In general, I believe it's true that all protein foods require a great more effort in digestion than carby foods. Protein without a good deal of water intake can allegedly tip the pH balance of the body eventually.
However, your post makes several worst-case assumptions -- I realize this is you quoting something else by the way so I'm always referring to it in that context -- only adding all those together do you get the equation, like:
* - that something is eaten so incredibly fast that there's hardly any saliva involved
* - that the stomach acids are incapable of dealing with it
* - that someone's going to drink 16 oz of coffee at the same time specifically that dilutes the stomach acids (note that drinking water about 15 minutes before eating is the ideal)
* - that even after saliva, stomach acid, and bile, the chicken is still not digested, making unusual demands on the pancreas
It is true about the pancreas enlarging when you use it more. So do your bicep muscles. What line draws the difference between "enough over-stimulation to cause pancreatic breakdown" vs. "the pancreas is used more in carnivores than vegetarians" is a question I have not seen adequately answered by the research I've seen, although most vegetarians will trot that out to example why eating meat is terrible.
You might notice that it's actually usually carby food that brings most gas; protein seldom does in anybody I know, and when I shifted my diet to protein those issues vanished for me (if anything, more meat tends to have the opposite effect of diarrhea).
A protein-based diet generally improves blood readings and has often enabled some diabetics to reduce or even cease their external insulin requirements, all of which speak to a protein-based diet being more helpful than harmful, yet the article you mention would suggest the opposite.
Now theory is all very well, even when there are various pieces of research which could theoretically support it as long as there are 7 other 'assumptions' in place, but when it starts actually contradicting what you can see in your own family, friends, and body, then it's time to question it.
Also: a good deal of the process you describe becomes more realistic the more dehydrated the individual is. It is not really enough to just eat low carb; increasing water intake to a finally healthy level for the first time ever is a good part of an overall healthy eating plan.
Anybody who has ever done colon cleansing can attest to the interesting results suggesting far more storage along the walls of the intestine than most of us care to think about. On the other hand I've also read articles suggesting that the effect of fiber is to create an abrasion which causes a slimy substance to coat the intestine as it passes which gradually layers itself in deposits as protection of the intestine (mixing with the junk traveling through it of course) -- just depends on what you read!
Every eating plan is usually able to find stuff to support their opinions -- even when much of this is totally contradictory. In the end, it's what works for you I suppose.
When I began low carb I was in far more danger of keeling over from 350 extra lbs and the impact on my heart than anything -- this is a far bigger concern for me than whether I'm going to need to do a colon cleansing regime a couple times a year. As my protein requirements gradually lessen, I'll have more veggies and less meat than I do now.
Next: the idea that the chicken "deposited very little in nutritional value" is something I would argue. That is something that'd be posited by someone who thinks protein is relatively unimportant and only needed in small amounts, and who is far more concerned with the fiber in whole grains and the vitamins in a banana than they are with getting the body sufficient protein to maintain its lean body mass. That chicken contributed pure protein and amino acids to the body-- which it critically needs, and as far as 'real food' goes, could not be gotten from anything BUT meat, which is being villified in this example -- that is hardly 'contributing nothing'.
If they only want to measure by vitamins or minerals, then sure -- eating avocados and broccoli are way better! But we eat protein for a reason just like we eat veggies for a reason. The body handles them differently, and if you look for every worst-case "combination" of eating habits to explain why meat is bad, that's just going to result in someone who had better hope they can afford protein and amino acid supplements (stuff that is not 'real food' but modern contrivances), or their health problems will eventually be a helluva lot worse than a need for a colon cleansing.
There is no way to eat and not have it affect you and require work and input on your body in some fashion. It is a given that if you eat without hardly chewing and superfast, are dehydrated, drink stuff that isn't water along with your food, you are not going to digest things as well or completely than if your eating habits were better. That is not nearly so much a problem with the food as it is with the style of eating. Anything can be misused.
I remember seeing a study decades ago about how carrots could give you cancer. (My theory is that "being a laboratory rat force fed insane amounts of carrots" was what could really give you cancer!) When a person has an opinion they can usually find something to support it.
You understand I assume, that agriculture is a relatively NEW thing to the human race. For many millennia, mostly meat, with some roots/tubers and now and then a few berries or fruit (which was vastly tinier and less sweet than what we have now) was the primary food of humanity.
You see the diabetes epidemic growing literally exponentially the last 1.5 centuries. What has changed? Not meat! We eat less meat than our species ever has. What has changed? Sugar and grains that require processing or cooking to be edible have been added in massive and constantly growing amounts. If there is anything that can be tracked to the diabetes epidemic for example, it is certainly not meat. Yet that article would have you believe that if you eat meat it will so over-enlarge your pancreas that you'll get diabetes. That would merit actually hilarity if it wasn't sad that it might convince readers who don't have the testimony of tons of people who used to eat low-protein, even vegetarian, and switched to eating far more protein meats and saw their health improve, weight drop, blood readings improve, etc.
Best,
PJ
|
). Add steak and tuna tartar, with avocado, and you have a perfect raw food diet: gluten and starches free, easy on digestion, chockfull of digestive enzymes and easily adaptable to a low carb WOE. IMO, it is certainly healthier than diet based on fried chicken, pork rinds, fried bacon, and ultra pasturized heavy cream. 
Hybrid Mode
