typical low-carb meals - what us wrong with this

[Tcomeau]

Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge any
anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so dangerous
about this.

1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and vinaigrette
dressing you want

2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and veggie
stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and vinaigrette
dressing you want

Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.

The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and grains
and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?

TC

[markd]

Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb source
with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both high btw? Why not
a moderate carb diet which falls within one's energy
requirements?

>Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge any
>anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so dangerous
>about this.
>
>1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and vinaigrette
> dressing you want
>
>2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> vinaigrette dressing you want
>
>Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>
>The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and grains
>and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>
>TC

[Frank W. M]

What's wrong? There's no carbs!

--
Frank W. Marrs III Georgia Institute of Technology
gtg111r@spamguard.mail.gatech.edu <omit "spamguard" to email>
"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0403160716.7f667c5a@posting.google.com...
> Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge any
> anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so dangerous
> about this.
>
> 1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and vinaigrette
> dressing you want
>
> 2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> vinaigrette dressing you want
>
> Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>
> The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and grains
> and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>
> TC

[markd]

The first principle in weight control is to get the energy
balance in hand, source of the calories doesn't matter. One
could take any item in the original low carb example and
reduce it by x calories and add the same x from carb sources
and the energy balance is intact. Grains are plant foods too.
The energy concentration of the peas and corn in the low carb
example are quite similar in energy concentration, as measured
by gi/gl, to multigraim bread and brown rice. Extreme with
regard to what?

>>Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
>>multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb source
>>with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both high btw? Why
>>not a moderate carb diet which falls within one's energy
>>requirements?
>>
>
>Why add grains in place of much more nutrient dense
>plant foods?
>
>I don't get you extremists.
>
>Susan

[markd]

The other carb sources were to be in place of the peas and
corn, as mentioned, energy requirements are not to be
exceeded; thus calories are considered.

>> Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
>> multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb source
>> with an gi/gl = < the
>carrets
>> and peas, both high btw? Why not a moderate carb diet
>> which falls
>within
>> one's energy requirements?
>
>Let me think... hm.... hm.... what about calories? :)
>
>Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
> multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb source
> with an gi/gl = < the
carrets
> and peas, both high btw? Why not a moderate carb diet
> which falls
within
> one's energy requirements?

Let me think... hm.... hm.... what about calories? :)

Mirek

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

>Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
>multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb source
>with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both high btw? Why
>not a moderate carb diet which falls within one's energy
>requirements?
>

Why add grains in place of much more nutrient dense
plant foods?

I don't get you extremists.

Susan

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

>The energy concentration of the peas and corn in the low carb
>example are quite similar in energy concentration, as
>measured by gi/gl, to multigraim bread and brown rice.
>Extreme with regard to what?

Extreme in the belief that it's important to include grains,
that the meal was deficient without them.

I'd dump peas and corn for colorful leafies, myself. More
nutritional bang for the buck, which matters more the
less one eats.

Susan

[markd]

Of course nothing of the kind was said; nothing about
important or deficient. The original provided a menu with peas
and corn as a side, the multigrain bread and brown rice are
comperable in every way, including nutrition. So again,
extreme with regard to what? With regard to weight control,
the concern of the original post menu example, caleries from a
carb source is just fine as long as the energy balance is met
and no more. Now you mention nutrition as an additional point,
we can add it to the energy balance, both easily achieved
while including a substantual part of food intake from carb
sources, including those in the leafy greens whose color is
appealing.

>Extreme in the belief that it's important to include grains,
>that the meal was deficient without them.
>
>I'd dump peas and corn for colorful leafies, myself. More
>nutritional bang for the buck, which matters more the less
>one eats.
>
>Susan

[Tcomeau]

Why a side of grain or tubers? Why multi-grain bread? They are
unnecessary to a healthy diet.

I would have a pat of butter on the veggies or some olive oil
on the stuffed green pepper though. Soooo good and satiating,
and healthy.

These meals are moderate carbs and they fall within one's
energy requirements. Especially if one is not a world class
athlete like the majority of americans.

The point is that grains, tubers and sugars are too much for
our lifestyles.

TC

markd@toad-net.com wrote in message
news:<405754d3$0$247$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...
> Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
> multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb source
> with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both high btw? Why
> not a moderate carb diet which falls within one's energy
> requirements?
>
>
> >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
> >any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
> >dangerous about this.
> >
> >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> > veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and vinaigrette
> > dressing you want
> >
> >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> > vinaigrette dressing you want
> >
> >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
> >
> >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
> >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
> >
> >TC

[Mirek Fidl]

> The first principle in weight control is to get the energy
> balance in hand, source of the calories doesn't matter. One
> could take any item
in

So you do think that by replacing mentioned menu with refined
sugar with same calories count would be ok ?

Mirek

[Tcomeau]

There are as many carbs as one may need unless of course you
plan to run a marathon. Lots of carbs. You do realize that
there really is no *essential* carbohydrate, don't you?

TC

"Frank W. Marrs III" <gtg111r@mail.gatech.edu> wrote in
message news:<c37l5n$8m2$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>...
> What's wrong? There's no carbs!
>
> --
> Frank W. Marrs III Georgia Institute of Technology
> gtg111r@spamguard.mail.gatech.edu <omit "spamguard" to
> email> "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0403160716.7f667c5a@posting.google.com...
> > Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
> > any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
> > dangerous about this.
> >
> > 1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> > veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
> > vinaigrette dressing you want
> >
> > 2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> > vinaigrette dressing you want
> >
> > Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
> >
> > The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
> > grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
> >
> > TC

[Mirek Fidl]

> There are as many carbs as one may need unless of course you
> plan to run a marathon. Lots of carbs. You do realize that
> there really is no

Actually, I believe that for running marathon, fat (dietary
and then body) is the energy source anyway:)

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> Of course nothing of the kind was said; nothing about
> important or deficient. The original provided a menu with
> peas and corn as a side,
the
> multigrain bread and brown rice are comperable in every way,
> including nutrition. So again, extreme with regard to what?
> With regard to
weight

Well, thinking about it, we somewhat missed OP point...

So again, do you think that the menu presented is dangerous to
the health?

What is so important about bread? And BTW, bread is either too
high-GI (above 40), or it tastes really bad. I do not like
low-GI bread and I do not want to eat high-GI one.

Mirek

[markd]

"So again, do you think that the menu presented is dangerous
to the health?"

No, and the things mentioned that could be substituted were
equally so. Do you think a diet that meets energy balance and
nutrition goals and draws upon moderate use of all food
sources is a threat to health? If one wants to include bread
in one's diet, do it within those same goals, regardless of
the gi of bread chosen. However, by definition the nutrition
goal is better met with breads using whole grains and a
concern for moderation naturally speaks to quantity of any
single food. .

[markd]

"Ok" is always with regard to some measure/goal. Where weight
status alone is the hypothetical point with regard to energy
balance, there is no problem. When nutrition and range of food
sources is a goal, it would probably not be wise on a constant
basis. One instance of replacing the carbs from peas and corn
with sugar is no big deal in and of itself, a glass of
lemonaid might be such a thing.

> The first principle in weight control is to get the energy
> balance in hand, source of the calories doesn't matter. One
> could take any item
in

So you do think that by replacing mentioned menu with refined
sugar with same calories count would be ok ?

[markd]

Just to make the simple point that substutions can easily be
made with those things you said should be excluded, because
they are equivalent in carb status. Don't exceed calorie
requirements, regardless of food sources and you will not gain
weight, lower energy intake below that needed to maintain
metabolism and you will lose weight. "necessary" to health is
based on what? Any food you care to mention can easily be
excluded without health problems, so that statement helps us
not one bit. Eating many carb source foods increases the
probability that the nutrition required for health will be
there, including those in grains and tubers.

>Why a side of grain or tubers? Why multi-grain bread? They
>are unnecessary to a healthy diet.
>
>I would have a pat of butter on the veggies or some olive oil
>on the stuffed green pepper though. Soooo good and satiating,
>and healthy.
>
>These meals are moderate carbs and they fall within one's
>energy requirements. Especially if one is not a world class
>athlete like the majority of americans.
>
>The point is that grains, tubers and sugars are too much for
>our lifestyles.
>
>TC
>
>markd@toad-net.com wrote in message
>news:<405754d3$0$247$4d5ecec7@reader.city-n et.com>...
>> Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
>> multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb source
>> with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both high btw? Why
>> not a moderate carb diet which falls within one's energy
>> requirements?
>>
>>
>> >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
>> >any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
>> >dangerous about this.
>> >
>> >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
>> > veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
>> > vinaigrette dressing you want
>> >
>> >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
>> > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
>> > vinaigrette dressing you want
>> >
>> >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>> >
>> >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
>> >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>> >
>> >TC

[Tintinet]

markd@toad-net.com wrote in message
news:<405754d3$0$247$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...
> Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
> multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb source
> with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both high btw?

Actually, the carrot deal appears to be a mistake- go ahead
and crunch'em!

A recent issue of the newsletter Harvard Women's Health Watch
ranked some foods by both GI and GL. For a baked potato, the
calculation went like this: 37 (grams of carbohydrate in a
serving) multiplied by 1.21 (GI) equals 45. That's still high
in a ranking of foods by glycemic load. Air-popped popcorn,
though, went from a high GI of 79 to a low GL of 4. Corn chips
fell from 105 to a moderate GL of 16. Carrots dropped from
Harvard's oddly high GI of 131 to a GL of 10. Remember,
serving size counts: That's a cup of popcorn, an ounce of corn
chips and a half cup of cooked carrots.

And carrots' stock goes up even further. The widely used
glycemic indexing of carrots at 92 (not to mention that 131)
was faulty, according to Australian researcher Dr. Jennie
Brand-Miller, a leader in the field and author of "The Glucose
Revolution." She told me by e-mail that a later, less
publicized test put carrots' GI at 49, and very recent tests
under her watch found boiled carrots to have a GI of 32 and
carrot juice 43. That would give carrots a GL between 3 and 4.

"I think the glycemic load is shaping up to be a valuable
concept," said Brand-Miller. "A diet with a very high GL
should be avoided. This means that the higher the carbohydrate
content of your diet, the more important it is that the
carbohydrate comes from low-GI sources."

Though a proponent of GI and GL awareness — she's working to
develop a program that would allow low-glycemic-index foods to
be labeled as such — Brand-Miller cautions against taking it
to extremes.

"I don't think we should be necessarily aiming for a diet with
the lowest GL," she said. "While the worst choice is a
high-cholesterol, high-GI diet, the best choice is still being
sorted out."

Molly Martin is assistant editor of Pacific Northwest
magazine. She can be reached by calling 206-464-8243,
e-mailing mmartin@seattletimes.com or writing her at
Pacific Northwest magazine, The Seattle Times, P.O. Box 70,
Seattle, WA 98111.

[Tcomeau]

Can you give us an example of your idea of the ideally
balanced meal?

TC

"Frank W. Marrs III" <gtg111r@mail.gatech.edu> wrote in
message news:<c37l5n$8m2$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>...
> What's wrong? There's no carbs!
>
> --
> Frank W. Marrs III Georgia Institute of Technology
> gtg111r@spamguard.mail.gatech.edu <omit "spamguard" to
> email> "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0403160716.7f667c5a@posting.google.com...
> > Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
> > any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
> > dangerous about this.
> >
> > 1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> > veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
> > vinaigrette dressing you want
> >
> > 2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> > vinaigrette dressing you want
> >
> > Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
> >
> > The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
> > grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
> >
> > TC

[Moosh:)]

On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge any
>anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so dangerous
>about this.
>
>1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and vinaigrette
> dressing you want
>
>2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> vinaigrette dressing you want
>
>Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>
>The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and grains
>and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?

Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious wholefoods
such as grains and vegetables.

[Moosh:)]

On 16 Mar 2004 20:11:31 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>Why a side of grain or tubers? Why multi-grain bread? They
>are unnecessary to a healthy diet.

So is meat. So is sat fat. So are lots of foods. So what?
No reason to exclude any wholefood in moderation. Variety
is the key.

>I would have a pat of butter on the veggies or some olive oil
>on the stuffed green pepper though. Soooo good and satiating,
>and healthy.

If you need all those calories and salt. They are high in
calories and deficient in fibre. Both are refined foods that
should be avoided if possible.

>These meals are moderate carbs and they fall within one's
>energy requirements. Especially if one is not a world class
>athlete like the majority of americans.

Better to avoid the packaged fat and have a slice of whole
grain bread and more variety of veg. Perhaps a few olives.

>The point is that grains, tubers and sugars are too much for
>our lifestyles.

Not at all. Butter and packaged oils/fats are too much for our
lifestyle. Fat is not particularly satiating. Mashed potato is
about the most satiating food.

[Moosh:)]

On 17 Mar 2004 01:00:10 GMT, sufein@aol.comnospam (Susan )
posted:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>>The energy concentration of the peas and corn in the low
>>carb example are quite similar in energy concentration, as
>>measured by gi/gl, to multigraim bread and brown rice.
>>Extreme with regard to what?
>
>Extreme in the belief that it's important to include grains,
>that the meal was deficient without them.
>
>I'd dump peas and corn for colorful leafies, myself. More
>nutritional bang for the buck, which matters more the less
>one eats.

Surely there is so little energy in leafies. Peas and corn are
fine in moderation, with as wide a varietey of every wholefood
you can get your mits on. Energy is arguably the most
important nutrient.

[Moosh:)]

On 16 Mar 2004 22:11:15 GMT, sufein@aol.comnospam (Susan )
posted:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>>Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
>>multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb source
>>with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both high btw? Why
>>not a moderate carb diet which falls within one's energy
>>requirements?
>>
>
>Why add grains in place of much more nutrient dense
>plant foods?
>
>I don't get you extremists.
>
>Susan

Grains are very nutrient dense. Excellent foods. What do you
think grains are deficient in?

[Moosh:)]

On 17 Mar 2004 07:08:27 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>Can you give us an example of your idea of the ideally
>balanced meal?

A varied, wholefood, eucaloric diet and you won't go far
wrong. No point excluding any wholefoods unless they affect
you badly (allergies etc). So long as you get essential
micronutrients, and about 50g of balanced amino acids, then
the rest is meant to be enjoyed.

[Moosh:)]

On 16 Mar 2004 20:07:12 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>There are as many carbs as one may need unless of course you
>plan to run a marathon. Lots of carbs. You do realize that
>there really is no *essential* carbohydrate, don't you?

Most of our energy sources are non-essential in themselves. So
what? Excess proteins, most fats. Is there a point here?

[Tcomeau]

tintinet1@iwon.com (tintinet) wrote in message
news:<35f5861e.0403171218.40235b86@posting.google.com>...
> markd@toad-net.com wrote in message
> news:<405754d3$0$247$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...
> > Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
> > multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb
> > source with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both
> > high btw?
>
> Actually, the carrot deal appears to be a mistake- go ahead
> and crunch'em!
>
> A recent issue of the newsletter Harvard Women's Health
> Watch ranked some foods by both GI and GL. For a baked
> potato, the calculation went like this: 37 (grams of
> carbohydrate in a serving) multiplied by 1.21 (GI) equals
> 45. That's still high in a ranking of foods by glycemic
> load. Air-popped popcorn, though, went from a high GI of 79
> to a low GL of 4. Corn chips fell from 105 to a moderate GL
> of 16. Carrots dropped from Harvard's oddly high GI of 131
> to a GL of 10. Remember, serving size counts: That's a cup
> of popcorn, an ounce of corn chips and a half cup of cooked
> carrots.
>
> And carrots' stock goes up even further. The widely used
> glycemic indexing of carrots at 92 (not to mention that 131)
> was faulty, according to Australian researcher Dr. Jennie
> Brand-Miller, a leader in the field and author of "The
> Glucose Revolution." She told me by e-mail that a later,
> less publicized test put carrots' GI at 49, and very recent
> tests under her watch found boiled carrots to have a GI of
> 32 and carrot juice 43. That would give carrots a GL between
> 3 and 4.
>
> "I think the glycemic load is shaping up to be a valuable
> concept," said Brand-Miller. "A diet with a very high GL
> should be avoided. This means that the higher the
> carbohydrate content of your diet, the more important it is
> that the carbohydrate comes from low-GI sources."
>
> Though a proponent of GI and GL awareness ? she's working to
> develop a program that would allow low-glycemic-index foods
> to be labeled as such ? Brand-Miller cautions against taking
> it to extremes.
>
> "I don't think we should be necessarily aiming for a diet
> with the lowest GL," she said. "While the worst choice is a
> high-cholesterol, high-GI diet, the best choice is still
> being sorted out."
>
> Molly Martin is assistant editor of Pacific Northwest
> magazine. She can be reached by calling 206-464-8243,
> e-mailing mmartin@seattletimes.com or writing her at Pacific
> Northwest magazine, The Seattle Times, P.O. Box 70, Seattle,
> WA 98111.

Yeah yeah. But a bit, as in a side of, high-GI wholefood
veggies once in a while will not lead to obesity.

TC

[Tcomeau]

"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
news:<i21m50hgfk0bdvba26am3l7kudtki121jl@4ax.com>...
> On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> (tcomeau) posted:
>
> >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
> >any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
> >dangerous about this.
> >
> >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> > veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and vinaigrette
> > dressing you want
> >
> >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> > vinaigrette dressing you want
> >
> >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
> >
> >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
> >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>
> Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious wholefoods
> such as grains and vegetables.

Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above example
of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc. My question was
(re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is this a dangerous way
of eating?

TC

[Tcomeau]

"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
news:<101m50l6p7f14904e7ddct9bvbmu2lp48t@4ax.com>...
> On 16 Mar 2004 22:11:15 GMT, sufein@aol.comnospam (Susan
> ) posted:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >>Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
> >>multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb
> >>source with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both high
> >>btw? Why not a moderate carb diet which falls within one's
> >>energy requirements?
> >>
> >
> >Why add grains in place of much more nutrient dense
> >plant foods?
> >
> >I don't get you extremists.
> >
> >Susan
>
> Grains are very nutrient dense. Excellent foods.

Yep, that is exactly what we fat, sick americans need, more
nutrient dense foods like refined carbs.

What do you think
> grains are deficient in?

Refined grains and sugars are deficient in all nutrients
except high-GI grain starches. Totally empty *calories*. You
know the things that you claim are the sole cause of obesity.
Non-satiating carbs will only lead to eating more fattening
calories, right?

TC

[Moosh:)]

On 19 Mar 2004 18:49:18 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
>news:<i21m50hgfk0bdvba26am3l7kudtki121jl@4ax.com>...
>> On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>> (tcomeau) posted:
>>
>> >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
>> >any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
>> >dangerous about this.
>> >
>> >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
>> > veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
>> > vinaigrette dressing you want
>> >
>> >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
>> > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
>> > vinaigrette dressing you want
>> >
>> >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>> >
>> >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
>> >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>>
>> Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious wholefoods
>> such as grains and vegetables.
>
>Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
>example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc.

It's "dangerous" to restrict ANY good available wholefood, as
you are likely to get sick of your restriction and resort to
over-processed foods when you spit the dummy.

>My question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is
>this a dangerous way of eating?

No, but, neither is a diet including all the wholefoods you
avoid. Why restrict yourself? In a month or two, you will get
sick of it and crave variety.

[Moosh:)]

On 19 Mar 2004 18:47:13 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>Yeah yeah. But a bit, as in a side of, high-GI wholefood
>veggies once in a while will not lead to obesity.

Only excess calories can do this.

[Moosh:)]

On 19 Mar 2004 18:45:29 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
>news:<101m50l6p7f14904e7ddct9bvbmu2lp48t@4ax.com>...
>> On 16 Mar 2004 22:11:15 GMT, sufein@aol.comnospam (Susan )
>> posted:
>>
>> >x-no-archive: yes
>> >
>> >>Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
>> >>multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb
>> >>source with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both high
>> >>btw? Why not a moderate carb diet which falls within
>> >>one's energy requirements?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why add grains in place of much more nutrient dense plant
>> >foods?
>> >
>> >I don't get you extremists.
>> >
>> >Susan
>>
>> Grains are very nutrient dense. Excellent foods.
>
>Yep, that is exactly what we fat, sick americans need, more
>nutrient dense foods like refined carbs.

And refined fats, like you advocate, which are
two-and-a-half-times as "nutrient dense"?

Who mentioned refined?

>What do you think
>> grains are deficient in?
>
>Refined grains and sugars are deficient in all nutrients
>except high-GI grain starches.

Again, who mentioned refined foods? They are best avoided -- a
given for good nutrition.

>Totally empty *calories*. You know the things that you claim
>are the sole cause of obesity.

No, ANY calories in excess are the ONLY cause of obesity. Why
do you find this obvious fact so difficult? All the evidence
shows this, and yet you disagree with it and supply NO
credible evidence for your contrary view

> Non-satiating carbs will only lead to eating more fattening
> calories, right?

Please look up the scientifically measured satiety values for
foods. You will find potato at the top of the list.

http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.p-
hp

High GI carbohydrates can lead to food cravings in syndrome X
sufferers like you apparently are, as you have previously
claimed that carbs make you feel ill.

[Mouldy Mou]

tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<b550f406.0403160716.7f667c5a@posting.google.com>...
> Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge any
> anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so dangerous
> about this.
>
> 1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and vinaigrette
> dressing you want
>
> 2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> vinaigrette dressing you want
>
> Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>
> The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and grains
> and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>
> TC

I'd say it depends on the quantity of vegetables you are
consuming. To ensure bones don't deteriorate this needs to be
quite high - I don't know the ideal, but have heard various
figures mentioned such as 80% vegetables, and 20mg Calcium per
1 gram of animal protein. There's certainly evidence that more
veges equals better bones, but AFAIK the exact ratios
recommended are theoretical.

Also, with the restriction of grains one needs to be careful
to get sufficient selenium in the diet. This is fine when
eating chicken and lots of eggs, but other meats don't provide
as much so I'd recommend including a brazil nut to top up on
non-chicken days.

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Why add grains in place of much more nutrient dense
> >plant foods?
> >
> >I don't get you extremists.
> >
> >Susan
>
> Grains are very nutrient dense. Excellent foods. What do you
> think grains are deficient in?

OK, let us see USDA database (per 100g):

Whole-grain, 7 grain bread: 250kcal, fiber 6.4 g, Calcium
91mg, Magnesium 53mg, C 0.3mg, B6 0.333...

Cauliflower, raw: 25kcal, fiber 2.5, Calcium 22mg,
Magnesium 15mg, C
46.4, B6 0.222

So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same energy
level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more fiber, 2.5x
more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more vitamin C, 7x
more B6, etc...

Please accept this fact: Only possible reason to eat grains is
to stuff yourself with energy. If you have use for this
energy, fine, perhaps you need high-calorie diet. But they are
NOT nutrient dense, at least not as real whole food. Not to
speak that 7 grain whole-grain bread is probably a nutritional
elite of breads.

I am also somewhat concerned about baking process. Every time
food goes through high temperature while exposed to oxygen,
bad things happen...

I really wonder, why you are so obsessive with grains ? :)

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> It's "dangerous" to restrict ANY good available wholefood,
> as you are likely to get sick of your restriction and resort
> to over-processed foods when you spit the dummy.
>
> >My question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is
> >this a dangerous way of eating?
>
> No, but, neither is a diet including all the wholefoods you
> avoid. Why restrict yourself? In a month or two, you will
> get sick of it and crave variety.

Bullshit. Only think I am afraid is possibility that I would
have to give it up for some reason. (OK, it is only 4 months
without starch so far, maybe it will change in future).

Mirek

[Doug Frees]

tcomeau wrote:

>>Grains are very nutrient dense. Excellent foods.
>
>
> Yep, that is exactly what we fat, sick americans need, more
> nutrient dense foods like refined carbs.

I see the word grains not refined grains. So you now think
that whole grains are the evil incarnate?

> Refined grains and sugars are deficient in all nutrients
> except high-GI grain starches. Totally empty *calories*. You
> know the things that you claim are the sole cause of
> obesity. Non-satiating carbs will only lead to eating more
> fattening calories, right?

Were you captured by aliens and taken for a ride? I don't
usually laught at people but .......

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com

[Bobby]

http://www.dontforgettotakeyourvitamins.com/gochenour36640

[Moosh:)]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 23:07:31 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >Why add grains in place of much more nutrient dense plant
>> >foods?
>> >
>> >I don't get you extremists.
>> >
>> >Susan
>>
>> Grains are very nutrient dense. Excellent foods. What do
>> you think grains are deficient in?
>
>OK, let us see USDA database (per 100g):
>
>Whole-grain, 7 grain bread: 250kcal, fiber 6.4 g, Calcium
>91mg, Magnesium 53mg, C 0.3mg, B6 0.333...
>
>Cauliflower, raw: 25kcal, fiber 2.5, Calcium 22mg,
>Magnesium 15mg, C
>46.4, B6 0.222
>
>So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same energy
>level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more fiber, 2.5x
>more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more vitamin C, 7x
>more B6, etc...

And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule? What
is your point? One COULD say that cauliflower is "deficient"
in energy. Almost all foods can be considered deficient in
something, surely. That's why I advocate the age-old advice to
eat a wide variety of available wholefoods. You shouldn't live
on just cauliflower, or just bread. BTW, bread has ~10%
protein. Cauliflower ?

>Please accept this fact: Only possible reason to eat grains
>is to stuff yourself with energy.

So how much cauliflower would you have to eat to get your
daily energy needs?

> If you have use for this energy, fine, perhaps you need
> high-calorie diet.

So why do these anti-grain folk tend to advocate the
consumption of packaged fat? That is two-and-a-half-times as
energy dense as grains. Energy is not a dirty word. It is
arguably the most important nutrient. It is the nutrient that
most of the world is deficient in. BTW, one doesn't need to
"stuff" oneself with any food. Moderation in all things,
including moderation :)

>But they are NOT nutrient dense, at least not as real whole
>food. Not to speak that 7 grain whole-grain bread is probably
>a nutritional elite of breads.

Well I eat a homemade bread with much more than that in it, so
it would be a peasant bread for me :)

>I am also somewhat concerned about baking process. Every time
>food goes through high temperature while exposed to oxygen,
>bad things happen...

And how does this cause a problem in the real world?

>I really wonder, why you are so obsessive with grains ? :)

I'm not. It is a fine food and I'm just defending it from
the obsessives who keep claiming it is the root of all
our troubles.

Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no problems. It
is only the fat westerners who do. Does this not tell you
something? Perhaps the fatties are looking for a scapegoat?

[Pizza Girl]

Almost every diet known to mankind restricts grains. Almost
all health diets restrict or eliminate these new cultured
foods because of causing health problems and obesity.

When was the last time you ate a handful of raw grain?

I did 45 years ago for a joke.

"Doug Freese" <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KX37c.1822$1C1.1174303@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> tcomeau wrote:
>
>
> >>Grains are very nutrient dense. Excellent foods.
> >
> >
> > Yep, that is exactly what we fat, sick americans need,
> > more nutrient dense foods like refined carbs.
>
> I see the word grains not refined grains. So you now think
> that whole grains are the evil incarnate?
>
> > Refined grains and sugars are deficient in all nutrients
> > except high-GI grain starches. Totally empty *calories*.
> > You know the things that you claim are the sole cause of
> > obesity. Non-satiating carbs will only lead to eating more
> > fattening calories, right?
>
> Were you captured by aliens and taken for a ride? I don't
> usually laught at people but .......
>
> --
> Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com

[Moosh:)]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 22:48:52 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>
>> It's "dangerous" to restrict ANY good available wholefood,
>> as you are likely to get sick of your restriction and
>> resort to over-processed foods when you spit the dummy.
>>
>> >My question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is
>> >this a dangerous way of eating?
>>
>> No, but, neither is a diet including all the wholefoods you
>> avoid. Why restrict yourself? In a month or two, you will
>> get sick of it and crave variety.
>
>Bullshit.

I've read of many many Atkins triers who get so sick and tired
of the restrictions that they give it up and regain their
weight in 6 or 12 months. That was what I was referring to.

>Only think I am afraid is possibility that I would have to
>give it up for some reason. (OK, it is only 4 months without
>starch so far, maybe it will change in future).

Well many folks apparently have abandonned it by 12 months.
Although I really don't know what the latest Atkins diet is.
Apparently 40% carb is fine now. The original book I read in
the early 70s was not at all like that IIRC. I can remember
peeing on ketostix for months. I had a chat with a
physiologist and he set me straight about a few things.

[Mirek Fidl]

> > Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
> > any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
> > dangerous about this.
> >
> > 1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> > veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
> > vinaigrette dressing you want
> >
> > 2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> > vinaigrette dressing you want
> >
> > Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
> >
> > The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
> > grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
> >
> > TC
>
> I'd say it depends on the quantity of vegetables you are
> consuming. To ensure bones don't deteriorate this needs to
> be quite high - I don't know the ideal, but have heard
> various figures mentioned such as 80% vegetables, and 20mg
> Calcium per 1 gram of animal protein. There's certainly
> evidence that more veges equals better bones, but AFAIK the
> exact ratios recommended are theoretical.
>
> Also, with the restriction of grains one needs to be careful
> to get sufficient selenium in the diet. This is fine when
> eating chicken and lots of eggs, but other meats don't
> provide as much so I'd recommend including a brazil nut to
> top up on non-chicken days.

Thank you for most reasonable and valuable response in whole
thread... ;)

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same energy
> >level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more fiber,
> >2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more vitamin C,
> >7x more B6, etc...
>
> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule? What
> is your point?

My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight, and I
want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.

> available wholefoods. You shouldn't live on just
> cauliflower, or just bread. BTW, bread has ~10% protein.
> Cauliflower ?

Cauliflower 2g / 100g - so calorie for calorie, it is twice as
much. So you you will eat as much as to get at least the same
amount of micronutrition (e.g. 500g of cauliflower vs 100 g of
bread for same calcium), you will get roughly the same
protein, but at worst half of calories.

OTOH, what is meat for ?

> >Please accept this fact: Only possible reason to eat
> >grains is to
stuff
> >yourself with energy.
>
> So how much cauliflower would you have to eat to get your
> daily energy needs?

~12kg ? :) Anyway, I need to eat less calories, not more.

