ubizmo, this was covered WAY BACK in this thread.The use of muscle tissue would be to spare the bodyfat in a starving person. See... fat IS the preferred macro and micro nutrient for our bodies.

Main thing is, although Bear was the one who brought up the glycerol being used for glucose needs, he never fully understood the GNG pathway that was used by the liver. I guess physiology is not his "strong suit".

So, Wooo... on a zero-carb diet, after becoming fully FFA/keto-adapted, would glycerol be used as the substrate, or amino acids?

Only the "black-box" knows for sure!

Ahem! I think Rosebud KNOWS that! I just love it when one nurse corrects another one like she is actually revealing a big secret! LOL

I was not correcting, just adding. Sorry if I offended you.

You didn't offend me at all, but I believe the subject had already been covered several pages ago.

I have heard of people decreasing their thyroid because they have lost weight. There is an equation for determining dosing range that is based on weight. The equation is posted in the thyroid area.

I have a life other than this Thread; I guess I missed the post where this was "already covered several pages ago."

Ok, I guess it has finally come to the end for me.

The thread has become infested with parasites who take our time but don't contribute anything but noise.

I began this to inform people who have a bodyfat problem about the highly 'unsocial' diet that is our evolution-imposed real diet.

First I encountered those who are addicted to 'some' veggies. Then those who are compulsive counters of calories and readers of 'scientific' studies which contradict my experiences. This was followed by the pedantic control freaks who 'know' that my lifestyle is flawed. After that the parasites who cling to their acculturation and feel obligated to attack and render useless anything which contradicts their belief systems.

The final straw was the ******** who impugned my knowledge of the cancer which threatened my life. This ********* finally brought me to the realisation that I am simply wasting my time wading through a daily pile of hundreds of meaningless unproductive posts to find a genuine question from the few who are really interested in changing their body shape, health and lifestyle.

SO, it has been an interesting trip, thanks to those who CAN follow and have supported me, but I am now departing to leave the thread to the parasites and mercenaries who have stolen it.

Any one who is interested in the path and has any genuine questions on how to implement this controversial way of eating is welcome to visit my website and send me an e/mail.

Goodbye and- 'Thanks for all the fish'.

I for one will be visiting your website and emailing you. Thank you for taking the time to outline the lifestyle that has been successful for you.

Have you stopped dieting? (i.e. restricting calories)

It is actually a good decision to give up this thread for everyone involved. The useful stuff has already been said.

It is improductive sitting on forums and arguing about this and that. The only thing you will learn from that is retorical skills. It is a totally worthless for educational purposes. To honestly share personal experience is all the use there is to it and that does not take many words and posts; especially considering that most people do not seem to have any useful experiences to share at all. This thread and the whole Internet is a testimony to that. I have been on more forums than I can remember in my young life and it is the same everywhere. People mostly post nonsense, whether they are 10 or 50 years old. One grows tired of filtering the noise. A wise man once said that wireless Internet may very well destroy our chances of contacting intelligent life. He was probably right.

Likely both and I see no reason why the body would stop using amino acids.

In fact, the earlier link I posted about feline diabetes explicitly states that carnivores have an extremely poor tolerance to starvation because of how they metabolize protein constantly.

I think you need to be careful you are not confusing efficiency (which normally relates to energy efficiency) and availability (ie the percentage of amino acids which are glucogenic and the amount of glucose that can be derived from each). As I understand it availability varies between amino acids and the comparative inefficiency of obtaining energy from protein (and one pathway involves the intermediate production of glucose) is the key factor which underpins the concept of 'metabolic advantage' on a low carb diet.

And I for one would be happy to see scientific references quoted here! - and if that makes me a parasite or a mercenary I really don't care!!

The body uses muscle during starvation not because it "prefers to use fat for energy" but because maintaining muscle mass is not a top priority when energy is so low. Well developed muscle mass is expensive to maintain and not as biologically essential as fat. The muscle goes first because it costs too much relative to the benefit. With weak muscles you can get by okay (assuming you don't act aggressive or do anything dangerous or risky or stupid, which you likely won't considering what famine state does to your mind thus behavior). On the other hand, without minimum fat, your endocrine system shuts down and maintaining homeostasis of everything gets next to impossible.

If you get demoted at your job, are you going to keep your expensive luxury car while sacrificing food money? No. The car goes first, then the other "luxury expenses", before you touch the food and rent money... assuming you were well adapted to survival, of course (as a side, lots of people keep their cars when they can't afford to... and in a natural environment, these people wouldn't survive one winter ).

In times of stress or famine, the body prioritizes what it eats and what it preserves and how quickly with a carefully evaluated priority of need relative to cost. The first things to go are excessive adipose (but not the minimum fat which takes severe starvation to touch), fancy muscles, reproductive system, etc... it is not adaptive to remain as high of a metabolic rate (fat/muscles/top quality hair/skin/nails) in famine, nor is it adaptive to have kids in famine, as all these things only exacerbate the strain on resources.

This has nothing to do with what the body "prefers to use for fuel" and it is irrational to think the body is acting like a kid picking out their choice of candy when we are talking about times of life or death scarcity.

