The Accidental Carnivore

Take a look at your hands: You’ve got nice fingernails . . . not claws. How about teeth? You’ve got relatively small teeth, specifically lacking the sharp, powerful cutting power of large canine teeth. You’ve also got strong, somewhat thick-enameled molars. In short, we lack the natural tools of carnivory. While a hyena, jackal, lion or other carnivore can tear the throat of a gazelle with ease, you and I would not chance such a thing.

Based on such observations, some people say that humans are born herbivores and that carnivory is unnatural, perhaps a perversion of primate aggression. (All ruminant readers of the Wheat Belly Blog, however, are encouraged to continue reading the vegetarian literature.)

I’m going to propose a different perspective. I propose that Homo sapiens, likely derived from one or more herbivorous primates of the Australopithecine variety, is the exception to the rule that form determines function: Humans became carnivorous (or, more properly, omnivorous) because of their brains (and brains likely evolved as a consequence of this behavior). Let’s review the sequence that many anthropologists tell us occurred since the first Homo species walked (and climbed, given their residual arboreal capacity):

Image courtesy Wikipedia

–The earliest Homo species likely killed small game for food, such as small reptiles and rodents, on their own, while scavenging the larger kill of natural carnivores. This may have provided the basis for rudimentary tool use, e.g., cracking open the skull or long bones of a scavenged gazelle with a rock. This precedes the taming of fire, so meat and organs were consumed raw. Nonetheless, the fat and protein was likely deeply satisfying to hungry Homo.
Homo became more adept at creating tools and weaponry–The reign of the very successful Homo erectus and related strains witnessed the development of spears, knives, cutters, scrapers, pounding tools, all stone, of course. This made Homo a more effective hunter/trapper/killer of animals. Somewhere along the way, likely spottily and inconsistently, fire was used and tamed to cook food, making calories more bioavailable. (See Dr. Richard Wrangam’s excellent discussion about the role of fire in human evolution in his book, Catching Fire.)
Homo developed the ability to group hunt. While non-verbal carnivores can group hunt, Homo likely discovered the substantial advantage that emerged with communication. Imagine taking down a wooly mammoth: One or more humans slash the tendons of the rear legs, for instance, while several humans distracted the creature from the front. Such collaborative efforts, surely terrifying, required some means of communication–language–as well as the vocal apparatus for speech (absent pre-Homo).

It is not entirely clear why or how, through this 2.4 million year long story of adaptation to life on earth in its varying habitats and climates, brain size increased 3-fold, from the 450 cc chimpanzee-sized brain of Australopithecus, to the 1600 cc brain of pre-agricultural Homo (e.g., Cro Magnon and Neandertal). Anthropologists speculate that the combined effects of animal flesh and organ consumption, increasing need for more effective tools and weapons, and the advantage of communication/language/vocalization fueled this growth in brain size, coupled with mutations favoring such phenomena. (Carnivory alone, of course, is insufficient explanation, else lions would be the smartest creatures on earth.)

So consumption of animal organs and flesh, acquired via the unique brain, technological, and cultural evolution of Homo, sets us apart from other animals. We are not exclusively herbivorous like Australopithecus, nor are we obligatorily carnivorous like a Bengal tiger. We are something in between, uniquely positioned and unlike any other creature.

And, of course, we are most definitely not evolutionarily suited to consume the modern grain products of agribusiness, the stuff that even ruminants may struggle with.

Like This Post? Sign Up For Updates — It’s FREE!

Plus receive my special report Life After Wheat, 5 Essential Steps to Take After You Remove Wheat and delicious Wheat Belly recipes!

Comments & Feedback...

  1. Mike

    I don’t know that I would say unlike any creature. The bear and elephant are some of our closest functional relatives. When looking at brain size, brain function, higher function, and articulation (name the other animals that have a hind leg with a forward bending knee – they exist but are few), the bear and elephant are just as close to us as many great apes. Genetically we are only a few base pairs away from a banana, so the genome can be a bit confusing. However, look at a bear – their canines a bit more developed and claws quite more ferocious than our fingernails, however, diet – similar. So we use tools and they use strength/claws/tearing teeth. We both eat meat when we can and will enjoy fruits, nuts, and vegetables when we have them available as well.

  2. Jeff G

    … Homo species likely killed …
    … This may have provided …
    … was likely deeply satisfying …
    … likely spottily and inconsistently …
    … Homo likely discovered …
    … Anthropologists speculate …

    Sounds pretty scientific to me.

    • Matt

      I’m a huge Wheat Belly fan and success story. I’m not too enthused with this article though. Jeff G raises a valid issue with the pile of maybes.

      Dr. D, you have amazing results-backed proof about how bad wheat is, and really any food/beverage that raises blood sugar. You can drive that spear home much more efficiently than suppositions about the ultra-ancient past.

      • Dr. Davis

        Thanks, Matt.

        But I disagree: I believe we can learn HUGE amounts about our health and metabolism through a careful study of our evolutionary history.

    • Real scientists don’t claim to have the Truth. Nor does certainty equal truth. Scientists examine evidence and make hypotheses (models that are testable and falsifiable). Paleontologists go by fossils, DNA, artifacts and other evidence to try to understand how our ancestors lived millions of years ago. Hypotheses that stand up to attempts to falsify them and that fit the evidence, over a long period of time, are generally considered “likely” or “very likely.”

  3. Ez

    Jeff… when you build a functioning time machine that can accommodate a scientific research team to prove exactly what happened complete with time laps photos, you just let the rest of us know. In the mean time, I think this is a pretty good hypothesis. Everything we know about the evolution of humans is just that… a hypothesis.

  4. Audrey S.

    Hi Dr. Davis,
    I don’t know if this is the right place to post this question, but…

    I’ve noticed many paleo recipes substitute ingredients such as coconut flour or arrowroot powder instead of wheat flour. I already know your position on rice, potato, and tapioca starch, but I’m just thinking… Isn’t ANY powdered starch unnatural from the paleo perspective? Applying a little common sense, it seems that our cave-dwelling ancestors wouldn’t have had time to grind or pound large quantities of anything into powder by hand.

    From the biochemical perspective, isn’t any powdered starch just a flood of easily-digestible chains of glucose molecules that turn into blood sugar soon after ingestion — regardless of what the original food was before processing?

    I know you recommend almond meal/flour in your own recipes. Can you illuminate why this is less harmful than other flours?

    Any insight you have would be much appreciated!

