typical low-carb meals - what us wrong with this



> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same energy
> >level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more fiber,
> >2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more vitamin
> >C, 7x more B6, etc...
>
> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule?
> What is your point?

My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight, and
I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.

> available wholefoods. You shouldn't live on just
> cauliflower, or just bread. BTW, bread has ~10% protein.
> Cauliflower ?

Cauliflower 2g / 100g - so calorie for calorie, it is twice
as much. So you you will eat as much as to get at least the
same amount of micronutrition (e.g. 500g of cauliflower vs
100 g of bread for same calcium), you will get roughly the
same protein, but at worst half of calories.

OTOH, what is meat for ?

> >Please accept this fact: Only possible reason to eat
> >grains is to
stuff
> >yourself with energy.
>
> So how much cauliflower would you have to eat to get your
> daily energy needs?

~12kg ? :) Anyway, I need to eat less calories, not more.

> > If you have use for this energy, fine, perhaps you need
> > high-calorie diet.
>
> So why do these anti-grain folk tend to advocate the
> consumption of packaged fat? That is two-and-a-half-times
> as energy dense as grains.

"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil
in bottles ? Or what ?!

Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer source
of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides, lowers LDL,
rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings, etc, etc...
all these things are in fact related.

Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I believe
that people without syndrome are rarely fat. I believe that
this could be your (and many other anti-LC advocates) case -
you can perhaps maintain your weight without problems, so
you tend not to believe that people affected by syndrome
actually ARE hungry soon after eating carbs, even relatively
low-GI ones.

> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
> world is deficient in.

Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
aren't we ? Maybe the solution is to send all that pasta and
bread to starving countries :)

> >real whole food. Not to speak that 7 grain whole-grain
> >bread is
probably
> >a nutritional elite of breads.
>
> Well I eat a homemade bread with much more than that in
> it, so it would be a peasant bread for me :)

:) Actually, if I would ever plan to reintroduce bread to my
:WOE, I plan
to do homemade too (with a lot of flaxseed perhaps).

> >I am also somewhat concerned about baking process. Every
> >time food
goes
> >through high temperature while exposed to oxygen,
> >bad things
happen...
>
> And how does this cause a problem in the real world?

In real world, this is creating carcinogen acrylamids in the
bread (about 50mg / 100 g of average bread).

Also, althogh fat contenct of bread is low, most of it is
PUFA and it will go rancid (but at 0.39 g / 100 g total, it
is hardly a problem).

> >I really wonder, why you are so obsessive with
> >grains ? :)
>
> I'm not. It is a fine food and I'm just defending it from
> the obsessives who keep claiming it is the root of all our
> troubles.

Well, I think bread is not the main problem. Main problem is
corn sirup and corn starch. But when you are fat already,
most likely due to metabolic syndrome, controling high carb
food is really the easiest (and possibly healthiest) way how
to manage your weight.

> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no
> problems. It is only the fat westerners who do. Does this
> not tell you something? Perhaps the fatties are looking
> for a scapegoat?

Also part of problem is that recently we were told that
eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too much of
them. Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway
for people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet,
it _could_ be a viable path to go.

If we have stayed on 33:33:33 diet, things might be much
better as of now. But after 70:20:10 for several years, one
has to compensate...

Mirek
 
> > Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
> > any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
> > dangerous about this.
> >
> > 1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> > veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
> > vinaigrette dressing you want
> >
> > 2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> > vinaigrette dressing you want
> >
> > Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
> >
> > The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
> > grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
> >
> > TC
>
> I'd say it depends on the quantity of vegetables you are
> consuming. To ensure bones don't deteriorate this needs to
> be quite high - I don't know the ideal, but have heard
> various figures mentioned such as 80% vegetables, and 20mg
> Calcium per 1 gram of animal protein. There's certainly
> evidence that more veges equals better bones, but AFAIK
> the exact ratios recommended are theoretical.
>
> Also, with the restriction of grains one needs to be
> careful to get sufficient selenium in the diet. This is
> fine when eating chicken and lots of eggs, but other meats
> don't provide as much so I'd recommend including a brazil
> nut to top up on non-chicken days.

Thank you for most reasonable and valuable response in whole
thread... ;)

Mirek
 
Pizza Girl wrote:

> Almost every diet known to mankind restricts grains.

So brown rice and rolled oats, wheat with the barn and germ
and other whole grains are eschewed? Damn, I've been
following this for 15 years and must have missed this point.
Take a gander at
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html
and note whole grains. If you saddle up with TC and feel
this is all a conspiracy then this entire discussion is
talking with a rock.

> When was the last time you ate a handful of raw grain?

Who the hell said eat them raw. Are you and TC both reading
challanged?
>
> I did 45 years ago for a joke.

I suspect you did a bunch of things 45 years ago that have
rendered you bizarre at best. Did the aliens get you too?

