Could someone explain to me how the low carb diet works?

[Signifier]

I'm not exactly sure how it all works so well for so many people as it seems to do. In lack of glucose, cells will metabolize lipids (and to a far lesser extent, amino and nucleic acids) to phosphorylate ADP. Obviously, with less glucose, over a period of time there are less reserves of glycogen, with the combined effect of more lipid metabolism (also, I believe, more amino acid metabolism, but not nucleic acid metabolism). The metabolism of lipids produce many more molecules of ATP than glucose, with a theoretical net gain of 144 molecules.

Although that's better than glucose, and heavy ATP consuming cells (such as ones that do not generate FADH2 like cardiac muscle cells) often use lipid metabolism, it seems to me that an overall lack of glucose metabolism and glycogen storage (I assume the body would stop producing glycogen in the absence of significant glucose) would be unhealthy. I guess it would depend on the number of carbohydrates you consume, but 24g of daily carbohydrates seems insanely low. Also, because multipolar neurons (and most neurons, I believe, I am not sure) cannot catabolize anything but glucose, wouldn't a low carb diet lead to supressed mental functioning? (This is the only significant effect of the low carb diet I've noticed in my friends, a supressed 'awareness' and an overall tired state)

I'm not a physician so I do not know what the accumulating effects of a lack of glucose would do. For example, would gluconeogenesis be effected? I know glycogenesis would be, but would glycogenolysis be effected as well? What is the correlation between hair loss and low carbohydrate and glycogen levels? Is there a significant correlation (> +0.2 I assume would be significant), and if so, what causes this hair loss?

I'm thinking about generally lowing the number of carbohydrates I consume, but am a bit nervous about any type of 'low carb diet'. I would appreciate any information. Also are there any people with endocrinology experience who could comment? One of my friends is an endocrinologist and she recommends the low carb diet only for people suffering problems with glucose metabolism (or was that insulin based glucose metabolism, diabetes insipidus or mellitus? I suck at endocrinology).

[wwdimmitt]

1. Read a couple of books by Dr. Atkins, and also read "Protein Power". They explain the theory behind low carb eating regimens.

2. Go and read about Inuit native cultures, and see how they were able to live healthy, strong, active lives, and do it on purely fat and protein diets, almost no carbs at all for long periods of time.

3. Give it a try for 3 months and see whether it works for you.

[RCFletcher]

I started to write a full reply to this but it really would be much easier for you to buy 'Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution' and let him explain to you why it works and why it's safe.

I've been low carbing for over three years, lost 4lbs and never been healthier. I don't have 'a supressed 'awareness' and an overall tired state' The 20 to 30 g of carbs I eat a day plus the glucose my liver produces from protein are quite enough to keep the small area of my brain which really neeeds glucose functioning and the rest of the brain prefers to burn ketones ( a by product of fat matabolism) anyway.

This is not some new witchdoctory. Tens of millions of people in the US and 3 million people here follow a low carb way of eating. The original came out in 1972 and there were low carb diets before this. It's tried and it works.

If going on a diet as low as Atkins would cause you stress, investigate something like the Carbohydrate Addits diet which is not as severe.

I notice you hardly need to lose any weight at all. Why not just cut out sugar and processed flour products. It should be enough to give your body a break and let you live healthier.

[LadyBelle]

Protien power book goes into the science extreamly well. You might see if your local library has a copy.

Atkins doesn't dive as deeply into the science and tries to keep his explinations more simple.Check out the Atkins web site and find a section on why Atkins works. He also has many links to studies that have been done on nutrition you can follow up on. They have recently had a study which proved the metobolic advantage. The metobolic advantage refers to the fact someone on a low carb diet can consume the exact number of claories that someone on a low fat high carb diet, but the low carb person will lose weight.

[Signifier]

Thank you everyone. I guess I'll get Protein Power because I'm looking for science more than anything. I need to learn a lot more about metabolism and energetics. Right now, I'm stumped as to how the brain would get adequate glucose on a low carb diet, but I assume it's possible.

Thank you!

