low-carb diets do not promote optimal health : Low-Carb War Zone : Active Low-Carber Forums

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

bvtaylor

Thu, Oct-30-03, 11:25

the diet i have prescribed is the best for optimal health.

I think, gymee, that this should actually read: the diet i have prescribed is the best for gymee's optimal health.

ON BMI - yes, body fat percentages are a better estimate of overall health. However--there's a bit of chicken and egg going on with body fat. A high body fat count may not necessarily mean that a person "is" in bad health but that the eating, lifestyle, and genetic factors that contributed to that increased fat did put that person at risk while they were doing it. So someone with a high body fat percentage who is losing body fat might still look pretty darn healthy when evaluated as follows...

ON ASSESSING HEALTH - basic bloodwork testing a full metabolic panel including all the T's, with lipids (HDL, LDL, Triglycerides, etc.) blood sugar fasting and H1C, kidney, liver function, potassium, calcium, sodium, plus blood pressure, pulse, and hormone levels, should give a pretty basic but round picture of an individual's general health. Of course there are exceptions, nuances, more involved and accurate tests, etc. But it's better, I think, than strictly looking at body fat and making assumptions.

ON OPTIMAL NUTRITION - This is so individualized, even you, yourself, recognized that people who sit at a desk have different nutritional needs than someone who has a very physical lifestyle. This is why the food pyramids are difficult to make one-size-fits all. We must consider how dietary composition does affect an individual via:

1) metabolism
2) energy level and subsequent physical activity
3) the relationship with individual genetics
4) the absorption of nutrients that can affect the other three

And...

5) sex & age of a person (and hormones) - this is going to seriously vary nutrition analysis. A young man of 19 has different nutritional needs, moreover different acceptable body fat, than a 55 year old woman going through menopause.

So we can all argue about how many carbs are optimal or how much protein or how much saturated fat will work, but chances are what is good for the young goose may not be good for the aging gander.

That's why some people can happily exist on 200 g of daily carbs for decades without any health problems, and others develop T2 diabetes as young adults. For most people 200 g is excessive, but most people are not as healthy as you are, gymee, nor as active, and only about half of us are men, moreover, even fewer than that are your age, and less have the same blood type, and fewer yet have the same genetic markers, daily stress levels, caring for my children in middle school who might be inappropriately flirting with men of your age--that's enough to make my blood pressure go up regardless of my own diet.... :exclm:

gymeejet

Thu, Oct-30-03, 12:23

>>
And if your way is optimal, and so much more sophisticated than that of nutritionists, when is your book being published?

hi kristine,
the error in logic that this statement makes, is that of assuming that those who write books are those with the most knowledge. the correct assumption would be that those who write books are those that have either the most money or the best connections, and the desire to write one, in the first place, which is usually because of financial gain.

i have no desire to write a book, nor am i looking to make lots of money.

gymeejet

Thu, Oct-30-03, 12:25

I have to second hkblue's situation. I ate low fat, lots of fruit & pasta, worked out 1 1/2 hours A DAY, and was a size 12. I thought I had it all figured out.
Now I walk up three flights of stairs a couple of times a day, eat 70% fat, and I'm a size 10.
Time to shift the paradigm.

i agree. your diet, like many others, was not getting enough protein or essential fat. the answer is not to go low-carb to the point of ridiculousness, but rather to make sure that you get the correct amount of protein and essential fat. AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FAT, REMAINDER NATURAL CARBS.

gymeejet

Thu, Oct-30-03, 12:34

HI BV,
that was a good post. i will respond to more of it later, but i wanted to touch upon one point now. i was not saying that body fat percentage was an absolute and only marker for good health. i simply said that if we want to use it as "a marker", then let's apply a test whose goal is to measure it, instead of using body size as an indicator of body fat percentage. my main point was simply to note how silly and inaccurate most of these things are, FROM PEOPLE IN THE KNOW. these are the same people who kristine is so enamored with - you know, those guys that write books.

most of the crap that we learn, and accept as common sense, is just that - CRAP. and the reason why we accept all of this, is because we are too lazy. we want a big daddy, which is why we have such a huge monstrosity of a government. they are very willing to play big daddy for us, as they rob us blind.

ozziesgirl

Thu, Oct-30-03, 15:47

Well, this thread was so darn long but I still want to add my two cents. This will be a long post as well, but I have been reading your responses and while I find it wonderful you have found optimum health, I do not think you are discussing it in a respectful manner. I believe to some, you are being condescending. I am not going to disagree that this way of eating works perfectly for you. However, I do take offense to you not taking anyones opinion. There might not be appropriate order but I am just writing in none particular, stating what comes to mind next. Your statements are in bold.

As you know, i do not buy into studies anywhere near as much as you do. This is the first rude condescending remark that might have been unintentional but TO ME expresses that you might feel superior to all of us because some of us believe the research and not your opinions.

i use my life experience, and others that i know, because at least with these results, i know they can be trusted to be accurate
How do you know that your experiences are to be trusted? What makes your tests any more accurate than a trained scientist? Your own opinion and how you feel is great FOR YOU. However, you might want to take in to account that many people feel absolutely wonderful on the way of life they have chosen. And you should respect that.

i "empirically" put theories to work. i have first-hand empirical knowledge of what i say.
Would you please give me a run down on how you conducted these studies? How do you ensure there is no bias? How do you ensure that your work is capable of generalizing to the entire population. I see your degree is in computer science. I do not doubt that you are an intelligent person, yet I beg to differ when you speak of being able to conduct scientific research. Were your studies longitudinal? Qualitative? Quantative? Where were they performed. Field, survey, lab, controlled? What were your variables? How did you choose your sample of persons? Was it random? And did you choose enough? Please enlighten me.

Also you could let me know how any of your studies are more accurate than any other study performed. If you state that you did not receive any money to skew your findings, well I will just say this. Money may not be your motivator but perhaps the need for being right and proving LCers wrong, would be yours. You are so adamant in your beliefs (I am not saying that is a bad thing but you seem to bring us down for believing as adamantly as you do) that I do not believe you could conduct a non biased study. With all due respect. And as I am sure all scientists have their biases, that is not the point, my point is for you to realize that your work has no more credibility than anyone else's.

If you do not believe in studies, how do you know your lifestyle is good for you? If you say because of the tests I have had, my stamina and the way I feel, well then you should give that same respect to people who follow LC as they have great tests, more stamina and feel better than they have in years. Your studies on yourself and others (again i would like to know the numbers in your study and how you stopped bias from occurring) are the same way we gauge ourselves, the way we feel.

Who does all these tests you speak of? Doctors? Those evil white coats?

what many of you guys do not seem to understand is that my opinions did not just float into my brain one evening.

The same as our opinions did not float into our brains, you seem to think we are all a bunch of uneducated people who come here for a quick fix. Do you think I do not discuss with collegues, professors, researchers? Do you think I did not consume all the research I could find on this? If that is the case, it is quite arrogant of you to think our intelligence could not possibly reach your level. I am not trying to be rude and maybe neither were you but by saying researchers are not up to your "superior intellect" (pharaphrasing) is rude in and of itself and makes me think you are here to antagonize people and not have an intelligent debate.

i have used many books, some well-educated people in the field to toss around ideas. i then used the scientific method and tested stuff. it has been over a long, long time that these ideas have come to me, not by osmosis.
You base a lot of your "knowledge" on books but do you think these authors pulled these ideas out of the air? No they did research, STUDIES. Studies that you do not agree with. And everyone, unless independently wealthy, need funding to perform such research. So you might as well disagree with everything in the books and articles you have read. Do you realize that the educated people you speak of would have probably done their own studies. And if they haven't, well they are not as educated as you believe them to be since it takes independent study and research to gain a masters level education and beyond. That is when you really know your specialty. I will not argue that they are uneducated, if that is what you are going to come back at me with. I am sure they are extremely educated individuals, but perhaps not to the godly level you promote them as. To the level where you can take their word and dismiss years of research. And as for the scientific method you use, I am patiently awaiting your response.

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 don't believe anyone chastised you for NOT using studies but for disregarding them as rubbish. Monetary motivation rubbish. Then you site your own. If you could have at least accepted some of the scientific evidence provided for you, then maybe when you suggested your own, you would not have been thought of as a hypocrite. AGAIN it was not that you didn't site scientific studies but because you thought they meant nothing.

You say you do not believe Dr Atkins and other Lc believers because they do not live that way. Where is your proof of that? Dr. Atkins lived his lifestyle. I don't see what you meant to prove with that statement? Who doens't live their research? Dr. Atkins did not feast of spaghetti and potatoes.

Have you ever thought, that Jack Lalane and yourself might just have great genes that enable you to consume vast amounts of carbs and be healthy?

I also want to add that although you think Jack Lalane (sorry for the spelling) is different and did not do this for money, and LIVED his life that way, well he did make money. Wasn't he the one who put his name beside that juicer? Isn't it common knowledge that it is better to eat the fruit in order to get the nutrients, not the juice? Was that a monetary persuasion? Do you drink a lot of juice?

You became quite rude however with this statement.
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.
And you berated others for taking the low road. He did not die from a cardiac arrest. I believe his cardiac arrest was a few months before his fall, if not the year before. Wow took awhile to kill him. But my grandmother had cancer aboout 6 years ago, so when she dies from natural causes, am I to say that it was because of the cancer that has since been elminated from her body? And for further reference, I could be as healthy as a horse, yet drop dead due to history of severe heart disease in my family, I cannnot possibly do anything to stop it. Actually, come to think of it, it is the exact same disease Dr Atkins had his arrest from. Cardio myopathy. Hmm something to think about before you make any further Ignorant comments.

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.
Sorry, but I did not see anything overwhelming and for you to use the word evidence pertaining to what you have said, makes you look even more misinformed. Studies are crap, yet your opinion and your own studies are what the world should follow? I do, however, commend you for being so unwavering in your beliefs.
I think what Kristine meant when she said write a book, was that why waste your time on here when we believe what we believe and you can believe what you want while HELPING people who WANT to hear what you have to say. Nothing to do with money here, since we all know you are against money making, and doctors and studies (books don't count of course :) )

You even said yourself that we do not live longer because we eat better but because of MEDICAL SCIENCE keeping us alive. So how can you say
...tire of all this comparison to what the caveman used to eat. for some reason, people think that they used to be really healthy 2000 years ago or more. the truth is that one was a grandpa if he made it into his 40's. their lifespan was very short in comparison. they have found egyptian mummies riddled with arthritis, worms, etc. people in the olden days were far from optimum health.
I know we died extremely young, however, you have nothing to prove that it was because they ate a diet high in animal protein. Or otherwise. And if it is the case that we ate vegetarian, your next assumption, then why did we die young?
It is NOT the way we eat

so i suspect they ate vegetation year round, and smaller animals when they could catch them... So if this is the case, they died early because why? They ate carbs and veggies? I don't know what you were trying to get at here. I don't think anyone said the caveman lived forever or were even healthy for that matter, I think they were stating that we are eating what is natural to the human species. And it is only medical science and the abundance of man made things (adequate shelter, better clothing, absence of the huge beasts that use to keep our population down) that keep us going. Although I admit this is pure opinion.

Also, again you SUSPECT, you do not know. So while you will not take claims that they ate animal protien, you stay with your ASSUMPTION that they ate vegetarian? How is this any more correct than what anyone else was saying. Because it was found in a study, does not make it wrong, but because it is what you think, it is right? I am just not comprehending your way of thinking

Near the middle to end of the thread you begin to agree with what everyone has been telling you all along...
but i do not think we are in need of grains in the same way that we are in need of fruits and vegetables.
THEN WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE ATKINS PLAN and other LC plans? You have not made that known to any of us. If we do not need grains the same way then what is your point? You do not know how the atkins plan etc work in the maintenance stages. I know you want to have the last word but I don't think that can happen as you pretty much agree with the logistics of the plan, but want to promote YOUR optimal health plan. If we are in agreement, what was your reason for comng here? To convert?

take a look at the Harvard School of Public Health. they are saying a lot of what i have been saying. limit your saturated fat, but make sure that you get lots of the good fats. about the only 2 high-glycemic carbs that i eat are bananas and potatoes. most produce is placed in the low-glycemic table. We do get lots of good fats, perhaps I cannot speak for everyone but they supplements and fat you speak of, well I consume them as well. Again,w hat are you fighting for? You are chanigng your fight. You statrted with carbs are good, eat lots and lots of tem everyday, now you are speaking of good fats? And you now agree that you badivally stick to low glycemic foods. I think you may just like to disagree with others because when it comes down to it, we mostly agree. You can call it CRAP FOOD, but we are looking at the glycemic index for the list. Same thing, different words. You stay away from them as well.

I think we all agree that the standard american diet is horrible, which is why some of us chose to follow this plan where we limit refined carbs and gradually add in whole grains later, all the while eating a variey of veggies and fruit. You do not seem to respect this way of eating, although many times you agree with much of what is stated.

I think a lot of people took offence to what you are saying only because you think your way is the only way. Yes, you agree to some extent to the LC lifestlye but then you backtrack and say you are right and this is the only right way for the majority. How have you determined this (this question being asked yet again)

You question everything but yourself. What makes you so sure that you are right? You question science, doctors, nutritionists. But not yourself. I know you have stated you have a big ego but that will not get you anywhere in life if you do not question yourself at some point. And I am not saying that you are nothing in life but until we can see others points of view (which at times you seem to do but then revert to your old preaching) we will never be true individuals. I wonder why you came here because if you say that you agree that this plan works for some and you definitely agree diebetics and others with problems should use this, what is your motive?

I wish you all the luck and again, I am happy that this is what works for you. For lots of us, this does not work and ends up being the worst thing we have tried in our lifetime. You are an avid exerciser, I wish to remind you this and the majority of the population do not subscribe that that fitness level nor do they wish to. Moderation is wonderful and healthy as well. Good day and good luck :yay:

Kristine

Thu, Oct-30-03, 16:08

>>"the error in logic that this statement makes, is that of assuming that those who write books are those with the most knowledge."

No, it is the assumption that someone writing a book has information, opinions, and hypotheses backed up with research, hard facts, and/or observations. As Steph pointed out, you dismiss research. You dismiss anyone with dollars in their pocket (which is silly - science isn't free and someone has to pay the bills). The only observations you have are your own. You are the sole subject in your experiment. Doesn't make your hypothesis worth a heck of a lot to anyone but yourself, does it?

hkblue

Thu, Oct-30-03, 18:23

Gymeejet,

You have made numerous comments about how people who eat the way you suggest should live much longer lives. How is it then that my grandmother managed to live to the age of 95 when she did not eat the way you speak of? She was a good ole southern girl who ate lots of "Fried" meats and lots of carbs with butter smeared all over them. Have you ever been to the south and seen a meal on Sunday afternoon? I guarantee you that there are more fats and carbs on one table than you could ever imagine. I would also guarantee you that my grandmother did not take a dietary supplement her entire life. She wouldn't have even had any clue what essential fat was. Therefore, the way my grandmother ate had absolutely nothing to do with the age at which she finally died. She was genetically able to live that long. Plus, the good Lord decided to take her at 95, not 28 or 48 or even 78. Some people are just genetically able to live longer than others. Besides, I personally do not WANT to live to be 140 years old. My grandmother told me on her deathbed that you can actually live too long and I believe her.

As for you looking young because of what you eat, I must say that I am 30 years old and I have had people say that I look like I am 18 years old. I have seen MANY women that I graduated with and they certainly do NOT look like a teenager anymore. In fact, some of them look like they were rode hard and rolled up wet. I am a Dental Hygienist now and I have had patients who have asked me if I was actually old enough to be cleaning their teeth. How could this be possible if your theory is correct? My youthfulness does not come from the foods I eat. It comes from the genes that my Mom gave me. Which, speaking of my Mom....she is your age and has had people ask if she is my sister. Once again, she does not follow your way of eating and she is just as "young" looking as you are. She is also in absolutely terrific shape. She could run circles around several 20 year olds. So what gives? Could it be that your way of eating is not the ONLY way to achieve optimal performance? I believe so. You even said yourself that our bodies are like machines. Cars run on gas, but if you tried to put gas in your computer printer it wouldn't do you much good. Our bodies basically the same way. What is good for one person may not be so good for another.

I would also like to ask is are you a Doctor? You mentioned in a previous post that you "prescribed" a meal plan. I'm not trying to be ugly here, I was just curious since Doctors are usually people who prescrube things.

I also say where someone asked you when you would be releasing your book. I saw that you posted that you are not out to make money. However, if your way of life provides "optimal performance" wouldn't you write a book in hopes of helping people everywhere the way Dr. Atkins did? If you are truly concerned, wouldn't you want to give everyone your valuable "knowledge" so they could themselves get optimal performance? I think the problem would be that if you tried to write a book, you probably would not sell many copies because people in general do not want to listen to someone who rambles on about how this can work unless they have some proof. Our society likes to see proof before they try anything. Do you honestly think I would have even attempted a low carb lifestyle if I did not research and speak with individuals who had already achieved success with it?

My body is not like yours obviously. Like I said in my previoius post, you obviously have never had to struggle with weight, so you will never know. I would be very curious to know exactly how many people you have taken under your wing and actually helped them go from "obese" to "slim and trim" all while achieving "optimal performance".

ccook1

Thu, Oct-30-03, 18:31

YEAH!!!!!!!!! Low Carb might not work for every one but for some of us it is the only way to have optimal health. I've tried all of the other ways, they don't work for me, I have (had) high blood pressure, and moderately high cholesterol, but they are coming down now that I have been following the Healthy for life program by the Heller's. I have energy and no longer crave sweets, and salty snacks anymore, and my weight is coming down, Even though I eat more than I did before, I am just eating right for me now. :agree:

Carolyn

gymeejet

Thu, Oct-30-03, 18:35

As you know, i do not buy into studies anywhere near as much as you do. This is the first rude condescending remark that might have been unintentional but TO ME expresses that you might feel superior to all of us because some of us believe the research and not your opinions.

hi steph, this is not rude, simply a fact. i am not prone to believe things that i read anywhere near as much as most of the rest of the people on this discussion forum.

how you got the idea that i might feel superior because you believe these studies is beyond me. if i were to attempt to place people on some sort of superiority schedule, i doubt i would use their willingness to believe in studies very high on the list, but rather how they treat others.

a better way of saying it is that i do believe many of you are somewhat naive about studies, in that you are not aware of the extent to which they are used for advertising. in other words, you put too much trust in their honesty.

gymeejet

Thu, Oct-30-03, 18:40

i use my life experience, and others that i know, because at least with these results, i know they can be trusted to be accurate
How do you know that your experiences are to be trusted? What makes your tests any more accurate than a trained scientist? Your own opinion and how you feel is great FOR YOU. However, you might want to take in to account that many people feel absolutely wonderful on the way of life they have chosen. And you should respect that.

steph, basically what i meant is that my studies are not biased. most studies have been paid by entities that benefit by the results of the study, so you can be darn sure of what the results will be. i have nothing to gain by what i say - that is the difference.

gymeejet

Thu, Oct-30-03, 18:50

steph,
my nutritional awareness has been an ongoing study for me for 25 years - long before low-carb ever became somewhat popular with the masses, so my ideas were being formed way before i ever even heard of it. it was the low-fat diet that was being highly touted back then. so it is a bit absurd to think that my motivation has to do with proving lcers wrong.

i tried many things for myself. some things did well, others did not. through the years i have also helped others. it turns out that anyone else i helped seemed to have basically the same sort of outcome that i did with things - perhaps 50 people or so. the only thing common about these people is the local environment. while not absolutely conclusive, it is pretty good evidence that my body operates similarly to everyone else, which then allows me to have some validity towards generalizing my results with people in general.

ozziesgirl

Thu, Oct-30-03, 20:13

Actually it is not conclusive evidence whatsoever that 50 or so people reacted the same way as you. For you to say that it is, to say the least, is naive and horrible science. You should know that you cannot say something is conclusive when 50 people (out of how many) follow your results. You have no right to generalize that information to the rest of the population. If you had 10 000 people with the same results, you might not be able to do that. Your sample of people is tainted and so are your results.

And as for proving Lcers wrong, that was a small part of what I had to say. You have had your ideas come to you over 25 years, great. Some people have been struggling with their weight for that long or longer, trying all the wonderful healthy programs that promise "optimum health" only to gain more weight, feel even more tired, and develop diseases etc.

If you agree with some of the stuff this forum promotes, and do not want to prove anyone wrong, then again, what is your reason here? To spread awareness? To convert? What is it? Obviously we will all have to believe what we believe and as you have stated yourself, there are studies on either side that prove each one is good for some people.

ozziesgirl

Thu, Oct-30-03, 20:19

ozziesgirl

Thu, Oct-30-03, 20:24

This is why we should learn how to interpret stats correctly. If we are able to look through the study, not just the findings section and understand them, the researchers view of the findings would be unimportant. It is all how we read and understand the numbers and facts.

EDIT: I just also would like to state that I did not write in any of my posts that I believed the studies. I believe in results and like to see results

TarHeel

Thu, Oct-30-03, 20:32

I am completely astounded that this nonsense thread is sitll alive...over 500 posts later!

Methinks everyone doth protest too much. Just do what you know is right for you....

I've been watching this go on for weeks.....why is everyone encouraging the guy to keep posting here???

Kay

gymeejet

Thu, Oct-30-03, 20:44

[QUOTE=ozziesgirl]

You say you do not believe Dr Atkins and other Lc believers because they do not live that way. Where is your proof of that? Dr. Atkins lived his lifestyle. I don't see what you meant to prove with that statement? Who doens't live their research? Dr. Atkins did not feast of spaghetti and potatoes.

i never said this. are you getting confused with another poster ? i have no idea about what he ate or did not eat.

Have you ever thought, that Jack Lalane and yourself might just have great genes that enable you to consume vast amounts of carbs and be healthy?

i do not consider myself to eat vast amounts of carbs. i take special care to get all the proteins and essential fats that i need.

I also want to add that although you think Jack Lalane (sorry for the spelling) is different and did not do this for money, and LIVED his life that way, well he did make money. Wasn't he the one who put his name beside that juicer? Isn't it common knowledge that it is better to eat the fruit in order to get the nutrients, not the juice? Was that a monetary persuasion? Do you drink a lot of juice?

jack did make money, but most of his wealth was way after his deeds. actually, i believe that drinking fresh juice is probably better than eating the fruit, simply because we may not digest and absorb as much of the fruit, as we do the juice. while i own a juice press, i do not use much, because of the inconvenience. i do buy fresh juice concentrates, and use them in my workout drinks.

You became quite rude however with this statement.
[font=Arial]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.
And you berated others for taking the low road. He did not die from a cardiac arrest. I believe his cardiac arrest was a few months before his fall, if not the year before. Wow took awhile to kill him. But my grandmother had cancer aboout 6 years ago, so when she dies from natural causes, am I to say that it was because of the cancer that has since been elminated from her body? And for further reference, I could be as healthy as a horse, yet drop dead due to history of severe heart disease in my family, I cannnot possibly do anything to stop it. Actually, come to think of it, it is the exact same disease Dr Atkins had his arrest from. Cardio myopathy. Hmm something to think about before you make any further Ignorant comments.

i admit i was being a bit sarcastic. but the truth is that no one really knows the situation about his death. and while i did not know much about him, i have read many people say that he was not that healthy looking of an individual, so i find it curious why he became so popular. but let's not dwell on atkins as a person - it is not that relevant to nutrition, on a whole.

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.
Sorry, but I did not see anything overwhelming and for you to use the word evidence pertaining to what you have said, makes you look even more misinformed. Studies are crap, yet your opinion and your own studies are what the world should follow? I do, however, commend you for being so unwavering in your beliefs.

you must have missed a lot. most every society i showed, had lower consumptions of saturated fat than does the lc diet.

I think what Kristine meant when she said write a book, was that why waste your time on here when we believe what we believe and you can believe what you want while HELPING people who WANT to hear what you have to say. Nothing to do with money here, since we all know you are against money making, and doctors and studies (books don't count of course :) )

i started this thread, thinking i was talking to the run of the mill lcer, not mostly diabetics and obese people. my opening comment was aimed at healthy people who had not yet developed problems with digesting sugar, and i still stand by it. if you guys want me to leave, then simply admit that while the lc diet may be best for diabetics, it is not best for the average healthy person.

I know we died extremely young, however, you have nothing to prove that it was because they ate a diet high in animal protein. Or otherwise. And if it is the case that we ate vegetarian, your next assumption, then why did we die young?
It is NOT the way we eat

you are misconstruing what i said. i certainly never said that cavemen died young because they ate a diet high in animal protein. again, are you confusing me with someone else ? if you recall, i said that i have no nutritional complaints with wild game, which would have been the only type of animal that our caveman could have eaten. there were no supermarkets filled with meat products with tons of saturated fat.

so i suspect they ate vegetation year round, and smaller animals when they could catch them... So if this is the case, they died early because why? They ate carbs and veggies? I don't know what you were trying to get at here. I don't think anyone said the caveman lived forever or were even healthy for that matter, I think they were stating that we are eating what is natural to the human species. And it is only medical science and the abundance of man made things (adequate shelter, better clothing, absence of the huge beasts that use to keep our population down) that keep us going. Although I admit this is pure opinion.

your first statement is one that i did make - my suspicion of what they ate. but i have no idea why you are attempting to use it as some sort of evidence about cavemen dying young. if you expound on what you are thinking, perhaps i could try to give you my take. but at this point, you seem to be coming out of left field.

Also, again you SUSPECT, you do not know. So while you will not take claims that they ate animal protien, you stay with your ASSUMPTION that they ate vegetarian? How is this any more correct than what anyone else was saying. Because it was found in a study, does not make it wrong, but because it is what you think, it is right? I am just not comprehending your way of thinking

again, i have no idea what you are talking about. let me tell you what i do believe, so perhaps we can get back on the same path. i find it doubtful that they ate large amounts of large game, simply because it would have been too dangerous. it would have been done only out of last resort. even as scavengers, they would face the reality of the killer coming back, since obviously it would not forget about its earlier kill. so i suspect they ate whatever they could, with the least amount of danger. which again, for the most part, would have been smaller animals and plant material.

Near the middle to end of the thread you begin to agree with what everyone has been telling you all along...
but i do not think we are in need of grains in the same way that we are in need of fruits and vegetables.
THEN WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE ATKINS PLAN and other LC plans? You have not made that known to any of us. If we do not need grains the same way then what is your point? You do not know how the atkins plan etc work in the maintenance stages. I know you want to have the last word but I don't think that can happen as you pretty much agree with the logistics of the plan, but want to promote YOUR optimal health plan. If we are in agreement, what was your reason for comng here? To convert?

you are misrepresenting me, by making it sound like i changed my mind. i did not. i never thought that grains were as important as produce. my main and only problem with low-carb diets is what i have already stated many, many times - too much saturated fat, and not enough carbs. my reason for coming here was simply to tell people that they are eating too much saturated fat, that can cause blockages, and not enough sugar, that runs our brains, and our exercising.

take a look at the Harvard School of Public Health. they are saying a lot of what i have been saying. limit your saturated fat, but make sure that you get lots of the good fats. about the only 2 high-glycemic carbs that i eat are bananas and potatoes. most produce is placed in the low-glycemic table. We do get lots of good fats, perhaps I cannot speak for everyone but they supplements and fat you speak of, well I consume them as well. Again,w hat are you fighting for? You are chanigng your fight. You statrted with carbs are good, eat lots and lots of tem everyday, now you are speaking of good fats? And you now agree that you badivally stick to low glycemic foods. I think you may just like to disagree with others because when it comes down to it, we mostly agree. You can call it CRAP FOOD, but we are looking at the glycemic index for the list. Same thing, different words. You stay away from them as well.

you are confusing issues here. the harvard school was a study that supported my viewpoint on saturated fat. i have spoken of essential fats from early on. i said that i basically eat the foods that the harvard school places on the low gi list, since all but potatoes and bananas were placed on the low list. the high list for them, was all of what i call crap food. you guys, on the other hand, place carrots on the list of foods to limit. so the harvard school defines low and hi gi foods, much differently than do you lcers. like i have also stated many times - i do not disagree with your diets except for one huge point - the saturated fat in it, and the lack of sugar. the lc diet discovered that we are abusing sugar, so instead of using it at the levels that are best, it swung the pendulum way on the other side, by cutting it down to way too low.

