OK, this makes sense. I guess the more typical standard diet, which of course would be heavily weighted towards carbs, :) , would be considered the "piggish" way of eating.

The very high carbohydrate way of eating, with around 60% calories from carbs, is what he calls a "pasture" style. "Piggish" is when you have a mix of carbs, fat, and protein all together, with about 35%-45% calories from fat. This is more fat than the current mainstream nutrition guidelines recommend, but it's not a truly high-fat diet by the standards of Kwasniewski, Groves, etc.

Typically, piggish eaters come from a cultural background of pasture eating, but then they start adding in more meat when their material circumstances improve. They're no longer so vulnerable to the deficiency diseases that are typical of pasture eaters, but they start to develop the "diseases of affluence," such as atherosclerosis. The major problem with piggish eating has to do with the hexose and pentose cycles, which are two different ways of metabolizing glucose. Dr. Kwasniewski's views on this topic are explained in this article, by Stan "Heretic" (the article starts about 2/3 of the way down the page) :

http://www.ptbo.igs.net/~stanb/Heretical.htm

I know it is completely baffling to me too!

I meant about the protein amounts - carbs vs protein. I guess it all depends what theory you buy.

Bumping for Lisa.

Bumping this one too.

Can you point me to where I can read more about that? (Also, any update on how the Optimal Diet is doing for you?) Thanks.

As an aside, somewhere in the middle of reading posts in this thread from April/May, I started wondering about if and how much the burning of muscle spikes insulin (hello vicious stall circle), at least in some people, the way that excess protein in the diet can. It doesn't really answer your question at all, but your question made me think of it. :rolleyes:

Eek - I see I have a trifecta of posts going here, back to back. I had a couple basic questions:

-Does anyone recall what, if anything, Dr. K. says about alcohol as regards weight loss with his way of eating (white wine, rum)? (Alcohol is, after all, not a carb... you could say it's a 'high energy' fuel like fats. But I don't know if he's anti-tipple or not.) I read on his forum (by searching from Google) that 'moderation' is recommended but that's all it said, and it wasn't him speaking - maybe his son.

- What, again, does he say about calorie levels with his way of eating, for weight loss... and if he says ANYTHING about lower calories (like 1200-1400).

Going by a post from that forum (I think maybe it was his son's, not 100% sure), it said for the first few weeks of the plan with weight loss in mind, to go 1:2:.5-.8. So what that works out for me if I base it off the protein and go with exactly those gram counts... is 1440 calories all added up (using the .5 instead of the .8)... 120 fat grams, 60 protein grams and 30 carb grams. What's unclear is whether he considers that calorie level adequate. It's completely fine with me, and more than I normally eat... but it would be good to know if he ever said something like "never drop your calories under 1800" or "try to stay as low in calories as the ratios allow" or whatever.

I do see where awriter mentioned she didn't lose when she dropped calories but started losing again on 1700 or a bit higher.

Thank you!

Ethanol is CH3COOH, or C2H4O2. I don't remember the definition of carbohydrate, but I think it's essentially carbon and water. I'm pretty sure all sugars have the same ratio of C:H:O as alcohol.

I haven't seen her on the forum in a looong time. You might try to PM her.

You asked about burning muscle spiking insulin, frankly I don't know but my guess is that would be really anti-evolutionary. The body destroying protein to create excess glucose, which requires excess insulin, seems like a ticket to really quick death for people who were starving or not getting quite enough protein as it would quickly eat away at important muscles, like the heart.

If that did happen, those people would've died off and not bred, hopefully. (Sorry not-quite ancestors!) Since you can live easily 30-60 days without food the body would need to be REALLY sparing about burning muscles and hopefully wouldn't go ripping up muscle to make extra energy it didn't need, just to release insulin and store it as fat.

My guess is that the reason we get really weak when fasting is because the body is trying to last as long as possible and probably keeps the blood sugar pretty low.

But since insulin raises muscle synthesis bigtime, if the burning of muscle spikes insulin it could be a feedback loop that assures when dietary intakes don't provide enough protein, the body does everthing it can to boost muscle building and retention along with fuel storage... carbs into fat cells.

