There has been a popular trend of late, toward a new version of “Paleo” termed ’The Carnivore Diet’. It is an approach that focuses exclusively upon animal source foods, eschewing plant foods more or less entirely. As expected (and typical of pretty much any alternative to the Standard American/Western Diet, which–less face it–isn’t hard to improve upon), many individuals are claiming improved health. To be fair, though (especially if we are talking about the more enlightened version of this dietary approach committed to uncompromising, 100% grass fed/finished sourcing/quality), it certainly IS an improvement in many ways over the majority of what is out there as a dietary alternative to the SAD.
But is this particular dietary approach genuinely healthy, long-term?
In short, I have to state right off that I am not a fan of the so-called ‘Carnivore Diet’ for a few, not so trivial reasons.
I was recently interviewed for a podcast by a popular advocate of this dietary approach. Although I was certainly prepared to hold my own in some respects, I was a bit caught off guard by one or two somewhat unique assertions made by the host that required me to do a bit of digging into and thinking through some things a bit more thoroughly (to be fair and honest to my audience) before rending a fuller and more coherent response. This article is meant to provide that. But overall, we did have far more we agreed upon than disagreed upon, which was a welcome surprise. That said, the areas of disagreement were significant, and important. I am expanding on that here, now that I have slept on it all and have a bit more breathing room to work with.
FIRST, TO PLAY A BIT OF MY OWN DEVIL’S ADVOCATE – (voicing assertions I have always maintained, in any case)
The idea of a mostly “carnivore diet” is certainly supportable from a prehistoric human evolutionary standpoint. Innumerable studies of stable isotopic analysis of prehistoric human bone collagen–clearly showing us what protein sources we almost exclusively relied upon throughout our evolutionary history –have clearly pointed to the idea that we didn’t get to where we are as a species relying on plant-based nutrition. Not even close. We have always been quite “high level” (i.e., mostly) carnivores. No question that our “feast-or-famine” oriented prehistoric wild ancestors were demonstrably operating far more as hunters than gatherers. We are absolutely superbly designed physiologically and digestively in a way that is unique among primates to get our primary nourishment from animal source foods. No question about that, either.
The evidence also shows that we had a distinct preference for regularly and successfully hunting extremely large and fatty herbivores that other “less technologically adept” carnivores we co-evolved with simply lacked the capacity for bringing down. If we took down a woolly mammoth (purportedly having @ 50%+ body fat) we likely gorged on that for days, never being 100% sure of where the next meal was coming from (and we most assuredly were not having baked potatoes along with our woolly mammoth steaks). We had the unique intelligence (thanks to our big fatty brains and voracious appetites for the Arachidonic acid /AA- and especially DHA-rich fat of wild animals) to develop elaborate and increasingly sophisticated hunting technologies. And thanks in no small part to our pronounced taste for bone marrow, we also had developed the opposable thumbs for successfully implementing this (https://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/dietary-fat-made-us-human/). We were ultimately willing to regularly put out supreme effort and even put ourselves at high risk for obtaining that highly nourishing, nutrient dense, fatty meat. And by the way, we didn’t need fire in order for dietary animal fat to become THE major structural and functional impetus for rapidly—at an entirely unprecedented rate in all of the animal kingdom– forging our extraordinary and uniquely sophisticated, human brain.
In my most recent book, Primal Fat Burner I made an exhaustive and credible case for (among other things) the idea that dietary animal fat–rather than popularized notions of cooking–actually served most fundamentally to make us what we are as a human species. I also made the case for the idea that a fat-based metabolism (vs. a glucose-based one) is most arguably the most natural and highly advantaged metabolic state of humankind. But I am also regularly careful to say that just because our ancestors did something doesn’t necessarily mean we need to do the exact same thing today–or that their way of doing things was even optimal or beneficial for them, much less us. After all, there really is no rational basis to assume that ALL “natural, whole” foods available to/consumed by us in prehistoric/tribal times were necessarily equally optimal or even beneficial. Obviously, we were far healthier, bigger-brained and robust way back then, but it could just be that we were doing enough that was right that we were better able to compensate for less than optimal food choices. We have nowhere near the same overall genetic (etc.) robustness/resilience, pristine environment or wiggle room today. So this begs the critical question: How would we know the difference between what was/is optimal for us and what isn’t?
That’s why my Primalgenic® approach takes longevity research into account as a means of cross-pollinating foundational ancestral principles (which truly is our only rational starting place) and analyzing all these factors for the purpose of fundamental health optimization. Also, rather uniquely in the genre, I make a point of taking into account the unprecedentedly hostile, stressful, toxic modern world and incomprehensibly compromising conditions (on every possible level) that we live in today. The truth is, we need to compensate for things today that our prehistoric ancestors would simply never have even begun to conceive of or fathom.
As such, I have argued that fibrous vegetables and greens–although never having been scientifically established as truly “essential” for us (as no carbohydrate is)–may have more to offer us today than during any prior time in our long evolutionary history. Many do contain beneficial phytochemicals and antioxidant nutrients and other useful compounds that are demonstrably helpful for badly needed detoxification and extra support in our toxic world. Certain plant foods provide well-documented hormetic and even medicinal effects that may add to our potentially health optimizing arsenal. Cruciferous vegetables, alone, contain beneficial sulforaphane, indoles, isothyocyanates, carotenoids, etc. and many brassica-based compounds have shown profound detoxication (particularly of airborne pollutants and things like cadmium, PAH, xenobiotics, dioxin and other toxic compounds) and significant anti-inflammatory, and even anti-cancer benefits. They can also help induce the production of helpful detoxification enzymes and glutathione synthesis.
Any number of fibrous (i.e., non-sugary/starchy) vegetables and greens can additionally add dietary bulk and a more satisfying sense of fullness (especially if you are properly exercising protein moderation)–and they also provide additional legitimate fodder for our beleaguered and relentlessly embattled gut biomes. There are some within the ‘carnivore’ genre that debate the value of plant fiber in legitimately supporting our gut-based microbial health, but the ability of out gut microflora to synthesize critical butyrate for the health of the human colon is well established in the literature. Is plant fiber essential for this? No. Absolutely not. But it can certainly help. And in today’s world, our chronically compromised internal wildlife needs all the help it can get.
I wrote at length in Primal Body, Primal Mind about plant-based toxins and concerns. That said, you can always reduce the presence of plant toxins such as oxalates–particularly if they are especially problematic for you– by gravitating to, say, more brassica-based/ vegetables: red, green, napa cabbage, broccoli (and broccoli sprouts), broccolini, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts…etc. (a brassica family exception might be kale, which is purportedly a bit higher in oxalates). Although certain brassica vegetables are also said to contain what are termed ‘goitrogens’ (thyroid inhibiting compounds), the amount is truly minute (read: largely un-concerning) and cooking tends to help neutralize that. Lettuces, watercress and other low oxalate salad greens, cucumbers, radishes, zucchini, raw carrots, citrus, culinary herbs/spices, etc. are fine, and similarly have a meaningful range of potential health benefits. Other plant foods likely providing more benefits than compromise for most include onions, garlic, turmeric, ripe avocado, coconut, artichokes, asparagus and culinary mushrooms.
Of all the plant foods we should all be avoiding, by far the worst are grains of all kinds and legumes. Potatoes contain their own range of uniquely toxic alkaloids and anti-nutrients–and are made up of more metabolically compromising starch than anything else. I have never advocated for the consumption of these foods. The anti-nutrients (lectins, toxic alkaloids, phytates, oxalates, trypsin inhibitors, and higher levels of goitrogens, etc.) in these foods, along with all the blood sugar spiking starch they typically contain, are far more likely to compromise your health then benefit it in any way. Other nightshades in addition to potatoes (i.e., tomatoes, eggplant, peppers, goji berries, etc.) can be a not-uncommon inflammatory issue for many also–but obviously are not problematic for everyone.
That said, fibrous vegetables and greens (as long as you don’t have pronounced issues tolerating them) can decidedly add to our dietary diversity–which is a more modern day potentially valuable component of:
1) Reducing the potential for development of food immune reactivities (eating the same thing every day, all the time is a recipe for the development of food sensitivities for many).
2) Supplying better nutritional synergy/amplified benefits from a wider range of nutrients.
3) Helping to add to/generate greater gut microbial health and diversity–which is an essential component in today’s world of cultivating a healthy, robust and resilient immune system, along with improved “oral tolerance”. One study that examined the microbiome in elderly populations concluded that the strongest influence on the microbiome is the diversity and composition of the diet (source provided below).
By the way, there certainly are microbially enhancing, highly fermentable “fibers” found in animal source foods, as well. Collagen (from skin and bone), cartilage, connective tissue, glucosamine and chondroitin have been demonstrated as actually on par with popular prebiotic’s such as FOS in terms of providing ample fermentable substrate and generating critically beneficial natural butyrate production. Remember, connective tissues are glycoproteins! That said, the prebiotic compounds from animal source foods could also potentially be problematic in certain persons having a condition such as SIBO (small intestinal bacterial overgrowth), as well.
Oral tolerance (implying reduced potential for food reactivities and a greater ability to tolerate a wider variety of foods) is another heavily compromised aspect of our health nowadays where many of us need meaningful additional support—especially in today’s world where autoimmunity and infectious diseases/superbugs are inexorably on the rise. To this effort toward better dietary diversity we should ALL be increasing our intake of true vitamin A (retinol—not beta carotene) from things like (especially) liver in order to additionally shore up our IgA levels and gut barrier integrity. TRUE vitamin A, (i.e., exclusively animal-sourced) is utterly vital for successfully reclaiming oral tolerance and immune-related resilience (among numerous other unique health benefits). Most of us really don’t get enough of this under-appreciated and hugely critical nutrient. But just as biodiversity in any ecosystem is recognized as supplying better environmental stability, it isn’t too big of a stretch to extrapolate the possibility that the same is likely true of gut-biome health stability and microbial diversity through the added implementation of dietary diversity. The wider the range and type of microbial fodder available, the potentially wider the diversity and health of your gut-based internal wildlife. Low dietary diversity is also a potential set-up for nutrient deficiencies—particularly in our depleted and toxic modern environment. It is well-known that the limited diversity of dietary choices in, for instance, many autistic persons (who may only selectively eat a couple of different foods while avoiding the rest) have notoriously non-diverse and unhealthy gut biomes, and poorer health outcomes. One thing we do know is that our much healthier and more robust prehistoric ancestors did generally attempt to eat as wide a variety of foods as were available to them. And yes—they were additionally exposed to far more endospore-forming commensal organisms from the soil and natural environment, as well, which added to their healthy gut microbial arsenal. But those little buggers need to be fed, too.