I think we all agree that the standard american diet is horrible, which is why some of us chose to follow this plan where we limit refined carbs and gradually add in whole grains later, all the while eating a variey of veggies and fruit. You do not seem to respect this way of eating, although many times you agree with much of what is stated.

actually, on the contrary, i like what you have just described. most of you guys just eat too much saturated fat, and not enough carbs. when i read protein power, i almost barfed when he touted eat as much bacon as you want, but watch those nasty carrots. that is just laughable to me.

I think a lot of people took offence to what you are saying only because you think your way is the only way. Yes, you agree to some extent to the LC lifestlye but then you backtrack and say you are right and this is the only right way for the majority. How have you determined this (this question being asked yet again)

i would say it is the only "best" way for the majority.

You question everything but yourself. What makes you so sure that you are right? You question science, doctors, nutritionists. But not yourself. I know you have stated you have a big ego but that will not get you anywhere in life if you do not question yourself at some point. And I am not saying that you are nothing in life but until we can see others points of view (which at times you seem to do but then revert to your old preaching) we will never be true individuals. I wonder why you came here because if you say that you agree that this plan works for some and you definitely agree diebetics and others with problems should use this, what is your motive?

others may have said i have a big ego - i did not. i guess i feel so sure i am correct is that i am getting results that no one else is claiming to get. at 48, i have not lost a step in quickness, nor an ounce of energy, as compared to 21. and i want to share that with others, so that they can get equally good results, should they choose to follow that advice.

[QUOTE]

Kristine

Thu, Oct-30-03, 22:58

gymeejet

Thu, Oct-30-03, 23:49

>>"i started this thread, thinking i was talking to the run of the mill lcer, not mostly diabetics and obese people."

I hope you realize your inherent error here: how many thin, non-diabetics without any sugar problems do you think are registered here? From my two years of observing this forum, obesity and/or blood sugar abnormalities are currently the main catalyst for people adopting this way of eating.

kristine, i do not know any diabetic people. i do know tons of people, mostly females, who look to lc diets to lose those last 5 pounds.

>"my opening comment was aimed at healthy people who had not yet developed problems with digesting sugar,"

Again - in a generation of people brought up on high fructose corn syrup, do you really delude yourself that the average North American has perfectly intact pancreatic function, and no insulin resistance?

>>"if you guys want me to leave, then simply admit that while the lc diet may be best for diabetics, it is not best for the average healthy person."

Again - show me that average healthy person. Again - why should people WAIT until they're diagnosed with diabetes before they try to desperately make up for the damage already done?

they should not. my diet would fix that, and best of all, it would not happen in the first place. if they wait too long, perhaps they do need to go on very low carbs. again, look at my statement - the optimum diet for health. in other words, what should the average person do to attain their best health. so once again, if you want to admit that the lc diet is a fix for diabetic people, no problem. when you try to push it as the best diet for non-diabetics, then we will continue to clash, because there is too much saturated fat, and not enough sugar.

gymeejet

Thu, Oct-30-03, 23:58

steph, in what way are you suggesting that my sample of people is tainted ? because they all live in the same environment ?

Hellistile

Fri, Oct-31-03, 13:01

I have a question about the following quote in one of your responses which went:

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

My question is this. The Inuit (one example only) ate almost nothing but anmial fat, yet they suffered no modern day disease and did not die of malnutrition. If fat has no nutritional value, how did they survive?

BTW perhaps you could also check out my response to Infuriator. For some reason I get the feeling that you think Low-Carbing and Atkins and eating meat are something new and "faddish" that was foisted on unsuspecting people only recently within the last couple of decades.

Eating meat and fat has shown over hundreds of thousands of years to be the optimal way of eating. No research is required to prove this because it's a fact. Vegetarian diets do not have such a long history and, in fact, have proven nothing in the area of optimal nutrition. Vegan babies are dying from failure to thrive, no research is required to read these headlines in newspapers. Vegan parents of infants who died are being prosecuted. And the scary part is that these infant deaths are on the rise. Humanity's turning away from animal meat and fat and adopting more and more carbohydrates is starting to show in death statistics that are increasing at alarming rates. Besides a carbohydrate is a carbohydrate is a carbohydrate no matter what name it goes under.

ozziesgirl

Fri, Oct-31-03, 15:13

you must have missed a lot. most every society i showed, had lower consumptions of saturated fat than does the lc diet.

I didn't miss it, I saw that you stated what other societies ate and whatnot. I was not talking about what you stated about other cultures, I was stating the fact of YOUR research. As in it being NOT RELIABLE. Of course I am assuming since you never told me how you arrived to your sample, that YES, it is probably tainted. If you picked 50 or so people off your block, then yes it is tainted. You never answered my question. I am only left to assume. And the number, unless the sample is perfectly picked, is NOT enough to generalize to the general population. What were you testing anyways? What was your hypothesis?

Unlike you, I am not trying to prove anything. I am not telling you that you are wrong and I am right. I am just simply pointing out that you have no valuable point to make,. You can state statistics until they are coming out your ears, I still will not know what you are trying to do here. Also other cultures are just that, different from us, we have differently lifestyles now and if you know anything about stats, you will know that many other factors could contribute to other outcomes. So pinpointing one reason (their eating habits) for the result (living long/short lives) will possibly be wrong.

I am just trying to get it through to you that you HAVE NO VALIDITY in anything you say. You say you tested it on you and others but don't let me know what kind of tests and everything else I asked was ignored as well. And you didn't produce results for us, just told us we were wrong or told us your study came out agreeing with what you are saying. How in the world is anyone supposed to believe you? Or even just accept your statements?

You do what you want and I will do the same. That is what is great about freedom, we can all believe what we want. I seriously don't know why you are wasting your time.

If you look at any GI book, it is the same listing? I don't know how you would get one differently. Posting the Harvard study was no my intention, I had another quote you made about GI, when you called it crap food and we called it high GI. Most of what we both state are similar.

actually, on the contrary, i like what you have just described. most of you guys just eat too much saturated fat, and not enough carbs. when i read protein power, i almost barfed when he touted eat as much bacon as you want, but watch those nasty carrots. that is just laughable to me.

First of all, you read one book. I did not read that book so I cannot comment on the bacon statement. However, I am sure you are pharaphrasing there. And my goodness, get away from the carrots, there are lots of other vegetables in the world that do what carrots do and more. So it will not be like we are missing out on valuable nutrients if we limit those. And I do include some carrots, since they are in my mixed veggies but do not eat a ton. I am sure complete morons are not reading these books (after all they can read) and I did not take anything Dr Atkins said as an excuse for stuffing myself. I eat chicken and tuna mostly because I like it. I don't want to eat pounds of bacon.

started this thread, thinking i was talking to the run of the mill lcer, not mostly diabetics and obese people. my opening comment was aimed at healthy people who had not yet developed problems with digesting sugar, and i still stand by it. if you guys want me to leave, then simply admit that while the lc diet may be best for diabetics, it is not best for the average healthy person.

Yes we do want you to leave, for the simple reason that you are so arrogant as to not take anyone else's opinion. If you were respectful, then it might be interesting to discuss differing opinions. Why would we admit anything to you? What is there to admit? If I feel better, look better and have TONS of energy on this plan, what kind of authority do you have to tell me differently? You are not a doctor, you are a computer scientist, you are not a nutritionist, you have only tested this on yourself (oh right and about 50 other people) If you did not come off as so superior (yes I do get that vibe from you), tell us we're WRONG, and came about it in a civilized manner, maybe we would have taken your opinion into consideration. I already believe we should live our lives the way we feel is best. But you come on this forum, claiming you HAVE to be right. It doesn't make sense and it is just plain rude.

I am not miscontruing what you say, maybe you are coming off that way to me in the way you are typing?? I thought I remembered you saying something along the lines that you belive the peopel who put their theories in to practice. Maybe you didn't say that but I do not know anyone else who would. You basically said that in response to Dr. Atkins book so this is why I used the Dr. as an example. I mean, how did HE not put HIS theory into practice. While Jack Lalane ate what he did, Dr Atkins ate what he believed in. Just because he was a doctor and wrote a book (that helped MILLIONS by the way) does not mean he was a moron and didn't know what he was talking about. That was my only point, maybe you didn't say it and if you did maybe you didn't mean it in the way I took it, but I did take it that way.

What do you eat in a day? Maybe I missed that but I would like to know how many carbs you eat everyday and what types of carbs in addition to everything else. What is this diet you prescribe? Keep in mind that the "majority" do not exercise vigorously. I am a health young woman but I KNOW for a fact that high carb, lower fat does not work for me. I did the weightwatchers thing, I did the food guide. And it did not help me lose anything. Once when I was a poor student, I even lived on plain brown rice for about three months :-). Not a pount lost. And if I have more energy and feel wonderful on this plan, I will not go back to anything else. I respect your opinions, you are entitled to them but please respect everyone else's. I know you have already stated that you believe this plan is good for diabetics etc but I like the way I feel so whay can't you just accept that?

ozziesgirl

Fri, Oct-31-03, 15:14

Hellistile You have stated some really interesting, albeit scary information. Thank you for that.

Lisa N

Fri, Oct-31-03, 15:27

You do what you want and I will do the same. That is what is great about freedom, we can all believe what we want. I seriously don't know why you are wasting your time.

Hi Ozziesgirl! In response to the above quote as to why...personally, I think he just likes the attention he's getting. Why else would someone come back and keep posting on a thread that nobody has responded to for several days when nearly everyone who had been responding had already said that they were done?
When it comes down to it, Gymee has absolutely NO scientific recorded evidence that any of his theories work. An untested, unproven, unrecorded theory is worthless basically and as you've already pointed out, even IF he had 50 people (something else he can't prove without documentation) to which this had been applied, we have no documented results or even any documented process as well as the sample being too small to generalize to the entire population.
He's preaching to the totally wrong crowd here because, as Kristine has already pointed out, nearly everyone on this board has already developed some form of metabolic disturbance. If his goal is to reach people before that occurs, his time would be much better spent on a forum such as alt.support.nutrition, although I doubt that he'd survive very long there without any written scientific documentation that his theories work. :rolleyes:

p.s. about "all that saturated fat" we eat. Aside from there being no solid proof that saturated fat is harmful in any way when combined with a low carb intake, according to Fitday, my averages run between 20 and 24% saturated which means that 76-80% of the fats that I eat are poly, mono or unsaturated with a good proportion of those coming from Omega-3.

if you guys want me to leave, then simply admit that while the lc diet may be best for diabetics, it is not best for the average healthy person.

Admit that you're wrong and then I'll go away? Seems to me that this has stopped being about nutritional principles and is now just a game.

gymeejet

Fri, Oct-31-03, 16:37

[QUOTE=Hellistile]I have a question about the following quote in one of your responses which went:

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

i did not say that fat has no nutritional values. all fats carry 9 calories of nutritional value. i said that for the most part, they do not have much in the way of phytonutrients. this is especially true for the types of fats purchased in western supermarkets, which is where most people get their food.

it is said that the large amount of omega-3 in the inuit diet is what keeps their arteries clean. i have no argument with that. by the way, omega-3 is one of the essential fatty acids. recall my mantra - AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REMAINDER GOOD CARBS.

you guys keep harping on animal/vegetarian. yet i have never once used that as any sort of nutritional argument. i simply talk about amount (i.e. grams) of protein, as in an ample amount.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-09/ajoc-nfa091901.php

yellowman

Fri, Oct-31-03, 18:32

Wow, 35 pages of this painful thread. Hope I don't get banned for this one, but:

Please, don't feed the trolls.

That is all, and good day

ozziesgirl

Fri, Oct-31-03, 19:16

Lisa, you are right, I know his intentions are purely attention seeking. I have no idea why I succumbed to this but thought if someone is going to try to prove a point with their "research", they might want to do it right.

I agree about the fats too, mine are the same way on fitday.com

You seem extremely knowledgeable about this way of life. I am sure I will learn a lot more from you.

And yes, I too am done here. I never came on this thread to prove low carb is right and everything else is wrong. I am not that egocentric, I think there are many ways for different people. Hopefully I will see you more on the other support forums, Lisa! Bye

Lisa N

Fri, Oct-31-03, 19:26

Wow, 35 pages of this painful thread. Hope I don't get banned for this one, but:

Please, don't feed the trolls.

That is all, and good day

Yelloman...opposing views are welcome in the war zone as that is exactly what it was created for. They do, however, need to be backed up with credible science that is verifiable through more than just hearsay. However, there comes a time when stomping your feet and insisting "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right (and all the rest of you are wrong)" gets ummm...tedious.

gymeejet

Fri, Oct-31-03, 20:45

[QUOTE=bvtaylor]
ON ASSESSING HEALTH - basic bloodwork testing a full metabolic panel including all the T's, with lipids (HDL, LDL, Triglycerides, etc.) blood sugar fasting and H1C, kidney, liver function, potassium, calcium, sodium, plus blood pressure, pulse, and hormone levels, should give a pretty basic but round picture of an individual's general health. Of course there are exceptions, nuances, more involved and accurate tests, etc. But it's better, I think, than strictly looking at body fat and making assumptions.
QUOTE]

hi bv,
absolutely. i did not mean to insinuate that body fat was the be-all to end-all. in fact, quite the contrary. how many times have you heard me say that optimum health is all about our bodies functioning the way they were designed, not about some prescribed weight level ? extra weight is an extra load the body needs to carry, and is detrimental towards the goal of optimum health. but there are many things, like what you mentioned above, that can cause greater problems than excess weight.

the bmi gives extremely inaccurate results, and thereby is a very false indicator for people. it may be easy to do, but just is not a good tool in any sense of the word. the 3 body fat tests are water dunking, electrical resistance, and calipers. while all have some inaccuracies, all of them do a pretty good job for most people.

gymeejet

Sat, Nov-01-03, 22:28

[QUOTE=bvtaylor]
ON OPTIMAL NUTRITION - This is so individualized, even you, yourself, recognized that people who sit at a desk have different nutritional needs than someone who has a very physical lifestyle. This is why the food pyramids are difficult to make one-size-fits all. We must consider how dietary composition does affect an individual via:

1) metabolism
2) energy level and subsequent physical activity
3) the relationship with individual genetics
4) the absorption of nutrients that can affect the other three
QUOTE]

hi bv,
i agree with this, as well. remember, my basic formula, does not arrive at the same levels of protein, essential fat, and carbs for everyone, nor does it necessarily come out the same for even one person, on a day-to-day basis. i start out trying to find out the proper amount of protein and essential fat to bring optimum health to the individual. this is because these numbers are more stable, in that they do not tend to vary as much, as the amount of carbohydrates needed.

once an individual arrives at the protein and essential fats that he needs, then i just tell him to eat the rest natural carbs, and allow his satiety/caloric needs take over. this does assume an ongoing exercise program, in order to feel optimally. as the individual becomes more in tune with his body, he will be able to tell whether he needs more protein/essential fats, or more carbs. for example, perhaps one is feeling a bit sluggish, or out of kilts. he eats one of the 2 - either it makes him feel better, if he made the correct choice, or it does not make him feel better, if he makes the incorrect choice. as time passes, the individual is better able to understand the signals that his body is giving him, and ingests accordingly.

this is why i do not prescribe to the 3 food group percentages. when we are in tune with our body, we begin to eat that which the body is asking of us. whatever the 3 percentages are for any particular day is just basically trivial knowledge.

the main difference between our mantras is that while we may both prescribe to AMPLE PROTEIN AND AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, the remainder for me is GOOD CARBS, while the remainder for the lc diet is MOSTLY SATURATED FAT WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF LOW-CALORIE CARBOHYDRATE FOODS.

ozziesgirl

Sun, Nov-02-03, 00:20

good then, thanks for reiterating that point yet again.

Lisa N

Sun, Nov-02-03, 06:34

while the remainder for the lc diet is MOSTLY SATURATED FAT

when did 20-24% become "mostly"? Must be "new math". ;) :lol:

Kristine

Sun, Nov-02-03, 11:26

hkblue

Sun, Nov-02-03, 14:30

First of all gymeejet, your ramblings are quite funny. You come in here like you are the only one who has any idea of what he/she is talking about. You are definitely out numbered and will not accomplish anything by posting in here. Everytime you post something stupid, we go out and research further, only to find something that supports our subject and not yours.

Secondly, how many people in our society do you actually think meet the amount of protein, fats, and carbohydrates that they actually need. I have known several people who weren't even close to the amount that they should have until they started Atkins. Last time I checked, McDonalds, Wendys, and Taco Bell are not balanced meals at all. A little slice of meat or chicken with a buttload of carbohydrates. You always say that our meals aren't balanced on Atkins. I say Bulls~~t. I eat healthier now than I ever have before, especially now that I know what was hindering my weight loss. The only difference is that I eat eggs for breakfast every once in a while. You absurd low carb objectors only see Atkins as Eggs, Cheese, Red Meat, REd Meat, Red Meat, Red Meat, Red Meat. Oh and did I mention Red meat? You talk about how "bad" this lifestyle is for me. Well, I should say that all those people who are eating fast food, tons of pasta, 5 slices of pizza at a time are the people you need to be talking to, not us.

The fact is that we eat alot of things that you so called "healthy" people do. I eat Asaragus, Squash, Cottage Cheese, Tomatoes, Chicken, Lettuce, Green Peppers, Mushrooms, Avocados, etc. Did I mention that I also eat fruit? It is always hilarious to me when I have someone try to tell me that I can not eat fruit on a controlled carb lifestyle. Anyone who says that to me has not idea in the world what they are talking about. I do not use sour cream or butter, And NO we do not eat until our pants are popping at the seams. Dr. Atkins even stated in his book that you should only eat until you are satisfied and then put the food away. He never once says eat all the meat in the world that you want, oh and by the way, don't bother to add vegetables because you don't need them. That is the FURTHEST thing from what he advocated. The only things that I do not eat now are "white and fluffy foods". Health specialists have said for decades how bad those types of foods are for you anyway.

Did you catch what I said in the previous paragragh? I mentioned the words controlled carb, which is exactly what Dr. Atkins recommends after you pass through the first couple of phases of Atkins. Controlled carbs does not mean that you never eat carbs. If we did that, we would NEVER be able to eat anything but meat and water. Oh, that's right....that is what you think we do already anyway. Boy are you guys wrong. I NEVER have more than 1 serving of meat at a meal. I eat more of the "good" carbs - vegetables in all my meals.

I have heard people say time and time again that this diet is not balanced enough. How is my meal unbalanced and what is it based on? The ancient food pyramid that claims we should eat a ton of carbohydrates and use fats sparingly. Ummm...aren't you the one who says that you "NEED" essential fats? I don't think I have EVER seen the food pyramid say that you should use fats sparingly with the exception of Essential fats. Granted, I do take my essential fats daily, along with a heck of alot of other vitamins. One reason being because Dr. Atkins claimed that you should not even think about doing this way of lifestyle unless you were planning on taking multivitamins. No, I do not buy his brand of vitamins either. In fact, I wouldn't necessarily have to buy ONE thing of Dr. Atkins products if I didn't want to. None of us have to do this because he provided us with valuable information that we could use when we go to the grocery store.

So, Mr. Know-it-all about nutrition. Exactly what kind of meal plan do you suggest that we all use, since the one we are following doesn't make you happy? Enlighten me with your "knowledge". Oh yeah, I forgot, you so called nutritionist or personal trainers like to do what? CHARGE MONEY don't you? Last I checked none of you give advice about nutritional matters without charging around the tune of $400 a month.

gymeejet

Sun, Nov-02-03, 18:45

5) sex & age of a person (and hormones) - this is going to seriously vary nutrition analysis. A young man of 19 has different nutritional needs, moreover different acceptable body fat, than a 55 year old woman going through menopause.

hi bv,
well our thyroid is our main metabolic regulator, so that hormone certainly plays a large role, at least in the AMOUNT of calories we need.

many of our hormones are very generalized, so while they may not have direct effects on our needs, they do so, at least indirectly. for example, testosterone is what allows our bodies to make muscle. and if we have lots of muscle mass, that changes our needs, when compared to when we did not have as much muscle.

estrogen played a role in creating the number of fat cells that we have, and fat cells have a lot of estrogen receptors.

were you thinking of any particular examples ?

the best that we can do is gear ourselves towards allowing our body to perform the way that it was made. if one's body is made to work at 22% body fat, said person is not gonna be able to stay at 16% for any length of time.

gymeejet

Mon, Nov-03-03, 16:11

hkblue

Mon, Nov-03-03, 18:29

My therefore statement made very much "logical sense". I stated that my grandmother did NOT eat well. I stated that she ate good ole country cooking, in fact it is exactly the way that many obese people do here in the south. My "therefore" came along because I was making a point that she lived to that age BECAUSE of genetics, NOT her eating patterns. The main exception is that she had the genetic predisposition to live a longer life. She did not live longer because she ate this healthy diet packed full of essential fats and good carbs. When my grandmother made the comment about living too long she was not even sick, so your comment about someone making that statement because they are sick is absurd.

As for knowing what my grandmother ate, yes, as a matter of fact I did know what she ate. I happened to be very very close to my grandmother and knew alot of the things that she ate. No, I did not know what she ate when she was 20, but I did know what she ate when she was in her golden years. People who are set in their ways do not normally change their eating patterns once they reach a certain age unless they are made to do so. In my grandmother's case, she did not have diabetes, or high blood pressure, so she never had to change her eating patterns. This is how I know what she ate and what she did not eat. Point blank, it was NOT healthy and that was the point I was making in my previous post.

Now answer my question from my other post. Exactly what do you suggest that we eat since what we are doing does not suit you?

gymeejet

Tue, Nov-04-03, 11:20

As for you looking young because of what you eat, I must say that I am 30 years old and I have had people say that I look like I am 18 years old. I have seen MANY women that I graduated with and they certainly do NOT look like a teenager anymore. In fact, some of them look like they were rode hard and rolled up wet. I am a Dental Hygienist now and I have had patients who have asked me if I was actually old enough to be cleaning their teeth. How could this be possible if your theory is correct? My youthfulness does not come from the foods I eat. It comes from the genes that my Mom gave me.

congratulations, it does seem as if you received longevity in your genes. you are probably a bit too young still, to determine what, if any, kind of lifestyle changes may be necessary to maximize the longevity that you have. i was almost 40 before my body was telling me to make some changes.

i am not sure why you assumed that i did not believe that genes was an important part of the equation. i actually gave it a 40-year spread, as this was the basis for my range of between 100 and 140.

hkblue

Tue, Nov-04-03, 19:29

You try having 2 children via c-section and see if your body isn't at a point where you MUST make changes to provide longevity. No, I may not be very old, but I do know exactly what it feels like to be overweight, out of shape, and just plain BLAH. I also know what it feels like to lose the weight and feel good about myself. I prefer the later thank you.

gymeejet

Wed, Nov-05-03, 17:51

Gymeejet,

Which, speaking of my Mom....she is your age and has had people ask if she is my sister. Once again, she does not follow your way of eating and she is just as "young" looking as you are. She is also in absolutely terrific shape. She could run circles around several 20 year olds. So what gives? Could it be that your way of eating is not the ONLY way to achieve optimal performance? I believe so. You even said yourself that our bodies are like machines. Cars run on gas, but if you tried to put gas in your computer printer it wouldn't do you much good. Our bodies basically the same way. What is good for one person may not be so good for another.

I would also like to ask is are you a Doctor? You mentioned in a previous post that you "prescribed" a meal plan. I'm not trying to be ugly here, I was just curious since Doctors are usually people who prescrube things.

i am glad to see that your mom is doing well. while there may be many roads leading to the city, usually one of them is the smoothest. no, i am not a doctor.

gymeejet

Fri, Nov-07-03, 01:00

Gymeejet,
I also say where someone asked you when you would be releasing your book. I saw that you posted that you are not out to make money. However, if your way of life provides "optimal performance" wouldn't you write a book in hopes of helping people everywhere the way Dr. Atkins did? If you are truly concerned, wouldn't you want to give everyone your valuable "knowledge" so they could themselves get optimal performance? I think the problem would be that if you tried to write a book, you probably would not sell many copies because people in general do not want to listen to someone who rambles on about how this can work unless they have some proof. Our society likes to see proof before they try anything. Do you honestly think I would have even attempted a low carb lifestyle if I did not research and speak with individuals who had already achieved success with it?

i hope you take to heart what i am about to say, because it may someday prove to be a nice bit of wisdom for you. people who publish books are able to do so, because they either have money, connections, or what they have to say will make more money for those that already have lots. in other words, the books that we read are not based upon the value of what is being written, but rather whether those books will sell / help promote something that has positive financial implications for those who are paying to have the book published. like i have said before, most of what we read, and most "studies" have financial implications.

there is no one that would publish what i have to say, because there is no money to be made from it. in fact, just the opposite. i am attempting to get people to take these tests, so that they can really find out what is going on within their bodies. i am also attempting to get them to eat lots of natural foods. each of us can become our own doctor, just as i have done for myself. i have never been to a doctor in my adult life, for any type of sickness. i have never had an antibiotic in my adult life, nor have i ever taken a prescription. do you think the pharmaceutical industry would like my word to be practiced ? do you think the AMA wants people to be able to take care of themselves ? or how about the fast food business ? or the supermarkets ? all these businesses would sorely lose, if tomorrow everyone started practicing what i am preaching.

as far as a book, anyone can write it. words on a piece of paper don't prove anything. all of this is 3rd hand knowledge that we have no idea whether any bit of it is true or not.

if i had lots of money, what i might do is make a video of my workout routine, where people could see with their own eyes, and then make up their own minds whether what they are seeing might have relevance in their own lives, as far as their health is concerned. in other words, they could ask themselves the question "does perhaps gymeejet's energy levels have something to do with his overall nutrition, and how might said person apply that in said person's own life".

gymeejet

Sat, Nov-08-03, 18:42

If you agree with some of the stuff this forum promotes, and do not want to prove anyone wrong, then again, what is your reason here? To spread awareness? To convert? What is it? Obviously we will all have to believe what we believe and as you have stated yourself, there are studies on either side that prove each one is good for some people.

it depends on what you mean about proving someone wrong. no, not on a personal level, but certainly on an issue-level. the lc diet promotes/allows more saturated fat than possibly any other diet ever, with perhaps the eskimo diet. i showed you where the east africans and other native groups are not eating nearly as much saturated fat as the lcers. neither did the cavemen or more ancient societies.

so while your group continues to maintain that it is the best diet for people, i will continue to maintain that it is not. it allows too much saturated fat, and not enough sugar. instead of taking a moderate stance, you have swung the pendulum much too far in the opposite direction.

ozziesgirl

Sat, Nov-08-03, 22:51

We do not maintain that this is the best diet for people but it may be the best for us, personally
I honestly do not see how you could have missed that. I am not trying to get anyone to follow this plan, I am doing what feels best for me. I only responded to this because you are so far off in you thinking. Who on this forum said that this was the best diet for all people? If I recall correctly, it was you who said YOURS was supposedly the "best"

Also, please do not lump all low carb plans in to one close minded statement, there are many other plans out there that promote low fat as well so if you are talking about Atkins, state atkins.

You still did not state why you were still here and oh yes, what your eating regimen was. Good bye

gymeejet

Mon, Nov-10-03, 02:19

[QUOTE=ozziesgirl]Actually it is not conclusive evidence whatsoever that 50 or so people reacted the same way as you. For you to say that it is, to say the least, is naive and horrible science. You should know that you cannot say something is conclusive when 50 people (out of how many) follow your results. You have no right to generalize that information to the rest of the population. If you had 10 000 people with the same results, you might not be able to do that. Your sample of people is tainted and so are your results.
QUOTE]

you might want to try tossing a coin 50 times, and seeing how long it takes to get 50 heads or 50 tails. as far as the sample being tainted or biased, let me just tell you a little bit about it. i never claimed it was perfect, but i think it was pretty good, considering the high percentage of same results i would get.

first, i made it clear from the beginning that everyone was from my same geographical location. but people sought me out, not the other way around. whether at work, eating at the restaurant, or working out, i might get asked some nutritional question, and one thing led to another. but over the years, there have been both male and female, as well as different nationalities.

so i feel pretty comfortable with those results which had a high percentage one way or the other.

ozziesgirl

Mon, Nov-10-03, 16:52

you might want to try tossing a coin 50 times, and seeing how long it takes to get 50 heads or 50 tails. as far as the sample being tainted or biased, let me just tell you a little bit about it.