> > If you have use for this energy, fine, perhaps you need
> > high-calorie diet.
>
> So why do these anti-grain folk tend to advocate the
> consumption of packaged fat? That is two-and-a-half-times as
> energy dense as grains.

"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil in
bottles ? Or what ?!

Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer source
of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides, lowers LDL, rises
HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings, etc, etc... all these
things are in fact related.

Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having metabolic
syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I believe that people
without syndrome are rarely fat. I believe that this could be
your (and many other anti-LC advocates) case - you can perhaps
maintain your weight without problems, so you tend not to
believe that people affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry
soon after eating carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.

> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
> world is deficient in.

Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
aren't we ? Maybe the solution is to send all that pasta and
bread to starving countries :)

> >real whole food. Not to speak that 7 grain whole-grain
> >bread is
probably
> >a nutritional elite of breads.
>
> Well I eat a homemade bread with much more than that in it,
> so it would be a peasant bread for me :)

:) Actually, if I would ever plan to reintroduce bread to my
:WOE, I plan
to do homemade too (with a lot of flaxseed perhaps).

> >I am also somewhat concerned about baking process. Every
> >time food
goes
> >through high temperature while exposed to oxygen, bad
> >things
happen...
>
> And how does this cause a problem in the real world?

In real world, this is creating carcinogen acrylamids in the
bread (about 50mg / 100 g of average bread).

Also, althogh fat contenct of bread is low, most of it is PUFA
and it will go rancid (but at 0.39 g / 100 g total, it is
hardly a problem).

> >I really wonder, why you are so obsessive with grains ? :)
>
> I'm not. It is a fine food and I'm just defending it from
> the obsessives who keep claiming it is the root of all our
> troubles.

Well, I think bread is not the main problem. Main problem is
corn sirup and corn starch. But when you are fat already, most
likely due to metabolic syndrome, controling high carb food is
really the easiest (and possibly healthiest) way how to manage
your weight.

> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no problems.
> It is only the fat westerners who do. Does this not tell you
> something? Perhaps the fatties are looking for a scapegoat?

Also part of problem is that recently we were told that eating
carbs is so much healthy that we ate too much of them. Now LC
is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway for people
already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet, it _could_ be
a viable path to go.

If we have stayed on 33:33:33 diet, things might be much
better as of now. But after 70:20:10 for several years, one
has to compensate...

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Only think I am afraid is possibility that I would have to
> >give it up for some reason. (OK, it is only 4 months
> >without starch
so
> >far, maybe it will change in future).
>
> Well many folks apparently have abandonned it by 12 months.
> Although I really don't know what the latest Atkins diet is.
> Apparently 40% carb is fine now. The original book I read in
> the early

Well, AFAIK atkins recommends you to use increasing
/decreasing carbs to manage/mantain you weight. So if you
excersise enough, you can perhaps eat as far a 40% carbs.

Anyway, I am not following "atkins plan", at least not
to the word.

Well, we will see. So far I went off today (long planned) and
so far I feel like that instead of one full day off, it will
be just one morning off :)

Mirek

[Doug Frees]

Pizza Girl wrote:

> Almost every diet known to mankind restricts grains.

So brown rice and rolled oats, wheat with the barn and germ
and other whole grains are eschewed? Damn, I've been
following this for 15 years and must have missed this point.
Take a gander at
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html
and note whole grains. If you saddle up with TC and feel
this is all a conspiracy then this entire discussion is
talking with a rock.

> When was the last time you ate a handful of raw grain?

Who the hell said eat them raw. Are you and TC both reading
challanged?
>
> I did 45 years ago for a joke.

I suspect you did a bunch of things 45 years ago that have
rendered you bizarre at best. Did the aliens get you too?

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com

[Moosh:)]

On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge any
>anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so dangerous
>about this.
>
>1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and vinaigrette
> dressing you want
>
>2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> vinaigrette dressing you want
>
>Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>
>The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and grains
>and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?

I just read Mirek's response to his response below.

These two meals are excellent. Sound delicious. That's two
meals for the week, what about the other nineteen or
twenty-six or thirty-three? Can get awfully samey and
depriving IME.

[Moosh:)]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:19:14 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
>> multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb source
>> with an gi/gl = < the
>carrets
>> and peas, both high btw? Why not a moderate carb diet
>> which falls
>within
>> one's energy requirements?
>
>Let me think... hm.... hm.... what about calories? :)

Well TC thinks they don't apply to the human body...

[Moosh:)]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:02:34 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same energy
>> >level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more fiber,
>> >2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more vitamin
>> >C, 7x more B6, etc...
>>
>> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
>> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule?
>> What is your point?
>
>My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight, and I
>want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.

Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
(<2000cal?)

For satiety, potatoes are the go. See: http://www.diabetesnet-
.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php

>> available wholefoods. You shouldn't live on just
>> cauliflower, or just bread. BTW, bread has ~10% protein.
>> Cauliflower ?
>
>Cauliflower 2g / 100g - so calorie for calorie, it is
>twice as much.

And by average serving?

So where do you get your daily energy requirements from? Egg
white in a glass of water has similar protein/cal ratio to
cauliflower, but what a poor meal. Cauliflower is mostly
water, and the bulk disappears quickly.

>So you you will eat as much as to get at least the same
>amount of micronutrition (e.g. 500g of cauliflower vs 100 g
>of bread for same calcium), you will get roughly the same
>protein, but at worst half of calories.

But calories are an essential nutrient. Do you really think
the aim is Zero calories?

>OTOH, what is meat for ?

To eat, enjoy and benefit nutritionally from. Oh, and to move
animals skeletons :)

>> >Please accept this fact: Only possible reason to eat
>> >grains is to
>stuff
>> >yourself with energy.
>>
>> So how much cauliflower would you have to eat to get your
>> daily energy needs?
>
>~12kg ? :) Anyway, I need to eat less calories, not more.

Less than what? Seems that you won't get many from all that
cauliflower that you could eat. I love cauliflower, especially
with a low fat pizza sauce on it :) But I certainly don't want
to put myself off it for life with a cauliflower stuffing
competiton.

>> > If you have use for this energy, fine, perhaps you need
>> > high-calorie diet.
>>
>> So why do these anti-grain folk tend to advocate the
>> consumption of packaged fat? That is two-and-a-half-times
>> as energy dense as grains.
>
>"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil in
>bottles ? Or what ?!

Yep, exactly. What's wrong with eating a few olives?
Expressed fat is the worst kind of fast food. Empty calories
on steroids!

>Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
>syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer source
>of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides, lowers LDL,
>rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings, etc, etc... all
>these things are in fact related.

I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All packaged fat
should be avoided by overfed, underexercised westerners. Like
most food processing (where practical) and all refining.

>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having metabolic
>syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I believe that people
>without syndrome are rarely fat.

Not sure what the exact numbers are, but I read somewhere that
90% of DM2 sufferers were obese. But there are a considerable
proportion of fatties that are neither syndrome X nor DM2.

> I believe that this could be your (and many other anti-LC
> advocates) case - you can perhaps maintain your weight
> without problems, so you tend not to believe that people
> affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry soon after eating
> carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.

If you are ill, then you must tailor your lifestyle to fit
that illness. If you are overweight, then reduce caloric
intake, if you are underexercised, then exercise. If you have
a problem metabolising a food, then avoid or manage it. But
for normal healthy individuals, there is nothing better then a
varied, eucaloric, wholefood diet with regular moderate
exercise, like the wise ones have advocated for decades if not
centuries.

>> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
>> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
>> world is deficient in.
>
>Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
>aren't we ?

I'm talking about energy requirements of normal humans. I
agree we tend to get sidetracked on to the problems that
overfed underexercised westerners find themselves in.

>Maybe the solution is to send all that pasta and bread to
>starving countries :)

Like mother used to say? :)

>> >real whole food. Not to speak that 7 grain whole-grain
>> >bread is
>probably
>> >a nutritional elite of breads.
>>
>> Well I eat a homemade bread with much more than that in it,
>> so it would be a peasant bread for me :)
>
>:) Actually, if I would ever plan to reintroduce bread to my
>:WOE, I plan
>to do homemade too (with a lot of flaxseed perhaps).

Yep. Mine's got wheat, oats, soy, rye, sesame, flax, barley,
maize canola and a bunch of other things that I can't recall
for the moment.

>> >I am also somewhat concerned about baking process. Every
>> >time food
>goes
>> >through high temperature while exposed to oxygen, bad
>> >things
>happen...
>>
>> And how does this cause a problem in the real world?
>
>In real world, this is creating carcinogen acrylamids in the
>bread (about 50mg / 100 g of average bread).

Not according to the latest studies I saw a few months ago.
There *was* a scare, but it's got the all clear.

>Also, althogh fat contenct of bread is low, most of it is
>PUFA and it will go rancid (but at 0.39 g / 100 g total, it
>is hardly a problem).

And kept in freezer/fridge?

>> >I really wonder, why you are so obsessive with grains ? :)
>>
>> I'm not. It is a fine food and I'm just defending it from
>> the obsessives who keep claiming it is the root of all our
>> troubles.
>
>Well, I think bread is not the main problem. Main problem is
>corn sirup and corn starch.

Anything is, if you eat too much of it. HFCS is about the same
as cane/beet sugar. Avoid where at all possible.

>But when you are fat already, most likely due to metabolic
>syndrome,

Well overeating really. That then causes the metabolic
syndrome, which is self-perpetuating.

>controling high carb food is really the easiest (and possibly
>healthiest) way how to manage your weight.

When you have that illnes/disability, for sure. Like DM2
should control with diet and exercsie. For normal healthy
folk, calories and exercise are the way to remain normal,
healthy weight

>> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no problems.
>> It is only the fat westerners who do. Does this not tell
>> you something? Perhaps the fatties are looking for a
>> scapegoat?
>
>Also part of problem is that recently we were told that
>eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too much of them.

Eating carbs IS healthy. Eating too much of anything is not.
Some humans can't seem to grasp the meaning of moderation.

>Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway for
>people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet, it
>_could_ be a viable path to go.

Damaged by high calorie. High carb can't damage you, unlesss
you a) don't get suffiecient other nutrients, or b) don't take
enough exercise.

>If we have stayed on 33:33:33 diet, things might be much
>better as of now. But after 70:20:10 for several years, one
>has to compensate...

With a little arithmetic, you can see that a typical westerner
will be malnourished if she eats this ratio eucalorically. OK?
BUT, if she does enough exercise (a lot) to allow this ratio
to be eucaloric, as well as provide all other necessary
nutrients, she will not have any problems. (Except for
overexercise :)

[Mirek Fidl]

> >My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight, and
> >I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
>
> Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
> (<2000cal?)
>
> For satiety, potatoes are the go. See: http://www.diabetesn-
> et.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php

For how long? Two hours?

Or do you thing that high GI of potatoes means nothing in
real world?

What is wrong with replacing high-calorie potatoes with
cauliflower, like most LCers do?

> So where do you get your daily energy requirements from?

Veggies, meat, dairy and olive oil.

> Egg white in a glass of water has similar protein/cal ratio
> to cauliflower, but what a poor meal. Cauliflower is mostly
> water, and the bulk disappears quickly.

Not if mixed with reasonable amount of fat. I have found that
most satieting food for me is good mix of fried veggies, some
protein and fat. This keeps me full and active for 6+ hours.

> >OTOH, what is meat for ?
>
> To eat, enjoy and benefit nutritionally from.

Yes. But when you are aiming for 1g/kg of protein daily, you
definitely do not need to get more protein from bread.

> low fat pizza sauce on it :) But I certainly don't want to
> put myself off it for life with a cauliflower stuffing
> competiton.

Cauliflower is not the only LC vegetable:)

> >"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil
> >in bottles
?
> >Or what ?!
>
> Yep, exactly. What's wrong with eating a few olives?

Nothing. I like them.

> >Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
> >syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer
> >source of energy - it does
not
> >rises tryglicerides, lowers LDL, rises HDL, does not causes
insulin/BG
> >swings, etc, etc... all these things are in fact related.
>
> I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
> pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All packaged
> fat should be avoided by overfed, underexercised westerners.

Hm, where is the logic? First bread contains valuable energy,
now all suddenly olive oil contains empty calories. Where is
your "calorie is a calorie is a calorie" concept?

BTW, olive oil is quite high in E and K vitamins:

bread 100g:: 250kcal, 0.34mg E, 2.2mcg K olive oil 100g:
884kcal, 14.35 mg E, 60mcg K

So again, calorie for calorie, it has 11 times more vitamin E
and 8 times more vitamin K. It also contains 220mg/100g of
phytosterols. And again, MUFAs alone could be considered as
valuable healthy nutrition, at least they were in any single
research I have read about them.

I think that everybody can benefit from lower triglycerids and
higher HDL - and that is something high-carb diet will not
help you with.

Now mix cauliflower, some protein source and olive oil
together - you will get food that nutritionaly beats bread in
every single aspect, tastes excelent and keeps you going for
more than 6 hours.

Mirek

[Tintinet]

tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<b550f406.0403191847.5310ba52@posting.google.com>...
> tintinet1@iwon.com (tintinet) wrote in message
> news:<35f5861e.0403171218.40235b86@posting.google.com>...
> > markd@toad-net.com wrote in message
> > news:<405754d3$0$247$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...
> > > Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
> > > multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb
> > > source with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both high
> > > btw?
> >
> > Actually, the carrot deal appears to be a mistake- go
> > ahead and crunch'em!
> >
> > A recent issue of the newsletter Harvard Women's Health
> > Watch ranked some foods by both GI and GL. For a baked
> > potato, the calculation went like this: 37 (grams of
> > carbohydrate in a serving) multiplied by 1.21 (GI) equals
> > 45. That's still high in a ranking of foods by glycemic
> > load. Air-popped popcorn, though, went from a high GI of
> > 79 to a low GL of 4. Corn chips fell from 105 to a
> > moderate GL of 16. Carrots dropped from Harvard's oddly
> > high GI of 131 to a GL of 10. Remember, serving size
> > counts: That's a cup of popcorn, an ounce of corn chips
> > and a half cup of cooked carrots.
> >
> > And carrots' stock goes up even further. The widely used
> > glycemic indexing of carrots at 92 (not to mention that
> > 131) was faulty, according to Australian researcher Dr.
> > Jennie Brand-Miller, a leader in the field and author of
> > "The Glucose Revolution." She told me by e-mail that a
> > later, less publicized test put carrots' GI at 49, and
> > very recent tests under her watch found boiled carrots to
> > have a GI of 32 and carrot juice 43. That would give
> > carrots a GL between 3 and 4.
> >
> > "I think the glycemic load is shaping up to be a valuable
> > concept," said Brand-Miller. "A diet with a very high GL
> > should be avoided. This means that the higher the
> > carbohydrate content of your diet, the more important it
> > is that the carbohydrate comes from low-GI sources."
> >
> > Though a proponent of GI and GL awareness ? she's working
> > to develop a program that would allow low-glycemic-index
> > foods to be labeled as such ? Brand-Miller cautions
> > against taking it to extremes.
> >
> > "I don't think we should be necessarily aiming for a diet
> > with the lowest GL," she said. "While the worst choice is
> > a high-cholesterol, high-GI diet, the best choice is still
> > being sorted out."
> >
> > Molly Martin is assistant editor of Pacific Northwest
> > magazine. She can be reached by calling 206-464-8243,
> > e-mailing mmartin@seattletimes.com or writing her at
> > Pacific Northwest magazine, The Seattle Times, P.O. Box
> > 70, Seattle, WA 98111.
>
> Yeah yeah. But a bit, as in a side of, high-GI wholefood
> veggies once in a while will not lead to obesity.
>
> TC

The point is, carrots are NOT a HIGH GI food.

[Mirek Fidl]

> That's two meals for the week, what about the other nineteen
> or twenty-six or thirty-three?

You mean other 19 ?

Or you as obsessed with food and/or driven by insulin
and blood sugar swings that you need to eat more that 3
meals a day ?

Mirek

[Tanya Quin]

tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<b550f406.0403191849.6257a028@posting.google.com>...
> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
> news:<i21m50hgfk0bdvba26am3l7kudtki121jl@4ax.com>...
> > On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> > (tcomeau) posted:
> >
> > >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
> > >any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
> > >dangerous about this.
> > >
> > >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> > > veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
> > >
> > >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> > > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
> > >
> > >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
> > >
> > >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
> > >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
> >
> > Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious
> > wholefoods such as grains and vegetables.
>
> Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
> example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc. My
> question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is this
> a dangerous way of eating?
>
> TC

That depends - is the meat lean? Grain, sugar and starch are
useful to the body for fuel and you aren't eating them. If you
are restricting your carbs you are either eating the same
amount of protein and fat and thus less calories overall, or
maintaining the same number of calories while increasing the
amount of protein and fat that you get. Too much protein can
lead to kidney problems, and too much fat (especially animal
fat) is not good for the heart.

How about a better plan than cutting out carbs - cutting out
refined sugar carbs only, and eating whole grain products and
(gasp!) potatoes as part of a balanced diet also containing
proteins and fat. Then USING the fuel that carbs give you to
actually be active which is good for your heart instead of
living a sedentary and ultimately heart-disease prone
lifestyle.

[Pizza Girl]

Post too long or empty.

"Tanya Quinn" <tdquinn@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:64a84a3a.0403231529.70a792ff@posting.google.com...
> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<b550f406.0403191849.6257a028@posting.google.com>...
> > "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
news:<i21m50hgfk0bdvba26am3l7kudtki121jl@4ax.com>...
> > > On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> > > (tcomeau) posted:
> > >
> > > >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I
> > > >challenge any anti-atkins people to explain what is
> > > >wrong and so dangerous about this.
> > > >
> > > >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side
> > > > of veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
> > > > vinaigrette dressing you want
> > > >
> > > >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> > > > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> > > > vinaigrette dressing you want
> > > >
> > > >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
> > > >
> > > >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
> > > >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
> > >
> > > Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious
> > > wholefoods such as grains and vegetables.
> >
> > Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
> > example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc. My
> > question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is
> > this a dangerous way of eating?
> >
> > TC
>
> That depends - is the meat lean? Grain, sugar and starch are
> useful to the body for

[Mirek Fidl]

> Too much protein can lead to kidney problems, and too
> much fat

Nope. There is not too much protein in LC diet. It is high fat
diet, not high protein.

> (especially animal fat) is not good for the heart.

Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous. Saturated
maybe. But MUFAs has quite opposite effect.

Mirek

[Martin Tho]

11:24:54 Mon, 22 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:02:34 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
><cxl@volny.cz> posted:
>
>>> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same energy
>>> >level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more fiber,
>>> >2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more vitamin
>>> >C, 7x more B6, etc...
>>>
>>> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
>>> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule?
>>> What is your point?
>>
>>My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight, and
>>I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
>
>Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
>(<2000cal?)
>
>For satiety, potatoes are the go. See: http://www.diabetesne-
>t.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
>

Hmm... the complete opposite of what I find in myself. But
then, I am a diabetic. If I eat such foods as bread, rice,
potatoes and so on, my glucose levels go too high, then they
come plummeting down too fast and I feel hungry again. The
chart is not to be advised for people like me. And as was
pointed out, maybe fat have a metabolic problem with these
foods, like I do (my weight is normal, now, though, but I am
still diabetic).

Such a study is an interesting thing, but I hope that
nutritionists don't go advising all people how to eat based on
that and not on their individual metabolic needs (which is how
dieticians around here advise people - i.e., with no reference
to individual circumstances).

>>> So why do these anti-grain folk tend to advocate the
>>> consumption of packaged fat? That is two-and-a-half-times
>>> as energy dense as grains.
>>
>>"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil
>>in bottles ? Or what ?!
>
>Yep, exactly. What's wrong with eating a few olives?
>Expressed fat is the worst kind of fast food. Empty calories
>on steroids!
>
>>Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
>>syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer source
>>of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides, lowers LDL,
>>rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings, etc, etc...
>>all these things are in fact related.
>
>I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
>pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All packaged
>fat should be avoided by overfed, underexercised westerners.
>Like most food processing (where practical) and all refining.
>

But... so-called normal healthy nutrition may be leading some
people into these overeating problems, if they have the
metabolism for it. Isn't that possible?

>>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
>>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I believe
>>that people without syndrome are rarely fat.
>

This is an interesting idea and I have wondered about it
myself. I certainly like to think that my own overeating was
caused by something other than my conscious self... but such a
self-serving idea needs to be treated with suspicion. Still,
it could be true, too. My feeling about it, comparing how I
felt with how it seemed to me that other people felt (a
difficult judgement, I know), is that I felt more hunger than
other people, and that that hunger was caused by some sort of
metabolic problem (I know not what). Eventually, a known
metabolic problem emerged and I was diagnosed as insulin
resistant, then diabetic. At this stage, eating too many
carbohydrates (as advised) didn't make solving the problem any
easier as the cravings they caused (and can still cause) were
(and are) stronger than my willpower. I am only able to eat
less since I learned about cutting carbohydrates down.
Thereafter, willpower is hardly needed and I have been able to
control my weight properly for the first time. The nutritional
advice given to diabetics simply stinks.

My personal guess is that I don't lack willpower (people tell
me I have lots), so I conclude that I must have been feeling
more hungry.

>Not sure what the exact numbers are, but I read somewhere
>that 90% of DM2 sufferers were obese. But there are a
>considerable proportion of fatties that are neither syndrome
>X nor DM2.
>

I would be interested in knowing those numbers. However, it
has to be said that many are undiagnosed. The typical DM2
isn't diagnosed until they've been losing beta cells for an
estimated 6.5 years, and presumably they could have been
insulin resistant (IR) for longer than that. The numbers, to
be most helpful, would need to be based on a careful study of
the undiagnosed overweight to determine whether or not they
show any of the precursors of DM (high blood pressure, bad
lipid levels, some insulin resistance, high insulin levels)
and choices would have to be made about how to classify those
that did show less than optimal readings. There is no sudden
jump in these levels from a diagnosis of normal to IR to DM:
it is a smooth continuum: a given person could be anywhere on
the range.

>> I believe that this could be your (and many other anti-LC
>> advocates) case - you can perhaps maintain your weight
>> without problems, so you tend not to believe that people
>> affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry soon after eating
>> carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.
>

Well, I definitely am. And yes, I concur; it may well be that
some people are and some are not.

>If you are ill, then you must tailor your lifestyle to fit
>that illness. If you are overweight, then reduce caloric
>intake, if you are underexercised, then exercise. If you have
>a problem metabolising a food, then avoid or manage it. But
>for normal healthy individuals, there is nothing better then
>a varied, eucaloric, wholefood diet with regular moderate
>exercise, like the wise ones have advocated for decades if
>not centuries.
>

I won't disagree with that, even though I don't think that
humans evolved eating grains (domestication of grains is a
modern invention - only about 6,000 years old, isn't it?). But
I think that the advice given to diabetics is the same as that
given to normal people, and it is inappropriate.

>>> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
>>> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
>>> world is deficient in.
>>
>>Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
>>aren't we ?
>
>I'm talking about energy requirements of normal humans. I
>agree we tend to get sidetracked on to the problems that
>overfed underexercised westerners find themselves in.
>

>
>>But when you are fat already, most likely due to metabolic
>>syndrome,
>
>Well overeating really. That then causes the metabolic
>syndrome, which is self-perpetuating.
>

This sequence is unproven and circumstantial. Just because
people get diagnosed with the metabolic syndrome long after
they have gained weight doesn't mean that there wasn't
something wrong and undiagnosed at an earlier stage causing
the overeating and weight gain in the first place. Sure, it
*might* just be overeating, but that behaviour itself might be
caused by some disorder that has yet to be discovered.

I agree that the syndrome then becomes self-perpetuating
though, as eating as advised by so many nutritional 'experts'
causes more food cravings in such people (going by my personal
experience and that of many others with diabetes).

>>controling high carb food is really the easiest (and
>>possibly healthiest) way how to manage your weight.
>
>When you have that illnes/disability, for sure. Like DM2
>should control with diet and exercsie. For normal healthy
>folk, calories and exercise are the way to remain normal,
>healthy weight
>
>>> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no
>>> problems. It is only the fat westerners who do. Does this
>>> not tell you something? Perhaps the fatties are looking
>>> for a scapegoat?
>>
>>Also part of problem is that recently we were told
>>that eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too
>>much of them.
>
>Eating carbs IS healthy. Eating too much of anything is not.
>Some humans can't seem to grasp the meaning of moderation.
>
>>Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway for
>>people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet, it
>>_could_ be a viable path to go.
>
>Damaged by high calorie. High carb can't damage you, unlesss
>you a) don't get suffiecient other nutrients, or b) don't
>take enough exercise.
>

Or c) are diabetic or prone to it, apparently.

--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Martin Tho]

15:29:59 Tue, 23 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Tanya Quinn at
Tanya Quinn <tdquinn@rogers.com> writes:
>tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>news:<b550f406.04 03191849.6257a028@posting.google.com>...
>> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
>> news:<i21m50hgfk0bd vba26am3l7kudtki121jl@4ax.com>...
>> > On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>> > (tcomeau) posted:
>> >
>> > >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
>> > >any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
>> > >dangerous about this.
>> > >
>> > >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
>> > > veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
>> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
>> > >
>> > >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
>> > > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
>> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
>> > >
>> > >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>> > >
>> > >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
>> > >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>> >
>> > Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious
>> > wholefoods such as grains and vegetables.
>>
>> Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
>> example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc. My
>> question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is this
>> a dangerous way of eating?
>>
>> TC
>
>That depends - is the meat lean? Grain, sugar and starch are
>useful to the body for fuel and you aren't eating them.

The body is perfectly capable of converting protein and fat
into glucose for use as fuel, and it does so routinely (about
60% of protein and 30% of fat gets so converted). Why then is
there a need for fuel from grains, sugar and starch (and
where did pre-agricultural cavemen get such items from all
year round)?

> If you are restricting your carbs you are either eating the
> same amount of protein and fat and thus less calories
> overall,

This tends to be what such a diet leads to: studies have shown
that on such a diet people voluntarily eat less even when
allowed to eat as much as they like: they actually want to eat
less, and do so. Hence, they lose weight.

> or maintaining the same number of calories while increasing
> the amount of protein and fat that you get. Too much protein
> can lead to kidney problems, and too much fat (especially
> animal fat) is not good for the heart.
>

I have seen no evidence at all that too much protein can lead
to kidney problems. The studies I have seen have shown that
too much protein is harmful if the kidneys are *already*
damaged, however, but that is not the same thing (and
anecdotal evidence suggests that controlling blood glucose
levels is a more important factor anyway, in diabetics that
is). It is worth noting, though, that such a diet typically
reduces carbs and doesn't increase protein and fat much (i.e.,
doesn't fully counter-compensate), so the diet doesn't amount
to a high protein diet anyway. The net result is a reduction
in calories consumed.

It could in some cases become a high fat diet, though, and as
you say, too much fat (strictly, saturated fat and trans-fat)
is known to be harmful for the heart. However, blood lipid
levels actually correlate to the quantity of carbohydrates
eaten and not to the amount of fat eaten (within reason). Why?
Because insulin converts surplus blood glucose into fat.

>How about a better plan than cutting out carbs - cutting out
>refined sugar carbs only, and eating whole grain products and
>(gasp!) potatoes as part of a balanced diet also containing
>proteins and fat.

Great if you aren't diabetic or suffering from syndrome X, or
prone to either. No good if you are.

> Then USING the fuel that carbs give you to actually be
> active

As a diabetic, when I eat carbs, my blood glucose goes up and
I get lethargic: completely the opposite to what the normal
advice suggests. Since I have learned to control my glucose
levels by cutting the carbs down (a lot), I have more energy
than I can remember since childhood (and I was only diagnosed
in my late 30's).

I reiterate: we don't *need* to consume carbs to supply
energy. The body can use any food for this. Carbs are handy,
though, during a workout, but that is about it for me. And in
fact, I can do a workout without carbs, but if I am feeling
tired it can be more difficult. I have read one study though
that showed that some people actually have more success
avoiding the carbs in a workout (I think it was stamina
people, IIRC).

--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Mirek Fidler rambled on about
"Re: typical low-carb meals - what us wrong with this." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>Nope. There is not too much protein in LC diet. It is high
>fat diet, not high protein.
>
>> (especially animal fat) is not good for the heart.
>
>Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous. Saturated
>maybe. But MUFAs has quite opposite effect.

Fat doesn't have fiber.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
John Gohde, Feeling Great and Better than Ever!

Alternative medicine was yesterday's quackery, is today's
complementary medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of
medicine.
http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous.
> >Saturated maybe.
But
> >MUFAs has quite opposite effect.
>
> Fat doesn't have fiber.

Nope. The most important high-fiber food excluded form
low-carb diet is whole-grain bread. It contains 7g of fiber /
100g. Allowed vegetables contain average 3g / 100g. No problem
to substitute.

Mirek

[Martin Tho]

21:01:45 Wed, 24 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Mouldy Mouse at
Mouldy Mouse <mouldy_mouse@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>There are slim people with abnormal carbohydrate responses -
>I'm one. Also read about one in a low-carb book. I don't know
>if I'm IR - haven't been tested, but I've always been almost
>constantly hungry. It's probably only due to my crappy
>digestive system that I remain fairly scrawny. My GP
>wise-cracked that other people pay >$100/month to have what
>I've got ;)
>
>When I'm only eating low-glycemic or low-carb (<150g carb)
>each day I don't have the same hunger patterns as I do when
>eating other carbohydrates. But if I suddenly withdraw a
>source of carbo that my body is expecting (eg. suddenly
>switching from sweetened oats for breakfast to
>meat+leafy-veg) I get shaky, have trouble doing things like
>walking up stairs, and experience nausea and other unpleasant
>symptoms.
>

The symptoms you describe are common in diabetics and the
insulin resistant. In them, it happens when their blood
glucose levels get too low. I suggest you ask your doctor to
give you a fasting oral glucose tolerance test, if this hasn't
been done already.
--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Martin Tho]

09:13:54 Thu, 25 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition tcomeau at tcomeau
<tunderbar@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >When I'm only eating low-glycemic or low-carb (<150g carb)
>> >each day I don't have the same hunger patterns as I do
>> >when eating other carbohydrates. But if I suddenly
>> >withdraw a source of carbo that my body is expecting (eg.
>> >suddenly switching from sweetened oats for breakfast to
>> >meat+leafy-veg) I get shaky, have trouble doing things
>> >like walking up stairs, and experience nausea and other
>> >unpleasant symptoms.
>> >
>>
>> The symptoms you describe are common in diabetics and the
>> insulin resistant. In them, it happens when their blood
>> glucose levels get too low. I suggest you ask your doctor
>> to give you a fasting oral glucose tolerance test, if this
>> hasn't been done already.
>
>You sound like a pharmaceutical salesman.

