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
  #136   ^
Old Mon, Mar-16-09, 19:46
Eliza_Jazz's Avatar
Eliza_Jazz Eliza_Jazz is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 374
 
Plan: CALP since 2.16.09
Stats: 322/309/168 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 8%
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpioch
I'm not one to advocate a meat-only diet. But this just sounds far too close to the Dr. Kellogg approach to anti-meat.



I am no fan of Dr. Kellogg and I looove my meat. I eat meat every day. I see I have stepped on a side of the argument that may be considered the "wrong side" here. I am keeping an open mind and hope that others do the same. The purpose of my posts has been to voice my opinion and provide food for thought. This has been my only intention. I am not here to judge anyone or bully anyone into my way of thinking.

On fiber:

From an article on digestivesplus
~snip~
Fiber plays an important role in digestion, providing bulk, decreasing bowel transit time, absorbing toxins and cleaning the colon of mucus and undigested food particles.

Later in the process, as fiber moves through the system its bulk enables food to pass more quickly through the bowels while it absorbs toxins, excess bacteria and mucus in the intestines and contributes to easier and more normal bowel movements.

In addition to its obvious benefits in speeding and improving digestion and elimination there is a growing body of research indicating that fiber has an important role in the prevention of cancer. Results from the largest scientific study investigating the relationships between diet and cancer risk strongly support the role for dietary fiber in the prevention of colon cancer, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and the World Cancer Research Fund International. Results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC) study were published in the British journal The Lancet. Researchers tracked the diets of 519,978 subjects in ten European countries for an average of 4.5 years.

They found that those subjects who ate the most dietary fiber (averaging 35 g/day) had their risk of colon cancer reduced by 40 percent, compared with subjects who ate the least fiber (averaging 15 g/day.
~snip~
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #137   ^
Old Mon, Mar-16-09, 20:01
BoBoGuy's Avatar
BoBoGuy BoBoGuy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,178
 
Plan: Low Carb - High Nutrition
Stats: 213/175/175 Male 72 Inches
BF: Belly Fat? Yes!
Progress: 100%
Location: California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angeline

Why don't you just admit that you love the taste of a Trader Joe’s Whole Wheat Cranberry Hazelnut Bread and that's why you eat it. You are just lying to yourself when you imagine that you are doing yourself good and that you need "Trader Joe’s Whole Wheat Cranberry Hazelnut Bread" to "prosper"

In the Harvard-based Nurses' Health Study, women who ate 2 to 3 servings of whole-grain products each day were 30 percent less likely to have a heart attack or die from heart disease. The fiber in whole grains may also kindle the body's natural anticoagulants and help prevent the formation of small blood clots that can trigger heart attacks or strokes.

In a study of more than 160,000 women, whose health and dietary habits were followed for up to 18 years, those who averaged 2 to 3 servings of whole grains a day were 30 percent less likely to have developed type 2 diabetes.

A large, five-year study among nearly 500,000 men and women suggests that eating whole grains offers modest protection against colorectal cancer. Also, by keeping the stool soft and bulky, the fiber in whole grains helps prevent diverticular disease.

The Iowa Women's Health Study linked whole-grain consumption with fewer deaths from non cardiac, non cancer causes. Compared with women who rarely or never ate whole-grain foods, those who had at least two or more servings a day were 30 percent less likely to have died from an inflammation-related condition over a 17-year period.

There are many other benefits such as magnesium, selenium, copper, and manganese which reduce the risk for heart disease and diabetes.

For these, and other personal reasons, I conclude “Trader Joe’s Whole Wheat Cranberry Hazelnut Bread” is an essential dietary component of optimal human health and prosperity.

Bo

Last edited by BoBoGuy : Mon, Mar-16-09 at 22:09. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #138   ^
Old Mon, Mar-16-09, 21:34
Edless's Avatar
Edless Edless is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 117
 
Plan: None in particular
Stats: 180/170/160 Male 6'1
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: Kelowna BC, Canada
Default

Instead of systematically ripping your entire post to shreds, Bo, I'm just going to say "lol".
Reply With Quote
  #139   ^
Old Mon, Mar-16-09, 21:50
Aria07 Aria07 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 89
 
Plan: CALP
Stats: 232/188/165 Female 5'8 in.
BF:
Progress: 66%
Location: North Carolina
Default

Is this the same study?

Is one diet as good as another? U of I study says no and tells you why

"Any diet will do? Not if you want to lose fat instead of muscle. Not if you want to lower your triglyceride levels so you'll be less likely to develop diabetes and heart disease. Not if you want to avoid cravings that tempt you to cheat on your diet. And not if you want to keep the weight off long-term.

"Our latest study shows you have a better chance of achieving all these goals if you follow a diet that is moderately high in protein," said Donald Layman, a University of Illinois professor emeritus of nutrition. The research was published in the March Journal of Nutrition.


Layman's new study followed the weight-loss efforts of 130 persons at two sites, the U of I and Penn State University, during 4 months of active weight loss and 8 months of maintenance.