    • Jeff

      Mainly, ground nuts or coconut meat is NOT starch,. It’s fiber, protein and fat. The recipes are used to replace the neolithic processed foods modern people have become accustomed to eating. Strictly speaking, these are not “paleo” but they won’t cause the metabolic problems of wheat, grains, and starches common to modern processed foods, which is the goal here. We want health improvement, not necessarily a reenactment of stone-age living.

  5. Ali

    …or you could go the easiest route and say that after the flood God gave humans permission to consume certain animals for food. He wouldn’t have done that if their teeth and guts weren’t designed to deal with it. Whilst we may not understand why, he obviously had a good reason for giving that permission otherwise humans would still be vegetarians. Did our ability to acquire B12 from plant sources, or even make it in the body, stop?

    Only God knows the answer to that, and who are we to question His wisdom?

    There are two options. Either we developed from primitive forms or we were created as intelligent cultured beings. If we developed to the point of becoming human, how come we are regressing instead of improving? If we were created as intelligent beings, and have never been anything else, any regression is due to external forces like the food we eat, our environment, lifestyle, and damage some intelligent beings cause to the very core of our existence – this beautiful, self-sustaining planet that was designed for our happiness and well-being.

    It has to be one or the other – and I know which one makes the most sense to me…

    • Juliette

      I concur.

      God created us herbivores, but allowed meat after the flood, probably because there was very little vegetation growing. I believe that the original diet is the best, minus the grains. Animal products are certainly not the best for health.

      • Suzie_B

        Hey, your ancestors have only been here for 6000 years, but mine have been here for 2.5 million. Mine certainly ate different than yours. Animal foods are very healthy for my family!

        • Linda

          And thank you from me also!

          I wish we could leave the mythology of “created as intelligent cultured beings”
          out of this discussion.

          Along with tooth fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus.

    • Pip Power

      In the Beginning there was a Talking Snake, an “Elton John” aka a Fruit and Adam & Eve Goldstein and between the 4 of them, they f%$ked up this world!

      The 3 Abrahamic “faiths” are Jihadic, Slaughterhouse Cults, that have their roots in Babylonian Zoroastrianism.

      There is NO Satan!

      The essence of evil is in the heart & mind of man (Jeremiah 17:9-10; James 1:12-20).

      What the Drug companies, the FDA, Psychiatrists, Farmers, Politicians and Multi-nationals are doing is PURE EVIL.

      Forget about mythical creatures that religions use to scare children, PURE EVIL wears a Pin-striped suit and drives a Porsche. They are on par with Pedophiles! And should be labeled as the Greatest Perverts on our planet!

      And what about the Men of God?

      92 Year Old Preacher On $5,000 a week!

      Aarsvold, Joel
      Mar 8 (6 days ago
      to me
      Dear Mr. Silverstein,
      Thank you for contacting the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association with your question regarding Billy Graham’s salary.
      The information that you saw reporting Billy Graham’s salary is not accurate. Let me share with you that in 2013, Billy Graham’s salary is $143,520 plus approved benefits. The Board of Directors establishes his compensation annually. The Board of Directors also have his compensation reviewed by an independent consultant for reasonableness.
      I trust this information is helpful to you.
      Sincerely,
      Joel Aarsvold
      Secretary to Board of Directors
      ________________________________________
      —–Original Message—–
      From: silverstein.larry03@gmail.com
      Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:57 PM
      To: WEBMASTER@BillyGraham.org
      Subject: Silverpop Email General Reply

      *Shalom,*
      It is reported that Billy Graham is drawing $800,000 salary from his organization. Is this true?*
      *Larry
      Larry Silverstein
      Mar 8 (6 days ago)

      to Joel

      Shalom Joel,

      So the benefits must make up the other $600,000? Insurance, housing, travel, expenses, medical insurance etc?

      Larry

      Aarsvold, Joel
      4:44 PM (16 hours ago
      to me

      Dear Mr. Silverstein,

      This is in response to your follow-up question regarding Billy Graham’s salary and benefits.

      As stated in my March 8th email to you, the information you saw reporting Billy Graham’s salary or compensation as $800,000 is not accurate.

      Billy Graham’s 2013 salary that was approved by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s (BGEA) Compensation Committee is $143,520 plus approved benefits of $26,594 (medical benefits, 401(k) Plan contribution, etc.). In addition, the Association reports as taxable income to Billy Graham $57,624 for health care support costs that are required for him to continue to serve and perform his duties and responsibilities for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. These health care support costs are paid to people who assist Billy Graham, they are not paid directly to him.

      Billy Graham’s total approved 2013 compensation is $227,738, which will be reported in BGEA’s 2013 IRS Form 990.

      I trust this information is helpful to you.

      Joel Aarsvold

      Secretary to Board of Directors

      From: Larry Silverstein
      Date: March 8, 2013, 6:28:26 PM EST
      To: “Aarsvold, Joel”
      Subject: Re: Salary
      Shalom Joel,

      So the benefits must make up the other $600,000? Insurance, housing, travel, expenses, medical insurance etc?

      Larry
      ________________________________________
      MATTHEW 8:
      The Cost of Following Jesus
      18 When Jesus saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake. 19 Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”
      20 Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
      21 Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
      22 But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”
      IT COST BILLY GRAHAM NOTHING! HE MADE A FORTUNE OUT OF JESUS!

  6. Amanda

    Thank you again Dr. Davis for the information, I just know that my body feels wonderful after ingesting animal protein and vegetables, I feel totally unwell even after eating rice, which is probably the grain with the least amount of “gluten” in it. I could stop eating meat for a month, reintroduce it and it will not make me sick. I can not say the same about grains.
    All this people with a lot of “education” were showing in Dr. Oz show that even our gut is designed to digest plant foods, they don’t think we should be eating meat. I don’t have the credentials to say they are wrong, I can only say how well I feel without grain poison in my body, and I can say how well my body performs with animal protein, fruits and vegetables.
    Thank you for that wonderful information.

      • Anna

        Yet Asian cultures have been thriving with rice as a main staple for centuries. It wasn’t until the introduction of crap processed foods that they started to develop 1st world disease, chronic condition.

        Cancerclasses, why does your chart neglect the comparison of small intestines? Maybe because our intestinal tract is more similar to an herbivore than carnicvore. How many vegetables are linked to colon cancer? Nope, yet, meat consumption is linked to colon cancer.

        Take Dr. Davis’ advice and maintain a high veggie to meat ratio. The acidity of your blood will wreak havoc otherwise & the rotting meat in your gut won’t help. Eat your veggies.

