410 replies to this topic

[Moonbeam]

Just to play devil's advocate:

That's good, nothing wrong with that.

What about the social and environmental/ecological costs of everyone eating more meat/protein instead of lower on the food chain? Look what has happened to the prices of many commodities as both China and India are now eating more meat.

I'll tell you what I do, what bothers me is eating meat for ethical reasons; factory farming stuff. I go back and forth with getting meat (beef, chicken, turkey) from a local organic, free-range, you know, cruelty-free-until-the-end type farm; then I'll have attacks of conscious and won't be able to do it anymore. Right now I am eating eggs (supposedly free-range, but you know how that goes), canned sardines and salmon, raw organic cheese, and I still had some beef in the freezer from the last time I was a carnivore, so I am finishing that up. I had kind of made up my mind not to order anymore before I decided to go on this diet, but then I got inspired with this, so now I'm not sure. I'll probably see if I can stick mostly to the fish. I could add some gulf (not asian-sewer-water-farmed) shrimp or other shellfish, maybe some other kinds of frozen fish (I think farmed catfish is not too bad?). I'm still not as good as a vegan, far from it, I know, but I've never quite managed to go all the way. I had kicked the cheese for quite a while until now, but I thought a little of that would be a good addition to this diet, maybe help me stick with it. I may not need to keep that, however.

Also, don't forget that many environmental pollutants, eg, PCBs, PBDEs, etc, become more concentrated the higher up you go in the food chain. Your ketogenic diet may be increasing your body burden of these chemicals.......
(even organic sources of protein have these pollutants in them. They have even measured PCBs in polar bears and whales now whom have never come in personal contact with these chemicals. They are just ubiquitous now.)

Hmm, yes, that is a problem then; I was thinking that sardines were about the safest animal product there is to eat. It's always a dilemma, what to eat, no wonder I never can exactly decide. That's pretty schizophrenic, to go from being a failed vegetarian to a low-carber, isn't it? (But I'm in ketosis! lol)

Can I eat only greens, nuts, and supplements and still live? Better add back the berries, in that case. ;-)

[spaceistheplace]

That's pretty schizophrenic, to go from being a failed vegetarian to a low-carber, isn't it? (But I'm in ketosis! lol)

I switched from a vegan diet to paleo. Sometimes you've just got to listen to your body.

[Moonbeam]

That's pretty schizophrenic, to go from being a failed vegetarian to a low-carber, isn't it? (But I'm in ketosis! lol)

I switched from a vegan diet to paleo. Sometimes you've just got to listen to your body.

Yea, and it's as hard to be a vegan and not eat grains as it is to be a low-carber and not eat meat.

[Mind]

Two eggs a day does not raise cholesterol levels.

Not a surprising result to me, and I am sure the same goes for most Imminst members. This community always seems to be ahead of the curve.

A research team from the University of Surrey headed by Dr Bruce Griffin fed two eggs per day to overweight but otherwise healthy volunteers for 12 weeks while they simultaneously followed a reduced calorie diet prescribed by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) – who normally restrict egg intake to 3-4 per week. A control group followed the same BHF diet but cut out eggs altogether.

Both groups lost between 3 to 4kg (7- 9lbs) in weight and saw a fall in the average level of blood cholesterol.

Research leader Dr Bruce Griffin stated: "When blood cholesterol was measured at both six weeks and twelve weeks, both groups showed either no change or a reduction, particularly in their LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, despite the egg group increasing their dietary cholesterol intake to around four times that of the control."

This research provides further evidence to support the now established scientific understanding that saturated fat in the diet (most often found in pastry, processed meats, biscuits and cakes) is more responsible for raising blood cholesterol than cholesterol-rich foods, such as eggs.

WHAT ABOUT THE SUGAR!?!?

Can someone please explain to me why so many researchers and dietary "experts" refuse to finger sugar as the main culprit in a host of problems related to obesity?

