"Life Without Bread"

I came across this blog post quoting a study about which was best for diabetics, a paleo diet or a diabetes diet. The paleo diet was best of course, even when the carb consumption was of 125 g per day [Life Without Bread recommends 72 grams for those with no significant health problems who need to cut down on carbs more slowly before reaching the 72 grams goal]. I still think we have to increase our protein and fat consumption, but I thought it was interesting to see that this people benefited just by cutting down on carbs alone:

Paleolithic diet much better for diabetics than conventional ‘diabetes diet’

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/05/08/paleolithic-diet-much-better-for-diabetics-than-conventional-diabetes-diet/

Over the weekend I spent some time looking at the evidence in the area of ‘primal’ or ‘Paleolithic’ eating. I was aware, I think, of much of the evidence in this area (and I’ve even reported on relevant studies here and here), but it seems I missed a quite-important study that I am going to report here.

The study, published in 2009 in the journal Cardiovascular Diabetology [1]. In this study, 13 men and women with type 2 diabetes ate, on separate occasions, two different diets, each for three months. One diet was a typical ‘diabetes diet’, rich in carbobydrate. The other was a ‘primal’ or “Paleolithic’ diet based on foodstuff resembling those that humans ate prior to the introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry some 10,000 years ago. Here are the details of these diets:

Diabetes Diet

The information on the Diabetes diet stated that it should aim at evenly distributed meals with increased intake of vegetables, root vegetables, dietary fiber, whole-grain bread and other whole-grain cereal products, fruits and berries, and decreased intake of total fat with more unsaturated fat. The majority of dietary energy should come from carbohydrates from foods naturally rich in carbohydrate and dietary fiber. The concepts of glycemic index and varied meals through meal planning by the Plate Model were explained. Salt intake was recommended to be kept below 6 g per day.

Paleolithic Diet

The information on the Paleolithic diet stated that it should be based on lean meat, fish, fruit, leafy and cruciferous vegetables, root vegetables, eggs and nuts, while excluding dairy products, cereal grains, beans, refined fats, sugar, candy, soft drinks, beer and extra addition of salt. The following items were recommended in limited amounts for the Paleolithic diet: eggs (≤2 per day), nuts (preferentially walnuts), dried fruit, potatoes (≤1 medium-sized per day), rapeseed or olive oil (≤1 tablespoon per day), wine (≤1 glass per day). The intake of other foods was not restricted and no advice was given with regard to proportions of food categories (e.g. animal versus plant foods). The evolutionary rationale for a Paleolithic diet and potential benefits were explained.

Compared to the diabetes diet, the Paleolithic diet led to individuals eating an average of about 300 calories less each day. This likely reflects the ability of primal, lower-carb diets to sate the appetite more effectively than ‘healthy’ diets richer in carbohydrate. For more on this, see this recent post.

Overall, the Paleolithic diet brought improvements in a range of health measures and markers compared to the diabetes diet. Specifically:

An additional 3 kg reduction in weight
A reduction in triglyceride levels (high levels of triglyceride are linked with increased risk of cardiovascular disease)
Reduced diastolic blood pressure (the lower of the two blood pressure readings)
4 cm reduction in waist circumference
Lower levels of HbA1c (measure of blood sugar control over the preceding 3 months or so)
Increased levels of HDL cholesterol (the form of cholesterol associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease)

In other words, the Paleolithic diet, compared to standard diatetic advice for diabetes, led to significant improvements in markers for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Some of these benefits might be related to the fact that, on the ‘Paleo’ diet, individuals ate less. But ate less of what? Daily consumption (in grams) of protein, carbohydrate and fat in the paleo diet and carbohydrate diet were:

Protein: 94 and 90
Carbohydrate: 125 and 196
Fat: 68 and 72

In other words, the Paleo diet contained a little more protein and a little less fat, but the major difference was a lot less carbohydrate.

There is a common notion that when individuals go ‘low-carb’, they end up eating a tonne of protein and fat. This study actually reflects what tends to happen in reality: individuals don’t end up doing that at all, they just eat less carbohydrate. And the typical results of this are, in this study, here for all to see.

