230 replies to this topic

[AstralStorm]

The gram/*target* kg value seems to be more useful than percentage considering all the low calorie diets...
So, what's the right value? Is it supposed to be scaled to age? (yeah, I know the RDA)

[Ace of Zardoz]

The gram/*target* kg value seems to be more useful than percentage considering all the low calorie diets...
So, what's the right value? Is it supposed to be scaled to age? (yeah, I know the RDA)

Age does not change protein requirements. Its weight based.

The right values have been mentioned many times in prior posts.

[Sillewater]

....
If you look at the article that I linked from Carbsanity, wouldn't you agree that when someone read a text, and in some part of that text there argument is being nullified and they simply ignore it, they consciously choose to be biased, selectire, and narrow-minded? He use a paragraph from the text as being definitive when in the paragraph right under his own thesis is being proven wrong, yet he ignored that completly.

I don't know. At the end of the paragraph this is what it states:

Nonetheless, it must be emphasized that a marked decrease in the concentration of glycerol phosphate could limit the rate of esterification and therefore variations in its concentration must always remain a potential mechanism of control.

From the reading of the entire paragraph the author raises possibilities for fat to become esterified beyond the use of glycerol phosphate but it seems that at the time the consensus is that it is limiting (or at least is a large contributor). Just because there are other pathways does not mean that physiologically we utilize them normally. Anyways, I am in no way educated enough in this whole glyceroneogenesis pathway and what not to discuss it. Maybe in a couple months when my exams are over (definitely reading the posts over at CarbInsanity).

@AstralStorm

The gram/*target* kg value seems to be more useful than percentage considering all the low calorie diets...
So, what's the right value? Is it supposed to be scaled to age? (yeah, I know the RDA)

Well from the Elango paper:

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 Jan;13(1):52-7.Evidence that protein requirements have been significantly underestimated.Elango R, Humayun MA, Ball RO, Pencharz PB.

They use a model that has two phases instead of the linear one used by the IOM to set RDA (the linear model underestimates protein intake, because in reality protein utilization is two phases, it plateaus as we reach sufficiency). They also use a new technique known as the Indicator Amino Acid Oxidation Test. Basically the idea is that since amino acids aren't stored in the body, if they aren't being utilized to form proteins then they are being oxidized. There are amino acids we require, such as lysine and tryptophan. The idea is that if one of them is low, then the other will be oxidized and we keep increasing the intake of the other amino acid and when the oxidation stops then we know we have adequate nitrogen balance.

Protein intake for bone health is probably higher than RDA (at least in older folks, I don't agree that age does not change protein requirements):

Aging health. 2010 Jun 1;6(3):345-357.Optimizing bone health in older adults: the importance of dietary protein.Surdykowski AK, Kenny AM, Insogna KL, Kerstetter JE.

... A moderate increase in dietary protein recommendations for the aging population (above the recommended dietary allowance of 0.8 g/kg) may be beneficial to bone health, while still falling within the safe and acceptable range for protein intake (as defined by the dietary reference intakes).

But the benefit to the bones may be due to the higher IGF-1 levels achieved (which could cause one to age faster, as shown by the lower IGF-1 signalling of CR-folk, and GHRKO mice, and etc...).

For a very recent review here one:

J Bone Miner Metab. 2010 Oct 26. [Epub ahead of print]The interaction between dietary protein and bone health.Jesudason D, Clifton P

.

Anyways, currently I keep my protein intake on the low side. I meet the RDA (0.8g/kg) with complete protein (e.g. non-plant sources) then fill up the rest with plant protein up to 1.2g/kg. I'll have to study it more (I may have a chance to work with Dr. Elango) but this is what I am doing right now. Since I lift weight (deadlifts, squats, overhead press, etc...) in my experience I need the extra protein to recover properly. (I'll probably see better progress with 25g of whey protein powder after my workouts, but why is very high in leucine [activates mTOR]).

Edit: Fix formatting, I use google chrome and everytime I post it adds in extra spaces between paragraphs. Anyone know what is wrong?