[lucid]

Two eggs a day does not raise cholesterol levels.

I was interested to read more about that study, it seemed to me that the abstract left some important details out:
Reading the full article, there was a 13% reduction in HDL levels in the egg fed group while a small increase in HDL levels in the control group, I don't quite understand how their trial wasn't powered to catch that where as the LDL reduction was only 3-6%. They said the HDL change wasn't significant (HDL measurements did seem to jump around a bit) but maybe someone a little more familiar with how they present the statistics could look at it. Full Study (let me know if link doesnt work):
http://www.springerl...80/fulltext.pdf

[salamandyr]

A couple people have mentioned the idea of cycling a ketogenic diet - I have had some good experience with this.

I've used the NHE (Natural Hormone Enhancement) diet by Rob Faigin. It's an older book now, but has some good stuff in it, including clear thought and a lot of intelligent referral to relevant research literature.

The core of this IS cycling; eating carb restricted meals for 3 or 4 days in a row, then finishing the 3rd or 4th day with a high complex-carb, low protein/fat meal.
I found I had all the reported benefits of a ketogenic diet, and also found my lifting to be improved dramatically (mostly through cutting my post-workout healing time down by 50% or so).

In the past 7 years i've done it 3 times, the first two i lost ~ 7% bodyfat and ~ 15-20 lbs, within 6 to 8 weeks, and was lifting aggressively the whole time, but not doing any cardio work.

In Jan 08 I began it for a third time, as i'd gotten pudgy. In about two months I lost 7% bodyfat and 23 lbs.
This last time was without exercising at all, just changing diet.

I went off it all spring & summer, and have been eating like crap, so I've gained about 10 of those lbs back, and 4% bodyfat back, but I REALLY had to re-train my metabolism to be a sugar-craving machine before I started putting the weight on again. The first two times I did it, about 2 yrs apart, I didn't fall off the wagon so heavily; I just cut out the most extreme forms of sugar and went back to normal.

I'm starting it again this week, AND adding in lots of cardio, so I expect more dramatic results than even these above.
My experiment this time is counfounded a bit by starting a nootropic stack, but I'm going for the personal gains here, not the science.

BTW - here are silly graphs I was keeping.
the BF% numbers should be interpreted as relative, not absolute (my scale over-estimates by about 5% for my build, compared to float testing).




The initial drop is prob d/t water more than anything else, as this NHE diet has the same carb-fast for the first week that most do.
It may seem a bit obsessive to track all of this, but I recommend it if you are doing a ketogenic diet.
Because this is so aggressive in terms of metabolism shifting, it's possible to overshoot your fat stores and end up stripping skeletal muscle (and heart muscle!), esp if you don't get enough protein/fat.

If anyone has any questions on the diet feel free to let me know.
It's the sort of thing you can customize, of course; I find that after a month on it I can pretty much go to 2/3 or 3/3 for my cycle and still continue to lose fat/gain muscle/etc at the same rate (was doing that on these graphs).

[Moonbeam]

Thanks salamandyr, that's interesting. I think I've read about that plan in body-building literature.

I did well for five weeks; lost some pounds and some fat. Unfortunately I went on a trip last week and blew it all to hell. But I'm back on now; I may try your plan now. It might make work-outs better; I'd like to add more aerobic exercise to my life.

[Dmitri]

Good Calories Bad Calories: Excellant account about how the low fat high carb diet is at the root of the "diseases of civilization" particularly the increasing rates of these since the low fat craze of the '80s and '90s http://www.amazon.co...a...8290&sr=1-1

http://www.biomedcen.../1471-2202/7/29

Not sure I believe this; there are studies that show eating whole grains (carbs) can reduce the chance of getting diabetes, cancer and cholesterol so how can they be the cause of disease?

[Dmitri]

Two eggs a day does not raise cholesterol levels.

Not a surprising result to me, and I am sure the same goes for most Imminst members. This community always seems to be ahead of the curve.

