Metabolic Typing

[Greenwings]

Has anyone read Metabolic Typing by Wolcott/Fahey? Seems to me this would do away with the controversy. If everyone knew their "metabolic type", they'd know what plan was right for them. We're all different!!!

[Zuleikaa]

I've read it and it made a lot of sense to me. I'm a protein type so a lc plan fits. However some people are a mixed type or ever (gasp, lol!!!) a carbo type which Atkins might not fit except for the maintenace stage.

Like I said, it made a lot of sense to me. I've never believed in a one size fits all diet world.

[Kristine]

I'm curious: what's the basis for determining one's type?

[Greenwings]

Kristine,
There's a boatload of questions in the book. In my opinion, they're difficult to answer. There is a test you can order for about $200, but it is related to another, similar book. I will post it if I can find it.

Over 20 years ago, I had gone to an alternative practitioner. He did a hair anaysis, (and what else, I can't remember) and put me on a bunch of supplements. I kept the notes from that, although I don't remember him ever explaining anything to me. Years later I pulled out those notes and noticed "FAST OXIDIZER." It wasn't until I obtained this book (by accident) that I realized what it meant.

FYI, look up the book on Amazon.com and read the reviews and also other books on the same subject. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is really IT. No more controversy!!!

Here it is: www.bloodph.com/self.html

[Kristine]

Neat, thanks!

Interesting. :cool: As a lab tech, I'd be curious what they're looking at. But not curious enough to pay $180. ;)

[suleika]

Here's (http://www.drkaslow.com/html/fast_oxidizer_diet.html) a link on something that sounds like this...

Gez

[Zuleikaa]

Here's some more information.

Info here. (http://www.mercola.com/2003/feb/26/metabolic_typing.htm)

Some questions here. (http://dietlowcarb.com/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=10&topic=3595)

And the food lists for each type here. (http://www.digitalnaturopath.com/data/metabolic_diet.html) scroll down for each type.

[Kent]

The book "Metabolic Typing" and all other books that present the metabolic theory are pure fraud. Humans metabolism falls into scientific rules that are the same for everyone. Everyone is NOT different. There is no scientific evidence to support the metabolic typing theory.

I test as the "carbohydrate" type, but that diet nearly killed me as it eventually will everyone. My wife tested "protein" type but her high-carbohydrate diet gave her Crohn's disease. The low-carbohydrate, high-fat, high-protein diet has restored health in both of us. She is symptom free and drug free. I am 65 and in perfect health thanks to Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades and Dr. Robert C. Atkins.

Anyone who eats a high-carbohydrate diet well eventually pay the price because carbohydrates are pathogenic. See my web page that give the accurate scientific proof:

Absolute Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Are Pathogenic. (http://www.biblelife.org/carbs.htm)

Kent :wave:

[Zuleikaa]

The carbohydrate type diet as presented by The Metabolic Typing diet does not suggest you eat the "white" carbs that the American diet entails. Rather it says that type does better on a diet that contain more carbs than a protein type. It also says that a carbotype may tolerate the "white carbs" better than most.

I have to disagree that all people are metabolically the same. We cannot take our own experience and extrapolate it to everyone else's. That's been the problem with most diets and diet gurus. They find something that works for them and say everyone can lose on their WOE. Further, I know plenty of people who are and have been healthy on diets with more complex carbs and tolerate "white" carbs better than I and others. And they have no health problems either. It's when the diet is not properly balanced (and I don't mean like the USDA food pyramid) for a person's metabolic type that problems arise.

[Kent]

Zuleikaa, I don't know of any diet, nutrition or medical book that recommends "white" carbs, meaning white sugar, white flour and white rice. The problem with the book Metabolic Typing Diet is that it suggest a high-carbohydrate diet is the one for you if you love carbohydrates. That is nonsense. The people who love carbohydrates the most are the ones most at risk of getting a disease for the over consumption of them.

The complex carbohydrate rhetoric is not valid either, although it is the foundation for all the high-carbohydrate diet promoters like Dr. Ornish, Dr. Weil and an endless list of vegetarians.

All complex carbohydrates turn to glucose in the blood sooner or later. They keep the insulin level high and eventually lead to insulin resistance, hypoglycemia, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Nibbling on complex carbs as recommended by many of these "experts" to ease the symptoms of hypoglycemia only leads to the progression to diabetes. The quantity eaten times the number of years equals the risk level. The 300 grams of carbohydrates as recommended by the USDA Food Guide Pyramid takes about 20 years as is clearly visible by the obese shoppers in the stores.

Non starchy vegetables have a few carbohydrates which the body can tolerate, so eating them is highly recommended. It probably would be better if there were none as the case with meat. The body can convert 58% of protein and 10% of fat to carbohydrates. The dietary requirement for eating carbohydrates is ZERO scientifically and on a practical health basis.

The complex carbs and whole grain rhetoric is NOT part of a low-carbohydrate lifestyle as proposed by Drs. Eades and Atkins. Eating just a few non starchy vegetables gives one the 20 gram limit suggested by Dr. Atkins. Most obese people find they cannot go above this limit without gaining weight. I have made it a permanent lifestyle.

Kent :wave:

[Zuleikaa]

I didn't state that it is the case for obese people. Obviously obese people are not eating to their "type" or they wouldn't be obese. I am talking about the many people in myriad cultures, including the US, that are eating carbs and fruits on a regular basis as a regular part of their diet and remain fit, healthy and at an appropriate weight for their stature and build.

The book does not suggest that the carbohydrate type diet is appropriate if you "love" carbohydrates, otherwise that would be the metabolic type determined for me as I am a carb addict. Rather the book determines from answers to a rather lengthy and detailed list of questions where you fit metabolically and further states that the mix for a diet type be further refined to fit your own unique body chemistry by adjusting along the continuum of your type's carb:protein:fat ratio.

[Greenwings]

IMHO, determining your type by answering the questions alone is risky. For the birthday dinner, I would choose a little pasta and as much cake and ice cream as I could stuff in. Obviously, this is wrong for me, but that would be what I WANT, because my tastes are perverted! Another example...on the climate question, my choice isn't given. I don't do well in heat OR cold. Again, I wouldn't feel comfortable simply relying on the questions. If I didn't already have a clue, I'd opt for spending the money on the test, or better yet, finding a practitioner.

I belong to another forum in which many, if not most of the members are anti low-carb. They claim to have had their health damaged by Atkins and similar, and see it as their mission to prevent others from being harmed by this "evil." Who am I to doubt them...and who am I to doubt those who maintain that low-carb has been the answer? Rather, I think BOTH are guilty of making "blanket" statements like, "it didn't work for ME, so that means it is bad for everybody." Sorry, that's just too narrow-minded for me!

[kay3osu]

Greenwings,

i have also been told i am a fast oxidizer. what does that mean exactly as it pertains to real life? :)

also, Kent's sites are really informative and he and his wife are living proof!! K

[Zuleikaa]

I agree. One day I am going to pay for the test. Not so much for the typing, I know what type I am but for the supplement advice. I think the book was a bit skimpy on that but made some interesting points that I found applicable.

Greenwings
I think Atkins, or rather Atkins at induction levels, can hurt the health of people that it is not appropriate for just as a high/er carb diet can and has harmed those for which it is not appropriate. Which goes back to my point, the same one you've made in another way, it is not a one size fits all diet world and extrapolating what works for you to the population at large is not appropriate or beneficial.

[Greenwings]

Kay3osu, How did you find out?

The way I understand it, we process fuel quickly, so we need heavier protein and fat in order to sustain our energy.

I'm only learning, so consult the experts for the details. By the way, I would GUESS (again, I'm not an expert) that there are probably more of us than there are the other types.

I only have the Wolcott/Fahey book, but I'd like to eventually obtain the others.

I quickly looked at Kents links and do not for a moment doubt his or his wife's success.

[Greenwings]

Yes, Zuliekaa,

We've both said the same thing. When you sit back and observe the controversy...you scratch your head and say, "how can this be???" I know person A is not lying. But I also know person B isn't lying either! There has to be an explanation...!!!

[Zuleikaa]

Greenwings
In no way do I doubt Kent's findings or his and his wife's successes. I am just saying while Atkins is the panecea for a lot of people, and especially for the major portion of the obese, it is not for everyone, not even all obese people.

How did I find out? I answered the questions and then tried the diet. The heavier proteins and fats gave me energy and satiated me. Further instances related in the book fit me to a tee and explained issues I had been puzzling over for a while. Like why did I seem to get hungrier when eating eggs, chicken breast and lean meats. I've also found that animal fat is more satisfying to me than vegetable fats such as mayonnaise and salad dressings.

Another quirk was the explanation, since I am a carb addict on CAD...it made a lot of sense to me, that for a protein type to go without carbs for a more than two week period will reverse the feeling of energy they attained by eating the correct protein. I.E, that the diet is a mix, an appropriate protein:carb:fat ratio and a person can be on a sliding continuum along that spectrum. That just because I'm a protein type, that doesn't mean I don't need carbs and that my need for carbs can be higher than another protein type. To me this explained why I need CAD which allows carbs everyday and why some Atkiners are subject to what I call the two week binge cycle.

The interesting part, and the part that I think the book was week on, is the part of appropriate supplements, which are not just based on type but on a person's unique underlying body chemistry. This answered the question of why, when everyone on the board was recommending a mix of potassium and magnesium for leg cramps, the combo knocked me out and made me lethargic and disoriented. Potassium alone cures my leg cramps and doesn't interfere with my energy levels. The book explained what was happening with just such a case. That's why I will pay for the testing. I think it would be optimum to know just what supplements to take and which to leave alone. It would save me a lot of money in the end too, lol!!!

[Greenwings]

Yes, I found the supplement part very interesting...in fact, I'm now concerned about what my husband is taking and would like to have him "typed." Whether or not he will cooperate is another matter...

I think we were posting at the same time...Kay3osu made the point that Kent's results were impressive. Apparently, he wrongly determined his type. I would probably would have, too, if I had based it on the questions alone.

[Zuleikaa]

Greenwings
I think it was important to answer the questions from the point of a "clean" slate, i.e., before Atkins, lc or any other diet program. LC corrects a lot of the imbalance of protein types and if answered while on lc for a while, it might give use a false reading.

I thought it was interesting how many triple digit people are/were carb addicts pre lc but if answered now...on lc, they would test as not carb addicted.

[Kent]

Greenwings said:

I belong to another forum in which many, if not most of the members are anti low-carb. They claim to have had their health damaged by Atkins and similar, and see it as their mission to prevent others from being harmed by this "evil." Who am I to doubt them...and who am I to doubt those who maintain that low-carb has been the answer? Rather, I think BOTH are guilty of making "blanket" statements like, "it didn't work for ME, so that means it is bad for everybody." Sorry, that's just too narrow-minded for me!

I can easily understand their comments that the Atkins' diet damaged their health. They are LIARS, and they have a good motive for lying. They are religious vegetarians. I visited Dr. Andrew Weil's message board for years reading all their nonsense. If you want to see some really sick people (both mentally and physically) visit the "Health Conditions" section of Dr. Weil's message board. They attack Atkins because of the red meat issue. Remember, we are talking about eating their reincarnated grandmother. To them eating animals is a very serious issue. They will propagate any lie in hopes of turning people away from eating animals. They have no interest in truth.

