low-carb diets do not promote optimal health

[tamarian]

the point here is that these people rely on their fruits and vegetables to make up the basis of their diets.
You are obviously blinded by your faith in ethical vegetarianism. Otherwise, you would have been able to read the document you quoted! It clearly emphasized seafood more so than fruits. That's the thrust of that site's articles and studies, but you seem to filter out things you don't want to hear/or disagree with.

Wa'il

[Lisa N]

[/QUOTE]the point here is that these people rely on their fruits and vegetables to make up the basis of their diets. [QUOTE]

Nowhere in the article you quoted does it say that fruits and vegetables make up the basis of their diet; you're making that assumption because you want it to be that way. As Wa'il pointed out, fish and shellfish are mentioned first and foremost.
I also did a bit of further research on the native diets of that region and while they do consume fruits and vegetables, the majority of what they eat are of a nature low in glycemic load in addition to plenty of animal proteins and saturated fats. Sound familiar?

[gymeejet]

Those who grew up on the outer islands enjoyed a nutrient-dense diet of seafood of all sorts, particularly the coconut crab and giant clams, and many plant foods including coconut, island cabbage, manioc, yams, taro, banana and other delicious native fruits. These are the ones with beautiful teeth, and slender strong bodies that move with lightness and grace.

let me see : many plant foods including coconut, cabbage, manioc, yams, taro, banana and other delicious fruits. if fruits and vegetables are not a main part of their diet, you don't read english that well. sure they eat some crab and clams. the point still remains - they eat a heck of a lot more carbs than you suggest. maybe you should learn to read, and stop just seeing what you want to see. THEY EAT LOTS OF CARBS.

[gymeejet]

tamarian,
i respectfully asked you once. now i am giving you a last warning. do not refer to my diet on this thread as being ethical, or any such implication. never have i tried or even hinted for others to give up animal flesh on this thread. whenever i talk about protein, i simply refer to it in terms of number of grams, and an ample amount for one's body.

your continued reference to it is similar to a stupid lawyerese tactic at trying to attack the person's credibility, when he can not attack the person's logic. i have said it before, and i will say it again. as a forum founder, you lack maturity.

if you refer to it again, it is the last time i will respond to you, and you will also let everyone else know that you have no real ability to out-debate me.

[gymeejet]

Japanese and Mediterranean peoples who eat in the traditional manner have the highest life expectancy in the world - and their longevity has much to do with their diet. The two diets seem very different, but they have in common a relative absence of saturated fats and margarines, and an emphasis on fish, vegetables and fruit.

http://members.tripod.com/~Doc_In_The_Kitchen/japan.html

again, diets low in saturated fat. they get most of their protein from fish, as well as their omega3 fats. there were a few negative health habits, but they had the highest life expectancies.

[gymeejet]

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Papua_New_Guinea

native diets were again fish for protein, and early agriculture of plants, which included sugarcane, Pacific bananas, yams, and taros. again, not lots of saturated fats.

[Lisa N]

Japanese and Mediterranean peoples who eat in the traditional manner have the highest life expectancy in the world - and their longevity has much to do with their diet.


http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/the_mediterranean_diet.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/japan.html

Seems there are more fats in the diets of these peoples than we have been led to believe.


native diets were again fish for protein, and early agriculture of plants, which included sugarcane, Pacific bananas, yams, and taros. again, not lots of saturated fats.

Not according to the article you quoted from when Weston Price observed these people. Their diets were also rich in other animal foods besides fish such as the ones that I mentioned earlier. I should also mention that many shellfish, which is one of their favorites, is high in cholesterol.

[tamarian]

tamarian,
i respectfully asked you once. now i am giving you a last warning. do not refer to my diet on this thread as being ethical, or any such implication. never have i tried or even hinted for others to give up animal flesh on this thread. Don't be such a child, you can warn all you want, but you are the one making yourself look foolish. Do you think arguing one line in this thread, and a different line on the other thread entitles you to be two different people with two different contradicting opinions? Once saying it's "personal science", then saying it's ethical vegetarianism. Your thoughts become visible the more you write and contradict yourself. You point to articles praising meat and seafood, plus some vegetables and fruit, and think they only mentioned fruits? Your way of thinking has the manner of a zealot, strong in their beliefs, to the point they create a filter, and see only what they want to see.

Had you been able to weight facts, from a logical perspective, without being influenced by matters of beliefs and misguided ethics, you would have been able to conduct a logical and scientific dialogue.

Wa'il

[gymeejet]

lisa,
your arguments are appearing weaker and weaker. i have shown you several peoples who get most of their protein from fish, and then use a lot of good carbs to complement their diets. you can bury your head in the sand if you want, but the truth is that the low-carb diets are promoting way more saturated fat than many, if not most other diets use. and i think that is becoming more and more obvious to all the readers out there, who can approach the situation honestly.

[gymeejet]

hello readers,
despite the immaturity and lack of good arguments from a certain individual, my reasons for deleting meat from my diet had nothing to do with "not killing an animal". i wish i could claim that i had that sort of wisdom when i was 20, but i did not.

we are all brainwashed as little kids with tons of ideas that make us easier to manage, when we are adults. i ate meat from day 1. i knew that pork came from pigs, and that hamburger came from cows. but more in the sense that milk came from cows. it just did not really dawn on me that i was killing an animal, because i had done so since i was born, and never knew better.

i did not want all that saturated fat in my diet, and back in the low-fat diet days, it was a huge no-no. i also did not want all the hormones in me, that were injected into the cattle. there is also tons of adrenalin in the cattle as they are herded into the slaughter houses. there were other better protein sources of meat. skim milk had a much higher source of protein, for example, with very little dairy fat. so i saw no reason to eat meat, with all of its backfalls, when i had other, and better choices of protein.

my protein powder today gives me what i feel, a better option still, and allows me to closer reach my optimum health. with it, i can add or subtract from my protein levels, without losing or gaining on any other nutrient.

[gymeejet]

http://www.breastcancer.org/research_diet_071603.html

[gymeejet]

according to udo erasmus, here are some interesting statistics, comparing animals from the east african plains, with our domestic animals.

the domestic pig is 38% fat. heavy hog is 46% fat. the wild warthog is 1.3% fat. that gives a protein to fat ratio of 1:3 and 1:4 in domestic animals, while a 10:1 ratio in the wild warthog.

the wild venison is 2% fat. the zebu is 1.8% fat. the eland is 2% fat. the buffalo is 3% fat.

wild pigs have 8.7% 20:4w6 essential fat, and 3.6% 22:6w3 essential fat, while domestic pigs have .4% and .5%, respectively.

so as you can see, there is no comparison between wild animals that have to run to survive, and our domesticated animals, raised to get fat.

ask yourselves what sort of meat you are eating ? meat from the supermarket or meat that you killed on the open plains ? what sort of fish are you eating ? fish in unpolluted waters ? or fish from the santa monica bay, and worse ? it makes a difference with regards to our health.

[bvtaylor]

Once again, I believe the Mediterranean diet is incorrectly summarized (I won't speak for the Japanese because I am not familiar with it... my family is, however, Greek, so I speak from experience about some of these traditional foods):

===========================================================
Japanese and Mediterranean peoples who eat in the traditional manner have the highest life expectancy in the world - and their longevity has much to do with their diet. The two diets seem very different, but they have in common a relative absence of saturated fats and margarines, and an emphasis on fish, vegetables and fruit. ===========================================================

The "absence" of saturated fat in the traditional Mediterranean diet is an incorrect analysis. I think that "moderate" would be more accurate.

In addition to a broad range of veggies (often less heavy on the glycemic index vegetables like cucumbers, parsley, tomatoes, onions, spinach, garlic) and whole grains (like cracked wheat) which granted, do have a lot of carbs, but also a lot of fiber, here are some staples of the traditional Mediterranean diet that have a moderate amount of saturated fat:

olive oil - 1 tbsp (consider a person who eats salad 2-3 times a day would probably consume more than 3-4 tbsp of olive oil)
Total Fat 13.5g 21% USRDA
Saturated Fat 1.82g 9% USRDA
Polyunsaturated Fat 1.13g
Monounsaturated Fat 9.95g

walnuts - 1 oz (typical snack food)
Total Fat 18.49g 28% USRDA
Saturated Fat 1.74g 9% USRDA
Polyunsaturated Fat 13.37g
Monounsaturated Fat 2.53g

almonds - 1 oz (typical snack food)
Total Fat 14.36g 22% USRDA
Saturated Fat 1.1g 6% USRDA
Polyunsaturated Fat 3.46g
Monounsaturated Fat 9.12g

feta cheese - 1/4 cup (crumbled - typical with bread or salad or in spanakopita)
Total Fat 7.98g 12% USRDA
Saturated Fat 5.6g 28% USRDA
Polyunsaturated Fat 0.222g
Monounsaturated Fat 1.73g

lamb leg - 6 oz roasted (might be a good Sunday dinner)
Total Fat 21.17g 33% USRDA
Saturated Fat 8.65g 43% USRDA
Polyunsaturated Fat 1.5g
Monounsaturated Fat 8.99g

butter - 1 oz (a dinner table staple for whole grain bread or pita, added to foods from rice to anything with filo--usually a substantial amount)
Total Fat 11.52g 18% USRDA
Saturated Fat 7.17g 36% USRDA
Polyunsaturated Fat 0.428g
Monounsaturated Fat 3.33g

chicken - leg with skin roasted
Total Fat 15.34g 24% USRDA
Saturated Fat 4.24g 21% USRDA
Polyunsaturated Fat 3.42g
Monounsaturated Fat 5.97g

black olives - 1/2 cup
Total Fat 6.44g 10% USRDA
Saturated Fat 0.853g 4% USRDA
Polyunsaturated Fat 0.549g
Monounsaturated Fat 4.75g

With thanks to http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/Index.html for the nutritional information. Good site to track your dietary balances.

[Lisa N]

i have shown you several peoples who get most of their protein from fish, and then use a lot of good carbs to complement their diets.

So far, we've discussed the Vanautu, Italians and Japanese, all of which don't necessarily get all of their protein sources from fish (and none get their protein sources from protein powders) and I might add that this is something that you have made clear that you are against. If these people are optimally healthy eating animal flesh plus vegetation, as you seem to want to argue, does that mean you are reversing your opinion on the validity of eating animal flesh for good health? If not, your argument is hypocritical. You said you gave up eating meat for health reasons and here we have 3 cultures who appear to be extremely healthy and yet they all eat animal protein!
The Italians do not get the majority of their protein sources from fish. Good heavens! The Italians are famous for their hams and sausages as well as their rich cheeses!
Next are the Japanese. Again, I've shown you an article that shows that they eat a variety of animal products, including pork, chicken, beef and organ meats. Yes, they eat fish, but not JUST fish as you seem to want to imply.
The protein sources of the Vanautu have already been covered. Feel free to read back a page or so to see where their protein sources come from.
I'd also like to point out that I never said we shouldn't eat ANY carbs. We disagree on the amount that is needed for good health. I've pointed out several times that maintainance levels of low carb provide plenty of room for lots of vegetables, some fruits and even whole grains. The majority of us here are trying to lose weight, so fruits are limited and whole grains forgone in that pursuit until pre-maintainance or maintainance. Vegetables are not only encouraged, they are required on most low carb plans and plenty of them! Rice seems to be the only high carb food that the Japanese eat. The majority of their vegetables are low in carbs and glycemic index. The Vanautu recognize that eating a lot of fruits makes you gain weight (they've noted this effect on the animals they hunt and encourage them to eat a lot of fruit to get fat FOR the hunt) and grains don't appear to be part of their diets at all. None of these people avoid or limit saturated fat or cholesterol.
So far, your argument that eating animals is unhealthy has been shown false, your argument that you can't excercise with any intensity while on a low carb regimen has been shown false and your argument that you MUST eat a high carb diet to be healthy has been shown false. I'd say you were the one with the weak arguments and I agree with Wa'il; you are seeing what you want to see in the articles that you quoted while ignoring that which you don't agree with.

[tamarian]

hello readers,
despite the immaturity and lack of good arguments from a certain individualWell, let's see Mr. gymeejet.

Lack of good arguments, eh? From any neutral observer to this conversation, they will spot that you started by saying scientific studies are not proof. Then now quote studies (but you only quote selected sentence you think support your point), when we quote any study that does not prove what you want, you claim a conspiracy theory sponsored by Dr. Atkins. No one will go to such lengths, jumping from one argument to the other extreme, except if they had a preconceived conclusion, and then look for any available fragments to justify it. Very typical of reasoning based on pure faith alone.

As for immaturity :

dr. atkins died at the age of 72, from cardiac arrest. claims that diet was not at fault, but rather a fall on the sidewalk. boy, those sidewalks are meaner than i had imagined.Now before you start issuing warning and threats because I quote your own words from another thread, this was said on this thread, so I hope you don't use that excuse here again, o.k.?

Anyway, the above quote from you is ample proof of a zealous bias, not even a PETA member is capable of. Any rational decent human being, would have read the daily newspapers on the details of that NY winter storm and the accident that the 72 years old cardiologist encountered while walking to work, and slipped on an icey sidewalk, causing a severe head injury. Just as every single news paper reported, the same newspaper that challanged him during his life..

A decent human being, even when they disagree with somone, won't gloat at someone's death. You on the other hand, not only gloat about his death, you choose to lie about it as well to justify your beleifs. So much for ethics here! Even Dr. Ornish mourned his death, despite their agreements.

Despite this, I don't think you are such an evil person, despite this gloating and lying about this accident. You can't help it, you are blinded by strong beliefs that render you incapable of rational thought, a typical symptom of zealots.

I doubt you'll comprehend any single sentence of this post, as your thought process will filter out much of it (probably claiming we're in total agreement since I mentioned Dr. Ornish's honourable action in this case).

So, while you're unlikely to listen to anything I say, I hope you will meet a vegetarian scientist who can mentor you about rational dialogue. There are plenty of knowledgeable people on the USENET nutritional forums, both vegans and non-vegans, where the debate is based on facts, science and theories, and no one has to rely on such despicable tactics to proof a point.

Wa'il

[Lisa N]

http://www.westonaprice.org/women/wise_choices.html

http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_vegetarianism.html

http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_beef.html

Happy reading! :)

[gary]

That's 3 strikes Lisa N and Gymeejet is out! :lol:

[Rosebud]

http://www.breastcancer.org/research_diet_071603.html
Funny how you have suddenly decided to believe scientific evidence! :lol:
Of course, those studies don't show the entire diet eaten by these women. And guess what? They were all eating high carbs diets. So yes, of course they were at higher risk of all sorts of diseases. I don't think anyone will dispute that saturated fats plus sugars and starches cause significant health problems.

However, you might be interested to note that cancers feed on sugars...
http://www.mercola.com/article/sugar/sugar_cancer.htm

:rose:Rosebud:rose:

[gymeejet]

let me see. i get accused of not using scientific studies, and when i use them against your scientific studies, i get accused of changing my mind. if that is not a catch-22, i don't know what is.

i have supplied overwhelming evidence that your western lc diet, with its carte blanche attitude about saturated fat, allows more saturated fat in the diet, than just about any other diet in the world.

if that don't a grab your attention, i don't know what a will. there are none so blind, as those who do not see.

[Rosebud]

There are none so blind as those that will not see. Amen!

Did you even read what I wrote about the saturated fats? As for your Catch-22 - that's just plain breathtaking. As I said, saturated fats only cause problems when combined with sugars.

:rose:Rosebud:rose:

[gymeejet]

lisa,
as much as tamarian wants to insinuate, this thread was not started for ethical reasons. i have never hinted at ethical reasons. and i have not changed my mind, or issued hypocritical statements, with regards to meat.

i have never said anything bad about the nutrition of wild animals or fish. you guys like to use the example of the african tribes eating their wild meat, as some sort of reasoning why it is okay to eat meat. the 2 are not even close to the same, in food value. NOT CLOSE.

i do not have anything bad to say about the nutrition of wild game. it is possible that there may be something bad about it, to which i am unaware. but to my knowledge, i do not think badly about wild game, from a nutritional point of view. which again, has been the only viewpoint i have ever shared. not until raz started her thread did i ever make ethical statements. and i have kept them in that thread. so you see, my ideas have not changed.

wild game has very little saturated fat, and has a decent amount of essential fats. just mark my words - you guys are gonna run into some problems eating too much saturated fat.

i realize that some of you have sugar problems, so i can only say i hope you swing the balance as far possible as you can, towards natural carbs, and away from saturated fat. but healthy people do not have your restrictions. and they are not gonna get unhealthy by eating produce. our society is where we are today, because of all the processing of foods - excess processed sugar, trans fats, greasy saturated fats, etc.

most of the healthy peoples get their protein from fish and lean meats, and most also have as a staple, whatever plant foods are indigenous to their area.

[alaskaman]

So who's ever argued about the amount of saturated fat in our western lc diet? So what? The saturated fat issue was always bogus, a totally non-issue. The Diet-Heart hypothesis is false, always was. the gurus tried to switch us to corn oil, then canola oil, whatever. Saturated fat is good for us. Including the tropicla oils that panicky do-gooders tried to scare us about, ruining the economy of several small pacific countries for a while. I just ate the fat from my lambchop, buttered my broccoli lavishly.Look at the Framingham study, Nurses health study, you won't see any benefit in fleeing "satfats" Bill

[tamarian]

i do not have anything bad to say about the nutrition of wild game. it is possible that there may be something bad about it, to which i am unaware. but to my knowledge, i do not think badly about wild game, from a nutritional point of view. which again, has been the only viewpoint i have ever shared. not until raz started her thread did i ever make ethical statements. and i have kept them in that thread. so you see, my ideas have not changed.

wild game has very little saturated fat, and has a decent amount of essential fats. just mark my words - you guys are gonna run into some problems eating too much saturated fat.

i realize that some of you have sugar problems, so i can only say i hope you swing the balance as far possible as you can, towards natural carbs, and away from saturated fat. but healthy people do not have your restrictions. and they are not gonna get unhealthy by eating produce. our society is where we are today, because of all the processing of foods - excess processed sugar, trans fats, greasy saturated fats, etc.

most of the healthy peoples get their protein from fish and lean meats, and most also have as a staple, whatever plant foods are indigenous to their area.
So finally, you've come around. The ideal diet: Wild game, fish, vegetables and fruits! I don't think you know it, but this is low-carb. You're essentially saying what The Paleo and Neanderthin diets are recommending, both very well-known low-carb plans.

You apparently never read low-carb books, and assumed low-carb means no carb. Your source of information is probably the same group who had you think Dr. Atkins died from a heart attack? Not so ethical a bunch of people.

Now that you probably are getting closer to this realization, I doubt staying here is anymore fun for you. You might prefer visiting some morgues, to make fun of more dead senior citizins in their 70's, and gloat how you're already in your 40's and still intact?

Wa'il

[Lisa N]

as much as tamarian wants to insinuate, this thread was not started for ethical reasons. i have never hinted at ethical reasons.

No, you didn't start this thread for ethical reasons, at least not that you stated, but you had no problem voicing them in the other thread. You cannot divorce yourself from your ethical beliefs in this thread any more than you could in the other. Indeed, you ideas have not changed and whether you voice them directly here or not, they are being expressed. In other words, it's hypocritical to state in one thread that eating meat is nothing short of murder and then in this thread trot out studies of people who eat meat and present it as a healthy diet and then even state that you have no problem with the nutrition of wild fish and game! Even this statement is in direct opposition to what you stated in the other thread:

most of the healthy peoples get their protein from fish and lean meats

You can't have it both ways. Either it is healthy or it is not. It cannot be healthy in one thread and unhealthy in another. Since you do not recommend that protein be obtained from either of the sources that you listed above and in fact consider it unethical to do so but yet admit that most healthy peoples GET their protein from animal sources, how can you still claim that your diet is what we need for "optimal" nutrition? Either it is unethical to eat animals or it is not. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here depending on what you can find that you think might benefit your position and nobody is buying it.

you guys are gonna run into some problems eating too much saturated fat.

Tell me...when exactly is this terrible consequence going to occur? Many people here have been following low carb far longer than my 2 1/2 years with no ill effects as demonstrated by optimal or near optimal cardiac profiles. We've given you several examples of people who have eaten low carb for decades and not suffered ill effect. In fact, it seems at least in the case of Dr. Bernstein to have prolonged his life far in excess of what is deemed normal for a type 1 diabetic whereas your way of eating would have likely killed him long ago.
You have yet to provide ANY evidence that saturated fat is harmful in the absence of a high carb intake and we have provided you ample evidence that it is not. You also make it sound as if all we eat is saturated fat and nothing could be farther from the truth. We're just not unreasonably frightened of it because we have done our research and understand that the evidence that it is harmful is extremely weak if valid at all and furthermore the evidence that it has important health benefits is far stronger than any evidence of it causing health problems.

healthy people do not have your restrictions.

Again..who would that be with more than 60% of the American popluation being overweight or obese and several countries rapidly catching up to those statistics? It seems that low carb would benefit a far greater percentage people at this current time than what you originally proposed in this thread.

[bvtaylor]

You know, gymee, If I may make an observation, I've been following this thread for a while now, and it's become pretty heated...

But I'm really curious... going back to the beginning, this thread was entitled:

__________________________________________

low-carb diets do not promote optimal health __________________________________________

But I don't see any particular concrete explanation of why optimal health is not provided?

Is it that you can't get all your vitanutrients from 100 g of carb or less per diem? I don't think that's true. I get almost a full USRDA of vitanutrients every day on 20-25 net carbs per day (as I'm not in a maintenance mode, but rather in a weight loss mode) eating nutrient-dense carbs (from veggies, nuts, soy, and berries, mostly) and a variety of natural meats, nuts, dairy, and fats. I usually find myself a little short on vitamin C and D, and potassium, but I know that were I to climb up the carb ladder the correct way with natural nutrient-intense, low-glycemic carbs, and occasional forays into high-glycemic ones, I could fill that void pretty easily without exceeding 100 g of carbs on average. And I take good supplements to fill the void as a person on the weight loss portion of this diet should.

And that, by definition, is low carb.

It's not too far off from what you've been trying to warn us against, gymee... mostly the whole foods rather than the processed ones... but nobody has come up with an "ideal" diet balance in this entire thread. How many g of protein? How many g of fat? How much can these proportions slide and still be healthy?

Gymee, you continue to frown on saturated fats, but I don't see you saying how much is too much? Going back to the Mediterranean diet, I showed you that it certainly has "some" saturated fat. Pork is the most widely eaten meat in the world, quite prevalent in the Far East, which tends to have more slender healthy folk, and it is in moderation a staple. Fowl is also widely consumed, and there is a significant amount of saturated fat in fowl as well.

I mean those of us who are doing the l/c program the right way, with exercise and supplements, losing weight, maintaining weight, or just improving the quality of our diet with whole foods that are less carb-intensive... we're all saying that we are healthier-- less GERD, better blood profiles, more energy--I don't see anyone on this thread complaining of any health problems?

So what's precisely wrong with "low" carb?

It's rather remarkable that with so many millions of folks doing low-carb (and folks have been doing it the Atkins way for the past 30 years) that there have been no particular trend of bad stories about people going south with their health because of this diet. I mean there are always a handful of people who get sick and have mysterious complications, and a few people who fall off the l/c wagon and go back to their old habits and gain weight back, but there is certainly no hue and cry from l/c followers that they have been hurt by this diet.

There's only one vague allusion to damage the l/c theories that I've heard, that of a 16 year old girl with calcium/potassium imbalances, a crash-diet , depressive mentality, and fishy circumstances that took place about 3 years ago--no one can be sure exactly what happened or what she ate (diet pills? other drugs?) that caused the death.

One tragic death three years ago that may or may not be related to the diet is really small potatoes (ha!) when it comes to a "popular" health trend that is gaining velocity--not because it is prescribed by anyone or hugely marketed (in fact the naysayers in the mainstream are many), but more so because of word of mouth--it works.

If it didn't, there'd be a whole lot of high-profile lawsuits going on--and surprisingly, I don't see 'em.

Seems like everyone knows someone who has improved their health by doing l/c for a while. :angel:

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
in our many discussions, i have noticed that you have some problems with logical analysis/reasoning. i don't mean it as an insult - most people do poorly at it. but you are confusing issues.

i will always recall a lecture in my physics class. off the wall, my physics teacher made a comment to a student that it was not important for a woman to be chaste, in order to have a child - only that she be fertile. he went on to further that tidbit, and relate it to the actual lecture, which i will not bore you with - LOL.

but whether it is ethically correct to kill an animal, and whether the animal is nutritional, are completely different and unrelated subjects. it is possible for any one of the 4 possible combinations to be true, since neither idea is dependent on the other. it is not at all hypocritical to say that it is wrong to kill the animal, but still admit that the animal is nutritious.

in other words, there is no logical reasoning that would allow us to make inferences about a person's opinion on the 1 subject, based upon the opinion of the other subject.

i don't believe it is correct to steal your television from you. however, that does not preclude that i might find it enjoyable to watch. the 2 are completely different issues, and stand independently of one another, just as the 2 issues of killing an animal, and its nutritional value are 2 separate issues.

tamarian does not seem to understand this either. my ideas do not match low-carbers, because it is my belief that you get way too much saturated fat. so no matter how much he attempts to say so, i differ with your approach by that 1 VERY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
my definition of healthy people, in this discussion, is simply to differentiate those who already have sugar metabolic problems, such that eating carbs is dangerous (say you perhaps), from those who do not. the fact that one is overweight does not come into the equation yet. as long as they are not diabetic, the obese person will do better with my solution. limiting carbs and substituting saturated fat, in my mind, is a last resort - something we would have to do only when they have severe sugar metabolic problems.

if i could get those obese people off crap food, and change their diets around to my specs, they would be healthier. again, you are doing what you are doing, because you have no choice. other less than ideal healthy people are not yet forced to do so, if they are caught early enough.

you guys do not see it - but you have in your mind this horrible demon called sugar. it is not a demon, but a wonderful friend, WHEN USED CORRECTLY. it has only been since we have started placing all this processed sugar foods on the market, that humans have been accumulating all these problems. the problem is not sugar, but the type of sugar foods that are here. feed them tons of natural produce, along with ample protein, and ample essential fats, and you will have a marvel of health - it really is just that simple - we do not need any newfangled low-fat, low-carb, low-protein, or any other gimmick diets around.

[alaskaman]

gymee, you have a demon called "saturated fat" which has never hurt you, never will - we have a demon called "sugar" which for many of us has caused obesity and insulin resistance and diabetes. To be honest, my diabetes may be T1, caused by autoimmune or virus, will prob never know. Cut out all the crap foods and put everybody on your diet? Honestly it might work, couldn't be worse than a pizza and a 32 oz slurpee. But, read "life without bread" and you see that there's also a pretty good chance that lc would also do the same. Sugar, properly used? Well, its all sugar whether from a yam or an idaho baker, from a carrot or a stalk of sugar cane. Does the same thing to the insulin system, the fat storage mechanisms, etc. Only way a high carb diet like yours will work is if you are living a VERY vigorous lifestyle. Then anything will work. Bill

[Lisa N]

it is not at all hypocritical to say that it is wrong to kill the animal, but still admit that the animal is nutritious.

Denial...it's not just a river in Egypt! If you can't see that it's hypocritical to state emphatically in one thread that it's murder to eat an animal and then in this thread point to examples of cultures who routinely eat animals as being supremely healthy, I give up but not before observing that it seems you have a problem with logic! :rolleyes


my definition of healthy people, in this discussion, is simply to differentiate those who already have sugar metabolic problems, such that eating carbs is dangerous (say you perhaps), from those who do not.

First of all, I never once stated that eating carbs is dangerous. I never once said "don't eat carbs at all". What I have said is choose the carbs you eat wisely and make sure that they are the most nutrient dense ones available (which happens to be the low carb/low GI veggies and fruits). You keep confusing quantity with quality. You've admitted that we are not lacking in any vitamin, mineral, protein or essential fat so I fail to see where your argument lies, other than in an unreasonable and unfounded fear of saturated fat (which you admit is your opinion and have not backed up with any scientific study that specifically relates to saturated fat intake in the absence of a high carb diet) and an unfounded insistence that we MUST eat more carbs to be optimally healthy, again not backed up with anything but your opinion.
Differentiate between those that already have sugar metabolic problems and those who don't? How do you think people develop sugar metabolic problems? By eating sugar! So your solution is to advise people to eat sugar until they develop a problem with it? Where's the logic in that? How about avoid sugar as much as possible and not develop a problem with it at all. Furthermore, being overweight is a huge factor whether you want to admit it or not because those that are overweight are likely already developing a problem with sugar metabolism, if they do not have it already, and at this point this is 60%+ of our population. Since they got this way by eating less saturated fat and more carbs, what does this tell you?

it has only been since we have started placing all this processed sugar foods on the market, that humans have been accumulating all these problems. the problem is not sugar, but the type of sugar foods that are here.

You need to go back and take a closer look at the research. The rise in degenerative diseases coincides directly with the intruduction and widespread use of vegetable oils in this country and further accelerated by a rise in carbohydrate consumption along with a decrease in fat (saturated fat!) consumption. As Alaskaman pointed out, your body does not care where the sugar comes from, whether it be straight table sugar, fruit or bread; it will respond the same to all of them.

[Kestrel]

Hi, bytaylor: Vitamin C is obviously easiest to obtain from various fruits or veggies for most people, however one can obtain the necessary C from roe cod, as well as various organ meats; check out the link. Whole milk products are good too; I believe the raw whole is even better for C, but I misplaced that link.

http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/info/books-phds/books/foodfacts/html/data/data4i.html

[gymeejet]

lisa,
among the many delightful qualities God gave women, logical reasoning isn't one of them. i have no doubts that the intentional omission was to frustrate men to the edge of their sanity - perhaps we deserve it. LOL.

however, i no longer allow myself to get frustrated. the 2 issues are completely independent of one another. that is really first-grade logic. you might do well to ask someone who understands logic, because you are making yourself look foolish, in that regards.

the main logic that the lcers miss is that just because twinkies and such cause sugar metabolic problems, does not mean that oranges and apples will do so. they are as different as the wild game is from the store-bought hamburger.

