Since I recently did a question related to this, you know my view. There is an answer in that compilation to please everyone, I think, but the quote that particularly resonated with me was:

Chris Masterjohn:

The body can make glucose from protein, so the physiological need for glucose does not mean there is a dietary need for glucose. That said, some people might be better at making glucose from protein than others, and some adverse circumstances may compromise an individual’s ability to make glucose from protein.

This is somewhat consistent with my view that only special disease states would warrant the need for dietary glucose. However, I consider it a band-aid solution, though it may be the best alternative we currently have in some circumstances.

As for the cancer situation, I'm really quite alarmed that anyone would recommend eating any glucose at all under that condition. If my life were on the line, I wouldn't be taking any such risk. I know that research on ketogenic therapy for cancer is in its infancy, but what little we have is promising and the theoretical basis is sound.

I thought it was a train wreck. Or trainwreck. Or train-wreck. Or...a disgusting display of ignorance, poor form, and not-so-hidden agenda. I can only hope Jimmy Moore realizes how clearly he missed the mark on this one and I surely hope some of our "dignitaries" are ashamed of themselves today because they damn well should be.

What do I think about it? This might seem harsh, but it is my top opinion that springs to mind upon completion of reading it all:

Kurt Harris > Jack Kruse

Sorry, but I'm not singling this Kruse character out, but he has always struck me as an unreliable source; as a person who is quick to spout off crackpot thoughts, theories and criticisms, yet he gets a pass because he has an "MD" beside his name.

I'm sorry if this post isn't a good one or within suggesting posting guidelines here...... I legitimately believe that the light needs to be shined on the crackpots. My immediate thought upon reading that link is that the light was very brightly shined on one there.

It is indeed incredible the gap in general knowledge between those of us who read a fair amount about nutrition and those who actually do research and/or write books on the topic.

Maybe because of the amount of time and concentration it takes to do research or just to keep up with the science on an in-depth level, some of these experts seem totally ignorant about (and surprised to hear about) theories that differ in the slightest from their own area of expertise.

Those of us without the scientific grounding but merely a passion for putting into practice the best diet take for granted the notion that white rice, for example, is "safer" because it's lower in anti-nutrients/phytates. Doesn't mean we all agree, but we've read about it dozens or hundreds of times. Yet Loren Cordain gives no indication of ever having heard that. (Guess he doesn't listen to the podcast of his protege Robb Wolf.) Instead, he actually claims to believe that "anyone who advocates eating white rice and potatoes obviously is unaware of the concept of either glycemic index or glycemic load." Yeah, right! No one in 2011 remotely interested in nutrition is unaware of that concept.

And a low-carb researcher (Dr. William Yancy) who has never heard the word 'dysbiosis'??? LMFAO. Maybe he's all about weight loss and has never had a digestive problem that required more than five minutes of googling - because that's how long it takes to come across that term. Wow.

Kudos to Jimmy for exposing the variety of opinions on this topic and i look forward to his part 2.

First, I'm impressed by the sheer volume of Jimmy Mooer's blog post.

I think this goes along the same lines as my question from the other day

http://paleohacks.com/questions/68873/should-writers-researchers-have-such-narrow-focus/#axzz1a4MhaUZe

Does the term "paleo" need to have a rigid set of guidelines? For the general SAD public not to get confused, the answer is probably yes. Within the community, I would think it's pretty much assumed and agreed upon that people who have serious metabolic derangement need to avoid rice and potatoes, while someone who is a muscular cross-fitter or naturally skinny researcher can get away with more carbs.

And then there's differences between metabolically sound men and women.... An iron deficient woman should probably steer as far away from phytic acid as possible, but for us men who eat a pound of meat a day and have gradually elevating ferratin levels maybe some phytic acid in our diets would do us some good. I was actually considering supplementing with it (IP6) though I'm sticking with the blood donation route for now.

A one size fits all mentality of course doesn't work. But could the ambiguity/subtleties hinder the spreading of the "paleo" way of eating?

I think "no grains, no legumes, no dairy" is probably the easiest in an elevator pitch but then we have the subtleties of butter to deal with, so I dunno...

I wish Jimmy had stuck to just asking the question re safe starches and leaving cancer out of it for this go-round.

Colette Heimowitz sucked so bad, she doesn't know shit about physiology. Her 'speach' is embarrassing. DR. LARRY and Adele Hite answeres were really great and DR. Fred was very funny with that yelling. Jimmis N=1 experiments really suck because he is not adapted to HC input, and unless he is using somebody else as proxy it means nothing to people not on LC.

