low-carb diets do not promote optimal health

[gymeejet]

hi everyone,
i realize that i will not be too popular here - LOL. low-carb diets are not healthy ones. we need a certain amount of protein each day - 100 to 200 grams for most people, depending on size. we need our 2 essential fats, omega3 and omega6 - 2 tablespoons of safflower oil, and a couple tablespoons of flax meal should be ample for most people. the rest of your diet should be filled with as much healthy carbs as possible - fruits, vegetables, and whole grains - as much unprocessed as possible.

[Lisa N]

we need a certain amount of protein each day - 100 to 200 grams for most people, depending on size. we need our 2 essential fats, omega3 and omega6 - 2 tablespoons of safflower oil, and a couple tablespoons of flax meal should be ample for most people. the rest of your diet should be filled with as much healthy carbs as possible - fruits, vegetables, and whole grains - as much unprocessed as possible.

Strangely enough, that pretty much describes the ongoing weight loss through maintainance phases of most low carb plans. :)

[gymeejet]

hi lisa, i hope that is true. i know i was aghast at reading "protein power", and using such silliness as deleting carrots from your diet, because they were too high in carbs. i think one thing that we should do is quit thinking in terms of "low-carb", as that places all carbohydrate foods in one bucket. rather, lets think about deleting processed sugars, and "foods" from our diet, that our bodies do not want, and replace them with REAL FOODS, that our bodies appreciate. our bodies are electrochemical systems, and like any system, they run best when they are given the correct requirements.

[Lisa N]

our bodies are electrochemical systems, and like any system, they run best when they are given the correct requirements.

Yes, but unlike machines, different bodies have different requirements to run at peak performance and what some tolerate or even thrive on, others do not. There are also varying medical conditions that make it necessary to eat in a rather unbalanced way for a time to correct an existing imbalance such as insulin resistance. You seem to be rather focused on the earliest phases of Atkins which he fully admitted is unbalanced...for a purpose....and it only lasts a few weeks out of a lifetime of eating.

i was aghast at reading "protein power", and using such silliness as deleting carrots from your diet, because they were too high in carbs.

Why? There are other veggies lower in carbs and glycemic index that can provide the same (or better) amounts of beta carotine as carrots. Also, leaving them out would only be for a short while, not forever. Did you read the entire book?

i think one thing that we should do is quit thinking in terms of "low-carb", as that places all carbohydrate foods in one bucket. rather, lets think about deleting processed sugars, and "foods" from our diet, that our bodies do not want, and replace them with REAL FOODS, that our bodies appreciate.

To the casual reader/observer, this may seem like what low carbers do, when in fact, what most who have chosen to make this a lifestyle are doing is exactly what you are suggesting once they reach their weight loss goals and even while they are working towards their weight loss goals. ALL carbohydrates are not bad, even some higher glycemic carbs in the form of higher GI fruits and higher GI veggies are not bad in moderation for some people (higher GI doesn't work well for diabetics or insulin resistant people). There is plenty of room within a low carb lifestyle for meeting nutritional needs without eating high carb, high GI, highly processed foods. Interestingly enough, those fruits and veggies that are highest in vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals also tend to be those that are lowest in carbs and glycemic index as well. If I choose wisely, I seldom have trouble meeting my vitamin and mineral requirements even on 30 grams of carb per day. I also get 25-30 grams of fiber per day. Imagine what someone on maintainance levels of carbs between 60 and 100 grams per day can do nutrition-wise.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i am referring to people en masse, not those that have particular problems, such as diabetes, or such. it is my belief that none of us differ in our requirements, by all that much, in terms of our genetic make-up. what is more important is our activity levels, and the environment in which we live. for example, on a day that i do vigourous cardio activity, i need a lot of carbs. that is true for everyone. i want to see a marathon runner, etc., who is not intaking a lot of carbs. carbs are by far and away, our best and fastest source of energy. however, on a day that i do weight training, and do not put any large strain on my body's resources, i do not need nearly as many carbohydrates. people are too focused on losing weight. the goal of nutrition is not about weight control, although correct nutrition will stabilize one's weight. the goal of nutrition is to keep the body healthy, and working as it was designed.

when you mention that i am too focused on those early stages, you could be correct. but then we should change the name of it to something other than "low carb", because low-carbohydrate diets are not optimal. let's start naming it the "optimal nutrition" diet. even in my "optimal Nutrition" diet, i would not have a first phase of low carbs. the diet that is best for an individual on day 1000 is also the same one that is best on day 1.

[Dean4Prez]

people are too focused on losing weight. the goal of nutrition is not about weight control, although correct nutrition will stabilize one's weight. the goal of nutrition is to keep the body healthy

So do you think that someone who is 80 lbs overweight will be "healthy" if he/she "stabilizes" at that weight? Or should he/she "focus" on losing the extra pounds?

and working as it was designed.

Designed for what? Spending 8 hours running down and killing a deer with a sharp rock, or spending 8 hours running down and killing a computer worm with a software patch? :) People don't have the same activity levels or metabolisms -- why should they have the same diets?

[gymeejet]

again, the goal of nutrition is to bring the body to its maximum health, not to bring it to some weight level. one needs to focus on the goal of optimum health. if you do that, your weight will stabilize at the point where your body is designed to be. this may not be where you want it to be, by looking in the mirror, but where your body wants to be, based on health. however, it will not be 80 pounds overweight.

if you re-read my post, i think you will find that i already said that people need different requirements, based upon their activity levels, and their environment. the more vigorous activity one does, the more carbohydrates one needs, but you never want to go as low as most of the low-carb diets talk about.

these diets give quick weight losses, which is why they are so popular, and make lots of bucks for those touting them. but the bottom line remains the same - they are not good for you. they allow too much fat, and not enough carbs. the only fat that one needs in their diets are the 2 essential fats. the body can easily manufacture all the others.

like i said in my first post - we need to meet our protein requirements, our 2 essential fats, and then the rest in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. if people followed this, they would live to their maximum, which is somewhere between 100 and 140, and would keep their 21ish energy peak into their 50's. the standard american diet (SAD) keeps people at less than 50% of their optimums, which is why they age so quickly, live with diseases their last decade, and die in their 60s and 70s (many of them.)

[Lisa N]

i am referring to people en masse, not those that have particular problems, such as diabetes, or such.

Currently in America alone, there are at least 20 million people that have diabetes and at least half as many again who have it and have not yet been diagnosed with it. That's a lot of people and doesn't even begin the address the number of people who are insulin resistant but have not yet developed diabetes. If that's not people en masse, I don't know what is.

i want to see a marathon runner, etc., who is not intaking a lot of carbs.

Have a look through the General Excercise forum. I also read about a doctor who works for the Atkins center, although I can't remember his name, who runs marathons while following a low carb lifestyle. Again, since you're talking about people "en masse", people en masse don't run marathons and certainly don't do so on a daily basis for those that do. For those that do run marathons on a regular basis, they most likely don't need to restrict their carbs as much as an average person who does not participate in such strenuous activities on a regular basis (and I'd wager that includes most of us).


the goal of nutrition is not about weight control, although correct nutrition will stabilize one's weight. the goal of nutrition is to keep the body healthy, and working as it was designed.

While this sounds good in theory, it doesn't seem to work as predicted in practice, when pursued through the recommended food pyramid. Americans have been exercising more and eating less fat and calories over the past couple of decades and yet heart disease, obesity and diabetes are soaring. One can have very good nutrition and still be overweight through various mechanisms besides simply too many calories. You're right in that the goal of nutrition is not weight control, it's about providing the body with optimal nutrients to function at its best but that doesn't address being overweight or give a solution for it.
Being overweight carries with it a great deal more health risks than eating in even an unbalanced manner for a period of time and we've already established that low carbing is not unbalanced if done properly; if provides the needed vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids and essential proteins that a body needs for good health.


we should change the name of it to something other than "low carb", because low-carbohydrate diets are not optimal.

It's called low carb, because in relation to what the average person eats in a day (300+ grams of carb) it IS low, even at maintainanace levels of 60-100 grams per day. There are a few who would need to consume less carbs than that to maintain and a few who can consume more and maintain, but 60-100 is the average. You also have not established that low carb diets are not optimal. In fact, it seems that we've established that optimal nutrition is quite possible on a level of carb intake even below 60 grams of carb per day.


these diets give quick weight losses, which is why they are so popular, and make lots of bucks for those touting them. but the bottom line remains the same - they are not good for you. they allow too much fat, and not enough carbs.

Again, you have not established that too much fat (how much would that be, by the way, and which types of fat?) is bad for you and that the body has some required level of carbs. In fact, there are no "essential" carbs while there are essential fatty acids, essential amino acids and essential vitamins and minerals. Studies have shown that the body can function just as well using ketones as an energy source as it can using glucose, in some cases (heart muscle, for example), it functions better on ketones than glucose.
Studies have also shown that the amount of fat, even saturated fats, typical to a low carb diet do not have the negative impact on cardiac profiles predicted. In fact, the cardiac profiles of those following a low carb/high fat regime as opposed to a high carb/low fat regime improved more.

the more vigorous activity one does, the more carbohydrates one needs, but you never want to go as low as most of the low-carb diets talk about.

I won't argue with that, but nobody needs 300+ grams of carb per day. Most people even doing vigorous excercise do just fine on less than 100 grams of carb per day. Again, going as low as most of the low carb diets talk about is for the purpose of weight loss while doing moderate exercise and carb levels are increased as the individual can tolerate througout that process until maintainance is reached. Since your profile indicates that you've read Protein Power, I'll assume that you understand the physiological reasons why lowering carbs would be necessary to get to that point. Personally, I never had a problem completing a Curves For Women workout, which combines cardio with weight resistance, on 30 grams of carb per day.


we need to meet our protein requirements, our 2 essential fats, and then the rest in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. if people followed this, they would live to their maximum, which is somewhere between 100 and 140, and would keep their 21ish energy peak into their 50's.

This has never been shown to be true. In fact, when they interviewed centenarians about their diets and lifestyles, they did not differ greatly from their counterparts who had died at a much younger age and their cardiac profiles were not better, either. It appears that genetics plays a much greater role in how long a person will live than merely diet.
Eating correctly, however, will certainly do much to keep you healthy and energetic longer than eating incorrectly. For me, eating correctly is low carb and involves eating every food that you listed above, although most likely in very different proportions than you do.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i do not know to which studies that you refer, but most studies belong in the circular file, because they have pre-determined outcomes, when said information influences people's behavior. this is tremendously true in the field of nutrition.

one does not have the same energy levels on low-carb diets, as they do when using sugar. sugar is a wonderful nutrient for the body, IN ITS CORRECT PROPORTION. people have abused their bodies through their diets, by eating lots of junk food. low-carb diets have gone too far the other way. it is scary to me that there are people who believe in limiting the amount of carrots they eat, but intaking quite a bit of animal fat is okay. all carbohydrates are not the same. all fats are not the same. we need plenty of sugar along with our essential fats, and protein.

those people living to 100 today, would be those who should be living to 140. and i do not only mean living long, but living healthily. medicine/science allows people to exist longer, not necessarily LIVE longer.

in terms of how much fat, i have stated as a starting point, 2 tablespoons of safflower oil (75% omega6, which is 28 grams of fat, and about 240 calories.) protein (probably at least 100 grams for everyone, with many having higher requirements, because of size and other variables.) the rest should be fresh produce and whole grains, because it is in these foods where we get all our phyto-nutrients, as well as our sugar. but not processed twinkies and such. as much freshly grown produce as possible. this is the biggest mistake that low-carb diets make. they do not differentiate between the carbs. and i laugh whenever i hear that potatoes are to be avoided because they have a high glycemic index. one does not need to worry about glycemic index, but rather the types of carbs they are eating. if one limited oneself to fresh produce and whole grains as one's carbohydrate intake, this would be all one would need to do. you could toss the high glycemic index out the window.

