Atkins and brain damage????!!!

[POCKYstix]

I love getting BIOLOGICAL...

Cutting carbs too much for a long time COULD be dangerous and cause permanent damage to the body.

Why, you may ask? Well, the body gets most of its energy from ATP. ATP is the gas and the body is the car... got to have it to live. ATP is derived from many sugars and monosaccarhides(mono-simple sugars) like glucose that come from carbohydrates, which is unlike any other food we take in. Glucose is the simplest form of sugar that is needed for everything... animals and plants. Glucose is needed on the cellular level. So without glucose, things tend to either slow down or die... cell by cell. Brain cells depend on glucose as their PRIMARY source of energy. Without glucose the brain cells cannot function because they are missing their primary fuel to run and if carbohydrates are cut completely then so is the glucose.

SIMPLY PUT: Glucose comes from the carbs, enters the bloodstream through the intestinal tract, and goes to the brain from there due to cirrculation. No carbs, no glucose. No glucose, your brains cells are out of fuel.

Not to say that cutting carbs in decent amounts will harm you because it more than likely will not, but if you cut too much then damage can be done. Don't cut too many carbs!

Pick up any Biology I textbook and read about carbohydrates, glucose, ATP, and the metabolism of the brain. I attend Mr. Bob Reeder's freshman class at MSCC (Motlow State) so if you need proof other than a text book, he could provide it for anyone.

Then again... I am just a student...

Again, I repeat... it depends on how much you cut from your diet. I AM NOT saying that you guys are doing something dangerous that should be banned and such. I AM saying this: Be reasonable about how much carbohydrates you cut from your diet because too much could hurt you and cutting ~TOO MUCH~ for a long amount of time will literally starve you.

[potatofree]

Your body can and DOES run on ketones, and can even create the glucose it needs through a process called gluconeogenesis. You might want to look that up, since as a student, you'd want to have all the information you can get from more than one source.

[Kristine]

SIMPLY PUT: You've completely ignored gluconeogenesis. :)

[mrfreddy]

gee, it's a wonder the human race made it this far without carbohydrates... seeing as sources of carbohydrates were scarce during our first few million years of existance...

isnt it a fact that carbohydrates are the one macornutrient we dont actually need to survive? cut out the protein or fat, and your body will suffer. Cut out the carbs, your body makes everything it needs from the fat and protein.

[Mindy66]

I've heard before that Atkins is very hard on the heart. I looked it up on internet and stumbled upon this. I don't want to discourage anyone, but tho't they might well be interested in seeing this.

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/87/Blood_Flow_on_the_Atkins_Diet.htm

The Schwarzbein Principle is just sounding more and more sound physiologically the more I research it. You, too may want to check it out. ?

www.schwarzbein.com

Good luck to all,
Mindy ;)

[doreen T]

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/87/Blood_Flow_on_the_Atkins_Diet.htm

:yawn:

More pcrm anti-meat eating propaganda.

BTW, the original article was posted at WebMD by Dean Ornish .. http://my.webmd.com/content/pages/1/3075_903 .. a pcrm member and well-known for his anti-meat, anti-Atkins views. He has a financial bias in that he has also published several diet books.

FWIW, the original WebMD article doesn't mention Atkins at all, it says simply "a popular high-protein diet". The Atkins diet is not a high-protein diet, it's a high-fat, adequate-protein diet.


Doreen

[doreen T]

Another interesting tidbit .. the images of "blood flow" in the article come from Richard Fleming M.D. of the Fleming Heart and Health Institute in Nebraska.

Folks might wish to check out Anthony Colpo's views on Ornish and Fleming at the Omnivore.com .. The Dietary Delusions of Dean Ornish (http://www.theomnivore.com/Ornish.html): Why Ornish's writings are far closer to science fiction than science.In the PBS interview, Ornish claimed that research has shown diets like Atkins to worsen blood flow to the heart. His source for this frightening allegation? None other than Nebraska's Dr. Richard Fleming, the same Dr. Richard Fleming who came under attack earlier this year after he obtained the late Dr. Atkins' confidential death report under dubious circumstances and then passed it onto to his publicity-hungry associates at the PCRM........
:rolleyes:

Doreen

[ojoj]

Boots seem happy enough to sell Atkins and their own brand low carb products???

