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 > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 05:09
addict1000's Avatar
addict1000 addict1000 is offline
at peace with myself
Posts: 1,202
 
Plan: Healthy choices
Stats: 201/191.6/144 Female 5 ft 8n
BF:
Progress: 16%
Location: guilt free state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajunboy47
Addict1000,

Since a few posters have restated your question.....

Can you define what you mean by "sustainable"?



The ideas that I think should be discussed within the framework of sustainable are:

Is the approach healthy for the average population over the long term?
Is it an effective method for weightloss and maintenance?

I meant the topic to be a broad discussion of the benefits and/or detriments.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 06:35
zinger1 zinger1 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 13
 
Plan: atkins/ZC
Stats: 274/224/180 Female 5'9"
BF:
Progress: 53%
Default

I think it's quite sustainable-no need for organs. "...animal foods contain all of the essential amino acids and they do so in ratios that maximize their utility to humans." g. taubes GCBC P.322
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 06:45
zinger1 zinger1 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 13
 
Plan: atkins/ZC
Stats: 274/224/180 Female 5'9"
BF:
Progress: 53%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
V-8 makes me feel good quickly, but I think it is because of the salts/electrolytes & possibly the variety of trace minerals. If I make salt-free vegetable juice or soup with the same amount of carbs & calories, it has no effect.

SOMETIMES SALT/POTASSIUM GETS LOW EARLY IN ZC WOE-DR. Vernon recommends bouillion cube in 1/2 water-Inuit would make a bone broth. After adaptation the body learns how much to discard or save.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 07:09
Cajunboy47 Cajunboy47 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,900
 
Plan: Eat Fat, Get Thin
Stats: 212/162/155 Male 68 "
BF:32/23.5/23.5
Progress: 88%
Location: Breaux Bridge, La
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by addict1000
The ideas that I think should be discussed within the framework of sustainable are:

Is the approach healthy for the average population over the long term?
Is it an effective method for weightloss and maintenance?

I meant the topic to be a broad discussion of the benefits and/or detriments.


I had a hunch that is what you meant.

My opinion, which is more important to me, than anyone else's, is:

There are many effective methods for weightloss.

There are fewer effective methods for maintenance.

The proof is all around us. The majority of people find ways to lose weight, only to find themselves gaining it all back. The "Diet" industry thrives on people looking for the "magic bullet" which is so ellusive.....

The word "Diet" has been so manipulated that if you ask 100 people what it means, you'd probably get about 100 different answers. The saddest part is that most of the answers would not connect diet with health, but rather just connect diet with weight loss.

I suppose anything is sustainable if someone is psychologically prepared and determined to ride the tide to the end, but that doesn't prove anything, really.... Sustainable ways of eating long term, be it "zero carb" or anything else is not healthy if it is not nutritionally balanced.

Now, what the hec does "nutritionally balanced" mean? It has to mean something in relation to having better health, or it has no meaning or purpose. Can nutrition be balanced if we know that there are proteins, carbohydrates and fats and we choose to exclude one of them? I don't think so.

Some people argue that our ancestors didn't eat this or that food, so in terms of evolution, we are not prepared to eat a certain way. Thus, whatever they believe the ancestors did or didn't eat, they justify their diet on that belief.

Doesn't it seem plausible that people 10,000 years ago might have had a problem eating the way that people 10,000 years before them were eating?

Proving nutritional balance to anyone wanting to learn to improve on the way they eat is about as difficult as proving that God exists to an atheist, so even if I know what nutritional balance is, I know I don't want to spend my time trying to prove it as that would be such a futile effort.

We have so many false notions, that it makes it difficult to obtain weight loss through eating in a healthy way. Probably the biggest false notion is that we are all so different and not one diet fits all. The truth is, we've all eaten so differently, we've made it almost impossible to see what a proper way of eating should be.

I have a theory. It might be based in science, it might be based in mythology, I don't know. It is just my theory and it may resemble what someone else may have claimed but that doesn't matter.... Here is my theory:

We should eat food. We should remain as active as we can to maintain our bodily functions. We should get sufficient rest and sleep.

We should not eliminate any food from our diet. We should not fail to remain active when we are capable of doing so. We should not do without sufficient rest and sleep.