That still does not generalize to the population. And also we are not talking about coins. That is probability, we are talking about research. Research where you can say that a particular outcome can be derived from most of the population.

i never claimed it was perfect, but i think it was pretty good, considering the high percentage of same results i would get.

Well it is not perfect research yet you think you can tell everyone that this is the best way for them to eat?

That is great that you feel good about your results. You still have not posted them or told us anything you did to get your results. Nor how you eat yourself. I don't know if you want an award or something but I am not going to ooh and ahh over non existant work.

gymeejet

Tue, Nov-11-03, 13:32

I agree with you that there is money being put under the nose of researchers in order for results to be skewed.

I never argued that, I am arguing how your studies could be accurate. For you and your peace of mind, yes but nothing more.

You cannot claim that your studies are not biased because you are the one conducting them are you not? I am not saying you would intentionally skew the results but sometimes we perpetuate bias and not even realize it.

according to "studies" "about studies" (LOL), there is always some sort of bias, as we human beings are not perfect. but this is not why i don't trust them. i refer to the DELIBERATE bias - that which gives the "study" a predetermined outcome. i consider it to be a fraudulent type of advertising.

my goal was simply to make my body as healthy as possible. so while i may have had some natural bias, i was quite open-minded, since i had nothing to prove, nor nothing to sell. i learned the hard way that we do have essential fats, and even though at the time i had a horrible bias against fat, it did not deter me in the least from adding lots of essential fats to my diet, because through my studies, it showed every time that they were needed in our diets. in other words, essential fats always helped people, which also told me that on the average, most people are very deficient in them. for if they were not deficient, not much would be gained from taking them - since they would already have plenty.

ozziesgirl

Tue, Nov-11-03, 23:13

I love how you are avoiding all of my questions, good day gymejet

gymeejet

Wed, Nov-12-03, 18:16

Let me ask you this? What CAN we rely on? How do we get our information. We all have to get it some way and if testing your body works for you, why can it not work for the rest of us. If this works for them, let them be.

let them be ? you make it seem as if i have them tied to a chair, and torturing them. i simply am putting words on paper, and letting others decide for themselves if said information seems good or not.

"works for them" - i might define this a bit differently than you do. i might say that it "works better than what they used to do". that is not too hard to do, considering the average american/western diet. they perhaps have just hit a double or even a triple. i am showing them how to make it home. remember, i started this thread by talking about optimal health.

my info is not all that hard to believe. it is based on our physiology, and things you can read in textbooks, and the like - things that are much less opt to be tainted. the body requires amino acids (gotten from protein), 2 essential fatty acids, and sugar to run the brain, and muscles during exercise. the body easily makes saturated fat from any excess calories. the body however does not make sugar that easily, except from carbs. and since we do not store a lot of sugar, it is an essential ingredient. but overeating it just causes the body to turn excess carbs into fat. we want to eat enough sugar each day to keep the glycogen in our liver and muscles filled to the brim, and ready to use - any more just turns to fat.

ozziesgirl

Wed, Nov-12-03, 22:49

Let them be....as in stop your ranting and leave the subject and this forum alone unless they ask for your help. State your case and leave it at that. They came on THIS forum for a reason, to get support for the way of life we have chosen. You are free of course to state your opinion but, my goodness, you have gone on and on, and we understand the concepts (we are not morons) but do not agree with you. So I would say you have put enough words on paper, so you can let us decide for ourselves now, thanks.

"works better than what they used to do". that is not too hard to do, considering the average american/western diet.

This statement couldn't be farther from the truth. First of all, I can assume you have never had a weight problem so you will NEVER know what anyone who does feels like. Just because we are overweight, does not mean we consume vast quantites of fat and fast food and whatever else is defined by the American diet. Some of us have tried low fat and good fat and weight watchers, and nutritionists, etc. Granted we never met the god Gymeejet, so we are grossly uneducated, correct?

remember, i started this thread by talking about optimal health.

That's right, you did, but come to think of it, you never really cleared up that vague definition. Until you do this, I doubt you will have much progress in changing the world

and things you can read in textbooks
*coughstudiesandresearchcough* And why are textbooks less likely to be tainted may I ask?

No use asking questions, right? I haven't gotten many answers.

bvtaylor

Wed, Nov-12-03, 23:50

Hi, Gymee. Still alive? Can't believe this thread is STILL feuding along.

I think that it probably keeps your aging mind alert :lol: JUST KIDDING! like some older couples who feud their entire lives, but still love each other and become despondent when their partner passes away.

I still think that I basically agree with your premise about the healthy eating of whole foods and that the only difference between your concept of an ideal diet and ours is that we may allow more saturated fat and you may allow a tad bit more carbohydrates.

Still the varied amount of carbohydrates we can all agree is probably an individual thing.

gymeejet

Fri, Nov-14-03, 02:41

gymeejet

Sat, Nov-15-03, 11:48

[QUOTE=Hellistile]

BTW perhaps you could also check out my response to Infuriator. For some reason I get the feeling that you think Low-Carbing and Atkins and eating meat are something new and "faddish" that was foisted on unsuspecting people only recently within the last couple of decades.
QUOTE]

i am not sure what you mean about your resonse to infuriator.

i would say that low-carbing has become more popular within the last couple of decades.

ozziesgirl

Sun, Nov-16-03, 00:28

i would say that low-carbing has become more popular within the last couple of decades

Things do tend to become more popular when people realize it works. However, that does not deem it a fad or a new thing because it has been around for years.

gymeejet

Sun, Nov-16-03, 15:53

Eating meat and fat has shown over hundreds of thousands of years to be the optimal way of eating. No research is required to prove this because it's a fact. Vegetarian diets do not have such a long history and, in fact, have proven nothing in the area of optimal nutrition. Vegan babies are dying from failure to thrive, no research is required to read these headlines in newspapers. Vegan parents of infants who died are being prosecuted. And the scary part is that these infant deaths are on the rise.

you are confusing 2 issues, eating meat, and eating fat. the meat that had been eaten for hundreds of thousands of years was lean game at about 3-4% fat. and that fat was structural fat, for the most part, not body fat stores. so there was a high percentage of ESSENTIAL FATS. this is the huge mistake that the lcers of today are making. they seem to think that they have evidence to go carte blanche on saturated fat. it will turn out to be a mistake. AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REMAINDER GOOD CARBS.

Xena2005

Sun, Nov-16-03, 16:22

What makes you say it was 'lean game'? You're saying, for hundreds and thousands of years, the hunter gatherers were cutting off the fat?! They would have eaten it all.

Lisa N

Sun, Nov-16-03, 17:22

What makes you say it was 'lean game'? You're saying, for hundreds and thousands of years, the hunter gatherers were cutting off the fat?! They would have eaten it all.

You're right, Xena. While we carve off as much of the fat as we can from our meat and throw it away, the hunter-gatherer societies would have used every part of the animal that they could for food (including the fat, organs, brain and marrow) and whatever was not edible for tools, clothing and other items. The meat of the animal itself may have been fairly lean, but the fat was consumed with relish as well as the other fatty parts of the animal. Gymee has obviously never seen how much fat a bison's hump contains! :lol:

In fact, this little historical excerpt might be of interest concerning how fat or lean animals being hunted were:

http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/archives/miamis3/M82-99_46b.html

"they spread out their meat after preparing it. Under this they kindle a little fire. They are at it for a day, ordinarily, when they wish to dry a flat side. There are two of these in a buffalo. They take it from the shoulder clear to the thigh and from the hump to the middle of the belly, after which they spread it out as thin as they can, making it usually four feet square. They fold it up while still hot, like a portfolio, so as to make it easier to carry. The most robust men and women carry as many as eight, for a whole day. This is not possible in autumn nor in winter, however, as the cows are then very fat; they then can carry four at most"

How interesting that they could only carry half as much as usual during autumn and early winter (when food stores for winter were typically being stored) because of the fat of the animal, which in this case was a buffalo cow.

gymeejet

Tue, Nov-18-03, 01:01

Besides a carbohydrate is a carbohydrate is a carbohydrate no matter what name it goes under.

this is perhaps the biggest mistake that the low-carbers make. it is their mantra, and people follow it, like most any other fad. it shows a serious misunderstanding about how their bodys work, and their willingness to believe in the "bad guy" - there is always something to blame - in this case, sugar. so of course, a carbohydrate is a carbohydrate to them. but a saturated fat is not a saturated fat ? molecularly, the saturated fat molecules are almost all alike, and very simple structures - there is a weak acid on one end, and a bunch of ch2 molecules hooked together in a chain. the various sugar molecules are of more complex shape, and not nearly as similar to one another.

but of course, what we are really wanting to know is their similarity in function. and i would not argue the point if we were talking about eating an ounce of sucrose, and ounce of glucose, or an ounce of fructose. but most people do not do this. they eat foods, that are composed of these ingredients. this is a very different scenario. because from a logic standpoint, we are now talking about ingesting something else (many something elses) along with the sugar. the low-carbers inability or unwillingness to understand or admit this difference is scary, for sure - in my mind, almost fanatical in their need to believe in "the culprit".

10 grams of sugar from a twinkie may be the same as 10 grams of sugar from an apple, but a twinkie is not the same as an apple. the apple has evolved as a food, right along with everything else on the planet. the apple has enzymes that make it almost self-digestable, along with all sorts of nutrients, many of which we probably are still unaware. the twinkie - well, i will let you create your own description. the same can be said of saturated fat, as well. while i think we should limit our ingestion of it, i would never advocate that the 10 grams of fat in a good, solid food was the same as 10 grams of the same fat in some unhealthy food.

Xena2005

Tue, Nov-18-03, 02:33

Who are you? And do we really care? You are just enjoying yourself in my opinion. And guess what, I think we are enjoying your posts as well! You are quite a card actually.

LMK

Tue, Nov-18-03, 02:59

gymeejet - I agree. What you say makes total sense to me.

However, I'm using an unbalanced approach (Atkins) to correct my own imbalance. I think the later stages of Atkins endorses something quite close to what you're saying. :-)

It's good to read a different kind of post in here....

LMK

Tue, Nov-18-03, 03:00

Oh my! I didn't realize this was the Low-Carb War Zone..... <ducking and running>

mntnear

Wed, Nov-19-03, 16:09

Heart Rehab Nutritionists at University of Massachuseets Medical School are now using the Glycemic Index as a guideline to what fruits/vegetables one should eat.

The only mistake they're still making is worrying about fats other than trans-fats ...

gymeejet

Thu, Nov-20-03, 00:01

Kathy54

Thu, Nov-20-03, 01:07

O.K. first off I have to tell you , I did not read through all the past post here, sorry but ihave to work for a living, LOL

Anyhow is what you are saying, "that followig the Atkins Diet is not Healthy???

Gee I follow it. I'm on maintenance, This is what I eat on an average day

Brk is A)Porridge made of Flax meal/ oatmeal/ wheat germ, with blueberries or banana ( 2-3 Inches) OR,
B) 2 boiled eggs and 2 strips turkey bacon/ tomato OR,
C) pancakes made with Soy flour Or
D) Toast (bread made with only whole grains "no flour") with Natural Almond or peanut Butter.

When I have B,C or D I also have a Fruit, 1/2 orange,1/2 gratefruit 1/2 apple.

My morning snack at work is either cottage cheese 4% with blueberries or raspberries.

My lunch is normally a big salad with lots of raw veggies with Lean chicken, a whole can of chunk tuna or salmon or dinner leftovers. Or homemade soup.

My afternoon snk is useually 1-3 of the following, about 2 oz, of cheddar cheese/ one slice of lean ham/ celery and p/b or cream cheese/ raws veggies and dip ( 2 Tbsp), toast and p/b

Dinner is good lean protien/ 2-3 vegies, or 1 plus a big salad, I eat brown rice, or potatoes 4-5 times a week, I make lots of beef, chicken and turkey, stews and soups with all veggies, carrots to parsnips!

I make the best homemade wine so that tops off most of my dinners :)

So please tell me what Iam doing wrong? I will say I will not touch pasta, is that it?

I started Atkins/Protien power, but mostly Atkins in Jan 03, reached my goal in August, right now I'm 5#'s under my goal, I'm fine with that, my goal was a dream number :) I've maintained my loss,I've never gained.

I had Blood work done before and after, my Dr. is very impressed.

So which is better being classified as Obese or what I have achieved by following Atkins?

Cheers Kathy

gymeejet

Thu, Nov-20-03, 01:43

hi kathy,
so i don't get lost, i am attempting to answer posts in chronological order, but i wanted to address yours, mainly because you are a newcomer.

my main concern with low-carb diets, is not enough carbs and too much saturated fat. from what you have posted, i think one would be hard-pressed to call that a low-carb diet. it also seems like you try pretty hard to stay away from high levels of saturated fat.

you eat healthy-type foods, so unless i am missing something, i don't have a problem with what you have just posted, from a danger standpoint.

btw, is p/b peanut butter ?

bzbabs

Thu, Nov-20-03, 09:11

`I know that you all seem very bent on "proving " your theories but I just have this to say. I have lost 50 lbs. since April 4, 2003. I started this "way of eating" because I was at a critical blood pressure, was extremely depressed and moody and was just entirely too unhappy with life in general. For me, and many others, low-carbing was a life saver. I keep in check with my dr., who didn't want me to do the strict low-carb until she saw how much better I was feeling. Now she is amazed at my lowered blood pressure, lowered cholesterol level and IMPROVED kidney function.

This low-carb thing may not be for everyone but for some of us, it has brought us from the brink of diabetes, stroke and even heart disease. I eat much less now because my appetite is supressed by cutting out some of the high-carb refined sugars, but more importantly, knowing that for my body type, if I eat any kind of carb that is over 30 grams a day, I am going to eat all the more. If I eat more carbs, I crave more carbs, thus begins the nasty cycle. It is fine to remain on your side of the fence and believe that low-carb is dangerous. I believe the mere fact that I am alive, 50 lbs. lighter, lower blood pressure and stable moods woman is reason enough for me to know that it is a God-send. I have added in some more fruits and veggies, just need to be conscious of how much and what time of day. Please don't beat everyone down because you believe something doesn't work. For some of us, it is all that works!

Kathy54

Thu, Nov-20-03, 10:13

Thank you for responding to my post.
Yes Peanut butter, all natural no additives :) Nutt'n but Nuts.

I can understand a concern about too many "Bad Fats", I can only speak for myself, in that following the Atkins plan for me has worked fabulous, without getting hung up on eating all those tasty, but bad fats. ( Sorry I can't break 30 Plus years of staying away from fatty meats :nono: )
Not to say I don't have the odd real bacon, and I have Farmer sausages 2 times a months or so made by a small butcher (both no Nitrites of course)
I still have fats but they come from mostly, Olive oil, real unsalted butter, dairy products, (yogurt, cottage cheese, sour cream) salad dressing, nuts.

I think where people go wrong on any low carb diet is, they fail to move on with the stages as laid out in the plans, too afraid of adding in more carbs like the plan is designed to do. I believe the body adjusts to these different levels, then the weight loss continues, however too many see a small gain or no loss and they drop back down to they lower carb level right away, I think that is a mistake. Just my 2 Canadian cents worth :agree:

As well I have'nt seen too many studies done on people who have followed right through the plan as I have, ( and there is lots) sadly we only here of the induction level effects, so it's not a true story of the over all plan.

from what you have posted, i think one would be hard-pressed to call that a low-carb diet.

But it is just that :agree: :agree: Cause it's what maintenace is all about, just not as low as the first stages of the plan.

I do not eat white flour, anything with sugar, pasta, white rice.

Cheers Kathy

gymeejet

Fri, Nov-21-03, 19:39

I still have fats but they come from mostly, Olive oil, real unsalted butter, dairy products, (yogurt, cottage cheese, sour cream) salad dressing, nuts.

I do not eat white flour, anything with sugar, pasta, white rice.

Cheers Kathy

hi kathy,
"high" and "low" are relative terms, and each of us places different connotations to the words. which is why i choose the word AMPLE in my mantra, as it pretty much infers a need to measure to determine what is enough. when compared to most people on this forum, you consume a very liberal amount of carbs - i would probably consider it to be a MODERATE-CARB diet.

with regards to fat - olive oil, butter, dairy products, and meats have no real amounts of essential fats. without looking at your fatty acid panel, i can only guess about how much you are consuming. flax meal has good omega3 (assuming you are getting a good kind from the health food store). but it does not seem like you eat it daily. the fish that you eat (if it is cold-water fish, and not cooked or heated, that is probably another good source of omega3). so you may be getting enough, but you may also be getting less than optimal. some nuts have good amounts of omega6. the better nuts and seeds for omega6 are pumpkin seeds, soy beans, walnuts, sunflower seeds, wheat germ, and sesame seeds (the beans and germ have much less percentage of fat, but the fat that they do have is highly essential).

ozziesgirl

Fri, Nov-21-03, 22:12

Kathy just stated to you that she is following
m-a-i-n-t-e-n-a-n-c-e. That means she has added back in some carbs, those of the healthy variety. She is still following what is termed a low carb diet but to an extent you have not yet ventured to inform yourself about. What you do not understand (as you seem to shut out everyone's opinion) is that a low carb diet does not mean no carb. A low carb diet does not mean eating half a cow for supper. Low carb is eating healthy. Low carb is eating fresh veggies and fruit. You still have not read the book or researched the OTHER SIDE....The people living this way of life. You still believe they are eating basically animal protein/fat and that is it. Many of us get the essential fats etc you speak of. I eat PLENTY of the seeds you have mentioned above. As well as many other heart healthy foods.

Oh and by the way, I do not believe in the phrase another noter left...a carb is a carb is a carb. I do not think this way. I know for a fact how some carbs make me feel and others do not.
You stated Kathy does not get her essential fats, I would love to know WHAT YOU EAT to get yours.

gymeejet

Sat, Nov-22-03, 00:06

stephanie,
i plan to continue to answer posts in order, but i will respond to this last one of yours. i have been very tolerant of your attitude, and plan to continue to be, but i am getting a bit tired of it. time and time again, you intentionally (or so it seems to me) misquote me. i would ask that you reread your previous post.

you state that i told kathy that she was not getting her essential fats. this is not true, and there is no way that any linguist would or could interpret my statement that way. what i did say was that without seeing her fatty acid panel, that there was no way i could tell for sure. and with the fats that she ate, i said she might be getting enough, but she might not. it depended on several facts of which i was not aware. your interpretations of my statements are making you look more like a lawyer all the time - that is not a complement.

she may be following what is "termed" to be a low-carb diet, but what she is doing is not low-carb - not like many, or most of the others here. so perhaps the mistake is not mine, but rather the "coinage" of the diet. i may be funny in my thinking, but when i label something a certain way, it is because it is a certain way. her diet is not low-carb, no matter what label you want to attach to it. the protein-power book that i did read, was low-carb at all times. there was no time that the carb intake was not severely limited. so instead of barking at me, might i suggest you go to the atkins web site and supporters, and tell them to more accurately label their diet. the fact that one eliminates all the junk carbs from one's diet does not mean that it is a low-carb diet. it simply means that they have eliminated all the junk carbs from their diet.

in fact, i believe that those who do have the most problems with these low-carb diets are the ones who have gone overboard with deleting carbs.

i never said that low-carb was no-carb. again, your incorrect take. many of you continue to talk about 30-60 grams of carbs a day. while that is not no-carb, it is unhealthily too little.

i know you have asked about my diet several times. i am not ignoring any questions, simply answering them chronologically. however, i am skipping over posts that are silly, completely argumentative, or otherwise not worth my time to answer. i have not skipped any of your posts at this point, like i have one of your comrades, but i would appreciate it if you did not allow your emotions to control your typing. thank you.

gymeejet

Sat, Nov-22-03, 00:13

one last point - when i hear people talking about having to limit the number of carrots a day, this is a pretty sure sign of how fanatical they have become in their thinking. i know those nasty carrots have done all types of harm to people, and i am sure that they are the reason they have become sugar-intolerant. it is so absurd that i have a hard time really believing that people are really serious. if as a society, we ate real food, and not manufactured chemicals, we would not be having the problems in society that we do.

kathy seems to understand this very well, as her diet speaks for itself. she eats all natural type foods. and she is not scared to eat some whole grains, potatoes, and a fair amount of fruits. i do think her intake of saturated fat is less than optimal, but overall, when compared to the average westerner, her diet would probably be in the high 90s on a scale of 1 to 100. so it is no surprise to me that she is doing well.

Lisa N

Sat, Nov-22-03, 07:15

kathy seems to understand this very well, as her diet speaks for itself. she eats all natural type foods. and she is not scared to eat some whole grains, potatoes, and a fair amount of fruits. i do think her intake of saturated fat is less than optimal, but overall, when compared to the average westerner, her diet would probably be in the high 90s on a scale of 1 to 100. so it is no surprise to me that she is doing well.

Based on what Kathy posted for her menu, she's getting between 60 and 90 grams of carb per day; exactly what I predicted someone on maintainance would be getting.
Kathy, if you use Fitday, would you care to comfirm those carb counts?

Kathy54

Sat, Nov-22-03, 13:45

when compared to the average westerner, her diet would probably be in the high 90s on a scale of 1 to 100. so it is no surprise to me that she is doing well.

Yep, I do eat better then most people I know,always have, my weight problem was not caused by eating junk or processed foods. It's quite clear to me now that all the white stuff was just weighing me down, rice, pasta, too many potatoes, wholesome homebaking :cry:

I still consider myself to be on the Atkins plan, as daily there is items I decline to eat because of the way I eat, which in Atkins Maintenance :agree: :)

My co-workers are always amazed at how much I eat, and have managed to loose all this weight, right in front of their eyes,LOL And they also drewl over my meals.

Sorry Lisa I have'nt used fitday for ages, just no time and I have'nt counted carbs for ages either, but I'd say your guess is right about it.

Bkf today was a mandarine orange/ porridge made of oats, wheat germ/ flaxseed meal, 1/3 of a banana, and a bit of n/s blueberry jam.
snk before work is a boiled egg and toast.
My lunch I have planned (4pm for me today), is 1/2 can of Campbells healthy choice cream of mushrom soup ( one of the very rare open and eat items I buy), I'll add a 1/2 can of chunk tuna to it and a greek salad. and a chinese pear for dessert.

I also have 2 coffe breaks too, but no time to list what I'll eat, just I know it's more and healthier then the average persons. :p

Good day, Kathy

bzbabs

Sat, Nov-22-03, 17:29

Can we stop talking about the same complaints over and over again. If we want to follow this healthy lifestyle that works for us, can't you just be encouraging because of the progress we have made, let our doctors and our bodies tell us what is good and move on to another subject?

Xena2005

Sat, Nov-22-03, 19:42

Here here.

Kathy54

Sat, Nov-22-03, 23:29

Thus the title "war zone", LOL

ozziesgirl

Sun, Nov-23-03, 00:35

so you may be getting enough, but you may also be getting less than optimal.
You are right, maybe I am taking what you are stating wrong, but perhaps I am just reading between your lines and know what you are really thinking. Maybe I am letting my emotions take hold of my writing, but that often happens when I am speaking to somene who will not listen to anyone else. ANd that is what I believe you are doing. Of COURSE Kathy may not be getting her essential fats, she is not following your plan, right. I did reread my post, and I still agree with everything I said. You take others words and twist them as well, but we all do not see ourselves doing anything wrong.

However, I will not be told I am rude or have an attitude with you. You are coming here, telling US we are wrong and all the while doing it with a condescening attitude. You may object to this and think you are being more than civil. However, I disagree. Your words are sugar coated but the intention behind this is horrible....if you really wanted to help people, you would be out there doing it, not sitting in this forum telling everyone else they are wrong.

I apologize if you feel I am being rude to you. However, I am getting angry at your persistance to tell us we are wrong and you are right. I am actually getting tired of you. To me, YOU have an attitude.

You think Kathy is not following a low carb diet and that is fine. See the thing is, others who object to Atkins believe people eat meat and nothing else for the rest of their lives. They do not know the further phases of the plan that slowly allow the person to add in other good for you carbs. Many can and do add healthy carbs into their diet with no trouble. That is the problem with people who do not understand or do not want to understand. There are many different low carb plans that have different stages. Maybe this is lower carb for her than what she used to eat.

The Atkins website does not need to better label this plan. The thing is, if you read the book, you understand. If you listen to whatever media outlets "critique" this eating style, well then yes you will be misled.

in fact, i believe that those who do have the most problems with these low-carb diets are the ones who have gone overboard with deleting carbs.

You are completely right about this and anyone who reads the book and especially someone who comes on here for support will soon find out this is not the way to go about this woe.

I do not appreciate being told I am barking at you. You are here for the sake of conflict. "WAR ZONE" I believe this forum is called. Most of us just come here for support and tips. Not to be told what we are doing is going to kill us or whatever else you are here for.

I have asked you this before and never really received an answer....Why does it matter to you so much what others are eating. If they feel good and are healthy, then what matter is it of yours? You have never had a weight problem...you have no idea how lucky you are. Most to all of us have and we need something like this forum to keep us going. While we will expect confrontation and disagreements, this is getting quite ridiculous. I don't understand why I continue to come here. I suppose it is my stubborness not to allow you to have the last word. I do sense that is what you want, is it not?

I understand that you are a wonderfully healthy, fit person. And I can also sense that you do really want to help others. I do, however, think you are going about it the wrong way. You came in on attack mode. Even your title confims this. If you had maybe started this forum with info of your own way of life...and not started with you are wrong...maybe you would have gotten better feedback. I am always on the lookout for information. I believe there are many ways a person can eat and be healthy.

gymeejet

Sun, Nov-23-03, 18:00

What do you eat in a day? Maybe I missed that but I would like to know how many carbs you eat everyday and what types of carbs in addition to everything else. What is this diet you prescribe? Keep in mind that the "majority" do not exercise vigorously. I am a health young woman but I KNOW for a fact that high carb, lower fat does not work for me. I did the weightwatchers thing, I did the food guide. And it did not help me lose anything. Once when I was a poor student, I even lived on plain brown rice for about three months :-). Not a pount lost. And if I have more energy and feel wonderful on this plan, I will not go back to anything else. I respect your opinions, you are entitled to them but please respect everyone else's. I know you have already stated that you believe this plan is good for diabetics etc but I like the way I feel so whay can't you just accept that?

i am not sure why you are so curious about what i eat, as i am not attempting to advocate any particular foods. but i did make a somewhat thorough post in post #52, if you want to look at it.

again, i am not prescribing a diet, in the sense of certain foods. my mantra - AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REMAINDER GOOD CARBS. now if we are discussing a certain food, i will probably be able to tell you what i like and dislike about it.

i am not advocating the low-fat, high carb diet that much of society eats. most of these people are not even eating good foods. but assuming they were, (i was one of them), most people on this diet are not getting enough protein, and are extremely deficient in their essential fat intake. the problem is not too many carbs, but rather not enough of the protein and essential fats. but of course, once you do get enough of the two, you will eat less carbs, because you will be getting some satiety from your increase in protein/essential fats.

i can accept the way you feel. somehow, you have taken this way too personally. i don't care what any one individual wants to do. but i do care, or hope to have some input, for the masses of people who come to various nutritional sites, looking for information on how to make themselves healthier. this low-carb thing is getting more popular, and people are having problems with it. you guys are touting this diet as the best for health. i gave you every chance to tout that it is best for diabetics.

i am still reading a lot here on this forum about people who are restricting their carbs way too much. in that regards, kathy was a ray of sunshine, in that at least 1 person had not gone fanatically overboard. a very low level of carbs is not optimal - an i am here to help people reach their optimal health, not just better than what they used to feel.

bvtaylor

Sun, Nov-23-03, 19:32

Hello again, Gymee. I think that there may be some simple points to consider that may have been somehow missed in this discussion.

One of them is that "low" carb is extremely relative, and "very low" carb is a temporary state that has NOT been shown to be dangerous in body chemistry except with people who have preexisting conditions such as kidney disease or gout.

