125 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

I stand corrected on the first aspect of what you said. However, hebbeh has also tried to bring up my own personal life as an example when he knows nothing about it. Either way, let's keep it civilized instead of playing favorites?

Quite frankly fountain, I've only commented on what you've posted. I haven't made any assumptions or pried into anybody’s personal life beyond what they have chosen to share. You ask for input on numerous topics and then don't like the answers. If you don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up. It would seem you are the one taking it off topic and making unfounded personal attacks.

And as a side note, misterE has repeatedly continued to repeated false information in regards to fructose and dietary fat even though corrected and repeatedly proven wrong with references in previous threads....this isn't opinion...it is scientific fact. Most posters are at least open minded enough to learn from their misunderstanding rather than having a personal agenda and as such, It is becoming tedious at best. And ignoring this misinformation is what allows internet misinformation to become "internet fact".

What you do is get ad hominem and start insulting people. Telling me I look like "a kid" was intended as one such insult when I made it clear that being a body builder is not my goal. How would you like it if someone said you looked like an old man? Furthermore, would it be necessary within the context of the conversation? Your statement was not necessary within the context of when I provided the picture. I was providing the picture to contest Duke's view that eating a lot of carbs caused abdominal fat gain. What you said had nothing to do with that context.

To be quite honest, I'm not sure why you chose to post a pic posing as such. I saw that as a little bizarre. And you came off (not very well) as trying to be vain (look at my abs) and I called it as such ...it was funny, quite frankly. Many people can eat a crappy fast food diet through their teens and twenties and appear lean if they have a good metabolism...but check back when 35 or 40 and see how those extra calories are treating you...so being skinny at 19 or 20 doesn't prove health. EXCESS carbs can be stored as visceral fat and won't be visible anyway. Leanness ultimately comes down to caloric balance....excess calories of any macro nutrient will be stored. Carbs can be worse because they can digest faster and your metabolism has to clear them from your blood...thus excess insulin and stored as visceral fat....but this only happens when eating in excess of caloric balance. Some are cherry picking and taking "studies" out of contest in an attempt to support their preconceived opinions and not looking at the complete picture. There is a reason for the phrase repeated throughout history of "all things in moderation" which is probably the best course for longevity.

First of all, I am not 19 or 20. I am almost 30. Even if this seems still to you to be a 'kid'. There has been plenty of time elapse into my adult life for me to test all avenues of metabolism as relating to different diets. I have plenty of friends who don't measure macronutrients, eat plenty of meat, white flour carbs, all kinds of fat, and yes they are overweight. At this point what portion of that is calories vs macronutrient rationing is a question mark. But be reminded that there are times when I eat plenty of carbs and do not gain any abdominal fat. Certain carbs? Perhaps. But healthy carbs in the form of natural starches as MisterE suggests? Not as far as I know. But I HAVE gained excess fat eating too much coconut milk/oil and things like that. is it because fatty foods are more calorie dense? I don't know. Who does? All any of us can do is have a "all other things being equal" attitude. As in "all other things being equal, a little sweet potato, natural peanut butter, cashews and fructose isn't gonna destroy our health". But I do think too much of any one thing is probably a bad idea.

Edited by TheFountain, 06 September 2012 - 03:09 AM.

[Hebbeh]

As in "all other things being equal, a little sweet potato, natural peanut butter, cashews and fructose isn't gonna destroy our health". But I do think too much of any one thing is probably a bad idea.

I agree 100%. We are on the same page there.

And you are aging well if 30....congrats on that.

[platypus]

Whole-grains and potatoes have played a vital role in the development of civilization. Simply put, if humans didn’t harvest and capitalize on the value and potential of grains… there would be no cilivization and we wouldn’t be here having this discussion. Potatoes are the staple-food in South-America and the population of Ireland doubled when the potato was introduced to their culture. The Irish depended so much on the potato that when the crop failed, millions of people died as a result of starvation, this event was called the Irish Potato Famine.

Whole-grains and potatoes have supplied the major source of calories to every part of the world. Corn in North America, potatoes in South America, wheat in Europe, millet in Africa, Barley in the Middle-East, and rice in Asia. Only recently (in the last 100 years) have humans had so much access to rich foods (meat, dairy, sugar, processed-foods, etc). It is the rich mans food that causes disease. Obesity, heart-disease, diabetes, cancer, gout, tooth-decay, were all disease reserved for the wealthy, rich aristocrats and royalty, who could afford to eat such delicacies daily, as a result they developed diseases of affluence. The common person ate grains and vegetables and labored all day in the sun.