Well, I ain't! :-)

But I've had those symptoms and that's what caused them in me.
--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Mouldy Mou]

Martin Thompson <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<x1M8ZHCj0cYAFw$t@tucana.demon.co.uk>...
> >>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
> >>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I
> >>believe that people without syndrome are rarely fat.
> >
>
> This is an interesting idea and I have wondered about it
> myself. I certainly like to think that my own overeating was
> caused by something other than my conscious self... but such
> a self-serving idea needs to be treated with suspicion.
> Still, it could be true, too. My feeling about it, comparing
> how I felt with how it seemed to me that other people felt
> (a difficult judgement, I know), is that I felt more hunger
> than other people, and that that hunger was caused by some
> sort of metabolic problem (I know not what). Eventually, a
> known metabolic problem emerged and I was diagnosed as
> insulin resistant, then diabetic. At this stage, eating too
> many carbohydrates (as advised) didn't make solving the
> problem any easier as the cravings they caused (and can
> still cause) were (and are) stronger than my willpower. I am
> only able to eat less since I learned about cutting
> carbohydrates down. Thereafter, willpower

There are slim people with abnormal carbohydrate responses -
I'm one. Also read about one in a low-carb book. I don't know
if I'm IR - haven't been tested, but I've always been almost
constantly hungry. It's probably only due to my crappy
digestive system that I remain fairly scrawny. My GP
wise-cracked that other people pay >$100/month to have what
I've got ;)

When I'm only eating low-glycemic or low-carb (<150g carb)
each day I don't have the same hunger patterns as I do when
eating other carbohydrates. But if I suddenly withdraw a
source of carbo that my body is expecting (eg. suddenly
switching from sweetened oats for breakfast to meat+leafy-veg)
I get shaky, have trouble doing things like walking up stairs,
and experience nausea and other unpleasant symptoms.

> is hardly needed and I have been able to control my weight
> properly for the first time. The nutritional advice given to
> diabetics simply stinks.
>
> My personal guess is that I don't lack willpower (people
> tell me I have lots), so I conclude that I must have been
> feeling more hungry.
>
> >Not sure what the exact numbers are, but I read somewhere
> >that 90% of DM2 sufferers were obese. But there are a
> >considerable proportion of fatties that are neither
> >syndrome X nor DM2.
> >
>
> I would be interested in knowing those numbers. However, it
> has to be said that many are undiagnosed. The typical DM2
> isn't diagnosed until they've been losing beta cells for an
> estimated 6.5 years, and presumably they could have been
> insulin resistant (IR) for longer than that. The numbers, to
> be most helpful, would need to be based on a careful study
> of the undiagnosed overweight to determine whether or not
> they show any of the precursors of DM (high blood pressure,
> bad lipid levels, some insulin resistance, high insulin
> levels) and choices would have to be made about how to
> classify those that did show less than optimal readings.
> There is no sudden jump in these levels from a diagnosis of
> normal to IR to DM: it is a smooth continuum: a given person
> could be anywhere on the range.
>
>
> >> I believe that this could be your (and many other anti-LC
> >> advocates) case - you can perhaps maintain your weight
> >> without problems, so you tend not to believe that people
> >> affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry soon after
> >> eating carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.
> >
>
> Well, I definitely am. And yes, I concur; it may well be
> that some people are and some are not.
>
>

> This sequence is unproven and circumstantial. Just because
> people get diagnosed with the metabolic syndrome long after
> they have gained weight doesn't mean that there wasn't
> something wrong and undiagnosed at an earlier stage causing
> the overeating and weight gain in the first place. Sure, it
> *might* just be overeating, but that behaviour itself might
> be caused by some disorder that has yet to be discovered.

[Tcomeau]

Martin Thompson <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<ADSQ04Bb6qYAFwaN@tucana.demon.co.uk>...
> 21:01:45 Wed, 24 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Mouldy Mouse at
> Mouldy Mouse <mouldy_mouse@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> >There are slim people with abnormal carbohydrate responses
> >- I'm one. Also read about one in a low-carb book. I don't
> >know if I'm IR - haven't been tested, but I've always been
> >almost constantly hungry. It's probably only due to my
> >crappy digestive system that I remain fairly scrawny. My GP
> >wise-cracked that other people pay >$100/month to have what
> >I've got ;)
> >
> >When I'm only eating low-glycemic or low-carb (<150g carb)
> >each day I don't have the same hunger patterns as I do when
> >eating other carbohydrates. But if I suddenly withdraw a
> >source of carbo that my body is expecting (eg. suddenly
> >switching from sweetened oats for breakfast to
> >meat+leafy-veg) I get shaky, have trouble doing things like
> >walking up stairs, and experience nausea and other
> >unpleasant symptoms.
> >
>
> The symptoms you describe are common in diabetics and the
> insulin resistant. In them, it happens when their blood
> glucose levels get too low. I suggest you ask your doctor to
> give you a fasting oral glucose tolerance test, if this
> hasn't been done already.

You sound like a pharmaceutical salesman.

TC

[Moosh:)]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:57:55 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> That's two meals for the week, what about the other
>> nineteen or twenty-six or thirty-three?
>
>You mean other 19 ?
>

No, many people eat three, four and five meals a day or
even more.

>Or you as obsessed with food and/or driven by insulin
>and blood sugar swings that you need to eat more that 3
>meals a day ?

No, I don't but many folk do, or so I've heard and read.

I'm not the one obsessed with insulin. That's the nutty low
carbers :) They don't seem to realise that proteins and other
things stimulate secretion of insulin.

[Mirek Fidl]

> No, many people eat three, four and five meals a day or
> even more.

Many people eat too much... No wonder when they are not used
to burning fat.

> >Or you as obsessed with food and/or driven by insulin and
> >blood sugar swings that you need to eat more that 3 meals
> >a day ?
>
> No, I don't but many folk do, or so I've heard and read.

Well, eating so many times is not typical for low-carb diet.
You are simply not hungry enough. Usually, you have a lot of
fat to burn :)

> They don't seem to realise that proteins and other things
> stimulate secretion of insulin.

Of course we do. But they do not rise blood sugar.

Also, really experienced low-carbers watch protein intake too.
Basic formula food composition formula (if one cares to count)
is this: start with protein, usually at 1g/kg. Add your
desired level of carbs (around 50g for me). Compute calories
and fill rest with fat (monounsaturated preffered).

Mirek

[Moosh:)]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:39:28 GMT, "Pizza Girl"
<abuse@hotmail.com> posted:

>Post too long or empty.

Can't recognise good advice when you see it, or is your
attention span too short? I suspect both. Just to while away a
few minutes, I read your last 50 or so messages to this group,
and I honestly wonder why you hang around a sci group.

>"Tanya Quinn" <tdquinn@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:64a84a3a.0403231529.70a792ff@posting.google.com...
>> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>news:<b550f406.0403191849.6257a028@posting.google.com>...
>> > "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
>news:<i21m50hgfk0bdvba26am3l7kudtki121jl@4ax.com>...
>> > > On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>> > > (tcomeau) posted:
>> > >
>> > > >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I
>> > > >challenge any anti-atkins people to explain what is
>> > > >wrong and so dangerous about this.
>> > > >
>> > > >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side
>> > > > of veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
>> > > > vinaigrette dressing you want
>> > > >
>> > > >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom
>> > > > and veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer
>> > > > salad and vinaigrette dressing you want
>> > > >
>> > > >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>> > > >
>> > > >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
>> > > >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>> > >
>> > > Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious
>> > > wholefoods such as grains and vegetables.
>> >
>> > Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
>> > example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc. My
>> > question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is
>> > this a dangerous way of eating?
>> >
>> > TC
>>
>> That depends - is the meat lean? Grain, sugar and starch
>> are useful to the body for

[Moosh:)]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:13:55 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> Too much protein can lead to kidney problems, and too
>> much fat
>
>Nope. There is not too much protein in LC diet. It is high
>fat diet, not high protein.

That appears to depend on who is telling the story.

>> (especially animal fat) is not good for the heart.
>
>Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous. Saturated
>maybe. But MUFAs has quite opposite effect.

All fats are fine in a eucaloric wholefood diet. Eat too much
food, and some fats are worse for you than others.

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous.
> >Saturated maybe.
But
> >MUFAs has quite opposite effect.
>
> All fats are fine in a eucaloric wholefood diet. Eat too
> much food, and some fats are worse for you than others.

Actually, I agree with this.

It seems to be a good idea to reduce saturated fat intake in
LC maintenance mode (when your carbs go up - I expect to end
at about 100g / day). OTOH, given wide variety of healthy fat
and protein sources, this is hardly a problem...

Mirek

[Moosh:)]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:52:04 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight,
>> >and I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
>>
>> Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
>> (<2000cal?)
>>
>> For satiety, potatoes are the go. See: http://www.diabetes-
>> net.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
>
>For how long? Two hours?

No, longer than anything else. Read the site.

>Or do you thing that high GI of potatoes means nothing in
>real world?

Nope, not unless you are syndrome X or diabetic and eat a lot
of just potatoes. They are a fine wholefood in a varied
wholefood diet.

>What is wrong with replacing high-calorie potatoes with
>cauliflower, like most LCers do?

Why not eat some of both and lots of other things? You act as
though carbs are somehow poisonous.

>> So where do you get your daily energy requirements from?
>
>Veggies, meat, dairy and olive oil.

I hope you consume only a little low fat dairy and almost NO
packaged fat (olive oil) then you could eat some fine grain
and tuber foods as well.

>> Egg white in a glass of water has similar protein/cal ratio
>> to cauliflower, but what a poor meal. Cauliflower is mostly
>> water, and the bulk disappears quickly.
>
>Not if mixed with reasonable amount of fat. I have found that
>most satieting food for me is good mix of fried veggies, some
>protein and fat. This keeps me full and active for 6+ hours.

But when scientifically measured, and calorie for calorie, not
as much as potato.

>> >OTOH, what is meat for ?
>>
>> To eat, enjoy and benefit nutritionally from.
>
>Yes. But when you are aiming for 1g/kg of protein daily, you
>definitely do not need to get more protein from bread.

Huh? One gram protein/kg/day is a little high, but an average
70kg man will be eating 70g protein or ~280 cal. The rest of
your energy needs?

>> low fat pizza sauce on it :) But I certainly don't want to
>> put myself off it for life with a cauliflower stuffing
>> competiton.
>
>Cauliflower is not the only LC vegetable:)

Not the only vegetable. I might have this low fat pizza sauce
(lots of tomato) on a pile of cauliflower, carrot, potato,
broccoli, cabbage, beans, pumpkin and onion. MMMMMMM!!!

>> >"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil
>> >in bottles
>?
>> >Or what ?!
>>
>> Yep, exactly. What's wrong with eating a few olives?
>
>Nothing. I like them.

So why eat the refined extracted oil? Throwing out the good
stuff for the empty calories.

>> >Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
>> >syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer
>> >source of energy - it does
>not
>> >rises tryglicerides, lowers LDL, rises HDL, does not
>> >causes
>insulin/BG
>> >swings, etc, etc... all these things are in fact related.
>>
>> I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
>> pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All packaged
>> fat should be avoided by overfed, underexercised
>> westerners.
>
>Hm, where is the logic? First bread contains valuable energy,
>now all suddenly olive oil contains empty calories. Where is
>your "calorie is a calorie is a calorie" concept?

But bread contains much more micronutrients per cal than
packaged oils
do. Not just a selected few....

>BTW, olive oil is quite high in E and K vitamins:

Not as high as olives.

>bread 100g:: 250kcal, 0.34mg E, 2.2mcg K olive oil 100g:
>884kcal, 14.35 mg E, 60mcg K

Which bread and which oilve oil, and why did you not add in
the values in olives, and not include the micronutrients that
bread is higher in cal for cal? This is why a varied wholefood
diet is to be advocated. Olives on bread is a far better meal
than olive oil on bread for the same calories.

>So again, calorie for calorie, it has 11 times more vitamin E
>and 8 times more vitamin K.

See above. Vit K and E are not high in bread, but much higher
than olive oil (cal per cal) in many other foods. You seem to
be postulating a diet of only bread or only olive oil. When a
varied diet is eaten, bread and olives come above olive oil in
desirability. A very important constituent is fibre which
olive oil has ZERO.

> It also contains 220mg/100g of phytosterols.

And many other foodstuffs contain far more calorie for calorie
and they have fibre as well.

>And again, MUFAs alone could be considered as valuable
>healthy nutrition, at least they were in any single research
>I have read about them.

MUFAs and any other fat are prolific in many wholefoods.
Why you would advocate refining away the flesh of the
olive beats me.

>I think that everybody can benefit from lower triglycerids
>and higher HDL - and that is something high-carb diet will
>not help you with.

Only if you overeat, and the age-old advice is to eat a
balanced varied wholefood EUCALORIC diet with regular moderate
exercise. So you won't have a fat metabolism problem unless it
is hereditary, and not within the scope of this discussion.

>Now mix cauliflower, some protein source and olive oil
>together - you will get food that nutritionaly beats bread in
>every single aspect, tastes excelent and keeps you going for
>more than 6 hours.

Maybe, depending on what oil, what bread and the protein
source. But this diet is far too restrictive. Many other
foodstuffs can be eaten and enjoyed and provide perfect
nutrition without the high calories of packaged
(refined) oils.

If this keeps you going for 6 hours, a better varied diet
will last you 8 hours. Remember potatoes are the most
satiating of foods.

Try doing moderate exercise eating this mixture you are
advocating above. Terrible. No carbs.

[Mirek Fidl]

> carbohydrates. But if I suddenly withdraw a source of carbo
> that my body is expecting (eg. suddenly switching from
> sweetened oats for breakfast to meat+leafy-veg) I get shaky,
> have trouble doing things like walking up stairs, and
> experience nausea and other unpleasant symptoms.

If it is not immediate, but comes after two or three days of
low-carbing, then it is most likely "induction flu". Almost
any low-carber initially experience something like that -
explanation is that body is not used in exploiting ketogenic
pathways. Two days later, fat burning kicks in and blood sugar
is restored to normal (and suplemented by ketones).

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> Nope, not unless you are syndrome X or diabetic and eat a
> lot of just

Everobody is insulin resistant, only level differs.

> >What is wrong with replacing high-calorie potatoes with
> >cauliflower, like most LCers do?
>
> Why not eat some of both and lots of other things? You act
> as though carbs are somehow poisonous.

Of course that carbs in excess are poisonous. More you are
insulin resistant, more they are poisonous to you.

> >> So where do you get your daily energy requirements from?
> >
> >Veggies, meat, dairy and olive oil.
>
> I hope you consume only a little low fat dairy and almost NO
> packaged fat (olive oil) then you could eat some fine grain
> and tuber foods as well.

Could be true.

Let me make one thing true: I am not absolutely sure that my
current LC plan is the best possibility. I am always willing
to learn. Anyway, what I learned and experienced so far
indicates that there is something in this WOE. And then again,
as it normalized my BMI in 4 months from 29 to 24, I have only
a little need to change anything right now. If it ain't broke,
why fix it ?

> >food for me is good mix of fried veggies, some protein and
> >fat. This keeps me full and active for 6+ hours.
>
> But when scientifically measured, and calorie for calorie,
> not as much as potato.

Well, have your potatoes. At least it is not refined sugar.

> >Yes. But when you are aiming for 1g/kg of protein
> >daily, you
definitely
> >do not need to get more protein from bread.
>
> Huh? One gram protein/kg/day is a little high, but an
> average 70kg man

Well, it is definitely not too much. There is still a
discussion, even in mainstream, about how much protein is
minumum, how much optimal and how much dangerous. AFAIK
current minimal mainstream recommendation is .8g/kg. Things
ain't get wrong by 1g/kg....

> will be eating 70g protein or ~280 cal. The rest of your
> energy needs?

Fat.

> >Cauliflower is not the only LC vegetable:)
>
> Not the only vegetable. I might have this low fat pizza
> sauce (lots of tomato) on a pile of cauliflower, carrot,
> potato, broccoli, cabbage, beans, pumpkin and onion.
> MMMMMMM!!!

Enjoy :) I will make my LC version by replacing low-fat pizza
sauce with real tomatoes, exlude potato and reduce beans and
will add olive oil. Will be yummy too, you bet! :)

> So why eat the refined extracted oil?

Virgin olive oil is definitely not "refined" :)

> Throwing out the good stuff for the empty calories.

Why not eat whole olive tree (with wood and leaves - a lot of
fiber) then ? :)

> >So again, calorie for calorie, it has 11 times more vitamin
> >E and 8 times more vitamin K.
>
> See above. Vit K and E are not high in bread, but much
> higher than olive oil (cal per cal) in many other foods.

Like what?

> >I think that everybody can benefit from lower triglycerids
> >and higher HDL - and that is something high-carb diet will
> >not help you with.
>
> Only if you overeat, and the age-old advice is to eat a
> balanced

No. See research. High-carb diet always results in high(er)
TGs. Even Ornish admits it.

> Try doing moderate exercise eating this mixture you are
> advocating above. Terrible. No carbs.

:) I have already adapted to ketogenic pathways. After one
:month, you
would not note the difference. Well, I might miss some carbs
in high-intensity exercise, but then again, I bet you are
eating much more carbs than you can possibly burn by high
intensity exercise. Carbs are afterburner, body best runs on
fat most of time anyway. For moderate exercise I am
practising, I have no need to break my fat burning metabolism
by high-carb intake.

Mirek

[Martin Tho]

22:31:14 Fri, 26 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:02:11 +0000, Martin Thompson
><bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:
>
>>11:24:54 Mon, 22 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
>> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>>>On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:02:34 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
>>><cxl@volny.cz> posted:
>>>
>>>>> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same
>>>>> >energy level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more
>>>>> >fiber, 2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more
>>>>> >vitamin C, 7x more B6, etc...
>>>>>
>>>>> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
>>>>> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule?
>>>>> What is your point?
>>>>
>>>>My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight,
>>>>and I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
>>>
>>>Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
>>>(<2000cal?)
>>>
>>>For satiety, potatoes are the go. See: http://www.diabetes-
>>>net.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
>>>
>>
>>Hmm... the complete opposite of what I find in myself. But
>>then, I am a diabetic. If I eat such foods as bread, rice,
>>potatoes and so on, my glucose levels go too high, then they
>>come plummeting down too fast and I feel hungry again. The
>>chart is not to be advised for people like me. And as was
>>pointed out, maybe fat have a metabolic problem with these
>>foods, like I do (my weight is normal, now, though, but I am
>>still diabetic).
>
>Type one or two? Of course this doesn't apply to you
>personally. You are ill.
>

Type 2.

>>Such a study is an interesting thing, but I hope that
>>nutritionists don't go advising all people how to eat based
>>on that and not on their individual metabolic needs (which
>>is how dieticians around here advise people - i.e., with no
>>reference to individual circumstances).
>
>You mean that dietitions around your way don't take a
>patient's diabetes into account? Hooley Dooley!
>

It seems to be normal, both in the UK and the USA at least,
going by the comments and criticisms I see in
alt.support.diabetes and alt.support.diabetes.uk, and indeed
on various official web sites purporting to advise diabetics.
For example:

http://www.diabetes-healthnet.ac.uk/leaflets/eating.htm

The advice looks sensible until you study it a little more
closely. Then it says:

<quote> Fill up on fibre and starchy (carbohydrate) foods

Starchy foods include whole grain breakfast cereals, potatoes,
rice, pasta, chapattis and whole grain bread. Make these foods
the main part of every meal Add lentils, beans, split peas or
broth mix to home-made soups and stews. </quote>

"Make these foods the main part of every meal" indeed! And

<quote> Eat plenty of fruit and vegetables

Aim to eat 2-3 servings of fruit each day Buy fresh fruit
or fruit tinned in natural juice All fruit is good for you
including bananas and small quantities of grapes or dried
fruit Try to eat at least 2-3 servings of vegetables
and/or salad every day Use fresh, frozen or tinned
vegetables </quote>

Almost any diet and exercise controlled diabetic trying to
control their blood glucose by eating like this would fail.
Then, they would end up on insulin, which would swiftly be
converting many of these carbohydrates into fat... making the
situation worse, unless they exercised an awful lot.

The above site is completely typical. I have seen many such
sites. Another example:

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/eatwell/food_diabetes/index.html

This is the official site of the British Diabetic
Association. It says,

<quote> The diet for people with diabetes is a balanced
healthy diet, the same kind that is recommended for the rest
of the population — low in fat, sugar and salt, with plenty
of fruit and vegetables and meals based on starchy foods, such
as bread, potatoes, cereals, pasta and rice. This section
highlighted the issues you should consider when planning your
meals. </quote>

And so on.

Certainly there are a small number of individuals who do give
sensible advice - my first ever dietician many years ago told
me to restrict my carbs to 20g per meal. But ever since then,
I've been told to make around 60% of my diet carbs. Official
National Health Service leaflets tell me the same (and tell
me, for instance, that if I eat out, I should order extra
portions of rice or pasta with my meals). Of course I ignore
the lot. The stupidity of other people is something I have to
resist if I want to keep my health. However, it is no wonder
that other diabetics have real problems controlling their
glucose levels: most people trust their medics implicitly.

>>>
>>>>Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
>>>>syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer
>>>>source of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides, lowers
>>>>LDL, rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings, etc,
>>>>etc... all these things are in fact related.
>>>
>>>I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
>>>pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All packaged
>>>fat should be avoided by overfed, underexercised
>>>westerners. Like most food processing (where practical) and
>>>all refining.
>>>
>>
>>But... so-called normal healthy nutrition may be leading
>>some people into these overeating problems, if they have the
>>metabolism for it. Isn't that possible?
>
>No, eating too much and not doing regular exercise is what
>causes weight gain. Eating a varied whoefood diet will not
>"lead" you anywhere harmful. If you feel morbidly hungry on
>a eucaloric diet, and excessively tired from doing little
>exercise, get yourself medically checked out. You are
>likely ill.
>

Quite so. I think, though, that the very earliest stages of
diabetes are undetectable at present. People are blamed for
overeating when, in many cases, there is a metabolic problem
that is undiagnosed (and unknown, I strongly suspect).

>>>>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
>>>>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I
>>>>believe that people without syndrome are rarely fat.
>>>
>>
>>This is an interesting idea and I have wondered about it
>>myself. I certainly like to think that my own overeating was
>>caused by something other than my conscious self...
>
>Poltergeists? Could you not control yourself? What do you do
>if you get sexual urges about your neighbours?
>

My neighbours? LOL. ;-)

>>but such a self-serving idea needs to be treated with
>>suspicion. Still, it could be true, too. My feeling about
>>it, comparing how I felt with how it seemed to me that other
>>people felt (a difficult judgement, I know), is that I felt
>>more hunger than other people, and that that hunger was
>>caused by some sort of metabolic problem (I know not what).
>
>Syndrome X comes to mind. Perhaps a glucose tolerance test
>with an insulin assay might shed some light.
>

That is right. However, I was not diagnosed as having
anything wrong,
i.e., insulin resistant in my case, until a good 10 years
after something did in fact feel wrong: I was gaining
weight, losing energy, getting a bit depressed, losing
motivation, getting migraines... could be it was *just*
overeating and lack of exercise, but that isn't definite.

>>Eventually, a known metabolic problem emerged and I was
>>diagnosed as insulin resistant, then diabetic.
>
>Aha. better late than never.
>
>>At this stage, eating too many carbohydrates (as advised)
>
>By whom? Change endocrinologists rapidly!
>

By just about everybody. It is the official advice in Britain
and the USA.

>>didn't make solving the problem any easier as the cravings
>>they caused (and can still cause) were (and are) stronger
>>than my willpower.
>
>I can understand this, but there are ways of making excess
>foods unavailable to you other than at meal times.
>

Eventually I found that if I didn't eat when I felt hungry, I
would get a migraine within about 30 minutes to an hour. I
decided that eating and putting on some weight, while not
ideal, was a lot better than frequent migraines. I noticed
that constipation and diarrhoea often preceded the migraines
as well. The doctor thought it could be irritable bowel
syndrome (translation: didn't know).

Eventually, a few years after diagnosis as insulin resistant,
I found out that it was being caused by rapid swings up and
down in my blood glucose levels. Nobody in the medical
profession told me to watch out for that or discovered it, or
gave me any useful information to help me try and figure it
out or stop it. I was told that digestive upsets have no
connection with migraines. That was wrong as I found some
foods that caused the upset (potatoes in particular) causing
my digestive system to seize up, causing my blood glucose
levels to drop, causing (some of) the migraines.

Frankly, I know more about my condition than they do, clearly.
I've had it with them. After years of bad advice from numerous
sources, I think I know where I stand.

>> I am only able to eat less since I learned about cutting
>> carbohydrates down.
>
>Sounds perfectly reasonable for a type2 diabetic.
>
>>Thereafter, willpower is hardly needed and I have been able
>>to control my weight properly for the first time. The
>>nutritional advice given to diabetics simply stinks.
>
>See my comment about your endocrinologist above.
>

I haven't been assigned to one. :-) Anyway, I think I'm
better off steering well clear of the medical profession as
much as I can.

>>My personal guess is that I don't lack willpower (people
>>tell me I have lots), so I conclude that I must have been
>>feeling more hungry.
>
>Well no and yes :)
>

I see these options:

j) lack of willpower;
k) extra hunger;
l) both of the above;
m) none of the above.

>>>Not sure what the exact numbers are, but I read somewhere
>>>that 90% of DM2 sufferers were obese. But there are a
>>>considerable proportion of fatties that are neither
>>>syndrome X nor DM2.
>>>
>>
>>I would be interested in knowing those numbers. However, it
>>has to be said that many are undiagnosed. The typical DM2
>>isn't diagnosed until they've been losing beta cells for an
>>estimated 6.5 years, and presumably they could have been
>>insulin resistant (IR) for longer than that. The numbers, to
>>be most helpful, would need to be based on a careful study
>>of the undiagnosed overweight to determine whether or not
>>they show any of the precursors of DM (high blood pressure,
>>bad lipid levels, some insulin resistance, high insulin
>>levels) and choices would have to be made about how to
>>classify those that did show less than optimal readings.
>>There is no sudden jump in these levels from a diagnosis of
>>normal to IR to DM: it is a smooth continuum: a given person
>>could be anywhere on the range.
>
>Yes
>
>>>> I believe that this could be your (and many other anti-LC
>>>> advocates) case - you can perhaps maintain your weight
>>>> without problems, so you tend not to believe that people
>>>> affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry soon after
>>>> eating carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.
>>>
>>
>>Well, I definitely am. And yes, I concur; it may well be
>>that some people are and some are not.
>
>Many are when eating anything.
>
>>>If you are ill, then you must tailor your lifestyle to fit
>>>that illness. If you are overweight, then reduce caloric
>>>intake, if you are underexercised, then exercise. If you
>>>have a problem metabolising a food, then avoid or manage
>>>it. But for normal healthy individuals, there is nothing
>>>better then a varied, eucaloric, wholefood diet with
>>>regular moderate exercise, like the wise ones have
>>>advocated for decades if not centuries.
>>>
>>
>>I won't disagree with that, even though I don't think that
>>humans evolved eating grains (domestication of grains is a
>>modern invention - only about 6,000 years old, isn't it?).
>
>Yes, mabey 10,000, but humanoids have collected wild grass
>seeds forever, if they are available where they are of
>course. Then there are starches like tubers and sago
>

OK. I think it would have been pretty hard for them to make
60% of their diet comprise carbs though, especially as much of
their food would have been seasonal. 10% - 20% maybe, but
that's just hand-waving. Hard to tell.

>>But I think that the advice given to diabetics is the same
>>as that given to normal people, and it is inappropriate.
>
>Similar for type ones, but I don't believe that advice given
>to type 2s is often the same. It is certainly not here.
>(Australia)
>
>Although exercise is the key to control for many.
>
>>>>> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
>>>>> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
>>>>> world is deficient in.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
>>>>aren't we ?
>>>
>>>I'm talking about energy requirements of normal humans. I
>>>agree we tend to get sidetracked on to the problems that
>>>overfed underexercised westerners find themselves in.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>But when you are fat already, most likely due to metabolic
>>>>syndrome,
>>>
>>>Well overeating really. That then causes the metabolic
>>>syndrome, which is self-perpetuating.
>>>
>>
>>This sequence is unproven and circumstantial. Just because
>>people get diagnosed with the metabolic syndrome long after
>>they have gained weight doesn't mean that there wasn't
>>something wrong and undiagnosed at an earlier stage causing
>>the overeating and weight gain in the first place. Sure, it
>>*might* just be overeating, but that behaviour itself might
>>be caused by some disorder that has yet to be discovered.
>
>Yes, anything might be possible. Genetics is the basic
>"cause" But if you exercise a lot and don't become fat, you
>won't likely develop DM2. Ninety percent of DM2s are
>overweight/obese
>
>>I agree that the syndrome then becomes self-perpetuating
>>though, as eating as advised by so many nutritional
>>'experts' causes more food cravings in such people (going by
>>my personal experience and that of many others with
>>diabetes).
>
>I'm curious to know who is giving this erronious advice.
>

See above. :-(

>>>>controling high carb food is really the easiest (and
>>>>possibly healthiest) way how to manage your weight.
>>>
>>>When you have that illnes/disability, for sure. Like DM2
>>>should control with diet and exercsie. For normal healthy
>>>folk, calories and exercise are the way to remain normal,
>>>healthy weight
>>>
>>>>> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no
>>>>> problems. It is only the fat westerners who do. Does
>>>>> this not tell you something? Perhaps the fatties are
>>>>> looking for a scapegoat?
>>>>
>>>>Also part of problem is that recently we were told
>>>>that eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too
>>>>much of them.
>>>
>>>Eating carbs IS healthy. Eating too much of anything is
>>>not. Some humans can't seem to grasp the meaning of
>>>moderation.
>>>
>>>>Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway for
>>>>people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet, it
>>>>_could_ be a viable path to go.
>>>
>>>Damaged by high calorie. High carb can't damage you,
>>>unlesss you a) don't get suffiecient other nutrients, or b)
>>>don't take enough exercise.
>>>
>>
>>Or c) are diabetic or prone to it, apparently.
>
>Sorry, my discussion is restricted to normal healthy adults
>unless I state otherwise, but of course, I agree with you. If
>you have a carb metabolic abnormality, then carbs can damage
>you. Just like gluten can damage coeliac, and walnuts can
>damage allergy sufferers. This stands to reason, but as I
>said, not what I was referring to.