        • Of course, you realize “linked to” doesn’t mean “caused by,” right? The problems with observational nutrition studies are too much for a blog comment.
          Some cultures have lived in good health on a diet mostly or almost entirely of animal products: the Cro-Magnon, the Masai, the Inuit and the Plains Equestrian Indians, to name a few. The last group were the tallest people in the world in the 1890s. As you say, it’s the processed, nutrient-stripped junk food (including wheat) that’s the problem.
          BTW, meat doesn’t rot in your GI tract, plant matter does.
          http://www.gnolls.org/tag/does-meat-rot-in-your-stomach/

          • Anna

            If veggies rot in my gut then it must happen rather fast as my bowels sure evacuate rather readily on a veggie diet. According to those in the know, I form the perfect poop;O) Meat, on the other hand, is constipating. My breath stinks, I have body odor, & I can clear the room with my gas when I consume meat. TMI?

            But sure, it’s those fiber fill veggies that rot;O)

            I do not subscribe to any diet dogma, some folks do quite well on Paleo like diets & some do quite well on plant based. We need to find what works for us. Meat makes me sluggish & achy so I avoid except for the occasional salmon. Dairy gives me eczema, even raw dairy.

            I live in the 21st century, I don’t have to rely on what is in my immediate vicinity to survive. I can import my quinoa, a perfect protein with all essential amino acids, coconut oil & avocados, almonds, walnuts.

            BTW, what are your thoughts on Adventist followers, they seem to be doing quite well. And they have years of experience under their belt. http://www.sdada.org/position.htm

          • Anna

            So you are completely dismissing the scientific research of Loma Linda? Nice.

            What if there were different dietary paths to optimal health? As big as this world is, as diverse as the ecology of the planet is, you really think all humans needs the exact same diet?

            I will check out your book recommendation, thanks. I have been eating more fermenting foods to improve my gut flora as I am a believer in “all diseases begin in the gut.” Interestin.g title, though, as I get massive heartburn with meat consumption, even small quanitities. I guess my body prefers to quick evacuating veggies.

            I will check out your book, will you look into “essential amino acids”?

        • Anna, Blood is not “acidic”, it is ALWAYS and in ALL people slightly ALKALINE at a pH level of 7.35 and 7.45, variations of as little as plus or minus 2 tenths of 1 pH level cause death, and EVERYTHING on the ‘upstream’ side of your liver and kidneys including intracellular, extracellular & interstitial fluids and blood are ALWAYS between 7.35 & 7.45. Blood pH is VERY rigidly controlled and NOTHING people normally eat as foods has any effect or can change blood pH because it’s the job of the liver & kidneys to set that very narrow range. What you eat will ONLY change the pH of URINE as the kidneys and liver pull excess acids and bases out out the blood to set it’s very narrow pH and dumps the rest in urine and stools.

          Furthermore, meat and animal proteins do not ‘rot’ in the intestines, they are deaminated and efficiently and almost completely utilized by the body, and when dietary fats are eaten there is only approximately 4 percent waste. Fats and protein are required structural elements even in YOUR body, every cell membrane is 50 percent fat, every one of your organs are made from fats & protein, NOT carbohydrates and vegetables.

          You are seriously delusional and should either seek some biochemical & physiological education or some professional help, and ideally both.

          • Anna

            Ummmmm, pick up your Wheat Belly book, turn to the index, & search for pH. Even Dr. Davis addresses the pH issue.

          • Anna

            Yet what are proteins made out of? Amino acids!!!!! Your body synethesizes some amino acids but you must consume the ESSENTIAL amino acids. Where are essential amino acids found?

            By the way, if it’s so damn important to consume animal protein, how the hell do herbivores stay alive? Where do cows & elephants get their protein?

          • Anna

            Wheat Belly pages 116-120 will explain the effects of diet on pH & how your body compensates.

          • Anna, when you’ve learned the basics of human digestion from a book like Heartburn Cured by Norm Robillard (a microbiologist) or other scientific source, and not the The Holy Church of Veganism (Reformed), I’ll have a discussion with you. Until then, it would be like trying to talk about evolution with a young-earth creationist.

            And yes: TMI.

  7. Hi Bill!

    Nothing accidental about humans as carnivores…..like most things the obvious stuff like teeth and hands can throw people off (like fat makes you fat)……you are correct; fire and tools eliminated the need for large sharp canines and claws …..however, when you look at the digestive tract of humans it is pretty clear we are what I would term as “omnivorous carnivores” here are some highlights:
    a) Very acidic stomach ph. Stomach is approximately 30% of digestive tract
    b) by volume humans digestive tract is 50% small intestine and 20% large intestine and caecum which is largely undeveloped. On the other hand gorillas are the opposite with 25% small intestine and 53% caecum and large intestine (colon).
    Human digestive tracts are actually closer to that of a dog than a gorilla, pig or bear which are true omnivores because they have a well developed caecums for digesting plant matter but can also ingest animal, insects and bacterially reduced (cultured) food sources. Humans do not have a well developed caecum so are not as efficient at deriving nutrition from plants as many would think.
    Though these are simple facts, another fact is there is a wide variation in humans and that variation is part of our adaptability to be able to consume food sources we are basically not designed to eat. Some people do fine on little animal products and lots of fruits and vegetables while others need animal products to make up a large part of their calories and really keep the Wheat and other grains and carbs out.

    best

    Peter

    • Anna

      Yet cancer of the colon has been linked to meat consumption. And even Dr. Davis states that you need to maintain a high veggie to meat ratio, indeally 5:1, to avoid acid blood which leads to osteoporosis by leeching calcium out of the bone to maintain pH.

      • Blood is not “acidic”, it is ALWAYS and in ALL people slightly ALKALINE at a pH level of 7.35 and 7.45, variations of as little as plus or minus 2 tenths of 1 pH level cause death, and EVERYTHING on the ‘upstream’ side of your liver and kidneys including intracellular, extracellular & interstitial fluids and blood are ALWAYS between 7.35 & 7.45. Blood pH is VERY rigidly controlled and NOTHING people normally eat as foods has any effect or can change blood pH because it’s the job of the liver & kidneys to set that very narrow range. What you eat will ONLY change the pH of URINE as the kidneys and liver pull excess acids and bases out out the blood to set it’s very narrow pH and dumps the rest in urine and stools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid-base_homeostasis

        You are seriously delusional and should either seek some biochemical & physiological education or some professional help, or ideally both.