It's true that grains and potatoes are the staple-foods that made it possible to feed the masses. However, this does not make them "perfect" foods for us, it's just that the reality is that there's not enough game meat out there for large number of people. One might argue that the invention of agriculture is responsible for the population explosion and the conversion of pristine ecosystems into almost monocultural agricultural land.

Watch this great lecture, it's useful to learn what our ancestors mostly ate (it was not a vegan diet):

https://www.youtube....h?v=5dw1MuD9EP4

Edited by platypus, 06 September 2012 - 06:42 AM.

[misterE]

Low carb seems to have plenty of evidence for disease control

There is no evidence that it can reverse atherosclerosis, unlike the Ornish or Esselstyn diets. Heart-disease is the number one killer of people in general... so to follow a diet that hasn't been shown to reverse heart-disease is really risky. The Ornish and Esselstyn diets have been shown to reverse atherosclerosis, and their diets are based on whole-grains. Ornish has even shown that the diet also reverses prostate-cancer.

By reducing carbohydrate in the diet, the percentage of fat and protein increases. High-fat diets are shown to cause insulin-resistance, increase cholesterol, increase estrogen, promote many cancers and since fat is calorically-dense, weight-gain. High-protein diets may shorten longevity by increasing IGF-1, lowering SHBG, promoting various cancers and accelerating osteoporosis.

Low-carb diets put an emphasis on animal-foods. Most animal-foods are contaminated with dioxins and other environmental-contaminates, which are shown to be carcinogenic.

White potatoes, cooked, are higher on the glycemic index than Fruit Roll ups

That is probably because potatoes have more glucose than Fruit Roll Ups, which are mostly fructose-based. The glycemic-index (GI) marks how fast a food is broken down into glucose. Foods that are low or deficient in glucose, like fish or chicken, obviously won't breakdown into glucose, so there fore they are considered low-GI.

But we shouldn't base our diets on the GI. For instance, if you were to eat low-GI, you would be better off eating a stick of butter than a carrot. You would be better off eating table-sugar than a baked potato. Plus cultures that eat high-GI diets like the Asians eating white-rice (a refined carb) do much better than us (Americans) eating low-GI meats, in terms of health and longevity.

Saturated-fat and fructose are both low-GI, but are notorious for causing insulin-resistance. Whole-grains, which are higher GI than meat, cheese and sugar, are known for their insulin-sensitizing effects.

The glycemic index is a poor way of choosing which foods to eat and which foods to avoid.

[zorba990]

Low carb seems to have plenty of evidence for disease control

There is no evidence that it can reverse atherosclerosis, unlike the Ornish or Esselstyn diets. Heart-disease is the number one killer of people in general... so to follow a diet that hasn't been shown to reverse heart-disease is really risky. The Ornish and Esselstyn diets have been shown to reverse atherosclerosis, and their diets are based on whole-grains. Ornish has even shown that the diet also reverses prostate-cancer.

By reducing carbohydrate in the diet, the percentage of fat and protein increases. High-fat diets are shown to cause insulin-resistance, increase cholesterol, increase estrogen, promote many cancers and since fat is calorically-dense, weight-gain. High-protein diets may shorten longevity by increasing IGF-1, lowering SHBG, promoting various cancers and accelerating osteoporosis.

Low-carb diets put an emphasis on animal-foods. Most animal-foods are contaminated with dioxins and other environmental-contaminates, which are shown to be carcinogenic.

White potatoes, cooked, are higher on the glycemic index than Fruit Roll ups

That is probably because potatoes have more glucose than Fruit Roll Ups, which are mostly fructose-based. The glycemic-index (GI) marks how fast a food is broken down into glucose. Foods that are low or deficient in glucose, like fish or chicken, obviously won't breakdown into glucose, so there fore they are considered low-GI.

But we shouldn't base our diets on the GI. For instance, if you were to eat low-GI, you would be better off eating a stick of butter than a carrot. You would be better off eating table-sugar than a baked potato. Plus cultures that eat high-GI diets like the Asians eating white-rice (a refined carb) do much better than us (Americans) eating low-GI meats, in terms of health and longevity.

Saturated-fat and fructose are both low-GI, but are notorious for causing insulin-resistance. Whole-grains, which are higher GI than meat, cheese and sugar, are known for their insulin-sensitizing effects.

The glycemic index is a poor way of choosing which foods to eat and which foods to avoid.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I'll never go back to grains. Especially with the continued introduction of GMOs. Pesticide corn anyone?
http://en.wikipedia...._modified_maize
Whatever adaptation we might have made towards grains, we have no adaptation towards THAT.