Occasionally, the more clearly limited, seasonal diet of the ostensibly healthy modern-day, hunter gatherer Hadza people in Africa is sometimes cited as an argument against the need for dietary diversity. But the fact is that the current diet of the Hadza is substantially different than it once was. They are no longer permitted to hunt extremely large game animals such as elephants and other larger herbivores, and game population changes over the millennia (specifically leading to the loss of elephant habitat and creating major changes in tribal hunting/foraging patterns) has also likely altered the diversity of potentially edible meats/vegetation, along with significantly altering Hadza dietary patterns/practices. They likely eat a lot more plant fiber now that they ever did in more ancient times, out of pure necessity due to more limited choices. Are the current Hadza healthier than the average mainstream westerner? Undoubtedly so (not like that’s hard to pull off). But we don’t have any way of comparing their health today with that of a few generations ago. And other factors must also be taken into account—which in the case of this comparison are fairly substantially complex socially/environmentally/lifestyle-wise/dietarily and simply too difficult to fully tease apart in any definitive way.
All that said, I fully recognize that some people simply cannot tolerate fibrous vegetables and greens due to the presence of conditions like SIBO (small intestinal bacterial overgrowth) or other lectin/anti-nutrient/immune intolerances. OK. No argument here. But it’s also entirely possible to develop intolerances to certain animal source foods, too. Like I say—we live in uniquely health compromised times and suffer from intrinsic/environmental challenges likely not shared by our prehistoric human brethren.
Diversity in animal source foods (and the whole nose-to-tail thing) counts, too. Like I keep saying, plants aren’t truly essential for us. But if you can tolerate them (and you enjoy them) they truly can be a useful and even significantly beneficial adjunct to our diets, supplying additional nutrients/antioxidants/unique phytochemicals to already nutrient-dense animal source foods. The extra minerals they can potentially supply us with (if we don’t way overdo the fiber) need to be combined with sufficiently ionizing HCl–primarily secreted in the presence of animal source foods–and often cooked as a means of minimizing mineral-binding anti-nutrients/fiber. Fat soluble nutrient components of plant-based foods, such as beta-carotene, K1, etc. absolutely require the presence of dietary fat for their absorption and utilization. So eaten by themselves their benefits may be limited (unless you’re a cow). Otherwise, enjoy them occasionally raw in salads, and even occasional low fiber, glycemic/low fructose juicing, cooked (lightly steamed/sautéed) and also cultured/fermented for the best balance and variety of potential benefits and nutrition. That is, as long as you tolerate them well.
BUT…DON’T WE REALLY NEED PLANT-BASED FOODS?
There are some persons out there denouncing the carnivore diet mainly due to its omission of plant-based foods. For me, that is a somewhat lesser concern. There is considerable, well funded hype and “lore” around plant-based diets today—and most of it is far more based upon mythology, misguided ideology, outdated orthodoxy, economic/political interests and certain surprisingly influential (if not bizarre) religious doctrines/dogmas driving “plant-based” ideology, than scientific substance. Although I personally see a potential value in the incorporation of certain types of plant-based foods, by no means are they to be considered entirely indispensable to us. There is simply no basis for that anywhere in our evolutionary heritage, or anything from the human fossil record (including even evidence from all known neolithic hunter-gatherer societies). Our unique digestive physiology as a species is poorly designed for maximizing the digestion/extraction of nutrition from plants. Our unique human anatomy/physiology is designed to make far better use of animal-based foods than plant based foods. And there is literally NO credible evidence for any scientifically established human dietary requirement for literally any form of carbohydrate to date. In short, plant-based foods have always been a side dish for us.
There is also ample evidence of human health decline on multiple levels (including our very brain size) following our implementation of agriculture and higher carbohydrate diets.
Quite literally every single nutrient required by human beings is “technically” attainable through a well-balanced, exclusively animal sourced diet. Even including things commonly associated with plant-based nutrition like vitamin C (factoid: there is four times more vitamin C in 100 g of liver then there is in an apple), folate (a nutrient that was originally discovered as richly present in liver), vitamin E (abundant in exclusively pastured animal fats), beta-carotene (also abundant in exclusively pastured animal fats and egg yolks–while TRUE vitamin A—retinol– is exclusive to animal source foods), vitamin K1 (absolutely present in small amounts in pastured animal fats—while far more critical K2/MK-4 is exclusive to fully pastured animal source foods—esp. rich in poultry fat and poultry liver and certain genetic strains of emu oil). Important minerals such as calcium, magnesium and potassium are also significantly present in 100% pasture fed-and-finished meats/organs/tissues. B-complex (including B12, of course) is quite abundant in a variety of animal sourced foods (and less likely to be depleted/negated by the presence of sugar/starch). The majority of our needed dietary minerals are frankly best and most efficiently obtained from animal source foods, as they are far more bioavailable from them, while also more likely to be necessarily exposed to critically ionizing hydrochloric acid in the digestive process–which many minerals absolutely require for us to actually make use of them.
And incidentally, the opposite is not and cannot be true of exclusively plant-based diets. No human being can get all—or frankly even most—of their most fundamental nutritional requirements met through an exclusively plant based diet…unless you happen to have 4-stomachs (or a fermentatively-based digestive system, which literally no human has), that is. Whatever benefits one might experience from a vegetarian/vegan diet early on, ultimately WILL lead to diminishing returns. Those anemic chickens WILL come home to roost. Count on it.
BTW–I am excluding the discussion of whatever nutrients might be afforded by dairy products, because I have a variety of reasons for potentially omitting them from my dietary recommendations–the reasons for which are better reserved for my upcoming Paleo f(x) talk and perhaps a separate blog post. But I digress…
CAN we safely enjoy non-glycemic, fibrous vegetables and greens? Sure. Most of us can. And it is probably even be a good idea. Do we have to have them of absolute necessity? In truth, no. But why avoid them if you don’t have to?
The fact that we don’t “have” to have them doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enjoy and benefit from them if we can.
OK…NOW ON TO MY BIGGER “BEEF”…
REVISITNG mTOR
The other (and frankly, more primary) problematic issue with a carnivore-type diet in my view has to do with the excessive amount of protein being promoted and typically consumed. I have covered my arguments against this practice in a rather large amount of detail in both my first book, Primal Body, Primal Mind and (to some degree) in Primal Fat Burner.
It simply isn’t smart or advisable to chronically provoke that protein-sensing mTOR pathway for multiple reasons. Not the least of which involves the fact that we are living in an unprecedentedly toxic, mutagenic world where cancer rates are exploding globally. In fact, according to a recent, 2019 prospective cohort study published in the Lancet (link to source below) cancer is now overtaking cardiovascular disease as a primary cause of death among particularly middle-aged persons, globally.
The following is excerpted from an article (source linked below) on mTOR, titled:
‘PI3K/Akt/mTOR Pathway: The Main Cancer Breakthrough’:
“Is PI3K/Akt/mTOR Pathway Important in Many Types of Cancer? Yes. The measurement of active Akt and other pathway components in human tumors has revealed that pathway activation is one of the most common molecular alterations in human cancer. Using activation state specific antibodies in immunohistochemical (IHC) analyses of paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues, active Akt and other pathway components have been detected in at least 12 types of human cancers in vivo, with prevalence as high as 90%. The importance of pathway activation in situ has been demonstrated when IHC analysis of tumor tissues has been linked to clinical outcomes. Akt activation is a poor prognostic factor for breast cancer, prostate cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), endometrial cancer, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma multiforme, melanoma, and acute myelogenous leukemia. Thus, constitutive activation of this pathway is common and important in many cancers.”
The recent AHS19 talk given by medical pioneer and metabolic expert, Ron Rosedale, MD (link below article) underscores this concern about excessive protein consumption in no uncertain terms. No rational, honest person can dismiss his meticulously considered arguments and conclusions. He covers the specific concerns involving chronic mTOR activation mainly in the last half of his talk. In it, he rightfully describes cancer as “a disease of growth”, meaning it is not the cancerous cell that kills, but rather it’s unbridled proliferation. The proliferation of all cancer cells requires—even more than sugar—growth factors. And it is excess dietary protein which largely supplies them. Rosedale also soundly trounces the recently popularized notion of cancer as a metabolic, mitochondrial disease (which I was frankly seduced by myself, for a while) while putting the emphasis more squarely on the subject of excess dietary protein and it’s generation of cancer-fertilizing growth factors.
This isn’t to let sugar–cancer’s favorite fuel–off the hook at all, by the way. And hey–insulin is a growth factor for cancer also! And since no human ever needs to consume sugar or starch to meet it’s modest glucose requirements, to me it’s a no-brainer. Simply lose the dietary sugar and starch!
But the activation of mTOR via excess dietary protein intake supplies an abundance of “oncophilic” growth factors in undeniably (and quite well documented/established) highly concerning ways. Nearly all cancer cells possess/exhibit elevated mTOR. Where cancer cellular fuel sourcing/metabolism is potentially much more complex and variable in its scope from one cancer to the next, mTOR activation remains the one, most concerning, foundationally universal, constant nemesis. And although there are efforts underway to create mTOR-dampening cancer drugs, why wait for more toxic solutions from Big Pharma? Literally the cheapest, easiest and most reliable means of keeping mTOR at the end of a short leash and extending healthy lifespan while thwarting cancer’s most lethal impetus–metastasis — is by simply limiting your daily protein intake to just what you need, and trying not to exceed that. Easy peasy.
The branched chain amino acid, leucine is cited as the primary impetus for mTOR activation, but it’s not alone in the potential for cancer promotion via higher protein intake.
In addition to mTOR activation, the amino acid L-glutamine additionally serves as a well documented, robust fodder for cancer cells. This is not to say that either leucine or l-glutamine are inherently bad. They are not. We need them to some degree (and in some circumstances more than others). But in an era where environmental toxicity, genetic compromise and mutagenic influences are virtually ubiquitous and where cancer diagnoses are rampantly common and rapidly exploding in the population, it is obtaining too much dietary protein—and particularly too much leucine and l-glutamine that are potentially bad. It is important to keep growth factors such as insulin, leptin, IGF-1, and growth hormone to their minimum necessary levels for the long term maintenance of health, and any hope of longevity. Anything more than that is a modern day recipe for an eventual bad diagnosis. It’s as simple as that.