[gymeejet]

alaska,
i have always been willing to stipulate that your lc diet has saved you from your sugar problems. and that you and lisa, and other diabetics may need to do just what you are doing. but i do not agree that it is necessary for the masses. if we catch their sugar problems early enough, they can be put on my diet, filled with ample protein, ample essential fats, and lots of good carbs.

by the way, diabetes is not the only problem caused by abuse of sugar, it is just the one that is most publicized. in a very general sense, the main problem with sugar is that it causes many inbalances within the body, and so can lead to many types of degenerative situations, in the long term.

[gymeejet]

hi bv,
the usrda levels represent the levels of nutrients that are needed to prevent disease processes. they are not even close to the amounts that i believe are needed, in order to obtain optimal health. but i am not gonna get that level just with the increase of good carbs. i still supplement my diet.

i know it is not too far off - there is 1 HUGE DIFFERENCE - the amount of saturated fat that replaces a lot of good carbs.

in terms of quantities, there is no 1 right answer. that is why i use the word "ample", and constantly refer to these nutritional tests. the testing will give you a good starting point as a basis for you to determine how much is just right. if you are way off the normal beaten path, it is possible that you may want to be there, but you should understand the implications, and be able to give a reason why you are there. originally, i found that my protein was low, and my essential fats was very low. imbalances cause other imbalances. in fact, there was one thing that lisa mentioned very early on about calcium, that i think rang true for me. i believe that my lack of fat was causing me trouble with my calcium balance.

i have talked to many that have had lc problems, including a gal that was hospitalized, and then the doctor immediately took her off that diet, and got more natural carbs in her.

you have corrected sugar abuse problems that have been present for a long time, so their symptoms were already showing themselves. i fear that 30 years of saturated fat at the lc level, and we will once again have people shrieking at it as their demon, and going on a major rollercoaster ride. you have gone from 1 extreme to the other - i have no doubts that the pendulum will eventually settle in the middle, as my advice does.

you point out your better test results, etc. i commend you for that, and know you are doing better. but i am talking about the feeling of being able to fly, to go where no man has gone before. and that is the difference between feeling good and feeling optimal.

[gymeejet]

and please, come up with something more original than "you don't want to fly", as i am surely anticipating that reply from lisa and the gang. LOL.

[tamarian]

among the many delightful qualities God gave women, logical reasoning isn't one of them. And of course this comes from a clean healthy mind like yours, that has no religious influence/brain washing in it, and purely based on science?

Wa'il

[jesslive]

by the way, diabetes is not the only problem caused by abuse of sugar, it is just the one that is most publicized. in a very general sense, the main problem with sugar is that it causes many inbalances within the body, and so can lead to many types of degenerative situations, in the long term. - Gymee said.

Was this supposed to support an anti-LC point of view?

[alaskaman]

Gymee says "just because twinkies cause sugar metabolic problems, does not mean that oranges and apples will do so." Sorry, they will. The sugar in a twinkie is sucrose. The sugar in an apple or orange is also sucrose, along with fructose and glucose. Sucrose and fructose are disaccharides which get converted to the monosaccharide glucose. An orange instead of a twinkie means you get some vitamin c, some fiber and calcium which is fine but it is still sugar. Feed a teenager orange juice instead of some drink with sugar and corn syrup? Obesity still on the way.

[digwig]

gymeejet,

I may be a woman and therefore too feeble-minded to understand all the issues here, but why are you preaching to the choir?

You are arguing that low-carbing is bad, yet you prescribe a way of eating that seems virtually identical to MANY of the different low carb plans our members follow. Low carbing comes in many different flavors, including vegetarian. You've only read Protein Power, perhaps you should take the time to read a few of the other books out there, including Sugar Busters (which is based on the concept that all carbs are not created equal and advises control of saturated fat intake) and Ray Audette's book, which used to be called Neanderthin, but I think is now called The Paleodiet. The Audette book calls for the consumption of wild game or lean meat, nuts, seeds, fruit and vegetables and the elimination of dairy, refined sugar, and artificial ingredients. It sounds extremely similar to what you are touting as an optimal health plan and, guess what? It's low carb.

Also how do you feel about the fact that fructose stimulates triglyceride production in the liver? High triclycerides are now generally considered to be at least as important as poor LDL/HDL ratios as an indicatior of cardiovascular disease risk, so it concerns me, almost as much as our consumption of saturated fat concerns you. Especially, as fruit is more available than it has ever been in human history, because of refrigeration and improved transportation options. In the past, fruit had a season and it wasn't possible to eat the high fructose fruits year round. It's only been in the last hundred years or less that you could eat a mango in Duluth in the middle of November and that's not enough time for humans to evolve in a way that we'd require large amounts of fruit in our diet for optimum health.

The members of our forum are trying to control our blood sugar to attain optimum health. We're on a blood sugar control plan, as much as anything else. It means we don't eat refined sugar at all and that we pick and choose our carbohydrates carefully. I regularly eat such nutrient rich/low G.I. carbohydrates as sweet potato, broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, tomato, asparagus, avocado, green beans, Brussels sprouts, romaine lettuce, blackberries, blueberries, raspberries and strawberries. I also eat dark chocolate which is loaded with antioxidants. Actually, I will eat any fruit, just in appropriate quantities and with an eye to my daily carb level. I've never eaten so many vegetables in my life since I started low carbing, nor have I ever had such a clear understanding of how what I put in my mouth affects my health. I've also found, by tracking my daily food intake on Fitday.com for more than a year that I eat around 100 grams of fat per day, which is the same as the average American adult. Fat is a higher percentage of my calories than it used to be, but that's because I eat fewer calories than I used to (without sacrificing nutrients).

It's a mistake to think that the people on this forum are a bunch of blind bacon-eaters, because we're actually a group of people who care about our health, who have taken the time to learn how food affects us, who have experimented with different nutrient combinations, who follow the latest nutritional news and discuss it with one another, trying to understand what has value and what is biased or non-scientific. In short, we are a tremendously health-aware group of people who are willing to share what we've learned with anyone else who would like to hear it. Why are you wasting your time arguing with us when there's a bunch of people over at the Weight Watchers boards you could be yelling at?

Also, how on earth do you know how I feel? I follow a rigorous workout program (as do many of our members) and have a busy, amazing, fulfilling life. I jump out of bed every morning, have never had such mental clarity and felt so much joy. I fly, baby, I fly. If this isn't optimum health, I don't know what is. I have the power and physical energy to do anything I desire and it's thanks to the healthy diet I consume.

Thanks for listening, but I'd be grateful if, in the future, you'd refrain from bashing people based on their gender. It's really not necessary to make your argument and just kills any sense of you being genuinely open to discussion.

Thanks,

Dig

[Xeles]

"Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it has only been since we have started placing all this processed sugar foods on the market, that humans have been accumulating all these problems. the problem is not sugar, but the type of sugar foods that are here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You need to go back and take a closer look at the research. The rise in degenerative diseases coincides directly with the intruduction and widespread use of vegetable oils in this country and further accelerated by a rise in carbohydrate consumption along with a decrease in fat (saturated fat!) consumption. As Alaskaman pointed out, your body does not care where the sugar comes from, whether it be straight table sugar, fruit or bread; it will respond the same to all of them."

Also, the egyptians had a low fat diet rich in grains, fruits and vegetables and yet suffered from obesity and clogged arteries.

[Lisa N]

http://www.protraineronline.com/past/july2/fruit.cfm

I'll get back to you later on that little personal slam you levied at me, or perhaps we should let the members of the board decide who is putting forth the more logical argument here? :lol:
I'd also like to point out that an insult is often the last bastion of one who cannot refute what you have said. :rolleyes:

[digwig]

Lisa,

Thanks for that article! I'd always thought that because things like berries were low g.i. and nutrient rich that they were the best carb choice after low g.i. vegetables. But now I see that if the liver glycogen is full the fructose is easily converted to fat.

I wonder how much of an issue it really is for us, since low carbers have depleted liver glycogen levels in the first place and would likely only eat a small portion of fruit in the second place. Although, anything that takes the pressure off my fat cells by replenishing my glycogen stores is something I need to limit as long as I have more fat to lose.

Very interesting article, and thanks so much for not letting this thread die. On the question of which of the two of you is the more logical, I have to wonder if it's the person who backs up her opinion with studies and explanations of basic biochemistry, or the person who begins most statements with "in my opinion." :)

I, for one, learned something today.

Thanks, Dig

[Lisa N]

Dig...that's why many of the low carb authors recommend that fruits be low GI and limited to no more (along with lots of veggies) than you can consume and not gain weight. When you start gaining weight as you slowly raise your carb allowance, it means that you have crossed the bridge from fat metabolism to carb metabolism. I don't think that berries and some melons are a problem for low carbers during OWL precisely for that reason...glycogen stores are empty and the body is burning fat for fuel instead of carbs so even if the fructose leaves the liver as fat, the body burns it for fuel instead of storing it.
Fortunately for us, berries are the highest in antioxidants and other important phytochemicals of all the fruits there are. Lots of nutritional punch for a lot less carbs than a banana.
Glad you benefitted from that article! :)

[Lisa N]

i am talking about the feeling of being able to fly

You know...in a psychiatric evaluation, that could be labeled as psychosis! :lol:

[Lisa N]

http://www.mercola.com/2002/nov/13/fructose.htm

Note the use of the words "SMALL AMOUNTS" in regards to fruit and fructose intakes. Sound familiar?

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i am just teasing you. your logic is pretty good most of the time. this particular time it did wander a bit. i like discussing logic, and like helping others with it. because they are not too good with it, they can be easily swayed at times, especially when the statements seem common-sensical. and boy, do politicians/lawyers ever take advantage of that. they are constantly saying something, knowing darn well that most people will take it the way that the politician wants him to think, instead of the way things really are. anyways, OFF TO BATTLE. LOL.

[gymeejet]

dig, i enjoyed your post, and will answer it when i have time. since it is 1 against 20, i often am answering a post directed to me, many days after the original post date.

[gymeejet]

gymeejet,

You are arguing that low-carbing is bad, yet you prescribe a way of eating that seems virtually identical to MANY of the different low carb plans our members follow. Low carbing comes in many different flavors, including vegetarian. You've only read Protein Power, perhaps you should take the time to read a few of the other books out there, including Sugar Busters (which is based on the concept that all carbs are not created equal and advises control of saturated fat intake) and Ray Audette's book, which used to be called Neanderthin, but I think is now called The Paleodiet. The Audette book calls for the consumption of wild game or lean meat, nuts, seeds, fruit and vegetables and the elimination of dairy, refined sugar, and artificial ingredients. It sounds extremely similar to what you are touting as an optimal health plan and, guess what? It's low carb.

hi dig,
i have not read sugar busters, but that is what i am preaching - not all sugars are created equal, and control the saturated fat intake. i also recall liking the book "lick the sugar habit". if i recall, most of it was centered on the abuses of our current processed sugar products. yes, the audette book does sound like it is promoting healthy foods. but if it is low-carb, then my only disagreement with the book would be in nutrient percentages, not nutrient foods.


Also how do you feel about the fact that fructose stimulates triglyceride production in the liver? High triclycerides are now generally considered to be at least as important as poor LDL/HDL ratios as an indicatior of cardiovascular disease risk, so it concerns me, almost as much as our consumption of saturated fat concerns you. Especially, as fruit is more available than it has ever been in human history, because of refrigeration and improved transportation options. In the past, fruit had a season and it wasn't possible to eat the high fructose fruits year round. It's only been in the last hundred years or less that you could eat a mango in Duluth in the middle of November and that's not enough time for humans to evolve in a way that we'd require large amounts of fruit in our diet for optimum health.

for sake of argument, i will assume that fructose stimulates triglyceride production in the liver. yes, i am concerned about triglyceride levels. no, i am not concerned about fructose. sometimes we can lose the forest for the trees, or however that saying goes. we have to look at the system as a whole. like i told alaska earlier, i am not much interested in the details of studies, even when they are not biased, because those studies at best, show what occurs in the typical already highly-unbalanced western human. if people were following my advice, many of these issues would be moot, because they would not be a problem. the other thing that we need to be aware of is that not all triglycerides are created equal. triglycerides are simply a glycerol molecule, with 3 fatty acids connected. are these fatty acids of the essential ilk ? nobody ever mentions that. my fatty acid test gives me the complete breakdown, which is what is really important.


The members of our forum are trying to control our blood sugar to attain optimum health. We're on a blood sugar control plan, as much as anything else. It means we don't eat refined sugar at all and that we pick and choose our carbohydrates carefully. I regularly eat such nutrient rich/low G.I. carbohydrates as sweet potato, broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, tomato, asparagus, avocado, green beans, Brussels sprouts, romaine lettuce, blackberries, blueberries, raspberries and strawberries. I also eat dark chocolate which is loaded with antioxidants. Actually, I will eat any fruit, just in appropriate quantities and with an eye to my daily carb level. I've never eaten so many vegetables in my life since I started low carbing, nor have I ever had such a clear understanding of how what I put in my mouth affects my health. I've also found, by tracking my daily food intake on Fitday.com for more than a year that I eat around 100 grams of fat per day, which is the same as the average American adult. Fat is a higher percentage of my calories than it used to be, but that's because I eat fewer calories than I used to (without sacrificing nutrients).

since you may be new to the thread, i will repeat something i have said many, many times. for those that are diabetic, one must do what one must do. my advice centers around those who have not reached the point where sugar is poorly metabolized. in otherwards, one that can still process the amounts of sugar in produce and grains, when the junk foods are eliminated.



It's a mistake to think that the people on this forum are a bunch of blind bacon-eaters, because we're actually a group of people who care about our health, who have taken the time to learn how food affects us, who have experimented with different nutrient combinations, who follow the latest nutritional news and discuss it with one another, trying to understand what has value and what is biased or non-scientific. In short, we are a tremendously health-aware group of people who are willing to share what we've learned with anyone else who would like to hear it. Why are you wasting your time arguing with us when there's a bunch of people over at the Weight Watchers boards you could be yelling at?

i am glad to hear that the people on this forum are not blind bacon-eaters, but low-carb in general, does give carte blanche to saturated fats. so in that sense, you have taken steps towards my advice, in that you are not silly enough to think that you can eat as much as you want. but it does not seem like all the people on this forum would agree with you on that, because from what is posted to me, most still seem to have that same carte blanche attitude towards saturated fats. so i make it your job to spread that word to your fellow lcers.


Also, how on earth do you know how I feel? I follow a rigorous workout program (as do many of our members) and have a busy, amazing, fulfilling life. I jump out of bed every morning, have never had such mental clarity and felt so much joy. I fly, baby, I fly. If this isn't optimum health, I don't know what is. I have the power and physical energy to do anything I desire and it's thanks to the healthy diet I consume.

great. now i know i am not the only psychotic one. LOL.

[Charlif761]

I felt compelled to come back and see what else Gymeejet has had to say on this thread...and suddenly saw that he is a vegetarian. Well, I find it MOST interesting that he is so committed to "proving" that LCing isn't healthy when he chooses such a deviation from a "normal" human diet. It's no wonder he has no problem with his weight. If he is like the MANY vegetarians I know, he is underweight and sickly looking. Maybe we LCers should spend time arguing to him that HIS way of eating isn't so "optimal" for HIS health??? However, I still stick with my original prose......I have much better things to do than try to convince a zealot that what I choose to eat is good for ME.

Happy Bean Eating, Gymeejet...

[bvtaylor]

... although many of us were on the road there... In fact I would say that the 60% of the US population that is struggling with being overweight is on the road to T2 diabetes. Folks, that's why this is an epidemic in this country.

The staggering recent news that it is estimated that 30% of the children born in this country in this decade are predicted to become T2 diabetics means that something has gone wrong. That's way too high.

Here's why--very simply the fact that our bodies are storing too much fact indicates that our bodies are on an insulin drive, as insulin interacts with unused carbohydrates to store fat.

The combination of high fat (particularly trans fats) and carbohydrates is a killer.

I must agree with gymee that the processed foods are primarily to blame for how we've gotten here. I would venture that people who don't eat a lot of processed foods have far less problems with their weight and with issues of diabetes, so they haven't messed up their metabolisms the way that we have. Whole, natural foods, even the higher carb types, usually contain more nutrients and fiber that mitigate the glycemic effect. When eaten with natural sources of protein and fats, plus with the extra work to prepare whole food meals, eating is slower and more satisfying.

It can simply be the difference between sitting down to a bunch of sunflower seeds in the shell and eating sunflower kernels from a jar. Or choosing a cookie instead of an apple (maybe equal carbs but not equal vitanutrients or fiber, so the blood sugar effect--depending on what the cookie is made from, can be different).

Junk food comes in all types... whether it is vegetarian or not... after all potato chips are vegetarian.

So most of us on this site are either in the process of finding a better way to lose weight than the low-fat high-carb low-cal methodology that we've been preached to live. Most of us have found ourselves feeling hungry and deprived and have despaired with our diets.

But it's not really "low" carb... nor is it a free ride on saturated fats... long term.

Short term does have us eat "low" carb to help us lose weight. Short term also allows us to have a lot more fat in our diet than we would were we in a maintenance mode.

How we get out of our trap is a method of going back to whole foods and knowing that we've already tampered with our insulin mechanisms, we use technically a "controlled carbohydrate" method of living and that for us is long term. Controlled does not mean that we eliminate carbs, it means that we watch them because most of us have been addicts.

And we also know that as we begin to add back carbs into our diet after the weight loss is over, we must also cut back on the net amount of fats.

So without being specific as to how many grams of what, we cannot really make an accurate debate about the positive or negative health values of a "low" carb or "controlled" carb regimen.

[digwig]

Hi Gymee,

I'll have to make this quick since I have some flying to do...

yes, i am concerned about triglyceride levels. no, i am not concerned about fructose. sometimes we can lose the forest for the trees, or however that saying goes. we have to look at the system as a whole. like i told alaska earlier, i am not much interested in the details of studies, even when they are not biased, because those studies at best, show what occurs in the typical already highly-unbalanced western human. if people were following my advice, many of these issues would be moot, because they would not be a problem.

Gymee, this is exactly what we are trying to tell you about a low-carbohydrate diet. It creates a hormonal balance that allows us to eat saturated fat, without having to worry about the consequences that may befall those eating the highly-unbalanced western diet (when they eat saturated fat). We feel exactly the same way about the studies that demonize saturated fat while ignoring that they were studying a high fat/high carbohydrate diet. All the studies that have specifically studied a low carb/high fat diet show improved blood lipid profiles, lowered blood pressure and greater fat reduction/muscle retention that low fat diets, but this gets lost in the criticism of the plan. How do you explain the improved health profiles of low-carbohydrate dieters, if our diet is so harmful? (I'd really like you to address this, specifically.) My own total cholesterol is 180 with an LDL of 120 and and HDL of 60. My blood pressure is 110/70 and I've lost almost 90 pounds since 1996 following a low-carbohydrate diet. This forum is full of people with stories exactly like mine.

since you may be new to the thread, i will repeat something i have said many, many times. for those that are diabetic, one must do what one must do. my advice centers around those who have not reached the point where sugar is poorly metabolized. in otherwards, one that can still process the amounts of sugar in produce and grains, when the junk foods are eliminated.

I'm willing to accept that a person with a healthy endocrine system who eliminates junk foods, chooses their carbohydrate sources solely from whole grains, vegetables and reasonable amounts of fruit, and is careful to consume adequate protein and adequate fat is likely to be healthy and that many of the illnesses that American's suffer from today would be eliminated. Now, we would probably disagree on the total number of grams per day that are appropriate from each nutrient group, but the basic concept is similar. More than 60% of the US population, however, doesn't have a healthy endocrine system and needs to respond appropriately to their current situation (at least until I finish that time machine I've been working on). As Lisa has already said, paying attention to carbohydrate intake and activity levels before they reach the point where sugar is poorly metabolized would seem to be a good idea for most people. I don't think you disagree with this. When twelve year olds are developing Type II diabetes, we have a serious problem that needs addressing now.

One of the basic principles of many low-carbohydrate diets is finding a personal, individualized level of carbohydrate intake that results in either maintaining or heading toward a healthy body weight and healthy blood work. The number of grams each person can consume varies depending on each person's degree of blood sugar issues. Some people in this forum can eat more than 100 grams of carbohydrate and maintain perfect health, I can eat around 60 to maintain my weight and health, but need to eat under 40 to lose weight (unless I'm exercising, in which case those levels increase by about 20%). Some people can only lose on levels under 20g/day. My point is that each of us has a different level of tolerance for sugar and that a blanket prescription of "everyone must eat X number of carbohydrate grams per day," ignores the physical individuality we all have. I've taken the time to really understand my own body's specific needs, as have most members of this forum.

i am glad to hear that the people on this forum are not blind bacon-eaters, but low-carb in general, does give carte blanche to saturated fats. so in that sense, you have taken steps towards my advice, in that you are not silly enough to think that you can eat as much as you want. but it does not seem like all the people on this forum would agree with you on that, because from what is posted to me, most still seem to have that same carte blanche attitude towards saturated fats. so i make it your job to spread that word to your fellow lcers.

I'm going to have to turn down your kind job offer (the pay's lousy ;) ). But seriously, I think the media has portrayed a low carb diet as one that's made up exclusively of bacon, eggs, cheese and butter. I guess the interpretation of the statement, "it's okay to eat fat in the absence of high levels of carb," is "your entire diet must be made up of fat." The reality is that the options in a low carbohydrate diet are extremely varied and include tons of vegetables, whole grains, some fruits, meat (lean or not), dairy products, eggs and essential fats. The reason my fat intake is around 100g's daily is because I have a varied diet. I don't want to eat just bacon, eggs, cheese and butter for the rest of my life, although I don't believe the limitation of saturated fat is necessary in the slightest if carbohydrate levels are controlled. One of the reasons "Sugar Busters," advocates lower saturated fat intake is that the carbohydrate levels are higher than some other lc plans which doesn't lead to ketosis. I'm not convinced this is necessary because saturated fat raises LDL and HDL equally, but that is what the plan instructs.

Sorry, I guess that makes me silly :roll: .

I know you're busy with your 20 against 1 battles here, but have you read
this thread on eating fat? (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=31603) I think you might enjoy it, at the very least to infuriate yourself, since I'm pretty convinced we're never going to convince you that eating saturated fat is okay. :) Another book I think you would really enjoy is "The Good Fat Cookbook," which you can buy used at Amazon.com for $2.50 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000AACV7/qid=1064437731/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/104-0682208-3059133) It details the latest research on fats and is full of fascinating information that seems right up your alley.

Have to fly,

Dig

[gymeejet]

hi bv,
that was an excellent post. let me relay a story to you that also responds to alaska's post, and lisa's agreement of alaska's post.

you guys know that i agree with alaska in that a molecule of fructose does not know from whence it came, nor does it care.

but that is not a good argument to use as a base that all sugar foods do the same thing in your body. again, we have to look at the body, as a whole. when the fruit is ingested, also ingested are the enzymes and other nutrients that make the fruit nutritious. our bodies will not run into trouble there.

when i was in college, i would very often run through a whole package of store-bought cookies (3 layers of 25 cookies), along with diet rite cola - 32 ounces. each cookie had lots of icing, and being very conservative, each cookie had as many calories as an average size apple - probably more, but at least as much.

now that means i was putting 75 cookies into me within an hour or so. and i was not full afterwards. i stopped only because they ran out. i can eat a lot more fruit at one time than the average person. so maybe i could down 8 apples before i got full. but i want to see someone down 75 apples in an hour - just no way. and the cookies did not even make me full. once in awhile, i would get some nausea for an hour, but that dissipated quickly. so eating produce, there is just no way that we could put as much sugar into our bodies as we do, while eating junk foods.

and this is my basic gist. if one is eating natural foods, eating a high amount of carbs is not gonna cause you any problems. we still need to get our protein and essential fats, as these are essential nutrients, and for the most part, missing in our natural carbs, which contain all sorts of stuff that is missing in our protein and essential fats, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED BOTH.

[bvtaylor]

... to you Gymee, from what you say, you are a healthy very active person in your 50's. What would be interesting is to see how your own nutrition and activity levels divvy's up in the way that you personally eat.

If you go to http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/Index.html

and set up an account for yourself, you can track your food intake and activities (athletic or otherwise), make it public, and we can then all see what your representation as an "average" non-diabetic healthy person really means in terms of your own nutrients, carbs, fats, proteins, exercise, etc. :read2:

Then we can find more ground for non-study-based, personal analysis and discussion.

Your strongest argument for defense on this 20 to 1 thread is your position that you are by common standards an exceptionally healthy person who has not struggled with weight issues. Let's find out why not!

[bvtaylor]

My lord... that's a lot of cookies!!.... you must have exercised an awful lot or have an extremely tolerant metabolism not to have a weight or sugar problem.

How much exercise do you do, and what kind?

I assume you don't eat that way any more, or this whole discussion on nutrition goes to pot! :lol:

[Lisa N]

More reasons to limit fruit and eat lots of dark green, leafy veggies with butter on them. :)

http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/oxidativestress.html

[digwig]

hi bv,
when i was in college, i would very often run through a whole package of store-bought cookies (3 layers of 25 cookies), along with diet rite cola - 32 ounces. each cookie had lots of icing, and being very conservative, each cookie had as many calories as an average size apple - probably more, but at least as much.

now that means i was putting 75 cookies into me within an hour or so. and i was not full afterwards. i stopped only because they ran out. i can eat a lot more fruit at one time than the average person. so maybe i could down 8 apples before i got full. but i want to see someone down 75 apples in an hour - just no way.

Sounds like you were a carb addict who cured himself by changing the types of carbohydrate he consumed. Welcome to the club!

Also, is Lisa really saying that all carbs are created equal? She's invoked the name of the mighty glycemic index (http://www.glycemicindex.com/) more than a few times on this thread, which indicates to me that she's advocating the careful choosing of carbohydrates based on blood sugar impact (which is exactly what you're saying, too).

[Lisa N]

Also, is Lisa really saying that all carbs are created equal?

Not me! :lol:
Gymee is the proponet of the "all carbs are created equal" idea. My point is that sugar is sugar and your body will react the same to it whether it comes from Twinkies, cookies or fruit with an equal amount of glucose in it. Other carbs, on the other hand, do have distinct differences based on their glycemic index, degree of digestibility (how much fiber they contain) as well as the fat and protein content eaten with the meal.

Regarding Gymees 75 cookies vs. 75 apples example. Obviously, it would be a person with a truly prodigious appetite who could consume 75 apples in an hour, but a better question to ask would be could they consume 75 dried dates in that same time period since those are a little more closely matched in carbs and volume (with the cookies still winning out on the total carbs equation). Yikes...I can't imagine the sugar rush that must have followed that cookie binge. Even I couldn't have eaten that many on my worst high carb day.

[Kestrel]

I'm surprised you all didn't jump on gymee for his last post contending that carb foods supply "all sorts of stuff missing from protein and fats".

By the way, WMD weren't found in Iraq, but they are found on your supermarket shelves... An attempt at levity.

[bvtaylor]

WMD = weapons of morbid digestion! :lol:

[Lisa N]

Since we're in the mood for comparisons today, let's compare nutrient value of some foods typically eaten on low carb with some that Gymee has reported are part of his daily eating plan. Percentages given are percentage of daily requirement. Ready?

Apple, 1 small versus 1 cup strawberries
Hmmm...the stawberries have 7.1 grams of carb and a lower glycemic index versus 14.3 grams of carb in the apple with a higher glycemic index, but that's just the beginning. The strawberries beat out the apple on Vitamin C (144% vs. 10%), Calcium (2% vs. 1%) Magnesium (4% vs. 1%), Folate (7% vs. 1%), Riboflavin (5% vs. 1%), Iron (3% vs. 1%) and Zinc (4% vs. 0%).
Wow! Gymee would have to eat 4 apples at 57.2 grams of carb to equal the nutrient values that we lowly low carbers are getting in 1 cup of Strawberries!

Next on the comparison list we have 1/2 cup Blueberries versus 1/2 cup grapes. Again, the blueberries are lower in carbs and glycemic index (8.3 grams carb versus 14.5) and fairly equal in the vitamin and nutrient department. BUT...the blueberries leave the grapes in the dust in the antioxidant and licopenes department.

Next up is 1 California Avocado versus 1 small banana (for those that think we're lacking in potassium). All I can say is...ouch, because that banana took a beating.
The Avocado came in at 4 grams of carb versus 21 in the banana but that was the only low thing about that mighty Avocado! It beat the banana on potassium (1,036.3 mg. versus 399.96), Vitamin A (21% versus 2%), Vitamin C (23% vs. 15%), Calcium (2% vs. 1%), Phosphorus (7% vs. 2%) Magnesium (17% vs. 7%), Copper (23% vs. 5%), Folate (27% vs. 5%), Riboflavin (11% vs. 5%), Iron (10% vs. 2%) and Zinc (5% vs. 1%). To get close to the potassium level of the Avocado, Gymee will have to eat 2.5 bananas at about 52 grams of carb (much higher GI again) and he still hasn't caught the low carbers on Phosphorus, Copper, Vitamin A, Folate, Iron or Zinc.

Last up for comparison is 1/2 cup of Raspberries versus 1 cup of Watermelon. I allowed for 1 cup of watermelon due to the much higher water content.
Unsurprisingly, the raspberries beat out the watermelon in the carbs department (5.9 grams vs. 10.2). Now for the rest of the story. Raspberries were higher in vitamin C (51% vs 24%), Calcium (3% vs. 1%), Magnesium (6% vs. 4%), Copper (5% vs. 2%), Folate (8% vs. 1%), Riboflavin (6% vs. 2%), Iron (4% vs. 1%) and Zinc (4% vs. 1%). Once again, Gymee will have to eat twice as much watermelon (at 20.4 grams of carb) to equal even close to the same nutrition in 5.9 grams of Raspberries and once again, the antioxidant comparisons aren't even close.