A research team from the University of Surrey headed by Dr Bruce Griffin fed two eggs per day to overweight but otherwise healthy volunteers for 12 weeks while they simultaneously followed a reduced calorie diet prescribed by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) – who normally restrict egg intake to 3-4 per week. A control group followed the same BHF diet but cut out eggs altogether.

Both groups lost between 3 to 4kg (7- 9lbs) in weight and saw a fall in the average level of blood cholesterol.

Research leader Dr Bruce Griffin stated: "When blood cholesterol was measured at both six weeks and twelve weeks, both groups showed either no change or a reduction, particularly in their LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, despite the egg group increasing their dietary cholesterol intake to around four times that of the control."

This research provides further evidence to support the now established scientific understanding that saturated fat in the diet (most often found in pastry, processed meats, biscuits and cakes) is more responsible for raising blood cholesterol than cholesterol-rich foods, such as eggs.

WHAT ABOUT THE SUGAR!?!?

Can someone please explain to me why so many researchers and dietary "experts" refuse to finger sugar as the main culprit in a host of problems related to obesity?

Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are on a high carb diet (macrobiotic diet; 50-60% of what they eat in a day consists of whole grains) so why are they so thin if sugar/carbs are the cause of obesity?

Edited by Dmitri, 10 October 2008 - 09:33 PM.

[Shepard]

Not sure I believe this; there are studies that show eating whole grains (carbs) can reduce the chance of getting diabetes, cancer and cholesterol so how can they be the cause of disease?

A study is only as good as its design. Look at what they were compared against, as well as the critique of epidemiology itself.

[DukeNukem]

Can someone please explain to me why so many researchers and dietary "experts" refuse to finger sugar as the main culprit in a host of problems related to obesity?

80% of all people are below average, including doctors and nutritionists.

Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are on a high carb diet (macrobiotic diet; 50-60% of what they eat in a day consists of whole grains) so why are they so thin if sugar/carbs are the cause of obesity?

They work they're asses off with personal trainers and a reduced calorie diet. Plus, Paltrow smokes, and that's the greatest weight control drug known the man. Still, they'd be better off with a higher fat, higher protein diet. They're making life difficult for themselves with all of those carbs.

[Dmitri]

Not sure I believe this; there are studies that show eating whole grains (carbs) can reduce the chance of getting diabetes, cancer and cholesterol so how can they be the cause of disease?

A study is only as good as its design. Look at what they were compared against, as well as the critique of epidemiology itself.

I posted an article about whole grains on the thread called "My CR", in it they mention that some whole grains contain just as much or even more antioxidants than some vegetables and that these phenolics could prevent cancer, etc.

[Shepard]

Can someone please explain to me why so many researchers and dietary "experts" refuse to finger sugar as the main culprit in a host of problems related to obesity?

80% of all people are below average, including doctors and nutritionists.

I used to think I was smarter than most professionals. The body seemed so simple. A causes B leads to C. Then I began to learn biology and it pretty much ruined my ideas of both my superiority and the simple model that I held onto dearly. I often wonder how many other people suffer the same blindness.

Not that I don't think a lot of people are looking in the wrong places, or looking at symptoms instead of causes...it's just really easy to overlook all that complicated stuff and go right to pointing the finger at carbohydrates.

[Dmitri]

Can someone please explain to me why so many researchers and dietary "experts" refuse to finger sugar as the main culprit in a host of problems related to obesity?

80% of all people are below average, including doctors and nutritionists.

Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are on a high carb diet (macrobiotic diet; 50-60% of what they eat in a day consists of whole grains) so why are they so thin if sugar/carbs are the cause of obesity?

They work they're asses off with personal trainers and a reduced calorie diet. Plus, Paltrow smokes, and that's the greatest weight control drug known the man. Still, they'd be better off with a higher fat, higher protein diet. They're making life difficult for themselves with all of those carbs.