[Lisa N]

most studies belong in the circular file, because they have pre-determined outcomes

Sometimes that is true, especially with the studies that "showed" that fat is bad for us because the discounted the high amounts of carbs that the participants also ate. However...the studies that I referred to regarding the effect of low carb/high fat diets on cardiac profiles don't appear to fit the notion that there was a pre-determined outcome as the researchers readily admitted that they expected exactly the opposite outcomes (worsened cardiac profiles) that they got.

sugar is a wonderful nutrient for the body, IN ITS CORRECT PROPORTION

I disagree. Sugar is not a nutrient at all and has never been defined as such. Furthermore, there is no established "minimum daily requirement" for sugar. Sugar is quite harmful for most people, and I'm not talking about the natural sugars that one finds in fruits and vegetables, but the processed refined sugars and corn syrups found in most processed foods today. Sugar does not provide any essential vitamin, mineral or phytonutrient, nor does it provide any essential fatty acid or amino acid and the WHO has recently recommended that added sugars be kept to a total of 10% of caloric intake per day for all people.


it is scary to me that there are people who believe in limiting the amount of carrots they eat, but intaking quite a bit of animal fat is okay.

Why? On what do you base that the intake of animal fat is bad?


all carbohydrates are not the same. all fats are not the same.

On that we agree. Highly processed, high GI carbs do not provide your body with the same nutrition that unprocessed low GI carb do. Transfats should never be consumed.


in terms of how much fat, i have stated as a starting point, 2 tablespoons of safflower oil (75% omega6, which is 28 grams of fat, and about 240 calories.)

And this was determined how?


this is the biggest mistake that low-carb diets make. they do not differentiate between the carbs. and i laugh whenever i hear that potatoes are to be avoided because they have a high glycemic index. one does not need to worry about glycemic index, but rather the types of carbs they are eating.

I get the impression that you haven't read enough on the subject yet. Low carb diets make a very big distinction between the different carbs. If you disagree that glycemic index matters, you're disagreeing with a growing number of doctors and scientists. GI does matter for a lot of reasons that you seem to be unaware of. Furthermore, glycemic index IS about the types of carbs you are eating; it's how they are distinguished. Those with a high GI raise your blood sugar higher and and faster (diabetic or not) and produce a greater insulin response than those that are lower. If you don't understand the impact that this higher insulin response has on a person, you may wish to go back and re-read those sections in Protein Power that explain it in very good detail.
You might also want to consider reading Atkins For Life because it seems that the two of you are in fairly good agreement about what a healthy diet as a lifestyle for those that do not need to lose weight looks like, other than the fat content. Carrots and potatoes are not banned from a low carb lifestyle forever, depending on the individual's tolerance for them. The only thing that is to be avoided on a permanent basis are processed sugar and highly processed foods that contain added sugars and transfats.

Gymeejet..with all due respect, it seems like what we have here is your opinion that a low carb lifestyle is bad based on what I'm not quite sure since you haven't produced any studies or scientific evidence to back up your opinion thus far and don't seem to have done a great deal of reading on the subject. Furthermore, you don't seem to have a good understanding of what a low carb lifestyle IS other than the initial phases which last a short time out of a lifetime of eating.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
irregardless of what topic we could be debating, i could come up with studies showing that both sides are true. through life experience, i have come to realize that most "studies" would be better classified as "advertising". so i do not intend to quote any studies to you. you surely must be aware that there are many in the nutrition field who are vigorously opposed to low-carb diets.

i think you missed the main point about glycemic index. if you are eating good natural foods, you do not need to worry about it, because you will get a mix. it is only when people started eating twinkies and such, that sugar became a problem. if you eat a variety of vegetables, you do not need to worry about the glycemic index. just make sure you are eating plenty of fresh produce.

i have read tons and tons of nutritional articles in my life. but "my opinions" come from putting that into practice, both with myself, and with others whom i help. most of these doctors and researchers have never done this.

there is only one person in the nutritional field that i truly respect. he is truly a pioneer. but to my knowledge, he has never written any books about it. he simply tows boats across the harbor on his 70th or 80th birthday.

a big part of optimal health is consistent exercise. some of that should be vigorous cardiovascular exercise, to stimulate your body, help it delete toxins, etc. you will never get out of 2nd gear on a low-carb diet. if you want to shift to 3rd, 4th, and overdrive, you had better darn well have trained your muscles to store a lot of glycogen, be eating plenty of carbs.

i know on days when i don't have my full pepp, i benefit more by eating a lot of carbs that evening, moreso than i need rest.

if i recall correctly, the brain pretty much runs on sugar, and vigorous exercise demands it.

you asked how i determined the amount of fat - there is no magical formula. i at least doubled the average amount of essential fats that most books were suggesting. the one big nutritional mistake that i made was going non-fat for over a decade. and i still eat no other fat. so i want to get lots of my essential fats. i never felt any ill effects from non-fat during that period. it was only when it started to affect my sleep, that i knew something needed fixing. but i never put any toxics or other crap in me. i never smoked, etc., so my body was probably able to cope with deficient essential fats much better because of it.

you asked about animal fat. all other fats are totally unneeded. most fats carry very little nutrients with them. while natural carbohydrate foods (produce) carry tons and tons of phytonutrients that we will never be able to totally classify.

it may surprise you that there are many people whom i tell that their diets are too weighed down with carbs. there is a large group of people who basically eat very well, in terms of toxics. this is because they are eating lots of natural foods. i was one of these people. many females and many older people fall into this group. the carbs that we are consuming is not the problem. it is the LACK OF PROPER PROTEIN AND ESSENTIAL FATS. the fix is easy. one needs to get the proper protein and essential fats, and the rest fixes itself.

we can not really go to supermarkets and get real food

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
you are distinguishing carbs strictly by GI. i am distinguishing them by good food, and crap food, which is what low carb diets do not do. to think that a potato and a twinkie are the same, if their GI happens to be the same, is absolutely ludicrous. this is what i am saying. low carb diets remind me of the blind men on the elephant. low-carbers are not seeing the whole picture.

when i am speaking sugars, i am always referring to natural foods. i am sure that at least we agree on all the processed foods are not good for us. most of that is loaded with sugar and animal fat.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
just to show you that i can find articles, here is one.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/FENR/FENRv13n1/fenrv13n1p87.pdf

among other things, it states the following :

within the body, most dietary sugars are converted to glucose, a major fuel used by all cells and the primary fuel required by brain tissue for normal function. low levels of glucose in the blood will impair the brain and cause permanent mental impairment or worse - coma or death.

so "my opinions" are not just wild dreams i came up with when i was pondering the universe. they have some basis in fact. but until i put into practice any article, including this one, it had better pass the "gymeejet test" - whereby i test it on me and other people. it has been encouraging to me that whenever i get a result from something, most other people also get the same results, which allows me a greater confidence level that my body is behaving in the same fashion as the overwhelming majority.

in strenuous exercise, nothing can take the place of sugar. without it, you will do a lot more dropping than shopping - LOL.

again, sugar/carbs are important and are our best source of creating energy to do all the things our bodies do, both internally, and externally. SUGAR IS A WONDERFUL THING, in the correct amounts. we have evolved in tandem with all the other living things on this planet, and we had better darn well eat many of the foods that have evolved along with us, instead of the crap that we have manufactured in the past 100 years.

sugar is not bad - however many foods containing sugar are bad. fat is not bad - however many foods containing fat are bad. protein is not bad - however many foods containing protein are bad. iron is important. too much iron is toxic. etc. etc. etc.

once again, the correct amount of protein and essential fats are needed for most of our anabolic functions, and the good carbs for our catabolic functions.

[cc48510]

For starters, noone has ever shown Monounsaturated Fats to be bad for you. So, I don't see any reason they should be restricted. In fact, studies have shown Monounsaturates to be good for Cholesterol. There may be a minimum intake of Omega-3s, but there should be no maximum [within reason.] Omega-3s are known to not only improve Cholesterol, but may also improve Triglycerides. Based on the above, a diet high in Monounsaturates and Omega-3s would be beneficial for the heart.

As for animal fats, Stearic Acid (primary saturated fat in Beef) has been shown to have little negative effect on Cholesterol. In fact, Beef [and Lard] are slightly higher in Monounsaturates than Saturates. Some leaner meats perform even better. Chicken and Pork are higher in Unsaturates relative to Saturates than Beef. Some fish are high in Monounsaturates, and others high in Omega-3s, but very low in Saturates. Eggs are actually relatively low in Saturated Fat. The main complaint most nutritionists have against them is their Cholesterol content. Yet, no study has proven a direct link between dietary and blood cholesterol.

As for nutrients, Beef and it juices are a particularly rich source of Potassium and B Vitamins (B6 and B12). In fact, without animal products (meat or dairy) it is very difficult, if not virtually impossible to get you RDA of B12. Pork and some lean meats are high in other vitamins and minerals.

You say we should eat whole grains because of their Nutrient content. Whole Wheat Bread has less than 5% of the vitamins/minerals it does contain (except Sodium.) Whole Grain bread is missing 4 Vitamins and Minerals entirely...Pork is missing only 2. Pork meets or exceeds the levels [found in Whole Grain Bread] of 12 vitamins. That is almost all of them. In addition, it has almost 5 times the Potassium, and less than one-third of the sodium of Whole Grain Bread. A serving of Steak has more vitamins and minerals than a serving of Whole Grain bread. About the only major nutrient they have meat beat on is Fiber (meat has no fiber.) But, compared to other lower-carb produce (Green veggies)...Whole grain bread is actually rather low in fiber. Bran is the only whole grain that even begins to compete with green vegetables on fiber content (realtive to carbs/calories). Shrimp is high in Vitamin D...Milk has to have it added. Most vegetables and grains have NO Vitamin D.

