Low carbohydrate intake proven to be unhealthy

[Bonnie]

This article appeared today in my local newspaper, "The Daily Gleaner", e-mail:
dgnews~nbnet.nb.ca


"How often have you picked up a magazine while waiting in the grocery store lineup, only to see yet another diet being advertised? "Lose 20 pounds in two weeks." "Drink this delicious chocolate drink at every meal and your life will never be the same!" Isn't that the truth? Promises, promises. Do we really believe that these diets work? Many of my clients have learned that they do not and for some unfortunately, it has taken years for them to figure that out.

These same diets come and go over the years. Currently, a diet that has resurfaced is the low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet, supported by individual testimonials, rather than scientific evidence. You know the ones I am talking about. There is a bundle of them on the book store shelves: Sugar Busters, Dr. Atkin's "New Diet" Revolution, Protein Power, Enter the Zone, and Suzanne Somers's Get Skinny on Fabulous Food Diet. They all advocate that to lose weight, we need to restrict our carbohyrate intake.
Carbohydrates come from breads, cereals, fruits and veggies. They believe that these nasty carbohydrates will cause weight gain. They argue that when we eat a high-carbohydrate intake, this over-stimulates the production of insulin, the hormone responsible for the transport and storage of glucose. Eating protein foods, rather than carb foods are reported to have less impact on insulin production and they propose that our stored fat will be replaced as energy.

They also boast that by replacing our carbohydrates with protein, fewer calories will be eaten and we will lose weight. Maybe, but without a doubt food is less healthy. Compare these two breakfasts: a breakfast of three eggs, 1/4 pound of bacon and two sausages versus a breakfast of one bowl of bran flakes, two eggs and two slices of whole wheat toast. While the breakfast with the bacon, eggs and ham might fit into the low carb diet plan, it is far less the healthy of the two. Unfortunately, through media attention and popularity, Canadians perceive these low-carbohydrate diets as part of a healthy intake and lifestyle. Quite the contrary.

So what really happens when a person decides to go on a low-carb diet? The dieter boasts that he or she has lost a lot of weight over the first couple of weeks. Euphoria sets in! Yet the question begs to be asked: can you really lose nine pounds of fat in a week? Most likely, the lower number on the scales reflects water loss due to the low-carbohydrate intake.

So what do we eat, if we don't eat carbohydrates? Certainly not fat. The negative health risks we might encounter when we eat a high-fat diet - heart disease and some types of cancer - have been well documented. Why would we want to replace our troubles with weight for these health problems? And certainly not more protein. While we can't live without it too much is also associated with heart disease and cancers, and even osteroporosis and kidney damage.

Without carbohydrates, our bodies burn fat as an energy source. The downside is that we can't burn fat completely, and as a result a substance called ketones is produced and spills into the bloodstream. At first, dieting seems easier because ketones often kill the appetite and even makes us nauseated. Soon after, other negative side-effects come along such as weakness, diarrhea, dizziness and headaches. Can we stay motivated to stay on a plan when we know it makes us feel awful?

No matter whether we have weight to lose or not, many of us can afford to make changes toward improving our lifestyle. Improving our food intake means including foods from all food groups including carbohydrate foods such as breads, cereals, and fruits and veggies. In fact carbs should make up more than half of what we eat each day. They give us the necessary energy our body requires along with key vitamins and minerals important for good health. The rest of our food intake comes from fat and protein, which are also important for good health.

The right formula for managing weight is to learn to eat well and to take every opportunity to incorporate activity into our daily routine. In order for weight loss to be maintained, it should be slow and gradual. Our efforts will pay off over time, as we reduce our risks for illness and manage our weight more effectively.

Margaret Langille is a professional dietitian in private practise in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. She can be reached at langille~brunnet.net

[tamarian]

Hey Bonnie,

Thanks for posting this. I need to vent a bit :)

Originally posted by Bonnie
supported by individual testimonials, rather than scientific evidence.

Now this is how a "nutritionist" advertise their services. Accuse someone of not having scientific evidence (LC books are the most science laden plans, like PP), and go scare the hell out of people. Even cancer, now that's a new one.

Now what scientific evidence does she provide? The food pyramid and the "eat well" cliche.

