2011
at 10:37 AM

@loon- Ive never seen anyone hassled here for being low carb, maybe stating wrong facts or being overly dogmatic but not because of someones dietary choice

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on August 12, 2011
at 10:33 AM

Pretty much every healthy culture thrives on a variation of high carb. Just because you have problems with carb doesn't mean anyone else will. You clearly have a deranged glucose metabolism, you never say anything about exercise or the type of carbs you ate. Its cool that you have your N=1 but guess what we have N=1 of people on mcdougall/ornish style diets who lower triglycerides which conflicts with your personal anecdote.

0e4e5882872d6a7c472ea51aec457e66

(1994)

on August 12, 2011
at 06:04 AM

Why should anyone downvote you for sharing your long term experiences? Thank you and +1 from me!

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:33 AM

That would help things along, as well as anything with good health-promoting bioactivity. Turmeric is a good spice but the high-dose curcumin is dynamite. Best to tackle it with everything available from the getgo.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:27 AM

That's right Stabby, and they probably won't get better if they leave the spices off their food.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:20 AM

That's interesting; what would you estimate your fructose intake to be leading up to employing the leptin prescription?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:17 AM

Dave and Quilty seem to get it. You need to approach health. Not low carb, health. They're not one and the same, there are so many things that go into health and if you just eat bun-less hot dogs all day it's probably not going to end well. But if you do something like Archevore with an emphasis on complete nutrition and an overall healthy lifestyle then the danger is probably minimal. Always still time.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:14 AM

The people who are unable to eat carbs again after VLC diets are probably the ones who didn't focus on total nutrition, didn't exercise enough, didn't reduce their omega-6 intake so that they could get a good HUFA ratio, and thus didn't sensitize their leptin receptors fast enough to avoid running into a lipotoxicity problem with all of the fat from the adipose tissue and diet. I don't think this necessarily happens but if you look at dudes like Jimmy Moore, he took an inordinate amount of time to get to something close to what I would call healthy, and still probably isn't there.

66974b2cb291799dcd661b7dec99a9e2

(11121)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:45 AM

@mem I feel great on LC lots of energy, sleep well, etc. If I eat a lot of carbs (healthy carbs not crap) I tend to fell low energy, bloated, just not 100%, brain is duller, nose gets plugged up. I work at a physically demanding job about 10 hours a day and I have more energy than most of the 20 year olds on my crew ;)

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 12, 2011
at 04:40 AM

@ Josh: Could you elaborate on "I just naturally do better as LC." Do better how? "I can eat carbs and experiece no ill effects" What ill effects? I am very genuinely curious as to your experience. Thanks!

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:17 AM

Well, I can tell you who says "oh, F this" and that is people that don't do well on the CW diet and are low carb but their diet doesn't match the Atkins diet very much. Then they hear about paleo and come here and get the trash talk. So, if you are into helping people who don't really need much help, than by all means, kick the metabolically deranged people out so you don't blow your score.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 12, 2011
at 04:16 AM

@Jack: Reintroduction isn't the issue. What is important is their maintenance status 3 -5 years hence. National stats are that only 3-5% of those who lose weight maintain that total loss for even a full year. 95-97% regain 100% and a large percentage gain 100% + more. There's a reason that when UCLA did a study a couple of years ago the recommendation they made was to 100% drop all weight loss programs from services. Reasoning: they don't work. WHY? 95-97% of ALL losers gain it all back and more and this leads to a whole set of problems in and of itself.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:12 AM

Well, instead, there has been a bit of lumping and demonizing of people who do well on a low carb diet and would like to stay on it without being hassled.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 12, 2011
at 04:09 AM

@Rose: GT isn't the only "insuin" expert. Have you watched Lustig's pres from AHS or even read alot of the tweeted content? He's got lots to say about insulin. And my experiece for some 30+ years is you start diabetics on exogenous insulin and what happens? You guessed it. And trying to get that fat off is a BEAR for them.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:04 AM

I think you can see from the clinical studies that the Atkins way of re-introducing carbs doesn't work for many. People lost lots of weight at the initial stages, and then gained when they increased carbs. They never got to the place where they quit losing weight. They started gaining it back. I have found from my own trials to add back. I couldn't Add carbs, gain weight back, take them down, plateau. I think that is what lots of people end up doing.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:58 AM

weight, and it doesn't help to have people say that it's all because of fructose when they aren't eating lots of it. I think people here would be shocked if they saw what some people eat and not lose weight.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:54 AM