Look–we all don’t have cancer until the day we do. And the closer anyone advances to middle-age, the more concerned anyone should be about these issues (though cancer is, troublingly, also increasingly common in ever younger populations). The current statistics are utterly sobering: One in two men and one in three women will get cancer in their lifetime. If you end up with that diagnosis, I can promise you that a high-protein ‘carnivore’ diet will not serve you well. And a low utilizable carb, ketogenic dietary approach will only be useful insofar as it is one that additionally limits your dietary protein intake.
It has been suggested by some that it may not be advisable to remain in a chronic state of autophagy or mTOR suppression… But the wealth of research into the long-term effects of modified caloric restriction upon longevity and freedom from disease across all species studied (including primates)–automatically leading to just such a demonstratively beneficial “chronic” state—simply fail to corroborate that negative supposition. Modified caloric restriction (especially in the form of my Primalgenic® approach) absolutely WORKS.
Look–if you are pregnant, trying to become pregnant, or are a baby, child or growing teen–then you aren’t going to want to overly restrict protein. Simple as that. In these cases, growth and necessary cellular proliferation are the name of the game. If you happen to be an elite athlete, your protein requirement may be ever so slightly higher than that of the average Joe. But nowhere near as much as you might like to think. I allow for all this type of adjustment in my Primalgenic® approach, too.
Many persons adopting the ‘Carnivore Diet’ nowadays seemingly tend to be younger, CrossFit types. The quest for ever-increased lean tissue mass is an attractively advertised impetus for adopting this dietary approach—however, with a Primalgenic® approach you are automatically improving your lean tissue mass with fewer associated risks.
A well adapted Primalgenic® dietary approach will:
- Spare your lean tissue mass by sparing protein from being converted to glucose and used for fuel in hypoglycemic states
- Help spare your body’s protein from oxidation
- Improve your efficiency of protein utilization
- Reduce nitrogen excretion
The net result? Quality and better sustained lean tissue mass. BAM!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with moderating your protein intake to “merely” sufficient levels—as long as your protein intake is indeed sufficient—and as long as a person’s digestive capacity is either functioning well or is being properly supported through supplemental hydrochloric acid and digestive enzymes. This caveat cannot be over emphasized enough.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE FOR WHOM THE CARNIVORE DIET SEEMS TO WORK?
In cases where a person feels some improvement with a higher protein intake they may not have experienced with a more moderate protein intake, my concerns are as follows:
1) That the moderate levels of protein consumed was of sufficient nutrient density—while also including a meaningfully diversified range of animal source foods and particularly including organ meats; supplying sufficient variety to provide an adequate spectrum of nutrients and nutrient density. If you are relegating your protein intake to just “steak, fish and chicken and the occasional egg”, you are bound to run into problems down the road from insufficient nutrient intake. Of course, you could run into the same concern with a carnivore diet, but your only hope of dietary diversity there (and not dying from total culinary boredom) is to eat a wider range of animal source foods/ organ meats/ tissues, etc….which you should be doing anyway.
2) That digestion—and also the potential presence of malabsorption are properly evaluated through functional lab analysis and addressed. Persons prone to higher stress and/or anxiety levels are almost certainly lacking in digestive efficiency/effectiveness, and frequently also tend to suffer leaky gut issues. As I covered in tremendous detail in my first book, Primal Body, Primal Mind: digestion is of necessity a parasympathetic process, depending upon a calm and relaxed state in order for proper digestive secretions to occur. Anything less than this is going to lead to unwelcome compromises to both digestion and nutrient absorption. And our uniquely stressful modern world practically ensures poor sympathetic tone (God forbid you should add CNN to that). Also, as we age, our effective production of hydrochloric acid and digestive enzymes often decreases and frequently must be compensated for through (I’m sorry to say) regular supplementation with meals. Eating even more protein to offset crappy digestion simply won’t fix this.
As an aside, there was one individual I recently spoke with face-to-face–a well-respected, ancestral diet oriented academic researcher (who shall remain nameless for obvious reasons)–who was trying to tell me that they felt better eating a higher protein/“carnivore”-type diet these days. This person was probably in their 60’s, age wise. Their degree of halitosis was so extreme, severe and noxious it was hard to stand within 3 feet of them. You could literally smell the rotting, putrefactive protein in their gut wafting out of their body that they simply (clearly) were not digesting properly and seemed oblivious to. They would have been far better served by addressing their digestive issues instead than trying to increase their percentage of relative protein absorption by increasing the amount of total protein in their diet. In effect, they may have been technically absorbing more protein in compensation for their poor digestive function that helped them feel better under the circumstances, but they were also generating a potentially harmful, toxic and carcinogenic trade-off of highly putrefactive byproducts, other unnecessary toxic burdens, and cancer fueling growth factors.
3) There may be a very real issue in certain persons having problems with things such as oxalates, nightshades, etc. or specific diagnosed/undiagnosed immune reactivities to particular plant-based foods who feel a sense of relief when omitting them. That’s legitimate. But rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it’s ultimately better to figure out what the offending foods are and use a scalpel and not a crude shovel to eliminate the actual offending dietary inclusions. We do live in an era where various dietary restrictions are a necessary reality for probably far more persons in the world than not (whether everyone is aware of their need to do so or not). Maintaining as strong a level of dietary diversity as possible–without compromising your health–is increasingly becoming a bit of an art. But it makes common sense to make the effort to do so, as best you can. The effort is ultimately worth it.
Look–almost everything today presents some manner of trade off or compromise. It pays to weigh those trade-offs carefully—and to determine which trade-offs make the most sense for your unique, bio-individual circumstances. If you’re trying to eliminate and detoxify your oxalate load, and you want to try a bout of anything approaching a “carnivore” diet (as a hopefully temporary measure—even though that extreme might not actually be necessary), then please–for your sake and not mine–follow my protein restriction guidelines. You really don’t want to ultimately trade one problem for another.
4) Persons tending towards hypoglycemia attempting to adopt ketogenic approaches by increasing protein and decreasing carbohydrate are only (in effect) trading one source of carbohydrate for another. Excess protein in the diet will have a tendency to convert, with anywhere from 36 to 58% efficiency (depending on whose research you look at), to glucose and get used the same way. So a hypoglycemic person thinking that they are on a low carb diet, but feeling better when they increase their protein intake may be kidding themselves a bit.
I have previously commented many times that, in my view (and other metabolic experts have agreed with me on this), the poor rates of long-term adherence to the Atkins diet may have been generated by this very mechanism. In other words, high protein versions of so-called “ketogenic” diets tend to be rather poor at generating quality, effective ketogenic adaptation (EKA). And it is specifically because of the excessive protein supplying ongoing glucose–and unwittingly fostering a continued dependence on sugar burning. If a person continues to rely on sugar as their primary source of fuel and they try to get it from protein, not only will they be getting their gluconeogenesis from a more undesirable substrate (from the perspective of its generation of toxic byproducts such as urea and ammonia, adding to the body’s toxic burden unnecessarily), but they will be adding to growth factors that inhibit autophagy, negate anti-aging benefits and limiting the healthy rebuilding and regeneration of existing cells that can help thwart mutagenic processes. This will ALSO be adding appreciably to growth factors (along with the extra sugar generated) that can fuel those mutagenic processes in a fairly unbridled fashion. It’s not a good combination. And by the way, the high protein (negligibly effective ketogenic) Atkins diet was notoriously poor at effecting positive cancer outcomes.
“IN ADDITION TO CANCER, CHRONIC mTOR ACTIVATION HAS BEEN ADDITIONALLY ASSOCIATED WITH CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, AUTOIMMUNITY AND EVEN METABOLIC DISORDERS” (see source below).
Frequent/chronic mTOR activation is no friend to anyone struggling with/suffering from/seeking to avoid these highly prevalent, modern-day conditions.
Speaking of metabolic issues, there was a very interesting randomized controlled trial study published in 2016 in the Journal Cell Reports (Smith GI, Yoshino J, Kelly SC, Reeds DN, Okunade A, Patterson BW, Klein S, Mittendorfer B. “High-protein intake during weight-loss therapy eliminates the weight loss-induced improvement in insulin action in obese postmenopausal women.” Cell Reports. Oct. 11, 2016) which found that “eating too much protein eliminates an important health benefit of weight loss: improvement in insulin sensitivity, which is critical to lowering diabetes risk.”
One researcher authoring the study, Bettina Mittendorfer, PhD stated in an interview:
“We found that women who lost weight eating a high-protein diet didn’t experience any improvements in insulin sensitivity…However, women who lost weight while eating less protein were significantly more sensitive to insulin at the conclusion of the study. That’s important because in many overweight and obese people, insulin does not effectively control blood-sugar levels, and eventually the result is type 2 diabetes.”
Insulin sensitivity is a good marker of metabolic health, one that typically improves with weight loss. In fact, the women in the study who lost weight while consuming less protein (0.8 g/kg/day) experienced a 25 to 30 percent improvement in their sensitivity to insulin.
The amount of protein consumed by the subjects eating the “high protein diet” was 1.2 g/kg/day. A significant source of protein used in this study was whey protein isolate–which certainly may have factored into the equation as a less evolutionarily well-established protein source for humans (and a common dietary antigen, to-boot). But that said, I can’t tell you the number of people that have approached me over the years who told me that their efforts at a low carb, ketogenic diet failed to help them with their weight loss efforts and their health goals until they incorporated my protein moderation recommendations–which many have reported as “almost miraculous” in its effects. I’m just saying…
HOW MUCH PROTEIN DO WE REALLY NEED? (See “HOW MUCH PROTEIN IS RIGHT FOR ME?” below)
It is interesting and highly worthwhile to consider how much protein is actually consumed by a breast-feeding infant—arguably a period in human life where the need for protein intake, rapid cellular division and growth face their greatest demands. In an in-depth, scientific evaluation of the average infant dietary protein requirements (taking into account total nitrogen and milk protein intake) the average infant protein requirement at 6 months of age was determined to be just 0.98 g/kg/day….(the protein content in breast milk is about 1g/100ml and the daily protein intake of a breast-feeding infant has been determined to be approximately 1g/kg/day).
It is not unreasonable to assume that an average adult person, who is not in the process of rapid growth—as contrasted with a baby, child or teen, or who is either pregnant or trying to become pregnant—that a goal of 0.75 g/kg/day of lean tissue mass (Dr. Ron Rosedale’s recommendations) to 0.8 g/kg/day of what I call “estimated ideal body weight”–which is much simpler for people to readily determine–can sufficiently meet necessary adult protein requirements under all but the most demanding circumstances. Using “estimated ideal body weight” also allows for weight optimization strategies in a downward OR upward direction, given individual weight goals/concerns. And of course, this protein calculation is dependent upon the quality/nutrient density/sourcing of the protein consumed, as well as the quality of an individual’s digestive health for obtaining the most effective, health optimizing results.