References:

1. Jönsson T, et al. Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2009;8:35.
 
Laura said:
Chacara said:
Thank you, Laura, for your recipes! I understand that this is your personal experience and I'm grateful to you for sharing it. I wonna try to make the egg yolk custard, but cannot find pure cream here. Only whipping cream is available. Can it be used instead of pure cream? I don't know what the difference is. Probably, something else is added to make the cream whipping easier? To say the truth, I was trying to avoid giving milk products (as well, as cereals, "bad" oils, etc.) to my baby, but, thinking better, small quantities of cream can still be OK, especially due to the precious animal fat value in it.

Whipping cream is probably close to pure cream. It will do in a pinch, but if you have to use a milk type product, goats milk would be better.

Chacara said:
I'd like to ask here for another advice: I'm planning a long air travel (24 hrs) with the baby and now thinking what kind of food I should take to feed her en route. I still breastfeed her, but normally in the evening/night only. I can't take our regular home-made pureed meat & veggies/buckwheat because they will go bad soon afterwards. Besides the fruits, the only alternative (since she doesn’t like ready-to-feed food) seems to be an istant baby cereal, because it can be stored for longtime and hot potable water can always be found at any airport and on board. But I'm not very happy with this option. Did anybody go through such an experience and can give me a piece of advice?

In that situation, I would get organic baby food in a jar - pureed meat, preferably or green beans or squash. I would definitely avoid the fruits and cereals.

Unfortunately, we don't have many options available on the island. For example, there is no goat's milk, besides you can see a lot of goats walking here freely in the streets. The local people keep the goats just for meat. I've heard that in the past you could find goat's milk (as well, as cow's milk), but now nobody seems to be interested anymore in producing it. Surprisingly, they prefer to buy imported powder milk. So for my baby's kasha (before the meat/fish have been introduced) I was using ground buckwheat, butter (only salted butter is available here) and my breast milk. When my buckwheat stock was almost over (there is no buckwheat available here, so I brought a few kg from Europe last summer when the baby was born), I started to make rice kasha based on breast milk and later on coconut milk extracted by ourselves from local coconuts. Taking into account that rice contains only 5% of gluten (Orzenin), I hope it's still OK (at least, better than other cereals). I know it's better to avoid fruits (due to sugar content and others), but the baby likes them so much, especially, bananas! Since the basic food here is bananas and plantains, the Wikipedia’s info on its possible radioactivity simply shocked me: "Bananas are naturally slightly radioactive, more so than most other fruits, because of their high potassium content, and the small amounts of the isotope potassium-40 found in naturally occurring potassium. Proponents of nuclear power sometimes refer to the banana equivalent dose of radiation to support their arguments." I always thought that plantains were better than potatoes!

As to ready-to-eat baby food, it is sometimes (not always) available in French supermarkets and costs ~2-3 Euros/jar. This is just a regular food, not organic, and its variety normally is very limited. Once I bought "Legumes & Jambon" for the baby, but she didn't like it. Probably I should try to can my home-made baby food in a couple of small jars I have at home? Or there can be a problem at the airport, since the food is not from the shop?

Mod's note; As requested by the author of the post, the word Worsening has been changed for Orzenin
 
Chacara said:
Or there can be a problem at the airport, since the food is not from the shop?

If you were to leave the labels on the baby-food cans, and just fill it with other stuff, I don't think that you should have a problem at the airport.

As a backup plan another idea (taken form African mothers) is to simply take adult food, chew it and then feed the baby with the chewed food. Not very elegant and socially appealing to be sure, but I wouldn't want to compromise my baby's health with toeing the line ...

Just my thoughts!
 
nicklebleu said:
Chacara said:
Or there can be a problem at the airport, since the food is not from the shop?

If you were to leave the labels on the baby-food cans, and just fill it with other stuff, I don't think that you should have a problem at the airport.

As a backup plan another idea (taken form African mothers) is to simply take adult food, chew it and then feed the baby with the chewed food. Not very elegant and socially appealing to be sure, but I wouldn't want to compromise my baby's health with toeing the line ...

Just my thoughts!

Thank you, Nikclebleu! I was not planning to take any adult food with me, but it probably is a good idea to take some meat. As to the form of food for the baby, it’s not a problem, since she has already eight teeth and can chew small pieces.
 
