Updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 11:21PM by Danny Roddy

Let's take 5 minutes out of our lives and listen to what an obese cartoon pig on YouTube has to say about nutrition.

I'm done throwing logs on the fire on how much I dislike the vegan way of eating, so I'll disregard the talking pig’s pro-vegan message. Obviously the video was not made by an impartial source. The people at Bizzaro.com have a clear anti-fur, pro-tofu agenda, so it’s understandable they would create a video promoting vegan ideals. What really grinds my gears is that these propaganda-style videos are made to appeal to people who know very little about nutrition, which is fine except for when the information spouted is completely incorrect.

Before I start sounding arrogant (may be too late), I'll do the only thing I know how to do; pick the video apart so we can see how absurd the claims truly are.

The pig states that humans are not evolutionarily designed to eat meat for the following reasons: 1. Our teeth and jaws are rounded and are optimized for vegetation, 2. We fail to posses natural hunting skills (specifically night vision), and 3. Our digestive system lacks enzymes to digest animal products.

The first factoid can be dismissed by a very basic understanding of our dental structure. Human mouths contain incisors, canines and molar teeth in both jaws, as well as ridged molars. The jaw moves up and down like other carnivores, not in a rotary motion like most herbivores. This up and down motion indicates it's objective is to crush and tear. So, the video’s depiction of the caveman biting into a woolly mammoth is probably a little sensationalized to say the least. If you check out Barry Groves comparison betwen carnivores, herbivores and man you will see that we have far more in common with the carnivores than we do the herbivores, especially in regards to the digestive process.

Click to read more ...

While I've already said that I'm not a big fan of the documentary Fat Head, I do love these cartoon segments. Especially for those who have no interest in taking the time to read my longer posts. This segment goes over the basic history of the lipid hypothesis by Ancel Keys. You can also check out "The Oiling Of America" for a longer, more complete article on the subject.

One of the most common things I hear when I talk to someone about carbohydrate restriction is that they have done Atkins, they lost a bunch of weight, but gained it all back after they added carbohydrates back in. There are so many things wrong with this logic that I don't even know where to start, but I digress, because that's not what this post is about.

Let's explore the reasons which make cutting carbohydrates difficult. We'll take a look at the king of hormones, insulin, we'll dive into the world of neurotransmitters and we'll explore a low carb phenomenon called "the induction flew". Finally we'll close with a sermon from Bear about one of the strongest influences; one's own acculturation.

It's interesting to note that out of the three macronutrients (carbohydrates, fat, & protein) few have problems with overindulging in too much fat or protein. This is explained by the fat storage, evolutionary hormone, insulin. Insulin is released by the pancreas whenever you consume carbohydrates. The problem begins when your insulin becomes chronically elevated (too many carbohydrates) which is constantly priming your body to prepare to be fed. This is when hunger becomes insatiable and binge eating usually occurs. Getting ahold of out of control insulin will improve health, keep hunger in check and should be the cornerstone of any way of eating. The carbohydrate level to keep insulin in check is different for everyone (insulin sensitivity) thus dropping to zero carbohydrates is a good square one approach. Check out this post for a short video on the subject.

Click to read more ...

If there is one aspect that I don't like about being on an all carnivorous diet it's that it is constantly labeled as "extreme". Whenever someone shares my way of eating with someone new usually there eyes light up, thinking that I must be trying to lose several hundred pounds. These kinds of things are to be expected when you vehemently protest against conventional wisdom. Getting flack from co-workers, friends and family is a small price to pay for excellent health. 

Without further adieu I would like to post a quick summary of how the low carb movement originated and why a low carber should not gasp at the concept of not eating any carbohydrates.

I will be diving it to my notes for this. All of what I'm posting here was originally said by Charles Washington over at the Zero Carb Discussion Forum.

The earliest low-carb diets were based on Blake Donaldson's "Holiday Magazine" diet which was very low-carb with a "hotel portion" of raw fruit or a potato. This was based on his study of the Labrador Inuit who ate a small amount of vegetation in their diet unlike the more Northerly Inuit who were exclusive meat-eaters. Many of the Europeans copied the diet of the Labrador Inuit and saw it as a good reducing scheme.

Stefansson Wrote:

While there were in pre-white times many Eskimos who used no vegetables, there were some, especially in Labrador and Alaska, who got as many calories from vegetables as the Holiday Diet does; so, even with a few things like lettuce and potato, we may well name this regimen for the Eskimos. The same diet is described in my 1921 book Friendly Arctic, was used and enjoyed by whites who, like the Eskimos, found it nonfattening, and thus a good reducing menu. Then Dr. Blake Donaldson, successful New York physician, read the book, and concluded that with a few things to make the regimen more "acceptable," such as salad, fruit, and token potato, it would be a good reducing diet, and so it proved.

However, Donaldson understood that if people weren't losing, they needed to decrease their carbohydrate consumption even to the point of zero, in order to succeed. He was known to regularly chastise his patients for their "bread addiction" and he was equally frank with diabetics. "You are out of your mind when you take insulin in order to eat Danish pastry."

