82 replies to this topic

[timar]

Hi Timar,

 

Many thanks for your reply.

 

I asked this question cause the LDL-C went up in the period when I switched from a bread-based breakfast to one with vegetables, 2 eggs and tuna/salmon (more paleo compatible sort of). It might have been a coincidence and the higher LDL-C is caused by something else.

 

I train at medium intensity regularly (weight lifting and cycling). I used to use a lot of extra virgin olive oil, which now I have replaced with coconut oil and I eat a good amount of vegetables daily. In this 1.5 month, I gradually shifted my diet to be lower in carbs and focused on lower-GI carbs such as brown rice, increasing my intake of meat (or fish) and fat (kerry gold butter, coconut oil, bacon!). I am nowhere close to anything low-carb/ketosis. 

 

I plan to make a new lipid-test and see what happens. If my LDL-C goes up again, I'll have to rethink whether I want to proceed on this road.

 

One question please regarding the GI of foods:

 

If I eat say GI60 pasta with ingredients that are low in GI, would the overall GI be lower? Ie. Is the blood sugar spike affected by the combo of foods you eat? Ie Is it better to eat pasta on its own and would eating pasta with olives, tomatoes etc lower it's sugar spike load?

 

As regards to this McDougall, any links? I think this is particularly concerning cause usually most dishes here in Malta are a combination of high GI foods (breads with meat, pasta with rabbit meat etc).

 

If you are really homozygous for ApoE4 (indeed the worst variant for lipid metabolism and Alzheimer's disease risk), those dietary changes are likely very detrimental to your long-term health and you should be much more concerned about the saturated fat content of your diet than about the glycemic load. I would urge you to cut back on butter and coconut oil, go back to olive/canola oil and to limit your intake of saturated fat from animal food (e.g. by choosing lean meats and low-fat dairy). Also, forget my advice about moderate alcohol consumption, as the HDL-boosting effect alcohol doesn't seem to work for ApoE4.

 

Indeed, you can be happy to have such a decent lipid profile as an E4/E4 carrier. Don't ruin it by falling for the LC/Paleo hype!

 

Btw. pasta, if cooked al dente, is not a particularly high-GL food. Nor is white rice if allowed to cool down (and reheated) before consumption. In Asian cultures, it is customary to cook large amounts of white rice in a rice pot and eat it troughout the day. Therefore, much of the rice will be enriched in resistant starch. I think this is an often neglected fact that (besides the fiber-rich, low protein dietarry pattern) may help to explain the beneficial outcomes of white rice in those cultures.

 

Hey timar, have you ever heard of Walter Kempner and the rice-diet? Probably the most effective and healing diet ever; consisted of white-rice, fruit, juice, and table-sugar( you know all those horrifying high-GI/GL carbs!!)... completely reversed metabolic-syndrome and well published back in the 1940s and 1950s. I would really love to hear your response on this.

 

Yes I have. And I have to say that the designation of "dietary prophets" such as Kemper (by the dogmatic low-fat vegans), or Price and Banting (by the WAPF/low-carb crowd) from the "heroic age" of modern sicence in the early 20th century is possibly the single most revealing hallmark of dietary ideologies, regardless of their substantial disparity. We have decades of high quality nutritional and medical science to rely on today, and must not mystify studies done three-quarters of a century ago. The work of those researchers, interesting as it may be from a historical point of view, is far from contemporary standards of scientific conduct and publishing which have been established for good reasons. This is not to belittle their pionieering work - their insights as well their mistakes - which has informed and advanced contemporary science.

 

I personally don't know a single lowcarber with a really great lipid profile. It's unphysiologic and no documented human culture ever did eat that way, also not in "paleo" times, as far as science is able to tell. That is enough for me to come to conclusions.

 

If your definition of low carb is <40%, this statement is factually wrong. There are quite a few hunter-gatherer cultures documented that consumed less than 40% carbohydrates (e.g. the Inuit or Massai). However, those cultures did so out of necessity - because they had little carbohydrates available. Notably, nearly all cultures having an abundant supply of carbohydrate-rich foods available seemed to have consumed around half of their caloric intake as carbohydrates.

 

Edited by timar, 15 June 2015 - 10:44 AM.

[Dolph]

 

I personally don't know a single lowcarber with a really great lipid profile. It's unphysiologic and no documented human culture ever did eat that way, also not in "paleo" times, as far as science is able to tell. That is enough for me to come to conclusions.

 

If your definition of low carb is <40%, this statement is factually wrong. There are quite a few hunter-gatherer cultures documented that consumed less than 40% carbohydrates (e.g. the Inuit or Massai). However, those cultures did so out of necessity - because they had little carbohydrates available. Notably, nearly all cultures having an abundant supply of carbohydrate-rich foods available seemed to have consumed around half of their caloric intake as carbohydrates.

