typical low-carb meals - what us wrong with this



On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:52:04 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]>
posted:

>> >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.diabet-
>> esnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
>
>For how long? Two hours?

No, longer than anything else. Read the site.

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

Nope, not unless you are syndrome X or diabetic and eat a
lot of just potatoes. They are a fine wholefood in a varied
wholefood diet.

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

Why not eat some of both and lots of other things? You act
as though carbs are somehow poisonous.

>> So where do you get your daily energy requirements from?
>
>Veggies, meat, dairy and olive oil.

I hope you consume only a little low fat dairy and almost NO
packaged fat (olive oil) then you could eat some fine grain
and tuber foods as well.

>> 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.

But when scientifically measured, and calorie for calorie,
not as much as potato.

>> >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.

Huh? One gram protein/kg/day is a little high, but an
average 70kg man will be eating 70g protein or ~280 cal. The
rest of your energy needs?

>> 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:)

Not the only vegetable. I might have this low fat pizza
sauce (lots of tomato) on a pile of cauliflower, carrot,
potato, broccoli, cabbage, beans, pumpkin and onion.
MMMMMMM!!!

>> >"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.

So why eat the refined extracted oil? Throwing out the good
stuff for the empty calories.

>> >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?

But bread contains much more micronutrients per cal than
packaged oils
do. Not just a selected few....

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

Not as high as olives.

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

Which bread and which oilve oil, and why did you not add in
the values in olives, and not include the micronutrients
that bread is higher in cal for cal? This is why a varied
wholefood diet is to be advocated. Olives on bread is a far
better meal than olive oil on bread for the same calories.

>So again, calorie for calorie, it has 11 times more vitamin
>E and 8 times more vitamin K.

See above. Vit K and E are not high in bread, but much
higher than olive oil (cal per cal) in many other foods. You
seem to be postulating a diet of only bread or only olive
oil. When a varied diet is eaten, bread and olives come
above olive oil in desirability. A very important
constituent is fibre which olive oil has ZERO.

> It also contains 220mg/100g of phytosterols.

And many other foodstuffs contain far more calorie for
calorie and they have fibre as well.

>And again, MUFAs alone could be considered as valuable
>healthy nutrition, at least they were in any single
>research I have read about them.

MUFAs and any other fat are prolific in many wholefoods.
Why you would advocate refining away the flesh of the
olive beats me.

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

Only if you overeat, and the age-old advice is to eat a
balanced varied wholefood EUCALORIC diet with regular
moderate exercise. So you won't have a fat metabolism
problem unless it is hereditary, and not within the scope of
this discussion.

>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.

Maybe, depending on what oil, what bread and the protein
source. But this diet is far too restrictive. Many other
foodstuffs can be eaten and enjoyed and provide perfect
nutrition without the high calories of packaged
(refined) oils.

If this keeps you going for 6 hours, a better varied diet
will last you 8 hours. Remember potatoes are the most
satiating of foods.

Try doing moderate exercise eating this mixture you are
advocating above. Terrible. No carbs.
 
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:57:55 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]>
posted:

>> That's two meals for the week, what about the other
>> nineteen or twenty-six or thirty-three?
>
>You mean other 19 ?
>

No, many people eat three, four and five meals a day or
even more.

>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 ?

No, I don't but many folk do, or so I've heard and read.

I'm not the one obsessed with insulin. That's the nutty low
carbers :) They don't seem to realise that proteins and
other things stimulate secretion of insulin.
 
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:39:28 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <[email protected]>
posted:

>Post too long or empty.

Can't recognise good advice when you see it, or is your
attention span too short? I suspect both. Just to while
away a few minutes, I read your last 50 or so messages to
this group, and I honestly wonder why you hang around a
sci group.

>"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
 
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:13:55 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]>
posted:

>> 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.

That appears to depend on who is telling the story.

>> (especially animal fat) is not good for the heart.
>
>Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous.
>Saturated maybe. But MUFAs has quite opposite effect.

All fats are fine in a eucaloric wholefood diet. Eat too
much food, and some fats are worse for you than others.
 
> No, many people eat three, four and five meals a day or
> even more.

Many people eat too much... No wonder when they are not used
to burning fat.

> >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 ?
>
> No, I don't but many folk do, or so I've heard and read.

