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