Well, I'll just say here that I know plenty of people who cannot re-introduce lots of carbs back in. And, until the weight is gone, we won't be getting off our "high horses" Dave.S., taking down the carbs doesn't mean taking gluten down to zero. I had great success on Rosedale till the point where you start adding in carbs. I added wheat, BIG MISTAKE. The weight zoomed up, the plateau started and wouldn't budge, and that was only at around 60 g carb. I think that some people need to remember here that there are tons of real people in real situations eating real food who aren't losing

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 12, 2011
at 03:38 AM

100carbs/day is still low carb.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 11:57 PM

It's pretty funny because neither Stephan nor Taubes are paleo!

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on August 11, 2011
at 10:58 PM

@Rose- Hormones could be playing a huge role there.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 10:35 PM

Dave S awesome insight and I completely agree. plus one.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 11, 2011
at 07:28 PM

futureboy: I'm referring to amylose and amylopectin. I believe overload of cellulose (insoluble polysaccharide) is not desirable. Eating rice or the gluten grains loads the body with 100% insoluble fiber that is not digested by humans because we lack the enzyme cellulase. I also do not mean refined carbohydrates where the concentration of glucose is unnaturally high (candies). Honey is an exception because the concentrated carb is accompanied by a complex of plant compounds that act in a synergistic way. Same goes for fruits, sweet potato...if your body is right, eat that stuff all day

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 11, 2011
at 06:23 PM

@Jack: Well, that is my general operating strategy. :D But I'm a little startled by the vehemence of some folks that carbs *must* be higher. Doesn't change my mind; I'm pretty tough. To the topic at hand: I might not always get Quilty's obscure points, but I agree with his general idea about context. It's clear to me that we *are* all somewhat different, as counterintuitive as that seems. My husband can eat loads of carbs and he's fit and healthy. I suspect insulin production is the variable, but that's because the mechanism makes sense to me, thanks to GT. Could be something else tho; dunno.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 06:05 PM

calm down. war is a common metaphor for conflict. in this forum we're dealing with people who understand nuance and smirk at occasional hyperbole. the questions that the conflict raises will be helpful for many people and that's why i posted. two questions that have been on my mind- and obviously other people's minds.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:49 PM

Walking for transportation benefits everyone bambam, and not just for health. I figured out how many miles per gallon of oil the body gets. I think it was around 200-300. Way better than my car, and I enjoy eating the fuel.

8ea84667a7f11ac3967f2ecfcad28ad8

(641)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:19 PM

I've been LC/VLC since 2002 (right after Taubes' NYTimes Mag article). When I do HIIT on a regular basis, I MUST increase my carb intake (starches only). I've been pretty inactive since Feb 2011 (shoulder surgery). Going from active to inactive, I definitely gained fat when I didn't cut the carbs. Just another data point.

A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

(1614)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:15 PM

we're not a genetically uniform society with a discrete and predictable few foodstuffs. we don't share the same dietary habits growing up, nor our ancestors. of course there's going to be plenty of passionate head butting and presentations of counterfactuals when trying to present certain dietary principles as optimal for most if not all of us.

B61f6513a155cd874b42efdad55312f6

(231)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:08 PM

I'm in the same boat as Rose. Lower carb seems to make me feel best, when I tried to eat a potato a day and a little fruit, I began to start feeling bloated/heavier around my midsection. I've found that in moderation, maybe some starch a few(2-3) times a week doesn't bother me.

Medium avatar

(5639)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:28 PM

Bambam, what kind of carbs are you referring to? I remember your sugar/candy thread, and it worries me. I too eat sweet potatoes and berries quite often with no ill effects, and occasionally a coconut water pre-workout. But I still stay away from very sugary fruits and rarely eat candy, other than the occasional indulgence in dark chocolate.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:23 PM

Rose - who is telling you that you are doing it wrong? Whatever works for you is what you need to do. Tell whoever they are to get off your back about it.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:22 PM

i think the one thing that isn't being talked about enough is that if you're vlc, there isn't any mechanism to make your leptin levels rise and fall like the intake of carbs do. could this be why we see many in the lc and vlc camp talk about "plateauing"? if your have a perpetually low leptin level after losing alot of weight, wouldn't the plateau signal that your body thinks that the fat mass it's carrying around is normal because of low leptin?