In my first post on Dr. Weil's board several years ago I stated that eating lots of red meat and saturated fats gave me awesome health, which it certainly did. The board went ballistic, which reminds me. Where are the 36,000 low-carbers to challenge the stupid "Metabolic Typing" nonsense in this thread?

Animal Rights Terrorists Strike Again? (http://www.biblelife.org/animal_rights.htm)

Kent :wave:

[Kent]

Zuleikaa said,

I am a carb addict on CAD...

OK Zuleidaa, tell us the truth. You tested "protein type" on the Metabolic Typing Diet test after you were already convinced the high-carbohydrate diet was unhealthy, right?

You see, that is the reason the Metabolic Typing Diet is a fraud and a scam. One can easily see by the question what type they will score. Obese carbohydate addicts will always test "carbohydrate type" by the test unless they have been turned away from the high-carbohydrate diet previously. They are obese and carbohydrate addicts because the carbs make them feel better.

The same can be said for hypoglycemics. They get initial horribly bad reactions to low-carb because of their inability to correct blood sugar properly. They would certainly never test "protein type" on the Metabolic Typing Diet. They also feel an exhilarating boost from the blood glucose surge upon eating carbohydrates. They also feel they must nibble complex carbs all day long in order to feel "good." They always test "carbohydrate type" in the Metabolic Typing Diet but that diet is what caused their hypoglycemia and will lead to their early demise.

Zuleidaa, I am shocked that you are promoting this Metabolic Typing Diet while claiming you are a carbohydrate addict yourself and following the Carbohydrate Addict's Diet. You could easily steer a new comer from this low-carb board into a life on a high-carbohydrate diet that ends in misery and disease. Shame.

Kent :wave:

[tamarian]

In my first post on Dr. Weil's board several years ago I stated that eating lots of red meat and saturated fats gave me awesome health, which it certainly did. The board went ballistic, which reminds me. Where are the 36,000 low-carbers to challenge the stupid "Metabolic Typing" nonsense in this thread?


Many here ignore the War Zone, since it's mostly a place for none low-carbers to present their case. However, issues like blood-type, metabolic type or any "typism" issues cannot be easily addressed, as they have no scientific basis, just someone's assertion that it is so, period. Hard to argue with that on any meaningful level.

Wa'il

[Kent]

The following is an interesting quote from the book review section on Amazon.com for "The Metabolic Typing Diet" written by William Linz Wolcott and Trish Fahey.

January 15, 2004
Reviewer: A reader from BC Canada
Found the quote below on Dr. Kelly's website. Would anyone like to comment?

"In the mid 1980's Mr. William L. Wolcott found a paperback edition of Dr. Watson's Nutrition and Your Mind. At the time Mr. Wolcott was an employee being trained by Dr. Kelley. Wolcott was unable to comprehend the Kelley Metabolic Typing Paradigm, his employment was terminated. Wolcott then appropriated Dr.Kelley's copyright name of "Metabolic Types." Wolcott furthermore produced a most defective nutritional program marketing it through Dr. Kelley's trained Physicians and Technicians. Nutritional Programs being promoted from Watson to William L. Wolcott and Dr. Harold J. Kristal, D.D.S. and a multitude of other con-artist are defective to their very core.

Like so many other establishment frauds, these creatures have tried to change the definition and meaning of Metabolic Typing originally developed and established by Dr. Kelley. Because of their limited mental capacities they cannot comprehend the total parameters of Metabolic Typing. These gentlemen want to rename and limit Metabolic Typing as Fast and Slow oxidation, which is a gross error."

at http://www.drkelley.info/articles/archive.php?artid=320



However, I must add that I believe Dr. Kelley's Metabolic Typing theories to be a bunch of nonsense also.

Kent :wave:

[mrfreddy]

I seem to remember seeing Dr. A on TV being asked about typing, he responded in his usual avuncular manner that the type premise couldnt be accurate, since low carbing works diet works for almost anyone, no matter what their "type" is...

[kay3osu]

Hi Kent, don't know if you remember me but you helped me tremendously. still am struggling but improving. what you said about hypoglycemics up there was more than true :) anyway, i was also labeled a fast oxidizer. what is it exactly? good to hear you and wife are feeling great!! K

[Zuleikaa]

Kent
Actually I went into the test with no preconceived notions. If I thought about it I probably would have supposed I was a mixed type because I like carbs and have to have them to feel well. That's a different issue than the fact that if I were not on CAD, carbs as I was eating them were not good for me and ultimately could have harmed my health. Many of the questions I really had to consider and had no idea how they would relate to or reveal what metabolic type I am. I deliberately answered the questions, as it told me to, as I am if I were not on any diet therefore, by your reasoning, I should have been revealed as a carbo type. I was not.

Carb addicts are not obese because the carbs make them feel better and so they love to eat them!!! That is much too simplistic. Rather carb addicts have a chemical reaction and insulin response to carbs that make them never satisfied or satiated no matter how much/many carbs or food they eat. That would not make anyone feel better!!! Abnormal, crazy, frustrated, pathetic, and devastated maybe!!

Your statement that hypoglycemics always test as carbo type is not true either. Many hypoglycemics on the board have tested as protein type also. I've told you it isn't just a matter of which foods do you crave or which foods make you "feel" good, it's a matter of which foods make you energized and which do you perform better on. I've yet to meet a carb addict or a hypoglycemic who feels energized or performs better on carbs. Rather they crash and become lethagic. The good feeling of carb ingestion is a fleeting and short occurance.

Kent I think you are making too many blanket statements here. When dealing with people and biology, situations/factors are rarely "always" and "never". Otherwise microorganisms would never change and evolve. Tell that to the AIDS virus and SARS!! I believe that people are unique in the individual and that their biological chemistries are also unique. I further believe that humans are very adaptable and have had to be to survive and thrive. And humans have thrived. Humans have thrived on all kinds of diets with all kinds of protein:carb:fat ratios. I acknowledge that and to me The Metabolic Typing Diet explains the differences I have always seen and pondered.

I feel no shame. I have an open and inquiring mind. I know and have seen that what works for me might not and often does not work for the person beside me. I would not suggest to someone wanting to try lc that lc does not work!!! LC does work, and very successfully too, for the people for which it's metabolically suited. However, I stand by my statement that this is not a one size fits all diet world!! LC does not work for all!!!

There are fanatics on all sides. Having a closed mind to other realities doesn't change either the relative truth or someone else's reality.

Oh, BTW, re where are the 36,000 low carbers out there to dispute this nonsense. There was a discussion on this a while ago and many low carbers thought the concepts made a lot of sense and explained situations they had observed themselves.

[Greenwings]

Kent,

My "other" forum is not connected to Weil, but I know the tone very well. One has to be very, very careful not to mention LC...or there will be a half-dozen posts in a matter of minutes. They are not, however, animal rights activists. Many of them simply had negative results with Atkins. One, in particular, claims to have ended up in ER with a kidney problem. Not being into animal rights, why would this person lie? Why do many others manage to maintain slim physiques while indulging in sweets, etc., just as long as they exercise? Why can't I do it that way??? God knows I tried...for years!!!

Speaking of religion, I was actually raised in a religion that advocated vegetarianism. I was taught that we were not originally intended to eat meat, so it can't possibly be good for us. When they talked about our teeth and our digestive systems, it made sense to me. (They weren't animal rights advocates, either, just human health advocates.)

But when I tried to lose weight, nothing worked! No kind or amount of exercise, not calorie cutting...not portion control, nothing! I couldn't lose an inch or an ounce to save my life. I finally went AGAINST the advice of those around me and tried LC...and voila! The proof is in the pudding...but I had to open my mind to find out. Still, I hear from many who claim they are losing weight with exercise alone, or just by cutting portions or calories, or a combination of both. You think they are lying?

Actually, you could go back to that Weil board and throw Metabolic Typing at them as an explanation as to why low carbing is so successful for you!

My purpose for posting in War Zone was NOT to attack Low Carbing! Maybe posting in War Zone was an implication that I was in some way against low carb(?) If that's the case, then that was my mistake. My intention was to dispel controversy!

[Kent]

Kay3osu, it is good to hear from you again and the good report. I appreciate your kind remarks. Hang in there. Not only will your weight loss progress continue but you can expect many health improvements along the way. Low-carb is known for weight loss, but the best advantage is optimum health and healing.

Kent :wave:

[Kent]

Greenwings said,

Many of them simply had negative results with Atkins. One, in particular, claims to have ended up in ER with a kidney problem.

I imaging that many people end up in ER when they begin the Atkins diet or any other diet. The error by most people is to blame the kidney problem on Atkins. Many people have pre-existing health conditions such as a kidney problem that are revealed by a diet change. Dr. Atkins addresses these issues very well. People with a heart condition should start a new exercise program with caution even though exercise is considered to be heart healthy. The exercise program is not the cause of their heart disease and neither was the L-C diet the cause for this person's kidney disease. The person with the kidney problem would have adjusted the diet toward higher fat and lower protein. Many people still have the low-fat mentality when they begin Atkins. The L-C diet is a high-fat diet.

Other examples of pre-existing health conditions which can send one to the hospital upon starting the Atkins low-carb diet are:

Taking blood pressure lowering medication. The natural normalization of blood pressure on L-C results in over medication and a below normal blood pressure.

Taking diabetic medicine may require backing off the meds when going on L-C or may require making other changes. The Atkins' group is coming out with a new book for diabetes.

Hypoglycemia can cause low blood sugar when starting L-C. Taking glutamine amino acid may be required until blood sugar levels are stabilized naturally by the body.

The high-fat diet may reveal gallbladder stones and a trip to ER with a gallbladder attack. The L-C diet does not cause the gallbladder problem. The stones develop routinely in people on a low-fat diet.

Kent :wave:

[Jeanne Sch]

My husband's side of the family - everyone is skinny. They are not high carb eaters. They don't like sweets (desserts that are brought over do not get eaten) and they crave salt and vinegar type snacks. If anyone is snacking in the house it will likely be mixed nuts or pickled hot peppers. My husband started to eat high carb when we got married and within about 6 months started having indigestion problems. I knew immediately what it was and offered him more of "his" foods (before I was low carbing).
I was brought up on high carb and my body tolerated it until my mid-teens. I started to realize at that early age that I was having indigestion, constipation, etc but didn't know why. I continued to ignore my body and became VERY ill in my late 20's with a candida infection.
I believe our metabolisms are all "essentially" the same. However, if you start to low carb at age 30 or 40, your body is in for a HUGE change (as was my husband's body going from relatively low carb to high carb).
I believe low carb is the way we are supposed to eat.
Trying to be a vegetarian almost killed me (no touche' intended but it is the truth).

[Zuleikaa]

In my family, everyone is skinny but me. We were brought up on the same diet. Everyone but me has high blood pressure. However, most are still average size.

In my greatgrand parents generation relatives ate carbs, fruits grains, Sunday dinners full of rolls and pies. None of them had health problems and they lived long lives into their 80's, 90s, 100s.