Yep, normal healthy adults can cope with such a diet, even
though I have my reservations about it, given that I
personally doubt that humans evolved eating such a diet.
Trouble is, many normal healthy adults are damaged by such a
diet, and turn out not to be normal or healthy at all.
--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Martin Tho]

22:42:42 Fri, 26 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:22:56 +0000, Martin Thompson
><bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:
>
>>15:29:59 Tue, 23 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Tanya Quinn at
>> Tanya Quinn <tdquinn@rogers.com> writes:
>>>tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>>>news:<b550f406.04 03191849.6257a028@posting.google.com>...
>>>> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
>>>> news:<i21m50hgfk0bd vba26am3l7kudtki121jl@4ax.com>...
>>>> > On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>>>> > (tcomeau) posted:
>>>> >
>>>> > >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I
>>>> > >challenge any anti-atkins people to explain what is
>>>> > >wrong and so dangerous about this.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side
>>>> > > of veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
>>>> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
>>>> > >
>>>> > >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom
>>>> > > and veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer
>>>> > > salad and vinaigrette dressing you want
>>>> > >
>>>> > >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
>>>> > >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>>>> >
>>>> > Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious
>>>> > wholefoods such as grains and vegetables.
>>>>
>>>> Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
>>>> example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc. My
>>>> question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is
>>>> this a dangerous way of eating?
>>>>
>>>> TC
>>>
>>>That depends - is the meat lean? Grain, sugar and starch
>>>are useful to the body for fuel and you aren't eating them.
>>
>>The body is perfectly capable of converting protein and fat
>>into glucose for use as fuel, and it does so routinely
>>(about 60% of protein and 30% of fat gets so converted).
>
>Nope, only 10% of fats CAN be converted to glucose. The
>glyceryl moiety. These conversions to glucose is what I
>referred to previously as "gluconeogenesis".
>

Well, this is the information I have:

Quick acting Carbs 100% of calories to Blood Glucose in 15-35
minutes (Table Sugar, Bread & Potatoes) Slow Acting Carbs
90-100% of calories to Blood Glucose in 30-95 minutes (Durum
Wheat Pasta, Beans & most Fruit) Protein 60% conversion of
calories to Blood Glucose in 180-240 minutes Fat 10-30%
conversion of calories to Blood Glucose in 480+ minutes

I forget where I got that information from, though, at
the moment.

>>Why then is there a need for fuel from grains, sugar
>>and starch
>
>You feel much better?
>

Not I... a non-diabetic might (although I don't think I did
even before I had the disease).

>>(and where did pre-agricultural cavemen get such items from
>>all year round)?
>
>Whereabouts?
>

Not really. A Palaeolithic diet may have been something
like this:

http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/ especially:
http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html

<quote> For millions of years, humans and their relatives have
eaten meat, fish, fowl and the leaves, roots and fruits of
many plants. One big obstacle to getting more calories from
the environment is the fact that many plants are inedible.
Grains, beans and potatoes are full of energy but all are
inedible in the raw state as they contain many toxins. There
is no doubt about that- please don’t try to eat them raw,
they can make you very sick. </quote>

and the details: <quote> The essentials of the
Paleolithic Diet are:

Eat none of the following: · Grains- including bread, pasta,
noodles · Beans- including string beans, kidney beans,
lentils, peanuts, snow-peas and peas · Potatoes · Dairy
products · Sugar · Salt

Eat the following: · Meat, chicken and fish · Eggs · Fruit
· Vegetables (especially root vegetables, but definitely not
including potatoes or sweet potatoes) · Nuts, eg. walnuts,
brazil nuts, macadamia, almond. Do not eat peanuts (a bean) or
cashews (a family of their own) · Berries- strawberries,
blueberries, raspberries etc.

Try to increase your intake of: · Root vegetables- carrots,
turnips, parsnips, rutabagas, Swedes · Organ meats- liver
and kidneys (I accept that many people find these unpalatable
and won’t eat them) </quote>

>>> If you are restricting your carbs you are either eating
>>> the same amount of protein and fat and thus less calories
>>> overall,
>>
>>This tends to be what such a diet leads to: studies have
>>shown that on such a diet people voluntarily eat less even
>>when allowed to eat as much as they like: they actually want
>>to eat less, and do so. Hence, they lose weight.
>
>Same goes for many people eating a wide variey of wholefoods.
>There are many tricks to eating eucalorically. The main thing
>is to eat a balanced diet.
>

The trouble is, the definition of "balanced" may be incorrect.
One could come up with any combination of foods and call it
"balanced" and it seems that this may be what has happened
(OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get my drift, I hope).

A better, more neutral term, might be borrowed from physics,
"the standard model".

The idea of lots of carbs was first introduced, I understand,
during the second world war, to assist governments in
rationing food supplies. It was not based on specific
research. However, it seems to have stuck, even though the
evidence is that it is harming large numbers of people, such
as myself.

>>> or maintaining the same number of calories while
>>> increasing the amount of protein and fat that you get. Too
>>> much protein can lead to kidney problems, and too much fat
>>> (especially animal fat) is not good for the heart.
>>>
>>
>>I have seen no evidence at all that too much protein can
>>lead to kidney problems. The studies I have seen have shown
>>that too much protein is harmful if the kidneys are
>>*already* damaged, however, but that is not the same thing
>>(and anecdotal evidence suggests that controlling blood
>>glucose levels is a more important factor anyway, in
>>diabetics that is).
>
>Yes, in diabetics. But have a look at the nephrologists
>websites for advice on what protein intake should be.
>

I haven't looked, but I assume about 0.8g/kg body weight per
day.

>>It is worth noting, though, that such a diet typically
>>reduces carbs and doesn't increase protein and fat much
>>(i.e., doesn't fully counter-compensate), so the diet
>>doesn't amount to a high protein diet anyway. The net result
>>is a reduction in calories consumed.
>
>So you are assuming a hypercaloric diet in the first place?
>Why not start from a eucaloric diet?
>

Yes; that is normal in the West (60% of US citizens being
clinically obese). But of course we are talking at slightly
cross-purposes because you are concentrating on people with
normal metabolisms and optimal bodies, whereas I am more
concerned with the large numbers of people for whom such
advice fails (and it *is* given to them nevertheless).

>>It could in some cases become a high fat diet, though, and
>>as you say, too much fat (strictly, saturated fat and
>>trans-fat) is known to be harmful for the heart. However,
>>blood lipid levels actually correlate to the quantity of
>>carbohydrates eaten and not to the amount of fat eaten
>>(within reason). Why? Because insulin converts surplus blood
>>glucose into fat.
>
>The same as the stuff you eat? What's the difference?

AIUI, the difference is that the carbs get converted in the
bloodstream and the resulting lipids get deposited in the
arteries, etc. Fat that is eaten is broken down by the liver
and stored more appropriately.

I would like to see some clarification on this point,
though. That is what I understand happens, but I may not be
totally correct.

>But of course, this does not happen on a eucaloric diet.
>NOTHING gets converted to fat (Nett)
>

I agree. It would all cancel out... or would it? Hmm...
certainly the calories burned would be matched with your
eating, by definition, but *which* calories you burn could
make a difference to your overall health. If you were burning
too many protein calories from your muscles, for example, that
would not be healthy. Similarly, if you were not burning
enough fat calories.

>>>How about a better plan than cutting out carbs - cutting
>>>out refined sugar carbs only, and eating whole grain
>>>products and (gasp!) potatoes as part of a balanced diet
>>>also containing proteins and fat.
>>
>>Great if you aren't diabetic or suffering from syndrome X,
>>or prone to either. No good if you are.
>
>Well I'm talking about normal healthy sdult humans,
>aren't you?
>

Not really. :-) As I mentioned above, I believe that a lot of
people who are thought to be "normal" are greatly challenged
by the standard model diet.

>>And in fact, I can do a workout without carbs, but if I am
>>feeling tired it can be more difficult. I have read one
>>study though that showed that some people actually have more
>>success avoiding the carbs in a workout (I think it was
>>stamina people, IIRC).
>
>Normal folks perform much better on a diet of around 40 to
>60% calories from carbs.
>

I wonder if they do, really. Presumably there must be evidence
for this, mustn't there? We know that many people *can* handle
such a diet, but what is the proof that it is optimal?
--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Moosh:)]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:22:56 +0000, Martin Thompson
<bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:

>15:29:59 Tue, 23 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Tanya Quinn at
> Tanya Quinn <tdquinn@rogers.com> writes:
>>tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>>news:<b550f406.04 03191849.6257a028@posting.google.com>...
>>> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
>>> news:<i21m50hgfk0bd vba26am3l7kudtki121jl@4ax.com>...
>>> > On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>>> > (tcomeau) posted:
>>> >
>>> > >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I
>>> > >challenge any anti-atkins people to explain what is
>>> > >wrong and so dangerous about this.
>>> > >
>>> > >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side
>>> > > of veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
>>> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
>>> > >
>>> > >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
>>> > > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
>>> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
>>> > >
>>> > >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>>> > >
>>> > >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
>>> > >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>>> >
>>> > Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious
>>> > wholefoods such as grains and vegetables.
>>>
>>> Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
>>> example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc. My
>>> question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is
>>> this a dangerous way of eating?
>>>
>>> TC
>>
>>That depends - is the meat lean? Grain, sugar and starch are
>>useful to the body for fuel and you aren't eating them.
>
>The body is perfectly capable of converting protein and fat
>into glucose for use as fuel, and it does so routinely (about
>60% of protein and 30% of fat gets so converted).

Nope, only 10% of fats CAN be converted to glucose. The
glyceryl moiety. These conversions to glucose is what I
referred to previously as "gluconeogenesis".

>Why then is there a need for fuel from grains, sugar
>and starch

You feel much better?

>(and where did pre-agricultural cavemen get such items from
>all year round)?

Whereabouts?

>> If you are restricting your carbs you are either eating the
>> same amount of protein and fat and thus less calories
>> overall,
>
>This tends to be what such a diet leads to: studies have
>shown that on such a diet people voluntarily eat less even
>when allowed to eat as much as they like: they actually want
>to eat less, and do so. Hence, they lose weight.

Same goes for many people eating a wide variey of wholefoods.
There are many tricks to eating eucalorically. The main thing
is to eat a balanced diet.

>> or maintaining the same number of calories while increasing
>> the amount of protein and fat that you get. Too much
>> protein can lead to kidney problems, and too much fat
>> (especially animal fat) is not good for the heart.
>>
>
>I have seen no evidence at all that too much protein can
>lead to kidney problems. The studies I have seen have shown
>that too much protein is harmful if the kidneys are
>*already* damaged, however, but that is not the same thing
>(and anecdotal evidence suggests that controlling blood
>glucose levels is a more important factor anyway, in
>diabetics that is).

Yes, in diabetics. But have a look at the nephrologists
websites for advice on what protein intake should be.

>It is worth noting, though, that such a diet typically
>reduces carbs and doesn't increase protein and fat much
>(i.e., doesn't fully counter-compensate), so the diet doesn't
>amount to a high protein diet anyway. The net result is a
>reduction in calories consumed.

So you are assuming a hypercaloric diet in the first place?
Why not start from a eucaloric diet?

>It could in some cases become a high fat diet, though, and as
>you say, too much fat (strictly, saturated fat and trans-fat)
>is known to be harmful for the heart. However, blood lipid
>levels actually correlate to the quantity of carbohydrates
>eaten and not to the amount of fat eaten (within reason).
>Why? Because insulin converts surplus blood glucose into fat.

The same as the stuff you eat? What's the difference? But of
course, this does not happen on a eucaloric diet. NOTHING gets
converted to fat (Nett)

>>How about a better plan than cutting out carbs - cutting out
>>refined sugar carbs only, and eating whole grain products
>>and (gasp!) potatoes as part of a balanced diet also
>>containing proteins and fat.
>
>Great if you aren't diabetic or suffering from syndrome X, or
>prone to either. No good if you are.

Well I'm talking about normal healthy sdult humans,
aren't you?

>> Then USING the fuel that carbs give you to actually
>> be active
>
>As a diabetic, when I eat carbs, my blood glucose goes up and
>I get lethargic: completely the opposite to what the normal
>advice suggests.

Advice for you is really not relevant to normal nutrition.

>Since I have learned to control my glucose levels by cutting
>the carbs down (a lot), I have more energy than I can
>remember since childhood (and I was only diagnosed in my
>late 30's).

Of course. But this is not relevant to normal healthy adults.

>I reiterate: we don't *need* to consume carbs to supply
>energy.

We don't *need* to consume fats or protein for energy.

>The body can use any food for this. Carbs are handy, though,
>during a workout, but that is about it for me.

Again, for a normal healthy adult?

>And in fact, I can do a workout without carbs, but if I am
>feeling tired it can be more difficult. I have read one study
>though that showed that some people actually have more
>success avoiding the carbs in a workout (I think it was
>stamina people, IIRC).

Normal folks perform much better on a diet of around 40 to 60%
calories from carbs.

[Mirek Fidl]

> Well I'm talking about normal healthy sdult humans,
> aren't you?

Just a question: You never ever in your live experienced
reactive hypo?

Mirek

[Moosh:)]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:07:03 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous.
>> >Saturated maybe.
>But
>> >MUFAs has quite opposite effect.
>>
>> Fat doesn't have fiber.
>
>Nope. The most important high-fiber food excluded form
>low-carb diet is whole-grain bread. It contains 7g of fiber /
>100g. Allowed vegetables contain average 3g / 100g. No
>problem to substitute.

You can substitute all manner of foods for each other, but
without a valid reason, why not include a little of all of
them that are available to you?

[Moosh:)]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:02:11 +0000, Martin Thompson
<bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:

>11:24:54 Mon, 22 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>>On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:02:34 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
>><cxl@volny.cz> posted:
>>
>>>> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same energy
>>>> >level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more fiber,
>>>> >2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more vitamin
>>>> >C, 7x more B6, etc...
>>>>
>>>> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
>>>> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule?
>>>> What is your point?
>>>
>>>My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight, and
>>>I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
>>
>>Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
>>(<2000cal?)
>>
>>For satiety, potatoes are the go. See: http://www.diabetesn-
>>et.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
>>
>
>Hmm... the complete opposite of what I find in myself. But
>then, I am a diabetic. If I eat such foods as bread, rice,
>potatoes and so on, my glucose levels go too high, then they
>come plummeting down too fast and I feel hungry again. The
>chart is not to be advised for people like me. And as was
>pointed out, maybe fat have a metabolic problem with these
>foods, like I do (my weight is normal, now, though, but I am
>still diabetic).

Type one or two? Of course this doesn't apply to you
personally. You are ill.

>Such a study is an interesting thing, but I hope that
>nutritionists don't go advising all people how to eat based
>on that and not on their individual metabolic needs (which is
>how dieticians around here advise people - i.e., with no
>reference to individual circumstances).

You mean that dietitions around your way don't take a
patient's diabetes into account? Hooley Dooley!

>>>> So why do these anti-grain folk tend to advocate the
>>>> consumption of packaged fat? That is two-and-a-half-times
>>>> as energy dense as grains.
>>>
>>>"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil
>>>in bottles ? Or what ?!
>>
>>Yep, exactly. What's wrong with eating a few olives?
>>Expressed fat is the worst kind of fast food. Empty calories
>>on steroids!
>>
>>>Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
>>>syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer
>>>source of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides, lowers
>>>LDL, rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings, etc,
>>>etc... all these things are in fact related.
>>
>>I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
>>pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All packaged
>>fat should be avoided by overfed, underexercised westerners.
>>Like most food processing (where practical) and all
>>refining.
>>
>
>But... so-called normal healthy nutrition may be leading some
>people into these overeating problems, if they have the
>metabolism for it. Isn't that possible?

No, eating too much and not doing regular exercise is what
causes weight gain. Eating a varied whoefood diet will not
"lead" you anywhere harmful. If you feel morbidly hungry on
a eucaloric diet, and excessively tired from doing little
exercise, get yourself medically checked out. You are
likely ill.

>>>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
>>>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I believe
>>>that people without syndrome are rarely fat.
>>
>
>This is an interesting idea and I have wondered about it
>myself. I certainly like to think that my own overeating was
>caused by something other than my conscious self...

Poltergeists? Could you not control yourself? What do you do
if you get sexual urges about your neighbours?

>but such a self-serving idea needs to be treated with
>suspicion. Still, it could be true, too. My feeling about it,
>comparing how I felt with how it seemed to me that other
>people felt (a difficult judgement, I know), is that I felt
>more hunger than other people, and that that hunger was
>caused by some sort of metabolic problem (I know not what).

Syndrome X comes to mind. Perhaps a glucose tolerance test
with an insulin assay might shed some light.

>Eventually, a known metabolic problem emerged and I was
>diagnosed as insulin resistant, then diabetic.

Aha. better late than never.

>At this stage, eating too many carbohydrates (as advised)

By whom? Change endocrinologists rapidly!

>didn't make solving the problem any easier as the cravings
>they caused (and can still cause) were (and are) stronger
>than my willpower.

I can understand this, but there are ways of making excess
foods unavailable to you other than at meal times.

> I am only able to eat less since I learned about cutting
> carbohydrates down.

Sounds perfectly reasonable for a type2 diabetic.

>Thereafter, willpower is hardly needed and I have been able
>to control my weight properly for the first time. The
>nutritional advice given to diabetics simply stinks.

See my comment about your endocrinologist above.

>My personal guess is that I don't lack willpower (people tell
>me I have lots), so I conclude that I must have been feeling
>more hungry.

Well no and yes :)

>>Not sure what the exact numbers are, but I read somewhere
>>that 90% of DM2 sufferers were obese. But there are a
>>considerable proportion of fatties that are neither syndrome
>>X nor DM2.
>>
>
>I would be interested in knowing those numbers. However, it
>has to be said that many are undiagnosed. The typical DM2
>isn't diagnosed until they've been losing beta cells for an
>estimated 6.5 years, and presumably they could have been
>insulin resistant (IR) for longer than that. The numbers, to
>be most helpful, would need to be based on a careful study of
>the undiagnosed overweight to determine whether or not they
>show any of the precursors of DM (high blood pressure, bad
>lipid levels, some insulin resistance, high insulin levels)
>and choices would have to be made about how to classify those
>that did show less than optimal readings. There is no sudden
>jump in these levels from a diagnosis of normal to IR to DM:
>it is a smooth continuum: a given person could be anywhere on
>the range.

Yes

>>> I believe that this could be your (and many other anti-LC
>>> advocates) case - you can perhaps maintain your weight
>>> without problems, so you tend not to believe that people
>>> affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry soon after eating
>>> carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.
>>
>
>Well, I definitely am. And yes, I concur; it may well be that
>some people are and some are not.

Many are when eating anything.

>>If you are ill, then you must tailor your lifestyle to fit
>>that illness. If you are overweight, then reduce caloric
>>intake, if you are underexercised, then exercise. If you
>>have a problem metabolising a food, then avoid or manage it.
>>But for normal healthy individuals, there is nothing better
>>then a varied, eucaloric, wholefood diet with regular
>>moderate exercise, like the wise ones have advocated for
>>decades if not centuries.
>>
>
>I won't disagree with that, even though I don't think that
>humans evolved eating grains (domestication of grains is a
>modern invention - only about 6,000 years old, isn't it?).

Yes, mabey 10,000, but humanoids have collected wild grass
seeds forever, if they are available where they are of course.
Then there are starches like tubers and sago

>But I think that the advice given to diabetics is the same as
>that given to normal people, and it is inappropriate.

Similar for type ones, but I don't believe that advice given
to type 2s is often the same. It is certainly not here.
(Australia)

Although exercise is the key to control for many.

>>>> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
>>>> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
>>>> world is deficient in.
>>>
>>>Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
>>>aren't we ?
>>
>>I'm talking about energy requirements of normal humans. I
>>agree we tend to get sidetracked on to the problems that
>>overfed underexercised westerners find themselves in.
>>
>
>
>>
>>>But when you are fat already, most likely due to metabolic
>>>syndrome,
>>
>>Well overeating really. That then causes the metabolic
>>syndrome, which is self-perpetuating.
>>
>
>This sequence is unproven and circumstantial. Just because
>people get diagnosed with the metabolic syndrome long after
>they have gained weight doesn't mean that there wasn't
>something wrong and undiagnosed at an earlier stage causing
>the overeating and weight gain in the first place. Sure, it
>*might* just be overeating, but that behaviour itself might
>be caused by some disorder that has yet to be discovered.

Yes, anything might be possible. Genetics is the basic "cause"
But if you exercise a lot and don't become fat, you won't
likely develop DM2. Ninety percent of DM2s are
overweight/obese

>I agree that the syndrome then becomes self-perpetuating
>though, as eating as advised by so many nutritional 'experts'
>causes more food cravings in such people (going by my
>personal experience and that of many others with diabetes).

I'm curious to know who is giving this erronious advice.

>>>controling high carb food is really the easiest (and
>>>possibly healthiest) way how to manage your weight.
>>
>>When you have that illnes/disability, for sure. Like DM2
>>should control with diet and exercsie. For normal healthy
>>folk, calories and exercise are the way to remain normal,
>>healthy weight
>>
>>>> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no
>>>> problems. It is only the fat westerners who do. Does this
>>>> not tell you something? Perhaps the fatties are looking
>>>> for a scapegoat?
>>>
>>>Also part of problem is that recently we were told
>>>that eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too
>>>much of them.
>>
>>Eating carbs IS healthy. Eating too much of anything is not.
>>Some humans can't seem to grasp the meaning of moderation.
>>
>>>Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway for
>>>people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet, it
>>>_could_ be a viable path to go.
>>
>>Damaged by high calorie. High carb can't damage you, unlesss
>>you a) don't get suffiecient other nutrients, or b) don't
>>take enough exercise.
>>
>
>Or c) are diabetic or prone to it, apparently.

Sorry, my discussion is restricted to normal healthy adults
unless I state otherwise, but of course, I agree with you. If
you have a carb metabolic abnormality, then carbs can damage
you. Just like gluten can damage coeliac, and walnuts can
damage allergy sufferers. This stands to reason, but as I
said, not what I was referring to.

[Moosh:)]

On 24 Mar 2004 21:01:45 -0800, mouldy_mouse@yahoo.com.au
(Mouldy Mouse) posted:

>Martin Thompson <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<x1M8ZHCj0cYAFw$t@tucana.demon.co.uk>...
>> >>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
>> >>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I
>> >>believe that people without syndrome are rarely fat.
>> >
>>
>> This is an interesting idea and I have wondered about it
>> myself. I certainly like to think that my own overeating
>> was caused by something other than my conscious self... but
>> such a self-serving idea needs to be treated with
>> suspicion. Still, it could be true, too. My feeling about
>> it, comparing how I felt with how it seemed to me that
>> other people felt (a difficult judgement, I know), is that
>> I felt more hunger than other people, and that that hunger
>> was caused by some sort of metabolic problem (I know not
>> what). Eventually, a known metabolic problem emerged and I
>> was diagnosed as insulin resistant, then diabetic. At this
>> stage, eating too many carbohydrates (as advised) didn't
>> make solving the problem any easier as the cravings they
>> caused (and can still cause) were (and are) stronger than
>> my willpower. I am only able to eat less since I learned
>> about cutting carbohydrates down. Thereafter, willpower
>
>There are slim people with abnormal carbohydrate responses -
>I'm one. Also read about one in a low-carb book. I don't know
>if I'm IR - haven't been tested, but I've always been almost
>constantly hungry.

Worms? :) My son and daughter-in-law are constantly hungry,
but they tend to eat moderately at a sitting. They are slim
and healthy and very active (almost to a fault :) Although
Emma just flew to London and emailed that she had a lovely
trip just eating and sleeping. I have a Thai sister in law who
is as skinny as a rake and eats and eats. When out at a
restaurant, she cleans up everyone's plate or orders seconds.
I suspect the sewage system she uses is well nourished :)

>It's probably only due to my crappy digestive system that I
>remain fairly scrawny. My GP wise-cracked that other people
>pay >$100/month to have what I've got ;)

Yes, but be careful I've seen people chanege mid life.

>When I'm only eating low-glycemic or low-carb (<150g carb)
>each day I don't have the same hunger patterns as I do when
>eating other carbohydrates.

Which ones? Sugar and refined starch? I wonder it you do have
an insulin abnormality.

>But if I suddenly withdraw a source of carbo that my body is
>expecting (eg. suddenly switching from sweetened oats for
>breakfast to meat+leafy-veg) I get shaky, have trouble doing
>things like walking up stairs, and experience nausea and
>other unpleasant symptoms.

I'll bet you blood sugar has dived. I'd want to know why and
would get that investigated.

[Moosh:)]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:16:35 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> No, many people eat three, four and five meals a day or
>> even more.
>
>Many people eat too much...

Not necessarily connected

>No wonder when they are not used to burning fat.

Who doesn't burn al the fat they eat each day? The overfed.

>> >Or you as obsessed with food and/or driven by insulin and
>> >blood sugar swings that you need to eat more that 3 meals
>> >a day ?
>>
>> No, I don't but many folk do, or so I've heard and read.
>
>Well, eating so many times is not typical for low-carb diet.

Really? Where is your information for this? A lot of DM2
sufferers eat many times per day (small meals)

>You are simply not hungry enough.

that has nothing to do with how you split your daily calories.
I believe many many syndrom X and DM2 suffereres eat more
often, and smaller portions.

>Usually, you have a lot of fat to burn :)

You eat a lot of fat?

>> They don't seem to realise that proteins and other things
>> stimulate secretion of insulin.
>
>Of course we do. But they do not rise blood sugar.

Neither does insulin.

But it IS insulin, and not blood sugar that stimulates
apetite, remember? Blood surar supresses hunger.

>Also, really experienced low-carbers watch protein
>intake too.

Please elaborate.

>Basic formula food composition formula (if one cares to
>count) is this: start with protein, usually at 1g/kg. Add
>your desired level of carbs (around 50g for me). Compute
>calories and fill rest with fat (monounsaturated preffered).

And what a boring unnecessary nonsense unless you are ill.

[Moosh:)]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:20:09 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous.
>> >Saturated maybe.
>But
>> >MUFAs has quite opposite effect.
>>
>> All fats are fine in a eucaloric wholefood diet. Eat too
>> much food, and some fats are worse for you than others.
>
>Actually, I agree with this.
>
>It seems to be a good idea to reduce saturated fat intake in
>LC maintenance mode (when your carbs go up - I expect to end
>at about 100g / day). OTOH, given wide variety of healthy fat
>and protein sources, this is hardly a problem...

The problem is overeating energy. Otherwise there is no need
for these extremes of diet for the normal, healthy.

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Nope. The most important high-fiber food excluded form
> >low-carb diet
is
> >whole-grain bread. It contains 7g of fiber / 100g. Allowed
> >vegetables contain average 3g / 100g. No problem to
> >substitute.
>
> You can substitute all manner of foods for each other, but
> without a valid reason, why not include a little of all of
> them that are available to you?

Yes, I did this for years. Was fine, only problem was that it
made me a little bit bloated :)

Mirek

[Moosh:)]

On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:54 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>Martin Thompson <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<ADSQ04Bb6qYAFwaN@tucana.demon.co.uk>...
>> 21:01:45 Wed, 24 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Mouldy Mouse at
>> Mouldy Mouse <mouldy_mouse@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>> >There are slim people with abnormal carbohydrate responses
>> >- I'm one. Also read about one in a low-carb book. I don't
>> >know if I'm IR - haven't been tested, but I've always been
>> >almost constantly hungry. It's probably only due to my
>> >crappy digestive system that I remain fairly scrawny. My
>> >GP wise-cracked that other people pay >$100/month to have
>> >what I've got ;)
>> >
>> >When I'm only eating low-glycemic or low-carb (<150g carb)
>> >each day I don't have the same hunger patterns as I do
>> >when eating other carbohydrates. But if I suddenly
>> >withdraw a source of carbo that my body is expecting (eg.
>> >suddenly switching from sweetened oats for breakfast to
>> >meat+leafy-veg) I get shaky, have trouble doing things
>> >like walking up stairs, and experience nausea and other
>> >unpleasant symptoms.
>> >
>>
>> The symptoms you describe are common in diabetics and the
>> insulin resistant. In them, it happens when their blood
>> glucose levels get too low. I suggest you ask your doctor
>> to give you a fasting oral glucose tolerance test, if this
>> hasn't been done already.
>
>You sound like a pharmaceutical salesman.

Still in denial of your syndrome X status?

[Moosh:)]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:09:47 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> carbohydrates. But if I suddenly withdraw a source of carbo
>> that my body is expecting (eg. suddenly switching from
>> sweetened oats for breakfast to meat+leafy-veg) I get
>> shaky, have trouble doing things like walking up stairs,
>> and experience nausea and other unpleasant symptoms.
>
>If it is not immediate, but comes after two or three days of
>low-carbing, then it is most likely "induction flu". Almost
>any low-carber initially experience something like that -
>explanation is that body is not used in exploiting ketogenic
>pathways. Two days later, fat burning kicks in and blood
>sugar is restored to normal (and suplemented by ketones).

You mean gluconeogenic pathways, surely. Fat is constantly
burned in most folk.

[Moosh:)]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:49:12 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> Nope, not unless you are syndrome X or diabetic and eat a
>> lot of just
>
>Everobody is insulin resistant, only level differs.

