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 Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, May-03-15, 18:17
tie_guy's Avatar
tie_guy tie_guy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 264
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 330/246/230 Male 6'2"
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: Southern York County, PA
Default Latest issue of Consumer reports

I read Consumer reports because they are the only source I know of that gives product advice w/o accepting advertisements. Sometimes they go beyond that though. Often they will give (really bad IMO) advice on diets. Whenever they rate food products they always lower the ratings if a product is high in fat but never mention carbs. Best to look at their advice on taste and buying the product and to ignore what they say about nutrition. The latest issue of CR (June 2015) is no exception. On an article on the latest eating fads they gave this advice on low-carb diets:

"If your body gets less than 50 grams of carbs per day (the amount in two apples) for three to four days in a row, it will start tapping its own fat and muscle for fuel instead of its usual source : glucose from carbs."

The second part of that is new. I know people worry that people on low carb diets may eat too much protien because they do not understand that low carb diets are supposed to be high fat and not high in protien. So I have never heard anyone worry that we may eat so little protien that we may force our bodies to burn muscle. But I guess there is a first time for everything. Not sure if they got that from a peer reviewed article though.

The first part though just makes me laugh out loud. My god! If your body starts using stored fat instead of glucose from carbs then you might .. you know ... lose weight! Oh the horrors! How do people lose wieght on other diet plans w/o burning stored fat instead of getting calories from food? Why else are people going on diets?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, May-03-15, 20:01
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,230
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/181/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 88%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Consumer's Reports relies upon the Food Pyramid/MyPlate for their nutritional guidance. Food fat is evil in their minds.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sun, May-03-15, 21:35
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,338
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 220/192/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

As remarked by Dodger, with nutrition knowledge based on the recommended Standard American Diet (MyPlate and Pyramid), the advice on food products is not surprising. One of the major challenges that needs to be overcome before the population can be helped with their ways of eating is the information provided by the medical community and the government. Until this information is changed, the media will continue to support this flawed position.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, May-04-15, 01:50
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,120
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

GIGO. Start with a flawed premise, end with a flawed conclusion.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, May-04-15, 09:02
keith v's Avatar
keith v keith v is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 729
 
Plan: Wheat belly
Stats: 235/220/200 Male 6 feet 2 inches
BF:
Progress: 43%
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA Earth
Default

I actually usually disagree with most of what CR says. I get the feeling it's like Chinese science. Heres the result we need, now go prove it.

( the reason I say Chinese science is that I have met a few Chinese defectors that worked as scientists and that's what they said it was like in China. "Here go prove the sky is green" )
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, May-04-15, 10:34
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 9,923
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

That actually seems like an improvement. A couple of years ago, an article like this one probably would have said that you needed 120 grams of dietary carbohydrate a day, rather than 50. That was based on how much glucose the brain generally goes through in a day when a person's on a high carbohydrate diet. At least this recommendation is based on the threshold where most people will go into ketosis--they leave some room for a more moderate, just short of ketogenic, carbohydrate diet. The idea that ketosis guarantees loss of lean mass is utter nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, May-04-15, 10:51
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 8,376
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF
Stats: 195/153/135 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Quote:
If your body starts using stored fat instead of glucose from carbs then you might .. you know ... lose weight! Oh the horrors!
I had the same reaction when I read this article. I'm a new subscriber (curiosity!) to CR, and I've already learned that I read it through the filter of my existing opinions and prejudice.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, May-04-15, 12:12
xStarlitex's Avatar
xStarlitex xStarlitex is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 40
 
Plan: LC/Atkins/Paleo blend
Stats: 218/207/160 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 19%
Location: East Coast, USA
Default

One thing that is especially funny to me is how all the fitness magazines and gurus go crazy finding the new best way to burn fat. And some of the exercise ideas or insane diet practices like cycling massive calories with absurdly high carbs one day then starving yourself off them the next are unbelievable. I love to exercise but when I see some of the workouts and debates over how to burn fat I just laugh and there are so many ideas with tons of scientists studying all these ways to burn a little more fat. Essentially they are trying to get into ketosis without getting into ketosis. They want to burn all the glycogen away fast as possible to start burning fat even a little or if they could they would ignore the glycogen entirely and go right to the fat but they only want to do it this way or that way because ketosis has such a bad rap by people who lack the common sense to comprehend that ages ago before refrigeration and mass food production during times when there were not many crops (which was likely rather often in many parts of the country due to a myriad of things) people ate meat and they certainly ate the fat on the meat. They hunted and that is how they survive and their bodies went into the very normal state of ketosis so they could survive as long as they had to.

The availability of such vast quantities of food in such wide varieties (most of it unhealthy) has confused people into believing this is what we were made for. Well, if it was then how the heck did we survive from our caveman roots because I'm 100% sure they didn't have supermarkets then and they surely did not have refrigeration.

Oh well, at least we know better. Let the rest of the world cling to their processed foods and believe that carbs are great - the more carbs the merrier. We've already seen what that's doing to our society on whole and still people are befuddled as to why.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, May-04-15, 12:22
xStarlitex's Avatar
xStarlitex xStarlitex is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 40
 
Plan: LC/Atkins/Paleo blend
Stats: 218/207/160 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 19%
Location: East Coast, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keith v
I actually usually disagree with most of what CR says. I get the feeling it's like Chinese science. Heres the result we need, now go prove it.

( the reason I say Chinese science is that I have met a few Chinese defectors that worked as scientists and that's what they said it was like in China. "Here go prove the sky is green" )


That sounds like corporate america science, too. Actually, it's a pretty standard practice for most businesses to engage in (which is horrifying). It's so easy to manipulate statistics. That was actually one of the main points one of my professors used to make about statistics. He actually used to make aim for goals rather than just working with the data without some hypothesis to prove. He wanted us to be very aware of how overall meaningless statistics could be and how to never trust what is said but to look at the whole picture of how those numbers were obtained. That might have been one of my favorite classes.
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



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:05.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.