Kent, Kent, Kent

Did I say that the Sikhs ate a low calorie diet? Or a diet low in fat? Or even a diet low in protein? No I didn't say any of that!!! So why would you cite a critique based on observation of an obviously bad diet. I said vegetarian. I further stated that they, the Sikhs, are a tall, athletic people. Doesn't sound like they are weak, malnourished, or frail to me. Finally Sikhs are from northern India and Pakistan, not southern India.

Your statement that my facts about the societies I've mentioned contain too many errors to comment about seems specious to me. Seems to me you love to pontificate and if you had a rebuttal to my facts you would certainly do so.

Why don't we agree to disagree and leave it at that? No one's mind is going to be changed here.

Zuleikaa,

I'll take the liberty to help you a little with your arguments because you made a big boo boo. You said,



Don't say things like an entire race of people must be "protein type." To do so exposes the errors of The Metabolic Typing Diet.

Actually, the entire human race is the "protein type." Every human that ever lived is the protein type.

The design of our digestive organs and digestive enzymes today shows that mankind is basically a carnivorous (meat eating) species with the ability to digest carbohydrates from fruit and vegetables. Health is damaged by the consumption of these carbohydrates in ratio to the percentage ingested.

The following web site proves the point very well.

The design of our digestive organs and digestive enzymes today

Kent

Zuleikaa,

Finally we can agree on something.



I was about to suggest the same. This thread is a waste of time. I could post an entire web page on the time I have spent here and hundreds of people would read it each day.

Besides, I couldn't review some statements made in The Metabolic Typing Diet in Borders book store yesterday. They didn't have a copy. None. Dr. Atkins's books were stacked in the aisles and there were generous supplies of many other low-carb books on the shelf.

I only posted on this thread to help innocent people from being lead astray.

Bye Zuleikaa,

Kent

If anyone knows how I can stop email notices for new posts on this thread, please let me know by personal email.

Kent

I didn't mean that entire races were/are protein types. I was speaking for the majority of Eskimos and Maisi. As I stated before. Man is unique and doesn't adhere to any "entire", "all" "everyone" anything.

We're going in circles here. You linked that site before. And I told you that I found one just like it that purported to prove that humans were naturally vegetarians. Using some of the same arguments.

Let's give it a rest, why don't we?

I'd rather not e-mail but I'll share the way I stop the e-mail notices.

You can either unsubscribe the thread by clicking on the green profile button found near the top of the page which takes you to User Control Panel where you may find this thread listed under New Subscribed Threads. Click on Unsubscribe below the thread title.

OR

You can click on the green profile button then click on Subscriptions on the User Control Panel. Find the thread title and select the no e-mail option. Find Update Subscription and click on Go. Or you may choose to Delete Subscription here as well.

In future, you can avoid getting the e-mails for each thread in which you post by choosing either No Subscription or Subscribe without e-mail notification in the Thread Subscription box which is found near the bottom of each Post New Reply page.

HTH

Now I'm off to follow my own good advice.

If I remember correctly, and I haven't double checked this, the very start of nutritional science in the 19C was based on the question about why Punjabi Sikhs were taller and more robust than their neighbors. It was the discovery that their diet was richer in meat that kicked off the investigations into protein and the effects of nutrition on development.

It might also be interesting to note that even Dr. Mercola who seems to support the metabolic typing theory stated that in his opinion 15% of the population at most would be true "carb type" with the majority being "protein type" and a much smaller percentage as "mixed" type. Furthermore, in his opinion the nearly 2/3 of the population that are overweight for certain need to be on a carb reduction type plan. How low? My opinion is that it depends on what your level of insulin resistance has become and whether or not you wish to just stabilize it or reverse it.
It's also very much open to interpretation what "doing well on" means. Does that mean that while those who are eating incorrectly for their type develop heart disease or other dietary related diseases in their 40's or younger while those who eat "correctly" don't until their 60's or later and at that point, it's written off to the "natural aging process"? Do they look at other disease processes that may be very much linked to diet such as arthritis and various degenerative joint diseases, diabetes, rates of heart disease and stroke? Leaky gut syndrome, Crohn's disease, diverticulitis?
We all know people that seem to defy the odds and "do everything wrong" and still manage to stay healthy and feel well. Genetics or just plain luck? A lot of questions remain unanswered.
Yes, some people do well on highER levels of carb than others, but I doubt that they are very many that truly do well over a lifetime on a very high carb diet that is not also combined with a high level of physical activity and even then, I still have doubts.
But I agree that perhaps it's time to give it a rest since it's obvious that nobody is about to change their position.