        • Anna

          Might I recommend a great book called Wheat Belly? Refer to pages 116-120 for more info in regards to diet & impact on blood pH & how the body compensates.

    • Dr. Davis

      Yes, indeed, Peter: Agreed on all points!

      We do indeed have a gastrointestinal tract designed for omnivory, including efficient protein digestion. We certainly don’t have 4-compartment ruminant stomachs!

      • Yes, Bill completely agree!
        I tell my vegetarian/vegan friends this all the time by saying; “I have my eyes in the front of my head and I only have one stomach.”
        I just wanted to stay focused on the nuanced differences in human digestive tracts versus that of other omnivores which are routinely pointed to as “evidence” we are suppose to be plant based …….looks like this post generated a lot of lively and intelligent discussion for the most part.
        best
        Peter

        • Anna

          Unfortunately folks take books like Wheat Belly & pick out any details to justify their animal protein dominate diet when even Dr. Davis discusses the importance of veggies in one’s diet. See pages 116-120 in Wheat Belly, for starters.

          Yes, many of us do quite well with very little animal protein. I, for one, have been thriving since eliminating all animal protein except for a rare egg, salmon, & butter with none of it factory farmed. It’s unfortunate that Dr. Davis doesn’t recognize the difference between grass fed beef & factory farmed beef. What an animal eat does effect the quality of meat, milk, eggs.

          • Boundless

            > It’s unfortunate that Dr. Davis doesn’t recognize the
            > difference between grass fed beef & factory farmed beef.

            Wheat Belly Cookbook, p 81:
            “… meats such as beef, turkey, chicken, and pork should be obtained from trusted sources that are organic, specify “free-range” or “pasture-fed”, do not use hormones to accelerate growth.”

          • Anna

            Thaks for the correction, Boundless. I hadn’t recalled that line & a relative of mine was harping on me for buying the more expensive eggs & salmon @ the farmers market specific ly saying Dr. Davis said there was no difference. So I will recind that claim.

          • Dr. Davis

            Not quite sure how you came to that conclusion, Anna!

            Note that Wheat Belly was principally an articulation of the problems with wheat thanks to the manipulations of agribusiness. While many people have turned to me and to the Wheat Belly social media for wisdom on overall diet, I did not start out that way and therefore did not cover EVERY nutritional issue relevant to health, such as the need to avoid GM-corn, or the excess nitrate content of modern crops, or decreased mineral content of modern crops . . . or the inadvisability of buying factory farm-raised meats.

          • Anna

            Dr. Davis, with all due respect, you go way beyond the discussion of wheat in your books. Do you not discuss glycemic index of numerous foods beyond wheat, ie quinoa, oats, etc? Btw, glycemic load is a much better indicator. Do you not discuss limiting overall carb intake? Do you not recommend using highly processed xylitol as a sweetner? Look at your “foods to limit” list…nothing looks wheat related to me.

            So, yes, Atkins reborn.

            But if it means people are healthier, that IS GREAT. Let’s just not pretend this is only about wheat.

          • Boundless

            > … way beyond the discussion of wheat in your books.

            Anyone who advocates a dietary approach, or even offers a set of all-meal recipes, is going to have to either advocate a specific macronutrient profile, and consider specific food hazards, or ignore all that. And they’ll have to have a list of priorities. Dr. Davis has chosen to approach it from: the number 1 thing to change is to ditch the gluten-bearing grains, which 99% of the time means the toxin currently sold as wheat.

            If ditching wheat was all that someone did, they could see substantial health benefits.

            > So, yes, Atkins reborn.

            One could say “Zone tweaked” or “Pritikin radically reformed”, as well, but those are all misleading. I had some words on Atkins at:
            http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2011/10/wheat-belly-quick-and-dirty/comment-page-14/#comment-56098

            I might go with “paleo perfected” myself :)

            As I’ve pointed out before, any number of previous diets and dietary advocacies have been much closer to what Dr. Davis recommends.
            Name one. Few people can.
            Wheat Belly has captured attention where earlier efforts weren’t even blips on the radar.

            But yes, the original book is not front-cover-obvious about the fact that what it leads to is:
            1. ditch the wheat (and its gluten-bearing co-conspirators)
            2. go low carb, very low carb
            3. ditch the fructose
            4. increase the fats, with advice on which ones
            5-99. a growing list, not fully priortized, of other benefits and hazards lurking at the grocery store

            On xylitol (and stevia), I see these as largely transitional aids for migrating away from a sweetness-heavy diet. We’re actually astonishingly lucky that just at the time we need to make that migration, some reasonably safe alternatives to sugars are available. Until recently, you couldn’t even promote stevia as a sweetner in the US.

          • James

            Hi Anna,

            Regardless of the omnivorous vs carnivorous aspect of the diet, whether we want to call an eating plan paleo or primal or whatever, there is one thing that should really feel common sense:

            – these eating plans are “REAL FOOD DIETS”.

            That is very simple and it should not be a stretch of the mind to understand that all heavily processed foods relying on completely artificial ingredients have nothing to do in our daily staple.

            Considering grains, it is even simpler: it is NOT a food for humans. Period. It has nutritional values because it can be a food to other animal species. But it is a slow toxin (depending on your sensitivity) for humans. I don’t regard grains as food any longer.

            The simple fact that a food can be really addictive should make you very concerned. At home we switched to REAL FOODS (fish / eggs / meat / veggies with no cheat save for the occasional baked stuff which tend to be rare these days but it’s fun to make e.g. muffins out of flaxseeds with a bit of xylitol for a celebration) and adopted a one meal a day eating timing (except for our kids who need to grow). We ditched breakfast and lunch because they are not necessary when you are fat-adapted (ketones and free-fatty acid oxidation). No calorie counting, no money wasted – real foods with a nice big meal once a day. You cannot imagine how good we feel!!

            I don’t care how this diet may be tagged or ridiculed by others. It is the optimal eating habit for us after a trial-and-error period of 6 months or so that went along a accumulation of knowledge and information about how foods and their ingestion (amount / timing / etc) interact with our inner balances (hormonal / caloric / etc). ANd it is not only about food but also about physical activity, social play, etc.

          • Lisa

            “Atkins reborn”

            Not totally. Atkins allows wheat and gluten along with the dreadful soy and promotes the use of their fairy tale cookies and other products as Dr Eenfeldt refers to them as. They also use fractionated palm oil (a cheap product to replace trans fat) and I suspect one day that adulterated fat will prove to be unhealthy in some way like man made trans fat was.