What's so wrong with this?

Too many low carbers (or dieters for that matter) do not realize that zero-carb actually came first. The first low-carb doctor, Blake Donaldson, was directly influenced by Stefansson. He studied the Inuit as well and picked a post-White district which ate vegetables as his model. He was only concerned about weight control and therefore used their diet. Had he knew about the damaging effects of insulin, he most likely would have insisted on zero-carb for those early patients.

Anything that increases insulin, induces insulin resistance, and induces the pancreas to compensate by secreting still more insulin, which will lead to an excess accumulation of body fat and make a person prone to the metabolic syndrome and all the diseases of civilization. To reverse it, one must decrease insulin and keep it that way.

Here's an awesome review of "Good Calorie, Bad Calories" by Robert McLeod. Over at the Zero Carb Discussion Forum you can find a break down by Charles Washington of each chapter. The break down of the chapters is quite useful since the book can be quite a lot for some (including myself) to grasp.

"Recently I read a very impressive book by Gary Taubes, previously a reporter for the journal Science. The work in question is, "Good Calories, Bad Calories."' In the book, Taubes collects research to challenge the common knowledge of nutrition: that fat is bad for you, that we should eat polyunsaturated vegetable oils, that we should exercise for sixty minutes a day, etc.

The genesis of Taubes' book is an article he wrote for the NY Times in 2003. Five years later, Good Calories, Bad Calories was published. As background, there is a video of Taubes here where he overviews his thesis (1 hour 11 minutes, not safe for work since there are pictures of naked obese individuals) and adds a few pieces that were not in the book. Even if you have read the book, I recommend listening to the lecture. You can see from the video, Taubes is very solidly built.

In return for knocking down a bunch of accepted "common knowledge" hypotheses , Taubes presents ten new hypotheses (p.454) and I will add a few more than I extracted from reading the book:"

1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilization.

2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis—the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.

3. Sugars—sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful, probably because of the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.

4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's diseases, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.

5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.

6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child of grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.

7. Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat metabolism. Fat synthesis and storage exceed the mobilization of fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses the balance.

8. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated—either chronically of after a meal—we accumulate fat in our fat tissue. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and use it for fuel.

9. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.

10. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.

11. RM: Man, being the premier predator on the planet, evolved to eat a diet high in fat (and in particular the saturated and mono-unsaturated fat found in animal tissue). In the absence of clinical data, we should endeavor to structure our diet to be similar to that we evolved eating, prior to the introduction of agriculture approximately 10,000 BCE.

12. RM: Advanced Glycation End-products (abbreviated AGEs) may be a cause or byproduct of the oxidative stress that causes aging and many of the maladies associated with it.

13. RM: A low-calorie, high-carbohydrate diet will make you lethargic as chronically high insulin levels will try to convert glucose to fat while not leaving sufficient calories for the remainder of your basal metabolism. In comparison, low-carbohydrate, moderate-calorie diet will leave you energetic and lean.

"One cannot help but wonder how a number of the weak hypotheses that Taubes explores came to become common knowledge in the field of nutrition? Taubes paints a picture of a few egotistical researchers who were able to effect what was essentially scientific fraud, by fitting their bias to the data rather than examining it critically. In Taubes words (p. 451), "it is difficult to use the term "scientist" to describe those individuals who work in these disciples [ed: nutrition, chronic disease, and obesity], and, indeed, I have activity avoided doing so in this book."

http://tinyurl.com/afled9

Here is a clip from the recently released documentary "Fat Head". This video explains pretty easily how one accumulates fat.

UPDATE: I wanted to amend this post with something very thoughtful that a member, MartinLevac, of the Zero Carb Forum said. The filmaker sais that "we're predispositioned to get fat". This is not correct. I'll let you read Martin's quote to see what I mean.

"We become insulin resistant before we grow fat. This means the predisposition of the fetus to grow fat is actually insulin resistance that is induced by the mother's high carb diet, and her high blood glucose and high insulin. Without carbs, the fetus' cells remain insulin sensitive and there is no predisposition to grow fat."

Remember, we acquire elevated insulin (hyperinsulinmeia) from consistently eating carbohydrates. This leads to common diseases of civilization. To grow fat, our cells become resistant to insulin like the video shows. Just because you have elevated insulin doesn't mean you become fat.

Here is an article from second-opinions.co.uk by Barry Groves. What interested me about this article was the chart that lists that our stored human fat as a mixture of 40% saturated, 57% monounsaturated and a mere 3% polyunsaturated fat. "Heart healthy" oils like canola, safflower, and margarine have an abundance of polyunsaturated and low amounts of saturated fat, the exact opposite of what is stored in your body.