Posté par: Psyche
I came across this blog post quoting a study about which was best for diabetics, a paleo diet or a diabetes diet. The paleo diet was best of course, even when the carb consumption was of 125 g per day [Life Without Bread recommends 72 grams for those with no significant health problems who need to cut down on carbs more slowly before reaching the 72 grams goal]. I still think we have to increase our protein and fat consumption, but I thought it was interesting to see that this people benefited just by cutting down on carbs alone:

I don't know but I may have gotten into it to fast on a too short time and for the last few days, I suffer from heart burn and lower back pain. I never use to eat fat, didn't like it taste and had accepted a long time ago that it was bad for my health, but from the evidence gathered here and reading life without bread, followed as best that I could the paleo diet. We augmented the fat and protein contain of our meal since last October, mostly by adding meat to our breakfast and blinnie in duck fat where it lacked but for the others 2 meals which already contained meat but low on fat, it was just to had fat and a smaller portion of carbs. What changed is the lowering of carbs, I went from what I estimate to around 125 to 150 a day to less than 100 in the first two weeks and this week lowered it again to to less than 90 gr. and even got to less than 72 one day. At first every thing was fine, my stomach and digestive system seemed to adapt quite well but as I diminished the carbs and augmented the protein and fat, I started to feel stomach burn something that I never had before. Yesterday I gave my digestive system a break, only had protein last evening, salmons steak on the BBQ with salad and quinoa. I still felt heart burn during the night but slept better so I think that I will stick to veggie and fruit for a few day until I hope every thing get back to normal.

Like many other I had lost weight in the last 2 yrs by adopting and healthy diet. In the last few weeks I was afraid that pushing the low carbs to it max., I would loose even more so, I ate much bigger portion of meat than usual. It may be that I overloaded my system with it and as I read in Life without bread, our digestive system (it muscle) have lost it strength and it need to rebuilt it. Anyway, go easy on the change, make it gradually. The younger one will adapt faster, in a few day or weeks I believe they say in Life without bread and to a few month for older men and woman, I guess like me, to adapt the body. My daughter which is 10 as no complain at all, my wife took a few pound but I think it is due to my good cooking :D.
 
Hi Laurentien

Laurentien said:
I don't know but I may have gotten into it to fast on a too short time and for the last few days, I suffer from heart burn and lower back pain.

Heart burn is actually a sign that you don't have sufficient stomach acid to digest food. It can be useful to have a digestive aid supplement (ox bile for fat digestion, and HCI to increase stomach acid), just make sure they don't contain gluten and dairy!
One thing I had to do for a while (to help my digestive system adapt - despite the digestive aid) was to eat six smaller meals instead of the usual three, until my digestive system got use to the quantity of fat. I was getting back pain which developed into loose bowels/fatigue, which was caused (as far as I understand it) by too much undigested fat passing into my larger intestine. Spacing the meals out and making sure they are not too big seems to have fixed this problem.

Another thing to watch for (with the back pain) is constipation. Make sure you are having some magnesium and vitamin C if this is a problem.
 
RedFox said:
Hi Laurentien

Laurentien said:
I don't know but I may have gotten into it to fast on a too short time and for the last few days, I suffer from heart burn and lower back pain.

Heart burn is actually a sign that you don't have sufficient stomach acid to digest food. It can be useful to have a digestive aid supplement (ox bile for fat digestion, and HCI to increase stomach acid), just make sure they don't contain gluten and dairy!
One thing I had to do for a while (to help my digestive system adapt - despite the digestive aid) was to eat six smaller meals instead of the usual three, until my digestive system got use to the quantity of fat. I was getting back pain which developed into loose bowels/fatigue, which was caused (as far as I understand it) by too much undigested fat passing into my larger intestine. Spacing the meals out and making sure they are not too big seems to have fixed this problem.

Another thing to watch for (with the back pain) is constipation. Make sure you are having some magnesium and vitamin C if this is a problem.

Thanks Redfox,
I will get a digestive supplement and to eat more often but in less quantity sound good. As for the vitamin C, I take 4000 mg per day in two doses and for magnesium twice 500 mg. Last night I took 1000mg extra vit.C and I feel much better today but as I said, I will rest my stomach and extra day and start with the supplement and go gently and more gradually with the meat and fat.
 
Eating fat:meat:buckwheat in 2:1:2 ratio. Deliberately didn't prepare chocolate for workplace today to see what happens. Mild headache - clamping - experienced between temple & ears both sides. Maybe my brain sent a message to liver:
- Hey, send some glucose up here!