            I’ll take the best of Wheat & Gluten free (Wheat Belly or Bagel butt) , Paleo, Primal & Atkins all in one. lol Primal because I love my dairy, particularly homemade my yogurt.

            “Unfortunately folks take books like Wheat Belly & pick out any details to justify their animal protein dominate diet when even Dr. Davis discusses the importance of veggies in one’s diet.”

            Not I.

            While I do love a rare cooked steak I actually don’t eat much meat but I do hoard my wild sockeye. Actually it is breakfast most days of the week. And veggies, along with fruit, I eat a few people’s share of them daily!

  8. kevin

    There’s an interesting theory that brain size (Home sapiens) developed substantially from about 150,000 years ago when our rift valley ancestors got to grips with omega-3 (from the lakes) and that the fishy start went on to more fleshy things.

  9. Pip Power

    Hi,

    Why speculate about the past, when its the present & future that will destroy our species. You have done great work in carrying on the exposure of grains, especially Dwarf Wheat. Not only is the Dwarf Wheat poisonous to our system, but because of the reduction of the length of the stalk, the NITRATE fertilizer is getting into the wheat, whereas in the past most of it remained in the bottom of the stalk.

    Which came first, the egg or the chicken?

    That is the famous question people like to ask. But there is a more important question that needs to be asked:

    “Should MEDICINE start on the FARM or wait till the people become SICK and then look for their CURE”?

    If the land is POISONED by fertilizers, then the crops are poisoned! And if the people and animals eat the crops, they get poisoned and sick! And if the people and animals are sick, they are pumped with antibiotics to make them better. But if they continue to eat poisoned crops, from poisoned land, surely we’re putting “the CART before the HORSE”?

    Its the LAND that needs to be CURED, so the CROPS grow to be healthy! So when the PEOPLE and ANIMALS eat the HEALTHY CROPS, they too will be HEALTHY and will have little or no need of MEDICINE and HOSPITALS.

    It would seem from the evidence below, that scientists made a terrible blunder when they created DWARF WHEAT. By creating a dwarf plant, that produced a 10 fold bigger crop than the old wheat types and which would need large doses of fertilizers, they created the means of NITRATE migrating from the earth up the stem of the wheat and being so near the ground, it accumulated vast amounts of NITRATE.

    Reducing the Threat of Nitrate Toxicity

    If growing conditions favor the accumulation of nitrate in forage, the following management practices will greatly reduce the chances of problems occurring:
    Consider ensiling the forage; this will reduce nitrate levels. Studies at Purdue University showed that ensiling corn forage reduced nitrate concentration by about one third (Table 3). Feeding should be delayed until the fermentation process is complete. This usually takes about 4 weeks. Purdue studies have also shown that adding 20 pounds of limestone per ton of silage going into the silo further reduced nitrate levels. Adding more than 20 pounds per ton adversely affected fermentation and quality of the silage. Limestone tends to raise the pH which, in turn, can reduce silage quality.

    Nitrate levels in silage also can be reduced by chopping the top two thirds of the plant, since nitrate accumulation is highest in the bottom third of the stalk or stem. Leaving that much of the plant in the field is often a difficult decision but it may be less costly than the possible loss of animals. Stalks left in the field can be a source of nitrogen for next year’s crop.

    6-July-2009 –
    Researchers find possible environmental causes for Alzheimer’s, diabetes
    Contacts: Nancy Cawley Jean
    njean@lifespan.org
    +1 401-444-6417

    Call for reducing nitrate levels in fertilizer and water, detoxifying food and water.

    • Researchers find link between increased exposure to fertilizer, processed foods and increased deaths associated with insulin-resistant diseases

    • We have become a “nitrosamine generation” receiving increased exposure to dangerous compounds, which pose a threat at low levels of exposure.

    •The prevalence rates of these diseases have increased exponentially over the past several decades and show no sign of plateau.

    Providence, RI – A new study by researchers at Rhode Island Hospital has found a substantial link between increased levels of nitrates in our environment and food with increased deaths from diseases, including Alzheimer’s, diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s. The study was published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease (Volume 17:3 July 2009).
    Led by Suzanne de la Monte, MD, MPH, of Rhode Island Hospital, researchers studied the trends in mortality rates due to diseases that are associated with aging, such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes and cerebrovascular disease, as well as HIV. They found strong parallels between age adjusted increases in death rate from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes and the progressive increases in human exposure to nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines through processed and preserved foods as well as fertilizers. Other diseases including HIV-AIDS, cerebrovascular disease, and leukemia did not exhibit those trends. de la Monte and the authors propose that the increase in exposure plays a critical role in the cause, development and effects of the pandemic of these insulin-resistant diseases.

    de la Monte, who is also a professor of pathology and lab medicine at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, says, “We have become a ‘nitrosamine generation.’ In essence, we have moved to a diet that is rich in amines and nitrates, which lead to increased nitrosamine production. We receive increased exposure through the abundant use of nitrate-containing fertilizers for agriculture.” She continues, “Not only do we consume them in processed foods, but they get into our food supply by leeching from the soil and contaminating water supplies used for crop irrigation, food processing and drinking.”

    Nitrites and nitrates belong to a class of chemical compounds that have been found to be harmful to humans and animals. More than 90 percent of these compounds that have been tested have been determined to be carcinogenic in various organs. They are found in many food products, including fried bacon, cured meats and cheese products as well as beer and water. Exposure also occurs through manufacturing and processing of rubber and latex products, as well as fertilizers, pesticides and cosmetics.

