Active Low-Carber Forums - Dr. Kwasniewski's Optimal Diet: Sanity, Clarity, Facts

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)

- General Low-Carb (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- - Dr. Kwasniewski's Optimal Diet: Sanity, Clarity, Facts (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=394793)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merpig

It seems from one video interview that those women, who look very tiny by the way, ate some 200+ g fat per day

Since they were tiny they were probably in the "normal weight range," and therefore eating at the 3.5 fat gram ratio. When I get there my fat grams per day will be 200g as well.

But that's immaterial. If you want to eat more protein, more fat and more carbs than the ratios say you should -- according to Dr. K's most recent calculation -- and you continue to lose weight, then do it and enjoy! We'll all celebrate the loss of every single pound. :)

Lisa

1700-1900 calories would leave me wanting. And I don't eat high protein either - 80g a day. My perfect weight is 60 kilos, which I did achieve before I started my on-going weight gain (see journal).

Yes I would LOVE to believe this would work for me, but I've noticed in the past when dropping protein to 60g and upping fat a lot I did not lose anything - apart from maybe some muscle. But then my carbs were uber-low as well. Maybe the secret is in increasing the carbs.

I wish there were some explanation as to why carbs are better than protein for getting glucose. Wish I spoke Polish for that matter, then I could probably find out. Anybody know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOOPS

Maybe the secret is in increasing the carbs.

The main K thread has a lot of info about why this is both correct and important.

Lisa

Yeah Lisa - not meaning to be rude but I'm not new to Kwasniewski's ideas or the science behind high fatting - I used to hang out at the Optimal forum for quite awhile, and yes, of course I am keeping up with the thread. But no, it doesn't explain about this. I want the science. Who actually has the book? What does it say?

Coming from doing high fat high calorie eating for over 3 years I need hard proof about raising carbs. I hope you understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bthinner!

PS. There is an English version available from the publisher.
http://www.wgp.com.pl/index.php?id_j=en
(No, I don't have one. There are a couple of people who do.)

Thanks for the link, 2bthinner. There seem to be several books with virtually the same title. Are they different editions, or different books? If anyone could help me decide which one to get, I will probably order it. I would be willing to get a German version if the best version is not available in English, but I'd have to ask my wife to help me understand it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by capmikee

I asked the same question a while ago. A member who has the books answered:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pangolina

I think Optimal Nutrition is probably a more useful book for beginners. It's the one I turn to first when I have a question. It has the most straightforward information about the how's and why's of the diet, as well as guidelines for pregnancy and feeding babies and children. There's also an index [Edited to add: actually, no there isn't one... sorry... I guess I misremembered :confused: ] -- a feature that Homo Optimus lacks.

Homo Optimus is kind of long-winded at times, and seems to be more oriented towards theory. There are several chapters about specific diseases and how they're affected by diet, which could be of great value to some people. It also has a couple of chapters on JK's religious and political ideas (basically, implicating wrong diet as the cause of all of society's ills since the dawn of the human race), which are entertaining, if somewhat kooky. The most practical part, IMO, is the recipe section... though if you don't like the ones on the web site, you won't like these ones any better. ;)

----

To the person who asked about fruits and vegetables, it's not that we're supposed to avoid them completely. They're just considered optional extras, as we can get all the necessary vitamins from the recommended animal foods. The main disadvantages are that they're expensive and full of fiber, which is considered to be a bad thing (the author of The Fiber Menace takes a similar approach to this subject). In the suggested menus, they're mainly used as a garnish or flavoring. Still, if we prefer them -- or if we have a health condition that requires the avoidance of starches -- we can eat vegetables and less-sweet fruits for our carb allowance, instead of potatoes or grains.

Sweet fruits are more strongly discouraged, though he isn't absolutely strict about this. For instance, the menu for Day 7, totalling 44 g carb, includes a milkshake made with cream and orange juice. It also includes half a dark chocolate hazelnut bar. :yum: It looks like this is an example of a special treat day. He does mention in Optimal Nutrition that it would be all right to eat such things in small amounts on occasion, but not as a regular practice.

