Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2009
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Maria - 26 Feb 2009 11:33 GMT http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/25/best.diet/index.html
Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
Story Highlights
* Researchers test four diets for weight-loss effectiveness
* Dieting theories emphasize carbohydrates, proteins or fats
* No huge differences seen between diets, key is calorie reduction
By Madison Park CNN
(CNN) -- The dieting world screams with contradictory advice: Carbs are evil; carbs are good for you. "Good fat" is healthy; "good fat" has tons of calories.
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and the Pennington Biomedical Research Center put four popular diets -- high carb, high fat, low-fat and high protein -- to the test to see which of the regimens resulted in more weight-loss success.
After two years of monitoring the participants, "all the diets were winners," said study co-author Dr. Frank Sacks, a professor of cardiovascular disease prevention at the Harvard School of Public Health. "All produced weight loss and improvements in lipids, reduction in insulin.
"The key really is that it's calories. It's not the content of fat or carbohydrates, it's just calories," said Sacks. The findings are published in the latest edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.
For the study, 811 overweight adults in Boston, Massachusetts, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were assigned to one of four diets.
A quarter went on a carbohydrate-heavy diet, some on high-fat, others on low-fat and the remaining on high-protein diet. The four diets were not based on popular diets, Sacks said.
Regardless of diet, most participants had dramatic weight loss after six months, losing an average of 13 pounds.
According to Sacks' research, many of the 800-plus participants regained weight after a year, but about 80 percent of them lost at least eight pounds after two years. And 15 percent of the participants lost at least 10 percent of their body weight.
The study, funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, showed little difference in users' satiety, hunger or satisfaction with their diets.
Participants could attend individual sessions where dieticians educated them and group sessions where they discussed their experiences with one another.
Those who had better attendance in the sessions had stronger weight-loss results. "These findings together point to behavioral factors rather than macronutrient metabolism as the main influences on weight loss," according to the study. Macronutrients are the three main nutrients the body uses in relatively large amounts: proteins, carbohydrates and fats.
"No one of those diets are necessarily better than any other diet," Sacks said.
In an accompanying editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, Martijin B. Katan wrote the researchers' hypothesis is "plausible," but said the "differences in macronutrient intake were too small."
There was an underlying similarity between the four diets.
On average, the overweight participants had a 750-calorie reduction per day. An average-sized male who consumed 2,800 calories a day was prescribed just over 2,000 calories and a woman who ate 2000 calories a day was prescribed 1,250 calories.
All diets were compatible with American Heart Association guidelines, Sack said. The study did not give the participants food. For the first 10 days, participants received menus, then were assigned to create their own using the healthy food options.
Depending on their prescribed diet, participants ate a wide range of carbohydrates, fat and protein, derived from healthy foods, such as olive oil, pasta and nut butter.
From these results, Sacks recommends going with "the diet you feel most comfortable that is healthy, that appeals to you in terms of what foods are in it, that isn't a drastic crash diet. Whatever allows you to keep the calories down and not feel really deprived."
Calorie restriction can be done without feeling deprived, said Dr. Luigi Fontana, an associate professor of medicine at the Washington University who studies the effects of calorie restriction on longevity. But he warns against just halving a person's current diet.
"A lot of people think of calorie restriction like eating half a hamburger, half a pack of French fries -- that you can obtain by reducing in half your portions," Fontana said. "That's calorie restriction with malnutrition."
Dr. Melina Jampolis, the diet and fitness expert for CNNhealth warned against drastic measures like completely focusing on one macronutrient. "People want to be extreme," she said. "You say cut back on sugar, they cut it completely. The take-home would be that there is no markedly superior diet. If there was, people wouldn't stick with it anyway."
Cindy Moore, the director of nutrition therapy at Cleveland Clinic and a registered dietician agreed.
"People gravitate to the latest fads or trends, because they may have known someone who was successful in losing weight. That friend may have been in that early grace period of losing weight. The other thing is people think they need that magic bullet."
But a significant change in eating habits -- like cutting out an entire nutrient group like carbohydrates, proteins or fats, often can't be sustained.
Weight loss tends to be dramatic during the first few months. Brenda Driver, of Springfield, Missouri, was not involved in the study but says she lost 10 pounds in 10 days on the Atkins diet by eschewing all carbohydrates.
The 26-year-old and her fiance said they were "not looking at a crash diet, but want to jump start weight loss." The former vegetarians began eating meat again because of the high protein demands of the diet.
Driver said she's aware the Atkins diet is not an ideal long-term plan. Six years ago, she tried the diet for seven months and lost 45 pounds. She finally quit the diet because of her chocolate cravings.
This month, Driver and her fiancedecided to give the Atkins another try. "I want to rebel against the whole, 'you're-engaged-now-you-have-to-lose-weight,' " she said. But it would be nice to look slimmer in those wedding photos, she said.
"I'm approaching it as a temporary thing. Vegetarianism is where I want to be the rest of my life."
Moore said the basics of losing weight boil down to this: Limit the calories consumed so a person is taking in less than the body needs or increase activity to burn more energy.
The problem, she said is that, "People get discouraged if weight loss is really, really slow."
Doug Freyburger - 26 Feb 2009 15:39 GMT ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted:
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/25/best.diet/index.html > > A quarter went on a carbohydrate-heavy diet, some on high-fat, others on > low-fat and the remaining on high-protein diet. The four diets were not > based on popular diets, Sacks said. Why not? This makes the results largely irrelevant. Pointless. It's not like anyone doubts that reducing calories works, so why not compare actual plans?
> The study, funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the > National Institutes of Health, showed little difference in users' satiety, > hunger or satisfaction with their diets. I find that particular finding extremely hard to believe. The reason I switched form low fat to low carb is I was endlessly hungry on low fat and only hungry on low carb when I cheated to be not on low carb. Anyone who is never hungry on the plan you try should stick to it. Anyone who is always hungry on the plan you should switch to a different type of plan.
> Participants could attend individual sessions where dieticians educated > them and group sessions where they discussed their experiences with one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to the study. Macronutrients are the three main nutrients the body uses in > relatively large amounts: proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The advice to "fix your head" is good advice. Funny how that works.
> "No one of those diets are necessarily better than any other diet," Sacks > said. For a group. No kidding. So the next study needs to be comparing actual plans for a change, and give the participants advice that six months in if they've been hungry most of the time they should switch groups.
> All diets were compatible with American Heart Association guidelines, Sack > said. Which are nonsense. No wonder the food eaten was so similar and the results so similar. They need to try plans that ignore such advice and that actually compare eating foods that really are different.
> From these results, Sacks recommends going with "the diet you feel most > comfortable that is healthy, that appeals to you in terms of what foods are > in it, that isn't a drastic crash diet. Whatever allows you to keep the > calories down and not feel really deprived." Yup. If you're on a plan that drives you to hunger you'll drop out. Time to switch plan types after giving it several months of sincere effort.
> Calorie restriction can be done without feeling deprived, Can. Different methods for different folks.
> said Dr. Luigi > Fontana, an associate professor of medicine at the Washington University > who studies the effects of calorie restriction on longevity. Discover Magazine ran an issue on that topic about a year ago. Lots of fascinating articles.
> "People want to be extreme," This is why I'm like a metronome constantly chanting "Follow the directions. No, the actual directions in the actual book not what you wanted the book to say". People *want* to be extreme but not one of the popular plan books gives a program that is extreme.
> ... Brenda > Driver, of Springfield, Missouri, was not involved in the study but says > she lost 10 pounds in 10 days on the Atkins diet by eschewing all > carbohydrates. Ah, now here's the point of the article - Put out a lie and make it sound like it's coming from an authority. Anyone who has actually read the actual Atkins book knows it says no such thing. So here we have an article lying about Atkins. Very common. My take away - How many other lies are there in the article? Exactly how good an idea is it to add a lie into your article if you have real data? If you're going to lie in your article and demonstrate you haven't even *read* one of the core books in the field, just where else was ignorance applied in the study and the write-up?