Damn, I should get a mail certificate to become a nutritionist. I can memorize the pyramid in 5 seconds, and I know how to spell "eat well" and other cliches.

[Karen]

Well, if anyone wants to tell her what a complete and utter moron she is, her email address was at the end of the article:

Margaret Langille is a professional dietitian in private practise in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. She can be reached at langille~brunnet.net

Karen

[Natrushka]

I've cut n pasted her address. I plan on drafting a response over the weekend ;)

Thx, Bonnie
Nat

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by Natrushka
I've cut n pasted her address. I plan on drafting a response over the weekend ;)

Thx, Bonnie
Nat

Nat, I have e-mailed a short rebuttal to her personal address shown at the bottom of the document but if you wish to cc: your article to the Editor, "The Daily Gleaner", I provided this e-mail address at the top of the article...

I first smiled at the catchy title and I also surmised that she had not read any of the books she so readily criticized....it is obvious since I informed her we do eat fruits and vegetables on this plan ...this woman was just printing facts she has seen out there by countless other shock media types without any documentation or by which I pointed out to her in my rebuttal, speaking with any one following the plan.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Bonnie

[LC Sponge]

It's best to send your response as a letter to the editor of the paper.

Sending to the author will only change one person's mind (am I an optimist or WHAT!??) :)

BTW the content of her article is extraordinarily OLD thinking, was it a reprint of some ancient piece she wrote and pulled out of a manila folder for publication or something ?? LOL If she has a regular column there, it might have been just that, a last minute filler piece.

Also, when newspaper sales are down, they WILL print something controversial to *get a rise* out of readers - it helps if they can say to advertisers "We get 3,000 letters a week" (even if those letters say things like "are you stupid or something?")

And one MORE thing - as said previously she is a private dietitian so this article is an advertisement for her as far as she is concerned. There are enough people who FEAR low carb dieting who will feel confident to contract her for her services. Every business must have a niche and a target client base. Unfortunately she is expounding on why SAY NO low carb rather than WHY SAY YES anything else.

[doreen T]

I intend to write a letter to the editor of the Daily Gleaner, cc'd to Ms. Langille.

However, when I visited the Daily Gleaner website (http://www.nbnews.com/dailygleaner/), I was greeted with the front page of headlines only. Access to all news stories, including letters to the editor, is restricted to paid-subscribers only :( .. (for readers who do have access, the above quoted article can be found in the City Life section, Friday 23 November. 2001).

Perhaps Bonnie, you could keep an eye? and let us know of any published responses to this article? Including ours, if they make it past the editor's desk.

Doreen

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by doreen T
I intend to write a letter to the editor of the Daily Gleaner, cc'd to Ms. Langille.

However, when I visited the Daily Gleaner website (http://www.nbnews.com/dailygleaner/), I was greeted with the front page of headlines only. Access to all news stories, including letters to the editor, is restricted to paid-subscribers only :( .. (for readers who do have access, the above quoted article can be found in the City Life section, Friday 23 November. 2001).

Perhaps Bonnie, you could keep an eye? and let us know of any published responses to this article? Including ours, if they make it past the editor's desk.

Doreen

Will do Doreen...The "Gleaner" is a small paper so I'm sure this will make news...the main reason I posted this editorial is that it was directed to Canadian LCarbers and here we are in numbers...yes, it is a joke that you cannot not access the "Gleaner" without a subscription...I was very upset about this when I was down south as I like to keep informed of what is happening in my home town :mad: ... on the other hand the newspaper "Florida Today" that I daily peruse online and has a greater reading audience is free....go figure... :confused:

Bonnie

[Bonnie]

Just to follow up in regards to the article that appeared in, "The Daily Gleaner", Friday, November 23, 2001; it appears as some of us suspected that this topic got buried...to date after reading each paper from beginning to end, there has not been mention of the subject in regular columns or in the, "Letter to The Editor"...to be quite honest I thought that at least one response to the article would have been printed... I will wait for another week and if there is still no sign of anything will contact the editor...

