You only need about 5 to 7 mgs of vitamin C daily to prevent scurvy. Thats easily obtainable from liver, cod roe, and similar foods. Most organ meats contain vitamin C to some degree.

Do you realize babies are born with cancer? It is not just an infliction of the old or unhealthy. I myself have battled breast and uterine. Your post was belittling and deameaning

Frederick, just curious. Have you read "Life Without Bread"?

Thanks, folks- for the defense. It IS getting a bit wearing. If a person has nothing real to say, it is best to keep the mouth shut.

No-one knows exactly what the syndrome called scurvy is, but a simple diet of raw (or lightly cooked) meat completely prevents it.

I think people need to recognise that medicine is not a science, but an art, and is based on observations plus a very conservative approach.

The profession of the 'dietitian' is even less scientific, and is basically an organised attempt to justify the common modern diet by various means, such as the 'food pyramid'.

You do not need science to heal, nor to find what works in life. The longer the experience with any given path (like diet) which works, the more likely it is to be right, research or no research.

Cancer has not been shown to be connected to diet- the scare over colon cancer and meat content was related to a mixed diet, and the research is now considered suspect..

A few cancers have been shown to be connected to viruses, and those of the skin with UV exposure in a susceptible individual, but most causes are still mysterious. My developing of the specific kind of cancer was considered very unusual, and I agreed to participate in a project which is looking for causes other than alcohol and tobacco. A sample of normal tissue was taken, as well as cancerous, and I was told they suspect something concerning DNA may hold the key.

"Some folks look for answers, others look for fights" would be the more band appropriate lyric.

That's right Rob I am searching for answers which only Bear can provide but, he is opting not to do so and he is currently hiding behind the rise in sympathy. If he has nothing to hide, why then the reluctance to be candid?

Did I understand that there is someone who wishes answers (to unasked questions)? Plese define the questions. Oh, and also, please define exactly what you mean when you use the word 'candid'. I may have a different dictionary than you do.

Before I discovered the LC way of eating, I had gained 20 pounds over the course of a summer by eating high-carb/low-fat (a ala Jane Brody). I went to a dietician who advised me to eat the same things every day. For example, she told me to eat a bologna sandwich every day for lunch with an apple.

How can you argue with something so self-evident and logical?

Doh!

You had massive struggles abandoning the "civilized diet", and you believed that this was due to acculturation. Could you describe this acculturation? And better yet: Could you theorize on why this acculturation exists?



I define candid as:

1. answered here

2. low screed value and high evidence/logical/rational value.

I remember years ago me and my wife did the whole Weight Watchers thing, to the point of having those little "food cards" that tell you how much you can eat in any day within a restricted calorie diet. I felt sorry for my wife since she actually gained weight, and I did lose about 5 pounds over the course of 2 weeks but I felt like I was dying. After 14 days I couldn't take it anymore, went into total panic mode, and I went to my parents house and ate a half a stick of salami!

Now with eating an all meat diet sometimes I'm really hungry and scarf out and sometimes, usually after the pig out day, I don't really eat much. I was getting scared too because about 3 weeks ago I was starting to hit the danger zone where my 50" pants were getting snug.

RE: Candid

As Gordon Lightfoot wrote:



Which makes more sense than anything else I've read in this thread. I honestly don't know why I keep checking in here. Maybe I'm a closet masochist and have just outed myself.

Kay

But ya gotta love the mind trip! Even if it conjures up masochistic images for ya!

'Acculturation' = Acquiring culture. What you are taught as a baby/child about living as a human being in society, starting at birth and virtually complete by age 8. A kind of social toolkit. Without this we would be just another animal. Our culture is what defines humanity. It is very difficult for any person to change any part of this early training which was burned in heavily. If some of the things we need to know to be human is not learned during the several short, skill-specific 'windows' which open and close as a child ages, in time, that particular skill may never be learned (the rare so-called feral children, which were lost and raised by animals, exhibited varying amounts of disability, some could not learn to talk, some not able to walk upright). Culture includes such things ashow to walk, what to eat, how to dress, language, manners and much more.

I suggest a read of the writings of Countess Montessori, who founded the Montessori Schools. They are perhaps the best school for very young children. She defines each learning window so specific things are taught at an appropriate age, where the child is ready. Her teaching methods are very effective.

Anyone on an 'all meat diet' (i.e.-zero-carbs) who is hungry, is eating carbs, it is as simple as that. 'Hunger' indicates low bloodsugar, and once keto-adapted on a strict meat diet the bloodsugar never varies. Therefore, you will not become hungry, even after several days without food. At first, I had to remind myself to eat and it still is a problem on busy days- evening comes and I might realise I haven't eaten since daybreak. I'm never hungry.

'Candid' = Plainspoken. Open. Speaking out on the subject, not prevaricating, even when it is not PC to do so. Suits me right down to the ground.

No, I haven't.

Why? If the author proposes that eating veggies isn't necessary for health, then I'll certainly go and read it immediately! LOL

Seriously, I tire of veggies and will gladly volunteer myself going an entire year with NO plant foods what so ever.

..............