Steady fuel supply was experienced, without The Carbohydrate High. Steady endurance in thinking. Craved sweets 2-3 times during the day. Curiously, when i got home and prepared my "Good By Raisins"-chocolate and began to snack, i felt my body doesn't need it so i stopped short. :umm:
Weeks before i gobbled down most of this chocolate with lots of the poisonous Cassia Cinnamon, even more, because i reduced the sugar content. But now i just didn't want it.

Had to admit with surprise: felt much more strength in the legs upstairs(like some runner), more balanced muscle tone, more overall energy, compared to the High and very low of the old Carbohydrate-Drug-Mania and resulting poor stress-response mess i created and maintained in the past months. It's as this chocolate is creating havoc, messing up the ketosis, my body cannot decide to switch to which one. Also curiously this hay-asthma like thing, with coughing fits didn't appear since increasing the fat/meat 2:1.

Weighed everything i ate on a gram-accurate kitchen scale for the past week, now calculating daily Carbs vs. fat/meat intake.
 
I was happy to see my weight drop over 2kg in last 7 months from 84.5 to about 81.8 kg during which time I dramatically increased animal fat and meat. During this time I did not intentionally lower carbs, but I may have lowered them somewhat inadvertently because I just did not need them or crave them so much with the more animal fats. I also have taken more saturated fats in form of coconut oils for my occasional blini making.

My family is astounded because my wife predicted I would gain weight (that I don't need), quoting the conventional wisdom that fat makes you fat: or the increased calories makes one put on more fat. They are currently struggling to figure this situation out. The best my wife could muster as an explanation was... "well you have been eating lesser amounts!" It is silly because she has not observed this, but I guess she has to hang onto something. Since we separated she has not been able to observe me so closely as before, and maybe she imagines it.

Further, I have not increased my physical activity, in fact it might be somewhat lower than before even.

The only thing I am trying to figure out is the occasional diarrhea that came with this change. It does not always happen each day, but often enough that I am paying attention more and sometimes not taking Magnesium Citrate or vitamin C supplements, and changing the time of day I take them, to see if I am encountering any laxative effects from them. I am still working on it.
 
forge said:
Eating fat:meat:buckwheat in 2:1:2 ratio. Deliberately didn't prepare chocolate for workplace today to see what happens. Mild headache - clamping - experienced between temple & ears both sides. Maybe my brain sent a message to liver:
- Hey, send some glucose up here!

Steady fuel supply was experienced, without The Carbohydrate High. Steady endurance in thinking. Craved sweets 2-3 times during the day. Curiously, when i got home and prepared my "Good By Raisins"-chocolate and began to snack, i felt my body doesn't need it so i stopped short. :umm:
Weeks before i gobbled down most of this chocolate with lots of the poisonous Cassia Cinnamon, even more, because i reduced the sugar content. But now i just didn't want it.

Maybe take it as an exercise to resist that chocolate and if this doesn't work out: don't have it at home anymore (throw it away), so that there is no chance in eating it. And it may take a while until your body graves more fats than sweetness.
 
Breton said:
The only thing I am trying to figure out is the occasional diarrhea that came with this change. It does not always happen each day, but often enough that I am paying attention more and sometimes not taking Magnesium Citrate or vitamin C supplements, and changing the time of day I take them, to see if I am encountering any laxative effects from them. I am still working on it.

I've encountered occasional diarrhea too. I take 2 grams twice of Vitamin C. And I take twice a 1 gram pill of Magnesium, which says gives 150 mg of Mg. Also I spray Mg oil before showering sometimes. It's not too bothersome, but maybe I could play around with lessening the doses.
 
Breton said:
I was happy to see my weight drop over 2kg in last 7 months from 84.5 to about 81.8 kg during which time I dramatically increased animal fat and meat. During this time I did not intentionally lower carbs, but I may have lowered them somewhat inadvertently because I just did not need them or crave them so much with the more animal fats.

Same here after 1 Month eating eggs with bacon for breakfast my wife wondering how I could lose 3 Kg. From 86 to 83. I fill really better. Even after I stopped drink coffee, she said what do you want to eat? I gave here what I think is good for me, and now we go together to by things and get some ideas for cooking. It works fine right now :D
 
3D Student said:
Breton said:
The only thing I am trying to figure out is the occasional diarrhea that came with this change. It does not always happen each day, but often enough that I am paying attention more and sometimes not taking Magnesium Citrate or vitamin C supplements, and changing the time of day I take them, to see if I am encountering any laxative effects from them. I am still working on it.