Well if you want to be pedantic, it is "everyone has a
different insulin sensitivity", but the line is drawn and
above this is regarded as abnormal, and below..... Like for
most continua.

>> >What is wrong with replacing high-calorie potatoes with
>> >cauliflower, like most LCers do?
>>
>> Why not eat some of both and lots of other things? You act
>> as though carbs are somehow poisonous.
>
>Of course that carbs in excess are poisonous.

Within your caloric allocation, and in a balanced diet, this
is incorrect.

>More you are insulin resistant, more they are poisonous to
>you.

But most folks aren't "insulin resistant".

>> >> So where do you get your daily energy requirements from?
>> >
>> >Veggies, meat, dairy and olive oil.
>>
>> I hope you consume only a little low fat dairy and almost
>> NO packaged fat (olive oil) then you could eat some fine
>> grain and tuber foods as well.
>
>Could be true.
>
>Let me make one thing true: I am not absolutely sure that my
>current LC plan is the best possibility. I am always willing
>to learn. Anyway, what I learned and experienced so far
>indicates that there is something in this WOE.

For a syndrome X sufferer.

> And then again, as it normalized my BMI in 4 months from 29
> to 24, I have only a little need to change anything right
> now. If it ain't broke, why fix it ?

Agreed, but this means a balanced varied wholefood diet is
best for you.

>> >food for me is good mix of fried veggies, some protein and
>> >fat. This keeps me full and active for 6+ hours.
>>
>> But when scientifically measured, and calorie for calorie,
>> not as much as potato.
>
>Well, have your potatoes. At least it is not refined sugar.

Well it has a higher GI than "sugar" But then I never eat it
on its own.

>> >Yes. But when you are aiming for 1g/kg of protein
>> >daily, you
>definitely
>> >do not need to get more protein from bread.
>>
>> Huh? One gram protein/kg/day is a little high, but an
>> average 70kg man
>
>Well, it is definitely not too much.

For some, but not for most. Have a look what
neprologists advocate.

>There is still a discussion, even in mainstream, about how
>much protein is minumum, how much optimal and how much
>dangerous. AFAIK current minimal mainstream recommendation is
>.8g/kg. Things ain't get wrong by 1g/kg....

See above

>> will be eating 70g protein or ~280 cal. The rest of your
>> energy needs?
>
>Fat.

Not very filling. So little of it... So many calories....

>> >Cauliflower is not the only LC vegetable:)
>>
>> Not the only vegetable. I might have this low fat pizza
>> sauce (lots of tomato) on a pile of cauliflower, carrot,
>> potato, broccoli, cabbage, beans, pumpkin and onion.
>> MMMMMMM!!!
>
>Enjoy :) I will make my LC version by replacing low-fat pizza
>sauce with real tomatoes, exlude potato and reduce beans and
>will add olive oil. Will be yummy too, you bet! :)

Probably great for a syndrome X sufferer. My pizza sauce
has lots of "real" tomato and low fat minced beef and
onions and spices.

>> So why eat the refined extracted oil?
>
>Virgin olive oil is definitely not "refined" :)

It certainly is. All the fibre and much micronutrients from
the flesh have been "refined" off it. Worst sort of refining.
Concentrating the calories just like refined white flour.

>> Throwing out the good stuff for the empty calories.
>
>Why not eat whole olive tree (with wood and leaves - a lot of
>fiber) then ? :)

Not nice to eat. Now the whole lettuce plant, or the whole
cauliflower plant...

>> >So again, calorie for calorie, it has 11 times more
>> >vitamin E and 8 times more vitamin K.
>>
>> See above. Vit K and E are not high in bread, but much
>> higher than olive oil (cal per cal) in many other foods.
>
>Like what?

Leafy greans. Look 'em up.

>> >I think that everybody can benefit from lower triglycerids
>> >and higher HDL - and that is something high-carb diet will
>> >not help you with.
>>
>> Only if you overeat, and the age-old advice is to eat a
>> balanced
>
>No. See research. High-carb diet always results in high(er)
>TGs. Even Ornish admits it.

Not on a eucaloric diet with moderate regular exercise.

>> Try doing moderate exercise eating this mixture you are
>> advocating above. Terrible. No carbs.
>
>:) I have already adapted to ketogenic pathways.

What exactly are these? Everyone burns fat every day. Ketones
are some of the product.

>After one month, you would not note the difference. Well, I
>might miss some carbs in high-intensity exercise, but then
>again, I bet you are eating much more carbs than you can
>possibly burn by high intensity exercise.

A eucaloric diet means that all food intake is burned each
day.

>Carbs are afterburner, body best runs on fat most of
>time anyway.

Nonsense! Body runs fine on a balanced varied diet of
wholefoods.

> For moderate exercise I am practising, I have no need to
> break my fat burning metabolism by high-carb intake.

What is this "breaking" nonsense? You burn fat constantly, so
long as you eat a balanced eucaloric diet of wholefoods.

[Mirek Fidl]

> >It seems to be a good idea to reduce saturated fat intake
> >in LC maintenance mode (when your carbs go up - I expect to
> >end at about
100g
> >/ day). OTOH, given wide variety of healthy fat and protein
> >sources, this is hardly a problem...
>
> The problem is overeating energy. Otherwise there is no need
> for these extremes of diet for the normal, healthy.

I think you are wrong about it. Even if you burn all energy,
your health still depends on what you eat.

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Of course that carbs in excess are poisonous.
>
> Within your caloric allocation, and in a balanced diet, this
> is incorrect.

Even within your caloric allcation, if they cause glucose
spikes, they are dangerous. Bigger spikes, bigger danger.

> >More you are insulin resistant, more they are poisonous
> >to you.
>
> But most folks aren't "insulin resistant".

That is why most folks do not die after ingesting carbs. But
damage acumulates.

> > And then again, as it normalized my BMI in 4 months from
> > 29 to 24, I have only a little need to change anything
right
> >now. If it ain't broke, why fix it ?
>
> Agreed, but this means a balanced varied wholefood diet is
> best for you.

?

> >> >Yes. But when you are aiming for 1g/kg of protein
> >> >daily, you
> >definitely
> >> >do not need to get more protein from bread.
> >>
> >> Huh? One gram protein/kg/day is a little high, but an
> >> average 70kg
man
> >
> >Well, it is definitely not too much.
>
> For some, but not for most. Have a look what neprologists
> advocate.

Well, I thought you advocate diet for normal people, that
means with healthy kidneys...

> >There is still a discussion, even in mainstream, about how
> >much protein is minumum, how much optimal
and
> >how much dangerous. AFAIK current minimal mainstream
> >recommendation
is
> >.8g/kg. Things ain't get wrong by 1g/kg....
>
> See above
>
> >> will be eating 70g protein or ~280 cal. The rest of your
> >> energy
needs?
> >
> >Fat.
>
> Not very filling. So little of it... So many calories....

OMG. First you have a problem where my energy comes from, now
it has too many calories....

FIY, I mix fat with veggies - and that makes them VERY
filling.

> >Enjoy :) I will make my LC version by replacing low-fat
> >pizza sauce
with
> >real tomatoes, exlude potato and reduce beans and will add
> >olive oil. Will be yummy too, you bet! :)
>
> Probably great for a syndrome X sufferer. My pizza sauce
> has lots of "real" tomato and low fat minced beef and
> onions and spices.

A good idea :)

> >No. See research. High-carb diet always results in high(er)
> >TGs. Even Ornish admits it.
>
> Not on a eucaloric diet with moderate regular exercise.

If you insist...

> >:) I have already adapted to ketogenic pathways.
>
> What exactly are these?

Mostly adaptation of brain and other organs to burn
ketones for fuel.

> > For moderate exercise I am practising, I have no need to
> > break my fat burning metabolism by high-carb intake.
>
> What is this "breaking" nonsense? You burn fat constantly,
> so long as you eat a balanced eucaloric diet of wholefoods.

Have you ever tried to go from high-carb diet to
low-carb and back?

There is around 2 days adaptation when you do not feel
very well.

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> Really? Where is your information for this? A lot of DM2
> sufferers eat many times per day (small meals)

Not those that are controlling disease with LC.

> >You are simply not hungry enough.
>
> that has nothing to do with how you split your daily
> calories. I believe many many syndrom X and DM2 suffereres
> eat more often, and smaller portions.

If on low-fat "balanced" diet, it is now wonder.

> >Of course we do. But they do not rise blood sugar.
>
> Neither does insulin.

Agree. But carbs do.

> But it IS insulin, and not blood sugar that stimulates
> apetite, remember? Blood surar supresses hunger.

Protein supresses hunger too. Low blood sugar increases
hunger.

> >Basic formula food composition formula (if one cares to
> >count) is this:
start
> >with protein, usually at 1g/kg. Add your desired level
> >of carbs
(around
> >50g for me). Compute calories and fill rest with fat
> >(monounsaturated preffered).
>
> And what a boring unnecessary nonsense unless you are ill.

OK, so what you are basically suggesting is eat what you want
and do not care. Well, do what you want. It is your body.
Enjoy your healthy australian big macs, fill with healthy
australian french fries, drink corn syrup sweetened soda, have
some mikly shakes and apple pies. If you will be able to
survive your healthy balanced diet in good health, good for
you - you are just lucky man with great genotype.

Mirek

[Moosh:)]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:11:04 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> Well I'm talking about normal healthy adult humans,
>> aren't you?
>
>Just a question: You never ever in your life experienced
>reactive hypo?

I've never experienced child birth. I know a little about
it, however.

[Moosh:)]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:11:49 +0000, Martin Thompson
<bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:

>22:42:42 Fri, 26 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:22:56 +0000, Martin Thompson
>><bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:
>>
>>>15:29:59 Tue, 23 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Tanya Quinn at
>>> Tanya Quinn <tdquinn@rogers.com> writes:
>>>>tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>>>>news:<b550f406.04 03191849.6257a028@posting.google.com>...
>>>>> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
>>>>> news:<i21m50hgfk0bd vba26am3l7kudtki121jl@4ax.com>...
>>>>> > On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>>>>> > (tcomeau) posted:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I
>>>>> > >challenge any anti-atkins people to explain what is
>>>>> > >wrong and so dangerous about this.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side
>>>>> > > of veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
>>>>> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom
>>>>> > > and veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer
>>>>> > > salad and vinaigrette dressing you want
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
>>>>> > >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious
>>>>> > wholefoods such as grains and vegetables.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
>>>>> example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc.
>>>>> My question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity):
>>>>> Is this a dangerous way of eating?
>>>>>
>>>>> TC
>>>>
>>>>That depends - is the meat lean? Grain, sugar and
>>>>starch are useful to the body for fuel and you aren't
>>>>eating them.
>>>
>>>The body is perfectly capable of converting protein and fat
>>>into glucose for use as fuel, and it does so routinely
>>>(about 60% of protein and 30% of fat gets so converted).
>>
>>Nope, only 10% of fats CAN be converted to glucose. The
>>glyceryl moiety. These conversions to glucose is what I
>>referred to previously as "gluconeogenesis".
>>
>
>Well, this is the information I have:
>
>Quick acting Carbs 100% of calories to Blood Glucose in 15-35
>minutes (Table Sugar, Bread & Potatoes) Slow Acting Carbs
>90-100% of calories to Blood Glucose in 30-95 minutes (Durum
>Wheat Pasta, Beans & most Fruit) Protein 60% conversion of
>calories to Blood Glucose in 180-240 minutes Fat 10-30%
>conversion of calories to Blood Glucose in 480+ minutes

Quite wide ranges I see. Overlaping in some cases. Depends
also on what is eaten with it. And what is being done
(exercise) at that time. Funny that one of the quickest carbs
is also the most satiating foods.

>I forget where I got that information from, though, at
>the moment.

I'm curious.

>>>Why then is there a need for fuel from grains, sugar
>>>and starch
>>
>>You feel much better?
>>
>
>Not I... a non-diabetic might (although I don't think I did
>even before I had the disease).

Well I'm talking about non-diabetics. I'm talking about normal
healthy adults in general. General nutritional principles. I
know I keep getting sidetracked into abnormal areas.

>>>(and where did pre-agricultural cavemen get such items from
>>>all year round)?
>>
>>Whereabouts?
>>
>
>Not really.

I meant in what geographic area? Iceland? Or a tropical island
with abundant coconuts and sago palms?

>A Palaeolithic diet may have been something like this:

It might have been just about like anything you could imagine.
I gave an example of something we are much surer of. The
extant Australian Aboriginal. Then there are NewGuinea natives
only recently exposed to Westerners.

>http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/ especially:
>http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html
>
><quote> For millions of years, humans and their relatives
>have eaten meat, fish, fowl and the leaves, roots and fruits
>of many plants.

Yes, but in vastly different proportions in different
geographical areas.

>One big obstacle to getting more calories from the
>environment is the fact that many plants are inedible.

But many are fine foods. We have many books on "bush tucker"
as we describe it here. A famous army major was commissioned
by the army to map and document all the bush foods here for
the use of soldiers needing to survive. Most fruits are edible
and nutritious.

>Grains, beans and potatoes are full of energy but all are
>inedible in the raw state as they contain many toxins.

Only some. There are cycad and pine seeds that are toxic but
Aborigines have devised ways of making them edible. Many toxic
foods have had ways found to detoxify them.

>There is no doubt about that- please don’t try to eat them
>raw, they can make you very sick. </quote>
>
>and the details: <quote> The essentials of the Paleolithic
>Diet are:
>
>Eat none of the following: · Grains- including bread,
>pasta, noodles

Rubbish where do you think the idea of domesticating these
wild grasses came from? There are millions of depressions in
rocks in Australia where many thousands of years of humans
have ground their grains.

>· Beans- including string beans, kidney beans, lentils,
>peanuts, snow-peas and peas · Potatoes

Huh? Potatoes where they grow, other root storage organs where
they grew.

>· Dairy products

Many primitive tribes drink animals milk.

>· Sugar

Palm sugar and honey and flower nectar have been known
forever, and fruits of course.

>· Salt

Ocean water? Salt lakes?

>Eat the following: · Meat, chicken and fish · Eggs · Fruit
>· Vegetables (especially root vegetables, but definitely not
>including potatoes or sweet potatoes)

Yams? Taro, sago?

>· Nuts, eg. walnuts, brazil nuts, macadamia, almond. Do not
>eat peanuts (a bean) or cashews (a family of their own)

Some legumes can be eaten and others can be detoxified by
soaking in water. Theres a huge Australian bean tree here.

>· Berries- strawberries, blueberries, raspberries etc.
>
> Try to increase your intake of: · Root vegetables- carrots,
> turnips, parsnips, rutabagas, Swedes · Organ meats- liver
> and kidneys (I accept that many people find these
> unpalatable and won’t eat them) </quote>

Not if you are starving. Some of our Aboriginals ate clay.

>>>> If you are restricting your carbs you are either eating
>>>> the same amount of protein and fat and thus less calories
>>>> overall,
>>>
>>>This tends to be what such a diet leads to: studies have
>>>shown that on such a diet people voluntarily eat less even
>>>when allowed to eat as much as they like: they actually
>>>want to eat less, and do so. Hence, they lose weight.
>>
>>Same goes for many people eating a wide variey of
>>wholefoods. There are many tricks to eating eucalorically.
>>The main thing is to eat a balanced diet.
>>
>
>The trouble is, the definition of "balanced" may be
>incorrect.

The definition of "balanced" is "supplying all nutritional
needs", well at least that's what the majority of educated
English speaks use it as (dictionary)

>One could come up with any combination of foods and call it
>"balanced" and it seems that this may be what has happened
>(OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get my drift, I hope).

Not sure. Yes, many combinations of foods can give you all
your nutritional requirements. Best however to eat some of
everything available.

>A better, more neutral term, might be borrowed from physics,
>"the standard model".

Standard for whom? There are almost infinite "standard
models diets".

>The idea of lots of carbs was first introduced, I understand,
>during the second world war, to assist governments in
>rationing food supplies. It was not based on specific
>research. However, it seems to have stuck, even though the
>evidence is that it is harming large numbers of people, such
>as myself.

Hang about, there are billions of people in the world who
thrive on this diet and have done for thousands of years.
(South-east/East/South Asia)

>>>> or maintaining the same number of calories while
>>>> increasing the amount of protein and fat that you get.
>>>> Too much protein can lead to kidney problems, and too
>>>> much fat (especially animal fat) is not good for the
>>>> heart.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have seen no evidence at all that too much protein can
>>>lead to kidney problems. The studies I have seen have shown
>>>that too much protein is harmful if the kidneys are
>>>*already* damaged, however, but that is not the same thing
>>>(and anecdotal evidence suggests that controlling blood
>>>glucose levels is a more important factor anyway, in
>>>diabetics that is).
>>
>>Yes, in diabetics. But have a look at the nephrologists
>>websites for advice on what protein intake should be.
>>
>
>I haven't looked, but I assume about 0.8g/kg body
>weight per day.

IIRC.

>>>It is worth noting, though, that such a diet typically
>>>reduces carbs and doesn't increase protein and fat much
>>>(i.e., doesn't fully counter-compensate), so the diet
>>>doesn't amount to a high protein diet anyway. The net
>>>result is a reduction in calories consumed.
>>
>>So you are assuming a hypercaloric diet in the first place?
>>Why not start from a eucaloric diet?
>>
>
>Yes; that is normal in the West (60% of US citizens being
>clinically obese).

Of course, and our conversations always tend to gravitate
towards this abnormal example. Just because the majority of
internet connected folk are fat.....

>But of course we are talking at slightly cross-purposes
>because you are concentrating on people with normal
>metabolisms and optimal bodies, whereas I am more concerned
>with the large numbers of people for whom such advice fails
>(and it *is* given to them nevertheless).

I agree with your aims, but yes, I'm trying to discuss basic
principles of nutrition.

>>>It could in some cases become a high fat diet, though, and
>>>as you say, too much fat (strictly, saturated fat and
>>>trans-fat) is known to be harmful for the heart. However,
>>>blood lipid levels actually correlate to the quantity of
>>>carbohydrates eaten and not to the amount of fat eaten
>>>(within reason). Why? Because insulin converts surplus
>>>blood glucose into fat.
>>
>>The same as the stuff you eat? What's the difference?
>
>AIUI, the difference is that the carbs get converted in the
>bloodstream and the resulting lipids get deposited in the
>arteries, etc. Fat that is eaten is broken down by the liver
>and stored more appropriately.

Not in my experience. It floats around in the blood stream for
a considerable time. Eat a fatty meal and then get a sample of
blood taken an hour or two later. That fatty layer is.....

>I would like to see some clarification on this point,
>though. That is what I understand happens, but I may not be
>totally correct.

It seems to me that the evil bit of diet is excess. Excess
energy is stored. Fatness leads to disease.

>>But of course, this does not happen on a eucaloric diet.
>>NOTHING gets converted to fat (Nett)
>>
>
>I agree. It would all cancel out... or would it?

Yes, in the longrun. Fat stores are very labile, so there is
constant laying down and taking up, but after a month on a
eucaloric diet, there will be NO MORE fat stored than in the
beginning.

>Hmm... certainly the calories burned would be matched with
>your eating, by definition, but *which* calories you burn
>could make a difference to your overall health.

Within reasonable and fairly wide boundaries, and so long
as your diet is balanced. A normal healthy human will
have no problems. Of course regular moderate exercise is
always a given.

>If you were burning too many protein calories from your
>muscles, for example, that would not be healthy.

You would only do this if your diet were grossly unbalanced.

>Similarly, if you were not burning enough fat calories.

You would burn all of them, surely. Too much fat being burned
can be a risk of acidosis, but this will be no problem for a
healthy individual eating a reasonable and balanced diet.

>>>>How about a better plan than cutting out carbs - cutting
>>>>out refined sugar carbs only, and eating whole grain
>>>>products and (gasp!) potatoes as part of a balanced diet
>>>>also containing proteins and fat.
>>>
>>>Great if you aren't diabetic or suffering from syndrome X,
>>>or prone to either. No good if you are.
>>
>>Well I'm talking about normal healthy sdult humans,
>>aren't you?
>>
>
>Not really. :-) As I mentioned above, I believe that a lot of
>people who are thought to be "normal" are greatly challenged
>by the standard model diet.

Only if that diet is not adhered to wrt being eucaloric, which
every advice I've ever seen does. Dietary advice I've seen
from health authorities is fine when adhered to. Trouble is
many folk think that if a teaspoon is good for you, a
bucketful will work miracles.

>>>And in fact, I can do a workout without carbs, but if I am
>>>feeling tired it can be more difficult. I have read one
>>>study though that showed that some people actually have
>>>more success avoiding the carbs in a workout (I think it
>>>was stamina people, IIRC).
>>
>>Normal folks perform much better on a diet of around 40 to
>>60% calories from carbs.
>>
>
>I wonder if they do, really.

Well that's what the vast majority of humans since time
immemorial have thrived on.

>Presumably there must be evidence for this,

History.

>mustn't there? We know that many people *can* handle such a
>diet, but what is the proof that it is optimal?

Dietary needs of humans are quite flexible. Billions of people
thriving for thousands of years on this diet being advised now
is surely evidence that it is fine.

[Moosh:)]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:43:54 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >Nope. The most important high-fiber food excluded form
>> >low-carb diet
>is
>> >whole-grain bread. It contains 7g of fiber / 100g. Allowed
>> >vegetables contain average 3g / 100g. No problem to
>> >substitute.
>>
>> You can substitute all manner of foods for each other, but
>> without a valid reason, why not include a little of all of
>> them that are available to you?
>
>Yes, I did this for years. Was fine, only problem was that it
>made me a little bit bloated :)

And you didn't think to eat more slowly and stop before you
felt bloated?

[Moosh:)]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:43:07 +0000, Martin Thompson
<bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:

>22:31:14 Fri, 26 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:02:11 +0000, Martin Thompson
>><bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:
>>
>>>11:24:54 Mon, 22 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
>>> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>>>>On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:02:34 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
>>>><cxl@volny.cz> posted:
>>>>
>>>>>> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same
>>>>>> >energy level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x
>>>>>> >more fiber, 2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium,
>>>>>> >1500x more vitamin C, 7x more B6, etc...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
>>>>>> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule?
>>>>>> What is your point?
>>>>>
>>>>>My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight,
>>>>>and I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
>>>>
>>>>Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
>>>>(<2000cal?)
>>>>
>>>>For satiety, potatoes are the go. See: http://www.diabete-
>>>>snet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmm... the complete opposite of what I find in myself. But
>>>then, I am a diabetic. If I eat such foods as bread, rice,
>>>potatoes and so on, my glucose levels go too high, then
>>>they come plummeting down too fast and I feel hungry again.
>>>The chart is not to be advised for people like me. And as
>>>was pointed out, maybe fat have a metabolic problem with
>>>these foods, like I do (my weight is normal, now, though,
>>>but I am still diabetic).
>>
>>Type one or two? Of course this doesn't apply to you
>>personally. You are ill.
>>
>
>Type 2.

Thanks

>>>Such a study is an interesting thing, but I hope that
>>>nutritionists don't go advising all people how to eat based
>>>on that and not on their individual metabolic needs (which
>>>is how dieticians around here advise people - i.e., with no
>>>reference to individual circumstances).
>>
>>You mean that dietitions around your way don't take a
>>patient's diabetes into account? Hooley Dooley!
>>
>
>It seems to be normal, both in the UK and the USA at least,
>going by the comments and criticisms I see in
>alt.support.diabetes and alt.support.diabetes.uk, and indeed
>on various official web sites purporting to advise diabetics.
>For example:
>
>http://www.diabetes-healthnet.ac.uk/leaflets/eating.htm
>
>The advice looks sensible until you study it a little more
>closely. Then it says:
>
><quote> Fill up on fibre and starchy (carbohydrate) foods
>
>Starchy foods include whole grain breakfast cereals,
>potatoes, rice, pasta, chapattis and whole grain bread.
>Make these foods the main part of every meal Add lentils,
>beans, split peas or broth mix to home-made soups and
>stews. </quote>
>
>"Make these foods the main part of every meal" indeed! And
>
><quote> Eat plenty of fruit and vegetables
>
>Aim to eat 2-3 servings of fruit each day Buy fresh fruit
>or fruit tinned in natural juice All fruit is good for you
>including bananas and small quantities of grapes or dried
>fruit Try to eat at least 2-3 servings of vegetables
>and/or salad every day Use fresh, frozen or tinned
>vegetables </quote>
>
>Almost any diet and exercise controlled diabetic trying to
>control their blood glucose by eating like this would fail.
>Then, they would end up on insulin, which would swiftly be
>converting many of these carbohydrates into fat... making the
>situation worse, unless they exercised an awful lot.

I'm staggered. I agree with you. I see what you mean. I wonder
if anyone has contacted them and asked by wht authority they
give such bad advice.

>The above site is completely typical. I have seen many such
>sites. Another example:
>
>http://www.diabetes.org.uk/eatwell/food_diabetes/index.html
>
>This is the official site of the British Diabetic
>Association. It says,
>
><quote> The diet for people with diabetes is a balanced
>healthy diet, the same kind that is recommended for the rest
>of the population — low in fat, sugar and salt, with plenty
>of fruit and vegetables and meals based on starchy foods,
>such as bread, potatoes, cereals, pasta and rice. This
>section highlighted the issues you should consider when
>planning your meals. </quote>
>
>And so on.
>
>Certainly there are a small number of individuals who do give
>sensible advice - my first ever dietician many years ago told
>me to restrict my carbs to 20g per meal. But ever since then,
>I've been told to make around 60% of my diet carbs.

And they know you are type 2? That is fine advice for a type
one doing much exercise. If that's the case, I would go with a
good endocrinologist who is involved in research.

>Official National Health Service leaflets tell me the same
>(and tell me, for instance, that if I eat out, I should order
>extra portions of rice or pasta with my meals). Of course I
>ignore the lot. The stupidity of other people is something I
>have to resist if I want to keep my health. However, it is no
>wonder that other diabetics have real problems controlling
>their glucose levels: most people trust their medics
>implicitly.

That is staggering. Extra rice and pasta for a type 2? I
wonder what the rationale is. Or perhaps just pig ignorance.

>>>>>Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
>>>>>syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer
>>>>>source of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides,
>>>>>lowers LDL, rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings,
>>>>>etc, etc... all these things are in fact related.
>>>>
>>>>I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
>>>>pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All packaged
>>>>fat should be avoided by overfed, underexercised
>>>>westerners. Like most food processing (where practical)
>>>>and all refining.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But... so-called normal healthy nutrition may be leading
>>>some people into these overeating problems, if they have
>>>the metabolism for it. Isn't that possible?
>>
>>No, eating too much and not doing regular exercise is what
>>causes weight gain. Eating a varied whoefood diet will not
>>"lead" you anywhere harmful. If you feel morbidly hungry on
>>a eucaloric diet, and excessively tired from doing little
>>exercise, get yourself medically checked out. You are
>>likely ill.
>>
>
>Quite so. I think, though, that the very earliest stages of
>diabetes are undetectable at present. People are blamed for
>overeating when, in many cases, there is a metabolic problem
>that is undiagnosed (and unknown, I strongly suspect).

The weight increase must still be from overeating. There is
NO other way. Metabolic syndrome is easily detected if there
is a will.

>>>>>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
>>>>>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I
>>>>>believe that people without syndrome are rarely fat.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is an interesting idea and I have wondered about it
>>>myself. I certainly like to think that my own overeating
>>>was caused by something other than my conscious self...
>>
>>Poltergeists? Could you not control yourself? What do you do
>>if you get sexual urges about your neighbours?
>>
>
>My neighbours? LOL. ;-)

OK, but you get my point, I hope. Not all urges have to be
satisfied. Of course giving up smoking and the like is easier
in some respects as you can quit completely. You can't quit
food completely.

>>>but such a self-serving idea needs to be treated with
>>>suspicion. Still, it could be true, too. My feeling about
>>>it, comparing how I felt with how it seemed to me that
>>>other people felt (a difficult judgement, I know), is
>>>that I felt more hunger than other people, and that that
>>>hunger was caused by some sort of metabolic problem (I
>>>know not what).
>>
>>Syndrome X comes to mind. Perhaps a glucose tolerance test
>>with an insulin assay might shed some light.
>>
>
>That is right. However, I was not diagnosed as having
>anything wrong,
>i.e., insulin resistant in my case, until a good 10 years
> after something did in fact feel wrong: I was gaining
> weight, losing energy, getting a bit depressed, losing
> motivation, getting migraines... could be it was *just*
> overeating and lack of exercise, but that isn't definite.

When you start spilling glucose in your urine, you tend to
lose weight.

>>>Eventually, a known metabolic problem emerged and I was
>>>diagnosed as insulin resistant, then diabetic.
>>
>>Aha. better late than never.
>>
>>>At this stage, eating too many carbohydrates (as advised)
>>
>>By whom? Change endocrinologists rapidly!
>>
>
>By just about everybody. It is the official advice in Britain
>and the USA.

I'm gobsmacked. We have here diabetes clinics in major
teaching hospitals. They are often headed by world-renowned
diabetologists (endocrinologists). Maybe we are just very
lucky in Australia.

>>>didn't make solving the problem any easier as the cravings
>>>they caused (and can still cause) were (and are) stronger
>>>than my willpower.
>>
>>I can understand this, but there are ways of making excess
>>foods unavailable to you other than at meal times.
>>
>
>Eventually I found that if I didn't eat when I felt hungry, I
>would get a migraine within about 30 minutes to an hour. I
>decided that eating and putting on some weight, while not
>ideal, was a lot better than frequent migraines. I noticed
>that constipation and diarrhoea often preceded the migraines
>as well. The doctor thought it could be irritable bowel
>syndrome (translation: didn't know).
>
>Eventually, a few years after diagnosis as insulin resistant,
>I found out that it was being caused by rapid swings up and
>down in my blood glucose levels. Nobody in the medical
>profession told me to watch out for that or discovered it, or
>gave me any useful information to help me try and figure it
>out or stop it. I was told that digestive upsets have no
>connection with migraines. That was wrong as I found some
>foods that caused the upset (potatoes in particular) causing
>my digestive system to seize up, causing my blood glucose
>levels to drop, causing (some of) the migraines.
>
>Frankly, I know more about my condition than they do,
>clearly. I've had it with them. After years of bad advice
>from numerous sources, I think I know where I stand.