My point is that Whole Grains [and Tubers] have little nutritional value. I do not consider potatoes to be vegetables. They are botanically very disimilar to lower-glycemic, higher-fiber*, higher-nutrient* leafy vegetables. A Tuber (such as a potato) holds the plants excess starch (almost always super high GI) or sugar that a plant produces. Tubers contain only a few nutrients. I'll admit, the few nutrients they contain are off the scales. A potato has 1/4 your RDA of Vitamin C, but is it really the best way to get your Vitamin C ??? Brocolli is much higher (near 100%). Most fruits have just as much Vitamin C and Potassium...plus they also usually contain Vitamin A. A carrot has 343% of your Vitamin A, but is low in all other Vitamins and Minerals. One carrot is actually not too bad carb-wise at about 4g Net Carbs. But, it would take alot of them [and alot of carbs] to get your other vitamins.

I have no problem eating lots of fruits and vegetables...in fact, I already eat well in excess of USDA/AHA recomendations [on Atkins.] My point is that not all fruits and vegetables are as good for you as others and animal products is not always a bad thing. In fact, dairy is a rich source of Calcium. Choose vegetables that are high in fiber and vitamins/minerals, eat reasonable amounts of animal products (especially fish), and limit your consumption of grains and tubers and you will be healthy.

[gymeejet]

hi cc,
with respect to vegetables, i say eat them all, for the most part. we do not need them for their vitamin c, beta carotene, vitamin e, etc., because we can get them in pill form. but there are literally tens of thousands of chemicals that make up an apple or a potato. the health food industry thrives on it. a year doesn't go by when some phytonutrient, such as lycopene, etc. isn't touted as the world's greatest since sliced bread - LOL. so i am happy to hear that you eat lots of them.

with regards to fat, our 2 essentials are the only fats that our body can not produce. most foods high in fat, are low in nutrients, with respect to the number of calories they contain.

however, i did not say that saturated fat or mono fat was bad for you, in the sense that it is toxic. the body does use it. while most of it is stored, and used for energy, some of it is used for building processes. there is just no need to intake it, since none of us is gonna run out of fat. we will die long before that happens - LOL. and the great majority of us are eating way more than our body needs.

i won't get in the meat debate with you, other than to say that i think it is one of the worst things that our society eats.

my appearance here is based on reaching one's optimal health. the outline i have given will allow you to do that. a low carb diet will not. most of the low-carbers have this irrational hatred of sugar, as the scapegoat for all eating disorders. i have often said that sugar is the most abused substance in america. it is still also one of the most important things our bodies need, IN ITS CORRECT PROPORTION. the low-carbers limit it too much. you have swung the pendulum too far. at some point, perhaps they will find the middle of the swing, and intake a more healthy amount.

thanks for your input.

[tamarian]

i won't get in the meat debate with you, other than to say that i think it is one of the worst things that our society eats.

my appearance here is based on reaching one's optimal health. the outline i have given will allow you to do that.

How can one reach optimal health without meat? De-evolve back?

I respect your religious beliefs, but they should be acknowledged as such, opinions and religious bias.

If you have any logical arguments, please feel free to share. It's been several posts so far, and all with vague titles such as "optimal health, healthy" etc. Which obviously means what you consider healthy. That's fine, but it's not healthy, it's just what you think is healthy.

Would be nice if you read a bit before to educate yourself, before attempting to inform others. I hope you don't get offended, and this is not meant as an insult, but people should read some, before starting to debate issues they haven't read, and just take on personal beliefs.

Wa'il

[gymeejet]

hi tamarian,
i am christian. but i stopped eating meat, solely for nutritional reasons. now at this point, i would not revert for both nutritional and moral reasons, but the moral did not develop until long after i stopped for nutritional reasons.

however, i would not call it religious. there are many proclaimed atheists who also feel the same away about taking another animal's life. i would simply label it as "believing another life is as special to that animal as mine is to me".

i know my mom had extreme worries when i stopped eating meat. she had been taught that it was necessary for correct protein (i wonder if the meat lobby had anything to do with that - LOL). well it has been 28 years without meat, and while i am 48, i still can perform at my peak energy levels.

thanks for your input.

[Frederick]

Hi Gymeejet,

I think it’s great for anyone to show compassion for all living species on Earth. Truly, I think the world would be a far better place for everyone if we all held such compassion equally for all under the Sun.

However, that is a philosophical issue (by the way, loved Animal Liberation, though it didn’t sway me to give up meat), and not pragmatic nutritional one. I appreciate that while you feel it is optimal in regards to aggregate values in your life to abstain from eating animal flesh, this in no means extends to optimal nutrition per se. Refraining from animal sustenance based on religious, philosophical, or even palate preference has absolutely no bearing on the values of nutrition.

Now, as you saliently observed earlier, there are countless studies—both from the beef and vegan cliques—which substantially bolster each respective side of the issue. All other considerations aside, in my view, I’d have to assert that the newest research has swayed the argument in favor that eating animal products would be more conducive to optimal health than abstaining from it.

I agree that it would be pointless to offer you the tons articles and research reports which validates the veracity of my view, which you’ve probably already read; and, equally, it would be futile for you to offer studies in return, since I’ve no doubt read them at one time or another. Nonetheless, I will offer this. First, eating animal products was essential to our brains evolution—there is no dispute in the scientific community that if our ancestors had not become carnivorous, our brain capacity not be anywhere near what it is today. Secondly, vitamin b12, an essential nutrient is ONLY found in animal products (I mean absorbable b12, and not the unusable ones in seaweed). Finally, there have been countless documented cases of “failure to thrive” for many who have adopted Vegan diets over a period of time; but, there has never been such a case for those who eat primarily animal products.

I’m glad you are thriving while keeping to an eating regimen consistent not only with your personal views on nutrition but also on your wider philosophical views. However, respectfully, in my view, your assertions that animal products are less than optimal should be qualified by your philosophical views more so than pure nutritional concerns. I think in recent years, the science of this debate is becoming clearer, and will be even more so until eventually the murky pools of this issue can’t be denied by any rational person.

With kindest regards,

Frederick

[mnbooger]

Hi Gymeejet,
I was wondering if you read the whole article that you provided a link for.
In the paragraph imediately following the coma or death line that you quoted, they found that there was no direct correlation between sucrose and carb consumption and the risk for diabetes. However, there is a link between high glycemic loads and diets high in refined grains and the risk for diabetes. So GI does matter, coming from the article you provided.
Most of the article seems to defend sugar. But, when I read stuff like "there is no evidence that refined sugars such as sucrose behave any differently from other types of simple carbohydrates." I don't get their message that sugar is good. I get the message that simple carbs and sugar have the same effect regardless of where they come from. And from my experience, sugar is bad for me.

[Lisa N]

you asked about animal fat. all other fats are totally unneeded.

Unneeded for what? According to what I've read, saturated fats increase the pattern A LDL particles and decrease the pattern B LDL particles which decreases risk for cardiovascular disease.
Dietary fat is also needed for calcium absorption.
Conjugated Linoleic Acid can only be obtained through intake of ruminant products (beef fat, full-fat cheese, full-fat milk).
Fat is one of the body's primary energy sources.


within the body, most dietary sugars are converted to glucose, a major fuel used by all cells and the primary fuel required by brain tissue for normal function. low levels of glucose in the blood will impair the brain and cause permanent mental impairment or worse - coma or death.

First of all, the brain can and does function quite well on ketones as an energy source. Secondly, the body maintains blood glucose within a certain range in non-diabetic individuals (70-110), either through converting carbohydrates to glucose or through gluconeogenesis if carbohydrates are unavailable. It is only in diabetic individuals where blood glucose can fall to the levels that would induce coma or death.


i want to see a marathon runner, etc., who is not intaking a lot of carbs. carbs are by far and away, our best and fastest source of energy.

I've read 2 studies recently where they tested this theory. Results? In a study of trained male and female runners, those with 44% of their calories coming from fat increased their endurance time by up to 14% over the low fat group (13% of calories from fat). In another study of cyclists, those with up to 70% of their caloric intake from fat nearly doubled their resistance to fatigue during prolonged moderate intensity cycling.

you are distinguishing carbs strictly by GI. i am distinguishing them by good food, and crap food, which is what low carb diets do not do. to think that a potato and a twinkie are the same, if their GI happens to be the same, is absolutely ludicrous.

low carb does distinguish between good food and crap food (hint...you won't find anyone on low carb eating crap food as you call it). As for the difference in GI between the potato and the twinkie, the twinkie is actually lower as would be a Snickers bar, but both of those are also nutritionally empty and neither are part of a low carb program.

one does not need to worry about glycemic index, but rather the types of carbs they are eating. if one limited oneself to fresh produce and whole grains as one's carbohydrate intake, this would be all one would need to do. you could toss the high glycemic index out the window.

I see. So it doesn't matter how many or what types of high glycemic grains and veggies you consume as long as they are fresh and natural? Studies (yes, I know...you don't care about studies) have shown that diets that contain a lot of high GI foods, and the source didn't matter; when it comes to GI, your body doesn't care if it's a Twinkie or a potato, lead to lower HDL which increases risk for cardiovascular disease.
You can throw the glycemic index out the window if you like, but I'll continue to use it as a basis for how good or not good any food is for me as well as the vitamin, mineral and phytonutrient content. Once again, those that are highest in all these categories also tend to be the lowest in carbs and lowest on the glycemic index, so I win on all fronts. :)

i know my mom had extreme worries when i stopped eating meat. she had been taught that it was necessary for correct protein

And she was right to be concerned since animal protein is the only source of complete essential amino acids. Without using animal protein as your source of essential amino acids, most people have a tough time getting enough of them.

in terms of how much fat, i have stated as a starting point, 2 tablespoons of safflower oil (75% omega6, which is 28 grams of fat, and about 240 calories.) protein (probably at least 100 grams for everyone, with many having higher requirements, because of size and other variables.) the rest should be fresh produce and whole grains, because it is in these foods where we get all our phyto-nutrients, as well as our sugar.

Let's see....that's a total of 640 calories from fat and protein. If I'm shooting for about 1,600 calories total per day, that means that the other 960 have to come from carbs. That's 240 grams of carb per day. Can we say "Diabetic developing complications and needing to go on insulin therapy because blood sugars are shooting into the atmosphere"? Sorry...tried it that way (ala the ADA high carb/low fat/low protein diet) and wound up with my blood pressure sky high and my blood sugars out of control. No, thanks. :p I'd rather eat like this and have normal blood pressure, normal blood sugar, no need for medications and picture-perfect blood work.

[Lisa N]

i have read tons and tons of nutritional articles in my life. but "my opinions" come from putting that into practice, both with myself, and with others whom i help. most of these doctors and researchers have never done this.