Edited by Sillewater, 14 December 2010 - 05:17 AM.

[oehaut]

It is based on years of research and studies and I stand firm on this as many studies contraindict the study provided. Lets say this study is correct even. What are the benefits of reduced kidney function and higher methionine/homocysteine levels? None. High protein diets even if they dont contribute to kidney disease, do contribute to many other health issues including cardiovascular disease. I however disagree entirely with the notion that high protein diets are harmless based on my years of research and the studies Ive reviewed suggesting the opposite idea.

Many studies show that higher protein diets reduce kidney function and that subjects have a higher risk of heart and kidney disease on a higher protein diet. It may not directly cause it but my research suggests it is indeed a contributing factor and a strong risk factor. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Well, after years of research you certainly must have solid scientific evidence of what you claim? Kind of weird that someone would say that he studied that subject for years, read X numbers of studies, and can't post a revelant one. Please provide those studies that contradict the above one, in the healthy. I've reviewed many studies myself on that subject, and some other much more competent people than I did also, and we all come to the conclusion that high-protein diet are probably not detrimental to kidney health, as far as scientific litterature is concern.

I'll leave you with this from Lyle McDonald.

Protein Controversies

Kidney function

A common criticism of high protein intakes/diets is the concern that they are damaging to the kidneys. This belief seems to stem from the fact that, in individuals with preexisting kidney damage, protein intake often has to be reduced to prevent further development of the disease. Incorrectly, this has been turned around to suggest that high-protein intakes are damaging to the kidneys (1).

There is at best a weak case to be made for a risk of high protein intakes on kidney function; quite in fact, some research suggesting a beneficial effect of higher protein intakes on kidney function (2). Simply put, the adaptations to kidney function that are often cited as indicating ‘strain’ or damage are more likely to simply be normal adaptive effects of varying protein intake (1).

Unfortunately, very little research has directly examined the impact of high protein intakes on kidney function in athletes. One study examined the impact of 2.8 g/kg protein on the kidney function of bodybuilders, no negative effect was seen (3). To my knowledge, higher intakes have not been studied.

Empirically, it’s worth considering that athletes have been habitually consuming large amounts of protein for at least several decades without any reported increase in the incidence of kidney problems. If such a problem were going to occur, it seems likely that it would have shown up by now. While this certainly doesn’t prove that high protein intakes aren’t potentially detrimental to kidney function, the data in support of that idea would seem to be lacking both from a scientific and real-world point of view.

Interestingly, while it’s always been stated that high dietary protein intakes increases fluid requirements, this idea appears to have originated from a military study examining nitrogen balance under conditions of water and energy restriction (1). There is no indication that individuals who are sufficiently hydrated need to go out of their way to increase fluid intake when they are consuming large amounts of protein.

Edited by oehaut, 14 December 2010 - 04:07 PM.

[Mind]

I was reading a recent news item and couldn't help but think of this old super thread started by Duke a few years ago.

The Danish government is taxing fat, with a particular ire for saturated fat - even though very large long term population studies in other Scandinavian countries show clearly that people who consume full fat dairy products are thinner than people who consume the low fat or no fat versions. It is amazing how ingrained the Ornish zealotry against fat is, even as the world suffers from simple-carb obesity.

Children who consume full fat milk are thinner.

Women who consume full fat dairy products are thinner.

[JChief]

i thought most american were fat because they ate insane amounts of animal meat + carbs, not just cuz of carbs themselves. i've yet to see a 'fat ass' vegetarian who lives on rice, lentils or carbs + veggies, etc.

Prince Fielder, vegetarian, 5'11", 270 pounds! Just think how heavy he would be if he didn't play professional baseball. I would say most vegetarians are in good shape wrt BMI, but I personally know a few that are definitely overweight.

One too many potatoes eh? Perhaps french fries

[Mind]

Mouse study (to be taken with a grain of salt). Not only do you lose your big carb-ass by not eating hi-GI carbs but you could also save your eyesight.