 

 

 

1. The <40% definition is what I consider to be factually "low carb". People who consider themselves to be "lowcarbers" these days eat far less then this, of course. So I realize I actually use two different definitions at the same time. On the one hand what I consider to be (too) low in carbs and what people themselves claim to be (lowcarbers). 

 

2. You may have to reconsider your knowledge about the Massai!

While these have always been the go to culture of the LC-crowd (For reasons I don't understand, they die young and aren't healthy by any definition...) only the young men eat (or ate...) the way it is commonly described for a pretty brief period in their lives as a kind of inition ritus.

The LC-nuts by know have even framed the wikipedia-article about the massai, citing Weston Price as a source! It's really tilting me...

[DAMI]

 

 

I asked this question cause the LDL-C went up in the period when I switched from a bread-based breakfast to one with vegetables, 2 eggs and tuna/salmon (more paleo compatible sort of). It might have been a coincidence and the higher LDL-C is caused by something else.

 

I literally guarantee you this was NOT coincidence. About 1/3 of people are actually hyperresponders to dietary cholesterol and when your LDL did rise significantly after adding eggs you may(!) well be one of them!

 

I train at medium intensity regularly (weight lifting and cycling). I used to use a lot of extra virgin olive oil, which now I have replaced with coconut oil and I eat a good amount of vegetables daily. In this 1.5 month, I gradually shifted my diet to be lower in carbs and focused on lower-GI carbs such as brown rice, increasing my intake of meat (or fish) and fat (kerry gold butter, coconut oil, bacon!). I am nowhere close to anything low-carb/ketosis. 

 

You add coconut oil (the most atherogenic fat that exists...) and butter and are surprised your LDL is rising? Really? Let's put it mildly and say this might not be such a great idea...

 

 

 

Could you please link to the science which demonstrates that coconut oil is indeed "the most atherogenic fat that exists..."??

 

[APBT]

Possibly incorporate avocados.  From the Tufts University News Letter:

 

Not so long ago, avocados were a seasonal delicacy in most of the country, and when they were available, their high fat content scared away health-conscious consumers. With loosened import rules from Mexico, however, sales of Hass avocados (about 95% of the US market) have more than doubled in the past decade. Last year, Americans peeled about 4.25 billion avocados, and in February avocados even boasted their own Super Bowl commercial.

It's not just a growing taste for guacamole that's pushing avocados to record popularity. Consumers are increasingly aware that not all fat is to be equally avoided: Of the 18.6 grams of fat in a typical avocado, only 2.9 grams are unhealthy saturated fat; the rest is heart-healthy unsaturated fat - primarily monounsaturated fat (13.3 grams). Think of the fats in this healthy fruit (yes, avocados are technically a fruit) as similar to those in olives (also botanically a fruit).

"Consumed in moderation - one cup of avocado slices does contain 230 calories - the unsaturated fats in avocados may have cardiovascular benefits," explains Diane L. McKay, PhD, an assistant professor at Tufts' Friedman School and a scientist in the HNRCA Antioxidants Research Laboratory. "Avocados are also good sources of several B vitamins, dietary fiber, potassium and copper, carotenoids, and vitamins C, E and K."

CHOLESTEROL CONTROL: A new study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association adds evidence to avocados' potential to improve cardiovascular health. Penn State researchers compared the cholesterol effects of three controlled diets for five weeks each in a group of 45 overweight and obese volunteers. Both a lower-fat (24% of calories) and moderate-fat (34%) diet reduced unhealthy LDL and total cholesterol. But when one avocado a day was substituted for a comparable amount of oleic acid (the main monounsaturated fat in olive oil) in the moderate-fat diet, cholesterol improved even more: LDL dropped 13.5 mg/dL on the avocado regimen, compared to 8.3 mg/dL on the moderate-fat and 7.4 mg/dL on the low-fat diets.

Adding an avocado to other vegetables, like the leafy greens in a salad, can also help you absorb carotenoid compounds such as beta-carotene from those foods. That's because the healthy fats in avocados excel at helping the body absorb those fat-soluble nutrients. One study in the Journal of Nutrition found that topping salads with avocado boosted carotenoid absorption by three to five times.

You may also want to try avocado oil on its own. Similar in fat profile to olive oil, which is key to the heart-healthy Mediterranean-style diet, avocado oil has a higher smoke point, making it more suitable (and safer) for high-temperature cooking.

