Fact is there aren't any essential carbohydrates.
There are essential fats and there are essential protiens.. ones our body can't produce, but not one essential carbohydrate.
That being said, while the experiment was very interesting and abuot the same sort of diet the eskimoes and the greenlanders were eating and being healthy on, there are all sort of factors that really have't been studied as of yet.
Such as all the previous notes about all the people on this board with various levels of health.
Is the addition of carbs for some people "magic" or would they have had the same result on the lower carbs?
Are those same people perhaps making their diet alot of convience low carb foods that I am NOT convinced are good for you, or are they eating "real" foods.
Ones you can in theory hunt, pick ,gather ect.
Is there a point "healing' your body has to do after years of yo yo dieting doing it the count all those calories and foods way??
I am counting on the last part. But I still don't know all this for sure.
What I do know is that at least right now I feel good.
In fact the only time I have any discomfort at all is during a chocolate binge ( believe me.. they don't even begin to equal what I used to do! .but it still feels funny after being so "good")
Lots of rambling I know.
But.. no thanks again.. I am not doing some plan where I have to count my calories or other such activities.
Poofie

Sheldon, you are a very well read and informative kind of guy, I really enjoy reading your posts and learning new stuff... I believe I also read about Stefannson being in with the Eskimos, and being on their way of eating at that time as well. He got quite ill and that is why the 2nd time that he done it, he went to Bellevue hospital because of what physical reactions he had had the first go around.. are we talking about the same guy? You say "there's some food for thought",heheh too bad we can't live on "thought alone".

and Poofie, I am not reccomending that any here follow such a diet... everyone here, has to decide what works for them... whether it is by following a certain "laid-out" plan to the letter... or by tweaking it, or coming up with their own...Today I start my own rendition of stillman/atkins combination.
I keep hearing though about not having to count calories on this LC way... and yes, I like that aspect of it too... but how many that are saying they HATE counting calories, are keeping track of their calories on places such as fitday.com? Hmmm, now there's some food for thought~!

All good points, PoofieD. I can say with confidence that there is no "magic." By that I mean there is a naturalistic, scientific explanation for what goes on in anyone's body. It might take extended investigation to find it, but the reason is there to be found. There is no magic, except the kind David Copperfield does on stage.

Sheldon

Same guy, but I think you are not remembering it correctly. He did not get sick with the Eskimos. It just took him time to learn to like fish, which he had not liked previously. He does relate that when he was forced to eat only lean meat, he did not feel good. Finding fat ended all symptoms.

Here's what he says, "About the fourth month of my first Eskimo winter I was looking forward to every meal (rotten or fresh [fish]), enjoying them, and feeling comfortable when they were over. Still I kept thinking the boiled fish would taste better if only I had salt. From the beginning of my Eskimo residence I had suffered from this lack."

Once during his stay, he had the good fortune to visit with some Americans. Here's what he wrote: "For the few days of my visit I enjoyed the excellent New England cooking, but when I left Herschel Island I returned without reluctance to the Eskimo meals of fish and cold water. It seemed to me that, mentally and physically, I had never been in better health in my life."

As you can see, the all-meat/fish diet did not make him sick. He went to Bellevue so that the results would be witnessed by medical authorities and no one would have to take his word on it.

Sheldon

Sheldon, you are most likely right about his checking into the hospital for verification of the diet. I submit the following about the all-meat diet of Stefannson: So here we have from eating an all-meat diet: a raise in the BMR of 8.9%, 51 mg. DROP in blood cholesterol levels,which coincidentally ROSE some after going back to an ordinary,mixed diet,and a daily caloric intake from 2,000-3,100. Interesting eh?

Very interersting! Thanks. Where does the quote come from?

Sheldon

Sheldon, Here is the website where I got the quote from. I gave you the specific chapter, and it is about 2/3rds of the way down... however being the reader that you are... I think that you will do what I did, and read the entire presentation: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/ I found it to be most informative, and have copied some of the information for my own benefits.


Quote Source(click here)

I hate to misspell names.

Some places the anthropologist's name is spelled Stefannson. Other places it's Stefansson. The second way looks right to me. But I don't which is correct.

Sheldon

Sheldon, I know what you mean.I hate misspelling names as well, but then again I hate doing it at all! I have affectionately been called the Spelling Nazi by people in a chat before due to my penchant for correcting spelling errors! heheh Although I do not admit to being a perfect speller, most of my errors are typoes! I take pride in being able to spell well. I was in the county spelling bee when I was younger, having been top speller in 1975, and in 1972-1974, I was runner-up.I also received state honors for achieving high marks on the spelling portion of the scholastic achievement tests, and also got 2nd in state for my test results as well in 1974. I abhor some of the grammatical and spelling errors I receive in e-mails... some are atrocious!!! Well, I am off to a good start of the day; venting about spelling and grammar But being an avid reader such as yourself, I thought that perhaps you would understand what I was talking about Forgive any errors in this... I am not fully awake yet

I wanted to take ths opportunity to comment on Gregory Ellis's postings about the second law of thermodynamics and other issues related to calories and diets. I realize I may be a bit late as he appears not to have posted for a while, but I wanted to put my two cents worth in anyway....