> The 26-year-old and her fiance said they were "not looking at a crash diet, > but want to jump start weight loss." The former vegetarians began eating > meat again because of the high protein demands of the diet. Yet she didn't even bother to read the book and certainly didn't even slightly follow the directions.
> Driver said she's aware the Atkins diet is not an ideal long-term plan. No she's not. Just another lie. She neither read the book nor followed the directions, so how could she possibily have a valid opinion of what phase 4 is like when she never even followed phase 1?
> Six > years ago, she tried the diet for seven months and lost 45 pounds. She > finally quit the diet because of her chocolate cravings. Part of the directions - Learn what foods trigger cravings then avoid them from then on. No cravings, no drive to fall off the plan. Like *every* dieting system the maintenance phase is unstable if you don't follow the directions or don't have a clue what the directions are.
> This month, Driver and her fiancedecided to give the Atkins another try. "I > want to rebel against the whole, > 'you're-engaged-now-you-have-to-lose-weight,' " she said. But it would be > nice to look slimmer in those wedding photos, she said. I hope she read the book this time.
> "I'm approaching it as a temporary thing. Nope. No sign she's going to bother reading the book or following the directions.
> Vegetarianism is where I want to be the rest of my life." Why imagine there's a conflict between following the actual directions for Atkins and eating vegitarian? There are FAQ files on how to do that. It's not complex.
On the other hand what's the chance that the motivations are complete wrong with her? Why not go low fat because that's so much easier when eating vegitarian? I may post from the low carb support group but I understand that low fat works for lots of people.
> The problem, she said is that, "People get discouraged if weight loss is > really, really slow." And the reality is nearly every dieter in history has started with unrealistic expectations so real, actual, weight loss rates are considered slow by nearly everyone. Unrealistic expectations are yet another reason people quit.
I have a very simple reason for trying to stay on plan and for trying to get back on plan every time I fall of the wagon - What are my real choices? I could switch to a different plan type but times I've done that I've bene hungry. I could give up and end up fatter than ever. I could go from one low carb plan to another but I've done that and discovered the details at that level don't make much difference. Every time I quit or fall off I end up gaining. That's my choice - Regain or keep trying.
Kate XXXXXX - 26 Feb 2009 16:58 GMT You really DO have to find the plan that suits you. It may suit for many different reasons. I work best on a low fat diet that also excludes red meat to a large extent, is low in wheat products, and doesn't include much wine (especially red wine), coffee, and several other things. A legacy from many years of IBS and gall bladder disease means that I find these things difficult to digest, and wonderful triggers for all sorts of pain. I find that on an Atkins type low carb diet I'm constantly hungry and frequently suffer dire unpleasantness of the digestive tract. High fiber, a good mix of complex carbs with a low wheat content, loads of fresh fruit and veg, and I'm fine.
Thing is, we're all different, and different ways of doing it suit different people. The bottom line is, as you say, to consume fewer calories than you expend in the day. Where they come from is largely up to what suits you and how healthy you want to be.
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Hoots - 01 Mar 2009 13:05 GMT > You really DO have to find the plan that suits you. It may suit for > many different reasons. I work best on a low fat diet that also [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > calories than you expend in the day. Where they come from is largely up > to what suits you and how healthy you want to be. Hi Kate, how have you been?
It's nice we got cross-posted back together again.
Kate XXXXXX - 01 Mar 2009 13:35 GMT >> You really DO have to find the plan that suits you. It may suit for >> many different reasons. I work best on a low fat diet that also [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It's nice we got cross-posted back together again. Hello! :D
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Hoots - 03 Mar 2009 13:46 GMT >>> You really DO have to find the plan that suits you. It may suit for >>> many different reasons. I work best on a low fat diet that also [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Hello! :D Is the weather over there better than it was last time? I seem to remember lots of cold temps and whining on your part.
But soup, you had soup.
Kate XXXXXX - 04 Mar 2009 08:19 GMT > Is the weather over there better than it was last time? I seem to > remember lots of cold temps and whining on your part. Yesterday in London: Cold damp wind that blows through you rather than round. Intermittent rain. Thank God for warm fabric shops, the po in Liberty's, and the Underground!
And tea shops in Soho...
> But soup, you had soup. We do god soups.
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Rod Speed - 04 Mar 2009 17:59 GMT >> Is the weather over there better than it was last time? I seem to >> remember lots of cold temps and whining on your part. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > We do god soups. Its illegal to turn gods into soups.
Kate XXXXXX - 04 Mar 2009 19:00 GMT >>> Is the weather over there better than it was last time? I seem to >>> remember lots of cold temps and whining on your part. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Its illegal to turn gods into soups. Offler chowder, anyone?
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Doug Freyburger - 04 Mar 2009 20:50 GMT > > We do god soups. > > Its illegal to turn gods into soups. Blasphemous maybe. But only illegal in nations under religious law.
Deities aren't meat, are they? What with having no bodies I figure they must be low calorie, low carb, low fat, low everything else. Heavenly flavor of course!
Kate XXXXXX - 04 Mar 2009 22:11 GMT >>> We do god soups. >> Its illegal to turn gods into soups. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > low fat, low everything else. Heavenly flavor of > course! First catch your god...
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Hoots - 05 Mar 2009 13:13 GMT >>>> We do god soups. >>> Its illegal to turn gods into soups. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > First catch your god... OK, now what?
Kate XXXXXX - 05 Mar 2009 13:35 GMT >>>>> We do god soups. >>>> Its illegal to turn gods into soups. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > OK, now what? Grind it up. It'll take a while - the mills of gods grind slow...
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Willow Herself - 05 Mar 2009 15:01 GMT >>>>>> We do god soups. >>>>> Its illegal to turn gods into soups. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Grind it up. It'll take a while - the mills of gods grind slow... Then add a pinch of fairy dust and mix well...
Hoots - 06 Mar 2009 11:57 GMT >>>>>>> We do god soups. >>>>>> Its illegal to turn gods into soups. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> > Then add a pinch of fairy dust and mix well... All these groups are dead butch.
Hoots - 05 Mar 2009 13:11 GMT >> Is the weather over there better than it was last time? I seem to >> remember lots of cold temps and whining on your part. > > Yesterday in London: Cold damp wind that blows through you rather than > round. Intermittent rain. Thank God for warm fabric shops, the po in > Liberty's, and the Underground! What's "the po"?
I really wish I could go to the UK and visit. I had a chance to go there in April but needed the matching funds, so I had to beg off. <sigh>
> And tea shops in Soho... >> >> But soup, you had soup. > > We do god soups. The devil you say?
Kate XXXXXX - 05 Mar 2009 13:35 GMT > What's "the po"? Lavatory. Can't remember the derivation...
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 26 Feb 2009 18:25 GMT > ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > stick to it. Anyone who is always hungry on the plan you should > switch to a different type of plan. part of the solution is to realize that some people need more carbs, some need more protein and fat. the farther north your heredity is from, the more likely it is you will need a higher protein/fat diet. the closer to the equator, the higher the carb requirement. my heredity is ireland, scotland, england, wales, and germany. i do much better on a low carb diet.
a quick way to tell is to know which part of the chicken you prefer: the white meat or the dark meat. dark meat preference shows a tendency to need the higher protein/fat diet. i've always craved the leg and thigh and hated the breast meat.
Kate XXXXXX - 26 Feb 2009 21:57 GMT >> ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > scotland, england, wales, and germany. i do much better on a low carb > diet. Mine is largely Scots, with a little mix of Irish and a bit of Scandanavian from the east coast of Scotland. I do way better on a lower protein diet... There are no absolutes. Recognizing this is vital for any program to be successful.