Fair enough. I wonder however if your "migraines" were not
"hypoglycemia". (Hypos)

>>> I am only able to eat less since I learned about cutting
>>> carbohydrates down.
>>
>>Sounds perfectly reasonable for a type2 diabetic.
>>
>>>Thereafter, willpower is hardly needed and I have been able
>>>to control my weight properly for the first time. The
>>>nutritional advice given to diabetics simply stinks.
>>
>>See my comment about your endocrinologist above.
>>
>
>I haven't been assigned to one. :-) Anyway, I think I'm
>better off steering well clear of the medical profession as
>much as I can.

I understand that, but can you not sus out a good diabetes
endo in a large teaching hospital? Maybe our medical system is
very different to yours. What you describe in USA and UK seem
worse than third world from my perspective.

>>>My personal guess is that I don't lack willpower (people
>>>tell me I have lots), so I conclude that I must have been
>>>feeling more hungry.
>>
>>Well no and yes :)
>>
>
>I see these options:
>
>a) lack of willpower;

Or too much urge to resist?

>b) extra hunger;

Yep, same thing.

>c) both of the above;

Yep

>d) none of the above.

Certainly in some form.

>>>>Not sure what the exact numbers are, but I read somewhere
>>>>that 90% of DM2 sufferers were obese. But there are a
>>>>considerable proportion of fatties that are neither
>>>>syndrome X nor DM2.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I would be interested in knowing those numbers. However, it
>>>has to be said that many are undiagnosed. The typical DM2
>>>isn't diagnosed until they've been losing beta cells for an
>>>estimated 6.5 years, and presumably they could have been
>>>insulin resistant (IR) for longer than that. The numbers,
>>>to be most helpful, would need to be based on a careful
>>>study of the undiagnosed overweight to determine whether or
>>>not they show any of the precursors of DM (high blood
>>>pressure, bad lipid levels, some insulin resistance, high
>>>insulin levels) and choices would have to be made about how
>>>to classify those that did show less than optimal readings.
>>>There is no sudden jump in these levels from a diagnosis of
>>>normal to IR to DM: it is a smooth continuum: a given
>>>person could be anywhere on the range.
>>
>>Yes
>>
>>>>> I believe that this could be your (and many other
>>>>> anti-LC advocates) case - you can perhaps maintain your
>>>>> weight without problems, so you tend not to believe that
>>>>> people affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry soon
>>>>> after eating carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I definitely am. And yes, I concur; it may well be
>>>that some people are and some are not.
>>
>>Many are when eating anything.
>>
>>>>If you are ill, then you must tailor your lifestyle to fit
>>>>that illness. If you are overweight, then reduce caloric
>>>>intake, if you are underexercised, then exercise. If you
>>>>have a problem metabolising a food, then avoid or manage
>>>>it. But for normal healthy individuals, there is nothing
>>>>better then a varied, eucaloric, wholefood diet with
>>>>regular moderate exercise, like the wise ones have
>>>>advocated for decades if not centuries.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I won't disagree with that, even though I don't think that
>>>humans evolved eating grains (domestication of grains is a
>>>modern invention - only about 6,000 years old, isn't it?).
>>
>>Yes, mabey 10,000, but humanoids have collected wild grass
>>seeds forever, if they are available where they are of
>>course. Then there are starches like tubers and sago
>>
>
>OK. I think it would have been pretty hard for them to make
>60% of their diet comprise carbs though, especially as much
>of their food would have been seasonal. 10% - 20% maybe, but
>that's just hand-waving. Hard to tell.

Yes. Of course, it might likely have been 60% of their calorie
intake, which was just above starvation level. They got a lot
of execise. Our hunter-gatherer "stone age" aboriginals
collect a lot of plant seeds, plant nectar, yams, honey,
fruits etc. Occasionally they hunt and kill an animal. They do
a hell of a lot of walking.

>>>But I think that the advice given to diabetics is the same
>>>as that given to normal people, and it is inappropriate.
>>
>>Similar for type ones, but I don't believe that advice given
>>to type 2s is often the same. It is certainly not here.
>>(Australia)
>>
>>Although exercise is the key to control for many.
>>
>>>>>> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
>>>>>> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
>>>>>> world is deficient in.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
>>>>>aren't we ?
>>>>
>>>>I'm talking about energy requirements of normal humans. I
>>>>agree we tend to get sidetracked on to the problems that
>>>>overfed underexercised westerners find themselves in.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But when you are fat already, most likely due to
>>>>>metabolic syndrome,
>>>>
>>>>Well overeating really. That then causes the metabolic
>>>>syndrome, which is self-perpetuating.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This sequence is unproven and circumstantial. Just because
>>>people get diagnosed with the metabolic syndrome long after
>>>they have gained weight doesn't mean that there wasn't
>>>something wrong and undiagnosed at an earlier stage causing
>>>the overeating and weight gain in the first place. Sure, it
>>>*might* just be overeating, but that behaviour itself might
>>>be caused by some disorder that has yet to be discovered.
>>
>>Yes, anything might be possible. Genetics is the basic
>>"cause" But if you exercise a lot and don't become fat, you
>>won't likely develop DM2. Ninety percent of DM2s are
>>overweight/obese
>>
>>>I agree that the syndrome then becomes self-perpetuating
>>>though, as eating as advised by so many nutritional
>>>'experts' causes more food cravings in such people (going
>>>by my personal experience and that of many others with
>>>diabetes).
>>
>>I'm curious to know who is giving this erronious advice.
>>
>
>See above. :-(

Thanks, I'm still smacking my gob :)

>>>>>controling high carb food is really the easiest (and
>>>>>possibly healthiest) way how to manage your weight.
>>>>
>>>>When you have that illnes/disability, for sure. Like DM2
>>>>should control with diet and exercsie. For normal healthy
>>>>folk, calories and exercise are the way to remain normal,
>>>>healthy weight
>>>>
>>>>>> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no
>>>>>> problems. It is only the fat westerners who do. Does
>>>>>> this not tell you something? Perhaps the fatties are
>>>>>> looking for a scapegoat?
>>>>>
>>>>>Also part of problem is that recently we were told that
>>>>>eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too much of
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>Eating carbs IS healthy. Eating too much of anything is
>>>>not. Some humans can't seem to grasp the meaning of
>>>>moderation.
>>>>
>>>>>Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway for
>>>>>people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet, it
>>>>>_could_ be a viable path to go.
>>>>
>>>>Damaged by high calorie. High carb can't damage you,
>>>>unlesss you a) don't get suffiecient other nutrients, or
>>>>b) don't take enough exercise.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Or c) are diabetic or prone to it, apparently.
>>
>>Sorry, my discussion is restricted to normal healthy adults
>>unless I state otherwise, but of course, I agree with you.
>>If you have a carb metabolic abnormality, then carbs can
>>damage you. Just like gluten can damage coeliac, and walnuts
>>can damage allergy sufferers. This stands to reason, but as
>>I said, not what I was referring to.
>
>Yep, normal healthy adults can cope with such a diet, even
>though I have my reservations about it, given that I
>personally doubt that humans evolved eating such a diet.
>Trouble is, many normal healthy adults are damaged by such a
>diet, and turn out not to be normal or healthy at all.

What damages these folk is eating too much. They evolved
struggling to get a bare minimum for survival. And did lots of
exercise. Our modern aboriginals are overweight, diseased (
kidney and DM2) and have a very short lifespan. They eat too
much "white man's tucker"

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Well, this is the information I have:
> >
> >Quick acting Carbs 100% of calories to Blood Glucose in
> >15-35 minutes (Table Sugar, Bread & Potatoes) Slow Acting
> >Carbs 90-100% of calories to Blood Glucose in 30-95
minutes
> >(Durum Wheat Pasta, Beans & most Fruit) Protein 60%
> >conversion of calories to Blood Glucose in 180-240
minutes
> >Fat 10-30% conversion of calories to Blood Glucose in 480+
> >minutes
>
> Funny that one of the quickest carbs is also the most
> satiating foods.

Not funny at all. That is why they are "satiating". Question
still is for how long...

> >>>(and where did pre-agricultural cavemen get such items
> >>>from all year round)?
> >>
> >>Whereabouts?
> >>
> >
> >Not really.
>
> I meant in what geographic area? Iceland?

You perhaps might not noticed yet, but Iceland wheather is
quite similiar to wheather humans had to survive for quite a
long time.

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Yes, I did this for years. Was fine, only problem was that
> >it made me
a
> >little bit bloated :)
>
> And you didn't think to eat more slowly and stop before you
> felt bloated?

Hm, what to say on this? Sure it is a problem of self-control.
OTOH, I WAS hungry.

FYI, I was not obese when I decided to get things under
control, just one little step from it. As I tried low-fat
and/or low-calorie diet before and was not able keep eating
this way, I just decided to try something different. It was
also a kind of experiment - after reading all of that pro- and
anti- LC articles I wanted to know whether LC really works and
to examine why. What I already know that in short term it DOES
work very well:) As for why I have several theories, but I am
sure you are NOT interested in them :)

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> The weight increase must still be from overeating.

I think you are right in the end.

OTOH, it is vicious cycle - eat carbs, overshoot insulin,
store them as fat, get hypo, get hungry, eat carbs....

Problem is that it works in many people far before they can
be classified as insulin-resistant. Unless your BG is
absolutely stable, there are swings. And this cycle makes
them worse and worse....

> >OK. I think it would have been pretty hard for them to
> >make 60% of
their
> >diet comprise carbs though, especially as much of their
> >food would
have
> >been seasonal. 10% - 20% maybe, but that's just
> >hand-waving. Hard to tell.
>
> Yes. Of course, it might likely have been 60% of their
> calorie intake,

Where they got these carbs from?!!!

> which was just above starvation level. They got a lot of
> execise. Our hunter-gatherer "stone age" aboriginals collect
> a lot of plant seeds, plant nectar, yams, honey, fruits etc.

Hm, have you ever consider what climate there was in last
several hunderds of thousands of years?

Even now in country I live (central europe) there is not too
much carbohydrates available in nature. Maybe some berries
three four months of year, other fruits only in summer and
maybe some nuts and veggies. Definitely not enough to keep
human population alive. I do not believe they could get 60%
from carbs.

And, BTW, you cannot get 60% of energy from carbs at near to
starvation levels and stay healthy. You would not simply get
enough essencial protein.

> They do a hell of a lot of walking.

Which is a good advice for us too! :)

Mirek

[Moosh:)]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:27:41 +0200, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> Really? Where is your information for this? A lot of DM2
>> sufferers eat many times per day (small meals)
>
>Not those that are controlling disease with LC.

That's not the impression that the diabetes groups would give
you. Quite the opposite.

>> >You are simply not hungry enough.
>>
>> that has nothing to do with how you split your daily
>> calories. I believe many many syndrom X and DM2 suffereres
>> eat more often, and smaller portions.
>
>If on low-fat "balanced" diet, it is no wonder.

Why? The same rationale applies, surely. Exercise is the major
bg control measure with DM2, diet is a close second.

>> >Of course we do. But they do not rise blood sugar.
>>
>> Neither does insulin.
>
>Agree. But carbs do.

But you implied that insulin was the problem.

>> But it IS insulin, and not blood sugar that stimulates
>> apetite, remember? Blood surar supresses hunger.
>
>Protein supresses hunger too.

But we are talking about perceived problems with carbs.

> Low blood sugar increases hunger.

That's what I said, in reverse.

>> >Basice/ formula food composition formula (if one cares to
>> >count) is this:
>start
>> >with protein, usually at 1g/kg. Add your desired level
>> >of carbs
>(around
>> >50g for me). Compute calories and fill rest with fat
>> >(monounsaturated preffered).
>>
>> And what a boring unnecessary nonsense unless you are ill.
>
>OK, so what you are basically suggesting is eat what you want
>and do not care.

Nothing further from the truth. I'm advocating eating a
balanced diet (supplying all nutritional requirements), chosen
from as wide a variety of wholefoods (as close to whole as
practical) as possible, and eaten only to a eucaloric level.
(Approximately -- on average)

>Well, do what you want. It is your body. Enjoy your
>healthy australian big macs, fill with healthy australian
>french fries,

Big Macs are not filled with French fries. They are to
be avoided.

We don't have corn syrup here (unless imported from America)
And I advocate water, or a diet soft drink if you must have
one. Why would you assume that I would advocate anything else?
I have said many times that the Big Mac is fine occasionally.

>drink corn syrup sweetened soda, have some mikly shakes and
>apple pies.

Not too bad very occasionally within your calorie allocation.
Not more than say once per month.

>If you will be able to survive your healthy balanced diet in
>good health, good for you - you are just lucky man with great
>genotype.

I suspect you are jumping to the opposite extreme because I
have advocated moderation and not the path you seem to be
advocating that is extreme and obsessive and doomed to failure
in the long run.

[Mirek Fidl]

> >> >Of course we do. But they do not rise blood sugar.
> >>
> >> Neither does insulin.
> >
> >Agree. But carbs do.
>
> But you implied that insulin was the problem.

Insuling is the problem in lowering BG.

> >Protein supresses hunger too.
>
> But we are talking about perceived problems with carbs.
>
> > Low blood sugar increases hunger.
>
> That's what I said, in reverse.

Hm, so you are trying to advocate ingestion of carbs to get
glucose high to supress hunger and feel good ?

Deadly advice, indeed.

Mirek

[Moosh:)]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:21:32 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >It seems to be a good idea to reduce saturated fat intake
>> >in LC maintenance mode (when your carbs go up - I expect
>> >to end at about
>100g
>> >/ day). OTOH, given wide variety of healthy fat and
>> >protein sources, this is hardly a problem...
>>
>> The problem is overeating energy. Otherwise there is no
>> need for these extremes of diet for the normal, healthy.
>
>I think you are wrong about it. Even if you burn all energy,
>your health still depends on what you eat.

Not as much as many think. I advocate a balanced, varied,
wholefood, eucaloric diet with regular moderate exercise.
There is quite a possible range here but it will virtually
always result in optimal health.

[Sigvaldi E]

"Mirek Fidler" <cxl@volny.cz> wrote in message
news:<c4cfjc$29pp9h$1@ID-198693.news.uni-berlin.de>...

> > I meant in what geographic area? Iceland?
>
> You perhaps might not noticed yet, but Iceland wheather is
> quite similiar to wheather humans had to survive for quite a
> long time.
>
> Mirek

Iceland has a maritime temperate climate, not unlike the
north-eastern coast of the USA in the winter and much milder
than Canada or a large part of Europe, wintertime.

[Moosh:)]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:38:07 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >Of course that carbs in excess are poisonous.
>>
>> Within your caloric allocation, and in a balanced diet,
>> this is incorrect.
>
>Even within your caloric allcation, if they cause glucose
>spikes, they are dangerous. Bigger spikes, bigger danger.

But they don't cause glucose spikes in normal heathy humans.

>> >More you are insulin resistant, more they are poisonous
>> >to you.
>>
>> But most folks aren't "insulin resistant".
>
>That is why most folks do not die after ingesting carbs. But
>damage acumulates.

Damage from life accumulates. Everything is a compromise
between upside and downside. No diet (WOE) is perfect, but the
one I advocate will likely have the smallest downside.
(Greatest upside)

>> > And then again, as it normalized my BMI in 4 months from
>> > 29 to 24, I have only a little need to change anything
>right
>> >now. If it ain't broke, why fix it ?
>>
>> Agreed, but this means a balanced varied wholefood diet is
>> best for you.
>
>?

Alternative?

>> >> >Yes. But when you are aiming for 1g/kg of protein
>> >> >daily, you
>> >definitely
>> >> >do not need to get more protein from bread.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? One gram protein/kg/day is a little high, but an
>> >> average 70kg
>man
>> >
>> >Well, it is definitely not too much.
>>
>> For some, but not for most. Have a look what neprologists
>> advocate.
>
>Well, I thought you advocate diet for normal people, that
>means with healthy kidneys...

And look what nephrologists advocate for these folk.

>> >There is still a discussion, even in mainstream, about how
>> >much protein is minumum, how much optimal
>and
>> >how much dangerous. AFAIK current minimal mainstream
>> >recommendation
>is
>> >.8g/kg. Things ain't get wrong by 1g/kg....
>>
>> See above
>>
>> >> will be eating 70g protein or ~280 cal. The rest of your
>> >> energy
>needs?
>> >
>> >Fat.
>>
>> Not very filling. So little of it... So many calories....
>
>OMG. First you have a problem where my energy comes from, now
>it has too many calories....

I don't "have a problem" with your energy source, even
though I asked for clarification. I'm suggesting that most
of your energy from fat is problematic if you are wanting to
reduce calories.

>FIY, I mix fat with veggies - and that makes them VERY
>filling.

And rather more energy dense? Try some potatoes instead :)

>> >Enjoy :) I will make my LC version by replacing low-fat
>> >pizza sauce
>with
>> >real tomatoes, exlude potato and reduce beans and will add
>> >olive oil. Will be yummy too, you bet! :)
>>
>> Probably great for a syndrome X sufferer. My pizza sauce
>> has lots of "real" tomato and low fat minced beef and
>> onions and spices.
>
>A good idea :)
>
>> >No. See research. High-carb diet always results in
>> >high(er) TGs. Even Ornish admits it.
>>
>> Not on a eucaloric diet with moderate regular exercise.
>
>If you insist...
>
>> >:) I have already adapted to ketogenic pathways.
>>
>> What exactly are these?
>
>Mostly adaptation of brain and other organs to burn ketones
>for fuel.

Do they need adaption for this? Surely it is the gluconeogenic
pathways that need augmenting (inducing), then there will be
enough glucose for the body activities that run better on this
energy substrate.

>> > For moderate exercise I am practising, I have no need to
>> > break my fat burning metabolism by high-carb intake.
>>
>> What is this "breaking" nonsense? You burn fat constantly,
>> so long as you eat a balanced eucaloric diet of wholefoods.
>
>Have you ever tried to go from high-carb diet to low-carb
>and back?
>
>There is around 2 days adaptation when you do not feel
>very well.

Until the gluconeogenic pathways are induced. This is surely
just hypoglycaemia.

[Mirek Fidl]

> >> Within your caloric allocation, and in a balanced diet,
> >> this is incorrect.
> >
> >Even within your caloric allcation, if they cause glucose
> >spikes,
they
> >are dangerous. Bigger spikes, bigger danger.
>
> But they don't cause glucose spikes in normal heathy humans.

Of course they do, unless you are one out of 100 persons. They
are just not that big.

> >That is why most folks do not die after ingesting carbs.
> >But damage acumulates.
>
> Damage from life accumulates. Everything is a compromise
> between upside and downside. No diet (WOE) is perfect, but
> the one I advocate will likely have the smallest downside.
> (Greatest upside)

Well, who knows.

> >> Agreed, but this means a balanced varied wholefood diet
> >> is best for you.
> >
> >?
>
> Alternative?

Well, so far I feeled like I am on balanced whole-food diet
now. Only problem is definition:)

> >OMG. First you have a problem where my energy comes from,
> >now it has
too
> >many calories....
>
> I don't "have a problem" with your energy source, even
> though I asked for clarification. I'm suggesting that most
> of your energy from fat is problematic if you are wanting to
> reduce calories.
>
> >FIY, I mix fat with veggies - and that makes them VERY
> >filling.
>
> And rather more energy dense? Try some potatoes instead :)

Hm, if you insist that I am eating more calories than before
going high-fat diet, then apparently calorie theory does not
work, as I have lost 30+ lbs....

> >Mostly adaptation of brain and other organs to burn ketones
> >for fuel.
>
> Do they need adaption for this?

Have you tried?

> >Have you ever tried to go from high-carb diet to low-carb
> >and back?
> >
> >There is around 2 days adaptation when you do not feel
> >very well.
>
> Until the gluconeogenic pathways are induced. This is surely
> just hypoglycaemia.

Yes, it is. But it was you saying that there is no difference.

Mirek

[Martin Tho]

Sorry for the long delay in replying - been sick, been busy,
computer's played up for a day and a night... Anyway...

15:21:41 Tue, 30 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:43:07 +0000, Martin Thompson
><bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:
>>Almost any diet and exercise controlled diabetic trying to
>>control their blood glucose by eating like this would fail.
>>Then, they would end up on insulin, which would swiftly be
>>converting many of these carbohydrates into fat... making
>>the situation worse, unless they exercised an awful lot.
>
>I'm staggered. I agree with you. I see what you mean. I
>wonder if anyone has contacted them and asked by wht
>authority they give such bad advice.
>

Maybe I will get a bit pugnacious and write to them myself?
Heh. It might be interesting to see their reply.

But I am too busy with stuff at the moment, and seem to have
some sort of food poisoning hassle going on right now. But
when I have some time, it can't hurt to ask, can it?

>>
>>Certainly there are a small number of individuals who do
>>give sensible advice - my first ever dietician many years
>>ago told me to restrict my carbs to 20g per meal. But
>>ever since then, I've been told to make around 60% of my
>>diet carbs.
>
>And they know you are type 2?

Yes.

> That is fine advice for a type one doing much exercise. If
> that's the case, I would go with a good endocrinologist who
> is involved in research.
>
>>Official National Health Service leaflets tell me the same
>>(and tell me, for instance, that if I eat out, I should
>>order extra portions of rice or pasta with my meals). Of
>>course I ignore the lot. The stupidity of other people is
>>something I have to resist if I want to keep my health.
>>However, it is no wonder that other diabetics have real
>>problems controlling their glucose levels: most people trust
>>their medics implicitly.
>
>That is staggering. Extra rice and pasta for a type 2? I
>wonder what the rationale is. Or perhaps just pig ignorance.
>

I never did figure it out, assuming pig ignorance is not the
answer. ;-)

>>>>>>Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
>>>>>>syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer
>>>>>>source of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides,
>>>>>>lowers LDL, rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG
>>>>>>swings, etc, etc... all these things are in fact
>>>>>>related.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
>>>>>pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All
>>>>>packaged fat should be avoided by overfed, underexercised
>>>>>westerners. Like most food processing (where practical)
>>>>>and all refining.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But... so-called normal healthy nutrition may be leading
>>>>some people into these overeating problems, if they have
>>>>the metabolism for it. Isn't that possible?
>>>
>>>No, eating too much and not doing regular exercise is what
>>>causes weight gain. Eating a varied whoefood diet will not
>>>"lead" you anywhere harmful. If you feel morbidly hungry on
>>>a eucaloric diet, and excessively tired from doing little
>>>exercise, get yourself medically checked out. You are
>>>likely ill.
>>>
>>
>>Quite so. I think, though, that the very earliest stages of
>>diabetes are undetectable at present. People are blamed for
>>overeating when, in many cases, there is a metabolic problem
>>that is undiagnosed (and unknown, I strongly suspect).
>
>The weight increase must still be from overeating. There is
>NO other way. Metabolic syndrome is easily detected if there
>is a will.
>

Correct, but my thinking is that this is only one point in a
self-reinforcing cycle, and possibly not even the first point
that began the cycle for that person, many years ago
(something led to overeating, leading to this, to that, etc.).
It is an obvious point of attack if one is going to try and
deal with the problem though, but for many people it may
require that the other points in the cycle that make
controlling eating more difficult for them are dealt with in
some way too.

Personally I feel that our psychological insight into how to
help people to motivate themselves to help themselves is
staggeringly lacking. Humans are psychological animals more
than any other, and the methods used to motivate us seem
pretty stone-age to me: "I don't care how you feel! Eat less,
exercise more! Do it, stupid!" Stating the obvious end-point
of getting into a successful program would seem to me to be of
little help to most people who are still searching for the
beginning point. There are subtleties in human motivation and
behaviour which are simply being ignored. We try to produce
action with propaganda instead of with understanding. And, it
doesn't work all that well.

>>>>>>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
>>>>>>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I
>>>>>>believe that people without syndrome are rarely fat.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is an interesting idea and I have wondered about it
>>>>myself. I certainly like to think that my own overeating
>>>>was caused by something other than my conscious self...
>>>
>>>Poltergeists? Could you not control yourself? What do you
>>>do if you get sexual urges about your neighbours?
>>>
>>
>>My neighbours? LOL. ;-)
>
>OK, but you get my point, I hope. Not all urges have to be
>satisfied. Of course giving up smoking and the like is easier
>in some respects as you can quit completely. You can't quit
>food completely.
>

One problem I think is that the urge to overeat is
unconscious: the eater has no idea that he or she is eating
too much: they just do what they and everyone else seems to
do, which is eat until they no longer feel hungry, as Mother
Nature intended (apparently). Going against what seems so
natural is not an easy thing for any animal to do (and I
include humans in that category) and most importantly it
*feels wrong*. Quite possibly, only humans even have the
potential to do this, since we can look to the longer term
better than any other species we know of.

Sure, humans can figure it out, and conclude that overeating
must be going on, and compare my plateful of food with yours,
but the logic circuits are new and relatively untried in
Nature and clearly have little influence, while the emotional
circuits are much older and of course are tried and trusted
implicitly by most people. And, the very unconsciousness of
the process prevents its being observed by the person doing it
when it is happening: they are in state, in a kind of trance
you could say. Something has to snap them out of it
(preferably at the time) for them to even start to wonder
where to begin looking for the source of their problem, let
alone zeroing in on what to do about it right away.

This, er, Australian site seems interesting in this respect:
http://www.diabetescounselling.com.au/diabetesandyou.html

On the other hand, this Aussie site seems to be offering the
same advice as elsewhere:

http://www.woolworths.com.au/dietinfo/diabetes/index.asp
<quote> Increasing numbers of Australians have diabetes, of
which there are two main types. People with diabetes need the
same healthy diet now being recommended for all Australians -
plenty of fruit, vegetables and high-fibre carbohydrates,
moderate amounts of proteins and dairy products and less fat
(especially saturated fat). Sugar should have only a minor
role, and those with diabetes should choose arbohydrate foods
that are broken down slowly, so glucose is released more
gradually into the bloodstream. </quote>

But maybe woolworths aren't exactly the world's experts on
the subject. Hmm... OK. The Dietician's Association of
Australia says:

http://www.daa.asn.au/public/smart_eating/nutrition/nutrition-
.asp?alpha=C &id=47

<quote> Carbohydrate is an important nutrient found in many
foods. Foods containing carbohydrate include bread, breakfast
cereal, rice, pasta, fruit, potato, corn, dried beans and
lentils, milk and yoghurt. Carbohydrate is an important source
of energy for the body. Many carbohydrate-containing foods are
high in dietary fibre and low in fat and are therefore healthy
food choices. Try to eat carbohydrate-containing foods in
every meal to provide the body with energy throughout the day.

The rate at which carbohydrate-containing foods are digested
varies greatly. Carbohydrate containing foods that are
digested slowly and therefore provide the most sustained
release of energy are those with a low glycaemic index.

A great deal of misleading information exists about
carbohydrate. Many fad diets suggest carbohydrate-containing
foods be eliminated in order to lose weight. This is far from
the truth. Carbohydrate-containing foods are generally low in
fat, low in energy (kilojoules) and high in fibre.

Eat a variety of low fat, high fibre carbohydrate-containing
foods each day.

An Accredited Practising Dietitian can provide expert advice
on the best type and amount of carbohydrate to be included in
your diet. </quote>

This is too vague to be able to tell exactly what they are
advising, but it looks suspiciously like the usual advice,
coupled with a plug for some fees for a dietician somewhere.
It also IMO misleadingly claims that carbs are essential for
energy without saying how many you must have. The Australian
sites in general seem to follow the same trend: the advice is
extremely vague - absent indeed, on some, unless you join up
and pay them some money.

http://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/ seems just as bad, with
no actual information available on the site (that I can find
quickly). Almost the whole country's web space on the subject
seems to be a conspiracy to *not* inform people until they
have bought some pamphlet or something.

It does link to here though:

http://www.lifeclinic.com/focus/diabetes/diet.asp

<quote> Eat more starches such as bread, cereal, and starchy
vegetables. Aim for six servings a day or more. For example,
have cold cereal with nonfat milk or a bagel with a teaspoon
of jelly for breakfast. Another starch-adding strategy is to
add cooked black beans, corn or garbanzo beans to salads or
casseroles. Eat five fruits and vegetables every day. Have a
piece of fruit or two as a snack, or add vegetables to chili,
stir-fried dishes or stews. You can also pack raw vegetables
for lunch or snacks. Eat sugars and sweets in moderation.
Include your favorite sweets in your diet once or twice a week
at most. Split a dessert to satisfy your sweet tooth while
reducing the sugar, fat and calories. </quote>

Aha.

I think the six servings a day bit is their effort to flatten
out the BG roller-coaster by filling in the dips created by
earlier carbs with more carbs... a technique used my many
high-carb diabetics to try and prevent hypos and complications
(with not much success, as we know).

On the plus side, it says:

<quote> To control carbohydrates, try a technique called
carbohydrate counting. Carbohydrate counting means counting
the total number of grams of carbohydrate you should eat at a
meal or planned snack time based on your medication and
exercise habits. Then you can choose how to meet those
carbohydrate needs. You'll probably use a carbohydrate
counting book, which you can get at a supermarket or
bookstore. If you want to learn how to count carbohydrates
accurately, make an appointment with a dietician or a diabetes
educator. </quote>

Shock! A mention of portion control, at last! But, it turns
out, this is as American site. Still no real info from .au
anywhere easily found.