Jo

[doreen T]

Boots seem happy enough to sell Atkins and their own brand low carb products???

Jo
hi Jo,

Those posts about Boots are over 3 years old. ;)


Doreen

[ edited to add: I've split the current discussion from the 3 yr old posts for clarity ]

[CindySue48]

I've heard before that Atkins is very hard on the heart. I looked it up on internet and stumbled upon this. I don't want to discourage anyone, but tho't they might well be interested in seeing this.

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/87/Blood_Flow_on_the_Atkins_Diet.htm

The Schwarzbein Principle is just sounding more and more sound physiologically the more I research it. You, too may want to check it out. ?

www.schwarzbein.com

Good luck to all,
Mindy ;)

No matter what the subject, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to find something both positive and negative on the net. BUT you have to evaluate the info. Research the researchers.

[juelz4u]

At my pharmacy(the one in the grocery store and the reg. pharmacy) you have to get them from the pharmacist. Not sure why..they give them to you w/out question. I didn't get to read all the threads , but why do you suppose you have to ask for them? Brain damage is a an new one for me. I would of fell over if a supposidly educated dr. type person told me that!
Jul

[Nancy LC]

I would of fell over if a supposidly educated dr. type person told me that!
Jul

Yeah, and they would have assumed you fell over due to brain damage from your low carb diet!

[black57]

How can a diet that encourages healthy eating cause brain damage? The same way a black cat causes bad luck or if you step on a crack you break your mother's back. If you have to question that, then you haven't done the research.

[juelz4u]

Yeah, and they would have assumed you fell over due to brain damage from your low carb diet!

Yes, and my little town local paper would of had a hay day! "Local woman colapses from brain damage during the Atkin's Diet..." :lol:
Believe me if I didn't have brain damage from eating McDonalds crap for the last 10 years, I think I'll survive!! hee hee

[Over40]

"Stupid is as stupid doess Forrest!"

That is assinine. In fact, it is my understanding that the vegetarians are the ones who need to watch out for issues like taht do to possible (notice I did say possible) B12 and protein deficiencies.

If the keto sticks are not prescription then you have every right to buy them. If the incident really, really traumatized you, by all means, get an attorney so you can be compensated for your pain and suffering ;) .

Jon

[doreen T]

I love getting BIOLOGICAL...


............the body gets most of its energy from ATP. ATP is the gas and the body is the car... got to have it to live. ATP is derived from many sugars and monosaccarhides(mono-simple sugars) like glucose that come from carbohydrates, which is unlike any other food we take in.

< snip >

Pick up any Biology I textbook and read about carbohydrates, glucose, ATP, and the metabolism of the brain. .........
hi there POCKYstix,

Pick up any Biology 101 textbook and read about protein, fatty acids, ketones, ATP and the metabolism of the brain. ;)

Yes, ATP is synthesized from glucose. Well, guess what?? ATP is also synthesized from protein, fatty acids and ketones.


http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/590metabolism.gif


There are a few cells in the body which cannot use ketones to produce energy; those cells lack mitochondria .. erythrocytes, the mid-brain (a very small portion near the brain stem), some kidney cells and the cornea of the eye. All other cells will use ketones, including skeletal and cardiac muscle .. and the cerebral cortex of the brain.


:read:


Doreen

[ProfGumby]

Which of the hundreds of actual studies that have been done debunking a lot of these red herrings do you want to see. No one has ever posted an actual acredited study, done under PROPER methods that is able to debunk that LC works.

I must disclaim this by adding no one thing is for everyone and I urge anyone under any eating/diet plan to do so under the supervision of a doctor. Sod what your pharmacist/dietician/anonymous internet/PCRM backed source says.