The second is that people use different stages of "low" carbing for different purposes.

For the sake of common understanding I will point out the Atkins method.

Induction (less than 20 g of net carbs - usu digestible minus non-digestible carbs) is either a temporary 2 week state used to get someone who is losing weight into ketosis, or a long term state that folks who have a lot of weight to lose may choose to stay in. This is by no means the sole definition of "low" carbing, but is more of a weight-loss tool.

Ongoing Weight Loss - this has the person who was on induction for weight loss purposes adding 5 net grams of carbs per week until they stop losing weight, then you back off the carb count a little to determine your weight loss carbohydrate level. As carbs go up, net fat intake should also gradually decrease.

Pre-Maintenance - this has the dieter gradually adding a few more carbs and getting used to a "controlled carbohydrate" lifestyle, until weight loss stops, if weight is gained then carbs should be dropped back a little.

Maintenance - this is actually the "controlled carbohydrate" lifestyle that you are debating. Once an individual has figured out how many carbohydrates they can consume in order to maintain the weight that they want (which should be comprised by and large of nutrient-dense carbohydrates, with freedom for occasional forays into less nutrient-dense carbohydrates, grains, legumes, everything).

So "controlled carbohydrates" long term is pretty much the same diet that you've been trying to advocate--with plenty of healthy proteins, fats, and an "adequate" amount of nutrient-dense carbohydrates. It's certainly not about never eating fruits or vegetables, but making better carbohydrate choices long term so that the primary source of carbohydrates focuses on whole foods and away from the agreed-upon devils (for any diet method) of refined carbohydrates in excess.

Fat

Sun, Nov-23-03, 20:07

Hello Bea that was very well said..

I wonder why some ppl get so upset just because of how another person is eating and losing weight..????

I was on another forum yesterday peeking around and these 2 ppl were putting down LCing as if it were the worse thing they ever came across. What a waste of time to talk about something in the negative that a person knows nothing about.

To me the difference between me and another person that does not LC is.... they are still brain washed into thinking HC food is good for them..Like a doc I talked to about LCing once told me ..WHEAT IS FOR COWS..LOL.

Anna

Kathy54

Sun, Nov-23-03, 21:02

I must admit I do get alittle concerned when I see that "some " people do not move on through the stages, I have read many posts where they have started to add some carbs like you are suppose to, only to stop dead in their tracks cause the weight loss stopped, for like that week. I guess I was stubborn or something, cause I just kept at it, knowing that I wanted the added foods in my diet, then the weight loss started again.
However one things I have not stressed in my post here and I should of, is " Control over servings I feel very lucky in that I do have full control over how much of these added carbs I eat. I know ( I may not understand) that many people cannot control themselves once they get started. But that is where I feel very strongly about the 2 week induction (or longer) it does help break the pattern for lots of Low carbers, if done as 'Clean as possible" which means no sugar free treats, bars, shakes, jellos ect. Just good "real" food.

Cheers Kathy

ozziesgirl

Sun, Nov-23-03, 21:31

Very well said by both bvtaylor and Fat.

Gymeejet, I do not take this as personally as you may think. Yes, I write what I think. But after that, I do not toil over your words...that would be taking it personally. I am a firm believer in doing what makes you feel good and what keeps you healthy. I am just writing in hopes you would understand that and do the same thing.

You stress AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REMAINDER GOOD CARBS...well check check and check. I am sure others can say the same thing.

I was concerned with your food intake for the simple reason that you were putting down our choices yet not letting us know your own eating habits. I wanted to see it in comparision to someone on OWL or maintenance. I am sure they are not too far off, if the plan is being done correctly. I would LOVE for the general population to forget the idea that if you are on Atkins, you can eat pounds of bacon, cheese, cream and eggs and lose weight. This is the thinking of those who are not educated. This is also why everyone stresses that you read the book for yourself to understand the chemistry.

I have heard of some problems that some people are having, and understand the media and medical association would like to blame low carbing. It is very popular in the media right now. Of course there are going to be people who get sick and let the media know. I wonder how these people were doing Atkins? Were they following it they way it should be followed? Or did they bypass the book and go with their own thing they picked up by word of mouth....back to the pounds of bacon idea...

I find that no matter how many success stories are told, the media are going to fixate on the bad aspects. It just makes good news. Conflict, differing views....the same as this thread.

Although forums like these and others along with the numerous studies show that many more people do well on low carb. They are healthier and feel better than ever. They are coming off their medications, some are walking better, breathing better. They are no longer overweight. Their self esteem is higher, they exercise more because of that and the fact they feel great. I still do not see the problem here.

an i am here to help people reach their optimal health, not just better than what they used to feel.

I wish you were but no you are not. You are not helping anyone. You are here and you are writing the same things over and over and giving vague descriptions but you are not being helpful. And if I sounded like a lawyer, well you sound like someone from the home shopping network who repeats certain phrases but gets no further in informing anyone of the product. Optimal health, ample protein, essential fats, good carbs, we get it.

I agree with you that if someone is asking for help and advice you should give it to them. You said people go to many health websites looking for ways to be healthier. However, this site is devoted to low carbing, which is the way we choose to eat. We are not asking for advice on what to do.

gymeejet

Mon, Nov-24-03, 02:20

>>"However, there comes a time when stomping your feet and insisting "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right (and all the rest of you are wrong)" gets ummm...tedious."

gymeejet, IMHO, has crossed the line from debating to trolling. He refuses to acknowledge our corrections (how many times do we have to belt it into him that we eat plenty of vegetables and monounsaturates?) and that "I'll go away when you admit I'm right" comment is about as trollish as it gets. He's not interested in debating real LC, he's debating the myth of the all-you-can-eat meatfest.

by all means, if it is of your opinion that i am here to get attention, then i would suggest the correct action to fix that is not to post. others have said this, only to come back and post some more. this would appear to be more of a sign of realizing that what i am saying comes from a good understanding of physiology and physics. i hear what you say, and then i see what you do.

i know you do eat a lot of vegetables. i don't consider monounsaturates any big deal - it is the essential fats that are necessary. however, for the most part, while i may think some of you could benefit from eating more, i do not think that the most of you are dangerously low on them. in other words, i am not greatly concerned that your protein intake or essential fat intake is too low, but rather your saturated fat intake is much too high, and your carb intake much too low. for those who are diabetic, this may very well be something you are forced to do - i have no experience with diabetes, so i certainly would not argue that point with someone who has been living with it for years. however, i will argue with a diabetic about the merits of an lc diet for the person who is not diabetic.

Xena2005

Mon, Nov-24-03, 02:40

I just wanted to let you know that I am a type 2 diabetic and have been for many years and was told that I would have lifetime diabetics and by the time I would reach age 40 I would have type 1 diabetes.

Before starting Atkins my blood glucose levels were between 8 and 12 (high) on my BG monitor and that was doing Body for Life strictly. Although this was much better than 12 plus (very high) prior to Body for Life when I was not eating properly, on Atkins, I am now between 5 and 6 (normal) which is fantastic! I will not change this for any other diet. Atkins low carbing is healthy and gives me heaps of energy. When I was on Body for Life for 6 months, I did not have much energy but within days of starting Atkins, my energy sky-rocketed, my blood sugar levels dropped, my head became clear, I stopped feeling sluggish and I don't sleep in the day anymore.

I am starting my 4th week on Atkins, two weeks on induction (20g carbs), one week on fat fast (near 0 carbs) and now starting my 4th week. I am upping my carbs to between 20-25 for this week and then weekly upping 5g until I stop losing and then reduce them until I start losing again. My extra carbs come from vegetables and salads. I don't eat fruit because it increases my blood sugar levels and it was recommended by my dietition not to eat them. I eat olive oil, full fat cheese, full fat mayo with my salads and eggs (I eat an abundance of eggs), bacon, sausages and full fat cream. So you see, considering all the fat that this diet has, it has made me healthier andis best 'for me'. I have excellent cholesterol levels (both of them the bad and the good). I will recheck them again in six months time, but I believe even if they are raised a bit, I still would not change this diet, the feeling and good health I get with this diet will outweigh a slight increase in cholesterol (which I don't believe will happen).

ozziesgirl

Mon, Nov-24-03, 15:31

this would appear to be more of a sign of realizing that what i am saying comes from a good understanding of physiology and physics. i hear what you say, and then i see what you do

Nope...I'm just stubborn and don't want you to walk away thinking your way is the only right way. See, we are not saying you are wrong, however, that is what you are saying to us.

Angeline

Mon, Nov-24-03, 17:12

Please check out this thread regarding a Mayo clinic study. It's pretty relevant to this discusion

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=149616

gymeejet

Tue, Nov-25-03, 11:12

Xena2005

Tue, Nov-25-03, 15:00

"you only find support for your side and not mine ? gosh, what a surprise !!!!!!!!!"

What did you expect? 'Oh Gymeejet, you are soooo right, you are the God of Nutrition, you know all!!!'

Of course we are only looking for support from our side; this is our WOL (just like you have your's and only find support for your WOL).

When people have tried all the rest (and it applies to all aspects of life not just a WOE) and something finally works for them and they believe in it because it is proven by personal trials that it is good for them (in the case of a WOE, proven by the way they feel and through blood tests etc. that show improved health), of course that is the only support they are looking for! The same applies to you doesn't it?

It's a bit like religion? Now that's another whole debate itself. Some people feel so strongly about their religion that they believe their's is the only and right one and that other religions are 'soooo bad' that some people try and convert others to their way of thinking (mmm sounds familiar)...

gymeejet

Wed, Nov-26-03, 00:49

Secondly, how many people in our society do you actually think meet the amount of protein, fats, and carbohydrates that they actually need. I have known several people who weren't even close to the amount that they should have until they started Atkins. Last time I checked, McDonalds, Wendys, and Taco Bell are not balanced meals at all. A little slice of meat or chicken with a buttload of carbohydrates.

i am not sure of your point here. are you attempting to claim that your diet is the most optimal for our nutrition, because it is better than the standard american diet of hamburgers and french fries ? surely you must see the error in that argument.

you and steph get all emotional in your arguments, and lose any sort of logical analysis. first, i never said that your diets were the worse in the world. in fact, several times i have mentioned that there are many good things about it, one being that you have eliminated junk food from your diets, for the most part. i simply believe that you have too much saturated fat and not enough carbs that prevent it from being OPTIMAL FOR HEALTH.

we will have to see just what kinds of problems, if any, people develop from getting this much saturated fat in their diet, as well as a lack of sugar to run the brain and muscles during exercise.

Kathy54

Wed, Nov-26-03, 21:57

a lack of sugar to run the brain and muscles during exercise.

I work at a very physical job, it's like being at the gym all day. I have not found any effect of the lack of sugar related to doing my job. My job is far easier, now that I'm not packing around 45 pounds as well as the hundreds of pounds I lift everyday for 9 hours a day.
I seem to remember though, the highs, then crashes, a sweet treat at coffee break would give me. I'd say my energy level is far more consistant since low carb'n. Plus I'm not nearly as beat at the end of the shift. It's like having an extra hour or two a day now :thup:

Just a note, I am having knee surgery next Monday and went through a pre op check up. My Dr. could not believe how strong I am and was joking to not mess with me! LOL my teenage boys say the same thing to their friends.
( my injury is work related, caused by a poor design in the wharehouse)

Cheers Kathy

gymeejet

Wed, Nov-26-03, 23:57

Just a note, I am having knee surgery next Monday and went through a pre op check up. My Dr. could not believe how strong I am and was joking to not mess with me! LOL my teenage boys say the same thing to their friends.
( my injury is work related, caused by a poor design in the wharehouse)

Cheers Kathy

hi kathy, i will make a more detailed response to your post when i get to that post number, but i wanted to wish you good luck with your surgery, and a happy thanksgiving. keep up the good food.

ozziesgirl

Thu, Nov-27-03, 00:17

I only recently began to just give up because you do not listen. Also I never really was trying to make a point to you, I have said time and time again, I think you have great nutrition. My only problem is you thinking your way is the ONLY way. I eat healthy, I feel great, my doctor has no problems with it. The problem is.

are you attempting to claim that your diet is the most optimal for our nutrition, because it is better than the standard american diet of hamburgers and french fries ?

I think what we have been stating all along is that this WOE is the best for us. You are the one that insists your way is the best. Not us. I think HKblue is attempting to explain that most to not even get their minimum requirements, so go bother those who stuff cheeseburgers and fries everyday. I may be wrong but I think HKblue meant that we are eating better than the masses which is who you are trying to contact anyway, is it not? We are feeling and looking better than before. Maybe it is not your magical potion for optimal health (can you really guarantee that anyway, what with pollution and pesticides and whatever other poisons we are unaware of?) but we are eating tons of veggies, some protein, good fats etc...

You think you make wonderful, thought provoking, profound statements. This is just not true. You really haven't made any, except for ones we already know (eg essential fats, protein etc etc) And you in no way can back up what you are saying with anything sound besides your own opinions...I do not even know what we are arguing here anymore but really did I ever truly understand? Do you even know why? I know we need essential fats, I know we need protein, and carbs (good ones) And you know what, I have that covered, whether you think so or not. I know you hate the saturated fat and sometimes yes I do eat it, however I would venture to say a lot of people on Atkins stay away from that as well. I have bacon maybe once a year, HATE butter and margarine, stay away from trans fats, and like to eat only lean cuts of meat (mostly chicken and tuna because I like it) Again you are perpetuating the misconception people have about this WOE. While I know some people eat horribly on this plan and still lose weight, you are trying to speak to the masses....which are IMO ones who are going about this the right way. Induction lasts two weeks, not a lifetime....that is what you are basing your opinions on. So while HKblue and I may be using our emotions (doubtful but you are misconstruing us taking a stand for something as becoming to emotional), you are not using any educated knowledge about how we eat in your arguments. You can say we eat incorrectly, but I guarantee you, most do not eat the way you think we do.

I must say this is fun, having you not listen to anything we say and then drone on and on about optimal health. The fats from meat, milk, and milk products are the main sources of saturated fats in most diets (this is from a site on saturated fats)
For the amount of cheeses and other milk products I eat (for cheeses no more than 3-4 oz/day), I am sure my saturated fat content is not THAT horrible. If I drink milk it is lower fat, meats are lean cuts...

Since people on this plan who want to do it right are told to stick to natural foods and stay away from processed stuff (another culprit for saturated fats) The main sources would be cheese, some meats, milk products, and butter, and palm and coconut oil. I am only speaking for myself but I use only extra virgin olive oil, not butter. I will say that I have spoken to many who have been very successful doing this and they are not eating tons of fat, meat cheese and nothing else. They strike more of a balance, especially heading into maintenance.

bluesmoke

Thu, Nov-27-03, 08:06

Saturated fats are not bad for you, there is no strong evidence that they are. It all goes back to keye's original studies, which have since proved to be bogus. A good balanced diet requres a range of all fats, except trans fats.
Just because the animal fats have been demonized in the popular press and have had the same misinformation repeated over and over does not make it true, do the research. After all, the low carb diet is slaughtering the innocent right and left, according to the same sources. Nyah Levi

hkblue

Thu, Nov-27-03, 23:06

Gymeejet,

I do take offense to the statement about losing all logical sense because we get so emotional. If someone was constantly telling you that your way of eating was wrong you would be upset too. I simply get very upset when someone tries to tell me that the way I eat is not optimal when the majority of the nation crams twinkies, ding dongs, McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc down their throat everyday. Obesity, Heart disease, and Diabetes is running rampant in our society but you chose to attack us instead. I suppose the only reason you don't go ranting to them that their diet isn't optimal is because they don't have websites for the fast food junkies. You stumbled across this website and thought we looked like good targets.

Steph completely understood exactly what I was trying to explain to you, but you obviously did not want to understand. Could it be that you are so busy looking at your side of the arguement that you can't see that what we are saying makes sense based on our own results. Trust me, I have read arguements from both sides of the coin. I didn't decide to live the way without researching, (yes I said research) both sides.

One question I have been wanting to ask you is why in the world are you so concerned with whether we call our WOE low carb, moderate carb, controlled carb? What does it really matter what it is called? Yes, when you first start the Atkins plan it is low carb, very low carb. Like Steph said, that is only for 2 weeks usually. As time goes on you increase those carbs until you are no longer losing weight and aren't gaining either. Different people have different carb levels that they can maintain. It isn't like we all have this idea that we stay at 20-30 carbs all the time. We call this WOE low carb because it is definitely alot lower than the masses. 40-90 carbs is alot less that 300-400 carbs a day or more.

I have been going through re-reading some of your previous posts. I see where you stated that

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

Dr. Atkins even stated in his book that different activity levels would enable you to consume more carbohydrates in the more advanced stages of Atkins program. He also stated that if you weren't a part of an exercise program you weren't following the atkins program at all. I have stated in a previous post that Dr. Atkins even called this program a "controlled carb" WOE on several occasions because of the later stages of Atkins. Most people who object to the Atkins program have not read the book and they automatically assume that you are supposed to limit your carb intake to 20 carbs for the duration of your life. In his Atkins for life book he even talks about giving yourself a treat from time to time whether it be a baked potatoe or popcorn at a movie. In that book he also gives you a list of foods that you can eat regularly, moderately and sparingly and still maintain this WOE. Not once does he say eat all the saturated fat you want until you are stuffed. He says to eat until you are satisfied and then put the fork down.

I also noticed a statement of yours that said:

it may surprise you that there are many people
whom i tell that their diets are too weighed down with
carbs.

I would imagine that MOST of the people in our society fall under this category. The reason why they are weighed down with the carbs is because we have been trained to believe that low-fat is the way to go. I couldn't tell you how many times I tried low-fat over the years. What they don't bother to tell you is that anything low-fat is definitely loaded down with carbs. People automatically assume that because they are eating low-fat they are eating "healthy" for them. I never understood what carbohydrates actually did to your body until I took a nutrition class while in Dental Hygiene school. It all made so much sense why I wasn't losing weight. One of the things I was eating alot of was low-fat yogurt...wow...do you know how many carbs are in one little cup of yogurt? The type I was eating had 65 carbs in one cup. But I could talk to thousands of people at the nearest grocery store and they would tell me how wonderful low-fat yogurt is supposed to be for me because that is what alot of the health gurus have beat into their brains.

Our society loves studies. It seems like there are studies for everything. You have even stated that studies can be tweeked a bit to benefit whomever is doing the study. I am not so foolish that I believe every single study in favor of low carb WOE. I DO look at people I know who have benefited from this WOE. I work with the public everyday and the majority of my patients are overweight. Children, Teens, Adults are all struggling with their weight and what do we have to blame for it? Foods full of those bad carbohydrates and sugars. This is why I made the statement about the fast food resturaunts in the beginning. The United States has the highest amount of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. It definitely isn't because they are all on the Atkins diet. However, the Atkins diet is getting blamed on health problems that were a problem before people even started the WOE. I noticed that you said us low carbers have a hatred for sugars. Yes, sugars that make our blood sugars go nutso driving our insulin levels every direction and causing craving for more and more sugars. Those would be the sugars that we aren't too fond of. This is why we chose to limit our sugars or use Splenda since it does not affect our blood sugar.

I personally think that you need to make is a personal project to change the food pyramid instead of telling us what we are doing wrong on this message board. That pyramid is what our schools base their menus on. It is definitely a scarey thought. They tell us to use fats and oils sparingly, but they never bother to tell you that you need essential fats, things that our body does not provide for us.

Whether you want to admit it alot, we are fighting for the same thing. Based on some of your previous posts, you just assumed that we were all eating red meat dripping with fat and butter with little of anything else. This isn't the Mayo Clinic diet that was popular for a little while that said you could eat eggs, back meat, cheese and green vegetables until your pants were popping at the seams as long as you drank 8oz of grapefruit juice with it. This is definitely alot healthier than most people out there. I know it has improved my health greatly and I will always thank Dr. Atkins for helping me see my errors before. Please read the book. You may learn alot from it.

gymeejet

Fri, Nov-28-03, 18:58

steph and blue,
before i respond to any more posts, i wanted to address the following situation, with the hopes of encouraging a better debate atmosphere, by lessening the desire to respond emotionally or defensively.

i am not here to prove that i am healthier than you, that i am better looking than you, that my dad is better than your dad, or any other such comparison of a personal nature. while i may attack an idea, i have no thought, notion, idea, intention, or desire to attack an individual.

so perhaps, this will improve our current situation.

gymee

ozziesgirl

Fri, Nov-28-03, 21:49

You are, however, attacking something we believe in, and the way you present yourself makes many think that you are saying you are healthier, better etc...way back in your earlier posts, you were almost bragging of your fitness. How you can outrun most 20 year olds. While this may have been an example of your WOE and exercise on your part, it did not seem modest. I am not saying you should not be proud of your accomplishments. Just the tone you take, which may easily be misconstrued in writing, I admit, does not show you as someone who wants to help, just someone who wants to brag...I suppose I am still not entirely sure why you are still here. You say you are not here to prove you are better, so what is your purpose?

You are mistaking our strong belief in the way we eat as anger and emotional responses. Again, I am not angry, hurt, sad, anything. I am simply reading your posts and disagreeing.

However, I think you feel the need to tell us we are being overemotional as a way to almost de-escalate the importance of our arguments by calling them illogical. I have not seen any illogical statements. And while you may not be getting as involved in yours, you are not the one being attacked, and you are being listened to. We see your side. We do not say, "you are wrong, we are right"

These arguments may seem emotional to you but I do not see where that is evident. Maybe saying "taking offense" to something is a bit harsh. Perhaps it should be we disagree with you. The only thing I may "take offense" to is your persistant acts of ignorance, calling us illogical (because if that is not a cutting remark based from emotion, I don't know what is) not informing yourself anymore about they way we eat, but attacking it. Seemingly unable to understand where we are coming from. Perhaps after forty pages of the same thing, posters are wondering (like myself) why we continue this ridiculous banter.

I do not know why you had to explain that you were not saying you were better in order to improve our situation. How would you like it to improve? Would you rather us lie down and say you are right Gymeejet, we were wrong all along? Because on this forum, that will not happen. We will probably continue to counter whatever you have to say. While it may comfort you to call our arguments illogical, you have not referred to anything new, no new info, nothing different in your statements, and you are the one who has now resorted to insulting our thinking and calling it not personal. "Calm down low carbers, you are being too defensive" We ask questions of you, which you ignore. Why are you here, what is your purpose, what do you hope to accomplish? I have not seen you anywhere else on this site, so I assume you are here for conflict, which is fine but do not complain when others do not agree with you. You stated that we respond defensively, how? Please show me where this was? And if you mean defensive as in responding with a different view and wondering why you are here, well just think if you were on the other end of your ramblings.....how would you like it if someone who was misinformed of your optimal health plan said it was completely wrong, unhealthy. How would you like it if that same person did not give any good reasons why it was bad, and did not support the reasons they did give? It could get almost tiresome could it not? And please do not take this as being overemotional. Remember, the way you take something online, in writing, may not have been the way the writer intended it. I take that in to account when reading your posts as well.....Good night!:)

gymeejet

Sat, Nov-29-03, 16:58

You always say that our meals aren't balanced on Atkins. I say Bulls~~t. I eat healthier now than I ever have before, especially now that I know what was hindering my weight loss. The only difference is that I eat eggs for breakfast every once in a while. You absurd low carb objectors only see Atkins as Eggs, Cheese, Red Meat, REd Meat, Red Meat, Red Meat, Red Meat. Oh and did I mention Red meat? You talk about how "bad" this lifestyle is for me. Well, I should say that all those people who are eating fast food, tons of pasta, 5 slices of pizza at a time are the people you need to be talking to, not us.

the low-carb diets are advertised in much this way, and it does not help matters much when they tell you not to limit your bacon, but watch out for those carrots.

i do not talk about how "bad" this lifestyle is for you. and again, because some other group eats worse than you, this is no logical rationale for an argument regarding your own health.

you have made the incorrect assumption that i decided to "preach" to the group of people who are eating the worst. this is not true. the people eating the fast-food diet that you described, are doing so, based solely on what pleases their taste buds. they make no claims in regards to anything to the contrary. i learned a long time ago not to waste my time trying to motivate people to change their bad habits. people need to be "ready" to accept the change.

conversely, the people who are trying low-carb diets, or some other type of diet, have made a decision in their lives to at least attempt a change. i am simply pointing out what i believe to be some of the problems with low-carbing. those that care to listen, that is their choice. those that do not care to listen, that is their choice.

tamarian

Sat, Nov-29-03, 17:16

i am simply pointing out what i believe to be some of the problems with low-carbing. those that care to listen, that is their choice. those that do not care to listen, that is their choice. And we're simply trying to help you see your sugar addiction for what it is, an addiction.I have to admit you've come along way since you started this thread. And your rephrasing of your opinions is improving. However, you use too many buz words that you don't follow. For you, whole foods is proterin shakes, flavoured juice, and lots of sugar. You justify your "sugar junky" nutrition with buz words like "ultimate nutrition", and you do preach, wheather you realize it or not, probably to justify your poor nutritional choices for yourself...

Wa'il

hkblue

Sat, Nov-29-03, 18:48

First of all, this is EXACTLY what is wrong with anyone and everyone who objects to low carb eating!

the low-carb diets are advertised in much this
way, and it does not help matters much when
they tell you not to limit your bacon, but watch
out for those carrots

You only see what you THINK is the basis for this WOE. You don't bother to really research it and see that there is so much more that you are allowed to eat. Yes, we are supposed to be a tad bit cautious with carrots simply because they are higher on the glycemic index. This is actually only during the first 2 weeks (Induction). Never once have I been told that I can NEVER have carrots again. It is just not the best choice when there are so many other vegetables out there I can choose from. If you ever picked up the Atkins book and read it you would see just how many things we are allowed.

You did state in your very first post that low carb diets are not healthy ones. This is exactly why I am trying to get my point through to you that what we are doing is NOT unhealthy. Most people who start Atkins start for a reason. They start because they are overweight with high blood pressure, diabetes, or high cholesterol. Someone like you who obviously is in perfect condition does not even need something like this. For those people who are having medical conditions, Atkins is like a life saver. They no longer have to take medications and feel like they have their lives back. Of course, you would never understand what I am talking about since you have never had those kind of issues. This is why you anger so many people by coming in here bad mouthing the one thing that has helped them see the light at the end of a very long tunnel.

As for this statement:

conversely, the people who are trying low-carb
diets, or some other type of diet, have made a
decision in their lives to at least attempt a change.
i am simply pointing out what i believe to be some
of the problems with low-carbing. those that care
to listen, that is their choice. those that do not
care to listen, that is their choice.

You do have your own points of view regarding low-carbing. The problem we have is that you did not even bother to research more into it before you came in here telling us what we are doing wrong. You are just like everyone else who tries to tell us what we are doing when you obviously have no clue what we are allowed to do in the first place. I just love it when family and friends try to tell me all the things I can not have when I am following low carb. They try to tell me I can't have fruit and I can't have this and I can't have that. This is the problem I have. They, like you, automatically assume it is all saturated fats and nothing else. Most of the people who "advertise" low carb diets this way are usually the people out there who are bad mouthing it.

You talked about how people eat fast food because it pleases their taste buds. Well, they may be pleasing their taste buds but they obviously aren't eating foods that will provide optimal health. In fact, they are going to end up with much of the same problems that many people here have. Once they reach that point, they will NEED Atkins to help get themselves out of the situation they are in. Yes, it would be all good and wonderful if people ALWAYS ate the way you eat. Problem is, pleasing our taste buds is usually what gets us all in trouble to begin with. We have that first McDonalds french fry as a young child and we are hooked. Our will power is usually not very strong so we have to eventually seek drastic measures to keep from eating them. Our way of doing so was to nip the carbohydrate addiction in the bud. Once that addiction is gone, it is smooth sailing. No more medications, better living. Plain and Simple.

gymeejet

Sat, Nov-29-03, 18:51

And we're simply trying to help you see your sugar addiction for what it is, an addiction.I have to admit you've come along way since you started this thread. And your rephrasing of your opinions is improving. However, you use too many buz words that you don't follow. For you, whole foods is proterin shakes, flavoured juice, and lots of sugar. You justify your "sugar junky" nutrition with buz words like "ultimate nutrition", and you do preach, wheather you realize it or not, probably to justify your poor nutritional choices for yourself...