Well, eating so many times is not typical for low-carb diet.
You are simply not hungry enough. Usually, you have a lot of
fat to burn :)

> They don't seem to realise that proteins and other things
> stimulate secretion of insulin.

Of course we do. But they do not rise blood sugar.

Also, really experienced low-carbers watch protein intake
too. Basic formula food composition formula (if one cares to
count) is this: start with protein, usually at 1g/kg. Add
your desired level of carbs (around 50g for me). Compute
calories and fill rest with fat (monounsaturated preffered).

Mirek
 
> 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.

If it is not immediate, but comes after two or three days of
low-carbing, then it is most likely "induction flu". Almost
any low-carber initially experience something like that -
explanation is that body is not used in exploiting ketogenic
pathways. Two days later, fat burning kicks in and blood
sugar is restored to normal (and suplemented by ketones).

Mirek
 
> >Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous.
> >Saturated maybe.
But
> >MUFAs has quite opposite effect.
>
> All fats are fine in a eucaloric wholefood diet. Eat too
> much food, and some fats are worse for you than others.

Actually, I agree with this.

It seems to be a good idea to reduce saturated fat intake in
LC maintenance mode (when your carbs go up - I expect to end
at about 100g / day). OTOH, given wide variety of healthy
fat and protein sources, this is hardly a problem...

Mirek
 
> Nope, not unless you are syndrome X or diabetic and eat a
> lot of just

Everobody is insulin resistant, only level differs.

> >What is wrong with replacing high-calorie potatoes with
> >cauliflower, like most LCers do?
>
> Why not eat some of both and lots of other things? You act
> as though carbs are somehow poisonous.

Of course that carbs in excess are poisonous. More you are
insulin resistant, more they are poisonous to you.

> >> So where do you get your daily energy requirements
> >> from?
> >
> >Veggies, meat, dairy and olive oil.
>
> I hope you consume only a little low fat dairy and almost
> NO packaged fat (olive oil) then you could eat some fine
> grain and tuber foods as well.

Could be true.

Let me make one thing true: I am not absolutely sure that my
current LC plan is the best possibility. I am always willing
to learn. Anyway, what I learned and experienced so far
indicates that there is something in this WOE. And then
again, as it normalized my BMI in 4 months from 29 to 24, I
have only a little need to change anything right now. If it
ain't broke, why fix it ?

> >food for me is good mix of fried veggies, some protein
> >and fat. This keeps me full and active for 6+ hours.
>
> But when scientifically measured, and calorie for calorie,
> not as much as potato.

Well, have your potatoes. At least it is not refined sugar.

> >Yes. But when you are aiming for 1g/kg of protein
> >daily, you
definitely
> >do not need to get more protein from bread.
>
> Huh? One gram protein/kg/day is a little high, but an
> average 70kg man

Well, it is definitely not too much. There is still a
discussion, even in mainstream, about how much protein is
minumum, how much optimal and how much dangerous. AFAIK
current minimal mainstream recommendation is .8g/kg. Things
ain't get wrong by 1g/kg....

> will be eating 70g protein or ~280 cal. The rest of your
> energy needs?

Fat.

> >Cauliflower is not the only LC vegetable:)
>
> Not the only vegetable. I might have this low fat pizza
> sauce (lots of tomato) on a pile of cauliflower, carrot,
> potato, broccoli, cabbage, beans, pumpkin and onion.
> MMMMMMM!!!

Enjoy :) I will make my LC version by replacing low-fat
pizza sauce with real tomatoes, exlude potato and reduce
beans and will add olive oil. Will be yummy too, you bet! :)

> So why eat the refined extracted oil?

Virgin olive oil is definitely not "refined" :)

> Throwing out the good stuff for the empty calories.

Why not eat whole olive tree (with wood and leaves - a lot
of fiber) then ? :)

> >So again, calorie for calorie, it has 11 times more
> >vitamin E and 8 times more vitamin K.
>
> See above. Vit K and E are not high in bread, but much
> higher than olive oil (cal per cal) in many other foods.

Like what?

> >I think that everybody can benefit from lower
> >triglycerids and higher HDL - and that is something high-
> >carb diet will not help you with.
>
> Only if you overeat, and the age-old advice is to eat a
> balanced

No. See research. High-carb diet always results in high(er)
TGs. Even Ornish admits it.