[Nancy LC]

There's a fellow on the message forum here with the handle that looks like CC4834325 who is quite the metabolism whiz. He could probably explain it at your level, which is so far over my head....

But yes, you should read up on the health of the native folks who live in greenland and consume virtually nothing but meat and fat. That's not how most of us do the diet, we eat a lot of veggies and low carb fruits too. But they have to be the non-starchy veggies, like spinach, asparagus, lettuce, cucumbers and so on.

Do you really think you'd be depriving yourself nutritionally if you gave up flour and sugar?

[asalvato]

There is a tremendous difference between low carb and no carb. Most low carb program restrict carbs for the first two weeks to a very low level primarily to get folks past the carb cravings that we carb addicts experience. If one is not addicted to carbs, then the very low levels are not even necessary. Some folks here start at higher levels.

No matter what you decide to do, know that all carbs are not created equal and processed carbs are not healthy for anyone. Sugar and white flour are used to produce foods that most of us like very much but they are not healthy. Just cutting out refined carbs will result in a healthier food plan and some weight loss. Also high fat, high carb eating is very unhealthy.

[black57]

Insulin has several jobs. Regulating glucose levels is just one of those jobs. If your insulin is unstable due to the over consumption of carbohydrates ( glorified poison ). When insulin is balanced, it partner hormone, glucagon, is activated. Insulin is like the body's "broom" and glucagon is the "dustpan". Without the activation of glucagon, insulin will sweep up "dirt" but it will do nothing but pile up. This dirt is fats, cholesterol, excess water and the stimulation of growth of the smooth muscles in the arteries to name a few. Glucagon is activated only when insulin is stabilized. Insulin becomes stabilized when glucose is stabilized. So we begin to stabilize the insulin by reducing carb intake. Glucose is now easily absorbed into the cells without the help of insulin. With insulin now in the stabilized state, glucagon is activated. Glucagon will shift the metabolism into fat buring mode ( lipolysis/ketosis ). Protein and fat now, are converted to glucose, helping to keep those levels balanced. Dietary fats are then turned to ketones and are used as energy in the tissues. Glucagon enables the kidneys to release retained water ( why we have to peeeeeee so much ). It stimulates the regression of arterial smooth muscle cells, which helps to lower blood pressure. My success supports this explanation.

This is just a tiny overview of the matter but if you read Protein Power by Drs. Mary and Michael Eades you will find a very concise explanation of insulin and its partner glucagon on page 36. But there is more to this and Dr. Atkins and the Eades and other doctors have brought good things to light.

[jjoyb]

Also, because multipolar neurons (and most neurons, I believe, I am not sure) cannot catabolize anything but glucose, wouldn't a low carb diet lead to supressed mental functioning? (This is the only significant effect of the low carb diet I've noticed in my friends, a supressed 'awareness' and an overall tired state)

I'm not a physician so I do not know what the accumulating effects of a lack of glucose would do. For example, would gluconeogenesis be effected? I know glycogenesis would be, but would glycogenolysis be effected as well? What is the correlation between hair loss and low carbohydrate and glycogen levels? Is there a significant correlation (> +0.2 I assume would be significant), and if so, what causes this hair loss?.

Couple of things, I appreciate your stating your lack of knowledge at the end, but this is a lot of scientific mumbo-jumbo for someone who isn't an expert in biology and physiology. Do you know what you're saying, or did someone say these things to you?

No, gluconeogenesis, i.e. the making of glucose, would not be blocked in the absence of glucose, since th point of it is to MAKE glucose, therefore it doesn't need glucose to occur.

What is glycogenesis? or glycogenolysis? I have a PhD is biology, and yet have NEVER heard a single professor of biology or biochemistry use these terms.

Your friends, who have a "suppressed" awareness, what do you mean by this? Suppressed means deliberately subdued, so that would imply that they are purposely less aware? what does that have to do with dieting? Also, is this your opinion? Maybe they are responding to your spouting a bunch of science words that don't really make a lot of sense, even to scientists.

