'Put fat children on Atkins diet'



brian lanning <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> Patricia Heil <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

> > There is not long-term data on Atkins and it's dangerous
> > to do something to kids that isn't adequately tested on
> > adults.
>
> That didn't stop anyone from putting children on low-
> fat diets.

There's a /lot/ more data on low fat diets than there is on
low carb diets:

Medline searches:

"low fat":4061 "low carbohydrate":649 - "low carb":16

Look at the number that actually look at the associated
diets and it's even more one-sided.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
In sci.life-extension kvs <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

> > ``Longer and larger studies are required to determine
> > the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate,
> > high-protein, high-fat diets.''
> >
> > - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12761365
>
> Your favourite content-free website makes yet another
> hilariously absurd point.

Actually it was a PubMed article - archiving a study in the
New England Journal of Medicine.

I wouldn't describe PubMed as a "content-free website".
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
One of the points about butter was that it is way better
than the hydrogenated vegetable oils in margarine (and some
of the "new generation" cooking oils) and such.

Have you actually read his "age-defying" book? It is
certainly not advocating an animal fat rampage.*This* was
the misconception I was trying to correct. The recommended
plan is way more balanced than you are trying to suggest.

Ryan
 
Fat children should be advised to practise CR (calorie
restriction), vitamin supplements can be provided to prevent
deficiencies

however I am not so sure the "atkins diet" is such an
appropriate idea for children, high protein may put extra
strain on childrens kidneys and would also mean higher
intake of carcinogenic cooked meats and nitrate laden meats

would elimating carbohydrates have any developmental effects
on children?
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> brian lanning <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> > That didn't stop anyone from putting children on low-fat
> > diets.
> There's a /lot/ more data on low fat diets than there is
> on low carb diets: Medline searches: "low fat":4061 "low
> carbohydrate":649 - "low carb":16 Look at the number that
> actually look at the associated diets and it's even more
> one-sided.

Your argument isn't really fair. Low fat has more studies
only because it's been around longer. But 20 or 30 years
ago, there were far fewer studies on low fat, and people
still put their kids on it. I suspect this is because low
fat is more intuitive. Perhaps people then and now like the
idea of a low fat diet because it makes sense to them. You
are what you eat, right? Unfortuantely, it's nowhere near
that simple.

My mother in law used to send my wife to school, we're
talking the 80s, with a camberidge bar and a tab for lunch.
How's that for a low fat diet? It didn't work. My wife
gained weight anyway. Today, we know it's because a lot of
artificual sweeteners cause an insulin response in my wife.
Her body was also in starvation mode because she wasn't
getting enough calories. Today, she's losing weight with a
low carb diet. Something she's never been able to do.

It's true that we have no long term studies of low carb
diets. But it's just as unreasonable to assume that it's
unsafe as it is to assume that it's safe. We just don't
know, long term. That, to me, says that we need to exercise
caution when considering whether to put a child on a low
carb diet. If the child is only 10 pounds overweight, for
example, then maybe it's not worth the risk. But if the
child is one of these five year olds that weighs over 100
pounds, maybe they should try it. As all things in life, you
have to weigh the risks with the advantages and then make
the best decision you can.

In the short term, I think it's fair to argue that the
health benefits of losing weight outweigh the possible
risks. I've been on the diet for 8 months now. I probably
won't be on it for more than a year. But I will never go
back to the way I ate before.

brian
290/228/210 july 8,2003
 
She gained weight on a cambridge bar and a tab.

Yeah, right.

--
Most of us probably aren't in danger of eating too
little. :)

Becky P.