I've encountered occasional diarrhea too. I take 2 grams twice of Vitamin C. And I take twice a 1 gram pill of Magnesium, which says gives 150 mg of Mg. Also I spray Mg oil before showering sometimes. It's not too bothersome, but maybe I could play around with lessening the doses.

Yep! Count me in on the diarrhea too.

I'm having a difficult time adjusting to no bread, on again off again. Some pizza occasionally. But I am improving all along. Since really making an effort with zero bread in the last few weeks, I have had pretty low energy. Sleeping lots. Tired, low motivation. But many people I talk to are feeling this way too.
 
Yesterday I came across this article that sheds some light on what the author calls keto-adaptation, as well as on the ratio of fat to protein and the importance of sodium and potassium when on a keto diet. Considering all these factors might explain why one may feel fatigued and with low energy when transitioning to low/no carb, high fat, moderate protein diet, osit.

Link: _www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2.

Here are some quotes:

It is interesting to note from the careful observations published from the Bellevue study that Stafansson ate relatively modestly of protein, deriving between 80–85% of his dietary energy from fat and only 15–20% from protein [9]. This was, and still remains, at odds with the popular conception that the Inuit ate a high protein diet, whereas in reality it appears to have been a high fat diet with a moderate intake of protein. In his writings, Stefansson notes that the Inuit were careful to limit their intake of lean meat, giving excess lean meat to their dogs and reserving the higher fat portions for human consumption.

(...)

Given the uncertainties of this study caused by the subject's weight loss and potential for improved technique with multiple tests, the current author undertook a second study [please see the full article for the description of the first study] under the mentorship of Dr. Bruce Bistrian at MIT in Cambridge MA [14,15]. The diet employed in this followup study was patterned after that consumed by Stefansson during his year in the Bellevue study (and thus presumably close to that traditionally consumed by the Inuit) with the intention that the subjects would be in ketosis without weight loss.

This second study utilized competitive bicycle racers as subjects, confined to a metabolic ward for 5 weeks. In the first week, subjects ate a weight maintenance (eucaloric) diet providing 67% of non-protein energy as carbohydrate, during which time baseline performance studies were performed. This was followed by 4 weeks of a eucaloric ketogenic diet (EKD) providing 83% of energy as fat, 15% as protein, and less than 3% as carbohydrate. The meat, fish, and poultry that provided this diets protein, also provided 1.5 g/d of potassium and was prepared to contain 2 g/d of sodium. These inherent minerals were supplemented daily with an additional 1 g of potassium as bicarbonate, 3 grams of sodium as bouillon, 600 mg of calcium, 300 mg of magnesium, and a standard multivitamin.

The bicyclist subjects of this study noted a modest decline in their energy level while on training rides during the first week of the Inuit diet, after which subjective performance was reasonably restored except for their sprint capability, which remained constrained during the period of carbohydrate restriction. On average, subjects lost 0.7 kg in the first week of the EKD, after which their weight remained stable. Total body potassium (by 40K counting) revealed a 2% reduction in the first 2 weeks (commensurate with the muscle glycogen depletion documented by biopsy), after which it remained stable in the 4th week of the EKD. These results are consistent with the observed reduction in body glycogen stores but otherwise excellent preservation of lean body mass during the EKD.

The results of physical performance testing are presented in Table 2. What is remarkable about these data is the lack of change in aerobic performance parameters across the 4-week adaptation period of the EKD. The endurance exercise test on the cycle ergometer was performed at 65% of VO2max, which translates in these highly trained athletes into a rate of energy expenditure of 960 kcal/hr. At this high level of energy expenditure, it is notable that the second test was performed at a mean respiratory quotient of 0.72, indicating that virtually all of the substrate for this high energy output was coming from fat. This is consistent with measures before and after exercise of muscle glycogen and blood glucose oxidation (data not shown), which revealed marked reductions in the use of these carbohydrate-derived substrates after adaptation to the EKD.

