"Ketogenic" metabolism

[ketodog]

Hi to all

I have read Waisays.com long time ago. I have even tried the diet, but I will try to go directly to my point now.

All the biochemistry theoretical concepts behind Wai´s diet are based on the maistream idea that the normal (physyiologic) metabolic situation of the human body is the one in which dietary glucose is provided.

The idea that blood-sugar levels have to be constantly balanced with sugars and fats is based on that idea too, the same like the article about the true causes of diabetes.

As I like to question everything, I am a skeptic until I am provided with the evidence to back up a certain claim.

But there exists another ¨understanding¨ of human biochemistry based on another point of view, different from most human biochemistry and physiology textbooks.

When carbohydrates are not provided with the diet, the body adapts after some time to this situation. There are numerous misconceptions and myths about ketosis metabolism in the medical proffession. And I think that the opinion over here is that ketosis isn´t healthy.

Reading both sides, I am of the opinion that a ketogenic diet is the ideal one for the human body. Ketosis is the metabolic state which resembles most a fasting state, where aging biomarkers like insulin and blood glucose are improved, according to anti-aging research, both in human and animal studies.

After some weeks on a ketogenic diet the brain fullfils its requirements only 25% from glucose, and the rest from ketone bodies. Other tissues rely more on free fatty acids. The result is that a ketogenic diet is muscle sparing when compared to a normal high-carb diet, simply because the body requirements for glucose are decreased, and blood sugar doesn´t go down too fast.

Keeping this theoretical ketogenic concepts in mind, it is not necessary to have frequent meals to mantain blood-sugar levels stabilized by eating frequent meals. I have been eating a ketogenic diet for some years and I need to eat only once per day, I don´t lose muscle mass, I am lean and lift weights and do intense exercise (anaerobic type).

Now, if you are eating the Wai diet or any other ¨non-ketogenic¨WOE it is difficult to throw a fast and feel ok, due to the fact that your blood glucose will drop too low and you will feel like crap. On the contrary, when you are keto-adapted your tissues will utilize fatty acids and ketones for fuel, while glucose is being spared for the red blood cells, bone marrow, brain and other body structures which require it in small amounts. Yes, if you eat glucose constantly you will spare muscle, but why not let your body to fully adapt to ketosis for being able to eat less frequently without losing muscle, and burning fats?

Looks to me as if the Wai diet is an artificial way of having your blood-sugar levels balanced, with frequent meals, and that a more reasonable way would be with a ketogenic diet.

I know, you will tell me that high-protein diets are bad, that cooked protein is poison, but I need more proof for that besides theoretical biochemistry concepts and crossed-species comparissons, given that human studies show the opposite

What I am trying to say is that once I found out that a ketogenic diet is the best from a metabolic point of view, achieving lower RP, blood pressure, FPG, insulin, and other biomarkers of aging, I started to question the raw theory. Why? Because the foods with the best macronutirent profile (fats, protein, carbs) according to the ketogenic phylosophy are animal foods, and also are unquestionably the most nutrient dense. Why avoid eating red meat and their nutrients like carnosine and carnitine just to avoid cooking?

At first I tried to eat mainly raw egg yolks, raw fish and other RAF. But then I found that the only RAF that can be eaten in high amounts without processing methods and that also taste good are raw bone marrow, raw fish and raw egg yolks, which are also easy to chew and digest in its raw state. Just a coincidence? I don´t think so. Cooking allows humans to eat other types of preys like bigger land mammals, which without the aid of technology are almost inedible in its raw state, and almost everybody will agree with me that it tastes like crap when compared to its cooked version. And it takes hours to chew raw mescle meat from a wild animal, not from a rib eye premium cut genetically selected by tendernes. On the other hand I love raw egg yolks, they taste much better raw than cooked!

So, even if it´s true that cooked meat contains HCAs, there is no proof that they are harmful in a healthy inividual in the context of a natural diet, and also in the context of an intermittent fasting WOE, where DNA repair mechanisms can operate properly (heat shock proteins in lab animal evidence). Maybe HCAs are a concern for a diseased individual eating the SAD, due to the fcat that an overwhelmed body reacts different than a healthy one. And the amount of HCAs employed to cause cancer in lab animals were much more higher than the ones present in cooked meat, and that´s supposing that you are eating always barbequed red meat. If you eat boiled meats the HCAs are unmeasurable.

What I am proposing is that maybe you are exagerating with the HCAs in cooked meats, and that if we put things in perpective they are meaningless when compared to other things, like our own cell debris, which are continuously being excreted.

I have learned a lot reading Wai theories and I don´t want to be rude, just share some thoughts and see what you actually think.

The evidence and the studies to back up my assertions about ketogenic metabolism can be found in ¨The ketogenic diet by Lyle McDonald (the first chapters can be downloaded by free!).

About anti-aging research and aging biomarkers, just make a google for ¨intermittent fasting¨, ¨calorie restriction¨, ¨aging biomarkers¨ ¨anti aging medicine¨.

[Oscar]

The result is that a ketogenic diet is muscle sparing...
...I need to eat only once per day...

This all depends on the energy reserves, i.c. glycogen depots and body fat. As long as there are enough reserves the body can go on, without the need to convert muscle protein into glucose. It doesn't even matter which diet we're talking about.

Now, if you are eating the Wai diet or any other ¨non-ketogenic¨WOE it is difficult to throw a fast and feel ok, due to the fact that your blood glucose will drop too low and you will feel like crap.

I don't really understand why I would want to "throw a fast", I'd rather "throw a party", but assuming I would, then again: if the reserves are fine, I will be fine.

The body is a very flexible organic machine. It can adapt to and survive on many different kinds of diets, so the question is: how do you want to use it? Do you want to give it what it needs, or force it to adapt?

[avalon]

Ketodog wrote:

Why avoid eating red meat and their nutrients like carnosine and carnitine just to avoid cooking?