My father eats carbs, smokes and drinks...he is 93 and has no health problems other than a hernia. He is skinny.

We all have individual stories and can relate those of others we know. That doesn't make them absolute diet truth.

As I've stated you can't take an individual situation and extrapolate it to the whole population.

[Kent]

The foundational theory to all "Metabolic Typing Diets" is wrong because all humans are essentially carnivorous with the ability to remove excessive glucose from the blood by using it for energy or storing it as body fat. The human body operates in a much more healthy manner burning fat, not glucose. Carbohydrates are converted to blood glucose for a quick burst of energy but at the expense of causing future "age related" diseases as described in my carbohohydrate study at the beginning of this thread. Dr. Lutz and Allen describe carbohydates as pathogenic in their book, Life Without Bread, even though they suggest a diet with a maximum level of 72 grams of carbs. Dr. Lutz appears to have not done any research at lower carb levels.

The Second Opinion web site has a very good study that shows human physiology is much more like a carnivous wolf than a herbivorous sheet or cow.

Second Opinions by Barry Groves, PhD. (http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison.html)

"The design of our digestive organs and digestive enzymes today shows that mankind is basically a carnivorous (meat eating) species with the ability to digest carbohydrates from fruit and vegetables. Health is damaged by the consumption of these carbohydrates in ratio to the percentage ingested."

7,700-Year-Old Woman Who Ate Like A Wolf. (http://www.biblelife.org/woman7700.htm)

Kent :wave:

[Zuleikaa]

Did you know there is also a website that proves that early man was a herbivore? As I said, I don't beleive in absolutes. Early man was a bit of a scavenger; he ate whatever was easiest and available. Sometimes that was fruit and vegetation.

[ItsTheWooo]

I've read it and it made a lot of sense to me. I'm a protein type so a lc plan fits. However some people are a mixed type or ever (gasp, lol!!!) a carbo type which Atkins might not fit except for the maintenace stage.

Like I said, it made a lot of sense to me. I've never believed in a one size fits all diet world.
I've never read the book, but it does seem to make sense that not all of us have the same metabolic needs. I mean look on this board, some people do beautifully on low carb, some people do not. My sister eats carbs carbs carbs all day, whatever she wants whenever she wants. Not complex fiberous carbs with protein, either, she eats sugars and white breads. Even though she eats this way, she never had the problems with crazy blood sugars and extreme hunger that sent me into a spiral of hunger and obesity.

On the other hand, my sister thinks the way I eat is absolutely disgusting. She hates the taste of "savory", heavy, protein food. She likes to graze on light carby type things. She doesn't have a problem with weight or energy.

[ItsTheWooo]

Zuleikaa said,



OK Zuleidaa, tell us the truth. You tested "protein type" on the Metabolic Typing Diet test after you were already convinced the high-carbohydrate diet was unhealthy, right?

You see, that is the reason the Metabolic Typing Diet is a fraud and a scam. One can easily see by the question what type they will score. Obese carbohydate addicts will always test "carbohydrate type" by the test unless they have been turned away from the high-carbohydrate diet previously. They are obese and carbohydrate addicts because the carbs make them feel better.

The same can be said for hypoglycemics. They get initial horribly bad reactions to low-carb because of their inability to correct blood sugar properly. They would certainly never test "protein type" on the Metabolic Typing Diet. They also feel an exhilarating boost from the blood glucose surge upon eating carbohydrates. They also feel they must nibble complex carbs all day long in order to feel "good." They always test "carbohydrate type" in the Metabolic Typing Diet but that diet is what caused their hypoglycemia and will lead to their early demise.

Zuleidaa, I am shocked that you are promoting this Metabolic Typing Diet while claiming you are a carbohydrate addict yourself and following the Carbohydrate Addict's Diet. You could easily steer a new comer from this low-carb board into a life on a high-carbohydrate diet that ends in misery and disease. Shame.

Kent :wave:
Very interesting, Kent.

You say hypoglycemics have an especially adverse reaction to LC diets at first, and pre-LC they tended to nibble on carbs all day.

When I first started LC I felt *absolutely terrible*, and it wasn't sugar addict withdrawl symptoms (you know the "three day sickness" most people get on atkins). I was nauseaus all the time, the thought of eating made me sick. I litterally thought I was going to throw up when I would eat. This feeling lasted the entire induction and gradually stopped.
Pre-LC I would eat literally all day long. I ate tons of fruit and fruit/sugar drinks all day. When in a position where I was not permitted to snack all day long, I would get symptoms of what I now recognize as severe hypoglycemia.

I've never taken the metabolic typing test so I can't say whether or not I would test as a carb protein or mixed type, but I must say that your descriptions of people prone to hypoglycemia taking awhile to settle into LC fits me to a T.

[Greenwings]

My husband comes from a family of bone-racks. But they do LOVE their junk food! They believe a person should be able to eat what he wants when he wants. And why not, when you're not skinny as a rail? Try telling them that diet and health are related and they'll label you a fanatic. They only know what they experience in their little world.

If I ate like they do, I'd be the Goodyear blimp.

[tholian8]

I was nauseaus all the time, the thought of eating made me sick. I litterally thought I was going to throw up when I would eat. This feeling lasted the entire induction and gradually stopped.

When I started Atkins induction, I had the "3 day syndrome," but after that stopped I developed constant nausea, especially during and just after eating. I could hardly even look at food. This lasted until I got up to 30 carbs/day, and then it went away as mysteriously as it had come.

However, pre-LC I never grazed and I didn't have a sweet tooth to speak of. I only ate at mealtimes--sometimes I ate too much, to be sure--but never between. In fact, I would not be hungry when I woke up and could go many hours without hunger or eating. Even now, on a Targeted Keto Diet, I am rarely hungry in the morning and must force myself to eat my assigned breakfast. (I know from experience that I feel much better all day if I eat properly in the AM, whether I'm hungry or not.)

I don't know what type I would have tested out as.

Emily

[Skinny9]

I don't know if the types match up, but there's been a similar approach for centuries in Indian/Yogic medicine, ayurveda. Their 'vata' or 'pitta' type might match the 'fast metabolizer'.

[Zuleikaa]

For anyone interested here's (http://dietlowcarb.com/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=10&topic=3595) the questions to determine your metabolic type.

The results given can be a clear indication that your one type alone or that your one type with a bit of another, i.e. your a clear protein type who might do best on Neaderthin or your a protein type that needs a little or some carbs or carbs of certain types. Additionally you could be a carb type who needs non fruit carbs but carbs from grains. And then there's the whole question of which kind of fats you'd do best on...those from dairy...proteins...or vegetable fats.

The book's point is that each person can be anywhere on the continuum of protein:carb:fat needs and from different sources. It's a very individual thing.

[Kent]

When one eats a high-carbohydrate diet the metabolism is hyped by the insulin rush. This does not mean a person is a "carbohydrate type." Everyone gets a metabolic rush from eating carbs. This is why the low-carbohydrate diet lowers the metabolism which has been proven scientifically to increase longevity.

The "Metabolic Type" diet theories are based on this response. If you like carbohydrates and eat a lot it zings your metabolism and therefore you must be a high-metabolism carb type. This is circular reasoning and a just a bunch of nonsense to sell a book.

When I used to eat a lot of carbs I had a high metabolism, naturally that is what carbs do. Using the stupid metabolic typing reasoning I should have stayed on the high-carbohydrate diet that was making me very sick. The low-carb diet restored my health and lowered my metabolism to a healthy state.

Don't believe this Metabolic Typing Diet nonsense.

Kent :wave:

[ItsTheWooo]

Kent,

I had always believed that insulin (and through extension, a high carbohydrate diet) inhibits metabolic (energy transforming) activity, which is why we low carbers can usually eat more and still lose as much as a HC dieter? Insulin directly suppresses metabolism; the higher your insulin, the less calories your body will burn, and therefore the easier it is for you to gain weight. Some very insulin resistant (high levels of insulin) people are so bad off they will gain on even starvation levels of a very high carb diet.

Perhaps what you mean is that insulin/sugar damages the body and metabolism via some other mechanism more readily than fat or protein? Certainly your claim that insulin and sugar "rev up" the metabolism as you claim can't be true. If that were true, HCers could eat more than LCers and that is just not the case.

[Kent]

No It The Wooo, I meant exactly what I said.

How much carbohydrates and the resulting insulin rush hypes the metabolism is based on insulin resistance. A person with high insulin resistance will convert the glucose to body fat while feeling weak and low on energy. This is what causes obesity.

Insulin directly suppresses metabolism; the higher your insulin, the less calories your body will burn, and therefore the easier it is for you to gain weight.

Your quote above is backwards. Insulin increases the metabolism. This is why high carb eaters feel warmer and sweat easier than people on low carb. Insulin forces the cells to accept and burn the glucose until resistance sets in.

Basically, your understanding of insulin, metabolism and weight gain is seriously incorrect. I suggest you read Atkin's books or Protein Power.

Kent :wave:

[ItsTheWooo]

No It The Wooo, I meant exactly what I said.

How much carbohydrates and the resulting insulin rush hypes the metabolism is based on insulin resistance. A person with high insulin resistance will convert the glucose to body fat while feeling weak and low on energy. This is what causes obesity.

This is partially correct, but your mistake is focusing on the insulin, and not the sugar. The energy from sugar is what causes the "energy rush", insulin merely facilitates the process.

Insulin has zero positive/increasing effect on the rate at which energy is used. While it is true insulin is a necessary component for metabolic activity to occur, in that it regulates the usage of sugar, but apart from this necessary function it does not cause an INCREASE in the rate of metabolic activity at all. It is by its nature neutral in how much or little energy is burned, it merely facilitates the processes. In fact, after a long enough time, insulin causes metabolic suppression, and I will explain why. Here is how it works.

First a brief introduction to IR. Insulin resistance is basically how sensitive your body's cells are or aren't to the effects of insulin. A young and healthy metabolism has no problem handling sugar and keeping energy balanced, even when dietary composition is very rich in sugars and starches. This is because the body's cells are receptive to the effects of insulin, and degree of insulin resistance is very low. Things are fine for a long time.

After a long enough time of this kind of diet, eventually your cells' ability to respond to insulin begins to decline. Basically, what body is doing is inducing insulin resistance on itself to protect from premature cellular aging/death. By eating a high sugar diet, you are exposing the body to an abnormally high flood of potential energy that it must deal with via metabolic activity. Metabolic activity causes aging; living causes dying (shocker eh?). Insulin resistance - making energy using tissues less sensitive to the reception/usage of energy - is the survival mechanism your body developed to protect itself from premature cellular death. Insulin resistance itself contributes to a whole host of other problems when sever enough, but it is important to remember that IR is to your body a last-ditch survival mode. Think of your body using insulin resistance to survive in much the same way as a drowning man using his own clothes to stay afloat the rising tides. Even though stripping himself will expose him to hypothermia and kill him that way after a long enough time, he still does it because he has a more immediate threat to deal with (the flood of water). SO it is the same with your body. Even though IR will eventually kill you (uncontrolled type 2 diabetes), your body sees it as a necessary action that must be taken to deal with a more pertinent threat (threat of cellular death).