I would not believe anything anyone even remotely connected with PCRM said. If they said my ass was on fire, I'd look to see for myself.

Do the world a favor and keep your anti Low Carb rhetoric off the boards, there are enough people here that can spot a fraud a mile away.

BTW just try and stop me from LCing.....do yourself a favor and go beat up on some smokers or hard drinkers, they are doing far more damage to themselves than any LC er ever did.

And, for the record, can you tell me what kind of simple sugars/carbohydrates aren't in many whole grains(flax etc), vegetables, melons or berries? Cause guess what, most of us eat them........ :yum:

And Doreen, thanks for the awesome graphic above, I learned a lot from that! :wave:

[ItsTheWooo]

No carbs, no glucose.

Everything you said is true, except this. This is the error in your logic. Carbs are not the only source of glucose therefore your conclusion (low carb = brain damage) is erroneous. If we didn't have glucose in our bodies we would all be dead.
Your body can make sugar from anything it eats. Your body is quite capable of making sugar as it needs it. Saying carbs are needed for glucose synthesis is like saying heroin is needed for your brain to produce neurochemicals that make you feel good. While it is true carbs will result in your body being FLOODED with sugar, that doesn't mean it's the only way for your body to get sugar, or even the optimal way or even the normal way in nature.
If I tried to tell you that you need to be taking drugs to get your brain to make feel good chems, would you believe that? Of course not, it's patently obvious the body can make - and release - those chemicals just fine without drugs. In fact, it's equally obvious that the body does a MUCH better job at regulating it's brain chemistry when one abstains from mood altering & psychotropic substances which tend to fowl things up by unnaturally disturbing the body's rhythms.
So it is with very highly sugared, starchy, simple carbohydrate food that is easily and rapidly broken down into blood glucose. We are not supposed to be eating these foods in quantity, we are by nature designed to make sugar from the animals, nuts, berries, and veggies we eat... not have it instantly infused and skyrocket in our blood from a coca cola or piece of bread.

Perhaps you should try restricting carbohydrate a bit... detox off the sugar drip. You might be surprised to see how much better your body functions and how more balanced and stable everything is, when it isn't being abused by surges of sugar all the time.

[bluesmoke]

You might also look up liver functions while you are doing your studies. You'd find that the liver can make glucose from protein as needed by the body. So carbs ae not needed to produce the small amounts of glucose necessary for the few parts of the body that can't use ketones and short chain fatty acids.
Nyah Levi

[POCKYstix]

TRUTH (evidence provided):

Cutting carbs sensibly won't harm you much, but overdoing it can harm you because it can cause brain damage and starvation. You can lose some memory or receive traumatic damage that you'd end up in a pshyciatric ward if your brain cells do not receive their primary source of energy (ie glucose) from carbohydrates.

Some of you may say that there is no proof of this when that is not a true statement, maybe in opinion though. The proof may not be plastered all over the media to proove that it may induce brain problems and starvation; However, it exists in thousands of Biology and Physical Wellness textbooks across the Earth.

Everything needs glucose to live, but because we are not plants and cannot make our own sugars... we need to take them in. We'd die without carbs. So trimming down to the recommended intake by looking at the food pyramid is healthy, but COMPLETELY cutting them from a diet is getting risky. That is starving yourself on the cellular level!

Simply put, we get glucose from carbohydrates and nowhere else. No carbs, no glucose. No glucose, your brain dies of starvation... literally. Glucose is the PRIMARY source of energy that your brain needs.... brain is car, glucose is gas.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

For proof of the above statements made, here are four things to you can do or look into to see why scientists and doctors are saying cutting carbs can be deadly:

---Try opening your Biology textbook if you have one handy and flip to the back and look these terms up in the INDEX (not glossary to define terms) --- glucose, carbohydrates, brain... keep in mind that you are looking for how the brain uses glucose and where it comes from.

---You can e-mail a Biology professor and ask him or her how glucose works, where it comes from, and how much the brain depends on it (PRIMARY source = only source).