Wa'il
it was my understanding that we were not responding to each other any more. when i talk about whole foods, i refer to nutrients, etc., that have not been processed to the point of "changing its health qualities". for example, flax meal has had the pure seed ground to make a meal consistency. but the integrity of the product has not been damaged. when we further this process, by making flax oil out of the meal, we need to be careful not to damage the "whole food". it has been shown that if no extra heat is added to the process, other than that created by the press itself, that we can keep the oil "whole" and "healthy". this also assumes no chemicals were involved in the extraction, and it was bottled quickly, to prevent damage from either light or oxygen. so as you can see, we do need to be very careful with the oils that we buy, because there are many possibilities of damaging the product. but because flax meal is cheap and easily obtainable, i choose not take any chances, and just use the meal instead of the oil. in so doing, i also get whatever other ingredients that the meal contains, besides just the oil. the protein that you mentioned, if done by a reliable source, is extracted electrically, not damaging the product. in fact, the amounts of the resulting aminos have much to do with extraction process. i do not drink "flavored juice". any juice i use is always 100% juice/juice concentrate. i never add just sugar to anything. i make sure that my carb products contain all of the natural ingredients, as i want all the phytonutrients along with the carbs. if you have any other questions about what i eat, i am happy to answer, as i do not want anyone to have a false understanding of them. the important thing to note here, is what sort of "processing" occurs to the food ? does it damage its integrity or not ?

tamarian

Sat, Nov-29-03, 19:34

if you have any other questions about what i eat, i am happy to answer, as i do not want anyone to have a false understanding of them. the important thing to note here, is what sort of "processing" occurs to the food ? does it damage its integrity or not ?
No questions here on your food choices, you've said plenty about your sweet tooth throughout this thread :) The majority of us here were sugar junkies, so we understand.

I'm just pointing out that you deprive yourself of whole, natural foods with all the powder food you use. Using science as a reason failed you, as you reject any science since Dr. Atkins sponsored one study out of hundreds. Of interest to some, vegan doctors have sponsored a lot more studies, and admitted to generating the data.

It's quite transparent that you try to use pseudo science buzz words to legitimize your poor choices, but by your own admission, your choice is based on "ethics", which defeats the purpose of arguing science. This is a discourse of an "apologetic", wherein science and logic is used in a contrived way in an attempt to prove a point taken on the basis of faith first, and science is used to sugar coat it.

Wa'il

gymeejet

Sat, Nov-29-03, 20:03

again, you attempt to use my morality of not eating animals, as my basis for my nutritional choices, because you can not muster up any real argument. this is a typical lawyer technique, of which you continue to avail yourself. as i have already shown you, the fact that a food is a powder, is not argument in and of itself, for its "wholeness". all the herb powders i use, for instance, are simply plant materials, ground up.

once again, for those who are slow on the up-take, as you apparently are, my choice not to eat meat was solely done because of nutritional choices, and trying to insinuate something else, only make you look foolish. i have given many nutritional reasons why i do not eat meat, and have also stated many times, that i have no nutritional objections to wild game, which tosses your accusations in the circular file, where they belong. i told you this from the very beginning, and i will tell you again - as a forum founder, i expect a lot more from you, with regards to courtesy, etc., than i do from others, and i find you to be considerably lacking in that regard.

it was not until many years later that i realized how wrong it was to kill animals. i only wish i could say that i had possessed the maturity to have realized it at an earlier age.

tamarian

Sat, Nov-29-03, 20:17

again, you attempt to use my morality of not eating animals, as my basis for my nutritional choices, because you can not muster up any real argument. LOL, you're the one running away from any scientific study that contradicts your beliefs, and developed a conspiracy theory that Dr. Atkins funded all scientific studies known to man. Anyone who reads the past pages can see that!

But, if saying this disturbs your little world of of mixed science and ethics, maybe I shouldn't push it too much.

i told you this from the very beginning, and i will tell you again - as a forum founder, i expect a lot more from you, with regards to courtesy, etc., than i do from others, and i find you to be considerably lacking in that regard. Well, I hope you'll get out of your protective shell, and argue your points on their merits, if they had any, not hide behind such excuses. If someone dares to disagree with you, learn to make an argument and try to make sense of it. Disagreeing with a point, even if not a silly one, is not a discourtesy. Grow up will ya? You're the one pushing sugar and powders as natural and whole food as "ultimate nutrition".

it was not until many years later that i realized how wrong it was to kill animals. i only wish i could say that i had possessed the maturity to have realized it at an earlier age. Well, animals eat animals. Does that make them wrong? Should we stop animals from surviving by eating other animals?

Wa'il

gymeejet

Sun, Nov-30-03, 01:29

tamarian,
i believe you intentionally misquote me, which is why i get upset with you. and for some strange reason, you want to continue to bring up ethics on this thread. i do not intend to go there on this thread, simply because this began as a nutritional thread, and i intend to keep it that way.

i see this as a devious attempt to hijack the thread, whenever you can see that i am making too much process, with good logic, and an understanding of physiology and physics.

like i have said many times, none of us can verify these studies, of which you are so fond. and most of the information that we get in life, is very biased - it is one of the sad facts that we all need to accept. any information, that has the ability to change people's behavior is extremely suspect - whether it be religion, politics, or financial, which is where the nutritional stuff leads us. there is so much to be gained by influencing us with regards to the foods that we eat - just look at how people in society regard food - it is an extremely important part of people's lives, and spreads through all functions, whether it be weddings, parties, etc.

i am experiencing a physical ability that goes beyond what would normally be thought of as possible, at my age. i have not only not slowed down, but am actually better than i was at 21 - simply because i have had more years of training with a body that has not yet begun to lose its ability to supply me with energy.

i do not expect you to fully appreciate this, because it is something that one would really need to experience.

tamarian

Sun, Nov-30-03, 07:23

most of the information that we get in life, is very biased Yes, that's what we're trying to tell you, your vegan beliefs do bias your opinions.

i am experiencing a physical ability that goes beyond what would normally be thought of as possible, at my age. Well, in this universe, people need proof. To us, your claims of being so ancient at 40, and looking like a pre-teen boy sound like you developed a mental disability which explains your grandiose claims or that you suffer from stunted growth like "Gary Coleman" possibly due to your poor "ultimate" nutrition.

Wa'il

gymeejet

Sun, Nov-30-03, 12:23

The fact is that we eat alot of things that you so called "healthy" people do. I eat Asaragus, Squash, Cottage Cheese, Tomatoes, Chicken, Lettuce, Green Peppers, Mushrooms, Avocados, etc. Did I mention that I also eat fruit? It is always hilarious to me when I have someone try to tell me that I can not eat fruit on a controlled carb lifestyle. Anyone who says that to me has not idea in the world what they are talking about.

i know you eats lots of vegetables, which is one of the good things about your diet. again, try to refrain from looking at my comments as projected directly upon you. i do not know what you personally do. i can only comment on low-carb styles, in general, as they are described in books, and advertised. many people tell me that fruit is an absolute no-no for them - alaska told me this. on the other hand, kathy eats such a liberal amount of carbs, that i do not even consider it to be a low-carb diet.

like i said before, the label "low carb diet" is a poor one, since even those who claim to be on them, seem to have a fairly different connotation as to what "low" means. the "mont blanc" mountain peak in the alps is LOWER than mt. everest, but it is not LOW, since it is the HIGHEST peak in the alps. the words LOW and HIGH are more absolute terms. but use the words LOWER, HIGHER, AMPLE, and they imply LOWER THAN WHAT, HIGHER THAN WHAT, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH - in otherwards, an implied measurement.

ozziesgirl

Sun, Nov-30-03, 20:35

"i see this as a devious attempt to hijack the thread, whenever you can see that i am making too much process, with good logic, and an understanding of physiology and physics."

I do not see you making any progress. You don't have a deep understanding, or at least have failed to express it here. In my opinion you have only pushed essential fats, protein and carbs and called our WOE bad. Your logic is there, I suppose but to call whatever we say illogical, is incorrect, rude and not to mention narrow minded. You seem to think many people intentionally misquote you, but did you ever think, maybe it is the way in which you are writing. Maybe a tone you are unknowingly taking that makes us think you are saying something differently?

And I think that just because she is the founder of this site, you have limited her in the opinions she can have. She is a person doing this WOE just like the rest of us.

You have called me rude and have seemingly stopped responding to my posts. But I think it is because my views are logical and maybe I am getting to you in a way. I did not find what I have said to be rude, maybe a little sarcastic at times but if you cannot take a little sarcasm, then I feel sorry for you.

I have said all along that whatever you do is fine, I am not bashing your way of life. I am more here to try to get you to see our side. And yes you agree that we eat veggies which are good, but you seem to only disagree with the saturated fat deal, since you now know they we do eat carbs and eventually add them back in..

You can only respond to what the media advertises this plan as???? You would not have to if you did your research prior to coming on here ready to attack.

If you prefer not to eat meat, well good for you. That is your choice. I do not attempt to tell anyone their eating habits are horrible if they just do not agree with mine.

tamarian

Sun, Nov-30-03, 20:58

And I think that just because she is the founder of this site, you have limited her in the opinions she can have. She is a person doing this WOE just like the rest of us.
That's alright OzziesGirl, he doesn't have much to grasp on, so who can blame him for using this excuses.

BTW, I'm a guy :)

You have called me rude and have seemingly stopped responding to my posts
Just like discounting any study that contradicts his beliefs, so are members who challange his views. The rude card is another convenient excuse. He can be rude, but no one else can. He can cite vegan studies, but no one can cite other scientific studies. A very childish form of debate, but hey, he likes it, so it's o.k..

If you prefer not to eat meat, well good for you. That is your choice. I do not attempt to tell anyone their eating habits are horrible if they just do not agree with mine.
You see, gymeejet won't like you saying this,and will call you rude for it, under the excuse he only promoted this view in another thread, while in this thread he's on the opposite side, and all for wild game (let's not open the endangered species debate ;) ). So his views are compartementalized into multiple personalities, none affecting the other. And if we dare point that out, it's rude, and a conspiracy paid for by Dr. Atkins.

Wa'il

ozziesgirl

Sun, Nov-30-03, 21:27

Oops, I am sorry about that...never even looked, tsk tsk on me :blush:

bvtaylor

Sun, Nov-30-03, 23:52

Hi, gymee. Thought I'd stop by and wish you a Happy Holiday Season in the midst of the War Zone.

like i said before, the label "low carb diet" is a poor one, since even those who claim to be on them, seem to have a fairly different connotation as to what "low" means. the "mont blanc" mountain peak in the alps is LOWER than mt. everest, but it is not LOW, since it is the HIGHEST peak in the alps. the words LOW and HIGH are more absolute terms. but use the words LOWER, HIGHER, AMPLE, and they imply LOWER THAN WHAT, HIGHER THAN WHAT, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH - in otherwards, an implied measurement.
I think that what you said above is the key to the misunderstanding of this argument. "low carbing" is perhaps a misnomer as the politically correct term (that Atkins uses for example) is "controlled carb". Low is certainly relative, not only to the USRDA, but even to the different "low" carb eating plans that members of this forum engage in, moreover the stages of "low" carb dieting.

To be able to debate this accurately, you would have to show that

1) a certain level of carbohydrate (for example 20 g) is insufficient for appropriate body nutrition and why.
2) that ketosis in weight loss (which is the result of I believe under 40-50 g of net carbs) has a long-term negative effect.
3) what level of carbohydrate would be the minimum for appropriate nutrition in your opinion, why, and why it is different than what a controlled carb lifestyle offers.

What so many of us have discovered is that the key to improved health is a focus on controlling (not eliminating) one particular part of the triangle of carbs, fats, and proteins. In theory, controlling the carbohydrates (which means limiting refined carbs and focusing on the most nutrient-dense carbs--which coincidentally are the lower-glycemic ones) naturally boosts the necessary fats and proteins in our diet without our being aware, and does so in a healthy fashion, provided we focus on whole foods.

That's why the Atkins plan, for example, only concerns itself with counting the net carbs... seems as though we are obscessed with carbs, but in reality what we are doing is increasing quality protein and fat intake proportionately to fill our daily food bin (which is what you have been saying all along). By doing so, this cuts down on the cravings for junk, it limits hunger, and gives us more energy--it really is essentially exactly the same type of diet that you advocate.

Controlling protein or fat instead would probably not fill in the gaps of a diet as well as controlling carbohydrates does on its own.

gymeejet

Mon, Dec-01-03, 09:18

hi bv, thanks for the long post. "controlled" is a much better word, as it also implies some sort of measurement. have a nice holiday season, as well.

ozziesgirl

Mon, Dec-01-03, 18:08

The term controlled carb was mentioned before

hkblue

Mon, Dec-01-03, 18:36

HUH?

Why is it that BV was able to say it the exact same way I have, yet you couldn't understand it when I told you it is "controlled carb"?
This is what I have been trying to explain to you the entire time we have been posting in this thread!

You said that you know I eat alot of vegetables and you are basing low carb on what books advertise and what other people tell you. This is the biggest problem right here and this is what we have been trying to tell you. Instead, for some reason or another you have not been understanding what we are saying. Before you come on this website and start blasting "low carb" diets, you need to know more about the individual diets first. Until you know exactly what it is all about you should actually read the book first. Like I said before, I know alot of people who have "heard" of the Atkins diet and they assume that it is all meat and cheese. This is the misconception here, but noone ever bothers to read and find out for themselves. Rumors being spread are how low carb or controlled carb get their bad rep. I know different weight control plans have different plans to follow, but I am just pointing out the Atkins plan because it is the most controversial due to rumors.

If many people tell you that fruit is an absolutel no no for them, they are NOT on the Atkins WOE. I can promise you that. Fruit is only a no no in the induction phase only. The only things that are an absolute no no for life are white breads, pasta, sugar, basically all the things that most people tell you are no no's anyway when you want to lose weight.

I'm sorry if you think I have had an attitude with you. I am just very frustrated with people who try to tell me what I'm doing wrong when they didn't bother to educate themselves before they said anything. When someone tells me what I can and can not have before they read the book or read any literature on this WOE it tends to frustrate me ALOT! I was just trying to make you see that what I am doing is not bad for my health. It has actually improved my health while helping lose weight. This is all I have been trying to make you understand.

Lisa N

Mon, Dec-01-03, 20:15

Fruit is only a no no in the induction phase only.

Not even then since tomatoes and avocados are fruits and they are allowed on induction. ;)

gymeejet

Mon, Dec-01-03, 21:03

Did you catch what I said in the previous paragragh? I mentioned the words controlled carb, which is exactly what Dr. Atkins recommends after you pass through the first couple of phases of Atkins. Controlled carbs does not mean that you never eat carbs. If we did that, we would NEVER be able to eat anything but meat and water. Oh, that's right....that is what you think we do already anyway. Boy are you guys wrong. I NEVER have more than 1 serving of meat at a meal. I eat more of the "good" carbs - vegetables in all my meals.

i am aware of how many carbs many of the people eat here. "controlled carb" is a better or more accurate term for describing the diet. but it still means we must answer the question of "how much is controlled", and what yardstick do we measure by ?

i never thought you ate just meat and water. there are many other foods besides meat that has fat in it.

besides store-bought-meats, i don't think i have too much of a complaint about any individual food that most of the people here eat. but rather, the amount of saturated fat, and the amount of carbs. it seems that most of you work at eating whole foods most of the time, and not take-out-pizzas.

for "controlled-carbers" who are very liberal with their carb intake, such as kathy, i think they are doing very well.

gymeejet

Wed, Dec-03-03, 01:03

I have heard people say time and time again that this diet is not balanced enough. How is my meal unbalanced and what is it based on? The ancient food pyramid that claims we should eat a ton of carbohydrates and use fats sparingly. Ummm...aren't you the one who says that you "NEED" essential fats? I don't think I have EVER seen the food pyramid say that you should use fats sparingly with the exception of Essential fats.

i have said this many times, but since you asked again, i feel that your diet has too much saturated fat in it, and not enough carbohydrates, if we are talking about an OPTIMUM HEALTH diet for the NON-DIABETIC.

as far as what my reasoning is based on : the brain runs optimally on sugar, and the brain uses a lot of energy - i think something like 10 times as much energy, per pound, as any other tissue in the body - luckily our brains only weigh a relatively small amount, or we would have to eat all day - LOL. the body can not burn ketones, anaerobically - this occurs during intense workouts. these 2 situations require us to get quite a few calories from sugar - enough that i do not think that many of the "controlled-carbers" meet those requirements, which is why i told alaska to eat as much as he could get away with, and still control his diabetes, which he had no problem with.

you have never heard me tout the 4 basic food groups, the food pyramid, or whatever else they come up with next.

yes, we absolutely need "essential fats", as our bodies do not have the enzymes necessary to place a double bond in the 3rd or 6th position in the chain, which is why these fats are "essential".

PoofieD

Wed, Dec-03-03, 08:35

have said this many times, but since you asked again, i feel that your diet has too much saturated fat in it, and not enough carbohydrates, if we are talking about an OPTIMUM HEALTH diet for the NON-DIABETIC

Can you show me a study that separates the saturated fat from the effects of carbohydrates?
I would be interested in your find.
Could you also explain eskimo's or pre-historic man. I know your platform is that pre-historic man didn't eat much saturated fat, but I would still note that he didn't get alot of extra carbs in his life.
Then explain the health decline of Egyptians. You know the first people that we can study from anciet days because of mummification, and the fact that they had all the same health issues we do, and I seriously doubt they hopped down to thier supermarket for chips and cola. They were eating no refined grains.
Hmm.
Are you sure your paranoia about "saturated' fat isn't the indoctrination we have been carefully receiving for the last 50 years or more?

gymeejet

Wed, Dec-03-03, 21:35

Can you show me a study that separates the saturated fat from the effects of carbohydrates?
I would be interested in your find.

hi poofie, welcome to the discussion.

i am not sure what you are asking in this part of your post. as you probably know, it is my belief that any information, study or otherwise, whose outcome has the ability to change human behavior patterns, is so riddled with suspect, that i would not use it to make important decisions for myself.

but, in regards to glucose and the brain, you can find that in any physiology textbook, as well as probably thousands of articles on the net. in terms of anaerobic exercise, here is a pretty good article.

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:PLJ-gj5bWH4J:courses.csusm.edu/biol325aw/Chapter1ClassOutline.doc+%2Banaerobic+%2Bketone+%2Bsugar&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

1) Glucose fuels the work of most of the body’s cells, particularly during high intensity exercise.

2) At a certain point, glucose is forever lost to the body and this can have serious consequences.

3) Although glucose can be converted into body fat, this can never be converted back into glucose to give the brain an adequate supply of energy

4) When it faces a severe carbohydrate deficit, the body has 2 problems:

1. Having no glucose, it must turn to protein to make some, breaking down its own muscles and other tissues, thus diverting protein from its own vitally important functions. Preventing this from occurring is called the protein-sparing effect of carbohydrates.

2. Without sufficient carbohydrate, the body cannot use fat in the normal way. Using fat without the help of carbohydrate causes the body to go into ketosis, an undesirable high concentration of ketone bodies, such as acetone, in the blood or urine.

Carbohydrate Dynamics in Exercise
Muscles hoard their glycogen stores
The body constantly uses and replenishes its glycogen--Fig 1.7 page 17
The body’s glycogen stores are much more limited than its fat
Aerobic use of glucose: less intense activities
Anaerobic use of glucose: involved in intense exercise--Fig 1.6, page 16
Lactic Acid: anaerobic breakdown of glucose produces lactic acid, fragments of glucose molecules that accumulate in the tissues and blood—resulting from the incomplete breakdown of glucose during anaerobic metabolism.
Glucose use/activity duration
· <10 minutes of an activity, the active muscles rely almost completely on their own stores of glycogen to provide energy for that activity

· 10-20 minutes, glycogen from muscles and liver

· 20 minutes of moderate activity—begin to use less glucose and more fat for fuel.

· Glycogen depletion usually occurs after about two hours of vigorous activity

· A Carbohydrate deficient diet rapidly depletes muscle and live glycogen and negatively affects performance in short term, anaerobic exercise and prolonged high-intensity aerobic activities. Figure 1.7—page 17

tamarian

Wed, Dec-03-03, 21:59

but, in regards to glucose and the brain, you can find that in any physiology textbook, as well as probably thousands of articles on the net. in terms of anaerobic exercise, here is a pretty good article.

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:PLJ-gj5bWH4J:courses.csusm.edu/biol325aw/Chapter1ClassOutline.doc+%2Banaerobic+%2Bketone+%2Bsugar&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
Wow!

Scientific studies are suspect, but lecture notes from a St. Marcos school are gospel truth?! LOL

It's interesting the empasis on anabolic effects. That lecture note would be laughed at by any pro bodybuilder nowdays. Let alone that it defies our evolution.

Gee, I can see it now "And God made sugar manufacturing in abundance, and commanded the people of the 20th century that they shall abandon their ancestor's food, whom were stricken for eating animal fat, and thou shalt eat more sugar, for their anabolic bodybuilding routine shall eat less of their muscles, not thine protein. Sugar good for thine brain function...."

Thus spoke the sweet tooth fairy..

Wa'il

Xena2005

Wed, Dec-03-03, 22:08

Roflmfao - I thought the same.

gymeejet

Wed, Dec-03-03, 23:21

The situation may arise where there is insufficient carbohydrate stores to provide glucose to regenerate muscle glycogen. If glucose supplies are low, the muscle glycogen will not be restored. The available glucose in the blood will be spared for use by the brain and the muscle will be left wanting for a carbohydrate energy supply. If glucose levels fall below the levels necessary for proper brain function, other sources of glucose exist as emergency stores. Protein in the body can be degraded to its amino acid building blocks, which can then be converted to pyruvic acid in the liver. Two pyruvic acids can be combined to form one glucose molecule which enters the blood. The primary source of protein for this process is the breakdown of muscle tissue; thus, glucose may be generated at the expense of protein. This reaction also occurs when the body is in starvation or when the individual consumes low levels of calories.

Fats, are composed of glycerol, and three fatty acids, and can also be used to provide glucose. The glycerol can be converted to glucose; the fatty acids cannot. The fatty acids must either be used aerobically or they become ketones (a chemical compound including acetone) which are toxic in the blood at high levels. With starvation or fasting, low carbohydrate diets, prolonged exercise, or uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, ketone body formation accelerates. Adipose (fat) tissue releases large quantities of fatty acids due to an imbalance between triglyceride (fat) formation and lipolysis (breakdown of fats) caused by low blood insulin concentration. In all of these conditions, carbohydrate content in the body is low, and thus carbohydrate utilization and blood insulin concentration are low. Depending upon fat for the generation of glucose is not desirable. It is essential that an adequate amount of carbohydrate needs to be ingested for successful participation in any activity.

http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/5233/nutrition.html

gymeejet

Wed, Dec-03-03, 23:23

"you must consume carbohydrates in order for the body to metabolize fat for energy."

gymeejet

Wed, Dec-03-03, 23:40

Fat needs oxygen to burn completely so the best exercise will be performed slowly and easily for the muscle cells to utilise fat (aerobically) for its main energy source. Anaerobic exercise requires moving at an increased pace and/or with more effort. Exercise at high pace results in a greater demand for oxygen which cannot always be met so muscle cells will burn mostly carbohydrates (blood sugar or glucose). This is because carbohydrates burn quickly and do not require oxygen.

http://www.weightlossforall.com/anaerobic%20training.htm

gymeejet

Wed, Dec-03-03, 23:44

Anaerobic system

When the body's energy demands are such that the cardio-respiratory system is no longer able to meet the muscles’ demand for oxygen, the anaerobic energy system comes into operation. In this instance, fuel reserves are broken down without oxygen (anaerobic=without oxygen). This allows the muscles to provide extra energy but the system is much less efficient than the aerobic system and as a result anaerobic exercise can only be sustained for short periods. Anaerobic exercise can be activities like weight training. It can also be an activity that is rhythmic and uses large muscle group that is performed at high intensity.

The main source of fuel for the anaerobic exercise is carbohydrate.

http://www.hpb.gov.sg/hpb/haz/haz03014.asp

gymeejet

Wed, Dec-03-03, 23:51

With moderate exertion, carbohydrate undergoes aerobic metabolism.

The major advantage of the less efficient anaerobic pathway is that it more rapidly provides ATP in muscle by utilizing local muscle glycogen.

At higher intensity carbohydrate plays a greater role but is limited in its duration of action.

So while fat is not very useful for short term, intense exercise, it is a great advantage for increasingly prolonged exercise especially when it is maintained at a low or moderate level of intensity.

http://www.cellinteractive.com/ucla/nutrition_101/phys_lect6.html

gymeejet

Wed, Dec-03-03, 23:55

Any form of anaerobic exercise can only be performed if a Carbohydrate energy source is available.

Generally speaking as exercise intensity increases there is an increase in the use of CHO as an energy source.

http://www.totalefit.co.uk/zref_fuelutilisation.asp

gymeejet

Wed, Dec-03-03, 23:59

Anaerobic
The high power system - provides energy for a 90 second power burst. This system is the fast anaerobic (without oxygen) breakdown of glucose for energy, but only provides 2 molecules of ATP along with a waste product called lactic acid - too much of this causes muscle fatigue.

The preferred energy fuel for the muscles is glucose, especially as exercise intensity increases

Anaerobic activities only use glucose, whereas aerobic activities use all 3 fuels - although protein is used to a lesser extent than glucose and fat.

During low intensity exercise you use a greater proportion of fat, a smaller proportion of glucose, and fewer calories. As you increase the exercise intensity, your body will gradually use less fat, more glucose, and more calories - so most of the fuel during moderate and high intensity exercise will come from glucose.

Why? The main cause of fatigue is due to running out of those vital glucose stores (glycogen) - although dehydration will also result in fatigue. During anaerobic activities, fatigue is initially due to CP depletion and the build up of lactic acid, but repeated bouts of this type of activity will also result in glycogen depletion.

Therefore, if you want to exercise longer and harder you need to start off each training session by having a full tank of glucose. How? By eating a diet that's rich in carbohydrates.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/fitness/food_energy.shtml

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 00:04

Anaerobic (fuels burned without O2 present) glycolosis system
The Power System: Glycogen (our body’s sugar) is stored in muscle ready to be converted to ATP with no O2 present, used for 10 sec. to 1 min. of high intensity activity. In a well trained athlete this system provides fuel for sprints from 100 to 800 meters
Anaerobic exercise: Exercise or work in which carbohydrate (carb) fuel sources are converted to ATP, without oxygen present to power cellular activity. Only carbs are utilized in this manner. Anaerobic work is of very high intensity and consists of efforts that lead to system failure in 2 - 60 seconds in any individual (workloads to stimulate this state will vary depending on physical condition).

fat is the preferred energy source for low intensity aerobic activity

fat is converted very slowly and can sustain only 25% to 40% of target heart rate (Max. VO2) without significant contribution of carbs. At the point that the carb contribution becomes significant, fat contribution declines

carbs are the primary fuel for intense aerobic exercise and the only fuel source for weight lifting and sprint workouts (anaerobic exercise)

carbs are stored by the body in limited amounts and must be ingested during performance of intense endurance events longer than one hour to ensure optimal performance (boy, is this ever true. no matter how much carb loading i do, i still need my nutritional drink while doing my most vigorous routine. and vice versa, no matter how much carbs i have during exercise, i can not perform nearly as well if i did not get some good carb loading the night before - gymeejet talking within the parentheses)

http://www.dynamicbalance.com/pages/articles/FoodAsFuel.html

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 00:07

The main fuel for aerobics are glucose (stored sugars from carbohydrates) and fatty acids (stored fat from foods). Amino acids, which result as the body digests proteins, are used very sparingly as aerobic energy. Their job is to build and repair muscles and cells.

ANAEROBIC EXERCISE (literally, exercise that doesn't require oxygen), typically refersto stop-and-start activities. Activities that require a quick burst of energy followed by a lull.

The fuel that makes this possible comes from glycogen (stored sugar from carbohydrates). But this glycogen doesn't need oxygen to convert it's fuel- it's immediately available in the muscles and liver.

