These carnivorous sea animals (seals, killer whales etc) have a lot of subcutaneous fat but are not obese. They have the ideal body composition for an animal of their species. So it is for herbivores and any other animals in fact. Hippos aren't obese either, which was Dr Harris's point. This is a meaningless discussion.

So, we have carnivorous seals with lots of bodyfat while eating zero carbohydrate. And, we have carnivorous domesticated dogs eating all meat diets who get fat. In your opinion, which of these facts renders this discussion meaningless?

Carnivorous seals with lots of bodyfat while eating zero carbohydrate, because they are at their ideal weight. The case of the dogs is interesting. Why don't they stop eating before they get fat?

Yes, that last post of his was quite rude and arrogant. Well it is his blog, but still ....

But Martin, aren't there examples on this very forum where people stuck to a zero carb or almost zero carb diet and still gained ?
Did they force themselves to consume tons of fat to puking point or were they cheating on carbs ?

Because, if not, then maybe its true that in some rare cases fat can make you gain.

These people and dogs were not born to ZC Mothers (who in turn were not born to ZC Mothers etc. etc.)

These people and my Dog in particular were also not ZC since birth and already possibly had metabolic damage done long before they started a ZC diet.

I think we would be hard pressed to find people and animals who would gain weight on a ZC diet if they never ate carbs (and neither did their Mothers or Grandmothers etc).

There may be something to the term that was coined 'broken satisfactometer'.. where the signal for being full does just not work. That being said, it is obvious to me that some people/animals DO gain weight (or not lose excess fat) if they eat more than they need. But how that happens would be of great interest to a lot of us.

We know so very little about hormones and how they all work.. so it only stands to reason that there is something awry in these people who are able to eat enough fat to get fatter (without becoming ill) and my dog who needs to have his food controlled.

I look at it not a lot differently than someone who eats a whole lot of crap and never gains weight and some who remain thin despite what they eat. There are some things about our homeostasis that we know nothing about.

I think it is a great discussion, if we could leave the personal feelings and attacks out of it.

Back to my Dog:

In the raw food circles, an active dog is suggested to be fed 2.5% of his body weight per day in meat/fat/bones. For an inactive Dog, the suggested food intake is 2%.

At his weight, it would be suggested he be fed 2.5lbs a day (as an inactive dog). If he were active that would calculate to 3.25lbs a day. But he gains weight on anything over 2lbs a day without the odd fasting day thrown in (he fasts once a week for 24 hours).

There is obviously something going on here... he needs caloric restriction to maintain a healthy weight. His healthy weight is 125lbs but he has been as high as 135lbs on an all meat diet of 2.5lbs of food 7 days a week. He would eat that 3.25lbs of food a day if it were given to him and get extremely fat very quickly.

We have a pack of coyotes behind us that live in about 35 acres of wetland. Almost every night you can hear them doing the happy dance around a freshly killed animal. They don't come around (like raccoons and possums do) and wreck the garbage cans looking for food. They only eat freshly killed meat.

I think that has been bred out of pet dogs. They don't know instinctively what to eat and will just eat anything. The dog who joins us at the bus stop every morning will try and get into the garbage can, sniff out any kid with a lunch box or with a pop tart. That lab will eat anything. Even tries to get to my coffee cup.

I think it's grains. Purely unscientific thought, and I really don't care about that, but feed generations of dogs or humans grains, and something about it completely wreaks havoc on their metabolism. We can argue whether it took 12,000 years, 14,000 years, or 15,000 years; but dogs have been with us that entire time.
This morning the dog was trying to get one of the kid's soy crisps.

I also feed my dog a diet of raw meat, bones, and organs. He was kibble fed for the first year and a half of his life, but has been raw fed for nearly 3 years now. I think the reason dogs gain weight if fed an unlimited about of raw food daily is because they naturally eat on a gorge and fast schedule. When they get a kill, they stuff themselves silly, but then food may not be available for several days. I have fed my dog this way before - letting him eat until he stops and then not feeding for a day or two. He doesn't gain too much weight when eating this way.

Not gained but didn't really lose anything significant. But my metabolism is very screwed up.

To the point of growing obese? No, not a single anecdote that I know of. But where is the rare case of a normal human who grows obese on "nothing but fat and protein"? Well, first we have to find a normal human who's body hasn't been degenerated by his high carb diet. Then, he must have eaten a carnivorous diet since weaned. And, he must be obese.

This is the Sunday School answer. You'll want to include Adaptation if intend to impress biologists.


What stopped them from eating in the wild?

I thought the two hypotheses proposed on this topic were both very good: dogs eat on a gorge and fast schedule and dogs don't know instinctively what to eat because of artificial selection.

Maybe in the wild they have to hunt for their food instead of being given to them by us?

Patrick

Exactly. Domesticated dogs have an arbitrarily restricted food intake.

Every time we've tried adding raw meat or fat to our 11 yo dog's diet, she gets diarrhea. I'm afraid her metabolism is permanently broken toward SAD food, and I suppose we could brute force it and hope eventually her system comes around but she's got long hair and though we trim it well a runny stool gets everywhere, so we'd be giving her a bath everyday. Now, this may not be a scientific analogy, but I sure went through some changes going LC, so I suppose she (and we) would have to suffer for only awhile? Anyone with experience on this? I would have to sell it to the wife that there would be a eventual good outcome (normal stools, healthy digestion). Or, would it be knowingly cruel to continue to feed her her normal diet?

I enjoy Kurt Harris' website. I am very leery of listening to any one source of information, and am suspicious of any one person dictating a regime and starting a brand (such as PaNu, Protein Power or The Bear/Zerocarbers). My time is limited to go and fact check everything, not being a researcher by trade or hobby, requiring intermediaries like Taubes and Harris to interpret, keeping in mind the caveats against confirmation bias, i.e., I don't swallow anything whole but take it into consideration and adjust my own n=1 experience. For me right now, not eating breakfast and sometimes lunch and eating mostly meat and fat at dinner works for me. I feel better about it, and it keeps the weight off and is forgiving of my carby excursions. I appreciate challenges to anyone's authority and it is unfortunate that Harris couldn't address this more gracefully, but we all know how frustrating it can be to converse over the internet. I humbly invoke Rodney King.

Caveman, have you written elsewhere about your disagreements with Harris - if so, I won't ask you to repeat yourself, and go search. I would appreciate a pointer if you feel like it.