I also consume a lot of whole grains and I'm not fat and I don't exercise as much as Madonna (I only exercise about 1 hour a day). I believe the reason some people are fat is because they consume too many processed foods and fried foods, I don't think it has anything to do with whole grains.

[Shepard]

I posted an article about whole grains on the thread called "My CR", in it they mention that some whole grains contain just as much or even more antioxidants than some vegetables and that these phenolics could prevent cancer, etc.

Prevent cancer compared to what?

[Dmitri]

I posted an article about whole grains on the thread called "My CR", in it they mention that some whole grains contain just as much or even more antioxidants than some vegetables and that these phenolics could prevent cancer, etc.

Prevent cancer compared to what?

Here's part of the article:

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=f...ce&dbid=128
Phytonutrients with Health-Promoting Activity Equal to or Even Higher than that of Vegetables and Fruits

Research reported at the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) International Conference on Food, Nutrition and Cancer, by Rui Hai Liu, M.D., Ph.D., and his colleagues at Cornell University shows that whole grains, such as rice, contain many powerful phytonutrients whose activity has gone unrecognized because research methods have overlooked them.

Despite the fact that for years researchers have been measuring the antioxidant power of a wide array of phytonutrients, they have typically measured only the "free" forms of these substances, which dissolve quickly and are immediately absorbed into the bloodstream. They have not looked at the "bound" forms, which are attached to the walls of plant cells and must be released by intestinal bacteria during digestion before they can be absorbed.

Phenolics, powerful antioxidants that work in multiple ways to prevent disease, are one major class of phytonutrients that have been widely studied. Included in this broad category are such compounds as quercetin, curcumin, ellagic acid, catechins, and many others that appear frequently in the health news.

When Dr. Liu and his colleagues measured the relative amounts of phenolics, and whether they were present in bound or free form, in common fruits and vegetables like apples, red grapes, broccoli and spinach, they found that phenolics in the "free" form averaged 76% of the total number of phenolics in these foods. In whole grains, however, "free" phenolics accounted for less than 1% of the total, while the remaining 99% were in "bound" form.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that because researchers have examined whole grains with the same process used to measure antioxidants in vegetables and fruits-looking for their content of "free" phenolics"-the amount and activity of antioxidants in whole grains has been vastly underestimated.

Despite the differences in fruits', vegetables' and whole grains' content of "free" and "bound" phenolics, the total antioxidant activity in all three types of whole foods is similar, according to Dr. Liu's research. His team measured the antioxidant activity of various foods, assigning each a rating based on a formula (micromoles of vitamin C equivalent per gram). Broccoli and spinach measured 80 and 81, respectively; apple and banana measured 98 and 65; and of the whole grains tested, corn measured 181, whole wheat 77, oats 75, and brown rice 56. Dr. Liu's findings may help explain why studies have shown that populations eating diets high in fiber-rich whole grains consistently have lower risk for colon cancer, yet short-term clinical trials that have focused on fiber alone in lowering colon cancer risk, often to the point of giving subjects isolated fiber supplements, yield inconsistent results. The explanation is most likely that these studies have not taken into account the interactive effects of all the nutrients in whole grains-not just their fiber, but also their many phytonutrients. As far as whole grains are concerned, Dr. Liu believes that the key to their powerful cancer-fighting potential is precisely their wholeness. A grain of whole wheat consists of three parts-its endosperm (starch), bran and germ. When wheat-or any whole grain-is refined, its bran and germ are removed. Although these two parts make up only 15-17% of the grain's weight, they contain 83% of its phenolics. Dr. Liu says his recent findings on the antioxidant content of whole grains reinforce the message that a variety of foods should be eaten good health. "Different plant foods have different phytochemicals," he said. "These substances go to different organs, tissues and cells, where they perform different functions. What your body needs to ward off disease is this synergistic effect - this teamwork - that is produced by eating a wide variety of plant foods, including whole grains."