SATIETY AND ANTI-INFLAMMATORY PROPERTIES: Since avocados get a majority of their calories from fat (and from 2.7 grams of protein per fruit), they are relatively low-carb (11.7 grams). Subtract the impressive 9.2 grams of dietary fiber per avocado and you get only 2.5 grams "net" carbs. Avocados are also very low on the glycemic index, meaning they're gentle on blood sugar. And a study in Nutrition Journal found that participants who ate half an avocado with lunch reported a 40% decreased desire to eat for hours afterward.

The chemical constituents of avocados' fats may also have specific health benefits. These include cholesterol-lowering phytosterols, anti-inflammatory polyhydroxylated fatty alcohols (PFAs), and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), the plant form of omega-3 fatty acids.

Compounds called unsaponifiables derived from avocado and soybean oil are being tested as a treatment for osteoarthritis. A 2008 meta-analysis found that avocado-soybean unsaponifiables (ASUs) improved symptoms of hip and knee arthritis and reduced the need for anti-inflammatory drugs. A large, three-year study published in 2013 reported that ASUs significantly reduced the progression of hip arthritis.

 

[aza]

 

I personally don't know a single lowcarber with a really great lipid profile. It's unphysiologic and no documented human culture ever did eat that way, also not in "paleo" times, as far as science is able to tell. That is enough for me to come to conclusions.

 

If your definition of low carb is <40%, this statement is factually wrong. There are quite a few hunter-gatherer cultures documented that consumed less than 40% carbohydrates (e.g. the Inuit or Massai). However, those cultures did so out of necessity - because they had little carbohydrates available. Notably, nearly all cultures having an abundant supply of carbohydrate-rich foods available seemed to have consumed around half of their caloric intake as carbohydrates.

 

 

I agree with timar, at least 2 cultures ate less then 10% carbs. The inuit, massai warriors (even if it was for a short time) and possibly the sami. There were many who ate less then 40%.

These two papers show similar ranges, they both feature loren cordain but i also found a third source.

 

Estimated macronutrient and fatty acid intakes from an East African paleolithic diet

 

https://s3.amazonaws...lithic Diet.pdf

 

We found that the macronutrient composition of the presumed

Paleolithic diet averaged 25 – 29 en% (range 8 – 35) from protein, 39 – 40 en% (19 – 48) from carbohydrate and 30 – 39 en% (20 – 72) from fat

 

Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets

http://ajcn.nutritio.../71/3/682.short

“The most plausible . . . percentages of total energy would be 19–35% for dietary protein, 22–40% for carbohydrate, and 28–58% for fat.”

Its possible he overestimated protein intake because some cultures preferentially go for the fattier animals.

 

 

 

The last study is this one.

 

A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence, and Longevity

http://www.unm.edu/~...LHEvolution.pdf

 

It is broken down well here. http://perfecthealth...atios-new-data/

"Save for the Nukak and Hadza, the sum of root, fruit, and “other plant” intake is a fair approximation to total carb plus fiber calories.  These added up to 242 calories/day for the Onge, 137 calories/day for the Anbarra, 469 calories/day for the Arnhem, 277 calories for the Ache, 386 for the Hiwi, 300 for the !Kung, and 1200 for the Gwi. In all cases except the Gwi, carb intake was less than 20% of calories.

For the Nukak, carb intake was probably also in this range. So seven of nine cultures ate 10% to 20% carbs; for the Gwi San a majority of calories were carbs, and for the Hadza perhaps 40% of calories were carbs."

 

 

Chris, you might have some luck checking out the examine.com topic on ldl-c, the one on ldl oxidation would probably be useful too.

http://examine.com/topics/LDL-C/

http://examine.com/t...idation of LDL/

[Dolph]

 

 

 

I asked this question cause the LDL-C went up in the period when I switched from a bread-based breakfast to one with vegetables, 2 eggs and tuna/salmon (more paleo compatible sort of). It might have been a coincidence and the higher LDL-C is caused by something else.

 

I literally guarantee you this was NOT coincidence. About 1/3 of people are actually hyperresponders to dietary cholesterol and when your LDL did rise significantly after adding eggs you may(!) well be one of them!

 

I train at medium intensity regularly (weight lifting and cycling). I used to use a lot of extra virgin olive oil, which now I have replaced with coconut oil and I eat a good amount of vegetables daily. In this 1.5 month, I gradually shifted my diet to be lower in carbs and focused on lower-GI carbs such as brown rice, increasing my intake of meat (or fish) and fat (kerry gold butter, coconut oil, bacon!). I am nowhere close to anything low-carb/ketosis. 

 

You add coconut oil (the most atherogenic fat that exists...) and butter and are surprised your LDL is rising? Really? Let's put it mildly and say this might not be such a great idea...

 

 

 

Could you please link to the science which demonstrates that coconut oil is indeed "the most atherogenic fat that exists..."??

 

 

There is an abundance of data proving this and it's long known from experimental atherosclerosis.