I have ordered the book from Warsaw
 

When it gets here I will answer your questions. A glass of wine has five grams of carbs, so a drink or two should still fit within a low carb diet. I have started drinking a glass of wine every night for the health benefits, and I am staying at 20g per day.

I would be safe with the protein, make sure you get enough. The carbs can go as low as you can stand. I typically run a range of 1:1 fat to protein, to 1.5:1 fat to protein, I find it hard to get to 2.5:1 ratio. I stay above 2000 calories per day now.

Weight loss with Kwasniewski (but calorie-limited) vs. South Beach
 

I tallied up my last 39 days or so of experiences on a South Beach-similar approach and then a calorie-limited Kwasniewski approach.

Here's what I ended up with:

Weight loss on the South Beach-similar approach: Over 1 month, lost 4.6 lbs. (could be more like 3 if I ignore the upward fluctuation above norm that preceded the first day).

Weight loss on calorie-limited Kwasniewski: Over 9 days, lost additional 4.6 lbs.

(Could some be water weight as is found when you lower carbs? Yes, although in the past when I've gone from something like 20 carbs a day to more like 60 I haven't noticed significant upward weight fluctuation in the next several days. My body fat percentages have stayed about the same throughout the last 39 days.)

Here's more detail:

South Beach-like approach over 30 days - mainly phase 1, a little phase 2 (may be higher fat than other South Beachers would have):
Weight loss: 4.6 lbs.
Typical average daily intakes over a week:
Calories: 1,228
Fat: 39.3g
Carb: 80.1g
Protein: 135.9g
Burned through exercise: 47 calories
(About 45% of calories are from protein, 29% fat and 26% carb.)

High-fat, limited protein, carb, calorie Kwasniewski approach for 9 days:
Weight loss: 4.6 lbs.
Average daily intakes over the last week:
Calories: 1,277
Fat: 95g (52g saturated)
Carb: 36g
Protein: 64g
Burned through exercise: 36 calories
(About 68% of calories are from fat, 20% from protein and 12% from carb.)

I should add that, for me, this is all unusual progress. My history for much of my life is not losing, and sometimes gaining, on these kind of calorie intakes. For me, the South Beach approach is lower fat and higher protein than I would normally tend to, and the Kwasniewski approach is much higher fat than I would normally tend to.

I've felt pretty good on both plans. I have had more energy since starting the Kwasniewski-esque plan and it is, in a very pronounced way, like when I breathe I'm getting a deeper breath or I'm in the middle of a woods or countryside area with terrific fresh air... though I never felt anything that I would describe as a breathing problem before at any weight. But I did do an exercise test once a few years ago (while on a relatively low carb and calorie-limited plan, as has been typical) and came up with slightly lowish Vo2 max though. That's low maximum oxygen uptake, a measure of aerobic capacity. When you don't have high VO2 max, as I understand it, you don't exactly feel like doing sprints - when you exercise, lower-level endurance exercise is easier and more feasible.

You are doing great!
 

You are losing a half pound a day, which is terrific! Keep up the great work!

If you look at end stage starvation, where body fat levels are very low, and lean tissue is wasting away, maybe this relates. During normal fasting leucine tends to build up in the blood; this might be a signal to the system that the body is starving, things need to slow down. This is sort of consistent with the idea that too many calories from protein vs carbohydrate or fat might induce reduced levels of T3; lots of protein being oxidized being a signal of starvation. At least in some people.

Somebody mentioned also carbohydrate being needed to burn fat. This is based on the need for glucose to synthesize oxaloacetate, which pairs with acetyl-CoA to produce citric acid. Glucose is probably only needed for this when insulin signalling is high. Oxaloacetate can also be produced within the Citric Acid cycle itself. But, this involves the degradation of proteins-- it could be as easily said that fat burns in the flame of proteins, as that it burns in the flame of carbohydrate. So it makes sense that a false signal that lean mass is wasting away and needs to be conserved might slow down fat metabolism, as well.