Feeding older mice a lower glycemic index (GI) diet consisting of slowly-digested carbohydrates delays the onset of age-related, sight-threatening retinal lesions, according to a new study from the Laboratory for Nutrition and Vision Research at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging (USDA HNRCA) at Tufts University.
The researchers studied middle-aged and older mice that consumed either a higher or lower GI diet. Mice fed the lower GI diet developed fewer and less-severe age-related lesions in the retina than the mice fed the higher GI diet. The lesions included basal laminar deposits, which typically develop after age 60 in the human retina and are the earliest warning sign of Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD).

[TheKidInside]

You are correct oehaut, in that people have different genetics, lifestyles, tastes, what-not and that this will affect what type of diet is best for them, but Duke is correct that in the U.S. carb consumption is out of control. There is also a very well-entrenched idea that fat, any fat, all fat, is bad bad bad and should be avoided at all costs. This dietary advice was developed over the course of 30 or 40 years and has led to an appalling selection of food in the typical grocery store. 1 example, it is extremely difficult to find yogurt with fat. All the non-fat "healthy" varieties are over-loaded with sugar and other crap. Americans are overweight and obese and based on substantial evidence it is primarily from too many carbs, however too many calories in total (as you mention) is not far behind on the list.

KILLED it!

another thing I wanna add is that carbs are simply the primary source of energy for the body meaning your body goes for "carbs" in the system (over simplifying it I know) but that doesn't mean it's the best.

also, most people are leading VERY sedentary lifestyle and simply have no need for that amount of carbs you're consuming, you just do NOT need that much...

another thing I wanna add is that also sugar is the enemy but that's for the Sugar: A bitter Truth thread and on top of that is the biggest problem with the US politics in general is the following

They hold true that the population sees them always right and always doing the right thing for the people...this ILLUSION is being fought to the dying breath and hence, the government simply cannot allow themselves to admit they are or were ever WRONG...

[hivemind]

If so, then tell me, why this guy is so lean?

Edited by hivemind, 22 December 2011 - 08:32 PM.

[niner]

If so, then tell me, why this guy is so lean?

Because he's young and he doesn't eat too many calories? The way he's eating today may not work out so well when he's forty five or fifty.

Edited by niner, 22 December 2011 - 09:36 PM.

[Shepard]

Because he's young and he doesn't eat too many calories? The way he's eating today may not work out so well when he's forty five or fifty.

I'm fairly sure Tim Van Orden, the Running Raw guy, is in his forties. He's still quite un-fat, but he has recently been posting videos about his severe depression. Correlation, yet one can't help but hypothesize...

Regardless, yeah, it's the Calories and partitioning.

[rwac]

I'm fairly sure Tim Van Orden, the Running Raw guy, is in his forties. He's still quite un-fat, but he has recently been posting videos about his severe depression. Correlation, yet one can't help but hypothesize...

It's more likely to be due to the absence of animal products and the stress due to running, than the excess fructose...

[Shepard]

It's more likely to be due to the absence of animal products and the stress due to running, than the excess fructose...

Certainly, I didn't intend to imply that I think fructose is the culprit.

I don't necessarily think that it's due to the lack of animal products or some inherent risk from running, either.

Edited by Shepard, 22 December 2011 - 11:21 PM.

[TheKidInside]

If so, then tell me, why this guy is so lean?

Because he's young and he doesn't eat too many calories? The way he's eating today may not work out so well when he's forty five or fifty.

precisely....

people seem to all debate nutrition same as strength and conditioning and people forget the NUMBER ONE MOST IMPORTANT CONCEPT: GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALS

if your goal is to lose weight FAST. I can recommend you to Lyle McDonald's mPSMF but that's not something I would recommend, if you wanna be an athlete and consume all the carbs you want, great, just know that it won't last and by the time you get up there in age, the addiction you've built to all the hybridized wheat over the years will be difficult to shake and catch up with you...it goes on and on and on.

30 bananas a day is just as idiotic as 30 twinkies a day...well not quiet but it's CLOSE.