Let's see. Dr. Atkins not only used his nutritional approach to treat his patients, he followed it himself. Same for Drs. Sears (The Zone), Bernstein (Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution), Eades (Protein Power), Heller (Carbohydrate Addict's Diet) and Schwarzbein (The Schwarzbein Principle). Their experience in themselves and in their patients directly contradicts yours.
Furthermore, since you base your opinions on what you have put into practice, how are you then qualified in any way to give an opinion on a low carb diet since you yourself said that you have never tried it nor do you ever intend to?
At least I have the benefit of experience on both sides of the fence and in comparing the two, feel that this is far better for my health than the high carb/low fat way. My doctor and my blood studies agree. :)

[gymeejet]

hi frederick,
just to reiterate one point, that i am not sure you understood. i stopped eating meat SOLELY for nutritional reasons. i was interjecting my philosophy because the one post hinted that my reasons were not of a nutritional nature.

and though i am extremely disciplined with my diet, i do also take pills twice a day. while i can not be sure, i feel that extra supplies of some nutrients may be important for optimal health. at worse, i have more expensive urine than average - LOL.

whether i would be getting enough b12 without meat is not known, since i think for most of my adult life, i have taken supplements. for example, i take about 3 grams of C, another 3 of bio-flavonoids, full b complex, multi-mineral, and a few others.

thanks for your input.

[gymeejet]

hi mnbooger,
somehow my message or point about GI is not sinking in. perhaps it is my poor explanation. let me try again.

if your car needs 85 octane to run efficiently, and all the pumps at your station meet that requirement, then octane is not an issue for you.

likewise, if you eat a good natural foods diet, full of fresh produce, the glycemic index of your foods in your diet will not cause the average person any problem. it is only when processed sugar foods became a staple of the american diet, and thusly the extreme abuse of sugar, did sugar become a problem.

i skimmed through parts of the article, but did not read it in complete detail.

[FionaMcB]

i have read tons and tons of nutritional articles in my life. but "my opinions" come from putting that into practice, both with myself, and with others whom i help. most of these doctors and researchers have never done this.

gymeejet, I'm sure it would be instructive to meet some of those "others whom i help." Hear what they have to say about your medical and dietary advice.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i have also earlier mentioned taking flax for omega3, and i said at least 100 grams of protein. basically finding out how much protein and essential fats that you need, and then the rest as good carbs.

the body does try to burn fat whenever possible, during exercise, simply because it has a very limited supply of glycogen. moderate intensity bicycling would be one such exercise where fat may be used for energy, especially if we are talking about a somewhat consistent routine (i.e. flat land, as say opposed to uphill, downhill, uphill, downhill).

as you know, i do not buy into studies anywhere near as much as you do. i use my life experience, and others that i know, because at least with these results, i know they can be trusted to be accurate.

as far as other doctors putting their plans into action, that is good. might i ask what they have accomplished, or able to do ?

i am 48. people are amazed at how young i look, and more importantly, the energy level that i have. i know of no one, at any age, who can exercise at my level of intensity and endurance. i do not expect you to believe me. but for sake of argument, let us just assume that this is true. would you not wonder how a 48-year old can outlast a 21-year old ? do sears, and atkins, and the rest make such claims. when i went in to have my special blood tests done, the doctor had me come in again to re-do my heart electrical tests. he said he does many professional soccer players, and had never seen a heart as strong as mine.

i do a lot of high-intensity training. without sugar, you just can not do it. fat is for prolonged, slower types of activity. but vigorous exercise requires sugar. and you will not get to your highest level of fitness and health without doing some high intensity workouts.

i have absolutely no doubts that my original advice will have the last word. it leads to "optimal health". and i do not intend to worry about the GI of the potatoes and carrots that i eat.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
http://www.nutricia.com.my/facts_lactose.htm

above article stresses the need for lactose for calcium absorption. i have no doubts it was funded by the dairy industry. i suspect that someday you will not be so willing to believe in "studies". i can find you some study supporting just about anything you say. heck, there is a whole society out there, who still believes that the earth is flat, and has studies proving it - LOL.

i do not consider my diet to be low-fat. i now get an overabundace of essential fats, based upon any reading. so if fat is indeed needed for calcium absorption, that is fine with me. i may take as much as 4 tablespoons of safflower oil each day, and eat a half cup of flax meal 5 days out of 7. once again, saturated fat is not needed in one's diet. our body will manufacture whatever we need.

[tamarian]

i have absolutely no doubts that my original advice will have the last word. it leads to "optimal health". and i do not intend to worry about the GI of the potatoes and carrots that i eat.

I have no doubt that "optimal health" is the right way to go. Unfortunately, I don't think you know what that means :) Just judging by how you view it, and how you base it not on reason but on faith.

You might look like a knock out young lady at 48, but that makes you no different than my old roomate Bob, A 2 pack smoker, 6-pack drinker, and a baby face, healthy, eats all junk. That doesn't mean much in the genetic pool.

By religion, you misunderstood that to mean "organized" religion, doesn't have to be so. Many members of organized religions have their own superstitions. I would use the word philosophy, but it won't apply in this case, as philosophy implies some form of deduction and reasoning.

It may seem reasonable to you that people should ignore scientific studies and imperical evidence, and follow some anonymous poster named gymeejet who found a new buzz word for them like "optimal health". But it's not :) So, feel free to keep ignoring science, nutrition and biochemistry, but don't feel bad if your valuable advice gets ignored as well.

Wa'il

[gymeejet]

hi tamarian,
i am a full believer in empirical knowledge. what we read is all third-party. we have no idea whether it is true or not. i "empirically" put theories to work. i have first-hand empirical knowledge of what i say. i guess i should be called thomas - LOL. btw, i am a male. i did not intend to say that i was a knockout, but just young looking. but again, the activity/energy of youth is what is of main importance.

you seem to think that your side has all the scientific evidence. actually, my side probably has tons more. but i am not here to argue studies supporting low carbs versus studies not suppoirting low carbs. but rather, to inject some good advice from someone who EMPIRICALLY practices it, and has had tremendous results from it - moreso than i think all of your low-carb doctors can claim.

[tamarian]

you seem to think that your side has all the scientific evidence. actually, my side probably has tons more

Umm, so why are you afraid to show them? We've gone through the effort to publish all these scientific studies on the website and in the studies forum. There's nothing to hide.

Why would you "refrain" from showing such evidence? Should the world just follow you because you say you're healthy? Even if I believe all the great health you describe for yourself, how imperical is one's personal account? Even if you submit personal photos and medical records, that's one person. An evidence of one person is not scientific, and mathematically weak. Otherwise, I'd recommend everyone follow my old roomate Bob's diet, of 2-packs a day, and 6 bears a day for "optimal health". At least I've seen Bob. ;)

Wa'il

[gymeejet]

do you recall my mentioning of the 1 person in nutrition that i respect ? in the 50's, he was considered a kook by the medical field. exercise was bad for you, so the doctors told us. and studies by the gross to prove it. Jack LaLaane just kept preaching and doing, and now look who has crow on their faces. If I want to know about something, i go to someone who does it, not someone who writes about it.

i loved that quote by yul brynner in the king and i that went something like positively knowing, and then not so sure. i am sure one of you can recite it exactly. but the point is how knowledge that we are so sure has been proven, turns out to be wrong. use studies, but do not let studies use you.

[tamarian]

do you recall my mentioning of the 1 person in nutrition that i respect ? in the 50's, he was considered a kook by the medical field. exercise was bad for you, so the doctors told us. and studies by the gross to prove it. Jack LaLaane just kept preaching and doing, and now look who has crow on their faces. If I want to know about something, i go to someone who does it, not someone who writes about it.

i loved that quote by yul brynner in the king and i that went something like positively knowing, and then not so sure. i am sure one of you can recite it exactly. but the point is how knowledge that we are so sure has been proven, turns out to be wrong. use studies, but do not let studies use you.

Actually, exercise is good for you, and I'm not sure why science is bad? But I thought you said you had ton of scientific studies to prove your point. Just read your previous post, just before the last one.

However, I won't pressure you further, as I said, I realise this is more of a superstition/religion to you, and science is not in the picture as far as you're concerned.

I don't agree with you, but I won't disrespect your beliefs, you are entitled to that.

Wa'il

[gymeejet]

tamarian,
i gave you 2 studies that would probably be against your beliefs, as a low-carber. i could find you tons - you are still in the minority. but i have already told you guys that i am not into studies, and i have no desire to argue one man's studies versus another's.

and i do not think that science is bad. i have a major in computer science, and a very scientific mind. but i have enough wisdom to know that most studies belong in the circular file. perhaps you may find this out sometime. perhaps you do not fully understand the "scientific method". it involves formulating a theory, gathering empirical facts or data, and then re-formulating the theory to match the given results. everything i say has been put to practice in exactly this way. so please refrain from the ludicrous comments about me not being scientific, and using superstitions. it only serves to make you look biased.

and i have tested this out on other people, like i have already mentioned, very specifically to eliminate the possibility that for some reason my body is different. i have already stated that i have found that my body seems to act the same as everyone else's. so this gives me greater confidence that what i observe in myself is also true for a great number of people. and i do not need to wonder whether my data is accurate, or who is paying to have my study done.

and i do not have much respect for doctors with regards to nutrition and health. just as with jack lalaane, they are very often wrong. the doctors thought that jack was gonna have a heart attack and worse, by doing all that useless exercise.

you guys are not getting enough carbs for optimum health.

it is my belief that many of you are willing to rationalize anything away, if it means loss of weight.

[gymeejet]

tamarian,
you have been the only poster who has been openly attacking of me. i now notice that you are also the forum founder. this leads me to believe that you do not want anyone here to argue against the low carb diets that you believe in. so i will leave - i do not believe in staying where i am not wanted.

i gave you guys some advice. perhaps it may have some good results in the future with one of you. in any case, good bye, and i wish all of you the very healthiest.

[Lisa N]

above article stresses the need for lactose for calcium absorption.

Yes. How convenient that all dairy products contain lactose. It also stresses that Vitamin D is needed for calcium absorption. Vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin and nowhere in the article does it say that you need only lactose and vitamin D.

i may take as much as 4 tablespoons of safflower oil each day, and eat a half cup of flax meal 5 days out of 7

Wait...this is about double what you started out recommending at the beginning of the thread. What you started out recommending would be about 13% fat on an 1,800 calorie diet and most would need more calories than that to maintain making the fat percentage even lower, especially if they were doing the type of strenuous exercise that you are prescribing. That's a very low fat diet by any standards.
You might also want to watch that Safflower oil since it's high in Omega 6 and most people already get too much in their diets from other sources. The best ratio of Omega 3:6 is 4:1. Also...where are you getting your Omega 9 fats from and your CLA?

as far as other doctors putting their plans into action, that is good. might i ask what they have accomplished, or able to do ?

Reversal of heart disease, normalization of blood sugars in diabetics, many of them without medications and helping hundreds of thousands of people achieve weight loss without starvation and loss of muscle mass and keep it off. In their experience, high levels of carbs combined with low levels of fats lead to high LDL and triglycerides along with low HDL, exactly the opposite of what is desired.


i do a lot of high-intensity training. without sugar, you just can not do it. fat is for prolonged, slower types of activity.

How do you know since you've never tried it? You also ignored the other study that I posted regarding runners and incresing their endurance time with a higher percentage of their calories (and therefore decreasing the amount of calories from carbs). Running IS a high intensity exercise.