> a quick way to tell is to know which part of the chicken you prefer: the > white meat or the dark meat. dark meat preference shows a tendency > to need the higher protein/fat diet. i've always craved the leg and > thigh and hated the breast meat. I like the whole thing equally... But have always echewed the skin (horrid slimy stuff!), and loathe the Pope's Nose. I could quite happily never eat meat again, but please to not threaten me with a fish free diet!
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
dkw12002@yahoo.com - 27 Feb 2009 00:11 GMT On Feb 26, 1:58 pm, Kate XXXXXX <k...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> >> ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think your heritage mostly determines what foods you can tolerate and which ones you prefer. Most Africans and Asians develop lactose intolerance, but many of us of European background do not. As far as "needing", that is a different question, but people can thrive on a variety of different diets. I have essentially the same heritage as you and I eat no meat at all. When I used to eat meat, I preferred white meat chicken. You know some Athebascan Indians like to buy fish heads, let them ferment, then dig them up and eat them. Do they need fish heads? I don't think so. This is a food preference. Basically, nature has trained us to seek out high fat, high cal. foods since early man had trouble getting enough food. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to overeat when we listen to our bodies. I just try to use my brain instead, and often stop eating long before my stomach tells me I should. It's how I stay slim and trim. I always have to laugh about all these ideas about eating this or that food satisfies you. I must have inherited a strong survival gene, cause I could and would eat 8,000 cal. a day if I listened to my stomach or ate till I was "satisfied".
Kate XXXXXX - 27 Feb 2009 07:50 GMT I always have to laugh about
> all these ideas about eating this or that food satisfies you. I must > have inherited a strong survival gene, cause I could and would eat > 8,000 cal. a day if I listened to my stomach or ate till I was > "satisfied". I'm a bit the same way: my 'full' button is set too high... I blame 4 years at boarding school, followed by three at uni, where we ate FAST because we had so much else to fit in. I then spent many years teaching, where 'lunchtime' isn't so much an illusion as a myth.
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
dkw12002@yahoo.com - 28 Feb 2009 19:57 GMT On Feb 26, 11:55 pm, Kate XXXXXX <k...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> dkw12...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttonshttp://www.katedicey.co.uk > Click on Kate's Pages and explore! Not only fast eating, but the reality of eating high-cal foods is that you can pack away hundreds of calories in a single bite. Drinking calories is another very quick way to get calories. I might eat an apple, but would never drink apple juice. If I wanted to I could eat an entire days calories in 2 minutes. Some ideas for this might be graham crackers, donuts, cookies, dunked in milk, or eating spoonfuls of peanutbutter and washing it down with milk. I could easily eat 2100 calories (my daily allotment) in 2 min. The combination of eating high- cal foods with high cal drink is a real diet buster. This is not theoretical either...I used to do this. I could easily eat a dozen donuts and a quart of milk, or 20 home-made chocolate chip cookies dipped in milk....then a half hour later come back looking for something else to eat. I tell you, if I did not use my brain instead of my appetite, I could weigh 500 pounds. On the other hand, I am also really never starving. By all accounts, if a person feels really hungry at nightime, but does not eat, then by morning, they should be absolutely famished, yet many people are not hungry in the morning no matter what. There is a disconnect between appetite and nutrition that cannot be ignored...especially by overeaters.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 28 Feb 2009 20:51 GMT snip
Not only fast eating, but the reality of eating high-cal foods is that you can pack away hundreds of calories in a single bite. Drinking calories is another very quick way to get calories. I might eat an apple, but would never drink apple juice. If I wanted to I could eat an entire days calories in 2 minutes. Some ideas for this might be graham crackers, donuts, cookies, dunked in milk, or eating spoonfuls of peanutbutter and washing it down with milk. I could easily eat 2100 calories (my daily allotment) in 2 min. The combination of eating high- cal foods with high cal drink is a real diet buster. This is not theoretical either...I used to do this. I could easily eat a dozen donuts and a quart of milk, or 20 home-made chocolate chip cookies dipped in milk....then a half hour later come back looking for something else to eat. I tell you, if I did not use my brain instead of my appetite, I could weigh 500 pounds. On the other hand, I am also really never starving. By all accounts, if a person feels really hungry at nightime, but does not eat, then by morning, they should be absolutely famished, yet many people are not hungry in the morning no matter what. There is a disconnect between appetite and nutrition that cannot be ignored...especially by overeaters.
then there's leptin and ghrelin.
Hoots - 01 Mar 2009 13:12 GMT > snip > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > then there's leptin and ghrelin. Who's leptin and ghrelin?
Kate XXXXXX - 01 Mar 2009 00:02 GMT > On Feb 26, 11:55 pm, Kate XXXXXX <k...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > matter what. There is a disconnect between appetite and nutrition that > cannot be ignored...especially by overeaters. You're being me, you are! ;)
Yep, in the olden days I'd pack it in like crazy at certain trigger points in the day. Most of the time the MEALS were good, but the portions a bit large. But the 'snacks' were chocolate coated cookies, full fat milky coffee, hot chocolate by the gallon... When I left uni, I didn't get out of the habit of eating for a day that often included a 10 mile hike back and forth several times across the hills of Durham, followed by dancing the night away, followed by sitting up (and pacing about!) as I wrote yet another 8,000 word essay on TS Elliot, or Pavlov's pooches, or a dissertation on the education of girls in the 19th C, or some such, and frequently included a hi-powered physical activity like climbing, dance drama sessions, or swimming! Suddenly I was working for a living! Gone was the time for walking: instead I spent up to seven hours a day on lesson preparation, syllabus organization, marking (ye gods, the marking!), and it was all so BBOOOOORRRRIIINNNGGG that I'd scarf down goodness knows what without even thinking about it... The bit where I was actually teaching for five hours each day was the fun bit. :)
These days I can no longer process fats properly, so they are off the menue, as is red meat, red wine, coffee, and wheat, to a large extent. I try to swim as often as possible (up to 3 times in a good week - not at all this week! :( ), and walk when I can (fibro allowing!), but my commute is about 15 feet from bed to sewing machine, and about 40 from bed to cutting table, so things are less easy than for those who need to walk miles inside their workplace.
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Hoots - 01 Mar 2009 13:14 GMT >> On Feb 26, 11:55 pm, Kate XXXXXX <k...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > bed to cutting table, so things are less easy than for those who need to > walk miles inside their workplace. 8000 words on T. S. Elliot???
Yikes!!!
Kate XXXXXX - 01 Mar 2009 13:35 GMT >>> On Feb 26, 11:55 pm, Kate XXXXXX <k...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Yikes!!! My MA is modern lit. Keeping the thesis down to 20,000 was a problem. 8,000 on a single small element of Mr Elliot is easy. ;)
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Hoots - 03 Mar 2009 13:45 GMT >>>> On Feb 26, 11:55 pm, Kate XXXXXX <k...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > My MA is modern lit. Keeping the thesis down to 20,000 was a problem. > 8,000 on a single small element of Mr Elliot is easy. ;) Let's just say he was an ex-American and leave it at that.
You modern lit guys are yakamatics, that's for sure.
Del Cecchi - 04 Mar 2009 04:46 GMT snip. followups too.
>> My MA is modern lit. Keeping the thesis down to 20,000 was a problem. >> 8,000 on a single small element of Mr Elliot is easy. ;) > > Let's just say he was an ex-American and leave it at that. > > You modern lit guys are yakamatics, that's for sure. Praise be to Nero's Neptune The Titanic sails at dawn And everybody's shouting "Which Side Are You On?" And Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot Fighting in the captain's tower While calypso singers laugh at them And fishermen hold flowers Between the windows of the sea Where lovely mermaids flow And nobody has to think too much About Desolation Row
bob dylan
Kate XXXXXX - 04 Mar 2009 08:30 GMT > Let's just say he was an ex-American and leave it at that. > > You modern lit guys are yakamatics, that's for sure. I've written as much and more on Shakespeare, John Donne, William Morris, Sir Walter Scott, Chaucer... My litterary tastes, like those of my costuming and cooking, are confined neither to a single century nor a single country.