JERF = just eat real food

[hivemind]

If so, then tell me, why this guy is so lean?

Because he's young and he doesn't eat too many calories? The way he's eating today may not work out so well when he's forty five or fifty.

He is 34 and eats a lot of calories.

[Esoparagon]

Forget fat-ass, my new term for overweight people is carb-ass. Because you get fat by eating carbs.

Basically, fat--especially animal fat--has a bad rap. And it's because we allow our intuition to get the best of us: We get fat, with fat, therefore, fat must be the culprit. But, the reality is much less intuitive: We get fat with fat, because we eat too many carbs.

So, I propose carb-ass in place of fat-ass, so that we lay blame on the right type of food.

They eat too many of the wrong sort of carbs in too large a quantity. They get way too many calories not just carbs. The only other fuel is fat and protein. You want most of your calories to come from carbs in the healthy form. Vegetables and fruits for instance are healthy carbs.

I no longer agree with myself here. Not at all. I agree with DukeNukem.

Edited by Esoparagon, 09 January 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[Werner]

Forget fat-ass, my new term for overweight people is carb-ass. Because you get fat by eating carbs.

Basically, fat--especially animal fat--has a bad rap. And it's because we allow our intuition to get the best of us: We get fat, with fat, therefore, fat must be the culprit. But, the reality is much less intuitive: We get fat with fat, because we eat too many carbs.

So, I propose carb-ass in place of fat-ass, so that we lay blame on the right type of food.

They eat too many of the wrong sort of carbs in too large a quantity. They get way too many calories not just carbs. The only other fuel is fat and protein. You want most of your calories to come from carbs in the healthy form. Vegetables and fruits for instance are healthy carbs.

I no longer agree with myself here. Not at all. I agree with DukeNukem.

The conversion of "bad" carbs into fat cells has a prerequisite: the
exhaustion of some five enzymes like cytochrome p450. This
situation comes along with eating carbs like cakes and sweets.
They destroy these enzymes required to sustain a normal fat and
carb metabolism. Instead, fruits have a lot of these enzymes, so
eating fruits prevents an exhaustion of these important enzymes.

[niner]

The conversion of "bad" carbs into fat cells has a prerequisite: the
exhaustion of some five enzymes like cytochrome p450. This
situation comes along with eating carbs like cakes and sweets.
They destroy these enzymes required to sustain a normal fat and
carb metabolism. Instead, fruits have a lot of these enzymes, so
eating fruits prevents an exhaustion of these important enzymes.

Where did you find this "enzyme hypothesis"? It sounds like Internet nonsense. P450's don't get exhausted, except possibly in rare situations like, umm, eating grapefruit... (which contains a P4503A4 covalent inhibitor)

[Werner]

The conversion of "bad" carbs into fat cells has a prerequisite: the
exhaustion of some five enzymes like cytochrome p450. This
situation comes along with eating carbs like cakes and sweets.
They destroy these enzymes required to sustain a normal fat and
carb metabolism. Instead, fruits have a lot of these enzymes, so
eating fruits prevents an exhaustion of these important enzymes.

Where did you find this "enzyme hypothesis"? It sounds like Internet nonsense. P450's don't get exhausted, except possibly in rare situations like, umm, eating grapefruit... (which contains a P4503A4 covalent inhibitor)

I understand. It is "internet nonesense".
Would you please post your metabolic pathway when people
gain weight by eating carbohydrates.

[Esoparagon]

Forget fat-ass, my new term for overweight people is carb-ass. Because you get fat by eating carbs.

Basically, fat--especially animal fat--has a bad rap. And it's because we allow our intuition to get the best of us: We get fat, with fat, therefore, fat must be the culprit. But, the reality is much less intuitive: We get fat with fat, because we eat too many carbs.

So, I propose carb-ass in place of fat-ass, so that we lay blame on the right type of food.