Two previous studies had looked at short-term weight loss; this one was designed to look at long-term effects, he said.

Although both plans were equal in calories, half the group followed a moderate-protein diet (40% carbohydrates, 30% protein, 30% fat) while the other followed a diet based on USDA's food-guide pyramid (55% carbohydrates, 15% protein, 15% fat).

"Persons in the first group ate twice the amount of protein as the second group," said Layman.

And the difference in protein made all the difference in improved body composition and body lipids, he said.

Although the amount of weight lost in both groups was similar, at 4 months participants in the protein group had lost 22 percent more body fat than members of the food-pyramid group. At 12 months, the moderate-protein dieters had lost 38 percent more body fat."

http://www.innovations-report.com/h...lls_128754.html
Reply With Quote
  #140   ^
Old Mon, Mar-16-09, 22:06
KvonM's Avatar
KvonM KvonM is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,323
 
Plan: food? what's food?
Stats: 234/185/165 Female 62 inches
BF:nothin' but wobble
Progress: 71%
Location: YAY! trees and grass!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza_Jazz
Everyone,
no plant in one's diet? No cooking oil? No herbs that have healed millions over the ages? No coffee or tea even? No fiber of any sort? No enzymes? Putrefying, stagnant digestive system where meat rots for days because there is no fiber to prod it along? Forgive me, but this is crazy. Even if the person subsisted entirely on free-range organic meat, that still wouldn't be sufficient to move one's bowels.

eliza, you're mixing your evolutionary timescales up. the advent of cooking oil didn't come until long after civilization had sprouted. the earliest cultivation of olive trees was probably around the 5th century BC, which would have had to occur first in order to get enough olives to make enough oil to make cooking in it practical. prior to that, oils would have been ritualistic and ceremonial.

besides... oils are fat, and even though they come from plant sources, they are still fats. i know i said it's easy to imagine a diet without plants, but i was referencing leaves, grasses, grains, or abundances of fruit and vegetables prior to the introduction of civlization through agriculture. anything after agriculture took hold is a whole 'nother ball game.

fiber isn't the only thing that aids in digestive elimination. fat will do the same, in sufficient quantities. enzymes come from meat, as protein is broken down. the development of herbs in tea form did start out as medicinal, but i'm not sure any of us would consider things we imbibe for medicinal (or ceremonial) purposes as part of our diets. besides, tea is the extraction of flavor from dried leaves using hot water. you drink the water, you don't eat the leaves afterward.

anything and everything that we've discovered about the whys and hows of food came about only after civilization established itself. cacao trees existed before the mayans, but chocolate didn't.

the one thing we all definitely need to keep in mind is that regardless of how we personally handle the varieties of food available to us now, there have been 10,000 years of evolutionary changes since agriculture came about, and hundreds of thousands of years of changes since the previous human physical incarnation. the problem we're running into is that our technology and our imagination is developing far faster than our physical evolution can keep up with. so if you really want to be truthful, it's not carbohydrates that are screwing us up, it's our technology.
Reply With Quote
  #141   ^
Old Tue, Mar-17-09, 10:43
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaveman
It is not the only way, and has been largely abandoned by the people who think about these things for a living.



I know they can analyze fossils in order to determine what was eaten, but I am puzzled as to why years of accumulated anthropological data should be discarded. Surely the ways of hunter-gatherers have not changed wildly over the past thousands of years, and it's still pertinent, if not the whole story.
Reply With Quote
  #142   ^
Old Tue, Mar-17-09, 10:59
KarenJ's Avatar
KarenJ KarenJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,564
 
Plan: tasty animals with butter
Stats: 170/115/110 Female 60"
BF:maintaining
Progress: 92%
Location: Northeastern Illinois
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KvonM
eliza, you're mixing your evolutionary timescales up. the advent of cooking oil didn't come until long after civilization had sprouted. the earliest cultivation of olive trees was probably around the 5th century BC, which would have had to occur first in order to get enough olives to make enough oil to make cooking in it practical. prior to that, oils would have been ritualistic and ceremonial.

besides... oils are fat, and even though they come from plant sources, they are still fats. i know i said it's easy to imagine a diet without plants, but i was referencing leaves, grasses, grains, or abundances of fruit and vegetables prior to the introduction of civlization through agriculture. anything after agriculture took hold is a whole 'nother ball game.

fiber isn't the only thing that aids in digestive elimination. fat will do the same, in sufficient quantities. enzymes come from meat, as protein is broken down. the development of herbs in tea form did start out as medicinal, but i'm not sure any of us would consider things we imbibe for medicinal (or ceremonial) purposes as part of our diets. besides, tea is the extraction of flavor from dried leaves using hot water. you drink the water, you don't eat the leaves afterward.

anything and everything that we've discovered about the whys and hows of food came about only after civilization established itself. cacao trees existed before the mayans, but chocolate didn't.

the one thing we all definitely need to keep in mind is that regardless of how we personally handle the varieties of food available to us now, there have been 10,000 years of evolutionary changes since agriculture came about, and hundreds of thousands of years of changes since the previous human physical incarnation. the problem we're running into is that our technology and our imagination is developing far faster than our physical evolution can keep up with. so if you really want to be truthful, it's not carbohydrates that are screwing us up, it's our technology.