> Try doing moderate exercise eating this mixture you are
> advocating above. Terrible. No carbs.

:) I have already adapted to ketogenic pathways. After one
:month, you
would not note the difference. Well, I might miss some carbs
in high-intensity exercise, but then again, I bet you are
eating much more carbs than you can possibly burn by high
intensity exercise. Carbs are afterburner, body best runs on
fat most of time anyway. For moderate exercise I am
practising, I have no need to break my fat burning
metabolism by high-carb intake.

Mirek
 
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:07:03 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]>
posted:

>> >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.

You can substitute all manner of foods for each other, but
without a valid reason, why not include a little of all of
them that are available to you?
 
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:02:11 +0000, Martin Thompson
<[email protected]> posted:

>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.diabete-
>>snet.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).

Type one or two? Of course this doesn't apply to you
personally. You are ill.

>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).

You mean that dietitions around your way don't take a
patient's diabetes into account? Hooley Dooley!

>>>> 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?

No, eating too much and not doing regular exercise is what
causes weight gain. Eating a varied whoefood diet will not
"lead" you anywhere harmful. If you feel morbidly hungry on
a eucaloric diet, and excessively tired from doing little
exercise, get yourself medically checked out. You are
likely ill.

>>>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...

Poltergeists? Could you not control yourself? What do
you do if you

>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).

Syndrome X comes to mind. Perhaps a glucose tolerance test
with an insulin assay might shed some light.

>Eventually, a known metabolic problem emerged and I was
>diagnosed as insulin resistant, then diabetic.

Aha. better late than never.

>At this stage, eating too many carbohydrates (as advised)

By whom? Change endocrinologists rapidly!

>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 can understand this, but there are ways of making excess
foods unavailable to you other than at meal times.

> I am only able to eat less since I learned about cutting
> carbohydrates down.

Sounds perfectly reasonable for a type2 diabetic.

>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.

See my comment about your endocrinologist above.

>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.

Well no and yes :)

>>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.

Yes

>>> 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.

Many are when eating anything.

>>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?).

Yes, mabey 10,000, but humanoids have collected wild grass
seeds forever, if they are available where they are of
course. Then there are starches like tubers and sago

>But I think that the advice given to diabetics is the same
>as that given to normal people, and it is inappropriate.

Similar for type ones, but I don't believe that advice given
to type 2s is often the same. It is certainly not here.
(Australia)

Although exercise is the key to control for many.

>>>> 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.

Yes, anything might be possible. Genetics is the basic
"cause" But if you exercise a lot and don't become fat, you
won't likely develop DM2. Ninety percent of DM2s are
overweight/obese

>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).

I'm curious to know who is giving this erronious advice.

>>>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.

Sorry, my discussion is restricted to normal healthy adults
unless I state otherwise, but of course, I agree with you.
If you have a carb metabolic abnormality, then carbs can
damage you. Just like gluten can damage coeliac, and walnuts
can damage allergy sufferers. This stands to reason, but as
I said, not what I was referring to.
 
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:22:56 +0000, Martin Thompson
<[email protected]> posted:

>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).

Nope, only 10% of fats CAN be converted to glucose. The
glyceryl moiety. These conversions to glucose is what I
referred to previously as "gluconeogenesis".

>Why then is there a need for fuel from grains, sugar
>and starch

You feel much better?

>(and where did pre-agricultural cavemen get such items from
>all year round)?

Whereabouts?

>> 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.

Same goes for many people eating a wide variey of
wholefoods. There are many tricks to eating eucalorically.
The main thing is to eat a balanced diet.

>> 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).

Yes, in diabetics. But have a look at the nephrologists
websites for advice on what protein intake should be.

>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.

So you are assuming a hypercaloric diet in the first place?
Why not start from a eucaloric diet?

>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.

The same as the stuff you eat? What's the difference? But of
course, this does not happen on a eucaloric diet. NOTHING
gets converted to fat (Nett)

>>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.

Well I'm talking about normal healthy sdult humans,
aren't you?

>> 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.

Advice for you is really not relevant to normal nutrition.

>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).

Of course. But this is not relevant to normal healthy
adults.

>I reiterate: we don't *need* to consume carbs to
>supply energy.