I've just bought a book on the wardrobe of Eleanora de Toledo, one on dress in Saxon England, and have one on ancient Persian and modern Iranian cookery to peruse for 'dessert'... And as a snack before bedtime, the mysteries of Catherine Aird are being re-read.
For high fibre, low point treats today: wedding gown pattern making, and a catalogue of the Kyoto Costume Institute with my coffee!
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Hoots - 05 Mar 2009 13:13 GMT >> Let's just say he was an ex-American and leave it at that. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > For high fibre, low point treats today: wedding gown pattern making, and > a catalogue of the Kyoto Costume Institute with my coffee! Oh, yeah, now I remember!
You're a slacker. You just sit sround and do nuthin'
:-) Kate XXXXXX - 05 Mar 2009 13:35 GMT > Oh, yeah, now I remember! > > You're a slacker. You just sit sround and do nuthin' > > :-) The wedding dress is for a friend in Germany. :) She flew in for shopping and pattern making and fitting...
Today I have suits to make...
Like Warren Zevon says, I'll sleep when I'm dead!
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Hoots - 06 Mar 2009 13:07 GMT >> Oh, yeah, now I remember! >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Like Warren Zevon says, I'll sleep when I'm dead! You make me tired reading about this stuff.
Yikes!
Kate XXXXXX - 06 Mar 2009 13:36 GMT > You make me tired reading about this stuff. > > Yikes! Hehehehe... The next three days:
Saturday: Meet friend for swim 9: 00 am Meet two more friends for gurlie shopping in Canterbury Home for dinner Sew suit jacket...
Sunday: Student comes for sewing: Complete student project Jacket(lots of piping and hand finished edges!) Finish customer suit except hems
Monday: Customer fitting to fix hem lengths... Complete student project skirt (more piping and hand finishing!)
Staying on WW should not be a problem.
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Hoots - 07 Mar 2009 12:24 GMT >> You make me tired reading about this stuff. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Staying on WW should not be a problem. I don't understand why you need it?
Your activity level seems high, high enough that you wouldn't have time to eat, much less eat poorly.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 27 Feb 2009 02:17 GMT >>> ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > (horrid slimy stuff!), and loathe the Pope's Nose. I could quite happily > never eat meat again, but please to not threaten me with a fish free diet! i love fish, but there's way too much contamintation of them to eat as much as i'd like. :(
Kate XXXXXX - 27 Feb 2009 07:50 GMT > i love fish, but there's way too much contamintation of them to eat as > much as i'd like. :( Depends on the type of fish and where caught...
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
trader4@optonline.net - 01 Mar 2009 16:10 GMT On Feb 26, 4:58 pm, Kate XXXXXX <k...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> >> ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > to need the higher protein/fat diet. i've always craved the leg and > > thigh and hated the breast meat. I'd love to see any reference for this. Sounds more like a myth to me.
> I like the whole thing equally... But have always echewed the skin > (horrid slimy stuff!), and loathe the Pope's Nose. I could quite [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Doug Freyburger - 01 Mar 2009 22:47 GMT trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > > a quick way to tell is to know which part of the chicken you prefer: the > > > white meat or the dark meat. dark meat preference shows a tendency [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'd love to see any reference for this. Sounds more like a myth to > me. The problem with this that I can see - There's heavy pressure in the low fat world to prefer boneless skinless flavorless chicken breast over the dark meat and anyone who has learned preferences is going to prefer the white meat because that's what gets taught. As a result I have little idea how many people would have the preference in the absence of pressure to avoid fat and prefer the white meat.
I prefer dark meat and no amount of pressure to go lean ever managed to change my tastes. I can't say I "crave" the fattier darker meats or that I "hate" the leaner lighter colored meats, just that when they are on the platter side by side I'll go dark. I think that has my tastes aligning with AllEmail's rather than being a part of a predictive trend.
The closest I can find to a reference isn't going to work properly -
True evolved carnivores go for the fat, fatty organs, and fatty meats before they go for the leaner meats when they bite into a kill. Watch any documentary on lions or other cats, wolves or other wild dogs, hyenas and so on.
That's *not* the same as saying some humans are more like a carnivore than like an herbivore.
FOB - 02 Mar 2009 00:39 GMT I have never felt pressure to eat low fat and I prefer the taste of white meat, turkey and chicken. I also love the skin which is fatty and love the fat on beef and lamb and pork. I have some recipes for chicken thighs which make it quite palatable, they include some seasonings which somewhat overshadow the taste. I think taste is very personal and not necessarily predictable. I like eggs fried, scrambled, poached but not hard boiled unless they are deviled. It's the dry yolks that turn me off.
| The problem with this that I can see - There's heavy pressure in the | low fat world to prefer boneless skinless flavorless chicken breast [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | That's *not* the same as saying some humans are more like a | carnivore than like an herbivore. AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 02 Mar 2009 01:47 GMT trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd love to see any reference for this. Sounds more like a myth to > me. The problem with this that I can see - There's heavy pressure in the low fat world to prefer boneless skinless flavorless chicken breast over the dark meat and anyone who has learned preferences is going to prefer the white meat because that's what gets taught. As a result I have little idea how many people would have the preference in the absence of pressure to avoid fat and prefer the white meat.
I prefer dark meat and no amount of pressure to go lean ever managed to change my tastes. I can't say I "crave" the fattier darker meats or that I "hate" the leaner lighter colored meats, just that when they are on the platter side by side I'll go dark. I think that has my tastes aligning with AllEmail's rather than being a part of a predictive trend.
The closest I can find to a reference isn't going to work properly -
True evolved carnivores go for the fat, fatty organs, and fatty meats before they go for the leaner meats when they bite into a kill. Watch any documentary on lions or other cats, wolves or other wild dogs, hyenas and so on.
That's *not* the same as saying some humans are more like a carnivore than like an herbivore.
dh prefers the breasts, and he trims all the fat off his meat. i don't buy meat with lots of fat around the edges, but he still trims off what little is there. he also really doesn't like egg yolks. he will go for the lean every time. which works for me :) give me a good ribeye over filet any day. one exception is bison. it's very lean, but there are times i crave it over beef. must be something in there my body needs. and i like all fish, but much prefer salmon, chunk light tuna in oil, sardines, and other fatty fish, most of which are no longer good for me.
FOB - 02 Mar 2009 02:39 GMT Fatty fish are good for you, they are high in omega fatty acids which most people don't get enough of.
| dh prefers the breasts, and he trims all the fat off his meat. i | don't buy meat with lots of fat around the edges, but he still [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | prefer salmon, chunk light tuna in oil, sardines, and other fatty | fish, most of which are no longer good for me. AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 02 Mar 2009 11:36 GMT > Fatty fish are good for you, they are high in omega fatty acids which most > people don't get enough of. yes, but most are now very high in mercury and other contaminants.
you have to be very careful of where it was caught: wild alaskan salmon, not atlantic salmon (which is what most people eat), etc
> | dh prefers the breasts, and he trims all the fat off his meat. i > | don't buy meat with lots of fat around the edges, but he still [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > | prefer salmon, chunk light tuna in oil, sardines, and other fatty > | fish, most of which are no longer good for me. FOB - 03 Mar 2009 00:47 GMT That's a lie or at the very least an exaggeration.
|| Fatty fish are good for you, they are high in omega fatty acids || which most people don't get enough of. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | you have to be very careful of where it was caught: wild alaskan | salmon, not atlantic salmon (which is what most people eat), etc Don Klipstein - 09 Mar 2009 02:00 GMT >Fatty fish are good for you, they are high in omega fatty acids which most >people don't get enough of. I have a friend who had a heart attack by age 50 despite eating a lot of fish and fish oil capsules.
He survived, and his cardiologist had him decrease fat and cholesterol intake. His cardiological health improved as a result of the recommended lower fat, lower cholesterol (and lower calorie) diet, along with statins.
