Come join the conversation: Mill thats pretty interesting, but whether or not the inuit are in ketosis in no way at all can be interpreted as for or against ketogenic diets. Their value as a therapeutic or even, in the case of long distance running, as a competitive strategy is unrelated to its naturalness. So while I freely admit I could be wrong about inuit living in keto (Im not convinced they are never keto, nor am I convinced they preferentially seek carbs but more likely just seek the best possible nutrition), it is outside of the point of the article you are commenting on. I am helping people who, in part due to the clouding of confusing advice about carbs, chose to do low carb for whatever reason yet also chose to continue physical training. Nothing about being low, or even zero carb, has to keep you from being as active or hard core in the gym as you wish, you just need to apply intelligent strategy and watch out for the pitfalls as I have outlined them. Im not dismissing the idea that carbs are present in meat, but a simple check of nutrition data on fresh caribou liver easily reveals that fresh caribou liver, 100g serving, has about 40 calories of carbs. This makes the claim that the inuit eat such a foul tasting organ preferentially for the sweet tasting carbs a little hard to believe. At 40 calories of carbs in 100g of meat, yet over 5 times the RDA of vitamin A, the enormous amount of other nutrients, makes it seem more likely its just the overall nutrition in the organ they are after. Its certainly why I have always pushed organ meat to those who chose an all meat diet. You have obviously done a lot of research on your hypothesis but you are not proving your points in a way that can constitute proof. I have never given anything a pass on its validity just because its natural and traditional. In fact nothing decieves more people ijnto parting with their time and money for no benefit than the terms natural or traditional. I support low carb, very low carb, and ketogenic diets for a few reasons but the most prominent being is that there are decades of clinical trials showing their effectiveness vs a wide variety of issues we suffer today as a population. And the only time you see issues such as thyroid problems, hair folicle failure, etc.. is when low carb diets are confounded by excess caloric restriction. Almost all of Jaminets clinical evidence for glucose deficiency comes from low carb studies where calories were restricted to 1200 a day. That is not an indicator low carb diets are dangerous, it is an indicator that very low calorie diets are dangerous. I would be interested in your stating clearly what your hypothesis is in terms of health inteverntion. My blog is here, in the end, to help people. I have actually advised many people to increase carbs or at least carb cycle if you have read my other comments. I think I am pretty open to new evidence, but the evidence needs to meet a standard of skepticism. I am not seeing much skepticism at all in the resistant starch, or the animal starch discussions of late in the blogosphere which has everyone simply preaching to the converted and looking for the next Dr. Oz style magic bullet. primalnorth.blogspot.ca/p/keto-adaptation-vs-low-carb-limbo.html
Posted on: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:08:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015