I don't have atherosclerosis so I don't need to reverse it. I believe its more related to vitamin C deficiency, sedentary lifestyle, and metal toxicities than clean meat intake. I don't plug up my liver (detoxification pathway) with ridiculous pharmaceuticals or low fat diets. I don't eat grain fed meat (grains, by the way, used to make cattle and pigs fat because it works well for that).

http://www.themeatrix.com

Glycemic index is a great tool for types that tend towards type II diabetes. I don't believe in the 'keep igf-1 low' hypothesis. I'd prefer to keep insulin levels low, and keep my pancreas healthy with glucagon and not subject my self to the risks associated with muscle and other tissue and possibly organ wasting.

Each person has to find the diet that is right for them. But, in general, I say go for the least processed (nature's package) option regardless of what types of foods you eat. And it's ok to be hungry once in a while! (Mild CR). The body needs a rest from food now and then and is designed to move and work for food not sit back and shove it in the cake hole.

[misterE]

EXCESS carbs can be stored as visceral fat and won't be visible anyway. Leanness ultimately comes down to caloric balance....excess calories of any macro nutrient will be stored. Carbs can be worse because they can digest faster and your metabolism has to clear them from your blood...thus excess insulin and stored as visceral fat....but this only happens when eating in excess of caloric balance.

Excess sugar, due to its fructose content can convert into fat because fructose is much more lipogenic than glucose. But replacing complex-carbohydrates (starch) for simple-carbohydrates (sugar) decreases fat synthesis [1] and is much less fattening. I agree that leanness "ultimately comes down to" caloric balance, but fat is over twice as concentrated in calories than starch (9 calories vs 4), and doesn’t have much satiety as starch [2-3], plus dietary-fat is effortless stored in the body [4-6]. So I don’t understand how a high-fat diet is better than a high-starch diet in terms of leanness.

Also insulin doesn't cause you to gain visceral-fat, it causes you to gain subcutaneous-fat (the healthy way to store fat). Lipotoxicity is caused by increased lipolysis and free-fatty-acid (FFA) influx [7-8]. Insulin decreases both lipolysis and FFA's, thus keeping fat locked away in the subcutaneous-regions. Insulin-resistance (a metabolic state where insulin cannot bind to its receptor) causes chronic lipolysis [9], which then releases FFAs into circulation. These FFA's then accumulate in the visceral-region. Insulin has a beneficial role in fat-metabolism (just like it does with glucose-metabolism)… it is when the body becomes unable to register the effects of insulin, when problems start occurring.

Exercise oxidizes these FFA’s (improving insulin-sensitivity) and eating starch will lead to an increase in insulin-secretion, which will inhibit lipolysis, lower FFA’s help redistribute fat from the visceral-region to the subcutaneous-region. This is why low-fat/high-starch diets combined with exercise, are the ideal way to treat metabolic-syndrome [10-20]






[1] Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Apr;67(4):631-9. Human fatty acid synthesis is reduced after the substitution of dietary starch for sugar. Hudgins LC, Seidman CE, Diakun J.

[2] Med Hypotheses. 1986 Jun;20(2):183-97. The unique merits of a low-fat diet for weight control. McCarty MF.

[3] Am J Med. 2002 Dec 30;113 Suppl 9B:41S-46S. Low-fat diets are preferred. Jéquier E, Bray GA.

[4] Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Oct;76(4):750-7. Adipose tissue biomarkers of fatty acid intake. Baylin A, Kabagambe EK, Siles X.

[5] Prog Lipid Res. 2008 Sep;47(5):348-80. Fatty acid composition of adipose tissue and blood in humans and its use as a biomarker of dietary intake. Hodson L, Skeaff CM, Fielding BA.

[6] J Nutr. 2001 Mar;131(3):828-33. Fatty acid composition of adipose tissue and serum lipids are valid biological markers of dairy fat intake in men. Wolk A, Furuheim M, Vessby B.

[7] Endocr J. 2002 Aug;49(4):459-64. Relationship between visceral fat accumulation and anti-lipolytic action of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Kurioka S, Murakami Y, Nishiki M.

[8] Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2004 Oct;(143):9-21. Dysfunctional fat cells, lipotoxicity and type 2 diabetes. DeFronzo RA.

[9] Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Mar;10(2):142-8. Free fatty acids and insulin resistance. Delarue J, Magnan C.

[10] Diabetes Care. 1982 Jul-Aug;5(4):370-4. Response of non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients to an intensive program of diet and exercise. Barnard RJ, Lattimore L, Holly RG.

[11] Diabetes Care. 1983 May-Jun;6(3):268-73. Long-term use of a high-complex-carbohydrate, high-fiber, low-fat diet and exercise in the treatment of NIDDM patients. Barnard RJ, Massey MR, Cherny S.