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email protected]
 
On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:

>Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I challenge
>any anti-atkins people to explain what is wrong and so
>dangerous about this.
>
>1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side of
> veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and vinaigrette
> dressing you want
>
>2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> vinaigrette dressing you want
>
>Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>
>The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
>grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?

I just read Mirek's response to his response below.

These two meals are excellent. Sound delicious. That's
two meals for the week, what about the other nineteen or
twenty-six or thirty-three? Can get awfully samey and
depriving IME.
 
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:19:14 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]>
posted:

>> Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
>> multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb
>> source with an gi/gl = < the
>carrets
>> and peas, both high btw? Why not a moderate carb diet
>> which falls
>within
>> one's energy requirements?
>
>Let me think... hm.... hm.... what about calories? :)

Well TC thinks they don't apply to the human body...
 
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:02:34 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]>
posted:

>> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same energy
>> >level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more fiber,
>> >2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more vitamin
>> >C, 7x more B6, etc...
>>
>> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
>> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule?
>> What is your point?
>
>My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight, and
>I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.

Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
(<2000cal?)

For satiety, potatoes are the go. See: http://www.diabetesn-
et.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php

>> available wholefoods. You shouldn't live on just
>> cauliflower, or just bread. BTW, bread has ~10% protein.
>> Cauliflower ?
>
>Cauliflower 2g / 100g - so calorie for calorie, it is
>twice as much.

And by average serving?

So where do you get your daily energy requirements from? Egg
white in a glass of water has similar protein/cal ratio to
cauliflower, but what a poor meal. Cauliflower is mostly
water, and the bulk disappears quickly.

>So you you will eat as much as to get at least the same
>amount of micronutrition (e.g. 500g of cauliflower vs 100 g
>of bread for same calcium), you will get roughly the same
>protein, but at worst half of calories.

But calories are an essential nutrient. Do you really think
the aim is Zero calories?

>OTOH, what is meat for ?

To eat, enjoy and benefit nutritionally from. Oh, and to
move animals skeletons :)

>> >Please accept this fact: Only possible reason to eat
>> >grains is to
>stuff
>> >yourself with energy.
>>
>> So how much cauliflower would you have to eat to get your
>> daily energy needs?
>
>~12kg ? :) Anyway, I need to eat less calories, not more.

Less than what? Seems that you won't get many from all that
cauliflower that you could eat. I love cauliflower,
especially with a low fat pizza sauce on it :) But I
certainly don't want to put myself off it for life with a
cauliflower stuffing competiton.

>> > If you have use for this energy, fine, perhaps you need
>> > high-calorie diet.
>>
>> So why do these anti-grain folk tend to advocate the
>> consumption of packaged fat? That is two-and-a-half-times
>> as energy dense as grains.
>
>"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil
>in bottles ? Or what ?!

Yep, exactly. What's wrong with eating a few olives?
Expressed fat is the worst kind of fast food. Empty calories
on steroids!

>Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
>syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer
>source of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides, lowers
>LDL, rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings, etc,
>etc... all these things are in fact related.

I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All packaged
fat should be avoided by overfed, underexercised
westerners. Like most food processing (where practical) and
all refining.

>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I believe
>that people without syndrome are rarely fat.

Not sure what the exact numbers are, but I read somewhere
that 90% of DM2 sufferers were obese. But there are a
considerable proportion of fatties that are neither syndrome
X nor DM2.

> I believe that this could be your (and many other anti-LC
> advocates) case - you can perhaps maintain your weight
> without problems, so you tend not to believe that people
> affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry soon after eating
> carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.

If you are ill, then you must tailor your lifestyle to fit
that illness. If you are overweight, then reduce caloric
intake, if you are underexercised, then exercise. If you
have a problem metabolising a food, then avoid or manage it.
But for normal healthy individuals, there is nothing better
then a varied, eucaloric, wholefood diet with regular
moderate exercise, like the wise ones have advocated for
decades if not centuries.

>> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
>> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
>> world is deficient in.
>
>Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
>aren't we ?

I'm talking about energy requirements of normal humans. I
agree we tend to get sidetracked on to the problems that
overfed underexercised westerners find themselves in.

>Maybe the solution is to send all that pasta and bread to
>starving countries :)

Like mother used to say? :)

>> >real whole food. Not to speak that 7 grain whole-grain
>> >bread is
>probably
>> >a nutritional elite of breads.
>>
>> Well I eat a homemade bread with much more than that in
>> it, so it would be a peasant bread for me :)
>
>:) Actually, if I would ever plan to reintroduce bread to
>:my WOE, I plan
>to do homemade too (with a lot of flaxseed perhaps).

Yep. Mine's got wheat, oats, soy, rye, sesame, flax, barley,
maize canola and a bunch of other things that I can't recall
for the moment.