Makes me wonder who's missing out here. ;)

Wow...all that nutrition and we haven't even started adding veggies yet. Shall we compare the veggies that many of us typically eat against that salad that Gymee says he gets twice a week? Nah...that would be just too embarassing! :lol:

[gymeejet]

now lisa, you must have really flipped. i certainly am not a proponent of all carbs are equal. surely, you must know that. that is one of my major complaints with you guys. the fact that twinkies have caused us problems does not equate to apples doing so - that has been one my major mantras, along with ample protein, ample essential fats, and NATURAL good carbs.

to everyone:
those 2 years of community college were the worst 2 nutritional years of my life. it was perhaps the backbone of why i changed. yep, i certainly know what it is to be a sugar addict. i ate lots of sugar products in early life. LOL. and i would put on some weight, but my vanity would only allow me to put on 5 pounds before i would do something about it. i have always exercised alot, but even if i could have continued to keep the weight off, by now my body would be in serious dis-array.

i love dates. i buy fresh ones though. the deserts of california are probably king of the states for growing dates. i will eat 30-40 dates often. but they have a filling factor for a long time. much like nuts, but not nearly as extreme. i do real well with dates; the girl-kinds are not bad either. LOL. but the fruit dates keep me going for quite a long time, during vigorous cardio. in fact, i don't eat nuts any more, because i can't guage them. with all the produce i eat, i think that part of my body's signal for being full, comes from volume. so i eat and eat nuts, until i get full. but unfortunately, i am fuller 1 hour later, and fuller 1 hour later, for the next 12 hours. LOL.

my diet consists of lots of strange things, so even if i was willing to put them down on the list, it would be hard to do so. if you do a search on peppermint or spearmint on this thread, i entered a weighed amount of all the ingredients that go into making my protein cereal. that might give you a laugh at the weird concoction. LOL.

all the herbs i use are mainly the most common ones. and i use them, not for medicinal purposes, but mainly as another source of a dense concentration of all kinds of goodies (phytonutrients for short.)

[gymeejet]

lisa, i love strawberries. will go through a 6-pack in just a day. 2 cartons for breakfast, 2 for lunch, and 2 for dinner. some of the juice concentrates that i buy are the berries, along with pineapple, apple, cherry, and others.

[gymeejet]

dig, precisely. the types of carbs, not the amount. but as importantly, we need to get the correct amount of protein and essential fats in us. so in reality, my total sugars would have gone down some, simply because the protein and fats would have had some staying power. AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, THE REST GOOD, NATURAL CARBS.

[gymeejet]

lisa, i grow some subtropical fruits, that are very pricey in the stores. but other than peaches and nectarines, i eat just about all types of fruits. grapes, watermelon, and bananas were just the 3 that i had that particular week. grapes are high on my like-list, though.

[Lisa N]

Well...since my yard doesn't have fruit trees and they take a while to produce any quantity of fruit, I stick with growing raspberries, green beans, spinach, kale, broccoli, tomatoes, asparagus, brussels sprouts and swiss chard.

Your original point was that we couldn't possibly be getting optimal or even good nutrition on a low carb way of eating and my post above shows that it's quite possible without having to eat a high carb diet. We haven't even begun to factor in veggies such as broccoli, cabbage, spinach, onions, garlic, tomatoes, kale and such (all low carb, low GI and extremely high in vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and phytochemicals as well as fiber) while you don't report eating many veggies other than a salad a couple of times per week. In order to get the same level of nutrition that we are getting in terms of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, etc..., you are having to eat 3-4 times more carbs than we are in many instances and in some cases are still coming up short.
You argue that whole, unprocessed foods are best for us (and on that you'll get no argument from me!) and yet you get your protein source from a highly processed protein powder. Last time I checked, protein doesn't occur naturally in powder form.
You argue that diabetes is caused by eating highly processed junk foods, and I won't argue that it certainly is ONE of the causes, but how much highly processed junk foods are they eating in the rural areas of China? And yet...China is one of the countries leading the way in new cases of diabetes being diagnosed each year. Diabetes existed long before the advent of processed foods. Yes, it's more prevalent now, but if processed junk foods were its only cause, it would have been non-existant as little 200 years ago and yet we have ancient literature describing the symptoms of adult onset diabetes (juvenile diabetics didn't live very long after they developed the disease back then)! Those folks weren't eating Twinkies and Big Macs and yet they still developed diabetes...eating whole, unprocessed foods. You argue that if people were only to follow your prescribed diet of ample protein, ample essential fats and tons of produce, they would never develop sugar metabolism problems and yet obviously people following a whole foods diet DID develop sugar metabolism problems long before the advent of junk food or even processed sugar.
Some fruits (specifically berries and melons) are excellent for providing a big antioxidant/vitamin/mineral punch for a low carb/GI bang, but it's only been through the wonders of mass production and high-speed transportation that most humans have been afforded the ability to eat fruits (many of them not even native to their country, let alone their geographical area!) year round and in the quantities that people eat them.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
with regards to protein powder, there is processing. but what i mean is processing that changes the molecules/ etc. in that same vein, oils are processed foods as well. the plant is first ground into meal, and then pressed into oil. but to get the best oil, one should try to get the oil that is not chemically extracted, and where the temperature does not get past a certain point. of course, starting with organic material, is good as well. and having it stored in dark glass containers, also.

the protein is not changed. although some protein is denatured, which i am not completely aware of what that means, but if i recall correctly, it does involve some processing that makes changes, so i stay away from it.

i am glad that you work hard at getting your phytos. now, if you got more sugar, your brain would say thank you, and so would your muscles, the next time you did some vigorous cardio. i am of course, using you figuratively, as if you did not have diabetes. once again, for the non-diabetic - ample protein, ample essential fats, lots of natural carbs. by god, i think you may be seeing that in your dreams soon. LOL.

there were times when i got a salad most every night, but i now take all those herbs, so i still get a bunch of plant phytos twice every day, even without the salad.

[Lisa N]

i am glad that you work hard at getting your phytos. now, if you got more sugar, your brain would say thank you

LOL...it seems to be working just fine without it. :lol:

I also note that you haven't addressed why people got diabetes before the advent of junk food and processed sugar. :)
If you're going to assert that it was lack of ample protein and/or essential fats, please show (scientifically) by what mechanism, protein and fats protect against diabetes when combined with a high carb diet.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i can't say i am familiar with that. most all of our diseases are caused by imbalances within our body. if you want to supply an article, i would be happy to read it, although i doubt i could make any assertations about why a group of people are getting diabetes. but here in america, the rise in diabetes corresponds exactly with our processed foods.

but perhaps my brain, running on sugar, will be able to figure it out - LOL.

[bvtaylor]

Hi, Gymee and Lisa.

I think that Gymee's point about the advent of processed foods and the alarming increase in the rate of T2 diabetes (and heart disease) coincides. Even Dr. Atkins shows that correllation in his books.

Now, as you bring up the example of T2 diabetes existing long before the advent of processed foods, I'm sure that is true... but I would argue that the prevalence was much more limited by and large, and probably more prevalent in wealthier families who had poorer folks farming and producing food for them.

Wheat bread, for example, has been known as peasant bread in Europe, but peasants have been traditionally healthier than the upper class with regards to degenerative diseases.

However, regardless, as societal physical activities go from a more physically active culture whether it was hunting, running from bears, to farming, to a more sedentary civilized culture, the consumption of excessive carbohydrates (in whatever form) that are not metabolized by the body (with the appopriate amount of exercise) would certianly lean towards diabetes.

There are cultures where diabetes and heart disease never existed until the introduction of Western-type foods. The native island culture that I remember discussed on this had ample produce in their diet, but ratcheting it up with pure sugar and processed junk food started a previously non-existent diabetic trend.

Dr. Atkins explained the Asian culture issue as follows:

http://atkins.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/index.html

If it's true that carbohydrates are bad for you, why are people in Asian cultures, who eat a lot of rice, generally so thin?

There are two answers to this question. First, although their diets are high in carbohydrates, they are generally not overly processed and Asian portions tend to be smaller when compared to American portions. Sweets and junk food were not traditionally staples of the diet. Moreover, Asians typically worked outdoors instead of sitting behind desks all day and walked or rode bicycles instead of driving cars, so they were able to burn off the glucose from carbohydrates. If people in Western cultures did the same, they too could remain slim. Unfortunately, as Asian cultures are becoming more Westernized, they too are beginning to suffer from the Western diseases of obesity and diabetes.

Now heart disease in China is a major killer, and even young people suffer from serious heart problems.

My father lived in China for a while and he was telling me that one of the favorite/popular things to cook with was a huge lump of pork fat used in stir-fry... you would melt it and cook it until it started SMOKING, then you would add the food.

My dad was thinking that the problem was the overconsumption of greasy pork products... but I'm thinking that the smoking pork grease may be the culprit since the overly high temperatures corrupt the fat. (I don't know much about the effects of MSG, which is also something used a lot and has been warned as a heart disease factor).

The smoking pork grease plus white high-GI rice and insufficient exercise is certainly a valid explanation for heart disease and diabetes.

The state of Kentucky was recently rated as the worst for regular exercise in the country. I visited Kentucky this summer and when I went to the Super WalMart, I felt thin for the first time in my life. I have never seen so many truly obese people of all ages, including children... and it's not a 10 or 20 lb overweight issue, it's a 50-150 lb overweight issue.

What's different about Kentucky? Well the Southern diet is awful... Sugar abounds, whether in soft drinks (you get sweet tea in the south unless you ask for unsweetened tea), grits, potatoes, biscuit-heaven, or all the other favorite Southern foods, loaded with greasy gravy or greasy anything. And as we know the combination of high carbs and high fats with insufficient exercise = diabetes and heart disease.

Truly, I think that our diet can be forgiving if we spend more time exercising and mitigate processed foods. We can eat more of what we want, so long as we burn it off.

I would make a gentlewoman's bet that the majority of folks who find themselves overweight, diabetic, or with heart disease in this country as a whole:

1) do not regularly exercise
2) consume a high rate of processed foods
3) consume a large amount of high carbohydrate/high fat foods
4) seem to always be hungry

I would also make a gentlewoman's bet that the majority of folks who are healthy as a whole:

1) eat more whole foods, especially fruits and vegetables
2) are satisfied with smaller portions
(however, these people, if they don't exercise, or if they are vegetarians and don't balance vegetarianism with the appropriate protiens and nutrients, can find themselves with nutritional deficiencies, particularly anemia, or could march on to diabetes if their diet is too heavy on the carbohydrates).

or

1) eat whatever they want
2) exercise a whole lot and burn it off
(however, these are the folks who appear healthy and sometimes are struck down by a heart attack in the middle of their workout).

or

1) eat a really good diet that matches their body type and needs
2) exercise moderately

With the exception of individual metabolisms which would of course skew the results, I think that the above is true.

We could probably type a whole lot of folks on this low carb forum in the first group. I highly doubt that most of us have not fallen into the trap of TV dinners, sodapop, popcorn, french fries, fast high carb/high fat food.

[Lisa N]

http://www.diabetes.ca/Section_About/timeline.asp

1500 BC....wow! And that's the first recorded mention of it. Obviously it was around longer than that, but nobody thought to write about it. Hippocrates also mentioned the symptoms of diabetes in his writings.
It may be approaching epidemic proportions now, but it was far from unknown even in the 17 and 1800's..enough so that it merited study.
I feel obligated to point this out because Gymee maintains that if everyone were to follow his plan, with no thought to GI, glycemic load or total carbs consumed, nobody would ever develop sugar metabolism problems. This simply isn't true. There may be less people with diabetes, but it would not be eliminated, especially for those that have a genetic predisposition to carbohydrate metabolism abnormalities (remember, diabetes runs in families with daughters of diabetics being much more likely to contract the disease than sons).

As for the smoking fat, it may be one of the culprits as heating even saturated fats to the smoking point does create transfats and free radicals. That could also be the cause of a lot of other degnerative diseases, but so too can excess carb consumption because of the hyperinsulinemia driving eicosanoid production in the wrong direction. Combine the two and you've really got a problem as many of us have discovered already.

Remember...I'm not saying don't eat carbs here. I'm saying pay attention to the types and amounts that you eat and make sure that what you do eat has the highest nutrient value possible for the amount of carbs it has. Everyone's individual tolerance for carbs differs, but in general and unless they are extremely active most people can't go too much over 100 grams of carb per day and not see negative changes in their lipid profiles (increased triglycerides). Neither am I advocating that everyone stay at 30 grams of carb per day or less as I have to in order to control my blood sugars without medication, but if you seriously look at the amounts and types of fruits, veggies and grains that you can eat on 60-100 grams of carb per day, it would quickly become obvious that nobody at that level is missing out nutritionally or being deprived of any essential vitamin, mineral or nutrient. In fact, those at that level are probably getting far better nutrition than the majority of people on the planet! Our bodies simply weren't meant to get 200, 300 or more grams of carb per day on a regular, prolonged basis without sufficient activity to use the resulting glucose for energy and not see a negative impact on our weight or health. Tell me...how many people (realistically now) have 2-3 hours a day (or more) to engage in aerobic activity assuming that they even have the physical capacity to do so?

[bvtaylor]

Just a quick note that in the timeline as I was viewing it, no distinction is made between Type I and Type II diabetes... particularly in the older references. What we're seeing in epidemic proportions in the modern age is Type II (fka adult-onset, but now is not just adult-onset) diabetes which is closely related to lifestyle, whereas Type I is usually an endemic problem where the body does not produce insulin on its own at all.

I would suspect that Type I was prevalent going back in history with some Type II (certainly obesity is not only tied to the modern age, and there is a close link between obesity and Type II) but Type II has become more prevalent in modern times and going forward in a whopping percentage of the population.

The sudden extra-large surge in Type II diabetes, I would greatly suspect is due to the sudden extra-large amount of processed foods, particularly post WWII, and the gradual decline of regular physical activity in our lifestyle.

[Lisa N]

I would suspect that Type I was prevalent going back in history with some Type II

Perhaps, except for the fact that type 1's usually didn't live very long once they developed the disease and usually died from the condition within a matter of weeks prior to the discovery of injectible insulin, so there was not much opportunity for studies that were mentioned on type 1's..only type 2's lived long enough for any observations about diet, etc...to be meaningful.
Another bit of history. My dad is 91 and was a doctor already prior to WW2. He tells me that he treated plenty of type 2 diabetics even back then (in the Netherlands). The prescribed diet of choice? Low carb. :)

[gymeejet]

lisa, you have made a case for lc for diabetics. but not a case for lc for the non-diabetic. and that has been my whole point.

[alaskaman]

gymee, you said a bit ago you eat 30-40 dates? according to the table I looked at 10 dates have 61 gm carbs, so you're knocking back 181-244 gm carbohydrate at a sitting, almost the entire food pyramid recommendation , at a single sitting? And you call this moderate? And think america's nutrition problems would be solved if everyone ate this way? C'mon, a 795 ml Slurpee has only 56-65 gm. What you are doing is a massive insult to your system, have you ever borrowed a bg meter and checked your postprandials? even non-diabetics can show big spikes after sugar laden meals. If you are spending a lot of time over 150 or 180, you are damaging yourself, whether you know it or not. You worry about us with our saturated fat, you may be the one to worry about. Keep hitting the dates and the sucrose-laden oranges and stuff, you'll be joining us at the diabetes forum. And just cause it's "natural" doesn't mean its not sugar.My Aunt Betty loved her dates and figs and grapes, "natural sugars are ok," and eventually couldn't shoot up enough insulin to keep up. Yes, she was a diabetic and you're not, not yet, but you're heading that way, she lived on a farm and lived on the fruit, grapes etc. for years before she became one. DUH. Bill

[Lisa N]

lisa, you have made a case for lc for diabetics. but not a case for lc for the non-diabetic. and that has been my whole point.

Gymee...you have said on more than one occasion that if everyone were to follow your prescibed way of eating that nobody would develop diabetes. I've clearly shown that even those that lived on diet completely absent of junk food, going all the way back to 1500 BC could and did develop diabetes, although not at the rates that we are currently seeing. What were those folks eating and how active were they? A lot more active than most folks today and they were probably eating produce, grains, meats and natural fats. Why can some people seem to eat a high carb diet and not have a problem? Hard to say. Perhaps genetics play a part in how we metabolize carbs from birth making some people more susceptible to carb metabolism problems than others, but the only way to find out if you will develop the problem at the current time is to eat a high carb diet and see what happens. Doesn't it make more sense to eat a low to moderate carb diet with an eye on glycemic index and glycemic load that includes plenty of veggies, moderate amounts of low GI fruits and small amounts of whole grains instead of eating whatever until you develop a problem? Had I known what I know now 20 years ago and applied it, I doubt I'd be diabetic today.
Current research is now recognizing that glycemic index and glycemic load play a BIG part in the development of diabetes...something that you completely ignore or totally discount. As Alaskaman pointed out, your body does not see a difference between the sugar in 30 dates or the sugar in an equivalent amount of cookies and before you point out the difference in nutrition between the dates and the cookies, remember that we are discussing sugars here, not the rest.

[alaskaman]

Gymee, I just looked up the dosage used in the Glucose Toleration Test, it is, get this, 75gm. Yes, that's right, 75gm, which causes non-diabetics to rise to perhaps 140-160, diabetics more, with a slower return to normal, roughly 85. if you truly eat this way, 200+grams of fast acting sugars at a sitting, you are placing a HUGE load on your beta cells, they are wearing out, you WILL become a diabetic. I know this is not official ADA position, they say diabetes is not caused by eating too much sugar. Nevertheless, there's lots of research indicating that high bg's damage beta cells. And when enough are damaged, what are you? A diabetic. Really, don't talk to us any more about "healthy" sugars until you test, see what they do to you. You are using almost 4 times the amount of sugar known to cause serious rises in a diagnostic test!! Check your insulin levels, too, just in case your heroic beta cells are still putting out enough to keep the bg's normal. Bill

[joanne42]

OHHHH HECK>> I had that glucose tolerance test done and let me tell ya.. I thought I was gonna die.. the headaches, the wanting to throw up and this was all after only 5 minutes.. I ended up having to drink 4 oz of pure liquid sugar crap..

And gymeejet you can argue the point about low carbing till your blue in the face cuz you aren't gonna convince me it's bad for me...As for basically thinking vegetarian is healthier for ya?? and that our way of eating increases risks of cancer?? WELL I'll have ya know Olivia newton John was a vegetarian as was jill ireland.. BOth ended up with cancer.. While Olivia survived Jill wasn't that lucky.. AS so did many other actresses and regular no starlette people..people that I personally knew... So explain that???

[alaskaman]

If Gymee is really putting away as much sugar as he seems to be, then he's really hosing himself, not just because of the diabetes, but because of heart issues. Hyperinsulinemia is one of the strongest predictors of heart attacks, the Caerphilly Wales study, the Helsinki Policeman's study, the Paris Prospective study, the Quebec study.These by the way are cited by Dr Atkins, but not DONE by him, see also the work of Gerald Reaven. Excess insulin in our bloodstream is bad news, whether we're diabetic or not, and scarfing insane amounts of sugars is a very good way to GET excess insulin. Gymees ability to function on huge amounts of sugars is a bit like the guys I have known who can have 4 boilermakers (shot of whiskey, glass of beer) and still thread a needle. It doesn't mean this is prudent, doesn't mean it won't catch up to them. Bill

[gymeejet]

Gymee...you have said on more than one occasion that if everyone were to follow your prescibed way of eating that nobody would develop diabetes. I've clearly shown that even those that lived on diet completely absent of junk food, going all the way back to 1500 BC could and did develop diabetes, although not at the rates that we are currently seeing. What were those folks eating and how active were they? A lot more active than most folks today and they were probably eating produce, grains, meats and natural fats. Why can some people seem to eat a high carb diet and not have a problem? Hard to say. Perhaps genetics play a part in how we metabolize carbs from birth making some people more susceptible to carb metabolism problems than others, but the only way to find out if you will develop the problem at the current time is to eat a high carb diet and see what happens. Doesn't it make more sense to eat a low to moderate carb diet with an eye on glycemic index and glycemic load that includes plenty of veggies, moderate amounts of low GI fruits and small amounts of whole grains instead of eating whatever until you develop a problem? Had I known what I know now 20 years ago and applied it, I doubt I'd be diabetic today.
Current research is now recognizing that glycemic index and glycemic load play a BIG part in the development of diabetes...something that you completely ignore or totally discount. As Alaskaman pointed out, your body does not see a difference between the sugar in 30 dates or the sugar in an equivalent amount of cookies and before you point out the difference in nutrition between the dates and the cookies, remember that we are discussing sugars here, not the rest.

hi lisa,
since i am not at all informed about what sort of diabetic problems older and different countries have had, i can't really debate that with you. i don't know what sorts of foods they were eating, etc. i do know that we westerners have our junk food mainly to blame.

our diet thoughts are not that far off, with the exception of our ratios of saturated fats and good carbs. certainly, i believe in stopping problems before they get too big. i did that myself. i only really abused sugar for about 2 years. i realized that i had better not do that forever. there is no doubt in my mind that i would have succumbed to some health problems. if i look at my family, i also know i have a high tolerance towards sugar. in fact, i do not think it would have been diabetes that got me, but some other problem. like i said, abuse of sugar, and really abuse of our nutrition in any way, sets up imbalances within us, and we end up succumbing to whatever happens to be our genetic weakness.

so even today, i am not suggesting that the average person needs the levels of carbs that i do. but i also would not want to restrict them to your levels, unless absolutely necessary. and for you diabetics, i am sure that you are at different tolerance levels. so i would hope that you would put in as much good carbs as you can, without causing diabetic-type problems.

[gymeejet]

Gymee, I just looked up the dosage used in the Glucose Toleration Test, it is, get this, 75gm. Yes, that's right, 75gm, which causes non-diabetics to rise to perhaps 140-160, diabetics more, with a slower return to normal, roughly 85. if you truly eat this way, 200+grams of fast acting sugars at a sitting, you are placing a HUGE load on your beta cells, they are wearing out, you WILL become a diabetic. I know this is not official ADA position, they say diabetes is not caused by eating too much sugar. Nevertheless, there's lots of research indicating that high bg's damage beta cells. And when enough are damaged, what are you? A diabetic. Really, don't talk to us any more about "healthy" sugars until you test, see what they do to you. You are using almost 4 times the amount of sugar known to cause serious rises in a diagnostic test!! Check your insulin levels, too, just in case your heroic beta cells are still putting out enough to keep the bg's normal. Bill

alaska, those cookies i mentioned were something i did in my college years. i don't abuse sugar like that now.

[gymeejet]

OHHHH HECK>> I had that glucose tolerance test done and let me tell ya.. I thought I was gonna die.. the headaches, the wanting to throw up and this was all after only 5 minutes.. I ended up having to drink 4 oz of pure liquid sugar crap..

And gymeejet you can argue the point about low carbing till your blue in the face cuz you aren't gonna convince me it's bad for me...As for basically thinking vegetarian is healthier for ya?? and that our way of eating increases risks of cancer?? WELL I'll have ya know Olivia newton John was a vegetarian as was jill ireland.. BOth ended up with cancer.. While Olivia survived Jill wasn't that lucky.. AS so did many other actresses and regular no starlette people..people that I personally knew... So explain that???

well i promise not to get blue in the face. you are making some serious logic mistakes in your reasoning. first, i do not recall ever mentioning cancer to anyone, so that would seem to be something that you dreamed up yourself. secondly, mentioning 2 vegetarians that died from cancer is so weak an argument, that i hate to make you look bad. i am sure if we thought hard enough, we might be able to come up with 2 meat-eaters that died of cancer, as well.

but the most serious flaw in your logic is to make the conclusion that vegetarianism is bad for you, based on 2 individual people. to say a person is a vegetarian, simply means that the individual does not eat flesh. two diets could still be extremely different, but share the one thing in common, of not eating meat.

on this nutritional thread, i have never preached about any sort of protein food. i have always talked about getting ample amounts of protein, and ample amounts of essential fats, to be basically determined by testing, and how you feel. the problem with many vegetarian diets is that they tend to be very low in protein. a vegetarian can have a healthy fat intake, in terms of amount and TYPE OF FAT, or an unhealthy one.

so telling me that someone is a vegetarian, tells me almost no detail. all i know for sure, is that they do not eat flesh.

to summarize, i have never advocated vegetarianism on this nutritional thread. but i have said that it is entirely possible to have a healthy life, without meat. meat is certainly not a needed food. i haven't had any for over 25 years, and i will tip my cap to anyone who can keep up with me, cardiovascularly. that means olympic athletes, professional athletes, and anyone you care to mention.

[gymeejet]

If Gymee is really putting away as much sugar as he seems to be, then he's really hosing himself, not just because of the diabetes, but because of heart issues. Hyperinsulinemia is one of the strongest predictors of heart attacks, the Caerphilly Wales study, the Helsinki Policeman's study, the Paris Prospective study, the Quebec study.These by the way are cited by Dr Atkins, but not DONE by him, see also the work of Gerald Reaven. Excess insulin in our bloodstream is bad news, whether we're diabetic or not, and scarfing insane amounts of sugars is a very good way to GET excess insulin. Gymees ability to function on huge amounts of sugars is a bit like the guys I have known who can have 4 boilermakers (shot of whiskey, glass of beer) and still thread a needle. It doesn't mean this is prudent, doesn't mean it won't catch up to them. Bill

hi alaska,
it would not surprise me if my body can store 3-5 times as much glycogen as many others. i do a lot of exercise, and some very intense cardio. i eat a fair amount of carbs beforehand, as well as having nutritional drinks while i exercise. the 3 most important things during intense cardio are sugar, water, and salt.

[alaskaman]

Well, Gymee, your statement about wanting us to get in as many carbs as we can handle is fine, I know I try to, within the limits of what my body can handle, I always try to make them something with some value, green leafy veg, or cruciferous ones, not soy frankenfoods or things that try to masquerade as shakes or muffins. If I can have only 12 g with a meal, I don't want to waste it, so it will be broccoli and some spinach or green beans. Fruit is of course right out for me. But I wish you would try to incorporate some saturated fat, its good for you. And please check your bg's, that business about 30 or 40 dates make me wonder if you're abusing natural sugars without knowing it. BTW having a high tolerance for sugar does not mean you're not at risk for diabetes, rather the reverse, high insulin levels enabling one to eat lots of sugar is a mark of pre-diabetes. Best wishes, Bill

[gymeejet]

gymee, you said a bit ago you eat 30-40 dates? according to the table I looked at 10 dates have 61 gm carbs, so you're knocking back 181-244 gm carbohydrate at a sitting, almost the entire food pyramid recommendation , at a single sitting? And you call this moderate? And think america's nutrition problems would be solved if everyone ate this way? C'mon, a 795 ml Slurpee has only 56-65 gm. What you are doing is a massive insult to your system, have you ever borrowed a bg meter and checked your postprandials? even non-diabetics can show big spikes after sugar laden meals. If you are spending a lot of time over 150 or 180, you are damaging yourself, whether you know it or not. You worry about us with our saturated fat, you may be the one to worry about. Keep hitting the dates and the sucrose-laden oranges and stuff, you'll be joining us at the diabetes forum. And just cause it's "natural" doesn't mean its not sugar.My Aunt Betty loved her dates and figs and grapes, "natural sugars are ok," and eventually couldn't shoot up enough insulin to keep up. Yes, she was a diabetic and you're not, not yet, but you're heading that way, she lived on a farm and lived on the fruit, grapes etc. for years before she became one. DUH. Bill

hi alaska,
i see. i missed some of the posts - did not realize that there were so many since the last time i checked. since you have not been here since the beginning, i think you are misunderstanding something. when i say eat like me, i am not talking about getting the same amounts of foods. even for me, that can vary a lot, depending on my activity level that day. i am referring to eating a healthy amount of carbs - more than you guys do, on your lc diets. again, for those that do not have diabetic problems.

[gymeejet]

I feel obligated to point this out because Gymee maintains that if everyone were to follow his plan, with no thought to GI, glycemic load or total carbs consumed, nobody would ever develop sugar metabolism problems.

hi lisa,
i can understand why you wrote this, and i do not think that you intentionally misrepresented me. but let's take a look at my advice, and see why the average person reading your statement about me, would come to some very wrong conclusions.

what i have said is AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REST NATURAL CARBS. each person needs a certain number of calories each day, to meet his caloric requirements for that day. first he needs to get his protein and essential fats. the remainder would be carbs. so total carbs consumed is not unlimited. looking at your statement, one might think my advice is to eat as many carbs as one wanted, without regard to calories, protein or essential fat consumption.

one would also think that i am okaying foods, no matter how fast the sugar reaches the bloodstream. but this is not so. again, what is my advice ? eat lots of natural carbs. if you look at the glycemic table that i gave you for non-diabetic people, the only produce considered to be high glycemic were bananas and potatoes. so fruits and veggies are not hi-gi to begin with, on the whole. and i have also said to eat a large variety of produce, so that you can assure yourself of getting at least some of most of the goodies.

it is not that i think that we do not need to concern ourselves with hi-gi and insulin, but rather, by following my advice, the carbs that one would eat are not gonna be hi-gi to begin with. so i do not want to make it more complicated than necessary. so they do not need to worry about hi-gi, because a variety of natural carbs would never be hi-gi.

also, hi-gi can be very beneficial for people at times. basically, when one is exercising. when you need some sugar during exercise, your body wants it NOW, not a half hour later. or possibly when one wakes up in the morning. so when one becomes more in tune with one's body, and what the body needs for the activity in which one is doing, one can then make better-informed decisions for one's self.

i do not know what i am gonna eat tomorrow morning. when i wake up, i will decide, based upon how i feel, and what i will be doing. for example, i won't eat 40 dates if i am not doing a cardio workout. or maybe i had a lot of carbs during my evening meal, so my glycogen stores have been replenished, and i won't need as much. or perhaps i was tiring out today with my cardio, so i know i need more carbs to build up my glycogen stores. like i said, when you get to understand your body better, you can make better decisions on what you need on a day to day basis.

[joanne42]

Gymeejet do you have a REAL job??? I mean you seem to spend so much time here.. debating with everyone.. Like I said.. No matter what you PREACH you will not change anyones minds about low carbing...I'm starting to wonder if you have a life.. I didn't say anything against any vegetarians here either.. WHAT I said is basically people who follow vegetarian eating will get cancer just like we meat eaters. so it doesn't matter HOW you eat.. It all comes down to genetics.. If your family member gets cancer it increases your chances. .I don't believe it comes down to what you eat that causes cancer.......

[gymeejet]

please, spare me the "do you have a life". that is so typical of someone who knows they are on the losing end of the debate. i am not sure most people would consider "having a job" as a real life, since someone else owns your life for 8 hours each day.

since nutrition is a life-long thing for me, i find the time to talk about it. i suppose i could sit behind the tv, and watch hours of mindless, silly, predictable half-hour comedy sitcoms. would that mean i had a "real life" ?

with regards to cancer, since you brought it up - what we eat, and other lifestyle decisions that we make, surely make a difference.

cancer is simply the unchecked growth of cells in a particular area. if allowed to continue for a certain amount of time, that can cause a growth (i.e. cancer). so what we eat, whether we smoke, etc., etc., plays a major role with cancer, another disease brought on by our placing our bodies in imbalanced states, for long periods of time. however, i am in no way suggesting that your lc diets will do that.