They eat too many of the wrong sort of carbs in too large a quantity. They get way too many calories not just carbs. The only other fuel is fat and protein. You want most of your calories to come from carbs in the healthy form. Vegetables and fruits for instance are healthy carbs.

I no longer agree with myself here. Not at all. I agree with DukeNukem.

The conversion of "bad" carbs into fat cells has a prerequisite: the
exhaustion of some five enzymes like cytochrome p450. This
situation comes along with eating carbs like cakes and sweets.
They destroy these enzymes required to sustain a normal fat and
carb metabolism. Instead, fruits have a lot of these enzymes, so
eating fruits prevents an exhaustion of these important enzymes.

Cheers. I'm very much on board with the idea that fructose is the worst culprit of all and that perhaps carbohydrates aren't as bad if one never consumes a lot of sugar. I've watched the lecture 'Sugar: The bitter truth' twice. Although, I think that a life time of simply eating carbohydrates catches up with most people and that's why even in countries like Japan and China the elderly suddenly put on a lot of weight and physically decline in the notorious 'Asian Aging Process'. It's clear that Asians eat a lot less sugar. Anyone who's had a Korean friend bring them Korean 'sweets' can tell you that they can hardly be called 'sweets' at all. (They aren't very sweet). We should keep in mind that Asians have a different body frame and are heading towards pathology at a low BMI than Caucasians. For those of us who are probably damaged, I still maintain that a ketogenic diet is probably the best way to lose weight and keep it off. In addition, even if I could stay lean eating carbohydrates, I'd probably still eat this way because of how it makes me feel and because constantly bombarding the body with glucose eventually causes a healthy metabolism to break down. For naturally lean people who can eat carbs and stay lean, I would suggest that their bodies are dealing with the carbs efficiently. Insulin goes up, the fat cells are sensitive to it and post-meal the insulin drops and they start using the fat stores again. Naturally lean people start to find they are no longer naturally lean as they get older. Is it 'their metabolism slowing down'? That's the conventional idea but I don't think so. Any drop in metabolism is due to there simply being less energy available for lean tissue to consume. The body can either burn less or in take more. Invariably people will eat a little more thus the causal chain gets blurred. They are eating more because their body has less energy to burn because it now accumulates more fat in the fat tissue than it releases back for burning. I think their years of eating carbs has caused an accumulation of metabolic damage for these naturally lean which is in modern times exacerbated by the high sugar intake which makes it appear earlier and manifest much more profoundly. It's clear that people aren't just fat more often, they are also simply fatter than ever.

While watching 'Charlie and the Chocolate factory' I noticed something. The portrait of obesity in the 1970s versus nowadays is salient.

The 'fat kid' in the original isn't really all that fat compared to how fat people are these days.

[niner]

The conversion of "bad" carbs into fat cells has a prerequisite: the
exhaustion of some five enzymes like cytochrome p450. This
situation comes along with eating carbs like cakes and sweets.
They destroy these enzymes required to sustain a normal fat and
carb metabolism. Instead, fruits have a lot of these enzymes, so
eating fruits prevents an exhaustion of these important enzymes.

Where did you find this "enzyme hypothesis"? It sounds like Internet nonsense. P450's don't get exhausted, except possibly in rare situations like, umm, eating grapefruit... (which contains a P4503A4 covalent inhibitor)

I understand. It is "internet nonesense".
Would you please post your metabolic pathway when people
gain weight by eating carbohydrates.

We don't know enough about biology to reliably predict outcomes from metabolic pathways. That's why I rail against "mechanistic speculation", i.e., speculating about the way human biology actually behaves on the basis of nothing more than mechanisms (metabolic pathways). It just doesn't work well, and it often leads us to wrong conclusions. If we want to know what happens to people on a particular diet, the best way to find out is to run a randomized controlled trial. Here is such a trial. It shows that people on a very low carb diet lose more weight and obtain better triglycerides and HDL than the group randomized to a low fat diet. That is something that actually happened. It was observed. That is evidence. Mechanisms are just speculation.

