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
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-09, 17:08
BoBoGuy's Avatar
BoBoGuy BoBoGuy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,178
 
Plan: Low Carb - High Nutrition
Stats: 213/175/175 Male 72 Inches
BF: Belly Fat? Yes!
Progress: 100%
Location: California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC


That mantra of "healthy whole grains" probably kills more people than almost any other.
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2...know-about.html

Nancy,

After reading many studies such as the ones from Harvard, the Mayo Clinic, WebMD, the University of Maryland and Penn State, iím sticking to my whole grains in moderation are more than likely beneficial theory.

Even your exalted Dr. William Davis said the following: "In my experience practicing cardiology for the past 15 years, a small quantity of whole grains may be good for children, slender people, and the extremely physically active.Ē

Being somewhat long in the tooth and realizing that whole-grain intake is inversely associated with Metabolic Syndrome and mortality in older adults hopefully explains my interest in studies such as THIS .

Best wishes.

Bo

Last edited by BoBoGuy : Fri, Mar-13-09 at 19:23. Reason: link
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-09, 20:52
KarenJ's Avatar
KarenJ KarenJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,564
 
Plan: tasty animals with butter
Stats: 170/115/110 Female 60"
BF:maintaining
Progress: 92%
Location: Northeastern Illinois
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edless
So... This whole two years I haven't touched whole-grain, have lost weight, have the best bloodwork results of my life and more energy than I can find things to do with isn't prospering? Damn, I guess I should go back to eating plenty of whole grains and exercising my ass off every day to stay thin.



So I should cut my fat and therefore starve my body of the fuel that keeps it running at peek performance? Wow I never knew. Anything grown in nutrient rich soil has selenium, not just whole grains. In fact, the whole grains you're eating if in the USA were probably grown in mineral-void soil, just FYI. I can get all the potassium I need from the fish, broccoli and avocados I eat. Magnesium? Nuts and once again seafood.



Fiber is just one of the great myths of the last fifty years. Any fibre I consume is just a by-product, from nuts usually. And by the way, that's a load of crap about being filling and lingering longer; Unless of course by 'filling' you mean 'bloating' and by 'lingering longer' you're referring to gas. Thanks but no thanks to the fermentation in my bowels. It is PROVEN that protein/fat provide a higher level of satiety.



Fad diets? I suppose the diet of the human race for 99% of its existence myst be a fad. Seriously, you would have to be mentally stunted to believe that we could evolve fast enough at a cellular level over a few thousand years to change the basics of our dietary function and consume carbohydrates as our primary source of energy. Carbohydrates do nothing for proper organ function. In fact, the only one that might even be mildly helpful is called a "hemicellulose", simply because it doesn't metabolize but is helpful to our intestinal bacterial. They are not at all an important part of a healthy diet; Perhaps part of a standard, bastardized industrial-age diet, but not one humans should be following.



Can't entirely disagree, but then again there's plenty of lower carb fruits and berries as well as vegetables. Who the hell needs carbs to deliver vitamins, minerals and fiber when there's plenty of wonderful, natural low-carb foods that deliver the same things? Seafood, sea vegetables, eggs, raw-milk, aforementioned low-carb veggies and fruits, nuts. The list goes on and on, you know. The same thing goes for phytonutrients; I do not need to eat high-carb food to get them--any of them--at all.



Atkins, now, has taken a turn to try and make their diet "easier" for people and is straying off its original course as far as I'm concerned. Most likely they're trying to escape bad press and revitalize what's left of themselves as a company as opposed to really practicing anything that Dr. Atkins himself believed. You can't quote that garbage, no one who knows their stuff about low-carb will follow the "new" Atkins diet. Low-fat with low-carb is a recipe for killing yourself.

I'm sorry BoBo but, honestly, why are you even here? All you do is antagonize a community of people whom, regardless of education level or the number of nonsense nutrition texts they have read, understand fundamental science and internal workings of the human body more than you seem to be able to grasp. You sound like a spokesman for Imperial Sugar or worse yet, a Harvard grad who actually believes what he's been taught (by the pharmaceutical companies, FYI). The people of this website have come together in open acceptance of the fact that everything we have been taught by our peers, schools and high levels of government is a farce and here are people like you, clinging to 'scientific studies' funded by groups with an agenda or by those who have been payed off. Here you are preaching to thousands of enlightened individuals the 'dangers' of lowering carbohydrate consumption and how 'fantastic' lowering fat consumption is.

The science behind our way of life is basically impossible to refute, yet you keep on trying, linking nonsense stories that get ripped apart, speaking like you're transcribing the pages of "Staying Healthy With Nutrition" directly to your screen. The truth is what the majority of us here believe and what everyone before the 50's believed. The truth is what our animal-spearing, nut-devouring, berry gathering ancestors didn't even have to understand to know that it was what they were supposed to be putting in their bodies.