[Shepard]

I read that part. It doesn't say much.

[Dmitri]

I read that part. It doesn't say much.

It talks about whole grains having the same disease preventing nutrients that vegetables have; I think it says a lot considering some people think whole grains are nothing more than empty calories.

Edited by Dmitri, 10 October 2008 - 11:49 PM.

[Shepard]

It talks about whole grains having the same disease preventing nutrients that vegetables have; I think it says a lot considering some people think whole grains are nothing more than empty calories.

This is where the split off of theory and empirical evidence begins. We can assume all day long, but until it's shown in a controlled trial to do so, we have to go with what is known.

This point holds true to the low-carb topic, as well. On the surface, the theory may look good that insulin drives obesity. But, the empirical evidence shows otherwise. There is only one logical way to default when the two are in conflict.

[pobuoy]

I posted an article about whole grains on the thread called "My CR", in it they mention that some whole grains contain just as much or even more antioxidants than some vegetables and that these phenolics could prevent cancer, etc.

Prevent cancer compared to what?

Here's part of the article:

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=f...ce&dbid=128
Phytonutrients with Health-Promoting Activity Equal to or Even Higher than that of Vegetables and Fruits

Research reported at the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) International Conference on Food, Nutrition and Cancer, by Rui Hai Liu, M.D., Ph.D., and his colleagues at Cornell University shows that whole grains, such as rice, contain many powerful phytonutrients whose activity has gone unrecognized because research methods have overlooked them.

Despite the fact that for years researchers have been measuring the antioxidant power of a wide array of phytonutrients, they have typically measured only the "free" forms of these substances, which dissolve quickly and are immediately absorbed into the bloodstream. They have not looked at the "bound" forms, which are attached to the walls of plant cells and must be released by intestinal bacteria during digestion before they can be absorbed.

Phenolics, powerful antioxidants that work in multiple ways to prevent disease, are one major class of phytonutrients that have been widely studied. Included in this broad category are such compounds as quercetin, curcumin, ellagic acid, catechins, and many others that appear frequently in the health news.

When Dr. Liu and his colleagues measured the relative amounts of phenolics, and whether they were present in bound or free form, in common fruits and vegetables like apples, red grapes, broccoli and spinach, they found that phenolics in the "free" form averaged 76% of the total number of phenolics in these foods. In whole grains, however, "free" phenolics accounted for less than 1% of the total, while the remaining 99% were in "bound" form.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that because researchers have examined whole grains with the same process used to measure antioxidants in vegetables and fruits-looking for their content of "free" phenolics"-the amount and activity of antioxidants in whole grains has been vastly underestimated.

Despite the differences in fruits', vegetables' and whole grains' content of "free" and "bound" phenolics, the total antioxidant activity in all three types of whole foods is similar, according to Dr. Liu's research. His team measured the antioxidant activity of various foods, assigning each a rating based on a formula (micromoles of vitamin C equivalent per gram). Broccoli and spinach measured 80 and 81, respectively; apple and banana measured 98 and 65; and of the whole grains tested, corn measured 181, whole wheat 77, oats 75, and brown rice 56. Dr. Liu's findings may help explain why studies have shown that populations eating diets high in fiber-rich whole grains consistently have lower risk for colon cancer, yet short-term clinical trials that have focused on fiber alone in lowering colon cancer risk, often to the point of giving subjects isolated fiber supplements, yield inconsistent results. The explanation is most likely that these studies have not taken into account the interactive effects of all the nutrients in whole grains-not just their fiber, but also their many phytonutrients. As far as whole grains are concerned, Dr. Liu believes that the key to their powerful cancer-fighting potential is precisely their wholeness. A grain of whole wheat consists of three parts-its endosperm (starch), bran and germ. When wheat-or any whole grain-is refined, its bran and germ are removed. Although these two parts make up only 15-17% of the grain's weight, they contain 83% of its phenolics. Dr. Liu says his recent findings on the antioxidant content of whole grains reinforce the message that a variety of foods should be eaten good health. "Different plant foods have different phytochemicals," he said. "These substances go to different organs, tissues and cells, where they perform different functions. What your body needs to ward off disease is this synergistic effect - this teamwork - that is produced by eating a wide variety of plant foods, including whole grains."

too bad most of us only consume white rice, $2 pasta, and white bread

[Dmitri]

It talks about whole grains having the same disease preventing nutrients that vegetables have; I think it says a lot considering some people think whole grains are nothing more than empty calories.