Now that that is out of the way, let me explain why insulin - a hormone that starts out neutral to metabolic rate, eventually contributes to a decrease in metabolic activity.

I already explained what insulin resistance is, and why your body does it. It is important to also know that not all cells are the same, and some types of cells are more readily prone to become insulin resistant than others. As I said, your body uses insulin resistance as a survival mechanism to protect itself from abnormally high metabolic rates. These metabolic rates aren't caused by the insulin itself as you claim, but they are caused by over eating sugar. The flood of sugar = flood of energy = more demand on metabolism/cellular activity.

Your body intelligently selects which cells to make insulin resistant, and which cells to leave more insulin sensitive. Cells that are more likely to spend energy (i.e. muscle tissue) are the most likely to become insulin resistant. Fat cells are generally the last to become insulin resistant. Like I said, your body does this for a reason - it makes energy using tissues more insulin resistant before others, so as to prevent premature cellular aging/death. What your body is doing is trying to HALT the continuous flood of energy it is being exposed to, as this high sugar/energy will cause early cellular death. Therefore, your body is most likely to make cells with the highest metabolic expense the most insulin resistant, and fat cells the last to become insulin resistant. This is because fat cells have the least net metabolic expense; for every bit of energy they burn, they also preserve some.

Now imagine this with me: pretend your body is a sieve, and each hole of the sieve represents clusters of body cells. Pretend each hole in the sieve of your body is a different size, and how small/large the hole is = how insulin resistant that particular cell is. Fat cells are represented by larger holes, and LBM is more accurately represented by the smallest holes. Pretend sugar is the water. When you pour water (carbs) into the sieve of your insulin resistant body, here is what happens. The water will more easily fall into the fat cells than the muscle cells. Because the water can't get into the "energy using" holes effectively any more, a greater and greater percentage of the water will go into the less insulin resistant "energy sparing" holes (fat cells).

The result? Very insulin resistant people who eat a high sugar - low fat diet will experience the following unfortunate symptoms.
1) Fatigue and low energy levels. This is because the body cannot effectively utilize the energy you are giving it for vital metabolic activity. Your body responds to this by drastically lowering basal metabolic rate and making you feel tired sleepy and sluggish so you are less likely to increase demand for energy via activity.
2) So what happens to all that energy then that you can't use? Easy. It goes where it can go, the relatively insulin sensitive cells: the fat cells. Making you fat.

This is how it is VERY possible for an extremely insulin resistant person to gain weight on a 1000 calorie a day diet, if the composition of that diet is all wrong (i.e. high sugar and low fat).

Where do you go from here if you don't change what you are doing? Simple. Diabetes occurs eventually. First what happens is type 2 diabetes. The muscle tissue and the fat tissue have become so extremely insulin resistant, that even the very high insulin levels your pancreas is already churning out just isn't enough anymore. The sugar quite simply has no where to go because your body refuses to deal with it. Blood sugar levels are through the roof, and you are losing large amounts glucose through the urine. Starved for energy, your body starts to cannibalize itself and you become ketogenic at the same time as having extremely high blood sugar. You are losing weight rapidly. You are also extremely thirsty and can't hold to any nutrients including liquids (insulin also regulates fluids and minerals and the like). This is the danger zone. Your life hangs in the balance. If you don't get medical attention soon to help control your sugars, you will eventually go into a diabetic coma and you will die.

Sometimes you can also become type 1 after a long enough time of being type 2. If you have a particularly strong pancreas, you may very well be able to handle the demand for insulin your insulin resistant body cells require. Your insulin levels will be through the roof, and trouble is certainly lurking around the corner, but your symptoms right now may very well be minimal. However, even the strongest beta cells will burn out after awhile. If you don't do something to reduce the demand for insulin, you may eventually lose the ability to make it and have to depend on synthetic injections.

*whew* that was a lot of typing. Anyway, I hope I have clarified this confusing subject.

Basically, insulin definitely doesn't cause an increase in metabolic activity, nor is it truly accurate to say insulin causes a decrease in metabolic activity (although this is certainly more accurate than the former, because insulin in high levels lowers energy-transforming metabolic activity as describe above. However, even insulin isn't the cause in this case, as its presence is reactionary). Insulin is by its nature neutral, it does what is needed of it.
It is the sugar. It's always been the sugar. Insulin simply regulates the flow of energy/sugar, how it is spent and used. It is a traffic cop. Blaming insulin for IR/diabetes/etc is like blaming a traffic cop for a traffic jam because the streets are congested with too many cars. Blaming insulin for the excessive flood of energy caused by YOUR dietary choices is equally as foolish.

Your body does what it has to do in times of crisis. IR is a necessary evil from a biological perspective.

Your quote above is backwards. Insulin increases the metabolism. This is why high carb eaters feel warmer and sweat easier than people on low carb. Insulin forces the cells to accept and burn the glucose until resistance sets in.

Regardless of rate, any body warmth we experience is the byproduct of metabolic activity. The energy (calories) in food is used by the body, used and transformed into heat (thermogenic energy). This process of transforming energy from food calories into heat is known as "metabolic activity". You are aware of this, correct?

Knowing this, we can understand why hypothyroid people report feeling abnormally cold - their metabolic rate is low, and because of this they aren't burning enough energy to maintain a normal body temp.

In fact, by recognizing the fact that low carbers often report feeling warmer, you are basically proving yourself wrong. The increase in body temp associated with low carb pretty much offers solid evidence that low carbers raise their metabolic rates slightly, which is why we can afford to consume more energy (calories).


Basically, your understanding of insulin, metabolism and weight gain is seriously incorrect. I suggest you read Atkins books or Protein Power.

I don't appreciate your rude and condescending tone. I have been doing LC for over a year, and have read all relevant books for my plan. I have done extensive research on the subject via internet, and am quite familiar with the science behind low carbing. What I speak of is the conventionally accepted belief. What you are claiming is not. It is up to you to provide any semblance of evidence to support your beliefs.

[Kent]

Its The Wooo,

I see you blocked, copied and paste information from all over the web and mixed in some of your own statements to make it appear to be your own. This is commonly called plagiarism. Much of what you said above does not agree with what you said earlier.

I can tell from your misunderstandings that you must be apart of the medical establishment. These are the same people who think eating 60% cabohydrates is healthy.

If I want to read a book I will select it myself. You don't need to copy and post if for me.

Your mixture of copied truth and personal ranting was simply boring. I read just enough to see the tactic you were using and stopped. My guess is nobody of the 45,000 people on this board will ever read your post... LOL


Kent :wave:

[Lisa N]

Folks...let's keep the discussion to the facts at hand, not what you think of the poster. :rolleyes:

There are a few things to address, though:

Insulin has zero positive/increasing effect on the rate at which energy is used. While it is true insulin is a necessary component for metabolic activity to occur, in that it regulates the usage of sugar, but apart from this necessary function it does not cause an INCREASE in the rate of metabolic activity at all. It is by its nature neutral in how much or little energy is burned, it merely facilitates the processes.

Not according to this link: http://cal.man.ac.uk/student_projects/2000/mnby7lc2/metabolism.htm

Insulin directly influences the rate at which glucose is used. Remember, though, that this is for a healthy, non-insulin resistant individual.


Sometimes you can also become type 1 after a long enough time of being type 2.

Type 1 diabetes and type 2 have similar symptoms (uncontrolled blood sugars), but very different causes:
http://www.diabeteslead.org/300/330.html

For this reason, type 2's do not become type 1's although they can become insulin-dependent type 2's for a variety of reasons, but type 2's can eventually become insulin dependent due to beta cell burnout, not beta cell destruction (as in type 1). The end result is the same (no insulin produced by that cell any longer), but again the root cause is different. In beta cell burnout, the cells simply wear out due to high demand over a prolonged period of time, in beta cell destruction, the cells are directly attacked and destroyed.

Blaming insulin for the excessive flood of energy caused by YOUR dietary choices is equally as foolish.

I think you're arguing two sides of the same coin here. Without the insulin, you would not experience that "sugar rush" because the sugar would have no way to get into the cells. Without the high amount of sugar/carbs, the high amounts of insulin would not be present that eventually will lead to IR in some (not all) people.
I think a better question would be why it is that some people seem to be able to consume a high carb diet and not develop insulin resistance or diabetes. Along those lines, I think that genetics and activity levels play a big role.

[Monika4]

Everyone is NOT different.

This is wrong. While there are fundamental metabolic pathways that are the same in all people, I agree in that with Kent, there is a myriad of anecdotal evidence in this forum about individual differences to the same supplements and diets, and there are hundreds of scientific articles showing genetic differences in how effective certain enzymes are, resulting in different metabolic rates of various kinds - e.g. in how well we digest carbs versus proteins versus fats, and how that might affect our cholesterol etc. levels. We don't know how these genetic differences play out, but there are differences, no doubt! Other issues that play a proven role are food allergies, fitness levels etc. I haven't read the book about metabolic typing, so I can't judge whether that is useful - but the idea to consider individual differences in diet and exercise programs is not a bad one that can be discarded as a whole.

[ItsTheWooo]

Its The Wooo,

I see you blocked, copied and paste information from all over the web and mixed in some of your own statements to make it appear to be your own.... <blah blah blah>

You know what Kent, did you ever hear the phrase you will attract more flies with honey than with vinegar? Your style of abusing your "opponent" into submission, rather than attempt to intelligently and considerately provide evidence for your claims just won't work sweety. Most people will ignore you as a rude, offensive, and probably a borderline crazy person.

You say no one will read my thread, but you know what Kent? Whenever I see a post from you, I subconsciously prepare myself for an oozing sack of poorly-substantiated medical quackery you picked up from various diet gurus, laced with your own personal touch of vitriol for the opinions of other forum posters.

This, of course, causes me to not give much weight to whatever you post, or outright ignore it all together.

[Kent]

Hi Its The Gooo,

You would have been better off ignoring my first post rather than stating a bunch of high-carb nonsense.

The insulin rush from eating a high-carb diet does NOT suppress the metabolism as you stated. Suck it up and correct yourself.

BTW, what is your adgenda here. You certainly are not a supporter of low-carb, Dr. Robert C. Atkins or Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades?

You can read the correct facts about eating carbohydrates and resulting insulin response in my web page below. Mr. Joseph Mercola has the No. ! website promoting health through proper diet. His January 3, 2004 eNewsletter featured my article. It was sent to over 120,000 subscribers, 25,000 of which are medical professionals. Only one nutty vegetarian attempted a challenged. Others knew better because it is scientific fact.

Absolute Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Are Pathogenic. (http://www.biblelife.org/carbs.htm)

You could also correct a bunch of your other false conceptions by studing another of my web pages in detail. Please note the links backing up the statements with science.

Top Ten Nutritional Myths, Distortions and Lies That Will Destroy Your Heath. (http://www.biblelife.org/myths.htm)

Young modern women like yourself are so used to dominating the young modern WHUSSSIE males that you try that power play with everyone. Didn't work this tiime.

Lisa N, nice post. Thanks for the help.