We do not need to study endlessly to learn about how we should eat. We do not need to learn any new tricks on best methods of exercise or staying active. We do not need to do anything that is out of the ordinary to have health.

Our goal should be to obtain and maintain health. By achieving proper health, our bodies will automatically achieve what it perceives to be our proper weight. We should never diet for the sole purpose of weight loss.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, Addict1000, that should stimulate some conversation.....

Last edited by Cajunboy47 : Wed, Jan-14-09 at 07:13. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 08:46
zinger1 zinger1 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 13
 
Plan: atkins/ZC
Stats: 274/224/180 Female 5'9"
BF:
Progress: 53%
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajunboy47


Now, what the hec does "nutritionally balanced" mean? It has to mean something in relation to having better health, or it has no meaning or purpose. Can nutrition be balanced if we know that there are proteins, carbohydrates and fats and we choose to exclude one of them? I don't think so.

We should not eliminate any food from our diet.

We do not need to study endlessly to learn about how we should eat. We do not need to learn any new tricks on best methods of exercise or staying active. We do not need to do anything that is out of the ordinary to have health.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, Addict1000, that should stimulate some conversation.....


carbohydrates are NOT FOOD(for humans)--they cause disease
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 08:51
Cajunboy47 Cajunboy47 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,900
 
Plan: Eat Fat, Get Thin
Stats: 212/162/155 Male 68 "
BF:32/23.5/23.5
Progress: 88%
Location: Breaux Bridge, La
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinger1
carbohydrates are NOT FOOD(for humans)--they cause disease



Was there a banana truck driving away from you when you came up with that belief???
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 08:59
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinger1
carbohydrates are NOT FOOD(for humans)--they cause disease


You do realize that even animal foods have carbohydrate, right?
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 09:09
zinger1 zinger1 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 13
 
Plan: atkins/ZC
Stats: 274/224/180 Female 5'9"
BF:
Progress: 53%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
You do realize that even animal foods have carbohydrate, right?

yes, I do but do you realize it is present in very tiny amounts that are easily handled?
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 09:25
addict1000's Avatar
addict1000 addict1000 is offline
at peace with myself
Posts: 1,202
 
Plan: Healthy choices
Stats: 201/191.6/144 Female 5 ft 8n
BF:
Progress: 16%
Location: guilt free state
Default

How about endocrine problems? Someone in another thread mentioned this. They said that long term ZC can lead to endocrine problems and subsequent weight gain...especially for women. Is there any truth in this?
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 09:43
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinger1
yes, I do but do you realize it is present in very tiny amounts that are easily handled?


So then they are part of our food chain, thus food?

Is there an appreciable difference if one consumes 5g of carbohydrate from broccoli with their steak, or 5g of carbohydrate by consuming lobster?
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 09:44
zinger1 zinger1 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 13
 
Plan: atkins/ZC
Stats: 274/224/180 Female 5'9"
BF:
Progress: 53%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by addict1000
How about endocrine problems? Someone in another thread mentioned this. They said that long term ZC can lead to endocrine problems and subsequent weight gain...especially for women. Is there any truth in this?

what was their proof that this happens?
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 09:45
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by addict1000
How about endocrine problems? Someone in another thread mentioned this. They said that long term ZC can lead to endocrine problems and subsequent weight gain...especially for women. Is there any truth in this?


Can you be a bit more specific about what types of endocrine problems?
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 09:52
J-lo carb J-lo carb is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 268
 
Plan: my plan
Stats: 162.5/148/145 Female 5' 8"
BF:
Progress: 83%
Default

I FEEL like I'm doing ZERO carb, but it ends up with the cheese, cream, and splenda in my coffee and tea, that I take in Atkins induction level carbs. If we're talking about sustainability, I can't give anything else up right now. I do feel good. No low energy levels at all right now. The scale's not going down, but my clothes fit well and I'm in happy mode.

I'm more interested in the health (especially heart health) effects of low carbing. I wish there was more research on the level of carbs we should eat. I'm trying to keep the carbs as low as possible, but if I want broccoli, I'm gonna eat it. Actually, I did already (I made broccoli cheese soup the other day with bell peppers in it too).

I think you can only do what you can do, but if I KNEW for sure that a NO/almost no carb diet was better than a VLC diet, that would definitely influence my decision.

