Another Crustless Quiche


This one was way better than my last crustless quiche.

What I did differently was first, to use 1/2 cup of potato flour instead of coconut flour. This resulted in a wonderfully crusty skin. Carbs? Well, 1/2 cup of the flour is about 60 grams or so, discounting the fiber (about 5 grams). This gets cut into 12 portions, so you'll get 5-6 grams per slice. No big.

The other thing is that I used Swiss cheese instead of cheddar. The traditional French recipe calls for Gruyere, but that's about four times the price and it's not four times as good.

On the next go I'm going to try to make an actual crust with the potato flour, eggs, leaf lard, etc. I might try tapioca, and that's only about two-thirds of the carbs in the potato flour.

…Well, I'm off to catch a cruise ship in downtown San Diego.

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.


  1. carrie on June 28, 2009 at 19:25


  2. Martha A. Cheves on June 29, 2009 at 03:18

    I've never thought of making this without the crust. Great idea. Thank you

  3. on June 29, 2009 at 09:27

    I am going to buy potato flour tonight-I've never tried it! I make crustless quiches all the time, but miss the crust sometimes. This seems like a good compromise.

  4. Janice on June 30, 2009 at 03:54

    I tried this last night but with chicken and swiss and it's wonderful. It has enough of a pastry crust taste/texture to it that it was really satisfying. The swiss cheese was very good in there. Thanks for the suggestion!!

  5. Sean on July 1, 2009 at 14:42

    I hope everyone realizes that modern humans are significantly different from Paleoman, and that we are not the same as people from even 1,000-2,000 years ago

  6. on July 3, 2009 at 05:49

    It is very true. Sorry to burst your bubble, guys, but well respected and renowned professor of Anthropology Dr. Henry Harpending and several other well respected big time expert anthropologists say this like Dr. Richard Klein and Dr. Jonathan Pritchard.

    Recent discoberies show this. All one has to do is google the phrase "humans constantly evolving". Google Dr. Harpending too, to see his credentials . Many, many links come up about this recent discovery.

    We are not modern cavemen. We have evolved significantly since then .

    Here are is a sample link

    "We are more different from people from 5,000 years ago then they were from neanderthals" – Dr. Henry Harpending (who is an expert, unlike Mark Sisson, Vin et al)

    Guys like Sisson , Vin et al etc are using gimmicks to make money off of gullible people. They won't even allow my comments to be posted because I have destroyed their credibility and shown their information to be completely false. That speaks volumes about their agendas.

  7. Richard Nikoley on July 3, 2009 at 07:49

    Listen, I _know_ what I'm talking about.

    You simply have the common problem of failing to integrate new facts into an already _generally_ valid theory based upon unassailable logic and principle.

    Moreover, what is your point, drop some of the meat & veggies and replace them with sugar?

  8. on July 3, 2009 at 09:44

    We're different than Paleolithic era man in a few ways according to Dr. Harpending. The bottom line is we're not the same, like Paul Chek and all the other quacks say. Quacks hate peer review. Guys like Chek, Sisson et al. They take these crack pot theories and promote them.

    Emulating Grok (whoever whatever that is) for health promotion is a huge mistake, as not all of what paleoman did was for health promotion.

    Some of what paleoman did was for survival, NOT necessarily for longevity or long term health . Sprints for example are not mandatory. As you get older you risk a burst blood vessel. A burst artery will ruin your day everytime. Intermittent fasting is another thing unnecessary.

  9. Richard Nikoley on July 2, 2009 at 20:00

    Of course everyone doesn't realize that because it's not true.

    While there's one significant recent change (lactose tolerance), and some cultures may be slightly more tolerant to grains and sugars than, say, the Pima Indians, we're pretty much the same.

    Everyone who does Paleo realizes this quite easily and quickly as they rapidly and effortlessly reprogram their genes to lean, attractive, stronger, more energetic physiques, even without significant exercise.

  10. on July 4, 2009 at 14:55

    Strike a nerve?

    Sorry. It is you who are wrong. Quacks hate peer review.

    The FACTS are we are NOT modern cavemen. Mainstream well respcted scientists in this field support my stance. They AGREE we are NOT like paleoman. We have evolved for grains and dairy – most of us.

    Incorrect, quack information will never be tolerated by me. You are a FOOL for living like humans from 2.6-40,00 years ago falsely believing it is health promoting.

    None of your bull is peer reviewed. None.

    P.S. The Mediterranean Diet beats the Paleo Diet . Study after study supports The Mediterranean Diet.

    My name is Sean Corali.