[gymeejet]

Our bodies simply weren't meant to get 200, 300 or more grams of carb per day on a regular, prolonged basis without sufficient activity to use the resulting glucose for energy and not see a negative impact on our weight or health. Tell me...how many people (realistically now) have 2-3 hours a day (or more) to engage in aerobic activity assuming that they even have the physical capacity to do so?

hi lisa,
i agree with that. 300 grams is 1200 calories. an inactive person does not need that much sugar. again, we all need to understand our activity levels, and judge accordingly.

[Lisa N]

it would not surprise me if my body can store 3-5 times as much glycogen as many others.

Gymee...it might benefit you to do a little studying in where that glucose goes and the responses in provokes in the body on its way to being stored as glycogen. It doesn't come in, get digested and immediately get stored.
It may be that because you apparantly have the time for several hours of vigorous activity each day that you can get away with eating at the carb levels that you do. If that is the case, I can only hope that you can continue that level of activity for as long as you choose to eat this way or you could find yourself with some serious metabolic problems as Alaskaman suggests and I'm starting to wonder if you're not really on the way to developing them already if you really consume that much sugar (natural or otherwise) at one sitting. Still..lots of excercise does help with insulin resistance, so you'd better keep moving! :yay:


i did that myself. i only really abused sugar for about 2 years.

If you really eat that many dates at one sitting, you're still abusing sugar. As we've said many times, your body doesn't care whether the glucose in your bloodstream came from table sugar or dates...it has the same effect.


when i say eat like me, i am not talking about getting the same amounts of foods. even for me, that can vary a lot, depending on my activity level that day. i am referring to eating a healthy amount of carbs - more than you guys do, on your lc diets.

Gymee...this is something you have said repeatedly. It's very vague and not at all helpful. You maintain that we don't get enough carbs (withoug knowing, I might add, how many a lot of us ARE getting on a daily basis, with the possible exception of the few of us who have disclosed that), yet you repeatedly refuse to give levels that you consider "normal" or "healthy". Your response continues to be "healthy" amounts or "adequate" amounts or "plenty of produce". Good heavens! Most of us eat more vegetables (produce) than your average vegetarian! Just to give you some idea, in order to reach even 35 grams of carb, I'd have to eat: 87 ounces (that's over 4 pounds) of broccoli, or 100 cups of fresh spinach or 4 pounds of Cauliflower or 8 cups of green beans or 8 whole tomatoes, or 35 Brussels sprouts or 9 Avocados or....get my point? That's not plenty of produce? How many apples would you need to hit that level of carbs? Less than 2 and there's no comparison in the nutrition available in the amounts of any of those veggies that I listed in comparison to 1 or 2 apples. Imagine what someone eating 60-100 grams of carb can eat when they are choosing wisely! It's not the carbs, Gymee, it's the stuff that comes with them that's important.
There are rumblings that with the updating of the current food pyramid that the new recommendation for daily amounts of carbs will be in the range of 150 per day and even those folks have said that most of us could do just fine on less than that, but want to err on the side of caution since they can't determine the exact level needed. That makes 60-100 grams per day suddenly sound not quite so insane, now doesn't it? Eat as many carbs as you can handle from produce and some whole grains? Gosh...that's exactly what Dr. Atkins recommends! :)


i have also said to eat a large variety of produce, so that you can assure yourself of getting at least some of most of the goodies.

With over 20 different veggies (most high in vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and phytochemicals) on the allowed list even for the 2 week induction period, I'd say there's no excuse NOT to be getting a good variety of veggies and nobody has to be missing out on any "goodies" even at that level for a brief 2 weeks.

[Kestrel]

Actually, I believe he answered this early on that he didn't have any hard numbers as to what "adequate" actually meant, although I haven't followed this all that well... I suppose it could mean just about any amount that turns out to be more than what low carbers typically eat.

[Lisa N]

Actually, I believe he answered this early on that he didn't have any hard numbers as to what "adequate" actually meant, although I haven't followed this all that well... I suppose it could mean just about any amount that turns out to be more than what low carbers typically eat.

Actually, that's my point. Gymee keeps saying that we don't get enough carbs, but repeatedly has refused to give any indication of how much IS enough except to say more than what he thinks we get. This is very vague, especially given than we have members here who range between 20 grams of carb per day during induction all the way up to 100+ grams per day on maintainace.
When you have no measure against which to compare, ie a number that equates to "enough", then you cannot logically say that someone is not getting "enough" of something. Enough of an unknown and variable amount is not exactly a good basis for arguing that someone is not getting enough of the particular substance in question. Add to that the fact that even Gymee has admitted that "enough" depends on a lot of variables, including but not limited to level of activity and the state of your metabolic health and I fail to see how he can continue to argue that we are not getting "enough", especially given that there are no scientific standards currently that establish a required level of carb intake for health, let alone optimal health. They're starting to understand that too much is not good, but have yet to determine how little is too little. Given the experience of millions of low carbers, I'd say that theoretically there IS no minimum amount.
It would be similar to my telling my daughter that she's not getting enough milk and when asked "how much do I need?" to reply, "I don't know, but you're not getting enough". If I did that, would she have an answer to how much she should be getting? Nope...only an idea that for some reason (that I apparantly don't know), she's not getting enough. This may be sufficient reasoning for a 9 year old (and I can tell you from personal experience that it wouldn't be sufficient explanation for MY 9 year old), but it's not sufficient reasoning for me.
If you're going to come in here stating emphatically that we are not getting enough of something, then it would probably have been a good idea to have established beforehand how much we should be getting (even a range would be good, no need for one hard and fast number here) and be able to back it up with more than personal opinion.
Now, it may be Gymee's opinion that we are not getting enough carbs and he's welcome to hold that opinion, but if he wants us to accept that as fact he'll need to get more specific than "you need more than you're getting" and be able to back it up with some credible (scientific, peer-reviewed) facts.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i am sorry, but i can't give you specific numbers or ranges. but i can tell you how i would arrive at your figures. let's assume for the moment that you were not diabetic, and we had money to spend.

the first thing i would do is have those thorough blood tests that i have talked about. from looking at that, i would attempt to make whatever changes i needed, with regards to protein, fats, and minerals. retest you a month later, make more corrections. continue that process until i was satisfied with your balance.

the rest would be natural carbs. with most people, they would find themselves eating, to fill their caloric requirements. on days that you were gonna do some cardio, you would find the need for more sugar.

i understand your frustration at my not being able to give you better ranges. but i think i told you before that i do not use as a base, percentages for the 3 food types. i don't do this for myself, and have really no idea what sorts of percentages i have. i simply eat what i need to, in order to allow me to fill as optimum as possible.

[gymeejet]

lisa, i do admit that you do make the most that you can with the limited carb intake that you have. that is great.

[FromVA]

please, spare me the "do you have a life". that is so typical of someone who knows they are on the losing end of the debate.
I agree with Joanne42. After having lurked through all this ?discussion?, I have wondered the same thing, quite frankly. The losing end of what debate? I have come to the conclusion that this forum is your entertainment, (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). What I don't understand is why, after all the endless discussion, explainations, and reasoning, anyone is wasting any more time on you. You have a closed mind...unless you are really some 12 yr old geek with lots of time on his hands and too young to go out at night and this is the way you have fun.

If you are sincere, put up the facts. Something you have yet to do. I honestly have to wonder if a: you believe everything you say, and b: if you are being honest on this thread.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/glycogen.html

a fairly technical site explaining the various enzymes used in making glycogen from glucose, and vice versa.

[Lisa N]

If you are sincere, put up the facts. Something you have yet to do. I honestly have to wonder if a: you believe everything you say, and b: if you are being honest on this thread.

In all fairness, I believe that Gymee is being honest and sincere and does believe what he says.
However, I also feel that Gymee came in here unprepared for the level of intelligent debate in favor of low carb that he has encountered thus far and would have benefitted from reading more than one source regarding the science and rationale behind a carb restricted lifestyle before engaging in a debate regarding its pros and cons.
We don't agree on some points (okay, quite a few points), but that's okay. If we all thought alike, this would be a truly boring world to live in. :yawn:

[gymeejet]

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb1/part2/glycogen.htm
a site with some better diagrams.

[gymeejet]

well VA,
i always wonder why people who find discussions useless, would bother to lurk through it all, and comment about how useless it is. i simply ignore them, and go to ones that i find useful.

[Lisa N]

Actually, Gymee...that link tells me how glycogen is made into glucose, not how glucose is made into glycogen. I'll see if I can find you something better that shows the path that glucose takes from ingestion to bloodstream to storage or usage.

[FromVA]

Lisa: I fully expected to get my fingers rapped for my post...if it made it on the forum at all. I apologize...but I get soooo frustrated! I need to space out the media board and this board and not read them back to back!! The misinformation drives me NUTS!! But again, I apologize.

[Lisa N]

http://www.avandamet.com/understanding.html

Here's one link that explains it pretty well. Yes, I know it's in relation to diabetes but it still explains how glucose gets from stomach to bloodstream to cells pretty well.

[FromVA]

gymeejet: I apologize to you as well. I come to this forum because I have learned loads from the folks posting here. I doubt I would find the information anywhere else.

[gymeejet]

lisa,
i read the article. it was an easy to read article about diabetes and glucose, but i saw no info on glycogen.

i think if you look again, both articles i gave you were very detailed ones, and they spoke of both glucose to glycogen and glycogen to glucose.

the body replenishes the glycogen fairly easily, or naturally. what is it that worries you about it ?

[gymeejet]

va,
apology accepted.

[Lisa N]

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/604glycogenesis.html

This explains the process of glucose to glycogen better. Note that excess insulin must be present for this to occur. It's thought that one of the precursers to insulin resistance is repeatedly exposing the cells of the body to excess insulin or high levels of circulating insulin from high carb/sugar meals.
Note also that when glygogen stores are full, the excess glucose is stored as fat via triglycerides and that gluconeogenesis occurs whether glycogen stores are full or not.

[Lisa N]

http://www.itzarion.com/insulinresistance.html

More on how hyperinsulinism and insulin resistance develops and the effects on your body of excess insulin (do some of those deficiencies sound familiar?).
Note that you do not have to be overweight to have excess insulin circulating in your bloodstream. A person can have excess insulin for many years before weight gain ensues especially if they are very active, but just because you are not gaining weight does not mean that there aren't some other negative metabolic processes going on.

[gymeejet]

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/604glycogenesis.html

This explains the process of glucose to glycogen better. Note that excess insulin must be present for this to occur. It's thought that one of the precursers to insulin resistance is repeatedly exposing the cells of the body to excess insulin or high levels of circulating insulin from high carb/sugar meals.
Note also that when glygogen stores are full, the excess glucose is stored as fat via triglycerides and that gluconeogenesis occurs whether glycogen stores are full or not.

hi lisa,
i think you are misunderstanding the use of the word "excess". reread the link again. you seem to be using the word as "too much", like "excessive". this is not how it was made to be taken, in this sense. their wording here is like "extra", or "what is left over". so we are not necessarily getting excessive amounts of insulin in our blood stream, every time we make glycogen. if our cells are full, and our fat supply is ample, then the body might make insulin SOLELY to make some glycogen, assuming that our glycogen is low.

our bodies are very smart. they have a high desire for survival. if they did not, we would be dead by the time we were 25, the way most of us abuse our bodies. our body prioritizes its functions. this is why i stress keeping balanced, and keeping our buckets (individual nutrients) full. if we do not do so, then our body will decide what it needs to do most, given the amount of any particular nutrient it has.

in terms of glucose, it can either send it to the cells via the cell receptors, make glycogen, or make fat. it will do what is most important for it to survive. so if we are on one of those silly starvation diets, it might make some fat, even if the cells would prefer to get it all. or it could make glycogen if the liver supply is real low. it just all depends on the dynamics at that individual moment.

it takes care of the most important things first. since skin is less important than many other things, dry skin usually indicates one of the first signs of fatty acid deficiency, which is good for us, because it is a sign that is easy to spot. so if we know what we are looking for, we can fix that problem quickly (nip it in the bud, so to speak).

[Lisa N]

our bodies are very smart. they have a high desire for survival. if they did not, we would be dead by the time we were 25, the way most of us abuse our bodies.

It's not that our bodies are smart, Gymee. All of the processes that we have discussed so far occur without any thought on our part, much like your heart beating. That's why they're called autonomic processes. Given the abuses that many people inflict on their bodies during a lifetime, I agree it's really quite amazing that many of us live as long as we do and it's certainly a tribute to how much our bodies can endure and keep plugging along.
However...it you really think that eating 30-40 dates (or a pound and a half of grapes, or a whole canteloupe, or half a loaf of bread, etc..) isn't causing a good deal of insulin production as well as a pretty large post prandial rise in blood sugar, why not take Alaskaman's challenge and test it for yourself? Borrow a glucometer and eat 40 dates. Then test at 30 minutes, 1 hour, 90 minutes and 120 minutes after you eat. See what happens. If the results are normal...good for you (or perhaps not with the amount of insulin you just produced to keep those blood sugars in normal range). It's quite possible to have excess insulin production and still return a normal glucose challenge test. The only thing that will show you whether or not you have excess insulin is a circulating blood insulin level (and you don't even have to go to a special lab to get one done...your doctor can order it).

[joanne42]

gymeejet I was just reading back on my posts here.. and yeah I sounded nasty. I'm very sorry.. I've been having a few bad days and I guess I figured this was the thread that I figured I could vent it out on.. I'm truly sorry :(

[gymeejet]

hi joanne,
well if i had been more mature, i should not have jumped back. lisa thinks that i am surprised to see the intelligence/knowledge of the low carbers. but i believe it is she who is surprised that 20 guns have not been able to take the 1 gun out.

and i know that none of us like to have certain things challenged, until we are ready. you and va, and i am sure many others feel that you have found a haven, and do not want someone putting a damper on it. and the very fact that you have shown such reactions, tells me that people are at least stopping to question themselves about their fat intake.

but there are also many avenues of agreement between myself and low-carbers. the main, and very significant, disagreement involves the trading of saturated fat for carbs, or vice versa, depending on which side of the fence that you are on. and i am very willing to admit that diabetics are forced to do so. anyways, i wish all of you guys the best of health.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i am not at all opposed to taking a test, as i heavily believe in the ones that i have taken in the past. this test though seems highly inconvenient, since i would generally be out and about after eating my dates. again, i mentioned dates because you did. i may eat them for awhile, and not have any for months. but i would say that i always eat a fair amount of fruit, of some kind, every day.

it would seem to me that i would expect a somewhat high insulin count, after eating my fruits. i would be more worried if my insulin was low, meaning that i could not manufacture enough of it. i know my blood sugar results are always on the low normal side. so to be honest, diabetes is not something that i even worry about. i think it is highly unlikely that i would develop that disease.

[FromVA]

lisa thinks that i am surprised to see the intelligence/knowledge of the low carbers. but i believe it is she who is surprised that 20 guns have not been able to take the 1 gun out.
ROFL!! Lisa is simply trying to educate you...I really appreciate that she is, because she has taught me loads!

[Lisa N]

this test though seems highly inconvenient, since i would generally be out and about after eating my dates.

Not really since most glucometers these days are small enough to fit in your pocket or fanny pack and each test takes less than 60 seconds to complete. I can test my blood sugar in the middle of a busy restaurant and unless someone was watching me closely, they'd never realize I had just checked my blood sugar.
The circulating insulin test would involve a doctor appointment and possible an extra trip to the lab and that's what would probably give you the best information since it's possible to have high levels of circulating insulin and still have normal blood sugar tests.

it would seem to me that i would expect a somewhat high insulin count, after eating my fruits.

You might want to re-review the link that I posted regarding the types of problems that this can eventually cause. High levels of insulin are not something that the body generally reacts well to. With the types and amounts of fruit that you are reporting eating, I'd expect a high level of circulating insulin too as well as a fairly large post prandial blood sugar spike. Are you guaranteed to develop a problem because of high circulating insulin levels? Not necessarily with blood sugar or diabetes, but remember too that insulin is a master hormone and blood sugars aren't the only thing that high levels of insulin affect. But with an estimated 25% of the population with a genetic tendancy towards insulin resistance, there's no guarantee that you have immunity even without a family history of such problems. About the only thing that I can think of that is protective in your lifestyle at the moment is your high level of excercise and as I said before, I sincerely hope that you can continue at that level as long as you are choosing to eat this way. I was the first in my family to develop diabetes; at least as far as anyone can tell for several generations back and because I have it, my daughters are at a greatly increased risk to develop carbohydrate metabolism problems as well as their daughters.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
every chemical reaction the body makes requires regulators (hormones and enzymes). so if my body makes the insulin i need to carry glucose to the cells, i look at it as my body doing what it was designed to do.

one thing that i have never heard mentioned is the following. i think it could be a reason why we have problems in our society from sugar. 99% of the cells in the pancreas are responsible for making the digestion enzymes. 1% is responsible for insulin, glucagon, and somatostatin. so our bodies can make the enzymes to digest our foods. but not on an every day basis, can it make all the enzymes for digestion. the denourished foods that we eat, tax the 99% of the pancreas, and it eventually is unable to do its job, the 1% also being affected. but eating natural foods, that are basically self-digestible, allows the 99% to basically loaf along, thus keeping the 1% healthy to make the needed insulin.

that does not mean that we should eat all carbs, but rather by eating the foods that nourish the body, our bodies respond with health, as opposed to disease. we are just like every other machine, in the sense that we had better not fool around with our design, and eat those foods that are nutritious to the body. produce is one of these foods. along with protein and essential fats. i am accomplishing a level of health that i have never seen, and plan to continue to do so. results are what count. and i believe that my dietary advice with regards to natural carbs and lower levels of saturated fat, is superior to the low carb diet.

[alaskaman]

Would be interested in seeing your source for the info about the workload division of the pancreatic cells. Also, about the natural foods being self digestible. I can't quite follow that, since dates, which I suppose you consider natural, have a higher gi than glucose. The evidence for the harmfulness of saturated fat was never strong to begin with, and is crumbling daily. BTW, my advice about the glucometer was not a "challenge" just curiousity. You may be ok, but I think you may be, what we called in dragracing days, "tipping the can" that's what we said about adding nitromethane (oxygen-bearing, explosive fuel) to the tank. Terrific performance, but you melted a lot of pistons and broke a lot of motors. Best wishes, Bill

[digwig]

i am accomplishing a level of health that i have never seen, and plan to continue to do so. results are what count. and i believe that my dietary advice with regards to natural carbs and lower levels of saturated fat, is superior to the low carb diet.

I asked you this before, gymee, but I think it got lost in the shuffle. You place a lot of value on personal experience and real world results (citing your own personal experience and a woman you knew who supposedly had health issues due to low carbing). How do you explain the tremendous improvements in health the thousands of members of this forum have experienced after starting a low carb diet? All you have to do is look through the journal area of this forum and read a few initial entries (that often summarize the journalers health issue and improvements) to read some powerful real world testimonials about how low carbing can change ones life (and please don't tell me it's anecdotal, because you've already said that you trust the real world more than scientific studies). What you will read over and over is that cutting the level of high g.i. carbs in the diet led to reduced blood pressure, improved cholesterol, lowered weight, and blood sugar control.

Let me tell you my story. At 26 years old I weighed 270 pounds (I'm 5'4"). I had spent two years strictly following a low fat (under 20%) moderate protein, high carbohydrate diet. In those two years I gained over 50 pounds and turned into an old woman with no energy and ended up on anti-depressants and ritalin just to function normally. My brain was always scrambled and I was constantly taking naps. I used to sleep on the couch in the break room after I ate lunch at work. I couldn't stop eating and was always hungry. I thought I was just emotionally weak and was some kind of chronic overeater who was just doomed to be fat.

After discovering low carbing, I was suddenly able to control my appetite. I ate when I was hungry and didn't think of my next meal until I was hungry again. It was truly a miracle for me. All of sudden, I understood that it wasn't a character flaw making me overeat; it was my blood sugar levels. Once my insulin levels normalized, my weight dropped dramatically and I was able to stop taking medication. My blood sugars (I borrowed a glucometer) are always normal, my blood pressure is perfect, my triglycerides are low and my ldl/hdl ratios are pretty much perfect. I work out six days a week and have no problem with performance (the health improvements came before the workout program began.) Since my blood sugar is normal, I know that my body isn't having any trouble accessing the stored glucose I have available, which also means I don't have the need for it in my diet.

I was dead before I discovered a low-carbohydrate diet. My brain and body didn't function properly and I was just marking time, one day bleeding into the next with me there just as an observor rather than an active participant. Now, I have the good health I deserve, and it's all because I changed what I was eating.

There's my testimonial. How do you explain that? I know that the rapid weight gain on the very low-fat diet was due to my mainlining food like Twizzlers, but I know from experience that once I get over 60 grams or so of carb per day no matter what the source I start to have uncontrollable cravings and I'm back to the scrambled brain, etc.

Thanks for this argument. I've learned lots from Lisa's posts and discussions like this lead to the promotion of low-carbing's health benefits. I've learned quite a bit in the last week.

Ciao, Dig

[gymeejet]

hi dig,
first, thank you for sharing your story with me. i have answered that question several times, but maybe not directly to you.

secondly, i want to re-state again, that i am not in disfavor of everything the lc diet represents. basically just the saturated fat/carb issue. when compared to the sad (standard american diet), yours is far superior. so i am not at all surprised that you are feeling much better.

on your low-fat diet, you were probably not getting enough protein, and your essential fat intake may have been close to nil. so int those 2 very important respects, you are doing much better.

i do not know whether you are diabetic, but i am willing to at least agree with the possibility that you have done irreparable damage to your carb-metabolism, and therefore may never be able to eat the amount of carbs that i am advising. i just don't know.

we will have to wait some years to discover whether a high saturated fat intake is causing you problems. hopefully not.

i was also on a low-fat diet, but no toxics/crap food. after adding back more protein, and getting plenty of essential fats, i am as good or better as i have ever been. the only saturated fat i get is with the 2 fats that i take (each have about 10% saturated fat).

that glycometer sounds interesting to me. i need to investigate into that. i am always curious at how my body works. i have always been able to cardio at levels beyond anyone i knew. it wasn't until i got my first electric tests on my heart that i found my heart strength was off the charts, even when compared to professional soccer players. after that, i started taking my blood pressure and heart rate during my most vigorous cardio routine, to find out how it was working.

there are 2 ways for the body to increase circulation - increasing heart rate or increasing blood pressure. so i would take them after the first half hour, after the 2nd half hour, and then again 15 minutes after stopping. what i found was the following. my blood pressure after the first half hour was always higher than after the 2nd/last half hour. it was always the reverse with my pulse rate - always higher after the 2nd half hour. so, at least with my body, it could increase the blood pressure more quickly, which it did. it would then gradually decrease the bp, as the heart rate climbed. however, my heart rate never came close the aerobic maximum that those old rules would post. but most importantly to me was the last reading, because that showed how taxing it was to my heart. after 15 minutes, both my bp and pulse rate were way lower, so my heart was able to relax quickly.

thanks for the post. and keep up your good health.

[Lisa N]

Would be interested in seeing your source for the info about the workload division of the pancreatic cells.

Me too since this site: http://surgery.4t.com/55.1.htm states that 10-20% of the pancreas by mass is the endocrine portion broken down as 75% beta cells (insulin), 20% alpha cells (glucagon) and the remaining being D cells (somatostatin) and a few others.


one thing that i have never heard mentioned is the following. i think it could be a reason why we have problems in our society from sugar. 99% of the cells in the pancreas are responsible for making the digestion enzymes. 1% is responsible for insulin, glucagon, and somatostatin. so our bodies can make the enzymes to digest our foods. but not on an every day basis, can it make all the enzymes for digestion. the denourished foods that we eat, tax the 99% of the pancreas, and it eventually is unable to do its job, the 1% also being affected. but eating natural foods, that are basically self-digestible, allows the 99% to basically loaf along, thus keeping the 1% healthy to make the needed insulin.

While this is an intersting theory, I'd really like to see the sources that you base it on. While it's true that the pancreas contains both endocrine and exocrine cells and they do somewhat work together, they are quite different in function and independent of one another for their function. The pancreas is producing insulin and digestive enzymes 24/7 for as long as we live. They are not secreted or are secreted in only very small amounts until they receive a stimulus (increased blood sugar, decreased blood sugar or release of chyme from the stomach) that it needs to release that which has been stored. The digestive enzymes of the pancreas are not activated until they are released into the small intestine through the common duct along with bile from the gallbladder.
The denourished foods that we eat don't actually tax any part of our digestive system since it is mainly concerned with whether the food is starch, protein or fat. What taxes our bodies with the denourished foods is the lack of nutrients that they provide. Failure or disease of the exocrine function of the pancreas is extremely rare while failure of the endocrine function of the pancreas is far more common (approching epidemic proportions currently in many countries including ours).
I'm not sure what you mean at all about "self-digesting" food since NO food would be digested by the body (natural, junk or otherwise) without the various digestive enzymes and chemicals present from our mouths to our large intestine. The salivary glands, stomach, gallbladder, pancreas and small intestine all play a part in breaking down the foods that we eat so that the nutrients within them can be absorbed and utilized by the body. Some "natural" foods are actually more difficult for our bodies to digest due to their less processed nature; the body has to work harder to extract the nutrients from these foods than it does from those that are highly processed before we even eat them. This is actually part of the premise of the glycemic index...how quickly can the sugars from a particular food be digested and broken down before it hits your bloodstream and starts raising your blood sugar. Nearly without exception, the more processed a food is, the quicker it hits your bloodstream indicating that less work is involved in breaking it down during digestion. Since the body doesn't have to work as hard to break these foods down, it seems that these types of foods actually tax the digestive process less than those that are less processed or eaten totally unprocessed.


i want to re-state again, that i am not in disfavor of everything the lc diet represents. basically just the saturated fat/carb issue.

And I'd like to state again that you have yet to prove that the level of carbs that most of us consume along with the saturated fat content of our daily diets is harmful in any way. As a matter of fact, we've seen multiple testimonies that it's not harmful in any way and has provided great benefit to those that have followed it so far evidenced by improved lipid profiles, and disappearance or improvement of multiple health issues. As for the carb issue, since you can't or won't give a minimum amount necessary for optimal health, there isn't much of a position from which to argue that we're not getting enough.
I'd also like to point out that you don't necessarily have to consume a lot of saturated fat on a low carb lifestyle and most of us don't go out of our way to GET saturated fat. We're just not unnecessarily afraid of it. The only fat that most of us avoid completely, as should all humans, is hydrogenated or transfats.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i was quoting from "principles of anatomy and physiology, 6th edition", by tortora and anagnostakos. there are many references to this textbook on the net, but none that i could find that would show actual pages.

in this article on yahoo, it states that over 95% are digestive.

http://health.yahoo.com/health/cancer_center/acs_crc/pancreas_cancer/

but even if we want to go at 10%, my point still remains that the overwhelming amount of the pancreas is digestive, instead of the insulin/glucagon.

fruit have the enzymes within, to digest the fruit. this is true with most all natural foods, and definitely not true for processed foods.

the pancreas is a single organ, and if 90-99% of it becomes overworked, it sure would seem to be a logical avenue of reasoning, that perhaps the other 1-10% would suffer, as well. i guess for now we will just have to call it the "gymeejet possibility theory". LOL.

i can tell you that the package of cookies and the 40 dates had a very different effect on my body. with the cookies, it was always just one more, just one more, until the package was gone. still i was not satisfied. had there been another package, i surely would have continued on, probably until i felt nauseatingly sick to my stomach. when i eat the dates, i can eat until satiety. when i become full, i stop, and do not want any more. that fruit meal, along with my protein/fat concoction, helps to keep me going for the rest of the day - very unlike the cookies. i feel very calm afterwards, not sugary-jittery. i always have a low-normal blood sugar on my regular blood tests. SO THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

the gymeejet-possibility-theory is one step in logical reasoning, why this might be so. there is definitely a difference between a lot of dates, and a lot of cookies. these dates are fresh, also - not dried. fresh dates are still a dense food, but they taste much better than dried dates, and are also much moister, so they still have a fair amount of water to them, when compared to the dried dates that one is apt to get in the supermarket.

fruits are tremendous for cleaning out the system, and just darn right INVALUABLE. as are the veggies. AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REST NATURAL CARBS.

that i do not give you percentages - i did give you something much better - the exact method i would use - continue to work on so many grams of protein and essential fats, while the remainder of the diet would be natural carbs. continue taking tests, monitoring your levels, adjusting them to see whether you felt better or worse, until we found where your body felt best. then continue to take that amount of fat and protein - everything else would be natural carbs to keep you satiated throughout the day. you see, i take each person on an individual basis, not a 38-26-36 basis (pun intended - LOL.)

[gymeejet]

hey alaska,
i am definitely interested in doing that. perhaps you can tell me more about it. do you prick your finger and put some blood on a monitoring device ? where can i pick up a glucometer ? what features should i look for ? i am always curious about how my body works. i have a very good insight now as to how my heart works. i would like to see how this works, after eating fruit, after eating my protein, etc.

all this information helps us to better understand our bodies, and become better listeners of the feedback that it is giving us.

[gymeejet]

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/enzymes.htm

[Lisa N]

i can tell you that the package of cookies and the 40 dates had a very different effect on my body. with the cookies, it was always just one more, just one more, until the package was gone. still i was not satisfied. had there been another package, i surely would have continued on, probably until i felt nauseatingly sick to my stomach. when i eat the dates, i can eat until satiety. when i become full, i stop, and do not want any more. that fruit meal, along with my protein/fat concoction, helps to keep me going for the rest of the day - very unlike the cookies. i feel very calm afterwards, not sugary-jittery. i always have a low-normal blood sugar on my regular blood tests. SO THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

I looked up the nutritional information on fresh dates. One date has 5 grams of sugar. I just happened to have a package of cream filled sandwich cookies that my kids got at church this morning. Guess what? One cookie has 5 grams of sugar. So...if you eat 40 dates, you're getting 200 grams of sugar. If you eat 40 cookies, you're getting 200 grams of sugar. Your body doesn't know the difference; it just "sees" 200 grams of sugar coming in. The dates have a minimal amount of fiber (about 0.5 grams each) which MAY slow down the sugar absorption a bit (actually, it just delays the blood sugar spike a bit longer than with the cookies, but it still happens), but you're still getting 200 grams of sugar either way and because of the sheer bulk of the dates versus the cookies, your secondary insulin response may actually be greater with the dates that it was with the cookies because your stomach is saying, "Hey, pancreas! We got a lot of food here...better up that insulin order!". This is what Dr. Bernstein refers to as "The Chinese restaurant effect". :rolleyes:

the pancreas is a single organ, and if 90-99% of it becomes overworked, it sure would seem to be a logical avenue of reasoning, that perhaps the other 1-10% would suffer, as well.