Kent :wave:

[ItsTheWooo]

Not according to this link: http://cal.man.ac.uk/student_projects/2000/mnby7lc2/metabolism.htm

Insulin directly influences the rate at which glucose is used. Remember, though, that this is for a healthy, non-insulin resistant individual.

I am assuming we are talking about a person with a normal metabolism.

But, isn't true that in normal people, the rate at which insulin tells your body cells to use energy is only as much as is needed per amount of sugar you have in the blood? Insulin is in effect speaking to your body on behalf of the food you ate. That means the more food energy from sugar you are eating, the more energy you will receive.

In a normal person, the insulin in their body itself offers no metabolic advantages to increase metabolic rate, whereas a LC diet does.

Sometimes you can also become type 1 after a long enough time of being type 2.

Type 1 diabetes and type 2 have similar symptoms (uncontrolled blood sugars), but very different causes:
http://www.diabeteslead.org/300/330.html

For this reason, type 2's do not become type 1's although they can become insulin-dependent type 2's for a variety of reasons, but type 2's can eventually become insulin dependent due to beta cell burnout, not beta cell destruction (as in type 1). The end result is the same (no insulin produced by that cell any longer), but again the root cause is different. In beta cell burnout, the cells simply wear out due to high demand over a prolonged period of time, in beta cell destruction, the cells are directly attacked and destroyed.

You are right, it wasn't accurate for me to say it is possible to become t1 after being an uncontrolled t2. The problems producing insulin associated with t1 come about by a very different mechanism than that of t2.

What I meant to (poorly) say was that eventually when you are t2 after a long enough time you can also have the problems making insulin of a t1.

I think you're arguing two sides of the same coin here. Without the insulin, you would not experience that "sugar rush" because the sugar would have no way to get into the cells. Without the high amount of sugar/carbs, the high amounts of insulin would not be present that eventually will lead to IR in some (not all) people.

I don't think I am arguing two different sides. I started my post saying I totally agree with Kent, that a high sugar diet causes an increase in metabolic activity rate (in that per unit of time, you will transform energy quicker if you recently ate 100 calories of sugar than if you recently ate 100 calories of fat or protein). But this is because of the way sugar is metabolized vs protein and fat, not because of insulin itself. Carbohydrate sugar eaten alone is broken down very rapidly, and floods your blood with energy. Protein is broken down into sugar slowly and steadily, as is fat synthesized into ketones, etc. It's the flood of energy causing the problem.
After a long enough time of bludgeoning your body with too much energy too quickly from a high sugar diet, the cells try to save themselves from early death by calcifying themselves to the effects of insulin. By ignoring insulin, they are also going to use less energy, and therefore age slower. Your body sends the sugar which can no longer be effectively used by the more insulin-resistant very metabolically active cells, to the more insulin-sensitive energy storing fat cells.

What I disagreed with is his over emphasis on blaming insulin. Insulin is reactionary. The cause of the problem is the diet itself, eating way too high a percentage calories from carbs or having a genetic tendency to IR. The high levels of insulin, the body's self induced insulin resistance: these are just symptoms, reactions to the real problem, the diet itself.

Basically I look at it like this, again assuming for healthy individuals: While it is technically true that insulin contributes to an increase in metabolic rate in normal healthy people, it can and will only do this when appropriate energy intake from sugar is administered. The insulin reaction of a normal person is directly parallel to the action of eating sugar. A healthy body will not produce insulin beyond what is needed, it only produces as much as is needed to "get the job done" and effectively allow the uptake of consumed food energy.

In other words, the insulin itself is only doing what is required of it; to get the energy "boost" you need to take that much energy in from sugar. Its the sugar calories giving the energy, by them entering the blood so rapidly. Insulin is merely doing what is required of it, and in of itself offering no metabolic benefits.

There are exceptions of course. People who are prone to hypoglycemia may for whatever medical reason produce too much insulin relative to what is needed, and in this case insulin truly is causing them to use energy faster than they are taking it in. But, this is a condition and not how the body should normally operate. A normal body will only produce as much insulin that is required of it to deal with the sugar it has been given.

I think a better question would be why it is that some people seem to be able to consume a high carb diet and not develop insulin resistance or diabetes. Along those lines, I think that genetics and activity levels play a big role.
I agree completely.

Everyone is different, some of our metabolisms are capable of handling and faring well on high-sugar. Some of us do poorly on high fat and feel sluggish and lethargic and do better with a little more carbs (yes these people do exist, you just don't hear about them often on a pro-lc website). The fact that this individual variance exists for what we do best on metabolically is strong evidence that something like metabolic typing might have some merit.

I think it is foolish to outright dismiss the possibility that some people do better on more carb-heavy diets.

[Kent]

Back to the Metabolic Typing Diet

I saw a man in the restaurant this morning that was a "carb type" according to the Metabolic Typing Diet theory. He just loved his carbs. The orange juice glass must have been 8 inches tall. Belgium waffles with cherries and the standard sugar laden fake whipping cream. Fruit on the side with lots of fructose carbs. A giant sugar muffin. Yep, definitely a "carb type."

He must have weighed 400 pounds, a lumbering stack of fat with legs.

Oh, yes. The Metabolic Typing Diet is truly nonsense.

Kent :wave:

[ItsTheWooo]

Alright, Kent. Let's start over.
Hi Its The Gooo,

You would have been better off ignoring my first post rather than stating a bunch of high-carb nonsense.

I don't support a high carb diet (at least not for most people). Finding LC saved me.

However, I also am open minded enough to realize there are many people in the world who do quite well and live long healthy lives eating more carbs than what you or I would do well on.
I am also open minded enough to realize there are many people who feel like absolute crap on very low grams of carbs (yes, even after induction).

Even some LC dieters do better when eating more carbs and fruits than others, I am one of them. I feel much better eating a bit more carbs (currently at 40 net per day) and it doesn't affect my weight any.

The insulin rush from eating a high-carb diet does NOT suppress the metabolism as you stated. Suck it up and correct yourself.

Ok let me clarify myself.

In a normal individual it won't. But then again, in a normal individual insulin won't "hype" metabolism either. In a normal individual the insulin reaction is directly equal to the sugar intake action. Any energy you experience from eating a high carb diet is not directly caused by the insulin, though insulin does play an essential role (so essential that energy cannot be had w/o it). In healthy people, insulin is like a negotiator between energy you give it and the body. It allows energy you eat to be used. It doesn't increase the rate of usage.

The problem is that sugar is broken down sooo rapidly that it forces your body to transform energy quickly. This sugar induced increased metabolic rate results in metabolic disorders like IR.


BTW, what is your adgenda here. You certainly are not a supporter of low-carb, Dr. Robert C. Atkins or Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades?

I follow my own version of the Atkins plan, and support almost everything Dr. Atkins said. (I changed the plan around a bit to emphasize portion control a little more, because with all the LC alternatives today it is all too easy to stay LC while eating enough calories to maintain).

I've not familiarized myself with protein power, however.


Young modern women like yourself are so used to dominating the young modern WHUSSSIE males that you try that power play with everyone. Didn't work this tiime.

LOL! Kent, I don't think you know this, but from the first post you made to me, you have been nothing but disrespectful and rude. If you think the way I responded was uncalled for, I apologize. But, I think if someone talked to you that way, you would be just as upset.

[Zuleikaa]

The Metabolic Typing Book makes the point that your type is not necessarily what you LOVE to eat. If you eat what you LOVE, THAT can be symptoms of addiction or allergy. If you GAIN WEIGHT or are OBESE on the type of diet you're eating, then that's a sign the you are EATING WRONG FOR YOUR METABOLIC TYPE. Rather your metabolic type is the diet (combination of foods) that you are HEALTHIEST, ENERGIZED, and ABLE TO MAINTAIN OPTIMUM WEIGHT ON. Each metabolic type is comprised of portein, carbs, and fat. It's just that the ratios and sources of p:c:f are different for each type.

Kent, have you read the book? I'm just wondering because you seem to have such a different take on what it's saying than I.

[Kent]

Kent, have you read the book? I'm just wondering because you seem to have such a different take on what it's saying than I.


Zuleikaa,

Certainly I have read the book. The bottom line from this book and the other metabolic type theories can be easily summarized, "If you love to eat carbohydrates you are a carb type, if you love to eat protein you are a protein type." A person who loves eating meat and fat while disliking pasta, cookies and cakes will never test as a "protein type."

The fact remains. Carbohydrates are pathogenic for everyone. The time it takes for one to develope diseases is directly proportional to the amount of carbohyrates eaten multiplied by the length of time. Starches take longer to do their damage than simple carbohydrates but the end result is the same eventually.

Didn't we go through this already at the beginning of this thread?

According to the Metabolic Typing Diet many obese people are the "carb type" and should continue the same way. That is laughable. The book is a joke.

There is no such thing a people with different metabolic types that should eat a high-carb diet. Some people don't get fat on high-carbs because they have an intestinal disease caused by the carbs. Some people eat the high-carb diet and think they are doing great only to find they are hypoglycemic.

Kent :wave:

[Kent]

Marathon Runner who was the Metabolic Carb Type


Another Marathon Runner Proves Carbohydrates Kill

PowerBar founder Maxwell collapses and dies at age 51, March 20, 2004, San Anselmo, California. Brian Maxwell, the 51-year-old founder of the PowerBar, has died of a heart attack. A former world-class marathon runner, Maxwell reportedly collapses in a post office and emergency personnel were unable to resuscitate him. The PowerBar company has become a multimillion-dollar empire since Maxwell and his wife, a nutritionist, founded it in 1986. They began selling the popular energy bars out of their kitchen and over the next 10 years the company grew to $150 million in sales. In March 2000, the couple sold the company to Nestle SA for a reported $375 million. Maxwell thought of the idea to make PowerBars while running a 26.2-mile marathon. He had to stop the race after 21 miles, the point where experts say the body stops burning carbohydrates and starts to burn muscle tissue. In 1977, Track and Field News ranked Maxwell the No. 3 runner in the world, and in 1980 he was part of the Olympic team that boycotted the games in Moscow. He represented Canada in many international competitions as a long-distance runner.

Maxwell has proven once again that exercise does not prevent heart disease. He has also confirmed that the high-carbohydrate diet causes heart disease. His wife was a professional nutritionist and co-developer of the PowerBar. Yet, they created a "health product" that is pure garbage nutritionally. They both were strong promoters of conventional high-carbohydrate nutrition. She is rich, but he is dead.

Here is the list of ingredients for PowerBars that are laden with deadly carbohydrates and simple sugars:

High fructose corn syrup

Grape and pear juice concentrate

Maltodextrin

Brown rice

Unsweetened chocolate

Glycerin

Bunch of other unhealthy junk

[Lisa N]

A healthy body will not produce insulin beyond what is needed, it only produces as much as is needed to "get the job done" and effectively allow the uptake of consumed food energy.