Notable: He is among the 15-20% of the population with bad liver regulation of blood cholesterol level. Those in the other 80-85% of the population generally need to merely avoid excessive calorie intake and to eat a reasonably balanced diet.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 09 Mar 2009 05:41 GMT >>Fatty fish are good for you, they are high in omega fatty acids which most >>people don't get enough of. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > population generally need to merely avoid excessive calorie intake and to > eat a reasonably balanced diet. yep, people don't realize high cholesterol is a liver problem. something to do with bile, i think. first clean the colon, then clean the liver.
Don Klipstein - 09 Mar 2009 08:58 GMT >>>Fatty fish are good for you, they are high in omega fatty acids which most >>>people don't get enough of. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >yep, people don't realize high cholesterol is a liver problem. something >to do with bile, i think. first clean the colon, then clean the liver. The problem my friend has is well known to be genetic. People with that genetic defect have extra need to not get overweight, eat less fat in general especially saturated and trans, eat less animal products in general, and to eat only in great moderation shellfish, organ meats and egg yolks (since those are rich in dietary cholesterol).
People without that genetic defect tend to have blood cholesterol affected less by dietary cholesterol, but still increasing with both calorie intake in general and fat intake specifically, and increasing with body fat mass.
People in both groups improve ratio of "good"/"bad" cholesterol with aerobic exercise.
Another factor in the blood is triglycerides - generally increasing when consuming excessive calories and/or having excessive (especially increasing) body fat content, and generally decreasing when calorie intake decreases and/or body fat mass is on the way down, more than varying with anything else such as calorie type.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
trader4@optonline.net - 09 Mar 2009 14:58 GMT > In article <x51tl.2073$gm6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - At the end of the day, I'd bet your friend's improvement in serum cholesterol had a lot to do with the statins he's taking and relatively little to do with reducing dietary fat or cholesterol. It's been pretty well proven that the amount of chol in your diet doesn;t have a major impact on your serum chol. To get even a modest improvement usually takes a diet so restrictive people won't stay on it. Statins on the other hand are powerful drugs and directly affect serum chol.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 09 Mar 2009 15:16 GMT On Mar 9, 3:58 am, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In article <x51tl.2073$gm6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - Show quoted text - At the end of the day, I'd bet your friend's improvement in serum cholesterol had a lot to do with the statins he's taking and relatively little to do with reducing dietary fat or cholesterol. It's been pretty well proven that the amount of chol in your diet doesn;t have a major impact on your serum chol. To get even a modest improvement usually takes a diet so restrictive people won't stay on it. Statins on the other hand are powerful drugs and directly affect serum chol.
yeah, i've had my dr. tell me that dietary changes don't do all that much. the oatmeal (soluble fiber) works. i think i sucks up the cholesterol and takes it out. but it won't pull the numbers down really far. those with hereditary problems need statins. i won't worry about mine unless it goes over 300.
i think the one you really need to watch is that vldl number.
Doug Freyburger - 09 Mar 2009 15:48 GMT > <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > yeah, i've had my dr. tell me that dietary changes don't do all that much. Doctors seem to ignore that fact that about 80% of low carbers see improvement 6+ months in. I think part is the extremely slow death of the "low fat is the only right way" fraud that's been pushed since the 1970s, and part because 6 months is a longer time scale than most studies have. Low fat is *one* of *several* right ways not the one and only one way.
> the oatmeal (soluble fiber) works. i think i sucks up the cholesterol and > takes it out. I wonder what the breakfast oatmeal replaced? If it was sugar frosted flakes then the primary change was lower total carb count and significantly lower glycemic index. That would be enough to give improved numbers no matter what the exact change in foods was. I'd like to see a study that makes long term low carbers well past their 6th month and replaces their breakfast with oatmeal to see what happens. My best guess is a near zero net change for the group's average with a small sample getting worse because of the higher total carb count.
> but it won't pull the numbers down really far. If the mechanism of soluble fiber is to pull dietary cholesterol out of the food during digestion then it can't have a large impact. Dietary cholesterol is a tiny contributor to the total compared to the amounts created by our own bodies.
> i think the one you really need to watch is that vldl number. Triglycerides? Any diet that triggers either net loss of stored fat or burning of fat for energy will reduce it. That's the weight loss phase of any working diet on one end and ketotic low carbing and/or aerobic exercise on the other end.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 09 Mar 2009 16:26 GMT "AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > yeah, i've had my dr. tell me that dietary changes don't do all that much. Doctors seem to ignore that fact that about 80% of low carbers see improvement 6+ months in. I think part is the extremely slow death of the "low fat is the only right way" fraud that's been pushed since the 1970s, and part because 6 months is a longer time scale than most studies have. Low fat is *one* of *several* right ways not the one and only one way.
> the oatmeal (soluble fiber) works. i think i sucks up the cholesterol and > takes it out. I wonder what the breakfast oatmeal replaced? If it was sugar frosted flakes then the primary change was lower total carb count and significantly lower glycemic index. That would be enough to give improved numbers no matter what the exact change in foods was. I'd like to see a study that makes long term low carbers well past their 6th month and replaces their breakfast with oatmeal to see what happens. My best guess is a near zero net change for the group's average with a small sample getting worse because of the higher total carb count.
> but it won't pull the numbers down really far. If the mechanism of soluble fiber is to pull dietary cholesterol out of the food during digestion then it can't have a large impact. Dietary cholesterol is a tiny contributor to the total compared to the amounts created by our own bodies
yes. the main source isn't our food intake but, our body's production. those with high cholesterol should first do a colon cleanse and then do a liver cleanse to see if it will come down before getting on those deadly statins. those with sky high cholesterol should do it as well because you never know, but most likely they will have to go on meds. or maybe just cleanse several times a year?)
> i think the one you really need to watch is that vldl number. Triglycerides? Any diet that triggers either net loss of stored fat or burning of fat for energy will reduce it. That's the weight loss phase of any working diet on one end and ketotic low carbing and/or aerobic exercise on the other end.
not triglycerides. very low ldl. listed as vldl on the cholesterol panel. the particles are even smaller than ldl particles.
Don Klipstein - 10 Mar 2009 04:14 GMT >> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Doctors seem to ignore that fact that about 80% of low >carbers see improvement 6+ months in. I have a hard time believing less than 80% success rate for those sticking to any weight reduction diet for 6 months.
Meanwhile, I have tested diets and found low-carb to slow me down on my bike more than anything else does.
> I think part is the extremely slow death of the "low fat is the only >right way" fraud that's been pushed since the 1970s, I found the "low fat craze" to be mainly just a few years centered around the late 1980's and the following "low carb craze" to be much greater. And waistlines of Americans expanded through both of these.
> and part because 6 months is a longer time scale than most studies have. Though not the one involving about 49,000 women, lasting for years, where about half the participitants replaced fats with carbs (though mainly taking in increased carbs in the form of whole grains and veggies, widely said to be healthier).
The results were broadcast on TV as "Low Fat Ineffective" or the like.
The actual results were reduction of heart disease if fat decrease was targeted to reduction of "bad fats", and heart disease being largely unchanged otherwise.
Cancer rates have low prospect of change within a decade of dietary change. However, the replace-fat-with-carbs group had a major and admittedly statistically significant reduction of colon polyps (precursor of colon cancers). The replace-fat-with-carbs group also had breast cancer rate reduction of 7%, but for some reason that was deemed to be not significant.
The replace-fat-with-carbs group also on average lost 5 pounds and gained about half of it back.
> Low fat is *one* of *several* right ways not the one and only one way. I consider true - more important is to reduce calories. This study disappointed both low-fatters and low-carbers.
>> the oatmeal (soluble fiber) works. i think i sucks up the cholesterol and >> takes it out. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >tiny contributor to the total compared to the amounts >created by our own bodies. In only 80-85% of the population. The other 15-20% has a genetic defect causing notably great intolerance of dietary cholesterol as well as reduced tolerance of "everything else bad in that area".