[Werner]

The conversion of "bad" carbs into fat cells has a prerequisite: the
exhaustion of some five enzymes like cytochrome p450. This
situation comes along with eating carbs like cakes and sweets.
They destroy these enzymes required to sustain a normal fat and
carb metabolism. Instead, fruits have a lot of these enzymes, so
eating fruits prevents an exhaustion of these important enzymes.

Where did you find this "enzyme hypothesis"? It sounds like Internet nonsense. P450's don't get exhausted, except possibly in rare situations like, umm, eating grapefruit... (which contains a P4503A4 covalent inhibitor)

I understand. It is "internet nonesense".
Would you please post your metabolic pathway when people
gain weight by eating carbohydrates.

We don't know enough about biology to reliably predict outcomes from metabolic pathways. That's why I rail against "mechanistic speculation", i.e., speculating about the way human biology actually behaves on the basis of nothing more than mechanisms (metabolic pathways). It just doesn't work well, and it often leads us to wrong conclusions. If we want to know what happens to people on a particular diet, the best way to find out is to run a randomized controlled trial. Here is such a trial. It shows that people on a very low carb diet lose more weight and obtain better triglycerides and HDL than the group randomized to a low fat diet. That is something that actually happened. It was observed. That is evidence. Mechanisms are just speculation.

I disagree. Without biochemistry and pathways there is no drug
development. Many biochemists work in research departments.
of the pharmaceutical industry. If you study the effect of a drug
you have to know its metabolic pathways. Without that you can
forget it.
And now your trials. As you know it is difficult to get some usable
information from trials with humans as far as nutrition is concerned.
Because you cannot always separate the effects of nutrients, age,
diseases and lifestyle. As you also know there are lots of studies
that deliver contradicting results. The hole study situation is more
than difficult. Always when money is involved things get complicated.

[niner]

We don't know enough about biology to reliably predict outcomes from metabolic pathways. That's why I rail against "mechanistic speculation", i.e., speculating about the way human biology actually behaves on the basis of nothing more than mechanisms (metabolic pathways). It just doesn't work well, and it often leads us to wrong conclusions. If we want to know what happens to people on a particular diet, the best way to find out is to run a randomized controlled trial. Here is such a trial. It shows that people on a very low carb diet lose more weight and obtain better triglycerides and HDL than the group randomized to a low fat diet. That is something that actually happened. It was observed. That is evidence. Mechanisms are just speculation.

I disagree. Without biochemistry and pathways there is no drug
development. Many biochemists work in research departments.
of the pharmaceutical industry. If you study the effect of a drug
you have to know its metabolic pathways. Without that you can
forget it.
And now your trials. As you know it is difficult to get some usable
information from trials with humans as far as nutrition is concerned.
Because you cannot always separate the effects of nutrients, age,
diseases and lifestyle. As you also know there are lots of studies
that deliver contradicting results. The hole study situation is more
than difficult. Always when money is involved things get complicated.

We aren't talking about drug development, we're talking about nutrition. The randomized trial is the best source of information we have. They may not be perfect, but they are pretty good. The kinds of problems that you're talking about are more typical of epidemiology, which is a lot more prone to confounders of the sort you mention. Yes, studies can be contradicting, but a randomized trial is still the best thing we have. Looking at biochemical pathways in isolation is kind of like "proving" something by quoting a passage from the Bible. You can make it say anything you want.

[Luminosity]

Carbs are necessary to have an adequate level of seratonin, which impacts one's temperment.

Consuming no carbs and an excess amount of animal proteins, along with caffiene or other stimulants, could have a bad effect on one's temperment.

There are thousands of years of human history in which the only traditional culture to eat no carbs, Eskimos, had a average lifespan of about forty years. Currently the major country with the highest longevity is Japan. The main food they eat by volume is white rice, a carb. A refined carb. Our ancestors in America and Europe ate plenty of carbs but they were not fat until recently. People in Italy and France eat plenty of carbs but are mostly not overweight. Asians eat plenty of carbs; white rice is their main food, but they are mostly not overweight.