You were wanting to give away 1/4 of your soul for scientific research that supported a LC WOE that did not (necessarily) need to include vegetation. This book is one that will explain why it is not necessary... why fat is what your cells need for energy. I don't think the book will cost even an ounce of your soul, but you can purchase it at Amazon for not too much. It is a good book written by doctors who helped many people/conditions using LC. Got me over my fat phobia in a "heartbeat" (pun intended).

That's a good point. I sometimes wonder if I eat just to eat without really needing to. When I left work tonight I wasn't really hungry but it was 7pm and I just had to eat something because it was past "dinner time". A couple days ago I was really busy and had to travel after work so I didn't eat a thing all day and didn't even think twice about it... until the next morning when I got home and, well, I just had to eat something because it was "breakfast time".

I should be more conscious of when I really need to eat versus eating just because it's "that time of day".

Good enough for me, I'm going "Life Without Veggies" starting tonight!

??????????????

Well, hmm. I already know what acculturation means. Sorry I was unclear. What I meant to ask was why is there acculturation to eating vegetables? Does it benefit society to have this and to teach this? Does it benefit certain parts of society to the detriment of others?

And if eating vegetables has no benefit to society, then why does this acculturation exist?

Correct. You need to think about eating.

On a zero-carb diet, it is a good idea to eat on a schedule of some kind, because there will be no hunger pangs.

It is perfectly ok to only eat one large meal/day, like a three pound steak- but it is likewise just as ok to eat as many as six. If you are working out and trying to gain muscle mass, eat six smaller steaks rather than one or two big ones. I have eaten as much as four or five pounds of steak in a day- and as little as one or two, it matters not- but if you ingest less calories than you are burning, you will lose muscle mass as well as bodyfat. If you ingest more than you need, the body discards the excess- quite different than is the case with carbs.

Meat eaten alone is out of the stomach in about one hour. (vegetation takes 3-4 hours).

One thing the doctors in "Life Without Bread" stress is the importance of gradually giving up more and more carbs in your diet. There can be problems with blood clots and other things if you give them up too fast. You will "shock" your body, which is use to having carbs, if you go too fast... so be careful. I am going to cut back on carbs over the next month, and start eating way more meat and cheese (all animal food), and make sure to eat plenty of animal fat. It is going to be strange to never buy fruit or veggies. While I have done that before (during "induction" times), I have always resorted to "adding them back in" later. Funny thing is, in the past, when I didn't think about what I was eating, I would gravitate toward fatty meat and cheese and eggs and never had any fruits and veggies in my diet. Only thing is, I would have bread products and such too. BUT, even then, my lipid profiles were BETTER than when I was eating lots of fruit and veggies. I probably was lower carb on my mindless way of eating than when I was on a "paleo diet" (especially Loren Cordain's version of paleo)!

Every low carb book explains why carbohydrates are not necessary for energy. Fatty acids and ketones together with glucose derived from protein cover those needs easily.

But if you were looking for a supporter of a carb or vegetable free diet, Lutz is not your man. He actually recommends the consumption of more carbohydrates (largely from vegetables and low carb fruit) than most other low carb authors - and he does so because he considers this to be healthier - and incidentally he also lists the evolutionary history and conditions that have made 'us' omnivores

The reason you were taught to eat vegetables by your mum is because your mum was taught to eat vegetables by her mum as a baby, and her mum was taught that before her, and her mum's mum....all the way back to prehistory.

Benefit or no- health or illness- has nothing to do with why we eat what we do, we eat what we do because we were taught to eat that way. In any family the kids will eat what the adults eat and so on infinitum.

Culture is not a plan which some mysterious 'culture elite' have prescribed and agreed upon, it is a set of traditions, evolved in each society over a long period of time, learned by rote and passed down without thought or question from generation to generation. There are many cultures.

I think it is simply because we had to eat veggies to survive (for a while) and that is when it did benefit society. But, once we had the means to eat meat again, then the only reason it is still taught is out of old traditions. And, of course, some places on this planet must still eat this way, or they would starve. But, it is not necessary to teach this way of eating, it's just become customary to do so. I'm sure you can think of a lot of other examples of this... outdated social mores, etc.

This is sort of true... if you read it that way. What I got out of the book is 1) the authors did not really care where you got your 72g of carbs from. 2) they were pushing saturated animal fat with no restrictions (and were chiding most of the other LC authors from having a concern about doing this). 3) they were only trying to be cautious about advising people on LCing, and made a point to say this. 4) they explained that different people from different areas of the world would be more able to deal with higher carbs than others. They used Europeans as an example of people who had high incidences of diseases of civilization, saying that their best bet would be to revert to mostly total animal food. I think one could read between the lines of this book to see what the authors were REALLY saying. I certainly did. And now I am about to embark on it wholesale!

Traditions evolved by not thinking or questioning or changing? Isn't this a contradiction? I've never heard anyone assert that something evolves by not changing.

Ok, now this is interesting!! I read in a diet book years ago (can't remember which one) that it takes 15 mins to digest fruits, but it takes 12-24 hour to digest meat, and the meat just sits in your stomach. (most likely it was a pro-vegetarian type diet book). Could you give any links that show what your saying above? I haven't heard this. I always beleived all these years that meat took forever to digest. I would like more explanation on this, if possible. Thanks Bear!!