Yes, Fire= 600,000 years ago. Agriculture= 10,000 years ago. Even if you agree with the freak fringe crowd, certainly no earlier than 14,000 years ago.
It's hard for most people to wrap their brain around two and a half million years of human evolution.

One of my favorite Eades posts, a cautionary tale of mucus, points out some interesting questions about fiber that have not been answered by science.
And a quick read through some of Mary Enig's research clearly shows that there are unanswered questions regarding the healthfulness of vegetable oils.
Reply With Quote
  #143   ^
Old Tue, Mar-17-09, 11:06
TheCaveman's Avatar
TheCaveman TheCaveman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: Angry Paleo
Stats: 375/205/180 Male 6'3"
BF:
Progress: 87%
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angeline
I know they can analyze fossils in order to determine what was eaten, but I am puzzled as to why years of accumulated anthropological data should be discarded. Surely the ways of hunter-gatherers have not changed wildly over the past thousands of years, and it's still pertinent, if not the whole story.


Not discarded, just abandoned. The data collected by anthros in grass skirts is static. What extant hunter gatherers tell us that they eat just is. They might even be able to tell us what they have eaten in the past but no longer eat. But there's not much more data to be collected, and the picture is still incomplete. So the paleo* fields are taking over. Paleobotany, paleoecology, and basic questions otherwise not answered by marginalized peoples in their marginalized environments.

There is only so much mongongo nuts can tell you about the evolution of humans. There is much knowledge to be gained from actually looking at what lived alongside Homo as it evolved.

Last edited by TheCaveman : Tue, Mar-17-09 at 13:18. Reason: Double comma?
Reply With Quote
  #144   ^
Old Tue, Mar-17-09, 13:13
steve41 steve41 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 212
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 196/176/160 Male 5-9
BF:
Progress: 56%
Location: BC Canada
Default

I've always been curious about the 'gatherer' part of hunters and gatherers. Why do we assume these 'gatherers' were collecting nuts and berries? Why not slow moving critters? insects? shell fish? heck... fish for that matter.

One thing for certain, it wasn't cheetos and butter tarts.
Reply With Quote
  #145   ^
Old Tue, Mar-17-09, 13:17
TheCaveman's Avatar
TheCaveman TheCaveman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: Angry Paleo
Stats: 375/205/180 Male 6'3"
BF:
Progress: 87%
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve41
I've always been curious about the 'gatherer' part of hunters and gatherers. Why do we assume these 'gatherers' were collecting nuts and berries? Why not slow moving critters? insects? shell fish? heck... fish for that matter.


Figure anything food that could be acquired while holding a baby.
Reply With Quote
  #146   ^
Old Tue, Mar-17-09, 13:26
lpioch's Avatar
lpioch lpioch is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 939
 
Plan: ProteinPowerLifePlan w/IF
Stats: 166/143/135 Female 62.5
BF:
Progress: 74%
Location: New England
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza_Jazz
I am no fan of Dr. Kellogg and I looove my meat. I eat meat every day. I see I have stepped on a side of the argument that may be considered the "wrong side" here. I am keeping an open mind and hope that others do the same. The purpose of my posts has been to voice my opinion and provide food for thought. This has been my only intention. I am not here to judge anyone or bully anyone into my way of thinking.

I try to keep an open mind, too.
In particular regarding fiber.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza_Jazz
On fiber:

From an article on digestivesplus
~snip~
Fiber plays an important role in digestion, providing bulk, decreasing bowel transit time, absorbing toxins and cleaning the colon of mucus and undigested food particles.
[...]


In my own "research" regarding fiber, I have come to my own personal conclusion (so please keep an open mind) that all the research so far leads to the fact that we need fiber in our diets IF we also consume grains and other higher carb diets. I have yet to find research that addresses long-term "needs" of fiber for long-term low carbers. "Need" = regarding not only "regularity" but also regarding colon cancer and the like.

Anecdotally, I have low carbed with getting less than 10 grams of fiber a day. I have low carbed with getting close to 60 grams of fiber a day. NEITHER situation caused me ANY physical pros OR cons (weight loss, discomfort, etc.). The only difficulty was eating lots of fiber and keeping low carb.

I do think that Dr. Eades's questions regarding the "need" for fiber (see link given in post above) are very legitimate.
And I'm to the point that I don't give a rat's tail about what this council or that society says. By definition, low carbing, I'm going against the "official" medical grain as it is (pun intended).

That being said, I do enjoy my veggies and some fruits. But I NEVER do so with concern to fiber content.
And once I'm on maintenance, I will be eating quite a variety of fruits and vegetables.
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 19:41.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.