Zero-Carb?
My pal Jimmy Moore, of Livin' La Vida Low Carb, wrote to me:
I wrote a blog post today about whether a zero-carb diet for a pregnant woman is advisable to instigate a conversation and somehow it turned into a debate about why I suddenly believe in zero-carb instead of Atkins. I'm not sure how people made that leap, but I'm prepared to remedy it by doing a follow-up post asking the question, "Is a zero-carb diet healthy or not?" In it I will express what I believe about a no-carb diet--namely that it is deficient of essential nutrients, variety, and healthy ingredients humans need.
I'd like to get YOUR reaction to that question for inclusion in the blog post. Anything you send to me will be quoted in the column, so please feel free to share your specific answer to the question "Is a zero-carb diet healthy or not?" THANKS!
Is a zero-carb diet healthy?
For what values of "healthy?" We have reason to believe that the Inuit (Eskimo) lived on a nearly carb-free diet during the winter, and they apparently didn't suffer scurvy or other nutritional deficiency diseases. This is evidence that given the proper balance of animal foods, carbohydrate foods are inessential.
On the other hand, the Inuit were eating a very different diet from your modern low carber. They ate game and wild-caught fish, not animal foods from domesticated animals that had been raised on a commercial diet. They ate a diet so high in fat many of us would find it unappealing. They ate parts of the animal many modern Americans won't touch -- liver, brains, kidneys, marrow, all of the organ meats (some of which, I might add, do contain a bit of carb, liver especially.) And they ate much of their meat, fish, and blubber raw -- and aged it well first. It is impossible to extrapolate from the effects of such a diet that a diet consisting solely of the animal foods available in your local grocery store, and familiar to modern American palates, is healthful, much less ideal.
Heck, we don't even know if the Inuit diet was ideal for them. It's not like they did lots of research and came up with some brilliant diet plan. They simply ate the only foods available to them during much of their local year. Were they healthier or less healthy during the few warm months when they did, indeed, eat fruits and vegetables? I know of no records indicating any study of this, one way or the other. It is, I suppose, conceivable that a healthful carb-free diet could be constructed, but it is unlikely that such a diet could be arrived at simply by eating whatever meat, fish, poultry, and fats came to hand.
More importantly, such a diet would be ridiculously limited. Even many foods considered "free" on Atkins and other ketogenic plans would be off-limits -- eggs, for instance, have about a half-gram of carbohydrate apiece. Many seafoods contain carbohydrate in the form of glycogen. Coffee contains a little carb, as does the heavy cream so many of us put in it. Cheeses have a little carb, too. So do even the lowest-carb nuts. So to go zero-carb we're looking at far narrower diet than even the most restricted, induction-level plans would allow.
So we arrive at the question "How long can anyone eat that way?" This is my biggest objection to the idea that if low carb is good, no carb must be better: It's unlivable. I have said it before, I will say it again, however many times it takes to pound it into people's heads: THERE IS NO FINISH LINE. Whatever you do to lose weight is what you must continue to do to keep it off. It does you exactly no good to cut carbs even further than you need to to lose weight and improve your health, in hopes of losing your weight super-fast. You can't keep it up. You'll go nuts. You'll get to the point where, screw the donuts, you'd sell your soul for a little celery and onion in your tuna. And then you'll quit, and gain back every pound you lost so quickly.
You also won't be getting anywhere near the variety of nutrients you can get by including the whole array of vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds that you can fit into, say, a 20 or 30 gram per day non-fiber carb allotment. There is absolutely no question that the hereditary diet of human kind, the hunter-gatherer diet, includes plant foods as available. As I mentioned, even the Inuit ate them during their short local summer. And there is a vast quantity of research demonstrating the value of the vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants these foods provide.
The path to success lies through making your diet as interesting, varied, and enjoyable as you can, while staying within what Doc Atkins called your "Critical Carbohydrate Level" -- the level of carbs at which you stop losing weight and start gaining. This makes for both optimal health and the greatest chance of the permanent life style change essential for long-term success.
For the record, I had a two-egg omelet for breakfast today, cooked in olive oil, and filled with about 2 ounces of braunschweiger (liverwurst) and a little sliced tomato. It was utterly delicious (I'm inordinately fond of braunschweiger,) seriously filling (I don't expect to be hungry again much before three or four this afternoon) and dazzlingly nutritious. It also contained 8 grams of non-fiber carb. Why would I swap that out for a plain slab of meat if I don't need to?