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:20 PM

I think a sticking point for many of us longer-term VLCers is that we *have* tried to raise our carb levels, only to see the fat come back. Atkins also said the critical carb level was individual. I don't understand why that puts us on "high horses," but I think the assumption that *everyone* can eventually go back to high-carb eating is wrong, and it gets proven all the time on the LC boards. I don't get, though, why this is such an issue for people who don't need VLC. Eat your tubers and fruits and be happy; I'm happy for you. Just stop telling me that I'm doing it wrong.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:19 PM

modifier: When we do store carbs, it's supposed to be in the form of glycogen and a healthy amount of adipose tissue.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:18 PM

The Paleo community would be wise to stop treating the three basic raw materials of energy metabolism (protein, fat, carbs) as culprits rather than innocent victims in a body derailed from its natural track. To me, a carb is simply a neutral energy molecule. We are designed to burn it immediately for energy rather than store it. If your body functions in its intended natural state, this is exactly what will happen regardless of how many carb molecules consumed. When you're depleted of mircronutrients and overloaded with neolithic foods like grains, your body treats carbs entirely differnt.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:07 PM

*but once you're there you remain there as long as you have eliminated neolithic agents of diseases and disorder."* - - - good answer.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:06 PM

I don't think the viewpoints are irreconcilable. I'm actually very happy that this is being discussed. The strict low carbers need to get off their high horses and admit that starch doesn't cause obesity. And everyone else needs to admit that once metabolism is deranged, a low carb approach is probabl necessary to heal. One of the confounding problems is that any low carb approach is going to drop fructose and gluten to nearly zero - which are 2 of the three things most implicated in obesity. The other being omega-6 oils.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:06 PM

u and i have the same experience.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:58 PM

It's funny to me because Dr. Atkins is usually associated with LC or VLC diets, but each phase of the Atkins diet raises carb levels. Afetr 2 weeks at 20g, you increase by 5g per week until you stop losing weight, then you back off a bit. At maintenance, you eat the carb level that allows weight stability. I think the Dr. ate around 80g daily, iirc. Maybe he had it right way back when? Of course, he didn't speak to food quality, so that's still a problem.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:48 PM

i've heard about the problems that people have with reintroduction also. that's why i asked about long-term vlc being damaging to starch tolerance.i only stayed vlc 3-4 months and lost the majority of my weight cycling moderate amounts of carbs. every plateau i've broken through i've done by going vlc for a couple weeks and then starting to cycle carbs again. i like having the vlc tool in case of emergency. if you're riding the emergency brake all the time, then what happens when that isn't enough to stop the car?

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

9 Answers

11
Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:38 PM

This is a great question LB. Something I've been wondering, since I went straight cold turkey VLC from probably 300-400 carbs per day on SAD. I was able to get very cut and fit, but like Travis spoke of in another thread, some other oddball acute issues have arisen and I have wondered if it is due to the fact that I was VLC/LC for almost 6 months.

Also, my brother, who is 6'1", has weighed about 255-260 for several years. He's got a big gut, and some extra flab under his chin. A few months ago, he began asking me some questions about how I stay so fit. He's switched to a whole foods proper diet, and was losing very slowly and got down to about 250 or so and stalled. So I told him to drop the starch. He says he is VLC right now and he has lost 21 pounds in 2 months. His goal is 210 lbs or maybe 200 lbs if he feels he needs to go further when he reaches 210.

I told him to just keep doing what he's doing and after getting his metabolism 'corrected', we can start looking at re-introducing safe carbs and it likely won't make him gain.

So it's basically exactly what you said here. VLC/LC for weight loss and other therapeutic benefits, and then re-introduction once everything is working better.

It seems to work for many people, but I have also heard that some people have a bear of a time with the re-introduction attempts.