 

For example:

 

http://atvb.ahajourn.../5/441.full.pdf(page 446, very detailed)

Edited by Dolph, 16 June 2015 - 06:03 AM.

[niner]

If you are really homozygous for ApoE4 (indeed the worst variant for lipid metabolism and Alzheimer's disease risk), those dietary changes are likely very detrimental to your long-term health and you should be much more concerned about the saturated fat content of your diet than about the glycemic load. I would urge you to cut back on butter and coconut oil, go back to olive/canola oil and to limit your intake of saturated fat from animal food (e.g. by choosing lean meats and low-fat dairy). Also, forget my advice about moderate alcohol consumption, as the HDL-boosting effect alcohol doesn't seem to work for ApoE4.

 

Indeed, you can be happy to have such a decent lipid profile as an E4/E4 carrier. Don't ruin it by falling for the LC/Paleo hype!

 

Btw. pasta, if cooked al dente, is not a particularly high-GL food. Nor is white rice if allowed to cool down (and reheated) before consumption. In Asian cultures, it is customary to cook large amounts of white rice in a rice pot and eat it troughout the day. Therefore, much of the rice will be enriched in resistant starch. I think this is an often neglected fact that (besides the fiber-rich, low protein dietarry pattern) may help to explain the beneficial outcomes of white rice in those cultures.

 

Chris_T_Malta, this is very good advice.  ApoE4/4 people are the specific population that should really be eating low fat.  We have some good apoe4 threads here, and there are apoe4 forums on the internet.  I'd look into these things, as it might well be the best way to maintain / improve your long term health.  You're lucky that you know your genotype, because there are things you can do to reduce your risk.

[Chris_T_Malta]

Indeed, I have been directed to the APOE4 forum too (www.apoe4.info). Will be tough to switch off fats especially coconut oil which I use for everything nowadays! Oh well...

 

Knowing one's genotype is an asset for sure - those 200 Euros 23andme test were very worth the price

[aza]

Good point about resistant starch, if you like potatoes chris you could probably benefit by cooking and cooling them. According to the chart here roasted and cooled potatoes have an insane amount.

http://freetheanimal...ch-in-Foods.pdf

 

unsure if that is a error or not

 

Potatoes – Roasted and Cooled

19.2

 

Potatoes – Steamed and Cooled

5.8

[niner]

Someone's getting pretty fast and loose with the "ill-informed" and "pointless, timewasting" ratings.  If you have a beef with all these posts, you should explain yourself rather than hurling point 'n click insults.  Just so you know, there's a record of who gave each rating.  It's not anonymous.  People have been banned for abuse of the ratings system.

[mikeinnaples]

Someone's getting pretty fast and loose with the "ill-informed" and "pointless, timewasting" ratings.  If you have a beef with all these posts, you should explain yourself rather than hurling point 'n click insults.  Just so you know, there's a record of who gave each rating.  It's not anonymous.  People have been banned for abuse of the ratings system.

 

Rating system needs to be removed imo

[misterE]

Cordain sucks, Price sucks, the Inuit were a small pigmy tribe that had little success. Atkins was fat, bald and greasy; died of a heart-attack walking down the street and was found to have extensive atherosclerosis upon death! Low-carb diets are sexy because all you have to do is go thru a drive-thru, order a double-bacon cheese-burger and throw away the bun!

[ceridwen]

Thought he died of a heart attack. There is a YouTube video that said he hit his head on a kerb stone. Doesn't mention the heart attack at all. I remember that I heard that he had died of a heart attack on the news and thought at that time well of course he did. It was a totally unbalanced diet. We need carbohydrates. I can be persuaded to change my mind but can I give up carbs? Not even under the most desperate circumstances. It does say a lot though that Atkins died of a heart attack.

[misterE]

{1} There is a YouTube video that said he hit his head on a kerb stone. Doesn't mention the heart attack at all.

 

 

 

 

 

{2} I remember that I heard that he had died of a heart attack on the news and thought at that time well of course he did. It was a totally unbalanced diet. We need carbohydrates. I can be persuaded to change my mind but can I give up carbs? Not even under the most desperate circumstances. It does say a lot though that Atkins died of a heart attack.

 

{1} What I personally believe happened, was that he was walking down the street, suffered either a stroke or heart-attack, fell and hit his head. People from the Atkins camp, blamed his death on him hitting his head, but without him suffering a heart-attack or stroke, he would never have hit his head!

 

{2} Now you are using logic, most people DON'T want to give up fatty-foods! It's much easier to give up oatmeal than it is eggs or steak! They convince themselves that bland ole' starches are bad for you, yet eat greasy sausage and bacon for breakfast! I understand where they are coming from, but it is a very weak effort.

Edited by misterE, 18 June 2015 - 03:00 AM.

