People Hear What They Want to Hear

An old maid was sitting at a bus stop and a man came and sat beside her. She said; “you must be new, I haven’t seen you here before.” The man replied; “Actually, I’m from here, but I’ve been in prison for the last 15 years”. The old maid said; “Oh, really! What were you in prison for?” He replied; “I had killed my wife and spread her body parts all over the county.” The old maid paused for a moment then said; “Oh, so you’re single, eh?”

Anyway, I'm going eat dinner at a Chinese buffet and in addition to all that seafood, I plan to eat some carbs!

One man's carbs is another man's poison!

I was waiting for it, and it came up. Babies. What's the perfect food for babies? Easy answer there, right? Breast milk. Well then, if carbohydrates aren't a "food", then nature should know this and eliminate them from breast milk Let's see, shall we?

1 cup of mature breast milk (defined as greater than 5 days from birth)

.......................Grams.... Calories..... % of Cals
Calories ............................172
Fat................... 10.8..... .....95.......... 55%
..Saturated.......... 4.9.......... 43.......... 25%
..Polyunsaturated.. 1.2.......... 11........... 6%
..Monounsaturated 4.1.......... 36........... 21%
Carbohydrate...... 16.9.......... 66........... 38%
Dietary Fiber......... 0.0
Protein................ 2.5.......... 11............ 6%

Ok, so we see that fat is 55% of those calories. Good thing, I think to show low-fat is not a good thing, but most interestingly, we see that carbohydrates are 38% of those calories. Clearly, as this is breast milk, the majority of those carbs are lactose, but nonetheless, it is still present.

In mathematics, one method and very effective method of completing a proof is to find just one instance of where that hypothesis would not apply. Thus, if the hypothesis were that carbohydrates are not food and are a poison, the presence of carbs in breast milk, nature's perfect food for our youngest humans, would be that one instance to disprove that hypothesis.

You are now at the point where you can choose to either adjust your hypothesis and say it is toxic for adults only (or some such adjustment) or abandon it altogether and reformulate.

I will say this.

I have been eating LC for over four years now. I found out that I could not go too LC just last year because I became folate anemic when I did so. While I have other medical issues, such as hypothyroidism (with a very strong genetic causality) that could easily have been a contributing cause to the folate anemia, I know that once I brought my carbs up a bit, my folate anemia resolved. Oh, and interestingly enough, I am pure French, at least the last 55 generations back.

I am a very strong advocate of low-carb eating, as I consider it to be a very healthy method of eating but I have not been convinced that going "no-carb" is healthy. I see this as taking a healthy ideology to an unhealthy extreme.

That's what I think too.

Funny thing about breast milk. I was nursed as a baby and my mother told me that I was always hungry. I would nurse and be satisfied and then be hungry again in 20 minutes. Made the poor woman nuts. I was the only one of her children who reacted this way.

Could it have been the carbs?

I think so since carbs have always caused me problems.

Actually, it would "prove" that carbohydrate serves one purpose in a human's life. We could hypothesize that this purpose is to grow fat quickly to insure a supply of fat to the growing child. But then for what purpose do we become lactose intolerant later on is anybody's guess.

Finding a single contradictory instance does not refute the rule. It merely establishes an exception. Breast milk is one exception. There are other exceptions like the Kitava study that is posted regularly as an attempt to refute the carbohydrate hypothesis. These remain exceptions that do not refute the rule. If the rule was that carbohydrate was food for humans, we would not be here discussing the virtues of a low carb diet. It's tedious to cite all these exceptions when making a point about the rule so I don't do it and somebody else, like yourself, invariably does anyway. Incidentally, those who do invariably try to pass this as the rule. But praise to you, you did not.

Well carbohydrate cause us to eat more carbohydrate. The lactose in milk could serve its purpose by driving a greater food intake than otherwise for a growing child. As if growth hormone was insufficient for an infant for that purpose.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. - Mark Twain

-----------------------------------------------------------

This is absolutely true, especially for sheep and goats with multiple offspring. Four weeks before breeding season, farmers feed extra grain to stimulate more egg follicles to drop, making the difference between singles and twins for sheep and up to sextuplets for goats. That's x times more money per dam. However it's hard on the dam who then needs extra grain to not abort extra kids; it's hard on the farmer because of the time, work and money to buy, transport and feed grain, as well as bottle feed the extra babies for 8 wks; plus there are health issues involved for those who eat grainfed meat/milk. I long ago decided that grainfeeding wasn't worth it.

However, there is proof that it works with humans as well: The poorest countries and those that rely on carbs for most of their calories tend to have the most children (surviving or not). Those eating the most meat protein tend to have the least.

