You all know me, or else I think you do. I've been around for a long time. Some of you even look to me for all the answers because you think I'm so wise, or some stupid thing like that!



Anyway, I've been doing a lot of reading lately about different eating plans and how they go along with how we evolved. It got me thinking.

Let me digress a moment to say that I've read the original Protein Power and the Protein Power Lifeplan more times than I can say. I've actually had to purchase new copies of each, since the pages are so dog-eared and the bindings break from over-use.

So, I'm having difficulty assimilating certain things that the Eades (and many others) are saying.

For example, the Eades say that carbohydrates are totally unnecessary. Here's the exact quotation, taken from PPLP, page 9 of the hardcover edition:

"Carbohydrates, the third macronutrient, are totally unessential to human health."

Here's another one, taken from PP, page 113 of the hardcover edition:

"How much fiber do you need? For good health people usually need at least 25 grams a day. In the past, restricted-carbyhydrate diets have been criticized for not providing enough fiber. Is this a valid concern? Yes, but not with our plan, which provides ample fiber."

So, if we believe the first statement (and I do), why would we need at least 25 grams of carbs a day?

Also, if the first statement is true, why is the goal of the maintenance plan described by the Eades in PP (page 184):

"You will accomplish this [transition to maintenance] by gradually increasing your per-meal carbohydrate level until you reach a daily total carboydrate gram intake roughly equal to to slightly more than your daily protein intake."

So, first they state that carbs are absolutely unnecessary for human health, then they say that you need 25 grams of fiber for health, and then they say when all is said and done, you'll be eating as much as or more carbs (in grams) than protein.

Am I the only one confused about this?

I know some people will say that the veggies have tons of vitamins in them. But if carbs are totally unnecessary for health, then surely we would be getting those vitamins naturally from the meat and fat we consume.

I ask because I've recently stopped eating virtually all vegetables, and all salads. I feel much better. Whenever I ate veggies, they gave me constiptation. So, I would eat more. The only way NOT to have constipation was to eat tons of veggies (and then who has room for the protein and fat?), PLUS take fiber supplements daily. How can this be "normal" and healthy?

Since shunning veggies from my plate, I have no more problems with constipation. None. Shouldn't that say something?

Just curious about what others think about these disparities. I'm not criticizing anyone's way of eating. I'm just curious about all this.

Hi BawdyWench. We crossed paths in another thread site, but you certainly raise interesting questions. Could it be that ALL the LC proponent writers KNOW that EVERYONE will go back to eating veggies, fruits, carbs etc. sooner or later - and that they might as well tell us just how much we can eat of these? It must be quite unusual to love meat and fat but not particularly veggies and fruit. I really find all this seeming contradition frustrating. I'm taking supplements, including calcium and magnesium and potassium which keep me "going" without a lot of fibre. If I eat veggies I sometimes feel bloated and too full. But I worry about this!!!!! We must eat our veggies eh? Do we know anything long term about meat and fat diets? YES we do because of the Eskimo studies etc. But even those two fellows years ago who were studied as they ate meat and fat for one year, went back to their regular diets afterwards....man, this is very scary, and I really get mad at myself because I don't trust myself to do the right thing. And frankly I don't trust anyone, even diet doctors to tell me the complete truth. It's a matter of mix and match and what makes the most sense to me. I'd really like to get a discussion going on this - what do you REALLY think of the health impact of meat, fat, and veggies when you feel like it? Is it scary? Too wacko?

In the words of a famous thread (in the War Zone and now locked -- for good reason), the reason Atkins, the Eades, and the rest say you need to eat your veggies is simple acculturation. It's so ingrained (sorry for the pun) in our psyche that veggies are healthy and the only place natural vitamins exist, that to say they are not needed and don't bother eating them would sound like the worst of fad diets and be laughed at and tossed aside as pure bunk.

I would like to hear what others say about this. I don't want to start a heated debate. I just want to hear opinions. I'm not looking to change anyone's mind about what they do or do not eat. I'm also not going to argue.

I just want to know how people reconcile these two statements.

I can only assume what the respective authors meant by stipulating that carbs are unecessary, but yet veggies are is only because of the nutrients found in the latter.

However, what if we can acquire all of our nutrients from non-veggies sources, are they necessary? The answer would be no, unless we make an argument that plant foods inherent defenses (phytochemicals) are necessary or essential for our overall health.

Every book has to be written to appeal to the lowest common demoninator. In this case, if you were an author and however correct and well researched your thesis might be, it will all be discarded if you make certain claims which goes against prevailing dogmatic wisdom of the day.