To be clear, I do eat raw meat, beef, bison, liver, chicken, fish and oysters to name a few. I think the reasoning is the fear of parasites- ecoli salmoella and such so Wai does not endorse meat eating. Sashimi tends to be less risky in the scheme of things as it is more accepted by society, but it all depends on your own adventure and who you are willing to believe. Aajonus Vonderplanits, Sally fallon, Allisa Cohen, The Wai team?

Wai is certainly not the only site concerned about HCAs and cooked foods.Google, google, library.

The world is your Raw Oyster

However, ketogenic diet doesn't depend on raw or cooked, correct? And I am greatly interested in all diets of merrit. I thrived on Atkins in the 90s! I remain open to new ideas and know that the science of nutrition continues to evolve.

Best wishes,
Avalon

[RRM]

Ketosis is the metabolic state which resembles most a fasting state, where aging biomarkers like insulin and blood glucose are improved

Lower, you mean.
The Wai diet is a low-insulin diet, due to the very frequent, small meals.

After some weeks on a ketogenic diet the brain fullfils its requirements only 25% from glucose, and the rest from ketone bodies.

And where do the ketone bodies come from?
Protein and fat. (including protein from your muscles)

Other tissues rely more on free fatty acids.

What tissue requires most energy?
Muscles.
And they dont use fatty acids, but energy from glucose (/ glycogen), fructose or glucogenic amino acids.

it is not necessary to have frequent meals to mantain blood-sugar levels stabilized by eating frequent meals.

If you want to spare muscles, it is.

given that human studies show the opposite

Ok then, lets bring it on!
Show me that high-protein diets are better for our health...
(your studies please)

Why avoid eating red meat and their nutrients like carnosine and carnitine just to avoid cooking?

I eat raw red meat when I can get a hold of a high quality piece.
Show me evidence that carnosine and carnitine are listed as essential nutrients that we cannot do without.

Cooking allows humans to eat other types of preys like bigger land mammals

And the subsequent uptake of heterocyclic amines and oxysterols.

there is no proof that they are harmful in a healthy inividual in the context of a natural diet

If you eat a natural diet, small doses of toxins can never hurt you, you think?
Or is it that the risk is only lower...

maybe you are exagerating with the HCAs in cooked meats

A small risk is acceptable?
Why would you want to ingest little toxins from cooked meat if you can ingest no toxins from raw meat?

[ketodog]

RRM and the rest, thanks for your replies. I appreciate them very much. The same as most of you here, my objective is to learn more and be the nearest as possible from the truth. And please apologize me for my bad english.

RRM wrote:

Lower, you mean.
The Wai diet is a low-insulin diet, due to the very frequent, small meals.

The Wai diet provokes a weaker insulin response than a normal high-carb diet, but how do you know if that frequent insulin release, although it is small, is healthy in the long run? Fasting and low-carb diets has shown in human and animal studies to reduce insulin levels. The Wai diet don´t; you are speculating based on biochemistry theory only.

And where do the ketone bodies come from?
Protein and fat. (including protein from your muscles)

No. Ketone bodies aren´t derived from protein, that´s a common misconception seen in the medical establishment too. They come from the incomplete break-down of free fatty acids.

Quote:
it is not necessary to have frequent meals to mantain blood-sugar levels stabilized by eating frequent meals.

If you want to spare muscles, it is.

Not true. Both the theory behind the ketogenic metabolism and the experience of many people, including mine, prove it. If you are not keto-adapted your body will grab amino acids from muscles at a higher rate than if you are adapted to fat-metabolsim, and you will need to zip sugars all day (Wai diet).

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/39

In this link you will also find other studies about ketogenic metabolism and physical performance adaptation, performed by Dr, Phinney.

Ok then, lets bring it on!
Show me that high-protein diets are better for our health...
(your studies please)

That a ketogenic diet is healthier in humans is not wonder. Just google for low-carb human trials and see the results. Where are the studies of humans eating the Wi diet?

I eat raw red meat when I can get a hold of a high quality piece.
Show me evidence that carnosine and carnitine are listed as essential nutrients that we cannot do without.

Cholesterol is not an essential nutrient but personally I feel MUCH better when I eat rare brains or lots of raw egg yolks. The research behind carnosime and carnitine is recent; you can also make a google for them if you are interetsed. They have antioxidant properties.

And the Wai argument ¨you don´t need it¨, with only fruit and a little RAF you have everything is too simplistic. If you don´t react bad to a natural food I don´t see why you have to eliminiate it to mantain a raw dogma; for example green tea.

Quote:
Cooking allows humans to eat other types of preys like bigger land mammals

And the subsequent uptake of heterocyclic amines and oxysterols.

The idea that they are harmful in humans was never proved. Humans, not lab animal evidence of mice fed HIGH quantities of HCAs. The amount of HCAs in boiled meats is meaningless when compared to your OWN metabolic waste or our current polluted air.

A small risk is acceptable?
Why would you want to ingest little toxins from cooked meat if you can ingest no toxins from raw meat?

There isn´t any risk at all. Its imposible in practice for humans to eat raw muscle meat in high quantities, not as part of the Wai diet in little amounts. Raw wild game meat, not selected by tenderness. Did you try yourself to eat a raw old chicken? It´s impossible.

[avalon]

Hi Ketodog,

You wrote:

And a ketogenic diet is normally higher in protein than the SAD, but is a high-fat diet, not a high-protein diet.

Do you mean similar to the 'Optimal Diet' by Dr. Jan Kwasniewski?

Did you try yourself to eat a raw old chicken?

I'll also pass on cooked old chicken heh heh

Can you give a sample of your daily food menu?

Avalon

[ketodog]

Oscar wrote:

The body is a very flexible organic machine. It can adapt to and survive on many different kinds of diets, so the question is: how do you want to use it? Do you want to give it what it needs, or force it to adapt?