B61f6513a155cd874b42efdad55312f6

(231)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:08 PM

I'm in the same boat as Rose. Lower carb seems to make me feel best, when I tried to eat a potato a day and a little fruit, I began to start feeling bloated/heavier around my midsection. I've found that in moderation, maybe some starch a few(2-3) times a week doesn't bother me.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:23 PM

Rose - who is telling you that you are doing it wrong? Whatever works for you is what you need to do. Tell whoever they are to get off your back about it.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:58 PM

It's funny to me because Dr. Atkins is usually associated with LC or VLC diets, but each phase of the Atkins diet raises carb levels. Afetr 2 weeks at 20g, you increase by 5g per week until you stop losing weight, then you back off a bit. At maintenance, you eat the carb level that allows weight stability. I think the Dr. ate around 80g daily, iirc. Maybe he had it right way back when? Of course, he didn't speak to food quality, so that's still a problem.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:48 PM

i've heard about the problems that people have with reintroduction also. that's why i asked about long-term vlc being damaging to starch tolerance.i only stayed vlc 3-4 months and lost the majority of my weight cycling moderate amounts of carbs. every plateau i've broken through i've done by going vlc for a couple weeks and then starting to cycle carbs again. i like having the vlc tool in case of emergency. if you're riding the emergency brake all the time, then what happens when that isn't enough to stop the car?

8ea84667a7f11ac3967f2ecfcad28ad8

(641)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:19 PM

I've been LC/VLC since 2002 (right after Taubes' NYTimes Mag article). When I do HIIT on a regular basis, I MUST increase my carb intake (starches only). I've been pretty inactive since Feb 2011 (shoulder surgery). Going from active to inactive, I definitely gained fat when I didn't cut the carbs. Just another data point.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:20 PM

I think a sticking point for many of us longer-term VLCers is that we *have* tried to raise our carb levels, only to see the fat come back. Atkins also said the critical carb level was individual. I don't understand why that puts us on "high horses," but I think the assumption that *everyone* can eventually go back to high-carb eating is wrong, and it gets proven all the time on the LC boards. I don't get, though, why this is such an issue for people who don't need VLC. Eat your tubers and fruits and be happy; I'm happy for you. Just stop telling me that I'm doing it wrong.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 11, 2011
at 06:23 PM

@Jack: Well, that is my general operating strategy. :D But I'm a little startled by the vehemence of some folks that carbs *must* be higher. Doesn't change my mind; I'm pretty tough. To the topic at hand: I might not always get Quilty's obscure points, but I agree with his general idea about context. It's clear to me that we *are* all somewhat different, as counterintuitive as that seems. My husband can eat loads of carbs and he's fit and healthy. I suspect insulin production is the variable, but that's because the mechanism makes sense to me, thanks to GT. Could be something else tho; dunno.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on August 11, 2011
at 10:58 PM

@Rose- Hormones could be playing a huge role there.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 12, 2011
at 04:16 AM

@Jack: Reintroduction isn't the issue. What is important is their maintenance status 3 -5 years hence. National stats are that only 3-5% of those who lose weight maintain that total loss for even a full year. 95-97% regain 100% and a large percentage gain 100% + more. There's a reason that when UCLA did a study a couple of years ago the recommendation they made was to 100% drop all weight loss programs from services. Reasoning: they don't work. WHY? 95-97% of ALL losers gain it all back and more and this leads to a whole set of problems in and of itself.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 12, 2011
at 04:09 AM

@Rose: GT isn't the only "insuin" expert. Have you watched Lustig's pres from AHS or even read alot of the tweeted content? He's got lots to say about insulin. And my experiece for some 30+ years is you start diabetics on exogenous insulin and what happens? You guessed it. And trying to get that fat off is a BEAR for them.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:04 AM

I think you can see from the clinical studies that the Atkins way of re-introducing carbs doesn't work for many. People lost lots of weight at the initial stages, and then gained when they increased carbs. They never got to the place where they quit losing weight. They started gaining it back. I have found from my own trials to add back. I couldn't Add carbs, gain weight back, take them down, plateau. I think that is what lots of people end up doing.

7
5113df7e1c5a7e9c7555b6b59144de24

(920)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:32 PM

I keep my carbs to about 15g/meal. I am not overweight. I use my glucometer to tell me what I can and cannot eat. I think that many years of elevated postprandial blood glucose damaged my beta cells. Will they regenerate? I don't know. I have been LC/paleo for 2 years to keep my blood glucose from spiking. Ten years ago my doctors were not concerned that my OGGT jumped to 202 because my fasting level was 85. Too bad I did not know then what I do know now.

There should not be an war between those of us who are paleo and low carb and those who are able to process more carbs. Finding the optimal diet has got to be based on how our individual bodies react and we do not all react the same.