Just an added note to members ... you can unsubscribe from any thread by clicking on the link included in the email notification . You're always given the option to unsubscribe from the one thread only, or from all subscribed threads.

hth,


Doreen

Thanks Doreen!
Much simpler than the method I described! lol

I just wanted to say a few things.

It is simply scientifically incorrect to believe that individual biological make up has no role in how well our metabolism can handle sugar. Kent, I am sorry, but science is against you when you claim that all people have the exact same metabolic plasticity and tolerance for carbohydrate from birth. Some people get sick on higher carb, some people won't.

Phenotypes which were produced in environments where the people thrived on very low sugar, high fat and protein diets tend to develop IRS more readily than phenotypes which are the product of grain dependant societies. Observe the native american, or african american population (both peoples who were produced by cultures in which the diet is traditionally high-fat and low-sugar) in contrast to asian americans and even european americans (where moderate in fat and a little higher in sugar diets were more common). Despite eating roughly the same carb-heavy diet as asian americans and european americans, the rates of obesity, heart disease and diabetes in native americans and african americans are much, much higher.

While the obvious answer seems to be individual genetically determined metabolic variance, I doubt my saying this would convince you. Perhaps some hard evidence is in order. Scientists have discovered genetic markers for developing IRS (insulin resistance syndrome), or what could also be called having a poor sugar metabolism.

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.or...t/full/51/3/841



Other studies have drawn similar conclusions: Due to individual biological make up, some people quite simply lack metabolic plasticity to eat a high-sugar diet and thrive on it. Though most studies have been confined to recently-modernized peoples freshly coming off of a high-fat, low-sugar diet like NAs and AAs, the evidence is strong that we don't all have the same genetically determined dietary plasticity. There is no reason to believe IRS phenotypes don't exist within european american population, or even the asian american population.

While I think it is safe to say that evidence is strong enough to smash the theory that a higher carbohydrate makes all people sick, I don't think it is logically consistent to extrapolate from this that a higher carbohydrate diet is optimal for those who don't get sick on it. In other words, "carb types" may not exist at all, they just simply have more options because they can "tolerate" sugar more effectively, so to speak. Absence of disease is not the same thing as thriving, and those who don't get sick on high carb may actually do better on lower-carb.

However, I've yet to see evidence either way, but I tend to fall towards the metabolic typing theory in that, yes, some people not only tolerate carbs better but they are better served by higher carb diets. I do think it is quite reasonable to assume that those with good carbohydrate metabolism would do best on a higher-carbohydrate diet than those with a poor carbohydrate metabolism. Even if they see no benefits when they eat more carbs and they are simply capable of "tolerating it", the increased dietary variety and decrease in dietary restrictions have to have some psychological benefit. Stress and its hormonal effects have long been shown to have deleterious physiological side effects.

Plus, I am sure being able to eat more carbs has a nutritional benefit as well. If you can eat more fruit and veggies and grain, you should, as they are excellent sources of minerals and phytochemicals.

Another thing I wanted to say is that it is incorrect to extrapolate that an all meat diet is healthy, because the traditional inuit diet is virtually all meat and they enjoy good health. First of all, the types of meat the inuit eat are natural, free range animals and aquatic life - these fats and meats are replete with vitamins, anti-oxidants, fatty acids, and minerals not found in grain-fed western meat. Second of all, it is very likely that the inuit have a very different biological make up than western man. The traditional native american diet was for the most part very low in sugar. While it has been established that native americans for the most part lack metabolic plasticity to handle a high sugar diet (as they were never exposed to it before), what is less clear is whether or not they have a more sophisticated fat metabolism.

In other words, the metabolic typing theory might have some validity in that some people can handle high-fat better than others. I have no idea whether or not this is true, more research is needed.

One more thing... I just wanted to say that the modern "low fat" diet is probably not healthy for everyone, and such a diet will probably cause disease over time. While those phenotypes which lack IRS markers (i.e. good carb metabolism) will probably take many years to show evidence of disease (whereas those with IRS genetic markers will probably become sick rapidly), I am certain disease will manifest over time on these ridiculous 20, 15, 10 or less percent fat diets regardless of your DNA.

No where in any human society do people traditionally eat less than 30% dietary fat, and it is likely there isn't a human being alive who would see good health eating some fad diet that recommends less fat than 30%.