If you're serious about trying to understand the science behind body physiology, then I recommend you do some reading.

[adkpam]

Just FYI, many of us here found ourselves much more alert eating this way. For instance, my "mid-afternoon" slump went away and hasn't come back, in over a year.

Sure, the brain needs SOME glucose, so my body goes ahead and makes it, as required, from protein and fat. That is my understanding of what gluconeogenesis IS, and it seems to work so far.

[Signifier]

Hello! Thank everyone once again for replying. I'll try to answer...

"Do I know what I'm saying", ah, the great question of life! I, personally, think I know what I'm saying -in general- but the specifics of it all is where my 'knowledge' begins to unravel. Even then, my 'generals' are far from perfect. So no, when it comes down to it, I do not know what I'm talking about, really. But atleast no one else said these things to me (phew!).

Glycogenesis is the process of glycogen formation from glucose, and glycogenolysis is the breakdown of glycogen into glucose (really, I'm not trying to make up new words!). I am fairly shocked that I asked about gluconeogenesis, and apologize for that display of ignorance.

Your friends, who have a "suppressed" awareness, what do you mean by this? Suppressed means deliberately subdued, so that would imply that they are purposely less aware? what does that have to do with dieting? Also, is this your opinion? Maybe they are responding to your spouting a bunch of science words that don't really make a lot of sense, even to scientists.

Supressed was a poor use of language. I mean depressed, lowered, not 100%. One of my friends has experienced excellent weight loss but recently began to feel tired and not all there, a bit fuzzy (a feeling that I completely understand, being diabetic). His doctor recommended that he stop his low carb diet, and he's began to feel much better, although he is gaining weight back, which sucks. I think the problem was that he had -too- low carb a diet, somewhere around 10 or so grams a day, if I go by his calculations. Anyway, the whole thing rose questions in my head.

Any problems, I think, in my understanding of metabolism and energetics here came from my very poor understanding of gluconeogenesis. With glycerol and amino acids, I suppose, sufficient glucose can be synthesized to power the brain at a level equal to the power it gets from a high carbohydrate diet. (Perhaps my friend wasn't eating enough protein). Thank you for recommending that I do some reading. I will definitely do some reading. Can you recommend a really good book for this kind of stuff? If you don't want to, that's okay. All textbooks are equal in the long run, I suppose. So far the only book I've finished on this stuff was Chemistry for Biology Students, which is made to be simplified, so I do have a lot of reading to do.

[LadyBelle]

The problem is while biology books make a good start, few focus on nutrition. The nutriotion books often just spit back the accepted dogma without any science behind it. I really do recomend Protien Power.

If your friend was only taking in about 10g of carbs plus not getting enough protien then chances are he was taking in way too few claories for a male his size. The body does need energy and that comes from food. Any starvation diet will start to have an impact on brain function no matter what the type of limited food ingested is.

The brain only needs small amounts of glucose. It has no problem converting protien into the needed amounts. It is possible to survive with no carbs. However that would require missing out on a ton of nutrients that are available in veggies. No low carb diet is 0 carbs. Even the '72 Atkins which called itself 0 carb still allowed lettuce, eggs and shellfish, all of which contain some amounts of carbs.

The feel good from carbs is the seritonin release as well as the glucose surge. For many though the glucose spike is followed by an insulin reaction to push the blood sugar back to normal. Before it reaches equalibrium though it dips too low, causing that crash down after eating sugar much like the one after caffine. For many people balancing the blood sugar so they are no longer on a rollercoaster of highs and crashes provides mental clarity and alot more energy.

There was also a study performed that proved the brain could not only function on keotenes in the absense of a high carb diet, but it also functioned better. Unfortunetly after reading the summery of this study a few times I can't remember where it was (I was certain the Atkins website cited it and gave info to find it).

[jjoyb]

So in response to these questions, I did a few literature searches on the question of ketogenic (low carb, high fat) diets and brain function. It turns out (and I thank the original writer for asking now because this was some interesting reading) that the brain not only functions fine on these diets, but ketogenic diets have been studied for their effect on brain function for a really long time because low carb, high fat actually helps reduce incidence of seizures in epileptics, and so they have been feeding these kinds of diets to epileptic kids for decades.