We don't *need* to consume fats or protein for energy.

>The body can use any food for this. Carbs are handy,
>though, during a workout, but that is about it for me.

Again, for a normal healthy adult?

>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).

Normal folks perform much better on a diet of around 40 to
60% calories from carbs.
 
On 24 Mar 2004 21:01:45 -0800, [email protected] (Mouldy
Mouse) posted:

>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.

Worms? :) My son and daughter-in-law are constantly hungry,
but they tend to eat moderately at a sitting. They are slim
and healthy and very active (almost to a fault :) Although
Emma just flew to London and emailed that she had a lovely
trip just eating and sleeping. I have a Thai sister in law
who is as skinny as a rake and eats and eats. When out at a
restaurant, she cleans up everyone's plate or orders
seconds. I suspect the sewage system she uses is well
nourished :)

>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 ;)

Yes, but be careful I've seen people chanege mid life.

>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.

Which ones? Sugar and refined starch? I wonder it you do
have an insulin abnormality.

>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.

I'll bet you blood sugar has dived. I'd want to know why and
would get that investigated.
 
22:31:14 Fri, 26 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition
Moosh:) at "Moosh:)" <[email protected]> writes:
>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:02:11 +0000, Martin Thompson
><[email protected]> posted:
>
>>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.diabet-
>>>esnet.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).
>
>Type one or two? Of course this doesn't apply to you
>personally. You are ill.
>

Type 2.

>>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).
>
>You mean that dietitions around your way don't take a
>patient's diabetes into account? Hooley Dooley!
>

It seems to be normal, both in the UK and the USA at least,
going by the comments and criticisms I see in
alt.support.diabetes and alt.support.diabetes.uk, and indeed
on various official web sites purporting to advise
diabetics. For example:

http://www.diabetes-healthnet.ac.uk/leaflets/eating.htm

The advice looks sensible until you study it a little more
closely. Then it says:

<quote> Fill up on fibre and starchy (carbohydrate) foods

Starchy foods include whole grain breakfast cereals,
potatoes, rice, pasta, chapattis and whole grain bread.
Make these foods the main part of every meal Add lentils,
beans, split peas or broth mix to home-made soups and
stews. </quote>

"Make these foods the main part of every meal" indeed! And

<quote> Eat plenty of fruit and vegetables

Aim to eat 2-3 servings of fruit each day Buy fresh fruit
or fruit tinned in natural juice All fruit is good for you
including bananas and small quantities of grapes or dried
fruit Try to eat at least 2-3 servings of vegetables
and/or salad every day Use fresh, frozen or tinned
vegetables </quote>

Almost any diet and exercise controlled diabetic trying to
control their blood glucose by eating like this would fail.
Then, they would end up on insulin, which would swiftly be
converting many of these carbohydrates into fat... making
the situation worse, unless they exercised an awful lot.

The above site is completely typical. I have seen many such
sites. Another example:

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/eatwell/food_diabetes/index.html

This is the official site of the British Diabetic
Association. It says,

<quote> The diet for people with diabetes is a balanced
healthy diet, the same kind that is recommended for the rest
of the population — low in fat, sugar and salt, with
plenty of fruit and vegetables and meals based on starchy
foods, such as bread, potatoes, cereals, pasta and rice.
This section highlighted the issues you should consider when
planning your meals. </quote>

And so on.

Certainly there are a small number of individuals who do
give sensible advice - my first ever dietician many years
ago told me to restrict my carbs to 20g per meal. But ever
since then, I've been told to make around 60% of my diet
carbs. Official National Health Service leaflets tell me the
same (and tell me, for instance, that if I eat out, I should
order extra portions of rice or pasta with my meals). Of
course I ignore the lot. The stupidity of other people is
something I have to resist if I want to keep my health.
However, it is no wonder that other diabetics have real
problems controlling their glucose levels: most people trust
their medics implicitly.

>>>
>>>>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?
>
>No, eating too much and not doing regular exercise is what
>causes weight gain. Eating a varied whoefood diet will not
>"lead" you anywhere harmful. If you feel morbidly hungry on
>a eucaloric diet, and excessively tired from doing little
>exercise, get yourself medically checked out. You are
>likely ill.
>

Quite so. I think, though, that the very earliest stages of
diabetes are undetectable at present. People are blamed for
overeating when, in many cases, there is a metabolic problem
that is undiagnosed (and unknown, I strongly suspect).

