Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


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

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low Carb Health & Technical Forums > Tips and Stalls
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46   ^
Old Wed, May-15-02, 20:00
Bloom Bloom is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,181
 
Plan: Dukan
Stats: 229/185/154 Female 168cm
BF:
Progress: 59%
Location: New Zealand
Default

Tiger,
I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt that you are well meaning.
I found both these articles to be simply but well written and not too over the top , maybe you will get some reassurance form reading them

Low Carb vs. Food Pyramid

I have been reading a number of your articles regarding diet and have noticed that you seem to have many good things to say about Dr. Barry Sears' "The Zone" approach. But I have also read articles by another expert who takes a very dim view of the Zone. One area on which you seem to disagree a lot is the infamous food pyramid, which has been burned into our minds. Can you help me understand how two experts could differ so much?

............................................................
Sure. It's very confusing to the general public when people to whom they turn for expert opinions differ so strongly, yet this kind of range of opinion is pretty much a fact of life in virtually every area of specialization. Facts are only as useful as the interpretations we draw from them. On any given subject there are thousands and thousands and thousands of "facts." Sorting through all the information, deciding what is most important and then making interpretations is a very individual judgment, and it's why many well-meaning people can genuinely differ in the conclusions they draw.

Nutritionists, like all professionals, differ in their training and in their orientations. Like politicians, some are more "conservative" and some are more "liberal." For example, registered dietitians tend to have a very conservative training and tend to follow the lead of orthodox medicine. While there are certainly exceptions, most tend to believe in the food pyramid and support the idea that the conventional high-carbohydrate, low- fat diet is the one and only "best" way to eat in a healthy manner.

This orthodoxy is being questioned and challenged more and more by many leading doctors and nutritionists, though at this time the "challengers" remain in a minority, albeit a vocal and sophisticated one. Obviously, I am in the camp of the challengers and the other expert you refer to is one of the "defenders."

In my opinion, since we as a country adopted a low-fat diet high in refined foods and sugar and high in processed carbohydrates, we have seen epidemics of obesity, heart disease and especially of type II diabetes. We are now finding out that cholesterol levels alone -- which was a big reason that everyone was so afraid of fat -- are not such a reliable predictor of heart disease after all. We now have information about the relationship between insulin and heart disease, hypertension and diabetes that we did not have 25 years ago, and it is safe to say that high levels of insulin are a risk factor for many of these diseases. High-carbohydrate diets raise insulin levels, dangerously so in susceptible people, moderately so in almost everyone else. Coincidental with this, many experts believe that fatty acid deficiency in this country is rampant. They believe that fat per se is not the problem we thought it was, but rather, it's the kind of fat we eat that causes mischief.

For all these reasons, I find it very hard to endorse a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet and impossible to endorse it as a weight-loss tool. There are other people who feel differently than I do. Though I continue to believe that no one diet works for everyone, and that there is considerable individual variation in our response to different foods and food groups, I think a Zone-type diet is overall a smart place to begin, with the understanding that every person may need to adjust the percentages somewhat depending on their goals and individual metabolism. I think a diet of 40 percent carbohydrates, 30 percent protein and 30 percent fat makes far more sense and is much more balanced than the standard 60 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein diet that most conservative dietitians continue to recommend.

As far as the food pyramid goes, there are many things wrong with it. For one thing, I do not believe most people should be eating anywhere near the number of carbohydrate servings it recommends from grains, breads, pastas and rice and cereals, especially from the kind that are most widely available to us in our supermarkets. The pyramid makes no distinction between refined, processed carbohydrates, such as commercial cereals and breads, and true whole-grain products. The food pyramid lumps sugars and fats together, which is a huge mistake. There is absolutely no need in the human diet for refined sugar. On the other hand, there is a definite need for fats, and some fats, such as the ones found in fish, nuts and olive oil, are extremely healthy. Finally, the food pyramid assumes that everyone is biologically and metabolically the same, which is demonstrably wrong. As nutritional anthropology has shown time and time again, some people do very well on high-fat, high-protein diets, some do very well on high-carbohydrate (non-processed) diets, some do much better without dairy, some do okay on predominantly vegetarian diets, and some do much better with meat.

The food pyramid is an invention of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the late 20th century. Most of the foods on it did not exist before the invention of agriculture. If the history of the human genus were a 24-hour clock, agriculture was invented about 5 3/4 minutes ago. On this same clock, the food pyramid is less than 17 seconds old. To assume it is the last word on the best kind of fuel for the human body is, in my humble opinion, utter folly.

Jonny Bowden, M.A., C.N.S

Beyond Calories

I'm confused by all the diet information I've been reading. A lot of people say the only way to lose weight is to cut calories, and yet a lot of the newer books tell me that calories don't count. What's the real deal?

........................................................................ .........
Both points of view have a little bit of truth in them, and both are incomplete. A little bit of history is in order.

