A couple of interesting studies regarding Vitamin c .

Unlike the more than 4,000 other species of mammals who manufacture vitamin C, and lots of it, the red blood cells of the handful of vitamin C-defective species are specially equipped to suck up the vitamin's oxidized form, so-called L-dehydroascorbic acid (DHA), the researchers report in the March21st issue of Cell, a publication of Cell Press. Once inside the blood cells, that DHA--which is immediately transformed back into ascorbic acid (a.k.a. vitamin C)--can be efficiently carried through the bloodstream to the rest of the body, the researchers suggest.

Came across a study during the past months on low carb and weight reduction , most interesting was the conclusion comment .... "Surprisingly there was an increase of plasma vitamin c in the high fat diet group " ... or words very close to that .

I agree with the negative affects associated with grains, as we now consume them. But when soaked or fermented the anti nutrient present in them is no longer a problem. I am currently trying the paleo diet and testing to see how it affects me, becuase that is what I have done with all diets, constantly seeking.. But I wonder if you are takeing into account the differences between a traditional sourdough bread, and a mondern day version of bread? A soaked grain or nut, vs and unsoaked one? Also eating fats with grains such as bread and butter or olive oil helps absorb the nutrients as well as slow down the insulin spike, which is a benefit to milk and cookies (which i am not advocating 🙂
Also one of the most intriguing dietary philosophy I have looked into is ayurveda. A key principle is eating with the seasons, more fat and protien in the winter, more bitter herbs and cleansing foods in spring, and more carbohydrates in the summer for the longer days and more intense activity. Now being that eskimos live in a "wintery region" year around it would make sense that they would do well on a diet consisting soley of fat and protien. Where as a person living in a tropical enviroment might do well on a diet consisting of alot of fruit. So depending on the seasons and the regions and the lifestyle, a person could require vastly different diets.
I am not trying to argue just merely learning and applying to see what works, I would like your thoughts, thanks.

I'm trying to wrap my head around that calculation Bill did on blood sugar and some things are not connecting.

I take it's based on fasting blood sugar levels? Lab ranges are not equal to optimal ranges, so 70 may not be the ideal number.

That number is a snapshot of the blood sugar levels for a given moment rather than a daily total. Are you saying that 1 tsp of glucose PER DAY is enough to maintain it all day long? Or that it takes 1 tsp of glucose to bring your levels up to this number? Not quite sure what you're saying.

Also this does not take into account fluctuations in glucose requirement, such as during increased stress, or someone with a damaged metabolism - as I found out the hard way.

Thanks for clarifying.

J.- If this is how we function best (which I totally agree with)why then can a high fat meal cause an un-needed release of insulin from the pancreas even when almost no carbohydrate is present in the meal- like an omelet with cheese and bacon with about 3-4 gm carb? Any links that might help me understand this phenomena?

It's a quirky one but has stuck in my mind: in the book "across the empty quarter" by Wilfred Thessiger which describes the author's experiences in the sahara (?) desert in the earlyish part of the 20th century (i.e. as one of the first westerners to go there) he talks about a kind of feast he and his 'native'/ nomadic guides had after days of starvation whilst travelling in the desert with supplies having run out - he clearly observes/ comments on the fact that that whilst he was overwhelmed with cravings for carb type foods and was drawn to these (mainly dates I think) his companions were much more interested in fat (butter, ghee I think) which they apparently ate until it was running down their chins!

Hello. I read the article, Why humans crave fat, and also somehow an article I think was linked there about the rabbit syndrome or something like that. I have a question about the rabbit or lean meat diet. The guy ate only lean meat and said it lead to weakness and even death. I can't see how this could be. I don't see any reason given, physiologically. Fat provides calories only, and lean meat provides this. I don't recall if the guy ate carbs or not, but it is universally agreed we don't need carbs. We may "crave" fat, but I just don't see why lean meat would not be sufficient. If the avoidance of fat were so deleterious than how would one explain the multitudes on low-fat diets, who are not dropping dead due to lack of fat? Why would this explorer say that lean meat is an unsustainable diet, while whole multitudes subscribe to low-fat diets, eating close to no fat whatsoever.

I would like to thank you for this great website! I really think you are on to the truth here! The obesity problem has only gotten vastly worse with the low-fat, high-carb diets; meanwhile one day the gov may tax fatty foods, which is of course precisely the opposite of what ought be done. I remain fearful of fatty meats, I admit. We have been told that only olive oil is acceptable universally. Yet you make a case for eating animal fat. Do you also think people should not take fat-lowering drugs, like trilipix? And, are you concerned about the high omega 6 in meat fat and coconut oil?