"brian lanning" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > brian lanning <[email protected]> wrote or
> > quoted:
> > > That didn't stop anyone from putting children on low-
> > > fat diets.
> > There's a /lot/ more data on low fat diets than there is
> > on low carb diets: Medline searches: "low fat":4061 "low
> > carbohydrate":649 - "low carb":16 Look at the number
> > that actually look at the associated diets and it's even
> > more one-sided.
>
> Your argument isn't really fair. Low fat has more studies
> only because it's been around longer. But 20 or 30 years
> ago, there were far fewer studies on low fat, and people
> still put their kids on it. I suspect this is because low
> fat is more intuitive. Perhaps people then and now like
> the idea of a low fat diet because it makes sense to them.
> You are what you eat, right? Unfortuantely, it's nowhere
> near that simple.
>
> My mother in law used to send my wife to school, we're
> talking the 80s, with a camberidge bar and a tab for
> lunch. How's that for a low fat diet? It didn't work. My
> wife gained weight anyway. Today, we know it's because a
> lot of artificual sweeteners cause an insulin response in
> my wife. Her body was also in starvation mode because she
> wasn't getting enough calories. Today, she's losing
> weight with a low carb diet. Something she's never been
> able to do.
>
> It's true that we have no long term studies of low carb
> diets. But it's just as unreasonable to assume that it's
> unsafe as it is to assume that it's safe. We just don't
> know, long term. That, to me, says that we need to
> exercise caution when considering whether to put a child
> on a low carb diet. If the child is only 10 pounds
> overweight, for example, then maybe it's not worth the
> risk. But if the child is one of these five year olds that
> weighs over 100 pounds, maybe they should try it. As all
> things in life, you have to weigh the risks with the
> advantages and then make the best decision you can.
>
> In the short term, I think it's fair to argue that the
> health benefits of losing weight outweigh the possible
> risks. I've been on the diet for 8 months now. I probably
> won't be on it for more than a year. But I will never go
> back to the way I ate before.
>
> brian
> 290/228/210 july 8,2003
 
In article <[email protected]>, brian lanning wrote:
> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> brian lanning <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>> > That didn't stop anyone from putting children on low-
>> > fat diets.
>> There's a /lot/ more data on low fat diets than there is
>> on low carb diets: Medline searches: "low fat":4061 "low
>> carbohydrate":649 - "low carb":16 Look at the number that
>> actually look at the associated diets and it's even more
>> one-sided.
>
> Your argument isn't really fair.

besides, he did not look for terms such as "ketogenic
diet" (428).

i
 
"brian lanning" <[email protected]> wrote

> I stopped all refined sugar. I removed some fruits but not
> all. I stopped all refined flour and only eat small
> amounts of whole wheat. I stopped all white rice (i don't
> like wild rice). I stopped all potatos and generally
> replaced them with vegitables.

> I tried to start running again when I was 290. I got about
> 100 feet and felt like I was going to die. One flight of
> stairs was enough to make me out of breath. The other
> night, I ran a mile without stopping.

Congrats, Brian. I was fat in high school and college, lost
most of it in 1973 and never went back, excepting for a
couple of years in the mid-1980's, during the end of a
hideous short marriage. Lost that again pretty quickly and
now, at 140, am about 100 pounds off my top. I do all the
things you list above, plus a few more, which I will mention
FWIW to you.

There is a cheap little book called the "Sugar Busters
Shopping Guide" that lists, even by brand-name, low glycemic
foods you can eat and high-glycemic foods to avoid. Very
handy. Also, Walford's "Beyond the 120-Year Diet" book is
excellent.

The potatoes you really have to avoid are the white ones but
you can eat sweet potatoes (not really potatoes but actually
related to morning glories) in moderation and they are VERY
good for you. Oven-baked sweet potato "fries" are a favorite
of mine, excellent chopped up into salads.

Keeping each meal to one plate of food and not eating a bite
after an early supper has been very helpful to me. In recent
months, I have stopped eating lunch. A breakfast of,
typically, whole wheat shredded wheat & bran cereal, 4
different kinds of fruit and soy milk then, at supper, a
plate of salad of maybe 10-15 ingredients with grilled
chicken or fish on top. Sometimes, I will eat something like
a few bites of sweet potato and a handful of unsalted
pumpkin seeds right before preparing supper. Keeps me from
being too ravenous and over-eating.