You're also totally missing the point of GI. When it comes to GI, if two foods (let's use the potato and Twinkie example) have identical GI, your body will respond exactly the same to each of them and doesn't care what the source of the sugar is. As far as glycemic index is concerned, your body doesn't care if the sugar comes from a potato or a Twinkie, it will respond with a rise in blood sugar along with an equal response of insulin production to each of them. Now, we know that as far as nutrients (and by this I mean vitamins, minerals and fiber), the potato is marginally better, but as far as how your body will respond to the sugars in them, there is no difference.

[tamarian]

this leads me to believe that you do not want anyone here to argue against the low carb diets that you believe in. so i will leave - i do not believe in staying where i am not wanted.

LOL, aren't you arguing already? Did I stop you? I'm just trying to find out if you have any grounds to your claims.

Sorry if debate offends you, but that's to be expected when when you make such outlandish claims. :)

Wa'il

[tamarian]

tamarian,
i gave you 2 studies that would probably be against your beliefs, as a low-carber. i could find you tons - you are still in the minority.

You provided two links to opinion pieces, with no scientific studies.

There's a difference. :) And I won't hold my breath to see any of those tons you say you've read, if they're just article and personal advice..

I suspect your information is quite misguided, if you think vegetarians are the majority, but so is the rest of your plan.

Wa'il

[gymeejet]

tamarian,
you have shown an attitude towards me with every one of your posts. you continually misqote me. by being in the minority, i meant by being a low-carber. i am sure that was obvious to everyone else reading. by continually attempting to make me look superstitious, when i am not, etc. etc. lisa, on the other hand, never does that. she counters my points with points of her own. as the forum founder, you have shown poor taste.

[gymeejet]

lisa,
i have truly enjoyed your posts. you have never resorted to going after me personally, but instead gave good arguments for your beliefs. so let me take the time to answer your questions.

i try to get people to eat better. i used 2 tablespoons of safflower and some flax meal as starting points. i would be thrilled to death if people did this much. it would at least give them enough essential fats, according to anything i have read. it was not meant to define exact dosages, or say what i do personally.

we do differ on the amount of fat needed. other than essential fats, i do not believe that fat is needed in the diets. you will also never hear me speak about percentages of the 3 main food groups. what you will hear me say is get enough protein, and enough essential fats. then feed your body with natural carbs. not only will the percentages vary with different people, but more importantly, it will vary on a day to day basis, for one person. the level of proteins and essentials does not vary nearly so much with our activity levels, as does our carbohydrate needs.

so on a personal note, this is what i do. i make sure i meet my protein and essential needs each day. whatever else i eat during the day, to keep me satiated, is with good natural foods, which for the most part, is highly carb oriented.

while you tend to concentrate on the percentage of fat, i am concentrating on grams of essential fat. this i know is needed, by first-hand empirical knowledge.

i do not believe there have been any tests done with my suggestions. i do not disagree with you in regards to the low-fat, high carb diets that the masses have been on. but the problem has not been a lack of fat, but rather a lack of ESSENTIAL FATS. and of course, a lack of protein, in many of these cases.

from what i have read, a starting point for people in most climates is 2 omega6 to 1 omega3. the colder the climate, it has been found, even with fish and plants, that they contain a higher omega3 concentration, than does their warmer counterparts.

i am not convinced that people's intake of omega6 is all that beneficial to them, since a lot of it comes from processed foods. which can mean that what might have started out as a healthy omega6 source, because of heat or other processing, has been destroyed. so while the body may be able to use these fats for energy sources, i try to make sure that they use the safflower and flax, without processing, so i know that they are at least getting a good supply of good essential fat.

omega9 is not needed in the diet. the body can make it. i am not sure that conjugated la is needed. according to what i have read, any omega6 we actually need is derived from linoleic acid. my blood tests test for linoleic 18:2, gamma linolenic 18:3, eicosadienoic 20:2, dihomogamma linolenic 20:3, arachidonic 20:4, docosadienoic 22:2, docosatetraenoic 22:4 (omega6 family). it tests for alpha linolenic 18:3, eicosapentaenoic 20:5, docosapentaenoic 22:5, and docosahexaenoic 22:6 (omega3 family). it also tests for omega 9 and a bunch of saturated as well as odd chain fats. these results do show that my body makes omega9.

i was not missing your point about GI. what i am saying is that make yourself a salad with 15 different vegetables, and your GI will not be anywhere nearly so high as it is when eating twinkies and oreos. in otherwards, your GI will not be a problem when you are eating a host of natural foods.

i do know what it feels like when i have not eaten enough carbs, so i do not intend to make that an actual way of eating. i would first have to kiss all my cardio good-bye, because my body will just laugh at me, if i try to do vigorous cardio without enough carbs.

i will just caution you once again concerning studies. it is all 3rd hand information to us. i know that much of it is pre-ordained. please just use caution if you are allowing studies to dictate your actions, especially when it is important, such as your health and well-being.

i am not familiar with either the bicycling or running study. i am sure we could find "studies" supporting the opposite, with regards to runners and bicyclists. the dairy article that i showed you was just an example. believe me, they have all kinds of scientific studies showing how important milk products are - because they have something they want to sell you.

[tamarian]

tamarian,
you have shown an attitude towards me with every one of your posts. you continually misqote me. by being in the minority, i meant by being a low-carber.

You miss the point completely. You're acting like you're the majority, by recommending vegetable protein and 2 spoons of vegetable oil as "optimal health", and you think we're the minority here? Seriously?

I'm afraid I didn't misquote you, just zeroed in on your inconsistency. Too bad you keep avoiding showing your cllaims of tons of proof.


by continually attempting to make me look superstitious, when i am not, etc. etc. lisa, on the other hand, never does that. she counters my points with points of her own. as the forum founder, you have shown poor taste.

I haven't made you into anything, you're doing that on your own. Make health claims, and avoid having to support them, except through repetition, and self aggrandising authority.

If it make it easier for you that I exit the debate because I'm a forum founder, I'll gladly do that. But this excuse isn't just a poor taste on your part, it's a very cheap shot. :(

Wa'il

[gymeejet]

tamarian, it would be best for us not to communicate any more. never did i say i was in the majority. i said that low-carbers are in the minority, when compared to non-low-carbers. god knows, i would hate to be in the current majority - the standard american diet is atrocious. i do find it interesting that you always misunderstand me, while lisa never misunderstands me. you continually make mis-interpretations. as i do not want to continue to correct your interpretations of my statements, i have decided just not to respond to any of your posts. if you decide to delete me, that is your option.

[Quest]

I just stumbled on this thread. It seems that Gymmejet has found a nutrition and exercise plan that works really well for him. If I read correctly he has a Jack LaLane type physique and stamina level. I'm impressed someone can do that on a vegetarian diet.

I'm also 48 and female. I tried for many years to follow a carb-intensive, low meat, low fat diet. My husband, who is very athletic, stayed thin on this diet and seems to be in good health (a bit thin, I think, at 6'2" and 170 pounds). I gained weight steadily over the years. When I cut back portions, I was hungry and could not stay on the plan. With Atkins, however, I have lost 26 pounds in three months. This has been wonderful for me. I am not hungry. I eat vegetables every day, but very little fruit or grain.

But I would not insist that my husband, or anyone else, follow my diet plan. We each have to find what works.

[wsgts]

I guess I am kind of like you. Evangilist (non-religious) for what I believe

I have had success with the Atkins approach with both my diabetes and my weight. I am looking forward to weigh in Friday, because I am pretty sure I am going to be down a good deal more (I go to the doctor's office every Friday to use their scale).

Since I have had success here, also with my mountain bike, running 9 miles 3 days a week, I start to think that my way is the only proper way for people "en masse" as you and Lisa put it.

The reality though, is that everyone is different. You would not do well on my eating plan, nor would I do well on yours (I have tried yours). We are kind of like those silly dietitians that basically say "my way is the only way", and "anything other than my way is ______" (unhealthy, dangerous, etc, etc, etc).

I am a firm believer in doing what works, and not doing what doesn't work. Carby diets are dangerous for some people (diabetics). Other people on unbothered by them (my wife). I gain weight on high carb low-fat, with a dietitian help mind you, and lose weight with optimum health on low-carb any percentage of fat I like diet.

Interesting question though: if you eat an apple for a snack, how long before you are hungry again (say for next meal or snack)?

Me: 15 minutes
Wife: 3 hours

I think that has something to do with it.

Good luck, don't expect to change any minds around here though,

wsgts

[tamarian]

i have decided just not to respond to any of your posts. if you decide to delete me, that is your option.

No, I will not delete you, and never thought to do so. You are very polite and civil, and have not violated our forum rules. You're not a low-carber, and this war zone area is designated for such discussion, so you're very welcome here.

It's just my nature to demand proof, and I can be very pushy looking for it. But I'll gladly withdraw from the discussion :)

Wa'il

[Lisa N]

we do differ on the amount of fat needed. other than essential fats, i do not believe that fat is needed in the diets.

Yes, we do and I've already laid out my reasons why I disagree so I won't repeat them. Besides being a necessary component of diet, it just plain makes foods taste good and provides satiety. With the amount of carbs in your diet, you're wise to keep your fats to a minimum; high carb/high fat is a deadly mix. However...for those of us who find it necessary to restrict carbs (and there are many of us here) because of a whole list of medical conditions such as PCOS, hypothyroid, hypoglycemia, diabetes and insulin resistance (for all of which restricting carbs is recommended treatment), calories need to come from somewhere and you can only eat so much protein. If you did any amount of reading here on the forum, you'd find that the majority of us here are quite aware of essential fatty acid requirements and strive to achieve them. You'll see quite a few posts about fish oil supplements and flax, either ground or as oil as well as the use of various other oils. Considering the amount of protein from animal sources that most of us eat, it's more important to focus on getting enough Omega 3 than omega 6 as we're already getting plenty. As for higher amounts of fat, they do not have a negative impact on cardiovascular health when eaten in combination with a low carb, low GI diet. In fact, the recent studies have shown that cardiovascular profiles actually improve under these conditions.

while you tend to concentrate on the percentage of fat, i am concentrating on grams of essential fat.

Actually, I don't concentrate on the percentage of fat at all other than to make sure that I get enough of what I need. I was merely pointing out to you that what you are recommending would be considered a very low fat diet by any standard and most of us have been there/done that.


i do know what it feels like when i have not eaten enough carbs

You know what it feels like for a body that is used to getting its main energy source from glucose to run short of it. It takes 3-5 days for your body to deplete its glycogen stores and switch from being a primarily glucose burning system to a ketone burning one and yes, you will likely not feel up to par while this happens. However...this is the energy source that our bodies were adapted to prior to organized agriculture; humans existed and even thrived primarily on animal protein and fats. Before the advent of agriculture, the only carbs that you got were that which you could find and gather and in temperate climates, they were not available for a good part of the year. In the case of strenuous exercise, it may take up to 2 weeks for your body to fully adapt to using ketones as an energy source, but when it does most find that their performance is not diminished (see the post from wsgts above).


i do not disagree with you in regards to the low-fat, high carb diets that the masses have been on. but the problem has not been a lack of fat, but rather a lack of ESSENTIAL FATS. and of course, a lack of protein, in many of these cases.