---You can go to your local Physical Wellness teacher and ask how the brain uses glucose, what glucose is, and where it comes from.

---There are websites with this information plastered all over them. Try looking at these:

http://www.fi.edu/brain/carbs.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose (scroll to 'Role in Metabolism)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To finish this off, I will give a DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF HOW CUTTING CARBS MAY CAUSE BRAIN DAMAGE if not done sensibly. Keep in mind that I am not saying cutting carbs is going to do this but cutting carbs TOO MUCH will:

1. The carbs enter the digestive system.

2. The carbs are broken down during the digestive process into MANY simple sugars called monosaccarhides that consist of these basic elements: carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. One of these several monosaccarhides is GLUCOSE and glucose is the brains PRIMARY (only) source of energy.

3. The monosaccarhides enter the bloodstream through the intestinal wall where they are carried out to different cells.

4. The brain picks up the monosaccarhide, glucose, and uses it as a fuel to function.

Now that you see how it works... let us DRAMATICALLY cut the carbs...

1. The carbs do NOT enter the digestive system. However, proteins and veggies and replacements do...

2. These foods that are taken in, not being carbs, are broken down into FEW simple sugars called monosaccarhides that are not really enough in number from other foods to fuel your body. Glucose is not produced because it only comes from carbs.

3. The couple of monosaccarhides enter the bloodstream through the intestinal wall where they are carried out to different cells.

4. Cells pick up the monosaccarhides but slowly starve because there are not enough of them since carbs were not taken in and the brain has no glucose to receive and so the cells shrivel and die due to starvation... because the brain cells have been starved and if they continue to starve over time... well, you can see why it can cause brain damage. (once a brain cell dies, it does not come back... unless you are willing to go into stem cell research...recent discoveries have been made there and so in the near future you could regenerate some brain cells...)



I hope that you find the above proof in four types helpful. There is proof... it just hasn't been plastered all over the media. Cutting carbs sensibly won't kill you, but cutting TOO MUCH can do that and if not dead, cause permanent damage to the brain AND body.

-----Please look into my proof some before you argue in disbelief. :thup:

[Rosebud]

:lol: Pardon my mirth, Pocky, but please, at least read some of the good information given by the previous posters.
Hint: try looking up gluconeogenesis...

Rosebud:rose:

[doreen T]

Hello POCKYstix,

Your original post has been split away from the old thread which you'd revived, in order to keep the discussion on-topic. I've merged your most recent post in with the new thread.

Please read the educated replies to your original post, as I'm sure you will find them very enlightening.


:exclm: Also, please do not post email addresses as this is against our forum rules. In particular, do not post someone else's email without their permission.


Doreen

[TheCaveman]

Do lions have brain damage? Do their brains need glucose? Where do they get glucose for their brains?

If lack of dietary carbohydrate causes brain damage, then how did human beings get so smart, since Homo spent 99.5 percent of its history without a year-round source of plant food?

[mcsblues]

2. These foods that are taken in, not being carbs, are broken down into FEW simple sugars called monosaccarhides that are not really enough in number from other foods to fuel your body. Glucose is not produced because it only comes from carbs.
I'm sorry but people are going to continue to laugh at you if you continue to post complete nonsense like this. I realise you are a student - all the more reason to take the time to learn from some of the people here who actually know what they are talking about.

You say "foods not being carbs" (do you mean protein and fat?) are broken down into monosaccarides but not glucose. Glucose is a monosaccaride - and yes most but not all amino acids (proteins) can be used to produce glucose - if this wasn't the case you might wonder why some amino acids are labeled "glucogenic" and others "ketogenic" As suggested a very brief primer on gluconeogenesis will leave you in no doubt that while we may be amused by your mistake - but we are happy to help you out.

A little more reading will lead you to the fact that only a small part of the brain requires glucose for fuel (and this very small amount is easily met from dietary protein in the absence of sufficient dietary carbohydrate). The rest of the brain will run very well on ketone bodies (the product of fatty acid metabolism).