How do you know that the normal physiologic state is when dietary carbohydrates are provided? What if the normal metabolic state is ketosis? Maybe you are forcing your body to adapt when feeding more glucose than the necessary to sustain the brain (25%), bone marrow, red blood cells, renal medulla and other body structures that require it in small amounts? (below 100 grams of total glucose per day)

Why we can´t question the very beginning of the whole picture? The body will utilize glucose first when it is provided, that´s true, but it will also utilize alcohol first and that doesn´t prove that alcohol is the healthiest fuel.

[ketodog]

Avalon wrote:

Do you mean similar to the 'Optimal Diet' by Dr. Jan Kwasniewski?

No. I didn´t feel well on that protein/fat ratio; too low for me. Everybody must twick what works best for them. That your kidneys are stressed with high-protein diets is not true in a healthy individual. A. Colpo has written about that in his site theomnivore.com but now it´s closed.

Anyway, if that high quantities of protein were too bad, we would expect epidemic kidney diseases in bodybuilders, when that´s not the case, as Colpo hd pointed out. And bodybuilders generally consume way too much protein (2-3 grams per pound of BW). I think that the optimal should be around 1 gram per pound of body-weight.

If you are afraid of too much protein yes, you can eat the Optimal diet, but if you listen to your body I think that you would benefit from more of it, based on how I feel. I don´t know your case.

On the Wai diet I didn´t feel a stable energy sensation like now. But that´s my experience. Everybody can and should have the right to eat the way they want.

Can you give a sample of your daily food menu?

I don´t think is a good idea, due to the fact that I am always trying new things, but without going into details, I feel best eating one or 2 meals at the evening, animal foods, both cooked and raw; raw egg yolks, cooked meats, organs; I drink antioxidant rich beverages during the day. I don´t eat vegetables. I eat paleo fruit like berries, honey, in small amounts.

[RRM]

The Wai diet provokes a weaker insulin response than a normal high-carb diet, but how do you know if that frequent insulin release, although it is small, is healthy in the long run?

Because its lower and precisely what it takes; not too much, not too little.

Fasting and low-carb diets has shown in human and animal studies to reduce insulin levels. The Wai diet don´t; you are speculating based on biochemistry theory only.

You mean that the Wai diet has not been tested?
We would love that!
We expect good results, as 2 diabetes-1 patients on this diet needed 35 to 40% less supplementary insulin on this diet.

Ketone bodies aren´t derived from protein

Excuse me?
Yes, they come from incomplete break down of fatty acids, but also from ketogenic amino acids. Leucine and lysine are strictly ketogenic amino acids. Phenylalanine, tyrosine, isoleucine and tryptophane are both glucogenic and ketogenic. The rest is glucogenic.
Are you really saying all this is not true?

In the absence of glucose they will utilize ketone bodies at first and afer 3 weeks they will rely mainly on FFA, sparing ketone bodies for the brain.

In the absence of glucose, glucogenic amino acids (methionine, cysteine, valine, threonine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, glycine, histidine, proline, serine and arginine) from protein are used for energy for the muscles. When ketone bodies or fatty acids are used for energy by the muscles, this results in the release of aceto-acetic acid and beta-hydroxybuteric acid. Accumulation of these substances inhibits further utilization of fatty acids or ketone bodies. The level of these substances can only be sufficiently decreased if sufficient glucose is available.

a ketogenic diet is normally higher in protein than the SAD, but is a high-fat diet, not a high-protein diet.

The SAD diet is already high-protein, and a ketogenic diet is even higher in protein?
So, it IS high in protein.
You know why?
So that the ketogenic amino acids can compensate for the loss of glucose.

Both the theory behind the ketogenic metabolism and the experience of many people, including mine, prove it.

The ketogenic theory is proof by itself?
And you experience is proof?
Thats not science.

When I was on the Wai diet my muscle turnover was higher.

Says what test?

And biomarkers of aging are consistently imoproved with a ketogenic diet

With calory restriction, is what you meant to say, I guess.
Those two are not the same, at all.

The lifespan of a species is not necessarily a consequence of their diet.

So thats all coincidence and your theory is more reliable?
I put my money on nature.

What about whales who eat protein and live 200 years?

All animals eat protein. Wales dont belong to the group that eat a high protein diet. Carnivores do.
Wales live on plankton.

A ketogenic diet, even a carnivorous diet is not necessarily a high-protein diet if sufficient fat is consumed.

Its higher in protein than SAD, but not high in protein?
You are contradicting yourself.

Even pigs, omnivores, peform better on a ketogenic diet

Perform? Bodybuilders perform better on steroids. What does that mean?

The metabolic situation which delays aging is the same for all the so called omnivorous species.

Its calory restriction.

Just google for low-carb human trials and see the results.

No, you claimed that studies showed that a high protein diet is better.
You should live up to your claim, so that we can evaluate those studies.

Where are the studies of humans eating the Wi diet?

I never claimed that the Wai diet has been subject of studies.

Cholesterol is not an essential nutrient

Cholesterol is a nutrient, right? (vitamin D, sex hormones, bile acids, brain)
Its also essential (decreased levels lead to depression and aggression).

The research behind carnosime and carnitine is recent

Are you claiming that there are studies that show that a low / absent intake of carnosine or carnitine comes with deficiency symptoms?

If you don´t react bad to a natural food I don´t see why you have to eliminiate it

So, if you dont react bad to grilled beef, it cannot be bad for you?

The idea that they are harmful in humans was never proved.

Are you saying there is no harm in ingesting toxins?
Are you aware that even a low, but prolonged intake of toxins can lead to cancer?

There isn´t any risk at all.

Then passive smoking cannot lead to lung cancer either, right?

Did you try yourself to eat a raw old chicken? It´s impossible.

Why does it have to be old?

How do you know that the normal physiologic state is when dietary carbohydrates are provided?

All animals that cannot produce their own vitamin C, naturally eat substantial amounts of fruits. Fruits contain carbs. So it IS natural for us.

[Oscar]

How do you know that the normal physiologic state is when dietary carbohydrates are provided? What if the normal metabolic state is ketosis?