>> >I am also somewhat concerned about baking process. Every
>> >time food
>goes
>> >through high temperature while exposed to oxygen, bad
>> >things
>happen...
>>
>> And how does this cause a problem in the real world?
>
>In real world, this is creating carcinogen acrylamids in
>the bread (about 50mg / 100 g of average bread).

Not according to the latest studies I saw a few months ago.
There *was* a scare, but it's got the all clear.

>Also, althogh fat contenct of bread is low, most of it is
>PUFA and it will go rancid (but at 0.39 g / 100 g total, it
>is hardly a problem).

And kept in freezer/fridge?

>> >I really wonder, why you are so obsessive with
>> >grains ? :)
>>
>> I'm not. It is a fine food and I'm just defending it from
>> the obsessives who keep claiming it is the root of all
>> our troubles.
>
>Well, I think bread is not the main problem. Main problem
>is corn sirup and corn starch.

Anything is, if you eat too much of it. HFCS is about the
same as cane/beet sugar. Avoid where at all possible.

>But when you are fat already, most likely due to metabolic
>syndrome,

Well overeating really. That then causes the metabolic
syndrome, which is self-perpetuating.

>controling high carb food is really the easiest (and
>possibly healthiest) way how to manage your weight.

When you have that illnes/disability, for sure. Like DM2
should control with diet and exercsie. For normal healthy
folk, calories and exercise are the way to remain normal,
healthy weight

>> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no
>> problems. It is only the fat westerners who do. Does this
>> not tell you something? Perhaps the fatties are looking
>> for a scapegoat?
>
>Also part of problem is that recently we were told
>that eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too
>much of them.

Eating carbs IS healthy. Eating too much of anything is not.
Some humans can't seem to grasp the meaning of moderation.

>Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway for
>people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet, it
>_could_ be a viable path to go.

Damaged by high calorie. High carb can't damage you, unlesss
you a) don't get suffiecient other nutrients, or b) don't
take enough exercise.

>If we have stayed on 33:33:33 diet, things might be much
>better as of now. But after 70:20:10 for several years, one
>has to compensate...

With a little arithmetic, you can see that a typical
westerner will be malnourished if she eats this ratio
eucalorically. OK? BUT, if she does enough exercise (a lot)
to allow this ratio to be eucaloric, as well as provide all
other necessary nutrients, she will not have any problems.
(Except for overexercise :)
 
> >My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight,
> >and I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
>
> Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
> (<2000cal?)
>
> For satiety, potatoes are the go. See: http://www.diabete-
> snet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php

For how long? Two hours?

Or do you thing that high GI of potatoes means nothing in
real world?

What is wrong with replacing high-calorie potatoes with
cauliflower, like most LCers do?

> So where do you get your daily energy requirements from?

Veggies, meat, dairy and olive oil.

> Egg white in a glass of water has similar protein/cal
> ratio to cauliflower, but what a poor meal. Cauliflower is
> mostly water, and the bulk disappears quickly.

Not if mixed with reasonable amount of fat. I have found
that most satieting food for me is good mix of fried
veggies, some protein and fat. This keeps me full and active
for 6+ hours.

> >OTOH, what is meat for ?
>
> To eat, enjoy and benefit nutritionally from.

Yes. But when you are aiming for 1g/kg of protein daily, you
definitely do not need to get more protein from bread.

> low fat pizza sauce on it :) But I certainly don't want to
> put myself off it for life with a cauliflower stuffing
> competiton.

Cauliflower is not the only LC vegetable:)

> >"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive
> >oil in bottles
?
> >Or what ?!
>
> Yep, exactly. What's wrong with eating a few olives?

Nothing. I like them.

> >Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
> >syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer
> >source of energy - it does
not
> >rises tryglicerides, lowers LDL, rises HDL, does
> >not causes
insulin/BG
> >swings, etc, etc... all these things are in fact related.
>
> I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
> pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All packaged
> fat should be avoided by overfed, underexercised
> westerners.

Hm, where is the logic? First bread contains valuable
energy, now all suddenly olive oil contains empty calories.
Where is your "calorie is a calorie is a calorie" concept?

BTW, olive oil is quite high in E and K vitamins:

bread 100g:: 250kcal, 0.34mg E, 2.2mcg K olive oil 100g:
884kcal, 14.35 mg E, 60mcg K

So again, calorie for calorie, it has 11 times more vitamin
E and 8 times more vitamin K. It also contains 220mg/100g of
phytosterols. And again, MUFAs alone could be considered as
valuable healthy nutrition, at least they were in any single
research I have read about them.

I think that everybody can benefit from lower triglycerids
and higher HDL - and that is something high-carb diet will
not help you with.

Now mix cauliflower, some protein source and olive oil
together - you will get food that nutritionaly beats bread
in every single aspect, tastes excelent and keeps you going
for more than 6 hours.