[misterE]

Someone's getting pretty fast and loose with the "ill-informed" and "pointless, timewasting" ratings.  If you have a beef with all these posts, you should explain yourself rather than hurling point 'n click insults.  Just so you know, there's a record of who gave each rating.  It's not anonymous.  People have been banned for abuse of the ratings system.

 

Then remove the rating system. The mods put this rating system on here, and now you're going to ban people for using it?? Does that make any sense?

 

 

Edited by misterE, 18 June 2015 - 02:32 AM.

[misterE]

 

 The work of those researchers, interesting as it may be from a historical point of view, is far from contemporary standards of scientific conduct and publishing which have been established for good reasons. This is not to belittle their pionieering work - their insights as well their mistakes - which has informed and advanced contemporary science.

 

 

You sir, have not researched Kempner's work then. If these evil high GI/GL carbs are causing obesity, why then does Kempner's patients have a dramatic weight-loss? Why were diabetics able to regain their vision? Why did their sludging of the blood improve? You need to answer these questions specifically timar...

Edited by misterE, 18 June 2015 - 02:52 AM.

[niner]

 

Someone's getting pretty fast and loose with the "ill-informed" and "pointless, timewasting" ratings.  If you have a beef with all these posts, you should explain yourself rather than hurling point 'n click insults.  Just so you know, there's a record of who gave each rating.  It's not anonymous.  People have been banned for abuse of the ratings system.

 

Then remove the rating system. The mods put this rating system on here, and now you're going to ban people for using it?? Does that make any sense?

 

You don't understand "the system" here.  Mods have no control over forum configuration.  You'll have to talk to caliban about that.

[misterE]

 

 

You don't understand "the system" here.  Mods have no control over forum configuration.  You'll have to talk to caliban about that.

 

 

I kinda want to "disagree" with (your) post #40, but now I am frightened I will be banned if I do. What should I do niner? This is a serious question...

Edited by misterE, 18 June 2015 - 02:44 AM.

[aza]

Cordain sucks, Price sucks, the Inuit were a small pigmy tribe that had little success. Atkins was fat, bald and greasy; died of a heart-attack walking down the street and was found to have extensive atherosclerosis upon death! Low-carb diets are sexy because all you have to do is go thru a drive-thru, order a double-bacon cheese-burger and throw away the bun!

 

Well thats hardly constructive.

First off, most low carbers would still think a fast food double bacon cheeseburger without the bun is a crappy food. Processed grain fed meat, processed cheese and poor quality bacon cooking in polyunsaturated and transfats.
Also, unsure why you hate weston price, he was quite a fan of whole grains (particularly wheat) and didnt have anything against tubers as far as i know.

 

As i mentioned above, there were far more low carbers cultures then just the inuit and plenty in the medium range. Although i agree that constant ketosis probably isnt a good idea.

Imo, ketogenic diets are only good for medical conditions, but lower carb diets themselves can be very healthy.

There are also individual differences, some will thrive on a low carb diet and others will do better on high carb.

 

I eat the way i do (20%-40% carbs) based on my exercise level and because it allows me to get plenty of fat soluble nutrients, phytonutrients and glycine, among other things.

 

Also misterE, i think he was just annoyed everything was being "ill informed" with no explanation. Plus the third study didn't feature cordain, so you can hardly blame him for its results.

Edited by aza, 18 June 2015 - 03:10 AM.

[misterE]

 

 

 

 

{1} First off, most low carbers would still think a fast food double bacon cheeseburger without the bun is a crappy food.

 

 

{2} Processed grain fed meat, processed cheese and poor quality bacon cooking in polyunsaturated and transfats.

 

{3} Also, unsure why you hate weston price, he was quite a fan of whole grains (particularly wheat) and didnt have anything against tubers as far as i know.

 

 

 

{4} As i mentioned above, there were far more low carbers cultures then just the inuit and plenty in the medium range.

 

 

{5} Although i agree that constant ketosis probably isnt a good idea.

 

 

{6} Imo, ketogenic diets are only good for medical conditions, but lower carb diets themselves can be very healthy.

 

 

{7} There are also individual differences, some will thrive on a low carb diet and others will do better on high carb.

 

 

 

{8} Also misterE, i think he was just annoyed everything was being "ill informed" with no explanation.

 

 

{1} Well of course it is. But what do most "low-carbers" eat. (Most) meat is now fed with grain. How else can you provide enough meat for the masses if they eat alfalfa?

 

{2} This does not effect ruminant-animals. Grass-fed beef and grain-fed beef hardly has any difference (albeit some). The oil they fry it in is a different story, I defiantly believe that polyunsaturated and man-made trans-fat is harmful.