  11. on July 4, 2009 at 14:56

    Grains are NOT evil, moron.

  12. on July 4, 2009 at 15:02

    And also that story about Sterling? Pure bull. Diet does NOT treat or cure asthma. There is NO CURE.

    Peer reviewed literature supportes this. WebMD is one of the few internet sites that is QUALITY PEER REVIEWED INFO.

    Tell a doctor you followed Grok to cure asthma and he would laugh you out of the building.

  13. Richard Nikoley on July 4, 2009 at 15:32

    Well, see, but there's this:

    Your comments here are substantially in contradiction with other anonymous trolls, all coming from IP address

    For instance, your comments on these two posts:

    Such as…


    "Chris from "fitness fail"

    What about groups like the Maasai, Dinkas, Samburu, French , and Inuits who eat a diet very rich in saturate dfat and have very low rates of CAD? How does Cordain explain away them?

    Cordain knows little of the Mammoths, Hippos and Rhinos all hunted enthusiastically during the Paleolithic. They were evry rich in saturated fat. In fact an adult hippo carries around 90 kg of adipose tissue .

    As for the claim that fat from wild game is proportionately lower in saturated fat than domesticated animals, a quick check on the USDA database shows otherwise.

    The fat from wild bison , for example, has a similar percentage osf saturated fatty acid content to beef fat. Animals like anteloupe, buffalo, caribou, wild boar , elk, and so on contain 30 -38 % saturated fat. The fat from domesticated pork, by comparison, contains 37 % saturated fat.

    Cordain is 100 % wrong.

    Are you sure you did your research?"




    "I apologize for all of my trolling, Richard. I promise not to do it anymore. I agree on the saturated fat/CAD thing. I was only repeating word for word what persons have countered me with.

    Very good article.



    And, of course, readers will definitely note your very identical style when you were featured here:

    Look, I don't mind playing devil's advocate at all. I thought we were behind this trolling nonsense, and now its taken me all this time this afternoon when I could have been doing something else.

  14. on July 4, 2009 at 16:13

    Captain Smirnoff, LisaR, Sean Corali, Dirk Steinberger are just a few of many, many of my names etc. LOL

  15. on July 4, 2009 at 16:43

    Science has proved all of you paleotards wrong. We are NOT like paleoman or "Grok" (whatever that is).

    We have evolved very significantly since then. And emulating paleoman is nonsense.

    Sorry to have shown the truth and ruined your fantasies and romanticizing of Grok, but real anthrolpologists support my stance.

    What paleoman did is insignificant. Follow the Mediterranean Diet. Look up The Lyon Diet Heart Study.

  16. on July 4, 2009 at 17:58

    Another well respected scientists supports what I say. Professor Katherine Milton of the University of California in Berkley says

    "there is little evidence to suggest that human nutritional requirements or human digestive physiology were significantly affected by such diets at ANY point in human evolution".

    When you get your info from BLOGS people , this is what happens. You gall prey to MISINFORMATION of MARKETERS trying to make a buck off of YOU.

  17. on July 4, 2009 at 18:00
  18. Richard Nikoley on July 4, 2009 at 13:18

    I doubt that Chek is a quack, and I know my friend Mark Sisson isn't. I'm quite certain, however, that YOU are a _fraud_.

    Why? You hide behind anonymity like a cheap little pussy.

    Go away and fuck off, coward.

    Incidentally, if you actually read my links, then you are aware that I don't dispute we're different from "Paleoman" in some, perhaps many ways. I don't think that's in serious dispute, and newsflash, moron: Grok is a METAPHOR (you can look that up).

    …Fuckin' moron.

    At any rate, "different" does not mean that grains, processed food, frankenoils, concentrated sugar, etc. are healthy for us. Moreover, the notion that they are somehow essential for us to eat is blatantly absurd, which is the clear implication of your comments. Even more, you ignorantly fail to account for individuality, which I won't even bother to explain to an anonymous fraud.

    Go away. Don't come back unless you are prepared to offer verifiable proof of identity, as well as credibility of your excellent health or improving health.

    Anonymous frauds will never be tolerated here.

  19. Richard Nikoley on July 4, 2009 at 13:49

    BTW, I know who you are and I thought you were going to quit trolling here?

  20. Richard Nikoley on July 4, 2009 at 15:38

    Not sure if my previous reply to this emailed notice to those following. Because it had more than three links it got dumped and I had to publish manually.

  21. on July 5, 2009 at 08:41

    I will say this though, yours and Mark Sisson's method of exercising DOES work.

    Sisson is an expert on fitness and running. I just don't get why the both of you (and the like)don't just say here is MY method, it works, and modern science has shown this .