There are theories, and there are things that seem to work in the short term, but in the long term, I there is no reason to believe that eating few or no carbs is healthy. I was on the Atkins diet and I regret that.

Eating too much protein is thought to be hard on the kidneys. Not getting adequate nutrition, like Seratonin and blood sugar,is hard on the brain. We unfortunately live in a sedentary society where unnatural substances like high fructose corn syrup and artificial hormones add to our weight problems. Stress of modern living can bring up cortisol levels which helps fuel overweight, as does dieting, fasting and skipping meals (by creating a lower set point). Bankrupt soils and fast food play a part. Homes where no one has time to cook are another problem. Yeah, we're pretty fat, but most carbs have been around for thousands years without causing significant numbers of people to become overweight. There's ripped people that eat carbs; there's ripped people that don't. One question is, where will the people that don't eat carbs be in twenty years?

Are you going to base your life on a theory that seems to be working for now, or on thousands of years of human history?

[rwac]

There are thousands of years of human history in which the only traditional culture to eat no carbs, Eskimos, had a average lifespan of about forty years.

The other potential problem is that Eskimos get a lot of Omega-3, and lipid peroxidation is also a problem in the long term.

[Werner]

We don't know enough about biology to reliably predict outcomes from metabolic pathways. That's why I rail against "mechanistic speculation", i.e., speculating about the way human biology actually behaves on the basis of nothing more than mechanisms (metabolic pathways). It just doesn't work well, and it often leads us to wrong conclusions. If we want to know what happens to people on a particular diet, the best way to find out is to run a randomized controlled trial. Here is such a trial. It shows that people on a very low carb diet lose more weight and obtain better triglycerides and HDL than the group randomized to a low fat diet. That is something that actually happened. It was observed. That is evidence. Mechanisms are just speculation.

I disagree. Without biochemistry and pathways there is no drug
development. Many biochemists work in research departments.
of the pharmaceutical industry. If you study the effect of a drug
you have to know its metabolic pathways. Without that you can
forget it.
And now your trials. As you know it is difficult to get some usable
information from trials with humans as far as nutrition is concerned.
Because you cannot always separate the effects of nutrients, age,
diseases and lifestyle. As you also know there are lots of studies
that deliver contradicting results. The hole study situation is more
than difficult. Always when money is involved things get complicated.

We aren't talking about drug development, we're talking about nutrition. The randomized trial is the best source of information we have. They may not be perfect, but they are pretty good. The kinds of problems that you're talking about are more typical of epidemiology, which is a lot more prone to confounders of the sort you mention. Yes, studies can be contradicting, but a randomized trial is still the best thing we have. Looking at biochemical pathways in isolation is kind of like "proving" something by quoting a passage from the Bible. You can make it say anything you want.

OK, lets fire all biochemists that are working in the NUTRITION and
drug industry. ;-)
Nutrition and drug development are often connected. Take the
eucosanoid system and cyclooxygenase-2-inhibitors developed
by the industry to treat rheumatoid arthritis. What the industry is
not telling us is that rheumatoid arthritis is coming from bad
nutrition. They prefer to sell us drugs instead. But how could you
develop NSAR drugs without knowing the exact metabolic pathway?
This pathway derives from nutrition.

wikipedia on disadvantages of Randomized trials:
Many papers discuss the disadvantages of RCTs. Among the most frequently-cited drawbacks are:Limitations of external validity, costs, time, difficulty in studying rare events, difficulty in studying
outcomes in distant future, pro-industry findings in industry-funded RCTs, therapeutic misconception,
narrowing of the studied question, statistical error, cultural effects, conflict of interest dangers.

[Werner]

Carbs are necessary to have an adequate level of seratonin, which impacts one's temperment.

Consuming no carbs and an excess amount of animal proteins, along with caffiene or other stimulants, could have a bad effect on one's temperment.