The above site has this interesting table:

<quote> Dietary guidelines for people with diabetes have
evolved as new knowledge about the disorder has been
discovered. Before 1921, the year in which insulin was
discovered, people were placed on starvation diets. As our
understanding of the mechanism of the disease and the role of
glucose in metabolism has improved, so have the nutritional
recommendations (see Table).

http://www.lifeclinic.com/focus/diabetes/articleView.asp?Mes-
sageID=601

Today, there is no one diet for people with diabetes. The
American Diabetes Association recommends that carbohydrate
and fat intake should be based on nutritional assessment
and treatment goals for each individual, with 10 to 20% of
calories from protein and less than 10% from saturated
fats. </quote>

>>>>but such a self-serving idea needs to be treated with
>>>>suspicion. Still, it could be true, too. My feeling about
>>>>it, comparing how I felt with how it seemed to me that
>>>>other people felt (a difficult judgement, I know), is that
>>>>I felt more hunger than other people, and that that hunger
>>>>was caused by some sort of metabolic problem (I know not
>>>>what).
>>>
>>>Syndrome X comes to mind. Perhaps a glucose tolerance test
>>>with an insulin assay might shed some light.
>>>
>>
>>That is right. However, I was not diagnosed as having
>>anything wrong,
>>i.e., insulin resistant in my case, until a good 10 years
>> after something did in fact feel wrong: I was gaining
>> weight, losing energy, getting a bit depressed, losing
>> motivation, getting migraines... could be it was *just*
>> overeating and lack of exercise, but that isn't
>> definite.
>
>When you start spilling glucose in your urine, you tend to
>lose weight.
>

This would be likely more for type 1 I think, as their glucose
levels get very high and they start getting ketoacidosis. A
type 2 would be in a bad way to get up to those levels
(although they spill glucose at lesser levels it isn't really
what you are talking about I think).

>>>>Eventually, a known metabolic problem emerged and I was
>>>>diagnosed as insulin resistant, then diabetic.
>>>
>>>Aha. better late than never.
>>>
>>>>At this stage, eating too many carbohydrates (as advised)
>>>
>>>By whom? Change endocrinologists rapidly!
>>>
>>
>>By just about everybody. It is the official advice in
>>Britain and the USA.
>
>I'm gobsmacked. We have here diabetes clinics in major
>teaching hospitals. They are often headed by world-renowned
>diabetologists (endocrinologists). Maybe we are just very
>lucky in Australia.
>

I wonder what they are actually teaching, though?

>
>Fair enough. I wonder however if your "migraines" were not
>"hypoglycemia". (Hypos)
>

Some were.

>
>What damages these folk is eating too much.

That could be as much an effect as a cause (one of my points,
as you know by now). :-)

> They evolved struggling to get a bare minimum for survival.
> And did lots of exercise. Our modern aboriginals are
> overweight, diseased ( kidney and DM2) and have a very short
> lifespan. They eat too much "white man's tucker"

--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Martin Tho]

15:34:10 Tue, 30 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:11:49 +0000, Martin Thompson
><bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:
>
>>22:42:42 Fri, 26 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh:) at
>> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> writes:
>>>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:22:56 +0000, Martin Thompson
>>><bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:
>>>
>>>>15:29:59 Tue, 23 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Tanya Quinn at
>>>> Tanya Quinn <tdquinn@rogers.com> writes:
>>>>>tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>>>>>news:<b550f406.04
>>>>>03191849.6257a028@posting.google.com>...
>>>>>> "Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:<i21m50hgfk0bd vba26am3l7kudtki121jl@4ax.com>...

>>Not I... a non-diabetic might (although I don't think I did
>>even before I had the disease).
>
>Well I'm talking about non-diabetics. I'm talking about
>normal healthy adults in general. General nutritional
>principles. I know I keep getting sidetracked into
>abnormal areas.
>

Heh. :-)

>>>>(and where did pre-agricultural cavemen get such items
>>>>from all year round)?
>>>
>>>Whereabouts?
>>>
>>
>>Not really.
>
>I meant in what geographic area? Iceland? Or a tropical
>island with abundant coconuts and sago palms?
>

OK, I agree. It would vary enormously.

>>A Palaeolithic diet may have been something like this:
>
>It might have been just about like anything you could
>imagine. I gave an example of something we are much surer of.
>The extant Australian Aboriginal. Then there are NewGuinea
>natives only recently exposed to Westerners.
>
>>http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/ especially:
>>http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html
>>
>><quote> For millions of years, humans and their relatives
>>have eaten meat, fish, fowl and the leaves, roots and fruits
>>of many plants.
>
>Yes, but in vastly different proportions in different
>geographical areas.
>

Yep.

>>One big obstacle to getting more calories from the
>>environment is the fact that many plants are inedible.
>
>But many are fine foods. We have many books on "bush tucker"
>as we describe it here. A famous army major was commissioned
>by the army to map and document all the bush foods here for
>the use of soldiers needing to survive. Most fruits are
>edible and nutritious.
>
>>Grains, beans and potatoes are full of energy but all are
>>inedible in the raw state as they contain many toxins.
>
>Only some. There are cycad and pine seeds that are toxic but
>Aborigines have devised ways of making them edible. Many
>toxic foods have had ways found to detoxify them.
>
>>There is no doubt about that- please don’t try to eat them
>>raw, they can make you very sick. </quote>
>>
>>and the details: <quote> The essentials of the Paleolithic
>>Diet are:
>>
>>Eat none of the following: · Grains- including bread,
>>pasta, noodles
>
>Rubbish where do you think the idea of domesticating these
>wild grasses came from? There are millions of depressions in
>rocks in Australia where many thousands of years of humans
>have ground their grains.
>

Yes, but thousands of years is effectively modern in
this context. What you describe is apparently a result
of agriculture of sorts. What happened before they
thought of that?

Also, domesticated grain produces more seeds due to genetic
modification over the generations, and is now much more worth
harvesting than it was at the beginning. At the beginning,
presumably, it will have been not too far from marginal. One
important point here is to note that the varieties that are
domesticated are mutants that do not drop their seeds when
they are 'ripe' but which need to be separated manually - such
odd mutant individual plants would have routinely died out, or
maybe have been eaten directly as lucky one-offs, in the
pre-agricultural days. Dropped seeds would be much more
trouble to harvest (we certainly don't bother with them
today): they would be blown away, mixed in with soil, and they
would probably be sprouting, or infested with fungi, or eaten
on the ground by other creatures, etc.

>>· Beans- including string beans, kidney beans, lentils,
>>peanuts, snow-peas and peas · Potatoes
>
>Huh? Potatoes where they grow, other root storage organs
>where they grew.
>

Yes, I don't see why not - unless the ones we see are
different in some way. Ah - the preparation they need to make
them safe to eat. We are talking about pre-technological
humans - *really* Palaeolithic people. No cooking (although I
imagine washing would be permitted, since monkeys do it).

>>· Dairy products
>
>Many primitive tribes drink animals milk.
>

I wonder if they did that before they herded the animals. I
know some nomads follow wild herds these days. What about
150,000 years ago? I don't know.

>>· Sugar
>
>Palm sugar and honey and flower nectar have been known
>forever, and fruits of course.
>

In very small quantities, and very seasonal (in most parts of
the world). A few times a year only, I think would be better
than saying 'none' though.

>>· Salt
>
>Ocean water? Salt lakes?
>

Shrug.

>>Eat the following: · Meat, chicken and fish · Eggs ·
>>Fruit · Vegetables (especially root vegetables, but
>>definitely not including potatoes or sweet potatoes)
>
>Yams? Taro, sago?
>

Do they need processing much? Yams do, IIRC.

>>· Nuts, eg. walnuts, brazil nuts, macadamia, almond. Do not
>>eat peanuts (a bean) or cashews (a family of their own)
>
>Some legumes can be eaten and others can be detoxified by
>soaking in water. Theres a huge Australian bean tree here.
>

Soaking. Too high-tech.

>>· Berries- strawberries, blueberries, raspberries etc.
>>
>> Try to increase your intake of: · Root vegetables-
>> carrots, turnips, parsnips, rutabagas, Swedes · Organ
>> meats- liver and kidneys (I accept that many people find
>> these unpalatable and won’t eat them) </quote>
>
>Not if you are starving. Some of our Aboriginals ate clay.
>

Some people today eat their own faeces after the first pass.
Same reason.

>>>>> If you are restricting your carbs you are either eating
>>>>> the same amount of protein and fat and thus less
>>>>> calories overall,
>>>>
>>>>This tends to be what such a diet leads to: studies have
>>>>shown that on such a diet people voluntarily eat less even
>>>>when allowed to eat as much as they like: they actually
>>>>want to eat less, and do so. Hence, they lose weight.
>>>
>>>Same goes for many people eating a wide variey of
>>>wholefoods. There are many tricks to eating eucalorically.
>>>The main thing is to eat a balanced diet.
>>>
>>
>>The trouble is, the definition of "balanced" may be
>>incorrect.
>
>The definition of "balanced" is "supplying all nutritional
>needs", well at least that's what the majority of educated
>English speaks use it as (dictionary)
>

Well, let's accept that.

>>One could come up with any combination of foods and call it
>>"balanced" and it seems that this may be what has happened
>>(OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get my drift, I hope).
>
>Not sure. Yes, many combinations of foods can give you all
>your nutritional requirements. Best however to eat some of
>everything available.
>

I agree that greater diversity is likely to be healthier for
an omnivore like a human.

But "something of everything" leaves huge scope for
variation, and all of that variation space is not going to be
equally healthy, most likely. So why does the standard model
pick on one particular region? Is it *really* the best? And,
best for whom?

a) a normal, healthy human?
b) all normal, healthy humans?
c) a majority of humans?
d) some significant minorities of humans?
e) the food industry/manufacturers and growers?
f) politicians?
g) society as a whole?

Who suffers from it? Are there better combinations that are
'better' for different groups, or for more of the above?

>>A better, more neutral term, might be borrowed from physics,
>>"the standard model".
>
>Standard for whom? There are almost infinite "standard
>models diets".
>

I'm talking about "the balanced diet".

The word "balanced" looks to me to be a deliberately
value-laden adjective. It is a "good" word, no doubt chosen
for advertising purposes more than for its objectivity.
"Standard" is much more neutral, and "model" reminds us of
the real truth, which is that the diet is a theory and is not
The Truth.

The "balanced diet" model would be better renamed and thought
of as the "standard model" diet, IOW. Emotion-laden names are
inherently dishonest in what should be an academic search for
The Truth.

>>The idea of lots of carbs was first introduced, I
>>understand, during the second world war, to assist
>>governments in rationing food supplies. It was not based on
>>specific research. However, it seems to have stuck, even
>>though the evidence is that it is harming large numbers of
>>people, such as myself.
>
>Hang about, there are billions of people in the world who
>thrive on this diet and have done for thousands of years.
>(South-east/East/South Asia)
>

Thousands is modern. Think hundreds of thousands. Think no
technology beyond basic foraging, at least at first (the
longest period of time, since improvements appear to have
compounded exponentially over time). Evolution hasn't done
much to us in the last 10,000 years (it is thought).

>>>>> or maintaining the same number of calories while
>>>>> increasing the amount of protein and fat that you get.
>>>>> Too much protein can lead to kidney problems, and too
>>>>> much fat (especially animal fat) is not good for the
>>>>> heart.
>>>>>

>>>>It is worth noting, though, that such a diet typically
>>>>reduces carbs and doesn't increase protein and fat much
>>>>(i.e., doesn't fully counter-compensate), so the diet
>>>>doesn't amount to a high protein diet anyway. The net
>>>>result is a reduction in calories consumed.
>>>
>>>So you are assuming a hypercaloric diet in the first place?
>>>Why not start from a eucaloric diet?
>>>
>>
>>Yes; that is normal in the West (60% of US citizens being
>>clinically obese).
>
>Of course, and our conversations always tend to gravitate
>towards this abnormal example. Just because the majority of
>internet connected folk are fat.....
>

Ah... but "normal" is not the same as "optimal". The normal US
citizen is apparently obese, if "normal" means "mode", and
possibly if it means "mean" too. And "median". But optimal?
Nope. OK I will assume you are thinking of optimal humans.

Optimal for what? Heh. How do we decide? Life expectancy, I
suppose, multiplied by some quality of life factor maybe.

>>But of course we are talking at slightly cross-purposes
>>because you are concentrating on people with normal
>>metabolisms and optimal bodies, whereas I am more concerned
>>with the large numbers of people for whom such advice fails
>>(and it *is* given to them nevertheless).
>
>I agree with your aims, but yes, I'm trying to discuss basic
>principles of nutrition.
>

OK, accepting that, the agenda of successful low-carbers is to
try and undermine the idea that 45%-60% carbs is not optimal,
or at least, not necessary, and ideally, outright incorrect.

And, given that people are often told that the reason for
eating them is to provide energy, which is patent nonsense,
who can blame them? Yes, they provide energy - rapid energy -
as do other foods (after assimilation). Plenty of low-carbers
experience plenty of rapid energy. We don't find the streets
full of sluggish low-carbers. On the contrary, it is the fat
high-carbers who seem the most likely to be sluggish.

And nutrient value? Mostly available elsewhere, I would have
thought, but I am not advocating an extreme low-carb diet
anyway. I think the question is, why is it that it is
generally advocated that people obtain the *majority* of their
energy from carbs? It seems unnecessary.

Is it because *some* people have problems with "too much" fat,
so all are advised to avoid it; then *some* people have
problems with "too much" protein, so all are advised to avoid
that too; then all we are left with are the carbs? It is
certainly a model that saves thinking about the individual too
much, and in the mass-market 20th century would have had great
appeal to lazy nutritionists looking for simple formulas to
get them through their working days a bit more easily.

>>>>It could in some cases become a high fat diet, though, and
>>>>as you say, too much fat (strictly, saturated fat and
>>>>trans-fat) is known to be harmful for the heart. However,
>>>>blood lipid levels actually correlate to the quantity of
>>>>carbohydrates eaten and not to the amount of fat eaten
>>>>(within reason). Why? Because insulin converts surplus
>>>>blood glucose into fat.
>>>
>>>The same as the stuff you eat? What's the difference?
>>
>>AIUI, the difference is that the carbs get converted in the
>>bloodstream and the resulting lipids get deposited in the
>>arteries, etc. Fat that is eaten is broken down by the liver
>>and stored more appropriately.
>
>Not in my experience. It floats around in the blood stream
>for a considerable time. Eat a fatty meal and then get a
>sample of blood taken an hour or two later. That fatty
>layer is.....
>

<shrug> Dunno. I'm still trying to find out more - and it is
being researched a little more closely now, I imagine, in the
wake of Atkins and Co.

>>I would like to see some clarification on this point,
>>though. That is what I understand happens, but I may not be
>>totally correct.
>
>It seems to me that the evil bit of diet is excess. Excess
>energy is stored. Fatness leads to disease.
>

Yes. This is an area that can lead to endless confusion. An
advantage of the low-carb diet is that *some* people find it
easier. Possibly not the same *some* people that can work with
the standard model diet. ;-)

But saying *some* people find x better isn't saying much in
today's sensationalist, easy-option-seeking world, is it?

>>
>>Not really. :-) As I mentioned above, I believe that a lot
>>of people who are thought to be "normal" are greatly
>>challenged by the standard model diet.
>
>Only if that diet is not adhered to wrt being eucaloric,
>which every advice I've ever seen does.

Well, what I meant was, people who are thought to be
"normal" but who in fact are not, I suppose. Optimal people,
whatever that may mean without getting too picky, would find
it OK I'm sure.

> Dietary advice I've seen from health authorities is fine
> when adhered to. Trouble is many folk think that if a
> teaspoon is good for you, a bucketful will work miracles.
>

I don't trust authorities to be necessarily acting in my
best interests. They always seem to have their own agendas
somewhere. But I agree that most folk have no real training
in objective thinking and our media act as if they have no
incentive to help. Our education systems let most people
down when in fact it is obvious that we could do better (for
example, in Britain, 80% of upper-middle-class children go
to University and get a degree, whereas only 20% of the
lower classes do. That cannot be due to innate ability, so
the system must be failing the majority. To be fair, "the
system" probably has to include their parents and family
backgrounds, though).

>>>>And in fact, I can do a workout without carbs, but if I am
>>>>feeling tired it can be more difficult. I have read one
>>>>study though that showed that some people actually have
>>>>more success avoiding the carbs in a workout (I think it
>>>>was stamina people, IIRC).
>>>
>>>Normal folks perform much better on a diet of around 40 to
>>>60% calories from carbs.
>>>
>>
>>I wonder if they do, really.
>
>Well that's what the vast majority of humans since time
>immemorial have thrived on.
>

You've seen the doubts about that with that Palaeolithic
stuff.

>>Presumably there must be evidence for this,
>
>History.
>
>>mustn't there? We know that many people *can* handle such a
>>diet, but what is the proof that it is optimal?
>
>Dietary needs of humans are quite flexible. Billions of
>people thriving for thousands of years on this diet being
>advised now is surely evidence that it is fine.

It is evidence that it is sufficient. But it might not be
optimal. And in fact, it could be that there are a number of
classes of diet that would be better suited to different
subgroups of humanity. Trying a one-size-fits-all solution for
so many people has to be asking for problems for some.

So, assuming that the standard model is the overall optimal
diet (since we can't prove by evidence-free discussion anyway,
I guess), the next step is to start finding those other
classes and subgroups. Japanese diet, low-carb, etc.
--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Mirek Fidl]

> >>. Dairy products
> >
> >Many primitive tribes drink animals milk.
> >
>
> I wonder if they did that before they herded the animals. I
> know some nomads follow wild herds these days. What about
> 150,000 years ago? I don't know.

I think key word here is fermentation. It is impossible to
store milk for more then one day non-fermented.

And, by the way, fermentation reduces carbs in milk :)

Mirek

[Moosh:)]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:47:30 +0200, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >> >Of course we do. But they do not rise blood sugar.
>> >>
>> >> Neither does insulin.
>> >
>> >Agree. But carbs do.
>>
>> But you implied that insulin was the problem.
>
>Insuling is the problem in lowering BG.

With whom?

>> >Protein supresses hunger too.
>>
>> But we are talking about perceived problems with carbs.
>>
>> > Low blood sugar increases hunger.
>>
>> That's what I said, in reverse.
>
>Hm, so you are trying to advocate ingestion of carbs to get
>glucose high to supress hunger and feel good ?

Doesn't need to be abnormally high. Just a tiny bit above
normal brings satiety. Carbs are satiating to normal folks.

>Deadly advice, indeed.

Huh? Then why have not billions of humans who have done just
this for thousands of years not died from it?

[Moosh:)]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:31:01 +0200, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >Yes, I did this for years. Was fine, only problem was that
>> >it made me
>a
>> >little bit bloated :)
>>
>> And you didn't think to eat more slowly and stop before you
>> felt bloated?
>
>Hm, what to say on this? Sure it is a problem of
>self-control. OTOH, I WAS hungry.

Of course. Maybe some tricks to avoid succumbing to this
inappropriate urge? Like having no snack foods available, or
doing something completely different when the urge appears?
Much appetite urge is strongly associated with particular
activities.

>FYI, I was not obese when I decided to get things under
>control, just one little step from it. As I tried low-fat
>and/or low-calorie diet before and was not able keep eating
>this way, I just decided to try something different. It was
>also a kind of experiment - after reading all of that pro-
>and anti- LC articles I wanted to know whether LC really
>works and to examine why. What I already know that in short
>term it DOES work very well:) As for why I have several
>theories, but I am sure you are NOT interested in them :)

Put 'em up and I may comment.

But again, just because you need to severely limit carbs, does
not mean that this is the ideal way of eating for everyone.
You are abnormal, I'm afraid.

[Moosh:)]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:44:03 +0200, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >> Within your caloric allocation, and in a balanced diet,
>> >> this is incorrect.
>> >
>> >Even within your caloric allcation, if they cause glucose
>> >spikes,
>they
>> >are dangerous. Bigger spikes, bigger danger.
>>
>> But they don't cause glucose spikes in normal heathy
>> humans.

Please set your newsreader up properly.

>Of course they do, unless you are one out of 100 persons.
>They are just not that big.

So a spike is a minute variation? OK. Are you American? :)

>> >That is why most folks do not die after ingesting carbs.
>> >But damage acumulates.
>>
>> Damage from life accumulates. Everything is a compromise
>> between upside and downside. No diet (WOE) is perfect, but
>> the one I advocate will likely have the smallest downside.
>> (Greatest upside)
>
>Well, who knows.

Anyone who studies nutrition and history and life.

>> >> Agreed, but this means a balanced varied wholefood diet
>> >> is best for you.
>> >
>> >?
>>
>> Alternative?
>
>Well, so far I feeled like I am on balanced whole-food diet
>now. Only problem is definition:)

No, the definition covers a very wide range.

>> >OMG. First you have a problem where my energy comes from,
>> >now it has
>too
>> >many calories....
>>
>> I don't "have a problem" with your energy source, even
>> though I asked for clarification. I'm suggesting that most
>> of your energy from fat is problematic if you are wanting
>> to reduce calories.
>>
>> >FIY, I mix fat with veggies - and that makes them VERY
>> >filling.
>>
>> And rather more energy dense? Try some potatoes instead :)
>
>Hm, if you insist that I am eating more calories than before
>going high-fat diet, then apparently calorie theory does not
>work, as I have lost 30+ lbs....

Doesn't really matter how you do it, and why we are discussing
you is a mystery to me.

>> >Mostly adaptation of brain and other organs to burn
>> >ketones for fuel.
>>
>> Do they need adaption for this?
>
>Have you tried?

Tried what? Burning ketones? Or not having much glucose
available? You have ketones available every day.

>> >Have you ever tried to go from high-carb diet to low-carb
>> >and back?
>> >
>> >There is around 2 days adaptation when you do not feel
>> >very well.
>>
>> Until the gluconeogenic pathways are induced. This is
>> surely just hypoglycaemia.
>
>Yes, it is. But it was you saying that there is no
>difference.

No, I said there was a difference between having
insufficient glucose and burning ketone bodies. You seemed
to be confusing the two.

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Hm, so you are trying to advocate ingestion of carbs to get
> >glucose
high
> >to supress hunger and feel good ?
>
> Doesn't need to be abnormally high. Just a tiny bit above
> normal brings satiety.

Tiny bit above normal means tiny spike :)

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Hm, what to say on this? Sure it is a problem of
> >self-control. OTOH,
I
> >WAS hungry.
>
> Of course. Maybe some tricks to avoid succumbing to this
> inappropriate urge? Like having no snack foods available, or
> doing something completely different when the urge appears?
> Much appetite urge is

Well, maybe these "soft" tricks would work too. OTOH, what is
so wrong with getting energy from fat? It does the same job
without any tricks like this. Plus I feel better.

> >it DOES work very well:) As for why I have several
> >theories, but I am sure you are NOT interested in them :)
>
> Put 'em up and I may comment.

Ask me after several more months. By that time I may be even
able to tell you why it fails :)))))))

> But again, just because you need to severely limit carbs,
> does not

Hm, it is not that sever as you might think. I definitely eat
a lot of veggies, much more than before. I think I am at about
60g of carbs per day.

> mean that this is the ideal way of eating for everyone.

Sure it does not. I even know people doing well on low-fat
diet. Everybody is different.

I even do not think it is ideal WOE for me. But it is much
closer to it than standard high-carb diet.

> You are abnormal, I'm afraid.

What is normal? Perhaps any person with tendency to get fat is
abnormal in some sense and what is wrong with finding a WOE
that can prevent further problems?

Mirek

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Well, who knows.
>
> Anyone who studies nutrition and history and life.

Then you should know that agricultural nations conquered world
not because individuals were healthy, but because agriculture
was able to feed much more people.... (while individual healt
usually worsened).

> >Well, so far I feeled like I am on balanced whole-food diet
> >now. Only problem is definition:)
>
> No, the definition covers a very wide range.

OK, if balanced diet is what you define (getting all needed
nutrients and energy), then I am on balanced diet.

It of course depends on whether you consider
gluconeogenesis as normal
:)

> >> >FIY, I mix fat with veggies - and that makes them VERY
> >> >filling.
> >>
> >> And rather more energy dense? Try some potatoes
> >> instead :)
> >
> >Hm, if you insist that I am eating more calories than
> >before going high-fat diet, then apparently calorie theory
> >does not work, as I
have
> >lost 30+ lbs....
>
> Doesn't really matter how you do it, and why we are
> discussing you is a mystery to me.

You have started with it...

> >> Do they need adaption for this?
> >
> >Have you tried?
>
> Tried what? Burning ketones? Or not having much glucose
> available? You have ketones available every day.

But your brain usually is not able to utilize them, unless it
is adapted.

Mirek

[Moosh:)]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:14:16 +0200, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >>. Dairy products
>> >
>> >Many primitive tribes drink animals milk.
>> >
>>
>> I wonder if they did that before they herded the animals. I
>> know some nomads follow wild herds these days. What about
>> 150,000 years ago? I don't know.
>
>I think key word here is fermentation. It is impossible to
>store milk for more then one day non-fermented.
>
>And, by the way, fermentation reduces carbs in milk :)

I'd assumed they drank it as they caught it :)

[Moosh:)]

Mirek wrote:

I've copied and pasted this from Google, Mirek, as I am
having trouble recieving messages even though my server has a
peered feed from uni.berlin. It is being investigated as I
speak (I hope :)

>> >Well, this is the information I have:
>> >
>> >Quick acting Carbs 100% of calories to Blood Glucose in
>> >15-35 minutes (Table Sugar, Bread & Potatoes) Slow Acting
>> >Carbs 90-100% of calories to Blood Glucose in 30-95
>> >minutes (Durum Wheat Pasta, Beans & most Fruit) Protein
>> >60% conversion of calories to Blood Glucose in 180-240
>> >minutes Fat 10-30% conversion of calories to Blood Glucose
>> >in 480+ minutes
>>
>> Funny that one of the quickest carbs is also the most
>> satiating foods.
>
>Not funny at all.

Funny in the peculiar sense.

>That is why they are "satiating".

Why? They fill the stomach, and raise glucose levels to
normal?

>Question still is for how long...

Depends on how much you eat, of course.

>> >>>(and where did pre-agricultural cavemen get such items
>> >>>from all year round)?
>> >>
>> >>Whereabouts?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not really.
>>
>> I meant in what geographic area? Iceland?
>
>You perhaps might not noticed yet, but Iceland wheather is
>quite similiar to wheather humans had to survive for quite a
>long time.

You snipped my paragraph, destroying its meaning. I was not
mentioning Iceland except as a cold comparison to the tropics.
I could have said "Canada? Mexico?" Or "Siberia? Indonesia?"

[Moosh:)]

Mirek wrote:

Again this message never made it to Western Australia :)

>> The weight increase must still be from overeating.
>
>I think you are right in the end.
>
>OTOH, it is vicious cycle - eat carbs, overshoot insulin,

Only in the unwell.

>store them as fat,

Only in the overfed.

>get hypo, get hungry, eat carbs....

Again, only in the unwell.

>Problem is that it works in many people far before they can
>be classified as insulin-resistant.

Classified by whom? Try a glucose tolerance test (GTT)

>Unless your BG is absolutely stable, there are swings.

Yes, that stands to reason :) But normal folk only have tiny,
insignificant swings.

>And this cycle makes them worse and worse....

Yes, in the unwell, as I said.

>> >OK. I think it would have been pretty hard for them to
>> >make 60% of their diet comprise carbs though, especially
>> >as much of their food would have been seasonal. 10% - 20%
>> >maybe, but that's just hand-waving. Hard to tell.
>>
>> Yes. Of course, it might likely have been 60% of their
>> calorie intake,
>
>Where they got these carbs from?!!!

Fruit, seeds, honey, vegetables, tubers, nuts, sap, starches,
nectar.....

>> which was just above starvation level. They got a lot of
>> execise. Our hunter-gatherer "stone age" aboriginals
>> collect a lot of plant seeds, plant nectar, yams, honey,
>> fruits etc.
>
>Hm, have you ever consider what climate there was in last
>several hunderds of thousands of years?

Where? Where most of mankind lived, it was rather
pleasantly warm.

>Even now in country I live (central europe) there is not too
>much carbohydrates available in nature.

But Europe was cold and icy. No-one but Neanderthals lived
there :) [sorry, couldn't resist]

>Maybe some berries three four months of year, other fruits
>only in summer and maybe some nuts and veggies. Definitely
>not enough to keep human population alive. I do not believe
>they could get 60% from carbs.

Probably not at times. Then there is that other minority,
the Inuit.

>And, BTW, you cannot get 60% of energy from carbs at near to
>starvation levels and stay healthy. You would not simply get
>enough essencial protein.

Agreed, but who said they were healthy? They were mostly
malnourished like the rest of the animal kingdom in nature.
When food is available, the breeding rate increases until it
rises to a level that the malnutrition just doesn't kill off
the whole of the species -- well that's how it works with
present species, by definition :)

>> They do a hell of a lot of walking.
>
>Which is a good advice for us too! :)

Absolutely. Although I prefer my velocipede. Kinder on my
old joints.

[Martin Tho]

12:03:16 Sat, 3 Apr 2004sci.med.nutrition Martin Thompson at
Martin Thompson <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>No, in the mid 60s I took so many samples of blood in the
>>hospital I worked at. You could easily tell the post
>>prandial specimens from the pre prandial. It was so obvious.
>>Especially after a hospital roast dinner :)
>>
>
>Yuck. Hospital food.
>
>Certainly I know that my lipids are pretty good on my diet
>(not totally correct, but my body fat % is still a bit high).
>

Just a quick thought here: the hospital roast dinner will
have included a sizeable portion of starchy potatoes and
possibly some swede as well, no? The lipids could be coming
from all that glucose being converted into fat - at least in
some patients.
--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Mirek Fidl]

> >Yes, I don't see why not - unless the ones we see are
> >different in
some
> >way. Ah - the preparation they need to make them safe to
> >eat. We are talking about pre-technological humans -
> >*really* Palaeolithic
people.
> >No cooking (although I imagine washing would be
> >permitted, since
monkeys
> >do it).
>
> Well cooking goes back to the discovery of fire some 500,000
> years, doesn't it?

Cooking perhaps. But boiling is somewhat more diffucult,
you need some sort of ceramics or something similiar.

> In the tropics there are always fruits and other vegetable
> foods available.

Hm, white people got enough time to change skin colour
since they leaved tropics. Is it so hard to expect they
changed they "food genes" since then too?

> Not sure what you are trying to elicit here, but the age old
> advice I am advocating is a wide variety of _wholefoods_.
> Very important.

Agree on that. Disagree on bread as wholefood :)

> Most Westerners are needing to reduce their energy intake,
> so fats (being so calorie-dense) are the obvious (and easy)
> choice to reduce. Trimming meat and using low fat dairy are
> two simple ways of doing this. Which would satisfy you more?
> A slice of wholegrain bread, or an isocaloric spoon of oil?