I'm sure you can agree humans are mammals, and belong to the primates. Comparing our teeth and digestive system with other primates, we most resemble primates which are frugivores. This means a diet consisting mainly of fruits and some animal protein. A diet mainly consisting of animal food, as RRM remarked, belongs to the carnivores.

The body will utilize glucose first when it is provided, that´s true, but it will also utilize alcohol first and that doesn´t prove that alcohol is the healthiest fuel.

The body will use ANY food to survive, so this argument doesn't say anything.

[ketodog]

RRM wrote:

Because its lower and precisely what it takes; not too much, not too little.

That doesn´t say nothing about the long-term effect of a FREQUENT insulin release in the bloodstream and its impact on insulin sensitivity.

We expect good results, as 2 diabetes-1 patients on this diet needed 35 to 40% less supplementary insulin on this diet.

Many type-2 diabetics don´t need foreign insulin anymore when following a low-carb diet.

Excuse me?
Yes, they come from incomplete break down of fatty acids, but also from ketogenic amino acids. Leucine and lysine are strictly ketogenic amino acids. Phenylalanine, tyrosine, isoleucine and tryptophane are both glucogenic and ketogenic.
Are you really saying all this is not true?

Some amino acids have glucogenic properties; I already know that. But they actually don´t have an effect on ketosis. Ketone bodies derived from fats do.
Nosadini R. et al. Ketone body metabolism: A physiological and clinical overview. Diabet/Metab Rev (1989) 5: 299-319.

When ketone bodies or fatty acids are used for energy by the muscles, this results in the release of aceto-acetic acid and beta-hydroxybuteric acid. Accumulation of these substances inhibits further utilization of fatty acids or ketone bodies. The level of these substances can only be sufficiently decreased if sufficient glucose is available.

Are you saying that ketosis is the same than ketoacidosis? Muscle tissue and other body structures can adapt with time to utilize fatty acids more efficiently.

The SAD diet is already high-protein, and a ketogenic diet is even higher in protein?
So, it IS high in protein.

The SAD diet isn´t high in protein. It´s high in carbs (carbs/fat/protein by calories). A ketogenic diet can be OR NOT higher in protein than the SAD, depending on which fat/protein ratio you choose.

But let´s say that a ketogenic diet is generally a low-carb high-fat high-protein diet, if you like, so we can understand us better.

You know why?
So that the ketogenic amino acids can compensate for the loss of glucose.

Ketogenic amino acids are irrelevant. A ketogenic diet can mantain zero nitrogen balance with standard amonuts of protein as employed in a normal high-carb diet, once the body is adapted. You don´t necessarily need to eat MORE protein to be in ketosis, as you seem to believe.

The ketogenic theory is proof by itself?
And you experience is proof?
Thats not science.

Yes it is. On the contrary, your claim that if you want to spare muscle protein you should eat frequently and that your metabolic situation doesn´t count, contradicts both empirical evidence and science, given that the ketogenic theory is based on human studies. And my experience and the one of MANY others just verify what the studies on ketogenic metabolism show.

When I was on the Wai diet my muscle turnover was higher.

Says what test?

I didn´t make a test, but I found that if you don´t zip from OJ regularly you loose lean muscle mass and feel lows in energy together with hunger for sweet foods. That corresponds to a higher muscle turnover rate for providing glucogenic amino acids due to increased glucose requirements. On the contrary, if you are keto-adapted you don´t experience such a great muscle turnover rate nor hunger when going on without food, due to more stable blood-glucose levels because of a reduced need for glucose.

And biomarkers of aging are consistently imoproved with a ketogenic diet

With calory restriction, is what you meant to say, I guess.
Those two are not the same, at all.

I don´t think you really understand that ketosis is the same metabolic state achieved by intermittent fasting and caloric restriction.

All animals eat protein. Wales dont belong to the group that eat a high protein diet. Carnivores do.
Wales live on plankton.

Yes, the Bowhead whale eats zooplankton and was recorded as the longest lived mammal on earth (more than 200 years). But it also eats krill, not only plankton. Zooplankton isn´t low in protein, at all. And you will agree too that krill fish is high in protein. So we are talking of a diet that IT IS high in protein.

The lifespan of a species is not necessarily a consequence of their diet.

So thats all coincidence and your theory is more reliable?
I put my money on nature.

My theory? I am just saying that the lifespan of a species is genetically determined, and that if you compare different mammals, aging rate is related to size, metabolic rate and heart beat. Not to diet or protein intake.

I don´t know of what ¨coincidence¨ are you talking about. That´s YOUR theory.

Looks to me that your diet is more like a carnivore diet.
As a consequence, the lifespan of carnivovers is shorter.

Could you elaborate YOUR theory with some examples?

Herbivores eat much more frequently, and life longer. Nothing artificial about that.

First, if you believe that herbivores live longer than species eating high-protein diets, explain how. And second, are you an herbivore?

Herbivorous animals eat frequently. We are not like them. They have bacteria that utilize fiber (glucose) and release volatile short chain fatty acids which are absorbed by the digestive tract for being utilized by the animal. So even a cow isn´t metabolizing carbs. It is clear that, for us, eating carbs all day IT IS artificial. Cows eat continuosly but we are not ruminant animals, nor herbivores like rabbits or horses. We aren´t apes either.

Anyway, we need to compare the same species under a certain dietary intervention, not tigers vs. cows to conclude something on humans.

Even pigs, omnivores, peform better on a ketogenic diet

Perform? Bodybuilders perform better on steroids. What does that mean?

I mean that their plasma markers of health are improved, as the study I have posted shows; their aging rate is decreased. So if this is true for pigs, which can digest RAW corn, imagine how beneficial it´s for carnivores and most omnivorous animals with less ability to digest raw starches and fiber, including humans. These are RELEVANT facts from animals under the SAME intervention, not like the FALSE observation that carnivores live shorter lives, something completelly irrelevant even if it were true.

The metabolic situation which delays aging is the same for all the so called omnivorous species.

Its calory restriction.