"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison…." Paracelsus

A substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within your body in a high enough dose. The toxic effect of a substance increases as the exposure (or dose) to the susceptible biological system increases. Excess carbohydrate is problematic to the human endocrine system; small "doses" are not, they're even in animal foods.

.

Then carbohydrate IS food, isn't it?

PS - BTW - as I noted previously, adapations matter in the bigger picture, and here....through various genetic adaptions, over many generations, not all humans are lactose intolerant in adulthood.

So, too much protein can be poisonous to our bodies. As I've said before, moderation is the key.........

But, if the mother isn't eating a lot of carbs, how much carbohydrate is in her milk? I was breast fed, and I breast fed both my kids. I'm just curious here. Have there been any analysis of say, intuit breast milk?

Edited to add: My stepsister tried to breast feed her son, and her milk basically made him sick. He was very colicky and she ended up putting him on formula. She ate the accepted "healthy" diet.

PS: Both my kids seemed fine and slept all night by the time they were six weeks old. I was more moderation carb. I did eat vegetables but not a lot of junk, ie donuts.

I don't think it's one or the other - that you either consume enough carbohydrate to have glucose problems *or* you eliminate carbohydrate and cause other problems.

I've done menu sets with as little as 10g of carbohydrate and as much as 150g in an effort to highlight the nutrient density one can achieve at varying levels of carbohydrate in the diet, using different food sources.

"Zero-carb" is untenable simply because when you're focusing on nutrient-density, you'll include animal-foods and/or animal parts that contain some carbohydrate if you're doing nutrient-rich menus without plant-based foods - which is why I think it's a misnomer to call an all-animal-food diet "zero carb" - it's not if one gets totally picky-un and includes glycogen in muscle, which typically accounts for 1-2% of an animals carcass weight at slaughter (it varies by slaughter method since stress reduces glycogen stores if an animal is stressed before slaughter).

As I noted, some populations are genetically different for the homocysteine-folate cycle......at one end of the spectrum are those populations with very low incidence (some even zero incidence) of MTHFR polymorphisms - those populations, like the Inuit and sub-Saharan Africans require, genetically, less folate than the other end of the spectrum, those populations with the highest incidence of MTHFR polymorphisms, like that found so far in Japanese and French populations, whom require higher intake of folate to maintain health.

Worldwide the incidence of MTHFR polymorphisms is all over the place - and even in regional comparisons there are differences, like in Europe, there is a gradient of occurance of the gene mutations on a north-south lattitude.....the more north one goes, the fewer mutations found - the more south one goes, the more mutations found. Extremes of temperature play into it too, which is why in extreme cold (Inuit populations) and extreme heat (sub-Saharan Africa) less plant-based food is available, less folate is available in the diet, less genetic mutations requiring more folate is lower....basically, it's difficult to survive and thrive if you're genetically programmed to need more folate and you aren't getting it in your diet.

If you look at the dietary habits in different populations - all populations consume all the macronutrients, fat, protein and carbohydrate....the biggest difference across populations is the source and the quantity. It's kind of silly to say we shouldn't eat any carbohydrate, or even call it food, when everything we can eat - animal or plant - contains carbohydrate.

It's excess carbohydrate, from any source, refined or whole, that causes metabolic problems....one doesn't have to consume excess carbohydrate to meet nutrient requirements, but if one has genetic predispositions that require higher folate, than including folate-rich foods is a good idea and most non-starchy vegetables, that have low carbohydrate content, aren't going to be a problem for glycemic control.

1-cup of spinach (cooked)
1-cup of asparagus (cooked)

Total Carbohydrate = 14g
Fiber = 8g
Net Carbs = 6g
FOLATE = 525mcg

----------------

2-ounces calves liver, braised

Total Carbohydrate = 3g
FOLATE = 430mcg

---------------

If we are to consider the "lessons of tradition" then we don't eat liver daily, as populations that rely on animal foods won't eat liver daily or eat it in large quantity when they do.

At the end of the day, IMO, you want to avoid excessive carb intake....small amounts are not problematic and to say such is to ignore that even animal foods contain carbohydrate.

You know, I'm not sure where I would fall in this part. I have a lot of French on my dad's side, and a lot of Cherokee indian on my mom's.

I have to say that I agree that carbohydrate has to be considered a food. (based on above arguments)

It is also a food that creates fat and feeds cancer. In comparison, estrogen is neccessary in the body..yet it also feeds cancer. That is not to say that we neccessarily have to have carbohydrate.