>> i think the one you really need to watch is that vldl number. > >Triglycerides? Any diet that triggers either net loss >of stored fat or burning of fat for energy will reduce it. True.
>That's the weight loss phase of any working diet on one end True.
> and ketotic low carbing How is that supposed to be any good?
> and/or aerobic exercise on the other end. Aerobic exercise is known to be good on all fronts, including even improving HDL/LDL ratio when one increases indulgence in "other bad things" to extent of keeping total cholesterol and triglyceride levels same as before. Not that I advise "maintaining indulgence".
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
trader4@optonline.net - 10 Mar 2009 16:48 GMT > In <cf5e3b59-7e6c-47f5-9bfa-09acea4b4...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > around the late 1980's and the following "low carb craze" to be much > greater. And waistlines of Americans expanded through both of these. I don't know where you live or what your experience has been, but that sure isn't what I lived through. In fact, it's just the opposite. The low fat diet was actively promoted and pushed by most of the leading health authorities and govt institutions. It lasted for decades and still is what is actively promoted to this day. The food store shelves were chocked full of products specifically designed and marketed as low fat. They still are.
By contrast, the time period about 7 years ago, when LC suddenly became very popular was brief, only a few years. It was not promoted by any of the health authorities or the govt. Most of the LC products that came out during that time are long since gone and most of the companies that produced and marketed them went bankrupt. By contrast, all the low fat, high carb products are still on the store shelves today and the companies are still doing nicely.
And at the peak of the LC popularity, such a small percentage of people actually did it and it only lasted for a few years, it's unreasonable to expect it would even register in the overall expansion of Americans waistlines.
> > and part because 6 months is a longer time scale than most studies have. > > Though not the one involving about 49,000 women, lasting for years, > where about half the participitants replaced fats with carbs (though > mainly taking in increased carbs in the form of whole grains and veggies, > widely said to be healthier). I don't believe they actually replaced anything with anything else. After all, the study wasn't of 50 people for 6 months. It was for 49,000 for the next 30 years. I think what they actually did is just try to keep eating what they were already eating. They self reported the data and the researchers then determined the percentages of what they were eating.
> The results were broadcast on TV as "Low Fat Ineffective" or the like. > > The actual results were reduction of heart disease if fat decrease was > targeted to reduction of "bad fats", and heart disease being largely > unchanged otherwise. A better way of stating this would be that CHD was not correlated to total dietary fat, but only to the percentage of "bad fats" in the diet.
> Cancer rates have low prospect of change within a decade of dietary > change. Yes, but the study was for 3 decades, no?
> However, the replace-fat-with-carbs group had a major and > admittedly statistically significant reduction of colon polyps (precursor [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > Low fat is *one* of *several* right ways not the one and only one way.
> I consider true - more important is to reduce calories. This study > disappointed both low-fatters and low-carbers. It didn't disappoint me at all regarding low carb. First, the Nurses Health Study didn't study women doing any actual LC diet like Atkins. They just looked at self reported dietary data from 49,000 people going about their normal eating habits for 30 years and extracted data. So, while some participants were higher in fat, or lower in carbs, etc, they were not following a specific LC plan. I would expect that the overwhelming majority of participants were eating far more carbs than the 70-100g a day that you would wind up at in Atkins maintenance. And also probably a lot of different foods than the meat, fresh vegs, ie real foods that most people doing Atkins would consume. So, we really don't know anything specific to a real LC diet that people would actually follow from the study.
But, given that the typical media and public opinion is that anyone that has high fat in their diet will surely drop dead at an alarmingly high rate, particularly from CHD, the study did produce some good news. They found no link between total fat consumption and CHD.
And I would also have to say that focusing on calorie reduction is the path to failure for most people. It's been adequately demonstrated to not work from a practical standpoint. From personal experience, I can tell you why: Because you walk around feeling hungry all the time with a growling stomach, thinking about your next calorie restricted meal. With LC you are satiated and that is the huge difference that makes LC work for so many of us.
Rod Speed - 11 Mar 2009 05:45 GMT >> In >> <cf5e3b59-7e6c-47f5-9bfa-09acea4b4...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > can tell you why: Because you walk around feeling hungry all the time > with a growling stomach, thinking about your next calorie restricted meal. I dont.
> With LC you are satiated and that is the huge difference that makes LC work for so many of us. rapierfencer@live.com - 11 Mar 2009 14:51 GMT > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > >> In [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > > I dont. That’s because you’re special.
Don Klipstein - 11 Mar 2009 23:32 GMT <SNIP>
>> > I think part is the extremely slow death of the "low fat is the only >> >right way" fraud that's been pushed since the 1970s, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I don't know where you live or what your experience has been, but that Philadelphia area, USA.
>sure isn't what I lived through. In fact, it's just the opposite. >The low fat diet was actively promoted and pushed by most of the >leading health authorities and govt institutions. It lasted for >decades and still is what is actively promoted to this day. The >food store shelves were chocked full of products specifically designed >and marketed as low fat. They still are. Every restaurant chain that I saw offering what they touted as low fat fare participated in the low carb craze, except nowadays Subway is touting low fat. Many restaurants that I never saw touting low fat touted low carb - example KFC. I have seen at least one restaurant chain with a low-carb version of their burger, with the changes to reduce fat calories more than carb calories but promoting it as low carb. The meat product that I see with highest carb content and fat content very low (beef jerky) is touted at least as much low carb as it is low fat.
I never saw low fat signs stuck onto edges of shelves of a supermarket, and I did see low carb ones. Including ones for items of high calorie content such as vegetable oil.
I saw a poster saying good things about low carb in a lobby wall of a VA hospital during the Bush administration, and I don't consider the "food pyramid" especially low fat.
>By contrast, the time period about 7 years ago, when LC suddenly >became very popular was brief, only a few years. It has faded far from completely in the Philadelphia area in the last only few years, and was already promoted bigtime by 2,000. Low carb loaves of bread were common just a year ago. There was a low carb Usenet newsgroup back when I first started reading those in 1995.
> It was not promoted by any of the health authorities or the govt. >Most of the LC products that came out during that time are long since >gone and most of the companies that produced and marketed them went >bankrupt. Like KFC, Burger King and McDonald's? I saw low carb chocolate sweetend with sugar alcohols for only a little while but I still see low carb being toted a lot in supermarkets.
> By contrast, all the low fat, high carb products are still on >the store shelves today and the companies are still doing nicely. Mostly ones, or ones similar to, ones that predated the low fat fad.
>And at the peak of the LC popularity, such a small percentage of >people actually did it Not my experience.
>and it only lasted for a few years, If it won't get results that quickly, it's no good.
> it's unreasonable to expect it would even register in the overall > expansion of Americans waistlines. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >After all, the study wasn't of 50 people for 6 months. It was for >49,000 for the next 30 years. It was of 49,000 people for about 8 years (I forget whether it's 8 or 9 or 7 for now). It was noted to last long enough to note a large change in rates in colon polyps but not a change in colon cancer rates which follows colon polyps.
> I think what they actually did is just >try to keep eating what they were already eating. They self reported >the data and the researchers then determined the percentages of what >they were eating.
>> The results were broadcast on TV as "Low Fat Ineffective" or the like. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >total dietary fat, but only to the percentage of "bad fats" in the >diet. Plenty of evidence says it correlates with calories well also.
>> Cancer rates have low prospect of change within a decade of dietary >> change. > >Yes, but the study was for 3 decades, no? It was for a little less than 1 decade.
>> However, the replace-fat-with-carbs group had a major and >> admittedly statistically significant reduction of colon polyps (precursor [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Atkins. They just looked at self reported dietary data from 49,000 >people going about their normal eating habits for 30 years It was a little less than 1 decade.
>and extracted data. So, while some participants were higher in fat, or >lower in carbs, etc, they were not following a specific LC plan. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >would consume. So, we really don't know anything specific to a >real LC diet that people would actually follow from the study. So 300 grams of carbs a day is supposed to be no worse than 150-200 grams a day but carbs are still supposed to be bad?