In a person with cancer (or at very high risk for cancer)—that protein intake probably shouldn’t exceed 0.5-0.6 g/kg/day of either lean tissue mass or estimated ideal body weight.
ALSO–Older persons really should mostly be using hydrochloric acid and digestive enzyme supplements with their protein-containing meals to ensure the best possible utilization of the protein and other nutrients they consume, regardless. Hydrochloric acid is not only necessary for the effective digestion and utilization of protein, but also for the proper digestion/utilization of dietary B12 and many critical dietary minerals (requiring ionization in the gut through the action of hydrochloric acid).
The notion that anyone should require any more protein than 0.8 g/kg/day of estimated ideal body weight to get through a day or to support optimized health is truthfully not supported by any credible facet of longevity research, much less any well documented, peer-reviewed argument toward improved health and freedom from disease. The whole reason caloric restriction has proven the most consistently effective dietary measure for longevity across all species over nearly 100 years of research now has to do with the control/limiting of two primary factors: Insulin and mTOR. Full stop.
We have been conditioned–particularly here in the Western world and especially in America–to feel as though we haven’t been fed sufficiently unless our plate is overflowing with food. In part, this is probably part-and-parcel of a remnant psychological construct from our wild past–where feast or famine was the rule behind ensuring survival. We still feel that impetus to feast when the opportunity presents itself, but acting upon that impetus is no longer in our best interest (any more than the practice creating a bit of insulin resistance in the late summer by gorging on fruit to fatten us up for winter is, in our modern day, climate controlled world). These innately compelling, ancient impulses are effectively killing us–or at least unnecessarily shortening our lives. We don’t need to eat anywhere near as much as we think we do in order to meet our most foundational dietary requirements. We just have to be smart and more highly selective than our ancestors ever had to be in the way we go about that.
Like I say–just because our ancestors did something doesn’t mean it’s necessarily right for us today.
If the concern with protein moderation lies with the idea of ensuring the intake of sufficient micronutrients, then the quality, variety, sourcing and nutrient density of our protein choices becomes all the more critical. Eating 100% grass-fed and finished sources of meat, as well as eating “nose-to-tail” and getting sufficient fat is the best way of ensuring sufficient water/fat soluble nutrient and mineral intake. Critical fat-soluble nutrients—central to human immune health, brain function and so much more–are of course best gotten from animal source fats (and also organ meats) of uncompromising sourcing and quality. The use of healthy, lower heat, non-oxidizing preparation methods is also pretty important here. And quality, non-rancid/non-oxidized, appropriately prepared/sourced fat can be enjoyed in a far more unrestricted, satiating fashion since it does not add to the production of oncogenic growth factors, or any other adverse oncogenic or adverse longevity concerns. In fact, fat soluble nutrients exclusively found in animal source foods, such as vitamins’ A (retinol) D3 and K2 (MK-4) might just be the most powerful tools for securing positive cancer outcomes and healthy genetic expression—that is, apart from the need for 1) protein restriction and 2) minimizing dietary sugar/starch and insulin requirements….In THAT order.
The science of mTOR and why we need to keep it at the end of short leash is actually quite well established in the longevity literature, not to mention a growing body of cancer research. It’s also worth pointing out that nature’s purely carnivorous animal species, allowed to eat more than their fill of protein every day, don’t tend to be particularly long-lived–either in the wild or in captivity. But by using the loopholes in mother nature’s design (as afforded through longevity research), as I described at great length in Primal Body, Primal Mind–and guided readers through the adoption of in Primal Fat Burner—we can fully honor our dietary requirements for critical animal source nutrients, along with our evolutionary and human genetic heritage, while also minimizing liabilities that come with unrestricted versions of widely popularized ancestral dietary approaches. Plant foods are always optional, but should (in my view) be encouraged where appropriate as a source of potential enhancement of its many Primalgenic® benefits.
My soon-to-be-released (and much anticipated): The Primalgenic® Plan online program (see: www.primalgenic.com to sign up for upcoming notifications and availability) will help take the guesswork, predatory marketing, confusion, hype, mythology and fad-like elements out of this equation. It is a program that will incorporate and take more health optimizing elements into consideration then any other ketogenic or ancestral health-oriented program in existence. It’s development was based on far more than typical mere armchair research (or for that matter, cutting and pasting from the work of others), but is instead based upon decades of painstaking research coupled with more than 20-years of clinical experience applying these principles. The Primalgenic® Plan also takes into account fundamental principles of human anatomy and physiology, human evolutionary research, as well as deep research into human longevity principles, intermittent fasting, gut health, and the overwhelmingly prevalent issue of autoimmunity, cancers and increasingly common immune reactivities to various foods, environmental compounds and pathogenic microbes–all while taking into account the uniquely hostile, toxic and challenging world that we live in today.
Let’s just say I have a tendency to over-deliver.
As well demonstrated in the literature, a wide variety of fibrous vegetables and greens can certainly serve to positively benefit and enjoyably add a more satisfying diversity to our diets (and probably should for most), even as they have never proven essential to us as a species.
The incorporation of additional plant-based nutrients/antioxidants, and/or plant-based hormetic substances and/or detoxifying, microbiome supporting, diet-diversifying fibrous/ non-sugary/starchy plant-based dietary (and medicinal/culinary herbs/spices) related inclusions can be a welcome and effective complement to our essential intake of quality, nutrient dense animal source nutrition. The additional and highly unique compromises that we face in our modern world–in everything from our nutrient-depleted soils to innumerable contaminants in our air, water and food supply—in addition to things like adjuvant exposures, increasingly insidious GMO’s, radiation contamination and rampant EMF (and now, God help us– 5G) pollution, etc, etc.–demand something extra in our consideration with respect to what actually constitutes a foundationally health-optimizing approach in today’s modern world.
Of course (as I keep saying) there will be those who tolerate plant-based foods poorly–and by no means are plant foods or plant fiber scientifically established as essential to any living human being–so it’s optional. But if you don’t happen to tolerate plant foods at all, the answer does not lie in increasing your protein intake to make up for that.
Unless, of course, you really enjoy the adrenaline rush you can get from a risky game of Russian roulette.
~ Nora Gedgaudas
HOW MUCH PROTEIN IS RIGHT FOR ME?
Here is the basic, general formula for an average adult:
Take your estimated IDEAL body weight (in lbs), then divide by 2.2 in order to arrive at your weight in kilograms. So, for instance, if you weigh 300 lbs now but knew you were smoking hot at 130 pounds in college (and most people idealize their leanest weight), then use that “130 lbs” number, instead of your current (excessive) weight.
Multiply that number by 0.8 (or 0.5 if you knowingly have or are at very high risk for cancer) to arrive at the number of grams of actual protein per day that you want to shoot for.
Keep in mind that any source of protein is going to contain quite a number of other things, including water, fat, minerals and other nutrients.
So here’s how you figure out the portion thing:
For example, there is about 7 g of actual protein in an ounce (or @30 g) of meat or fish. There is anywhere from 6-8 g of protein in an egg, depending on size. There’s about 7 g in a cup of bone broth. I detail all of this in my books, and I will also be handholding people through the process of calculating their own protein needs in my upcoming Primalgenic® Plan online program.
In the beginning, I urge people to weigh their protein portions raw where possible. In time, you will get very good at eyeballing this, but it might be useful to find and use a digital food scale when getting started. If the meat is already cooked, you’re going to have to guesstimate things…. But always remember to guesstimate on the side of a smaller portion once the meat is cooked (leaving a more concentrated level of protein in that portion once the water gets cooked out of it).
Something else that is important to mention here is that you probably don’t want to exceed about 21 g of actual protein in any given meal. Anything more than that is mTOR activating. So you don’t want to get all your daily protein at once, if that makes sense. This ends up amounting to 2-3 ounces of meat or fish in any given meal. And yes— plant-based proteins (nuts, seeds, etc) also count in the mTOR equation!
Sources:
https://agscientific.com/blog/2012/07/pi3kaktmtor-pathway-the-main-cancer-breakthrough/
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131%2814%2900062-X
http://soh.iums.ac.ir/uploads/32_282_58_21.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27332875
https://www.nature.com/articles/1209886
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11319
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312762914_Dietary_Diversity_in_Children_with_Autism
https://jhoonline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13045-019-0754-1
https://source.wustl.edu/2016/10/high-protein-diet-curbs-metabolic-benefits-weight-loss/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.09.047
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469695
https://www.greenmedinfo.health/substance/broccoli
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/33/14691
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7734
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(16)30630-1
https://www.greenmedinfo.health/blog/cancer-now-leading-cause-death
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32007-0/fulltext
Ron Rosedale AHS19 talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5HXCfimEa4
https://www.americangrassfed.org/wp-content/uploads/fatty-acids.pdf
This article came out in great timing because I was currently transitioning to a carnivore diet.
Dear Nora, your article is absolutely brilliant, very detailed and just makes sense. Very differentiated and so relevant for our times. Thank you!!
Very well written, researched and convincing article. One question I have is regarding protein requirements for senior citizens. I have seen studies and articles that argue that senior citizens require more protein to mitigate muscle wasting (sarcopenia) and therefore should eat 10-15% more protein than what is recommended for a younger person. At 65 years perhaps I should be eating 1 gram of protein per kilogram of lean body weight instead of the recommended 0.8 gram/kg? I would love to hear a reasoned comment on this assertion. Thank you.
Dear Richard,
I believe I already addressed this concern in the article.
The issue with aging isn’t a greater need for protein, it is the progressive diminishment of digestive efficiency. You may not be absorbing protein as well as you age because you aren’t digesting it as well. The solution is not to add more putrefying protein to the mix in hope that a higher percentage will make it to your tissues. The issue is focusing on improving your digestion through the addition of hydrochloric acid supplementation and digestive enzymes, among other things (I talk a great deal about details surrounding digestion in my first book in a way you might greatly benefit from).
The time of our lives when we require the fastest and most prolific cellular division is during the prenatal phase and during infancy. Suckling infants are taking in 1g/kg/day. You have no such need. Stimulating cellular proliferation in an aging person through chronically activating mTOR with increased protein intake is frankly a recipe for cancer vulnerability in today’s world. Our prehistoric ancestors likely fared much better with their persistently high protein intake–given their pristine environment and a lack of interference from nefarious economic interests eroding the quality of their food supply (and everything else). We no longer live in that world, and we have to adjust ourselves to our modern reality if we want to survive as individuals, and as a species.