Mirek
 
[email protected] (tcomeau) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (tintinet) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]
> > net.com>...
> > > Why not a side of grain or tubers? Why not a side of
> > > multigrain bread with butter? Why not any other carb
> > > source with an gi/gl = < the carrets and peas, both
> > > high btw?
> >
> > Actually, the carrot deal appears to be a mistake- go
> > ahead and crunch'em!
> >
> > A recent issue of the newsletter Harvard Women's Health
> > Watch ranked some foods by both GI and GL. For a baked
> > potato, the calculation went like this: 37 (grams of
> > carbohydrate in a serving) multiplied by 1.21 (GI)
> > equals 45. That's still high in a ranking of foods by
> > glycemic load. Air-popped popcorn, though, went from a
> > high GI of 79 to a low GL of 4. Corn chips fell from 105
> > to a moderate GL of 16. Carrots dropped from Harvard's
> > oddly high GI of 131 to a GL of 10. Remember, serving
> > size counts: That's a cup of popcorn, an ounce of corn
> > chips and a half cup of cooked carrots.
> >
> > And carrots' stock goes up even further. The widely used
> > glycemic indexing of carrots at 92 (not to mention that
> > 131) was faulty, according to Australian researcher Dr.
> > Jennie Brand-Miller, a leader in the field and author of
> > "The Glucose Revolution." She told me by e-mail that a
> > later, less publicized test put carrots' GI at 49, and
> > very recent tests under her watch found boiled carrots
> > to have a GI of 32 and carrot juice 43. That would give
> > carrots a GL between 3 and 4.
> >
> > "I think the glycemic load is shaping up to be a
> > valuable concept," said Brand-Miller. "A diet with a
> > very high GL should be avoided. This means that the
> > higher the carbohydrate content of your diet, the more
> > important it is that the carbohydrate comes from low-GI
> > sources."
> >
> > Though a proponent of GI and GL awareness ? she's
> > working to develop a program that would allow low-glycemic-
> > index foods to be labeled as such ? Brand-Miller
> > cautions against taking it to extremes.
> >
> > "I don't think we should be necessarily aiming for a
> > diet with the lowest GL," she said. "While the worst
> > choice is a high-cholesterol, high-GI diet, the best
> > choice is still being sorted out."
> >
> > Molly Martin is assistant editor of Pacific Northwest
> > magazine. She can be reached by calling 206-464-8243,
> > e-mailing [email protected] or writing her at
> > Pacific Northwest magazine, The Seattle Times, P.O. Box
> > 70, Seattle, WA 98111.
>
> Yeah yeah. But a bit, as in a side of, high-GI wholefood
> veggies once in a while will not lead to obesity.
>
> TC

The point is, carrots are NOT a HIGH GI food.
 
> That's two meals for the week, what about the other
> nineteen or twenty-six or thirty-three?

You mean other 19 ?

Or you as obsessed with food and/or driven by insulin
and blood sugar swings that you need to eat more that 3
meals a day ?

Mirek
 
[email protected] (tcomeau) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, [email protected]
> > (tcomeau) posted:
> >
> > >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I
> > >challenge any anti-atkins people to explain what is
> > >wrong and so dangerous about this.
> > >
> > >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side
> > > of veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
> > >
> > >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom and
> > > veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer salad and
> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
> > >
> > >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
> > >
> > >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
> > >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
> >
> > Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious
> > wholefoods such as grains and vegetables.
>
> Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
> example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc. My
> question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is
> this a dangerous way of eating?
>
> TC

That depends - is the meat lean? Grain, sugar and starch are
useful to the body for fuel and you aren't eating them. If
you are restricting your carbs you are either eating the
same amount of protein and fat and thus less calories
overall, or maintaining the same number of calories while
increasing the amount of protein and fat that you get. Too
much protein can lead to kidney problems, and too much fat
(especially animal fat) is not good for the heart.

How about a better plan than cutting out carbs - cutting out
refined sugar carbs only, and eating whole grain products
and (gasp!) potatoes as part of a balanced diet also
containing proteins and fat. Then USING the fuel that carbs
give you to actually be active which is good for your heart
instead of living a sedentary and ultimately heart-disease
prone lifestyle.
 
Post too long or empty.

"Tanya Quinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > > On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, [email protected]
> > > (tcomeau) posted:
> > >
> > > >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I
> > > >challenge any anti-atkins people to explain what is
> > > >wrong and so dangerous about this.
> > > >
> > > >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side
> > > > of veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
> > > > vinaigrette dressing you want
> > > >
> > > >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom
> > > > and veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer
> > > > salad and vinaigrette dressing you want
> > > >
> > > >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
> > > >
> > > >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
> > > >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
> > >
> > > Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious
> > > wholefoods such as grains and vegetables.
> >
> > Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
> > example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc.
> > My question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity):
> > Is this a dangerous way of eating?
> >
> > TC
>
> That depends - is the meat lean? Grain, sugar and starch
> are useful to the body for
 
> Too much protein can lead to kidney problems, and too
> much fat

Nope. There is not too much protein in LC diet. It is high
fat diet, not high protein.

