NPR pushing back with “Slow Carbs”
 

You Don't Have To Go No-Carb: Instead, Think Slow Carb

With a picture of about a dozen kind of grains, captioned “Slow carbs like whole-grain breads and pastas, oats and brown rice are rich in fiber and take more time to digest, so they don't lead to the same quick rise in blood sugar that refined carbs can cause.”

We don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce where this is going.



Yeah, right.



Same old thing, packaged like it’s a revelation.

Sorry, David Ludwig, I can't eat most fruits with the exception of avocados and some berries; otherwise, I will start craving every carb I ever ate without moderation. Also, no matter how you cut it, whole grains are processed foods that disrupt my metabolism with toxins and conversion of carbs to glucose and then fat. If I want my sleep apnea, high blood pressure, body and visceral fat, skin tags, brain fog, lower energy, heartburn and reflux, systemic inflammation, and general lack of energy to come back, I can make that happen easily by eating healthy whole grains. In the process of evolving to my current WOE, I've learned that the massive emphasis on fiber is also BS at least for me. I get all the regularity I require with fats and protein with the occcasional few veggies along for the ride.

What he said ^^^^

Me too!

It's like some kind of meaningless mantra, all sound and no substance "fruits beans and nuts". It's been uttered so many times for so long that most people do not even stop to question whether it's correct. Luckily I am not one of those people.

It's just another story pimping the EAT-Lancet Study. I'm disappointed in NPR. Usually they do better research and have more balanced reporting in general.

False dichotomy. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Also, it's not an obligation, it's a choice. You don't have to cut out all carbs, but you can. You don't have to eat any particular food, but you can. The only thing that isn't a choice - you gotta eat something.

Yeah, that. If these are the building blocks, it's reasonable to ask what makes them so, right? So let's just start with whole grains. What makes whole grains building blocks of a healthy diet? Before we answer, we must acknowledge that wheat flour (for example) is fortified, therefore is deficient a priori. I know it's a half-assed conclusion but it allows us to formulate a better answer. Is it the fortification that makes it a building block? If it's the only thing, we can fortify other stuff and get the same building block - it's not a unique property of whole grains. With this idea, we can formulate a better answer for the other things - fruits, veggies, beans. Once we get through all possible permutations, we end up with just one thing that can be found in all that stuff but nowhere else - fiber. That's it. So now the question is whether fiber is a building block of a healthy diet. Oh we could go through all the arguments in favor and against, but none of that matters. What matters is whether any diet that does not provide fiber - that does not contain fruits, veggies, whole grains, beans - in any significant amount can still lead to good health. There are, just need to find one though.

Oh, so grains are processed foods? Good to know. In fact, if they weren't processed, there would be exactly zero effect on blood sugar, cuz we can't digest un-processed grains, can't absorb whatever is contained therein - starch. So this is a choice between processed foods and processed foods. Got it.

Told ya.

Lie. Wheat proteins such as gluten are present. If they weren't, the bread would fall apart. The proteins effectively serve as the glue that holds the bread together. In fact, dough is formulated for specific purposes such as sandwich bread, pizza crust, etc, by recombining the various constituents which were separated by processing in specific proportions. Literally, recipes. The same is true for everything called "whole" like whole-wheat bread and such.

Well, if you're experienced this, we should all do what you do! Nah, Ima go with science and if there ain't no science to go by, Ima go with my own personal experience. After all, that's what you did, Dave. While I'm at it, Ima go with my own conclusions (cuz that's what you did, Dave - go by your own conclusions) and not eat that piece of whole grain toast. Is that OK with you, Dave? I mean, if you wanna go and eat that piece of whole grain toast, it's totally fine by me.

And so you have and so it does. Does that science thing suggest anything about processed foods? I mean, if fiber is such an important building block for a healthy diet, seems to me you don't need to eat processed grains. You can just eat grains whole and intact, cuz you see, the fiber is on the outside! Brilliant idea, Dave! You go ahead and do just that.

Cuz it's a great idea to eat something that was originally used to make industrial glue, right? Yeah, glue is good for ya, especially when you eat it. And cuz it's a great idea to eat fats that contain exactly none of the essential fat-soluble vitamins A, E, D, K. That's what makes them so healthy, Dave.

Yeah, cuz sauces and convenience are building blocks for a healthy diet.

Lemme see if I get this straight. Processed whole grains (spike BG more than sugar), fruits, veggies, beans, fiber (to fight the BG spike from the processed whole grains), industrial glue (cuz it's NOT meat!), "healthy fats" (absent essential fat-soluble vitamins A, E, D, K - but healthy cuz it's NOT butter!), sauces and convenience, that's a healthy diet. Did I get this right, Dave?