This is where the split off of theory and empirical evidence begins. We can assume all day long, but until it's shown in a controlled trial to do so, we have to go with what is known.

This point holds true to the low-carb topic, as well. On the surface, the theory may look good that insulin drives obesity. But, the empirical evidence shows otherwise. There is only one logical way to default when the two are in conflict.

I see so you don't support either low fat or low carb theories? Anyway, what do you think of the following study I found in pubmed?

If carbs cause disease then why did the health of diabetes patients improve when they went on a macrobiotic diet (high carb (whole grains) diet)?

The self-reliant system for alternative care of diabetes mellitus patients--experience macrobiotic management in Trad Province.
Bhumisawasdi J, Vanna O, Surinpang N.Bureau of Inspector, Office of Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand. jakkriss@health.moph.go.th

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus is a costly and growing health issue for the individual as well as the nation with much concern needed to change the way of life globally, Thailand included. Conventional medical care comprises of lifestyle modifications and the use of diabetic drugs but even with the development of new drugs, little achievement has been noted in relation to reducing the disease's complications. Macrobiotic is a holistic, alternative health care method. In macrobiotic principle, humans should live, drink and eat in conjunction with the laws of nature that will lead to good health, freedom and wisdom in understanding the laws of nature. The macrobiotic way of living is therefore the caring of body, mind, spirit and the environment in an independent manner based on adequacy and symbiotic support. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The present study consists of forty-four type 2 diabetes mellitus patients from the DM clinic, Trad Provincial Hospital. 4 subjects were insulin treated, observing the macrobiotic ways of living together at the Wanakaset Research Facility of Kasetsart University, Trad Province which lies in a natural forest area approximately 45 kilometers away from the city for a period of between 2 to 14 weeks. The volunteers were required to refrain from using all kind of drugs or chemicals and eating Formula 2 food as set forth by the International Un Punto Macrobiotico Foundation, Italy while participating in all camp activities. RESULTS: The findings at the end of the program together with QOL assessment questionnaires noted a statistically significant reduction in blood sugar levels, weight, blood pressure and heart beat ratios. Subjects were in significantly better health, more vibrant, more peaceful, and more energetic. The 4 insulin treated volunteers managed to maintain their blood sugar level within the range of 110-171 mg% without any insulin injection and all volunteers are free of any adverse events. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study can be a guideline in the modification of health care policies that can lead to the development of effective, and alternative care of diabetes mellitus patients.

[Shepard]

I see so you don't support either low fat or low carb theories? Anyway, what do you think of the following study I found in pubmed?

As I've said, I think the evidence is pretty substantial that low-carb diets are great for health for the general population. I just don't think carbohydrates cause obesity the way most low-carb people say they do. Maybe over the long term from other types of damage that lead to metabolic derangement, but it's still a energy equation.

If carbs cause disease then why did the health of diabetes patients improve when they went on a macrobiotic diet (high carb (whole grains) diet)?

While a slightly odd abstract, it still doesn't tell us much since there is no mention of previous diet or energy content of the diet.

[Dmitri]

I see so you don't support either low fat or low carb theories? Anyway, what do you think of the following study I found in pubmed?

As I've said, I think the evidence is pretty substantial that low-carb diets are great for health for the general population. I just don't think carbohydrates cause obesity the way most low-carb people say they do. Maybe over the long term from other types of damage that lead to metabolic derangement, but it's still a energy equation.