I hope this makes sense!
Nora,
Thank you for the reply to my post. Indeed, your response makes good sense to me. Being a skinny (6′ 140 lbs) Type 2 diabetic, I have also found that excess protein causes an unwelcome rise in blood sugar which reinforces a moderate protein intake. I appreciate your insights and own 2 of your books: Primal Fat Burner & Primal Body – Primal Mind. This discussion will trigger me to review them. The best to you.
I’m not sure this makes sense. mTOR is part of metabolism, a very direct part of it. Just google it, then google what a kinase is. It directly deals with phosphorylation of substrates using ATP, any high schooler can tell you that’s metabolic. The reason cancer cells have high phosphorilation is because they’re dividing quickly. I simply don’t see the connection you’re making.
I have my own misgivings about all carnivore all the time, but I think it’s helpful for limited periods. I also don’t like the carnivore community which has a very short fuse for anyone asking questions. And I don’t like that they claim you can get adequate vitamins because (and I’m quoting Dr. Baker’s book, which I own) “we don’t know enough about nutrition” so basically , who knows, don’t worry, be happy. Finally, I don’t think there’s enough calcium in an all carnivore diet. I had a lot of trouble with it until I supplemented calcium. I’d be hard pressed to explain why, but I do know that a woman with a low calcium level is likely to be irritable and achy. And I was.
I think the human body is always telling you what’s good for you and you just have to listen. I have mineral deficiencies and I crave grains. I don’t have to eat grains to get the minerals, but I also can’t eat spinach. I think it’s dangerous to tell people never to eat something, or to tell people always to eat something. People aren’t machines and we don’t all have the same genetics or flora. I love the old Mark Hyman books where he talks about people finding the right diet for them, through a long process of self observation. Tedious, but much safer than trying to follow a premade plan.
Dear Angelica—
I urge you to read my first book, Primal Body, Primal Mind where I delve into the mTOR topic in much more detail. I also urge you to look a little more closely at the studies I have cited it in this blog post. Trust me… The connection is there. In spades.
I urge everyone to be cautious about lauding those health experts parenting phrases such as “Eeeeeverybody is different” and “Eeeeeverything in moderation”—as if there was any real useful wisdom in that. Phrases like this certainly tell us what many of us would like to hear (and boost popularity ratings), but they don’t serve us in any meaningful way. These kinds of statements are little more than nutritional politics, and nothing more. Yes, there is absolutely such a thing as bio-individuality—and I am better than most at ferreting out those details specific to a given person’s issues. But what defines us as a species is NOT our differences, but instead those things that we share in common. And we are all much more alike than unalike in our fundamental, human nutritional requirements. We all have the same organs, tissues, neurotransmitters, hormones, blood pH range, and basic micro nutrient and macronutrient requirements. The same fundamental longevity principles apply to us all. There is not a human being alive on this planet suffering from a carbohydrate deficiency, or requiring dietary carbohydrate in any manner, shape, or form–at any age for any gender. That’s a physiological fact. And as for the popular phrase, “Everything in moderation”, I’d like to know who gets to determine what defines “moderation”, in the first place. —And one is left to wonder just how much inflammatory, immune-compromising, autoimmune-triggering/execerbating, glycating and carcinogenic/mutagenic indulgences any of us should want to enjoy “in moderation”.
I’ve got news for Mark Hyman–there IS such a thing as a universally applicable, foundational diet for our human species. Our evolutionary history leaves the best initial clues for this. And I disagree with whoever Dr. Baker is. We actually know plenty enough about nutrition to accomplish what we need to for our health, as long as we pay attention to the foundational principles of evolutionary science, anatomy and physiology and avoid the corporate politics of conventional dietary guidelines, along with other biased economic, political and certain religious interests. Vegetarianism and veganism are never it. Neither is low-fat, high carbohydrate. There’s quite literally zero basis for these dietary approaches anywhere in the human evolutionary or fossil record. And it pays to also take into account decades-old, well-established principles in longevity science, as well as addressing the need to compensate for the uniquely toxic and challenging world we live in today. That’s exactly what I do with my Primalgenic® approach.
When it comes to bio-individuality what we are talking about is mere nuance. But unless you have those foundational HUMAN requirements met with nutrients in the forms that we are best designed to digest, absorb and utilize them, good luck getting any long-term success by addressing “bio individuality”, alone.
None of us really knows how to listen to our bodies in this industrialized day and age. What people end up “listening to” are frequently cravings, addictions and frankly habitually biased likes and dislikes based on nothing meaningful in particular. Not everyone that “craves” chocolate does so because they have a magnesium deficiency. Sometimes it’s just a craving for the sugary sweetness, caffeine and/or PEA stimulation.
I do urge you to read the article in my blog on calcium supplementation, which is mostly something I recommend against. I’m glad you’re feeling better, but it’s important to ask yourself why you might have needed calcium in the first place, when it is such an abundant mineral in the Western diet (and frankly there’s plenty potentially there in a well thought out carnivore approach). Also, it’s a fine line between addressing actual calcium intake and metabolizing it in a healthful manner. Unless you have sufficient hydrochloric acid (for healthy calcium ionization) and are getting ample D3 AND K2 (MK-4 only) and trace elements like boron, just for starters, you may be more likely to calcify things in your body that were never meant to be calcified, rather than improve anything long term. Also, thyroid/parathyroid issues can certainly lead to errors in calcium metabolism. Lots of places to look for answers. And by the way, none of us need anywhere near the amount of calcium that is hyped in the media (vis-à-vis the longtime interests of the American Dairy Council).
The (grass fed/finished/ fully pastured) carnivore approach does eliminate things like oxalates, phytates and harmful lectins… So some people find that useful. But eating high-protein long term does come with legitimately concerning, well-documented risks—particularly given our modern, industrialized society. I have outlined a meaningful number of those risks (complete with supplied references) in this article. I urge you to revisit them.
I hope this helps!
~ Nora
Hi Nora
Great article! I do love reading your research. The only “beef” I have is when trying to work out how much protein I should have – you swap back and forth between grams and ounces, pounds and kilograms. For instance, not wanting to have more than 21g protein in one sitting and dividing protein intake up so you have 2-3 OUNCES per meal. It’s workable, but can be confusing!
Otherwise, thanks!
Would periodically fasting (48 hours or more) offset the cancer risk from too much protein? I am one of those people who cannot eat FODMAPS, Nightshades, dairy, or gluten as they cause autoimmune. I have had bouts of pancreatitis (which calmed down after fasting and eliminating high oxylate foods (almonds especially). So I am concerned about the health of my pancreas.
Hi Janet–there is nothing wrong with periodically fasting, but it is something to be careful about. My Primalgenic® approach makes every effort to ensure that the nutrient dense needs of the human body are being met—protein included. When it comes to protein, we’re culturally conditioned to think that we need WAY more than we do. Mind you, we do need a certain amount of complete protein daily (typically not more than maybe 6 or 7 ounces of meat, fish, eggs… etc.), and we really do need to get it from animal source foods… for a whole variety of reasons. If I start getting into that here it’ll be a whole new Tolstoyan article. But I think my last book covers the reasons pretty well.
In any case, the danger with this whole fasting craze—and I’m not saying that fasting can’t be valuable from time to time, or even within a certain window during the day—but the danger lies with not getting enough nutrition. If your focus is constantly on not eating, sooner or later those chickens come home to roost. By focusing on getting the amount of complete protein (from a wide variety of meats, organ meats, poultry, bone broths, etc.) that your body requires every day (also supplying a wide range of nutrients, including critical fat-soluble nutrients, essential fatty acids/quality fats and other health building blocks) you can actually get all of the benefits normally attributed to fasting, without actually depriving yourself of nourishment. I have been writing about this extensively since 2009. If you have not read the 2011 edition version of my first book, Primal Body, Primal Mind, I really urge you to do so. The science is all laid out. I have been keen to these mechanisms attributed to fasting for a long, long time.–Longer than anyone else in the ancestral health genre, in fact.
But to answer your question most directly, I do not believe you can compensate for eating high-protein most of the time with fasting a day or two here and there. It simply doesn’t work that way. As I am fond of saying, intermittent fasting works…. intermittently. It cannot compensate entirely or even mostly for problematic tendencies during the times when you are actually eating. And given our depleted soils, along with toxins in our air, water and food supply (leading to a greater demand for compensatory nutrients) I worry about people hooking themselves into a vortex of gradual depletion and vulnerability to the consequences of inevitable deficiencies. Once that happens, these problems tend to start building on themselves.
You may not be able to eat all of the foods I have listed in my meal plan as acceptable, in general, but you can certainly pick and choose from that what works for you. And btw– with oxalate problems it’s extremely important to maintain healthy thiamine levels, to help prevent oxalate crystallization. You may want to try a bout (i.e., bottle) of Benfotiamine, which is a fat soluble and much more highly bioavailable form of thiamine to see if this helps. But it’s important to make sure you get balanced levels of B vitamins from food-sources and/or food sourced supplements (regular, garden-variety “B-complexes” in the health food stores are typically derived from petroleum-based sources, believe it or not). Check out Innate Response brand as a food-based supplement line. See if it helps. Stay well hydrated, also.
You listed a variety of foods you believe “cause autoimmune”…. And in fact they may or may not for YOU (though I agree that gluten, at least, is pretty much always important to eliminate). If you have not verified this list of yours through Cyrex testing then I strongly urge you to do so. I also have a problem with most AIP programs, since they paint a very generalized picture and go at removing potentially problematic foods with a shovel, when what is most needed is a scalpel. Dietary diversity is extremely important when it comes to maintaining your oral tolerance, so it is extremely important for you to know what specific restrictions are critical for YOU. Otherwise, you may simply be digging yourself into a deeper hole. You really might want to find a (hopefully knowledgeable) functional medicine specialist to work with you on this, because you really do need to figure out what the bedrock source of your pancreatic issues are if you are going to resolve your issues. But without foundationally necessary human-required nutrition in place, you can address your bio-individual needs all day long and never get anywhere—or at least not long-term.
This answer is getting long so i’ll leave it at that, but I hope it is helpful to you.
Nora
http://www.primalgenic.com
Dear Karin,
I appreciate your kind remarks, thank you!
The reason I swap between grams and ounces all the time is twofold:
1) I have a very significant International audience, and the majority of countries other than the US, being metric in orientation, need to hear about things being in grams rather than ounces.