[12] Am J Cardiol. 1992 Feb 15;69(5):440-4. Role of diet and exercise in the management of hyperinsulinemia and associated atherosclerotic risk factors. Barnard RJ, Ugianskis EJ, Martin DA.

[13] Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2006 Sep;73(3):249-59. Effect of a diet and exercise intervention on oxidative stress, inflammation and monocyte adhesion in diabetic men. Roberts CK, Won D, Pruthi S.

[14] Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Sep;86(3):s889-93. Prostate cancer prevention by nutritional means to alleviate metabolic syndrome. Barnard RJ.

[15] J Appl Physiol. 2006 Dec;101(6):1727-32. Effect of a short-term diet and exercise intervention on inflammatory/anti-inflammatory properties of HDL in overweight/obese men with cardiovascular risk factors. Roberts CK, Ng C, Hama S.

[16] Metabolism. 2006 Jul;55(7):871-8. Effect of a short-term diet and exercise intervention on metabolic syndrome in overweight children. Chen AK, Roberts CK, Barnard RJ.

[17] J Appl Physiol. 2006 May;100(5):1657-65. Effect of a short-term diet and exercise intervention on oxidative stress, inflammation, MMP-9, and monocyte chemotactic activity in men with metabolic syndrome factors. Roberts CK, Won D, Pruthi S.


[18] Recent Results Cancer Res. 2005;166:47-61. Preclinical models relevant to diet, exercise, and cancer risk. Barnard RJ, Aronson WJ.

[19] Hypertension. 2001 May;37(5):1323-8. Reversibility of chronic experimental syndrome X by diet modification. Roberts CK, Vaziri ND, Liang KH.

[20] Sports Med. 1994 Oct;18(4):218-28. Exercise and diet in the prevention and control of the metabolic syndrome. Barnard RJ, Wen SJ.

[misterE]

One might argue that the invention of agriculture is responsible for the population explosion

Many researchers do in fact think that the agricultural-revolution was responsible for the population bloom. And the reason why is becasue that is when humanity began to florish... whole-grains and other starches allowed the human race to thrive. These foods didn't cause disease, for if they did, the population wouldn't have expanded so much. Unfortunanly the meat-based modern diet is causing many health problems for humanity, not just metabolic-syndrome but also reproductive and hormonal disorders [1].

it's useful to learn what our ancestors mostly ate

Nobody knows what humans ate prior to the agricultural-revolution. Researchers have to hypothesize. Loren Cordain believes it was meat-based, Nathaniel Dominy believes it was plant-based. Nobody knows for sure. I personally believe that early humanoids were fruit-eaters (like our closest relative: the chimpanzee), but over time, humans began to adapt from fruit to starch, which allowed us to no longer be confined to the tropical-regions (equator) where fruit is plentiful, and the starches gave us plenty of glucose to grow such large brains. But like I said, no one knows for sure. What is more important than trying to guess what our ancestors possibly ate, is what has been documented and studied: when cultures switch from their grain-based diet, to a diet high in meat, dairy, fats and sugar... disease becomes epidemic [2-8]. Starch-based diets are the only recorded diets on reversing atherosclerosis [9] and prostate-cancer [10-11].









[1] Declining SHBG, Testosterone, & Sperm-Count In Western-Societies.

[2] Gan No Rinsho. 1986 May;32(6):561-6. Changes in food/nutrient intake and cancer mortality in Japan. Kato I, Tominaga S.

[3] Med Hypotheses. 2003 Feb;60(2):268-75. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of breast and ovarian cancers: relationship between death from both malignancies and dietary practices. Li XM, Ganmaa D, Sato A.

[4] Med Hypotheses. 2003 May;60(5):724-30. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of testicular and prostatic cancers. Ganmaa D, Li XM, Qin LQ.

[5] Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2004 Jan-Mar;5(1):28-35. Association between type II diabetes and colon cancer among Japanese with reference to changes in food intake. Kuriki K, Tokudome S, Tajima K.

[6] Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1998 Feb;37(2):111-5. Increased incidence of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus among Japanese schoolchildren correlates with an increased intake of animal protein and fat. Kitagawa T, Owada M, Urakami T.

7] Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 May;91(5):1530S-1536S. Trends in food availability, 1909-2007. Barnard ND.

[8] Am J Clin Nutr January 1959 vol. 7 no. 1 91-97. The American Diet—Past and Present. Trulson MF.