Bonnie

[Bonnie]

Well, folks, believe it or not this was in very large print headlining the letters to the Editor section today in, " The Daily Gleaner", this article is written by Keith Clayton, a gentleman here in the city...I am not familiar with him but intend to contact him and congratulate him on a job well done...the following is what he has penned:

" Dear Editor: this is in response to a recent article in the Daily Gleaner.

You stated that a low carbohydrate diet is not part of a healthy intake and lifestyle. My doctor, a well-respected cardiologist, heartily disagrees. Because of my success, he wants me to continue my low-carb diet.

First, I have lost 13.5 kilograms - much more than water weight. I have kept it off for 18 months so far.

Isn't this healthier? My cholesterol and triglycerides are greatly improved and the ratios are excellent. I am off all medications. My asthma has disappeared and I have no more problems with atrial fibulation. But best of all, my blood sugar is now under control.

Before low carbing, I had severe hypoglycemia, with dizzy spells, vertigo, my vision spinning around, and what felt like "electric shocks" to the brain. I now sleep much better and I have more energy at age 50 than I did at age 20, 30 or 40. Surely you wouldn't suggest I go back to my old lifestyle, against my doctor's recommendations?

As far as not getting nutrients, I eat more vegetables than the majority of the world population. Now, you alluded to fats being associated with heart disease, cancer, etc. yet you cite no studies as references. A study is flawed unless all variables are the same except for the variable being tested.

The studies linking high fat intake to heart disease etc. allowed unrestrictive carbohydrate intake. This only shows an association, if carbohydrates are unrestricted.

In reality, studies that were performed on diets low in carbohydrates reveal that dietary fat promotes the production of HDL chloresterol - the one that prevents heart disease. At the same time, limiting carbohydrate in the diet results in decreased levels of LDL cholesterol, which is associated with atheroschlerosis.

As for cancer, show me a study that examines whether the amount of fat in a low carbohydrate diet has shown an increased risk over a diet that contains more than 50 % of calories from carbohydrates. More than 100 years ago, people in North America consumed most of their fat from animal sources, and very little from vegetable sources. They consumed far more protein and fat in total intake, yet heart disease and cancer was nearly unheard of.

The traditional diet of the Eskimo and aboriginals consist of almost all meat and fat, including plenty of blubber. Yet heart disease is virtually unknown for these people (unless they move to cities and take up their eating habits). Why is it that many diet articles written by professional dieticians seem to indicate that "one size fits all" for instance, the low-fat high carb diet?

Since everyone is different, isn't it possible that a low carb diet might be the perfect ticket for some people? Shouldn't we follow the advice of our doctors? Shouldn't we do our own research and determine what's best for us?

Keith Clayton
Fredericton, NB

[tamarian]

Hi Bonnie,

Thanks for taking the time to type in the ltter to the editor! :thup: If you contact Keith, make sure to point him to our forum, we need activists like him! :)

Wa'il

[Bonnie]

Most definitely!

[speck]

These dietitions and psuedoscientists make me so angry :mad: I am an anthropologist and know for a fact that agriculture and the domestication of grains was not part of any human cultures until 10 -12 thousand years ago; pit that against 4.4 million years of human evolution, in which there were virtually no grains used because the energy expenditure to get them wasn't worth it. Our bodies evolved to eat meat and vegetables. No sugar either, even the fruit early humans ate wasn't nearly as sweet as it is now, no, humans have selectively bred fruit to be bigger and sweeter. Point is, if humans were meant to be plagued by the cancers and heart diseases and obesity and diabetes that we are now, we wouldn't be here today. Our bodies didn't evolve to handle what we're putting into them, especially the refined grains and sugars, and these diseases and conditions are the pure and simple result of overconsumption of grains and sugars. You wouldn't expect a horse which evolved on a vegetarian diet to survive on an all meat diet, then why do people expect humans to survive on a diet that their bodies didn't evolve to eat.