The problem with this theory is that while the 90% of the pancreas that is digestive may be overworked (which I rather doubt because the enzymes produced are not in relation to the nutrient content of the food other than whether it is protein, starch or fat and these enzymes are being produced whether you eat or not), it does not affect the 10% that are endocrine because they are controlled by a totally differnet set of stimuli/chemical processes and are totally different cells. The endocrine cells have nothing to do with the production of digestive enzymes and the digestive enzyme producing cells have nothing to do with the endocrine producing cells. They just happen to be located in the same organ, but they might as well be located in separate and distinct organs as far as function.
The difference between the edocrine cells of the pancreas and the exocrine is that while both are producing their unique products 24/7, the beta cells store the insulin until a stimulus (such as a smell or food being chewed) occurs. Then the phase 1 insulin response occurs with release of the stored insulin granules. Then, about an hour later, the phase 2 insulin response occurs but this is in direct relation to how high the blood sugar is and whether or not the body detects that it is still climbing. If the blood sugars are still not dropping after the phase 2 insulin response, a third phase kicks in some time later. It's this second and third phase response that gets so many people in trouble with elevated insulin levels since the phase 1 response is fairly small.
Exocrine cells produce their enzymes at a pretty constant rate, store them as well, and release them into the intestines only when chyme (partially digested food) exits the stomach and then release no more until more food exits the stomach.

Interesting link although I note that they give no scientific sources for their claims other than the very old Swedish study. One thing I have to comment on in that study is that they make the assumption that a rise in white blood cells following eating a cooked food indicates a negative process is occurring or that a rise in white blood cells automatically is bad. In reponse to that I have to relate a short story. One summer a few years ago, my dad (a retired medical doctor) was visiting and I commented on the number of scrapes and scratches that my girls were getting during that very active time of year. His response? He just laughed and said, "That means they're healthy!". I responded, "Well, they're certainly active, that's true." and he said, "No, you misunderstand me. Immune systems need small challenges to remain active and healthy. If it's not given those small challenges (in this case, small scrapes and scratches) it gets lazy and unresponsive and you're more likely to get sick. Don't worry about the scratches unless they get infected. It means they're healthy." My feeling on the response to cooked food is the same...don't worry about it..it means you're healthy. :rolleyes:

[Lisa N]

Another comment about those fruit and veggie enzymes that they claim help with allergic reactions to food. In my husband's case, he's actually allergic to some of the enzymes IN the fruits and veggies themselves and this has been confirmed through allergy testing. If he eats raw apples, peaches, carrots or celery he will have an immediate and serious allergic reaction in which his mouth will itch intensely and his throat will begin to swell so instead of preventing an allergic reaction in this case they actually cause it.

[alaskaman]

gymee, the meters are not very expensive, the test strips are, I would hope you would be able to borrow one from a diabetic acquaintance. But if you do want one of your own, I think they're all pretty much the same, some require a larger drop of blood, yes you do stick yourself with a little lancet or a penlet that does it, doesn't hurt much, oh yes, some of the meters are faster than others. Mine takes 45 secs from putting the blood on to the reading. I bet it would be interesting for you, it is for me, you would want to test, like before a meal, 1, 2, perhaps 3 hrs after, if you ever eat without exercising after, that would be an interesting reading, you're just looking for patterns. Dr Bernstein also recommends testing during a workout, see if you drop down after a certain workout period. I like mine, it is like having instruments in your car, watch your temp gauge, oil pressure, etc. Bill

[gymeejet]

thanks alaska,
would you reccommend any particular brand ?

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
a running back is talking to his coach. he explains to his coach that 1 linebacker is very strong and fast, and when he gets tackled by that linebacker, it feels like a mack truck hit him. the back also explains to his coach that the other linebacker is not as fast or strong, and does not hit nearly as hard.

the coach replies, "but son, they both weigh exactly 200 pounds."

you have this demon, called sugar. it prevents you from seeing things unbiased. perhaps if i had diabetes, i would also have the same problem.

the dates leave me relaxed, satiated, and full for hours. the cookies do none of the above. there is as much difference between the dates and the cookies, as my above example of the 2 linebackers. we could discuss the various reasons why this is so. perhaps it is the other nutrients in the dates. perhaps it is because whole foods do not put the body out of balance. but whatever the reason, does not change the fact that it does.

this is my biggest complaint of the low carbers. many of them equate carbohydrate foods, simply by their sugar content. you are missing the forest for the trees, and are either unwilling or unable to see it.

[Lisa N]

this is my biggest complaint of the low carbers. many of them equate carbohydrate foods, simply by their sugar content.

Not just by their sugar content, by their glycemic index. The GI for those dates? 103; slightly higher than straight sugar. You can argue all you like that there is no difference between 5 grams of sugar in a cookie and 5 grams of sugar in a date but the GI says otherwise.

the dates leave me relaxed, satiated, and full for hours.

That's very interesting because in several other posts you have said that you eat such foods because they allow you to "go, go, go". High energy and "relaxed" are not two conditions that I would equate with one another.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i can understand your marriage of these 2 ideas, but they are completely different. relaxed, in this sense, refers to my nervous system. it is not jittery. however, i have the CAPACITY to go, go , go. once full with my dates, or fruits, i have absolutely no desire to have just one more. with cookies, it was always just one more, just one more.

sometimes physical exercise can also be very relaxing. swimming does this for me. on one side, i am getting great exercise. on the other side, i am in a groove, and can almost put myself in a meditative, relaxed mood. if you do not swim, you probably would not understand it, but i am sure that there are other swimmers who do. there are also other exercisings that can place me in what i would call a surreal atmosphere.

[alaskaman]

The dates would leave ME full relaxed and satiated for hours too, while my blood sugars gradually came down from 400 to 300 to 200, etc. Yes, we've got our "demon" sugar, gymee has his, saturated fat. Btw, I suppose everyone knows about the study which showed that fat loading could be a good or better for athletic performance than carbo loading.Can find the ref if anyone is interested. Bill

[Lisa N]

The dates would leave ME full relaxed and satiated for hours too, while my blood sugars gradually came down from 400 to 300 to 200, etc

LOL...but it might be more difficult to enjoy that satiated and relaxed feeling while in a semi-comatose state! :lol:

[digwig]

however, i have the CAPACITY to go, go , go. once full with my dates, or fruits, i have absolutely no desire to have just one more. with cookies, it was always just one more, just one more.

Hi Gymee,

It's just my opinion, but if you're eating 40 of anything, I wouldn't qualify that as having "no desire to have just one more." True, you are getting 200 grams of sugar with 40 dates instead of almost 400 grams with 75 cookies, but dates take longer to eat than cookies and your "earlier" satiety with the dates may be due to passing time rather than anything else. In essence, your "I'm full" message has time to kick in. I would also suggest that the "staying power" of your meal has to do more with your "protein/fat concoction" than the fruit.

Thanks for answering my earlier question, but I guess what I was looking for was for you to explain why my cardiac health markers improved if saturated fat is so bad for me. I know that you feel my diet improved generally and that's what caused the improvement, but an improvement is an improvement and would seem to show that my fat consumption is not a problem. Are you saying that my blood work would be even more perfect ( :) ) if I reduced the amount of saturated fat in my diet?

You advocate eating whole foods in as natural a state as possible, and meat and eggs definitely fall into that category. Yes, they contain saturated fat, but that's as nature intended. Is it just that they're animal foods? Last time I checked, there wasn't any whey/soy protein blend walking around in the wild (and if I saw any, I'd run away!)

Also, I need to make the point that you're not average, you obviously have a "super-metabolism" based on the tests you've cited in your posts. In fact, it sounds as though you could give Steve Austin a run for his money (or at least 4 million dollars worth ;) ). So, you're probably not the best test case to fine-tune diet recommendations for the general public. Most people don't expend even close to the daily energy you do.

I know you recognize this, because you recommend creating a baseline protein and fat level intake and then adding natural carbs back in, taking tests, seeing if you feel better or worse and then adjusting as needed. This is exactly what we do in a low-carbohydrate diet! Most non-diabetic low-carbers don't use a glucometer to discern appropriate carb levels, but just use the scale and how they are feeling to assess how things are going. It works, it's individualized, and it's basically identical to what you're recommending.

So, now it looks as though we're down to "you guys eat too much saturated fat." vs. "g.i. is g.i. is g.i." I'm very interested to see the results of your glucometer testing and whether your magic body is protecting you from your sugar intake...

Alaskaman, I'd love to see that fat-loading reference if you have the time.

Off to eat cheese...

Dig

[gymeejet]

hi alaska,
i am happy to read anything you want to throw my way, but just remember that non-diabetics are not necessarily limited in the same way that diabetics are.

[digwig]

hi alaska,
i am happy to read anything you want to throw my way, but just remember that non-diabetics are not necessarily limited in the same way that diabetics are.

My guess is that the study alaska's referencing probably wasn't performed with diabetics.

Also, just for the record, I don't have diabetes, you'd asked about that before, but I neglected to answer.

Have a groovy one,

Dig

[Kestrel]

Alaskaman may be referring to the study using cyclists, comparing 17% fat intake to 30%, with the 30% intake showing an improvement.

There are two problems with such tests; those that set up the tests don't necessarily test a true low carb diet, in particular since there is no concensus over what macronutrient ratio that entails. Nor do they provide much time for the person to become acclimated to what most of would think of as a low carb diet.

[gymeejet]

hi dig,
i am absolutely 100% positively, without a doubt sure that is sugar that allows me to do my intense cardio. without it, forget it.

the body does not use protein or essential fats to burn as energy, unless you give it no other options. these are used for our anabolic processes. both sugar and saturated fat have some anabolic uses, but the overwhelming percentage of both are used for energy consumption.

except for the brain which runs on glucose, fat is fine for the rest of our body. and in low intensity exercise, such as weight lifting, a moderate amount of carbs is fine. but if you want some vigorous cardio, forget about the notion of using fat as your main source of fuel. try it, and i will run circles around you.

this does not mean that you can get by with sugar only. the body still must remain balanced. i will expound on that later, and try to answer some of the rest of your post.

always good to hear from you.

[alaskaman]

Yes, gymee, I know that sugar is the basis for that sort of workout.Even my diabetes guru Dr. Bernstein does his workouts fueled by insulin and glucose tablets. What is intriguing is the historical record,what about, for instance, the metis voyageurs, who packed 180 lbs (at least, sometimes for financial incentives they would do more, up to 500 lbs) over portages up to several miles, generally traveling at a fast trot. I suspect even you might find that "cardio" and would need some sugar to do it. The interesting thing to me is that the inland ones ate mostly pemmican, approx 20%protein, 80% fat. Lots of cultures, inuit etc never had sugar or much carbo at all, yet the records show their stamina. So what is sugar then, some sort of unnatural modern super-fuel, the "crack" of carbohydrates? I think it IS possible, with a few weeks of adaptation, to switch to a fat-based metabolism, and match the stamina of the metis or the inuit. However, this is just my humble opinion based on readings about primitive peoples. Have no studies to back it up. Best wishes, Bill

[gymeejet]

hey alaska,
i don't say that someone can not have some level of endurance on the type of diet that you describe. first, i am somewhat convinced that climate plays a part. so i do not really feel like i can make an informed comment about people living in polar climates.

the cardio that i was describing has more to do with fast action. lugging heavy weights requires "muscular endurance". it is not necessarily real cardio taxing. since i was not there, i can not see how fast they were going. it certainly requires strength.

i know a gal who has lots of endurance for slow-paced, long events, such as hiking, etc. but put her playing a fast action sport, and she tires. yet she could probably outlast most people on a long hike. there is a different type of fitness there. but in general, the faster you make your body make energy for you, the more you need to lean towards sugar.

i have seen my workout when i did not get enough carbs. i start having weird feelings in my head. at the same time, my body starts to freeze up. and i am smart enough now to listen to my body, before i push it too far. at that point, all the sugar in the world won't help. my body has decided to go into protective mode, and that's that, as far as today is concerned. if i don't push myself, i can be back to normal the next day. otherwise, i feel less than optimal all the next day, as well.

intense cardio is especially good for cleaning your system out. it is not all that good for the skeletal system, though, and at the pace i go, i do it just twice a week. but we just can't create energy fast enough to keep up, by burning fat. sugar is just the fastest and cleanest and most productive fuel that we have.

as a society, we just need to learn not to abuse it. as with most things, it can be a blessing at one dosage level, and certainly a curse at too high a dosage level. the first thing that we need to do is eliminate all the crap food. if we could do this as a society, i think diabetes, along with many other diseases, would become a small problem, instead of the epidemic that is bound to occur, should we continue our bad habits.

btw, i do not know, nor have i ever know a diabetic. so if you can, give me a good place to buy one of those glucometers, and what brand to get. is there a more expensive model of machine that does not involve the purchase of the diet strips ? i have done a little bit of research on the net, but up until now, diabetes was not even something i ever even thought about.

[Kestrel]

I would tend to agree that as a society man tends to overdue just about anything, whether it involves food, sports or politics. Anecdotal comments about relative performance, however, doesn't particularly prove a great deal.

Does the lady you reference do poorly at a quicker event? Then perhaps she doesn't actually train for them; doesn't mean that her diet represents the limiting factor. Athletes of any nature will tend to train for their interest; the more emphasis they put on being competitive, the more emphasis on working all aspects of performance. This usually includes aerobic as well as anaerobic workouts, each of which might be structured more for one or the other based on the event. Or to take advantage of their physical attributes.

Whether high carb or low carb is the ultimate performance fuel may be better determined as low carb takes hold over time, and increases interest to actually investigate its pluses or minuses. I'd suggest, however, that its a mistake to assume that low carbers can't perform quick or hard intervals, or be competitive doing so.

[bvtaylor]

Eating Fat May Improve Endurance:
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/17/1676_50176.htm?printing=true

Here's another:
http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/6/17-496610.html

There was another study recently on women who do vigorous exercise. I wasn't able to find the article However, I believe the results indicated that there was less muscle injury in women who ate more fat prior to their workout than women who used carbs.

[MishInAZ]

Gymeejet...

>>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.<<

Sources? Or more of your opinions based on what YOU do?

[MishInAZ]

btw, i do not know, nor have i ever know a diabetic. so if you can, give me a good place to buy one of those glucometers, and what brand to get. is there a more expensive model of machine that does not involve the purchase of the diet strips ? i have done a little bit of research on the net, but up until now, diabetes was not even something i ever even thought about.

Not sure where you live but if you live in the US I would suggest OSCO or Walgreens brand. They have their own brand and their own sticks. It's the cheapest I have seen. I have had patients that just didn't have the money and this is where they claim to get the best deal.

[gymeejet]

hi bv,
anything supported by atkins, i take with a grain of salt. he is selling books and products, and has a huge financial incentive.

as far as the other article, i don't doubt its outcome. it does not in the least interfere with what i know to be true - that burning carbs is highly preferable to burning fat, with regards to virorous cardio.

most of the bicyclists were fairly lean, at 5'11" and about 168, i think he said. so they do not have lots of fat reserves. they had also already had 3 1/2 days of a 70% carbo loading diet. it does not surprise me in the least, that adding some fat at that point in time, might be helpful.

we do not want to allow the body to get into any sort of protection mode. i do not know what sort of diet these bicyclists had, in terms of proper amounts of protein and essential fats.

but if you take 2 people of equal cardio ability, get them both equally balanced, as well as good-balanced, so that the body is not apt to go into protection mode. then the day before, one guy eats a low-carb, high fat diet, while the other guy eats a high-carb, low-fat diet, the high carb guy will win like taking candy from a baby.

i keep myself balanced. i make sure i get my protein, essential fats, and phytos every single day. because i do this, my remainder carb diet will run circles around the low-carb guy. all i have to do is push him to an intense enough level that his body freezes up, and i will wave bye-bye to him, as i merrily speed along.

also, don't forget that your body will try to burn fat whenever possible, to preserve its sugar. when you tire, and slow down, the body will again try to burn some fat, because it knows its glycogen stores are puny when compared to its fat stores, and it expects you to start needing the sugar again.

so if i am battling the low-carb guy, my goal would be to force him to stay at a high intensity to keep up with me, knowing that there is no way that he could do that. sorta reminds me of the racer who does not have a kick at the end, trying to run fast enough to burn the other guy out, so that he runs out of gas before he gets to the end. once you understand the whole picture, it is a bit easier to see.

[gymeejet]

my comment about vigorous cardio not being good for the skeletal was assuming you were on your feet, your body taking a pounding. if your weight is supported, like swimming or bicycling, then your skeleton is of course no longer taking a beating.

my most vigorous routine puts me on my feet. in order to save my feet and ankles, i have to ace bandage up quite a bit. it can also be hard on the knees. so i do that only twice a week, from both an injury standpoint, and an energy consumption standpoint. your body needs time to recover from intense cardio, if you expect it to keep delivering for you year after year.

[MishInAZ]

my comment about vigorous cardio not being good for the skeletal was assuming you were on your feet, your body taking a pounding. if your weight is supported, like swimming or bicycling, then your skeleton is of course no longer taking a beating.

You know, I have to comment on something. I started reading this whole thread and to be really honest I skipped about 200+ posts because I saw that you were really writing the same thing over and over again. Almost as though if you type it enough times we will finally believe you.

That isn't how debate works. You make a claim, you defend your claim. You haven't done that. Everything is based on your opinions. You have read books, you know some guy that is 70-80 years old and he is your dieting guru... (or so it seems) and many many other unsubstantiated claims. That is not impressive in a debate setting.

Do you have any formal education in the area of the human body?

I don't think you realize it but you do more to support the low carb/Atkins way of losing weight more than any pro-Atkins person I have ever encountered. That is due to your posting style.

You make these sweeping generalizations about "most low carbers...." and when I ask for sources you write posts not identifying who the post is to or what comment you are referring to. Who knows which posts you are actually responding to?

Convenient... however that is JMHO.

[Kestrel]

You contend that you'll outperform low carb persons. Again, anecdotal. If we're accepting such claims, then I, as low carb, contend that I have no problem competing with high-carb persons, high intensity or not.

Time will tell, as low carb enthusiasts either gain or decline in the population. If they gain, then more athletes are likely to experiment with low carb. Then the issue of performance will become more defined.

[alaskaman]

I have to agree with Kestrel, I realized that I may not be as 'cardio" as gymee, but I can climb the same mountain passes now that I did as a 28 year old, back then was stopping every hour or so to have "trail mix" or "gorp" full of sugars, raisins, m & m's, etc. Now at almost 60 I pass the spots I used to snack at, don't stop, keep going on fat and protein. I cannot agree that God would have created us with a metabolism that only functions best with a substance (carbohydrate/sugar) that is unknown in some parts of the world, seasonal in others. Obviously, if gymee switched, he'd fall on his face, as he says. But with enough adjustment, he'd be back to his old self. And If that turned out NOT be true, that he really couldn't do his workouts on a fat/protein based diet, then I'd say that's nature's way of telling him what he's doing is unnatural, kind of like steroids. Cardio workout, two IV's, glucose in one arm, steroids in the other, look at me go.

[gymeejet]

kestrel,
from your point of view, i can agree that it would be undefined. from my point of view, it is not. time will certainly tell - and there will be no comparison.

as far as saturated fat with low carbs, being bad for the arteries, i at least have some level of doubt. i have absolutely none with fat and carbs and high intensity carbo. for you see, that has been an integral part of most of my life.

you guys like to read studies, that is fine. i am the study, in my case, and like i said before, i will tip my cap to anyone who can keep up with me. so you see, i know just a little more than the average bloke about it. RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS

[alaskaman]

You ARE the study, Results, you really can't say. You know, most if not all of the people replying to you have probably tried dif. approaches to diet, including vegetarian, some "balanced" plans similar to yours. And we find our results, that we improve in measureable ways. You made up your mind long ago, can only keep repeating how healthy you are, no way of knowing whether you'd have been as healthy on some other plan. You will say"no way" but have nothing to base it on, except faith, in who? Udo Erasmus? whatever. You haven't eaten meat in 25 years, your mind was made up long ago. Never tried anything else as far as I can tell, except for a more unhealthy carb-based diet. So give us credit, lots of us have been there, done that, lowcarb works, we know cause we've seen the other side of the coin. Eat all meat for a year or so, come back here and report your comparison. Bill

[Yar]

gymeejet, suggest you change your diet or you will be at the bar having drinks with Elvis.
Yar

.............................
Reducing the serum cholesterol level with a diet high in animal fat.

Newbold HL.

Multiple food allergies required a group of seven patients with elevated serum cholesterol levels to follow a diet in which most of the calories came from beef fat. Their diets contained no sucrose, milk, or grains. They were given nutritional supplements. This is the only group of people in recent times to follow such a diet. During the study, the patients' triglyceride levels decreased from an average of 113 mg/dl to an average of 74 mg/dl; at the same time, their serum cholesterol levels fell from an average of 263 mg/dl to an average of 189 mg/dl. At the beginning of the study, six of the patients had an average high-density lipoprotein percentage of 21%. At the end of the study, the average had risen to 32%. These findings raise an interesting question: are elevated serum cholesterol levels caused in part not by eating animal fat (an extremely "old food"), but by some factor in grains, sucrose, or milk ("new foods") that interferes with cholesterol metabolism?

PMID: 3336803 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Yar]

This may also be of interest to gymeejet.
How anyone could eat something that was known to be toxic, together with inducing human T-cells to attack the intestine, this is where the degenerative diseases come from. [Grains and Processed foods]

Yar

STANFORD RESEARCHERS FIND CAUSE, POSSIBLE CURE FOR GLUTEN INTOLERANCE
STANFORD, Calif. – A team of investigators led by Stanford University researchers have discovered the cause and a potential treatment for celiac sprue, an autoimmune disease that leads to an inability to digest gluten, a major protein in wheat, rye and barley products. The disease is estimated to afflict as many as 1 in 200 Americans.

In the Sept. 27 issue of Science, researchers identify a fragment of gluten called gliadin as the celiac culprit. They showed that this fragment is resistant to digestion and is responsible for the intestine-damaging inflammatory response experienced by celiac patients. They also report the use of a dietary enzyme made by a bacterium that can break down the fragment into harmless bits, suggesting future treatment through dietary supplements.

“These findings are the first step to giving people with celiac disease real hope for a normal life,” said Chaitan Khosla, PhD, professor of chemistry, chemical engineering and, by courtesy, of biochemistry. Lu Shan, a graduate student in Khosla’s lab, was lead author on the paper. The team included other Stanford researchers as well as a group from the University of Oslo in Norway.

The lining of the small intestine is normally carpetlike, covered with small protrusions called villi. Celiac disease, however, results in a smooth, pipelike intestine. The reduced surface area keeps the body from absorbing nutrients. Often diagnosed in childhood, the disease can lead to the distended stomach and stunted growth typical of starvation.

“The only effective therapy for most people is a lifelong gluten-free diet, and that’s fairly restrictive,” explained co-author Gary M. Gray, professor of medicine, emeritus. The diet is essential over the long term both to restore normal intestinal function and to reduce the risk of developing osteoporosis, lymphoma or cancer of the small intestine, he added.

In the laboratory, Shan simulated the digestive process, exposing gliadin to digestive enzymes in test tubes. She identified a protein fragment made up of 33 amino acids that was resistant to further digestion and whose structure was known to be toxic. Most proteins are broken down into small peptides of between two and six amino acids or into single amino acids. She then repeated her study in rats and again in test tubes using tissue taken by biopsy from patients undergoing unrelated medical procedures. “Even with prolonged treatment (exposure to intestinal enzymes), the peptide doesn’t lose the ability to induce the inflammatory response,” Shan said.

When they looked more closely at the fragment, Shan and her colleagues found that it was made up of even smaller fragments already known to induce human T-cells to attack the intestine. The team in Norway then measured the ability of the gliadin fragment to induce autoimmune activity. “The response by T-cells was about 10 to 20 times higher than the smaller peptides themselves,” Shan said.

Because the fragment is rich in the amino acid proline, investigators reasoned that a peptidase (an enzyme that breaks down proteins) with the ability to digest proline-rich chains might be able to break down the gliadin fragment, rendering it harmless to celiac patients. They have now shown that this is the case in test tubes and in rats. Because there are no animal models of celiac disease, testing this approach in humans is a long way off and will require further preclinical work, Khosla said.

“We think that this mode of therapy – peptidase supplementation – may offer hope in treating celiac sprue eventually, and we’re going to test this hypothesis.”

[Lisa N]

http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/5/28-99286.html

Can't go the distance on low carb? Better not tell Dr. Trager that! :lol:

He placed 39th overall in the 2001 Florida Ironman competition...on maintainance levels of low carb! :thup:

[Lisa N]

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=48390009&hilite=Dandona
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/8/2970

Hmmm...how much sugar was in those dates again???


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/11/981126103305.htm

It also appears that if your goal is to stay young looking, a high fructose diet isn't the best way to achieve it.

[gymeejet]

Hi Gymee,


Thanks for answering my earlier question, but I guess what I was looking for was for you to explain why my cardiac health markers improved if saturated fat is so bad for me. I know that you feel my diet improved generally and that's what caused the improvement, but an improvement is an improvement and would seem to show that my fat consumption is not a problem. Are you saying that my blood work would be even more perfect ( :) ) if I reduced the amount of saturated fat in my diet?
Dig

hi dig,
at one time you were obese. so certainly your body was way out of kilter. i am assuming that it was mostly due to processed foods, containing too much sugar, as well as a host of other bad stuff. by fixing that, your health will improve a lot. but those foods did not immediately drive all your tests wild. it took awhile for the damage to occur. just continue to keep a watch on your cholesterol and triglyceride count, as well as your blood pressure. if you are getting a large amount of blockage in a large thoroughfare, your bp should rise. it will take many years before we know just what this high intake of saturated fat does. although it seems to vary quite a bit among the low-carbers. and i think it was you who told me of one low-carb plan that trys to limit the saturated fat. so perhaps they are not all suicidal. LOL.

[gymeejet]

Hi Gymee,

It's just my opinion, but if you're eating 40 of anything, I wouldn't qualify that as having "no desire to have just one more." True, you are getting 200 grams of sugar with 40 dates instead of almost 400 grams with 75 cookies, but dates take longer to eat than cookies and your "earlier" satiety with the dates may be due to passing time rather than anything else. In essence, your "I'm full" message has time to kick in. I would also suggest that the "staying power" of your meal has to do more with your "protein/fat concoction" than the fruit.
Dig

hi dig,
i guess it would depend on what we are eating, but i would agree that 40 dates is a nice meal. the main point was that the cookies never did fill me up, while that many dates would keep me full for hours - quite a difference. as far as staying power, the body requires both protein and essential fats for its anabolic metabolic functions, and sugar/fats for its catabolic metabolic functions. if it is lacking in either, it will give us hunger signals, hoping we know what nutrients it is looking for. i know the difference, for myself, when my body wants sugar, or when it wants protein and essential fat - the feeling is different, yet i would have a hard time describing that difference, as it is something that is totally experiential.

i'm sure you guys would gasp at my salad meal, as it is almost all carbs, and it would not surprise me in the least, if it was 1000 calories. but then sometime later in the evening, i balance that out, by finishing up my eating with my protein concoction, which i faithfully eat twice a day. this concoction gives me my main protein and essential fats requirements for the day, and it is easy for me to do twice a day, so i do that, and then just eat MOSTLY natural carbs the rest of the time, although my workout drink does contain some whey protein.

[bvtaylor]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=594&u=/nm/20031003/hl_nm/health_stroke_dc&printer=1

Scientists Say Fatty Diet Not Linked to Stroke Risk


LONDON (Reuters) - Eating a diet high in fat does not seem to raise the odds of having a stroke, researchers in the United States said on Friday.


High blood pressure is the most important risk factor for stroke but unlike heart disease, a high fat disease does not have an impact on stroke. "In our study we did not find any association between dietary fat and stroke," said Dr. Ka He of Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago.


Although further research is needed to confirm their findings, He and his colleagues said blood cholesterol is probably not an important predictor of stroke.


The scientists, who reported their findings in The British Medical Journal, stressed that eating a healthy well balanced diet is vital to prevent heart disease and other ailments.


Lowering blood pressure, regular exercise, not smoking, moderate alcohol intake and a normal weight are important for preventing stroke.


Their results are based on a study of 43,732 healthy middle-aged men who were studied for 14 years. More than 800 men suffered a stroke. The researchers looked at total fat intake, specific types of fat and cholesterol and the risk of stroke.


"There is no association between total fat, types of fat and stroke," He, who conducted the study while at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, added.

Stroke is caused by an interrupted blow flow to the brain or when a blood vessel bursts or leaks. About two-thirds of stroke patients are over 65 years old. Each year an estimated 700,000 Americans have a stroke, according to the American Stroke Association.


Signs of stroke include sudden numbness on one side of the body, confusion, difficulty speaking, dizziness and severe headache.

[MishInAZ]

gymeejet...

Perhaps I missed the post but I don't see where you answered *any* of my questions. You know, those questions regarding your posting style and your education.

You *do* have specialized education in all the claims you are making regarding the human body, right? RIGHT? You see, I do have further education in the human body and what you are saying... well, it just doesn't add up. You are not correct in many of your statements.

I have asked for studies, educational demonstration, pretty much anything to substantiate your opinions and... nothing.

Gee whiz, I feel so sad. Are you ignoring me? Surely that can't be true, can it?

Nahhhhhhh....

[gymeejet]

Hi Gymee,

You advocate eating whole foods in as natural a state as possible, and meat and eggs definitely fall into that category. Yes, they contain saturated fat, but that's as nature intended. Is it just that they're animal foods? Last time I checked, there wasn't any whey/soy protein blend walking around in the wild (and if I saw any, I'd run away!)