Anyway, here are some articles that talk about 2 things. First is that neurons are protected better from oxidation/aging damage when rats are fed a low carb/high fat diet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15048898

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14649719

And the last is a review, the abstract of which I also copied here, that discusses the numerous tests that have been done to determine the effects of ketogenic diets on the brain function in relation to epilepsy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14604265 - Pasted below

Ketones: metabolism's ugly duckling.
VanItallie TB, Nufert TH. ( Nutr Rev. 2003 Oct;61(10):327-41. )
Ketones were first discovered in the urine of diabetic patients in the mid-19th century; for almost 50 years thereafter, they were thought to be abnormal and undesirable by-products of incomplete fat oxidation. In the early 20th century, however, they were recognized as normal circulating metabolites produced by liver and readily utilized by extrahepatic tissues. In the 1920s, a drastic "hyperketogenic" diet was found remarkably effective for treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in children. In 1967, circulating ketones were discovered to replace glucose as the brain's major fuel during the marked hyperketonemia of prolonged fasting. Until then, the adult human brain was thought to be entirely dependent upon glucose. During the 1990s, diet-induced hyperketonemia was found therapeutically effective for treatment of several rare genetic disorders involving impaired neuronal utilization of glucose or its metabolic products. Finally, growing evidence suggests that mitochondrial dysfunction and reduced bioenergetic efficiency occur in brains of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Because ketones are efficiently used by mitochondria for ATP generation and may also help protect vulnerable neurons from free radical damage, hyperketogenic diets should be evaluated for ability to benefit patients with PD, AD, and certain other neurodegenerative disorders.

[jjoyb]

as for some good reading. I agree with the above poster that textbooks are usually too general for a person to develop an understanding of a specific subject. If you are worried about reading a book that is unduly influenced by the salesmanship aspects of a diet, I would suggest reading Protein Power (which I admit I have not read), given the high regard the other posters have for it, then as you read it, note down the specific arguments that are given to you as to why the body/brain is functioning fine in lipolysis, and look these specific facts up on the internet. I will often google as a starting search, but as a science person, I always follow up scientific questions I have by looking for the original articles. If you don't have experience with this, the website most people use is called PubMed, and the link for it is in the links I provided in the above post.

As for your friend who was eating only 10g carbs/day, I think it is safe to say that he was not following any of the diets supported by this forum, nor any diet a doctor would prescribe, so it makes sense that he might not have been feeling well. Atkins in generally believed to be on of the most restrictive low carb diets, and in the most strict induction phase, Dr. Atkins recommends staying at 20g carbs/day, not less.

good luck with your reading and I hope your friend is eating healthier.

[TheCaveman]

In the winter, I go as low as 10g of dietary carbohydrate per day. My fasting glucose always tests at 80-90g/dl no matter the level of carbohydrate I eat. I think there's a misconception that we don't have any glucose in our blood at all. Zero glucose is comatose on the way to a quick death.

So, I've got enough glucose in my blood to do anything my body wants with it. Those little processes in the brain that need glucose in order to happen, can have as much as they need.

Perhaps we suffer only from the thought that if the brain needs glucose to function, then even more glucose will make the brain work even better. I've never seen any suggestion that it does, however.

Life Without Bread by Wolfgang Lutz and Christian Allan also has a fine description of the energetic process on a medium-carbohydrate diet, as the book is not a weightloss plan, per se. It's not as well-referenced as I would like, but the explanation is top notch.

But the place that made me see the really big picture was the sleep sciences. I was researching a book on sleep while getting only four and a half hours a night. No more, I assure you. I realized I was fat because I didn't sleep enough. In my opinion, any discussion of weight loss or energetics of the body without mentioning the sleep cycle (and melatonin/prolactin) is sorely lacking, and almost meaningless to me now.