Not that it is scientifically persuasive, but I can tell you that my mind is much sharper since I adopted a low carb way of life - this for me is one of the best of the many health benefits eating this way brings.

Oh hell, one more thing ;). You might like to look into a very famous experiment which was conducted in the !930s in which 2 men spent a whole year in a supervised hospital trial during which they ate nothing but fatty meat (yes, that is zero carbs for a full twelve months!) - their health improved during this time, and if you read Stefansson's accounts, both before during and after, it would appear that his mental faculties did not suffer in the slightest.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[black57]

There are many cultures from this planet whose brain cells get their energy from protein. Why, because protein is their major source of fuel. It is amazing that they have lived so long with brain damage an no one ever noticed. Someone needs to tell these people that they are dying, and their brains cells are burned out. :confused: I guess some people just don't realize that protein is easily converted to glucose when the body needs it.
If you need more information, I have written transcripts that say that the brain and heart prefer protein as their source of energy. :read2:

[ItsTheWooo]

TRUTH (evidence provided):

Cutting carbs sensibly won't harm you much, but overdoing it can harm you because it can cause brain damage and starvation. You can lose some memory or receive traumatic damage that you'd end up in a pshyciatric ward if your brain cells do not receive their primary source of energy (ie glucose) from carbohydrates.


Carbohydrate is not the only source of blood glucose. Our bodies primary fuel source is glucose, this is true, but it is a complete fallacy that carbohydrate is humankind's natural primary source for blood glucose. Proteins and even fats are able to be converted to glucose with reasonable efficiency and many would argue are superior sources than primarily eating carbohydrate for it. "Superior" is defined as "keeps the body running well and hormones in good balance" of course.

It really is quite simple. We are very sensitive to fluctuations in sugar. It's not possible to live without sugar in blood. If it were true that not eating carbs caused this "starvation for sugar" because the body can't get it from fats/proteins, we would soon become very hypoglycemic and die. It really is that simple. Ironically enough, it is the eating of carbs that causes starvation for sugar, as many people find eating these simple foods creates a hormone imbalance that shuts off the body's natural ability to synthesize energy from fat and protein. So you say we need to eat carbs to avoid starving for sugar - well let me tell you, I know for a FACT that eating the way I'm eating fuels my body better (read: keeps sugar high and stable) more than eating carbs would.
Those "peaks and valleys" in energy that most people experience when eating carbs are a sign of this imbalance. For some people the "peaks and valleys" are more extreme, to the point where diseases are happening (reactive hypoglycemia, obesity stemming from high insulin & sugar swing induced over eating, diabetes T2, and eventually heart disease). Reducing simple food which is too quickly delivered as sugar - carbohydrate - helps tremendously.

Some of you may say that there is no proof of this when that is not a true statement, maybe in opinion though. The proof may not be plastered all over the media to proove that it may induce brain problems and starvation; However, it exists in thousands of Biology and Physical Wellness textbooks across the Earth.

I am open minded. Present me with proof that a low carb diet - not "carbohydrate starvation" which is something different (the latter does not assume that diet is adequate in energy from protein and fat) - causes these things.



Everything needs glucose to live, but because we are not plants and cannot make our own sugars... we need to take them in.

You've been told numerous times we can make our own sugar just fine. You've even been given colorful charts explaining the process step by step.
You have chosen to ignore this.
We'd die without carbs.

False.
If I were to eat no carbohydrate at all I would be able to live. I wouldn't be as optimally healthy or feel as well as I would eating some dietary carbohydrate (not everyone tolerates deep ketosis well, I don't) but die? Absolutely not.

So trimming down to the recommended intake by looking at the food pyramid is healthy, but COMPLETELY cutting them from a diet is getting risky. That is starving yourself on the cellular level!

