On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> >Can you find any empirical evidence that a low-carb diet causes
> >any health problem?'
>
> No, i haven't any reason.
> As possible problems i could *estimate* that the LC requires bigger amounts
> of protein (to generate the glucose for the tissues it's essential for)
> and any problems that could arise from this.
> Maybe nitrogen detox symptoms for (slightly(?) kidney diseased.

This requires a liberal amount of protein, yes, but by no means a
toxic amount.

> Or any problems from farmed meats (as is is usually done with meat for
> protein). Firsthand i mention the low EFA problem. Then whatever
> pesticide or hormone accumulation due to the farming methods
> (the same is possible for many modern food items).

Indeed.  Pesticide accumulation is probably greater in plants,
since they don't have livers.  I don't want to minimize this,
since these poisons corrupt the entire food chain.  Hormone
accumulation is, in my opinion, an overblown theory.

> Ketosis seems not to put any problems for the brain, does it?
> I mean headaches, tiredness or such.
> I think you and the many low-carber on the list can report  best.

Initially, many people experience these problems (although,
interestingly, not everybody).  It takes a week or two for the
brain to adapt, and another week or two for the rest of the body
to catch up.  As the brain makes more use of ketones for energy,
other tissues use them *less* and favor free fatty acids.  For
this reason, when people start a ketogenic diet, FFA levels may
rise for a while, then fall back to normal.

> Cereals have some thiamin surplus (for own growth) so they can be cooked
> (reducing thiamin) and still have adequate amount.
> Modern grain eaters are often people which also like to have much
> sweets.

Yes, although I know plenty of more whole-food oriented
vegetarian types, some of whom have serious weight and other
chronic health problems (Of course I also know some who appear to
be in excellent health; I don't want to overstate the matter).

> >Diabetes known in the ancient world and described in medical
> >writings.
> I haven't found any text like you report. Can you point toward some texts?

I've read this in a number of books, but here's a quick web site:
http:/ / pr15.mphy.lu.se/ Diahistory1.html

> It should have been a very common disease, for a populaten with > 90%
> of food of grain or legume. But i looks like it was rare.

Well, the vast majority of cases now recognized as diabetes would
have gone undiagnosed in the ancient world, since their methods
only picked up the most severe cases, in the near-death stage.
That is, when the urine tasted sweet and attracted flies, then it
was recognized.

> So 3 weeks of added brewers yeast should be able to cure insulin resistance.
> A little pyridoxin (B6) should be added too, because it is required for
> releasing glycogen storage into blood again. And yeasts don't do that.
> They have about 1/4 RDA of b6 at 100% rda of thiamin.

Go for it.  If you are right it will be an important discovery.

> What do *you* suspect to be responsible for your cure?

I'm pretty sure it was restored prostaglandin function and
balance. The subsiding of chronic inflammation seems to me to be
an excellent sign of this.  And I'm sure the vitamin C helped,
but I had used C alone before without success.

> "Low" glucose levels are what is normal 2 or 3 hours after a meal.
> That's most of the time. Otherwise it's diseased.

But fasting insulin levels do vary considerably, and are in fact
an important independent cardiovascular risk factor.  It's
insulin levels that would most directly affect desaturase enzyme
activities.

> Reading the Erasmus book suddenly revealed to me how low EFAs levels can be
> further disabled by high amounts of competing fatty acids.

Yes, but I wonder if this analysis controls for insulin levels.
Probably not.

> >.. There is simply no evidence that low-carb diet contributes to CVD
> >or cancer, so why would you expect it?
>
> Its not against LC approaches. Basically the above conclusion blames only
> the fat of farmed animals, especially beef.

But the point is that these are the fats used in modern LC
approaches.

> What main reasons would you blame for the currend CVD and cancer rates
> anyway? I think of nutritional factors at first.
> 1.Trans fats+bad fats.
> 2.prostaglandin malfunctioning
> 3.deficits on many vitamins,particularly Bs (glucose) C,E (antiox.) and...

Yes, these seem reasonable.  I would add artery damage caused by
hypertension.  And a lot of non-dietary factors.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]