True. And how do we achieve that metabolic situation? Not only with calorie restriction, but also with intermittent fasting and low-carb nutrition, as I have said.

If you think that the fact that intermittent fasting, caloric restriction and ketogenic diets share the same metabolic situation (low insulin/glucagon ratio) and affect aging biomarkers in the same way is just ¨coincidence¨, I put my money in human and animal studies until you propose a better explanation or until you prove that Wai´s diet can produce the same effect on health markers, although it isn´t ketogenic.

Just google for low-carb human trials and see the results.

No, you claimed that studies showed that a high protein diet is better.
You should live up to your claim, so that we can evaluate those studies.

Are you saying that high-protein low-carb diets aren´t better than high-carb diets? It´s a well known fact that high-protein low-carb diets are much more effective than high-carb diets in achieving favourable plasma markers, like improved glucose control and insulin sensitivity, even at isocaloric levels.

In the case you don´t want to google for the studies, here are some of them:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/3/586

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/4/734

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/2/405

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/1/31

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/6/1298

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/63/1/110

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/reprint/22/6/889

Article

Here are some human clinical trials showing that high-protein diets don´t cause damage:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/25

http://www.foremas.com/IMG/pdf/Manninen ... 1-2004.pdf

210g protein daily for a 75kg individual.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Citation

A comparison of healthy omnivores eating 100 grams or more of protein per day with long-term vegetarians eating 30g or less of protein per day
concluded that both groups had similar kidney function and that the unrestricted protein diet does not significantly affect kidney function with "normal aging" in healthy subjects.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... /149/1/211

Patients with kidney failure were followed up for almost 4 years, and researchers found that those who ate the unrestricted protein diet had half of the chances of requiring dyalisis or dying. The other group followed a high-carb low-protein diet what most so called nutrition experts and physicians would have prescribed.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cg ... /52/5/1204

Now it´s your turn of bringing up human studies showing detrimental effects of a high-protein diets.

How do you know that the normal physiologic state is when dietary carbohydrates are provided?

All animals that cannot produce their own vitamin C, naturally eat substantial amounts of fruits. Fruits contain carbs. So it IS natural for us.

It´s natural for SOME (i.e. the fruitarian bat) but not for all of those species, including us. A type of fish can´t synthtize ascorbic acid, and I don´t think that its diet relies on fruit. I don´t see the guinea pig eating a fruit-based diet either, although it is vegetarian and gets plenty vitamin C from plant sources.

We are unique species. We are not apes. Our genome is the one of hunter gatherers who evolved eating mainly animal foods. If evolutionary theory has to benefit a particular diet, certainly it isn´t Wai´s. Feast and famine patterns make sense with ketosis and with improved aging biomarkers, and with a high-fat high-protein animal oriented diet.

If you prove in human studies that Wai´s diet is beneficial, I would see it like implementing a technology based on a new discovery, but in no way is something that is backed up by the fossil record, which clearly shows that we have been eating meat for the last 2,4 million years.

Cholesterol is not an essential nutrient

Cholesterol is a nutrient, right? (vitamin D, sex hormones, bile acids, brain) Its also essential (decreased levels lead to depression and aggression).

No, is not essential because your body can produce it, and dietary cholesterol doesn´t affect significantly cholesterol levels, as Dr. Ravsnovk has shown studies proving this fact. Low cholesterol levels are ASSOCIATED to depression and increased mortallity, but low cholestrol intake by itself is not the CAUSE. Low intake of fats and prolongued low calorie-diets are likely the real culprit, as low-fat diets are associated to that problems.

Eventually I agree with you that higher cholesterol intakes are essential to feel better than lower intakes, based on personal experience. But not ¨essential¨ strictly speaking; that is for avoiding deficiency diseases like an essential amino acid or EFA.

Are you claiming that there are studies that show that a low / absent intake of carnosine or carnitine comes with deficiency symptoms?

The studies you refer to don´t measure ¨cholesterol intake¨. On the contrary, many human controlled trials have shown benefits from supplementing carnitine and carnosine, suggesting that those people were deficient in those nutrients to begin with, while studies showing benefits from supplementing cholesterol doesn´t exist.

The same with creatine supplementation which enhances physical performance, carnosine taurine and carnitine supplementation clearly benefit CDV disease patients.

Like with with cholesterol intake, you will probably obtain benefits from nutrients found in meats that are not present in fish or eggs at all or in optimal quantities.

Meat is the only rich source of L-carnitine. Their properties are more than inetresting. Eating only a few egg yolks will clearly deprive you from ingesting this valious amino acid.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... ds=1292918

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/amhj/abstr ... 44!8091!-1

Carnosine also is very important.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?.....

http://www.springerlink.com/content/6mhb24hyajh4qkk1/

Great decreases in creatine muscle content were found in healthy men who switched to a lacto-ovo vegan diet. I don´t think that some egg yolks and a little fish contain ALL nutrients in optimal amounts.
Lukaszuk JM, et al. Effect of creatine supplementation and a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet on muscle creatine concentration. International Journal of Sport Nutrition & Exercise
Metabolism, Sept, 2002; 12 (3): 336-348.

Optimal creatine levels can be achieved by supplementation or better, by eating sufficient red meat. Show me evidence with yolks or fish.
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/...

Another key amino acid, taurine, was found beneficial for heart disease patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

The same as carnivores, humans cannot synthetize taurine efficiently. Why do you think this happens, because our evolutionary diet was composed of little RAF? No, because we are naturally meat eaters!

And also the concentration of taurine in eggs is negligible.
Pasantes-Morales H, et al. Taurine content in foods. Nutrition Reports International,
1989; 40: 793-801.

Laidlow SA, et al. The taurine content of common foodstuffs. Journal of Parenteral
Enteral Nutrition, Mar-Apr, 1990; 14 (2): 183-188.

If you don´t react bad to a natural food I don´t see why you have to eliminiate it

So, if you dont react bad to grilled beef, it cannot be bad for you?

