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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   ^
Old Thu, Apr-23-09, 07:34
LOOPS's Avatar
LOOPS LOOPS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,225
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 74/76/67 Female 5ft 6.5 inches
BF:29/31/25
Progress: -29%
Location: LA SERENA, CHILE
Default

It doesn't feel natural to me to eat vast amounts of protein. Martin I am another one who has ALWAYS made her main macronutrient fat - even on VLC. I find it impossible to eat a lot of protein.

Another issue I feel though for me is electrolyte balance. The amount of magnesium in a high fat all-meat diet, unless you eat a lot of fish/seafood is pretty pitiful. I am not convinced humans don't need more, even without carbs - I certainly do.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62   ^
Old Thu, Apr-23-09, 07:59
cycomiko cycomiko is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 26
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 253/253/220 Male 183
BF:
Progress: 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
That is the exception to the rule. We are mammals, we breastfeed our offsprings. Should we continue to drink milk when we lose the ability to process lactose? Milk is the perfect food for a baby but the argument fails when applied to adults because of the inability of some to process lactose.

I've been over this argument several times. I've not lost it yet. In my opinion, carbohydrate is not food. But if you believe it is, then don't mind me and go ahead and eat it.

So carbohydrate is not a food except when it is a food?

I came to this forum because I had read posts by you, but after reading a lot more of your posts on this forum, the main reason you seem to never lose any discussions is because you ignore everyone elses opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #63   ^
Old Thu, Apr-23-09, 08:09
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
the main reason you seem to never lose any discussions is because you ignore everyone elses opinions.


AKA...a legend in his own mind.
Reply With Quote
  #64   ^
Old Thu, Apr-23-09, 08:34
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

It's important to stay open minded and to include the info, your opponents brings on the table, to your hypothesis. So that you can use your hypothesis and their data to either disprove their hypothesis or even adjust your hypothesis with the new info given.

If we ignore their anecdotes or stay close minded, we are no better than our opponents. We want the people parroting the conventional wisdom to be open minded too, so that we can convince them. If they think you are close minded, they will not give your opinions the weight it merits.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #65   ^
Old Fri, Apr-24-09, 06:30
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Here's a thread that fits well with Pennington's hypothesis: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=394928

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #66   ^
Old Fri, Apr-24-09, 18:28
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LOOPS
It doesn't feel natural to me to eat vast amounts of protein. Martin I am another one who has ALWAYS made her main macronutrient fat - even on VLC. I find it impossible to eat a lot of protein.

Another issue I feel though for me is electrolyte balance. The amount of magnesium in a high fat all-meat diet, unless you eat a lot of fish/seafood is pretty pitiful. I am not convinced humans don't need more, even without carbs - I certainly do.

"All meat" in most people's mind means only lean muscle meat. That's because in most people's mind, "meat" means "lean muscle meat". It implicitly excludes organs and fat. However, when pressed, I explain that my diet is not all lean muscle meat. Rather, it's animal flesh. "All meat" is just more practical to write. Fat and organs are animal flesh. Fat constitutes most of my diet as well. I frequently ask my butcher to make me 2kg of 50/50 ground beef. You read right, that's 50% fat by weight. So when I advise to eat all meat, that's what I mean. In other words, you and I would agree on what to order at a restaurant.

As far as electrolytes go, I don't know much about it. However, once a person has returned to good health, an all meat diet is optimal in my opinion and thus doesn't need any supplementation whatsoever. In fact, supplementing with anything would only make the diet worse, i.e. we can't improve "optimal", we can only worsen it. But that's my take on it. If you believe that you need to supplement with anything, then go ahead and I'm sure you have a good reason to do so. Indeed, I supplemented for a while during the period when I was returning to good health.

I know a few tricks about that, too. Vitamin D raises HDL dramatically (read: double what it is without vitamin D supplementation) almost instantaneously. Potassium chloride (brand name NoSalt) lowers blood pressure by about 10-20 points. Cutting salt drops it another 5-10 points. Cutting all the carbs drops it another 10-20 points. So, you could drop your BP by a cumulative 40-50 points by doing all these things. Mine is like that of a teen now.
Reply With Quote
  #67   ^
Old Fri, Apr-24-09, 18:33
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
So carbohydrate is not a food except when it is a food?

I came to this forum because I had read posts by you, but after reading a lot more of your posts on this forum, the main reason you seem to never lose any discussions is because you ignore everyone elses opinions.

Well, if when you believe something it makes it a fact, then yes, I agree with what you just wrote. However, if you understand that what you believe in is merely your perception of reality, then no, I disagree with what you wrote.

As far as ignoring others' opinions, yes I do this often. For two reasons: I can't win the argument, or other people's opinion are irrelevant. Usually, it's self evident which category opinions fit. But sometimes, people are just dense.
Reply With Quote
  #68   ^
Old Fri, Apr-24-09, 18:58
Hellistile's Avatar
Hellistile Hellistile is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,540
 
Plan: Animal-based/IF
Stats: 252/215.6/130 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 30%
Location: Vancouver Island
Default

I am beginning to see that I have to eat less protein and am following Dr. J's plan. However, I stay away from bad carbs like wheat, sugar, etc. and stick to those carbs like berries and tomatoes, paleo type fruits and veggies and I still have trouble getting in more than 46 total carbs (today it was 25 net carbs). Just because we increase our carbs by 10 or 20 grams doesn't mean we are vying for a spot in the High carb camp. I am extremely insulin resistant and the lowering of my protein intake seems to be working.
Reply With Quote
  #69   ^
Old Fri, Apr-24-09, 19:56
awriter's Avatar
awriter awriter is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,096
 
Plan: Kwasniewski Ratios
Stats: 225/158/145 Female 65
BF:53%/24%/20%
Progress: 84%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Vitamin D raises HDL dramatically (read: double what it is without vitamin D supplementation) almost instantaneously.

Hmm. A statement with absolutely no qualification, like 'for many people' or even doubt.

Which is interesting, since my HDL is 97, I don't take any Vit. D supplements, and the results of my recent Vit. D test (2 weeks ago, when I had my HDL test) showed me at 20 --- sub-par.

According to you, all I have to do to double my HDL to nearly 200 is to add a Vit. D supplement. Wow. Will my doctor be surprised at my next test - I'm not sure he's ever seen a score that high! Precisely how much Vit. D do I need to take to 'double my HDL instantaneously'?
Reply With Quote
  #70   ^
Old Fri, Apr-24-09, 20:07
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Add niacin, HDL increases another 5-10 mg/dl.

Perhaps we're now sitting somewhere around an HDL of 35-40 mg/dl--better, but hardly great.

Add vitamin D to achieve our target serum level . . . HDL jumps to 50, 60, 70, even 90 mg/dl.

The first few times this occurred, I thought it was an error or fluke. But now that I've witnessed this effect many dozens of time, I am convinced that it is real. Just today, I saw a 40-year old man whose starting HDL was 25 mg/dl increase to 87 mg/dl.

Responses like this are supposed to be impossible. Before vitamin D, I had never witnessed increases of this magnitude.

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2...-d-and-hdl.html

It increases Adiponectin too

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #71   ^
Old Sat, Apr-25-09, 07:56
Citruskiss Citruskiss is offline
I've decided
Posts: 16,864
 
Plan: LC
Stats: 235/137.6/130 Female 5' 5"
BF:haven't a clue
Progress: 93%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellistile
I am beginning to see that I have to eat less protein and am following Dr. J's plan. However, I stay away from bad carbs like wheat, sugar, etc. and stick to those carbs like berries and tomatoes, paleo type fruits and veggies and I still have trouble getting in more than 46 total carbs (today it was 25 net carbs). Just because we increase our carbs by 10 or 20 grams doesn't mean we are vying for a spot in the High carb camp. I am extremely insulin resistant and the lowering of my protein intake seems to be working.


While I'm not purposely trying to lower my protein intake - I agree with what you're saying, because it echoes my experience too.

If I stick to Paleo acceptable foods, I simply *cannot* get close to even Protein Power Life Plan's 'intervention level' of 40 carbs a day. Never mind the 'net carbs' thing either, still can't go too high in carbs when sticking to Paleo guidelines.

It really irks me (sorry) that people want to ditch the produce, but keep the dairy. Every single plan I've read recommends getting "most" of one's carb intake from lower carb vegetables. Not from other stuff.

I wasn't doing that for a long time. Fear of vegetables. They have carbs...eeeek

You know what? There must be something to this lowering protein a wee bit thing, though I don't like the sounds of going quite so low as the OD plan.

Reason I say this? Well, when I re-read Dr. Atkins Rules of Induction to see why things weren't working (ie. where I was going wrong) the one thing that stood out was that I wasn't getting "most" of my carb intake from induction vegetables. So, I made an effort to do that for awhile - and voila! Suddenly I wasn't eating two chicken breasts, or two helpings of whatever protein I was having. I started losing weight again at a good pace.

This brings up the dreaded 'calories' thing too though doesn't it?

<cue up scary-movie music>

I didn't have to count calories though. Just made sure I was getting most of my carbs from produce. Didn't cut fat or protein. Didn't matter so much how many carbs either - could be 10 grams one day, and 25 the next.

It worked!

If I can just get that happening again, I'll get to goal sooner, rather than later.

I have a very strong tendency to fall back on mostly meat. It happens all the time - I don't feel like chopping up salads, or don't have the right produce on hand. End up eating all meat. Don't lose weight - just sort of maintain. I probably just eat too much.

I just realized something though, in writing this. I think the reason I have this 'thing' about vegetables is because way back when I first started official Atkins induction - the vegetables were something that had to be counted. Monitored. You could eat all the meat and eggs you wanted, but you couldn't 'go over' on the veggies.

I'm not sure this is necessary, looking back. I mean - sure, there should be guidelines/lists as to the better (lower carb) veggies, but this 'don't eat more than x number of cups of vegetables' is probably how I got started on my tendency to fall back on mostly meat all the time. That, and just being lazy I guess. Too much prep work, and the 'counting' and monitoring aspect.

Meanwhile, it's (the counting/monitoring) probably not even needed. Stick to the low-carb veggies, and even the odd serving of very low-carb fruit - and it works just fine.

I think this is one of the reasons I like "Paleo-ish" LC'ing so much. I don't feel like I need to count stuff so much. That's too much like being on a 'diet' and truth be told, I hate that!

If I can't stand having to 'count carbs', I'm certainly not gonna start counting protein grams, fat grams or calories either. So, in this respect I can really see the utility and appeal of a 'zero carb' or all meat diet. Then again, Paleo-ish LC'ing also accomplishes this as well.

So what do these two plans have in common? Funny - there's no gluten, no dairy, no legumes, no peanuts etc. Both the all-meat plan and the Paleo plans remove the most potentially allergenic foods. Both remove any potential 'stall' type foods. Well, they're both 'Paleo' diets, as far as I'm concerned. Both work, though I've personally found that adding in the vegetables works better for me weight-loss wise.

Ok - going back now to read this whole thread. Only read the last couple of entries, so hopefully I'm not replying 'off topic'.
Reply With Quote
  #72   ^
Old Sat, Apr-25-09, 08:07
Citruskiss Citruskiss is offline
I've decided
Posts: 16,864
 
Plan: LC
Stats: 235/137.6/130 Female 5' 5"
BF:haven't a clue
Progress: 93%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LOOPS
So yes I do think glucose is made from protein - and enough in some people to prevent fat-loss, even without carbs.

...

Because maybe it is better to have some carbs after all - maybe it is less stressful for the human body to get it's small amount of needed glucose from carbs, it's energy from fat, and save the protein for body-building. Might this not be why some people gain on a low/zero carb diet?


Loops - I think you're onto something! A few extra veggies means less protein, automatically - and for some, this seems to work. What you're saying makes a lot of sense to me. If you eat just a few more carbs (still low carb), then you don't need to make glucose out of protein?

Is this what you meant?
Reply With Quote
  #73   ^
Old Sat, Apr-25-09, 08:12
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citruskiss
Loops - I think you're onto something! A few extra veggies means less protein, automatically - and for some, this seems to work. What you're saying makes a lot of sense to me. If you eat just a few more carbs (still low carb), then you don't need to make glucose out of protein?

Is this what you meant?

I'm testing this right now. I will have every day: 84g P, 225g F and 16g C. In theory the little carbs will prevent the proteins from being converted.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #74   ^
Old Sat, Apr-25-09, 08:18
Citruskiss Citruskiss is offline
I've decided
Posts: 16,864
 
Plan: LC
Stats: 235/137.6/130 Female 5' 5"
BF:haven't a clue
Progress: 93%
Default

I like!



Still can't get into the lowered protein and much higher fat though. Geeze - I'm really trying to keep an open mind about all this. I like the concept that having just a few carbs will help prevent any possible 'protein turning into glucose' idea though. I really need to get my veggies back. Like I said in a previous post - I get lazy and always fall back on a mostly meat diet a lot of times. I never gain weight this way, but I don't lose either.

I am not enjoying this last ten pounds thing. Tougher than I thought.
Reply With Quote
  #75   ^
Old Sat, Apr-25-09, 08:35
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by awriter
Exactly. The facts say that for some people, excess protein causes fat accumulation. Whether or not some people understand or believe this is unimportant since, as you say, the facts are the facts.


Perfectly reasonable. The whole picture is on the Kwasniewski threads.

Lisa


I don't doubt your reported experience, I just want to add that all the fat that's added to your diet, slowing down absorption of both protein and carb, might also be a factor. Slow vs fast carb diets don't make enough of a difference to really matter; but when taken to absurd lengths, slowing down absorption does seem to lower both insulin and glucose responses.
David Jenkins did a study where he fed people 50 grams of glucose all at once or had them sip it in a gallon of water for three and a half hours. Taking it in a gulp, it took a lot more insulin under the curve to return blood glucose to normal than sipping it.

glucose bolus vs sipping

Mind you, in this study, you can see at the end of four hours that serum free fatty acids and glucose are low in the sipping group, both at the same time, for an extended period of time. So maybe the subjects weren't feeling wonderfully energetic at that point. Maybe if the carbs were slowed down by a very very very high fat diet, that wouldn't be a problem?
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 03:05.


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