Also, I really think people should put their menu's into fitday and make sure they are getting all their nutrients. I know you guys aren't eating eyeballs. Are you?
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 10:16
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

I've never seen a true zero-carb diet. Oh sure, there are 'close to that' diets which "as slang" call themselves zero carb. But even if you never ate eggs, shellfish etc., ate nothing but raw steak all the time, if you put salt and pepper on it -- let alone garlic or other spices -- there are some carbs there. When I began lowcarbing I was obsessive about counting them, everything measured to the gram and to USDA specs, and my love for black pepper and red pepper flakes and garlic often gave me at least a carb or more with nearly everything I ate even if it was just meat. I think realistically, if one just eats meat/fish/eggs/spices, 'zero carb' is >10 carbs per day (often >5). I don't mean to be picky but that isn't really zero. I mention this only because people new to lowcarbing often take things very literally and things like this can cause some misunderstandings.

I think the only problem with zero-carb diets (sic) is that the nutrient composition that one "can get solely from animal products" usually relies on a vastly greater range of animal products than people in our culture today eat. You know, if a person is eating plenty of brains and tongue and tripe and kidney and sometimes different kinds of animals for variety, that's one thing, but I don't think you can meet all your nutritional needs with steak and chicken, especially if they themselves grew dominantly up on crapfood and not nutrition, and I think when people begin VLC/ZC that's kind of the idea, is that "I'll just eat meat" or something.

I consider sustainability an issue of biology as much as preference. I think if a person isn't getting sufficient nutrition that sustainability is not going to happen because the body will drive them to eat other foods, anything and everything to compensate sometimes. Or, sustainability WILL happen because you're like, Amazon Amory: Will Of Steel™ but then the body may actually get some serious health problem as a result of overriding the natural tendencies to stray diet-wise with sheer determination, so the body can't naturally-adjust.

I also think sustainability is an issue because the body changes. I used to do VLC and love it and weight just fell off me. Then I quit losing much weight (at any decent speed) and started feeling like crap and getting reactive hypoglycemic symptoms I did not have before VLC 100+ lbs earlier. I don't know that the weight loss or the VLC or both caused it, or exacerbated something already there, or something unrelated kicked in or what. But the reality is that if I don't eat some carbs now I feel lousy and have no energy. I would try to lift weights (and I'm a pansy so that was barely beginner level) and literally it was like at some moment, all the sudden BAM it was like "the battery just ran out of me" and it didn't take long. So the point I'm making is that VLC was not sustainable for me but not because I didn't like it; rather, because my body changed. And it's possible that's part of the problem with maintenance culture-wide, is that our bodies, once we lose a bunch of weight, may not be precisely what/how they were when we began, so "the same setting/tool" no longer has the same results. I think logically as our body changes probably we should change, we just don't know enough about it to know what kind of changing that should be. I expect Atkins basic of gradually adding in more carbs is good, except that (a) not grains for many people, and (b) he based it on "...and when you've lost enough weight..." and I think for supersized people like me, since that is eons away, that's just too long, so they never go up that carb ladder, and I'm starting to suspect that if you're really fat, VLC done for too-long a term may have certain repercussions. Not sure what, this is only "social observation" based on online reports.

I like the bodybuilder's approach that changing things up is good because when all the theories about what some ancestors ate are said and done (and IMO much of even academic history is myth so I take all that with a grain of salt), the one thing we probably CAN be sure of is that "things change" -- because that is the only constant in our universe... and the body seems unusually well geared to adapting to changing/varying conditions.

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #30   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 10:39
Sagehill Sagehill is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,561
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 250/161.4/130 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 74%
Location: Central FL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LessLiz
I don't think eating a 65% fat diet could cause rabbit starvation, do you? I can say that I become grossly ill if the fat content of my diet reaches 75% or more. People want to say that it's lack of fat or too much protein, but that doesn't square with what I ate which ran 65 - 68% fat.
Well, 65% is fine if you're eating more carbs than "zero", but if you were eating "zero" carbs, with 65% fat, then you had increased your protein to nearly 35%, which is a lot to me, especially if one has blood sugar issues or is diabetic. Here's a very timely article for this discussion that showed up yesterday about a new calculator for figuring out ketogenic macronutrient ratios: Optimum Nutrient Balance on a Ketogenic Diet
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 08:45.


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