1) The food pyramid is a high carb, low fat diet.
2) Almost no one on a low carb diet cuts carbs completely. I eat roughly 20% carbohydrate. Even someone who is on a strict plan is probably taking in 5-10%.
3) Again, you insist on ignoring the body's ample capacity to generate it's own glucose from gluconeogenic amino acids and fat glycerine/glycerol.


Simply put, we get glucose from carbohydrates and nowhere else.

Simply put: this is a completely untrue. I'm sorry it's just that simple, you're wrong.

People equate "carbs" with "sugar energy" for two reasons.
1) Unlike fat and protein carbs have no other purpose but energy
2) Carbs are much more simple and more readily available as energy. This
"feature" sounds deceptively attractive. Slow and steady wins the race when it comes to fueling the body (unless, of course, you are IN a race literally in which case the energy slump of carbohydrate might be worth the short term energy boost ;) ).
In practice, energy surges causes metabolic problems that create disease states.

If it helps your understanding, imagine this. Visualize the simple sugars from fruit, from corn syrup, the slightly more complex branches of sugar from potato starch in your mind. Visualize your body taking a very short time to make that into sugar. Now visualize your body taking amino acids and lipids, and taking a long time to break these substances into sugar.
Everything we eat ends up with sugar as an end product, at least partially. Even a highly ketogenic fuel source like fat will yeild a small amount of glucose. The only difference between them is 1) net glucose yield AND 2) complexity (speed) at which glucose enters the body.

You often hear people talking about the "glycemic index" and "good carbs/bad carbs" well guess what... complexities among carbohydrate sources is NOTHING compared to the difference between carbohydrate, fat, and protein as a whole. What makes the biggest difference is how much carbohydrate you're eating vs how much protein/fat you're eating.

No carbs, no glucose.

False for all reasons stated.
No glucose, your brain dies of starvation... literally. Glucose is the PRIMARY source of energy that your brain needs.... brain is car, glucose is gas.

True, but eating very high glycemic load (mostly carbohydrate) is far more likely to cause your brain to "die of glucose starvation" ;).

Carbs = sugar rises too fast due to simple fuel = body needs to clear out sugar, creates high insulin = shut off capacity to make sugar = hypoglycemia when sugar stops to drop again = when severe hypoglycemia can be fatal... in IDDM potentially fatal unless countered with a glucogon shot (glucagon counters the insulin and allows the body to make/dump sugar). Even moderate hypoglycemia can be fatal if it happens when you're doing something dangerous like driving. Hypoglycemia, since it starves your brain for energy, seriously reduces your capacity to concentrate and control your body almost like drinking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

For proof of the above statements made, here are four things to you can do or look into to see why scientists and doctors are saying cutting carbs can be deadly:

---Try opening your Biology textbook if you have one handy and flip to the back and look these terms up in the INDEX (not glossary to define terms) --- glucose, carbohydrates, brain... keep in mind that you are looking for how the brain uses glucose and where it comes from.

---You can e-mail a Biology professor and ask him or her how glucose works, where it comes from, and how much the brain depends on it (PRIMARY source = only source).

I would suggest you do the same. Hit that biology book and look up gluconeogenesis, the liver, etc.

Oh and by the way, the word "primary" does not mean "only", so you might want to browse the dictionary too :). Primary implies number order & rank. Primary also can be synonymous as meaning "basic", "first", "elementary". By definition something that is "primary" has excluded the possibility of it being also the "only". You can't be "third" as well as "only", can you?

---You can go to your local Physical Wellness teacher and ask how the brain uses glucose, what glucose is, and where it comes from.

I suggest you do this since you have a far more limited/confused understanding than myself or many others in this thread.

---There are websites with this information plastered all over them. Try looking at these:

http://www.fi.edu/brain/carbs.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose (scroll to 'Role in Metabolism)

I looked at those links for 5 seconds, since I knew that's about as long as it would take for me to find something to illustrate how ignorant and confused you are of this issue.
Scroll down the page on glucose and read what it says under "synthesis". To save you the trouble, I'll copy and paste it.