That's only partly accurate. "Normal" individuals (whatever that may be) will at times produce more insulin than what was needed to cover the meal eaten. Your body has no way to know exactly how many carbs or grams of sugar you've just consumed until it's digested and hits your bloodstream, but insulin is released long before that (phase 1 response). The phase 2 insulin response is in direct proportion to how high and how quickly your blood glucose concentrations are rising, but even that can be overdone. That's when glucagon comes in to counteract that by stimulating release of glycogen from the liver in response to dropping blood sugars. It's a delicate balance that many are not aware of. It's also this constant up-and-down of blood sugars that drives many to consume more and more carbs; blood sugar goes up, insulin does it's job (some times a bit too well), blood sugar drops along with glucagon and glycogen kicking in and the body producing hunger signals to eat again to assist the glygocen in bringing the blood sugars back up again.


After a long enough time of bludgeoning your body with too much energy too quickly from a high sugar diet, the cells try to save themselves from early death by calcifying themselves to the effects of insulin. By ignoring insulin, they are also going to use less energy, and therefore age slower. Your body sends the sugar which can no longer be effectively used by the more insulin-resistant very metabolically active cells, to the more insulin-sensitive energy storing fat cells.

Again, partly correct but incomplete. Insulin is what is known as a "master hormome". It directly influences a great many body processes other than simply blood glucose control. One of the things it influences is whether the body will store fat or not. When insulin levels are high, the body will store fat. When glucagon levels are dominant (as they are in low carb), the body will not store fat and will instead burn it for energy. The body's response to cells becoming resistant to insulin isn't just to send the insulin to less resistant cells, but to also produce more insulin to force the resistant cells to accept the glucose present in the bloodstream as well. It's equivalent to having to use a bigger and bigger hammer to do the job that a smaller hammer once did. This is why in individuals with insulin resistance, the circulating levels of insulin are very high (as is the rate at which they are storing fat) and also why those are with IR struggle to lose weight on a high carb diet even at very low calorie levels.

The fact that this individual variance exists for what we do best on metabolically is strong evidence that something like metabolic typing might have some merit.

I'm not convinced that variances in the amount of carb that a person feels good at or can tolerate (20 grams per day vs. 40, for example), is a good argument in favor of metabolic typing. Even among those that are carb sensitive, the amount that an individual can tolerate varies quite a bit. Perhaps that is a direct function of how advanced an individual's IR has become, perhaps not.

In healthy people, insulin is like a negotiator between energy you give it and the body. It allows energy you eat to be used. It doesn't increase the rate of usage.

Good analogy, but insulin can and does stimulate the rate at which energy is used within the cell by directly influencing other enzymatic reactions (specifically those that are involved with glycolysis) within the cell. It doesn't just influence the rate at which the glucose leaves the blood stream, but also the rate at which that glucose is burned once it gets inside the cell. The rate at which energy is used within the body is the very definition of metabolic rate.

Everyone is different, some of our metabolisms are capable of handling and faring well on high-sugar.

To tell you the truth, I believe that there are very few individuals who are capable of handling and faring well on a high carb/high sugar diet without a corresponding high level of physical activity. Take away that high level of activity and most of those people will start experiencing all the problems of high carb consumption that many of us do. They are beginning to see that in areas of Asia now; with declining activity levels, weight and the incidence of diabetes and heart disease are climbing. Kent's post about Brian Maxwell also illustrates that. He was able to control his weight while consuming a high carb diet while he was running long distances regularly, but it didn't do much for the impact the insulin he was forcing his body to produce with all those carbs had on his cardiovascular system, even WITH a high level of activity. There was another famous marathon runner who touted a low fat, high carb diet that suffered the same fate...while he was out running as a matter of fact. I'm sure if you had talked to these men, they would have told you how great they felt. After all...you can't run a marathon if you feel like doo-doo, but feeling good physically doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing good physically or that you are eating the proper combination of nutrients for your body which is why I hesitate to give a lot of credence to the metabolic typing theory; a lot of it seems to be based on how you physically feel, not on what's actually going on inside your body.

[Lisa N]

I'd also like to remind everyone that while disagreement and debate is fine, exchanging personal insults, even in the heat of debate, can result in your posting privileges being suspended. Please stick to debating/discussing the facts and ideas presented and refrain from personal attacks.

[kyrasdad]

This is all interesting, but I can't credit much of what Kent says when it's dripping with hostility and childish stuff like referring to ItsTheWooo as "Its The Gooo."

To me Woo's stuff seems more coherent and intelligent. I certainly had to laugh at the attempt to paint her as a cut & paste artists. We all reference websites, but from her writing it's clear she understands the subject as well as (probably better than) Kent.

[Kent]

Kyrasdad,

OK, so you like ItsThe Mooo's presentation of her thoughts better than mine. Where is truth in all those feeling? Do we now judge the better way of eating by what seems to be a "better understanding?"

Dr. Dean Ornish writes very well and his presentation may be better to some people than books by Dr. Robert C. Atkins. Dr. Andrew Weil has written many books that his readers absolutely adore and many believe them instead of those written by Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades. Is that the way to decide what is right? You go ahead and live your life that way. Not me.

Dr. Atkins and Drs. Eades present scientific truth while Drs. Ornish and Weil have a hidden adgenda. They are radical religious vegetarians, and many of their statements are simply untrue.

So what about Lisa N's excellent conradictions of Its The Moo's incorrect statements? Is Lisa N right or wrong?

I based my beliefs on logic and truth, not how it feels.

Kent :wave:

[Karen]

Everyone!

I strongly advise you to lay off insulting each other in this thread. This is your last warning.

Stick to debating the topic.

Karen

[Greenwings]

According to the Metabolic Typing Diet many obese people are the "carb type" and should continue the same way. Where exactly is this in the book?

I have been away...had no idea this discussion had gone on and on! How silly of me to think it would eliminate controversy!!!

I can tell you from first-hand experience that your type does NOT reflect what you LOVE or even LIKE. I am a fast oxidizer, I was tested. I have been LC ing for two years in May, and I am absolutely sick of it. Never liked meat for much more than a side dish. However, like it or not, it's what I do best on. That at least tells you that believing in MT isn't wishful thinking...

[Zuleikaa]

It's not in the book anywhere thaat I've read.

[Kent]

Everyone who test "protein type" on the Metabolic Typing Diet, no problem. All humans are the protein type on the basis of long term best health.

The problem is the people who test "carbohydrate type" on the Metabolic Typing Diet. The carb type diet is bad for everybody on a long term basis.

Therefore, what good is the Metabolic Typing Diet test? WORTHLESS.

What about the obese that test "carbohydrate type." Should they continue to stuff the carbs. Dr. Atkins nor Drs. Michael and Mary Eades all strongly disagreed with that nonsense.

Kent :wave:

[Zuleikaa]

I don't think that would happen. Hasn't happened yet that I've seen. However I have seen plenty of people who are thin/slim test as the carbo type. I've also seen plenty of obese test as mixed or protein.

[Kent]

The Metabolic Typing Diet supporters on this thread have one strange thing in common. They tested "protein type" but are encouraging others to eat the high-carb diet if they test that way. They are missing the major benefit for the low-carb lifestyle --- better health. Low-carb is not just about weight loss. My wife had Crohn's disease (intestinal disease) and dropped to 92 pounds at 5'-3". She was always a very high-carb eater. She hated meat, especially red meat. I had a most difficult time getting her to eat low-carb. She thought her weight would drop even more. No so. She gained 14 pounds to 106 and must now be careful she doesn't gain more. It cured her Crohn's disease which renown organizations like the Mayo Clinic say is incurable. So, I put the program I developed to heal her on a web page. Low-carb is the best diet for everyone, even skinny people.

Metabolic Typing Diet supporters miss the major point.

CARBS KILL everyone of all types.

Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, IBD, IBS, Crohn's, Ulcerative Colitis & Candida. (http://www.biblelife.org/bowel.htm)

Ok, Ok. We should all agree that marathon runner James F. Fixx was a fast burner and most certainly would have tested carb type. He thought so. It killed him early in life just like it did marathon runner Brian Maxwell, developer of the PowerBar. See post above.

James F. Fixx wrote two books on the health benefits of exercise and running, but he died in 1984 from a heart attack at a young age of 52 in his running shoes on a daily run. Many try to cover the facts by blaming it on his heredity or smoking which he quit nine years earlier, but Fixx developed severe coronary artery disease during his running years. He had near total occlusion by atherosclerosis of one coronary artery and 80% occlusion of another. There was also evidence of a recent heart attack. In addition, the heart was somewhat large suggesting the possibility of concurrent hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Exercise and low-weight certainly helped him, but that could not overcome the disastrous effects of his diet. Fixx bought into the myth that fat in the diet is unhealthy when in fact it is essential to life. He also became a vegetarian and refrained from eating meat. Fixx bought into the new philosophy that runners needed high levels of carbohydrates in their diets. He ate a very low-calorie diet in order to keep from gaining weight on the excessive level of carbohydrates. He failed to take any vitamins, minerals or other supplements on the false premise that his vegetarian diet could provide them. He undoubtedly suffered from an amino acid deficiency compounded by an essential fatty acid deficiency and further compounded by a refusal to supplement with vitamins and minerals. Amino acids from protein are the building blocks of life, and it is difficult to obtain all of the amino acids required by one's diet without eating meat, fish and fowl. The effects of these deficiencies take many years to manifest themselves, and the resultant disease can be just about anything in the book. This makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint the cause and effect of a low-fat, low-protein diet on one's health. People fail to understand that the minimum requirement for carbohydrates in the diet is zero - none.

Kent :wave:

[Zuleikaa]

Well lets not mix apples and oranges. What's that got to do with anything? Those are individual cases. Neither your wife nor Fixx were tested metabolically. If they were perhaps they would have tested protein or mixed type.

The diseases mentioned are a result of too much carbs/wheat/processed foods in the diet. Additionally, many runners/exercisers die young of heart attacks. It's a common occurance having little to do with diet and much to do with sudden stresses on the heart. The Typing Diet says that the only type that would do well on a vegetarian diet are some carb types but not the majority of carb types. Too Metabolic Typing says that while carb types TOLERATE processed carbs better than the others, NO TYPE should really overdo them. For carb types no more than 60% of the diet should come from carbs and that 60% includes fruits and starchy vegetables as well. The book further makes the point that all grains should be whole grains. And that any diet should include supplements in the modern world.

So what we are left with are diseases that are caused too many carbs/processed foods in the system. And two individuals who weren't tested for metabolic typing. I would like to remind you that the result of metabolic typing is an optimum diet for the INDIVIDUAL. The diet on which that individual will THRIVE and their system will OPERATE EFFICIENTLY and BE HEALTHY on.

To me that means that the person will not have diseases induced by their diet. If they do, obviously their diet is out of balance, i.e. the protein, carb, fat ratios are wrong, from the wrong sources or they are on the wrong diet.

An illuminating factor is that your wife now has to be careful that she doesn't gain weight on lc. Perhaps she is really a mixed type and now that her condition caused by diet imbalance is controlled and healed, she should introduce more complex carbs into her system until her weight is balanced and easily maintained in her ideal range.

Nothing you have posted refutes the presumption of the Metabolic Typing Diet.