"Have you ever wondered why polyunsaturated margarine has to be kept in a fridge, yet coconut oil can be kept out at room temperature for a year or more without any untoward effects? All fats and oils in Nature are a mixture of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids. The only difference between them is the proportions of each. Whether they are in plant or animal tissues, this is governed by the temperature at which the different fats and oils are designed to operate. This point, which is often neglected when discussing the healthiness or otherwise of fats and oils, is actually the most important consideration. The degree of saturation or unsaturation determines not only a fat's melting point, but also its chemical stability and its likelihood of auto-oxidising and creating harmful free radicals. The higher the proportion of saturated fatty acids a fat is, the less likely it is to go rancid; the more polyunsaturated fatty acids it contains, the more difficult it is to stop it going bad."

 

Table I: Fatty Acid Composition of Selected Fats

Fat or oil	Saturated (%)	Monounsat (%)	Polyunsat (%)
Coconut	91	6	3
Palm kernel	83	16	1
Butter	60	34	6
Human milk	54	39	8
Lamb	53	41	5
Beef	45	51	5
Pork	43	48	8
Human (body fat)	40	57	3
Hen's Egg	39	47	14
Chicken	35	48	16
Cod	26	16	59
Margarine (polyunsat)	24	21	55
Soya oil	18	24	58
Olive oil	17	74	9
Corn oil	13	24	59
Sunflower oil	10	20	66
Safflower oil	9	12	75
Canola oil	6	67	27

Here is more about the fat debate with excellent insight from Charles Washington.

"If we consider a porterhouse steak with a quarter-inch layer of fat, broiling it will reduce to almost equal parts fat and protein. Fifty-one percent of the fat is monounsaturated and ninety percent of that is oleic acid. Saturated fat constitutes forty-five percent of the total but a third of that is stearic acid (metabolized as oleic acid in the body), which will increase HDL while having no effect on LDL. The remaining four percent is polyunsaturated which lowers LDL but has no meaningful effect on HDL. Perhaps as much as seventy percent of the fat in a porterhouse will improve the relative levels of LDL and HDL cholesterol compared to the effect that bread, potatoes and pasta would produce. The remaining 30 percent will raise LDL cholesterol but will also raise HDL and have virtually no effect on the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL. This all suggests that eating a porterhouse in lieu of bread or potatoes would actually reduce heart-disease risk."

 

Good luck finding a nutritional authority that will say this publically. And guess what? The same is true for lard and bacon!

Here is a thread on the issue over at Zeroing In On Health Forum

Another repost from the Zeroing In On Health Forum by Charles Washington:

"So when we say that calories don't count, we mean that they don't count in the sense that they can be measured in your mind. This equation happens in your fat tissue. It has been known since the 1920s that our fat tissue is not a trash can waiting for us to burn the fat contained in it. Fat tissue has blood vessels and nerves running through it which connect it to the central nervous system. This is the primary reservoir of fuel for the body. A human with very little observable fat tissue can survive without food for 9 months or longer just on the energy contained in fat tissue. It is an active part of our metabolism.

We must understand that hunger is a request from our cells for fuel.

Obesity (or excess weight gain) is internal starvation. Sure, there is plenty of fuel in fat tissue, but our cells are not getting to it because it's been trapped there due to high insulin levels.

High insulin causes the body to put a crimp on fat tissue (much like we do when we bend the water hose) to create more pressure.

To reverse the condition, we have to literally overeat on fat and protein which will speed up the flow of fuel to the cells. This is the essence of the zero-carb diet. Your body will interpret that as having to reduce the fat tissue because the flow of fuel has increased too quickly. It made you fat to increase the pressure (i.e. the flow of fuel to your cells). Now, it will decrease the pressure because plenty of usable fuel is coming through the diet.

Please understand that last paragraph. Stop here and re-read it.

Obesity is your body's way of compensating because it did not get enough fuel. Now that you are providing it, you must force it to compensate the other way. You do this by overeating of fat and protein. After a while you will recognize the time to stop eating because your hunger will normalize.

There will be no guessing because you won't want to eat anymore. The closer you get to your body's regulated weight, the louder this signal will become and most of us will settle on something like two pounds of meat and a half pound of fat per day.

Do not attempt to eat according to this ratio today! Let your body take you there naturally. That's the key!

Cutting calories at this point works against you because you are keeping the flow of fuel low so the body has no reason to decrease your fat tissue. Semi-starvation only exacerbates the issue. When you see that fat tissue is large, you will want to cut calories. Take notice what happens to people who fast. They merely create a smaller version of themselves. If one gets fat in the stomach, they will always be fat in the stomach even though they lose weight.

On my low-fat diet back in 2005 when I started dieting, I lost 43 pounds by semi-starving myself. I still had bigger thighs, a big behind and love handles. They were much smaller than they were at 221, but they will still there.

No amount of crunches could fix the problem. However, now that I've lost weight correctly, my entire body has recomposed itself. My thighs are now in proportion to the rest of my body. My upper body is no longer bigger than my lower body.

How many times have you seen a person with skinny legs and a big torso?"

The rest of the article can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/ddnen2