6
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:02 AM

I know I'll get dinged for using the benefit of hindsight (because I have been before) and I'll be accused of ageism for wielding such a weapon (because I have been before), but votes, in my view, are no referendum on truth or my own personal experience. Hence, this might provide some insight into why some might perceive this to be a civil war between the VLC/LC faction and the opposing group. I turned 65 last week, thank you, but I'll go ahead and flaunt my own empirical evidence once more, much to my reputation's demise, in order to possibly provide some perspective to any who might be willing to listen. This obviously will be meaningless to those who are dead set in their views.

I've mentioned in other posts that I have come full circle starting with essentially full paleo in the early 1970s with Atkins (twice) with the same result of losing 20 pounds in 6 weeks each, then going vegetarian with unhappy results similar to Robb Wolf's (even opened a vegetarian restaurant), and then followed a "natural foods" low protein, low fat, high carb, whole foods regimen for the next 20 years where I slowly put on 35 pounds with triglycerides through the roof, and other numbers swinging mildly in out of range. Then in the mid-90s the Zone lost me the 35 pounds, dropped my triglycerides almost 400 points and restored all my numbers to happy balances. I did this for the next 15 years and as anyone familiar with the Zone knows, you can have carbs, starch or whatever, as long as they are kept in proportion to protein and fat, with an eye towards lower glycemic values. Everything stayed in range as much as I stayed tight with it and they wandered if I wandered so I'd tighten up again.

But over time the weight started to creep back up but the numbers were all good until one lab result showed my blood sugar just on the wrong side of the (arbitrary) limit, but too high nonetheless at 105. This freaked me and the Zone didn't seem to restore it. I bought a blood sugar test kit and started monitoring it myself and it verified what the lab test had shown, and what was worse it that it was starting to move higher. The postprandial numbers were fine so that was a relief but I was still disturbed. I read in one of Chris Kressers papers that this could be normal for some people under certain circumstances but that didn't mean that it applied to me.

So I eventually started the Quilt's leptin prescription, got the carbs down under 50 getting rid of any starch or fruits. After more than a month, the blood sugar has crept back down to the (arbitrary) limit and the weight is coming off, with some more to go. So thank you, Quilt!

My assumption is, and I'm hoping that anyone can provide some insight here, is that my continued higher carb use over the years eventually led to some insulin resistance. Please enlighten me.

But, still, when I see some low mileage paleos who have been at it "for two years" or several years, or months, all delighted with the latest research or paper, declaring that starch or high carb is a mighty fine thing, my only thought is, lets see how that's working out for you when you get to be an ageist.

So go ahead, take me down to zero.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 01:55 PM

Cliff, what I'm saying is just because you're not having problems with carbs now doesn't mean you won't. I'm not saying it will happen to everybody. I'm saying keep your eyes open. What seems OK for a while might not be in the long run, like the guy falling off the building - "Everything's fine so far!" Exercise - I was a runner for 35 years. Still run but only shorter distances with my dogs but have been a hiker, a biker and gym rat since my Vietnam days. Exercise is my religion. I'm in better shape than most people less than half my age. Most people think I'm in my early 50s.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 02:08 PM

Travis, I ate an apple everyday for about 35 years, a grapefruit almost every morning or if not that, 1-1/2 cups of blueberries and sometimes some grapes, like 10 or 15. After my bout with TG I dropped things like bananas, melons and the more high glycemic fruits. So this went on for about 15 years. Any grains I had were whole and in moderation in accordance with Zone specs. How much fructose was in bread or other foods I had would be speculation. Fructose intake is near zero now and may be that way for some time.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:07 PM

Just a minute there, kiddo! I may be an ageist, but i'm far from old! :>

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 03:16 PM

Cliff, put another way is that for 15 years I thought I had found the motherlode. With the Zone I left a trail of skinny people (40 at one corporation) so my methodology was invincible. That high horse got shot out from under me and so now I'm riding the LC/VLC high horse. With a narrow window of time carbs may look alright. I have friends who still eat sugar and white bread with the attitude that everything is fine so far, so it must be OK. I'm saying keep an open mind. I no longer recommend the Zone for this and other reasons, such as lectins, gluten, etc.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on August 12, 2011
at 10:33 AM

Pretty much every healthy culture thrives on a variation of high carb. Just because you have problems with carb doesn't mean anyone else will. You clearly have a deranged glucose metabolism, you never say anything about exercise or the type of carbs you ate. Its cool that you have your N=1 but guess what we have N=1 of people on mcdougall/ornish style diets who lower triglycerides which conflicts with your personal anecdote.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:20 AM

That's interesting; what would you estimate your fructose intake to be leading up to employing the leptin prescription?