There are thousands of years of human history in which the only traditional culture to eat no carbs, Eskimos, had a average lifespan of about forty years. Currently the major country with the highest longevity is Japan. The main food they eat by volume is white rice, a carb. A refined carb. Our ancestors in America and Europe ate plenty of carbs but they were not fat until recently. People in Italy and France eat plenty of carbs but are mostly not overweight. Asians eat plenty of carbs; white rice is their main food, but they are mostly not overweight.

There are theories, and there are things that seem to work in the short term, but in the long term, I there is no reason to believe that eating few or no carbs is healthy. I was on the Atkins diet and I regret that.

Eating too much protein is thought to be hard on the kidneys. Not getting adequate nutrition, like Seratonin and blood sugar,is hard on the brain. We unfortunately live in a sedentary society where unnatural substances like high fructose corn syrup and artificial hormones add to our weight problems. Stress of modern living can bring up cortisol levels which helps fuel overweight, as does dieting, fasting and skipping meals (by creating a lower set point). Bankrupt soils and fast food play a part. Homes where no one has time to cook are another problem. Yeah, we're pretty fat, but most carbs have been around for thousands years without causing significant numbers of people to become overweight. There's ripped people that eat carbs; there's ripped people that don't. One question is, where will the people that don't eat carbs be in twenty years?

Are you going to base your life on a theory that seems to be working for now, or on thousands of years of human history?

There is no question that you need carbs. But the right carbs, not
the wrong ones. Right carbs = fruits, wrong carbs = cakes.
Today my newspaper writes that Bill Clinton as president ate six
schnitzels a day and that he had a heart attack. Today he would
almost only eat fruits and veggies.

[idquest]

There is no question that you need carbs. But the right carbs, not
the wrong ones. Right carbs = fruits, wrong carbs = cakes.
Today my newspaper writes that Bill Clinton as president ate six
schnitzels a day and that he had a heart attack. Today he would
almost only eat fruits and veggies.

Hehe, the problem is that everybody has their own ideas of what the right carbs are. All (no exaggeration) my co-workers are convinced that sweet fruit juices are the healthiest drinks and consume them by litres a day and feed their children with them. I personally don't think that modern fruit are such good carbs at all and try to minimize their consumption. I'd agree with Luminosity that we have too little evidence/facts supporting high protein/high fat/low-to-zero-carbs diet. Long term effects of this diet are still unclear. And I'm not even talking about soil depletion and tap water demineralization that contribute to poor nutrition.

[DukeNukem]

There is no question that you need carbs. But the right carbs, not
the wrong ones. Right carbs = fruits, wrong carbs = cakes.

Carbs are carbs are carbs. All carbs are basically poly-glucose chains, or fiber.

What we really mean by "good carbs" are nutrient dense/water-dense plant foods, like salad-type carbs. There's actually very little carb content in these foods, typically less than 5-8% of total weight by volume. Really, we're eating water and fiber mostly with most of these so-called good carbs. And that's why they're good--carb content is minimal (and they often have meaningful nutrient value -- but so do bad "carbs" like most large fruits).

ALL carbs are pro-aging, because glucose is pro-aging. So, I only consider plant foods worthy of eating only if the nutrient value exceeds the negative inflammation, insulin-release (insulin itself is pro-aging), and glycation damage--purely subjective, I know. For example, I consider potatoes a net-negative (too little nutritional value versus the pro-aging effects). I do cheat with potatoes occasionally, but I do consider it a cheat.

Edited by DukeNukem, 12 January 2012 - 06:44 AM.

[Lufega]

I have a big 'ol mango tree in my yard. It was very productive in the 2011 season. I'm still dubious about labeling fruits as bad carbs. This new article at ergo-log put me at ease though and they make their position clear. Fruits are not the devils people want to make them out to be. In this article, they found that eating mangos reduced blood sugar concentration by increases levels of adiponectin. This is ideal for Diabetics and it's used in Africa as a traditional treatment for it. This makes me feel better about my 10+ mango a day binge when in season.

Mango: load up with carbs and reduce fat at the same time

Edited by Lufega, 12 January 2012 - 03:54 PM.