I have found that the long-range key is to A. first, change
the foods you eat, and then B. restrict the calories. You
can't practice healthy CR by limiting your McDonald's.
Obviously, you are beyond this; I just wanted to mention it.

You might consider joining a gym, if you have not
already, and adding some light weight-training to your
fitness routine. After a year or two you will never want
to stop your 2-3 days per week in the gym. Good for you
in so many ways.

As for running, consider your pace. I have been running, on
and off, for 25 years. The key is to run slowly, especially
at first. If, instead of trying to run a certain distance,
you will just go out for an HOUR and run (or run/walk, at
first, if necessary) SO SLOWLY that you could actually walk
faster, you will accomplish much more. Do that every other
day, no more. Only increase your pace / distance very
gradually. But the key is the slow, slow, slow pace in the
beginning.

mack austin
 
Tim Tyler cited:
>
> ``A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for
> obesity
>
> Despite the popularity of the low-carbohydrate, high-
> protein, high-fat (Atkins) diet, no randomized,
> controlled trials have evaluated its efficacy. [...]

Recently stopped being true. Many recent studies are coming
out now, fresh off the presses.

> The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss
> (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did
> the conventional diet for the first six months

So low carbing works 4% better during the critical first 6
months which is the time period most people actually lose
the most on any diet. Fabulous.

> but the differences were not significant at one year.

A year in most who've survived that long are already out of
their initial fast loss. It makes sense that plans 4% slower
would be able to catch up in the second half-year. So this
tells us that plans other than low-carb work. Not exactly
shocking news.

> The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater
> improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart
> disease.

Translation - Low carb is healthier than the competition on
some objectively measured standard.

> Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups.

Not exactly shocking news. I'd *love* to see the relative
numbers, though. Was adherence worse by the low carbers or
by the others? Was dropout higher among the low carbers of
the others? The 4% faster loss early on sounds like it just
might correlate to a 100-104 ratio of dropouts low-carb to
other. The detailed numbers would be fascinating.

> Longer and larger studies are required to determine the
> long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-
> protein, high-fat diets.''

Absolutely. Dr Atkins stayed on his own plan over 3 decades
and was in excellent health given his virus infection. But
one person does NOT a study make! Time for more studies!
Certainly.

Oh and by the way, the competition needs those exact same
studies. If the 6 month results of low carb show better
cholesterol, etc, I itch to see the 5 year results from low
fatters put side by side with the 5 year results from low
carbers. What are the chances low carbers will be going "oh
****!"? But without such studies it's only a guess.

> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12761365

> Experiment on yourselves by all means - but don't claim
> afterwards nobody warned you

Your own cited study says low carbing wins, so why the
objection? This is why my objection was about honesty and
your response really nailed it.

Right. After all your study claims that low carbing beats
low fatting. Yet you warn of the dangers. Where's the sense
in that? In the lack of long term studies, gotcha. I agree
on that angle.

> and maybe hold off putting kids on the diet until it has
> been better researched.

Taking kids off french fried and sugary sodas can hardly be
a problem. Going further than that, err, only worth the
bother on kids who are already obese and then only as a
corrective measure.
 
"anony344" <[email protected]> píse v diskusním príspevku
news:[email protected]...
> Fat children should be advised to practise CR (calorie
> restriction), vitamin supplements can be provided to
> prevent deficiencies

> would elimating carbohydrates have any developmental
> effects on children?

Probably not, unlike CR with FDA proposed ratios... (too
little protein).

Mirek
 
brian lanning <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

> Low fat has more studies only because it's been around
> longer. But 20 or 30 years ago, there were far fewer
> studies on low fat, and people still put their kids on it.

Back in the diet dark ages, yes.