Dig

hi dig,
from a nutritional standpoint, i am not aware of a problem with wild game. as i showed in a previous post, many wild game are 2% body fat, with a much greater percentage of it being essential fats. so the fat content in wild game does not even closely resemble the meat that the majority of westerners get, from the supermarket. it would probably be very expensive for many people to buy wild game, and i am not sure that it would have the same level of taste. for after all, this is what sells the meat in the first place.

the same has been shown with egg yolks from chickens in cages versus those allowed to run free-range. most eggs consumed are from caged chickens that never see the light of day.

as far as processing, it depends on what we do to them. does the processing change the molecular state of the molecules ? whey and casein are the 2 major proteins in milk. at least with the protein that i buy, there is nothing done to the molecules, except for SEPARATING them from the rest of the product. they even give me the total amino acid percentage breakdown.

the safflower oil is processed, in the sense that first the the material is ground into a powder, and then pressed to get the oil. the main consideration with oil is the amount of heat that is used during pressing, and whether any chemicals were used as part of the separating process. also was there any effort to keep light and oxygen away from the pressed oil, as fats are highly subject to rancidity, especially the highly poly-unsaturated ones.

[alaskaman]

I know gymee will not believe this, but in case any other posters here are worried about saturated fats, then just consider a few quotes from the Framingham study, the one they are always quoting to get us to lower our cholesterol:"There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of coronary heart disease." When they found that saturated fat intake correlated with lower stroke risk, they speculated that maybe coronaries were killing them before stroke could, but they had to admit it wasn't so:"this hypothesis depends on the presence of a strong direct association of fat intake with chd. Since we found no such association, competing mortality from chd is very unlikely to explain our results." And finally, the national campaign to put everybody on meds if your cholesterol is over 200? Never applied to women, only to men between 40 and 50. The real story? "after age 50, there was no increased overall mortality with either high or low serum cholesterol levels." but with increasing age, "For each 1 mg/dl drop in cholesterol, there was an 11% INCREASE in coronary and total mortality." These quotes are all from various issues of JAMA, probably doctors dedicated to finding the "smoking gun" for their pet low-fat theories, they couldn't do it. So basically what it boils down to is, your cholesterol doesn't show anything much about your future health, and if you think the numbers are too high, you are more likely to lower them by going lowcarb than by eating sugar. the famous ad from PCRM, plate of pasta alfredo, labelled "heart attack on a plate?" it would be more accurate to show a bagel, or a "heart friendly' breakfast, cereal, juice, fruit, toast, 80 gm of quick acting carbs, get those triglycerides up there, get that insulin circulating. Now you may indeed be looking at a heart attack on a plate.

[bvtaylor]

For the record, I'm not diabetic.

A couple of years ago I lost weight on a l/f diet. I ate l/f everything, including egg beaters and nonfat cheese to bump up protein and kill the fat. I did eat whole wheat bagels and bread, I ate fruit, and some sugary snacks.

Surprisingly, though, (but not anymore), my triglycerides kept going up and seemed to be worse when I was dieting, which did not make sense to me. At one point they hit 700! I gained the weight back.

My doctor put me on Gemfibrozil with the intent that I would probably be on it for the rest of my life. I was tired and depressed and started showing painful arthritis or bursitis in my knees. Every morning I would wake up achy and stiff. I kept 3 different kinds of painkillers and used them regularly. I was told that I was just getting old. I suffered from GERD. I had to have an endoscopy that discovered strictures where my esophagus had scarred from the chronic heartburn.

The typical foods to blame were acidic foods and fats.

The Gemfibrozil helped the triglycerides, bringing them down to 150. Prevacid (also estimated for life) helped the GERD, anti-depressants helped the depression a bit, but I still didn't feel GOOD.

When I started doing low-carb, I found that surge of energy I hadn't had in years. It motivated me to exercise, to be able to take care of my family better (for example getting up early enough to cook a hot breakfast)... my GERD went away. My arthritis is almost non noticeable. I rarely ever use painkillers. My depression went away. And my triglycerides dropped to 78 without the Gemfibrozil.

I'm now only on vitanutrients and eat a moderate amount of saturated fat, natural fats, and proteins, with very low carbs while I'm in weight loss mode. I have not felt the need to do a surge of carbs prior to doing, for example, a weight-lifting or tae-bo workout. I'll eat a piece of cheese or some eggs, and I'm totally fine. I can go for 1 1/2 hours with moderate cardio without wearing out.

Gymee... it really is amazing once you start doing low carb for a while how much steady energy you get just from proteins and fats. It's true that you have to get past the first week or so of feeling strange, but after that, the low carb regimen is pretty amazing. Severely low carbing is helpful for our community temporarily as a good many of us here on this site, I would venture, are not necessarily diabetics yet, but we want to improve our health and well-being, particularly losing some dangerous pounds.

I'm hoping that once I get to my target weight I will eat plenty of natural fats and proteins (saturated and otherwise--since it's the saturated ones that seem to bother you), and a healthy amount of carbs (as determined by my own personal metabolism--it won't be 40 dates, but then again I think dates are nasty :p at least the kind my parents used to bring from the Old Country). I eat a salad every day for lunch, and often for dinner, so I get my veggies, they just happen to be lower carb ones. But I don't mind. I love cabbage and mushrooms and onions and garlic and broccoli and celery... I feast on strawberries now and then and hope to add a few more fruits in moderation--I probably miss fruits on this stage of my diet more than anything else.

I know you shun the Atkins website, but there is some really great information in there... I've followed his books and they suit me to a "T". Almost miraculous if there wasn't at least some hard science and common sense behind the program.

According to this article, it would seem that other healthy 50-something low-carbers on this website could potentially outperform you, even if you are the model of fitness. Now there's a true challenge!

http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/11/28-742445.html


The Myth of Carb-Loading
You've probably heard of marathoners and other elite athletes inhaling gargantuan amounts of pasta before big endurance events, often referred to as carb-loading. It turns out that fat-loading may be more effective. More scientific research is required, however, studies on both animals and humans have suggested that a fat-rich diet may increase endurance. A 1994 study compared the effects of a high-carb/low-fat diet and a high-fat/low-carb diet on two groups of trained cyclists. During high-intensity exercise, the groups performed equally well; during prolonged, moderate-intensity exercise, endurance was significantly enhanced among the cyclists on the high-fat/low-carb regimen1. Two other studies on humans suggest that increasing dietary fat from 15 percent to 42 percent of total intake increases maximum oxygen consumption and endurance capacity2-3. The published research suggests that increases in dietary fat may be beneficial—not only for general health, but also for physical endurance.

Selected References
Lambert, E.V., Speechly, D.P., Dennis, S.C., et al., "Enhanced Endurance in Trained Cyclists During Moderate Intensity Exercise Following 2 Weeks Adaptation to a High Fat Diet," European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 69(4), 1994, pages 287-293.
Leddy, J., Hovarth, P., Rowland, J., et al., "Effect of a High or a Low Fat Diet on Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Male and Female Runners," Medical Science and Sports Exercise, 29(1), 1997, pages 17-25.
Muoio, D.M., Leddy, J.J., Hovarth, P.J., et al., "Effect of Dietary Fat on Metabolic Adjustments to Maximal VO2 and Endurance in Runners," Medical Science and Sports Exercise, 26(1), 1994, pages 81-88.

[gymeejet]

You ARE the study, Results, you really can't say. You know, most if not all of the people replying to you have probably tried dif. approaches to diet, including vegetarian, some "balanced" plans similar to yours. And we find our results, that we improve in measureable ways. You made up your mind long ago, can only keep repeating how healthy you are, no way of knowing whether you'd have been as healthy on some other plan. You will say"no way" but have nothing to base it on, except faith, in who? Udo Erasmus? whatever. You haven't eaten meat in 25 years, your mind was made up long ago. Never tried anything else as far as I can tell, except for a more unhealthy carb-based diet. So give us credit, lots of us have been there, done that, lowcarb works, we know cause we've seen the other side of the coin. Eat all meat for a year or so, come back here and report your comparison. Bill

hi alaska,
i commend you for doing what you are forced to do, being that you are diabetic. others are not necessarily forced to do so. had you encountered my advice before you became sugar-impaired, you would more than likely be singing a different tune.

[jeanne48]

I did the low carb diet and it "jumpstarted" my weight loss (21 lbs. so far). However, ironically, when I plateaued at about 148 lbs., I ate a potato for the first time since I began the diet and the next day I lost a pound. A week or so later, another plateau and this time wheat spaghetti and another pound. I am near where I want to be so if I plateaued now, I wouldn't mind.

Wouldn't it be funny if the low carb diet took the place of the food pyramid and all the food processors, etc. and nutrition labels were changed to go with the low carb, and then 50-100 years from now we had to go to the high carb to "jumpstart" weight loss.

Perhaps we just need to get our metabolisms from settling in to lose weight.

Food for thought, anyway.

Jeanne48

[bvtaylor]

Hi, Jeanne. What you are describing is something I've read about before: essentially while doing low carb, increasing carbs for a while during a plateau to get weight-loss going again. (Preferably increasing them the whole foods way--nuts, veggies, fruits, whole grains).

I think it has to do with how metabolism functions. When you are in weight-loss mode, your metabolism naturally starts to slow down, to try to keep your body in stasis.

Weight loss is not a natural state for our bodies.

This is true whether you are doing low-carb or low-fat or any other program... your body gets used to how you are eating and tries to maintain the status quo. By an occasional change in activity level (a new exercise routine) or diet (such as slightly increasing carbohydrates) it gets the metabolism moving again till the next plateau.

I think the initial response as a whole for our bodies in eating more generally is a surge in metabolism, but I think it tends to be temporary, unless you are combining it with an increase in activity level.

You may also find down the road as you continue to add carbohydrates towards lifetime maintenance, that if you hit a plateau and want to jumpstart weight loss again, you can do just the opposite--cut down carbs for a while.

Finding the carbohydrate level that works best for you once you are out of induction (20 g of carbs or less), is a matter of adding increments of 5 g of carbs weekly until weight loss slows down. I think that this kind of works the same way that you noticed with your addition of carbohydrates. It doesn't stop weight loss, but ultimately as you climb the carb ladder higher, it should slow down until you find your personal carbohydrate tolerance level.

[digwig]

hi alaska,
i commend you for doing what you are forced to do, being that you are diabetic. others are not necessarily forced to do so. had you encountered my advice before you became sugar-impaired, you would more than likely be singing a different tune.

Hi Gymee,

Well, I was seven when I started gaining weight (my family ate a standard British diet of the seventies which was not heavy in processed foods. My mother cooked all of our food from scratch and the portion size was small by American standards.) so I had a fairly narrow window of opportunity to start singing lessons.

I'm just thankful I discovered the role of excess carbohydrate in my own weight gain so I can save my daughter from the same struggle.

Ciao, Dig

[gymeejet]

Hi Gymee,

Well, I was seven when I started gaining weight (my family ate a standard British diet of the seventies which was not heavy in processed foods. My mother cooked all of our food from scratch and the portion size was small by American standards.) so I had a fairly narrow window of opportunity to start singing lessons.

I'm just thankful I discovered the role of excess carbohydrate in my own weight gain so I can save my daughter from the same struggle.

Ciao, Dig
hi dig,
there is a thing as excess carbos, just as there can be excess proteins or excess fats. i do not know if you were getting the proper amounts of protein and essential fats, when you were a kid, so you may have always been singing off-key.

it is great that you are helping your daughter. i just hope you allow her to eat as many carbs as she can, without gaining weight. also remember that not everyone is made to be slender - it is all in the hormone levels that we have.

[MishInAZ]

it is great that you are helping your daughter. i just hope you allow her to eat as many carbs as she can

And for some people that might be 20-80 carb g's per day.

Yes, I know you are totally ignoring me because I am the one asking you to defend your OPINIONS with something... anything done by a person educated in this field but ... I'm going to keep asking because I think it proves a valid point when you flat out refuse to respond. If your best is based on personal opinion, that isn't much. :nono:

[FromVA]

Gymeet: Re: wild game: "i am not sure that it would have the same level of taste."

Trust me...it doesn't. My H & friends went hunting and brought home a deer and frankly, I thought it was awful. But free range chicken eggs are another thing altogether. To eat good, tasty eggs, and ones you can safely eat sunny side up, I have to visit my sister in England and eat imported Danish farm eggs. Which are how I remember eggs tasting when I was very young. Absolutely wonderful. Now that I'm on the Atkins' WOE I plan to eat them at every meal next time I go over. Oh, wait!! No toast! Bummer!

[Kestrel]

Venison is great if done properly (not that I know how myself...). Slow cooker venison might suit you better. Or venison sausage.

Bear isn't bad either, hot off the grill, or perhaps as a stew. And bison, yum...

Free range chicken thighs seem pretty good too, but did you notice the size difference between them and the usual chicken thighs??

Most of the larger food stores in this area now offer free range eggs and raw milk cheese. Much better...

[Lisa N]

I am the one asking you to defend your OPINIONS with something... anything done by a person educated in this field

:lol: You're not the only one. Several of us have asked Gymee to back up what he's saying with scientific studies (which he states he doesn't put any faith in) but so far Gymee has yet to produce anything but opinion (his and the opinions of others) as well as a few studies that don't apply to those on low carb (ie the brain can't function without glucose, etc...).
He's stated that those on low carb aren't deficient in essential fatty acids or essential amino acids, but that his argument against low carb is that we are eating too much saturated fat (without knowing how much saturated fat we all eat) and that we don't get enough carbs, again without anything but his opinion to back him up.
Credentials? Nope...hasn't given those either..just personal opinion and experience.


there is a thing as excess carbos, just as there can be excess proteins or excess fats.

While it's possible to eat too much protein or fat, it's certainly a lot more difficult to do so than it is to eat excess carbs. Proteins and fats are far more satiating than carbs and most people will get full far before they've eaten anything that could be considered an excess. Don't believe me? Try sitting down and eating a stick of butter or a cup of mayonnaise or a 16 oz. Porterhouse. ;) Bet you can't finish either one without either feeling too full to continue or getting nauseated. Finish off an entire pack of cookies? No problem as you've even said that you could do this yourself and still want more in your younger days.
Excess protein or fat will also not have nearly the metabolic effect that excess carbs will.


i just hope you allow her to eat as many carbs as she can, without gaining weight.

You know...that's the whole principle behind lifetime maintainance on low carb. Eat as many carbs as you can, selecting from lower GI veggies first, then lower GI fruits and nuts, then whole grains or higher GI fruits and veggies without gaining weight OR triggering carb cravings in those who have a carb addiction as well as getting sufficient protein and healthy fats. As I've said before several times, for some folks that can be in excess of 100 grams of carb per day, but for others it can be 60 grams or less.

[FromVA]

Venison is great if done properly (not that I know how myself...). Slow cooker venison might suit you better. Or venison sausage.

Bear isn't bad either, hot off the grill, or perhaps as a stew. And bison, yum...

Free range chicken thighs seem pretty good too, but did you notice the size difference between them and the usual chicken thighs??

Most of the larger food stores in this area now offer free range eggs and raw milk cheese. Much better...
Whoa! You're talking to someone who didn't even know you could eat bear!!! I know the venison wasn't cooked correctly...and did we have tons of it after H and friend had it dressed and split the meat. He didn't really know what to do with it and neither did I. Even the dog wouldn't touch some of my experiments. I'll stick to buying cow from the supermarket, thanks.

As for the chickens, I think I was told at some point that the fleshy "chicken mill" chickens are plump, in part, because of water added during processing. (I know I will be corrected if this is wrong.) Our local supermarket used to carry eggs that had been ultra-pasturized and they could be eaten with the yolk raw. Unfortunately, they were quite a bit more expensive and sat on the self past the expiration date so the store quit carrying them.

[jeanne48]

Dear all,

The same safeguards for pork should be used for cooking bear meat -- to avoid trychinosis (sp?).

I never liked venison and attributed it to the taste, until I met my in-laws who knew the correct way to butcher, er "dress" venison. Most other meats do not seem to be so "fussy." Moose meat and mountain sheep are excellent tasting! Caribou, er, I would put that in the same category as venison when I didn't like it. :)

Before Alaska became a state, we lived in a place called Tok Junction (a government station in the middle of nowhere). It consisted of two rows of homes, a bachelor's quarters, with a rec room (movies on Tuesday nights), a building devoted entirely to keeping our meats, the place where all the men worked, and a fence to keep out the wild animals. And no television at that time.

I was young then, but my parents as well as the rest of the people in that station had to kill their own meat. There was a store about 20 miles away where we could get milk and staples like that, plus place orders through Red Cross for items like bicycles (my interest at the time) and the like. The little red school house was 10 miles away and the teacher taught two grades at once.

Oh, well enough digressing. Who mentioned bear anyway?


Jeanne48

[gymeejet]

http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/5/28-99286.html

Can't go the distance on low carb? Better not tell Dr. Trager that! :lol:

He placed 39th overall in the 2001 Florida Ironman competition...on maintainance levels of low carb! :thup:

i am sure that the carbo-loaders who finished 1st thru 38, would be happy to give him some tips.

[FromVA]

i am sure that the carbo-loaders who finished 1st thru 38, would be happy to give him some tips.That was a tacky little dig, gymeejet. How do you know that ALL #1 thru #38 were carb-loaders...other than by assuming they were?

[gymeejet]

That was a tacky little dig, gymeejet. How do you know that ALL #1 thru #38 were carb-loaders...other than by assuming they were?

and lisa of course, never does tacky little digs, does she ? only difference is that you guys all want to believe everything she has to say, since she is reinforcing your own beliefs, while i am challenging them.

[korry1977]

i am sure that the carbo-loaders who finished 1st thru 38, would be happy to give him some tips.

I do have to admit that was a witty, if not clever, response...

I actually fell off my chair laughing when I read it. :lol:

[gymeejet]

That was a tacky little dig, gymeejet. How do you know that ALL #1 thru #38 were carb-loaders...other than by assuming they were?

it was not all that big of a stretch, either. instead of keeping one's head buried in articles supplied by the atkins site, it might behoove you to go out and talk to some of these sports enthusiasts. you would find that 99% of them do some sort of carbo loading.

or go on the net. your eyes will go blind trying to read all the articles about carbohydrate loading. i am not sure you would even find 1 article about saturated fat loading, except for sites such as atkins, who are selling you something.

i have quite a bit of experience with regards to intensity and endurance exercising. sugar is what drives this, pure and simple. your body will try to burn some fat along with it, whenever you slow down enough to give it a chance, simply because it knows that it can only store a limited amount of sugar, while it has an ample supply of fat.

i try to get a fair amount of carbos, in the morning before my cardio exercise. but on top of that, i also need some sugar while i am doing it. while i am not positive, i think it is mainly because of the following - the glycogen stored in our muscles can not be used to keep up our blood sugar, or supply our brain. it is used solely by the muscles.

so the sugar in my drink can help to keep the liver's supply full, in meeting my glucose needs for my brain, and my blood sugar. i guess i will find out when i get a glucometer, but does anyone know whether the energy used by the brain itself, increases during exercise ? also does the blood sugar level increase during exercise ?

[korry1977]

Of course, during intense exercise, one does burn the carbs anyway, I dont see why not to carb load...

Its the excessive amount of carbs (over what is needed for activity...) that will be turned into fat

Remember, if more carbs than burned than this:

Fatty Acid Production

Glucose ---> Pyruvate --> Citrate ---> Acetyl CoA ---[Acetyl CoA Carboxylase (biotin) + CO2 ]--> Malonyl CoA ---[Fatty Acid Synthase + NADPH] ---> Fatty Acid Palmitate (16:0) + CO2 (byproduct)

Excessive Citrate is a potent positive activator of the process above.

[korry1977]

Actually, Dr Atkins states in his book, Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution If one plans on intense excercise, then you should increase your carb intake.

[korry1977]

Glucose ->>>> Pyruvate ---Pyruvate Dehydrogenase]--> Acetyl CoA (NADH, CO2 byproducts)

Now from Acetyl CoA it can either go to 2 pathways:

1. Citric Acid Cycle: which the end result will be CO2 + H20 + ATP (Yay!! :Party: )

-OR-

2. Fatty Acid Synthesis: which results in Fatty Acids.

Acetyl CoA is an inhibitor of Pyruvate Dehydrogenase

[digwig]

only difference is that you guys all want to believe everything she has to say, since she is reinforcing your own beliefs, while i am challenging them.

Well...

Lisa has reinforced our beliefs by presenting evidence, and actually, you're not challenging them because you haven't presented much but your opinion. :)

Thanks for taking the time to answer my last post. My point was that my sugar-metabolizing problems began showing when I was seven years old (starting much sooner, I'm sure) so I really didn't have time to implement the "Gymeejet Optimum Health Plan". In fact, I would guess (not having daily food diaries from that time) that the diet I ate was fairly similar to what you recommend since there was a general awareness in the 70's that "stodge" (fatty,sugary carbohydrates) were something to avoid if you wanted to keep healthy. I am, however, descended from Irish, Chinese and Indian stock, so famine is something my genes are quite familiar with and I inherited a tendency to store fat easily. My point is that we're all different and what works for you, would probably have been a death sentence for me.

Warning! Unsubstantiated Opinion Ahead! I know that you look at your own good health and performance and think that means your diet is optimum. I'm going to suggest another theory: You're lucky. You happened to get the luck of the draw genetically and you are able to get away with the amount of sugar you consume because of two things: one, you have a naturally high metabolism that you inherited from your ancestors and two, you are gifted with enough free time that you are able to spend hours every day doing "vigorous cardio." You are actually burning up large amounts of the carbohydrate you eat as fuel, therefore it never becomes "excess." I think it's disingenuous to suggest that Joe Schmo with a full-time job and a family, who can't spend hours per day exercising, could eat anywhere near the amount of sugar you do and not expect serious repercussions to his health.

I would also like to chuck in my thoughts that you are giving the majority of the credit for your wonderful health to your carbohydrate intake. How do you know it's not your protein pudding saving you from the negative effects of sugar?

I'm actually confused about why this argument is continuing. It's fairly entertaining and everything, but I don't think the points of contention that remain are worth continuing the thread. You've conceeded that many of us are doing what is absolutely necessary to remain healthy and are eating a much healthier diet than most Americans. I conceed that you are much more aware of nutrition than most vegetarians and commend you for paying such careful attention to your protein and essential fat intake.

However, without presenting scientific evidence, you are not going to "challenge" our beliefs. And I believe (once again, my opinion) that you so deeply believe that eating animals is wrong, that it will be impossible to change your bias against saturated fat. It's ironic because the people on this board (especially those that are long-term low-carbers) are probably some of the most open-minded folks around. After all, we were willing to buck the party-line that a low-fat diet was the healthiest once we were presented with the scientific evidence to the contrary (by scientific, I mean obtained using the scientific method. (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html) )

This thread has gone on for something closely resembling 8 million pages and it's been fun, but at a certain point it feels like banging our heads against a cyber-wall when we present evidence and you dismiss it with "I don't trust studies." I'm not trying to drive you away, but I'm just suggesting that maybe it's time to redefine this arguement (by you maybe making a post that lays out exactly where you agree and disagree with our way of eating) and/or start a new thread on a new bone of contention. :)

Have a happy day.

Ciao, Dig

[korry1977]

Cholesterol Synthesis:

anything italisiced is an enzyme

Acetyl CoA (2C which means it has 2 Carbons)
..|
..|
.\'/
Acetoacetyl CoA (4C)
..|
..| HMG-CoA Synthase
..|.(cytoplasm)
..|
.\'/
HMG-CoA (6C)
..|
..|HMG-CoA Reductase <----Gene Repressed by Cholesterol
..|........(ER).....<---- Insulin (Positive activator of enzyme)
..|...................<---- Statin Drugs (Inhibitor of enzyme)
..|...................<---- This enzyme is the rate limiting step
.\'/
Mevalonate (6C)
..|
..|
.\'/
.\'/.............<---- Note here there has been two steps.
Farneysl PPi (15C)
..|
..|
..|
..|
.\'/
Squalene (30C)
..|
..|
.\'/
Lanosterol (30C)
..|
..|
..| NADPH
..|
..|
.\'/
Cholesterol (27C)

Cholesterol Products include:

1. Steroids (Adrenal, Ovaries, Testes)
2. Bile Acids (Liver)
3. Vitamin D
4. Cell Membranes

Obviously, some cholesterol is good for you...

However if you look at HMG-CoA Reductase and its positive activator Insulin... Some people speculate that a high amount of Insulin could cause Cholesterol deposits. That is why, some speculate, that low fat, high carb diets could cause Atherosclerosis, etc. I dont know what the studies so far have demonstrated. I have just post the biochemical reaction for informational purposes only.

HTH,
Korry

[korry1977]

I hope this helped people rather than confuse them more... :lol:

The above reactions (rxns) were posted for an informational use. Please feel free to critique. Again, if there are any mistakes, please let me know, and I will kindly correct the error.

HTH,
Korry

P.S. Administrators, Please feel free to move or remove posts by me if this is the wrong subforum to post rxns, Thank You

[badgoat]

...snip brilliant post from dig...

That's the most diplomatic kiss off I've ever seen. Kind of hard to take someone's "scientific" opinions seriously with such blantant disrespect for punctuation. That anti-convention went out with spiked hair in the 80s.

oh, i'm sorry...i think i've unwittingly challenged a weltanshaung

badgoat

[FromVA]

and lisa of course, never does tacky little digs, does she ? only difference is that you guys all want to believe everything she has to say, since she is reinforcing your own beliefs, while i am challenging them.
Actually, I have found Lisa to be very courteous when responding to you. She has always treated your opinions with respect. She can disagree with you, and does, but she isn't trying to change your beliefs and tell you your WOE is dangerous to your health. Digwig is right...people who live this WOE have had to "buck the system", so to speak, so I would say we are absolutely open-minded to other ways of eating. And have probably tried them all, with NO LUCK. Give it up - you aren't going to change any one's mind here.

[Lisa N]

i am sure that the carbo-loaders who finished 1st thru 38, would be happy to give him some tips.

LOL...and I'm sure that he'd be happy to give some tips to the 1,961 who finished behind him! If they were all carb loaders, perhaps they should be getting some tips from HIM since he placed higher than the vast majority. :lol: Once again, a cheap shot without anything but speculation to back you up. In other words, you're guessing that 1st through 38th were carb loaders because "everyone knows this". :rolleyes: Ever hear about "thinking outside the box"? Those that are successful in achieving their goals are usually those that do "think outside the box". In other words, they don't "do what everyone else has always done".
39th overall in a competition such as this as well as 6th in your age group is nothing to sneer at. That he was able to finish at all, let alone 39th overall and 6th in his age group, gives evidence that it's possible to engage (and do very well in) extreme physical endurance activities on a controlled carb diet (something you've stated up until now simply wasn't possible). If everything you say about carb loading being essential to this type of activity is true, Dr. Trager shouldn't have made it past the first leg of the triathalon.
You're also completely ignoring innate ability.

[Kestrel]

Well, it is true that gymee doesn't appear to be challenging many beliefs here, since a goodly number of people have chosen low carb and, apparently, done sufficient research - or gained sufficient experience - to know what makes the most sense to them.

In my case I researched the low carb issues, then chose it solely for the health benefits as outlined by authors other than Atkins. No diabetes, and no weight issues, simply because there is justification from a health and - yes - an athletic performance aspect.

As digwig and Lisa mention, does gymee offer anything novel to change our perspective? Not from what I've read so far, not even from the standpoint of sports performance. After all, some of us have experienced that from both high and low carb methods.

Of course, my big desire is to see low carb grow even larger among the general population so that I don't have to barf after seeing the latest batch of "no fat" farm-raised shrimp in the local Shop and Save. Can you believe that??? How do you raise no or low fat shrimp, for crying out loud???

[gymeejet]

hi dig,
first, i have never been attempting to change anyone of you guys, since most of you are forced to do so. what i am trying is to suggest that for those that are not forced, my diet gives more optimal results.

actually, i have a very slow metabolism, which is usually controlled by the thyroid gland. i actually believe that this has at least something to do why i can go at more intense levels than most - along with having a very strong heart to pump the nutrients.

i have never ever suggested that joe schmo should eat the same amount of sugar as i do. quite the opposite. i have stated that we need to eat for what we are doing each day, which changes even for me, depending on my particular activity.

i am not praising carbohydrates for my wonderful healthy. what is it that i have been preaching since day 1 ? - AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REMAINDER GOOD CARBS.

my opinion of eating animals being wrong has absolutely nothing to do with my take on saturated fat. i stopped eating meat, simply because of health reasons. i do not think that coconut oil, which is almost 100% saturated fat, is any better for you. so you are really incorrect about that assumption. in fact, i have even said that wild game, without its load of saturated fat, is probably healthy, as far as i know.

once again, whether something is nutritious for us, has absolutely no bearing on the morality of eating it.

my main disagreement is simply that i think your level of saturated fat is gonna come back and kick you in the behind, and that the brain prefers to run on glucose, so for at least some, i feel that there intake of sugar prevents them from optimal health.

[digwig]

Hi gymee,

Being an athlete, I thought you might find this article about coconut oil (http://www.coconut-info.com/weight-loss.htm) interesting (especially the information about medium chain fatty acids being burned like carbohydrates for energy).

In my opinion, coconut oil along with olive oil are the two highest priority fats to include in my diet (I supplement with fish oil, too). Coconut oil has been demonized for years by the soybean industry (I wonder if they had any ulterior motives?) and is one of the most misunderstood fats. It's not surprising that you feel it's unhealthy. I know I avoided coconut oil like the plague until I learned more about it.

Coconut oil is loaded with health benefits. It contains high amounts of lauric acid which is antiviral, being used effectively in HIV/AIDS patients to lower viral load, it's also improves thyroid function. Coconut oil is a medium chain triglyceride which provides fewer calories than other types of fats and allows dieters to decrease their caloric intake without sacrificing taste. Best of all, it's a thermogenic and actually speeds weight loss (of great interest to many people on this forum).

Take a second look, you might be surprised.