>>>>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...
>
>Poltergeists? Could you not control yourself? What do you
>do if you

>

My neighbours? LOL. ;-)

>>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).
>
>Syndrome X comes to mind. Perhaps a glucose tolerance test
>with an insulin assay might shed some light.
>

That is right. However, I was not diagnosed as having
anything wrong,
i.e., insulin resistant in my case, until a good 10 years
after something did in fact feel wrong: I was gaining
weight, losing energy, getting a bit depressed,
losing motivation, getting migraines... could be it
was *just* overeating and lack of exercise, but that
isn't definite.

>>Eventually, a known metabolic problem emerged and I was
>>diagnosed as insulin resistant, then diabetic.
>
>Aha. better late than never.
>
>>At this stage, eating too many carbohydrates (as advised)
>
>By whom? Change endocrinologists rapidly!
>

By just about everybody. It is the official advice in
Britain and the USA.

>>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 can understand this, but there are ways of making excess
>foods unavailable to you other than at meal times.
>

Eventually I found that if I didn't eat when I felt hungry,
I would get a migraine within about 30 minutes to an hour. I
decided that eating and putting on some weight, while not
ideal, was a lot better than frequent migraines. I noticed
that constipation and diarrhoea often preceded the migraines
as well. The doctor thought it could be irritable bowel
syndrome (translation: didn't know).

Eventually, a few years after diagnosis as insulin
resistant, I found out that it was being caused by rapid
swings up and down in my blood glucose levels. Nobody in the
medical profession told me to watch out for that or
discovered it, or gave me any useful information to help me
try and figure it out or stop it. I was told that digestive
upsets have no connection with migraines. That was wrong as
I found some foods that caused the upset (potatoes in
particular) causing my digestive system to seize up, causing
my blood glucose levels to drop, causing (some of) the
migraines.

Frankly, I know more about my condition than they do,
clearly. I've had it with them. After years of bad advice
from numerous sources, I think I know where I stand.

>> I am only able to eat less since I learned about cutting
>> carbohydrates down.
>
>Sounds perfectly reasonable for a type2 diabetic.
>
>>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.
>
>See my comment about your endocrinologist above.
>

I haven't been assigned to one. :) Anyway, I think I'm
better off steering well clear of the medical profession as
much as I can.

>>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.
>
>Well no and yes :)
>

I see these options:

j) lack of willpower;
k) extra hunger;
l) both of the above;
m) none of the above.

>>>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.
>
>Yes
>
>>>> 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.
>
>Many are when eating anything.
>
>>>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?).
>
>Yes, mabey 10,000, but humanoids have collected wild grass
>seeds forever, if they are available where they are of
>course. Then there are starches like tubers and sago
>

OK. I think it would have been pretty hard for them to make
60% of their diet comprise carbs though, especially as much
of their food would have been seasonal. 10% - 20% maybe, but
that's just hand-waving. Hard to tell.

>>But I think that the advice given to diabetics is the same
>>as that given to normal people, and it is inappropriate.
>
>Similar for type ones, but I don't believe that advice
>given to type 2s is often the same. It is certainly not
>here. (Australia)
>
>Although exercise is the key to control for many.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
>Yes, anything might be possible. Genetics is the basic
>"cause" But if you exercise a lot and don't become fat, you
>won't likely develop DM2. Ninety percent of DM2s are
>overweight/obese
>
>>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).
>
>I'm curious to know who is giving this erronious advice.
>

See above. :-(

>>>>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.
>
>Sorry, my discussion is restricted to normal healthy adults
>unless I state otherwise, but of course, I agree with you.
>If you have a carb metabolic abnormality, then carbs can
>damage you. Just like gluten can damage coeliac, and
>walnuts can damage allergy sufferers. This stands to
>reason, but as I said, not what I was referring to.

Yep, normal healthy adults can cope with such a diet, even
though I have my reservations about it, given that I
personally doubt that humans evolved eating such a diet.
Trouble is, many normal healthy adults are damaged by such a
diet, and turn out not to be normal or healthy at all.
--
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
 
> Well I'm talking about normal healthy sdult humans,
> aren't you?