[ItsTheWooo]

Thank you everyone. I guess I'll get Protein Power because I'm looking for science more than anything. I need to learn a lot more about metabolism and energetics. Right now, I'm stumped as to how the brain would get adequate glucose on a low carb diet, but I assume it's possible.

Thank you!

I'll just answer this question briefly...

The first few days of a low carb diet you will feel awful and your functioning will be compromised. That's because your body is making metabolic adaptations to a fat based metabolism that have not yet been completed. During this transitory period you are eating a diet your body cannot yet handle effectively, which is why you will feel down in the dumps and mentally foggy. YOu are basically "starved" for sugar. This period is very brief (a few days), and once completed the body is back to normal or sometimes even better functioning than before. A series of metabolic adaptations which shift energy use from fat to sugar are the reason for the change. The specifics of the changes are a mystery to me (like the exact detail of the pathways and what not), but I understand the processes in a general sense. The primary changes are as follows:
1) Tissues which were previously glucose-dominant switch to ketone-burning. One figure I heard cited was that the brain reduces its need for glucose from almost entirely to only 40%. Whatever the exact figure, your body no longer needs all the sugar after you've been "inducted" into a high fat diet.
2) A change in the insulin/glucagon axis results in your body being more efficient at using it's own body tissues for energy (this is a necessary change as fat and protein cannot be as effectively retained for later like sugar can, and is major good news for overweight people ;) ). Furthermore, of the glucose that your body does need, the change in insulin/glucagon make your body more efficient at making new glucose from protein and fats.

So, generally speaking, we don't fall into a sugar coma because our body simultaneously reduces its needs for sugar (very greatly so), while also increasing its capacity to use alternate fuel sources more effectively in various ways (including being able to completely synthesize the sugar it does need from protein and fats).

It takes a few days for this shift to happen though, as I said. After between 2-3 days you should feel much better. It personally took me a week to feel the same but I think I am one of those who needs more carbs. Many more people feel just terrific on induction and could live that way forever. I assume biological differences between individuals determine our tolerance for various diets. I think I need something more moderate as both high carb and too high fat make me feel unwell.

Sorry for that personal tangent, back to the issue at hand. When you remove dietary sugars, your body does not simply just sit around waiting for more, letting everything go to crap. No one would survive a fast if this were true. It gets used to the situation, stops burning so much sugar, and starts using fat and protein for fuel instead. The body is really good at maintaining homeostasis when the environment throws it a curve ball. We wouldn't have survived as well as we have otherwise. Your body will use for energy whatever you give it, if we assume it is healthy and you are feeding it food.

Perhaps you are looking for exact scientific details about how these adaptions occur. I don't know the details, I just understand in a general sense, so I can't help you. I'm sure one of the other more science oriented posters can help.

[tom sawyer]

The body can make glucose from certain amino acids, and we do eat some carbs. So those are two ways that we continue to maintain a constant blood glucose level, and feed our brain. The rest of our body, we feed ketone bodies.

[Signifier]

Well, I still have to get Protein Power, but I borrowed my friend's book "Basic Neurochemistry", and in the chapter Nutrition and Functional Neurochemistry, it says the following, which duly shocked me:

"A high-fat (90% of caloric value), carbohydrate-free ketogenic diet low in protein (10%) does not significantly alter regional brain glucose utilization or cerebral concentrations of glucose, glycogen, lactate or citrate. However, a high-carbohydrate diet (78%) low in fat (12%) and low in protein (10%) markedly decreases brain glucose utilization and increases cerebral concentrations of glucose 6-phosphate."

In the same chapter it says that:

"Extensive evidence indicates that relatively modest increases in circulating glucose concentrations can also increase ACh release and has been claimed to enhance learning and memory."

But I assume that in a low carb diet, as the first quoted paragraph implies, the body can synthesize more than enough glucose as well as neurotransmitters given a healthy supply of lipids, choline, amino acids, etc.

So, my conclusion: the low carb diet can work! Still, I don't think I'll go onto any real 'low carb diet' until my weight precludes other methods, such as my current one: follow the nutritional pyramid and exercise aerobically and anaerobically.