:) Dig

[gymeejet]

hi dig,

i am afraid that most people just do not understand fats. hopefully this dissertation may prove helpful. the reason why the 2 essential fats are essential, is not because they are polyunsaturated. there are many polyunsaturated fats that are not helpful to the body, including all the trans-fats created by partial hydrogenation.

our bodies just did not evolve, to manufacture any enzymes that can place double bonds between the 3rd and 4th carbon atoms in a fat molecule, nor can we place a double bond between the 6th and 7th carbon atoms (creating omega 3 and omega 6 fats). we do however have the ability to make a double bond between the 9th and 10th carbon atoms (omega 9 or oleic acid, which is the main oil in olive oil.

olive oil is monounsaturated, while coconut oil is completely saturated, so they are quite different. however, all fats can be easily made by the body, with the exception of our 2 omegas, which is also the metabolic pathway for many of our prostaglandins. the essential fats are extremely reactive, which is both good and bad. they can be easily destroyed, even in our bodies, without anti-oxidants. but they also play extremely important roles in our bodies, by harnessing light and oxygen energy.

the body can not make glucose from fat, so if we do not get enough sugar in our diet, our body needs to break down our much-needed protein, to make enough sugar for us, to run our brains, and supply us with some energy, along with some fats. dietary fat will always stay as fat. some of it is used anabolically, to help keep the essential fats from reacting with each other. the rest is stored as energy reserves, or burned as fuel.

when sugar is broken down, it forms 2-carbon acetate fragments. these can either be burned for energy, or created as fat. these fragments are simply added together, making c2, c4, c6, c8, c10, c12, c14, c16(palmitic), or c18(stearic). the body will make whatever it needs. it can take c18, and place a double bond in the 9th position, creating omega 9 (i.e. oleic acid from olive oil).

as you know, my fat intake comes exclusively from safflower oil and flax meal. from sources i have read, and that you guys have substantiated, most of the saturated fat contained in these products is palmitic. when i look at my latest blood test from 5 years ago, my palmitic stands at 145, reference range between 85-150. my stearic acid stands at 75, reference between 50-80. so as you can see, i am at the high end of each scale, but very balanced between the two. while my intake of stearic is close to nil, my body still managed to have very balanced amounts, showing that it is very easy to make stearic from palmitic. actually, that whole chain is easily transgressed in both ways. if you eat lots of stearic, the body will make whatever palmitic it needs. the body is not supposed to have any real levels of c10(capric), c12(lauric), or c14(myristic), as these fats are either built up to the 2 important long-chain fats, or as you stated, burned for energy.

the main point, is that these fats are easily created from any sort of excess calories. i have no problem with some saturated fat in our diet, for if we had none, the body would still make what it needs. the same is true with cholesterol. it is an absolute need for our cells. my fear for you guys, is simply the AMOUNT that you eat. saturated fat is very sticky, and is very prone to creating larger globules. cholesterol is a 27-chain carbon fatty acid, so it is all that much stickier. the good carbs that i eat have tons of phytos that fat-foods just don't have. this constant supply of sugar helps to keep my glycogen in my muscles supplied, as well as my liver, for my bloodstream and brain. our bodies just can't store great amounts of sugar, so we need to eat it every day (but appropriate amounts from appropriate foods, along with all the phytos).

the medium chain fats have been around in the health buzz for years, but for the most part, is just part of the advertisers desire to sell their product, in this case coconut oil. again, the body can go up and down the scale from c2 to c18, easily. if capric or lauric acid is digested, the body will decide what to do with it (catabolize for energy, or build up towards palmitic or stearic for anabolism/fat storage), based upon the body's need at the time. fats can be made from excess sugar, but not the reverse. so if one is not sugar-impaired, err on the side of too much sugar, rather than too much fat.

[Kristine]

>>"the good carbs that i eat have tons of phytos that fat-foods just don't have."

Why are you still under the impression that we DON'T eat good carbs loaded with phytos? We just choose ones with little to no sugar or starch.

>>"my fear for you guys, is simply the AMOUNT that you eat."

I'm not clear on what your point was here: are you referring to saturated fat's reputation as being "artery clogging?" Study of the fat in artery clogs states that more than half is polyunsaturated. Only about 26% is saturated. (Felton, C V, et al, Lancet, 1994, 344:1195)

>>"if we do not get enough sugar in our diet, our body needs to break down our much-needed protein"

Correct only when someone consumes insufficient amounts of protein. Most LCers consume ample amounts.

Sorry, but the conclusion I draw is still "eat sufficient protein, fat, and minimally-impacting carbs."

[FromVA]

>>"the good carbs that i eat have tons of phytos that fat-foods just don't have."

Why are you still under the impression that we DON'T eat good carbs loaded with phytos? We just choose ones with little to no sugar or starch.

>>"my fear for you guys, is simply the AMOUNT that you eat." Amount of what??

I'm not clear on what your point was here: are you referring to saturated fat's reputation as being "artery clogging?" Study of the fat in artery clogs states that more than half is polyunsaturated. Only about 26% is saturated. (Felton, C V, et al, Lancet, 1994, 344:1195)

>>"if we do not get enough sugar in our diet, our body needs to break down our much-needed protein"

Correct only when someone consumes insufficient amounts of protein. Most LCers consume ample amounts.

Sorry, but the conclusion I draw is still "eat sufficient protein, fat, and minimally-impacting carbs."
You know, I don't think Gymeet has ever actually read Dr. Atkins' book. The amounts, what they are and how they relate to your health are in there. Granted, I think the layout of the book makes it hard to find some of the factual information, but it is there. And the recommened foods, and portions are easy to find.

[Lisa N]

Study of the fat in artery clogs states that more than half is polyunsaturated. Only about 26% is saturated. (Felton, C V, et al, Lancet, 1994, 344:1195)

Not only that, but post mortem studies of people from cultures both high and low in saturated fat (the study I'm thinking of compared both Japanese and American soldiers during WW2) have demonstrated roughly equivalent amounts of arterial plaque which strongly suggests that it's not the amount or even the type of fat that a person eats that contributes to arterial plaques. Other studies have confirmed those observations.

[gymeejet]

there are many articles/studies that do support the fat/plaque argument. the only question i have is what sort of polyunsaturated fat is this ? i highly doubt that is of the omega 3 or omega 6 variety. the trans fats are sticky, like the saturated fats.

and yes, kristine, that is what i was worried about - too much sticky saturated fat clogging up the system.

[Lisa N]

there are many articles/studies that do support the fat/plaque argument.

Yup...studies that show a fat/plaque link abound, but if you actually read them you'll find that that link is a weak one indeed AND that all of the studies also included diets that were high in carbs, specifially high GI ones.


http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/vegetarianism_myths_06.htm

You might want to read some of the referenced studies and articles cited in this. Interesting reading.

[korry1977]

Quote from the above website:

"High-carbohydrate/low-fat diets (which is what vegetarian diets are) can also place one at a greater risk for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer due to their hyperinsulemic effects on the body"

Perhaps my explanation on Cholesterol synthesis could reveal why hyperinsulemic effects may cause this:

Cholesterol Synthesis:

anything italisiced is an enzyme

Acetyl CoA (2C which means it has 2 Carbons)
..|
..|
.\'/
Acetoacetyl CoA (4C)
..|
..| HMG-CoA Synthase
..|.(cytoplasm)
..|
.\'/
HMG-CoA (6C)
..|
..|HMG-CoA Reductase <----Gene Repressed by Cholesterol
..|........(ER).....<---- INSULIN (Positive activator of enzyme)
..|...................<---- Statin Drugs (Inhibitor of enzyme)
..|...................<---- This enzyme is the rate limiting step
.\'/
Mevalonate (6C)
..|
..|
.\'/
.\'/.............<---- Note here there has been two steps.
Farneysl PPi (15C)
..|
..|
..|
..|
.\'/
Squalene (30C)
..|
..|
.\'/
Lanosterol (30C)
..|
..|
..| NADPH
..|
..|
.\'/
Cholesterol (27C)

Cholesterol Products include:

1. Steroids (Adrenal, Ovaries, Testes)
2. Bile Acids (Liver)
3. Vitamin D
4. Cell Membranes

Obviously, some cholesterol is good for you...

However if you look at HMG-CoA Reductase and its positive activator Insulin... Some people speculate that a high amount of Insulin could cause Cholesterol deposits. That is why, some speculate, that low fat, high carb diets could cause Atherosclerosis, etc...

High insulin also drive fatty acid synthesis, triglyceride synthesis as well (citrate being a positive enhancer,) which I already have discussed.

I understand it now...

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
most of these studies pit a "low-fat/high carb" diet against the "low-carb/high fat"diet". they consistently equate a vegetarian diet as one with low fat and high carbs. all a vegetarian diet is one without animal flesh. they do not compare them with the best diet of all (AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FAT, REMAINDER NATURAL CARBS).

i think you are seeing only what you want to see, and ignoring that fats cause artery clogging. the stickier the fat, the more apt to clog. the 2 essential fats are not sticky - just the opposite, while the trans-polyunsaturates are almost as sticky as the saturated fats, because of their chemical make-up.

[Lisa N]

another site that does a lot to debunk the saturated fat/heart disease/cholesterol myth: www.thincs.org

These are all credible well-published scientists who are experts in their chosen field. If you think that you know more than they do, please feel free to pose your arguments to them. :)

[gymeejet]

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=48390009&hilite=Dandona
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/8/2970

Hmmm...how much sugar was in those dates again???


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/11/981126103305.htm

It also appears that if your goal is to stay young looking, a high fructose diet isn't the best way to achieve it.

Hey Mr. Apple and Mrs. Pear,
It has been lonely for me, since they separated us. I also miss your kids. They are such SWEET children. Say hello to Berry, Nana, Peachie, Datie, and Grapie.

Say, have you heard the latest ? They are mixing me with water, and then feeding us to rats, trying to assess whether 10 gallons of us cause the rats to age faster.

Would Laurel be the same without Hardy ? Would Abbott be the same without Costello ? Would Romeo be the same without Juliet ? Tea without Sympathy ? Brave without Daring ? Sand without Sea ? Hugs without Kisses ? Why is it that low-carbers think that I would be the same without you ?

I long for the day when we can be back together, once again sharing our affections with one another, and providing people with an excellent source of nutrition, and some get-up-and-go for those that now can only get up.

Until Then,
Sincerely Yours,
Sugar

[korry1977]

Well I think Gymeejet basically trying to say is be sensible when eating and I think that was Lifetime maintanence is on Atkins where carbs can be over 100g/day...

I think the confusion is the means to a end. Both positions make sense, if you think about.

Korry

[korry1977]

And what I understand from gymeejet is ample carbs..

I have no problem with that... ample carbs to me would mean enough carbs that I can burn in a day... hence my daily intake of carbs would be a concern of mine...

JMHO,
Korry

[alaskaman]

Well, it sounds like we are all following gymee's diet, except for gymee. "ample protien" ie real natural protein from a variety of sources, not a manmade creation of the last few years which may or may not have all our bodies need, why be a guinea pig for frankenfood, "ample fats" including not just the ones he insists on calling "essential' but all of them the various omegas, the beneficial saturated ones as well, and "ample" carbohydrates, all we can use without causing insulin spikes and raised blood sugars. Bill

[gymeejet]

by gosh kory,
i think thou dost hit the nail on the head. AMPLE = gymee's definition of getting enough of each nutrient. allowing sugar to do its job of energizing the brain, and the muscles to some extent. not breaking down protein for sugar, and creating ammonia in the body. as well as causing amino imbalances, since only some of them can be turned into glucose. protein is for building blocks. so are the essential fats. use these nutrients in the way they were designed to be used. sugar is a friend, but like all friends, it must be treated respectfully, if you want to keep it as a friend. we need to understand what each nutrient does in the body, so that we know how to nourish the body fully and correctly. the more saturated the fat, the stickier it is, and the quicker it can quagmire together. the essential fats, plus omega9, do not form large masses, because of their shape and electrical properties.

we should all be taking these extensive tests, so that we can get a bird's eye view of our individual bodies, what we may be lacking in, what we have in too much abundance.

[Lisa N]

most of these studies pit a "low-fat/high carb" diet against the "low-carb/high fat"diet".

So why are you using them as proof that saturated fat clogs your arteries in low carb since the studies are based on just the opposite?


i think you are seeing only what you want to see, and ignoring that fats cause artery clogging.

Even if I am (and I'm not), what motivation do all these scientists have to "see what they want to see"? Many of them are putting their careers on the line by bucking the current dogma of saturated fat and cholesterol = heart disease and blatantly disagreeing with it publically and in print.
So...we've shown that we're not deficient in essential fats and essential amino acids as well as getting plenty of antioxidants and phytochemicals from low GI plant foods. We've shown that each of us, for the most part, are getting as many carbs as we can handle daily and we've debunked the "too much saturated fat is gonna give you a heart attack" theory. Where's the argument now?

[gymeejet]

So why are you using them as proof that saturated fat clogs your arteries in low carb since the studies are based on just the opposite?




Even if I am (and I'm not), what motivation do all these scientists have to "see what they want to see"? Many of them are putting their careers on the line by bucking the current dogma of saturated fat and cholesterol = heart disease and blatantly disagreeing with it publically and in print.
So...we've shown that we're not deficient in essential fats and essential amino acids as well as getting plenty of antioxidants and phytochemicals from low GI plant foods. We've shown that each of us, for the most part, are getting as many carbs as we can handle daily and we've debunked the "too much saturated fat is gonna give you a heart attack" theory. Where's the argument now?

only in your mind have you debunked the fat-clogging artery theory. many, if not most, scientists still believe it. i already know that low-fat diets are not good, because you don't get anywhere near the amount of essential fats that you need. so showing me some study that purports that one of your low-carb diets is better, doesn't do a hoot for me.

you have some scientists on your side. there is still a whole society of people who believe that the world is flat. there will always be someone believing something. i think i said this before, but no matter what we are discussing, there will always be many current studies supporting the current SELLING FAD, such as the low-carb diet is now. the low-carbers are still in a big minority, but that still leaves many people and many dollars to capture. it is one thing to sell books, but when you start marketing your own food products for sale, you prostitute yourself, and are just asking for unbiased people to label you as such, which is what atkins was doing.

the shape and electrical properties of fat molecules has long since been established. we know that saturated fat easily clumps together. cis-polyunsaturated fats do not clump together. this is physiology, not some study supported and paid by whomever.

[Kristine]

>>only in your mind have you debunked the fat-clogging artery theory.

At least you're acknowledging that it's only a THEORY. All of the "facts" gathered about this theory were derived from studies of people who eat a high amount of carbs *with* their saturated fat - it doesn't apply to people who aren't churning out too much insulin. The conclusions they drew *arbitrarily* pointed the finger at the burger, instead of the bun, fries and coke.

Having many, many scientists believe something doesn't make it true. The profound influence of drug companies on science doesn't make it true. Since you brought up the "flat earth" topic, remember that EVERYONE - even so-called experts - believed the earth was flat, until a few observant people dared to disagree.

I'll bring up another reason why I eat lots of saturated fat: I don't want to eat raw food the rest of my life. While olive, flax and other such oils are good for you, *oxidized* polyunsaturates are not. Saturated fat is the most stable to cook with.

>>"current SELLING FAD..."

:rolleyes: Gee, so Atkins has been a 30 year fad? That book was written before I was born. :lol: And it was hardly the first. This is exactly how many of our ancestors ate. A hundred years ago, the typical diet was *loaded* with saturated fat: there was little else available. Lard and butter - that was about it. So if saturated fat is the bad guy, why was heart disease practically unheard of until recent generations - after processed sugar reigned supreme?

Jeez - you've been here since the middle of August. You're taking this discussion in circles. Before you make anymore statements, go back and read the whole thread and see where your point has already been addressed - or say something we haven't heard.

[korry1977]

Jeez - you've been here since the middle of August. You're taking this discussion in circles. Before you make anymore statements, go back and read the whole thread and see where your point has already been addressed - or say something we haven't heard.


Well, looks like my stop... I am getting off the train... :cool:

[gymeejet]

and you are singling out the bun, and eating all the burgers you want - just as silly.

my advice is the proper one. understand what each of the nutrients do. eat the sugar that is needed to supply the brain and muscles. the protein should only be used for building/anabolism. this is its function. not to burn up and use as glucose. that is a safeguard. it was not meant as a standard practice. once again, i will continue to repeat my advice until it has logged into your brain - AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REMAINDER NATURAL CARBS.

one day, lisa will find that it was me who was "thinking outside the box". in fact, not only do i think that way, i "live outside the box".

30 years ago when i began my nutritional crusade, a doctor was required to take one course on nutrition. so i began my quest for real truth. i made some mistakes along the way, for sure - my biggest blunder was listening to all the STUDIES supporting the low-fat diet. but i have never been to a doctor for medical reasons. i have never taken an antibiotic in my life. i have great disdain for the medical community, on a whole. and i have results second to no one - for i am still a kid at 48. there is no study even close to as impressive as that. find me a bunch of low-carbers that can outdo me, and i will certainly listen to what they have been doing.

an unrelated example of "thinking outside the box". if i ever have a kid, that kid is not going to our horrible public school system. if i were to design a curriculum for elementary school children, they would spend several hours each day on 2 subjects - logic, and word-problem solving. these are 2 things that people are downright horrible at. yet it provides the basis for thinking. i don't care whether they know who the first president was, or any other such trivia that they may regurgitate. but they would have logical minds. they could first understand the problem, and have the logic to know the steps in fixing it. so instead of having brainwashed children regurgitating useless memorized trivial knowledge, they would instead be able to use their brains to actually THINK. along with that, they would study science every day, so that they understand how the world around them works. science can also be good to stimulate the "creative" part of the mind. some reading and spelling would be needed, but these kids would not grow up brainwashed, they could see through "when people are using them", and be almost impossible to defraud - which of course is not what the wealth/government wants, which is why our school system is the way it is. every government in every nation of the world wants its people brainwashed into its social way of thinking, so that they can be easily controlled. just look at our voting process. i stopped voting a long time ago, because people are basically stupid. they continue to vote in either republicans or democrats - these people are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the wealth of the country, the status quo. i do believe that there is at least a chance that schwarzenegger has honest intentions. and he would probably have gotten quite a few votes if he had run as an independent. but he probably felt he needed the republican party to actually get elected, so i am not sure just how many strings are attached to him, at this point.

[digwig]

one day, lisa will find that it was me who was "thinking outside the box". in fact, not only do i think that way, i "live outside the box".

Well, it's a good thing you live in a warm climate then! :lol:

Honestly guys, this arguement is just going around in circles. If we don't feed the argument, it may go away.

xo Dig

[Lisa N]

there will always be many current studies supporting the current SELLING FAD, such as the low-carb diet is now. the low-carbers are still in a big minority, but that still leaves many people and many dollars to capture.

Funny thing is, low carb has been around since the 1800's (farther back if you count our hunter-gatherer ancestors). You might want to check out what William Banting had to write about the whole subject of low carb. As I mentioned before, low carb was the diet of choice to treat diabetics in the early to mid 1900's, so it's hardly something new and unheard of. It's just that now a few doctors who are willing to think outside the box and buck the system have found that it has practical applications for more than diabetics and that a high carb diet isn't healthy for anyone unless they are extremely active and not predisposed genetically to carbohydrate metabolism problems and yes, there are a few people out there who just happen to be genetically lucky and can tolerate a higher carb intake without negative impact. I think we all know one or two people who seem to be able to eat whatever they want and never seem to suffer any ill effects from it either with weight gain or health problems.
Regarding the selling of low carb foods...can that not also be applied to the plethera of low FAT products on the market today? Just because one particular doctor hasn't put their name on them are they not still big business and only there for the profit margins of the manufacturers while they cater to the current fat phobia of the world? I'd also like to point out that it isn't even necessary to purchase any special products to follow a low carb lifestyle and in fact, it's preferable to stay away from the processed stuff as much as possible. Those low carb products aren't there because they are necessary for a low carb lifestyle, but because a smart businessman recognized that the American public specifially was used to convenience. Sadly, we've become a nation of people who mostly eat their meals out of a bag, box, jar or restaurant. If the product doesn't enable you to get dinner on the table in 30 minutes or less, most people don't want it. There are also a lot more food producers jumping on the low carb bandwagon every day with corporations like Unilever coming out with low carb "convenience" products, not to mention Michelob and many others. There are currently more new low carb products hitting the shelves of our stores than new low fat ones, so while you may see this as a fad, enough people are following it to impact the bottom line of food producers and make them take note enough to start producing products for that segment of the population. Whether that's a good thing or not remains to be seen since while food producers are coming out with low carb products it seems that they have at the same time failed to grasp the concept of low carb and include things in their products that most of us avoid such as hydrogenated fats. :rolleyes: There are very few, if any, processed products that can rival that which is unprocessed, unrefined and just as it was when it came out of the garden or field.


Jeez - you've been here since the middle of August. You're taking this discussion in circles. Before you make anymore statements, go back and read the whole thread and see where your point has already been addressed - or say something we haven't heard.

I have to agree with Kristine. It's time to either bring out something other than opinion or studies that don't apply to low carbing or get off the merry-go-round. Every objection you've raised so far has been addressed somewhere in this 30 page thread, usually with a relevant study, a couple of times over at least. It's more than obvious at this point that you wish to continue with what you've chosen and so do we and neither of us is about to change the other's mind. I wish you continued vitality and sincerely hope that what you've chosen continues to work for you. But if for some reason it doesn't, at least you've gotten a good education in what low carb is all about. ;)
Ciao! :wave:

[Kestrel]

Well, I'm off this wagon too. Gymee could have gained more credance with me if he'd have stayed with "ample protein, fats, remainder natural carbs", since. to some degree, thats what low carbers do.

But nutritional crusade?? To push powders over meat? Or paint-stock oils over saturated fats? Well, you lost with me with that one.

No thanks, I'll stick with my studies and experience (after all, I have RESULTS, RESULTS...), and eat my real meat, my real diary...

[Lisa N]

the protein should only be used for building/anabolism. this is its function. not to burn up and use as glucose.

Just have to point out one more thing. Protein in low carb is largely not used for gluconeogenesis. FAT provides the majority of the energy the body needs through the production of ketone bodies that the majority of the cells of the body are completely content (and some actually prefer) to run on as I've said before. Gluconeogenesis through protein breakdown occurs in the body even when you are not following a low carb lifestyle unless, of course, you make a habit of getting up sometime during the night to eat and prevent your body from going into a fasting state between dinner and breakfast. The body also converts protein to glucose during the day between meals or whenever blood sugar dips and there are no carbs coming in.

As for what causes blood to get thick and "sticky", triglycerides are the culprit there. http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/111396/bloodmay.htm

Definition of triglyceride:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/triglyceride

[gymeejet]

Well, I'm off this wagon too. Gymee could have gained more credance with me if he'd have stayed with "ample protein, fats, remainder natural carbs", since. to some degree, thats what low carbers do.

But nutritional crusade?? To push powders over meat? Or paint-stock oils over saturated fats? Well, you lost with me with that one.

No thanks, I'll stick with my studies and experience (after all, I have RESULTS, RESULTS...), and eat my real meat, my real diary...

this is just a plain silly comment. never have i pushed powders over meat on this thread. i keep mentioning grams of protein, ample amounts of protein. if you want to post, fine. if you don't, fine. please don't lie about what i am saying. my nutritional crusade is about ample protein, ample essential fats, and remainder good carbs.

the fact that the paint industry uses oils for their products, and comparing them to the oils to which i am referring, is also just another big lie. it shows me that you have nothing to really combat my logic with. the pain industry takes good polyunsaturated oils, and processes them, and degrades them in the process. the oils to which i refer, are the omega6 and omega3 oils in their natural state, before any damage has been done to them. these are the only fats necessary for the body, which is why they call them "essential fats". our bodies have not developed the enzymes to make them. there is probably some animal species that can. i know that us and the guinea pigs are a few of the animals that can not make vitamin c - most animals can.

[gymeejet]

lisa,
once again, you are comparing low-carb with low-fat. sure, i agree with you about the low-fat products out there on the market. you think you have addressed my points with studies. while in fact, you have not. nowhere has your low-carb diet been pitten against my AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FAT, REMAINDER GOOD CARB DIET. your lc diet has been compared to the lf diet, and the sad diet. but never to my superior diet, again with the exception of sugar-inpaired individuals who can no longer process sugars.

one of your previous posts to which i will respond to soon, once again displays this fact, and in my opinion, is why your studies are always completely wrong when attempting to predict my results - simply because they have never competed against my diet, from which they would surely be the loser, in terms of OPTIMICITY (my new word - LOL).

[gymeejet]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/11/981126103305.htm

It also appears that if your goal is to stay young looking, a high fructose diet isn't the best way to achieve it.

lisa,
i have gals in middle school who flirt with me, and give me that type of attention. and i did say middle school. now that is partly because i have a fairly young look. partly because i have a babyish, non-threatening look. and probably mostly because of the energy that i display in the activities that i do, are exclusively connected to "being a kid".

many people of my chronological age are beginning to look a generation older than me - never more noticeable than when i go to high school reunion activities. so just when is it that i am supposed to start looking older than most people my age ?

according to all your studies, i should have diabetes by this time, with all the carbs i eat, and i should be walking with a cane, and looking older than my peers. but in reality, just the opposite is true. why is it that your low-carb studies are not even in the ballpark when describing me ? could it possible be that those studies never compare the diet that i am on ? no large group of people are eating that. you have the sad diet, filled with tons of junk. you have the lf diet, which is also typically low in protein. you have the lc diet. all these diets at least have groups of people. nowhere is there a group of people following my diet. and i am the only one i know of who can run around like a kid at 48. so just whose claims are more substantial ? you guys are "outside the box". but i am even further outside, that not even you guys are aware of it. but you will be 20 years from now, when it is proven that my AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FAT, REMAINDER GOOD CARB DIET is the ideal optimum.

as far as fat-clogging being a theory - saturated fat is highly sticky. it takes no brains to understand that these fat molecules will stick together. so in my mind, the only question is how much in your blood stream is dangerous ? that is gonna depend to a fairly large degree on activity level, which is one of the main reasons why i do very intense cardio. think about a river. when it is flowing fast, it is very hard for anything to get a toehold for very long. the gushing water keeps knocking everything loose. but at some point, the sludge is gonna get too dense for the flow, such that things will be able to get imbedded, and start blocking the normal flow of blood, and its nutrients.

i am not sure you understand what triglycerides are. some people think of them as a type of fat - like there is cholesterol, essential fatty acids, stearic fatty acid, etc. this is not so. a triglyceride is simply a glycerol molecule, attached to 3 fatty acids. most all of our fat is like this. and most, if not all, of our ingested fat, is in the form of triglycerides. but this tells us next to nothing. what is important is what the 3 fatty acids are. are they all saturated ? are they all essential ? what ? so when you see your triglyceride count on your regular blood test, it is not all that indicative. what you really want to know is the breakdown - the fatty acid panel to which i have been referring. the triglyceride count is just the total of all the fatty acids in our blood stream, divided by 3.

[gymeejet]

lisa,
the fact that no protein is coming in, does not mean that the body is converting protein to glucose. if you are eating balanced, this does not happen. if i recall correctly, 10% of the weight of the liver is glycogen. this glycogen keeps the blood glucose up, as well as feeding the brain. the brain by far and away, uses more glucose than any other part of the body. if i recall correctly, it uses 1/3 of the total glucose, while the immensely much more muscle mass, uses 2/3 of the total glucose. but pound for pound, the brain uses far more than muscle tissue.

the body is not gonna break down protein, until and unless the sugar levels get too low.

body builders are extremely conscious about this. i forget the term, but it has something to do with nitrogen, in terms of whether they are catabolizing it or not.

[gymeejet]

Mary Enig also had some not so nice things to say about polyunsaturated oils as well with the studies to back her up.


there are no saturated fats that are essential to the body. the only 2 polyunsaturated fats that are essential are omega6 and omega3 fats, and the various fats along those metabolic pathways. most of the rest of the polyunsaturated fats that are in our body are trans-fats.

the reason why trans fats are unhealthy, is not because they are toxic, but rather, if they build up to large enough numbers, the body is fooled into using them as substitutes for the essential fats, but they are not able to perform the functions that the essentials do.

in small amounts, the body has protective measures that allow it to catabolize them for energy, just as it does with saturated fat.

[Tashi]

Are you out of breath? Hail to the world's largest soap box.

[gymeejet]

Thanks to Lisa for continuing to jump in here with reasoned arguments. Gymee still seems to think that his diet would work for us, when in fact for whatever reason, we've been ruined and cannot handle carbs as he can. So, lock us all in metabolic labs for a couple of years, feed gymee on the Stefannson all-meat diet, and he would emerge in great health, good cholesterol levels, but worried as h.... about missing all the good natural carbs. Lock US up, feed us his diet, with no medication, some of us would die, others would lose body parts, gain weight, whatever. He may argue this, but many of us have been there, done that, tried the "whole grain" 'natural carb" routine. My wife worked in a hippie bakery back when, loves wheat berries, all that natural stuff. A cup of wheat berries will take me just as far along the road to blindness as a twinkie. Bill PS, forgive me if I've got gymees gender wrong, ok?

hi alaska,
you got my gender correct. and i think i have said a few times, that i am not encouraging diabetics to eat a lot of sugar. i am jumping in against the argument that it is the preferable diet for non-diabetics. if you recall earlier, i said i was not that interested in the typical diabetic diet. that does not mean that i do not care what happens to you. just that i am interested in keeping people healthy from the get-go, so that they do not have to deal with diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. in so doing, i believe that my AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REMAINDER GOOD CARBS is the way to go. we can make saturated fat from any calories. the sugar that we make is far and away preferable to get from digested carbs, as opposed to clipping the amino acid, and building up ammonia in our system. we have a large reserve of fat, and a small tank of sugar, that needs to be updated each day. however, any excess of sugar does no good. once our liver is filled up, and our muscles are filled up, any extra will be turned into fat by the body. so we need to constantly update our body with just the right amount - not too cold, not too hot, just right.

[Kristine]

.."not too cold, not too hot, just right"

.."AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REMAINDER GOOD CARBS"

:rolleyes: Which is exactly what we do. You're still taking this in circles, not offering us anything you haven't already said *without* offering research to prove your point our counter ours. a) Not all low carb plans are ketogenic. b) The ones that are, such as Atkins and Protein Power, allow the follower to *slowly* add carbs back in until they reach the point that they can eat carbs without the symptoms that indicate too much sugar: blood sugar crashes and hunger, sugar cravings, weight gain, bloating, PMS, etc. This is anywhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 120 g of carbs per day or more. We've demonstrated that saturated fat is not dangerous when insulin levels are low, and that there is no reason to restrict it. What part of this are you still arguing with?

>>"there are no saturated fats that are essential to the body."

There are also no essential carbohydrates.