Just a question: You never ever in your live experienced
reactive hypo?

Mirek
 
22:42:42 Fri, 26 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition
Moosh:) at "Moosh:)" <[email protected]> writes:
>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:22:56 +0000, Martin Thompson
><[email protected]> posted:
>
>>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).
>
>Nope, only 10% of fats CAN be converted to glucose. The
>glyceryl moiety. These conversions to glucose is what I
>referred to previously as "gluconeogenesis".
>

Well, this is the information I have:

Quick acting Carbs 100% of calories to Blood Glucose in 15-
35 minutes (Table Sugar, Bread & Potatoes) Slow Acting Carbs
90-100% of calories to Blood Glucose in 30-95 minutes (Durum
Wheat Pasta, Beans & most Fruit) Protein 60% conversion of
calories to Blood Glucose in 180-240 minutes Fat 10-30%
conversion of calories to Blood Glucose in 480+ minutes

I forget where I got that information from, though, at
the moment.

>>Why then is there a need for fuel from grains, sugar
>>and starch
>
>You feel much better?
>

Not I... a non-diabetic might (although I don't think I did
even before I had the disease).

>>(and where did pre-agricultural cavemen get such items
>>from all year round)?
>
>Whereabouts?
>

Not really. A Palaeolithic diet may have been something
like this:

http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/ especially:
http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html

<quote> For millions of years, humans and their relatives
have eaten meat, fish, fowl and the leaves, roots and fruits
of many plants. One big obstacle to getting more calories
from the environment is the fact that many plants are
inedible. Grains, beans and potatoes are full of energy but
all are inedible in the raw state as they contain many
toxins. There is no doubt about that- please don’t try to
eat them raw, they can make you very sick. </quote>

and the details: <quote> The essentials of the
Paleolithic Diet are:

Eat none of the following: · Grains- including bread,
pasta, noodles · Beans- including string beans, kidney
beans, lentils, peanuts, snow-peas and peas · Potatoes ·
Dairy products · Sugar · Salt

Eat the following: · Meat, chicken and fish · Eggs ·
Fruit · Vegetables (especially root vegetables, but
definitely not including potatoes or sweet potatoes) ·
Nuts, eg. walnuts, brazil nuts, macadamia, almond. Do not
eat peanuts (a bean) or cashews (a family of their own) ·
Berries- strawberries, blueberries, raspberries etc.

Try to increase your intake of: · Root vegetables-
carrots, turnips, parsnips, rutabagas, Swedes · Organ meats-
liver and kidneys (I accept that many people find these
unpalatable and won’t eat them) </quote>

>>> 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.
>
>Same goes for many people eating a wide variey of
>wholefoods. There are many tricks to eating eucalorically.
>The main thing is to eat a balanced diet.
>

The trouble is, the definition of "balanced" may be
incorrect. One could come up with any combination of
foods and call it "balanced" and it seems that this may
be what has happened (OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get
my drift, I hope).

A better, more neutral term, might be borrowed from physics,
"the standard model".

The idea of lots of carbs was first introduced, I
understand, during the second world war, to assist
governments in rationing food supplies. It was not based on
specific research. However, it seems to have stuck, even
though the evidence is that it is harming large numbers of
people, such as myself.

>>> 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).
>
>Yes, in diabetics. But have a look at the nephrologists
>websites for advice on what protein intake should be.
>

I haven't looked, but I assume about 0.8g/kg body
weight per day.

>>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.
>
>So you are assuming a hypercaloric diet in the first place?
>Why not start from a eucaloric diet?
>

Yes; that is normal in the West (60% of US citizens being
clinically obese). But of course we are talking at slightly
cross-purposes because you are concentrating on people with
normal metabolisms and optimal bodies, whereas I am more
concerned with the large numbers of people for whom such
advice fails (and it *is* given to them nevertheless).

>>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.
>
>The same as the stuff you eat? What's the difference?

AIUI, the difference is that the carbs get converted in the
bloodstream and the resulting lipids get deposited in the
arteries, etc. Fat that is eaten is broken down by the liver
and stored more appropriately.

I would like to see some clarification on this point,
though. That is what I understand happens, but I may not be
totally correct.

