From my reading I don’t think it is possible, but I’m open to learning how one can achieve a zero carbohydrate diet using only plant foods. @Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com has graciously offered to look into the matter.

Motivation - Why zero carb matters:

  • Carbohydrates end up in the blood stream as glucose
  • blood glucose is a direct driver of insulin
  • persistently elevated insulin is a serious health concern
  • cancers can only metabolize glucose, and cannot perform oxidative phosphorylation - i.e. they only run on glucose, so carbohydrates feed cancers.

why chronic hyperinsulinemia is bad:

  • type 2 diabetes
  • high blood pressure
  • atherosclerosis
  • pcos
  • visceral fat
  • ectopic fat (i.e. snoring)

Functional differences between pbf and abf:

  • plant sterols interfere with human cholesterol signaling, we are made of cholesterol, this leads to higher inflammation and lower ldl (that is actually a bad thing)
  • lectins and inflammation - most pbf have lectins inside of them, these lectins bind to cells throughout the body which leads to autoimmune responses (from mild inflammation, to full anaphylactic shock)

nice to have’s on a zero carb diet:

  • local food that doesn’t have to be shipped around the world
  • regenerative agriculture, there is no top soil without ruminants
  • farming without external inputs like industrial fertilizer
  • food without pesticide residue
    • jet@hackertalks.comOPMEnglish
      2·
      1 month ago

      I didn’t say it stops working permanently. At least that was my intention.

      That is the tricky part about communication, it’s not what is intended.

      It’s nice in theory but you have to prove that it’s significant on a wfpb diets which I am on and significant among all other factors that are working to age you and kill you. Spoilers: it’s not.

      I’m not against wfpb, I’m not saying anything about pbf. I’m talking about elevated glucose.

      Same.

      Great!

      conclusions drawn by the actual scientists writing the papers over the “analysis and rebuttals” some drunk down the street.

      The problem is your implying that the people writing papers that show benefit to keto are the “drunks down the street”, the references I gave you are the people writing papers, peer reviewed, medical doctors and everything, but this type of rebuttle is dismissive and a bit insulting.

      Which you conveniently skipped past.

      I didn’t skip past, I provided you other experts meeting your criteria, which you didn’t acknowledge. Which should at least demonstrate people involved in this publishing space are of at least two minds.

      So I assume you’re not an expert in this field. You are likely an IT with some data science or ml background if I were to guess.

      If your not willing to discuss things with me openly and honestly, why are you here? Sure you can point out the pbf group nutrition facts.org doesn’t like keto. I acknowledge they don’t like it. Fair enough, but I also have a bevy of research scientists and medical doctors who are seeing measurable benefits in human patient populations, and I’m happy to talk about that. But if we can’t talk about the papers, or data, and only pointing to third parties… why are we here in a discussion group?

        • jet@hackertalks.comOPMEnglish
          2·
          1 month ago

          I don’t think I’ve been dishonest which you keep accusing me of. It’s only that you want to discuss the content of the papers and I am not interested.

          Fair enough. Doesn’t sound like we have anything to talk about. I acknowledge you have experts you trust who don’t like keto.

          It is a dishonest rhetorical tool, however, to drop a paper in a conversation as a “I win mechanic”, but be unwilling to read (the whole paper) or engage in a discussion of it. It would be more honest to simply link to a Dr. Gregor opinion piece, then it would be clear what is driving the opinion. It’s also vexing because I printed out the paper, read it, marked it up, and wrote up my thoughts so that we could talk about it, only to be met with “Well, I don’t actually read or talk about papers, even the one i referenced”

          I was taking the simpler and better path by pointing to the consensus of experts which wikipedia normally represents. And I’ve cited the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy why it’s a valid path of inquiry.

          That’s fine too! I hope your pbf journey is fruitful and long term.

          Consensus beats a minority position among experts. I don’t dispute there are short term benefits to keto. That’s been proven.

          If your driven by consensus, great, I’m glad that is working for you. I only took umbrage at the demonstrably false, and inflammatory, statement at the top of this thread.

          I don’t really enjoy these non-productive non-constructive dialogs. That is why I dropped the thread 48 hours ago. I propose we just let bygones be bygones and be done with it.

            • jet@hackertalks.comOPMEnglish
              2·
              1 month ago

              Anyone well versed in the scientic method and philosophy of science knows that the consensus is statistically the least likely to be wrong.

              I agree that is the scientic method indeed.

              There are long term risks to a keto diet that people need to be aware of. Period.

              Great, provide the evidence, make a post about it, and most importantly engage in the discussion.

              I don’t care much about that one paper or Dr Greger which you have spent all the time addressing.

              Don’t cite shit you don’t care about.

              Dr. Greger RUNS nutritionfacts.org the source you cited and hold in high esteem- https://nutritionfacts.org/ i.e. the experts you trust, yet don’t care about…