Well, another good thing ruined! I am disappointed, but not surprised. It seems that there are always some people to ruin things for the others.
Bear, I want to thank you for your awesome message. I had been following the Atkins diet for some time, without much success. I had read the summaries of the Inuit diet and felt it was right for me, but I never got the guts to follow an all meat diet until you came along and posted your first message. It is the right diet, I feel it in every ounce of my body. I will go to your site on occasion and ask for advice when I need it, but don't worry, I won't impose on your time too often.
I wish you the best, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Hey, Dean... Is our bus derailed? Maybe gone but not forgotten and to be pursued on other highways, huh?

I know all of Bear's sycophants will chime in here like this, but I want to point something out. Bear started this thread, presumably to "share" some information, but within a scant THREE DAYS his language degenerated into this:

"So far as duparc, I am appalled to find his mind so poisoned with his own calcified ego that he chooses to call me a liar."


And it just got worse and worse. Once you expose your own weakness like this, people sense you're not 100% authentic. Good riddance to an insufferable egotist with no credibility.

Oh, and that doesn't mean I think the all-meat diet is a bad idea.

Well, this has been a fascinating thread. Not for the diet, that has been put forward on this forum before and been a subject of vigorous but friendly debate, but for the chance to see a little bit of society in miniature.

In a strange way one would have liked to be able to like TheBear, just because he was player in that little window of time when dropping acid was newish and cool. That milieu has a certain iconic status.

What actually happened was that we got an authoritarian autocrat in our midst whose notoriety got him listened to.

What's fascinated me is that the reaction to this has been a very flat bell curve, I'd say almost thirds. The middle ground seemed to be unaware (or didn't care) about the absolutest viewpoint they were encountering. For about another third (and I have to admit I was one of them) our immediate reaction to dictators is to roll our sleeves up for the fight and make them prove their assertions. The remaining third I do find worrisome.

In the face of some of the most clear-cut megalomania ever encountered on this board, they immediately adopted the role of disciple/follower.

I've gotta say, that's scary. But it goes a long way to explaining how corrupt and/or dicatorial regimes continue to enjoy popular support.

i know one thing, bear you changed my life, thank you!

I congratulate you on the courage it took to make this admission. That must have been tough for you. Allow me to be the second person to pat you on the back for that -- I wish I could have been the first, but you beat me to it. I feel much better knowing that courageous folks like you are out there, willing to go toe to toe with dictators, wherever you find them.

And what's wrong with dictators?
It's how packs of carnivore animals are governed. Ever heard of alpha pair in wolf pack?
And they are confronted from time to time to make sure they are able to dominate. It's most efficient system ever created.

It amuses me how two people can read a post and take such different meaning from it.


LondonIan's post seems to have rankled with Kwik who appears to have taken it as being a chest beating exercise on the part of the poster.

For myself, this passage sums up the uneasiness that this thread has had me feeling all along...


TheBear's diet preferences have not unduly bothered me. His delivery style and some of the almost cult-like responses to it have.

It's nice being able to look around and find so much to amuse you, isn't it?


Anyone who couldn't see the rather overt chest beating of that post was too amused to really pay attention....

"Amusingly" enough, I wasn't "rankled," but "amused" in my own right, by someone who is off-put by the egoism of someone else, but perfectly willing to make a post where they congratulate themselves for being willing to, not only stand up to "dictators," but say they are willing to stand up to dictators, unlike the sheep and oblivious who comprise the other 2/3 of humanity.

Perhaps there's so much amusement going around, we've strayed into "mirthful" territory. What comes after mirthful, I wonder. Hysterical? What an amusing train of thought. Or is that a mirthful train of thought. Damn, I think I got on the wrong train. Didn't the dictator Mussolini make the trains run on time? That's the problem with dictators -- they're never around when you need them, probably due to the courageous and untiring efforts of people like Ian.

Now what's the word I'm looking for?

Touche.

or

Touchy.

Egads! Now there are wolves among us. Or are they werewolves? I think some are really going off the deep end---all the way from human to a pack animal! LOL. Are we seeing the beginnings of a transmutation of the brain here or what?
Hmmmm--is it acid or the carnivorous "path" causing people to see themselves as canis lupes rather than homo sapien in their mind's eye (and maybe the mirror). This is sooooo interesting! Dang, where is Freud when we need him? All we have now is Dr. Phil.

Now you've hit the nail on the head!! Just what I have been saying all along.

In the original REAL (carnivore) HUMAN DIET post, Bear stated that he ate an all meat (except for spices and some dairy products) diet because that is what humans ate during the paleo era. He based his views on his reading of an article by the explorer Stefansson who lived among the Inuits during the first part of the 20th century. HOWEVER when some people (including a graduate anthropology student I might add) said that evidence of plant eating was found in excavations (and I can give you the citations if you wish) in North America, Bear said that there were no inhabitants on the North American continent before 12,000 years ago. Inuits live on the North American continent. If, as Bear believed the continent was not inhabited by humans until after the paleo era, why did he cite them as evidence that stone-age humans were totally carniverous? The other inconsistency of course is that Inuits didn't eat dairy products and it is hard to imagine any paleo era people eating anything remotely resembling dairy after being weaned. It is one thing to hunt a wild animal, it's another thing altogether to MILK it. I think that this entire thread would have gone down better (at least with some of us students of anthropology) if it had been called the "Eskimo diet." He then could have cited how the Inuits survived for thousands of years on an all meat diet and be done with it.