Cygirl: I'm not going to sit here and argure back and forth with you, but the fact remains...I am not the only one who is noticing your stubborness here. It really seems like you are here to cause trouble and not to seek/provide support. Your original post has been addressed by MANY well educated individuals, and you have been provided lots of research to indicate that perhaps you were not correct in your stance. If you want to keep arguing with everyone here for no apparent reason other than to argue, then I stand by what I said about perhaps finding a different venue for expressing your opinions. And no, you don't have to "be a specialist to have an opinon around here", but when other more knowldgeable people offer you THEIR opinions, perhaps you should be more receptive rather than simply arguing.

Oh i agree

Are you sure about this? I have never heared that carbs can be a source of cholesterol before.

Not directly, but indirectly. Excess carb intake stimulates high insulin production which in turn stimulates various eicosanoid production leading to increased (usually LDL) cholesterol production in the liver.
As I'm sure you're already aware, excess carb intake also drives up triglyceride levels.

I have to say that I have never come across a doctor that disagreed with low carbing....BUT, I have quite a few diabetics on both sides of my family, and this seems to be a common WOE for this condition. Low carbing was recommended to me at my last checkup, being that I am (well, WAS, LOL) obese and have a family history of diabetes.

That said, I can't say that I have had, or witnessed, a doctor I have seen promote saturated fats except in the context of healthy fats v. transfats. Chose healthy over trans -- bottom line.

The Eades' do go into depth with all the scientific/technical reasonings behind their position, and so far, it makes much more sense than the contradicting opinions I have researched.

Yeah, I think this position is still considered out of the mainstream, but that doesn't bother me one bit. I've found many other "out of the mainstream" ways of life that I have found comfort in embracing when the mainstream society's way proved failure.....at least for me and my family.

Anyone ever notice that society is always telling us how to live and what to do? What to eat, how to exercise, how to educate, how to parent, etc.? How many times have they changed their minds, and how many times have they been wrong?



I don't think the fears of saturated fats are baseless, especially to a new LCer. Its hard to trust this mindset after years of being told by society that the healthy way is low fat/low calorie. I think that is why it is SO important for a person just beginning to low carb to read the book for the plan they have chosen. Unfortunately, not everybody does that, and I think that is why we see people who try and make their own plan with the information they have -- and attempt to LC the low fat way.

I agree that the truth is best found by hearing both sides. I listened to the LF/low calorie for years -- and honestly? Never really bought that it worked, it certainly never worked for me. I may have lost weight before my weight was too much out of control to attempt, but that way of dieting left me weak and hungry....and it didn't relieve my "ills" along with the weight loss as LCing did.

This link that Rosebud posted at the beginning of this very thread did a good job in bringing the two opposite sides together for me: http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html



Well, this could be explained by simply applying the opinion that myself and TBone expressed when disagreeing with you......that saturated fats are always healthy, but when combined with high carb, other complications come into play.

And really, I think this means high carbs are the "bad" thing -- high carbs prevent you from getting the many health benefits of saturated fats ;-)

I don't think this has anything to do with actual ketosis, but simply low-er carb. LC doesn't necessarily equal ketosis.

Samuel: the fact that no doctor that you know recommends LC or saturated fat does not mean that it's not the way to go, or that they are right.

Almost in every branch of science, every time someone went against the prevailing opinion, he was a quack. Especially when there might be reason to think that he is, after all, right.

So it's no surprise to me that MDs and RDs totally disagree with Atkins, Eades, Lutz, Kwasniewski.

But no amount of disagreement can change the fact that insulin drives triglyceride and, to a lesser extent, cholesterol production.

No amount of disagreement can change the fact that saturated fat is the preferred fuel of the human body, and the main type of fat that it produces from carbs (along with monounsaturated fat).

And finally, no amount of disagreement can change the fact that homo sapiens became homo sapiens when he started eating more meat, more animal fat, and less vegetation than his ape and hominid predecessors.

Oh.....a loaded statement!!! I agree with you on that one, but don't be surprised if you get a rush of non-evolutioners disputing this one! LOL

Yes, I thought long and hard before posting it...but that's what I think in my mind!!

Actually, next month I'll be vacationing with one of these doctors. He is 72 years old, retired, never been overweight, not in need of weight control but always favours low fat food and in great health. There is no way I can tell him that if he eates high fat food he can do better! I can tell him that my lipid profile has improved but he will tell me that his is great!

Concerning your saying that cholesterol can come from carbs too, I'm sure all doctors know that except that they believe that this is a minor source for cholesterol; the major source they know is the fat you eat!