As I understand it, the issue is very much about the type, or source, of calories - not all calories are "created equally". To illustrate, consider the following example: Assume that Ellis and I weigh the same and we each go on, say, a 3,500 calorie a day diet. Mine is all carbohydrates and his is all fat. (Let's not worry about protiens and nutrients for the moment and assume minimal exercise). It won't be long before I start to gain weight. However, Gregory won't, because as he, and many others, have pointed out, his body can't store fat from ingested fat. Moreover, as I understand it, depending upon how Ellis eats his fat, he may even loose weight on his diet, by judiciously timing his injestion rate. Since his body can't store the fat that he eats, he could eat, say 3,500 calories for breakfast on day 1 and 3,500 calories for late on day 2. It would appear to be possible that, by the end of day 2, before his late meal, he may have to dip into his stored fat to supply hs ongoing needs.

As a professional engineer, I do have an understanding of the seond law of thermodynamics (along with the first and third, Newton's Maxwells, Einstein's and many other laws). However, the issues here are more complex than can be explained with the notion of entropy - after all, it doen't even fully explain even the simplest thermodynamic systems, that's why there is a first and third law! It seems to me that the issue of calories and weight loss/gain is much more complex. Although I don't completely understand the biology or biochemistry behind the above example, my guess is that the body digests the fats and breaks them down into fatty acids at a fairly constant rate. However those fatty acids don't release their energy until they are metabolized in the muscle cells, by going through the Kreb's cycle. If your muscles don't need them immediately and there is no way to store them, they are simply excreted, before they have given up all their energy. I know this is greatly oversimplified (and possibly not even correct), and would appreciate Ellis or anyone else's comments.

I must confess that I haven't read Ellis's book, but I think that if he wishes to use this forum to expresss his ideas or attempt to make a point, he should make that point here and not refer obliquely to his book.

Interesting concept Davemm! Firstly you need Insulin to store fat, either in muscle tissue or adipose tissue. Secondly, Udo Erasmus states in his book that the body can only absorb 10 grams of fat an hour. Is he right? I don't know? I think it's only long chain fatty acids. 15 carbon length and larger. Small chain and medium chain fatty acids are absorbed by the portal vein of the liver.

______________________________________________________________
Udo Erasmus states in his book that the body can only absorb 10 grams of fat an hour. Is he right? I don't know? I think it's only long chain fatty acids. 15 carbon length and larger. Small chain and medium chain fatty acids are absorbed by the portal vein of the liver.
______________________________________________________________


Thanks for your comments rjakubin. Do you mean absorbing fat from food - i.e. in the intestines? As I understand it, the fats are converted into fatty acids at this point. Are these fatty acids then reeabsorbed by the liver - or do I have it all wrong? Is this rate constant or is it regulated in response to needs? i.e. is it the same while sleeping as it is when excercising vigorously? If so (i.e. constant) do you know what happens to the fatty acids if the body doesn't require those fatty acids immediately?
Dave

I have just read through most of this thread and its amazing to me how many people will argue with Dr. Ellis and call him a liar when they haven't even read his book.

I have read it (along with Atkins, Zone, BFL, and many others) and every claim Dr. Ellis makes is absolutely true. You will learn exactly how the body uses food and exactly what you need to do to control your weight. You will learn that there are no such thing as "metablic advantages" like Dr. Atkins claims.

The fact is, calories count. Dr. Ellis gives us the science to back up his claims. Now, before you disagree with me - read the book first - because you can't form an opinion on something you know nothing about.

Yes, the book is $65 - which is on the high side for a book. But it is well worth it for the knowledge you'll gain.

I'm always willing to read such books, if I can afford them and find it legitimate, allowing me to browse before I decide, as I can do with all low-carb books in the bookstore.. But I always get suspicious when there are too many claims about a "truth", when none of those who claime it are willing to substantiate it with a scientific reference, or medical study. There are tens of publicly accessable medical research to the opposite, why would I pay $65, to find a magical secret formula, that has no such publicly accessable research to substanciate it?

People are not as niive as many assume them to be. Especially now with all the research coming out to disimiss such theories, and substantiate the low-carb fact, vs. the low-calorie theory.

Wa'il

Actually, Oldskool79, you're wrong. 4 studies comparing low fat to low carb diets came out this year. In every one the low carb dieters consumed more calories AND lost more weight than the low fat dieters. There is a demonstrated metabolic advantage. Truth that I didn't need to spend $65 dollars to find out. DLB