> (especially animal fat) is not good for the heart.

Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous.
Saturated maybe. But MUFAs has quite opposite effect.

Mirek
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Mirek Fidler rambled on about
"Re: typical low-carb meals - what us wrong with this." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>Nope. There is not too much protein in LC diet. It is high
>fat diet, not high protein.
>
>> (especially animal fat) is not good for the heart.
>
>Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous.
>Saturated maybe. But MUFAs has quite opposite effect.

Fat doesn't have fiber.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
John Gohde,
Feeling Great and Better than Ever!

Alternative medicine was yesterday's quackery, is today's
complementary medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine.
http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html
 
> >Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous.
> >Saturated maybe.
But
> >MUFAs has quite opposite effect.
>
> Fat doesn't have fiber.

Nope. The most important high-fiber food excluded form low-
carb diet is whole-grain bread. It contains 7g of fiber /
100g. Allowed vegetables contain average 3g / 100g. No
problem to substitute.

Mirek
 
11:24:54 Mon, 22 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition
Moosh:) at "Moosh:)" <[email protected]> writes:
>On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:02:34 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
><[email protected]> posted:
>
>>> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same
>>> >energy level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more
>>> >fiber, 2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more
>>> >vitamin C, 7x more B6, etc...
>>>
>>> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
>>> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule?
>>> What is your point?
>>
>>My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight,
>>and I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
>
>Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
>(<2000cal?)
>
>For satiety, potatoes are the go. See: http://www.diabetes-
>net.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
>

Hmm... the complete opposite of what I find in myself. But
then, I am a diabetic. If I eat such foods as bread, rice,
potatoes and so on, my glucose levels go too high, then they
come plummeting down too fast and I feel hungry again. The
chart is not to be advised for people like me. And as was
pointed out, maybe fat have a metabolic problem with these
foods, like I do (my weight is normal, now, though, but I am
still diabetic).

Such a study is an interesting thing, but I hope that
nutritionists don't go advising all people how to eat based
on that and not on their individual metabolic needs (which
is how dieticians around here advise people - i.e., with no
reference to individual circumstances).

>>> So why do these anti-grain folk tend to advocate the
>>> consumption of packaged fat? That is two-and-a-half-
>>> times as energy dense as grains.
>>
>>"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil
>>in bottles ? Or what ?!
>
>Yep, exactly. What's wrong with eating a few olives?
>Expressed fat is the worst kind of fast food. Empty
>calories on steroids!
>
>>Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
>>syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer
>>source of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides, lowers
>>LDL, rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings, etc,
>>etc... all these things are in fact related.
>
>I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
>pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All packaged
>fat should be avoided by overfed, underexercised
>westerners. Like most food processing (where practical) and
>all refining.
>

But... so-called normal healthy nutrition may be leading
some people into these overeating problems, if they have the
metabolism for it. Isn't that possible?

>>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
>>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I
>>believe that people without syndrome are rarely fat.
>

This is an interesting idea and I have wondered about it
myself. I certainly like to think that my own overeating
was caused by something other than my conscious self... but
such a self-serving idea needs to be treated with
suspicion. Still, it could be true, too. My feeling about
it, comparing how I felt with how it seemed to me that
other people felt (a difficult judgement, I know), is that
I felt more hunger than other people, and that that hunger
was caused by some sort of metabolic problem (I know not
what). Eventually, a known metabolic problem emerged and I
was diagnosed as insulin resistant, then diabetic. At this
stage, eating too many carbohydrates (as advised) didn't
make solving the problem any easier as the cravings they
caused (and can still cause) were (and are) stronger than
my willpower. I am only able to eat less since I learned
about cutting carbohydrates down. Thereafter, willpower is
hardly needed and I have been able to control my weight
properly for the first time. The nutritional advice given
to diabetics simply stinks.

My personal guess is that I don't lack willpower (people
tell me I have lots), so I conclude that I must have been
feeling more hungry.

>Not sure what the exact numbers are, but I read somewhere
>that 90% of DM2 sufferers were obese. But there are a
>considerable proportion of fatties that are neither
>syndrome X nor DM2.
>

I would be interested in knowing those numbers. However, it
has to be said that many are undiagnosed. The typical DM2
isn't diagnosed until they've been losing beta cells for an
estimated 6.5 years, and presumably they could have been
insulin resistant (IR) for longer than that. The numbers, to
be most helpful, would need to be based on a careful study
of the undiagnosed overweight to determine whether or not
they show any of the precursors of DM (high blood pressure,
bad lipid levels, some insulin resistance, high insulin
levels) and choices would have to be made about how to
classify those that did show less than optimal readings.
There is no sudden jump in these levels from a diagnosis of
normal to IR to DM: it is a smooth continuum: a given person
could be anywhere on the range.