[9] J Fam Pract. 1995 Dec;41(6):560-8. A strategy to arrest and reverse coronary artery disease: a 5-year longitudinal study of a single physician's practice. Esselstyn CB Jr, Ellis SG, Medendorp SV.

[10] J Urol. 2005 Sep;174(3):1065-9; discussion 1069-70. Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of prostate cancer. Ornish D, Weidner G, Fair WR.

[11] Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Sep;86(3):s889-93. Prostate cancer prevention by nutritional means to alleviate metabolic syndrome. Barnard RJ.

[misterE]

I'll never go back to grains. Especially with the continued introduction of GMOs. Pesticide corn anyone?

Corn has pesticide on it, but what happens when they feed the corn to animals? The pesticides accumulate within the fat of the meat.

I don't eat grain fed meat (grains, by the way, used to make cattle and pigs fat because it works well for that).

That is because certain animals can convert carbohydrates into fat very efficiently, unlike humans.

{1} Glycemic index is a great tool for types that tend towards type II diabetes. {2} I don't believe in the 'keep igf-1 low' hypothesis. {3} I'd prefer to keep insulin levels low, and keep my pancreas healthy with glucagon and not subject my self to the risks associated with muscle and other tissue and possibly organ wasting.

{1} Are you suggesting diabetics are better off eating butter (low GI) than brown-rice (high GI)?

{2} What about the research showing that reducing IGF-1 slows the aging process?

{3} Low insulin and high glucagon promotes lipolysis, which then allows FFA's to accumulate freely. FFA's are known to accumulate in and on the pancreas and damage the beta-cells. Insulin prevents muscle wasting by stimulating protein-synthesis and inhibiting muscle-catabolism, it also shuttles amino-acids into the muscle itself.

Edited by misterE, 07 September 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[zorba990]

I don't eat grain fed meat (grains, by the way, used to make cattle and pigs fat because it works well for that).

That is because certain animals can convert carbohydrates into fat very efficiently, unlike humans.

Untrue.
http://articles.merc...e-body-fat.aspx

Any amount of reasonable self experimentation will prove that cutting carbs lowers body fat.


Too many people associate low carb diets with eating large amounts of unhealthy meats, etc. Low carbs goes fine with a lots of high nutrient plant foods, healthy oils, and lean grass fed proteins. I don't eat pesticide-laden grain fed meat.

Low protein lowering of igf-1 probably creates food cravings that increase aging, e.g. But in any case I don't think lowering igf-1 will help do anything but waste muscle tissue that you will need if you get ill.

http://www.ergo-log....stantfight.html

Edited by zorba990, 07 September 2012 - 06:27 PM.

[platypus]

Unfortunanly the meat-based modern diet is causing many health problems for humanity, not just metabolic-syndrome but also reproductive and hormonal disorders.

You have it backwards. Yes the modern diet is causing many health problems but meat is not the primary problem. The low quality of the available meat, i.e. eating sick animals that were fed unnatural foods like corn and grains are a major reason why some meats are unhealthy. Meat is not unhealthy per se.

it's useful to learn what our ancestors mostly ate

Nobody knows what humans ate prior to the agricultural-revolution. Researchers have to hypothesize. Loren Cordain believes it was meat-based, Nathaniel Dominy believes it was plant-based. Nobody knows for sure.

First of all, look back just 300 years, our modern diet is drastically different from that. Sugar and white grains didn't even exist back then. People ate meats and organ meats, raw milk, vegetables etc.

Before agriculture people were hunter-gatherers and we have a pretty good idea what hunter-gatherers ate by looking at the remaining indigenous peoples. This is based on research and is not simple an "opinion". Please watch the lecture by Cordain, it's brilliant.

I personally believe that early humanoids were fruit-eaters (like our closest relative: the chimpanzee), but over time, humans began to adapt from fruit to starch, which allowed us to no longer be confined to the tropical-regions (equator) where fruit is plentiful, and the starches gave us plenty of glucose to grow such large brains.

Nope, I think you've got it wrong. It was precisely the shift from only plant-based foods to an omnivore diet with nutrient-dense foods that enabled Homo Sapiens and our immediate ancestors to evolve smaller digestive systems and larger brains.

[TheFountain]

Any amount of reasonable self experimentation will prove that cutting carbs lowers body fat.

Then how is it that my body fat is 10%, despite eating plenty of carbs?

[zorba990]

Any amount of reasonable self experimentation will prove that cutting carbs lowers body fat.

Then how is it that my body fat is 10%, despite eating plenty of carbs?

You are burning it off. Some people are able to eat whatever they want and have low bodyfat. Still doesn't make high carbohydrate a healthy diet for everyone. Different diets for different people at different times, sure. One size fits all high starchy carbs for everyone -- I think not.