    Rather than spout "paleo stuff" that is based on nothig but speculation, and the false claim that our genes are just like Paleolithic Era man ?

  22. Richard Nikoley on July 4, 2009 at 21:33

    Well, at least you come clean.

    Listen: to the extent I know what's going on, then props. I can even see long term value to trolls such as this.

    I just don't like the waste of my time that it takes to get to the bottom of things.

  23. on July 5, 2009 at 15:36

    Sorry for the trolling Richard. I promise I won't do it anymore.


  24. Richard Nikoley on July 5, 2009 at 15:45

    My only complaint is that it wastes my time in figuring it out.

    Give me a heads up in email and then have at it. I think this kind of trolling can be valuable.

    As I understand it, you "grok" the reality, but you toss up the arguments that have been used against you (I recall you telling me that).

    I am interested to know, however, if the real you thinks Paleo (in my high sat fat style) is that far off the mark. I actually don't think a REAL Med diet is bad. It's good. I lived on the Med in France for two years. Everyone talks about the wine, veggies, fruit, seafood, but nobody wants to mention the enormous fat they eat via cheese, dairy, sauces, & meats.

    A true Med diet is pretty damn high in sat fat. Also, Americans in general have no idea how they actually eat bread & pasta. Compared to us, they eat way less of it.

  25. on July 6, 2009 at 05:28

    I agree Richard. The real Mediterranean Diet is very good, and certainly not low saturated fat in the least. In fact it's quite rich in it, with the French leading the way out of a diet that is already rich in that whole area.

    Nothing beats the first hand experience living there.

    Also, I think your diet is on the mark. Saturated fat has been so demonized. Despite decades of propaganda, the clinical dietary intervention studiesto date do not show that saturated fat restriction reduces CAD incidence CAD mortality or total mortality. Minnesota Coronary Survey, National Diet Heart Study, Rose et al, Women's Health Inititaive 2006 are all examples. If you can get the full text of these it would be worth your while. Just read the original papers and the full text. The summaries are very midleading.

    If one reads the full text of the Anti Coronary Club (another of the 18 clinical intervention studies to date) they will see that after 4 years subjects in the "prudent diet" group (treatment) had lowered their cholesterol levels to 225 mg/dl , while those in the control group (animal fat) remained at thir initial cholesterol level of 265 mg/dl . After reading the summary of the study which made no mention of death rates, (only focusing on the "impressive" cholesterol reduction) one could conclude it was an outstanding success.

    In the middle of the full text of the original paper you'll see that the control subjects had NO deaths from CAD while those eating the prudent diet had 9 CAD deaths. Deaths from all causes were 27 in the treatment group vs 6 in the controls.

    I , just like you Richard, can't stand what goes on with the cholesterol scam.

    I'm sorry for all the effort you had to go to, so I won't do the trolling.



  26. Richard Nikoley on July 5, 2009 at 15:58

    There's a precautionary principle in place.

    For me, I just simply do really, really great on this diet. I'm not about to tell someone that they ought to do this if they don't feel great in doing it.

    I have always maintained that a proper Paleo diet is an individual one. Paleoliths existed from equator to arctic circle, from moderately high to low carb. Find what works for you and go with it.

    Caveat: How you feel in a quotidian sense, medium to long term is more important that even controlled studies, provided you're not supplementing your feelings with inebriates on a regular basis.

  27. simona on November 17, 2009 at 05:11

    I have taken the time and energy and read the link that Sean provided to Milton.
    1. It states that the few adaptations to diet that would serve to differentiate us from the great apes (!!) have happened in the last 12 thousands years. Would that correlate with the other references given that say that humans have changed recently? Maybe. How is that a critique of Paleo diet? Many races are still not adapted to milk and gluten containing grains still cause many clear and documented problems in a significant percentage of the population at large.
    2. I don’t agree with Milton that humans as anthropoid primates have an evolutionary history of more than thirty million years in which no important changes to the physiology have happened. She puts it down to behaviour not food intake. Maybe she doesn’t know about Kleiber’s principle referred to in dr. Eades post on human evolution. Why was there an expansion in the brain size and how did it happen? No discussion about that. Then, she goes on to compare the human diet with that of extant wild primates.(!)
    Just because somebody is an academic of a certain status and has published books full of references doesn’t mean that you just have to take everything they say as gospel. I wonder what does Cordain have to say about her disagreeing with him.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 17, 2009 at 11:45

      Hmm, seems I can’t access that paper in either Safari or Firefox. But it doesn’t look like I’m missing much.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.