>But, given that the typical media and public opinion is that anyone >that has high fat in their diet will surely drop dead at an alarmingly >high rate, particularly from CHD, Like the typical media that headlined the results of that study with "low fat is ineffective"?
> the study did produce some good >news. They found no link between total fat consumption and CHD. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >time with a growling stomach, thinking about your next calorie >restricted meal. No worse than when I tried targeting specifically carbs for reduction.
> With LC you are satiated and that is the huge >difference that makes LC work for so many of us. I go low calorie and after 2 or 3 days I don't get hunger pangs - just feel wired and slowed down, but low carb did that even worse to me.
If low carb actually worked any better, friends and family members who tried it would not have fallen off the low carb bandwagon, nor the Atkins fan at my workplace when Atkins first got a book out in the early 1980's. And why did Dr. Atkins die overweight of a heart attack if his diet is supposed to be so much better?
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Doug Freyburger - 12 Mar 2009 00:02 GMT > And why did Dr. Atkins die overweight of a heart attack if his diet is > supposed to be so much better? Ah so now it comes down to lies. Dr A died of brain damage from a smashed skull when he slipped on the ice walking to work. Being in the 190s at the time of the fall he was arguably a small amount underweight when it happened.
Don Klipstein - 12 Mar 2009 02:36 GMT >> And why did Dr. Atkins die overweight of a heart attack if his diet is >> supposed to be so much better? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >190s at the time of the fall he was arguably a >small amount underweight when it happened. Not the way I heard it then - that he had a heart attack as well as fell and incurred a head injury. I remember so clearly how fans if his then tried to explain his overweightness at time of his death (turns out to be 258 pounds) on fluid buildup.
And how is 190's supposed to be at all underweight?
The Wiki article on him does indeed say nothing about the heart attack, nor his weight at time of either the fall or his death.
Snopes has an article on his death, showing it was known that he had heart trouble and that an autopsy was not performed due to objections from his family, so the medical examiner was not able to make any determinations about his heart contributing to his death. Info did leak from the medical examiner's office that he had a heart attack and hypertension before his death, though the medical examiner's office says that such info was circulated in error and the leak was to a group that does not give best appearance of being unbiased.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Kaz Kylheku - 12 Mar 2009 04:09 GMT >>Ah so now it comes down to lies. Dr A died of >>brain damage from a smashed skull when he [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And how is 190's supposed to be at all underweight? 190 at 6 feet is overweight, not underweight. The only excuse for being that heavy is that you have well abover average muscle mass; i.e. you're a well-muscled athlete. And that is even laughable to think about in connection with the middle aged ball of flab that was Dr. Atkins.
Doug's ideas about weight are out to lunch. To be more precise, an early lunch at 11:25 a.m. and then another one at 1:15 p.m. with a snack in between.
190 at 6'0" is a BMI of 25.7.
The disputed validity of BMI notwithstanding, 25.7 is in no way underweight.
Whatever Atkins was doing (whether it was following his own plan or not), it did not work very well.
trader4@optonline.net - 12 Mar 2009 14:32 GMT > In <5302406c-cef5-4283-86eb-4dc53eaef...@a39g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tried to explain his overweightness at time of his death (turns out to be > 258 pounds) on fluid buildup. I've heard that Elvis is alive too. If you really wanted to find out the facts, all you have to do is some googling. Doug is correct. He slipped on ice outside his office in NYC, receiving a head injury that left him in a coma. During the couple of weeks he was in a coma, with his organs failing, he did gain weight due to water retention. That has been discussed and is apparently common.
But then apparently you already KNEW how he gained weight, since you've stated it above. So, kindly provide your reference that says it's abnormal for a person with the above stated injury and condition to suffer fluid buildup. If you were awake at the time, you'd also have seen Dr. Atkins appear many times on TV shows, like Larry King. Anyone looking at him could see he wasn't obese.
> And how is 190's supposed to be at all underweight? > > The Wiki article on him does indeed say nothing about the heart attack, > nor his weight at time of either the fall or his death. Bingo.
> Snopes has an article on his death, showing it was known that he had > heart trouble and that an autopsy was not performed due to objections from > his family, so the medical examiner was not able to make any > determinations about his heart contributing to his death. Also, the existing heart trouble was a VIRAL INFECTION that he had for years and was being treated for, not coronary heard disease.. Dr. Atkins had talked about it.
>Info did leak
> from the medical examiner's office that he had a heart attack and > hypertension before his death, though the medical examiner's office says > that such info was circulated in error and the leak was to a group that > does not give best appearance of being unbiased. I think it was the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, as I recall. To say they don't have the best appearance of being unbiased is an understatement. They have a clear anti LC agenda.
> http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp > > - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com) trader4@optonline.net - 12 Mar 2009 19:24 GMT > In <d1b9b1e7-7c78-4c15-9c70-9384c3d91...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > they touted as low fat fare participated in the low carb craze, except > nowadays Subway is touting low fat. Again, vastly different than my experience here in NJ. I've seen low fat offerings on menus for decades. Never saw any LC offerings until around 2000 or so, when for a few brief years, LC soared in public awareness and popularity. Even then, there were far fewer restaurants that offered LC fare than low fat. A few, like Ruby Tuesday, did a good job. And today, while there are still low fat offerings at many restaurants, it's much harder to find any LC offerings.
> Many restaurants that I never > saw touting low fat touted low carb - example KFC. Again, it's interesting that you use the past tense. Which I agree with. But that is the key here. They did back in the peak of popularity for a couple years. And far more today still actively promote low fat products, not many are offering or promoting LC.
> I have seen at least > one restaurant chain with a low-carb version of their burger, with the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and I did see low carb ones. Including ones for items of high calorie > content such as vegetable oil. The only store chain that I've seen promote things with LC shelf labels is A&P. And the vast majority of those labels, as per your veg oil example, are just placed on the shelves of items that are already LC, eg pickles, olives, etc. On the other hand, the store shelves are full of boat loads of products reformulated to be low fat to conform to govt and health professionals dietary recommendations and prominently labeled as low fat all over the packaging. Some examples are cheese, potato chips, milk, ice cream..... the list is endless. Where are those specially formulated LC convenience foods, snacks, etc? Sure there are still a few, but low fat outnumbers them by I'd say at least two orders of magnitude. Those products were never there for the 3 decades that low fat was being promoted. They only appeared at the height of the LC craze around 2000. And now, most are gone.
Note that I'm not saying anyone doing LC should make any of those prepared convenience food products the core of their diet. But it is a measure of how LC never achieved anywhere near the popularity or length of public acceptance that low fat has.
> I saw a poster saying good things about low carb in a lobby wall of a VA > hospital during the Bush administration, and I don't consider the "food > pyramid" especially low fat. And I'll bet it got put up there around the 2001-2003 period when LC had it's brief and huge peak.
> >By contrast, the time period about 7 years ago, when LC suddenly > >became very popular was brief, only a few years. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > loaves of bread were common just a year ago. There was a low carb Usenet > newsgroup back when I first started reading those in 1995. Promoted big time by who? Not the govt. Not the mainstream health authorities. Not the media, who did everything they could to discredit it. And again. as someone who does LC and knows when products appeared, those LC specific products have not been around for 3 decades. Low fat have.
I'd also submit that a LC newsgroup has little correlation to anything. I can find you newsgroups for almost anything and it says virtually nothing about how popular any topic is with the public at large.
The low carb bread is a good example. Prior to the surge starting around 2000 or so, there were no LC breads on supermarket shelves. For a time you had maybe 6 different kinds. Now, they are down to one or two. Now go look in the rest of the aisles and see how many products are there that are labeled low fat. The store is full of them. Reformulated to take fat out, and put in more refined carbs.