If carbs cause disease then why did the health of diabetes patients improve when they went on a macrobiotic diet (high carb (whole grains) diet)?

While a slightly odd abstract, it still doesn't tell us much since there is no mention of previous diet or energy content of the diet.

I see

Here's another study that mentions an MC diet can help women with breast cancer.

Adjuvant diet to improve hormonal and metabolic factors affecting breast cancer prognosis.
Berrino F, Villarini A, De Petris M, Raimondi M, Pasanisi P.Department of Preventive and Predictive Medicine, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Venezian, 1, 20133, Milan, Italy. berrino@istitutotumori.mi.it

Western lifestyle, characterized by reduced physical activity and a diet rich in fat, refined carbohydrates, and animal protein is associated with high prevalence of overweight, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and high plasma levels of several growth factors and sex hormones. Most of these factors are associated with breast cancer risk and, in breast cancer patients, with increased risk of recurrences. Recent trials have proven that such a metabolic and endocrine imbalance can be favorably modified through comprehensive dietary modification, shifting from Western to Mediterranean and macrobiotic diet.

Once more we read that a high carb diet can improve health, yet these ketogenic people claim carbs are the cause of disease, it doesn't make sense to me. The abstract does mention refined carbs being bad, but nutritionists and doctors recommend whole grain carbs not refined, so I don't understand why ketogenics have a problem with them as well.

[Shepard]

I honestly don't know why such a distinction is made between refined carbohydrates and non-refined carbohydrates when you're worried about glucose/insulin. But, such is the world.

Without looking at those "recent trials", there is still no way to determine what that statement means. Take the Zone diet, for instance. Some people rave about how being in this magic Zone-ish region of 40/30/30 with your set blocks leads to all this fat loss and improvements in health. Then you calculate the blocks and see that it's a fairly strong caloric restriction diet. Now, which would you say is the important factor? The Zone or the caloric restriction?

[Dmitri]

I honestly don't know why such a distinction is made between refined carbohydrates and non-refined carbohydrates when you're worried about glucose/insulin. But, such is the world.

Without looking at those "recent trials", there is still no way to determine what that statement means. Take the Zone diet, for instance. Some people rave about how being in this magic Zone-ish region of 40/30/30 with your set blocks leads to all this fat loss and improvements in health. Then you calculate the blocks and see that it's a fairly strong caloric restriction diet. Now, which would you say is the important factor? The Zone or the caloric restriction?

They're different because as the previous article mentioned when a carb is refined it's nutritious content which improves health is removed (those that can reduce cholesterol, reduce risk of diabetes, cancer and heart disease). However, I see your point about ketogenics not making the distinction because they're worried about glucose/insulin. I'll see if I can find the complete articles using my university password, and I'll post exactly what the studies consisted of so we can see the diet regimens (that's if I'm able to open the complete articles).

For your second question I suppose the results are achieved by CR.

Edited by Dmitri, 11 October 2008 - 04:17 AM.

[DukeNukem]

I honestly don't know why such a distinction is made between refined carbohydrates and non-refined carbohydrates when you're worried about glucose/insulin. But, such is the world.

Carbs are carbs, yes.

But, this simple view ignores the reality that most carbs being consumed nowadays, versus a few hundred years ago, are low-water-content, low-nutrition, low-fiber carbs. The water-content makes a huge difference, because high water-content carbs (like green leafy veggies -- 95% water) are filling, without really being all that carb heavy. Pasta and other processed carbs are a startling 5-10 times more carb concentrated per volume. All carbs turn to sugar, so in effect the processed food people eat nowadays is that much more sugar packed, versus the whole food (natural) carbs we evolved eating.

[DukeNukem]

Can someone please explain to me why so many researchers and dietary "experts" refuse to finger sugar as the main culprit in a host of problems related to obesity?

80% of all people are below average, including doctors and nutritionists.

Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are on a high carb diet (macrobiotic diet; 50-60% of what they eat in a day consists of whole grains) so why are they so thin if sugar/carbs are the cause of obesity?

They work they're asses off with personal trainers and a reduced calorie diet. Plus, Paltrow smokes, and that's the greatest weight control drug known the man. Still, they'd be better off with a higher fat, higher protein diet. They're making life difficult for themselves with all of those carbs.

I also consume a lot of whole grains and I'm not fat and I don't exercise as much as Madonna (I only exercise about 1 hour a day). I believe the reason some people are fat is because they consume too many processed foods and fried foods, I don't think it has anything to do with whole grains.

The type of carbs you eat make a huge difference, as well as what other foods you're eating, including fats and proteins. Getting it right isn't nearly as simple as just avoiding carbs. Whole grain carbs are much less likely to make you fat than processed carbs, because they're more filling and you're likely to eat less.

[Shepard]

But, this simple view ignores the reality that most carbs being consumed nowadays, versus a few hundred years ago, are low-water-content, low-nutrition, low-fiber carbs. The water-content makes a huge difference, because high water-content carbs (like green leafy veggies -- 95% water) are filling, without really being all that carb heavy. Pasta and other processed carbs are a startling 5-10 times more carb concentrated per volume. All carbs turn to sugar, so in effect the processed food people eat nowadays is that much more sugar packed, versus the whole food (natural) carbs we evolved eating.

Certainly, I'm referring to this strictly from a numbers situation without the other various factors that influence overall intake.

[Dmitri]

Can someone please explain to me why so many researchers and dietary "experts" refuse to finger sugar as the main culprit in a host of problems related to obesity?

80% of all people are below average, including doctors and nutritionists.

Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are on a high carb diet (macrobiotic diet; 50-60% of what they eat in a day consists of whole grains) so why are they so thin if sugar/carbs are the cause of obesity?

They work they're asses off with personal trainers and a reduced calorie diet. Plus, Paltrow smokes, and that's the greatest weight control drug known the man. Still, they'd be better off with a higher fat, higher protein diet. They're making life difficult for themselves with all of those carbs.

I also consume a lot of whole grains and I'm not fat and I don't exercise as much as Madonna (I only exercise about 1 hour a day). I believe the reason some people are fat is because they consume too many processed foods and fried foods, I don't think it has anything to do with whole grains.

The type of carbs you eat make a huge difference, as well as what other foods you're eating, including fats and proteins. Getting it right isn't nearly as simple as just avoiding carbs. Whole grain carbs are much less likely to make you fat than processed carbs, because they're more filling and you're likely to eat less.

I see, so you have nothing against whole grains it's merely the processed/refined carbs (which most people today consume).

In case your interested my new diet consists mainly of the following:

Whole Grains: (daily)
-Rolled Oats (Oatmeal)
-Brown Rice
-Corn
-Whole Wheat or Whole Rye Bread
-100 % multi-grain waffles (made from oats, barley, buckwheat, wheat, wheat berries) they're dairy, egg and preservative free
-Rice Milk (made from brown rice)
-Spaghetti (only once a week)

Other carbs:
-Pinto Beans (almost everyday)
-Tortilla (made from corn) once or twice a week

Fruits
-Banana (daily)
-Strawberries (daILY)
-Wild Blueberries (daily)
-Apples (once a week)
-peaches (once a week)

Vegetables (daily)

-Carrots
-Peas
-broccoli
-cauliflower
-Spinach
-Tomato

The only meat I eat every week is Fish and seafood (octopus, shrimp, snails, oysters, etc); as for red meat about once or twice a month

My diet is low in fat which is likely the reason why I'm not fat.

[pobuoy]

My diet is low in fat which is likely the reason why I'm not fat.

Rephrase plz, this is a thread about ketogenic diets

Edited by pobuoy, 12 October 2008 - 03:21 AM.