No. Why? Because lab animals fed high amounts of HCAs in amounts MANY times higher than the ones present in food clearly are not the same as an ocassional grilled beef. That´s like feeding mice with high amounts of pesticides and then concluding that ¨eating non-organic fruit causes cancer¨. Or it´s like feeding an animal high amounts of mercury and then concluding that ¨eating fish causes brain damage¨. See?

If you think that eating cooked rare meats on a regular basis is worst than eating raw fish or worst than non-organic fruit and olive oil every day, you are not making a real assessment of the facts, but making ERRONEOUS extrapolations.

Our bodies co-evovled together with HCAs found in cooked preys. So I prefer to eat cooked meat than pesticides or potentially polluted fish every day. Eating a diet based on animal foods protects against ingesting too much pesticides from vegetable sources. Intermittent fasting (feast and famine patterns) too. Until you prove that the Wai diet has the same DNA repair enhancing mechanisms than intermittent fasting, I prefer to stick with the latter for protecting my body against pesticides, polluted air, etc.

Are you saying there is no harm in ingesting toxins?
Are you aware that even a low, but prolonged intake of toxins can lead to cancer?

So eating big quantities of olive oil, fish and fruit that aren´t 100% organic is better than eating boiled meat? Come on! THAT´S not science!

Then passive smoking cannot lead to lung cancer either, right?

That´s not the same than eating cooked meat. Again, the facts show that HCAs from meat have to be given in quantitites MANY times higher than what can be ingested by eating food.

Did you try yourself to eat a raw old chicken? It´s impossible.

Why does it have to be old?

Because in nature the meat isn´t always from premium cuts from young animals genetically selected for their tenderness. That´s why a raw diet as the natural for humans is nonsense. I don´t think you will be willing to eat decomposed meat as my dogs do, for increasing tenderness. Cooking increases ingestion rate and digestibility. You eat red meat right? Go to the wild, hunt an animal and chew that tough muscle meat cutting it with a bone or rock. Or better cook it and forget about raw beliefs. 100% RAW 0% FACT.

[ketodog]

I'm sure you can agree humans are mammals, and belong to the primates. Comparing our teeth and digestive system with other primates, we most resemble primates which are frugivores.

I am sure you can agree that chimps and other apes eat far less animal matter and significantly more plant foods than humans. This is why there are significant differences in stomach and brain size between humans and other primates. Non-human primates require larger guts to effectively process the greater volume of bulky plant matter they consume. It appears that the reduction in gut size resulting from mankind's adoption of calorie- and nutrient-dense meat as a staple food paved the way for accelerated brain growth. This is known as the "expensive tissue hypothesis".

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0100-
84551997000100023&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

The teeth don´t say nothing given that we don´t kill preys with our mouths like tigers. We use our hands instead. Meat introduction during human evolution is reflected in our digestive tract, which is very similar to the one of carnivores. You have posted some time ago a chart showing how different it was our digestive system from the one of apes, which are adapted to digest fiber more efficiently, given the size of their big intestine.

That we should eat fruit, NO vegetables and little RAF doesn´t make sense with evolution. Why would ancient apes discontinue eating leaves but continue to eat fruit? Why apes would go away from Africa carrying fruit to live for 2,4 million years? A more reasonable and accurate explanation would be that they started to rely almost entirely on animal foods, not on fruit and other vegetation, given the characteristics of our digestive tract.

This means a diet consisting mainly of fruits and some animal protein.

That eating pattern brings problems in humans. That´s why you have to balance sugars with fat, and even doing that, many experience teeth and other problems. ¨Some animal protein¨ is what monkeys eat, but that´s not the ideal amount for us.

If you give a chimp more meat he will probably be much better than eating mainly fruit, based on how they desperately eat meat when they can find it and based on how a low-carb diet affects tested biomarkers of health in omnivorous and carnivorous species. Anyway, we are not apes, we are humans.

A diet mainly consisting of animal food, as RRM remarked, belongs to the carnivores.

According to anthropologic research paleolithic humans were mainly carnivores. If you want to believe that the hunter-gatherer´s diet was more similiar to the one of a chimp than to the one of a carnivorous animal you are not making a real assesment of the evdence. We are not talking about Homo-like species, but about Homo sapiens here, although even Homo-like species ate much more meat than what chimps do.

The body will use ANY food to survive, so this argument doesn't say anything

Exactly. Your body will use glucose first but that´s not proof that it´s the ideal fuel for achieving optimal health.

The body is a very flexible organic machine. It can adapt to and survive on many different kinds of diets, so the question is: how do you want to use it? Do you want to give it what it needs, or force it to adapt?

Do you think that you are forcing your body when restricting dietary carbohydrates and that you are giving what it needs when you eat glucose, but really it´s the other way round. That´s why the metabolic situation which explains calorie restriction, intermittent fasting and ketogenic diet are the same.

If glucose is the ideal fuel I don´t see why it gives a different metabolic picture than the other approaches which extend lifespan. It doesn´t make sense.

It would be wonderful to obtain the benefits seen with the interventions I have mentioned but with Wai´s diet, so we could alternate both diets.

I love to eat fruit, but I need more proofs to be convinced that the continuous insulin infusion to the bloodstream doesn´t provoke a negative effect. And my tooth experience on the diet is a serious concern for me.

I have done also another version of the Wai diet in the past, eating just 3 meals, and I did better than with the ¨many meals¨ approach. I mantained the 2/1 carbs and fat ratio. I ate 100 grams of carbs from bananas and 50 grams of fats from avocado for lunch, for example. I am not sure if this approach is better towards insulin sensitivity than the many meals approach, but it worked better for me.

Again, It would be interesting to see a Wai diet tested in real HUMAN beings. But until that occurs I am skeptic.

I don't really understand why I would want to "throw a fast", I'd rather "throw a party", but assuming I would, then again: if the reserves are fine, I will be fine.

Do you have proofs that Wai´s diet enhance DNA repair mechanisms or decrease aging rate the same as Intermittent fasting? At least lab animals eating Wai´s diet!