>> I believe that this could be your (and many other anti-LC
>> advocates) case - you can perhaps maintain your weight
>> without problems, so you tend not to believe that people
>> affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry soon after
>> eating carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.
>

Well, I definitely am. And yes, I concur; it may well be
that some people are and some are not.

>If you are ill, then you must tailor your lifestyle to fit
>that illness. If you are overweight, then reduce caloric
>intake, if you are underexercised, then exercise. If you
>have a problem metabolising a food, then avoid or manage
>it. But for normal healthy individuals, there is nothing
>better then a varied, eucaloric, wholefood diet with
>regular moderate exercise, like the wise ones have
>advocated for decades if not centuries.
>

I won't disagree with that, even though I don't think that
humans evolved eating grains (domestication of grains is a
modern invention - only about 6,000 years old, isn't it?).
But I think that the advice given to diabetics is the same
as that given to normal people, and it is inappropriate.

>>> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
>>> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
>>> world is deficient in.
>>
>>Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
>>aren't we ?
>
>I'm talking about energy requirements of normal humans. I
>agree we tend to get sidetracked on to the problems that
>overfed underexercised westerners find themselves in.
>

>
>>But when you are fat already, most likely due to metabolic
>>syndrome,
>
>Well overeating really. That then causes the metabolic
>syndrome, which is self-perpetuating.
>

This sequence is unproven and circumstantial. Just because
people get diagnosed with the metabolic syndrome long after
they have gained weight doesn't mean that there wasn't
something wrong and undiagnosed at an earlier stage causing
the overeating and weight gain in the first place. Sure, it
*might* just be overeating, but that behaviour itself might
be caused by some disorder that has yet to be discovered.

I agree that the syndrome then becomes self-perpetuating
though, as eating as advised by so many nutritional
'experts' causes more food cravings in such people (going by
my personal experience and that of many others with
diabetes).

>>controling high carb food is really the easiest (and
>>possibly healthiest) way how to manage your weight.
>
>When you have that illnes/disability, for sure. Like DM2
>should control with diet and exercsie. For normal healthy
>folk, calories and exercise are the way to remain normal,
>healthy weight
>
>>> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no
>>> problems. It is only the fat westerners who do. Does
>>> this not tell you something? Perhaps the fatties are
>>> looking for a scapegoat?
>>
>>Also part of problem is that recently we were told
>>that eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too
>>much of them.
>
>Eating carbs IS healthy. Eating too much of anything is
>not. Some humans can't seem to grasp the meaning of
>moderation.
>
>>Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway for
>>people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet, it
>>_could_ be a viable path to go.
>
>Damaged by high calorie. High carb can't damage you,
>unlesss you a) don't get suffiecient other nutrients, or b)
>don't take enough exercise.
>

Or c) are diabetic or prone to it, apparently.

--
Martin Thompson [email protected] (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Web Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin
 
15:29:59 Tue, 23 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition
Tanya Quinn at Tanya Quinn <[email protected]> writes:
>[email protected] (tcomeau) wrote in message
>news:<b550f406.04 [email protected]>...
>> "Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:<i21m50hgfk0bd [email protected]>...
>> > On 16 Mar 2004 07:16:09 -0800, [email protected]
>> > (tcomeau) posted:
>> >
>> > >Here are a couple of typical low-carb meals. I
>> > >challenge any anti-atkins people to explain what is
>> > >wrong and so dangerous about this.
>> > >
>> > >1) 4 ounces of chicken, beef, fish, pork or lamb side
>> > > of veggies - carrots and peas all the salad and
>> > > vinaigrette dressing you want
>> > >
>> > >2) 4 ounces of bbq steak, ribs, or chicken mushroom
>> > > and veggie stuffed green pepper all the summer
>> > > salad and vinaigrette dressing you want
>> > >
>> > >Sounds downright dangerous doesn't it.
>> > >
>> > >The only thing being restricted is refined sugars and
>> > >grains and high-starch tubers. Scary, eh?
>> >
>> > Yep, it is ridiculous to restrict any nutritious
>> > wholefoods such as grains and vegetables.
>>
>> Is it anywhere near as ridiculous as calling the above
>> example of a low-carb diet as dangerous, harmful, etc. My
>> question was (re-stated and re-worded for clarity): Is
>> this a dangerous way of eating?
>>
>> TC
>
>That depends - is the meat lean? Grain, sugar and starch
>are useful to the body for fuel and you aren't eating them.