[Hebbeh]

Any amount of reasonable self experimentation will prove that cutting carbs lowers body fat.

Then how is it that my body fat is 10%, despite eating plenty of carbs?

I'm sure you're very happy with your body at 10% and many would love to have 10%....that said...many in the fitness world that want to take it to the next level at sub 10% body fat, do that by restricting carbs. Six pack abs are not so much about the size of your ab muscles as it is about the layer of fat covering your abs (everybody has abs...but can you see them). Abs really start to stand out at 6-7% body fat and most have to restrict carbs to achieve and maintain that level of BF%. To be honest, in the fitness world, 10% is mediocre and not "contest" shape per say. Not saying you want to or need to, but if you choose to restrict carbs a bit, you could easily drop a few % and have truly impressive abs. This is widely known in the fitness world, but of course, like zorba said, everybody's genetics is different and some can get away with more or less....thus "gifted" genetics.

[THawk720]

The one thing that I hate about diet studies is they're always presented with extremes, and very limited details. If there is a high fat vs low fat diet study, the study will have the low fat group eating vegis and fruits all day, while the high fat group they have chugging down olive oil. One thing that I’ve been very interested in viewing, and perhaps someone could point me in the right direction, is a study that shows a high fat diet along with a high vegetable intake. I tend to side with the high fat/low carb/paleo think group, but Ornish gives me pause to wonder as he's demonstrated some solid results with his diet plan. Why can't a diet contain both? A high fat low carb diet would give you all the beneficial cholesterol and metabolic effects. Then you add in a high vegetable and moderate fruit intake to the mix to get all of the beneficial nutrients that we know and don’t know about. I can't see how this isn't the optimal diet plan? Why don't we see more dietary studies like this?

[niner]

Any amount of reasonable self experimentation will prove that cutting carbs lowers body fat.

Then how is it that my body fat is 10%, despite eating plenty of carbs?

We're getting a little ahead of ourselves here. Your definition of "plenty" might be the same as zorba's definition of "cutting carbs". We really need to talk in terms of macronutrient ratios. From TheFountain's past description of his diet, I think he and I probably have a fairly similar macronutrient ratio, and our body composition isn't terribly different. My diet of some years back was higher in carbs, particularly in such badness as refined wheat flour and sugar, and it was lower in fat. In those days, I was heavier- I had a little gut. My big change was raising fat and reducing carbs, and I got a body composition that I like on this diet. When I talk to people about it, I tend to focus on the part that was a "revelation" to me- that fat in the diet could make you thinner. But my "high fat" diet really isn't that high in fat, and it's still pretty high in carbs. I try to eat "good" forms of both fat and carbs. I can only guess at my macronutrient ratio because I'm too lazy to measure everything I eat and enter it in Cron-O-Meter, but just thinking about what's on my plate, I'm eating more carbs than anything else. I eat mostly plants, with some meat and dairy.

[nupi]

One thing that I’ve been very interested in viewing, and perhaps someone could point me in the right direction, is a study that shows a high fat diet along with a high vegetable intake. I tend to side with the high fat/low carb/paleo think group, but Ornish gives me pause to wonder as he's demonstrated some solid results with his diet plan. Why can't a diet contain both?

That sounds a lot like the Mark Sisson approach to primal/paleo. Low to very low carbs combined with moderate to high fat and vegetables... I am not entirely sure I want to boost my fat intake to quite those levels (also I find that it would require chugging down oils or eating copious amounts of nuts to get there) but have definitely increased it compared to where it was a couple of years ago (mainly by reducing simple carbs). Body composition interestingly did not change much if at all, I am still at roughly 11% body fat.

Edited by nupi, 10 September 2012 - 08:16 AM.

[TheFountain]

Any amount of reasonable self experimentation will prove that cutting carbs lowers body fat.

Then how is it that my body fat is 10%, despite eating plenty of carbs?

You are burning it off. Some people are able to eat whatever they want and have low bodyfat. Still doesn't make high carbohydrate a healthy diet for everyone. Different diets for different people at different times, sure. One size fits all high starchy carbs for everyone -- I think not.

If you are chalking it up to genetics, I cannot agree with that statement because it is an unknown variable. I exercise moderately 2-3 times a week. According to the theory espoused by most people here, moderate exercise shouldn't be enough to burn all those carbs. Only extreme intense work outs would. But please, carry on with this line of reasoning to explain every deviation of your primary theory that carbs=fat.

Any amount of reasonable self experimentation will prove that cutting carbs lowers body fat.

Then how is it that my body fat is 10%, despite eating plenty of carbs?

