I'm trying to tally up what we know and what we can reasonably infer, in the course of this long thread.
We know that theBear has made a number of claims, including:
1. The human body produces little or no insulin in response to dietary protein.
2. The human body produces its own EFAs.
3. Skeletal muscle cannot use glucose as fuel without first converting it to fat.
4. Animal fat is 90% saturated.
5. A person on an all-meat diet secretes no ketones.
6. Acetone is not one of the ketones produced from the metabolism of fat.
7. Dietary fat is never stored in adipose tissue.
8. Paleolithic people ate no plant foods at all.
The first seven claims are easily shown to be false by basic science sources that are readily checked by anybody who cares to do so. Online sources have been provided by people in this thread. Although theBear modified claim 4 a bit, limiting it to suet fat, the claim is still false. USDA figures show that whole suet is 94% fat, and that fat--indeed the most saturated fat found in animal bodies--consists of about half saturates.
The eigth claim is more speculative, owing to the difficulty of finding traces of plant consumption from the paleolithic period. More refined methods of analysis are beginning to shed some light on this, but there's a long way to go. See
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articl...cgi?artid=58583 for example. What we can say is that no one is in a position to state categorically that paleolithic people ate no plant foods at all.
Now let's add another claim, from post 1185:
9. "There are NO errors in any of my statements."
This, obviously, must be added to the list of claims easily shown to be false.
More recently (post 3354), we read, "I make various statements about how things work. I may or may not 'substantiate' them with references. That I don't choose to do so does not make the statements of less value."
In fact, it does make the statements of less value. theBear has repeatedly taken the position that because he has followed the all-meat diet for 47 years, anything he has to say about it is immune to criticism, because his statements are based on "experience." But, as has already been pointed out, claims 1-8 are not the sort of thing that can be arrived at simply through experience. Following a diet, any diet, for 47 years doesn't put anyone in a privileged position to make any of those claims.
A person who persists in making claims that are easily shown to be false, and who insists that none of the claims are erroneous, and who claims that unsubstantiated statements are no less valuable then substantiated ones, as long as he is the one making them--is not entirely rational. That's perhaps an understatement.
The irrationality of a dieter doesn't invalidate a diet. theBear's *experience* provides a model and some reassurance for anyone who may be inclined to emulate it. His experience does not, and cannot, establish that the "real" or "best" human diet is a totally carnivorous one. One person's experience cannot, in principle, establish such a thing. In particular, it doesn't establish that a totally carnivorous diet is the best possible way to achieve insulin control. theBear may be, for all we know, the only living person who has eaten nothing but meat for over four decades. He is not, however, the only man in his 70s who enjoys vibrant good health, nor has he claimed to be. Moreover, his experience is not the only experience that is relevant to the question of insulin control. My own opinion, based on evidence but by no means conclusively established, is that a fasting BG of 100 is not indicative of a level of insulin control that I would consider ideal, especially in a person with low body fat.
Edit: I meant to add this reference:
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040415/1961.html, in particular this definition of impaired fasting glucose: "IFG is defined as fasting plasma glucose values of 100 to 125 mg per dL (5.6 to 6.9 mmol per L); normal fasting glucose values are below 100 mg per dL (Table 1)."
Linear Mode