It's sad really, that you're living in this little fairy-tale land, holding on to the notion that your viewpoint is accurate when it is entirely askew. When the diseases of civilization lash out at you, perhaps you'll turn-tail and think 'Oh, gee, maybe they were right, sorry Ansel'. I think you should take everything you plant here in this forum and go apply to write for the health section at one of your local newspapers; That would be more suited for the disease-promoting, ill-informed babble you post and promote here.

Just another for your bullcrap, BoBo.


That was brilliant. Notice how it was ignored by BoBo? Troll....
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-09, 22:35
BoBoGuy's Avatar
BoBoGuy BoBoGuy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,178
 
Plan: Low Carb - High Nutrition
Stats: 213/175/175 Male 72 Inches
BF: Belly Fat? Yes!
Progress: 100%
Location: California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenJ
That was brilliant. Notice how it was ignored by BoBo? Troll....

Iíve not ignored Edless.

It would appear heís from the world of acupuncturists, holistic medicine, chiropractors, herbalists and nutritionists. My background, differing somewhat from his, might never allow us to find common ground. Hence my lack of response as I choose not to dispute or criticize his beliefs.

Bo
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Fri, Mar-13-09, 23:00
27Peach's Avatar
27Peach 27Peach is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 527
 
Plan: LC/IF
Stats: 180/173.8/150 Female 5'9"
BF:Not sure
Progress: 21%
Location: Greenville, SC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBoGuy
Iíve not ignored Edless.

It would appear heís from the world of acupuncturists, holistic medicine, chiropractors, herbalists and nutritionists.


I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion based on what Edless posted.
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-09, 00:17
Edless's Avatar
Edless Edless is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 117
 
Plan: None in particular
Stats: 180/170/160 Male 6'1
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: Kelowna BC, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBoGuy
the world of acupuncturists, holistic medicine, chiropractors, herbalists and nutritionists.


If by this you mean preventative medicine that has a lingering history of working in a far superior manner than say, modern medical 'science', then yes.

Even in holistic medicine, which I am studying simply for the certification, they preach carbohydrate/low-fat dogma; I view it as a way of becoming legally able to teach people a proper form of eating through a professional designation. I simply fail to see how that is relevant here.

As far as I'm concerned, believing otherwise is basically accepting brainwashing. It's like being in a nutritional version of "The Matrix". Perhaps that falls in line with modern medicine's reliance on taking pills?
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-09, 09:37
NrgQuest's Avatar
NrgQuest NrgQuest is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 916
 
Plan: LC since 1/15/09
Stats: 317/278/217 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 39%
Location: Tennessee
Default

Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-09, 10:42
steve41 steve41 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 212
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 196/176/160 Male 5-9
BF:
Progress: 56%
Location: BC Canada
Default

Quote:
Perhaps that falls in line with modern medicine's reliance on taking pills

I've mentioned this once before, but if you guys are implying that the entire medical profession are unscrupulous, money-grubbing parasites who collude with big pharma and have no interest in the healthy outcomes of their patients, then the LC movement is doomed to be forever tarred with the 'kooky/wacky fringe' designation.

If you want to see LC eventually attain mainstream recognition, you don't want to alienate the medical establishment. This ocean liner isn't going to turn around on a dime. Patience.
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-09, 13:01
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 29,976
 
Plan: SBD->atkins twist->paleo
Stats: 274/000/160 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 240%
Location: NYC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve41
I've mentioned this once before, but if you guys are implying that the entire medical profession are unscrupulous, money-grubbing parasites who collude with big pharma and have no interest in the healthy outcomes of their patients, then the LC movement is doomed to be forever tarred with the 'kooky/wacky fringe' designation.

If you want to see LC eventually attain mainstream recognition, you don't want to alienate the medical establishment. This ocean liner isn't going to turn around on a dime. Patience.

Thank you for being a voice of reason and rationality!!
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-09, 14:15
Edless's Avatar
Edless Edless is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 117
 
Plan: None in particular
Stats: 180/170/160 Male 6'1
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: Kelowna BC, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve41
I've mentioned this once before, but if you guys are implying that the entire medical profession are unscrupulous, money-grubbing parasites who collude with big pharma and have no interest in the healthy outcomes of their patients, then the LC movement is doomed to be forever tarred with the 'kooky/wacky fringe' designation.

If you want to see LC eventually attain mainstream recognition, you don't want to alienate the medical establishment. This ocean liner isn't going to turn around on a dime. Patience.


It's not about alienation of the entire medical establishment. There's quite a number of doctors and others in that industry whom I have only the largest respect for.

But then there are those whom I do not.

Myself and my girlfriend were in the chocolate store in the mall the other day, minds blown over the fact that they had an entire sugar-free chocolate section. A man beside us whom I believe was mildly mentally challenged asked if I had diabetes and I simply replied with "No, but I don't want to get it." He proceeded to state to me how his doctor had told him that, no, sugar does not cause it and that the notion that it does is a, quote, "Old wive's tale." Apparently the books his doctor advised him to read gave him the same conclusion. I politely told him to pick up 'Good Calories, Bad Calories', and otherwise felt terrible that I was not through school and able to give him a business card.