If you fast and are not keto adapted you will experience much more muscle loss. That doesn´t depend only in ¨reserves¨.

[RRM]

That doesn´t say nothing about the long-term effect of a FREQUENT insulin release in the bloodstream and its impact on insulin sensitivity.

We expect good results, as 2 diabetes-1 patients on this diet needed 35 to 40% less supplementary insulin on this diet.

Here you had your answer already.
Less TOTAL insulin.

Some amino acids have glucogenic properties; I already know that.

Not some. Most.

they actually don´t have an effect on ketosis. Ketone bodies derived from fats do.

So, neither glucose nor ketone bodies from proteins have an effect on ketosis?
Dont you see that this does not make any sense?

Are you saying that ketosis is the same than ketoacidosis?

No, I never said that.

You don´t necessarily need to eat MORE protein to be in ketosis, as you seem to believe.

No, I never claimed that.
What I claim, is that there are 3 macro-nutrients: carbs, protein and fat.
If you decrease the amount of carbs, the share of protein and fat will go up almost automatically, unless you try to restrict protein intake by limiting your food choice even more.

I didn´t make a test, but I found that if you don´t zip from OJ regularly you loose lean muscle mass and feel lows in energy together with hunger for sweet foods.

So, you by doing our diet wrongly (opposed to our advice), you conclude that the results from that stem from our diet?

if you are keto-adapted you don´t experience such a great muscle turnover rate nor hunger when going on without food, due to more stable blood-glucose levels because of a reduced need for glucose.

That doesnt at all mean that muscle turnover is greater on our diet.
Only that when you are keto-adapted, you can better cope with less glucose.

I am just saying that the lifespan of a species is genetically determined, and that if you compare different mammals, aging rate is related to size, metabolic rate and heart beat.

And you think that size size, metabolic rate and heart beat have nothing to do with protein contents of their diet?
All is intertwined. You cannot simply skip protein from the equation.

if you believe that herbivores live longer than species eating high-protein diets, explain how.

Nitrogen load.

are you an herbivore? Herbivorous animals eat frequently. We are not like them.

In that respect, wai-dieters ARE like them.

So even a cow isn´t metabolizing carbs.

Excuse me?
Are you seriously suggesting that there is no glucose in the cow's blood being metabolized?

It is clear that, for us, eating carbs all day IT IS artificial.

So, early humans never walked through areas containing fruit-bearing trees; they never picked and ate fruits throughout the day?
Thats all unnatural?

I mean that their plasma markers of health are improved

You cannot narrow down health to those markers.
Thats an oversimplification.

not like the FALSE observation that carnivores live shorter lives, something completelly irrelevant even if it were true.

I understand you want to narrow down health to ketosis, but I hope you will consider that health is multi-factorial.
You may induce caloric restriction and ketosis by eating only 2 hamburgers a day, but that doesnt mean that eating hamburgers makes us healthier.

If you think that the fact that intermittent fasting, caloric restriction and ketogenic diets share the same metabolic situation (low insulin/glucagon ratio) and affect aging biomarkers in the same way is just ¨coincidence¨

I dont.
I just think that caloric restriction is one aspect in increasing lifespan.
Insulin and glucagon are just opposing hormones that need to be in balance.

Are you saying that high-protein low-carb diets aren´t better than high-carb diets?

Absolutely. Its a blatant oversimplification.
A diet of mainly grilled meat is certainly worse than a diet of mainly canned juice.

It´s a well known fact that high-protein low-carb diets are much more effective than high-carb diets in achieving favourable plasma markers, like improved glucose control and insulin sensitivity, even at isocaloric levels.

Here you go again. You are oversimplifying. You want to narrow everything down to specific 'favourable plasma markers'.
You simply assume that following this diet correctly you will not achieve improved glucose control and insulin sensitivity.
Why?
Because you didnt do this diet right.

Here are some human clinical trials showing that high-protein diets don´t cause damage:

They dont show that.
They very selectively compare.
Your claim above is infinitely wider than what all of them showed.

A comparison of healthy omnivores eating 100 grams or more of protein per day with long-term vegetarians eating 30g or less of protein per day concluded that both groups had similar kidney function and that the unrestricted protein diet does not significantly affect kidney function with "normal aging" in healthy subjects.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... /149/1/211

What does this say about the lifetime nitrogen load? The kidneys dont have to filter out ammonium.
The vegetarian diet may also negatively affect the kidneys regarding other aspects (as cadmium exposure)

Patients with kidney failure were followed up for almost 4 years, and researchers found that those who ate the unrestricted protein diet had half of the chances of requiring dyalisis or dying. The other group followed a high-carb low-protein diet what most so called nutrition experts and physicians would have prescribed.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cg ... /52/5/1204

Follow up of kidney failure patients?
THATS your argument?
The high carb diet, I guess it was high in grains?
If you want to use scientific studies, you need way more specific ones.

It´s natural for SOME (i.e. the fruitarian bat) but not for all of those species, including us.

So, you really think that fruits/carbs are not part of our natural diet?

We are unique species. We are not apes.

All species are unique.

Our genome is the one of hunter gatherers who evolved eating mainly animal foods.

Hunter gatherers...
Hunter (relatively ill-equiped)
and?
gatherers....
of what?

If evolutionary theory has to benefit a particular diet, certainly it isn´t Wai´s.

Thats not a convincing statement, as evolution certainly has not supplied us with the teeth fit for the diet that you think makes more sense: that of a carnivore.

Feast and famine patterns make sense with ketosis and with improved aging biomarkers, and with a high-fat high-protein animal oriented diet.

Feast and famine are normal for predators, not for herbivores, fugivores or omnivores.
So, yes, ketosis makes sense for carnivores. But we are not.

the fossil record, which clearly shows that we have been eating meat for the last 2,4 million years.

Sure, we have been eating meat.
Does it show how much?

Cholesterol is a nutrient, right?