2) I’m very careful to point out that an ounce/30g or so grams of meat or fish, contains roughly 7 g of ACTUAL protein. It is important to make this careful distinction because it helps people understand that only about a fourth of what they’re eating when it comes to a steak is actual protein, if that makes sense. Otherwise people may misunderstand and really only serve themselves a fraction of what they should.
I apologize if this is at all confusing to you, but it just takes slowing down and paying attention. I am trying to clarify things for everyone as best I can.
I hope this helps and makes sense!
Warmly,
~Nora
Hi Nora,
My late husband died from conventional medicine. But, when he still listened to me and used a nutritional guide (that fit him… I wish it was you), he moved from stage 4, and taking pain killers every 4 hours, to pain free and well in 3-4 months.
He had prostate cancer which metastasized to all the bones before this diet. The diet was nothing but raw 100% grass fed meat, and raw grass-fed eggs over 8 hour per day and two days fasting per week (drinking some water with ACV), he became pain free and needed zero pain killers and no cane. That is a lot of protein. It healed him in just three months. He felt free of cancer. Unfortunately, once he was free of pain he did not stick to the diet.
The guy who guided him has hundreds of clients whose cancer is totally cured with this approached. They do eventually eat some vegetables (no fruit ever), but when I asked the man about the huge amount of protein he defied the concern. Of course, I don’t know what would have happened if my husband went on with this diet long term, but I am sure it would have been better than meds and junk food. Still this is confusing.
I wonder; his cancer was vanishing while eating all this protein and the healer said he has cured this way every one of his patients who was willing to continue with the diet long term. He explained: “We are starving the cancer and repairing the organs.”
Since then I often wonder about the worry over too much protein. Your arguments make sense to me, logically, but what I witness defies it. I follow your guide personally but wonder if the body is different when it is fully afflicted with cancer and can perhaps go through 2 years (that was the healers’ suggestion) of high protein/fat with fasting… any thoughts?
Dear Naomi,
First off, I want you to know how sincerely sorry I am for the loss of your husband. My most heartfelt condolences to you!
I suspect I know the name of the nutritional coach that guided your husband’s raw carnivore diet (Aajonus Vonderplanitz, by any chance?).
In any case, you do raise a fascinating point worthy of some discussion and conjecture.
But first we would need to clarify exactly what you mean by “nothing but raw 100% grass fed meat (and eggs)”.
In the case of the meat, I also strongly suspect a variety of organ meats were involved in your husband’s culinary repertoire, not the least of which would likely have been liver. I will get to this thought in a minute. Also, the more rare or raw the meat, the higher the water content is going to be, and therefore the slightly lower the percentage of protein he would have had per relative portion. But when it comes to my standard Primalgenic® approach, I do tend to recommend weighing your portions raw in any case to standardize the approximate protein content.
Regardless, you really haven’t stated exactly what your husband’s specific meat-heavy meals consisted of, but if raw liver were not a part of it under the circumstances I would eat my socks. In my view, large amounts of raw liver could—in some ways —help (potentially at least, in my own theoretical framework) compensate for excess mTOR activation and the cancer growth-factor part of the equation—and probably not for the reasons Aajonus thought. Raw liver uniquely contains enormous amounts of true, intact vitamin A—retinol–which, among other things relating to its many benefits to the immune system and healing, is also the one nutrient most responsible for maintaining healthy cellular differentiation. The opposite of “healthy cellular differentiation”, of course, is cancer.
Max Gerson was one of the early pioneers of alternative cancer treatments, and his approach did show some impressive results in his day. Dr. Albert Schweitzer even called Dr. Gerson one of medicine’s most eminent geniuses. What likely made the original (Dr. Max) Gerson Method approach and anti-cancer diet so effective in its day was the inclusion of copious amounts of raw liver/liver “juice” (something his vegan granddaughter eschewed in her more recent, and demonstrably less effective incarnation of it). And by the way, the late (and widely lauded as highly successful) alternative cancer doctor, Dr. Nicholas Gonzales also included raw liver as a prescribed dietary regimen for essentially all of his own cancer patients.
In addition, raw 100% grass-fed/finished meat, in general, would contain a higher percentage of intact (i.e., non-oxidized), elongated essential fatty acids such as EPA, which is profoundly anti-inflammatory. Grass fed meat additionally contains anti-inflammatory GLA and powerfully anti-cancer CLA. Certainly there are other viable factors to consider in this equation.
Another raw organ meat that would have the potential to support recovery from immune-related illness could certainly include thymus tissue (sweetbreads, anyone?).
By the way, it’s worth pointing out that the extremely meat-heavy Atkins Diet was notoriously poor for treating cancer. It’s also worth pointing out that even though he claimed to be promoting a ketogenic approach, the high level of protein he advocated for would have almost invariably offset effective ketogenic adaptation (among other things), despite the additionally high fat content of the diet. Plus, he was anything but fussy about sourcing/food quality. And he advocated for FAR too many questionable and processed “carb substitutes”. But I digress…
There is some debate concerning whether cooked meat or raw meat are superior for health, much less digestion and assimilation. The proponents of the cooking hypothesis fail to point out the presence of hydrophilic colloids in raw meat that allow for more thorough absorption/penetration of digestive juices into the meat during the digestive process, helping to facilitate it’s more complete breakdown while in the gut (thus lessening the demand on our HCL production and also likely pancreatic enzymes). Raw meat is also obviously going to be higher in vitamin C and many other heat-labile nutrients, not to mention potentially beneficial living enzymes. And it’s also a good bet that our ancestors ate a fair amount of meat in its raw/ undercooked forms for the better part of our evolutionary history, until we developed the more full-time use of fire (and our more universal ability to create it at-will for cooking purposes).
But the downside to raw meat–particularly in this day and age where hydrochloric acid insufficiency is a very real issue (for a variety of reasons too complex to get into depth with here) has, of course become the increased risk of food borne illness and particularly parasites. Ample hydrochloric acid production in our guts has long been protective of these things for our wild ancestral forebears. Some believe today that (as omnivores) humans naturally have a “milder” hydrochloric acid level than obligate carnivores, but this has historically and prehistorically absolutely not been the case. Starchy foods do definitely raise the pH of your stomach contents, requiring a more alkaline environment for their digestion and assimilation and offsetting appropriate and necessary levels of HCl needed for the effective breakdown animal protein (and proper pH signaling). This is not necessarily a good thing (in multiple respects). Far from it. And it is much more of a modern-day issue. As I have often pointed out, there isn’t any evidence to suggest that we were eating baked potatoes with our wooly mammoth steaks in our prehistoric days of Yor.
I go into this matter in depth quite a bit more in my first book. But… I have at least a couple of references to studies in my most recent book, Primal Fat Burner, showing where the natural stomach acid levels of our species is actually much more akin to that of scavengers—actually exceeding that of obligate carnivores! And it makes sense from the standpoint of the available evidence from stable isotopic research showing our extraordinary “high-level carnivore” status throughout our evolutionary sojourn, exceeding even that of wolves, bears, foxes and other predators we coevolved with.
My reasoning for this rather startling finding involves the fact that we had evolved the brain size and sophistication, cunning and technology that allowed us to consistently, successfully hunt the enormous pre-Holocene herbivorous megafauna. We shared our entire evolutionary journey with no less than 240 or more of these massive species–HALF of which rather abruptly and cataclysmically disappeared at what we refer to as the end of the last Ice Age. But in those pre-Holocene days, when we had a successful hunt, we had an “all-you-can-eat carnivore platter” that could easily last a hungry family/tribe an entire week. I’ve also pointed out the fact that we would have absolutely gotten FAR more fat (and fat soluble nutrients/EFA’s) in our diets from our preference for hunting and eating these enormous, fatty ruminant herbivores –not to mention so much other uniquely dense and critical nutrient content found in a diet high in red meat/fat/organs. The science from all of the stable isotopic research analysis of human bone collagen and through quite literally every available period of our evolutionary ancestry is unambiguously clear: Not only is there a zero evidence for anything even approaching vegetarianism, much less veganism in our human ancestry, but our carnivorous (and especially fat-loving) human roots are rather uniquely voracious as compared to not only non-human primates, but as compared to literally every other mammal on earth.
I have a former client that was extremely devoted to my methods—and who did seem to conspicuously thrive—but who also had an unwavering preference for raw meat. He never cooked it, ever. He simply did not like the taste of cooked meat, for some odd reason. He seemed to be doing fine, though, so apart from the social awkwardness of his preferences he persisted in this determined culinary pursuit for quite some time–a few years. He did seem to do well… that is–until the day he was diagnosed with an interesting plethora of parasites. He had to undergo quite the regimen to rid himself of them, and nowadays he is far more resigned to (somewhat begrudgingly) cooking his food.
By the way, anyone that thinks that raw food veganism is any safer in this respect might just be deluding themselves a bit. The worst case of uber nasty food poisoning I have personally ever seen came from a friend of mine that ordered and ate a vegan, nine layer burrito across from me in a restaurant. Afterwards, they developed horrid symptoms—spewing repeatedly from both ends—and they were sick for days. So raw-based food borne illness is an equal opportunity potential problem. —Though actually, according to carefully evaluated research data spanning at least a decade, the vast majority of food borne illnesses in the US are NOT caused by undercooked meat or shellfish, but instead by leafy green vegetables [https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/3/11-1866_article]. And it’s not just about unhealthy bacteria. Tapeworms and other unsavory critters can also infest your body from simply consuming raw vegetables. [See: https://recipes.timesofindia.com/articles/features/beware-these-vegetables-can-cause-deadly-brain-worms/photostory/61458651.cms and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090506812000504 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2222180812600127 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956713512002587%5D
If you doubt me, then I suggest you plan a trip to Mexico or South America and try the raw food vegan approach for a few days there. Good luck with that. Though according to the research, you probably don’t have to venture far from the good ol’ US of A, based on the odds, to run into a problem with these sorts of problems.
But again, I digress….
The Primalgenic® approach to eating that I advocate for (https://www.primalgenic.com) takes a variety of considerations into account that our prehistoric ancestors either would not have thought to, or would never have had a reason to. The world we live in today is quite different from the world of our prehistoric ancestors, after all. And just because our troglodyte antecedents did something a certain way is not necessarily reason enough for us to do the same thing, in the same way. The foods that would have been most consistently available to our prehistoric ancestors does, however, provide us with the only rational starting place we have when determining what an optimal human diet might consist of. The truth of the matter is, though, that we are far more challenged in our modern day world–pretty much from all sides and angles–than our prehistoric ancestors ever faced with or ever had to put up with.