Synthesis
1) The product of photosynthesis in plants and some prokaryotes. [note: this is the form of glucose you're getting when you eat a hamburger bun or a low fat baked potato... carbs]
2) Formed in the liver and skeletal muscle by the breakdown of glycogen stores (glucose polymers). [note: this glucose is made by drawing upon stored sugars. Your body stores a small amount of sugar when eating a high carb diet as glycogen]
3) Synthesized in liver and kidneys from intermediates by a process known as gluconeogenesis. [note: this is how humans create their own glucose, just like a plant. We break down the muscles and fats of animals into sugar via gluconeogenesis, just like a carnivorous animal would.]

[JaneDough]

Cutting carbs sensibly won't harm you much, but overdoing it can harm you
Doing anything to an extreme can harm a person. Your point?

[bluesmoke]

It's too bad that nobody told the Inuit or the other native peoples that they couldn't live on a diet without carbohydrates. Since I have survived for over 3 years with no grains, legumes or sugar, I guess this makes me too brain damaged to respond intelligently. Nyah Levi

[Dodger]

Since I have survived for over 3 years with no grains, legumes or sugar, I guess this makes me too brain damaged to respond intelligently. Nyah Levi

That explains a lot about your posts! :D

[Ayustar]

Hey, Pockystix *I love Pocky by the way, so tasty, so bad for me!*

My brain still seems to be functioning properly, I don't feel any brain slow downs. I just can't see that happening. That is just me though.

[kyrasdad]

How can a diet that encourages healthy eating cause brain damage? The same way a black cat causes bad luck or if you step on a crack you break your mother's back. If you have to question that, then you haven't done the research.

Ha! I was about to say, how can eating meats, vegetables, and fruits cause brain damage? What's intrinsic to processed white flour and sugar that protects the brain from damage and makes sure the heart keeps pumping!? What chemical is it in these things that is so vital that it keeps us going?

Perhaps our ancestors were all brain damaged, since they didn't have these things. They couldn't buy Wonder Bread, so they were brain damaged, had heart disease, and died young. It wasn't the bears and the famines that got them, it was the lack of carbs.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[scthgharpy]

"It wasn't the bears and the famines that got them, it was the lack of carbs.
"

OH snap! That IS the truth. And our cave dwelling ancestors had problems with obesity, childhood diabetes and high blood pressure too because they didnt have processed sugar.

[Nancy LC]

There's more and more evidence that Alzheimer's is like a brain diabetes. I'm sure the epidemic of alzheimer's we have is due to people eating too many carbs.

brain diabetes (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=2yB&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=brain+diabetes+alzheimer%27s&spell=1)

[Cyprinodon]

"A sign of wisdom and intelligence is knowing what you don't know" and "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing": These are cliche but OH SO TRUE Pocky.

When you finish your Freshmen Biology Course, come back to me when you've taken Biochemistry, Comparative Animal Physiology, and graduate level courses in Bioenergetics, Starvation Physiology, Biochemical Adaptation, and Physiological Ecology.

Lucky for you I wasn't your professor. I would have failed you for being too ignorant to read the informed posts here from your elders and for going so far as to come back with all of your proof.


Cyp: Master of Science in Biology with a focus in Biochemical Adaptation and Starvation Physiology.

P.S. In addition to looking up what others have suggested to you, also find out exactly how brain cells make ATP from ketones.

[nikkil]

How anybody can argue the above post is beyond me. Kudos :)

[POCKYstix]

note for the past:
Remember that I was stating that cutting too many carbs would possibly hurt you and that cutting carbs sensibly would not hurt you [based upon the evidence I had.] I place that in brackets to make it evident. keyword there: "POSSIBLY". I am no 'ignoramous'. LOL... --- I presented my opinion with evidence to back it up, looking for more information on a controversial topic today and got what I wanted. That is called manipulation to obtain more knowledge. Brains are required to present a topic with information to support it... IF it were not backed up with some form of proof tht would have been ignorant.