No, is not essential because your body can produce it,

So, vitamin B3, among others, is no essential nutrient either?

and dietary cholesterol doesn´t affect significantly cholesterol levels ... Eventually I agree with you that higher cholesterol intakes are essential

Im glad you recognize that cholesterol intake does matter after all.

But not ¨essential¨ strictly speaking

Ah, I should have known its difficult to accept cholesterol as a nutrient. It has had a bad rep for so long...

low cholestrol intake by itself is not the CAUSE.

Increased cholesterol intake may resolve the issue but low cholesterol intake is never the cause of low cholesterol level?
It always must be something else?

studies showing benefits from supplementing cholesterol doesn´t exist.

So, this study does not exist?
Dufour F, Liu QY, Gusev P, Alkon D, Atzori M. Cholesterol-enriched diet affects spatial learning
and synaptic function in hippocampal synapses. Brain Res 2006; 1103(1):88-98.

Meat is the only rich source of L-carnitine. Their properties are more than inetresting. Eating only a few egg yolks will clearly deprive you from ingesting this valious amino acid.

The sources you quote dont support your claims.
Sure, animal food provides you with essential nutrients, in as much as fruits do.

Great decreases in creatine muscle content were found in healthy men who switched to a lacto-ovo vegan diet. I don´t think that some egg yolks and a little fish contain ALL nutrients in optimal amounts.

You can THINK whatever you want.
I guess you think that more is always better.

Optimal creatine levels can be achieved by supplementation or better, by eating sufficient red meat. Show me evidence with yolks or fish.

What is the optimal level?
The highest level?

The same as carnivores, humans cannot synthetize taurine efficiently. Why do you think this happens, because our evolutionary diet was composed of little RAF? No, because we are naturally meat eaters!

We naturally eat animal food, sure.
We can also synthetize taurine.
Seems there is more nuance here than regarding vitamin C, no?

And also the concentration of taurine in eggs is negligible.

Its there.
And its composed by the body
And its in fish.
And, still, our teeth are the best evidence. We have no carnivore teeth.

So, if you dont react bad to grilled beef, it cannot be bad for you?

No. Why?

Why? Because it contains toxins, as opposed to raw beef.
More toxins is less healthy, yes?
Or are you saying it also doesnt matter how many cigarettes you smoke?
More cigarettes is not worse?

you are not making a real assessment of the facts, but making ERRONEOUS extrapolations... Our bodies co-evovled together with HCAs found in cooked preys.

Sure, our body is capable in disarming toxic HCA, but clearly not all of them, as otherwise smoking cigarettes would not be dangerous.

Eating a diet based on animal foods protects against ingesting too much pesticides from vegetable sources.

You dont need to eat cooked meat to achieve that!
Just peel your fruits (and dont consume grains etc).

I prefer to stick with the latter for protecting my body against pesticides, polluted air, etc.

Its your body.

Did you try yourself to eat a raw old chicken? It´s impossible.

Why does it have to be old?

Because in nature the meat isn´t always from premium cuts from young animals genetically selected for their tenderness. That´s why a raw diet as the natural for humans is nonsense.

Tell me, did our ancestors ever thrive on raw meat, you think?

[RRM]

The teeth don´t say nothing given that we don´t kill preys with our mouths like tigers.

Ha, ha,
The teeth are not just for killing, also for EATING.
With our teeth, animal tissue gets stuck between them.

Meat introduction during human evolution is reflected in our digestive tract, which is very similar to the one of carnivores. You have posted some time ago a chart showing how different it was our digestive system from the one of apes, which are adapted to digest fiber more efficiently, given the size of their big intestine.

Sure, but our digestive is more that in between carnivores and herbivores, as we naturally eat both plant foods and animal food.

Why would ancient apes discontinue eating leaves but continue to eat fruit?

Because these are easier to digest.

not on fruit and other vegetation, given the characteristics of our digestive tract.

Again, our digestive system is not that of a carnivore.
I hope you can agree to that...

According to anthropologic research paleolithic humans were mainly carnivores.

Anthropologic research is devided.
Our digestive system at least is not that of a carnivore.

We are not talking about Homo-like species, but about Homo sapiens here,

And Homo sapiens came from...?

If glucose is the ideal fuel

We never claimed that.
Its the balance of sugars and fats.

I love to eat fruit, but I need more proofs to be convinced that the continuous insulin infusion to the bloodstream doesn´t provoke a negative effect.

Protein evokes insulin secretion as well.
As does fat.
All bad, i think not.
Its about balance. Particularly this diet (doing it right) minimizes insulin peaks and overall insulin secretion.

[Oscar]

I am sure you can agree that chimps and other apes eat far less animal matter...

No, I don't. Generalization doesn't work here. There are also significant differences between apes.

The teeth don´t say nothing given that we don´t kill preys with our mouths like tigers. We use our hands instead.

I guess you mean: "The teeth don't say anything", or are you actually agreeing with me?
Interesting point of view. You're suggesting we're the only land-based mammal carnivores which have different teeth than all the other carnivores?

Meat introduction during human evolution is reflected in our digestive tract, which is very similar to the one of carnivores.

Similar meaning we also have a stomach, small intestine, large intestine, etc? Sure, but that's where the similarity ends.

You have posted some time ago a chart showing how different it was our digestive system from the one of apes, which are adapted to digest fiber more efficiently, given the size of their big intestine.

The size our large intestine compared to carnivores is as those of the apes compared to us.

That eating pattern brings problems in humans.

What problems?

Anyway, we are not apes, we are humans.

Similarly we're not dogs. So?

According to anthropologic research paleolithic humans were mainly carnivores.

No, that's not true.

We are not talking about Homo-like species, but about Homo sapiens here, although even Homo-like species ate much more meat than what chimps do.

Evolution takes a long time. To figure out what might be natural for us, one should concentrate on the longest successful species in the genus. Take a look at this:

Which species dominates the timeline in the Homo genus section?

Exactly. Your body will use glucose first but that´s not proof that it´s the ideal fuel for achieving optimal health.

Why does it use glucose first, you think?