0e4e5882872d6a7c472ea51aec457e66

(1994)

on August 12, 2011
at 06:04 AM

Why should anyone downvote you for sharing your long term experiences? Thank you and +1 from me!

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:55 PM

Well, I upvoted you cause you're old! (no really, there is no substitute for having gone around the block a couple of times.)

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:29 PM

BTW, just for reference my carbs were in the 150gm/day range for 15 years.

5
4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:45 PM

Huh? A war?

What is with people and seeking conflict all the sudden? Your views change as you get more information, or at least they should if you have a healthy mind. As far as I can tell, no one credible in Paleo-land has suggested that you HAVE to be LC or VLC for quite a long time now. And even those suggestions, when made, tended to be nuanced rather than zealous dictats.

None of this suggests a "civil war", and I wish people would stop with the battle metaphors. It seems that as soon as someone hits a year or two on the diet and realizes that reality is nuanced, they suddenly freak out and either decide to be Jesus in bringing this realization to everyone else in Paleo (seen this a couple times here recently) or start fearing some sort of community-destroying conflict over dietary dogma.

Nuance, shades of gray, parameters not specifics. Maybe I'm the idiot for thinking that's what it was always about, but really, that's what it's about. Not some one size fits all generalization.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 06:05 PM

calm down. war is a common metaphor for conflict. in this forum we're dealing with people who understand nuance and smirk at occasional hyperbole. the questions that the conflict raises will be helpful for many people and that's why i posted. two questions that have been on my mind- and obviously other people's minds.

5
226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:00 PM

Nice question. Speaking from personal experience as well, now that I am in full-blown Paleo mode, it seems no amount of carbs can make me fat. When I carb load, I just have more energy to burn and seem to find a way to burn it whether through longer walks with my dog, reduced use of my vehicle (more walking), longer workouts in the gym or more weight on the rack. I suspect once the body is metabolically right, it makes efficient use of carbs. There is a specific mode that must be achieved. Perhaps VLC or LC gets you into there but once you're there you remain there as long as you have eliminated neolithic agents of diseases and disorder. Carbs are my friend right now. I'm literally a bastard without them and I feel they enhance my endurance, strength and stamina physically. Mentally, I just feel better on carbs. But I'm strict paleo...100%. Cheats are few and far between.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:49 PM

Walking for transportation benefits everyone bambam, and not just for health. I figured out how many miles per gallon of oil the body gets. I think it was around 200-300. Way better than my car, and I enjoy eating the fuel.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:06 PM

u and i have the same experience.

Medium avatar

(5639)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:28 PM

Bambam, what kind of carbs are you referring to? I remember your sugar/candy thread, and it worries me. I too eat sweet potatoes and berries quite often with no ill effects, and occasionally a coconut water pre-workout. But I still stay away from very sugary fruits and rarely eat candy, other than the occasional indulgence in dark chocolate.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:18 PM

The Paleo community would be wise to stop treating the three basic raw materials of energy metabolism (protein, fat, carbs) as culprits rather than innocent victims in a body derailed from its natural track. To me, a carb is simply a neutral energy molecule. We are designed to burn it immediately for energy rather than store it. If your body functions in its intended natural state, this is exactly what will happen regardless of how many carb molecules consumed. When you're depleted of mircronutrients and overloaded with neolithic foods like grains, your body treats carbs entirely differnt.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:19 PM

modifier: When we do store carbs, it's supposed to be in the form of glycogen and a healthy amount of adipose tissue.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:07 PM

*but once you're there you remain there as long as you have eliminated neolithic agents of diseases and disorder."* - - - good answer.