note for the present:
I did not post my intentions to obtain more information from the people on this board and have apparently provoked a lot of people. By not posting my intentions, I got more than merely aggravated responses... I teed people off! *_*
All I have to say in response to those who were more than aggravated by my post is: Wow! I will admit that I was attempting to open a can of worms with a statement backed up by evidence because I wanted to see the replies that I could receive and get a lot of information from what was known by me in a short amount of time. . . but the response is amazing! Many of you have presented very good, concise arguments by being mad and I thank you (even though the intention was not to make you guys as angry as I have). I ended up angering a lot of people beyond the reasonable extent that I was aiming for in presenting some controversy. My intentions were to reasonably provoke because controversy cannot be presented with opening a can of worms. I apologize for causing something responses way past the extent hoped for. I am sorry. My fault for not posting my full intentions. It was a long post afterall. Well, I WANTED more information and a compass to guide me to where to look and what to look up and you guys were the compass, only I did not necessarily mean to provoke you to the extent in which I have. In conclusion, thank you.

[foxgluvs]

That must be why I'm a complete blonde most of the time, I wonder if lack of carbs is eating my brain...
hmmmm, I'll think about that one, but not too much, I don't want my already starved brain giving up completely!! :lol::lol:
Oh Please.

[POCKYstix]

I never said give up LCing. :p I am just trying the diet after all. I was just saying don't like, cut all the carbs out completely. There is a HUGE difference in cutting completely and cutting sensibly by following the plan. BLAH Sorry if I teed a lot of people off but I did want more evidence.

[foxgluvs]

Hahha, I think from the answers you got you kinda got your answer on what people think about it.
IF people are FOLLOWING a LC plan then that's the reason they are here in the first place, they're not here to cut out 100% of carbs, that's the point in it being Low Carb, it's not NO carb!!
I think people just took your post as being an attack on low carb, but if you were commenting on no carbs at all, then it doesn't really need saying here on this board.
Having said that, I do respect the fact that you are actually asking questions on what people think....bravo for not believing everything negative about low carb before doing your research!
((hugs))

[tardon]

I have just finished the 3 pages on this thread and wanted to let all involved how entertaining I found it (and informative :agree: )
I think everyone is actually on the same page after all the heated discussion.

[Onelove]

Pocky stix you are taking bio I at a state school. I Guess that means you know all eh? Please refrain from making callous statements on things you have no clue about in the future.

[Beebuzz]

I was just saying don't like, cut all the carbs out completely. There is a HUGE difference in cutting completely and cutting sensibly by following the plan. BLAH Sorry if I teed a lot of people off but I did want more evidence.

Hi Pockystix,

Dont worry, I dont think you teed anyone (permenently), :lol: ,we just tend to be an oppiniated bunch (must be all the bad press we have to endure ;) )

You last remark just made me smile. Since when LOW carb is NO carb? Correct me if im wrong people, but i dont think there is a WOE on this site cutting carbs completely, permanently. Atkins first stage IS pretty drastic (about 20g barbs) but it lets you sample a good variety of greens and veggies. Subsequent stages lets you have more and more until you get back to something more mainstream (pasta and bread once in a while, the occasionnal birthday cake..).

All I know, Ive been doing this for a year and so far, im not slacked-faced and drooling :lol: :lol: :lol: and ive been feeling GREAT!!

Ciao!!

[Wyvrn]

The reason veggie/fruit consumption is recommended on low carb plans is for their vitamin and mineral content, not for their carbs. It's possible that dietary carbs might be needed for some people doing high-intensity athletic training, but otherwise a requirement for dietary carbs has never been proven. I thought that the above posts regarding gluconeogenesis explained the reason for this very clearly.

There are a lot of folks - like me - who do best well below "mainstream" levels of carbs. Except for special occasions, I eat no grain, legumes or sugar, and only modest amounts of berries, non-starchy veggies and dairy, and most of those have been fermented which lowers the carb content even more.

Wyv