Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-20, 07:27
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,037
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benay
There is a great deal of evidence for the health of meat eaters over grain eaters in both cultural anthropology and archaeology that is readily available

Taubes has an entire chapter on the issue - noting the change in health of the Papago from meat eating to government food



Yes, the list of peoples that benefited from meat based diet over grain based and orocessed is endless.

On a low carb forum , most of us are aware of this history. New nembers and casual readers may not be.

Eating grain is in line with consuming sugar. Mdern garains may be worse than plain sugar.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-20, 08:47
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,507
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
Yes, the list of peoples that benefited from meat based diet over grain based and orocessed is endless.

On a low carb forum , most of us are aware of this history. New nembers and casual readers may not be.

Eating grain is in line with consuming sugar. Mdern garains may be worse than plain sugar.



I'd say grain is ultimately far worse than sugar.


  • It's recommended that you consume at least 6-8 servings of grain daily. It's recommended that you eat no more than 6-9 servings of added sugar daily.
  • The serving size of grains are far larger than the serving size for sugar, resulting in a far higher intake of carbohydrate per serving: 1 tsp sugar (4 g carbs) is a serving of sugar. One slice of bread is a serving (depending on the size of the bread slice, 12-15 or more g carbs), 1 half-cup serving of cooked rice has 22 g carbs, a one cup serving of plain shredded wheat has 41 g carbs, a 2 oz serving of spaghetti (weighed dry) has 43 g carbs.
  • With the RDA numbers, if you consume the maximum allowed sugar (9 servings for a total of 36 g carbs), and consume only the minimum 6 servings of grains, all in the form of smaller slices of bread (72 g carbs) you'll still be taking in twice as many carbs from grains than from sugar. Reduce the added sugar to 6 servings, and take at least half your grains in the form of rice and cold, no-sugar added cereal, and the g of carbs from grains could easily shoot way up to 170 or higher.
  • Starchy carbs convert to glucose more rapidly than sugar in the body, raising blood sugar levels faster than starch, since starch only needs to go through one chemical change to convert to glucose, whereas sugar needs to go through 2 chemical changes to convert to glucose.
  • The rapid effect on blood glucose from all those grains causes a massive spike in insulin, sending all that excess blood sugar to fat storage.
Neither grains or sugar is particularly good for the body, but even if everybody in the nation reduced added sugar consumption to 6% of total calories, grains will still be doing far more metabolic damage than sugar - especially in those whose metabolism has already been damaged by years/decades of excessive starch and sugar consumption.



Trying to fix the nation's obesity/metabolic ills merely by reducing added sugar intake a few percent is like trying to empty a 5 gallon bucket of water using an eye dropper, while a faucet continues to drip water into the bucket.
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-20, 12:33
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,037
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

ROFL , you are too right !

Quote:
Trying to fix the nation's obesity/metabolic ills merely by reducing added sugar intake a few percent is like trying to empty a 5 gallon bucket of water using an eye dropper, while a faucet continues to drip water into the bucket.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-20, 16:10
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 7,565
 
Plan: EF/Fung IDM/keto
Stats: 375/225.4/175 Female 66.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 75%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
Dr edes ??? Studied two groups in the same state only a few mikes apart, centuries apart. One was hunter -gather, and the more recent group were farmers. The meat eaters had great teeth and bones. The grain eaters had serious health problems.

Both primative tribal groups.
Oh yes, I definitely remember that from Protein Power. That was the book that got me started on my initial LC journey.
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-20, 16:40
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,037
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merpig
Oh yes, I definitely remember that from Protein Power. That was the book that got me started on my initial LC journey.



After reading DANDR and learning of other lc books, I tracked down every one. This was a great read, and his website well worth visiting.

Dr Edes still lectures about these two groups as a bases for a more carnivore diet..... A reason to avoid grains and save our teeth and bones/joints.
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-20, 17:31
Sniggle Sniggle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 287
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 205.2/186.4/185 Male 73.5
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: West Virginia
Default

My view is that it always comes down to moderation and self control. I don't buy into that sugar is the devil, or wheat is the devil (Water Boy reference), etc., but that the true devil is most folks inability to moderate their intake of sugar or grains or pasta or whatever (certainly is my 'devil').

If I were to redesign the food pyramid, I would make it a food circle, with a large inner circle of protein (and fat), and outer thin segments of all the other food groups.

I want to be able to enjoy some sugary things, and I won't feel bad about eating them, but I still have not been able to work out how to effectively balance my desire to stay fit thin and eat a variety of foods (hence for the last few years I yoyo 20+ lbs as I diverge from low carb).
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-20, 17:37
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,037
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Interesting design for a food plate !


I cannot moderate sugar or refined carbs. Moderation does not work for me. Maybe it works for others but NOT me.