----

Regarding exercise, he says that it's inhumane to require obese people to take part in vigorous activity. He also believes that strenuous exercise on an incorrect diet can be harmful. On the other hand, he says that as people become healthier through optimal eating, they'll naturally want to exercise more, even into old age. The elderly people described in the news articles certainly seem to support this claim.

----

Regarding different types of meat, he says that you can absolutely do the diet without eating pork. Lamb or beef are also fine; they're not as ideal, but certainly adequate. Chicken is less desirable, and fish even less so, because of their low fat content. Of course, you can add extra fat when cooking or serving, but he believes that this is inferior to eating meat together with its naturally occurring fat.

Speaking of added fat, in Homo Optimus, JK mentions that England was an especially strong and well-nourished nation around 1830 (and has been in decline ever since). I'm interested in English history and traditional cooking, so I looked on Google Books and found a cookbook from 1842, called A New System of Domestic Cookery, by "a Lady." The copy that was scanned was the 66th edition, so it was evidently a popular book at the time. It's a fascinating read, if you like that sort of thing. One of the techniques that's most strongly recommended is "barding," which involves adding extra fat to lean meats, e.g. by stuffing bacon under the skin of chickens before cooking them. There are also illustrated instructions for carving a cod's head, a calf's head, and other delights. I guess this was the sort of thing that my great-great-great-great-grandparents used to eat. It sounds like an Optimal paradise. :lol:

----

Regarding vegetable protein, I haven't seen anything anywhere that says that it shouldn't be counted. However, he does say that it has lower biological value, so you'll need to eat more than the standard allowance in order to get enough. By contrast, those who get all of their protein from the "most optimal" sources -- egg yolks, liver, and kidney -- can get by with even less than the standard amount. So if you're eating a substantial of vegetable protein (e.g. nuts), I guess you'd have to take that into account when fine-tuning your ratio. Sorry that's not very specific; if I find something else, I'll let you know.

BTW, JK is more positive about nuts than about other vegetable foods. Some of them are naturally optimally balanced. They're a good snack if you're lacking in other options, and they make delicious baked goods (as I've already discovered, thanks to the Specific Carbohydrate Diet). Still, they shouldn't take the place of animal foods.

Okay, that's it for me; I have to go stuff a cod's head. Just kidding.... :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOOPS

Who actually has the book? What does it say? Coming from doing high fat high calorie eating for over 3 years I need hard proof about raising carbs. I hope you understand.

No problem on this end. There's are several links in most of the threads, including this one, that will take you to the site to order the books in English. I think you may be disappointed when you read them though, since the explanation K has given in many places is always the same: you must eat just enough carbs to remain out of ketosis. And the reason for that is to make sure your glycogen storage tank (the one used for flight or fight and also these days when exercising; thus refilling it is always the body's priority) is filled by carbs, not by protein via gluconeogenesis. That has been discussed on the threads, and that's pretty much what you're going to find in the books. I've seen the same thing stated on all the OD forums as well.

In any event, if you do find out more by all means share it here. As for me, I honestly don't care what the books or science has to say about it, because I must go only by what happens to my body when I lower or raise my carbs. Somehow, my body isn't all that interested in theory -- no matter how much it might work well for some people, or not at all for others. :lol:

Lisa

Thanks for the repost, Kharma.

I think I understand this page now, but it's a little confusing:

http://www.wgp.com.pl/index.php?id_s=205&id_j=en

At the top of this page there are copies of Optimal Nutrition and Homo Optimus, apparently in English, for $30 and $48. Further down, the Polish versions are shown for $20 and $24, but the descriptions say "Available in English." I guess that means, "Look at the top of the page where you'll find the English versions" but that wasn't obvious at first.

When I have the money and the time to read, I'll probably order Optimal Nutrition.