[tom sawyer]

Following the nutritional pyramid will result in you being shaped much like the pyramid. But good luck.

[adkpam]

such as my current one: follow the nutritional pyramid and exercise aerobically and anaerobically.

Oh, yes, that was once me. I ate 25 grams of fat a day. I worked out one and a half hours a day. I felt happy and slim, and was a size 12 at 5'7". "They are right," I thought. "This is all I have to do."

Ahem.

I did keep this up for ten years. Life happened. I moved, I no longer had the time and space for that much exercise, and I didn't have the money to join a gym. I got a new job that required more socializing and social eating. I got ten years older. I gained 40 pounds.

A year and a half later, low carbing, I not only have lost the forty pounds with nothing more than some walking and stair climbing, I have better hair, skin, and nails, no more mid-afternoon slumps, sleep better in less time, and have an even sunnier disposition than before.

Suffice it to say the food pyramid works...if you can devote yourself to burning off all those "healthy" carbs with lots of exercise. What if you get sick (which was when I first started putting weight on)? Injured? Change your circumstances?

I'm all for exercise, but why should I have to work out 90 minutes a day to keep weight off, if I'm eating right?

Either I'm a mutant (like so many here) or there's something wrong with this picture.

[Lanny]

I read an artical in the canadian time magazine about low carbing and they were saying right now there are 26million ppl LC and 3million thinking abou it...atkins will have reach by the end of this year 30billion!

[Tholzel]

[QUOTE=Signifier]
I'm thinking about generally lowing the number of carbohydrates I consume, but am a bit nervous about any type of 'low carb diet'. I would appreciate any information. QUOTE]

The most interesting practical explanation I have seen is at http://www.velocitypress.com/if_atkins_doesnt_work.php I'm following this "Velocity Diet" which is simply the South Beach adaption of whatever your current diet is--i.e., the minimal change to what I'm eating now.

Slow but sure--and do-able.

[TheCaveman]

The most interesting practical explanation I have seen is at http://www.velocitypress.com/if_atkins_doesnt_work.php I'm following this "Velocity Diet"

Oh my, this is the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. Stick with Protein Power and Life Without Bread.

[Samasnier]

How ridiculous. The Velocity Diet IS Atkins, they're simply playing off the negative press of Atkins to promote their own "brand".

[Tholzel]

How ridiculous. The Velocity Diet IS Atkins, they're simply playing off the negative press of Atkins to promote their own "brand".

Well, I see that some of you must have read as much as the first few paragraphs, in order to be first with commentary. Try reading the whole thing, and then say its the same as Atkins.

[sinadial]

I stopped reading that Velocity thing at this point: "Millions swear by it because they have successfully lost a lot of weight. And some significant percentage of those people have been able to keep most of that weight off, say for five years or longer. But millions more have lost weight on the Atkins diet, only to find they CANNOT give up carbohydrates to the extent the diet demands. (The initial phase is much stricter than most people realize.) And so, like me, they succeed for a while, but then relapse and regain their girth. The urge to splurge on carbs becomes irrepressible. According to Atkins, at six feet tall, to go from my 220 to 185 I can only eat 20 carbs a day. (I saw blueberry muffins for sale at the supermarket each one of which had 73 carbs!) So what can we do?"

Problems I have with this is: I think there's a problem if you can't go TWO WEEKS on eating protien and salad. Yes, the induction phase is stricter but it isn't the whole diet.

Where exactly does Atkins say that the author can only have 20 carbs a day? This guy makes it sound like you're on 20 carbs a day permanently and that simply isn't the case. (Granted, some people CHOOSE to stay on induction for longer for various reasons.)

Lastly, the 73 carb blueberry muffin. OMG I can't possibly resist buying a muffin, Atkins doesn't work! Here's an idea: Maybe you could learn to bake your own muffins that don't have all that excess sugar and other crap that the store bought ones stuff into them?

From the part that I did read, I don't see how it's different from Atkins. It seemed to me that the author was under the impression that Atkins consists of 20 carbs a day, period.