I couldn't disagree more. Most Americans at least are not lacking in protein OR fat, although they probably get way too much Omega 6 and not enough Omega 3. That in an of itself is not enough to explain the current obesity, diabetes and heart disease epidemics currently occurring. The problem in many (not all) cases is that people are eating way too many carbs and the wrong types when they do in trying to follow the food pyramid (heavy on the grains, light on the protein and fats).

i will just caution you once again concerning studies. it is all 3rd hand information to us.

Well...concerning a low carb lifestyle and its effects on health, it's all first hand information to those of us here because we are applying it directly to ourselves and finding that not only does it work, it works best of anything else we have tried (and a lot of us have tried it all). The studies being done confirm that we are not on the wrong track because those results are being duplicated in the studies being done. One of the tests of science is whether or not the results can be duplicated by a number of scientists using the same methods.


you will also never hear me speak about percentages of the 3 main food groups. what you will hear me say is get enough protein, and enough essential fats. then feed your body with natural carbs.

Well, you did start out this thread by giving specific amounts of proteins and essential fats stating that this is what everyone needed for "optimal health". Most low carbers are getting enough protein and essential fats, but choose not to fill the bulk of their diet with carbs because they have found that doing so does not promote optimal health for them. Instead we choose to keep our carbs limited and those that we do include in our daily diets are the highest in vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals possible. Fortunately for us, those that tend to be the highest in all those categories are also the lowest in carbs and glycemic index, so we can easily meet our requirements of these things and still keep our carbs within our individual tolerance levels.

I get the impression from your posts, at least intially, that you have the mistaken notion that most of us here are merely just trying out the latest fad diet and for a minority of members, that may be true. But for the majority of us, we are very serious about our health and have done our research as well and feel that this is the best possible way of eating for OUR optimal health. Many of us have tried everything else out there only to find our weight climbing and our health deteriorating. This is not a fad to us, but a way of life that has brought great improvement to our health and wellbeing.

Your way works for you? Great! Congratulations...you have a healthy body that seems to be able to tolerate a high level of carbs. Your doctor says he's never seen a stronger heart (but I bet he didn't tell you that having a strong heart won't protect you from a myocardial infarction...cardiac muscle strength has nothing to do with that). Don't, however, make the mistake of thinking that what works great for you will work great for the rest of us. I'm here to tell you that it won't because when it comes to what we eat, one size does not fit all or even most. Why? Because, as you pointed out, all of us have different needs and dietary requirements, not so much in what we eat, but in the propotions of those foods. Some people, actually a great many people, can't tolerate high amounts of carbs or high glycemic carbs for varying reasons that I mentioned earlier and their health, weight and bloodwork reflects that clearly. Insisting that they eat like you or risk not achieving "optimal health" is doing them a great disservice and comes across as arrogant and uninformed, especially when their experience has showed them otherwise. Similarly, you won't find me saying that you should not eat the way that you do; obviously this works for you. It just doesn't work for me or for the majority of us here.

So, again, what we have is your opinion versus ours. We have quite a bit of sound research behind us as well as experience on both sides of the fence, you have mostly opinion, not a lot of knowledge about what low carb is really about and no practical experience with it at all.
You expected when you first posted that your opinion wouldn't be a popular one and you're right, but it's not a knee-jerk, uninformed response that you're getting. It's a well thought out response based on study and experience.
When it comes down to it, we're really looking at two sides of the same coin and our goals are the same. We're just chosing to get to those goals by different means.

[gymeejet]

hi quest,
i definitely do not have a jack lalaane physique - LOL. i have a low testosterone level, and therefore could never put on the same amount of muscle.

[gymeejet]

hi ws,
a lot of that depends on the type of foods one is eating. fruits, especially apples and bananas, are especially filling for people that are not used to eating lots. this is just my surmise - i think our stomachs have some sort of sensor mechanisms that tell us how full we are, by volume. i remember when i first started my change from eating poorly to eating well, i was not used to eating high-volume, low density foods (i.e. ones that contain a lot of water), and i would get full more quickly. today, i can sit down and eat 3 bananas and 2 apples, and then my protein meal, and still not be real full, if i have been exercising.

[gymeejet]

tamarian,
perhaps we can start anew. to my knowledge, my diet suggestions have never been a fad. it is not the low-fat, high-carb diet of before. the addition of a LARGE DOSAGE of essential fats, along with ample protein, changes it completely. so without any popular diet, i do not know that there would be any particular studies on it that would suit you.

i know you guys believe in all these studies. believe me, i more than understand, since i used to be just like that. while i know i can not change your mind, i also know that you are putting way too much confidence in them. i could give you many examples, but here is one that comes to mind, simply because it had bugged me a lot.

i know you guys are well read, currently. probably much more so than myself, because i tend not to believe most stuff. and i do not know how old you are, so you may not be aware. i got started on my health kick about 30 years ago. at that time, every health book, every article i could find preached the same thing about protein consumption - for the body to use protein for anabolic purposes, it had to be complete protein consumed at roughly the same time. the aminos that were left over, could only be burned for fuel. this was sacrosanct at the time - no one dared to go against that rule. well in the past 5-10 years, they have found that "absolute positive fact" was not true, after all. we simply break our protein down, and store the amino acids separately, and call for them when we need them. the other thing that used to bug me is that i could read 25 different articles about protein quantities, and they were all over the farm - as low as 30 grams to as high as 125. today, i am sure i take in 200+ on most days.

i am very much like thomas - i want to see the scars for my own self. i am experiencing an aging process that i have yet to see. my original goal was to be about 75% as good or energetic, when i turned 35, as i was when i was 21. at the time, that seemed to be a very optimistic goal, that i hoped to reach, but was not sure if it was possible. to be 48, and have the energy level and lack of health problems that i do, is amazing to me. never in my wildest dreams did i think this could happen, back at 21. because of my personal experience, i have very strong convictions. i don't expect you to fully understand that, as it is an experiential thing. but that does not mean it is any less true - it just does not have "studies" by people who are making some pretty big bucks, selling it. you guys seem to feel comfortable with studies, while i need to experience it. i use studies, but do not let them use me. before i accept anything as fact, i have to prove it to myself. perhaps this is my pessimism shining through. in any case, i am starting anew. any problems we had before, have been deleted.

[gymeejet]

lisa, i did not get to read your long post. i will get back to you when i have more time.

[wsgts]

On the eating fruit side, one apple has 80 calories (or there about). One Atkins bars has 150 calories.

If I eat just an apple, I am hungrier in 15 minutes than I was before I actually went to get a snack. So when I am hungry, it's difficult to watch the quantity (then you get into the vending machine, candybar, etc etc). Same holds true to anything with sugar in it. Whereas, if I eat say a large dill pickle, it does the trick usually, and I am not hungry for several hours. This, of course, might be just me.

On the other hand, a cup of blueberries (we pick them ourselves) doesn't have the apple effect on me. This is what Lisa was referring to when she mentioned GI scale.

So for me, it's eat high GI carbs (or sugar) and I get hungry. Eat low GI carbs or very few carbs, and I don't get hungry. I can eat a 200 calorie low-carb breakfast (3 bacon strips, coffee) and not be hungry till 2:00 in the afternoon or eat a 500 calorie low-fat (grapefruit, toast, skim milk) breakfast and be hungry within the same hour.

I, along with others, have to eat this way to maintain good health. Boy, I sure would love to be able to eat sweet stuff again, but my health is more important than that.

BTW, I do appreciate you civil tones with everyone.

Later,
wsgts

[cc48510]

Just for Reference --

2 tbsp Safflower Oil = 240 kcal [from fat]
2 tbsp Flax Seeds = 118 kcal (-17.84: Protein) = 100 kcal (-6.08: Net Carbs) = 93.98 kcal [from fat]
200g Protein = 800 kcal [from protein]

1500 kcal: 22% Fat/25% Carbs/53% Protein
2000 kcal: 17% Fat/43% Carbs/40% Protein
2500 kcal: 13% Fat/55% Carbs/32% Protein
3000 kcal: 11% Fat/62% Carbs/27% Protein

1500 kcal: 94g Carbs
2000 kcal: 215g Carbs
2500 kcal: 344g Carbs
3000 kcal: 465g Carbs

Of course, this is based on Produce Calories being 100% carbs. So, the actual carb counts would be lower...especially if he eats Avocados, Nuts, Legumes, Olives, or other produce high in unsaturates. I don't remember if he indicated what his caloric intake was. But, the number 1600 is sticking in my mind for some reason. So, if he is taking in 1600 kcal/day, eating 200g+ protein...then his carb intake would actually be around maintnance levels [for most LC plans,] especially if he eats some unsaturate-rich produce (olives, avocados, nuts, and legumes).

If he was getting his produce entirely from potatoes [which I doubt,] his net carb intake [at 1600 kcal] would be 97g*. If they came from carrots, it would be 77g*. If [as is likely,] it is a mix of greens, tubers, legumes, nuts, etc...the net carb count could be even lower. His numbers are not very far off for a person who needs 1500 kcal/day [give or take.] The fat is too low and carbs too high for those needing 2000-3000 kcal/day IMHO. I have no complaints about the protein content.

My main issue is that he doesn't specify what types of produce to eat. For some people, this could become a diet composed almost entirely of bread and potatoes...which is what put alot of the folks on this board where they are today. You need plenty of green (fiber/nutrient rich) vegetables and nutrient rich fruits. Just saying "eat produce" does not insure a properly balanced diet. You could theoretically fill your diet out with produce, but entirely exclude 4 food groups (meat/legumes/nuts, dairy, vegetables, and fruits)...eating whole grains.

*Net Carbs = Total Carbs - Fiber. Fiber is not counted [as a carb] on most LC Diets.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i do not have much to add that i have not already said, but i am doubtful that you have tried my diet, where there is a large amount of essential fats and quite a bit of protein, along with the carbs.
HOWEVER :

hi lisa and ws,
i can buy that you guys have some problems with sugar metabolism. i suspect that it was mainly because of past dietary abuses/inadequacies/whatever label you want to call it. in otherwards, i do not believe that it is of a genetic nature. now whether that damage is permanent or not, i am not sure. and even if my diet would eventually prove to be better for you, i can also buy that there may be a long interim process by which you very gradually added carbs back to your diet.

what i would love to see is a friendly, scientific battle with you guys, IF IT IS YOUR CLAIM THAT YOUR DIET WOULD BE BETTER FOR PEOPLE FROM THE GET-GO.

i would love to have 100 2-year-olds, train them with my food regimen, monitor their blood tests, use whatever supplements they needed, and you do the same with another 100 2-year-olds, with your dietary regimen. we could then monitor them throughout their entire lives. i think my team would trounce you guys - LOL, in terms of overall health, energy, longevity, etc. i know what i am experiencing, and i do not believe i have any genetic uniqueness that makes my body better than any other body. but the only way to prove this to both myself and others, would be to see the results of others on my diet regimen.