Examining the results of these two ketogenic diet performance studies together indicates that both groups experienced a lag in performance across the first week or two of carbohydrate restriction, after which both peak aerobic power and sub-maximal (60–70% of VO2max) endurance performance were fully restored. In both studies, one with untrained subjects and the other with highly trained athletes who maintained their training throughout the study, there was no loss of VO2max despite the virtual absence of dietary carbohydrate for 4–6 weeks. This whole-body measure of oxidative metabolism could not be maintained unless there was excellent preservation of the full complement of functional tissues including skeletal muscle (and mitochondrial) mass, circulating red cell mass, and cardiopulmonary functions.

(...)

Resolving the performance paradox

There are three factors that can help us explain the paradox presented by studies showing superior performance with high carbohydrate diets versus the present author's two studies noted above.

Adaptation

The most obvious of these is the time allotted (or not) for keto-adaptation. In this context, the prescient observation of Schwatka (that adaptation to "a diet of reindeer meat" takes 2–3 weeks) says it all. None of the comparative low-carbohydrate versus high-carbohydrate studies done in support of the carbohydrate loading hypothesis sustained the low carbohydrate diet for more than 2 weeks [5], and most (including the classic report of Christensen and Hansen [2]) maintained their low-carbohydrate diets for 7 days or less.

There are to date no studies that carefully examine the optimum length of this keto-adapataion period, but it is clearly longer than one week and likely well advanced within 3–4 weeks. The process does not appear to happen any faster in highly trained athletes than in overweight or untrained individuals. This adaptation process also appears to require consistent adherence to carbohydrate restriction, as people who intermittently consume carbohydrates while attempting a ketogenic diet report subjectively reduced exercise tolerance.

Sodium and potassium

The second factor differentiating the author's studies from many others is optimized mineral nutriture, which has benefits for both cardiovascular reserve in the short term and preservation of lean body mass and function over longer time periods. The Inuit people lived much of the year on coastal ice (which is partially desalinated sea water), and much of their food consisted of soup made with meat in a broth from this brackish source of water. When they went inland to hunt, they traditionally added caribou blood (also a rich source of sodium) to their soup. With these empirically derived techniques, the Inuit culture had adapted the available resources to optimize their intakes of both sodium and potassium.

When meat is baked, roasted, or broiled; or when it is boiled but the broth discarded, potassium initially present in the meat is lost, making it more difficult to maintain potassium balance in the absence of fruits and vegetables. Because our research subjects were accustomed to eating meat, fish, and poultry prepared as something other than soup, we chose to give them most of their sodium separately as bouillon and a modest additional supplement of potassium as potassium bicarbonate. With these supplements maintaining daily intakes for sodium at 3–5 g/d and total potassium at 2–3 g/d, our adult subjects were able to effectively maintain their circulatory reserve (ie, allowing vasodilatation during submaximal exercise) and effective nitrogen balance with functional tissue preservation.

An example of what happens when these mineral considerations are not heeded can be found in a study prominently published in 1980 [18]. This was a study designed to evaluate the relative value of "protein only" versus "protein plus carbohydrate" in the preservation of lean tissue during a weight loss diet. The protein only diet consisted solely of boiled turkey (taken without the broth), whereas the protein plus carbohydrate consisted of an equal number of calories provided as turkey plus grape juice. Monitored for 4 weeks in a metabolic ward, the subjects taking the protein plus carbohydrate did fairly well at maintaining lean body mass (measured by nitrogen balance), whereas those taking the protein only experienced a progressive loss of body nitrogen.

A clue to what was happening in this "Turkey Study" could be found in the potassium balance data provided in this report. Normally, nitrogen and potassium gains or losses are closely correlated, as they both are contained in lean tissue. Interestingly, the authors noted that the protein only diet subjects were losing nitrogen but gaining potassium. As noted in a rebuttal letter published soon after this report [19], this anomaly occurred because the authors assumed the potassium intake of their subjects based upon handbook values for raw turkey, not recognizing that half of this potassium was being discarded in the unconsumed broth. Deprived of this potassium (and also limited in their salt intake), these subjects were unable to benefit from the dietary protein provided and lost lean tissue. Also worthy of note, although this study was effectively refuted by a well-designed metabolic ward study published 3 years later [20], this "Turkey Study" continues to be quoted as an example of the limitations of low carbohydrate weight loss diets.