We're getting a little ahead of ourselves here. Your definition of "plenty" might be the same as zorba's definition of "cutting carbs". We really need to talk in terms of macronutrient ratios. From TheFountain's past description of his diet, I think he and I probably have a fairly similar macronutrient ratio, and our body composition isn't terribly different. My diet of some years back was higher in carbs, particularly in such badness as refined wheat flour and sugar, and it was lower in fat. In those days, I was heavier- I had a little gut. My big change was raising fat and reducing carbs, and I got a body composition that I like on this diet. When I talk to people about it, I tend to focus on the part that was a "revelation" to me- that fat in the diet could make you thinner. But my "high fat" diet really isn't that high in fat, and it's still pretty high in carbs. I try to eat "good" forms of both fat and carbs. I can only guess at my macronutrient ratio because I'm too lazy to measure everything I eat and enter it in Cron-O-Meter, but just thinking about what's on my plate, I'm eating more carbs than anything else. I eat mostly plants, with some meat and dairy.

I just know that leading up to the acquisition of this body fat level I was eating a lot of foods that are demonized in this community, like oatmeal, lentils (less so) and starchy vegetables and lots and lots of fruit that are considered "anti-Paleo". Banana's inparticular.

[TheFountain]

Any amount of reasonable self experimentation will prove that cutting carbs lowers body fat.

Then how is it that my body fat is 10%, despite eating plenty of carbs?

I'm sure you're very happy with your body at 10% and many would love to have 10%....that said...many in the fitness world that want to take it to the next level at sub 10% body fat, do that by restricting carbs. Six pack abs are not so much about the size of your ab muscles as it is about the layer of fat covering your abs (everybody has abs...but can you see them). Abs really start to stand out at 6-7% body fat and most have to restrict carbs to achieve and maintain that level of BF%. To be honest, in the fitness world, 10% is mediocre and not "contest" shape per say. Not saying you want to or need to, but if you choose to restrict carbs a bit, you could easily drop a few % and have truly impressive abs. This is widely known in the fitness world, but of course, like zorba said, everybody's genetics is different and some can get away with more or less....thus "gifted" genetics.

My abs are visible at 10%.

[niner]

I just know that leading up to the acquisition of this body fat level I was eating a lot of foods that are demonized in this community, like oatmeal, lentils (less so) and starchy vegetables and lots and lots of fruit that are considered "anti-Paleo". Banana's inparticular.

I eat oatmeal every day (with coconut oil, blueberries, and Splenda), lentils and starchy vegetables frequently, and bananas occasionally. In the past 24 hours I've had three out of the four. I don't think any of that stuff is anti-Paleo. Maybe it's anti-ketogenic. I checked my glucose level about an hour after having my usual oatmeal once, and it was really good. I forget the exact number but I was pleasantly surprised. Maybe the coconut oil slows digestion of the oatmeal.

[TheFountain]

I just know that leading up to the acquisition of this body fat level I was eating a lot of foods that are demonized in this community, like oatmeal, lentils (less so) and starchy vegetables and lots and lots of fruit that are considered "anti-Paleo". Banana's inparticular.

I eat oatmeal every day (with coconut oil, blueberries, and Splenda), lentils and starchy vegetables frequently, and bananas occasionally. In the past 24 hours I've had three out of the four. I don't think any of that stuff is anti-Paleo. Maybe it's anti-ketogenic. I checked my glucose level about an hour after having my usual oatmeal once, and it was really good. I forget the exact number but I was pleasantly surprised. Maybe the coconut oil slows digestion of the oatmeal.

What was your last A1c score?

[hivemind]

But can I just ask you why you think the majority of the users of this website disagree with your assessment and believe the exact opposite?

In all honesty, they don't want to give up their rich high-fat diets. It is much more appealing to hear that steak and eggs are good for you and whole-grains and potatoes are bad. But when you compare this assumption to what the bulk of the scientific-literature shows, it is the exact opposite. There must be thousands upon thousands of studies showing that diets high in meats and animal-fats have detrimental effects on health and longevity. But there are very few (if any) studies showing negative effects of diets high in whole-grains.

This is the truth.

People don't want to accept it. They do not want to hear it.

[Hebbeh]

But can I just ask you why you think the majority of the users of this website disagree with your assessment and believe the exact opposite?

In all honesty, they don't want to give up their rich high-fat diets. It is much more appealing to hear that steak and eggs are good for you and whole-grains and potatoes are bad. But when you compare this assumption to what the bulk of the scientific-literature shows, it is the exact opposite. There must be thousands upon thousands of studies showing that diets high in meats and animal-fats have detrimental effects on health and longevity. But there are very few (if any) studies showing negative effects of diets high in whole-grains.