>But of course, this does not happen on a eucaloric diet.
>NOTHING gets converted to fat (Nett)
>

I agree. It would all cancel out... or would it? Hmm...
certainly the calories burned would be matched with your
eating, by definition, but *which* calories you burn could
make a difference to your overall health. If you were
burning too many protein calories from your muscles, for
example, that would not be healthy. Similarly, if you were
not burning enough fat calories.

>>>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.
>
>Well I'm talking about normal healthy sdult humans,
>aren't you?
>

Not really. :) As I mentioned above, I believe that a lot
of people who are thought to be "normal" are greatly
challenged by the standard model diet.

>>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).
>
>Normal folks perform much better on a diet of around 40 to
>60% calories from carbs.
>

I wonder if they do, really. Presumably there must be
evidence for this, mustn't there? We know that many
people *can* handle such a diet, but what is the proof
that it is optimal?
--
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
 
On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:54 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:

>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.

Still in denial of your syndrome X status?
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:16:35 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]>
posted:

>> No, many people eat three, four and five meals a day or
>> even more.
>
>Many people eat too much...

Not necessarily connected

>No wonder when they are not used to burning fat.

Who doesn't burn al the fat they eat each day? The overfed.

>> >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 ?
>>
>> No, I don't but many folk do, or so I've heard and read.
>
>Well, eating so many times is not typical for low-
>carb diet.

Really? Where is your information for this? A lot of DM2
sufferers eat many times per day (small meals)

>You are simply not hungry enough.

that has nothing to do with how you split your daily
calories. I believe many many syndrom X and DM2 suffereres
eat more often, and smaller portions.

>Usually, you have a lot of fat to burn :)

You eat a lot of fat?

>> They don't seem to realise that proteins and other things
>> stimulate secretion of insulin.
>
>Of course we do. But they do not rise blood sugar.

Neither does insulin.

But it IS insulin, and not blood sugar that stimulates
apetite, remember? Blood surar supresses hunger.

>Also, really experienced low-carbers watch protein
>intake too.

Please elaborate.

>Basic formula food composition formula (if one cares to
>count) is this: start with protein, usually at 1g/kg. Add
>your desired level of carbs (around 50g for me). Compute
>calories and fill rest with fat (monounsaturated
>preffered).

And what a boring unnecessary nonsense unless you are ill.
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:20:09 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]>
posted:

>> >Nope. Transfat (vegetable shortening) is dangerous.
>> >Saturated maybe.
>But
>> >MUFAs has quite opposite effect.
>>
>> All fats are fine in a eucaloric wholefood diet. Eat too
>> much food, and some fats are worse for you than others.
>
>Actually, I agree with this.
>
>It seems to be a good idea to reduce saturated fat intake
>in LC maintenance mode (when your carbs go up - I expect to
>end at about 100g / day). OTOH, given wide variety of
>healthy fat and protein sources, this is hardly a
>problem...

The problem is overeating energy. Otherwise there is no need
for these extremes of diet for the normal, healthy.
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:09:47 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]>
posted:

>> 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.
>
>If it is not immediate, but comes after two or three days
>of low-carbing, then it is most likely "induction flu".
>Almost any low-carber initially experience something like
>that - explanation is that body is not used in exploiting
>ketogenic pathways. Two days later, fat burning kicks in
>and blood sugar is restored to normal (and suplemented by
>ketones).

You mean gluconeogenic pathways, surely. Fat is constantly
burned in most folk.
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:49:12 +0100, "Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]>
posted:

>> Nope, not unless you are syndrome X or diabetic and eat a
>> lot of just
>
>Everobody is insulin resistant, only level differs.

Well if you want to be pedantic, it is "everyone has a
different insulin sensitivity", but the line is drawn and
above this is regarded as abnormal, and below..... Like for
most continua.

>> >What is wrong with replacing high-calorie potatoes with
>> >cauliflower, like most LCers do?
>>
>> Why not eat some of both and lots of other things? You
>> act as though carbs are somehow poisonous.
>
>Of course that carbs in excess are poisonous.

Within your caloric allocation, and in a balanced diet, this
is incorrect.

>More you are insulin resistant, more they are
>poisonous to you.

But most folks aren't "insulin resistant".