Anaerobic Energy System

Phosphagen
Fuels very quick, all-out exertions that last 1-15 seconds. Before fatigue sets in.
Fuel used is creatine phosphate.
Anaerobic Glycolysis (glucose)
Fuels moderately short actions from 1-3 minutes.
Fuel used is glucose.

http://www.trainwithmike.com/cardio.html

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 00:10

Anaerobic exercise starts when there is not enough oxygen in the muscles. As a result, fats cannot be used for energy and glucose is not burnt completely, leaving behind a waste product called lactate.

http://www.diabetesnow.co.uk/autumn2003/exercise.asp

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 00:14

Why is it so important to exercise aerobically? Your body burns 2 types of fuel during exercise: both sugar (carbohydrates) and fat. We will ALWAYS burn the sugar, whether we are exercising aerobically or not, but FAT CAN ONLY BE BURNED IN THE PRESENCE OF OXYGEN! Since fat provides us with many more times the energy of sugar, (and we don't want excess fat on our bodies) we want to exercise aerobically

We all have what is called the "anaerobic threshold" which is the point in which our bodies stop using the fat burning metabolic pathways, and begin using anaerobic pathways. Simply put, you stop burning fat, and burn only sugar. Since sugar burns off so quickly, that is why a sprinter cannot sprint for a long period of time.

http://www.motivationstation.net/cardio.htm

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 00:16

Fat is used for fuel during exercise at a variety of intensity levels. At rest and at moderate heart rates, your body's preferred fuel choice is fat. As exercise intensity increases, you burn progressively more glucose. At anaerobic threshold heart rates, you burn almost entirely glucose and very little fat.

Since your preferred fuel choice at rest is fat, you will burn more fat around the clock because of your glucose-burning workout!

http://www.naturalhealthweb.com/articles/Kearns3.html

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 00:19

Fat is a great fuel for endurance events, but it is simply not adequate for high level aerobic exercise (over 50% VO2Max) or for anaerobic exercise such as sprints or intervals.

As exercise intensity increases to 60 and 90% VO2Max, carbohydrate metabolism takes over and is more efficient than fat metabolism. Since a well-fed athlete can hold about 1500 carbohydrate Calories, this level of intensity can be sustained for approximately 2 hours. After that, stored carbohydrates are used up and you may hit the wall or ‘bonk.’ An athlete can sustain 60-90% VO2Max for more than 2 hours by simply replenishing carbohydrate stores during exercise. This is why it is critical to eat easily digestible carbohydrates during moderate exercise that lasts more than a few hours. If you don’t take in enough carbohydrates, you will be forced to reduce your intensity to less than 50%VO2Max and tap back into fat metabolism to fuel activity.

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/nutrition/a/aa080803a_2.htm

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 00:22

tamarian

Thu, Dec-04-03, 05:59

if i had a 100 years to sit at the computer, i could continue posting articles, but hopefully i got my point across, and why i would not consider restricting my carbs to the lc-levels - I COULD NOT EXERCISE TO THE SAME LEVEL OF INTENSITY, AND THUSLY THE SAME LEVEL OF FITNESS
********WITHOUT CARBOHYDRATES********

something i have spent my entire life doing, so know a thing or two about it.
So, you spent your whole life mislead, but it's never too late to educate yourself. This may explain why, if you spent your whole life bodybuilding, you're still at 160 lbs. You might try to do it the right way and follow CKD or other professional bodybuilding nutrition.

There are hundreds of "articles" saying anything you want them to say, as believe it or not, you're not the only pro-sugar person in the world. That doesn't make them textbooks. Sugar addictions is a growing epedemic, thanks to the sugar association and the food pyramid, the source of most of these opinions.

When someone tells you sugar is preferred fuel for anabolic workout, it has nothing to do with the brain, unless you think the brain is a muscle that needs to do anarobic workout, which won't surprise me if that's what you think.

But let's assume your quoted article is correct.

It only means that some professional body builders may need sugar, not the average person. This in contrast to your assertions that only diabeics should control their carbs. The average person is not a bodybuilder dedicating their whole life to pumping iron.

Wa'il

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 09:10

where in the world did you get anything about body-building ? you seem to consider these people in high regard, and in the know. while some of them go natural, most of them are steroid users, and not what i would consider to be healthy.

i am not a bodybuilder of any sorts, and people think i look pretty darn good - most people think i weigh about 145, but because i exercise, i weigh more.

none of these articles were about the brain needing sugar, but rather that sugar is necessary for intense aerobic exercise, and for anaerobic exercise. my vigorous cardio routine requires lots of sugar, in order to perform it - it is just that simple. you can keep blinders on if you want, but i know better, because this is what i have spent my life doing - lots of vigorous cardio - i know what works - and as i have shown you, fat can not be used effectively for intense workouts.

fat is an excellent source of fuel. we use it most of the time, for most things - this is obvious by looking at the amount of fat that we have evolved to store, and the relative lack of sugar that our bodies can store at one time. but our brains need sugar, and when we exercise with any sort of intensity, we need sugar.

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 09:14

i also find it funny that you attempt to ridicule me for my weight, and yet i never ridicule you guys for it, even knowing that many of you are still very overweight.

no one considers me to be overweight, even in the slightest.

but i thought this was about being healthy. it just shows what i have been saying before - many people will rationalize until the cows come home, if they think something can keep fat off them - which is one of the big reasons people try controlled-carb diets.

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 09:32

one last tidbit about weightlifting - i do not consider this to be a large anaerobic use of energy. for most of us lifting weights, very little of the time spent is in anaerobic mode.

you want to lift the weight slowly, such that you are not jerking it up, breathing out slowly, and making the final exhale when you reach the top - then once again lower the weight even more slowly, while breathing in oxygen for the next lift. make sure you rest for a minute or so in between sets. very seldom are you in an anaerobic mode. unlike vigorous cardio, where you are constantly burning sugar, either while in anaerobic or high-aerobic modes - that sugar-electric meter is going full blast.

tamarian

Thu, Dec-04-03, 10:40

where in the world did you get anything about body-building ? Huh? You base your point on 10+ opinion articles on anaerobic needs for sugar as proof low-carb is bad for the average none-diabetic person, and talk about how brain functions would suffer bla bla bla, then you ask this question?

Maybe you should try to follow the line of your arguments, it's makes things easier....

i am not a bodybuilder of any sorts, and people think i look pretty darn good - most people think i weigh about 145, but because i exercise, i weigh more. I don't know, I never saw you. All I can judge by is your arguments. And from your claims of unnatural powers, and miracculous 12 year old looks in your ancient 40's. This is not a place to claim miracles. You might want to phone America's funniest videos or Ripleys beleive it or not.

none of these articles were about the brain needing sugar, but rather that sugar is necessary for intense aerobic exercise, Yes, none of them were. That's why you failed to make the brain/sugar argument, after your St. Marcos "proof".

Second, don't confuse anaerobic with aerobic. They're totally different. That's why you didn't get the bodybuilding point.

Wa'il

tamarian

Thu, Dec-04-03, 10:44

i also find it funny that you attempt to ridicule me for my weight, and yet i never ridicule you guys for it, even knowing that many of you are still very overweight.
You're the one bragging about your miraculous anaerobic powers, and long life experience, plus unnatural powers, plus yada yada yada.

So it's a valid point to question your under weight in light of such claims.

Had you been claiming you're a marathon runner, I would understand, as it would make sense.

Wa'il

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 13:19

fair enough. i thought you were claiming i was overweight. the get-up-and-go i was claiming was due to VIGOROUS CARDIO, not to weightlifting. very few people are in anaerobic phase for any length of time, while weightlifting, and are probably burning fat during most of that interval.

weightlifting is a good thing, in that it helps with our muscular and skeletal systems. but cardio is 10 times more important, as it gets right down to the cellular level. every cell in the body, except red blood cells, if i recall correctly, has mitochondria busily spewing out energy for us. in order to give us lots of energy, those cells have to have the needed ingredients coming from good diets, healthy machinery inside to manufacture, healthy membrane walls for ingress/egress, and an efficient blood stream to deliver this energy. all in all, the best indicator of overall health, since so much has to be working at high efficiency, if you want good results.

also, "burning fat while exercising" is meaningless, and just something that trainers say because it makes them appear knowledgeable. it makes no difference what fuel is being burned during exercise, in regards to the amount of fat we will ultimately have on our body, as long as it is carbs or adipose fat, and not protein or essential fats. the main thing is to have enough carbs readily available during exercise, as there will always be enough fat, unless one has gone into anorexic/starvation mode.

one thing i would like to mention for people, because it is a source of frustration for many, is the following:

our optimal fat/muscle is largely regulated by our hormones. our diet allows us to reach our optimal level, but not to exceed it. the higher our natural estrogen levels are, the more fat cells we had added before puberty, and thusly the more fat we will have. likewise, the higher our testosterone is, the more muscle we can make. this is why body builders take steroids, which are just testosterone-derivatives. but going against how our bodies are designed to work, is not an advisable thing, in terms of our health. so, DO NOT LET THE MIRROR dictate what your final outcome is, but rather YOUR HEALTH.

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 13:29

as far as the brain-sugar, you can find that in thousands of places. i intentionally only posted some of the articles about needing sugar during exercise, since that might be harder to find for some.

by the way, i never claimed to look 12 years-old. i will let others judge my knowledge by what i post - they can choose for themselves whether it seems like my posts have any relevancy in their lives.

tamarian

Thu, Dec-04-03, 14:22

as far as the brain-sugar, you can find that in thousands of places. i intentionally only posted some of the articles about needing sugar during exercise, since that might be harder to find for some. You can post all the op/eds you want, doesn't make them true. But since you claim to have read, and trust, textbooks, as opposed to scientific studies, let me show what textbooks actually say on this issue:

The whole process of muscle protein catabolism and liver gluconeogenesis is regulated principally by glucocorticosteroids and glucagon and a relative lack of insulin. Early in fasting glycogen reserves are depleted, and protein (mainly from muscle) becomes the major source of carbon for glucose production. Glucose is required in substantial amounts by blood cells and the central nervous system on a daily basis. There is also an initiation of ketone body production by the liver to provide a more water soluble form of fat-derived fuel.

A very similar adaption of protein and energy metabolism occurs in persons consuming diets very low in carbohydrates, where there is little or no glycogen reserve. However, in this instance, dietary protein largely or fully substitutes for muscle protein in gluconeogenesis.

Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism: with clinical applications", Maria C. Linder So, while circumventing the natural way of supplying your body with glucose through overdosing on sugar, you don't have to. Eating natural, whole food is enough. Ample meat, green veggies, and the occasional fruit is more than enough.

Let alone the fact your muscles can't hold too much glycogen, as it's limited by muscular size, so excess sugar is stored as body fat. More is less in this case.

by the way, i never claimed to look 12 years-old. i will let others judge my knowledge by what i post - they can choose for themselves whether it seems like my posts have any relevancy in their lives. Well, unless middle school in the U.S. is different than here in Canada, so maybe 14?:

i have gals in middle school who flirt with me, and give me that type of attention. and i did say middle school. now that is partly because i have a fairly young look. partly because i have a babyish, non-threatening look. and probably mostly because of the energy that i display in the activities that i do, are exclusively connected to "being a kid". Yet,
i am experiencing a physical ability that goes beyond what would normally be thought of as possible, at my age.
I hate to depress you with this news, but being in the 40's is like 20 years before retirement age, and is quite young. Not middle school young, but young :)

Wa'il

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 14:41

whenever we break down protein to make sugar, we place ammonia in the body. the liver detoxifies this, in making urea, but it is not gonna keep pace with it, if it is done a lot. protein should only be used for re-building, not for energy-making.

getting attention from middle-shoolers does not equate to being their same age.

i know of no one, pushing 50, who could come close to my cardio output. very few at any age, can. this has mostly to do with lifestyle, nutritional and otherwise.

and yes, i have always advocated that any sugar, after glycogen stores are full, will be stored as fat, which is why we need amounts every day.

tamarian

Thu, Dec-04-03, 14:52

While such super unimaginable powers at the old age of 40 (LOL), yet lookinking like a middle school boy might be reserved to Gary Coleman, Peter Pan or Michael Jackson, let's get real here.

Here's what avoiding sugar, and following a natural healthy diet, with animal meat, and animal fat (yes, especially saturated fat) can do to your health:

Dr. Barry Groves (67+) : http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/aboutbg.html

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/images/medals.jpg

Real people, real results, with solid scientific background, with athletic records, not anonymous internet wannabe Peter Pans who survived till their amazing 40's :)

Wa'il

bluesmoke

Thu, Dec-04-03, 15:21

Tamarian, I always get a case of the falling over guffaws after hearing from one of these "you need carbs for exercise" nuts. Since even in a "carb loaded" body, glucose reserve run out in about 20 minutes, and then it's ketones, sugar doesn't seem to cover much in extended exercise.
If you cruise over to Laura Richard's site, you will find a link to research done on low carb female athletes done at the University of Buffalo. Surprise, their preformance improved when they got away from sugar.
This poster has been a source of great amusement to me, I wonder if he knows just how foolish he sounds to the rest of us? Nyah Levi

tamarian

Thu, Dec-04-03, 15:42

If you cruise over to Laura Richard's site, you will find a link to research done on low carb female athletes done at the University of Buffalo. Surprise, their preformance improved when they got away from sugar. Yep, you'll find it in our studies section as well.

The problem here though is first scientefic studies are not acceptable, only textbooks. Now we get real textbook quotes, then it's not good, we need this, we get this, then it's not good, there's too many conspiracies amongst scientists, doctors, biochemists etc. against sugar. Even human evolution is not acceptable when talking at this supernatural level on the need for sugar. :)

This poster has been a source of great amusement to me, I wonder if he knows just how foolish he sounds to the rest of us? Nyah Levi I have to agree on this. Unfortunately, we really want this war zone to be a place were we can debate on an intellectual level, using scientific evidence. But here with this thread, we're not having a good representative of the other side, and it's to the detriment of good debate that we' don't have a good representative of the pro carb side. There are many points that can be debated, and science has not yet nailed down, so there are points that can be made on each side. But once you enter the supernatural world, the science goes out the window.

For great debate and excellent arguments from pro-carb crowd that can be challenging, checkout the nutrion Usenet group (some great gems there occasionally), which we also mirror on our forum:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=128

Wa'il

Lisa N

Thu, Dec-04-03, 16:01

Somebody better tell England's Rugby team that you can't perform athletically without carb loading. Oh...wait...they'd just laugh and show you their championship trophy that they won while low carbing (yup...every last member of the team trained and played on low carb this past season). :lol:

hkblue

Thu, Dec-04-03, 17:14

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 17:40

gymeejet,

There is something that I have really been curious about.

Have you ever tried low carb? Have you ever actually worked out on a low carb WOE? If not, how do you know for certain that you can not work out at optimal levels on fat burning metabolism? You keep talking about how you have eaten the way you eat for many many years and have been able to reach "optimal health" and "optimal workouts. If you have never even tried this WOE, how in the world would you know about something that you have never tried? It seems to me that those of us who have tried BOTH are finding that we actual excel MORE on this WOE.

Just curiousity!

blue, that is definitely a fair question to ask, and one that i would ask if i was on your side of the fence.

i know what it is like to be low in carbs, and not be able to do my workout. i have never gone through induction, and tried to change my complete metabolism around. there just is no reason for me to do so. at 48, i have not only maintained my same energy levels, but may actually be better.

even if you believe me, i can't expect you to totally relate to something that different, if you are not experiencing it. i would not believe myself, if i were on the other side of the fence. in fact, when i was 21, it would have seemed too ridiculous to even consider.

but you are claiming to be doing better than what you had been doing. i don't doubt this for a second. this is not the same as being the best that you can be.

we both agree on getting rid of processed foods. we both agree on getting rid of sugar-foods, such as twinkies, etc.

i just simply feel that you have gone overboard in depleting your carb intake. your body will make saturated fat from any excess calories. the only good source of glucose is from carbohydrate, and we can not store much at any one time. i still need to drink my nutritional drink to get me through my routine, without slowing down, no matter how much i load up beforehand.

i have shown you many articles that sugar is an important aspect of high intensity training. if you do not want to accept this, that is fine. i can only lead the horse to water. whether he drinks or not, is up to the horse.

Rosebud

Thu, Dec-04-03, 17:46

i have shown you many articles that sugar is an important aspect of high intensity training. if you do not want to accept this, that is fine. i can only lead the horse to water. whether he drinks or not, is up to the horse.
Unfortunately, those articles are merely someone's opinion.
When you can show us some solid scientific fact that proves sugar is essential for anything, we'll take you more seriously.

Oh, I forgot! You don't believe in scientific fact, you prefer opinion...

:rose:Rosebud:rose:

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 17:55

tamarian

Thu, Dec-04-03, 18:22

i showed you studies from the harvard school - but you only want to believe studies supporting what you have chosen to do. but i suspect that there are many lurkers on this thread who are still on the fence, and i am confident that i am making good points for them to consider.

i also showed you where there were 8 distinct sugars used anabolically, 2 of them being essential.

if it does not support the atkins diet, it is not scientific, by your definition.
If you are confident that Harvard scientific studies are acceptable by you :) we can discuss them. But be aware, they are pro low-carb, anti-sugar too. I'd hate to waste anyone's time discussing them, only for you to yet again find another excuse to reject them because they don't support your argument.

But, even if we assume everything you said so far is 100% correct, it only proves high sugar diets maybe better for those requireing high intensity anaerobic training, which is less than 0.1% of the population.

Wa'il

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 21:02

from the harvard school of public health:

Apart from the uncertainty about its ability to maintain weight loss, the high-protein diet may have outright detrimental effects. Many of the high-protein foods that people choose while on this type of diet (red meat, cheese, and full-fat dairy products, for example) are high in saturated fat and low in vitamins and minerals. This may increase the risk for heart disease and colon cancer. Diets very high in protein (especially animal protein, like red meat) may also increase the risk for osteoporosis in women because the body takes calcium from the bone to neutralize the acids that build up in the blood as a result of digesting large amounts of protein.

Until more is known about the true risks and benefits of these low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets, they should be viewed with caution. Protein intake should be kept at moderate amounts (about 8 grams per day for every 20 pounds of body weight) and should be mainly vegetable protein. And carbohydrate-rich foods--in the form of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables--should still make up a large part of the diet.

Rosebud

Thu, Dec-04-03, 21:05

Gymee, we asked for Harvard scientific studies, not opinion. We already know that there is a raft of opinion against low carbing out there - that's why we keep asking for scientific evidence. ;)

:rose:Rosebud:rose:

tamarian

Thu, Dec-04-03, 21:50

from the harvard school of public health:
..... Not only that it's not a Harvard study, as you claim it to be, the entire opinion lists low-carb diets and high carb diets as bad :)

So, if you go by that summary page, you should alter your lifestyle, gymejet, as your reference is slamming you in the face too :)

Aside from weight loss, the popularity of low-fat food has broader implications for health. Many people are increasing the amount of carbohydrates in their diets, particularly in the form of sugars, and as we know from the discussion of the glycemic index, doing so may lead to increases in heart disease and diabetes. This is from the same exact page you selectively quoted: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html

So your supernatural powers didn't come from carbs or sugar, some other magical ingredient is involved ;)

Wa'il

bvtaylor

Thu, Dec-04-03, 21:56

Hi, Gymee. The article you quoted I think you might actually agree is poor even by your own standards (of ample carbs, proteins, and fats)... particularly because of the extremely low amount of protein that is recommended. 8 grams of protein for every 20 lbs of body weight would give a 180 lb man only 72 grams of protein per day, or a 140 lb woman only 56 grams of protein per day, and that strikes me as being insufficient for any sort of active person.

Also, I have read that vegetable protein is not as complete as animal protein in its structures.

I believe that the calcium leaching is another low-carb myth that has been since disproven. It would depend on what other things besides pure "animal protein" are being consumed. A lot of the low-glycemic nutrient dense veggies have a lot of calcium as does dairy which is not prohibited and I'm sure that there is a good deal of replenishment. I personally have not had any calcium problems in my bloodwork and I have been eating very low carbs (20-30 net carbs) for the past 9 months.

Also the allusion to the high intake of red meat and cancer does not relate to studies done in a low-carb environment, but pertains more the SAD diet which contains high carbs along with the high fat, and the theory is that the combination of high carb and high fat is where the danger lies, not strictly in the saturated fat in meats. Add to that the quality of meats (processed with nitrites, etc.), and there are a lot of other potential carcinogens at play.

Most low carb programs stress a variety of protein foods, certainly not all red meat, encouraging fish, poultry, dairy, nuts, soy, etc.

Whole grains, fruits, veggies... that lumps a lot of different quality foods together, not all of which are terribly nutrient dense or necessarily good for you. Some of them can be extremely high glycemically (like potatoes) others far less glycemic like broccoli.

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 22:42

hi bv, i don't trust studies, be it for me or against me. i simply issued this one when i was getting bugged too much about not being scientific. very early on, i said it was not my intention to play "my study is better than yours". LOL.

my main thing comes basically from what i have accomplished for myself. a truly unbiased person would ask the question "what is it that i am doing that allows me to do what i am doing". in helping others, never once has there been an inkling that my body works any differently than normal. therefore, one would have to conclude that it must be something i am doing.

i think many of you were on the same low-fat diet that i was on, not eating toxics. you decided to drastically reduce your carbs, when in my belief what the real problem was "not getting enough protein and essential fats". this is how i adjusted my low-fat diet. i also exercise a lot. i know you need sugar to do this best.

for those of you who eat like kathy, i have no long-term worries. but for the many who have chosen very low levels of carbs, i am concerned. we won't know for 20-30 years what sorts of long-term problems may or may not exist. for you guys sake, i hope not. i will once again give you guys the same advice i gave alaska - eat as many carbs as your system allows.

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 22:47

gymeejet

Thu, Dec-04-03, 23:12

bv, i eat about 200 grams of protein a day, which is more than most any diets suggest. i also probably eat double the amount of essential fats, or more, than most diets suggest. i eat almost no saturated fat, and eat lots of carbs. although to be honest, i have no idea how many calories or carbs i eat in any day, only that it can vary a lot by my activity level. when i do my vigorous cardio, i eat a lot within that 24-hour period. but afterwards, i also can feel my body being absolutely wonderful, like i can leap buildings in a single bound - LOL. vigorous cardio will place your body at higher health levels than any other exercise, and you can not do it WITHOUT SUGAR WITHOUT SUGAR WITHOUT SUGAR. did i say without sugar ?

FIRSTMUTE

Thu, Dec-04-03, 23:17

160/160/160 vegan PETA

ozziesgirl

Fri, Dec-05-03, 00:19

Gymeejet, you have been eating optimally your whole life which is great but maybe your good health has a lot to do with your genes. Some of us are really lucky.

See the thing is, you say you do not believe in studies and do not use them...fine your opinion. You base your opinions on the way you feel and your health. We do the same, yet we are wrong because we are not at our optimum health potential because we don't eat and excessively exercise like you. This does not makes sense. When we say we feel better than ever before, you say true but you may not be feeling as good as you could. Well this is all very relative in my opinion because maybe YOU are not feeling and looking as good as you could.

As well, not a great deal of the population exercises like you so your facts on sugar and tons of carbs (though your side is not supported in some literature) would not apply to the general public (or to the masses who you want to reach)who exercise for health benefits and to have fun...

While your opinions may persuade some people to try your way of eating, I am sure the significant evidence along with personal accounts that make up this forum will give the reader more than enough information to make their decision.

tamarian

Fri, Dec-05-03, 05:46

again, it depends on what you consider to be high and low. i do not consider myself to be on a high carb diet.

i eat the protein and essential fats that are required for anabolic purposes. i eat good carbs for catabolic purposes.
LOL, you better decide which side you're on. If you're not on hight carb, then at least you're on controlled carb diet, which your quoted article denounces.

So, Harvard is not your side, and said the contrary to what you claim if you read more than one sentence.

But now, having scientific studies unacceptable by you, a while earler biochemestry textbooks are out, and now even op/ed nutritionals articles are out, what's left? Back to the sweet tooth fairy theory?

i eat the protein and essential fats that are required for anabolic purposes. i eat good carbs for catabolic purposes.
No, you don't. Your quoted article (under the protein section) clearly stated that as a vegetarian you eat incomplete protein.

Wa'il

tamarian

Fri, Dec-05-03, 05:54

hi bv, i don't trust studies, be it for me or against me.
Well, I predicted that will weesle your way out of your precious Harvard article, even when you claim they prove your point.

i showed you studies from the harvard school - but you only want to believe studies supporting what you have chosen to do.
Wa'il

gymeejet

Fri, Dec-05-03, 10:25

i am more than happy to discuss the article.

your quote of the textbook was true. you simply neglected to quote the other part, which tells you that ammonia is created, when a protein molecule is snipped, to make sugar.

i know exactly what side i am on. you love to make wild statements, hoping to get emotional responses, so typical of a lawyer.

"controlled-carb" as defined by the way you guys use it, is less carb intake than i would reccommend, and too much saturated fat. however, that does not necessarily mean that the only other choice is high-carb. it would depend on how you want to define high-carb.

i look at it, as simply what is needed to supply my body with what it needs. i do not attempt to place a label on it, as labels, as we have seen, tend to be misleading. after meeting my protein and essential fat needs, i then choose to meet my energy needs with good, natural carbs. i have no doubts that you will attempt to twist my statements to suit your own style of emotional-type arguing.

while most vegetarians do not get a balanced protein intake, they can, if they make the correct choices. first, let me correct something, that i will at least give you the benefit of the doubt on, as something that you may not be aware. i do not eat meat, because that kills the animal. however i get a little over 50% of my protein from milk sources, the other almost half comes from soy protein. (whey and casein are the 2 proteins abundant in milk).

i also take some amino acid powder. mainly because i believe that some of the aminos, especially the sulfur ones (methionine, cysteine, taurine), are in less than optimal quantities no matter what source of protein one uses. with the complete nutritional panel that i take, i know what my levels of each amino is, and whether or not i am low. as it turns out, i have a very balanced amount, so i have definitive evidence of a healthy intake of protein.

with my panels, i also know i am on the high side of normal with regartds to essential fats, which is where i want to be, since i believe that the average person's intake is much too low.

Micha2

Fri, Dec-05-03, 11:29

Gymeejet

I am fairly new to this forum and have been reading this thread on and off.

I (a forty year old female) have been a vegetarian for about 14 years for ethical reasons, eating lots of fruit, veggies, wholewheat, brown rice, soya, beans, cheese and occasionally free range eggs. I guess this sounds fairly healthy to you.

For the past three years I have started to feel unwell and to gain weight. I have two sisters who have polycystic ovarian syndrome and who are both very overweight, one of them is a strict vegetarian. This syndrome is linked to insulin resistance brought on by a high carb diet (wholefood or otherwise) and it may lead to infertility and increase the chance of getting certain cancers, diabetes and heart disease.

I have similar symptoms to my sisters, although I am not very overweight but because I didn't want to go the same way as them, I started to modify my diet. Hopefully just in time! I eliminated soya from my diet (there is evidence that a high consumption of soya has health implications, especially for women), I increased my saturated fat consumption in the form of butter and coconut milk (as recommended in the book 'The Diet Cure' by Dr Julia Ross because she reckons that saturated fats are essential for human health and in particular for women), I don't eat rice or wheat, I have decreased my fruit consumption and I started to eat lots and lots of fish, a compromise because I can't bring myself to eat meat again. I still eat lots of low carb veg and occasionally starchy veg in small quantities.

Sorry, this is getting a bit long now. What I am trying to say is that what appears to be healthy for you, I strongly believe would eventually lead to potentially life threatening disease for me. I am not sure from your name if you are male or female. Maybe there are differences in what is best for each sex...