 

{3} Because most people think of Price as a low-carb, meat-eating, cod-liver oil chugging guru. When what he really meant: was that TRADITIONAL DIETS are healthy. Most traditional diets were starch-based my friend. Every continent had a major starch-staple. 

 

{4} But would you agree that most successful cultures were starch-based, look at the American dietary trends since 1909, even back then Americans were eating mostly a starch-based diet (in the form of flour, grains, beans and potatoes).

 

{5} Of course it isn't. Ketosis is something that diabetics experience!

 

{6} Completely disagree... Low-carb diets are extremely UNHEALTHY for multiple reasons (which I can explain further if you would like).

 

{7} If that statement is true; why is amylase the main digestive enzyme in EVERY human (albeit some humans have more than others, never the less, amylase is still the most abundant enzyme there is)?

 

{8} Then they should remove their system. Sometimes you don't have a response, you just form an opinion based on what you read and feel inside. Should you be banned for having an opinion (without the words or "beef" to explain yourself)? 

 

 
 

Edited by misterE, 18 June 2015 - 03:23 AM.

[niner]

 

You don't understand "the system" here.  Mods have no control over forum configuration.  You'll have to talk to caliban about that.

 

I kinda want to "disagree" with (your) post #40, but now I am frightened I will be banned if I do. What should I do niner? This is a serious question...

 

Why do you want to disagree with it?  Do you think that the "ill-informed" and "pointless, time-wasting"  ratings above were appropriate?  If so, why? 

 

The seven ratings in the middle of the row of icons, from "like" to "dislike", are neutral in terms of T-points.  The use of those ratings wouldn't be considered abusive.  The five ratings on the right-hand side, with red backgrounds, are the ones that deduct points and should only be used when truly appropriate.

[aza]

 

 

{1} Well of course it is. But what do most "low-carbers" eat. (Most) meat is now fed with grain. How else can you provide enough meat for the masses if they eat alfalfa?

 

{2} This does not effect ruminant-animals. Grass-fed beef and grain-fed beef hardly has any difference (albeit some). The oil they fry it in is a different story, I defiantly believe that polyunsaturated and man-made trans-fat is harmful.

 

{3} Because most people think of Price as a low-carb, meat-eating, cod-liver oil chugging guru. When what he really meant: was that TRADITIONAL DIETS are healthy. Most traditional diets were starch-based my friend. Every continent had a major starch-staple. 

 

{4} But would you agree that most successful cultures were starch-based, look at the American dietary trends since 1909, even back then Americans were eating mostly a starch-based diet (in the form of flour, grains, beans and potatoes).

 

{5} Of course it isn't. Ketosis is something that diabetics experience!

 

{6} Completely disagree... Low-carb diets are extremely UNHEALTHY for multiple reasons (which I can explain further if you would like).

 

{7} If that statement is true; why is amylase the main digestive enzyme in EVERY human (albeit some humans have more than others, never the less, amylase is still the most abundant enzyme there is)?

 

{8} Then they should remove their system. Sometimes you don't have a response, you just form an opinion based on what you read and feel inside. Should you be banned for having an opinion (without the words or "beef" to explain yourself)? 

 

 
 

 

 

3, 4. Where do you get "most traditional diets were starch-based" from, they featured starch as a main part certainly. There were plenty of high carb cultures, but also many of lower carb ones. As far as i know no one has compared the number of high carb cultures to lower carb cultures. Additionally, the studies looking specifically at hunter gatherers seems to show more of a moderate starch intake. Agriculturalist cultures would obviously consume more starch then the hunter gatherers, but  hunter gatherer diets are more likely to resemble our diets before agriculture started.

 

5. I'm fine, i've already seen your reasoning on other threads. I've done my own research into zoonutrients, glycine and fat soluble nutrients and from what i found i'm rather happy with my macros.

6: Some medical conditions may require it.

 

8: that is fair enough, but it can come off as spamming. Perhaps the disagree button would be less of an issue.
 

Edited by aza, 18 June 2015 - 04:06 AM.

[misterE]

 

 

 

{1} Why do you want to disagree with it?

 

{2}  Do you think that the "ill-informed" and "pointless, time-wasting"  ratings above were appropriate?  If so, why? 

 

 

{1} Because this forum has the option buttons as a choice. If you don't want us (or me) to use these "options" don't have them... simple as that.

 

{2} Sure I do. Some posts are ill-informed or pointless, some posts are a waste of time, they should be regarded as such, if you disagree; why not tell the boss to remove them (option-buttons)?

 

It makes no sense to have these "options" and then ban members for expressing these options! Why not make it a rule that; you can only use these "options" if you type a detailed report of why you think a certain way?

Edited by misterE, 18 June 2015 - 04:24 AM.