The body is perfectly capable of converting protein and fat
into glucose for use as fuel, and it does so routinely
(about 60% of protein and 30% of fat gets so converted). Why
then is there a need for fuel from grains, sugar and starch
(and where did pre-agricultural cavemen get such items from
all year round)?

> If you are restricting your carbs you are either eating
> the same amount of protein and fat and thus less calories
> overall,

This tends to be what such a diet leads to: studies have
shown that on such a diet people voluntarily eat less even
when allowed to eat as much as they like: they actually want
to eat less, and do so. Hence, they lose weight.

> or maintaining the same number of calories while
> increasing the amount of protein and fat that you get. Too
> much protein can lead to kidney problems, and too much fat
> (especially animal fat) is not good for the heart.
>

I have seen no evidence at all that too much protein can
lead to kidney problems. The studies I have seen have shown
that too much protein is harmful if the kidneys are
*already* damaged, however, but that is not the same thing
(and anecdotal evidence suggests that controlling blood
glucose levels is a more important factor anyway, in
diabetics that is). It is worth noting, though, that such a
diet typically reduces carbs and doesn't increase protein
and fat much (i.e., doesn't fully counter-compensate), so
the diet doesn't amount to a high protein diet anyway. The
net result is a reduction in calories consumed.

It could in some cases become a high fat diet, though, and
as you say, too much fat (strictly, saturated fat and trans-
fat) is known to be harmful for the heart. However, blood
lipid levels actually correlate to the quantity of
carbohydrates eaten and not to the amount of fat eaten
(within reason). Why? Because insulin converts surplus blood
glucose into fat.

>How about a better plan than cutting out carbs - cutting
>out refined sugar carbs only, and eating whole grain
>products and (gasp!) potatoes as part of a balanced diet
>also containing proteins and fat.

Great if you aren't diabetic or suffering from syndrome X,
or prone to either. No good if you are.

> Then USING the fuel that carbs give you to actually
> be active

As a diabetic, when I eat carbs, my blood glucose goes up
and I get lethargic: completely the opposite to what the
normal advice suggests. Since I have learned to control my
glucose levels by cutting the carbs down (a lot), I have
more energy than I can remember since childhood (and I was
only diagnosed in my late 30's).

I reiterate: we don't *need* to consume carbs to supply
energy. The body can use any food for this. Carbs are handy,
though, during a workout, but that is about it for me. And
in fact, I can do a workout without carbs, but if I am
feeling tired it can be more difficult. I have read one
study though that showed that some people actually have more
success avoiding the carbs in a workout (I think it was
stamina people, IIRC).

--
Martin Thompson [email protected] (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Web Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin
 
Martin Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
> >>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I
> >>believe that people without syndrome are rarely fat.
> >
>
> This is an interesting idea and I have wondered about it
> myself. I certainly like to think that my own overeating
> was caused by something other than my conscious self...
> but such a self-serving idea needs to be treated with
> suspicion. Still, it could be true, too. My feeling about
> it, comparing how I felt with how it seemed to me that
> other people felt (a difficult judgement, I know), is that
> I felt more hunger than other people, and that that hunger
> was caused by some sort of metabolic problem (I know not
> what). Eventually, a known metabolic problem emerged and I
> was diagnosed as insulin resistant, then diabetic. At this
> stage, eating too many carbohydrates (as advised) didn't
> make solving the problem any easier as the cravings they
> caused (and can still cause) were (and are) stronger than
> my willpower. I am only able to eat less since I learned
> about cutting carbohydrates down. Thereafter, willpower

There are slim people with abnormal carbohydrate responses -
I'm one. Also read about one in a low-carb book. I don't
know if I'm IR - haven't been tested, but I've always been
almost constantly hungry. It's probably only due to my
crappy digestive system that I remain fairly scrawny. My GP
wise-cracked that other people pay >$100/month to have what
I've got ;)

When I'm only eating low-glycemic or low-carb (<150g carb)
each day I don't have the same hunger patterns as I do when
eating other carbohydrates. But if I suddenly withdraw a
source of carbo that my body is expecting (eg. suddenly
switching from sweetened oats for breakfast to meat+leafy-
veg) I get shaky, have trouble doing things like walking up
stairs, and experience nausea and other unpleasant symptoms.