226b10cbb6b1d3530b00d2d84a2dc86e

(3313)

on August 11, 2011
at 07:28 PM

futureboy: I'm referring to amylose and amylopectin. I believe overload of cellulose (insoluble polysaccharide) is not desirable. Eating rice or the gluten grains loads the body with 100% insoluble fiber that is not digested by humans because we lack the enzyme cellulase. I also do not mean refined carbohydrates where the concentration of glucose is unnaturally high (candies). Honey is an exception because the concentrated carb is accompanied by a complex of plant compounds that act in a synergistic way. Same goes for fruits, sweet potato...if your body is right, eat that stuff all day

3
66974b2cb291799dcd661b7dec99a9e2

(11121)

on August 11, 2011
at 10:30 PM

Diet is meant to vary. In my case I have been LC to VLC for years, I can eat carbs and experience no ill effects, I just naturally do better as LC. I was a T2 diabetic, but now if I eat carbs my blood glucose is as normal as normal gets.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 12, 2011
at 04:40 AM

@ Josh: Could you elaborate on "I just naturally do better as LC." Do better how? "I can eat carbs and experiece no ill effects" What ill effects? I am very genuinely curious as to your experience. Thanks!

66974b2cb291799dcd661b7dec99a9e2

(11121)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:45 AM

@mem I feel great on LC lots of energy, sleep well, etc. If I eat a lot of carbs (healthy carbs not crap) I tend to fell low energy, bloated, just not 100%, brain is duller, nose gets plugged up. I work at a physically demanding job about 10 hours a day and I have more energy than most of the 20 year olds on my crew ;)

2
Medium avatar

on August 11, 2011
at 11:48 PM

Well, there's really no sense in arguing against "I feel great all the time and I lost all of the fat that I wanted to." I don't believe that, short of some constant drug-induced stupor, such a state can be unhealthily maintained. That being said, I think it's prudent for those going down the VLC path to pursue supplemental sources of things like vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium etc. and to of course eat liver.

Now, if you don't feel very good as a result of going VLC and/or you haven't lost the amount of weight that you wanted to, then it might be worth it to try another approach. A potential weight-loss pitfall I could envision would be the fact that the amount of ketogenic fats necessary to seamlessly replace glucose would likely come packaged with a large amount of other fats that will just be packaged into adipocytes, causing someone to just chase their tail.

Another potential problem might occur as a result of combining high-intensity anaerobic activity with a VLC diet. The amount of pressure under those circumstances put on the liver to attempt to replete glycogen via gluconeogenesis would be massive and the subsequent flood of ammonia would likely be a stressor of some sort. On the other hand, I could see the transition to VLC for a sedentary person or one who only engages in low intensity exercise fueled by lipolysis to be fairly easy.

But again, if it works perfectly and you feel great, then it's probably fine. A concern I expressed in another thread was that if paleo has a low-carb wall and moat built around it, there would probably be a higher conversion attrition rate of those hitting the low carb flu for example and saying "oh, F this" and then trying some other "diet." The reason I donate my time here is because I enjoy helping people become healthier. As such, I obviously would want the greatest number of people to become the healthiest. If low-carb is a paleo conversion deterrent, then this would be in direct opposition to my goal. At the very least, I think a drawbridge should be lowered with an alternate route articulated.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:17 AM

Well, I can tell you who says "oh, F this" and that is people that don't do well on the CW diet and are low carb but their diet doesn't match the Atkins diet very much. Then they hear about paleo and come here and get the trash talk. So, if you are into helping people who don't really need much help, than by all means, kick the metabolically deranged people out so you don't blow your score.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 12, 2011
at 12:53 PM

@Travis, great answer. I'd just like to really agree that given our modern-day general avoidance for tastes like those found in offal (read: liver) many LCers, even in the paleo world, are eating perhaps too much muscle meat. I simply think the importance of vitamin/nutrient-packed organs really needs to be hammered home in the LC community, be they paleo or not.

1
667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 12, 2011
at 12:42 PM

Just curious, what makes you say there is a civil war brewing? Reading that line I thought you???d be referring to the TaubesGuyanet thing but I see you???re not.

I agree, and I think many authorities in the paleo world openly state, that LC is indeed a useful tool in healing the metabolically damaged people in our modern society. It is indeed useful for taking a huge chunk of weight off rather quickly. Simply stated, living our modern lives most of us simply do not need the amount of carbohydrate we are taking in. I think going LC for most people usually ends up in most likely inadvertent caloric-restriction, to take a page from Taubes??? critics. I see LC as a hatchet rather than a scalpel if you will, to use today???s political world???s terminology.