Could anyone ever sell a book which even hinted at let alone assert with conviction that veggies are not necessary? Let's not even get into implying that they're "toxic," which cracks me up for different reasons entirely. LOL It's the same with diet books. Can you sell one by telling people they MUST excercise and eat a little less? Of course not, who'd pay for advice like that?

I think the veggie being healthy thing is so ingrained in our collective thoughts universally accepted, that it'll get a free pass on whatever arguments anyone may have against it.

Do I think veggies are healthy? Yes, I do. Do I think they're necessary? I'll bet all the tea in China that they are not.

I agree with the above posters and the OP; I think acculturation and societal custom/dogmatic belief are playing a huge role in why these contradictions exist.

I have even become suspicious of some of the "healthy" claims around veggies, which will probably garner me some flame-throwing here. We keep reading and hearing about "phytonutrients" and "antioxidants" and such that will prevent disease and "optimize" our health - but all of these studies are done in the context of high-carb diets. All of them. If we are keeping circulating insulin levels low and restricting carbs, or eliminating carbs, who is to say that these magical "nutrients" found only in plant foods are "necessary" or even "healthy?" So I'm becoming more of a skeptic, I guess. But that has to do with how amazing I feel on M/E. And believe me, it went against all of my programming to stop eating veggies. All of my programming.

I'm also having trouble with phrases like "optimal health" being thrown around. Is this a clinical term? If we meet nutrient intakes, we meet nutrient intakes. I'm not convinced that "optimal nutrition" is anything but a new-agey buzzphrase to support a certain belief system, without any evidence to back it up clinically.

Nah, some vitamins/minerals are found only in plant sources. Vitamin k (the "clotting" vitamin) for example, is found in cabbage, cauliflowers, leafy veggies such as spinach. Folic acid (B9 vitamin) is found in broccoli, spinach, collard greens, peas, lentils. Let's talk minerals: magnesium is found in spinach, nuts & seeds, quinoa, artichokes. Manganese is in peas, lima beans, kale. Potassium-rich foods include banana, tomato, artichoke, peas, potato, kale.
I eat a lot of veggies. (On Fat Flush, most of the non-starchy types are unlimited. ) I don't have a problem with constipation (mind you, I eat 2-3 Tbsp of ground flaxseed daily, in addition to all the lovely green leafies). How much water are you drinking daily? It DOES say something but I'm not sure I connect the dots in the same pattern you have. For instance, I'm wondering a) how much caffeine do you have daily? b) have you recently been on antibiotics? c) what are you eating all day? Strictly protein? How much fat? Did your fat intake increase when your veggies decreased? d) are you hypothyroid? (Constipation is one of the side effects of hypo) If yes, were your meds recently changed? e) menopause and constipation often go hand-in-hand. Check it out: and this one:So while I think that constipation can be and often is diet related, other conditions can play a part, too.

By the way, BW - Curiousity is good.

Are you stalking me, Csoar? Just kidding!


See? This is where I'm a little confused. Mind you, I'm not questioning what you're saying. What I'm questioning is that if indeed the only place these vitamins are found are in cabbage, cauliflower, spinach, broccoli, peas, tomatos, artichokes, etc. AND if we did not evolve eating these things (they didn't exist then, to my knowledge, certainly not in their current state), why would we need these vitamins?


As for the constipation I have (and have had the majority of the time I've been on LC, that is, since 1999), I do believe it's from the veggies. To answer your questions:

1. I drink maybe 1 or 2 cups of black coffee daily. But then again, I often go weeks without it.
2. I was on antibiotics for a bladder infection for 3 days in December. Before that, I can't even remember when I was on antibiotics.
3. I eat protein and fat. My percentages are probably around 70% fat, 25% protein, and the rest carbs (from eggs, dairy, etc.).
4. When I dropped veggies earlier this year, my protein intake went down and my fat intake went up. I had been eating approximately 40% protein, 50% fat, and 10% carbs (veggies included).
5. I am not hypothyroid. I've been tested several times for this lately, and I'm ok.
6. In my case, it has nothing to do with menopause. As I said, I've had problems with constipation ever since I began LCing (and began eating a lot of veggies) in 1999.
7. I agree that other things can cause constipation other than food.

But enough about me. I didn't intend this post to be about me.

Csoar, I know you do the Fat Flush plan, not Protein Power, but if you believe these two statements by the Eades to be true (as I do), how do you reconcile them?