It is confusing. and a little frustrating ordering is so convoluted.

I have a friend going to the Czech Republic in 3 weeks. Trying to decide if she may have luck finding the english versions there (and save on shipping) or if I should just bite the bullet and order them now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awriter

The main K thread has a lot of info about why this is both correct and important.

I've been thinking about the question of increasing carbs a lot myself. Dr. K's approach fits with my philosophy: don't make your body do extra work. That's why I'm against fiber - fiber only lowers GI by making your body do extra work passing it through. Calorie restriction makes your body do extra work by denying it the fuel it needs. Grains and beans make your body do extra work by binding up minerals and flooding your body with other antinutrients, which then need to be flushed. So it makes sense that you don't want to tax your body with excess protein.

My problem now is figuring out which carbs I could have. I'm planning to keep it pretty Paleo. I'm on a no-vegetables trial right now because I want to rule out vegetables as a cause of my troubles, but when that is finished I'm thinking of upping my sauerkraut and maybe adding some turnips or potatoes. Plus, it will be berry season by then and I can't say no to a few fresh local berries!

By the way, I'm gonna try a new experiment!

I will eat only my ratios from Dr K. 90g protein and 70g carbs per day with as little fat as possible to see if that can possibly speedup weight loss or if I'm just going to feel lethargic. I probably know what will happen, but I need to see it for myself. ;)

I was thinking of eating Egg Protein powder and Minute Rice (white) or rice pastas.

Patrick

Egg protein powder sounds like a bad idea. Even fresh egg whites would be better - but seriously, how low-fat are you going to go if you're not going to eat the egg yolks?

I would only intake fat that comes with the nutriments I will eat to reach my 90g of P and 70g of C. I know powder isn't that great. But I don't know of any other convenient way of doing this experiment. :(

Patrick

2bthinner, thanks for the extra help with the ratios. I'm still not clear where we are getting our suggested number of calories a day to apply the percentages too, but I am much clearer now on the percentages.

Awriter, thank you for post #17... I could relate to so much of what you said there. I'm mentally fighting the idea of such a reduced amount of protein (Deprivation!!! the brain screams) but I'm doing it anyway and not finding it as hard as anticipated, so hoping a metamorphisis in my thinking will continue and my success will mirror yours too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MizKitty

The ratio for weight loss is p:f:c of 1: 2.5 :0.8. Your protein is based on your ideal weight, with 1g protein for each kilogram of body weight. So, for example, if your ideal weight is 56kg, then your protein is 56g. Then using the ratio, you can figure out the other macronutrients. In this case, fat would be 140g (56 * 2.5) and carbs would be 45g (56 * 0.8). It all changes depending on what your "ideal weight" is.

So instead of taking your calorie limit and working backwards, you take your protein limit and work forwards.

Does that make sense?

Quote:

Hi again. Actually, the total calories I get from the ratios. You multiply the grams (protein and carb by 4, and fat by 9) to get the calories per macro, then add them together for total calories. You're really working more on not eating too much protein, a problem I have, or too many carbs. The fat, as long as your protein and carbs are low, isn't an issue.

Hope this helps.

Thank you both. I've been restricting my calories so long that I just have trouble believing I can eat that many calories and lose. But we'll see. I've let them creep up to 1600-1800 range following the ratios for the past few days. I'm not gaining... time will tell.

Hey -

it takes a lot more glycogen than 50-60g a day to fill stores - unless we are talking about the liver only perhaps?

I do much better with less vegetables, but also better with a few select than none (confusing I know but something I've been experimenting with). Maybe there is something to the potato idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MizKitty

I've been restricting my calories so long that I just have trouble believing I can eat that many calories and lose. But we'll see. I've let them creep up to 1600-1800 range following the ratios for the past few days. I'm not gaining...