Dana
- Dana's blog
- Login or register to post comments
zero carb
It is a long process of education and experiments that would lead one to a so called zero carb diet, and I expect this would only be done by thoughtful, independent minded people -- otherwise they would not stay on "the path" for long. All the objections found in this article and in the comments as well are thoroughly addressed by the articles recommended by Charles and by "the bear", who are the only 2 people I can find on the internet who claim adherence to this diet. I trust anyone who seriously wants to check it out will find those references for themselves -- suffice to say, when Stefansson wrote his article detailing his extensive experience with all all-meat diet, he himself began as we all would have -- with the typical list of prejudices and objections to an all-meat diet. His objections were found to be baseless only by personal experience over time which "proved" to him the lack of truth behind what he was formerly educated to believe. It is not true that the modern low-carber is blessed with contemporary knowledge that people earlier in time did not possess -- in fact the major nutritional philosophies and issues have scarcely changed at all in well over 100 years. I invite anyone reading this to investigate for themselves.
Even if you can maintain such a diet ...
... is it healthy ? Let's us not confuse weight loss and health.
Many diets show improved numbers while shedding pounds - but sometimes you pay a short or long-term price.
Read what this site has to say about it all :
http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/25/Atkins_Nightmare_Diet.htm
-> it's interesting that this site backs up everything they say with not just 1 "study" but with many and not from 2nd-rate sources but the major ones :
>>>
The problem for Atkins (and his sheepdog), though, is that the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific body in the United States, agrees with the AMA and the ADA in opposing the Atkins Diet.[13] So does the American Cancer Society;[14] and the American Heart Association;[15] and the Cleveland Clinic;[16] and Johns Hopkins;[17] and the American Kidney Fund;[18] and the American College of Sports Medicine;[19] and the National Institutes of Health.[20]
<<<
It's up to you, it's your life and your health.
Note : How can a diet, like Atkin's claim to be healthy and recommend several supplements to balance out shortcomings; like potassium and the likes ... shouldn't one get all that from what they are eating ?!
Sincerely, and I wish you health to all.
Marc.
PS : I tried the very low carb / high protein for a few days, felt nauseous (so indeed I didn't feel hungry), low (or no) energy, also felt dizzy and thirsty - despite the fact that I was already dieting sensibly to start (and drinking more than 1.5 liters of water a day).
And this is healthy !?!
I then reverted back to my fairly high complex-carb diet (low sugar and low fat) with unlimited fruits & veggies and have resumed training since my energy level is up again.
Zero Carb ~ why all the fuss?
Certainly grownups have the right to make up their own minds about whatever diet they want to do, regardless of whether or not somebody says it's healthy.
But this isn't about "is zero carb healthy."
This is about whether or not it's safe. Specifically, is it safe for babies and their Moms during pregnancy or nursing?
You may be wondering, what do babies have to do with anything?
Read what Jimmy Moore's friend Charles Washington said, in his own words at Jimmy's forums:
"A zero-carb diet of beef, beef fat and water will produce no fat storage and all of the available energy will be utilized by the body. There will be no nutrient deficiencies because refined and easily digestible sugars and starches will not be consumed. Therefore, I argue that such a diet would be safe for any nursing or expectant woman."
What does he mean when he says "beef and beef fat"? He means WalMart -- specifically steak and those plastic tubes of hamburger meat.
When he talks about "zero carb" he's not talking about organ meats, as is mentioned in references to the Inuit, Masai, and other cultures.
He's not talking about fish, fish oil, or anything like that.
He's not even talking about organic free range grass fed beef.
When he talks about "the zero carb diet" being "safe" for all pregnant or nursing women, he's talking about supermarket "beef, beef fat, and water" -- and nothing else.
Nothing.
And he assures expectant Moms that that's "safe", for the entire duration of their pregnancy or while they're attempting to breastfeed their babies.
This man -- Charles Washington -- has no medical qualifications whatsoever. Even Jimmy, in an email to me, said that Charles is just "regurgitating" stuff he read.
So to repeat, this isn't about whether or not it's "healthy" to eat meat. This is about whether or not it's safe for babies and their Moms, if their Moms follow Charles's regimen of nothing but supermarket "beef, beef fat, and water".
If there existed anywhere legitimate proof that the diet is safe, as Charles claims it is, you can bet he would have posted it by now.
There is no proof, either than the diet is safe or unsafe. There is simply no proof either way, and the question arises, and must arise -- why take a risk with the health and possibly even the life, of an innocent baby?