I've just started following this diet. I'm trying not to do what I usually do, which is to overanalyze it until it succumbs to the death of a thousand "tweaks."

Since sources seem to vary as to whether the allowed carb grams are .5 or .8 of the allowed protein grams, I'm just using that as a range, until I see what works. Or doesn't work. In fact, if the point of the carbs is to prevent ketosis and make gluconeogensis unnecessary, I don't see the point of a ratio anyway. I doubt that hepatic glycogen storage varies as much as ideal body weight does, and the correlation between the two is probably very weak.

But there I go again...

Ubizmo

Welcome Ubizmo, you made me smile about the death of a thousand tweaks. I applaud your using the range of .5 to .8. I even bought a book from Poland and he says different things on different pages, so the range sounds safe to me. Do you use My Plan or Fitday, or some such, to keep track?

I'm using FatSecret, because it has a free BlackBerry app that syncs to the web site, which is handy. I started a journal here too, to sate my appetite for public humiliation.

Ubizmo

Hi, I'm getting myself set up to start this as well. I've thought for a while now that too much protein was hindering my progress (or I should say causing my lack of progress!). Anyway, I like the idea of a carb range as well, though for me personally, I know I thrive when my net carbs are around 45, which is right about where the 0.8 ratio puts them. So I'm going to try to get mine toward the upper end of the range.

I've started creating some possible meal plans (this sort of planning has always been one of weaknesses) using Fitday, and I'm thinking getting in all the fat might be tricky. But then again, is that being too dogmatic? I'm wary, as I've fallen into that trap with Atkin/PP/PPLP/6wkCure/etc.

Anyway, cheers and good health to all! :)

I'm going to plan to come up a bit short on the protein, leaving a bit of elbow room for stray protein in things like sour cream or rondele soft cheese, if I need to add these as supplemental fats.

Ubizmo

Okay, I am sure I jumped on this bandwagon way too late, but I have a really easy question regarding the ratio -

should .8 for carbs be gross carb grams or net carb grams?

JK doesn't mention net carbs at all in Optimal Nutrition, but in Poland they only show net carbs on the labels. So I would think net carbs is the way to calculate it.

Also, since he doesn't advocate a lot of vegetable fiber, the fiber is not a large count anyway so it is a no-big-deal thing in my opinion.

Thanks. Sorry I reposted. Did not know if anyone was following this thread anymore.

For what it's worth, I'm tracking net carbs. I believe it's standard in Europe to put net carbs on food labels.

Ubizmo

I use Dr. Kwasniewski's ratios but don't eat grains or legumes.

I stopped drinking tea and now drink fresh lemon juice in water or meat broth. Now having chicken or beef liver once a week, and eggs every day. I find this a very strengthening diet.

In case anyone is interested:

Peter Dobromylskyj, on his blog, Hyperlipid, discusses Dr. Kwasniewski's diet, which I find quite helpful.

I've used google translator to read some on Dr. K's website.


Nice to read of others following this plan.

Is Dr. K's web site current? Last time I looked around I couldn't find one where people were actively discussing.

which one did you use with Google translator?

I hope it's all right to post this link:

http://translate.google.com/transla...late.google.com

The translator works inconsistently, and sometimes writes very strange things. Nevertheless, I occasionally try to get through a bit more.

It's been easier to read Hyperlipid and search for Peter's blog posts and comments on Dr. K's diet and work.

I've lost ten pounds in less than a week. Virtually all of that is water, of course, but even so, it indicates that the diet is doing what low-carb diets are supposed to do. I wrote in my journal that in some ways this diet is reminiscent of the Zone, but without the tight control of fats.

Clearly, what was blocking my progress on zero carb and other low-carb approaches, this time around, was overindulgence in protein, due to following the "unlimited meat" principle. There was a time when that worked for me, but that time is past.

Ubizmo

I have also been reading a little over there. It is hard to understand a lot of it! Have you posted or tried to register? I didn't have luck with that. I let someone borrow my Homo Optimus book and just got it back yesterday, and have been reading it again.