"Creep up" describes it perfectly. That's how it happened to me, too. Since I track everything in my Health-Fit Counter daily, I could see it happen. 1500. 1600. 1700 - and the first time I hit over 1900 I just stared at it. When I went to bed that night I was depressed, sure I'd blown it. I dreaded getting on the scale, but I do it every night/morning anyway, because if something is going really wrong I want to catch it early. I gingerly stepped on the scale (if I could have closed my eyes without knocking something over I would have) and looked down, not believing it. I'd lost weight.

The proof that you are too is the fact that you're not gaining, even with the higher calories. So the scale may not be moving down yet, but you're probably already losing stored body fat. Yay! :)

Lisa

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOOPS

it takes a lot more glycogen than 50-60g a day to fill stores - unless we are talking about the liver only perhaps?

I'm not sure, but the Slow Burn book mentioned the 'tank' and I believe they said it was very small.

Quote:

I do much better with less vegetables, but also better with a few select than none (confusing I know but something I've been experimenting with). Maybe there is something to the potato idea.

There must be. I can't believe I'm eating them and not blowing up like a balloon.

Lisa

On average 300g glycogen in the whole body - I guess that number would vary with how much muscle you carry. There is another theory that a certain amount of glucose is needed to completely metabolize fatty acids for energy. This might explain why some people don't lose body fat on a high fat diet if carbs are too low. HOwever, some people, if this theory is true, manage to make enough glucose out of surplus protein to burn the fatty acids. Those would be the zero carbers who are successful. Just a theory though. Incompletely metabolized fatty acids are ketones - but ironically a lot of people don't seem to be able to lose fat on a keto-driven metabolism. Dr K's diet, because of the carbs, could be called a fat-driven metabolism, which is different. It may be easier to lose weight - especially it seems for females, on a fat driven metabolism and not a ketone-driven one. These are ideas that have been discussed on a yahoo group I'm part of.

Oh that 300g number I read on another forum - so I'm not 100% sure about it.

Ok I started my experiment yesterday.

Here's what I'm eating on this experiment.

I made a mix of dried potato powder and whey & egg protein powder (vanilla flavor and stevia sweetened). I make it so there is 70g carbs and 90g proteins, which are my Dr K. ratios. Then I add boiling water to it until it reaches the texture of mashed potatoes. The result of this mixture is lightly sweet tasting mashed potatoes. It is very palatable, so I don't have any problem eating it.

This meal is what I am left to eat for an entire day. :( I am fortunate enough to be able to ignore hunger completely when I want to. Otherwise, I don't think I would be able to sustain this.

Plus I continue taking my supplements.

- Vitamin D3 5000iu/d
- Magnesium 300mg/d
- Omega (swiss labs) 2400mg/d
- B 100 complex/d
- The Right C 1000mg/d
- Norwegian Kelp 1500mg/d (1.5 mg iodine)
- Maca pills (don't remember amount)
- Glucosamine Sulfate 3000mg/d

I don't know if it is related or not, but I was down 0.7 pound this morning.

I'll keep you posted.

Patrick

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOOPS

These are ideas that have been discussed on a yahoo group I'm part of.

I'm just curious which Yahoo group that is. Note: I see there *is* a group there dedicate to the Optimal Diet:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/grou...Healthy_Eating/

But it only has 17 members. And hasn't had any new posts since July 2008!

Hi Debbie -

no the group is called SaturatedFatForHealth. The action comes in fits and bursts, but what is discussed is very interesting. Lots of people taking BG measurements and experimenting with different % of fat/protein/carbs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOOPS

Optimal Nutrition p45 says "If a person doesn't eat carbohydrates at all, he can still create the necessary amount of them from glycerol and protein. However, to avoid forcing your body to do that, it is best to supply it with a slight quantity of carbohydrates in food." On p38 it talks about how when protein is broken down the body has to get rid of the nitrogen and "While expelling nitrogen, the body necessarily loses a lot of hydrogen, which is an excellent fuel. For every atom of nitrogen a body gets rid of, it must also lose 3 atoms of hydrogen in ammonia and another 2 atoms of hydrogen in urea. This gives the liver in kidneys more work to do. Therefore protein consumption should be kept low. 50g of protein a day is enough for a healthy person on the OD, as long as it is animal protein."