And as I frequently point out, most of what threatens our health in this modern age, much less our survival as a species, involves threats that are not necessarily visible or immediately tangible to us. We are simply not cognitively wired to concern ourselves with these many modern threats and dangers; like depleted soils, contaminants in our air, water and food supply, superbugs, gluten and other especially problematic post agricultural lectins, metabolic syndrome issues, toxic adjuvants in routinely administrated/mandated biological medical agents, overly prevalent heavy metals, mutagenic everything, our multi-generationally compromised genome (btw–what generation of Pottenger’s cats are you??), radiation contamination (ionizing and non-ionizing), micro-plastics throughout our oceans, seafoods and even sea salt; GMO’s, EMF’s (and God-forbid, now 5G)—-not to mention the sociopathic ideations of soul-less transnational corporate interests, and/or infiltrative odd religious cult-like ideologies—together with all their respective political (and academic) cronies. Unless we are willing to make a conscious effort to pay attention to these things (and navigate around them), it is highly unlikely that our species will survive through the next generation.
Another factor that may have been at play with your husband, Naomi—and we will never know because he has now passed on, sadly–could be the fact that part of what triggered his cancer may have been a particular sensitivity/ immune reactivity to certain plant lectins, as well as things like oxalates, certain inflammatory compounds in nightshades and the like (or some combination, thereof). He may have even had an undiagnosed autoimmune condition contributing to his compromised immune system (which is exceedingly common in our modern world, by the way). By avoiding those (mainly post-agricultural) triggers he may have given his immune system a leg up on recovery. Who knows? This is all speculation, of course.
But with all of the potentially adverse components of plants railed against by proponents of the Carnivore Diet, there is also a very real potential medicinal component of many plants in the form of any number of well researched (and perhaps as yet unknown) phytochemicals that I believe may have become more important to us today than they ever might have been prehistorically. I think it is a mistake in this day and age to overlook the potentially medicinal value of many plant-based foods (including many herbs and spices)—even as their actual nutrient content is less then optimally available to us, and in a less than optimal form for our best utilization. And in spite of certain anti nutrients she may contain (BTW—I was also actually the first person in the ancestral health genre that wrote about the anti-nutrient content of potential wild plant foods).
Recent studies of the Kawymeno [https://thepaleodiet.com/compelling-discoveries-about-the-diet-and-health-of-one-of-the-remaining-indigenous-hunter-gatherer-societies-on-earth/amp/?fbclid=IwAR2Zh5R-CmiIIIm9Kus_zivuwmkpfuK9v-HIEn53Li0VszHRh3oHBAwicQU] –an only recently contacted indigenous hunter gatherer society still living in their natural and exceedingly remote environment in the Ecuadorian jungle–strongly confirm the immune supporting prevalence of highly diverse plant phytochemicals in their diets (and—fascinatingly–their unique ability to consciously select foods based on their phytochemical content–including phytochemicals present in meats!). Seemingly as a result of the high phytochemical content of their diets, they are relatively parasite free (in one of the most parasite-riddled eco-environments on earth), and also notoriously free from infection. Interestingly, also, the Kawymeno primarily get their dietary phytochemicals from fruits (and meat), rather than vegetables (which are more apt to contain plant toxins)… But make no mistake, the exceedingly diverse range of fruits they are consuming in the wild Ecuadoran jungle bear little to no nutrient/compositional/ phytochemical resemblance to what we have as the highly cultivated, sugar-heavy (read: fructose BOMB) “fruit” in our modern-day grocery stores. There really isn’t any comparison. Not by a long shot.
Again, Naomi, when it comes to your husband we will never know for sure what he may have benefited from during his period of recovery. He isn’t here for us to test him for what aspect of this dietary approach seemed to work for the time that it did, or for what may not have been working for him in his previous (presumably) more carbohydrate-based dietary approach, or later, toward the end.
I hope this response from me supplies interesting fodder for your consideration, and the consideration of others reading this post.
In the recently released (2/18/20) book “The Carnivore Code” by Paul Saladino MD several interesting arguments are made. I included a sampling of various provocative passages from the book (with study citations) for your comment. It would be even more awesome to see an entire book review or perhaps a friendly debate on his podcast.
In regards to mTOR and cancer…,
He argues that in the context of a carnivore diet one would be in cyclical ketosis (cycling in and out from high protein/gluconeogenesis and extended periods of fasting between meals). He states that insulin is a bigger driver of mTOR, citing the study listed below showing that insulin triggers mTOR for 3-5 hours whereas leucine triggers it for only 30-60 minutes. He therefore claims that if someone is on a carnivorous diet and practicing time restricted eating (say within in a 6 hour window for instance), they would have only a few transient fluctuations of mTOR activation over a 24 hour period thereby avoiding chronic over expression of mTOR and therefore its associated risks with cancer.
*Gran, P., & Cameron-Smith, D. (2011). The actions of exogenous leucine on mTOR signaling and amino acid transporters in human myotubes. BMC Physiology, 11(1), 10.
In regards to plant toxicity…
He argues essentially that the costs outweigh the benefits of including plants as food.
Some examples from his book:
“In his comprehensive scientific article titled “Dietary Pesticides: 99.9% All Natural,” researcher Bruce Ames highlights the fact that humans consume 99.99 percent of their pesticide load from plants themselves and only 0.1 percent as pesticides sprayed on food…Ames states: “We estimate that Americans eat about 1.5 g of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than they eat of synthetic pesticide residues… there is a very large literature on natural toxins in plants and their role in plant defenses. The human intake of these toxins varies markedly with diet and would be higher in vegetarians. Our estimate of 1.5 g of natural pesticides per person per day is based on the content of toxins in the major plant foods.” Ames goes on to note that plant pesticides are pervasive, with at least forty-two compounds known to occur in a seemingly benign food such as cabbage. Furthermore, many of these compounds have been shown to be damaging to DNA in humans and animals, a process known as clastogenesis. “Thus, it is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the supermarket contains natural plant pesticides that are rodent carcinogens.”
*Ames, B. N., Profet, M., & Gold, L. S. (1990). Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87(19), 7777–7781. doi:10.1073/pnas.87.19.7777
“…when myrosinase acts on glucoraphanin the end result is sulforaphane, this happens only when plants are under attack and are being chewed to pieces by predatory insects and animals. Sulforaphane does not exist in a healthy, living broccoli plant. It only shows up as a defense chemical in response to damage being done to the plant cell walls.”
“Sulforaphane is so toxic that it can’t be present in a healthy broccoli plant, or it would cause massive damage due to it’s strong capacity as a pro-oxidant.”
“…cooking Brassica vegetables degrades myrosinase, but sulforaphane can still be formed by myrosinase from gut bacteria, so even with cooked broccoli, you’ll be getting a dose of this isothiocyanate.”
“The fast mechanism of harm is accomplished by acting as a vicious pro-oxidant, causing the formation of free radicals that damage the delicate lipids in cell membranes, proteins, and DNA. In human cell culture, sulforaphane and many other related isothiocyanates have been shown to damage DNA in the process of clastogenesis, causing chromosomal breaks.”
“…sulforaphane is only one of seventeen isothiocyanate compounds known to be present in broccoli. Other cruciferous vegetables have even more.”
“While it is true that sulforaphane does act as a pro-oxidant, by activating the NRF2 system it induces the formation of our own endogenous antioxidants, like glutathione. There are studies showing that administration of sulforaphane improves antioxidant status in the short term, but this is related to increased production of glutathione, not to any direct antioxidant capacity of sulforaphane. None of the other plant molecules like polyphenols act directly as antioxidants either—they also act as pro-oxidants and turn on the NRF2 system.”
“For now, remember that these molecules are toxins that create oxidative stress, just like all of the other things that also induce the NRF2 cascade. No one would suggest that we might achieve better health by taking a small dose of lead every day or smoking a few cigarettes daily, but this is essentially what is happening when we ingest sulforaphane and other isothiocyanates. These are chemical weapons used by plants to discourage predation, not molecules that create health in humans.”
“The concept of xenohormesis assumes that we need the compounds found within vegetables to achieve optimal antioxidant status and that eating crucifers somehow elevates our glutathione above baseline levels long-term, thus, making us super-human. Sadly, these assumptions are not the case. There have been multiple interventional studies comparing diets rich in fruits and vegetables, including crucifers, to diets with low or zero amounts of these plant foods—and the results have shown zero benefit to eating such foods.”
*Crane, T. E., Kubota, C., West, J. L., Kroggel, M. A., Wertheim, B. C., & Thomson, C. A. (2011). Increasing the vegetable intake dose Is associated with a rise in plasma carotenoids without modifying oxidative stress or inflammation in overweight or obese postmenopausal women. The Journal of Nutrition, 141(10), 1827-1833. doi:10.3945/jn.111.139659
*Møller, P., Vogel, U., Pedersen, A., Dragsted, L. O., Sandström, B., & Loft, S. (2003). No effect of 600 grams fruit and vegetables per day on oxidative dna damage and repair in healthy nonsmokers. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 12, 1016-1022.
*Peluso, I., Raguzzini, A., Catasta, G., Cammisotto, V., Perrone, A., Tomino, C., … Serafini, M. (2018). Effects of high consumption of vegetables on clinical, immunological, and antioxidant markers in subjects at risk of cardiovascular diseases. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2018, 1-9. doi:10.1155/2018/5417165
“…there is even a ten-week study of this sort that showed improvements in markers of oxidative stress and inflammation in the group without fruits and vegetables, concluding that: “The overall effect of the 10-week period without dietary fruits and vegetables was a decrease in the oxidative damage to DNA, blood, proteins, and plasma lipids, concomitantly with marked changes in antioxidative defense.”
“While we are bombarded with mainstream messaging in the health space that tells us fruits and vegetables are good for us and that we benefit from “antioxidants” and “phytochemicals,” scientific literature repeatedly states otherwise. We don’t need fruits and vegetables to achieve robust antioxidant defenses, and there isn’t any evidence that consuming these plant foods makes us healthier. …there is significant evidence that these plant compounds are harmful, damaging DNA, and interfering with hormonal signaling throughout the body.”