    Nitrosamines are formed by a chemical reaction between nitrites or other proteins. Sodium nitrite is deliberately added to meat and fish to prevent toxin production; it is also used to preserve, color and flavor meats. Ground beef, cured meats and bacon in particular contain abundant amounts of amines due to their high protein content. Because of the significant levels of added nitrates and nitrites, nitrosamines are nearly always detectable in these foods. Nitrosamines are also easily generated under strong acid conditions, such as in the stomach, or at high temperatures associated with frying or flame broiling. Reducing sodium nitrite content reduces nitrosamine formation in foods.
    Nitrosamines basically become highly reactive at the cellular level, which then alters gene expression and causes DNA damage. The researchers note that the role of nitrosamines has been well-studied, and their role as a carcinogen has been fully documented. The investigators propose that the cellular alterations that occur as a result of nitrosamine exposure are fundamentally similar to those that occur with aging, as well as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

    de la Monte comments, “All of these diseases are associated with increased insulin resistance and DNA damage. Their prevalence rates have all increased radically over the past several decades and show no sign of plateau. Because there has been a relatively short time interval associated with the dramatic shift in disease incidence and prevalence rates, we believe this is due to exposure-related rather than genetic etiologies.”
    The researchers recognize that an increase in death rates is anticipated in higher age groups. Yet when the researchers compared mortality from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease among 75 to 84 year olds from 1968 to 2005, the death rates increased much more dramatically than for cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, which are also aging-associated. For example, in Alzheimer’s patients, the death rate increased 150-fold, from 0 deaths to more than 150 deaths per 100,000. Parkinson’s disease death rates also increased across all age groups. However, mortality rates from cerebrovascular disease in the same age group declined, even though this is a disease associated with aging as well.
    de la Monte notes, “Because of the similar trending in nearly all age groups within each disease category, this indicates that these overall trends are not due to an aging population. This relatively short time interval for such dramatic increases in death rates associated with these diseases is more consistent with exposure-related causes rather than genetic changes.” She also comments, “Moreover, the strikingly higher and climbing mortality rates in older age brackets suggest that aging and/or longer durations of exposure have greater impacts on progression and severity of these diseases.”
    The researchers graphed and analyzed mortality rates, and compared them with increasing age for each disease. They then studied United States population growth, annual use and consumption of nitrite-containing fertilizers, annual sales at popular fast food chains, and sales for a major meat processing company, as well as consumption of grain and consumption of watermelon and cantaloupe (the melons were used as a control since they are not typically associated with nitrate or nitrite exposure).

    The findings indicate that while nitrogen-containing fertilizer consumption increased by 230 percent between 1955 and 2005, its usage doubled between 1960 and 1980, which just precedes the insulin-resistant epidemics the researchers found. They also found that sales from the fast food chain and the meat processing company increased more than 8-fold from 1970 to 2005, and grain consumption increased 5-fold.

    The authors state that the time course of the increased prevalence rates of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes cannot be explained on the basis of gene mutations. They instead mirror the classical trends of exposure-related disease. Because nitrosamines produce biochemical changes within cells and tissues, it is conceivable that chronic exposure to low levels of nitrites and nitrosamines through processed foods, water and fertilizers is responsible for the current epidemics of these diseases and the increasing mortality rates associated with them.

    de la Monte states, “If this hypothesis is correct, potential solutions include eliminating the use of nitrites and nitrates in food processing, preservation and agriculture; taking steps to prevent the formation of nitrosamines and employing safe and effective measures to detoxify food and water before human consumption.”

    Other researchers involved in the study with de la Monte include Alexander Neusner, Jennifer Chu and Margot Lawton, from the departments of pathology, neurology and medicine at Rhode Island Hospital and The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University.

    The study was funded through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Two subsequent papers have been accepted for publication in the near future that demonstrate experimentally that low levels of nitrosamine exposure cause neurodegeneration, NASH and diabetes.

    de la Monte, Suzanne M., Alexander Neusner, Jennifer Chu and Margot Lawton. “Epidemilogical Trends Strongly Suggest Exposures as Etiologic Agents in the Pathogenesis of Sporadic Alzheimer’s Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, and Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis.” Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 17:3 (July 2009) pp 519-529.

  10. allison

    Meat tastes delicious! To me that means we’re supposed to eat it. It takes minimal processing. Kill it, cut it, cook it. Just like veggies and fruit.
    Wheat needs piles of processing to taste good, and does not taste good on it’s own at all. To me, that means we’re not supposed to eat it.

  11. DeeDee

    No one is really addressing the real problem. Dwarf wheat and huge agribusiness have developed to meet the needs of an increasing population. But if someone mentions controlling populations, people on both the left and right object with variations of “reproductive rights” and “interfering with God’s plan.” Well, humans have already interfered with God’s plan whenever we use the medical technology that our advanced brains have thought of and which have extended our life expectancies a great deal. Since I really don’t want the effects of smallpox, measles, rabies, diphtheria or polio to ravage the human race as they did in the past, I think we need to seriously and individually take personal responsibility for limiting the size of our families. I also realize the problem with this view. While I have limited my offspring to two as replacements for my spouse and myself, others, especially in third world countries, are breeding like crazy. So big agriculture is providing the wheat and other grains to feed all these people. Like any biological entity, the human population will be controlled one way or another. Either we control it ourselves, or outside forces such as disease, famine or war will control it before the population overwhelms the system.

    • Dr. Davis

      I fear that you are absolutely right, DeeDee!

      This is a hugely unpopular discussion, but one that must be conducted in future, else a huge disaster is in store.

    • James

      I don’t fully agree with what you say.

      The so-called 1st world has been through the same demographic evolution that the 2nd world is undergoing: high birth rate keeps up while mortality rate decreases. Eventually, birth rate goes down with the consequences of better food, hygiene, focus on education, etc.

      Going back to a world where food would be mostly gathered and hunted (and without petroleum based technology, we could get back there one day) will mean massive die-off until a new equilibrium is reached. In all this, reproduction is always the same impulse every human feels now and then. Demographic balances are not in the hands of controlled planning, rational (and simplified linearizing of) processes, etc. It all comes down to the chaotic properties of biological and ecological systems, with subtle and constantly evolving equilibriums with forces sometimes conflicting and other times aligning.

      Whether you have 10 kids or 1 or none, the big trends are not influenced by that. Access to resources is and as long as cheap dense energy is available, the entropy (in the form of demographic increase, waste products piling up, etc) will be matching the very density of that energy by simply using it. You cannot prevent a life form to use accessible energy, and thereby producing entropy.

      So let’s get off the 3rd world vs 1st world argument. It is nonsensical (at least to me). Equilibrium is always reached in some way (as fragile as it can be in a chaotic system) and does not care about you raising 2 kids or not.

      However, individuals tend to look at their belly-button (with good reason) because that is the stochastic force in the global dynamic system that is the world. I am not advocating to be selfish or not, I am saying that being an individual makes us selfish (neither a good thing nor bad, just something we are, with variations here and there of course).

    • Uncle Roscoe

      Deedee -“I really don’t want the effects of smallpox, measles, rabies, diphtheria or polio to ravage the human race as they did in the past”

      It’s axiomatic. Via DNA wholesale evolutionary improvements can only take place when environmental hardships pare a species back to a minimum number of individuals. The individuals possess mutations which allow them to survive the hardships.