I can honestly say that since I have changed my diet, I feel so much better and nothing would get me to change back to the way I was eating before.

gymeejet

Fri, Dec-05-03, 12:31

hi micha,
thanks for the nice post. you have obviously been eating good natural foods. from your first diet, what i would like to have tried would have been the following:

i could see almost no essential fats in it, so the very first thing i would have done is to supplement with those - i choose safflower oil and flax meal. the second thing is that i am not sure whether you were getting enough protein or not - the only way i could tell is by getting an amino acid panel for your levels. after getting panels of both your aminos and your fats, i would also get a panel to tell me where your mineral intake was at. all 3 of these panels are necessary to find out what nutrients you may have been lacking in. once we got these 3 fixed, i have no doubts that you could have the remainder of your diet with good, natural carbs.

this is basically what i have done for myself, and i believe it will work in anyone who is not diabetic. i am not familiar with pcos.

gymeejet

Fri, Dec-05-03, 12:35

i see that eating fish makes you feel better, which leads me to believe that you were not getting enough protein, although many fish also have substantial amounts of the omega3 essential fatty acid.

at this point, though, i am not sure i find your diet dangerously low in carbs. do you eat any fruits ? i doubt if you substitued fruits for an equal amount of saturated fat, that you would have any problems, and i suspect you may do better.

anyways, good luck, it seems to me that you are still eating pretty healthily.

tamarian

Fri, Dec-05-03, 16:44

your quote of the textbook was true. you simply neglected to quote the other part, which tells you that ammonia is created, when a protein molecule is snipped, to make sugar.
Very deceptive of you, as usual. You're the one who provided a misleading quote, from a Harvard article that said quite the opposite on the same page, I simply provided that missing part from the same article.

In addition, you provided that quote without a link, so it won't be easy for someone to read the full article in context.

This can be one of two thing, you didn't know where it came from, and just had the part that supports your opinion, possibly from a PETA forum, or the like, where fact can be harmful to their argument.

Or, you had the link to the article, but preferred that it won't be read in full, so you can misuse the article as you see fit.

Either way, we're going along with your train of thoughts to see where it leads.

Then you claim the same Harvard article or the textbook (or both?) said "ammonia is created, when a protein molecule is snipped, to make sugar."

That article said no such thing, so you might want to check with your buddies where they got that from, and under which context, hopefully with the full link or reference for others' benefit, let alone context.

But to provide the context you either misunderstood, or conveniently overlooked, that would be under starvation or long fasting, where not only will you lose muscle, you will die without eating food for long periods. Be it sugar or protein. Wheather you're a low-carber, sugar junkie, vegan, carnivore etc. You don't eat, you die.

Wa'il

Lisa N

Fri, Dec-05-03, 17:54

you claim the same Harvard article or the textbook (or both?) said "ammonia is created, when a protein molecule is snipped, to make sugar."
That article said no such thing

And for good reason, since they know (or should know anyway) that's incomplete, if not completely incorrect information. Furthermore, while it sounds scary to say that ammonia is produced when the body breaks down protein, it's a pefectly normal part of metabolism that occurs even when a person is not limiting their carb intake. That's why God gave us livers and kidneys! The liver takes any ammonia produced from the breakdown of amino acids and quickly turns them into urea which is then excreted via the kidneys. :rolleyes:

Perhaps some basic biology in urea production would be in order here?:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/U/UreaCycle.html

gymeejet

Fri, Dec-05-03, 20:18

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/index.html

here is the link to the site. that was just an oversight on my part.

my remark about ammonia had to do with your remark, that you got from the text book. since i know any text book giving the info that you printed would also give the information about ammonia being created, i just helped out the readers by giving them the full story, not just the half that makes your diet look good. WE DO NOT WANT TO BREAK DOWN PROTEIN TO CREATE SUGAR. there, did i say it in big enough letters ? i can repeat it for you a few more dozen times, if you like. i never hinted that was in the harvard article.

and while it can be done, it is not something that is done in a large degree. the liver can also detoxify alcohol, but you drink too much, the liver can't keep up, and i guess i do not have to tell you what eventually happens to most alcoholics.

please knock off the peta stuff - it makes you look ridiculous. for your info, i did not even know what peta meant, when the previous poster called me that, so i had to do a google search. continually reverting to that only makes it appear that you can't out-debate me, so you want to try and slam me, for being here for something other than what i say i am here for.

tamarian

Fri, Dec-05-03, 20:39

my remark about ammonia had to do with your remark, that you got from the text book. since i know any text book giving the info that you printed would also give the information about ammonia being created, i just helped out the readers by giving them the full story, not just the half that makes your diet look good.
LOL, if you look a few posts earlier, you will so who quoted half the argument to prove their point, neglecting the heart failure risk mentioned in the same article associated with your recommendation of high sugar.

In addition, you have yet to show that quote you claim from the textbook and reference in context. But I won't push you further, as we both know it's not there.

please knock off the peta stuff - it makes you look ridiculous. for your info, i did not even know what peta meant, when the previous poster called me that, so i had to do a google search. continually reverting to that only makes it appear that you can't out-debate me, so you want to try and slam me, for being here for something other than what i say i am here for.
Hey, you out-debated yourself for me, and mighty good job you've done.

I'm sorry you're offended by associating you with PETA, didn't know you're so ashamed of their ideas, even though you've expressed them. Can you tell us what you don't like about them, and why you're so offended?

Wa'il

gymeejet

Fri, Dec-05-03, 23:19

you are intentionally attempting to associate me with them, in order to divert this thread about nutrition.

since i do not know about them, it would be hard to be ashamed or not ashamed of them.

you forever pull this lawyer crap on me, trying to twist meanings.

being irritated at you attempting to associate me with something, does not equate to me being ashamed of associating with said something. if you continue with all of these silly psychological lawyer ploys, i will simply ignore you. it is also possible for a person to agree with the ideas of an association, but not its actions. there are many possibilities. i simply choose not to discuss the ethical treatment of animals on this NUTRITIONAL thread. i already said my peace on raz' thread.

and i will once again tell you that any textbook talking about protein catabolism will mention what i have said.

one very good text that i use most of the time is PRINCIPLES OF ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY 6TH EDITION by TORTORA AND ANAGNOSTAKOS.

on page 803:
however, before amino acids can be catabolized, they must first be converted to various substances that can enter the krebs cycle. one such conversion consists of removing the amino group (NH2) from the amino acid, a process call deamination. the liver cells then convert the nh2 to ammonia (nh3) and finally to urea, which is excreted in the urine. this is just simple textbook protein catabolism.

once the amino is freed from its nh2, it can be turned into sugar if it is a glucogenic amino, or into a ketone if it is a ketonic amino. so if we are turning large amounts of aminos into sugar, we are gonna be left unbalanced, as well, since only some of them are glucogenic. i will repeat once again, it is not a good idea to have our bodies turning large amounts of protein into sugar. if at all possible, we should let the body do what it is supposed to do - turn carbs into sugar, and allow aminos to do their building anabolic processes.

this info is in all good textbooks. and it is not biased - just simple facts of metabolism. when a person is knowledgeable about both physiology and physics, there are a lot of studies that can seem pretty suspect. cause what the hey, how many people really know this kind of stuff - so the study makers don't have to worry about a handful of people who are gonna see inconsistencies between studies and science.

the idea of studies is a good one. how they are put into practice is poor. if we are talking about studies about astronomy or physics, they are apt to be non-biased. they may still be incorrect, but not intentionally so, since human behavior is not apt to change whether we find that the universe is expanding or contracting. we need to look at what the information is that the study produces, and does this information have the ability to change people's behavior. these are the key questions to ascertain, before determining the worth of the study.

so i do not take the harvard medical school of nutrition study seriously either. i just use it to toss it in your faces when you get too uppity about trying to intimidate me with all of your low-carb studies. i have no doubts that there will be some things that i disagree with them on. if you want to carry on a real conversation about the study, i will do so, but the moment i see lawyerese, manipulative statements from you, i will stop, since it will be obvious to me that you do not want to carry on a meaningful discussion.

tamarian

Fri, Dec-05-03, 23:58

you are intentionally attempting to associate me with them, in order to divert this thread about nutrition. Not at all. You are quoting cut and pastes of text you do not understand, and assume it means the opposite to what it says. So I assumed you are copying someone else's post from PETA who posts in the Nutrition Usent posts. So if you're not him, nor copying him, that's fine.

you forever pull this lawyer crap on me, trying to twist meanings. I'm an avionics engineer, and tend to think streight to the point. You're the one weesling from your own quoted text and abandoning it when caught on the facts.

one very good text that i use most of the time is PRINCIPLES OF ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY 6TH EDITION by TORTORA AND ANAGNOSTAKOS.

on page 803: So, you admit to lying about "Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism: with clinical applications" by Maria C. Linder" when you said I misquoted it? I called your bluff, and asked for that missing quote, and you're citing a different textbook... why is that?

Nevertheless, yet again the textbook does not says what you claim.

once the amino is freed from its nh2, it can be turned into sugar if it is a glucogenic amino, or into a ketone if it is a ketonic amino. so if we are turning large amounts of aminos into sugar, we are gonna be left unbalanced

OMG! What school did you go to? What authentic physiology textbook would use language like "so if we are turning large amounts of aminos into sugar, we are gonna be left unbalanced"

This is not from any physiology textbook! Whoever posted this to the Usenet, and you copied blindly, is misleading you into beleiving this crap is from textbooks!

Get a real textbook and read it yourself for once, instead of following what other Usenet posters say.

Wa'il

Lisa N

Sat, Dec-06-03, 08:18

Funny...is post #669 you say this:

please knock off the peta stuff - it makes you look ridiculous. for your info, i did not even know what peta meant, when the previous poster called me that, so i had to do a google search. continually reverting to that only makes it appear that you can't out-debate me, so you want to try and slam me, for being here for something other than what i say i am here for.

But in post 671 you say this:
you are intentionally attempting to associate me with them, in order to divert this thread about nutrition.
since i do not know about them, it would be hard to be ashamed or not ashamed of them.you forever pull this lawyer crap on me, trying to twist meanings.
being irritated at you attempting to associate me with something, does not equate to me being ashamed of associating with said something.

Seems your short-term memory is slipping on you. :rolleyes:

Lisa N

Sat, Dec-06-03, 08:49

i will repeat once again, it is not a good idea to have our bodies turning large amounts of protein into sugar.

This is based on the erroneous assumption that if the body does not have an adequate carb/sugar supply for energy, it will then immediately turn to protein for its energy source. The fact is, that when no carbs or sugar are immediatly available for energy, the body then turns to FAT as its energy source. The body will only turn to protein in the event that the former two energy sources are completely expended (ie starvation).

http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/caloricexp.html
The number of calories released from the consumption of oxygen during cellular metabolism differs slightly when carbohydrate, fat, or protein are the nutrient source. However, as the body predominantly uses carbohydrate and fat as the nutrient sources, or "energy substrates," we only need to focus on these substrates.

http://student.ccbc.cc.md.us/~elathrop/Metabolism/fat.htm

I'd really like to see you make the case that it's harmful and unnatural for the body to use its excess fat stores for energy, since that is exactly what they are there for. :rolleyes:

bvtaylor

Sat, Dec-06-03, 10:44

Actually, Dr. Atkins himself has pointed out in his FAQ that his weight loss regimen (to use this particular approach) is in actuality a high-fat rather than actually a high-protein diet.

High dietary protein in the absence of fat if not entirely used by energy does convert to dietary sugar and can affect ketosis and stall weight loss as such.

To stoke ketosis, the amount of fat in the diet has to be proportionately increased. That's the theory of the fat fast... eating a diet composed of mostly fat and minimal calories can accelerate weight loss by tripping the ketotic switch in the body.

Now that is for weight loss... the theory in getting to weight maintenance is to decrease the fat and increase the carbohydrates to a maximum tolerance level in order to maintain weight. Not to increase the protein.

So in essence, Dr. Atkins encourages moderate protein as a regular part of a diet.

gymeejet

Sat, Dec-06-03, 11:32

once the amino is freed from its nh2, it can be turned into sugar if it is a glucogenic amino, or into a ketone if it is a ketonic amino. so if we are turning large amounts of aminos into sugar, we are gonna be left unbalanced

that part, as separated by paragraph, was by me - i thought that was pretty obvious to even the feeblest of minds.

since i do not have your text book, i obviously could not quote from it, but if it is worth its weight in salt, it has it in there, since this is simple textbook protein catabolism, first grade level.

from page 800:
both fat molecules and protein molecules may be converted in the liver to glucose. the process by which glucos is formed from noncarbohydrate sources is called gluconeogenesis.
in the process of gluconeogenesis, moderate quantities of glucose can be formed from certain amino acids and the glycerol portion of fat molecules. about 60% of the amino acids in the body can undergo this conversion. amino acids such as alanine, cysteine, glycine, serine, and threonine are converted to pyruvic acid. the pyruvic acid may be resynthesized into glucose or enter the krebs cycle. glycerol may be converted intyo glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate, which may also be resynthesized into glucose or pyruvic acid.

gymeejet

Sat, Dec-06-03, 11:35

the brain runs preferentially on fairly large amounts of sugar, much more than could ever be supplied by the glycerol portion of the fatty acid molecule. so without carbs, it has to resort to protein for sugar, or allow the brain to use an inferior fuel, in regards to what the brain prefers to use, and works best.

gymeejet

Sat, Dec-06-03, 11:40

page 389:
blood supplying the brain also contains glucose, the principal source of energy for brain cells. because carbohydrate storage in the brain is limited, the supply of glucose must be continuous. if blood entering the brain has a low glucose level, mental confusion, dizziness, convulsions, and loss of consciousness may occur.

gymeejet

Sat, Dec-06-03, 11:45

page 389:
although the brain composes only about 2% of total body weight, it utilizes about 20% of the oxygen used by the entire body. the brain is one of the most metabolically active organs of the body, and the amount of oxygen it uses varies with the degree of mental activity.
END OF QUOTE

i had wondered if my vigorous cardio increased the brains consumption of energy. this prior quote is at least a bit inconclusive, because it still leaves me asking the question "does physical exercise increase one's mental activity ?". i suspect it does to some extent, but i have no way of knowing for sure. anyone have any ideas ?

bvtaylor

Sat, Dec-06-03, 12:14

Hi, gymee. I wanted to point out that those of us who are low-carbing are not trying to go for excessively low blood glucose levels. In fact, regular blood checkups for my husband (who is diabetic) shows that his glucose levels are almost normal, and for me (who is not diabetic) shows that my glucose levels are completely normal.

Therefore, the brain is getting a sufficient supply of glucose. This diet does not strip glucose from the system (what you eat is not necessarily what you produce in a one-to-one ratio... hence the irony of lots of fat in a diet stripping the body of fat).

Perhaps a discussion on how ketones function as an alternate fuel source and why, despite consuming very little glucose that our body is still able to synthesize sufficient quantities, would be valuable in this discussion.

Lisa N

Sat, Dec-06-03, 12:45

Perhaps a discussion on how ketones function as an alternate fuel source and why, despite consuming very little glucose that our body is still able to synthesize sufficient quantities, would be valuable in this discussion.

We had this discussion many, many pages back: Yes, the brain will use glucose preferentially if it is available, however, the brain also can and does function equally well using ketone bodies for fuel except for one section of the brain which is easily supplied through gluconeogenesis.
The burden of proof to show that ketone bodies are A) an inefficient source of energy for the brain B) harmful to brain function or C) promote lower brain function than glucose is on gymee and so far, he can only quote textbooks that say that glucose is the "preferred" energy source of the brain. None of his quotes thus far have shown or stated that the brain cannot use ketones or that it will function any less well using ketones as an energy source. Much research has been done on this as ketogenic diets are often used in children with epilepsy and brain function has been a concern. So far, no diminishing of brain function has been shown in subjects on a ketogenic diet.
When quoting textbooks, it would also be helpful to quote the publication date as well. When changes in medicine and our knowledge of physiology and biochemistry are happening at a fast pace as they are today, an old textbook isn't a very good resource to be quoting from.
In short, Gymee is trying to assert something (that the brain as a whole can only function optimally on glucose and will suffer damage if glucose is not supplied through the diet) for which he doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on. We want to see studies showing that what Gymee asserts is fact, not textbook quotes that only give half of the picture (the half that supports gymee's contention, of course).
The fact that we are all not falling down unconscious or experiencing seizures (the predicted effect of not having lots of glucose for the brain in his quote above) even staying on very low levels of carb intake for prolonged periods is evidence that it obviously isn't true.
Something that Gymee also fails to mention repeatedly is that the body is very good at maintaining blood glucose within a narrow range even without a steady supply of carbs coming in, allowing the body access to blood glucose for the FEW cells that cannot function without it. If this were not so, all of us on a very low carb intake would be keeling over from hypoglycemia (yet another condition that low/controlled carb diets are used to treat).

gymeejet

Sat, Dec-06-03, 13:22

i would say that the burden of proof is not on me, but rather on you. textbooks are the standard. i am not quoting my half. there is nowhere in textbooks that claim that ketones are the preferred source for the brain. it is common in life, that things work best, when used the way they were designed. so the natural conclusion is that the brain does not work as well, if it is burning ketones, instead of sugar.

an automobile that should be run with at least 92-octane gas, will run on 88-octane gas, but not as well, and not as long. this however, does not equate to the automobile falling apart the next day, or keeling over.

the burden of proof is on you, because it is you who is attempting to modify STANDARD PHYSIOLOGY. this does not mean that the standards are unchangeable, but certainly the person attempting to change it, has the burden of proof.

i think bv's comment though, bears mentioning, in that her glucose levels remain normal. i believe her. the question is how this is happening. perhaps her intake of carbs is still high enough to keep up her blood sugar. if that is the case, great. if a person decides to exercise, i hope said person will increase carbs to keep up with the increased need for carbs, since exercise was added (assuming of course that the exercise is vigorous enough that carb burning begins).

my philosophy is to allow the body to work the way it was designed. this means that protein and essential fats are used strictly for anabolic purposes, and except for some limited uses, allow non-essential fats and carbs for catabolic purposes. and make sure we have enough carbs in our system, so that the body can choose whether to use carbs or fat for catabolic purposes, based upon its design, and not the availabilty/non-availability of its carbohydrate storage, since its fat storage will always be there, until the person dies. this is logical reasoning, based upon standard physiology. and our knowledge of standard physiology does not change very quickly, so textbooks do not become out of date, to any significant degree.

tamarian

Sat, Dec-06-03, 15:25

i would say that the burden of proof is not on me, but rather on you. textbooks are the standard. Gymeejet, you need to first understand what you read and quote from textbooks. Read them carefully, preferably the whole page. Then you need to show how the heck they relate to your argument.

Nothing you quoted so far from textbooks resemble anything you have claimed.

To even argue there is some possible merit to your arguments, one will have to make too many assumptions:

1. Controlled carbs and low-carbs are exactly equal to zero carbs. And from there, anything that applies to starvation and fasting (from your textbooks) is equal to low-carbing. That's the only way your rants about catabolism, nh2 etc. can make any sense.

2. Vegetables are not good carbs. Eating vegetables without many fruits is equal to starvation.

3. Only high sugar laden foods, and high fructose fruits (as opposed to less sugary fruits like tomatos) are good carbs (i.e. matching your textbook claims on starvation/muscle catabolism, nh2 etc. without any carbs)

4. Biochemistry does not count. As your logic resembles that of the low-fat crowed, where cholesterol ingested=cholesterol clogs. While you say you don't follow low-fat, you use the same logic, that by only eating sugar, can one have sugar in there blood. That assumes all low-carbers are already dead :)

5. Your diet is over 100% percentage wise. You claim you eat ample protein, ample carbs and ample fat. The most you can do with this is 33%-33%-34% (isometric). But 33% is low-carb (similar to the Zone diet) by most nutritional standards recommending 60%-70% carbs. So where do the extra percentages come from? You're either isometric (low-carb) or low-something else. You can't claim to be all.

5. Humans, prior to transportation and refregeration did not live healthy. It is only now days that we can get fruits year round. It's only now that we have sugar in almost every kind of food in the supermarkets. Therefor, we are now healthier with such sugar overdose than our ancestors and hunter gatherer societies. This will also defy reality.

Now, with the abundance of year-round fruits and sugary foods all over the place, our society is healthier than ever, healthier than when sugar was only for occasional treats and fruits were only seasonal. That also defies the current reality.

Wa'il

gymeejet

Sat, Dec-06-03, 16:25

Gymeejet, you need to first understand what you read and quote from textbooks. Read them carefully, preferably the whole page. Then you need to show how the heck they relate to your argument.

Nothing you quoted so far from textbooks resemble anything you have claimed.

To even argue there is some possible merit to your arguments, one will have to make too many assumptions:

5. Your diet is over 100% percentage wise. You claim you eat ample protein, ample carbs and ample fat. The most you can do with this is 33%-33%-34% (isometric). But 33% is low-carb (similar to the Zone diet) by most nutritional standards recommending 60%-70% carbs. So where do the extra percentages come from? You're either isometric (low-carb) or low-something else. You can't claim to be all.

Wa'il

you apparently feel that posting a bunch of stuff that is confusing to the average person, makes sense. i do not plan to make the effort to argue each such point above, but i will argue 5, to make my point.

how many times do i have to say that i do not label my diet by percentages ? how many times do i have to say that the term low-carb means something different to different people ?

ample, by definition, means a measured amount to determine that it is enough. so i measure the amount of protein that is needed, thereby getting an ample amount of protein. i then measure the amount of essential fat needed, thereby getting an ample amount of essential fat. i then said i get THE REST IN GOOD CARBS. I did not say ample carbs, because i am not measuring them. i just allow the person's satiety to do that for him.

the ending percentages of protein, essential fat, and carbs is a trivial number to me, that changes on a day to day basis, depending on the activity levels. my intake of protein and essential fats stays relatively constant, changing by small amounts. my carb intake changes can vary by considerably more.

one thing about these percentages that most other dieticians live and die by, is that they do not even attempt to differentiate between essential and non-essential fat. these two are extremely different, used by the body differently, etc. etc. so to even start to make some sense, it should be split into 4 sections (protein, essential fat, non-essential fat, and carbohydrates). the first 2 are used anabolically, while the last 2 are used catabolically, for the most part.

is there anything else that i have simply said, that you would like to make considerably more complicated ? that is another lawyer trick - attempting to OBFUSCATE the issue.

tamarian

Sat, Dec-06-03, 16:44

you apparently feel that posting a bunch of stuff that is confusing to the average person, makes sense. i do not plan to make the effort to argue each such point above, but i will argue 5, to make my point.

how many times do i have to say that i do not label my diet by percentages ? how many times do i have to say that the term low-carb means something different to different people ?

ample, by definition, means a measured amount to determine that it is enough. so i measure the amount of protein that is needed, thereby getting an ample amount of protein. i then measure the amount of essential fat needed, thereby getting an ample amount of essential fat. i then said i get THE REST IN GOOD CARBS. I did not say ample carbs, because i am not measuring them. i just allow the person's satiety to do that for him.

the ending percentages of protein, essential fat, and carbs is a trivial number to me, that changes on a day to day basis, depending on the activity levels. my intake of protein and essential fats stays relatively constant, changing by small amounts. my carb intake changes can vary by considerably more.

one thing about these percentages that most other dieticians live and die by, is that they do not even attempt to differentiate between essential and non-essential fat. these two are extremely different, used by the body differently, etc. etc. so to even start to make some sense, it should be split into 4 sections (protein, essential fat, non-essential fat, and carbohydrates). the first 2 are used anabolically, while the last 2 are used catabolically, for the most part.

is there anything else that i have simply said, that you would like to make considerably more complicated ? that is another lawyer trick - attempting to OBFUSCATE the issue. No, I'm very satisfied with your answer!! :thup: I'm even starting to like you!

In essense, your portions of food do not add up to a total of 100%, right? The way you eat is also through "unimaginable powers", where us low-carbers with not enough sugar buz in our brains cannot fathom?

But, on planet earth, as far as we currently understand, the whole totals to 100% of it's parts. So if you're doing amplae X, ample Y, and the rest is Z, then you are not eating in isometric portions (equal amounts of 33.33%). Accordingly, on planet earth, this (lesser than isometric) fits a formula like like 40% fat, 40% protein, and the rest, 20%, in carbs. If that is the case, then you have been converted from a high carb/high sugar diet yoiu started with in this thread, into a low-carb diet. It's even lower than the Zone diet, a low-carb plan which is 30% fat, 30% protein, and 40% carbs. But we know you're not on that, so it remain a mystery what you're talking about.

Wa'il

Lisa N

Sat, Dec-06-03, 17:35

What I said was:

Yes, the brain will use glucose preferentially if it is available, however, the brain also can and does function equally well using ketone bodies for fuel except for one section of the brain which is easily supplied through gluconeogenesis.

What you replied was:

there is nowhere in textbooks that claim that ketones are the preferred source for the brain.

I never said that Ketones were preferred, only that the brain can function just as well using ketones as it can using glucose.
Your contention is that the brain was designed to use only glucose for fuel and because of that functions less optimally on ketone bodies. My response is: PROVE IT! Find me a study that shows this in absolute terms. So far, none of your textbook quotes have said that the brain will function less optimally on ketones than sugar. That was your assumption which you have no basis for other than "if A is preferred, then B is not as good" and while this may sound reasonable to the average person, it's still an opinion and not backed up with any scientific fact as yet.
I've already provided you with a study some pages back that shows that what I said (the brain functions equally well on ketones) is correct. The burden of proof is now on you to show that is incorrect.

i think bv's comment though, bears mentioning, in that her glucose levels remain normal. i believe her. the question is how this is happening. perhaps her intake of carbs is still high enough to keep up her blood sugar.

This tells me that you have absolutely no idea how the body maintains blood glucose homeostasis if you are going to maintain that her blood glucose remains normal only because she is [maybe] taking in enough carbs to keep it up.

gymeejet

Sat, Dec-06-03, 19:14

. So, Mr. Know-it-all about nutrition. Exactly what kind of meal plan do you suggest that we all use, since the one we are following doesn't make you happy? Enlighten me with your "knowledge". Oh yeah, I forgot, you so called nutritionist or personal trainers like to do what? CHARGE MONEY don't you? Last I checked none of you give advice about nutritional matters without charging around the tune of $400 a month.

i am not attempting to make meal plans for you, in the sense that i am suggesting large changes to anyone's diet. i would simply suggest that you take tests, to determine where you are, nutritionally. attempt to determine how many grams of protein and essential fats that your body needs, and get those amounts every day, with whatever natural foods that you like. then supplement most of the rest of your diet with good, natural carbs, somewhat minimizing the amount of saturated fat that you consume.

i have no problem with people charging money for their time. i do not expect them to work for free. this is quite different from someone making millions and millions of dollars, based on people's behavior patterns. by the way, i am neither a licensed nutritionist, nor a licensed physical trainer.

from what i have seen, i would say that trainers, on the whole, are pretty good in regards to showing people how to exercise, lift weights, etc., but i find them not too good, in regards to nutrition. in regards to nutritionists, i don't have any significant experience with them, so i can not give an informed opinion.

continued best of health.

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 00:54

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne17.htm

i had to chuckle a bit, because i do not relate to bodybuilders in even the slightest little bit. but there are quite a few similarities between him and me, as you can probably see, as you read it.

i actually found it, attempting to look for protein catabolism. lisa is under an incorrect assumption that the body will burn protein, only after fat and carb. but i wanted to try and find a good article to explain this to her, and stumbled on this instead.

if we ever go into calorie-deficit, the body spares fat, and burns protein, which is what occurs very often when people diet. the body sees our fat reserves as its future, and will gladly burn up our lean muscle mass first, if it senses any sort of starvation (i.e. calorie deficit).

it is extremely hard to lose only fat, without muscle, but there are certainly ways of "minimizing" protein-muscle loss, when fat is lost. if i can find a good article, i will put it up, but so far, my searches are not giving me what i had hoped they would.

Lisa N

Sun, Dec-07-03, 07:48

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 11:37

*sigh* another opinion gymee? I can only surmise that you can't actually find the hard science to back up what you say because you keep resorting to posting opinions that aren't backed up with any sort of references to studies whatsoever.
Study after study has shown that low carb is far more muscle sparing than other weight loss methods higher in carbs, lower in protein and fat. Those on the low carb weight loss lose far less muscle or in some cases even gain muscle while losing a greater proportion of body fat than their higher carb counterparts.

http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/12/10-930978.html
http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-918650.html
http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-780071.html
http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-848672.html

lisa,
i only had time to read your first article. either you misunderstood me, or you misunderstood this article, for there is nothing in this article that contradicts my post. the article says that all diets contained the same amount of calories, and 50 grams of fat. they then had greatly different ratios of protein and carbohydrate, i think 1.4 and 3.7. the diets were already miserably low in protein, at 14%. so of course, increasing those protein levels would help stop the loss of muscle mass.

what the article from the bodybuilder said, and what i have been saying, is that first get the amount of protein that you need, as well as the essential fats. after that, he was recommending basically carbs instead of fat to finish your calories. this is exactly what i do. so at least this first article is way off the mark, as far as a rebuttal to the bodybuilder article. read it again - i am not being sarcastic.