“In this randomized controlled trial, participants who reported low fruit and vegetable intake (<3 servings daily) continued their normal diet or increased these foods to 480 grams per day and drank an additional 300ml of fruit juice daily for 12 weeks. At the end of the study, despite increased blood levels of vitamin C, the researchers found the following: “There were no significant changes in antioxidant capacity, DNA damage and markers of vascular health…[Thus] a 12-week intervention was not associated with effects on antioxidant status or lymphocyte DNA damage.” That pitches some cold water onto the xenohormesis campfire, doesn’t it? Much of the confusion here arises because the concept of environmental hormesis is incorrectly extended to molecules as xenohormesis. These are two fundamentally different entities. Though both create small amounts of oxidative stress, plant molecules also have collaterally damaging effects in the body that environmental hormetics do not. In the case of isothiocyanates, these molecules compete with iodine at the level of the thyroid and damage DNA in a similar fashion as compounds in tobacco smoke, heavy metals, and other known toxins. Why would we ingest Brassica plants or other vegetables with no clear benefit (as demonstrated in the aforementioned vegetable intervention trials)—and when they may be harming us—when we can achieve robust antioxidant levels without them?”
*Duthie, S. J., Duthie, G. G., Russell, W. R., Kyle, J. A., Macdiarmid, J. I., Rungapamestry, V., … Bestwick, C. S. (2017). Effect of increasing fruit and vegetable intake by dietary intervention on nutritional biomarkers and attitudes to dietary change: a randomised trial. European Journal of Nutrition, 57(5),
“The vast majority of the data suggesting benefits from polyphenols is derived from epidemiological research.”
“Invariably, plant molecules do not act directly as antioxidants in the human body, nor would this sort of disruption of our redox balance be advantageous. The story of flavonoids is similar to that of sulforaphane. When these molecules demonstrate improvements in oxidative stress parameters, they do so through the NRF2 system by first acting as pro-oxidants. They have also been shown to have other collaterally damaging effects throughout our body that are too often ignored.”
“I’m certainly not suggesting here that plant molecules don’t have therapeutic value or that we shouldn’t study them as possible agents for cancer or other diseases, but there’s a difference in using plants and plant compounds as food versus medicine.”
He also discusses the problems with flavonoids, curcumin, resveratrol, salicylate sensitivity, fiber, etc., etc. referencing studies to support his claims.
Again, I would love to hear your comments on all this.
I actually did do an interview with Paul Saladino a couple of months ago now (which seemingly has not yet aired), and the article that I wrote here in my blog was written, in fact, subsequent to that interview, after thoughtfully considering many of the things we discussed. My national plan was to post this article after my interview aired, but I was starting to wonder if it ever would. Paul threw a few things/angles at me that I had to think through–and he promised to send me references for some of his assertive statements, which he has (as yet) not done. I’m sure he is just busy.
I simply cannot take the time to slog through every single statement you have made here on Paul’s behalf. In some respects, my article itself is meant to counter some of his basic propositions—even though Paul and I probably agree about far more than we disagree about.
Regardless, there is an extremely large body of evidence for positive hormetic effects of various plant-based (phyto)chemicals. I agree that antioxidants in plant foods are probably overrated. But if a small amount of a plant-based “toxic” substance creates the hormetic effect of helping us increase, say, our glutathione production… I am not going to look that gift horse in the mouth. It is a good thing! We have never had a greater need for internal glutathione production in the entire history of our species than most of us require now. due to our exposures to any number of industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and even alcohol intake. I’ll take enhanced glutathione production any way I can get it.
Mind you, I was actually the first person within the ancestral health genre that talked about the relative toxicity of wild plants and why they could not have formed a meaningful part of our caloric intake as an evolving species. I was writing about this publicly back in 2009–LONG before Gundry’s Plant Paradox or the carnivore diet craze. I was the first to refer to plant-based foods as merely a “side dish”, and not anything truly essential for our well-being. But we certainly have co-evolved with plants, and there is quite a bit of evidence from a few remaining hunter-gatherer populations of their careful, conscious dietary selection of phytochemical-rich foods and evidence of their positive health effects/usefulness (I made a citation/reference to this fact in answering another comment post in this thread). Also, just for fun go to GreenMedInfo.com sometime and to the massive data base there and type in various plant-based foods/ substances in the database search bar and see how many dozens or even hundreds of positive health effects are clearly (at least potentially) associated with their inclusion in the diet. Both resveratrol and substances like pterostilbene, for instance, have the ability to activate longevity-enhancing sirtuin genes. There are clearly some very positive epigenetic effects to be gotten from any number of phytochemicals. Go and type in the term “Turmeric”, alone and watch 2,872 abstracts concerning its rather astonishing and varied benefits pop-up for your perusal and thoughtful consideration.
In playing devils advocate here, I would certainly argue that plants simply cannot take the place of meeting otherwise essential human foundational nutrient requirements—many of which can absolutely only be gotten/met from animal source foods. If all anybody is doing is using plant-based substances/ herbs/ nutrients/etc. to address their own unique set of symptoms, then they are missing the point. Without the foundational needs of human micronutrient and macronutrient requirements met, there is no possibility of getting anywhere long term with selective symptom management. Let’s just say that the bio individuality argument/focus (the trite politically correct mantra that states: “Eeeeverybody is different”) is grotesquely overrated. But if your nutritional foundations are being fully met, then plants DO have the potential to provide significant enhancements and positive modifications to our well-being—as long as we tolerate them well. And I have always made the allowance that not everyone is going to tolerate all or perhaps any plant foods well. That’s where bio individuality comes into play (as nuance).
As for insulin vs mTOR…. It’s worth pointing out that excess protein can absolutely stimulate insulin also. Insulin is not a “blood sugar hormone”, per se—it’s about taking excess nutrients and moving them into storage for a later time, in case of a famine. It’s also about the coordination of energy stores with reproduction and lifespan. Chronically triggering insulin through either excess utilizable carbohydrate consumption or excess protein intake, in general, simply isn’t smart in our modern (highly mutagenic) industrial age. Chronically triggering insulin or mTOR is not smart. And there is no question that protein intake is a major—and from the vast majority of what I have seen, the primary impetus for mTOR activation. This is certainly one important reason why, for instance, the Atkins diet was notoriously poor for successfully treating cancer patients.
If somebody wants to do the carnivore thing through the intelligent moderation of their protein intake–from a wide variety of animal source foods/ organs/ tissues…. Then fill in the rest with sufficient and varied quality animal fats in order to satisfy appetite and their requirement for essential fatty acids and key fat-soluble nutrients…. Then I have no problem with that. But how unnecessarily boring would a diet like this be for the vast majority of people? You take out flavorful culinary herbs and spices, and unnecessarily remove what may actually provide useful dietary diversity and hormetic effects from potentially beneficial phytochemicals and flavorful, fibrous vegetables and greens…. Well, what you’re left with is maybe less then you need to (or even should) omit for your best well-being. I’m just saying.
I have never said the plants were 100% essential for anybody. We are not herbivores and there is no such thing as a scientifically established human dietary requirement for carbohydrate in any form, for any man, woman or child at any age. I have said this until I am blue in the face more times than I can count. I do not believe the vegetarianism—or especially veganism—are a remotely optimal, much less healthy diet for literally ANY living human being.
That said, I do make room for the inclusion of non-glycemic plant-based foods in diets where they are tolerated well, enjoyed, and where they can positively contribute to improved oral tolerance, detoxification and anti-inflammatory effects (whether direct or indirect), dietary/culinary diversity and gut microbial fodder.
And I stand by that.
I really gained from this article. I have found that eating more meat keeps me from being hypoglycemia but also keeps the weight on. My question is, in reducing meat intake, would the rest of the macros be fat? My blood sugar goes low when I do this so I can’t figure out where to go next. I eat less than 20 grams carbs as I get gut issues with them.
Hi Anita, Thank you for your positive feedback. Your question actually illustrates a point I frequently make about high protein diets. Eating more meat keeps you from being hypoglycemic, mainly because you are still depending on sugar as your primary source of fuel. A significant percentage of protein in excess of what you absolutely need to meet your day-to-day requirements is getting converted to sugar and is getting used the same way. Replacing those protein calories with a variety of quality fats would allow your body to start making use of ketones for fuel. My online, three-week Primalgenic® Plan program could readily hand hold you through the process of adopting a far more healthy and efficient, fat based (instead of sugar based) metabolism. Once you make that metabolic transformation, you’ll no longer be dependent on blood sugar is your primary source of mental or physical energy. In fact, you will be free of that concern, and you will be able to rely on a far more even, sustainable and clean burning, reliable fuel. At that point your levels of blood sugar with no longer be consequential for your mood, energy or cognitive performance—which will all likely improve. ~Nora
An enlightening read, thank you for the detailed information. My only beef with carnivore diet proponents is their false claims about the Inuit diet.
First they claim the Inuit diet was/is low in vitamin C (same claim vegans make, interestingly), in order to justify a grain-fed steak-only diet which is indeed low in vitamin C. From the Canadian nutrient database (CNF 2015):
Vitamin C per 100 grams:
31.5 mg Narwhal skin
23.8 mg Caribou liver
23.6 mg Beluga skin
8.3 mg Polar bear meat
7.0 mg Ringed seal liver
The second false claim is the most bizarre. The grain-fed steak-only diet proponents claim that the Inuit don’t eat organ meat, again to justify their steak-only diet, for which they cite the Arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson. But in his book “The Fat of the Land,” Stefansson says on page 33: “The liver of caribou and moose is eaten by the family occasionally; that of mountain sheep frequently, and that of the seal nearly always, for it is the favored part.”
People are entitled to eat a deficient diet (vegan or steak-only carnivore) but they are not entitled to their own facts.
Thank you for this detailed explanation – you will forever be my favorite and most trusted nutritional researcher! Thank you for your hard work and dedication throughout the years!
I’m new to this site and glad I stumbled back upon it. Nora’s articles are fantastically written and you can tell that she is well researched. I do have to disagree as to the carnivore diet not being the ideal. Cancer really shouldn’t ever become an issue if eating a species appropriate diet and likely never existed in prehistoric times other than maybe in extremely rare conditions. mTOR is fairly new to our vocabulary in terms of more mainstream news and is being overblown and as far as the elderly needing to reduce their consumption of protein due to a diminished ability to digest it; this works in a cycle. The enzymes required for optimal digestion are deriveded from amino acids and if you don’t have enough to go around because you’re reducing your consumption based on assumption, well the body will likely decide what’s more important between proper brain function and body mechanics, or stomach acid and proper digestion. Just a theory on my part based on the science I’ve consumed but I think we’re exacerbating the epidemic of sarcopenia by steering people away from more protein. Show me a valid study of excess protein consumption in humans causing ill effects. It doesn’t exist as far as I know because it’s damn near impossible to overeat meat. Just make sure you’re getting ample amounts of quality fat as discussed. Thanks for the information.