I think that yes after healing a damaged metabolism, getting rid of a giant chunk of weight, etc that perpetually continuing LC (especially VLC) does indeed result in a metabolism that is less able to do explosive, athletic activities. I think if you work in an office, walk the dog, generally just chill out a lot, then you can continue the LC without a noticeable limit in your daily life so you might be fine with it; but that if that person decided, in that state, to start some glycolytic activities they would most likely find themselves somewhat limited in performance, relative to their comrades fueled with starch. (I am fully aware and experienced with longterm keto-adaptation but I maintain that even in the fully adapted ketogirl she would, relative to her glucose fueled partner, feel less ready for action.)

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 12, 2011
at 01:18 PM

i think the taubes-guyenet showdown is kind of a natural apex of what has been slowly brewing for awhile. i agree with both statements with one difference. i think once the metabolism is healed, one can use starch just as effectively to fuel the body. i think to keep body composition that one will have to lay back on some of the fat to keep calories/energy balance in check.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 12, 2011
at 02:47 PM

I'd agree with you. especially the last part. I have found that a lot of LCers after a while of LCing and essentially not caring about sheer quantity of calories are somewhat shocked and reluctant to realize that after those huge initial losses they do once again have to start playing by the rules as it were and doing some kind of energy-intake tracking.

0
7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on August 12, 2011
at 02:02 AM

There is nothing wrong with eating low-carb, but there is not a whole lot of scientific basis for it for the average person. It is not really a war between low-carb adherents and others; it is a conflict about scientific rationale. It is not so much low-carb vs other paleo, it is whether condemning an entire class of macronutrients and all this talk about starch and insulin spikes causing metabolic derangement is the direction that Ancestral Health needs to be going.

Beyond the questionable science, there is a strong inclination among many that instead of lumping together and demonizing an entire class of macronutrients whose individual characteristics can vary wildly (fructose doesn???t even generate much of an insulin spike), we should be looking more precisely and scientifically at investigating the 4 Horsemen and whatever else may come (choline deficiency, etc???).

Taubes is pretty stuck on his ???carbs???/insulin is the one and only NAD and has blown-off discussions about other NADs (and did not even include one mention of leptin in WWGF.) It is justifiably debatable whether Taubes insulin mythology should be part of paleo/ancestral health since he outright rejects other major tenets (e.g. NADs) and because his carb/insulin hypothesis has very little support among scientists and scientific paleo bloggers.

The resilient Taubes mythology among many of the rank and file is troublesome for many concerned about scientific rationale, and that is the root of the conflict. Here is KGH???s take on Taubes??? insulin mythology: http://freetheanimal.com/2010/12/weekend-links-quick-hits-gary-taubes-art-de-vany-denise-minger-the-china-study-chris-masterjohn-and-real-results.html#comment-53991

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:02 PM

opps, that was thought.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 13, 2011
at 02:02 AM

I see both things. As a long time LCer I see what the Loon is speaking of. It's everywhere. A clear bias against LC in favor of a tuberific diet. I also see what ben is speaking of and I have never seen an LCers specifically denigrated for his/her dietary choice. Just he opposite as ben says. So it's a strange mix. It seems on a personal, individual level the community can appreciate the results of an LC diet but in general there seems to be a sense that it is a second-class diet to be sure.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 12, 2011
at 12:50 PM

@loon, I'm sorry I have to agree with cliff here. I spend a good amount of time on this board. It is rare that anyone demonizes people for doing well on LC. Conversely usually it's congratulated. That is not, however, mutually exclusive with people at the same time noting that one does not need to stay on LC or that one might do better with other ways of eating. I fear that there is simply a bit of defensiveness in the LC crew because after years of avoiding one macro it would be understandable if there is some reticence to use it again.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 04:12 AM

Well, instead, there has been a bit of lumping and demonizing of people who do well on a low carb diet and would like to stay on it without being hassled.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on August 12, 2011
at 10:37 AM

@loon- Ive never seen anyone hassled here for being low carb, maybe stating wrong facts or being overly dogmatic but not because of someones dietary choice

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 05:02 PM

Well, to me that looks like selective looking. Just do a though experiment here. Imagine you are coming to this site as a VLC'er and just start reading posts. You'll soon start to see things like "deranged" "carb-phobic". Then there are the endless statements, "I eat all those potatoes and I'm fine..." and all sorts of comments about the many ways the LC'ers are deranged and an assumption of all the terrible vices they did to themselves with their diet. At least in the CW world, they are only accused of gluttony and sloth.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 12, 2011
at 10:19 PM

and oops, that was supposed to be oops. I guess my brain would run better if I ate more tubers

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!