[Heath]

So how do we sweep under the carpet the vast societies whose primary subsistence is white rice, do we just ignore them?
And as far as not knowing any diets/books that recommend white flour/rice, Duke's rice diet has been renowned as a very successful weight loss regimen which has shown long term efficacy in several studies.
My point is that people are different. I don't necessarily buy into the metabolic typing (or the eat right for your blood type silliness). A simple examination of cultures throught the world will quickly bring to light huge discrepancies in diets. And within each individual culture there are those that are not successful, that are too thin or are obese.
Any time we start trying to encompass entire populations, we tend to find that generaliztions don't work very well.

H

[Zuleikaa]

Exactly. Metabolic typing is based on the individual, not on the makeup of the majority of any population.

I think a lot of the stridency of advocates of specific eating plans would subside if they would accept that one program does not work for everyone on the earth and that there are differences in optimum dietary needs at the individual level.

[Kent]

People who BELIEVE the Metabolic Typing Diet scam are obviously NOT low-carb supporters. The two are mutual exclusive. To make matters worse the books about the Metabolic Typing theory are not in agreement as noted in earlier posts on this tread.

Yikes... The 60% carbohydrate diet as suggested by the Metabolic Typing Diet is the Standard American Diet (SAD) and the foundation of the USDA Food Pyramid Guide that is coming under increasing attack for good reason. This is the very reason diabetes and obesity has become a crisis in all English speaking countries.

The Metabolic Typing Diet is the CAUSE for heart disease, diabetes and cancer for everyone who tests "carb type" and tries to live it. Carbohydrates are scientifically proven to cause diseases. The actual results and scientific proof is beyond question.

Absolute Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Are Pathogenic. (http://www.biblelife.org/carbs.htm)

Another book scam is Eat Right 4 Your Type which gives opposite results to the Metabolic Typing Diet results. Actually, they are both wrong.

Kent :wave:

[Kent]

I am an Engineer and Scientist and we don't accept "feely-touchy" theories as presented in the Metabolic Typing Diet. A 60% carbohydrate diet as recommended by the Metabolic Typing Diet is disease causing.

The Metabolic Typing Diet is the wrong diet in a majority of cases. This type of sloppy results invalidates the theory. An Engineering or Scientific theory must be correct 100% of the time. One incorrect results invalidates the theory completely and it must be discarded. This is why I like Dr. Atkins diet and Protein Power. They are based on solid science.

Kent :wave:

[Zuleikaa]

I agree that science is based on proven theories. However, humans have been the exception to every scientic rule ever devised. There has never been 100% of a human population that reacted the same to anything, except the need for food and water and even then they are capable of surviving without each for different periods of time.

You still haven't convinced me. And I am a supporter of low carb. For those people for which it works. As to 60% levels of Metabolic Typing being the same as that of the food pyramid. It's not. The food pyramid doesn't count carbs. It does count starches. But Metabolic Typing like lc programs count carbs as carbs whether they be fruits, vegetables, starches or any food. Also that 60% is a max and the mixed type needs carbs but at a smaller ratio.

BTW Carbohydrates taken alone ARE NOT scientifically proven to cause disease. Rather a diet high in carbs are proven to cause disease in SOME people, especially refined carbs, sugar carbs and trans fats taken together.

Just because you say something in an assertive enough voice often enough doesn't make it an absolute.

[Kent]

The USDA Food Pyramid Guide is based on 60% carbs or 300 grams in a 2000 calorie per day diet. My web pages have links to the pyramid all over the place to confirm. Another easy way is to simply read the nutrition label on any food. Check the grams of carbs and the percent of daily value. Correct for 100% and the answer is always 300 grams of carbs. Four calories per gram equals 1200 calories or 60%.

Metabolic Typing Diet supporters use themselves are a wonderful example when they test "protein type" and gain all the health benefits of the low-carb diet. The theory is touted as if all of the metabolic theories were true.

Yet, examples of professional athletes dying from heart attacks at ages 51 and 52 are dismissed as not have been proven it way caused by their high-carb diet.

The biggest problem with the Metabolic Typing Diet is the claim that a high-carb diet is healthy for those people who burn carbs easily. That claim is wrong. Carbohydrates are unhealthy for everyone.

Younger people in their 20's and 30's run marathons, 10k races, triathalons on a very high-carb diet. They think they are awesome until insulin resistance starts to show its ugly head in the 40's. So, they push harder not knowing the insulin is plugging up their heart arteries. BOOM - Dead at 51 and 52. No surprise here.

I know a female marathon runner in her mid 40's named Sarah. She came in second in her age category. I warned her about the high-carb diet, but she would not listen. She said protein and fat would "bulk her up and slow her down." BOOM - Body collapse with so many muscle, tendon and ligament problems that she was having trouble walking. No more marathons. At last contact she what eating more protein and fat to get back to normal activity. Oh, yes. She would have certainly tested fast burner carb type on the Metabolic Typing Diet.

Kent :wave:

[Zuleikaa]

But the point is that she wasn't tested so you don't know what she would have tested as.

Additionally even Dr. Atkins says that athletes should not be eating low carb as they need carbs to expend. Perhaps their error was to continue eating the same way into their 40S when they didn't need that level of carbs for performance.

As I said before humans are outside a scientific experimental norm. They are unique. I know plenty of people especially elderly who grew up in a more rural environment who have no sign of diabetes, heart desease or high blood pressure and their in their 80's and 90's. What about them. We can talk all day about specific instances that prove each of our case. The problem with you case is that some of mine, these people, don't fit your case that EVERYONE needs a lc diet.

[Sea Saw]

Are you, the fast oxidizers, also Blood Type O? Just curious.

[Zuleikaa]

I'm not blood type O. Metabolic Typing says that blood type can't really be a determinent for what you should be eating that it might have been in prehistoric days as there has been so much intermingling of peoples across native species lines.

[PoofieD]

So how do we sweep under the carpet the vast societies whose primary subsistence is white rice, do we just ignore them


Look carefully at the REAL statistics on those societies. Yes.. really go look.
Don't believe what the PCRM states, or the liberal media that for some reason really LOVE the carb way of eating.
You will find that while you have a slim people you have high rates of heart disease, diabetes and stroke.

[Kent]

Additionally even Dr. Atkins says that athletes should not be eating low carb as they need carbs to expend. Perhaps their error was to continue eating the same way into their 40S when they didn't need that level of carbs for performance.


That is not true. Dr. Atkins has never said that carbohydrates are essential in the diet for anyone. Dr. Atkins himself ran marathons on low-carb. The Atkins website has personal testimonies from marathon runners reporting great success on low-carb.

James Fixx, author of the book Complete Book of Running stated in the book that his study of college alumni showed the athletes had a shorter life span than the couch potatoes.

Dr. Michael Eades on his website suggests athletes eat low-carb for lifestyle and training to prevent insulin resistance and eat some carbs for competition. Carb loading may give a slight edge in short races but marathon runners are forced to burning fat in the middle of the race. The switch over is called "hitting the wall" because their body is not used to burning fat normally.

The Metabolic Typing Diet theory claims that everyone testing "carb type" should eat a high level of carbohydrates for optimal health. That theory is flat wrong.

Carbohydrates cause nearly all age-related diseases. Age-related diseases are thought of as unavoidable. Many people consider it normal to get one or more of these diseases as they age. They rationalize that they are simply unlucky or that others have "better genes," neither of which is true. Their health problems are most likely caused by their belief in the many popular myths and distortions about nutrition. Most likely they got hooked by the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet craze and are now suffering as a result. The most common excuse used instead of identifying the real culprit, carbohydrates, is heredity. People flippantly say, "It runs in my family." or "My mother also had diabetes." or "My father also had high blood pressure and heart disease." Age-related diseases could best be described as "Excessive Carbohydrate Consumption Syndrome."

Top Ten Nutritional Myths, Distortions and Lies That Will Destroy Your Heath. (http://www.biblelife.org/myths.htm)

Kent :wave:

[Lisa N]

Additionally even Dr. Atkins says that athletes should not be eating low carb as they need carbs to expend. Perhaps their error was to continue eating the same way into their 40S when they didn't need that level of carbs for performance.

Zuleikaa...I don't recall ever reading where Dr. Atkins suggested that athletes should not follow a carb controlled lifestyle. Perhaps induction levels aren't appropriate when you are an elite athlete, but even reading back through Atkins for Life, Dr. Atkins suggested that generally maintainence levels of carb would be between 60 and 100 grams of carb per day for most folks, even with regular exercise which he highly recommended.
Come to think of it, Didn't an English rugby team train and compete on a controlled carb regimen and take first place this past year?

Quote from Atkins For Life, page 70:
"Some lucky-or more likely-young, active (and usually male) people can go as high as 150 or even a bit higher. On the other hand, if you have a history of obesity and yo-you dieting, it is unlikely that you will ever be able to get your ACE much above 60. Remember, the more you exercise, the higher your ACE, so if you are determined to get it up a notch or two, get moving! Literally."

Even 150 grams of carb per day is nowhere near the carb loading amount that many athletic "experts" recommend and that carb loading usually consists of simple, high glycemic carbs such as sugar, white rice or pasta.

Kent...I don't recall ever reading where Dr. Atkins ran marathons, but a colleague of his, Dr. Stuart Trager, did and did quite well while maintaining a controlled carb approach. IIRC, his daily carb intake was somewhere in the rage of 60-90 grams of carb, even while training and racing in a triathalon.

[fridayeyes]

BTW, as to the cultures who use rice as a staple, the rice was not white rice until recently. It would have been brown rice with high-fiber layer intact. Also, traditional rice farming provides habitat for all sorts of aquatic protein life such as small fish, crabs, crayfish etc. When the rice paddies are modified to accomodate tractor-based farming, rice yeilds go way up but the protein content of the diet goes DOWN. It's not a particularly good trade-off for the people concerned. (Sorry Peace Corps. :( ) Reliance on rice for the bulk of the diet is likely a fairly recent development similar to the agrarian reliance on grains. Also, while the plates in Asian restaurants may not contain many vegetables, they are adapted to suit Wester tastes. The vegetable content is quite a bit higher when the food is served in the country of origin.

Cheers,

Friday

[kaeleen]

I usually refrain from entering online debates such as these, however when I read the following excerpt in an e-mail from Dr. Mercola that I received in my inbox this morning, I felt compelled to comment.

Metabolic typing is a system that acknowledges that you, like everyone, have your own unique biochemistry and therefore your own specific nutritional needs to optimize your health and weight. It is a system that has been extensively proven (including in my own clinic), and in this book, you will learn where you reside on the metabolic type spectrum, and how to fine-tune your intake of healthy carbs, proteins and fats accordingly. Following the diet for your metabolic type alone will therefore improve your health and weight more than you can possibly imagine.(emphasis mine)

In Post #48 of this thread, Kent cited the fact of publication of his article
"Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Cause Disease" (http://www.mercola.com/2004/jan/3/carbohydrates_age.htm) in Dr. Mercola's newsletter. If Kent meant to imply this as proof of Dr. Mercola's support for his position, this was very disingenuous. At the bottom of Kent's article, there was the following note:

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

This article came from Kent Rieske of Bible Life Ministries, which has many valuable nutrition articles that I encourage you to look through. As they say, poor health and disease can be caused by believing the worldly myths, distortions and lies about nutrition, which have deceived most people.