[Chris_T_Malta]

The only button which should decrease points are the ones associated with abusive and trollish behaviour.

 

If I am asking a question or if I have a wrong understanding of something (like I had above), it's unfair to get negative points for being "ill-informed".

 

 

[timar]

The only button which should decrease points are the ones associated with abusive and trollish behaviour.

If I am asking a question or if I have a wrong understanding of something (like I had above), it's unfair to get negative points for being "ill-informed".

Of course it is. I was trying to give a helpful answer to your question that was instantly rated as "pointless, timewasting".

Seems like the trollish behaviour of someone who can't tolarate any opinion other than bis own and systematically abuses the rating system to "punish" poeple who disagree with him.

Since this has become another topic highjacked by misterE for preaching bis personal dietary ideology and engaging in utterly pointless anecdotal debate about the size of diet gurus' dicks, I'm out here.

Chris, if you have any further question for me, please send a PM, so you may ask and I may answer them without both of us getting downvoted for doing so.

[misterE]

 

 {1} Where do you get "most traditional diets were starch-based" from, they featured starch as a main part certainly.

 

 

{2} There were plenty of high carb cultures, but also many of lower carb ones.

 

{3} Agriculturalist cultures would obviously consume more starch then the hunter gatherers, but  hunter gatherer diets are more likely to resemble our diets before agriculture started.

 

 

{4} Some medical conditions may require it.

 

{5}  that is fair enough, but it can come off as spamming. Perhaps the disagree button would be less of an issue.
 

 

 

{1} Every continent had a starch staple:

 

Corn and beans in North America and Africa

Potatoes in South America

Wheat in Europe

Barley in the Middle-East

Rice in Asia

 

I guess the only continent that didn't have a starch-staple was Antarctica, but if you were to eat raw seafood, you would be eating lots of grease and protein, but also the animals muscle glycogen.

 

{2} Sure there were some low-carb cultures like the small unsuccessful Inuit and Eskimos, but those are exceptions. For a culture or population to eat all of their livestock, who be just flat-out non-sustainable. These domesticated animals have much more purpose than food. Cows could provide milk and manure, chickens provided eggs, sheep provide wool, etc.

 

{3} Agreed, but hunter-gathers didn't have much success; their whole entire day went to scavenging for food. Most of this food was plants. Hunting is a very unpredictable way of gathering calories. Have you ever hunted a deer, without bait, without a firearm and without a knife? Even hunting a deer with a deer feeder, gun and knife is unpredictable even nowadays, plus the ancients had no way of preserving the meat.

 

Agriculture is what allowed humans to evolve into other things, like literature, art and society. It provided "food security"  and gave the human-species a huge advantage over the other creatures of this world.

 

{4} Like what?

 

{5} I agree here also, to prevent controversy and unnecessary banning's, perhaps there should be only two option-buttons: an agree and disagree button.  

Edited by misterE, 18 June 2015 - 01:11 PM.

[misterE]

Since this has become another topic highjacked by misterE for preaching bis personal dietary ideology and engaging in utterly pointless anecdotal debate about the size of diet gurus' dicks, I'm out here.

 

 

No, you're "out of here" because you can't answer my questions about Kempner. It's fine timar, nothing personal, just want to give the viewers a chance. If I read something on here, that I disagree with (like your stance on the glycemic-index), you bet your butt I am going to challenge that! By not doing so, would be a disservice to people.

 

Focusing on the glycemic-index is going to persuaded people into eating fish or chicken instead of carrots or potatoes! Is that something I agree with? Hell no; that is why I am challenging you. Wish you would stay and roll with the punches...

Edited by misterE, 18 June 2015 - 01:24 PM.

[aza]

 

{1} Every continent had a starch staple:

 

Corn and beans in North America and Africa

Potatoes in South America

Wheat in Europe

Barley in the Middle-East

Rice in Asia

 

I guess the only continent that didn't have a starch-staple was Antarctica, but if you were to eat raw seafood, you would be eating lots of grease and protein, but also the animals muscle glycogen.

 

{2} Sure there were some low-carb cultures like the small unsuccessful Inuit and Eskimos, but those are exceptions. For a culture or population to eat all of their livestock, who be just flat-out non-sustainable. These domesticated animals have much more purpose than food. Cows could provide milk and manure, chickens provided eggs, sheep provide wool, etc.

 

{3} Agreed, but hunter-gathers didn't have much success; their whole entire day went to scavenging for food. Most of this food was plants. Hunting is a very unpredictable way of gathering calories. Have you ever hunted a deer, without bait, without a firearm and without a knife? Even hunting a deer with a deer feeder, gun and knife is unpredictable even nowadays, plus the ancients had no way of preserving the meat.