[sammiejam]

speck, you got that right.

i reckon if we fed a horse on what most kids eat today it would die pretty quick, just like the kids probibly will. And its not just high carb food such as pasta and potatoes, its the cheap rubbish that is designed to appeal to kids ( the school that got funding from McD's and in return had to have Cheesebuger day etc)

When i was a kid take away food was expensive, a treat that we had maybe a few times a year. We really dont know what effect the consumption of burgers, coke, fries and pizza from early child will have. We just know that it will be very very bad. Even baby food has added sugars these days( they just dont call it sugar)

we are the first generation of humans to live on the kind of rubbish we do

not only that, there is genetic engineering to concider also

it is sad how we humans are managing to to distroy our beautiful plant, kill off other species and contaminate our food supply


sorry got off the subject, it all seems such a mess sometimes

so...
people such as the mis informed twit that penned the article are responsible for people like me who spend years suffering with weight problems while trying to do what they told me would help me, namely follow the food pyramid etc. I have said it before and i will say it again. When will Jenny C, WW and the rest of the crew wake up and stop the brain washing??

[surlymel]

Originally posted by speck
These dietitions and psuedoscientists make me so angry :mad: I am an anthropologist and know for a fact that agriculture and the domestication of grains was not part of any human cultures until 10 -12 thousand years ago...

Yep, and all you have to do is look at the evidence from (the x-rays of) the 18th dynasty Egyptian mummies in the museum at Cairo to see the direct effect of a diet based on too many cereal grain foods. Arthritis, scoliosis and other degenerative problems were pretty rampant... there are only a few of them that seemed to be in excellent physical health (the best examle is an unfortunate general who died young from plague). Bread and beer were said to have been the mainstay of the commoner's diet until Roman times, when of course the general level of health improved!

[odd sock]

What about the traditional diet of the Japanese?

As I read through all the reports, pros and cons, and medical and personal accounts, no one seems to mention the Japanese.
Until post-WWII, the Japanese diet consisted mainly of rice (unrefined), vegetables, fish, soy products (miso, natto, soybeans), eggs, seaweed, and little meat. Very little fat, heavily dependant on rice, no dairy, no sugar or refined foods, and seemingly one of the most nutritional diets in history. Heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and negative effects of menopause were exceptions in Japan until the West introduced their diet in the late 1940's. As it is today, the numbers of ill-health and disease are rising yearly with the popularity of McDonalds and processed foods. I would challenge anyone to find a doctor who does not give medical approval to this diet, with the possible exception that it may be too high in sodium for some people due to the shoyu/soy sauce.

What about it? Why does this rice-based diet successfully go against the LC WOE/WOL? :confused:

I am completely intrigued to why this diet seems 'out of the loop.'

Thanks!

[Natrushka]

Originally posted by odd sock
What about it? Why does this rice-based diet successfully go against the LC WOE/WOL? :confused:


Actually someone does address it. From Protein Power Lifeplan by the Eades:

"Many of the letters we've received have expressed skepticism about our advocacy of a protein-rich, moderate fat, carbohydrate-restricted diet in the face of the 'certain truth' that the low fat food pyramid diet is the way to health. In many of these missives, the recurring theme includes some reference to the health of the Chinese. Most people assume that the Chinese eat little protein and a lot of rice and vegetables and don't have heart disease; therefore, they conclude, eating a high-carb diet must be healthier.

The idea that the Chinese don't have cardiovascular disease is firmly implanted in the minds of just about everyone. However, the truth of the matter is that the Chinese do indeed have cardiovascular disease, and lots of it. According to the 1999 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update published annually by the American Heart Association, the rates of death from cardiovascular disease suffered by both rural and urban Chinese males is almost indistinguishable from the rate experienced by American males, while the rates of cardiovascular deaths for both rural and urban Chinese women is significantly higher than those suffered by American females. And bear in mind that cardiovascular disease is the number one killer of Americans. The notion that the Chinese don't have disease of the heart and blood vessels is what we like to call a vampire myth - it simply refuses to die."

From the footnone:

In both rural and urban China the majority of deaths from cardiovascular disease are from stroke, whereas the majority of cadiovascular deaths in the United States are from heart attack. Urban-dwelling Chinese males have about half the rate of heart attack of American males but almost six times the rate of stroke; urban Chinese females have about three-quarters the rate of heart attack of their American counterparts and almost five times the rate of death from stroke.