I'd like to add that, although limiting or eliminating grains and sugars will indeed greatly benefit most people, there is no one "right" diet for everyone. Some people will actually benefit from a high-carbohydrate diet, but the key is that the carbohydrates come primarily from vegetables, NOT sugar and grains.

So how do you know which diet is best for you? You need to determine your metabolic type as described in detail in my newest book: "Dr. Mercola's Total Health Cookbook & Program."

This book--the culmination of my last 20 years of work--is designed around metabolic typing, and will give you everything you need to know to optimize your health. Plus, it will provide you with the ability to assess your general metabolic type and give you a full plan to start eating the right macronutrient (proteins, fats and carbs) ratio for your type. It will also teach you how to "listen to your body," that is, it will teach you how to subtly adjust and fine-tune your macronutrient ratios so that you feel your best.

My purpose is not to promote Dr. Mercola. However, I respect and admire his work and I felt his position was misrepresented in Kent's argument. Dr. Mercola has developed a program which is founded upon the concept of metabolic typing. I find it very strange Kent would reference Dr. Mercola in support of his stance against metabolic typing. In publishing Kent's article, Dr. Mercola has displayed a far more open-minded view than Kent.

The originator of this thread was looking for commentary upon the Wolcott/ Fahey book The Metabolic Typing Diet. It's been almost two years since I read this book but from what I recall, the book left me feeling very encouraged and re-affirmed in choosing a low-carb diet. I tried to be very objective when doing the test and found it to be a valuable exercise in self-discovery. Of course I tested very high as a Protein type.

Contrary to what Kent has repeatedly stated, metabolic typing is NOT about giving you license to eat the high-carb foods you like. Otherwise, I'd be living on a diet of Krispy Kreme donuts and hot fudge sundaes. It's about discovering the type of foods that your body will thrive upon.

We can all agree it's not a good idea to put gasoline in a diesel engine and vice versa. So what is so difficult about accepting the idea of biochemical differences in the individual human body, a far more incredibly complex machine?

As with most things, in science there is a lag time between what is considered avant garde and what is accepted as mainstream. The scientific establishment used to dismiss Dr. Atkins as a quack. Now that there is a body of proven scientific evidence to back him up, low-carb is becoming mainstream.

I believe that as new discoveries are made in genetics and new fields such as psychoimmunoneurology, there will be scientific proof found to support the theory of metabolic typing. It's only a matter of time.

Dinosaurs on either end of the spectrum who persist in black and white, one-size-fits-all-thinking will be left in the dust.

JMHO

[Zuleikaa]

Thank you Kaeleen.

And Lisa, I stand corrected. Dr. Atkins said induction levels of carbs, not lc and certainly not maintainence levels of carbs, weren't good for professional level athletes.

The World Health Organization (WHO) didn't come out against carbs. They came out against processed foods and sugar.

While attending WHO's conference in May last year I had the pleasure of sitting in on one of their committees on the health issue. The recommendation was that peoples of the world eschew the "modern" diet and get back to their traditional roots. There were physicians, nutritionists and historians who investigated what that meant. One of the reasons that the "modern" diet and sugar raised such antipathy was that while some "native" diets were quite high in unrefined carbs such as brown rice, beans, grains (more native and older species), and fruits their "modern" diet was not and was, in fact, very scarce in fruit and unrefined foods.

Factors they found impacting obesity rates:
1. A move from a primitive to a modern diet.
2. A move from a more rural to an urban environment.
3. Resulting limited access to traditional diet staples.
4. Poverty further limiting access to good nutritional elements.
5. Poverty causing reliance on cheaper, refined and high carb foods away from more expensive, nutrient dence elements.
6. The lower cost of nutrient lacking diet components compared to nutrient dense components.
7. A rise in economical standards providing access to more Western and more refined diet.
8. A rise in economical standards allowing the consumption of traditional and occassionally consumed "festival/celebration" foods to be consumed on a more frequent and sometimes daily basis.
9. A rise in economical standards allowing the consumption of more food.
10. A rise in economic standards tarnishing the importance and standing of traditional "poorer" foods when compared to a more "modern", i.e. Western diet.


These factors they found most incidious.
1. A perception that obesity/plumpness signals wealth and good health.
2. Supplanting of traditional agriculture, diet and food markets with the globilization of modern agribusiness, techniques, crops, food products and industrialized culture.

[Kent]

Kaeleen,

I found it strange that Dr. Mercola would published my article Absolute Scientific Proof Carbohydrates are Pathogenic (disease causing) (http://www.biblelife.org/carbs.htm) while promoting the SALE of the Metabolic Typing Diet book. Dr. Mercola’s own book, “The No-Grain Diet,” appears to conflict with the Metabolic Typing Diet, in my opinion. I don’t understand how a person can eat a high-carb diet of vegetables while avoiding all sugars and grains as Dr. Mercola suggests. Eat a lot of potatoes, I guess. He doesn’t give much detail to support his comment.

Dr. Mercola took the liberty to change the title of my article, and to delete the last sentence without my permission. My copyright states that the article must be shown in full without changes. I can’t figure why he ran my article in the first place if he didn’t agree. His position is confusing. He promotes the Metabolic Typing Diet and a high-carb diet for some people while at the same time runs my article stating that carbohydrates cause disease. I don’t know where he stands.

I stated that he ran the article, and he did. I don’t see the misrepresentation. I have many links back to Dr. Mercola’s web site even though I don’t agree with many of the things he promotes. People simply are not in 100% agreement with each other. Even the different authors of the metabolic typing theory are in disagreement as stated earlier in this thread.

I got many very supportive responses from his eHealthy newsletters, except one vegetarian that went ballistic. LOL They must hate my web site as much as they hated Dr. Atkins.

I think the science is solid against carbohydrates, and the diets which promote carbohydrates are simply wrong.

Dinosaurs on either end of the spectrum who persist in black and white, one-size-fits-all-thinking will be left in the dust.

I assume your “dinosaur” comment was meant for me as a personal insult? Is that right Kaeleen? Or do you meant we should not eat a low-carb diet because that is a black or white approach?

Kent :wave:

[Kent]

The Metabolic Typing Diet suggest that people who eat a high-carb diet and remain thin are the fast burning carb type. This is not true. These people could have an intestinal disease which is caused by carbohydrates.

Many people with intestinal disease are bone thin and suffering from malnutrition even though they eat a lot of calories. The Metabolic Typing Diet suggest that these people eat a high-carb diet, but that is just the diet that made them sick. The low-carb diet heals these individuals while no other diet works.

Whole grains cause disease in both humans and animals. Whole grain breads and bagels are not the healthy food as people are lead to believe. All grains have a very high level of Omega-6 fatty acids which are pro-inflammatory. Grains are a poor source of protein. Grains are the most allergenic of all foods. Multiple sclerosis, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis are rare in populations where no grain products are consumed.

Kent :wave:

[Zuleikaa]

Actually there are some grains with a higher protein component. Most of these are so called "ancient" grains that have been around for centuries. Quinoa comes to mind.

I don't see that Dr. Mercola was inconsistent in publishing your article while advocating Metabolic Typing. A High carb diet will cause disease in a person not meant to eat a high proportion of carbs. And a diet comprised of a large proportion of highly refined carbs will make anyone sick eventually. Metabolic Typing doesn't advocate a diet high in refined carbs for anyone, not even the carb type person.

[Kent]

A High carb diet will cause disease in a person not meant to eat a high proportion of carbs.

The quote above is the heart of The Metabolic Diet, but it can easily be proven to be a false theory.

People react differently in their consumption of carbohydrates because of damage to their metabolism, not because the physiology of people is differently as claimed. Dr. Atkins describes the many diseases that effect metabolism. These diseases are primarily cause by the amount of carbohydrate previously eaten. The Metabolic Typing only shows which people suffer from a metabolism disease.

The Metabolic Typing Diet theory is proven false by the ancient Egyptian mummies. If the theory were true the "carb type" mummies of older people would be found without the diseases found in the "protein types." They are not found. All of the mummies are found to have badly decayed teeth, arthritis, osteoporosis, etc. The high-carb diets have been shown in many ancient societies to produce bad health in everyone in the society. The low-carb diet has been shown in ancient societies to produce health is all of the population. There are no "carb types" that thrive well on high carbohydrates, and all of these societies ate whole grains without sugar and white flour.

A study of ancient societies who lived on a high-fiber, high-carbohydrate diet easily proves the unhealthy effects. Ancient Egyptians are a perfect example. Their diet was based on a high percentage of whole grains, fruit and vegetables. The fiber content was very high. The diet was low-fat. They did not eat refined sugars. These Egyptians of the times of the Pharaohs ate a highly vegetarian diet. The results were disastrous. Their writings and the study of mummies shows they had a high incidence of diabetes, heart disease, intestinal diseases, arthritis, osteoporosis and poor dental health. Their high-fiber diet which had no refined carbohydrates did not produce the good health as promised by all of our modern dietary references and professional medical and nutritional associations. The tens of thousands of well-preserved Egyptian mummies give us the absolutely solid scientific proof the high-fiber, high-carbohydrate diet is very unhealthy.

The Eskimos are another example. They ate the low-carb diet and NONE suffered from dental decay, arthritis, osteoporosis, cancer or heart disease. The health is in the diet, not in some body type theory.

Stefansson 1 - Eskimos Prove An All Meat Diet Provides Excellent Health. (http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm)

Kent :wave:

[Zuleikaa]

So. The Egyptians that were mummified were the extremely wealthy and well to do. Even if you include the middleclass as those who were mummified, that population is well able to have access to an abundance of foodstuffs. And the cultural norm as today among non Westernized people is that wealth equates with abundance including an abundance of flesh. These mummies were not of people who were thin, as you've concurred. Thus I can theorize that these mummified people were overeaters of the abundance of foodstuffs available and in fact were still fed during any times of scarcity. In addition, though you state that sugar was not available, honey was. Honeyed foods and sweetmeats were often eaten by the Egyptians as evidenced by the dental carries found. Also Egypt was the center of trade and a conquering nation so we can assume that foods not necessary native or accessible to the general population were also available. This includes other sweets, fruits and dairy products. The wealthy also tended to eat a richer diet on a more frequent basis. So what do we have. We have overeaters of rich foods, carbohydrates and sweetened foods. Sound familiar? And it's been proven that overeating carbs and sweetened foods (junk) replaces better, more nutrient dense options. Of course this led to diseases caused by overeating of carbohydrates. Even carb types can get these diseases if they overdo or eat the wrong carbs. And they have found some thin mummies. What does that prove? Maybe those mummies were better adapted to a higher carb diet? So the fact that they found fat mummies might mean that they were not suited to a high carb diet (it does take a while for physiological adaptation to take place in humans and Egyptians were early adapters of grains), it might also simply mean that they were overeaters and abusers of carbs.

I give you the Eskimos. I'll even add the Maisi. Obviously they are protein types. But there have been Eskimos that have not thrived on the typical diet. Perhaps they don’t fit the profile?

Now I’ll pick some populations. Remember I am talking pre Weste