How do you avoid modern carbohydrate foods, while still eating a higher carbohydrate diet? Easy. Legumes, root veggies, and fruits are all excellent nutritious sources that are higher in carbohydrate. You don't need to drink pepsi and eat "enriched" (i.e. pre-digested and then fortified with synthetic vitamins) grains to have a higher-carb diet.

I cannot speak on behalf of PP as I am unfamiliar with the plan, but I most defnitely can comment on your falacious assumption about Dr. Atkins.

The whole Atkins plan is about controlling carbohydrate intake - not a 20 gram limit for everyone, not a low carb gram limit - but about finding what level of sugar your body thrives on.

I don't know much about the metabolic typing diet itself, but the theory that we all have different genetically determined metabolic needs is very in line with the atkins approach.

Sea Saw, Yes, I'm a fast oxidizer and an O.

ItsTheWooo said,



Fallacious assumption?

I don't know what your assumption is, but it must certainly be wrong.

Atkins does NOT suggest a level of "sugar your body thrives on." The Atkins Maintenance level CAN include more carbohydrates as long as an ideal body fat level is maintained and the carbohydrates do not exceed 100 grams. This is only 1/3 of the 300 grams suggested by The Metabolic Typing Diet for those who test "Carb Type."

Atkins DOES set a 20 gram carb limit for induction and has stated on his web site that induction can continue indefinitely for those who gain weight at any higher limit. I must stay near the 20 gram limit myself in order to stay at my goal. I see a link for members here between those who push higher carbohydrate levels than recommended by Dr. Atkins and their stall for years at a high obesity level. Sad, so many people think they are doing Low-Carb but just don't get it.

Carbohydrates are highly addictive. People grab any book or theory that comes down the pike in order to justify their comsumption of more carbohydrates. I suggest they try my stall busting diet instead.

Breaking Stalls and Plateaus on the Low-Carbohydrate Diet.

Kent

Induction is meant to work like a detox, it is not designed to be a maintenance eating plan. He did say you can follow induction as long as you like (can being the operative word), but I doubt he would recommend it. Someone doing atkins correctly will come off of induction, liberalize their menus and add back carbs until symptoms reappear. Once they reach this point, they will pull back some carbs. They have established a "carb ceiling", and they may choose to eat that much or they may not, but they shouldn't eat past it.

Let's be real here, it is very hard to get all the nutrients you need following the rules of induction, not to even mention the psychological difficulty of having so few food choices.

If you personally really can't eat more than 20 grams of carbs without gaining, that is unfortunate your maintenance level is so low. I don't think most people have this problem though. I eat 40 carbs and am still losing. Of course, I pay attention to calories and am younger than you, but my point is I don't think most people magically gain fat when attempting to eat over 20 carbs. Are you absolutely sure over 20 grams causes true fat gain? Raising carbs replenishes the glycogen stores, which of course causes water retention (which is the reason we all have dramatic weight loss the first 2 weeks of atkins). Have you tried examining your weight over a period of a couple of weeks after raising carbs - did it stabilize after the initial gain, or did it slowly climb?


I think some diets out there do seem structured in such a way as to justify a need to eat what ever you want (for example, CAD seems to be such a diet). You might even call such diets enabling... but if it works for someone, that's all that matters. If you are one of those people who can't deal with the rigidness of Atkins, eating whatever you want at a "reward meal" (but severely restricting food options earlier in the day) might work for you. Hey, it can't hurt to try.
Even though I think CAD isn't the best diet for me and most people, that doesn't mean it won't work for someone else.

Wanting to liberalize your menus and add back more fruits and veggies doesn't mean you are justifying over eating. I personally think that for most people, living on induction is not healthy. While it may be possible to get all your nutrients, it is far more difficult to do than when eating a diverse diet. It certainly would require a conscious effort to rigidly structure your meals: you would need to choose certain foods and make sure you eat them to avoid deficiencies. Then there is the psychological factor. Eating more carbs and allowing yourself more choices (low sugar fruits and nuts, for example) may be the difference between success and failure for some.

Well, when it comes down to it, people need to do what works for them. I'm doing what works for me - I allow myself an upper limit of 45 carbs (but usually stay around 35-40 on average), I eat berries, oranges, apples and other low-moderate sugar fruit in moderation. I allow myself starchy root veggies also in moderation. I eat 1350 calories on average. I feel healthy. In fact I just lost another pound this morning. I am currently a size 10/9, almost a size 8/7. Not bad, considering I have so much against me when it comes to maintaining a healthy body weight (my mother is morbidly obese, and IRS has been handed down for generations)