>>"please don't lie about what i am saying." (re the pushing powders comment)

:lol: Well, if you're eating "ample protein" on a vegetarian diet but shun saturated fat, what's this magic source of ample protein that *isn't* over-processed? Protein powders, fat free dairy, soy pseudo-meat... that's lab food. From your own post on the first page: "...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."

We agree. Real food.

[gymeejet]

hi kristine,
the only research i care to give you, and did, was from the harvard school of medicine. i told lisa from the beginning that i was not gonna play the game of my study versus your study. i have already told you that studies have financial angles - at some point in time, hopefully you will see this for yourself. go back 20 years, and there were all kinds of studies supporting the low-fat diet. the low-carb is being highly pushed in today's marketplace, so of course you are gonna have studies supporting it.

actually, i showed you an article/study showing that there are 8 sugars used anabolically in the body, 2 of them being essential, in that the body can not make them. so there are 2 essential fats, 2 essential sugars, and 8-12 essential amino acids, along with the minerals, and some vitamins that the body can not make.

the saturated fat molecule is extremely sticky, and will form globules. no amount of studies can contradict this. having too much in our blood stream is risky, for that reason. the saturated fat molecule is a very simplistic design. but that design is extremely good, for the purpose that it plays, mostly that of storing long-term energy for the body. i will go into that in a later post.

the point about protein is that i am not pushing any particular type of protein for the masses. what i do personally is for personal reasons. like i have stated before, it depends on what type of processing is done to the food, to determine what effects that processing has played. i stay away from processing using chemicals. good oils are extracted simply by pressure. some oils are extracted by chemical means. so if you intake oils, you should understand the processing of them. the protein i get is separated mostly electrically. it is easy to separate the fat from milk, so that should not have detrimental processing problems. like i said, it depends on what the processing was.

if you recall, i have no nutritional complaints about wild game. but 99% plus of western society does not eat that kind of meat, and from what i have been told, they never will, because it does not taste good, which is the only reason they eat it in the first place. so using tribes from east africa as some sort of model of comparison to western diets is nonsense. their meat is 2% fat, with a lot of that being essential. so for them, meat is not even a fat food. they would need to get their fat from somewhere else.

i think you guys are on the right track. you do a lot of things that are good for your body, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TOO MUCH SATURATED FAT. again, i realize that diabetics need to do whatever they need to do - i have no argument whatsoever with that. i commend you for that. but those that are not diabetics would be better served with more sugar, and less saturated fat. like i said, our body creates saturated fat easily. its best source of sugar is ingested carbs, so do not short yourself on that. which for the most part, low-carb diets, by its very definition, is too low on carbs. it is a very simple, but very important, point of disagreement between you and me.

[Lisa N]

http://www.coconut-info.com/facing_the_facts_about_saturated-fats.htm

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/triglyceride

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031013.wfructos1013/BNStory/National/

[korry1977]

"Mr Gorbachev, Tear down this thread..."

Famous Reagon Speech

:lol:

[Lisa N]

LOL, Korry...I think it's time we stuck a fork in this one, cuz it's WAY past done. :lol:

[gymeejet]

lisa,
i am not sure what your point about the triglyceride article was. like i said, a triglyceride is a form of fat storage. there are 3 fatty acids attached to a glycerol molecule, just as i said. you can quote to me all you want about articles. geez, i wonder why a coconut article is gonna support saturated fat ? i also can find you a realtor who will tell you he has some raw land to sell you in downtown new york.

let me repeat. saturated fat is a sticky fat. this means that it easily forms larger globules. take a look at lard. it is extremely dense. we need to be careful just how much is in our blood stream.

[Lisa N]

http://www.preventionisbest.com/saturatedfat.html

[gymeejet]

lisa,
it was apparent to me, from a comment you made, that you did not really understand what a triglyceride was. and i am sure that applies to most of the readers. which is why i attempted to educate you on them. again, a person's triglyceride level indicates the amount of fatty acids in his blood stream. but it tells you nothing about WHAT KINDS OF FATTY ACIDS he has. for this, you must delve further, and look at his fatty acid panel, which gives you the breakdown. 2 people can have the same triglyceride level, yet have very different fatty acids. one could be healthy, the other very unhealthy.

despite your proclivity to post articles promoting coconut oil, there is nothing special about medium chain fatty acids. the body easily makes all the saturated fats, from c4 to c18, both upwards and downwards. the body easily makes saturated fat from any excess calories, which is why there is no such thing as saturated-fat-deficiency. it simply is not needed in the diet. you can get too much, but not too little.

however, i have repeatedly said that i have no problem with some saturated fat in the diet. if you don't eat any, your body will make what it needs. it is not a toxic. it does, along with sugar, have some anabolic uses, but its main use is for long-term energy survival.

and even when we are not getting enough calories, the body tends to spare its fat, and burn protein, which is why diets often fail for people.

if one is getting enough essential fat, one will also be digesting some saturated fat, which is no problem. the fats that i eat have about 10% saturated fat in them.

the article that you posted said that there was a scare that too high saturated fats cause an increase in cholesterol. but saturated fats are sticky, in and of themselves. sure cholesterol is stickier, being that it is a 30 carbon chain long, instead of 16 or 18, but all of them are extremely sticky, and thus apt to form large masses, which tend to block passageways.

[gymeejet]

correction on cholesterol. it is actually a 27-long chain. through the same process of building regular saturated fats, cholesterol is built up into a 30-long carbon chain. then there is a somewhat involved process that clips off 3 of the carbon atoms, and leaves it with 27, and the final cholesterol molecule.

[Lisa N]

Reference:
Assmann, G., Schulte, H., "Relation of High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Triglycerides to Incidence of Atherosclerotic Coronary Artery Disease (the PROCAM Experience)," American Journal of Cardiology, 70, 1992, pages 733-737.

Summary:
Researchers in this study set out to investigate the relationship between triglycerides and/or HDL (“good”) cholesterol and the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). A group of 4,559 men (ages 40 to 64) from the Prospective Cardiovascular Munster study were assessed, using diet and lifestyle questionnaires over a six-year period. During this time, 186 subjects developed CAD. Analysis of the questionnaires revealed a significant association between the incidence of CAD and HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels. Participants who had lower HDL cholesterol levels and higher triglyceride levels regardless LDL and total cholesterol levels were more likely to suffer from CAD; moreover, incidence of CAD became even greater when elevated LDL (“bad”) cholesterol was also present. Researchers concluded that simply looking at total cholesterol levels or LDL cholesterol levels does not adequately determine risk for CAD. Elevated triglycerides, in conjunction with decreased HDL cholesterol, constitute a powerful risk factor for non-fatal myocardial infarction

[Lisa N]

http://www.lipidsonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?q=inflammation&dpg=26

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i have no problem believing that. although i will tell you that questionairres have been known to be much less accurate. i am not a cholesterol-hater. i am not even a saturated-fat-hater. it is the amounts that i am concerned with. if you took the millions of people with high triglyceride levels, i doubt you could even find five, whose results were caused because of high essential fats. it will show high saturated fats, or high trans-fats, more than likely.

cholesterol is a saturated fat, in the sense that there are no double bonds. it has a higher degree of stickiness, due to its increased length. but all saturated fat, if not catabolized for energy, stacks very close together. this physical trait is what concerns me, when we are talking about the blood stream. the more unsaturated the fat, the more the molecule bends and kinks, and just can not get close enough to form large masses of stuff with which to cause blockage.

saturated fat, as a means of storage, is a great design, but we do not want an overabundance of it in our blood stream.

[Lisa N]

http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=Article&ID=562

See earlier posts on where free radicals come from.

[Lisa N]

This is the last I'll say on the subject because your posts on what causes heart disease are getting more and more uninformed. The concept that because fat is sticky it plugs up your arteries, while common, is just plain wrong. If I were to use that same concept (stickiness = blood vessel occlusion), sugar takes the prize there because it is far stickier than fat and because our bloodstreams have a minimum level of glucose in them at all times, we should all be keeling over from occluded arteries en masse as that sticky glucose attaches itself to our artery walls and occludes them. Doesn't happen, does it? That's because there is FAR more to atherosclerotic plaques than fat sticking to the wall of an artery which isn't even the first (or second for that matter) step in their formation.
It's also obvious that you either don't read or don't understand the links I provide since I've posted several that blatantly contradict the sticky fat theory and show that free radical damage, insulin resistance and high triglycerides are far more reliable indicators of cardiac risk than total cholesterol or the amount of saturated fat in the diet. BTW...Triglycerides are always saturated (that is, solid at room temperature).
This time it's time to stick a fork in me cuz I'M done. Argue with the many studies and links posted and prove them wrong, if you can, with solid medical studies based on something other than a high carb intake along with a high saturated fat intake. Good luck. :lol:

[gymeejet]

triglycerides are not always solid at room temperature. somehow i have not managed to explain this yet. triglycerides are simply 3 fatty acids joined together with a glycerol molecule. if these fatty acids are unsaturated, the triglyceride will not be solid.

[Lisa N]

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dare%2btriglycerides%2bsolid%2bat%2broom%2btemperature%253f%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=are+triglycerides+solid+at+room+temperature%3f&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d20cf1a4530cf1a453%26sid%3d30cf1a4530cf1a453%26qid%3d56C25445DC506749B83D6F6BFA048AFF%26io%3d6%26sv%3dza5cb0dbf%26ask%3dare%2btriglycerides%2bsolid%2bat%2broom%2btemperature%253f%26uip%3d0cf1a453%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dLIPIDS...%26ac%3d7%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d205%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.enter.net.au%2f%7efairsci%2fbiology%2fyr12%2fmacrom%2ftsld009.htm&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.enter.net.au%2f%7efairsci%2fbiology%2fyr12%2fmacrom%2ftsld009.htm


Fats and oils (also called triglycerides) contain 3 fatty acids joined to one glycerol molecule in a dehydration synthesis process (see Fig. 2-9). Fats and oils function in the storage of chemical energy. Saturated triglycerides contain fatty acids in which there are no double bonds between carbon atoms, i.e. no more hydrogen can be added to the molecule. Saturated triglycerides (fats) are usually solid at room temperature and are more common in animals (e.g. lard, butter). Unsaturated triglycerides (oils) contain fatty acids with double bonds between carbon atoms so it is possible to add more hydrogen to the molecule (i.e. it is unsaturated). Oils, as the name implies, are usually liquids at room temperature and are more common in plants (e.g. peanut oil, corn oil, etc.)

[gymeejet]

This is the last I'll say on the subject because your posts on what causes heart disease are getting more and more uninformed. The concept that because fat is sticky it plugs up your arteries, while common, is just plain wrong. If I were to use that same concept (stickiness = blood vessel occlusion), sugar takes the prize there because it is far stickier than fat and because our bloodstreams have a minimum level of glucose in them at all times, we should all be keeling over from occluded arteries en masse as that sticky glucose attaches itself to our artery walls and occludes them. Doesn't happen, does it? That's because there is FAR more to atherosclerotic plaques than fat sticking to the wall of an artery which isn't even the first (or second for that matter) step in their formation.


hi lisa,
i am not sure why you would think that sugar is anywhere near as sticky as saturated fat. sugar is a ring-shaped molecule. most all sugars follow the same basic formula of 2 molecules of water, for each atom of carbon, thusly the name carbohydrate. this makes sugar about 75% water, by weight.

even in real life experience, there is no comparison between a handful of sugar, and a handful of lard.

[digwig]

even in real life experience, there is no comparison between a handful of sugar, and a handful of lard.

For once we agree, gymee. If I held a handful of lard, it would melt at 80 degrees Fahrenheit (16.5 degrees less than body temp) whereas the handful of sugar would need a temperature of 200 degrees Fahrenheit to do the same thing. :)

xo Dig

[gymeejet]

For once we agree, gymee. If I held a handful of lard, it would melt at 80 degrees Fahrenheit (16.5 degrees less than body temp) whereas the handful of sugar would need a temperature of 200 degrees Fahrenheit to do the same thing. :)

xo Dig

hi dig,
the saturated fat in triglycerides is solid in the body. however, the desire for things to cling together is not equivocal to their melting point. if you had a handful of small pebbles, the temperature to melt that rock would be very high, yet they have no desire to cling to each other. saturated fat molecules want to keep amassing together, to form bigger and bigger globules.

[gymeejet]

It's also obvious that you either don't read or don't understand the links I provide since I've posted several that blatantly contradict the sticky fat theory and show that free radical damage, insulin resistance and high triglycerides are far more reliable indicators of cardiac risk than total cholesterol or the amount of saturated fat in the diet.

hi lisa,
i responded to your remark about triglycerides. perhaps you did not understand that i said that high triglycerides will almost always be an indicator of high sticky fats, be it saturated or trans. here is my post again.

i have no problem believing that. although i will tell you that questionairres have been known to be much less accurate. i am not a cholesterol-hater. i am not even a saturated-fat-hater. it is the amounts that i am concerned with. if you took the millions of people with high triglyceride levels, i doubt you could even find five, whose results were caused because of high essential fats. it will show high saturated fats, or high trans-fats, more than likely.

cholesterol is a saturated fat, in the sense that there are no double bonds. it has a higher degree of stickiness, due to its increased length. but all saturated fat, if not catabolized for energy, stacks very close together. this physical trait is what concerns me, when we are talking about the blood stream. the more unsaturated the fat, the more the molecule bends and kinks, and just can not get close enough to form large masses of stuff with which to cause blockage.

saturated fat, as a means of storage, is a great design, but we do not want an overabundance of it in our blood stream.

[gymeejet]

hi lisa,
i am fairly familiar with the free-radical theory. first, let me say, that this american culture always needs a villain - i don't care what situation we are talking about. in nutrition, the free radical is that villain. everything from cancer to the common cold has a free-radical theory attached to it.

free radicals are created as part of everyday life-sustaining reactions in our body. so our body does have mechanisms to dispose of them. now like anything else, if their numbers become excessive, they can cause problems. and i do take vitamin c and vitamin e, along with sulfur aminos, and other detoxifiers, as they do a whole host of things, besides helping with free radicals.

but i do get a little tired of hearing how free radicals are the bane of our existence.

the one thing for which there is no argument is that any solid product that wants to attach itself to other solid products, in a pipe of flowing liquid, causes blockage to occur, and the liquid pressure to rise. perhaps it is this rise in blood pressure that is the villain responsible for the damage to the arteries.

[gymeejet]

>>"i do agree with you that i think diabetes is a disease that is being brought to us, because of past dietary problems/deficiencies."

Why should people wait until they're diabetic before they start correcting the problem? If kids over the last few decades were raised on healthy, whole foods, I'd agree with you. But get real: most kids are raised on KD and sugar cereal, which means "average, healthy" adults are few and far between. Diabetes is going to be a massive problem in my generation if people don't get their act together. (I'm in my 20s.) I was already approaching diabetes and decided I didn't want to go down that road.

hi kristine,
you must have misconstrued something that i said. while we may disagree on what the child should be eating, i certainly agree with you on timing - there is no time like the present. avoiding problems is always much easier than fixing them. and fixing a small problem is much easier than fixing a big one.

[black57]

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.


I hope that everyone understands that low carb diets promote a healthy lifestyle. Carbs must be balanced to promote healthy blood glucose, triglycerides, and cholesterol levels. I have discovered that low carb is something that my family ( siblings and parents ) benefits from because of our high rate of diabetes and high blood pressure. My blood tests have been perfect and not harmed by my new way of eating. I am not shaky like I had been for many years and I can last longer between meals before eating. I have had maybe 2 migrains in the past year that I have been Atkinsing. Migrains were becoming a regular part of my daily routine before I lowered my carbs. I wonder why? Many fruits are way too high in carbohydrates so I have increased my variety of veggies. I consume more peppers, sqaush and mushrooms, mustard greens, trunip greens, collard greens...the list goes on. I watch my servings when I eat high glycemic fruits. When I eat an apple or water melon, for example, it is never a whole apple or whole water melon ( don't laugh). I keep my consumption of these items low. I eat strawberries, raspberries, cantalope.I eat no processed white flour, no white rice or potatoes ( my love ). I keep my carbs to 25-35 grams / day. But, everything I eat, rather if it is bread or fruit, I choose it because of its carb and nutritional content. My health is better and Did I mention that have lost 25 lbs. Our local newspaper is planning a segment that informs people about the good low carbohydrate foods that exist for health concious people.

Black57

[gymeejet]

Cardio output - made me think of Dr Bernstein, who says, "I can exercise at 165 even though my theoretical maximum is 152" he says in part because he's been exercising strenuously for 35 years. But, as you may know, he's the dr who discovered the benefits of lc for diabetes, and has been practicing his <30gm carb, no fruit, only very low gi veg like broccoli and spinach, for 50 years or so. Bill

hi alaska,
the following in no way is meant to be construed as anything negative about your doctor. but that theoretical maximum heart rate chart is another one of those "accepted facts" that is not necessarily so. our hearts work differently. i don't even come close to my "theoretical maximum". i took my bp, pulse rate, and body temperature for over a year, in 1996-1997. here is a typical reading of mine on a day where i did my most vigorous cardio.

time blood pressure pulse rate temperature activity
7:53am 111/65 68 97.2 waking
3:15pm 155/83 109 96.0 after first half hour of exercise
3:52pm 143/81 120 95.0 after exercise
4:16pm 108/72 101 97.3 20 minutes later

i am not sure how accurate the body temp during exercise is, since my nutritional drink is intentionally kept with ice in it, to help keep the body heat down. to what, if any, degree drinking cold drinks would affect the thermometer in one's mouth, i am not sure. but you can see that my pulse rates are nowhere near my theoretical maximum.

[komireds]

Hi Gymeejet,

Let me start off by saying that I respect your opinion and I'm glad you are encouraging all this thought/debate about nutrition. I think, however, that you should keep in mind that everyone may not find a vegetarian diet to be optimal for their health. By the way, I applaud your views on animal rights.

With vegetarian eating and a high exercise load, you seem to be able to maintain your weight. That is truly wonderful for you and you should count yourself lucky. This is not the case for everyone, however.

I had been a proud and fierce vegetarian for 10 years. I made my choice first for heath reasons and later discovered the moral implications of meat eating. Unfortunately, during those 10 years I also steadily gained weight. No matter how healthily I ate and no matter how much I exercised (I was an athlete in high school and college and I consider 2 hours of basketball to be no challenge to me), I just kept slowly getting bigger. The only way that I COULD lose weight was to restrict my calories to less than 900 calories a day. So few calories left me lethargic, depressed, and wondering what in the world was wrong with me. I assumed it was a genetic problem (I come from large Irish stock) and at times thought that I could never hope for weight loss (or even weight maintenance). At those times I told myself that I should just focus on health--exercise, great eating--and stop thinking in terms of weight.

But as most overweight people will tell you...it can be difficult (both societally and personally) to feel like a larger person. Aside from the everyday taunts and humiliations from skinny people who consider you to be "lazy", even some Doctors demonstrate a scorn for larger people that is palpable. Also, the health problems associated with even just a little bit of weight gain cannot be ignored.

So, what's a fatty vegetarian to do?

Well, for the past two months, I have monitored my carbs (instead of my calories) and guess what...I've lost 15 pounds. My blood sugar seems to have evened out, giving me more energy and fewer mood swings.

I am not saying that low carb is the answer for everyone...I am simply saying that it could be a solution for some people and you, especially being a metabolically "normal" person, may not be able to speak for other people. I’m not a crazy LC follower (and frankly, I am keeping my mind open for the long term to see how this diet affects me), but the logic in Atkins’ book really spoke to me. Like I said, as a vegetarian, I REALLY REALLY didn’t want to think that there was ANY truth to the idea that carbs are largely responsible for weight gain, but I gotta admit….my body feels differently and much better now.

So, leave a little room for body type, metabolism and genetics, would you? If you don’t, you are really flying in the face of logic…..

[gymeejet]

hi komireds,
thanks for the post. because most vegetarians are lacking in protein, you have made a common mistake in that you are associating "no meat" with no protein. i have not been advocating a vegetarian diet in this thread. while my very strong advocacy of animal rights was exhibited in the thread about it, this thread was started and remains one of a nutritional nature, only.

for the greater part of my adult life, i ate a diet probably somewhat similar to yours - good non-toxic foods, but lacking in protein and essential fats. i also had to work a lot harder than many, in terms of keeping weight off. a big part of our hunger signals that our body gives us, is simply because it is asking us for nutrients that it wants, and hopes we are smart enough to ingest them.

i went 15+ years before i had some problems that needed fixing. it was not until i took these detail tests, that i was able to figure out the bigger picture. once i started getting a more correct amount of protein and essential fats, my problems gradually disappeared.

i don't know how many of the posts you read, but i have stated that i am not aware of any complaints about wild game. it is almost all protein, only about 2-3% fat, and much of that fat is essential fat. if a person has a desire to go vegetarian, one can get one's protein from beans and nuts, etc. i get mine mainly from protein powder, because i find it easiest for me, and i think the best source of protein. btw, half of my protein comes from soy, the other half from milk, which is a product derived from animal - it just does not kill the animal. the protein i use in my nutritional drinks is whey, which is one of the proteins in milk - the other being casein.

irregardless of which sources of proteins one digests to get the proper quantity, i would advise said person to get an amino acid profile, and then take amino powder to make up for whichever aminos one is low in.

[kaeleen]

People,

Please don't feed the trolls, even vegetarian ones, it only encourages them.

:devil:

[komireds]

hi komireds,
thanks for the post. because most vegetarians are lacking in protein, you have made a common mistake in that you are associating "no meat" with no protein. i have not been advocating a vegetarian diet in this thread. while my very strong advocacy of animal rights was exhibited in the thread about it, this thread was started and remains one of a nutritional nature, only.

for the greater part of my adult life, i ate a diet probably somewhat similar to yours - good non-toxic foods, but lacking in protein and essential fats. i also had to work a lot harder than many, in terms of keeping weight off. a big part of our hunger signals that our body gives us, is simply because it is asking us for nutrients that it wants, and hopes we are smart enough to ingest them.

i went 15+ years before i had some problems that needed fixing. it was not until i took these detail tests, that i was able to figure out the bigger picture. once i started getting a more correct amount of protein and essential fats, my problems gradually disappeared.

i don't know how many of the posts you read, but i have stated that i am not aware of any complaints about wild game. it is almost all protein, only about 2-3% fat, and much of that fat is essential fat. if a person has a desire to go vegetarian, one can get one's protein from beans and nuts, etc. i get mine mainly from protein powder, because i find it easiest for me, and i think the best source of protein. btw, half of my protein comes from soy, the other half from milk, which is a product derived from animal - it just does not kill the animal. the protein i use in my nutritional drinks is whey, which is one of the proteins in milk - the other being casein.

irregardless of which sources of proteins one digests to get the proper quantity, i would advise said person to get an amino acid profile, and then take amino powder to make up for whichever aminos one is low in.

Hi. Thanks for the response. Yeah, I know that there are perfectly viable protein sources from non-meat (nuts, etc). I didn't mean to imply otherwise in my previous post. And I definetly applaud any vegetarian who thinks that they can follow low carb without eating meat. Unfortunately, for multiple reasons, (one being motivation, which, in large part comes from variation in diet--for me at least) I don't feel like one of those people. But again, I say if your diet is working for you and you feel healthy and happy then right on!

By the way, did you know there is a vegetarian low carbers section on this site? You might find it interesting.....

[gymeejet]

hi komireds,
good luck to you as well. i suspect you will do well, as it does not seem that you are gonna get too crazy with deleting carbos from your diet.

[hkblue]

I can definitely say that I have seen things from both sides of the fence on this issue. I myself did in fact follow the same type of regime that you happen to follow for a number of years. I am a woman and yes I have taken essential fatty acids for years. I limited the amount of supposedly "bad fats" for "good fats" and ate all the good carbs that you speak of. In fact, I was someone who very rarely ate "twinkies" as you keep mentioning. After the birth of my son 3 years ago I began struggling with my weight although I was still doing exactly what you have recommended in your previous posts. I began getting very depressed because I was doing everything right and still was not able to lose weight. I even consulted with a nutritionalist in my area who gave me tips for exactly what I had already been doing. He stated that without essential fatty acids, weight loss would be minimal.

Needless to say, my weight continued to raise until my legs were burning like fire at night after I had been on my feet all day long. I decided I had to do something or I was going to look for a different career. That is when I bought the first Atkins book and began reading. To my suprise, it wasn't a diet after all. It was a way of life. It also wasn't about "no carb" life, it was about lower carb than I was eating at the time. It was about knowing the "good carbs" from the "bad carbs". It was about maintaining your insulin levels so your blood sugar didn't go nuts everytime you ate.

There are so many people who are misinformed out there. I don't know how many people have said to me, "Be careful, you know that eating no carbs can be dangerous for you." Actually I just told someone the other day that there is virtually no way you could EVER eat no carbs unless you are only eating meat. Even an egg has a few carbs. Everything you eat that isn't animal has carbs. There are just so many people who think that low fat is the way to go because it is what our society has been used to for so long.

Have you ever thought about this? Back when the food pyramid was designed, who benefited from it the most? Wouldn't you say that farmers benefited most from it? Especially wheat and grain farmers. Which brings me to my next question regarding the food pyramid. What is at the top of that pyramid? Doesn't it say to use fats sparingly? Doesn't that go against everything you have posted regarding your essential fat? I don't think they meant to say, "Oh by the way, you need to use fats sparingly, but make sure you get some essential fatty acids."

I think you really really need to read the Atkins book. Dr. Atkins was such an intelligent man. His book really makes you understand exactly why your body works the way it works. I saw where you mentioned that he made tons of money before his death. Let me tell you, I have lost 27lbs and all it cost me was $5.00 for a paper back book. I didn't go spend $200.00 at a time for some weight loss guru to tell me what to do. I didn't have to buy any packaged food. I didn't have to report for a "weigh-in" at the most popular weight loss hang out like LA weightloss. I simply read his scientific information based on his many years of experience and I followed what he said to do. My legs no longer burn like fire and I have gone from a size 13 to a size 5. I am a female athlete who doesn't have any problems doing cardio or any exercise program. I play softball and volleyball regularly. I walk everyday and I feel wonderful.

My accomplishments actually aren't the most remarkable thing though. My husband began the Atkins lifestyle after he saw how well I did. Prior to starting Atkins, we spent countless nights in the emergency room with chest pains, blurred vision, and tingling in his fingers. His blood pressue was 150/90 at 32 years of age. Someone who has always been an accomplished athlete was in the biggest battle of his life. We tried all kinds of diets. We tried everything under the sun. He even stated once that he felt like a rabbit because he couldn't eat anything or he would gain more weight. Keep in mind, yes he was taking his essential fatty acids just as I did. Nothing worked until he tried Atkins. His blood pressure has now dropped to 120/70 and he looks wonderful. He is considered the "poster child" for the Atkins lifestyle at work. People are constantly asking him what he is doing to lose the weight. He has more energy than he has had in 4 years thanks to the "low carb" way of eating.

I have seen you post on here several times about how "fit" you are. I have seen how you say that some 21 year olds couldn't keep up with you. My question to you is this....Have you EVER had to battle your weight? You even stated that you have lived this lifestyle since you were in your 20's. So, until you have been overweight yourself, you can NEVER fully understand why people do what they do to lose weight and better their health. Until I had my children, I didn't have a weight problem. Since I was an athlete, I didn't really have to worry about that. Then the childbearing years hit and it was all downhill from there. I feel better than I did before I had my first child and I wouldn't go back to that lifestyle for anything. I basically eat whatever I want with the exeption of candies and cakes. If it is white and fluffy....I do not touch it.

Like I said before....read the book. I think it would do you some good to at least open your mind and understand why we do what we do. I personally didn't like the way I felt while I was following the regime you follow. Now I feel wonderful doing what you say is so bad for me.

[gymeejet]

hi blue,
thanks for the long post. i listen to very little that is supposedly mainstream. so you do not have to convince me about the pyramid or the 4 basic food groups, or whatever they come up with next.

since i do not know you personally, i can not make specific statements. however, the first thing i would do if a person was willing, is to have them take all these tests that i have referred to - as this is the best way of knowing what is going on in the body. from these tests, there is almost for certain things i would have found that make you, me, your husband, etc., out of balance.

the diet i have prescribed is the best for optimal health.

the first step is to see where a person is out-of-balance, and then go to correct that.

i am glad that you are finding success in what you are doing. like i have said before, the main problem i have with the low-carb diet is simply too much saturated fat, and not enough carbs.

[gymeejet]

blue,
just so you understand me a bit. most everything i hear and read, i assume is bs advertising, its goal being the financial betterment of some group of people. that does not mean i won't investigate further. but i am a classic example of the "doubting thomas". i have to see it work in action.

i will give you a couple of examples in health, that most people take for gospel truth. first is that silly percentage game that most nutritionists play. each diet touts certain prescribed levels of protein, fat, and carbs. the moment i see this, i tend to tune that source out, as the source has not reached the level of sophistication equal to my own, and it is doubtful that they have much to tell me.

we need to look at the body as a machine. our machines do different things on different days, so it is not likely that this machine will need the same level of food groups on these different days. so not only are different people apt to have different needs, the same person will have different needs, as the person's life changes from day to day. a day sitting at the desk is not likely to have the same needs as the day spent running for 2 hours.

so i try to make sure that the person is getting what he needs, based on the desires of the body for that day. whatever the 3 percentages are for that day is more an after-the-fact trivia, than it is a pre-determined goal.

the second is this silly bmi measurement. a tall lanky person comes in great. a short, stocky person comes in horribly. but the stocky person could actually have less body fat. the bmi totally ignores body types, and musculature. some of these 10% body fat athletes don't even do well on the bmi. since what we are attempting to discover is how much body fat we have, the only guage should be that - body fat. while all 3 ways of testing for body fat have some built-in accuracy problems, they are at least attempting to measure body fat.

[Kristine]

>>"the moment i see this, i tend to tune that source out, as the source has not reached the level of sophistication equal to my own, and it is doubtful that they have much to tell me."

:rolleyes:

So why are you still here? Wouldn't your time be better spent helping out folks who might actually be willing to humour your (one, singular, be-all-end-all, sophisticated) 'optimal diet'?

And if your way is optimal, and so much more sophisticated than that of nutritionists, when is your book being published?

[adkpam]

I have to second hkblue's situation. I ate low fat, lots of fruit & pasta, worked out 1 1/2 hours A DAY, and was a size 12. I thought I had it all figured out.
Now I walk up three flights of stairs a couple of times a day, eat 70% fat, and I'm a size 10.
Time to shift the paradigm.