Mkay, Ima go low-carb instead cuz there ain't none of the BS above. BG spike is addressed by dealing directly with the very thing that causes it - carbs of all forms, whether refined, processed, whole, natural, or whatever. And it's dealt with directly by way of absolute quantity, cuz that's the primary determinant of BG spike. The more carbs, the higher the spike; the less carbs, the lower the spike. That's it for that. Also, essentials are dealt with directly by way of including the stuff that provides them such as animal fats (butter and lard and whatever fat is contained in meat primarily) that contain ample essential fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, K. Then, emphasis is put towards whole un-processed foods such as fresh meat and fresh veggies, rather than towards processed foods such as grains and ready-made frozen meals. In a way, low-carb is quite convenient cuz we focus on just one thing - carbs, and then just one thing about that - the absolute quantity, and it's easy to count up to 50 grams or whatever number your plan warrants. Low-carb is even more convenient and easy to apply with its emphasis on whole un-processed foods - just check whether it comes pre-packaged with a nutritional label. And if we're still worried about fiber for some reason, low-carb can include all kinds of fiberous veggies without even knowing anything about fiber or what it does or whatever, we're good to go just like that. Then low-carb can be ultimately convenient even if the only thing you know about it is that this meal and every meal has to have meat and veggies.

You gotta eat something. Might as well be food.

Love NPR but when all the food doctors that have been on are reviewed for content, it is for better eating for sure but still two steps away from LC and Paleo.

Having watched Dr C. Northrup on NPR some many years ago, and then reading her book, I better understand the position these doctors take on standard TV. They give they "acceptable" version, then in their books and videos give the real truth.

Main stream people cant handle the truth. The doctors that do want to change the world must work carefully so as to stay in the lime light and make change, at baby steps; when so many of us have already made the giant steps, this is hard to understand and accept.

Have been watching a PALEO show on Netflix!! Perhaps because that medium provides a library like offering, Netflix is a safe place to put this type of show.

I just found a pretty good analogy for that building blocks for a healthy diet thing.

The logical equivalent is to make the statement that every car needs gasoline to run. Then if we find just one car we don't put in gasoline and still runs, that original statement is made false. Well, we got electrics now, we don't put in gasoline and they run just fine.

So, whether it's done in an official scientific setting or just at home, if just one person maintains good health even though they don't eat any of those presumed building blocks, that statement is made false.

They don’t discuss the building blocks. They just tell you they are building blocks!

Meat conspicuous by its utter absence.

I am struggling with a serious autoimmune flare, and with just one week of ketogenic (average of 7 net carbs a day) I am seeing improvement in something which has been deteriorating since last fall.

Previous experiments have eliminated gluten and legumes as serious issues for me. As far as fruits and vegetables, it’s only the low carb ones, and I have to be mindful to keep a low fiber intake.

Good thing I have N=1 feedback to go on rather than “expert” advice :lol: :lol:

Slow carbs don't work for me. Blood sugar would rise too high, and the unrefined fiber makes about as much difference as a little stop sign before an oncoming freight train.

If I want to be famished in about an hour, I'll have a big bowl of oatmeal. Or maybe a piece of dry whole wheat toast.

Exactly. “Slow Carbs”mean nothing when you have my pancreas, which senses high carb foods and releases the “Tanker Car of Insulin” in response.

It wasn’t until low carb that I discovered I did not have to be constantly tormented by hunger. I would like satiety that lasts more than a single hour.

For a number of years now I have followed a no food after 6PM rule. In the past nighttime was a time when my hunger was at its most extreme and not eating in the evening would not have been a workable option. If I followed the advice in this article I would no doubt become a constant snacker, gorger, always hungry type person again. I have no intention of ever letting that happen again.

I'm going to use this route:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/bro...license-renewal



I have listened to NPR for decades and remember hearing many sponsorship announcements from the agricultural and pharmaceutical companies. Some that I recall are Conagra, ADM and Novo Nordisk.

Or you could write them directly and tell them what you think is wrong with the story, don't appreciate the exaggerations, and that you expect more balanced reporting from them. That's what I did.

Yes, you can contact the show directly or use the "independent mediator" by contacting the Ombudsman:

https://help.npr.org/customer/portal/emails/new?i=8

I just thought the license route would get more attention. At one point in my long sad search for a career, I was a journalist.

The search for a career is a journey. I marvel at the abilities of a journalist, far beyond my own innate abilities. Hope you found your niche!

Years ago I was on a diet very similar to the one being touted by NPR. I ended up at 225 pounds. All the whole grains and vegetables and fruit and beans that I ate did nothing to keep me from gaining weight. After going on low-carb e, I ended up at 170 pounds and feeling much more energetic with much better blood chemistry.

I was upset and a little surprised reading the David Ludwig quote, until I figured out he ain't Robert Lustig.

And whoops, I made another mistake. It's 4:30pm here and I just realized I forgot lunch; I guess those two carefully undrained bacon slices and carefully undrained egg cooked in 1/4 inch fat have held me quite nicely today. Which, as I think of it, has a NPR angle on this way of eating. Low Carb, less waste. Save the environment, skip the paper towels.

