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

View Full Version : low-carb diets do not promote optimal health

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!

Pages : 1 2 [3]

bvtaylor

Thu, Oct-30-03, 10:25

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, 11:23

>>
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, 11:25

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, 11:34

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, 14:47

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, 15:08

>>"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, 17:23

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, 17:31

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, 17:35

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, 17:40

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, 17:50

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, 19:13

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, 19:19

ozziesgirl

Thu, Oct-30-03, 19:24

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, 19:32

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, 19:44

[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, 21:58

gymeejet

Thu, Oct-30-03, 22:49

>>"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, 22:58

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, 12:01

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, 14:13

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, 14:14

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

Lisa N

Fri, Oct-31-03, 14:27

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, 15:37

[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, 17:32

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, 18:16

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, 18:26

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, 19:45

[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, 21:28

[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

Sat, Nov-01-03, 23:20

good then, thanks for reiterating that point yet again.

Lisa N

Sun, Nov-02-03, 05:34

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, 10:26

>>"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.

hkblue

Sun, Nov-02-03, 13:30

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, 17:45

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, 15:11

hkblue

Mon, Nov-03-03, 17:29

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, 10:20

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, 18:29

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, 16:51

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, 00:00

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, 17:42

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, 21:51

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, 01:19

[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, 15:52

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, 12:32

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, 22:13

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

gymeejet

Wed, Nov-12-03, 17:16

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, 21:49

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, 22:50

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, 01:41

gymeejet

Sat, Nov-15-03, 10:48

[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

Sat, Nov-15-03, 23:28

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, 14:53

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, 15:22

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, 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.

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, 00:01

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, 01:33

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, 01:59

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, 02:00

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

mntnear

Wed, Nov-19-03, 15:09

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

Wed, Nov-19-03, 23:01

Kathy54

Thu, Nov-20-03, 00:07

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, 00:43

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, 08:11

`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, 09:13

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, 18:39

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, 21:12

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

Fri, Nov-21-03, 23:06

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

Fri, Nov-21-03, 23:13

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, 06:15

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, 12:45

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, 16:29

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, 18:42

Here here.

Kathy54

Sat, Nov-22-03, 22:29

Thus the title "war zone", LOL

ozziesgirl

Sat, Nov-22-03, 23:35

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 won