I am a carb addict. Period.

Refined carbs like sugar flour and the like are like cocaine. It's been proven via studies. Real sugar and bread becomes a loooooong binge. Weeks and months of eating crap full day of sugar and ground grains and potatoes.

I do better without. Or with LC versions.

Last edited by Ms Arielle : Mon, Oct-05-20 at 17:43.
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Mon, Oct-05-20, 20:04
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 7,565
 
Plan: EF/Fung IDM/keto
Stats: 375/225.4/175 Female 66.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 75%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
Refined carbs like sugar flour and the like are like cocaine. It's been proven via studies. Real sugar and bread becomes a loooooong binge. Weeks and months of eating crap full day of sugar and ground grains and potatoes.

I do better without. Or with LC versions.
Ditto ditto! Eating carb, sugary foods is NOT something I can do in moderation! If I eat a little dish of ice cream it then falls into two whole pints in one sitting, and then it just goes on from there.

I know plenty of folks say the LC versions using sugar substitutes are just as bad. But when I have those I don't go into crazy binges. But I certainly do if I have any "real" sugars, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Wed, Dec-30-20, 02:29
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,391
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 217/209/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 14%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
New U.S. Dietary Guidelines Reject Recommendation to Cut Sugar, Alcohol Intake Limit

A scientific advisory committee had advised lower limits on sugar and alcohol, citing health risks


The federal government on Tuesday issued new dietary guidelines that keep current allowances for sugar and alcohol consumption unchanged, rejecting recommendations by its scientific advisory committee to make significant cuts.

The scientific committee, which was composed of 20 academics and doctors, had recommended cutting the limit for added sugars in the diet to 6% of daily calories from 10% in the current guidelines, citing rising rates of obesity and the link between obesity and health problems like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer. The committee also recommended lowering the limit for alcoholic beverages for men to one drink per day from two, matching the guidance for women. It pointed to research linking greater alcohol consumption to a higher risk of death.

The new guidelines do include the scientific committee’s recommendation that children under age 2 consume no added sugars at all. This is the first time the guidelines have included recommendations for babies and toddlers. Added sugars are those found in processed foods—in everything from soda to breakfast cereal—as well as honey and sugar itself. They don’t include sugars naturally found in foods like fruit and milk.

The dietary guidelines, which are updated every five years, have a wide impact: They shape school lunch programs, mold state and local health-promotion efforts, and influence what food companies produce.

The U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services reviewed the committee’s recommendations, which were released in July, and decided not to include the lower limits because “the new evidence is not substantial enough to support changes to quantitative recommendations for either added sugars or alcohol,” said Brandon Lipps, deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services at the USDA. Mr. Lipps said that the new limits recommended by the scientific committee didn’t meet a “preponderance of the evidence” standard required by law.

Food industry groups had lobbied intensely against the scientific committee’s proposed new limits. When asked if pressure from business groups had played a role in the government’s decision, Mr. Lipps said “to the extent that stakeholders provided input about whether the science was being properly reviewed, we took that into consideration,” and noted that the government received more than 106,000 comments from the public. “We committed to issuing guidelines based on sound science in an open and transparent process. We believe that at the end of the day, that’s what we did,” he said.

The American Beverage Association, which represents drink makers including Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, urged the government to keep the 10% added-sugars limit during a public meeting in August. In response to the new guidelines, the organization’s president and chief executive Katherine Lugar said in a statement, “America’s beverage companies appreciate the common sense approach taken by USDA.”

The alcohol industry also lauded the government’s decision, with a spokesman for the Beer Institute praising “maintaining the long-standing definition of moderate alcohol consumption.”

Elizabeth J. Mayer-Davis, who chaired the federal committee’s beverages and added sugars subcommittee, said that she was “disappointed that the dietary guidelines did not adopt the recommendation of 6%” as the limit for added sugars. “I think it is a lost opportunity for a stronger public health message,” said Dr. Mayer-Davis, chair of the department of nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Nigel Brockton, vice president of research at the American Institute for Cancer Research, said the government’s move to not reduce the alcohol limit for men “is very disappointing. The evidence for cancer is so overwhelming.” Dr. Brockton said that alcohol consumption increases the risk of several types of cancer—including stomach, liver, colorectal and esophageal cancer—which are more common in men than in women.

Poor diet is linked to rising rates of obesity and chronic illnesses including Type 2 diabetes. More than 70% of U.S. adults ages 20 and older are overweight or obese, according to 2015-2016 figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 42% are obese, according to 2017-2018 CDC data.

Overall, the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025 advise people to “follow a healthy dietary pattern” that consists primarily of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean meat and poultry and low-fat dairy, as well as seafood, nuts and vegetable oils. They also advise limiting added sugars, saturated fats, sodium and alcoholic drinks and staying within recommended calorie limits.