[gymeejet]

hi cc,
those numbers were not intended to define what i ate, but more as starting points for people. i know my overall fat percentage will be abysmally small in your eyes. and i truly have no idea how many calories and protein i get each day. like i said, it can vary wildly, depending on my activity level. i took the day off from the beach today. but here is what i ate yesterday. i add stevia and flavoring (many of them essential oils) to stuff, and nutrient powders, but i am omitting things that have very little caloric input.

my main staple is what i call my protein concoction. i eat this twice every single day, as it is my main protein/fat/anabolic building food. i am actually weighing things currently, so it will be the first time that i have this accurate of a measurement.
1)60 grams of protein powder (half milk protein, half soy protein).
2)15 grams of an equal mixture of alfalfa leaf powder, grean tea powder, and kelp powder.
3)30 grams of nutritional yeast, which is almost exactly 2 servings. each serving is 8 g protein, 1 gram sugar and 1/2 gram of fat.
4)10 grams of equal mixture of chlorella/spirulina/green barley grass powders.
5)32 grams of carob powder - enough to make the mixture a dark brown, instead of icky green - LOL.
6)15 grams of natural herb powders. equal mixtures of peppermint, spearmint, hawthorne berry, black walnut, fennel, parsley leaf, milk thistle seed, bee pollen, siberian ginseng, saw palmetto, licorice root, horsetail, coriander seed, cumin seed, ginkgo leaf, eyebright, catnip, bilberry leaf, and celery seed.
7)1.5 tablespoons of safflower oil.

again, the above concoction i take religiously twice every day, irregardless of my activity levels. yesterday i went to the beach and did my cardio. here is the rest of what i ate. currently the fruit in season and cheapest for me the past few weeks have been green grapes, watermelon and cantaloupe. i ate 1 pound 10 ounces of grapes, and 1 cantaloupe (the one in the frig currently weighs 3 pounds, 5.7 ounces). but note that the pounds of grapes are just that, as the remaining twig weighs next to nothing, but the actual fruit of the melon is a lot less than its weight.

i bring 2 workout drinks during the day. each has appoximately 30 grams of whey protein and 6 ounces of juice concentrate (pineapple in one and apple in the other.)

when i came home, i ate another bag of grapes about the same size. i ate 2 servings of 60 grams of my milk/soy protein with another approximately 6 ounces of pineapple juice concentrate. (60 grams plus 6 ounces in each one)

then the last thing i eat in most evenings is 40 grams of flax meal, which turns out to be almost exactly 6 tablespoons, which according to the bag would be 13.5 grams of fat and 9 grams of protein. i also dring my apple cider drink, where i put in my amino acid powder supplements, which weighs 5 grams.

now this is a day at the beach, in the sun, exercising vigorously, so the amount of water intake is probably extremely high. the days when i lift weights will have a much different look, and there are at least 2 days a week where i go to the restaurant and get my fresh salad.

[Lisa N]

i can buy that you guys have some problems with sugar metabolism. i suspect that it was mainly because of past dietary abuses/inadequacies/whatever label you want to call it. in otherwards, i do not believe that it is of a genetic nature.

Blanket statements like this are quite inflammatory, often untrue and typical of the prejudice rampant in society today. If you have a weight problem, it must be all your fault. Yes, some people wind up with carbohydrate intolerances because of dietary abuse. Others develop them because of disease processes, in my case PCOS and the corresponding hyperinsulinism that goes with it. First it lead to hypoglycemia, later diabetes. The excess insulin also leads to weight gain, often on a diet of 1,200 calories or less. 5-7% of women in the US have PCOS. Genetic? Nobody knows and if you can figure it out, you'll be a multi-millionaire as well as quite a few of your descendents after you. Ditto for hypothyroid, hypoglycemia and diabetes.
You can believe that this is all dietary related or due to dietary abuse, but you would be hard-pressed to prove your belief.
If I were to apply your way of eating to myself, I would be on insulin in no time and no amount of time, exercise or careful re-introduction of carbs is going to change that. When your beta cells are burned out, they're gone for good.

i have a low testosterone level

Unless you have some organic cause for this (a tumor, for example), this should be a pretty big clue that something is wrong with your diet. You need fat in your diet for prostaglandin synthesis. Prostaglandins are an arachidonic acid metabolite. Where do you find arachidonic acid? Primarily in beef fat and egg yolks (saturated fats).

i would love to have 100 2-year-olds, train them with my food regimen, monitor their blood tests, use whatever supplements they needed, and you do the same with another 100 2-year-olds, with your dietary regimen. we could then monitor them throughout their entire lives.

LOL...and I'd wish you lots of luck because once those 2 year olds start school and their classmates (and teachers too) introduce them to the delights of Twinkies and Ding Dongs, it would be all over with unless you planned to have someone stay with each child 24/7 to make sure that they didn't eat something not on the plan. I have yet to meet someone who ate ONLY what was good for them 100% of the time, even as an adult, and never ate something, even unknowingly, that wasn't.


What you seem to keep missing is that the majority of us are getting good nutrition. We're getting plenty of protein. We're getting plenty of essential fatty acids. We're getting plenty of vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals from veggies and low glycemic fruits. So where's the problem? About the only argument you can pose about the difference between low carb and what you are doing is that we don't get nearly the amount of carbs that you do and have not posted any proof that the amount of fat in our diets is harming our health or preventing us from getting proper amounts of nutrients or that the level of carbs that you are eating and recommending is actually needed for optimal health. As for not being able to exercise without carbs, several people have posted refuting that as well and I've posted studies showing that, if anything, athletic performance is improved with a higher percentage of calories coming from fats.


what i would love to see is a friendly, scientific battle with you guys, IF IT IS YOUR CLAIM THAT YOUR DIET WOULD BE BETTER FOR PEOPLE FROM THE GET-GO.

Nobody made any such assertion, except perhaps you. As I pointed out earlier, no one diet works optimally for everyone, although I think it would benefit most people to pay closer attention to the glycemic index and glycemic load of the foods they are eating. Most of us are doing this because we have found that this is what works best for us.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i said i had a low testosterone level. that is how i was made. you will need to talk to the Creator if you want to know why - LOL. our sex hormone levels are determined at a very early age, possibly before we are born. not all males have high testosterone levels.

my arachidonic acid levels are at a low-normal level. although these tests are before i added all my omega-6 to my diet, so it is probably higher now.

i did say that i could also buy that there was permanent damage done, which you are saying is your case, because of loss of beta cells.

diabetes, and such diseases have increased since the onset of procesed foods. i am not singling you out, but yes i most certainly think that much of diabetes is caused by the standard american diets of today.

i also believe in the body's ability to rebuild itself, probably moreso than most people. in any case, i think it is great that you are doing what you feel you must do, to better yourselves.

i do not believe my team of kids would develop diabetes in the first place - which is i guess my main point - that my diet is best for optimum health from the GET-GO. i believe that ounces of prevention are always better than pounds of cure.

[Lisa N]

i do not believe my team of kids would develop diabetes in the first place - which is i guess my main point - that my diet is best for optimum health from the GET-GO. i believe that ounces of prevention are always better than pounds of cure.

Actually, that would be a bad assumption since type 1 diabetes strikes children and has nothing to do with diet whatsoever (it's thought to be viral or autoimmune in nature) Odds are good that at least one of your children would be afflicted with type 1 diabetes. Also, assuming that you had 100 children, half female and half male, statistically 2 or 3 of the girls would be likely to develop PCOS which is primarily a hormonal dysfunction and greatly increases the liklihood of developing diabetes irregardless of diet.
Secondly, it's highly unlikely that kids following a low carb regimen would develop diabetes either (other than type 1), less likely even than with even your diet since you aren't paying any particular attention to glycemic index, and if they did they would be far better able to control it with low carb than they would with high carb. Children would also not do well with brain development on the level of fats that you follow. It's highly not recommended to restrict fat consumption in children under the age of 5 just for that reason.
The high carb kids would also be more likely to have problems with high LDL, low HDL and high triglycerides than the low carb kids.

i most certainly think that much of diabetes is caused by the standard american diets of today.

And on that we could agree, but it is not the onlycause. You can develop diabetes eating unprocessed carbs at the wrong levels as well.

i said i had a low testosterone level. that is how i was made.

Perhaps, but not getting enough of the right kinds of fats isn't helping matters any, nor is getting too much of your protein sources from soy. ;)

[tamarian]

tamarian,
perhaps we can start anew.

I highly doubt it, so I'll agree with your original suggestion that we are not compatible, in terms of our thinking

Since I find it very frustrating that you refuse any scientific studies, repeatedly, despite having tons of them, then you say:

what i would love to see is a friendly, scientific battle with you guys

So, if science to you is the claims of one person with no verifiable records, except verbal claims, there's no common grounds for such dialogue, let alone common sense.

Even if I beleive your incredible undocumeted results, I'd be a fool to ignore the results of hundreds of subjects who were documented by clinical studies, with quantitative results.

Your only acceptable "science" is your own personal claims in such a debate and that "what I say is so". Since I'm a doubting person who demands scientific proof, I find that I'd go no where with such claims.

I know you call that science, but to me is mere superstition, or a form of self delusion resulting in your blind faith in vegetarianism.

Wa'il

[Kestrel]

Good day, I've followed this "discussion" off and on, and I have to side with Tamarian. However there is no winner here, since gymeejet really doesn't want to debate from an objective position, just like Tamarian says.

When it comes down to it, humans seem to do pretty well with about any diet, just as do most other omnivores. And what I mean by that is two examples: Clarence Bass, bodybuilder, low-fat, high carb, looks damn good at 60+. Dr. Ellis, also bodybuilder, but high-fat, low carb, looks damn good at 55+.

Does this prove one diet better than the other?? Not necessarily, but research Dr. Lutz from Austria, who has four decades of clinical use of low-carb diets for improving health, with weight control being secondary, and that will help lean you towards low-carb. In his case, we're talking thousands of patients, not hundreds... Real life stuff, not studies...

[Frederick]

I know you call that science, but to me is mere superstition, or a form of self delusion resulting in your blind faith in vegetarianism.


What really irks me are when Vegans seek to impose their chosen beliefs on others, making such ridiculous statements such as, "you shouldn't have a choice on whether or not to eat meat."

In my view, I agree that most vegetarians, vegans specifically, seek to impose their way of life to other's under the guise of well-meaning nutritional advice. Such as, "oh, eating meat is bad for you" etc...

It just strikes me that to the Vegans, human health even if adversely affected by complete abstinence from animal products, would still insist and force the rest of us from eating meat, if they could.