Nat

[speck]

well, I'd say that the the traditional Japanese diet is no more an anomaly than ANY traditional diet. While I don't have the statistics in front of me, the pre-industrial European or American diets were certainly higher in fat and vegetables than in refined sugars and starches with obesity, diabetes and heart disease rates lower. Now this has many, many causes and reasons, including more strenous/physical lives, shorter life-spans overall, less pollution and chemicals, etc. But the pre-WWII diet of Americans was much different than it is today, too. Where did the rice fit in in Japan? Where did the cornbread or biscuits fit in in America? Where did the pasta fit in in Italy? On the side...
The meat has always been the main course. And, since my field of expertise is still with anthropology, I will still argue that even in Asia, domestication of grains in the form of rice didn't happen until about 7000 years ago, compared with the last 4 million years of human evolution without it. Even people from Asia are not biologically equipped to handle the quantities of carbohydrates involved with bowlful after bowlful of rice or any other starch.
Moderation of carbs with a highly active life and human preference for protein is probably the secret to any traditional diet.

[odd sock]

Thanks, Nat and Speck!

Nat, the first argument I have read before, but the Chinese diet is different than the Japanese , just as it is differing from the diets of Korea, Laos, or Australia. That is why I really picked up on the argument because no one had specifically addressed this specific diet. I also noticed that the Eades' report was based on the 1999 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update published annually by the American Heart Association, whereas I am focusing on the traditional diet, not the modern one rife with all the sugar and refined flours. I must add that the figures in Japan are also dismal for health in connection to modern diet.

In the second point, speck is exactly correct in saying that studies must be just as reliant upon the factors of genetics/heredity, lifestyle (including stress factors and exercise), and environment as it is upon diet. As speck also mentions, there are several cases of indigenous populations that have suffered healthwise due to radical changes in diet through outside influences. Specifically, reports may be studied on the cultures of the Inuit, Pacific Islanders, former and present rainforest tribal members of Brazil, and of nomads of the Russian steppes. I specifically picked Japan, though, because of the extensive studies which rely upon several sources: ethnographic study, historical reports from within Japan and by foreign sources, and medical documentation.

speck offered the question:
Where did the rice fit in in Japan? Where did the cornbread or biscuits fit in in America? Where did the pasta fit in in Italy? On the side... The meat has always been the main course.

This is untrue for the traditional Japanese diet, where rice plays a larger role, approximately one-third of the diet. Another third is vegetable, both land-based and marine, and the last portion goes to proteins in the form of mostly soy products and fish.

Then we come to the point that speck had made:
Even people from Asia are not biologically equipped to handle the quantities of carbohydrates involved with bowlful after bowlful of rice or any other starch.

Unrefined rice is a different beast from polished (which IS, by all means, poison!). Unrefined rice contains vitamin B, calcium, iron, and magnesium. It is low in fat, contains no cholesterol, is high in complex carbohydrate, and high in fiber. But, in giving the whole picture on rice, I must relate that because rice is supplying mainly starch it places a great burden on the digestive system. When mature, grains contain enzyme inhibitors which prevent digestion, but they are digestible when green (like sweet corn) or when cooked or after they have germinated. Even cooked, the complex carbohydrate requires great digestive effort to break down, which may result in the development of the pancreas to double its normal size and other signs of strain such as stunted intestinal villi. Nutritional deficiencies may occur and, at the same time, toxemia and acidosis, capable of producing skin problems, arthritis, hardened arteries and cancer. These detriments may occur unless rice is accompanied by liberal amounts of fresh vegetables and fruit in the diet .

speck is absolutely correct on the biological issue, but as I have related, the Japanese diet does not in any way mean eating mass quantities of rice on its own. The traditional diet is rich in vegetable matter, and in protein-- just not greatly on animal-sourced protein.
I take your point, speck, that anthropologically the human race had developed eating a diet strongly based in animal proteins and vegetables (more vegetables than first suspected as suggested by recent archaeological discovery), but as I am constantly keeping an eye on the past, I am more interested in contemporary issues in concerns with modern day living and diet.