Therefore I'm asking that you Ms. Carpender, and your readers, please contact Jimmy Moore
livinlowcarbman@charter.net
and urge him to delete and retract all the material he has posted around the internet promoting/advertising Charles and Charles's zero carb diet [to see what I'm talking about, Google the following search phrase: "Charles Washington" diet].
Please insist that Jimmy and Charles post and abide by the following disclaimer:
"The zero carb diet has not been proven safe for babies, therefore we cannot and will not endorse it for expectant or nursing Moms. Please consult a licensed medical professional for all questions regarding prenatal and neonatal nutrition."
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mimi McKenzie
yust.yucky@gmail.com
http://fascinated.yuku.com
No Carb
I am personally not a fan of any plan that eliminates any food.
I'm old enough to remember how people ate before all the "shelf stable" foods were invented. And we also had almost no prepared foods.
I never knew one person who died of a heart attack.
We ate a bit of most everything, but we also ate mostly what we could grow or raise.
Treats such as cakes, cookies etc were saved as treats.
I ate that way all my life, and never had a weight problem until I quit smoking.
I also have none of the civilized health issues.
No heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes etc.
So I personally do not endorse a no carb diet. Nor could I ever sustain it. I need more variety.
How about genetic drift.
One point that seems to have been missed here is genetic drift. That is the selection of a specific set of genetic material from the whole, and then applying it to the whole population.
Human beings are so diverse one really has to wonder why we keep trying to assume that they are all the same. This applies to so many areas, and it seems like dieting is one of these. One knows that ones genetic makeup changes how we react to various foods. What makes one person fat and is unhealthy might actually be needed by another person. An extreme example of this that I have had contact with is the school lunch program for I believe the Apaches. (While one of the western Indian tribes) I have a nonindian friend who is a nurse on one of these reservations, and with her husband and grade school daughter chose to live on the reservations to better serve the community. It was all good until they sent their daughter to school.
The school has a lunch and PE program that is not to be believed. As a part of some program they are working on the theory that this tribe was genetically modified by time living in a desert to be very "fuel efficent" and this is a big part of the high death rate to diabetes. So to raise a healthier next generation they have hour long runs through the desert most days, and eat a diet that has almost no actual food value. Absolutely nothing with sugar, and basically the zero carb thing mentioned there. The diet and exercise program appears to be working. The kids in the school are thriving. On the other hand the young nonindian lady who is my friend's daughter ended up at the doctor with problems related to lack of energy input and other malnutrition symptoms. She now has to have her own lunch room, and only participates in about half of the PE program. The diet is still much less than a normal kid's diet, but several times the nutrition being served the other kids, and obviously since most kids get no PE she is still getting more than normal kids. She is now also thriving. But it is painfully obvious that she has a different makeup than these other kids.
One would wonder if a real study of this Inuit diet would find that it is indeed healthy for them, but like this program for the Western Indians is seriously now healthy for people not genetically programmed for a wasteland.
Pregnant Women and nutrients
I had no idea about the liver being the best source of folic acid. That must be why they tell pregnant ladies to eat liver. I personally don't like it. I made a batch (3 lbs) of that once and only once when I was pregnant (one's sense of smell is all screwy then anyway) and I threw the lot out and never dared make any since.
However, to continue along that vein, I remember when I was pregnant with my youngest son, and even although I took my Materna vitamins daily, I had a huge craving for Ruby Red Grapefruit. Ian bought me bags and bags full over several months. Later, we figured out that they are rich in folic acid and vitamin C. Who knows, maybe I was deficient in folic acid and who knows what tragedy was averted. Anyway, that is probably why a woman's cravings during pregnancy should be indulged. :-)
My personal opinion is that a woman should not diet while pregnant - by all means cut out empty carbs, but eat healthily, because that baby is growing and being nourished by what the mother eats.
Jennifer Eloff
No Carbs
I did a post on this too not so long ago after I noticed on Jimmy's site that several people were going on a "no carb" diet. I don't think it is sustainable for most people, thankfully. I definitely would not recommend such a diet for a pregnant woman. Good grief! Even just not getting enough folic acid can result in serious birth defects such as spina bifida or scoliosis.
Jennifer Eloff
Folic Acid
To be fair, I have to point out that liver is actually just about the best source of folic acid out there, far better than most plant foods. OTOH, as I mentioned liver also contains a few carbs...