I believe we should all live as we please, and feel this courtesy should be equally reciprocated.

[tamarian]

Not necessarily, but research Dr. Lutz from Austria

Ah, my favourite former anti low-carb doctor! :thup:

Wa'il

[tamarian]

What really irks me are when Vegans seek to impose their chosen beliefs on others, making such ridiculous statements such as, "you shouldn't have a choice on whether or not to eat meat."

In my view, I agree that most vegetarians, vegans specifically, seek to impose their way of life to other's under the guise of well-meaning nutritional advice. Such as, "oh, eating meat is bad for you" etc...

It just strikes me that to the Vegans, human health even if adversely affected by complete abstinence from animal products, would still insist and force the rest of us from eating meat, if they could.

I believe we should all live as we please, and feel this courtesy should be equally reciprocated.

I totally agree. I personally have never made the claim that low-carb is the only way to go for every single person, despite finding no scientific evidence to the contrary.

A scintific study (yikes!) published a few years ago, showed plants have nerves that actually feel pain, and their reactions to such pain can be recorded and correlated to the times pain was inflicted.

It didn't make the rounds much, except in humerous spoof sites, one spoofing a press release by PETA in reaction to the published study :)

Wa'il

[gymeejet]

i am good acquaintances with someone who knew from first-hand sources that the studies about aspartame were deliberately changed, to avoid the problems they knew it caused in the brain. studies can be deliberately falsified, and will come out with the desired results that benefit those who paid for them in the first place.

i already mentioned the protein consumption studies that were ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
they used to say that we could not generate new brain cells, with their studies. now all of a sudden, they find that we can.

i have seen so much of this in my life, that i do not put any where near the confidence in studies that the rest of you do. and if you guys live long enough, i have no doubts that you will begin to experience that for yourselves, as well. when financial concerns enter the picture, just kiss honesty good-bye.

atkins, sears, and the rest of the kit and caboodle are making tons and tons and tons of money on this. if they were touting it as a diet for those with diabetic problems, i would not complain. but they are not - they are touting it as the overall best way of eating, for the masses.

for every female like lisa, who is using this low-carb diet to help with her disease, there are a hundred gals using it to "lose those last 5 pounds". and because there is instant water weight, and thus instant weight loss, it goes a long way to confirm in these gals what a great thing they are doing. AND THIS IS WHERE I COME IN. it is not the proper diet to bring optimum health to healthy people.

it may bring some positive results for many. but big deal. many, many people are eating atrociously - just about any change would be better than what they are doing - coffee and donuts for breakfast, fast food for lunch, and frozen dinners for dinner. it doesn't take much to beat that.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
actually i am happy i have a low testosterone level. i use the head on the top of my shoulders to make my decisions - LOL.

it is not abnormally low. i won't be turning into a female - LOL. just on the lower side of normal. of course, i never claimed to be NORMAL - LOL.

[gymeejet]

http://health.nzoom.com/cda/printable/1,1856,190699,00.html

Carbohydrates are your body's main source of energy. Your body converts carbohydrates into fuel (glucose) for energy production. Your muscles store large amounts of glucose in order to supply energy during prolonged exercise. Your brain also requires glucose.

Sometimes lack of fuel or even the foods we choose can make a difference in how the brain works. Because it cannot store glucose, the brain needs a continuous source of fuel from foods.

"Carbohydrate-containing foods should be eaten at each meal and also before, during and after exercise," says Leslie Bonci, registered dietitian and director of Sports Medicine Nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre.

"At meals, carbohydrates (pasta, rice, bread, cereal, fruits and vegetables) should take up about two-thirds of the plate."

[Lisa N]

Once again, that's an opinion, not a study. Regarding glucose and brain function versus ketones and brain function, this is a study:

Reference:
Amiel, S.A., "Organ Fuel Selection: Brain," The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 54(1), 1995, pages 151-155.

Summary:
This review article analyzes fuel utilization of the brain. The brain’s first choice for energy is glucose. However, when glucose is not available, the brain uses ketone bodies. Using ketones meets the energy requirements of the brain and maintains its proper function.

Cardiac muscle actually prefers and functions better on ketones derived from saturated fat then it does glucose.

if they were touting it as a diet for those with diabetic problems, i would not complain

Drs Bernstein and Schwarzbein do, and not just diabetes, either. Also...just because a doctor publishes a plan and makes money off it does not mean that it does not work, is not healthy or is the equivalent of snake oil. Bad logic there.

AND THIS IS WHERE I COME IN. it is not the proper diet to bring optimum health to healthy people.

You have yet to show that except through subjective, unverifiable information with yourself and opinion.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think a low carb way of eating looks like at maintainance levels?

[tamarian]

http://health.nzoom.com/cda/printable/1,1856,190699,00.html

Carbohydrates are your body's main source of energy. Your body converts carbohydrates into fuel (glucose) for energy production. Your muscles store large amounts of glucose in order to supply energy during prolonged exercise. Your brain also requires glucose.

Just for the record, the above link is not a scientific study, it's a brochure stating personal opinions. No one here to my knowledge claimed there are no such brochures. I really don't know if you can tell what is a scientific study and what isn't.....

i have seen so much of this in my life, that i do not put any where near the confidence in studies that the rest of you do. and if you guys live long enough, i have no doubts that you will begin to experience that for yourselves, as well. when financial concerns enter the picture, just kiss honesty good-bye.

All this "life" and you're still in your 40's? You think we're teenagers here? :)

atkins, sears, and the rest of the kit and caboodle are making tons and tons and tons of money on this. if they were touting it as a diet for those with diabetic problems, i would not complain. but they are not - they are touting it as the overall best way of eating, for the masses.

And vegetarian diet gurus like Onish, Bernard et all, are giving away their books for free? Well, they don't, and they are making a lot of money too. So if that's your argument, then your diet is unhealthy, because the authors made money on it?

Wa'il

[gymeejet]

i am not being influenced by any doctor, in making my health decisions. not any more. i did listen when all the doctors and scientific studies community were touting the low-fat diet. never was it mentioned that there was a need for the essential fats.

i have cited several examples where studies have been wrong, and one where it was known to be falsified.

i prefer to use my own verifiable results, and those of whom i know, and detailed nutritional tests to show me where i am at. i wish you guys would at least get these tests. they may give you some information that may be of help. i know they certainly increased my knowledge.

however, i do believe that you guys have special needs (those that have diabetes, etc.) of which i do not know much about, so if this helps you, i am happy for you. i do not believe it is best for the average healthy person.

[gymeejet]

there are studies supporting just about everything. car manufacturer's all have studies that prove their cars did the best in handling, acceleration, etc.

YOU PUT TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON STUDIES. i will continue to preach that to you.

if i want to know about building stresses, i will talk to an engineer. if i want to know about building, i will talk to a carpenter. if i find someone with more stamina than me, i want to know what the heck he is doing.

the minute i find that said information has financial implications, forget it. it will be twisted to match the desired results.

i don't care about these vegetarian doctors. i am surprised that even any of their names sounded familiar. but i think i have heard of ornish. is that dean ornish ? something tells me that he has a radio show. in any case, i have no idea of his beliefs, nor do i have any particular interest in finding out.

[gymeejet]

i think it was lisa that mentioned that soy protein was not good. i have no doubts she can show me a dozen studies supporting her belief. just a bunch of hooey from the animal-touters.

most everything we read, in the nutrition field, has large financial implications. you got the meat lobby, the dairy guys, the sugar industry, etc., etc.

they flip-flop about eggs faster than a mexican jumping bean. what is the going philosophy this week ?

when all the medical community thought good ole jack was nuts, he just kept preaching what he knew was correct, and of course he was right. you guys can continue to believe in the white coats and all of their studies. i will continue to believe in those who do it, not those who write about it. when you find a doctor who can out-do me, hey then i am interested. until then, no thank you.

[gymeejet]

gosh lisa, i think my testosterone level just jumped 25 points. so perhaps you guys are good for me after all - LOL.

[wsgts]

I am going to throw this out.

Unlike dietitians, I certainly wouldn't recommend one diet for the "masses" or "en Masse". There are many factors to look at when figuring out what works best. Saying that some one is better off being obese and eating a certain eating plan certainly makes no sense (I. E. the high-carb food pyramid).

For instance, a normal weight person with no medical issues shouldn't be too concerned about their diet composition. Someone with five pounds to lose shouldn't start any type of diet, they should start with a little exercise first and move to an eating plan if exercise doesn't produce the desired results. If that eating plan doesn't help the exercise achieve the desired results, try another eating plan or increase exercise or both.

The problem has never really been what the best diet composition for the masses (which damn near killed a lot of us), but what is diet composition works for optimum health for the individual.

Gymeejet, would you agree or disagree with my logic? (notice I have not used any studies :dazzle: )

Later,
wsgts

[tamarian]

YOU PUT TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON STUDIES. i will continue to preach that to you.

I know. That's what I told you a few pages ago, and you got offended. Your method is nothing but preaching, based on faith and feelings, with no scientifc or verifibale evidence. We need to have faith in you, to beleive you.....

You get offfended with demands for proof, and rely on just your personal stories. That's fine, I just find it odd you don't realize how ironic that is, and why people react to it with a mix of amusement and doubt.

Wa'il

[Ashtaroth]

"if i want to know about building stresses, i will talk to an engineer"

-Unfortunately for you, that engineer will be relying on studies done by others to determine those stresses.

"the minute i find that said information has financial implications, forget it. it will be twisted to match the desired results."

-So I guess this means that anyone who gives a professional opinion for money should be ignored. As a professional engineer who does exactly that for a living I'm confused.

-Ashtaroth

[rhaazz]

gymeejet, yes, you do need a lot of carbs on days when you're doing a lot of aerobic activity -- IF you're not in ketosis.

If your body has successfully switched to burning its own stored fat, you do not need a lot of carbs to sustain aerobic activity, as I can testify.

I am currently getting my energy from the stored fat around my midsection -- and yes, our bodies WERE designed to work that way, too.

The body is adaptible to more than one kind of diet. Think about it: it had to be, or our ancestors would never have survived.

[rhaazz]

gymeejet, I've been reading some more of your posts -- and I wonder what all the quarreling is about. I think you're saying -- at least now, anywa -- "I go with what works for me, you LCers go with what works for you."

And I sort of agree with what you say about learning to distrust the white coats. I too have had a number of experiences where medical or scientific gospel turned out to be a dangerous half truth that actually harmed me. You do have to trust yourself.

[Lisa N]

YOU PUT TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON STUDIES.

And you put too much emphasis on personal opinion and unverifiable evidence. Given the choice between someone's subjective opinion, based on who knows what and a sound study where I can read what they did as well as the results they got as well as the number of participants in the study, I'll go with the study every time. If you choose to do otherwise, that's your choice, but I belive that you are missing out.

the minute i find that said information has financial implications, forget it. it will be twisted to match the desired results.

So how do you explain that the results we are getting with