> is hardly needed and I have been able to control my weight
> properly for the first time. The nutritional advice given
> to diabetics simply stinks.
>
> My personal guess is that I don't lack willpower (people
> tell me I have lots), so I conclude that I must have been
> feeling more hungry.
>
> >Not sure what the exact numbers are, but I read somewhere
> >that 90% of DM2 sufferers were obese. But there are a
> >considerable proportion of fatties that are neither
> >syndrome X nor DM2.
> >
>
> I would be interested in knowing those numbers. However,
> it has to be said that many are undiagnosed. The typical
> DM2 isn't diagnosed until they've been losing beta cells
> for an estimated 6.5 years, and presumably they could have
> been insulin resistant (IR) for longer than that. The
> numbers, to be most helpful, would need to be based on a
> careful study of the undiagnosed overweight to determine
> whether or not they show any of the precursors of DM (high
> blood pressure, bad lipid levels, some insulin resistance,
> high insulin levels) and choices would have to be made
> about how to classify those that did show less than
> optimal readings. There is no sudden jump in these levels
> from a diagnosis of normal to IR to DM: it is a smooth
> continuum: a given person could be anywhere on the range.
>
>
> >> I believe that this could be your (and many other anti-
> >> LC advocates) case - you can perhaps maintain your
> >> weight without problems, so you tend not to believe
> >> that people affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry
> >> soon after eating carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.
> >
>
> Well, I definitely am. And yes, I concur; it may well be
> that some people are and some are not.
>
>

> This sequence is unproven and circumstantial. Just because
> people get diagnosed with the metabolic syndrome long
> after they have gained weight doesn't mean that there
> wasn't something wrong and undiagnosed at an earlier stage
> causing the overeating and weight gain in the first place.
> Sure, it *might* just be overeating, but that behaviour
> itself might be caused by some disorder that has yet to be
> discovered.
 
21:01:45 Wed, 24 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition
Mouldy Mouse at Mouldy Mouse <[email protected]> writes:
>There are slim people with abnormal carbohydrate responses
>- I'm one. Also read about one in a low-carb book. I don't
>know if I'm IR - haven't been tested, but I've always been
>almost constantly hungry. It's probably only due to my
>crappy digestive system that I remain fairly scrawny. My GP
>wise-cracked that other people pay >$100/month to have what
>I've got ;)
>
>When I'm only eating low-glycemic or low-carb (<150g carb)
>each day I don't have the same hunger patterns as I do when
>eating other carbohydrates. But if I suddenly withdraw a
>source of carbo that my body is expecting (eg. suddenly
>switching from sweetened oats for breakfast to meat+leafy-
>veg) I get shaky, have trouble doing things like walking up
>stairs, and experience nausea and other unpleasant
>symptoms.
>

The symptoms you describe are common in diabetics and the
insulin resistant. In them, it happens when their blood
glucose levels get too low. I suggest you ask your doctor to
give you a fasting oral glucose tolerance test, if this
hasn't been done already.
--
Martin Thompson [email protected] (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Web Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin
 
Martin Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 21:01:45 Wed, 24 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Mouldy Mouse at
> Mouldy Mouse <[email protected]> writes:
> >There are slim people with abnormal carbohydrate
> >responses - I'm one. Also read about one in a low-carb
> >book. I don't know if I'm IR - haven't been tested, but
> >I've always been almost constantly hungry. It's probably
> >only due to my crappy digestive system that I remain
> >fairly scrawny. My GP wise-cracked that other people pay
> >>$100/month to have what I've got ;)
> >
> >When I'm only eating low-glycemic or low-carb (<150g
> >carb) each day I don't have the same hunger patterns as I
> >do when eating other carbohydrates. But if I suddenly
> >withdraw a source of carbo that my body is expecting (eg.
> >suddenly switching from sweetened oats for breakfast to
> >meat+leafy-veg) I get shaky, have trouble doing things
> >like walking up stairs, and experience nausea and other
> >unpleasant symptoms.
> >
>
> The symptoms you describe are common in diabetics and the
> insulin resistant. In them, it happens when their blood
> glucose levels get too low. I suggest you ask your doctor
> to give you a fasting oral glucose tolerance test, if this
> hasn't been done already.

You sound like a pharmaceutical salesman.

TC
 
09:13:54 Thu, 25 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition
tcomeau at tcomeau <[email protected]> writes:
>> >When I'm only eating low-glycemic or low-carb (<150g
>> >carb) each day I don't have the same hunger patterns as
>> >I do when eating other carbohydrates. But if I suddenly
>> >withdraw a source of carbo that my body is expecting
>> >(eg. suddenly switching from sweetened oats for
>> >breakfast to meat+leafy-veg) I get shaky, have trouble
>> >doing things like walking up stairs, and experience
>> >nausea and other unpleasant symptoms.
>> >
>>
>> The symptoms you describe are common in diabetics and the
>> insulin resistant. In them, it happens when their blood
>> glucose levels get too low. I suggest you ask your doctor
>> to give you a fasting oral glucose tolerance test, if
>> this hasn't been done already.
>
>You sound like a pharmaceutical salesman.

Well, I ain't! :)

But I've had those symptoms and that's what caused
them in me.
--
Martin Thompson [email protected] (use "martin" not
"bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Web Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones:
http://www.ringamoby.com

"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference."
Gita Bellin