I've had a few experiences like this and am sure they aren't really isolated. My anger with the medical community isn't so much with the community itself, but with the elder, long-time members of it who have such a marked resilience and who will never really change.

I couldn't do much of anything, legally, for that poor man and that makes me sick.

*edit*

Just a note, the LC movement in my humble opinion, is not seen in a kooky/fringe sort of way because of its firm stance against the protested medical truth it attempts to debunk, but because of the never-ending cycle of ignorance and misinformation that people are fed daily simply because it is not in the best interest of other parties that we eat properly. It is truly tragic that those who stand in a position to help people are really just pawns of the corporations who sponsor their studies and gently nudge them in directions that keep us sick and dying.

Last edited by Edless : Sat, Mar-14-09 at 14:25.
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-09, 15:32
BoBoGuy's Avatar
BoBoGuy BoBoGuy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,178
 
Plan: Low Carb - High Nutrition
Stats: 213/175/175 Male 72 Inches
BF: Belly Fat? Yes!
Progress: 100%
Location: California
Default

Edless,

Hopefully you realize we are all different in our need to balance proteins, vitamins and other nutrients to help our bodies reach maximum energy levels and overall physical and emotional health. Each individual is different.

There is no "one size fits all diet." Some people thrive on a macrobiotic diet, while others may not be able to function at all with that many carbohydrates. A vegetarian diet is perfect for some body types and yet it can leave other body types in a heap on the floor. Some people function most optimally on a high meat diet while others do better with mostly vegetables.

Whole grains and other substance can produce the harmful effects associated with their toxic properties only when they reach susceptible biological systems within our bodies in sufficient concentration. If the dose is low enough, even highly toxic substances cease to cause harmful effects and may provide benefits.

Perhaps, prior to counseling others, you may discover that whole grain foods do indeed affect the metabolic syndrome of older adults. Iím sure you realize metabolic syndrome is a condition characterized by disturbed glucose and insulin metabolism, central obesity and hypertension. Whole grain consumption in older adults is inversely associated with mortality and this condition.

For some, whole grains, beans, fruits, vegetables, and other sources of intact carbohydrates consumed in moderation may indeed promote good health.

We are all different.

Bo
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-09, 16:07
Edless's Avatar
Edless Edless is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 117
 
Plan: None in particular
Stats: 180/170/160 Male 6'1
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: Kelowna BC, Canada
Default

I really do believe that human body is meant to function on a particular diet. I'm also not really that big on metabolic typing. :P
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Sat, Mar-14-09, 18:01
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 29,976
 
Plan: SBD->atkins twist->paleo
Stats: 274/000/160 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 240%
Location: NYC
Default

Age, sex, body type, genetics....all play a part in the way we metabolize....yes, we are all of the human species and different at the same time.
Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Sun, Mar-15-09, 00:36
NrgQuest's Avatar
NrgQuest NrgQuest is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 916
 
Plan: LC since 1/15/09
Stats: 317/278/217 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 39%
Location: Tennessee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edless
I really do believe that human body is meant to function on a particular diet. I'm also not really that big on metabolic typing. :P


I agree to a point. Some people do need slightly more or less of certain macro ingredients. But, I don't think the amounts differ all that widely except for perhaps calorie requirements. Metabolic typing is very likely junk science. I haven't looked into it, so I don't know yet.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Sun, Mar-15-09, 07:57
steve41 steve41 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 212
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 196/176/160 Male 5-9
BF:
Progress: 56%
Location: BC Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edless
Just a note, the LC movement in my humble opinion, is not seen in a kooky/fringe sort of way because of its firm stance against the protested medical truth it attempts to debunk, but because of the never-ending cycle of ignorance and misinformation that people are fed daily simply because it is not in the best interest of other parties that we eat properly. It is truly tragic that those who stand in a position to help people are really just pawns of the corporations who sponsor their studies and gently nudge them in directions that keep us sick and dying.

OK... now this is my point. You and I may agree with this statement, as do most participants in this forum. The problem is that it is the med establishment that sees us as the kooky fringe, and trust me, when the decision-making powers that be (those politicians and decision makers who control the purse strings) are asked to fund that high profile multimillion dollar study that Gary Taubes is praying for, it will be the medical establishment they will defer to.
Reply With Quote
  #105   ^
Old Sun, Mar-15-09, 08:03
lil' annie lil' annie is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,276
 
Plan: quasi paleo + starch
Stats: 153/148/118 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 14%
Default

I don't get it. I'm lost. Can't follow you. WHY are you participating on a forum that you view as filled with K00K-ism? Do you seriously believe that any SCIENTIFIC study would care less whether the FACTS are kooky or not?

Would you prefer that people's true opinions about the Food Industry, the Pharma-Medical Establishment, and a whole multitude of lobbyists be censored, so that ONLY 'approved' opinions - i.e., "NON-kook" are posted?

You want people to be silenced? Censored?

Ain't gonna happen.
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 21:21.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.