Need for carbs?
 

The differences among the low-carb authorities can sometimes get confusing. For example, Michael and Mary Eades (PPLP) say we don't need carbs, that we get important nothing from them that we can't get elsewhere. On the other hand, Diana Schwarzbein says we need some carbs with each meal to achieve the right balance of insulin and glucagon.

How can a nonspecialist resolve this disagreement? What do others think about this? I'd appreciate hearing how others have grappled with the issue.

Thanks.

Sheldon

The basic truth is that people can exist for many months with NO carbs. The eskimo/Inuit of the Arctic used to eat nothing but meat for 8 or more months a year and do just fine.

Atkins refers to a study in about 1935/6 when the explorer Steffanson and a colleague ate nothing but meat and fat for one whole year, under the supervision of Bellevue Hospital in NYC. He lost 6 pounds but was otherwise just fine - no adverse effects after a year of NO carbs.

The body even has a way of making Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) from fresh meat protein if needed. (Sailors used to get scurvy because they got neither fruit NOR fresh meat.)

However, Schwarzbein is talking about a less stringent form of low-carbing and wants a balance of the 2 hormones, not ketosis. I'm not chemically minded enough to know how you can have both insulin and glucagon going at once (I thought it was one or the other), but then I haven't read Schwarzbein.

Hope this helps.

:wave: