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
  #46   ^
Old Sat, Jun-24-17, 10:16
JLx's Avatar
JLx JLx is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,810
 
Plan: IF
Stats: 210/191/165 Female 66
BF:High wt, 276, 255
Progress: 42%
Location: Michigan U.P., USA
Default

Quote:
I got this myself the other day, a friend brought up Asians eating rice and being just fine.


I think this is a popular criticism, one that I thought wasn't convincingly rebutted in Gary Taubes' books, though I have to confess I don't remember exactly what he said. But we know that traditional diets have great variety and they seem to avoid modern diseases anyway. I think there's a lot we don't know yet, except "modern" food seems to corrupt all populations.

Quote:
The Chinese diet of the early 1990s, as documented by the INTERMAP study, was based primarily upon white rice and therefore very high in refined carbohydrates. This presents an apparent paradox, since they suffered little obesity or type 2 diabetes.

One crucial point is that the 1990s Chinese diet was extremely low in sugar. Most refined carbohydrates such as white rice, are composed of long chains of glucose, whereas table sugar contains equal parts glucose and fructose. As Chinese sugar consumption started to increase in the late 1990s, diabetes rates moved in lockstep. Combined with their original high carbohydrate intake, this is a recipe for the diabetes disaster.

To a lesser extent, the same story played out in the United States as well. Carbohydrate consumption gradually switched from grains to sugar in the form of corn syrup. This paralleled the rising incidence of type 2

When data from over 175 nations is reviewed, sugar intake is intricately linked to diabetes even independent of obesity. For example, Asian sugar consumption is rising at almost 5 percent per year, even as it has stabilized or fallen in North America. The result has been a made-in-China tsunami of diabetes. diabetes.https://intensivedietarymanagement....uctose1-t2d-27/


And how much of the traditional Asian rice intensive diet is cooked and cooled rice https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746 or combined with some fermented food for the vinegar type effect?

(Just thinking out loud, so to speak.)
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #47   ^
Old Sat, Jun-24-17, 11:28
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

I also think lots of activity can moderate high carb intake; Mark's Daily Apple discussed that, pointing out traditional cultures walked everywhere and worked in the fields.

And rice is the least toxic grain; might help, too.

But that is what really struck me about Taubes latest book: it is the sugar. It seems to have an unique ability to trigger hyperinsulimia.

Cultures who lacked sugar might also be lacking the trigger than leads to making all carbs so problematical for the vulnerable individual.
Reply With Quote
  #48   ^
Old Sat, Jun-24-17, 13:01
ncgirl2 ncgirl2 is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 134
 
Plan: don't know!
Stats: 150/150/115
BF:
Progress: 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
Maybe a kick in the ego to revert to a sort of pre-sentient learning, but it's worked for billions of years, we'll probably need some of it for a bit longer.

Billions of years?
Reply With Quote
  #49   ^
Old Sat, Jun-24-17, 15:06
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,238
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLx
I think this is a popular criticism, one that I thought wasn't convincingly rebutted in Gary Taubes' books, though I have to confess I don't remember exactly what he said. But we know that traditional diets have great variety and they seem to avoid modern diseases anyway. I think there's a lot we don't know yet, except "modern" food seems to corrupt all populations.

I don't have a quote from Taubes. What I remember from his lectures is that he always replies that there's little sugar in their diet. Personally, I think it's also the quantity of rice, there must be little of that too.

On the point of variety, I think it's true, but not necessarily in terms of macros, i.e. more carbs in some, less in others, etc. Instead, I think variety is a function of the local environment, no two traditional populations have access to the same foods. Conversely, each traditional diet is rather monotonous precisely for the same reason - local environment.

From recent diet experiments, we can conclude that it's the carbs, mostly wheat and sugar, that makes us sick with the diseases of civilization. Therefore, we can also reasonably assume that in spite of what we believe about certain traditional diets that contain carbs like rice and certain grains, they must not contain much carbs anyway, at least not as much as our standard crap, but most especially very little sugar and wheat if at all.

From Weston Price's book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, we can easily see a pattern emerging from the data. While there is great variety, and while there are carbs, there is little sugar and wheat, there's always at least some meat and fat, and all traditional populations enjoyed perfect health, while the same people who started to eat a modern diet promptly developed all the diseases of civilization.

-edit-

It just occured to me to make the analogy of ancient past where sugar and wheat were very expensive because they were very work-intensive. Well, that's pretty much the situation traditional populations are in. Our sugar and wheat today is highly subsidized and highly industrialized (and maybe also genetically modified for high yield like semi-dwarf wheat for example), so it's very cheap and plentiful. No traditional population would have access to any of this.

Last edited by M Levac : Sat, Jun-24-17 at 15:12.
Reply With Quote
  #50   ^
Old Sat, Jun-24-17, 17:35
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,378
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncgirl2
Billions of years?


http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080...s.2007.360.html

Maybe.

Make it half a billion years and I'm probably on more solid ground.
Reply With Quote
  #51   ^
Old Sun, Jun-25-17, 04:59
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,491
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Dr Fung explains the "Chinese paradox" often in his articles since his parents are Chinese and some of his patients older Asians. One on fructose: https://intensivedietarymanagement....uctose1-t2d-27/
And how Chinese can develop diabetes without being overweight. The decade of 1990 was when Chinese government "lifted 150 million peasants out of poverty" and in one generation added enough sugar to spark a diabetes epidemic.

Quote:
When data from over 175 nations is reviewed, sugar intake is intricately linked to diabetes even independent of obesity. For example, Asian sugar consumption is rising at almost 5 percent per year, even as it has stabilized or fallen in North America.

The result has been a made-in-China tsunami of diabetes. In 2013, an estimated 11.6 percent of Chinese adults have type 2 diabetes, eclipsing even the long-time champion: the U.S., at 11.3 percent. Since 2007, 22 million Chinese were newly diagnosed with diabetes—a number close to the population of Australia.

Things are even more shocking when you consider that only 1 percent of Chinese had type 2 diabetes in 1980. In a single generation, the diabetes rate rose by a horrifying 1160 percent. Sugar, more than any other refined carbohydrate, seems to be particularly fattening and leads specifically to type 2 diabetes.

Yet the Chinese were being diagnosed with diabetes with an average body mass index of only 23.7, which is considered in the ideal range. By contrast, American diabetics averaged a BMI of 28.7, well within the overweight category.



Chris Masterjohn: Is coconut oil killing us? https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2017...oil-killing-us/

Dave Feldman: Thank you, AHA!
http://cholesterolcode.com/thank-yo...rt-association/

Quote:
Why This is Great

The AHA (whether it meant to or not) has now told us several things by this release: People are starting to believe saturated fat is okay or even healthy to the point where the AHA feels the need to act. This isn’t a study itself or a new guideline — this is a full-throated message to the masses.

The AHA is insisting we narrow this down to just four studies. Four!!! Obviously, this means The Big Four presented must stand up to scrutiny in their methodology and data. And to be sure, I don’t know myself all the ins and outs of these studies to have a strong opinion — but I definitely will eventually. After all, I only have this tiny list now instead of the thousands in front of me before.

Likewise, this implies every other study besides The Big Four is clearly unfit to meet the criteria set forth by the AHA. This too must be examined closely. The selection criteria itself is now something we can look at. When you announce you have used an objective, categorical set of standards — you have to be prepared to defend it.

The Debate is Consolidated

There have been many, many voices of opposition that have sprung up in the last week, but I’m going to point to two in particular. On the public prominence front, Gary Taubes delivers an impressive critique that outlines approach, bias, and the overall politics regarding the science and studies chosen.

Of sources on the biochemical front, no one comes close to Chris Masterjohn’s very methodical breakdown of each of the Big Four. He exposes both the problems with these studies and the inconsistencies with the AHA’s selection criteria.

If I could get you to read/listen to just two – make it these two.

Last edited by JEY100 : Sun, Jun-25-17 at 17:57.
Reply With Quote
  #52   ^
Old Sun, Jun-25-17, 06:42
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,378
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

I think you get a stronger message if you can just say, sugar is bad, fat is bad. But you might get a truer message if you say, "sugar is bad when added in this dietary context, fat is bad when added in that dietary context." Sugary, low-fat snackwell cookies get a bad rap, and deserve it, but I don't think full-fat oreos made with pastured lard would be that much if any of an improvement. Back when I let the food industry make my ice cream, I could just as easily go through a couple of liters of high fat ice cream as low fat ice cream, in that context the fat didn't slow me down any. I might have only been eating that much fat because of the sugar added, so you could say the trigger was the sugar, that doesn't mean that the excess intake of fat wasn't harmful as well.
Reply With Quote
  #53   ^
Old Sun, Jun-25-17, 12:03
Justin Jor Justin Jor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 181
 
Plan: Bernsteinish
Stats: 314/231/199 Male 6'1
BF:
Progress: 72%
Default

One other thing that gets lost, often, when you're looking at populations eating their traditional diet is that what you can eat when you have a healthy metabolism and what you can eat when you've already broken it are not the same.

It's at least possible that I had not eaten crap as a kid, I could indeed eat more carbs and such than I do now (I am real dubious about this whole grains crap regardless, but sure) but I, and loads of other Americans, are not that in that position.

And I have the blood tests to show that by the standards of the same community that recommends it, 'healthy' diets literally kill me.
Reply With Quote
  #54   ^
Old Sun, Jun-25-17, 13:01
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,900
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

I agree that with our current knowledge, all signs point to sugar, particularly the fructose component in sucrose and HFCS, as the primary culprit. Fatty Liver Disease and Insulin resistance develop from consumption of these sugars, and they've become ever-present in our processed foods and soda. The issue is that many people don't know what sugar is and where it's found. As sugar ingredients have been added to foods throughout the world (starting to be the equivalent of a western diet), the diabetes and obesity rates have spiked, and the metabolic syndrome symptoms of CVD, CHD, HBP, GERD, Alzheimer's, are on the rise in these countries and regions. Comparing this to those cultures that previously consumed a diet high in starches (glucose primary), the difference today is staggering.
Reply With Quote
  #55   ^
Old Sun, Jun-25-17, 14:09
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 2,034
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Jor
It's at least possible that I had not eaten crap as a kid, I could indeed eat more carbs and such than I do now


I've often thought that, too. At least I'd be able to eat beets, squash, & fruit.
Reply With Quote
  #56   ^
Old Tue, Jun-27-17, 05:47
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,491
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Tom Naughton, The American Heart Association Bravely Admits They’ve Been Right All Along … Part 2:

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index....along-part-two/
Reply With Quote
  #57   ^
Old Tue, Jun-27-17, 07:15
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,900
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Tom Naughton nails it once again. The pattern that has developed is by following the "health" advice of the AHA encouraging the orchestrated compliance of the food manufacturers, the public has consumed a diet of which the primary components are sugars and seed oils resulting in a major health crisis. That's today's science, politically and economically distorted into dangerous and fatal assumptions of what constitutes "for the good of the people."
Reply With Quote
  #58   ^
Old Tue, Jun-27-17, 07:33
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Posts: 3,240
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

Reply With Quote
  #59   ^
Old Wed, Jun-28-17, 07:44
Bintang's Avatar
Bintang Bintang is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 252
 
Plan: MyOwn:CHO<90g/d
Stats: 207/149/150 Male 169 cm
BF:40%/17%/18%
Progress: 102%
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
Tom Naughton nails it once again. The pattern that has developed is by following the "health" advice of the AHA encouraging the orchestrated compliance of the food manufacturers, the public has consumed a diet of which the primary components are sugars and seed oils resulting in a major health crisis. That's today's science, politically and economically distorted into dangerous and fatal assumptions of what constitutes "for the good of the people."


Yes, it is the "health destruction system" for which reason we need a "health care system".
Reply With Quote
  #60   ^
Old Wed, Jun-28-17, 10:53
JLx's Avatar
JLx JLx is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,810
 
Plan: IF
Stats: 210/191/165 Female 66
BF:High wt, 276, 255
Progress: 42%
Location: Michigan U.P., USA
Default

What ticks me off about this especially is that these articles zeroed in on coconut oil, following the BBC news it seems as they were the first to do so from what I noticed.

The Medscape summary was the first I read (available from Google search for title: AHA Issues 'Presidential Advisory' on Harms of Saturated Fat).

Excerpts:

Quote:
The statement, published online in Circulation on June 15, continues to strongly recommend replacing saturated fats with poly- and monounsaturated vegetable oil to help prevent heart disease. ..."There has been a growing trend of media articles focusing on small studies suggesting some saturated fats are good for you," Dr Sacks said. "People advocating that eating butter and full-fat milk is beneficial. And coconut oil is a fad right now — but it is actually a saturated fat, which raises your LDL [low-density lipoprotein], so the AHA wanted to look at the issue again."

I'm guessing that's as far as some "reporters" read.

Quote:
"Our message is that polyunsaturated fats are the best fats to eat. They are found mainly in vegetable oils such as soy bean oil, peanut oil, corn oil," he said. "Monounsaturated fats, found in sunflower oil, olive oil, nuts, and avocado, are also okay — much better than saturated fats, but not as healthy as polyunsaturated fats."

The last few years has seen an increase in knowledge on benefits of polyunsaturated fats, he said. "They are associated with a reduction in total mortality and no compensatory increase in death from other causes; they are also associated with a reduction in insulin resistance. The same is seen with monounsaturated fats, but the effect is less."


How's this for an alternative headline summarizing this "advisory"? "The American Heart Association says eat more soybean and corn oil." (Paid for by the Corn and Soybean Growers of America.)
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 13:39.


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