I knew absolutely zero about nutritional science (and evolutionary history) before finding out my E4 status 4 months ago. I've lived my entire life eating carbohydrates, but it certainly now comes as a complete shock culturally (but not at all scientifically) to find out that there is "no dietary requirement for carbohydrates"! I am still adjusting to this paradigms shift. You just ate carbohydrates and sugar (fruits, juices) because these were all part of a complete "western" diet. What a crock. Let's completely set aside sugar, a complete dietary toxin.http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v53/ ... 00759a.pdfhttps://www.sott.net/article/293709-Act ... for-energyhttp://graemethomasonline.com/carbohydr ... uirements/
"Unlike protein and fat, carbohydrates supply none of the elements necessary to build or repair tissue in the body, and provide no essential component
. As the Institute of Medicine (IOM) states year-after-year in their Dietary Reference Intake Manual: "The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed." IOM (2002)"http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v53/ ... 00759a.pdf
"The theoretical minimal level of carbohydrate (CHO) intake is zero,
but CHO is a universal fuel for all cells, the cheapest source of dietary energy, and also the source of plant fiber. In addition, the complete absence of dietary CHO entails the breakdown of fat to supply energy (glycerol as a gluconeogenic substrate, and ketone bodies as an alternative fuel for the central nervous system (CNS), resulting in symptomatic ketosis." Exactly, nutritional ketosis is what we want btw! Full stop.
Even if I tried, it's almost impossible to eat zero carbohydrates given all the vegetables and nuts I eat on LCHF.
100g walnuts has 14g carbohydrates (Macadamia 14g, Pistachios 28g, Pecans 14g) . 100 g kale has 9 g carbohydrates. Broccoli has 7 g. Cacao nibs 58 g in 100g. Hemp seed 32 g, Chia seeds 42 g.
Of course, one could eat only fats and proteins and avoid carbohydrates, but that would not be "ideal" E4-LCHF macronutrient? But wait, in keeping an open mind, why NOT only proteins and fats...ancestrally aligned? Would I risk CVD and elevated LDL, TC, TG, and have "bad lipids"? But surely with nutritional science knowhow, strict CR and IF, and exercise, I am certain I could avoid metabolic syndrome
? Do I really need some fiber? What about the micronutrients in vegetables and nuts, could I get them all in strategic animal fats and proteins? Of course the answer must be yes from an evolutionary perspective...animals consumed the same vegetables we are consuming directly ourselves.Seems I find myself in LCHF for AD prevention, ketosis, and due to a preference to eat vegetables for dietary variety, low carbohydrates, and avoid consuming much animal protein due to E4 risk, but is this really THE best AD outcome?
AD causality is still an unknown...so bet on current best knowledge, or go all-in ancestral? At time of writing this is where I find myself, open to change as new information comes to light, but I certainly do know what Taube knows: I don't need carbohydrates.