The concept of the calorie was first discovered in the 1890s, when food was broken down into its "macronutrient" components (fat, carbohydrate and protein), and the caloric (or "energy") value of each was determined. In the early 1900s, a chemist at Yale University applied the concept to exercise so that there was a way to objectively measure and compare both intake (food) and output (activity). The concept of counting calories was born, and for most of the century, "energy balance" (calories in, calories out) has ruled as the most popular theory of how people gain, lose and maintain weight.

Hundreds of weight-loss diets have come and gone over the years, and most of them have been based on a low-calorie diet. And although some people have always challenged the calorie as the ultimate arbiter of weight loss, it seems that these challenges have gotten bolder, more frequent and more popular in the past decade or so.

And with good reason.

The basic argument against the calorie as the most important factor in weight loss is this: Calories alone don't account for how various foods effect the body. We now know that the food we eat has an impact on mood, ease of digestion, immunity, water retention, energy, blood sugar levels and the all-important hormones glucagon and insulin.

Measuring the value of your food only by how many calories it contains is like measuring the value of your best friend by how much money she makes. It is a one-dimensional way to look at a complex entity.

In their backlash the supremacy of the calorie, researchers and popular writers began claiming that "calories don't count." Instead of saying "calories aren't everything," they said "calories don't matter at all." Fat was the new demon (it has more than twice the calories of protein and carbohydrate), and the popular diet strategy was to keep your intake of fat as low as possible and not worry about the calories.

So what's the "truth"?

If you ask me, designing a weight-loss program solely based on calories is downright silly. On the other hand, it's equally foolish to assume that simply because you're controlling insulin levels and keep a hormonal balance in the body that favors fat loss, you can eat 10,000 calories a day and not get fat.

If you ask me, I would say that the people making the most sense right now are those who are designing food plans that take into account the effect of food on hormones such as insulin and glucagon. That means a plan higher in good-quality fat and lean protein than is "conventionally" recommended, and lower in carbohydrates, particularly "high glycemic" carbohydrates. This means a plan that stresses fiber, fresh vegetables, moderate fruit, plenty of protein, lots of omega-3 fats from fish and flax, and foods such as nuts and seeds, with a fair percentage of raw foods, and an absolute minimum of processed and refined foods, especially baked snacks and other trans-fat-loaded "food products."

Does this mean "calories don't count" at all? No. But it does mean that they no longer belong on center stage.

Jonny Bowden, M.A., C.N.S.


HTH
cheers Jenny

Last edited by Bloom : Wed, May-15-02 at 20:28.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #47   ^
Old Thu, May-16-02, 06:18
kimberlina's Avatar
kimberlina kimberlina is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 497
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 168/158/148 Female 5'4"
BF:no clue!
Progress: 50%
Location: Ohio
Default thanks!

thanks for taking the time to post these articles. both had valid points and its good to see that medical and professionals are questioning low-fat and the all mighty pyramid!

great reading!
Reply With Quote
  #48   ^
Old Fri, Feb-14-03, 12:49
barrygroves barrygroves is offline
New Member
Posts: 7
 
Plan: Eat Fat, Get Thin
Stats: 182/154/154
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Default

I see that earlier in this thread, you have me down as a 20 year low-carber. Just to bring this up to date, my wife, Monica, and I are 41 year low-carbers.

Barry Groves, PhD
Author of Eat fat, Get Thin!
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #49   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-03, 18:47
ghost54321 ghost54321 is offline
New Member
Posts: 1
 
Plan: Protien Power
Stats: 213/175/165
BF:
Progress: 79%
Location: Ohio
Default NOT Calories!

After living for 15 years under the calorie counting dogma, and rigorously limiting my diet to well under 2000 calories a day, I had gained an additional 25 pounds! During the past 7 months on low-carb, I've lost over 40 pounds, even though I eat as much as I want. I'll often go 2500 or even 3000 carbs, eating stuff I never would have been alowed to eat before, but the weight keeps coming off. Went in today and saw I'm down to 168 from 213. and this is the first time I've really lost significant weight. I'll never believe again that all calories are alike!
Reply With Quote
  #50   ^
Old Mon, Mar-03-03, 19:12
dcbrowne's Avatar
dcbrowne dcbrowne is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,005
 
Plan: south beach (CAD)
Stats: 314/284/150 Female 5 ft 4 in
BF:49
Progress: 18%
Location: Massachusetts, US
Default

Tiger may have studied A&P, but needs to take the more advanced course in endocrinology. The interplay of insulin and glucogen is key here. I am an Anatomy and Physiology Instructor and have read at least 15 different anatomy texts, none support his point of view!!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm new big-big man Jacob450 Introduce Yourself 27 Sun, Jul-25-04 06:45
Interesting article on if excericse necessary for weight loss... Frederick LC Research/Media 4 Tue, Jan-06-04 14:32
[Zone] calories, calories lisalaura Semi Low-Carb Plans 4 Thu, Mar-13-03 10:05
More calories, lose weight? scottinnh General Low-Carb 8 Wed, Mar-12-03 15:08
How Many Calories Are You Using--and Other Burning Questions fern2340 Beginner/Low Intensity 0 Tue, Jul-31-01 13:53


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:36.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.