USDA and HHS are launching a public-awareness campaign about the new guidelines that centers around the tagline “Make every bite count.” “Our goal is to get Americans to make healthy dietary choices every day at every meal,” said Mr. Lipps. The USDA is also launching a new MyPlate.gov website that will include a quiz to show people how closely their own eating habits meet the dietary guidelines as well as tools to get personalized eating recommendations, recipes for healthy meals and tips for eating on a budget.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-u-...ake-11609254000
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Wed, Dec-30-20, 06:40
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 13,140
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demi
The new guidelines do include the scientific committee’s recommendation that children under age 2 consume no added sugars at all. This is the first time the guidelines have included recommendations for babies and toddlers. Added sugars are those found in processed foods—in everything from soda to breakfast cereal—as well as honey and sugar itself. They don’t include sugars naturally found in foods like fruit and milk.


We've been nursing a very sick cat, who is fortunately almost recovered. But key to tempting her appetite has been meat, human, baby food. The shelter saved her life with it when she was a kitten!

I hadn't visited the baby food aisle in quite some time, so I was startled at how MUCH of that section was based on starchy vegetables and/or fruit.
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Wed, Dec-30-20, 11:06
Gypsybyrd's Avatar
Gypsybyrd Gypsybyrd is offline
Posts: 6,333
 
Plan: Atkins '72 It works best!
Stats: 281/252/180 Female 5'3"
BF:mini goal 250
Progress: 29%
Location: St. Pete, Florida
Default

Removed comment ....it was a duplicate of previous comments in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Wed, Dec-30-20, 12:23
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,651
 
Plan: P:E/DDF/LC-DrWestman
Stats: 225/165/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/31.1%/25%
Progress: 107%
Location: NC
Default

Many articles about this decision today, but this one in Politico highlights limitations that others have missed:

Quote:
New theme: Nutrient density: The theme for the 2020-2025 edition of the guidelines is “Make Every Bite Count,” a message that’s meant to encourage choosing nutrient dense foods and beverages, something that is particularly important for infants and toddlers.

The guidelines recommend that 85 percent of an individual's calories should come from "nutrient dense" foods in five categories: vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and protein. Just 15 percent of calories should come from foods that are higher in added sugars, salt or saturated fat or alcoholic beverages (this pencils out to between 250 to 350 calories for most people.)

In a media briefing, health officials acknowledged it is tricky to communicate what "nutrient dense" means to the public. Health officials suggested small shifts can be made, such as choosing sparkling water over soda; plain shredded wheat over the frosted kind; or plain low-fat yogurt with fruit instead of full fat yogurt with added sugars.


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-451871?cid=apn


Nutrition Coalition:

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/n...ty-of-americans
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Wed, Dec-30-20, 14:33
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 4,130
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

I was nursing a sick old cat and went looking for plain chicken or other pulverized meat in the baby food aisle and was shocked too. 20 years ago there were several choices; now there are none. My vet suggested Whiskas Perfect Portions Chicken Paté (not to be confused with the dozens of weird mixtures with gravy). The simple paté has Catkins diet levels of carbs and my boy liked it.

What also got me was all the plastic used to contain those sugary starchy baby "foods" in squeezy pouches. Back in the olden days (pre-mid50's) babies weren't started on foods other than milk until they were 6 months old. We should go back to that.

Last edited by deirdra : Wed, Dec-30-20 at 14:43.
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Wed, Dec-30-20, 15:05
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,551
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Many articles about this decision today, but this one in Politico highlights limitations that others have missed:



https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-451871?cid=apn


Nutrition Coalition:

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/n...ty-of-americans

These poor nutrition guidelines have been in place over many administrations and are not party-specific. Rather, I fear that since the proposals to change the guidelines are a threat to food manufacturers (very powerful), medicine (pawns in a nutritional war game where most have been informed incorrectly about what constitutes healthy diets), and pharmaceuticals (most powerful with billions involved), it's a situation that must be done outside the political sphere. To state this as a political issue further ignores the lack of science underlying these current nutritional guidelines. I'm unhappy with Politico's take, as it's never that simple to be able to blame it on one group. Lot's of work, non-biased research, and educating to do before we ever get to the truth. If it remains political, there's the potential danger that the way we eat will be achieved through ineffective laws, taxes, and food bans. I doubt that's something that anyone would want.

NOTE: This is purely a statement on the dynamics of nutrition science and DGAs that everyone is dealing with today, and it is very relevant to our discussions on this forum. The issue dovetails very nicely with the discussions in Gary Taubes new book.

Last edited by GRB5111 : Wed, Dec-30-20 at 15:15.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:23.


Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.