 

Agriculture is what allowed humans to evolve into other things, like literature, art and society. It provided "food security"  and gave the human-species a huge advantage over the other creatures of this world.

 

{4} Like what?

 

{5} I agree here also, to prevent controversy and unnecessary banning's, perhaps there should be only two option-buttons: an agree and disagree button.  

 

2. I'm not arguing that carbs that low are healthy, that is a very low carb diet, not low carb diet.

3. They evidently did well enough to survive, and if they are anywhere close to current hunter gatherers then their carbs would have varied considerably. There is also something i read about a certain hunter gatherer group only working for four hours a day, i swear i read it the other day yet i cant find it anywhere -.-. Also while they couldnt preserve the meat, they usually wouldnt have to. An animal would feed a tribe pretty well.

4. Apparently epilepsy, and i've heard positive things about a few others. http://www.epilepsyq...-ketogenic-diet

 

Edited by aza, 18 June 2015 - 02:00 PM.

[niner]

 

 Do you think that the "ill-informed" and "pointless, time-wasting"  ratings above were appropriate?  If so, why? 

 

Sure I do. Some posts are ill-informed or pointless, some posts are a waste of time, they should be regarded as such, if you disagree; why not tell the boss to remove them (option-buttons)?

 

It makes no sense to have these "options" and then ban members for expressing these options! Why not make it a rule that; you can only use these "options" if you type a detailed report of why you think a certain way?

 

The buttons are there so they can be applied to posts that are actually ill-informed or pointless.  I don't think that some of the posts that were rated 'ill-informed' or 'pointless' were in fact that.  If there's something wrong with the advice that ApoE4/4 people should eat low fat, could you explain it?  At the moment I think that's good advice, and would really like to know if I'm wrong.

[mikeinnaples]

{1} First off, most low carbers would still think a fast food double bacon cheeseburger without the bun is a crappy food.


{2} Processed grain fed meat, processed cheese and poor quality bacon cooking in polyunsaturated and transfats.

{3} Also, unsure why you hate weston price, he was quite a fan of whole grains (particularly wheat) and didnt have anything against tubers as far as i know.



{4} As i mentioned above, there were far more low carbers cultures then just the inuit and plenty in the medium range.


{5} Although i agree that constant ketosis probably isnt a good idea.


{6} Imo, ketogenic diets are only good for medical conditions, but lower carb diets themselves can be very healthy.


{7} There are also individual differences, some will thrive on a low carb diet and others will do better on high carb.



{8} Also misterE, i think he was just annoyed everything was being "ill informed" with no explanation.

{1} Well of course it is. But what do most "low-carbers" eat. (Most) meat is now fed with grain. How else can you provide enough meat for the masses if they eat alfalfa?

{2} This does not effect ruminant-animals. Grass-fed beef and grain-fed beef hardly has any difference (albeit some). The oil they fry it in is a different story, I defiantly believe that polyunsaturated and man-made trans-fat is harmful.

{3} Because most people think of Price as a low-carb, meat-eating, cod-liver oil chugging guru. When what he really meant: was that TRADITIONAL DIETS are healthy. Most traditional diets were starch-based my friend. Every continent had a major starch-staple.

{4} But would you agree that most successful cultures were starch-based, look at the American dietary trends since 1909, even back then Americans were eating mostly a starch-based diet (in the form of flour, grains, beans and potatoes).

{5} Of course it isn't. Ketosis is something that diabetics experience!

{6} Completely disagree... Low-carb diets are extremely UNHEALTHY for multiple reasons (which I can explain further if you would like).

{7} If that statement is true; why is amylase the main digestive enzyme in EVERY human (albeit some humans have more than others, never the less, amylase is still the most abundant enzyme there is)?

{8} Then they should remove their system. Sometimes you don't have a response, you just form an opinion based on what you read and feel inside. Should you be banned for having an opinion (without the words or "beef" to explain yourself)?

5. Ketosis is something diabetics experience? Really, that is a very misleading statement. Either you are confusing ketosis with ketoacidosis or you are way off base with your understanding of what being a diabetic is compared to someone who switches from glycolysis to ketosis through diet. For what it is worth, the only real way for a healthy person to get ketoacidosis through a ketogenic diet is from alcohol consumption either frequently or in large quantities.

I am under 30 grams net carbs per day mostly with a few days per month that I may go up to 50 or so. My latest number: LDL 89 HDL 64 Triglycerides 34, fasting glucose 78, BP 114/72, Pulse 52.... 40yo male.

I try to keep my fat intake on the healthy side, olives/oil, avocado, salmon, almonds, etc. I do eat eggs and will also have bacon once a week or so. Try to keep my protein down to what I need to maintain muscle and to recover from exercise. Coconut oil screwed up my cholesterol as well when I was using it, so I stopped.