      An essential ingredients to DNA-based adaptation is a low-to-medium population density. The hallmark of agrarian living is un-stopable population expansion. The biggest problem with wheat ingestion is that it forces the small intestine to release zonulin. Zonulin defeats the “tight junctions” between cells lining the small intestine, making the lining porous. This porosity passes all manner of antigens from the digestive lumen into the bloodstream. In other words, ingestion of wheat causes death, and pares back overpopulation.

      To the dying individual this is a bad thing. But to the species this is a good thing. Zonulin is a human adaptation which forces the process of evolution into an environment of abundance and overpopulation.

      Because of zonulin humans possess a relatively unique ability to mutate while living. We do this by incorporating antigens into our DNA, then by using omega 3 fatty acids to code around the antigens. Evolution is happening around us all the time. The people who spread disease are essential to the process. The people who can use omega 3s to perform the incorporate-and-code process are its survivors.

    • James

      I think we were “planted” and left to evolve. By “we” I mean all things that are. I tend to see the whole universe as a bubble of evolution according to rules beyond our full understanding. And it seems to me that this bubble is aware of itself, through myriads of life forms, including us humans – though imperfectly or “incompletely”. I think “evolution” has been designed to realize that promise of full awareness that has been planted initially.

  12. Uncle Roscoe

    Human eyes are at the fronts of our heads. Among the animal kingdom this is a dead giveaway. There are no exceptions. We are predators, not prey.

    Predators (carnivores) are far and away more intelligent than prey (herbivores). As you said, human brains are exceptional even among carnivores. Brains operate in an amalgam of fat, especially saturated animal fat and omega 3 fatty acids. For humans to have evolved these brains we, like marine mammals, must have had an enormous, continuous supply of animal fat. There are two sources for these supplies 1) land animal brain and bone marrow, and 2) seafood.

    For comparable brain size and social skills there are our forebears, the great old world monkeys, then ……whales and dolphins. Our nostrils face downward. Among mammals there are no other examples of nostrils doing anything except facing forward ……..except …….marine mammals. All marine mammals are exceptions to the nostril rule …..all. What makes humans exceptions to this scenario?

    What about our covering layers, our fat and fur? Human females have a layer of subcutaneous fat. Human males do not. No land mammals have subcutaneous fat layers. All marine mammals have subcutaneous fat layers.

    Humans have very little body hair. Adult males have more, and females and children have less. For the most part land mammals have body hair, and marine mammals have very little body hair. Human females have continuous-growing head hair. Infant males and infant females do also. Only adult males are exceptions to this rule. They tend to lose head hair.

    The most important traits among higher animals are the traits linking young animals to their parent or parents. It’s absolutely essential to survival. Like most mammals human infants are linked to their mothers, not to their fathers. Humans are born with the ability to survive in water, but not necessarily to swim. Maternal head hair would have been an essential requirement in a marine environment.

    The upright human gait is unique and well studied. It would have provided mothers with an ability to escape land predators by escaping into the surf zone. The male human gait is unique in its efficiency. It can take men longer distances, at faster speeds, using less food and water, than any other land mammal.

    We are two separate, unique creatures.

    The human ability to consume and digest carbohydrates is a sketchy patchwork. Other carbohydrate eaters have special large adaptations. Birds have crops. Cows have four stomachs. Horses have massive digestive systems. By contrast, humans simply have four enzymes…..
    amylase, maltase, DPPIV and zonulin.

    …….nothing but bandaids.

    • Anna

      We are NOT carnivores! Everyone wishes to uses the multi-gut cow as a reason we aren’t hervbivores but why not compare human GI tract to other herbivores like elephants & gorillas? Because they are very similar & you just might have to admit that veggies should be a big part of our diet. Even Dr. Davis points this out in his book, see pages 116-120. We are omnivores ydet even then animal protein should be minimal.

      How long is the GI tract of a lion? 3x it’s length because meat is easy to digest.

      Human intestestinal tract is 10-12x length of body because the fiber from plants is difficult to digest needing more time to extract the nutrients.

      I’m very diappointed that the Wheat Belly community is Atkins all over again. Don’t fear the veggies. We get many valuable nutrients from them. Might I recommend Dr. Terry Wahls for a more broader picture of the importance of veggies?

      http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKLjgBLwH3Wc

      • Uncle Roscoe

        I admit, and admitted, that humans have adapted to eat some veggies. No arguments. But our essential nature is that of a carnivore. I’m pretty sure I provided all the needed evidence in spades.

        I’ve been considering this overall scenario for a while. Through the genetic incorporate-and-code process I described in a previous post, humans are slowly adapting to agrarian diets and high population densities. Our brains are shrinking as our vegetarian diets slaughter us, but we are adapting.

        The earth’s ice cycle dictates that we must adapt, then de-adapt. Before modern semi-dwarf wheat we were lagging the ice cycle by roughly 20,000 years. The deaths apparent and abundant in today’s wheat-driven culture will shorten this lag time, and shrink our brains further.

        Elephants have massive brains, but their ratio of brain to body doesn’t hold a candle to humans. Elephant social interaction does not hold a candle to that of marine mammals, old world monkeys or humans. The digestive systems of elephants to the rest of their bodies is enormous compared to humans ……further evidence of which animals are carnivores and which are herbivores.

        Michael Clarke Duncan endorsed the attributes of elephants in a PETA video when he turned vegetarian. That was about three years before his death form a massive heart attack.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGh2_qgYJd8

        • Anna

          I sure do enjoy your writing style & thought process:)

          I’m gonna guess that Duncan was a vegan, not a vegetarian if he was a PETA supporter. Vegan does not equate to good health, heck, OREOS are vegan! Hahahah

          I am glad the science is focusing more on inflammation than cholesterol in regards to heart health. Cholesterol gets a bad rap, heck, 75% of our cholesterol is in our brain. Cholesterol has other vital roles that I am sure you are aware of thus no need to elaborate at this time.

  13. Boundless

    > Humans became carnivorous (or, more properly, omnivorous) …

    That distinction seems to be lost on some of the responders here. Carnivores eat primarily meat. Omnivores eat pretty much anything, plus the box it came in.

    > Let’s review the sequence that many anthropologists tell us occurred …

    The fossil record is not speaking to us plainly. It has only left us evidence and hints, and may be far from complete. There are no surviving paleo cookbooks, mesolithic vending machines, or shaman post-graduate nutritional curicula. This pretty much leaves us with:
    a. what does the record seem to say, and
    b. are our current conjectures about supportive and degenerative human diets consistent with that record.