I do think that Pauls Vitamin C deficiency problem is ridiculous as it is well established that LC HP diet improves absorption and that HC diets diminish both absorption and utilization. You can eat red paprika to get a lot or that synthetic powder. Mucus problem might manifest as dry eys or rigid joints but not in the stomach which has some sugar (although it also has microbiota which hijack sugar). Cancer can't really be starved, but at least it doesn't have to bath in energy (it overexpresses GLUT transporters). Enough Vitamin C is probably the most important thing to prevent it (improves all types of unnatural conditions that may lead to reverting of normal cells back to their ancient selfish metazoian origin, and Lysine & Proline amino acids to prevent spreading (because of collagen cross linking).

I think improvements in personalized genetics will put stop on this once and for all. Once you know how well are you carb/fat/protein efficient in source code, you will not have to keep any XXXXL strategy. For instance, part of the CHO process would be to see your copy number variation of amylase gene, expression of your GLUT transporters, etc.... For now everybody will have to use their sense to guess it.

I think this is great. I think paleo diet is more of a base template, and it should be strict in the sense of exact numbers. Different people can apply the template differently with differences. Paleo should support low to moderate carb levels (maybe even high).

The key is who is the subject and in what context. Healthy/Diabetic/Althelete/Pregnant/Parkinsons/Weight Loss/Strength Training etc. There is not one fits all solution, but there is a great base to start from. For me that is what paleo is.. guideline and a base to work with and start tinkering from.

Starting your base as low carb, to me, is a bad idea, people will tend to focus on that, and when they are out shopping see a low carb food product and go oh that is not so bad.

I think, just like us, paleo movement will evolve as long as we keep in open mind and do not make this a religion. Being critical is what got the movement started.

Quilt - Were your comments about 'safe starches' only aimed at cancer patients or does this apply to everyone who is trying to optimize through diet? I'm still not clear on your opinion of carbs for LS people. Do you think long-term keto diets are OK for most?

Dr. Jack Kruse says: "I read Kurt and Jaminet’s take. I think these recommendations are madness based upon the totality of the data we have today. I think avoiding anything that stimulates the IGF1 pathway is “smart” based upon current knowledge and i think using a ketogenic diet is also prudent. While i like both of these guys, neither one has any clinical experience treating cancer patients. They read literature. When kurt was a practicing doc he spent time in a dark room with films not patients. I showed our oncologist these comments and they both shook their head. I spent four years getting these guys to come over to evolutionary biology based upon science and now these two primal insiders decide damn be the science?

I think the science is far from worked out but nothing i have read critically reviewed support jaminet’s claims. My personal opinion is this……..the best way to show someone they are wrong is allow them to go down the path they choose and let them learn for themselves. Some people may do the same but when they see their clinicians and the news is not good…….then there testimony will shine sunlight on who’s interpretation of science is correct.

If you remember our podcast……i told you i am wary of authors with books to sell on diets. Here is a perfect example of someone trying to fit their theory into everything. Id rather use evolutionary biology to give us a custom health care plan instead. I wrote a blog on what to do for a new cancer diagnosis–and its completely opposite these recommendations. I guess the new cancer patient will have to choose who is more correct.

This is a sad state of affairs in my opinion."

I think the science is far from worked out but nothing i have read critically reviewed support jaminet’s claims. My personal opinion is this……..the best way to show someone they are wrong is allow them to go down the path they choose and let them learn for themselves. Some people may do the same but when they see their clinicians and the news is not good…….then there testimony will shine sunlight on who’s interpretation of science is correct.

I think Dr. Jack Kruse Neurosurgeon needs to find the shift key on his keyboard. Not capitalizing "i" is one thing speaking of himself, but to not capitalize Jaminet (and Kurt elsewhere) is poor form. Oh ... and a grammar checker might be of some help. When blogging and editing chunks it is easy to mismatch tenses and leave in fragments of former phrases. I understand that, and I'm sure there are numerous transgressions to be found on my blog. But the regularity with which this occurs in Kruse's writings is something he needs to address, especially as I'm not the first person to bring this to his attention. It is "nothing ... support s", "the ir testimony", and "who se interpretation".

I think avoiding anything that stimulates the IGF1 pathway is “smart” based upon current knowledge

I think Kruse/Quilt needs to look a bit more into what stimulates IGF-1.

To lump Paul in with other diet book authors is low class. One need not agree with what Paul writes, but he didn't start out with a premise and cherry pick from data to formulate his plan. He's very up front about the origins of his book. No gimmicks, supplements to sell or anything of the sort.