Dang - you blew my cover! We ate equivalent plant foods, I'm guessing - roots, leaves, seeds - we were opportunistic eaters. While it's true our ancient ancestors didn't have cabbage, per se, I bet they had cabbage's great-great-great-great grandma! Well, the first statement was about carbs and the second one was about fiber. I don't think they are the same thing. Carbs are metabolized as sugar (the simple carbs and even the complex carbs, except they have the added fiber to slow the metabolizing process down a bit and minimize the insulin release). Fiber is not metabolized. Insoluable fiber I mean. It's bulk. It's what scrapes along the intestines and cleans things out. Fiber does not equal carbohydrate. The way I intrepret the second of the two statements is this: in the past, some diets have eliminated dietary fiber in their zeal to reduce unnecessary carbs. Result? constipation. Constipation could be a combo of conditions/diet. Could be diet alone. Frankly, I adore veggies and would rather give up the protein. Mind you, I'm well aware that doing so would tank my sputtering metabolism further. Sheesh! Who'd a thunk that this whole nutrition/diet/health process would be so complicated?? Think I'll toddle off and have some kale dip with celery. YUM!

I just read in "Life Without Bread" bottom of pp155 "...we can evaluate the supply of all the minerals shown (all 11 of them listed in their table). Except for chromium, animal foods supply more of each mineral. Fruits supply only manganese. Five of the minerals can be found in grains, but it's been shown that the amount of the various minerals in grains, including selenium, is heavily dependent on the mineral supply of the soil in which they were grown." The authors go on about this, but it seems plain that veggies and fruits are self-selected for health. In other words if one does not want to eat them, it's fine. I reiterate a point I made elsewhere - we eat them because we like them not because we "need" them. This makes us uneasy because of our culture, especially in the past 30 years steering us towards more and more veggies as they become available. Just think if we ate ONLY the veggies available in our personal back gardens. Here in Niagara Falls at this time of the year I'd have lots, but come December I'd be eating carrots and cabbage stored in my non-existent cold cellar!!

I really don't want this thread to be about me and constipation. But, to answer your questions, I don't drink any caffeinated beverages other than coffee; yes, I have taken probiotics; I've been tested for hypothyroid via blood work and it has been looked at by several professionals, including the NP from Women to Women ("specialists" in women's health), a gyno, and two different MDs; I drink enough to be hydrated -- too much water makes me feel logey and bloated.

I also don't think fat consumption derails weight loss. Even eating 70% of your total calories in fat.

But, back to the original question.

The Eades state that carbs are not essential to human health. They also say fiber is important, that we should have 25 grams daily. How would we get fiber if not by veggies (and, by extension, grains and nuts)? Therefore, if carbs are not essential to human health, neither is fiber. And why is the ultimate goal, after losing the fat, to eat as much as or even more carbs than protein?

The Eades are correct in that there are no essential carbs. As fiber is not digested, it is not something that provides any nutrition and, as far as the human body is concerned, is not a carbohydrate. Many people feel that their digestive system moves along better with fiber.

The increasing carbs as one gets near goal is a method of stopping the weight loss and allowing a wider variety of foods to be eaten. Some carb sources also contain various vitamins, minerals and other substances that appear to be beneficial to humans.

While carbs are not essential, they are not harmful in moderate amounts and provide variety for those who tire of meat, eggs and cheese.

Maybe Dr. Mike changed his mind a bit. PPLP is newer than PP.

If you search his blog for "fiber" you will find a few articles. I thought I remembered reading one blog of his where he was saying that he no longer thought fiber was necessary, but I couldn't find that exact statement.

In this blog, he says he puts people with Barrett's Esophogus and GERD on an all meat diet.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...ence_of_ba.html

That seems likely to me!

Another change in opinion is with aspartame; PP promoted aspartame as an acceptable artificial sweetener, but in PPLP they mention specifically how they no longer feel this way and it should be avoided.



Bawdy...I can't rememeber the man's name on here, Kent??? But he has his own site and has some strong views about fiber not being essential and actually disturbing the digestive system!

Hmmm. That would be interesting. I've read some similar views. If you find him or his site, please let me know.

Short answer - as I don't have time tonight for my usual LOOONG one.
Because while fiber (celluose) is technically a carbohydrate, it CANNOT be digested by the human, thus it provides NO caloric/nutritional input to the human body. So eating fiber does not compromise the first statement that carbs are unecessary because you get NO carbs from eating fiber (wood basically).

Since PPLP was published in 1999-2000 it did not have the benifit of the recent studies that show no benifit to eating fiber, which Dr. Mike has bloged about. My impression from the blog(s) was that he now would say fiber is unecessary - NUTRITIONALLY, bowel function might be a different thing. BUT I don't think that it is, and will comment further later.

More later;
Larry