> It's true that we have no long term studies of low carb
> diets. But it's just as unreasonable to assume that it's
> unsafe as it is to assume that it's safe. We just don't
> know, long term. That, to me, says that we need to
> exercise caution when considering whether to put a child
> on a low carb diet.

That's what it says to me as well. We don't know what what
the risks or the benefits are. Low carb diets have not been
properly tested.

> If the child is only 10 pounds overweight, for example,
> then maybe it's not worth the risk. But if the child is
> one of these five year olds that weighs over 100 pounds,
> maybe they should try it.

Why? You speak as though it was the only way to lose weight.
That is definitely not the case.

> In the short term, I think it's fair to argue that
> the health benefits of losing weight outweigh the
> possible risks.

The Atkins diet is not the only one to offer weight loss.
Following any low calorie diet will produce that effect.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
Doug Freyburger <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

> > Longer and larger studies are required to determine the
> > long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-
> > protein, high-fat diets.''
>
> Absolutely. Dr Atkins stayed on his own plan over 3
> decades and was in excellent health given his virus
> infection. But one person does NOT a study make! Time for
> more studies! Certainly.
>
> Oh and by the way, the competition needs those exact same
> studies.

Not half so badly they don't. Low calorie diets and low fat
diets have both been far better studied.

> > Experiment on yourselves by all means - but don't claim
> > afterwards nobody warned you
>
> Your own cited study says low carbing wins, so why the
> objection? This is why my objection was about honesty and
> your response really nailed it.
>
> Right. After all your study claims that low carbing beats
> low fatting. Yet you warn of the dangers. Where's the
> sense in that? [...]

Low carb /might/ beat low fat - for rapid initial
weight loss.

Not that that makes them desirable - since it's fairly
widely recognised that rapid weight loss has some problems
associated with it.

However even this is debatable - since last year's JAMA
review basically said that low calorie diets were what
worked when losing weight - and that low dietary carbs were
not even independently associated with weight loss.

``Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a
systematic review [...]

Among obese patients, weight loss was associated with
longer diet duration (P =.002), restriction of calorie
intake (P =.03), but not with reduced carbohydrate content
(P =.90). Low-carbohydrate diets had no significant
adverse effect on serum lipid, fasting serum glucose, and
fasting serum insulin levels, or blood pressure.
CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to make
recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate
diets, particularly among participants older than age 50
years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d
or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies,
participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets
was principally associated with decreased caloric intake
and increased diet duration but not with reduced
carbohydrate content.''

- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12684364
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the "low-
carb" advocates is their lack of distinction between simple
carbs, i.e. sugars, and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and
vegetables.

Completely putting aside the question of whether or not
eating sugars and high-glycemic foods (that turn into sugars
very quickly) injures the body directly, one thing's for
sure -- it definitely feeds the "sweet tooth" that ATTRACTS
one to over-eating. I imagine that is why the "sweet tooth"
evolved through natural selection -- because it attracted us
to fruits that, when we ate them, benefited both us (high
nutrition) and them (seed distribution).

But now, the sweet tooth attracts us mostly to "bad",
manufactured foods. The sweet taste comes from added sugars,
such as the apparently-dangerous high-fructose corn syrup,
or artificial sweetener. Even though the artificial
sweeteners may have a decided advantage in not promoting
diabetes as the sugars do, the disadvantage is that they are
still food-attractants, leading us to over-eating.

Example: recently, I have been eating bite-sized shredded
wheat and bran with several kinds of fruit for breakfast.
That product has 1 gm. per serving of sugars and does not
taste sweet in the least. It is just wheat & wheat bran,
period. I purchased a box of another "high-fiber" cereal
that listed 0 grams of sugars per serving. Although, after
wheat bran, it listed corn bran as a second ingredient (corn
is high-glycemic), I decided to try
it.

One bite caused me to look more closely at the nutrition
label because that stuff was REALLY sweet! It contained
Sucralose. Because I have grown used to non-sweetened
cereal, the taste was cloying but, still, there was also a
desire to eat more and more of it, unlike the un-sweetened
cereal. I immediately put it all down the disposal.