Wholegrain bread would. But only for short time.

OTOH, what would you satisfy more, a slice of wholegrain bread
or isocaloric steak?

Mirek

[Moosh:)]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:53:00 +0200, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >Hm, what to say on this? Sure it is a problem of
>> >self-control. OTOH,
>I
>> >WAS hungry.
>>
>> Of course. Maybe some tricks to avoid succumbing to this
>> inappropriate urge? Like having no snack foods available,
>> or doing something completely different when the urge
>> appears? Much appetite urge is
>
>Well, maybe these "soft" tricks would work too. OTOH, what is
>so wrong with getting energy from fat? It does the same job
>without any tricks like this. Plus I feel better.

YOU might, and it is likely the best compromise for you, but
other folk are better getting their energy from fat, carbs
and proteins.

>> >it DOES work very well:) As for why I have several
>> >theories, but I am sure you are NOT interested in them :)
>>
>> Put 'em up and I may comment.
>
>Ask me after several more months. By that time I may be even
>able to tell you why it fails :)))))))
>
>> But again, just because you need to severely limit carbs,
>> does not
>
>Hm, it is not that sever as you might think. I definitely eat
>a lot of veggies, much more than before. I think I am at
>about 60g of carbs per day.

That seems severe to me. Thats about 12% carb calories. The
Zone and latest Atkins seem to be 40%

>> mean that this is the ideal way of eating for everyone.
>
>Sure it does not. I even know people doing well on low-fat
>diet. Everybody is different.

Yes, but not as different as you seem to portray. The
overweight are the ones with metabolic problems. Stay slim
and get enough exercise, and you will likely never have
any problems.

>I even do not think it is ideal WOE for me. But it is much
>closer to it than standard high-carb diet.

The key words being "for me".

>> You are abnormal, I'm afraid.
>
>What is normal?

The fat bit of the bell curve.

>Perhaps any person with tendency to get fat is abnormal in
>some sense and what is wrong with finding a WOE that can
>prevent further problems?

None at all. We just differ on what is normal. I'm looking at
the population of the world, not some small over-advertised
elitist group :)

[Moosh:)]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:55:10 +0200, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>>
>> >Hm, so you are trying to advocate ingestion of carbs to
>> >get glucose
>high
>> >to supress hunger and feel good ?
>>
>> Doesn't need to be abnormally high. Just a tiny bit above
>> normal brings satiety.
>
>Tiny bit above normal means tiny spike :)

Sorry, spikes are sharp -- of short duration. In normal folk,
these are gentle rises from lowish levels to normal levels.
Spikes are a sign of problems.

[Moosh:)]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 23:03:33 +0200, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >Well, who knows.
>>
>> Anyone who studies nutrition and history and life.
>
>Then you should know that agricultural nations conquered
>world not because individuals were healthy, but because
>agriculture was able to feed much more people.... (while
>individual healt usually worsened).

For some, of course, but then the high priests who controlled
the grain stores, the odd slave who fell by the wayside was
neither here nor there :)

>> >Well, so far I feeled like I am on balanced whole-food
>> >diet now. Only problem is definition:)
>>
>> No, the definition covers a very wide range.
>
>OK, if balanced diet is what you define (getting all needed
>nutrients and energy), then I am on balanced diet.

I should very much hope so. But balance is not what I'm
referring to. I'm saying that the necessary (for you and a few
others) distortion of macronutrient ratios is NOT the ideal
WOE for the huge bulk of the human population

>It of course depends on whether you consider gluconeogenesis
>as normal
>:)

Of course it is. It is always present, but the low levels of
enzymes along the pathway require time to induce when needs
become high.

>> >> >FIY, I mix fat with veggies - and that makes them VERY
>> >> >filling.
>> >>
>> >> And rather more energy dense? Try some potatoes
>> >> instead :)
>> >
>> >Hm, if you insist that I am eating more calories than
>> >before going high-fat diet, then apparently calorie theory
>> >does not work, as I
>have
>> >lost 30+ lbs....
>>
>> Doesn't really matter how you do it, and why we are
>> discussing you is a mystery to me.
>
>You have started with it...

Quite likely, and still a mystery :)

>> >> Do they need adaption for this?
>> >
>> >Have you tried?
>>
>> Tried what? Burning ketones? Or not having much glucose
>> available? You have ketones available every day.
>
>But your brain usually is not able to utilize them, unless it
>is adapted.

No, your brain can utilise them, but until enough glucose
becomes available, you don't tend to feel on top of the world.

[Moosh:)]

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:49:38 +0200, "Mirek Fidler"
<cxl@volny.cz> posted:

>> >Yes, I don't see why not - unless the ones we see are
>> >different in
>some
>> >way. Ah - the preparation they need to make them safe to
>> >eat. We are talking about pre-technological humans -
>> >*really* Palaeolithic
>people.
>> >No cooking (although I imagine washing would be
>> >permitted, since
>monkeys
>> >do it).
>>
>> Well cooking goes back to the discovery of fire some
>> 500,000 years, doesn't it?
>
> Cooking perhaps. But boiling is somewhat more diffucult,
> you need some sort of ceramics or something similiar.

But most cookinhg was in the hot coals, except some areas
where there were hot springs and foods were placed in string
bags to boil.

>> In the tropics there are always fruits and other vegetable
>> foods available.
>
> Hm, white people got enough time to change skin colour
> since they leaved tropics. Is it so hard to expect they
> changed they "food genes" since then too?

Depends on how severe the survival pressure were. Evolution
gets a wriggle on when the environment kills off more than
half of each generation.

>> Not sure what you are trying to elicit here, but the age
>> old advice I am advocating is a wide variety of
>> _wholefoods_. Very important.
>
>Agree on that. Disagree on bread as wholefood :)

The bread I eat is very close. I advocate eating whole
grain breads.

>> Most Westerners are needing to reduce their energy intake,
>> so fats (being so calorie-dense) are the obvious (and easy)
>> choice to reduce. Trimming meat and using low fat dairy are
>> two simple ways of doing this. Which would satisfy you
>> more? A slice of wholegrain bread, or an isocaloric spoon
>> of oil?
>
>Wholegrain bread would. But only for short time.

I was really only referring to a once. But of course, the
ideal diet in my view is a wide variety (as much as you can
obtain) of wholefoods (as wholefood as practical)

>OTOH, what would you satisfy more, a slice of wholegrain
>bread or isocaloric steak?

My bread will supply my nutrient requirements much better. The
steak has no fibre for starters.

[Moosh:)]

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 20:40:13 +0100, Martin Thompson
<bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> posted:

>12:03:16 Sat, 3 Apr 2004sci.med.nutrition Martin Thompson at
> Martin Thompson <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>No, in the mid 60s I took so many samples of blood in the
>>>hospital I worked at. You could easily tell the post
>>>prandial specimens from the pre prandial. It was so
>>>obvious. Especially after a hospital roast dinner :)
>>>
>>
>>Yuck. Hospital food.
>>
>>Certainly I know that my lipids are pretty good on my
>>diet (not totally correct, but my body fat % is still a
>>bit high).
>>
>
>Just a quick thought here: the hospital roast dinner will
>have included a sizeable portion of starchy potatoes and
>possibly some swede as well, no? The lipids could be coming
>from all that glucose being converted into fat - at least in
>some patients.

Isn't it strange that an hour or so after a very fatty meal
that folks will still grasp at straws by trying to ascribe the
fat in the blood to a relatively small amount of carb in
fat-saturated vegetables in the meal. Yeah, if you like.... :)

[Martin Tho]

20:20:07 Sat, 10 Apr 2004sci.med.nutrition dec at dec
<dec@dec.dec> writes:
>"Martin Thompson" <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> We're eating too many grains (cereals), apparently. Too
>> many starchy cereals, and not enough fruit and vegetables.
>> So what is one to think? I don't know.
>
>Yes, you do know--more vegetables and fruits, fewer grains,
>but not necessarily zero grains. They aren't bad, they just
>aren't as nutritionally dense or protective as vegetables.
>
>If you sprout your grains, their nutrient profiles will be
>more vegetable-like and less grain like. This works only
>for certain whole grains, though. Many "whole" grains will
>not sprout.
>
>> >>Personally I would find eating the amount of fruit it
>> >>advocates to be rather difficult, since as a diabetic,
>> >>fruit raises my blood glucose levels too far.
>
>Then eat mostly vegetables, fruit more sparingly. In the
>wild, our closest relatives are ripe fruit specialists when
>they have the choice. However, their fruit is lower in sugars
>than our modern supermarket fruits.
>
>>Certainly 5 a day is quite impossible.
>
>What you mean is that you find it daunting. But, you may
>eventually change your tune. Over 20 a day is not difficult,
>but you would do better to gradually work your way up to it
>rather than diving in. If you stay at the 20+ level for some
>time you may come to realize just how perverse the typical
>Western way of eating really is.
>

20 a day! Okayyyy...

Now what counts? I just had some tuna with lime and black
pepper dressing on rye crispbread with some olive-oil based
butter-substitute spread. Does the lime juice count as 1? Or
is that too small an amount?

I could have had some tuna in mayo with sweetcorn (a few bits)
and peppers (a few bits of red pepper) - would they count? Or
are we talking entire vegetables here?

What of salads? I could have accompanied my snack with a leafy
salad comprising spinach leaves, mizumo (or whatever it is
called) leaves, parsley and some other leaf. Do I count those
as 1 each (not per leaf, perhaps, but per few leaves)?

--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Dec]

"Martin Thompson" <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> wrote

> We're eating too many grains (cereals), apparently. Too many
> starchy cereals, and not enough fruit and vegetables. So
> what is one to think? I don't know.

Yes, you do know--more vegetables and fruits, fewer grains,
but not necessarily zero grains. They aren't bad, they just
aren't as nutritionally dense or protective as vegetables.

If you sprout your grains, their nutrient profiles will be
more vegetable-like and less grain like. This works only
for certain whole grains, though. Many "whole" grains will
not sprout.

> >>Personally I would find eating the amount of fruit it
> >>advocates to be rather difficult, since as a diabetic,
> >>fruit raises my blood glucose levels too far.

Then eat mostly vegetables, fruit more sparingly. In the wild,
our closest relatives are ripe fruit specialists when they
have the choice. However, their fruit is lower in sugars than
our modern supermarket fruits.

>Certainly 5 a day is quite impossible.

What you mean is that you find it daunting. But, you may
eventually change your tune. Over 20 a day is not difficult,
but you would do better to gradually work your way up to it
rather than diving in. If you stay at the 20+ level for some
time you may come to realize just how perverse the typical
Western way of eating really is.

> Well, what I am saying is that specifying a specific diet is
> not the same as saying people should eat a balanced diet. So
> narrowing down the ranges of various food types making up
> the diet is narrowing down the range of nutritional inputs
> available. This may be correct, but it is a restriction.

No, not really, not when you consider how to best obtain 100%
(or more) of the RDA for everything with few calories. Such a
goal would naturally lead to a predominately carbohydrate
diet. But, it would be a very high fiber, very high vegetable,
moderate fruit, moderate raw nut and seed diet with modest
quantities of mostly lean animal products, the exception being
fatty fish.

> It still presumably fits the standard model - 40-60% carbs,
> 20-40% protein, 20-40% fat or whatever is currently being
> plugged.

22.5% fat is probably home base, where acceptable ranges are
probably +/- 5 to 10%. WHO/FAO states that there is no
convincing benefit beyond 20%. Wild howler monkeys get
around 22-23% in their native environments. Their GI tracts
are very similar to ours.

Protein needs are simple: one needs enough. This is usually
10-20% for most people, unless they are under severe calorie
restriction and/or very athletic or ill, in which cases they
would need a bit more.

Everything else can be unrefined carbohydrate to no ill
effect, provided that a very wide variety of foods that are
mostly vegetables are incorporated.

[Martin Tho]

01:05:41 Sun, 11 Apr 2004sci.med.nutrition dec at dec
<dec@dec.dec> writes:
>"Martin Thompson" <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> wrote i
>> Now what counts? I just had some tuna with lime and black
>> pepper dressing on rye crispbread with some olive-oil based
>> butter-substitute spread. Does the lime juice count as 1?
>> Or is that too small an amount?
>
>These are typical definitions of servings:

OK, thanks for that.
--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Dec]

"Martin Thompson" <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> wrote i
> Now what counts? I just had some tuna with lime and black
> pepper dressing on rye crispbread with some olive-oil based
> butter-substitute spread. Does the lime juice count as 1? Or
> is that too small an amount?

These are typical definitions of servings:

-all vegetables except for raw leaves: 1/2 c raw or cooked
-raw leaves: 1 c -fruit: 1 medium, or if it is large, such as
grapefruit or melon, 1/2 -fruit, if chopped, canned, or thawed
from frozen: 1/2 c -fruit or vegetable juice: 3/4 c

> I could have had some tuna in mayo with sweetcorn (a few
> bits) and peppers (a few bits of red pepper) - would they
> count? Or are we talking entire vegetables here?

Generally speaking, the entire vegetable is the better choice,
unless it is a 5 kg bunch of collard greens, such as the one
that I purchased this morning. Such a large bunch would be
best eaten in reasonable quantities throughout the week.

You will want to eat the entire red pepper. It is a very
potent source of vitamin C and carotenoids, among other
things. I have an entire one every day. As far as the corn,
it is a better choice than more processed forms such as
cornmeal, corn chips, corn syrup, etc... each medium ear (90
g) would count as one serving although a serving of corn
contains far more calories, fewer vitamins, fewer minerals,
and fewer protective phytochemicals than a serving of raw red
bell pepper.

> What of salads? I could have accompanied my snack with a
> leafy salad comprising spinach leaves, mizumo (or whatever
> it is called) leaves, parsley and some other leaf. Do I
> count those as 1 each (not per leaf, perhaps, but per few
> leaves)?

Leaves in the cruciferae, compositae (lettuces) and
chenopodiaceae (spinach, beet greens, chard) families all have
similar calorie densities in the raw and cooked states.

Mizuno is a crucifer. One cup chopped is about 36 g (11
calories). One cup cooked is about 190 g (49 calories). Other
similar choices include kale, collard greens, turnip greens,
mustard greens, all types of cabbages, brussels sprouts,
arugula, rapini, etc. The solids in this category, which are
higher in calories per unit volume or weight than the leaves,
include broccoli and cauliflower.

For lettuces, each leaf is about 10 g, you could count 6
leaves as one serving. All lettuces, radicchio, dandelion
greens, etc. are in this category.

For chenopodiaceae, each raw cup is about 30 g (7 calories),
whereas the cooked cup is about 180 g (41 calories).

One very important aspect of high leafy diets is that
leaves are excellent sources of 18:n3 fatty acids, when
eaten in quantity.

An easy way to work your way up to 20 is to have include fruit
for breakfast and have a large salad as the main dish for
lunch and dinner. Everything else, none of which should be
forbiddden, can be peripheral. Green leaves are the most
nutrient dense choice of all.

I would not suggest diving into 20 all at once. Start with six
or so spaced throughout the day and slowly add one every few
days or week or so until you reach the maximum level that you
feel you can sustain with comfort. More is generally better,
as long as you insist on variety and high color, but may be
very time consuming (not only to clean and chop, but also to
eat), not to mention expensive.

[Moosh:)]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:20:07 GMT, "dec" <dec@dec.dec> posted:

>"Martin Thompson" <bin@tucana.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> We're eating too many grains (cereals), apparently. Too
>> many starchy cereals, and not enough fruit and vegetables.
>> So what is one to think? I don't know.
>
>Yes, you do know--more vegetables and fruits, fewer grains,
>but not necessarily zero grains. They aren't bad, they just
>aren't as nutritionally dense or protective as vegetables.

Huh? Says who? Are you not counting energy as a nutrient?

>If you sprout your grains, their nutrient profiles will be
>more vegetable-like and less grain like. This works only
>for certain whole grains, though. Many "whole" grains will
>not sprout.
>
>> >>Personally I would find eating the amount of fruit it
>> >>advocates to be rather difficult, since as a diabetic,
>> >>fruit raises my blood glucose levels too far.
>
>Then eat mostly vegetables, fruit more sparingly. In the
>wild, our closest relatives are ripe fruit specialists when
>they have the choice. However, their fruit is lower in sugars
>than our modern supermarket fruits.

Not necessarily. Some of the native fruits in Australia are
very high in sugar. Afterall, fruits compete with sweetness
for animals to eat them and disperse their seeds.

>>Certainly 5 a day is quite impossible.
>
>What you mean is that you find it daunting. But, you may
>eventually change your tune. Over 20 a day is not difficult,
>but you would do better to gradually work your way up to it
>rather than diving in. If you stay at the 20+ level for some
>time you may come to realize just how perverse the typical
>Western way of eating really is.
>
>> Well, what I am saying is that specifying a specific diet
>> is not the same as saying people should eat a balanced
>> diet. So narrowing down the ranges of various food types
>> making up the diet is narrowing down the range of
>> nutritional inputs available. This may be correct, but it
>> is a restriction.
>
>No, not really, not when you consider how to best obtain 100%
>(or more) of the RDA for everything with few calories. Such a
>goal would naturally lead to a predominately carbohydrate
>diet. But, it would be a very high fiber, very high
>vegetable, moderate fruit, moderate raw nut and seed diet
>with modest quantities of mostly lean animal products, the
>exception being fatty fish.
>
>> It still presumably fits the standard model - 40-60% carbs,
>> 20-40% protein, 20-40% fat or whatever is currently being
>> plugged.
>
>22.5% fat is probably home base, where acceptable ranges are
> probably +/- 5 to 10%. WHO/FAO states that there is no
> convincing benefit beyond 20%. Wild howler monkeys get
> around 22-23% in their native environments. Their GI
> tracts are very similar to ours.

In fact actually eating less fat than this is rather
difficult.

>Protein needs are simple: one needs enough. This is usually
>10-20% for most people, unless they are under severe calorie
>restriction and/or very athletic or ill, in which cases they
>would need a bit more.
>
>Everything else can be unrefined carbohydrate to no ill
>effect, provided that a very wide variety of foods that are
>mostly vegetables are incorporated.

Sounds good to me.

[Kansasman]

To me, balanced means moderation: food drink, excercise, work,
play....americans sometimes want it all and they want a lot of
it! Moderation is my route.

, when clearly there must be more to it than that.
> >>
> >>Why must there? All "diets" fail. To normalise weight, a
> >>lifelong sensible WOE must be maintained forever.
> >>
> >
> >That is at least part of the "more to it" that there is.
>
> To lose weight, (fat storage) you MUST eat hypocalorically.
> That doesn't change no matter what else you do.

[Martin Tho]

15:45:23 Thu, 15 Apr 2004sci.med.nutrition kansasman at
kansasman <dog4dogg@yahoo.com> writes:
>To me, balanced means moderation: food drink, excercise,
>work, play....americans sometimes want it all and they want a
>lot of it! Moderation is my route.

Yep, I think so too. People seem to be pretty simple-minded
about these things, and suffer the consequences.
--
Martin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web
Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin

[Dec]

"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote

> >Yes, you do know--more vegetables and fruits, fewer grains,
> >but not necessarily zero grains. They aren't bad, they just
> >aren't as nutritionally dense or protective as vegetables.
>
> Huh? Says who? Are you not counting energy as a nutrient?

Search PubMed: "calorie restriction" and longevity, morbidity,
mortality, etc.. Mild to moderate calorie restriction in
humans is very likely to be an highly beneficial choice,
provided that micronutrient and soluble fiber intakes (to name
a few) are sufficient.

> >Then eat mostly vegetables, fruit more sparingly. In the
> >wild, our closest relatives are ripe fruit specialists when
> >they have the choice. However, their fruit is lower in
> >sugars than our modern supermarket fruits.
>
> Not necessarily. Some of the native fruits in Australia are
> very high in sugar. Afterall, fruits compete with sweetness
> for animals to eat them and disperse their seeds.

I don't know about Australian fruits--everything is different
there, apparently. But, there is some discussion of USA
supermarket cultivated fruits compared to fruits that wild
primates eat in Katherine Milton's paper in Nutrition, 15:6,
1999 Nutritional Characteristics of Wild Primate Foods: Do the
diets of our closest living relatives have lessons for us?

"Domesticated fleshy fruits such as those purchased in
American supermarkets... have been selectively bred ... for
a very sweet taste. However, most non-human primates...
evolved eating wild fruits... not the cultivated fruits
humans now eat.

[discussion follows emphasizing sucrose, glucose, and fructose
contents of wild and cultivated fruits]

"Humans clearly come from an evolutionary pas in which hexose-
rather than sucrose-dominated fruits were consumed, and human
digestive physiology should, therefore, be best adapted to a
carbohydrate substrate similar to that of wild fruits. But, in
addition, wild fruits differ in other respects from the
cultivated counterparts. These include a high content of
roughage... as well as higher average protein levels, higher
levels of many essential micronutrients, and, at ties,
considerable pectin."

The free full paper, which makes for great reading, is here:

www.personal.kent.edu/~csherwoo/milton.pdf

There is a google html cache, also.

[Moosh:)]

On 15 Apr 2004 15:45:23 -0700, dog4dogg@yahoo.com
(kansasman) posted:

>To me, balanced means moderation: food drink, excercise,
>work, play....americans sometimes want it all and they want a
>lot of it! Moderation is my route.
>

Try "balanced diet" in a dictionary.

[Moosh:)]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:40:13 GMT, "dec" <dec@dec.dec> posted:

>
>"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote
>
>> >Yes, you do know--more vegetables and fruits, fewer
>> >grains, but not necessarily zero grains. They aren't bad,
>> >they just aren't as nutritionally dense or protective as
>> >vegetables.
>>
>> Huh? Says who? Are you not counting energy as a nutrient?
>
>Search PubMed: "calorie restriction" and longevity,
>morbidity, mortality, etc.. Mild to moderate calorie
>restriction in humans is very likely to be an highly
>beneficial choice, provided that micronutrient and soluble
>fiber intakes (to name a few) are sufficient.

Yep, happens in mice and is *likely* to happen in other
animals, but the calorie restriction is likely to be
unbearable for any significant effect. But what has this to do
with the erronious claim made of grains?

>> >Then eat mostly vegetables, fruit more sparingly. In the
>> >wild, our closest relatives are ripe fruit specialists
>> >when they have the choice. However, their fruit is lower
>> >in sugars than our modern supermarket fruits.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Some of the native fruits in Australia are
>> very high in sugar. Afterall, fruits compete with sweetness
>> for animals to eat them and disperse their seeds.
>
>I don't know about Australian fruits--everything is different
>there, apparently.

It is surprisingly similar to USA Canada and some of Europe,
but then quite different in some respects to other parts of
the world.

>But, there is some discussion of USA supermarket cultivated
>fruits compared to fruits that wild primates eat in Katherine
>Milton's paper in Nutrition, 15:6, 1999 Nutritional
>Characteristics of Wild Primate Foods: Do the diets of our
>closest living relatives have lessons for us?
>
>"Domesticated fleshy fruits such as those purchased in
>American supermarkets... have been selectively bred ... for
>a very sweet taste. However, most non-human primates...
>evolved eating wild fruits... not the cultivated fruits
>humans now eat.

Many apples are bred for their tart taste, as with some
berries. Go figure. Look, modern fruits are rather plump
and dilute. They contain more water and so the same
nutrients *appear* to be less. Really there is not a hell
of a distinction to be made, except for those trying to
sell books :)

>[discussion follows emphasizing sucrose, glucose, and
>fructose contents of wild and cultivated fruits]
>
>"Humans clearly come from an evolutionary pas in which
>hexose- rather than sucrose-dominated fruits were
>consumed, and human digestive physiology should,
>therefore, be best adapted to a carbohydrate substrate
>similar to that of wild fruits.

Why? Are any humans short of invertase? I've not heard of
it...

>But, in addition, wild fruits differ in other respects from
>the cultivated counterparts. These include a high content of
>roughage... as well as higher average protein levels, higher
>levels of many essential micronutrients, and, at ties,
>considerable pectin."

See above. Modern juicy cultivars are just more dilute, and
appear to the scientifically naive to be better for you. Eat a
small concentrated apple and a glass of water and you have
much the same as just a modern plump piece of fruit.

>The free full paper, which makes for great reading, is here:
>
>www.personal.kent.edu/~csherwoo/milton.pdf
>
>There is a google html cache, also.
>
>
Thanks :)

[Dec]

"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote

> Yep, happens in mice and is *likely* to happen in other
> animals, but the calorie restriction is likely to be
> unbearable for any significant effect.

You probably wouldn't even notice a 10% restriction--possibly
even 15%, and practicing a mild level is likely to be more
prudent than no restriction. The unbearable part comes in at
around significantly higher levels of restriction.

> But what has this to do with the erronious claim made
> of grains?

It isn't erroneous. You can search SR16, or whatever nutrient
database you like, and compare any grain with virtually any
vegetable, and you will find that for a given number of
calories, the vegetable provides more micronutrients than the
grain. There are populations in Asia that are unable to grow
grains; they get most of their calories from sticky roots such
as the sweet potato, and this provides them with some
considerable advantages. You can compare 100 calories of sweet
potato to 100 calories of oat bran, oatmeal, brown rice, whole
wheat, etc... and find that none of the grains come close to
what the sweet potato offers, and the sweet potato does not
compare in nutrient density to most leaves.

The same is true for nearly all fruits. When calories are
restricted, but micronutrient requirements stay the same, the
clearest choices to limit are the foods that provide fewer
nutrients per calorie.

You can improve the nutrient profile of your whole grains, by
sprouting. This makes their nutrient profile more
vegetable-like and less grain-like.

[Moosh:)]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:06:11 GMT, "dec" <dec@dec.dec> posted:

>
>"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote
>
>> Yep, happens in mice and is *likely* to happen in other
>> animals, but the calorie restriction is likely to be
>> unbearable for any significant effect.
>
>You probably wouldn't even notice a 10% restriction--possibly
>even 15%, and practicing a mild level is likely to be more
>prudent than no restriction. The unbearable part comes in at
>around significantly higher levels of restriction.

Yep, but I undesrstood that any benefit longevity wise came in
much later.

>> But what has this to do with the erronious claim made of
>> grains?
>
>It isn't erroneous. You can search SR16, or whatever
>nutrient database you like, and compare any grain with
>virtually any vegetable, and you will find that for a given
>number of calories, the vegetable provides more
>micronutrients than the grain.

But you are assuming that micronutrients are the only
nutrients.

>There are populations in Asia that are unable to grow grains;
>they get most of their calories from sticky roots such as the
>sweet potato, and this provides them with some considerable
>advantages.

Who are these?

>You can compare 100 calories of sweet potato to 100 calories
>of oat bran, oatmeal, brown rice, whole wheat, etc... and
>find that none of the grains come close to what the sweet
>potato offers, and the sweet potato does not compare in
>nutrient density to most leaves.

What nutrients though? Most humans lack energy!!!

>The same is true for nearly all fruits. When calories are
>restricted, but micronutrient requirements stay the same, the
>clearest choices to limit are the foods that provide fewer
>nutrients per calorie.

But you seem to have an obsessiom with restricting calories.

>You can improve the nutrient profile of your whole grains, by
>sprouting.

In what area?

>This makes their nutrient profile more vegetable-like and
>less grain-like.

You mean they are radically different? I guess that water is
the main difference. Sprouts are more-or-less hydrated grains.

[Dec]

"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote
> But you are assuming that micronutrients are the only
> nutrients.

I make no such assumption.

> >There are populations in Asia that are unable to grow
> >grains; they get most of their calories from sticky roots
> >such as the sweet potato, and this provides them with some
> >considerable advantages.
>
> Who are these?

You could find them for yourself, if you were inclined.

(The same is true for virtually all of the questions
that you ask.)

Sho H. History and characteristics of Okinawan longevity food.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db-
=PubMed&list_uids=11710358&dopt=Abstract Asia Pac J Clin Nutr.
2001;10(2):159-64. PMID: 11710358 ABSTRACT: "Okinawan food
culture in the Ryukyu island is one of the world's most
interesting culture because its consumers have the longest
life expectancies and low disability rates. It is a product of
cultural synthesis, with a core of Chinese food culture,
inputs through food trade with South-East Asia and the Pacific
and strong Japanese influences in eating style and
presentation. The Satsamu **sweet potato provides the largest
part of the energy intake**"

Full paper for abstract below describes over 50% of calories
coming from sweet potato

Chin Med J (Engl). 2001 Oct;114(10):1095-7. A survey of the
dietary nutritional composition of centenarians. Chen C.

OBJECTIVE: To make a survey of the nutritional composition of
the diets of centenarians. METHODS: Thirty-four centenarians
were selected as subjects. Retrospective surveys were made on
the variety and amounts of food consumed and their
nutritional composition. Physical examinations with
laboratory tests such as cardiograms, ultrasonic B rays, and
blood, urine and hair tests were performed. Neutron
activation testing was done on hair content. The transmission
turbidimetric method was used to measure apolipoprotein
content. RESULTS: The main food of the centenarians showed
the characteristics of low calories, protein and fat but high
fiber and mineral content. Laboratory results showed that the
content of the elements of Cu, Se and Mn in hair was higher
(P < 0.01). Zn was normal. The apoA1/apoB100 ratio was higher
than in the control group (P < .01), and total cholesterol
(TC) was lower than in the control group (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: The variety of diet and its nutritional
composition may be the main factors influencing not only the
content of elements in body, but also the levels of apoA1 and
apoB100, which may be helpful in preventing arteriosclerosis
and forming and maintaining immunity. The diet of these
centenarians might aid in preventing cardiovascular and
cerebrovascular diseases and malignant tumors.

PMID: 11677774 [PubMed - in process]

Also see: Village of long life, from ABC News, most calories
come from sweet potato:
http://www.appliedhealth.com/ABC_News_HA.html

> But you seem to have an obsessiom with restricting calories.

The very recent PNAS paper provides more than ample
justification for calorie restriction. You can look it up for
yourself: Luigi Fontana et al. Long-term calorie restriction
is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis
in humans http://www.pnas.org

> >You can improve the nutrient profile of your whole grains,
> >by sprouting.
>
> In what area?

The USDA's SR16 nutrient database is in the public domain. It
likes to be used, too.