>> >> So where do you get your daily energy requirements
>> >> from?
>> >
>> >Veggies, meat, dairy and olive oil.
>>
>> I hope you consume only a little low fat dairy and almost
>> NO packaged fat (olive oil) then you could eat some fine
>> grain and tuber foods as well.
>
>Could be true.
>
>Let me make one thing true: I am not absolutely sure that
>my current LC plan is the best possibility. I am always
>willing to learn. Anyway, what I learned and experienced so
>far indicates that there is something in this WOE.

For a syndrome X sufferer.

> And then again, as it normalized my BMI in 4 months from
> 29 to 24, I have only a little need to change anything
> right now. If it ain't broke, why fix it ?

Agreed, but this means a balanced varied wholefood diet is
best for you.

>> >food for me is good mix of fried veggies, some protein
>> >and fat. This keeps me full and active for 6+ hours.
>>
>> But when scientifically measured, and calorie for
>> calorie, not as much as potato.
>
>Well, have your potatoes. At least it is not refined sugar.

Well it has a higher GI than "sugar" But then I never eat it
on its own.

>> >Yes. But when you are aiming for 1g/kg of protein
>> >daily, you
>definitely
>> >do not need to get more protein from bread.
>>
>> Huh? One gram protein/kg/day is a little high, but an
>> average 70kg man
>
>Well, it is definitely not too much.

For some, but not for most. Have a look what
neprologists advocate.

>There is still a discussion, even in mainstream, about how
>much protein is minumum, how much optimal and how much
>dangerous. AFAIK current minimal mainstream recommendation
>is .8g/kg. Things ain't get wrong by 1g/kg....

See above

>> will be eating 70g protein or ~280 cal. The rest of your
>> energy needs?
>
>Fat.

Not very filling. So little of it... So many calories....

>> >Cauliflower is not the only LC vegetable:)
>>
>> Not the only vegetable. I might have this low fat pizza
>> sauce (lots of tomato) on a pile of cauliflower, carrot,
>> potato, broccoli, cabbage, beans, pumpkin and onion.
>> MMMMMMM!!!
>
>Enjoy :) I will make my LC version by replacing low-fat
>pizza sauce with real tomatoes, exlude potato and
>reduce beans and will add olive oil. Will be yummy too,
>you bet! :)

Probably great for a syndrome X sufferer. My pizza sauce
has lots of "real" tomato and low fat minced beef and
onions and spices.

>> So why eat the refined extracted oil?
>
>Virgin olive oil is definitely not "refined" :)

It certainly is. All the fibre and much micronutrients from
the flesh have been "refined" off it. Worst sort of
refining. Concentrating the calories just like refined
white flour.

>> Throwing out the good stuff for the empty calories.
>
>Why not eat whole olive tree (with wood and leaves - a lot
>of fiber) then ? :)

Not nice to eat. Now the whole lettuce plant, or the whole
cauliflower plant...

>> >So again, calorie for calorie, it has 11 times more
>> >vitamin E and 8 times more vitamin K.
>>
>> See above. Vit K and E are not high in bread, but much
>> higher than olive oil (cal per cal) in many other foods.
>
>Like what?

Leafy greans. Look 'em up.

>> >I think that everybody can benefit from lower
>> >triglycerids and higher HDL - and that is something high-
>> >carb diet will not help you with.
>>
>> Only if you overeat, and the age-old advice is to eat a
>> balanced
>
>No. See research. High-carb diet always results in high(er)
>TGs. Even Ornish admits it.

Not on a eucaloric diet with moderate regular exercise.

>> Try doing moderate exercise eating this mixture you are
>> advocating above. Terrible. No carbs.
>
>:) I have already adapted to ketogenic pathways.

What exactly are these? Everyone burns fat every day.
Ketones are some of the product.

>After one month, you would not note the difference. Well, I
>might miss some carbs in high-intensity exercise, but then
>again, I bet you are eating much more carbs than you can
>possibly burn by high intensity exercise.

A eucaloric diet means that all food intake is burned each
day.

>Carbs are afterburner, body best runs on fat most of
>time anyway.

Nonsense! Body runs fine on a balanced varied diet of
wholefoods.

> For moderate exercise I am practising, I have no need to
> break my fat burning metabolism by high-carb intake.

What is this "breaking" nonsense? You burn fat constantly,
so long as you eat a balanced eucaloric diet of wholefoods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back