Sina

[Nancy LC]

Some people just never do that well being in Ketosis. You can follow a low carb diet and avoid ketosis. I think Anthony Calpo's site he talks about how lousy he felt in Ketosis and how raising his carbs slightly helped with that.

I think the URL is http://www.theomnivore.com

Ah, here it tis: http://www.theomnivore.com/how_low_should_carbs_go.html

[Dodger]

Well, I see that some of you must have read as much as the first few paragraphs, in order to be first with commentary. Try reading the whole thing, and then say its the same as Atkins.
Tholzel,

Please post a summary of the Velocity diet, emphasizing its differences from Atkins. The references web site seems to be very rambling to me and hard to understand.

[Signifier]

I'm glad this got bumped back up. I was thinking about high-protein diets, which I assume a diet called "Protein Power" is based on. Don't high-protein diets increase the risk for osteoperosis? It seems like a low-carb, high-protein diet, despite what it does for your weight loss, would be bad for your bones. This is just drawn from a few case studies done on protein and calcium consumption, such as the Bantu men and women (very low protein, very low calcium) who have no osteoperosis and the eskimos (very, very high protein, normal calcium) who have the highest rate of osteoperosis in the world.

Also, has there been any studies done on carbohydrate consumption as correlated with life span expectancy? I know there's been several on kilocalorie consumption with the obvious outcome of less calories equal longer life. I assume, uncritically, that less carbohydrates would equal longer life as well, but I don't know if any empirical studies have been performed.

[Samasnier]

Tholzel, I did read the page you linked to. I re-read it when you claimed I'd only read the first few paragraphs, just to make sure I hadn't missed anything. The only difference I see between Velocity and Atkins is the Pigging Out Day once a month on Velocity.

Signifier, Protein Power, despite your assumption, is not a high protein diet. Nor is Atkins.

Protein consumption does not lead to osteoporosis. See Myths and Truths about Osteoporosis (http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_bones.html) for more information. As far as the Inuit are concerned, early accounts held them to be strong and sturdy with no evidence of weak bones. There is some speculation that modern foods, especially sugar and white bread, lead to their current state of high osteoporosis.

I don't know if any studies have been done on carbohydrate consumption and lifespan, but there have been studies showing insulin as a limiting factor in lifespan. The more insulin, the shorter the lifespan. Since carbohydrates increase insulin...

[Tholzel]

Tholzel,

Please post a summary of the Velocity diet, emphasizing its differences from Atkins. The references web site seems to be very rambling to me and hard to understand.

1. Most people can't stick to diets that are radical departures from their "normal" diet.
2. Therefore, strange diets don't last long.
3. In principle, the Atkins diet, segueying to South Beach makes a lot of sense.
4. But many fail at it. (The essay is called "IF Atkins doesn't work," not "Atkins doesn't work.")
5. Therefore, take your normal diet (whatever it is) and move it gradually in the South Beach direction, i.e., modest fat, greatly reduced white carbs.
6. Recognize that those people who have the greatest difficulty with Atkins seem to be those who are glucose intolerant--and don't know it.
7. Therefore--for them--the strong emphasis on cutting down their diet of white carbs.
8. By essentially staying with the diet you're used to--and modifying it (rather than jumping over to a completely new diet)--your chances are better that you'll be able to stick to it.

[Grimalkin]

Stick with Protein Power and Life Without Bread.
"Life Without Bread" is my favorite LC book, and "Protein Power" is great too although I prefered "Protein Power Lifeplan" as they have added information and expanded some explanations. Both are a must-read!

[ItsTheWooo]

Some people just never do that well being in Ketosis. You can follow a low carb diet and avoid ketosis. I think Anthony Calpo's site he talks about how lousy he felt in Ketosis and how raising his carbs slightly helped with that.

I think the URL is http://www.theomnivore.com

Ah, here it tis: http://www.theomnivore.com/how_low_should_carbs_go.html
Agreed...
I've been very successful with LC, but ketosis and the whole induction diet makes me feel absolutely horrid.