    I support the notion of comparing Wheat Belly advocacies to the fossil record. If an inconsistency should arise, it needs to be explained. Many hypothetical and philosophical diets decline to take that test.

    I frequently state that the high glycemic diet has been a 10,000 year old mistake. That statement, and the fossil record, are a real problem for those who don’t think humans have been around that long, and/or think that the fossils are something other than evidence. If apparently ancient physical artifacts were faked on a massive scale by some agent with magical powers, of course, then nothing, old or new, is evidence of anything.

    > … the stuff that even ruminants may struggle with.

    I understand that when cattle are put on grains at the feedlot, they must soon be slaughtered, because they will die from the effects of the grain anyway. And they are ruminants. Humans clearly are not.

  14. Uncle Roscoe

    The carnivorous vs herbivorous question has been addressed here on the macro level. But what about the micro level? Meat provides protein. Vegetables provide varying amounts of protein. Carbohydrate vegetables, especially wheat, provide LOTS of protein.

    Humans evolved to digest different proteins in different ways. The stomach releases bile (hydrochloric) acid in order to dissolve ingested fat. The stomach has digestive enzymes, starting with pepsin, which break down meat proteins via deamination. These enzymes are activated by the bile acid. The stomach does not break down carb proteins.

    After the digestive lumen leaves the stomach it enters the small intestine. The small intestine releases a very limited number of digestive enzymes which break down carb proteins via deamidation. The prime player is DPPIV. DPPIV works VERY slowly, and is incapable of breaking down proteins with anything approaching the complexity of wheat gluten. Many carb proteins are identical to the proteins in many harmful antigens. The digestive immune system creates immune reactions to these proteins. These lingering reactions take place after meat proteins have been totally digested.

    Given that humans must get bulk protein from some food source, does it make more sense that we would naturally get them from meat or from carbs?

    • Boundless

      > protein from some food source, does it make more sense that we
      > would naturally get them from meat or from carbs?

      Did you mean to say “from meat or from plants” ?

      • Uncle Roscoe

        Point of clarification …….Core vegetarians sell vegetarianism with an image of people chewing on lettuce and broccoli. In practice it doesn’t work that way because lettuce and broccoli do not contain enough protein or energy to satisfy most people. But many “carbohydrate” foods do. In practice most vegetarians eat lots of carbs. And yes, these carbs usually include lots of nuts. This realistic observation should govern how we evaluate the question at hand, whether humans are intrinsically carnivores or herbivores.

        3-2-1 …..”But Roscoe, I’m an herbivore who doesn’t eat that way. ”

        Whatever. There are exceptions to every observation.

    • Dr. Davis

      Thank you for the insights, Uncle!

      I wish we could live healthily and happily without consumption of animal products, but we cannot. I am all for the humane treatment of animals, but their organs and muscle are required for our genuine health.

  15. LydTN

    I have been a vegetarian (or more specifically a pescatarian) all of my life – I think I could count the number of times I have eaten meat in 30 years on one hand and almost every time it has made me quite ill. It wasn’t my choice, it’s just how I was raised. I do have ethical issues with the particular way in which modern Americans consume meat and the effect that the meat industry has on the environment, but I am not one who believes that a carnivorous diet in general is immoral or unnatural. However, that said, I do not think that I could at this point in life change that about myself. I have no real desire to start eating chicken or beef or anythin else with legs. Though intellectually I don’t find it reprehensible, my reflex every time I have even considered eating meat as an adult has been to gag. I do eat fish, but of course have concerns about mercury levels and am wary to increase my fish intake much more, and most vegetarian meat substitutes are chock full of wheat and gluten. Could you make any recommendations for safe ways to avoid getting stuck eating nothing but veggies and quinoa without violating who I am as a person? Thanks!

    • Dr. Davis

      Well, you’ve still got plenty of nuts in all their glory, seeds including chia and flaxseed, mushrooms, coconut flour/oil/shredded/chips/water, avocados, shellfish!

    • While I empathize with your dietary challenges……I take issue with your statement regarding “I do have ethical issues with the particular way in which modern Americans consume meat and the effect that the meat industry has on the environment”. ( I don’t think anyone here supports, nor endorses, the CAFA industry and this blog promotes the use of pastured/sustainable meat options.) The truth is that the agriculture industries of the world (primarily corn, soy and wheat) are largely responsible for the most egregious devastation and deterioration of our planet……by ruining the topsoil, destroying natural lands and forests, driving multitudes of animals/birds into extinction, and ravaging our ecosystem (among a great many more atrocities)…..and if we don’t change something soon, the damage may be irreversible.

  16. unterderlaterne

    I do not know if this is the right place to post this, but please go to this video, it has some humor woven into it ! I was mesmerized by this young Swedish Doctor. The accent helped too! You will enjoy it and find it very interesting, the Swedes are way ahead of us when it comes to eating low carb. Enjoy and please see it to the end, it is worth it!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSeSTq-N4U4.

    • Neicee

      under, thank you so much for posting the link. I’ve visited his website often, but never taken the time to listen or watch a video. Sage advice, and enjoyed the Q&A session by Dr. Lustig as well. I have watched his youtube presentation about the evils of sugar and sent numerous links to it.

        • unterderlaterne

          I was frustrated because I could not post the beginning of the video, there the Doc shows Michelangelo after eating the high carb diet , it was very funny.
          After I watched the video , which is 54 min,.long, I discovered that there is a button which enables one to interrupt and finish watching when it is convenient again..Who knew?

  17. unterderlaterne

    Alright so now I misspelled ” embarrassed” . How fitting is that?
    I think I will just hang my head in shame and go away for a while. LOL.

    • Neicee

      unterderlaterne, thanks for my laugh of the morning! I’ve been over visiting other paleo/primal vs HFLC websites. It’s hard to figure out how to describe one’s lifestyle….everyone wants to know exactly and why. Guess I’ll just stay a WB warrior. Usually get strange looks…..

    • Barbara in New Jersey

      Unterderlaterne,

      That pix of “David the Fatty” is just priceless! Thank you for all your efforts it was worth it!
      Many people, myself included, have commented about not being able to correct posts, so don’t feel like you are the only one to make mistakes that can’t be fixed.

  18. unterderlaterne

    An *Edit* button would be nice. Thank you Neicee and Barbara for being so forgiving, I feel like an idiot !