As a side note, and perhaps it is a digression of the main theme, I have to ask out of curiosity which 18th Century mummies surlymel is referring. If they are of the upper class (which most mummies are, as the ruling class were the only ones who could afford the process), these people would have had a diet with plenty of meat. The lower class did rely on bread and beer, but archaeological finds show that they also had a diet which included many vegetables and some protein. As for the Romans... don't get me started!!! :rolleyes:

My purpose is to find a logical and, perhaps, scientific solution to my query of the Japanese diet, not to challenge any decision to follow the LC WOE/WOL. I am successfully LC'bing now! Most of my research is based on medical journals, university publications, media, and tons of reading of the good, the bad, and the ugly. My need for this debate is purely for better understanding of my own diet and practices and the methodology behind it. I am not one to accept much on faith in the physical realm, so when I find a chink, I will question it!

Perhaps there are many ways of eating that are successful and beneficial to health, well-being, and weight loss. In my humble opinion, I feel as though LC has much going for it and good results which is why I practice, but I suspect that there is more to diet.

Conferences, specialists,journals, and study after study universally state that the major causes of the downfall of healthy lifestyle and diet are sugar, refined food, decreased or nil intake of vegetables (leafy green and red/yellow), and lack of exercise. The World Health Federation has clearly stated in several of its annuals that the world population is poisoning itself. With these proclamations taken as fact and engaging the reverse as a daily lifestyle change, must the method that we practice be solely the one path of LC? I am not suggesting we all down a bowl of rice or mix-n-match as it suits us, but I need to explore what this means, that there may be many paths to the same goal. There are universal truths, but the individual is also an important factor.

Does anyone have any further investigations or directions they can point me towards solving the dichotomy of the traditional Japanese diet and the LC lifestyle?

Thank you all!

[Natrushka]

Sock, you might want to check out Udo Erasmus' book "Fats that heal Fats that kill" - he addressed this (albiet briefly - the book is a great read in any event). The connection was the type of protein the Japanese ate - fish. Rich in heart healthy EFA's. He also made a case that both the Chinese and Japanese engage in much more physical activity than Americans (or Canadians for that matter).

Nat

[IslandGirl]

(a) phytonutrients, available in largest quantities by volume from (generally) highly leafy and coloured vegetables, and berry fruits.
(b) less or no processing (whole) and seasonal
(c) natural proteins and fats, not artificially supported/bred/raised/hybridized/fattened on grains and fairly divided between marine and 'range-fed'.

In SHORT, I believe these items are key in almost all traditional diets (due to the peripatetic nature of homo sapiens over the 3 million+ rather than the last 10,000 blip).

Further, there is no conflict, in my mind, between the above and a longterm low carb lifestyle versus a shorter-term crisis management fix (which is the LC 'diet' for those who clearly, by symptomology, fall in that percentage of the population that must *fix* their metabolic systems... the hypoglycemic, diabetic, obese, depressed, intestinally distraught, etc. etc.). In short, us.

My opinion of course, but a precis of my 3+ years of LC and reading across the spectrum.

[odd sock]

SORRY Nat! I wasn't trying to ignore/avoid/be generally rude! I think the last time on was 1 Feb... that's when, horrors, I kicked out the connection to the Net! It is funny how you start having conversations with people on the computer and when something happens, you feel like you've just hung up the phone on someone. Repairs FINALLY finished, sorry sorry sorry!

Thank you, Nat, for recommending Udo Erasmus to me. Actually, I couldn't find the exact title you mentioned, but after scratching around found his Fats and Oils: The Complete Guide to Fats and Oils in Health and Nutrition which led me on to doing so much research on fats that it has made my head spin. I have many questions still, fat and other, that I will start new threads on, but more answers to why the low-carbing works so efficently.

IslandGirl is exactly right in her summation of nutrition, its modern faults, and our metabolic restructuring through diet. I still ponder over the traditional Japanese diet (and even with still more articles on the disasterous effects that "Western" eating has had on indigenous communities) in its paradox with low carbing, and by this am wondering on the viability or possibility of choosing to go with these alternative WsOE. (As for myself, I think that I like pork too well to only consume it 2-3x a year!) It has genuinely inspired me to concider my own history of nutrition and continually change it for the better.

Thank you for your responses!


(If anyone out there wants a couple of references for their own research or in 'defence' of your WOE, just let me know and I can point to some great studies like Nat did for me.)