I went from eating foods laced with sugar to foods laced
with artificial sweetener to foods with no sweeteners of any
kind. Sort of a gradual withdrawal from sweets. Now, after
some months of being off the sweet taste, I am obviously
more inclined to reject it than to look for it. But that
took some doing.

My current idea about this is that artificial sweeteners,
aside from any intrinsic dangers they may or may not pose,
are something we should wean ourselves away from if we want
to practice any form of calorie restriction, just because
they are VERY powerful food-attractants and are likely to
entice us into over-eating or even to binge on the
sweetened food.

mack austin

"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote

> Among obese patients, weight loss was associated with
> longer diet duration (P =.002), restriction of calorie
> intake (P =.03), but not with reduced carbohydrate
> content (P =.90). Low-carbohydrate diets had no
> significant adverse effect on serum lipid, fasting serum
> glucose, and fasting serum insulin levels, or blood
> pressure. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to
> make recommendations for or against the use of low-
> carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants
> older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or
> for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the
> published studies, participant weight loss while using
> low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with
> decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but
> not with reduced carbohydrate content.''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12684364
> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
> lock to reply.
 
Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the "low-
carb" advocates is their lack of distinction between simple
carbs, i.e. sugars, and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and
vegetables.

Completely putting aside the question of whether or not
eating sugars and high-glycemic foods (that turn into sugars
very quickly) injures the body directly, one thing's for
sure -- it definitely feeds the "sweet tooth" that ATTRACTS
one to over-eating. I imagine that is why the "sweet tooth"
evolved through natural selection -- because it attracted us
to fruits that, when we ate them, benefited both us (high
nutrition) and them (seed distribution).

But now, the sweet tooth attracts us mostly to "bad",
manufactured foods. The sweet taste comes from added sugars,
such as the apparently-dangerous high-fructose corn syrup,
or artificial sweetener. Even though the artificial
sweeteners may have a decided advantage in not promoting
diabetes as the sugars do, the disadvantage is that they are
still food-attractants, leading us to over-eating.

Example: recently, I have been eating bite-sized shredded
wheat and bran with several kinds of fruit for breakfast.
That product has 1 gm. per serving of sugars and does not
taste sweet in the least. It is just wheat & wheat bran,
period. I purchased a box of another "high-fiber" cereal
that listed 0 grams of sugars per serving. Although, after
wheat bran, it listed corn bran as a second ingredient (corn
is high-glycemic), I decided to try
it.

One bite caused me to look more closely at the nutrition
label because that stuff was REALLY sweet! It contained
Sucralose. Because I have grown used to non-sweetened
cereal, the taste was cloying but, still, there was also a
desire to eat more and more of it, unlike the un-sweetened
cereal. I immediately put it all down the disposal.

I went from eating foods laced with sugar to foods laced
with artificial sweetener to foods with no sweeteners of any
kind. Sort of a gradual withdrawal from sweets. Now, after
some months of being off the sweet taste, I am obviously
more inclined to reject it than to look for it. But that
took some doing.

My current idea about this is that artificial sweeteners,
aside from any intrinsic dangers they may or may not pose,
are something we should wean ourselves away from if we want
to practice any form of calorie restriction, just because
they are VERY powerful food-attractants and are likely to
entice us into over-eating or even to binge on the
sweetened food.

mack austin

"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote

> Among obese patients, weight loss was associated with
> longer diet duration (P =.002), restriction of calorie
> intake (P =.03), but not with reduced carbohydrate
> content (P =.90). Low-carbohydrate diets had no
> significant adverse effect on serum lipid, fasting serum
> glucose, and fasting serum insulin levels, or blood
> pressure. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to
> make recommendations for or against the use of low-
> carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants
> older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or
> for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the
> published studies, participant weight loss while using
> low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with
> decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but
> not with reduced carbohydrate content.''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12684364
> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
> lock to reply.