Finally, I think you might call this the Neitzschean Diet, because he, in late 1800's as I recall, was critical of the grazing we do, as well as the decadence of French pastries. He felt the digestion was best with three solid meals and no snacks, to turn it on or off, but not Mr. Inbetween. I don't think he was specific as to what to eat, but if he was I am sure he would have blasted the Kellogg's concept of stripping one's instinctual energies. I happen to think your idea of eating like a primitive has the power to turn around the obesity epidemic as well as to empower individuals.
Do you have specific recommendations for blood sugar issues and DM? And, wouldn't the high-caloric value of fat lead to gaining weight also? Fat does have a lot of calories.
Please forgive me, but I have only read a limited amount of your writings so far so you may have answered these points. I am continuing to read and I feel somehow very sure that I am going to take this up for real. The idea of eating and exercising like a predator is powerful and empowering. I think Neitzsche would bless you, if he believed in God.

Thanks, JS, for this reply. I have read more from the site by now. Yet, still I have some unclarity.

You admit that most body cells need glucose. So, the cavemen needed root starches, as meat contains none. Thus, carbs are needed for energy, as protein and fat are inefficient energy sources for glucose (fat does not convert at all to glucose). Carbs are the most efficient source of energy then. If root veggies were not available then how did they get energy, glucose, which is so badly needed? They got energy from fats, but where's the glucose? Does your diet advocate carbs and if so, how much?

If one is not to gain weight from eating fat, then the satiety caused by the fat has to exceed that which one would have eaten otherwise, but I am not sure that this would happen. Fat is so high in calories that people seeking to lose wt avoid it and go lean. They may then eat carbs, but you agree that cavemen also needed carbs, not just animal meat and fat, because of the need for glucose, so I don't see how no-carb is justified, if that is your argument.

On exercise: wouldn't walking on treadmill burn fat better than sprinting? I think at low intensity one burns fat, and high intensity you burn carbs, since carbs are better and more efficient sources? Isn't that an argument for low intensity to burn fat stores?

It is still difficult to get past the intuitive notion that we don't need fat; we may crave it, but if we are too fat as it is, it seems to suggest eating lean meat, maybe with some fat. but, to add fat to the diet only adds calories, which would seem to negate the savings from snacking. I am not convinced the body needs fats, at all, and not more than in the "lean" meats most eat. The body converts carbs to fat anyhow so we always have access to fat.
PLease don't misunderstand. I am excited and impressed with the paleo diet, but I don't understand enough of it. I think it is right somehow and that these processed carbs and grain in general is effeminate. I am not sure that the slower gi time, and greater satiety would balance the extreme high caloric density of fat, including meat and milk fat. And if the lengua franca of the body is glucose, I don't see how this works, in that protein converts inefficiently and fat not at all.
Thanks for reading this.

Thanks, J.S. I guess I am dense when it comes to this stuff. I need some time to review this, but I came across something last night which is disturbing and I wonder what you think of it. I stumbled on Ray Peat's site, and he makes a critique of fish oil, not on grounds of pollution, but on its own accord. He says that studies which show dangers have been suppressed. Now I don't know if I should continue taking it or not. It is the common wisdom that it is safe, but not to go overboard. I thought omega 3's were the way to go. Now, I don't know. In the comments section I see people arguing for flax seed oils, which you are against, saying it is safer than fish oil. Just when I thought there was rock solid certainty, someone comes along and unsettles it. At this point I think the best thing is just to do the opposite of whatever the medical/pharmaceutical establishment says; that seems the safest bet. Will they ever admit that their stupid diet is what caused the obesity epidemic? Can they revert to sat fat diet after all this, even if they knew the truth?

Hi, JS:

I perused all the indexed articles and nowhere have I seen your defense against the almost universally accepted association of red meat with colon cancer. I believe the world cancer association, and many medical associations make this argument. I guess they do not distinguish between deli meats and non-deli meats, which might be your defense, but I doubt they are that stupid. Where can I read your defense against that argument? The article on meat not rotting in gut seemed to be the closest, but it did not go into this point.
Thanks for helping me sort this out. I dread losing that part of my anatomy, and it has been drilled into the public that red meat is highly associated with colon cancer, I think, in men particularly.