You are lucky. I have never come across one who does! Most of them understand that it could lose you weight and they may appreciate that, but none of them can see how it can improve your health or that a person who has no weight problem should ever eat high fat.

Concerning my assumption that the state of ketosis protects lo carbers against the harmful effects of fats, I'm basing it on the following:

According to Dr. Atkins, when we are on a lo carb diet, fatty acids break down into ketone bodies leaving a newer fatty acid which is shorter in chain length by the two-carbon fragment. I assume that the new fatty acid is incapable to produce the harful effects.

Thank you all.

After reading this article, I would have to agree with Cygirl on this is too much, if indeed this is what she is talking about. Here is a quote from the article. It makes me a little sick just to read it:
He's talking about eating 250 grams per day, three times more than most health guidelines. To eat that much you have to start early. Breakfast would require a four egg-yolk omelet cooked in lard, a side of bacon and sausage, toast bathed in butter - all washed down with a cup of heavy whipping cream. And that's just a third of your fat goal.
It does not sound healthy at all!! Yuck.

That is probably the difference right there....they aren't recognizing that this WOL is good for "anyone" rather than just people with problems to correct.

I remember being shocked in seeing my dad's first meals served to him in the hospital right after his strokes....roast beef, green beans w/liberal butter, coffee with heavy cream, eggs and sausage. My first thought was that they had just blew out his brain to clean out the arteries, now busy clogging them up again with all the fat?? He had a neurologist, heart specialist, and a family practicioner working together and approving his meals.

My aunt had a gastric bypass, and her doc put her on LC too -- which I thought was strange, as the LC would have worked by itself and avoided surgery :-/.



I think where we are differing is that you are coming from an Atkin's perspective and I am coming more from Protein Power.

I am a bit confused by the state of ketosis, considering PP states that their plan will NOT leave you in a ketonic state, yet the same process in burning fat is occuring.

Out of curiousity ... does DANDR state that you are in a ketonic state after induction when the carb level begins to increase? Cause I know at that point, the two plans are nearly identical.

PP does say that their diet will put you in ketosis...it is low carb right? Check out pp 147 and 148. They say that there is nothing wrong with that and it simply means that you are burning fat. PP is very similar to Atkins.

Black57

Yes the more people i have talked to i find lots agree.
I think people are scared to comment becuase of anger toward me and my thoughts.

I see you are on your own plan kinds like me. good luck

We should be in ketosis during all weight loss stages. At maintenance, we should find a place at the foggy border between the two states where we neither gain nor lose and set our carb intake amount to keep us there permanently.

As far as I know, there are two methods to metabolize fats:

(1) The default method in which fatty acids go through series of processes and end with a fuel which is used for energy. After all energy needs are met, energy can be stored as body fat.

(2) The second method in which fatty acids breaks into ketone bodies and a different kind of fatty acids before it completes its journey. Ketones supply body cells with energy. After all energy needs are met, ketones can only exit the body. They cannot be stored as body fat.

To my believe, the body uses the first method alone when carb intake exceeds (100-120) carbs depending on the individual.

When carb intake is reduced below this amount, the two methods take place at the same time and method 2 share grows as the carb intake moves down twards zero.

So carb reduction acts like moving a mode switch slowly from one mode to another. The first mode is for a vegetarian human and the second mode is for a meat eating human.

The vegetarian human can metabolize fats, but probably not the perfect way. The meat eating human metabolizes fats better.

Ketones do not appear in the urine or saliva until they exceed the amount the body can use. This is why you don't notice them unless you eat 35 carbs or less.

Hey Samuel, thank you for taking the time to explain.....the above pretty much cleared up my confusion :-)



I personally found the original PP book very confusing, and PPLP is focused more on the scientific/technical aspects of the plan -- in a better way than PP, LOL. I don't recall, nor can I find, a reference where the term "ketosis" is even used in PPLP.

If you have the original PP book handy, can you post the info on the page you referenced? My copy is currently on loan to a neighbor as I don't use it often.

I recall reading the "non ketonic" reference in the 30-Day Low Carb Diet Solution, a book which sets a new low carber on the basics of PP without all the mumbo jumbo. By no means was ketosis discouraged, just that the higher level of carbs from the beginning of the plan didn't put you in this state. With Samuel's explanation above, I am interpreting this to mean that one doing PP at 30/40 carb level per day may not see the presence of ketones on strips, or other symptoms -- none of which are needed in order to lose weight.

I am well aware that Atkins and PP are very similar -- my understanding is that they are nearly identical, except that PP basically starts at the OWL phase of Atkins.

My understanding also, was that the heavy ketonic state was at the Atkin's induction level.