I can understand why we wouldn't want to eat huge amounts of excess protein, but is eating 90g instead of 50g really that hard on the body? He does not touch on this question in either of his books. How much work is turning 40g of protein into 20g of carbs compared to the work required to produce the insulin to deal with 20g of carbs from wheat flour or potato, which elsewhere he describes as foods to avoid???

On p102 he says diabetics should limit themselves to 50g +/- 15g (35-65) carbs to keep them out of ketosis. 35g takes me out of ketosis, so do I really need more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOOPS

the group is called SaturatedFatForHealth

Now renamed FatForHealth. About 88 members.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deirdra

I can understand why we wouldn't want to eat huge amounts of excess protein, but is eating 90g instead of 50g really that hard on the body? He does not touch on this question in either of his books.

I'm not surprised. Lots of metabolic science has come down the pike since then, and although you might have no difficulty eating 90g of protein on a LC diet (like Atkins or PP), that just means you don't have the BCAA metabolic defect.

Folks that do, like me, cannot eat normal levels of protein IF we also eat modestly high fat diets -- like Atkins or PP, for instance. If we do, our bodies convert that additional 40g of protein into glucose by way of insulin production. In other words, for people like us, eating that much protein makes us more, not less, insulin resistant. There's no way JK could have known that way back when.

Dr. Bernstein must have had an inkling though, since in his seminal work on diabetes his prescription for what to do if you stall on a regular LC diet (one of the symptoms of BCAA metabolic defect) is to keep up the fat - but continue to lower protein until you begin to lose weight again, however slowly.

Quote:

On p102 he says diabetics should limit themselves to 50g +/- 15g (35-65) carbs to keep them out of ketosis. 35g takes me out of ketosis, so do I really need more?

You? Probably not. But because of what BCAA does to people who can't process protein properly - which is intimately tied into what our bodies do with carbs and protein via gluconeogenesis -- we must eat the higher carb levels.

This probably explains the many posts on this forum over the years from people who said they were stalled no matter what they did, but upping carbs finally moved them past it. What we don't know is whether or not upping carb calories also meant (for them) reducing calories via protein a little. Or keeping protein the same but reducing fat a lot. That's because the metabolic defect apparently only 'manifests' itself when eating lots of fat.

Which is what drove me to K to begin with --- it was either lower protein and up fats and carbs, or go back to a low fat WOE where I could eat all the protein I wanted. I don't want to do that, so here I am - and it's working. :)

Lisa

Quote:

Originally Posted by deirdra

How much work is turning 40g of protein into 20g of carbs compared to the work required to produce the insulin to deal with 20g of carbs from wheat flour or potato, which elsewhere he describes as foods to avoid???

Hmm, are you saying he says *wheat flour and potato* are foods to avoid? Now that is really confusing me, :lol: I mean I agree totally about wheat flour, I avoid it like the plague. And I'm not all that crazy about potatoes so am rather indifferent to them.

But many of the recipes posted on the Australian Homo Optimus site, and in the Calculus Victus program, all have quite generous amounts of wheat flour and/or potato in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merpig

From the context, he seems to be saying that they're foods to avoid as staples of the diet, the way most people eat them. On the other hand, if we're trying to choose where to get our small amount of carbohydrate, they're considered to be better than the alternative sources (i.e., fruits, fibrous vegetables, and concentrated sugars), which he considers to be even worse.

This is reminiscent of the "don't eat fat and carbohydrates together" rule, which can be also be confusing at first reading. It's intended as a general principle about how we should provide fuel for our bodies, and he's already put it into effect when he created the diet. If we're following ON, then our fat:carbohydrate ratio is high enough that our bodies won't see it as mixing the two.