Protein dose

The third dietary factor potentially affecting physical performance is adjusting protein intake to bring it within the optimum therapeutic window for human metabolism. The studies noted herein [13-15,20] demonstrate effective preservation of lean body mass and physical performance when protein is in the range of 1.2 – 1.7 g/kg reference body weight daily, provided in the context of adequate minerals. Picking the mid-range value of 1.5 g/kg-d, for adults with reference weights ranging from 60–80 kg, this translates into total daily protein intakes 90 to 120 g/d. This number is also consistent with the protein intake reported in the Bellevue study [9]. When expressed in the context of total daily energy expenditures of 2000–3000 kcal/d, about 15% of ones daily energy expenditure (or intake if the diet is eucaloric) needs to be provided as protein.

The effects of reducing daily protein intake to below 1.2 g/kg reference weight during a ketogenic diet include progressive loss of functional lean tissue and thus loss of physical performance, as demonstrated by Davis et al [21]. In this study, subjects given protein at 1.1 g/kg-d experienced a significant reduction in VO2max over a 3 month period on a ketogenic diet, whereas subjects given 1.5 g/kg-d maintained VO2max.

At the other end of the spectrum, higher protein intakes have the potential for negative side-effects if intake of this nutrient exceeds 25% of daily energy expenditure. One concern with higher levels of protein intake is the suppression of ketogenesis relative to an equi-caloric amount of fat (assuming that ketones are a beneficial adaptation to whole body fuel homeostasis). In addition, Stefansson describes a malady known by the Inuit as rabbit malaise [8]. This problem would occur in the early spring when very lean rabbits were the only available game, when people might be tempted to eat too much protein in the absence of an alternative source of dietary fat. The symptoms were reported to occur within a week, and included headache and lassitude. Such symptoms are not uncommon among people who casually undertake a "low carbohydrate, high protein" diet.

Conclusions

Both observational and prospectively designed studies support the conclusion that submaximal endurance performance can be sustained despite the virtual exclusion of carbohydrate from the human diet. Clearly this result does not automatically follow the casual implementation of dietary carbohydrate restriction, however, as careful attention to time for keto-adaptation, mineral nutriture, and constraint of the daily protein dose is required. Contradictory results in the scientific literature can be explained by the lack of attention to these lessons learned (and for the most part now forgotten) by the cultures that traditionally lived by hunting. Therapeutic use of ketogenic diets should not require constraint of most forms of physical labor or recreational activity, with the one caveat that anaerobic (ie, weight lifting or sprint) performance is limited by the low muscle glycogen levels induced by a ketogenic diet, and this would strongly discourage its use under most conditions of competitive athletics.

Among the comments that I find especially interesting is that the "adaptation process also appears to require consistent adherence to carbohydrate restriction, as people who intermittently consume carbohydrates while attempting a ketogenic diet report subjectively reduced exercise tolerance". This could indicate that cutting out all carbs may be best to achieve adaptation to the keto diet in less time and thus reduce the amount of time one would feel low in energy (provided that the other criteria are also taken into account, like the fat/protein ratio), osit. However, given the information already discussed here, this may not be true for people that are not so young, as their organism might benefit from a slow transition.
 
Courageous Inmate Sort said:
Among the comments that I find especially interesting is that the "adaptation process also appears to require consistent adherence to carbohydrate restriction, as people who intermittently consume carbohydrates while attempting a ketogenic diet report subjectively reduced exercise tolerance". This could indicate that cutting out all carbs may be best to achieve adaptation to the keto diet in less time and thus reduce the amount of time one would feel low in energy (provided that the other criteria are also taken into account, like the fat/protein ratio), osit.

That may be true, but it would be difficult for me to go to zero carbs. I usually try for 30 to 40 grams per day. One beer and some nuts as a "reward" can add up to 30 grams.

A one-pound bag of stir-fry vegetables has 60 grams of carbs! So using just one half a bag for my pork stir-fry meal is 30 grams of carbs! I am willing to give up the obvious carbs for my diet, but I really can not give up my veggies! Green beans have carbs. Brussels sprouts have carbs. Water chestnuts have carbs. Tomatoes have carbs. Even onions have carbs (I like to fry onion slices in coconut oil.)

Again, I think a zero-carb diet would be difficult and unrealistic.
 
Back
Top Bottom