"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote

> Among obese patients, weight loss was associated with
> longer diet duration (P =.002), restriction of calorie
> intake (P =.03), but not with reduced carbohydrate
> content (P =.90). Low-carbohydrate diets had no
> significant adverse effect on serum lipid, fasting serum
> glucose, and fasting serum insulin levels, or blood
> pressure. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to
> make recommendations for or against the use of low-
> carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants
> older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or
> for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the
> published studies, participant weight loss while using
> low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with
> decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but
> not with reduced carbohydrate content.''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12684364
> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
> lock to reply.
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Doug Freyburger <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>
> > > Longer and larger studies are required to determine
> > > the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate,
> > > high-protein, high-fat diets.''
> >
> > Absolutely. Dr Atkins stayed on his own plan over 3
> > decades and was in excellent health given his virus
> > infection. But one person does NOT a study make! Time
> > for more studies! Certainly.
> >
> > Oh and by the way, the competition needs those exact
> > same studies.
>
> Not half so badly they don't. Low calorie diets and low
> fat diets have both been far better studied.
>
> > > Experiment on yourselves by all means - but don't
> > > claim afterwards nobody warned you
> >
> > Your own cited study says low carbing wins, so why the
> > objection? This is why my objection was about honesty
> > and your response really nailed it.
> >
> > Right. After all your study claims that low carbing
> > beats low fatting. Yet you warn of the dangers. Where's
> > the sense in that? [...]
>
> Low carb /might/ beat low fat - for rapid initial
> weight loss.
>
> Not that that makes them desirable - since it's fairly
> widely recognised that rapid weight loss has some problems
> associated with it.
>
> However even this is debatable - since last year's JAMA
> review basically said that low calorie diets were what
> worked when losing weight - and that low dietary carbs
> were not even independently associated with weight loss.
>
> ``Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a
> systematic review [...]
>
> Among obese patients, weight loss was associated with
> longer diet duration (P =.002), restriction of calorie
> intake (P =.03), but not with reduced carbohydrate
> content (P =.90). Low-carbohydrate diets had no
> significant adverse effect on serum lipid, fasting serum
> glucose, and fasting serum insulin levels, or blood
> pressure. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to
> make recommendations for or against the use of low-
> carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants
> older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or
> for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the
> published studies, participant weight loss while using
> low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with
> decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but
> not with reduced carbohydrate content.''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=12684364

I wonder if they do more studies, including the long term
affects on children doing it. How could I have myself or
children participate with the study. It would be interesting
too to be involved in a study for those with Fibromyalia and
low carbing.
 
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:33:06 GMT, Mack <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the
> "low-carb" advocates is their lack of distinction between
> simple carbs, i.e. sugars, and complex carbs, i.e. fruits
> and vegetables.
>

I'm on low carb and eat a lot of vegetables and avoid sugars
to the exent I can. I also eat some fruits that are low
glycemic and high fiber.

I'm also a low carb advocate.

--
Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply
 
"Bob in CT" <[email protected]> wrote

> I'm on low carb and eat a lot of vegetables and avoid
> sugars to the exent I can. I also eat some fruits that are
> low glycemic and high fiber.
>
> I'm also a low carb advocate.

Sounds like you're more of a "low-sugar" or "low-glycemic"
advocate, which is better, IMO.

>avoid sugars to the extent I can

The cheap little "Shoppers' Guide" put out by Sugar Busters
is a good source of info about low and high-glycemic goods,
including brand names. If you avoid just a few very high
glycemic fruits and vegetables (ripe bananas, pineapples,
white potatoes, mangos, corn, beets and a few others) and
watch your nutrition labels to avoid anything with over 3g
of sugars listed, you can pretty easily avoid the sugars.
You still have to watch those labels for artificial
sweeteners, though, if, like me, you are trying to avoid the
"sweet taste", not just the sugars.

mack austin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back