This is the truth.

People don't want to accept it. They do not want to hear it.

This is ludicrous. Nobody here that is interested in longevity is eating a rich diet or even looking for an excuse to eat a rich diet. At 55, I'll pit my BF%, labs, and fitness level against even fountain who is half my age. This is as far from the truth as you can get. You must have us confused with your couch potato friends. Shakes head.......

[hivemind]

This is ludicrous. Nobody here that is interested in longevity is eating a rich diet or even looking for an excuse to eat a rich diet. At 55, I'll pit my BF%, labs, and fitness level against even fountain who is half my age. This is as far from the truth as you can get. You must have us confused with your couch potato friends. Shakes head.......

People are confused because of this pro saturated fat and anti-carbohydrate nonsense all over the internet.

[Hebbeh]

This is ludicrous. Nobody here that is interested in longevity is eating a rich diet or even looking for an excuse to eat a rich diet. At 55, I'll pit my BF%, labs, and fitness level against even fountain who is half my age. This is as far from the truth as you can get. You must have us confused with your couch potato friends. Shakes head.......

People are confused because of this pro saturated fat and anti-carbohydrate nonsense all over the internet.

From your posts, it would seem your health is questionable. I can assure you my health is excellent. I have posted labs recently. Now who do you really think is confused? I believe I will continue to hold the course.

[hivemind]

From your posts, it would seem your health is questionable. I can assure you my health is excellent. I have posted labs recently. Now who do you really think is confused? I believe I will continue to hold the course.

I am not talking about you and my health is good.

[hivemind]

[Hebbeh]

From your posts, it would seem your health is questionable. I can assure you my health is excellent. I have posted labs recently. Now who do you really think is confused? I believe I will continue to hold the course.

I am not talking about you and my health is good.

You're talking about my diet and to hear you or misterE tell it, my cardiovascular system should be trashed by now and I can assure you there is nothing farther from the truth. You cherry pick examples from the crowd that doesn't live the healthy lifestyle and when any of us that do live the lifestyle question you, you either ignore or proceed to cite more studies that have nothing to do with anybody on this site. You are preoccupied with fat junk food eating couch potatoes and then try to fit that mold to everybody here that doesn't adhere to your diet ideals. I think you were talking about me....except one small problem...my health defies your opinions....and THAT you don't like to talk about.

[misterE]

One thing that I’ve been very interested in viewing, and perhaps someone could point me in the right direction, is a study that shows a high fat diet along with a high vegetable intake.

A study in 2010 combined the results of two cohort studies looking at low-carb diets and mortality, one comparing the typical Atkins-diet, based on meat and animal-fat, versus the "eco-Atkins" diet based on nuts, avocadoes and vegetables.

They found that people eating the typical Atkins-diet, high in meat and grease had a significant chance of dying... nearly one and a half times the risk of dying from cancer and heart-disease. Conversely, the people on the plant-based Atkins-diet actually had a reduced rate of mortality. The researchers concluded "A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates [1]."

A study done last year in 2011 found that low-carb diets high in animal-protein and animal-fat increased the risk of diabetes, while diets high in plant-protein and plant-fats decreased the risk of diabetes [2].



[1] Ann Intern Med. 2010 Sep 7;153(5):289-98. Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: two cohort studies. Fung TT, van Dam RM, Hankinson SE.

[2] Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Apr;93(4):844-50. Epub 2011 Feb 10. Low-carbohydrate diet scores and risk of type 2 diabetes in men. de Koning L, Fung TT, Liao X.

Edited by misterE, 11 September 2012 - 11:16 PM.

[misterE]

Why is the Paleo-diet so popular?

There have been no studies conducted looking at the beneficial effects of a Paleo-diet on heart-disease, prostate-cancer or diabetes. These diseases are documented and proven to be reversed on a diet based on whole-grains and vegetables. Caldwell Esselstyn and Dean Ornish have shown that heart-disease and prostate-cancer is reversible on their diets. Dozens of studies for more than 30 years (from the Pritikin Longevity Center) have shown that a diet based on whole-grains and vegetables quickly reverses diabetes and metabolic-syndrome.

Why in the world would anyone follow the Paleo-diet if there is no evidence that it can reverse heart-disease, prostate-cancer or diabetes? Why not follow a diet that has been proven? The only reason I can think of, is that “people love to hear good news about their bad habits”.

Edited by misterE, 11 September 2012 - 11:19 PM.

[Shepard]

“people love to hear good news about their bad habits”.

They call me durianrider...rider...rider..