Lisa N

Sun, Dec-07-03, 14:27

Here's where I (and most others here) disagree with him:

Why carbs instead of fat? Well there are a couple of reasons... the main reason being that carbs are more protein sparing than fats.

This was supposed to support your contention of:
if we ever go into calorie-deficit, the body spares fat, and burns protein

In every study I posted (especially note the last), the lower the carb levels, the lower the loss of lean body mass which blatantly contradicts the quote above.
The protein levels were the same amoung all three groups in the last study and only the carbohydrate and fat levels differed.

I'd also like to point you back to the sticky at the top of the War Zone here in which you will find the following quote:

In addition, members are encouraged to provide references to research and medical studies. Do not be offended if someone asks you for proof to what you claim is a fact.

You may not believe or put much stock in medical studies, but we do and if you expect us to buy what you're selling, back it up with some credible studies, not unsupported opinion.

I'd also like to point out that you have a habit of diverting the discussion to another topic whenever you are challenged to back up your opinion with a study that supports it as in your contention above that brain function somehow suffers when the brain is running on mostly ketones as opposed to sugar. I challenged you to produce a study that supports that and instead, you diverted the topic into "your high fat diet is causing lean muscle mass loss". Hmm...lawyer tactics? :rolleyes:

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 15:38

no, simply attempting to answer posts in chronological order. got diverted yesterday. if the brain ran as well on ketones, then glucose would not be its PREFERENTIAL fuel. the simple fact that you will not admit, because it kills your whole diet theory - textbooks all tell you that the brain runs on glucose. none of them talk about it running on ketones - pretty obvious conclusion.

who wants to prove that the brain runs on ketones ? the low-carb people. there is nothing to be gained financially from a study that supports what every physiology textbook supports. there is everything to be gained financially by the low-carbers, if they can prove that the brain runs as well on ketones. pretty much a no-brainer why there might be a lot more studies claiming to be on your side.

like i have said many times before, any topic that has financial implications, funny how there are so many studies on it. and when there is no financial gain involved, funny how there are little studies involved. CONCLUSION - the very fact that there are studies at all, are because there are finanical reasons. this is a part of life that you have not learned yet, or are willing to put blinders on, when it supports something that you are already gonna believe, one way or the other. but this is just human nature.

i trust text books, for the most part. i do not trust studies, for the most part. you show me a textbook that claims that the brain runs equally well on ketones - i did not say better - i would settle for equal. it ain't gonna happen. most of our bodies can run on fat, but not the brain, and the brain uses up a large percentage of the overall energy consumption. the overwhelming burden of proof is on you - and i am not talking about low-carb studies, which you seem to accept as gospel truth.

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 16:13

http://healthfitness.com.au/diet/nutrition/carbohydrate-carbs-carbos.htm

Rosebud

Sun, Dec-07-03, 16:24

http://healthfitness.com.au/diet/nutrition/carbohydrate-carbs-carbos.htm
Another opinion piece... Give us facts, Gymee, not opinion. Please.

:rose:Rosebud:rose:

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 16:37

glucose can be burned faster. it is what the brain does best on, and what any sort of vigorous exercise does best on. fat seems to be able to support most of the rest of our energy needs, if need be. we never run out of fat, we have limited ability to store carbohydrate. so the logical reasoning here, is to make sure we get enough carbs each day. we can turn any excess calories into adipose fat tissue, extremely easily - this is how our body works, because we have evolved to store fat as our main future source of energy. if we eat excess carbs, the excess will turn into fat. if we eat excess fat, the excess fat stays as fat. we can get fat from carbs, but not carbs from fat. pretty obvious conclusion on which side of the fence you want to err on - much better to err on the side of too many carbs, than not enough carbs, assuming one is not diabetic, or have similar type problems, which presents an entirely different situation, when the body is no longer able to function as the average healthy body functions.

carbohydrates are not the demon for most people. the typical western diet has failed miserably on providing us with healthy bodies. a group of people decided to lower their carb intake to extreme levels, in some cases. many of them are feeling better, because they also made another INSIGNIFICANT change - they got rid of all the crap food that the western diet eats. somehow they forgot this, and placed all the blame on the little carbohydrate, that can provide tons of energy for them.

the real problem with the western diet is a lot more than the percentage of carbohydrates eaten, although that will be lowered, DUE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF MORE PROTEIN AND MORE ESSENTIAL FATS.

our western diet is composed of supermarket foods (if you want to call them food - i like the term manufactured foodstuff, to diffentiate from those foods that have evolved for millions of years right along with the planet and the other life forms that the planet maintains).

we need to look at our bodies like we do any other machine. our cars need oil in the oil tank, gas in the gas tank, water in the radiator, break fluid and other fluids in their reservoirs, for one simple reason - that is how the car was designed to run.

no differently with our body. the essential fatty acids actually hook right on to the different amino acids, that come from protein, to do most of our anabolic, or building functions. the brain and muscles during exercise run best on sugar, so at least intake enough sugar for these 2 functions.

you see, i am not giving you some prescribed percentages of the food groups. i am attempting to tell you how the body works, and which of these food groups are important for what, so that we can make sure we have enough of each, so we can perform all of our bodily functions OPTIMALLY.

this is logical reasoning, based upon the physiology of our body, as depicted in medical books, and textbooks, not studies supported by some group with financial motives. everyone can then decide for themselves.

tamarian

Sun, Dec-07-03, 16:42

glucose can be burned faster. it is what the brain does best on
So does cancer, as it prefers sugar to grow on.

Faster does not mean better.

Wa'il

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 16:53

tamarian,
faster does mean better, when we are exercising.

i have read about cancer, doing well in a sugar environment, and if i had cancer, i would really do some research on it. but cancer for the most part, is a disease brought on by our lifestyle.

most people do not know what cancer is. most people would be surprised to know that we all have cancerous cells in our body at all times. a cancerous cell is simply a cell whose division process is on at all times, thus dividing more often than what our healthy cells do.

our immune system keeps them in check, so that they can not mass together and cause a growth, i.e. cancer.

but limiting our sugar to prevent from getting cancer is akin to spiting our nose to save our face, or however that saying goes - LOL.

if we eat the foods that our bodies were designed to eat, then cancer would be a disease that is hardly ever mentioned.

tamarian

Sun, Dec-07-03, 16:54

I'm making a small revision to this list adding item #6.

Initially Gymeejet got mad why I started debating issues of body buidling since all his evidence was based on anaerobic exercise, and he said he doesn't buy that crap. Naturally, I'm used to him denying ever saying this or that,or eating this or that, or reading this or that, and often taking a full 180 degrees on his arguments.

So, with his new trend getting back into bodybuidling and misquoting their opinions, as textbook, I'll add number 6 below. Enjoy!

--

Nothing you quoted so far from textbooks resemble anything you have claimed.

To even argue there is some possible merit to your arguments, one will have to make too many assumptions:

1. Controlled carbs and low-carbs are exactly equal to zero carbs. And from there, anything that applies to starvation and fasting (from your textbooks) is equal to low-carbing. That's the only way your rants about catabolism, nh2 etc. can make any sense.

2. Vegetables are not good carbs. Eating vegetables without many fruits is equal to starvation.

3. Only high sugar laden foods, and high fructose fruits (as opposed to less sugary fruits like tomatos) are good carbs (i.e. matching your textbook claims on starvation/muscle catabolism, nh2 etc. without any carbs)

4. Biochemistry does not count. As your logic resembles that of the low-fat crowed, where cholesterol ingested=cholesterol clogs. While you say you don't follow low-fat, you use the same logic, that by only eating sugar, can one have sugar in there blood. That assumes all low-carbers are already dead :)

5. Your diet is over 100% percentage wise. You claim you eat ample protein, ample carbs and ample fat. The most you can do with this is 33%-33%-34% (isometric). But 33% is low-carb (similar to the Zone diet) by most nutritional standards recommending 60%-70% carbs. So where do the extra percentages come from? You're either isometric (low-carb) or low-something else. You can't claim to be all.

5. Humans, prior to transportation and refregeration did not live healthy. It is only now days that we can get fruits year round. It's only now that we have sugar in almost every kind of food in the supermarkets. Therefor, we are now healthier with such sugar overdose than our ancestors and hunter gatherer societies. This will also defy reality.

Now, with the abundance of year-round fruits and sugary foods all over the place, our society is healthier than ever, healthier than when sugar was only for occasional treats and fruits were only seasonal. That also defies the current reality.

6. Bodybuilding focuses on size, and explosive performance, not health The literature you find when looking at bodybuilding websites, does not focus on health. It has a single purpose, quick size bulking, or explosive athletic performance. Many of these sites will prescribe techniques on how to use drugs to accomplish certain tricks. And when they say this is the best fuel, [b]or preferred fuel[/b[, they essentially mean the fastest, not the healthiest. Needless to say, not everyone wants to be a bulky drug enduced hunk of muscles, or willing to go to these lengths.

The average person can be alot healthier doing normal exercise, and avoiding those sugar induced manipulation to body functions.

Wa'il

tamarian

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:00

Just to clarify the usage of the term "preferred" when applied in biochemistry and science:

Body organs do not prefer things out of feelings, emotions, or a sense of right or wrong. i.e. you bodyr does not say to itself "self, I prfer to metabolize sugar, because I think it is healthy and nutritionists will give me a high five for that!" The body does not enter into such self conversations. I hope we all agree on that.

The term "prefer" here is just a mattery of ease. Like "cancer prefers sugar as a source for food", "fire prefers oxygen", or like, for people, "lazy people prefer to leave things to the last minute".

Wa'il

tamarian

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:02

if i had cancer, i would really do some research on it. but cancer for the most part, is a disease brought on by our lifestyle.
I encourage you to do some research before ever getting cancer. Your sugar tricks for exercise will damage your health, especially with your lifestyle. So the more you learn about it now, the better.

Wa'il

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:05

6. Bodybuilding focuses on size, and explosive performance, not health The literature you find when looking at bodybuilding websites, does not focus on health. It has a single purpose, quick size bulking, or explosive athletic performance. Many of these sites will prescribe techniques on how to use drugs to accomplish certain tricks. And when they say this is the best fuel, [b]or preferred fuel[/b[, they essentially mean the fastest, not the healthiest. Needless to say, not everyone wants to be a bulky drug enduced hunk of muscles, or willing to go to these lengths.

i guess that means you will lose all of you bodybuilding websites that support your low-carb lifestyle, as there are many.

tamarian

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:06

textbooks all tell you that the brain runs on glucose. none of them talk about it running on ketones - pretty obvious conclusion.
That's bogus. Obviously you never read any textbook (except partial quotes) on biochemistry and nutrition, let alone all of them. You've already been caught with you pants down saying I misquoted a book, then later admitted you never readi it.

So how would you know no textbook ever said that?

Wa'il

tamarian

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:08

i guess that means you will lose all of you bodybuilding websites that support your low-carb lifestyle, as there are many.
Humm, will you lose your customers, who purchase flavoured juice drinks from you site? ;) That was the only post we deleted of your, since we don't allow SPAM.

Wa'il

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:09

i killed your number 5 yesterday as being ridiculous, and the others are so ridiculous, that i will leave them up for the reader to figure that out.

Lisa N

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:10

The above link is supposed to show how carbs are protein sparing how? As a matter of fact, it seems to support our view that unless you are engaging in strenous, prolonged exercise on a regular basis (and very few people have the time to exercise several hours a day), too many carbs cause fat storage. It also brings up that glycemic index that you were disparaging many pages back. :rolleyes:
You also completely ignored my post above regarding England's rugby team who took the championship while on a low carb regimen and trained using that same regimen, winning over teams who were carb loading. Can't perform athletically unless you're carb loading? Tell that to them! :lol:

i trust text books, for the most part. i do not trust studies, for the most part.

What I find hysterical about this statement is that textbooks are based on studies, often very old ones by the time they make it into textbooks! They don't pull all that information out of thin air, gymee. In other words, often by the time the information can be compiled and a textbook published, the information contained within it is outdated.

who wants to prove that the brain runs on ketones ? the low-carb people. there is nothing to be gained financially from a study that supports what every physiology textbook supports. there is everything to be gained financially by the low-carbers, if they can prove that the brain runs as well on ketones. pretty much a no-brainer why there might be a lot more studies claiming to be on your side.

Ah, the old "financial gain" argument. From a practical standpoint, there is much more financial gain to be had by proving that the bain functions less optimally on ketones than it does on glucose because the majority of the money making portion of the food industry is carb based (cheap to produce and can be sold at a high profit). They're losing business as more and more people are switching to eating proteins and produce (not terribly profitable). If they could prove what you contend, they'd do it in a heartbeat to convince people that they need their products and win back their market share....but they can't.

like i have said many times before, any topic that has financial implications, funny how there are so many studies on it. and when there is no financial gain involved, funny how there are little studies involved. CONCLUSION - the very fact that there are studies at all, are because there are finanical reasons.

Yes...funny how several of the studies that we've quoted were funded by those who had an interest in proving that low carb was harmful (such as the AHA) and then failed to do so because the data the study provided showed just the opposite! :lol:

if the brain ran as well on ketones, then glucose would not be its PREFERENTIAL fuel.

In truth, gymee, the brain prefers to run on whatever fuel is in greatest abundance at that particular moment, which for the average person is glucose. Textbooks don't go into ketones as a brain fuel because in the past 100 years or so, very few people have their bodies running on such an energy system. The body maintains a fairly steady blood glucose concentration of 80-100 mg. If the brain was sucking it all up to keep going when there was an alternate supply of energy available (ketones), we'd all be falling down unconscious from hypoglycemia since you've already made the contention that the body simply can't keep up with that type of demand through gluconeogenesis. I'm here to tell you after 3 years of living this way, it doesn't happen.

Lisa N

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:14

a cancerous cell is simply a cell whose division process is on at all times, thus dividing more often than what our healthy cells do.
our immune system keeps them in check

Interesting to note that too much sugar (natural or otherwise) also suppresses the immune system.

http://www.immunesystemetc.com/Sugar.html

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:14

Humm, will you lose your customers, who purchase flavoured juice drinks from you site? ;) That was the only post we deleted of your, since we don't allow SPAM.

Wa'il

the post that you deleted was obviously not spam. that site, where i purchase my juice concentrates, is also the same site where i first heard of your site, as they believe in low-carb. so please print the whole story, not just part of it. i am in no way connected with that site, and you know that.

tamarian

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:16

i am in no way connected with that site, and you know that.
Actually, we both know it's your site, the same you promoted in your previous troll incarnation.

Wa'il

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:17

Interesting to note that too much sugar (natural or otherwise) also suppresses the immune system.

i am not promoting "too much sugar". i am promoting getting the correct nutrients in our body, so that the body can work as it was optimally designed to do.

i am saying err on the side of "too much" rather than "too little", but that does not mean 10 times too much, but rather make sure that you get enough. this is much different than the "too much sugar" levels that cause many problems.

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:20

Actually, we both know it's your site, the same you promoted in your previous troll incarnation.

Wa'il

you just crossed the line. this is an absolute lie. i will not respond to any more of your posts.

Lisa N

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:28

i am not promoting "too much sugar".

Really? You don't consider 450 grams of carb in a day too much? :lol: That's how much one of your daily menus posted very early in this thread came out to after I entered it into Fitday.com with the exact amounts you listed.
Good thing you exercise a lot...including giving your pancreas quite a workout! :rolleyes:

tamarian

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:29

you just crossed the line. this is an absolute lie. i will not respond to any more of your posts.
Same here, for now, but thanks for the entertainment. You're not a bad troll at all, it's a tough art form!

Wa'il

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 17:34

Really? You don't consider 450 grams of carb in a day too much? :lol: That's how much one of your daily menus posted very early in this thread came out to after I entered it into Fitday.com with the exact amounts you listed.
Good thing you exercise a lot...including giving your pancreas quite a workout! :rolleyes:

if you calculated it to be that much, i believe you. when i do my vigorous cardio, i do need lots of it. but again, this is me personally, because i use it. i am not advocating any particular amount for any particular person, because our activity levels are different. even for me, my carb intake can be quite different. i do always eat those 2 protein concoctions that i mentioned very early on, giving me most of my protein and essential fats that i eat in a day.

if i run low on sugar during my cardio routine, it is a real killer. once my body has given me the sign, it is already too late. if i stop immediately, the after affects are not too bad, but in the past, i have often been stubborn, finished my routine, and paid dearly for it the next day.

if i have enough carbs to do my whole routine, i can do it and feel great and energetic afterwards. i am very familiar with what i need to do for my exercise routines, and i do just that.

Lisa N

Sun, Dec-07-03, 18:05

LOL...too bad your poor pancreas doesn't know that. All it knows is that you have 450 grams of carb (sugar essentially) that need to be cleared out of your bloodstream because in order for you to use it, it has to first enter your bloodstream and then the pancreas has to produce sufficient insulin to move it out of your bloodstream into the cells where it can be either used or stored.
And you report doing this for the past 20 years or so? Dude...if I were you, I'd be getting my circulating insulin levels checked!

Originally Posted by gymeejet
if i had cancer, i would really do some research on it. but cancer for the most part, is a disease brought on by our lifestyle.

Or your environment and considering that you live in an environment that is known for poor air quality, I'd start that research now if I were you.

Lisa N

Sun, Dec-07-03, 19:27

i am not advocating any particular amount for any particular person

Not in specific amounts, no. But in reality, you are since you keep insisting (without giving any practical guidelines as in percentages, grams, ounces, etc..) that we [controlled carbers] are not getting enough. All of your recommendations are highly subjective (ample, plenty, adequate...ample, plenty and adequate in relation to what...starvation?? The typical American diet? What?). If you are not advocating any particular amount for any particular person, what on earth are you still doing here? One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results!
We established that the majority of us are most likely getting ample essential proteins and fats. Your argument then turned to your opinion (not backed up by any credible studies as they relate to saturated fat and low or lower carb intake) that we get too much saturated fat. Then we went to "your brain prefers glucose and won't run as well on ketones", again not backed up by any credible studies, which you now claim naively don't exist because there's no financial motivation to have them?
No argument that higher activity levels require higher carb levels (again, very subjective as to how much higher) in healthy, normal weight individuals, but considering that 25-30% of the population is estimated to have metabolic syndrome, quite a few more to have frank diabetes, PCOS or some other medical issue that has an underlying metabolic component and more than 60% of the population is overweight (a symptom of an underlying biological cause in many cases), who on earth does that leave? Add to that the fact that maybe 5% of the population at most engages in the type of physical activity for the duration of time that you report and you are down to a very slim (no pun intended) audience indeed and you won't likely find too many of those types of people here!
The majority of people here are here because they are overweight and/or have medical issues that they are addressing with low carb and have failed to control either with the type of diet that you are prescribing. Quite frankly, you are preaching to the totally wrong audience. If you really want to help people, go find an audience who is very physically active, normal weight and has no medical or metabolic issues that they are addressing and I wish you luck in finding such an audience.

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 20:25

What I find hysterical about this statement is that textbooks are based on studies, often very old ones by the time they make it into textbooks! They don't pull all that information out of thin air, gymee. In other words, often by the time the information can be compiled and a textbook published, the information contained within it is outdated.

my physiology book has 1000 pages in it, with perhaps 1 page devoted to protein catabolism. point being - book was not written to promote any one topic.

the only people that read physiology books are those who are forced to read them, for the most part. to think that their purpose could influence the masses, is a joke beyond the next century.

most of the information in a physiology book are not gonna influence people anyways. whether it is the left ventricle or the right auricle of the heart that does a function, does not make a difference in the way people live.

so you say, what about just the information on "protein catabolism", for example, or "what fuel the brain uses" ? could that piece of info be biased ? there is always a possibility. today, you have any one of a 100+ studies that you will gladly attempt to intimidate me, that i will succumb to the reasoning that low-carb is correct. might i ask you to produce the 100+ studies about "protein catabolism" done back at the same time as the information from which the text printed ? might it be perhaps because no one was attempting to sell anyone anything based upon that info back at that time ?

i am only attempting to reach the non-biased reader, who has not made up their mind, in regards to the health of low-carb diets. while there are few absolutes in this world, i am confident that the non-biased reader will be able to determine the levels of probability in regards to the integrity of the information found in a physiology text book, when compared to that of a study, that today is worth millions if not billions to a group of people.

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 20:34

LOL...too bad your poor pancreas doesn't know that. All it knows is that you have 450 grams of carb (sugar essentially) that need to be cleared out of your bloodstream because in order for you to use it, it has to first enter your bloodstream and then the pancreas has to produce sufficient insulin to move it out of your bloodstream into the cells where it can be either used or stored.
And you report doing this for the past 20 years or so? Dude...if I were you, I'd be getting my circulating insulin levels checked!

actually, it has been 30+ years. i would be interested to hear from you after 30+ years of low-carbing. of course, by then i will have 60+ years on my diet. just when do you expect my pancreas to keel over ? i suppose i could wait another 50 years to see if i am doing anything dangerous ?

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 20:39

Or your environment and considering that you live in an environment that is known for poor air quality, I'd start that research now if I were you.

well, you got me on that one. although luckily for me, i don't get the brunt of it.

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 21:01

*sigh* another opinion gymee? I can only surmise that you can't actually find the hard science to back up what you say because you keep resorting to posting opinions that aren't backed up with any sort of references to studies whatsoever.
Study after study has shown that low carb is far more muscle sparing than other weight loss methods higher in carbs, lower in protein and fat. Those on the low carb weight loss lose far less muscle or in some cases even gain muscle while losing a greater proportion of body fat than their higher carb counterparts.

http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/12/10-930978.html
http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-918650.html
http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-780071.html
http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-848672.html

well, i never expect to hear you admit that you were wrong, but because you had no objections, i take that as a tacit agreement that the first article was completely flawed.

now i have read the 2nd article. i really think you need to take a better look at some of these articles. this second article is a study on 7 obese individuals. that is somewhat significant all on its own. not so much because there were only 7, but because they were all obese. there is no way to know whether there were really more or not, as many studies have lots of people, and then they pull out only the ones that they want to keep. now please, don't show your naivette, and tell me that you are surprised that they might do that !!

but their first statement is that first they went fasting, then on a 1000-calorie mixed diet for 4 days, and then a ketogenic diet for 10 days. then they never ever mention the mixed diet again. they simply compare the results of fasting with the ketogenic diet, and the ketogenic diet wins hands down over fasting. BIG FRIGGIN DEAL. fasting is a terrible thing to do.

while you do present some good articles (i especially enjoyed the one about fat/sugar and oxygen/carbon dioxide consumption), so far these first two are absolutely terrible. i would suggest you eliminate both of them from your arsenal. i will attempt to look at the 3rd and 4th later, but want to get back to all the older posts now.

ozziesgirl

Sun, Dec-07-03, 21:54

I trust text books, for the most part. i do not trust studies, for the most part. you show me a textbook that claims that the brain runs equally well on ketones

I have said this before but I will say it again because I do not understand....I don't know about anyone else but in my world, the textbooks used in my university are based on studies. Scientific studies by reasearchers. They are not opinions pulled out of thin air. And IMO, in some of the cases, if we are talking tainted research here, people going for their Ph.D doing research will write a textbook and they have to prove or disprove something in order to achieve this Ph.D. Do you not think, Gymeejet, that their studies just may be biased? So although you may deem this textbook to be an almighty source of information, it may even be less valid than the recent research available.

gymeejet

Sun, Dec-07-03, 21:56

ozziesgirl

Sun, Dec-07-03, 22:02

[QUOTE=Lisa N]
What I find hysterical about this statement is that textbooks are based on studies, often very old ones by the time they make it into textbooks! They don't pull all that information out of thin air, gymee. In other words, often by the time the information can be compiled and a textbook published, the information contained within it is outdated.

Wow, I just read this and I am so happy someone agrees with me, thank you lisa. I was wondering when someone would let that be known

ozziesgirl

Sun, Dec-07-03, 22:03

Sorry for missing a page ;-)

ozziesgirl

Sun, Dec-07-03, 22:10

Oh btw, Gymeejet, you never really did adequately address the fact of textbooks versus scientific studies. Most scientific studies are not meant for the general public either. That is, if you find studies that aren't on the web (for the most part) or incorporated in to an journalistic article. Scholastic Academic articles are meant for academia to read, not the general public (again for the most part) So that totally does not coincide with whatever you told Lisa.

gymeejet

Mon, Dec-08-03, 01:21

My therefore statement made very much "logical sense". I stated that my grandmother did NOT eat well. I stated that she ate good ole country cooking, in fact it is exactly the way that many obese people do here in the south. My "therefore" came along because I was making a point that she lived to that age BECAUSE of genetics, NOT her eating patterns. The main exception is that she had the genetic predisposition to live a longer life. She did not live longer because she ate this healthy diet packed full of essential fats and good carbs. When my grandmother made the comment about living too long she was not even sick, so your comment about someone making that statement because they are sick is absurd.

let's assume that your grandmother ate less than stellar, and that she did have a genetic predisposition to a longer life than most people do. the mistake here is to assume that she lived as long and healthily as she could have, had she ate better.

i am sorry that you apparently do not have a lot of experience with older people. for if you had, you would have known that most all older people make this comment when they are older, especially when they get sick. for them, life only exists in the past. there is no future. this can cause depression to set in. in fact, this can happen at any age, when one lacks direction or goals, for they are not receiving the meaning in their life, that they are desperately searching for. but at least for a younger person, they can have the hope of possibilities. this does not exist for ann older person, on their last legs, so to speak. anyways, good health to you.

bvtaylor

Mon, Dec-08-03, 13:38

i have read about cancer, doing well in a sugar environment, and if i had cancer, i would really do some research on it. but cancer for the most part, is a disease brought on by our lifestyle.

most people do not know what cancer is. most people would be surprised to know that we all have cancerous cells in our body at all times. a cancerous cell is simply a cell whose division process is on at all times, thus dividing more often than what our healthy cells do.

our immune system keeps them in check, so that they can not mass together and cause a growth, i.e. cancer.

but limiting our sugar to prevent from getting cancer is akin to spiting our nose to save our face, or however that saying goes - LOL.
Hi, Gymee. Recently there have been a number of studies that show that the risk factor for both T2 (insulin resistant) and T1 (no insulin production) diabetics is greater with certain types of cancer (the ones that have been studied at least). The recent articles that I read pertained to ovarian cancer and breast cancer.

You are correct to a certain extent about the cancer cells, but I think there is also a certain deformity that occurs with these rapid growth cells as well.

In any case, sugar is an easy fuel, an accellerant, and I believe that a high (blood) sugar environment promotes the cancerous cells to happy growth. Sugar also accelerates the aging process--I would assume, again, that it is the high blood sugar, not necessarily the consumption of sugars (although the two are linked, particularly if excessive insulin production wears out the organs involved).

I think that exercise is probably the single most effective way of managing blood sugar. Excessive exercise will allow an individual to consume a lot more carbohydrates without serious affect to blood glucose levels. But this isn't necessarily an "optimal" situation to recommend to the public at large. I think to give balance, that moderate exercise with moderate carb consumption is preferable and more realistic than high carb consumption with constant intense exercise.

The question about cancer in general is "what IS it about our lifestyle" that promotes cancer? I would suspect that certainly there is an environmental factor with toxins and pollutants (like smoking) that increase cancer risk, but there are certain dietary factors as well.

On the obverse, the vitanutrients of fruits and vegetables (to reiterate this is NOT a non-fruit and vegetable diet), particularly the antioxidants are cancer-fighters.

Lack of exercise is also a factor and that may also be linked to blood sugar.

The optimal balance in our bodies, no matter whose bodies they are, is finding the right proportion of carbs/protein/fat matched with the daily exercise level that we have and that we need, and that can only be determined individually.