The flaw in this stupid premise is that beans and grains are loaded with carbs and will cause weight gain or prevent any weight loss. There's no way around it. I have experimented with all of these techniques and cannot touch beans or grains without completely sabotaging my weight loss. I am not going to try out any more theories. I will stick with what works. No grains or legumes.

I could put this response recently from Dr Davis on any number of current threads about pushing grains...


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mm5_...eature=youtu.be
Phytates...to say nothing about lectins

More fake news.

I suspect you've got your tongue in cheek, but I actually believe this to be true. The amount of vegetables, legumes, grains, and fruit required to eat to satiety is enormous. Eating a low carb, primarily carnivorous diet, I make fewer trips to the grocery store, fewer trucks have to bring in produce, my fridge is opened fewer times, less water is used to wash my food, etc. etc. Until I see a study taking all the never considered factors into account, I will assume that the advice that vegetarianism will save the planet is as fake as the food pyramid.

I don't want to be too harsh with Dr. Ludwig--he did do those studies looking at metabolic rate on a low carb maintenance diet versus a higher carb diet that I'm so fond of. In his case, I sort of doubt that he's involved in a "push back" although NPR might be--more of a push in the same direction, but somewhat weaker. :lol: But maybe sufficient for some, especially if they're not in trouble yet. Maybe beans and brown rice would have worked for me if I'd never considered the indivisible unit for cookies to be a row.

i just say no to gluten.

Good points, teaser, and I always considered Ludwig as having a rational approach to this topic. I'm not sure whether this is more reflective of an NPR agenda or his, I believe it's more of the former. The conflict comes about when one positions recommendations to apply to the world population knowing full well that all cannot afford to eat many of the most nutrient dense foods available, and the cost of enabling that is prohibitive. That is likely the underlying agenda in some of the mixed messages.

Quality, not just quantity.
 

These are factors which are so important, and completely ignored by the mainstream of nutrition. They have no concept at all of anti-nutrients. They honestly think “that which does not kill us makes us stronger.” :lol:

I have read a lot of interesting information about this, especially about the bio-availability. There’s detectable nutrients in so many foods which turn out to be not bio-available once they are consumed. Just like Calories In/Calories Out, such “science” mistakes what they discover, in isolation, in the lab, simply does not translate inside the complex biology of an actual body.

I think about how my gluten free journey began: I never ate very much gluten, carb count-wise; a bite of something here, a low carb wrap there. I would have said my digestion was stellar, especially when I added probiotics. It took the concurrence of a snug pair of pants and a low carb wrap for lunch for me to notice that my abdomen was puffing out; to the point where I had to unbutton the pants.

Before, overweight and wearing baggy clothes, I never would have noticed it.

But now that I had experienced it, and thanks to the work of Dr. Davis, whose blog I was reading even before the Wheatbelly book came out, I went gluten-free; and my body responded in amazing ways.

• I got a "healing glow" from my entire digestive system. It was happy-warm, it radiated well beling, and it created a new threshold of understanding how it got upset. Like so many of us on the SAD, we had gotten so used to feeling crappy we lost track of what "feeling good" felt like. It set a new standard of wellness for me.
• This extended to increased sensitivity. From painless bloating, I found that a small amount of gluten now set my stomach on FIRE. I learned to back off foods that "should be okay" like buffet pot roast, which was likely soaked in wheat concoctions, and signaled distress within a few bites. Backing off now saved me a lot of grief later.
• This extended to foods I hadn't been suspicious of before. I had previously thought my attempts to climb the Atkins carb ladder failed because of the carb content, but even controlling carbs, my new and improved digestive system now reacted to beans, certain vegetables, and artificial sweeteners with clear signs of gastric distress.
• I became fiber-sensitive, and the less fiber I ate, the more my digestive system improved in all signs of its functioning.
• "Cheats" changed their tone and rewards. Now, I wasn't "getting away" with anything, no matter the carb count, portion size, or number on the scale.

But as long as someone keeps “trying to do it right” they will never get these signals. They will wind up like so many of the elite athletes Mark Sisson (who used to be one of them) writes about: racked by inflammation, training harder and eating “more healthy,” and then falling into metabolic syndrome with serious illnesses.

I agree. To me, this is a classic example of good intentions paving the road to hell.

Because it is ultimately about the agri-business agenda. In my small, rural, neck of the woods, which has dramatic terrain changes and a short growing season, there are still sustainable farms with humane and ecologic approaches to food I wind up buying and eating.

We live in a time of malnutrition, unemployment, and and issues with sustainability. Why not support such farms for everyone who is interested? With modern conveniences now available, farming does not have to be the boring struggle and isolated existence that once drove off all but the most stubborn and motivated. We don’t have to subsidize giant corporations that reduce everything to profit blocks that is ruining the planet and most of its living species.

There is a better way.

This is one thing I like about intermittent fasting--as Dr. Fung always points out, it can be combined with any and all diets. We can't suddenly have enough non-carbohydrate foods to feed the world. And the world's population isn't going to diminish anytime soon. Nor do I think that it should diminish, lots will disagree. But one way or the other, we have to deal with what's doable and likely.