> > It was not promoted by any of the health authorities or the govt. > >Most of the LC products that came out during that time are long since [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with sugar alcohols for only a little while but I still see low carb being > toted a lot in supermarkets. Tell us what products KFC, BK, and McDonalds are actively marketing as low carb today. They have some salads and such, which if you choose the right salad and the right dressing, can be LC. But I'd like to see the signs or ads that say they are low carb.
The products I was referring too were products from companies like Atkins Nutritionals. They still have some products today, mostly the bars and shakes, but products like their muffins, breakfast cereal, pancake mixes are gone. So too is the CarbOption product line from GF. They had a variety of good ones, some salad dressings and pasta sauce were examples. CarbSense is another manufacturer that had everything from pizza crust to muffins. They are out of business.
Again, I'm not saying these products should be the core of anyone diet. Just pointing out that this is one good measure of how popular LC ever was. The period when you had at least some variety of these products was brief. By contrast the shelves are still stocked full of a huge variety of products specifically designed and marketed as low fat, are they not?
> > By contrast, all the low fat, high carb products are still on > >the store shelves today and the companies are still doing nicely. > > Mostly ones, or ones similar to, ones that predated the low fat fad. That's just total nonsense. Unless by similar you mean that low fat cheese is similar to regular cheese, and low fat ice cream is similar to regular ice cream. And if so, then what's your point? The issue is the shelves are full of them because there is obviously a big demand for low fat products and virtually none for low carb. I thought that was what we were discussing, how many products were out there to specifically support LC or LF.
> >And at the peak of the LC popularity, such a small percentage of > >people actually did it > > Not my experience. There are many of us here that have been on LC for a long time. So, we pay some attention to how many other people we run into that are also doing it. I think they can confirm that even at the height of the LC popularity, it was indeed a small percentage. And we're discussing this in the context of your assertion that because Americans waistlines continued to increase, that is somehow a measure of the failure of LC. Which of course is absurd, because the percentage of people who choose to do anything about their weight is so small, that to expect LC to register in that regard during it's brief popularity surge is just silly.
> >and it only lasted for a few years, > > If it won't get results that quickly, it's no good. Funny how you seem to think highly of low fat and have no problems with it's results. Low fat has been actively promoted as the right thing to do for 3 friggin decades by the govt, media, leading health authorities, companies offering low fat forms of everything imaginable. So, how good is that?
> > it's unreasonable to expect it would even register in the overall > > expansion of Americans waistlines. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > rates in colon polyps but not a change in colon cancer rates which follows > colon polyps.
> > I think what they actually did is just > >try to keep eating what they were already eating. They self reported [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Plenty of evidence says it correlates with calories well also.
> >> Cancer rates have low prospect of change within a decade of dietary > >> change. > > >Yes, but the study was for 3 decades, no? > > It was for a little less than 1 decade. We're discussing different parts of the same study. The Nurse's Health Study started in 1976. Dietary tracking started in 1980. The total number of women covered was 122,000. So they have dietary tracking data going back 28 years at this point. The 49,000 were a subset of that which consisted of post-menapausal women to further assess the impact of low fat specifically on that group. That portion of the study lasted 8 years.
If you want to focus on that, from Harvard:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/nutrition-news/low-fat/ The Nutrition Source Low-Fat Diet Not a Cure-All Results from large, long Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial shows no effect on heart disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or weight.
The low-fat, high-starch diet that was the focus of dietary advice during the 1990s-as reflected by the USDA food guide pyramid-is dying out. A growing body of evidence has been pointing to its inadequacy for weight loss or prevention of heart disease and several cancers. The final nail in the coffin comes from an eight-year trial that included almost 49,000 women
The trial and its findings
The Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial was started back in 1993, at a time when dietary fat was seen as a dietary evil and the low-fat diet was thought to be a straightforward route to preventing heart disease, some cancers, and the epidemic of obesity that was beginning to sweep the country. With funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, researchers recruited almost 50,000 women between the ages of 50 and 79 years. Of these, 19,541 were randomly assigned to follow a low-fat diet. Their goal was to lower their fat intake from almost 38% of calories to 20%. They were helped in this effort by a series of individual and group counseling sessions.Another 29,294 women were randomly assigned to continue their usual diets, and were given just generic diet-related educational materials.
After eight years, the researchers looked at how many (and what percentage) of women in each group had developed breast cancer or colorectal cancer. They tallied up heart attacks, strokes, and other forms of heart disease. They also looked at things like weight gain or loss, cholesterol levels, and other measures of health.
The results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed no benefits for a low-fat diet. Women assigned to this eating strategy did not appear to gain protection against breast cancer,(1) colorectal cancer,(2) or cardiovascular disease.(3) And after eight years, their weights were generally the same as those of women following their usual diets.(4)
Interestingly, they also say a couple of things that directly support what I've said:
1 - That LF was the focus of dietary advice during the 90's. Even by that measure it's been going on nearly 2 decades now.
2 - - The USDA food pyramid supported low fat
> >> However, the replace-fat-with-carbs group had a major and > >> admittedly statistically significant reduction of colon polyps (precursor [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It was a little less than 1 decade. No, they have self reported dietary data for a lot more women all the way back to 1980.
> >and extracted data. So, while some participants were higher in fat, or > >lower in carbs, etc, they were not following a specific LC plan. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So 300 grams of carbs a day is supposed to be no worse than 150-200 > grams a day but carbs are still supposed to be bad? I'd say that until someone does a long term study of folks actually on a real LC plan, like Atkins, who knows? What health effects sat fat, unsat fat, and everything else in a diet that contains just 80g a day of carb could be very different from that in a 300g a day diet.
> >But, given that the typical media and public opinion is that anyone > >that has high fat in their diet will surely drop dead at an alarmingly > >high rate, particularly from CHD, > > Like the typical media that headlined the results of that study with > "low fat is ineffective"? Yeah, kind of like that. With two key differences. First, the media were able to get across the actual conclusions of the Nurse's Health Study. In the case of LC, they virtually never can do that. Low carb becomes zero carb. Low carb becomes a screenshot of a fridge full of pork chops and butter. Low carb becomes no fiber. No vegetables. The second difference is the media have slammed LC 100X over the years compared to anything they ever did to low fat.
> > the study did produce some good > >news. They found no link between total fat consumption and CHD. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No worse than when I tried targeting specifically carbs for reduction. Well, if you just rolled your own plan and lowered carbs from 300g a day to 200g a day, I'm not surprised. That's another frustration many of us have. People judge LC a failure without ever trying to do it correctly. I'll give you credit for one thing. At least you didn't say you tried Atkins.
> > With LC you are satiated and that is the huge > >difference that makes LC work for so many of us. > > I go low calorie and after 2 or 3 days I don't get hunger pangs - just > feel wired and slowed down, but low carb did that even worse to me. So, what LC plan did you follow?
> If low carb actually worked any better, friends and family members who > tried it would not have fallen off the low carb bandwagon, nor the Atkins [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text - It's worked for me for over 30 years now. I would suspect your friends and family, like so many people, don't have the discipline to stay on any diet, no matter how much easier or effective it may be. They just look at it as a diet, something nasty they have to do for a month or two, so they can go back to their old ways of eating again.
There certainly are several studies out now that show a LC diet resulted in more weight lost, more people still on it at the end of 6 months than LF or calorie restriction and that their serum chol numbers improved or stayed the same, instead of skyrocketing Longer term, everyone knows that no diet has a good record of success.
I think the unfounded assertions about Atkins were addressed in another part of the thread.
Don Klipstein - 13 Mar 2009 03:45 GMT (Many parts snipped, mostly because responding would be largely repetiton of stuff I already said to points that I find largely repeated)
>Funny how you seem to think highly of low fat and have no problems >with it's results. I am not claiming that low fat is better than low calorie balanced diet, except for noting that the 8 year study on 49,000 women found a major decrease in colon polyps from replacing fats with whole grains and fruits and veggies.
<SNIP>
>> It was of 49,000 people for about 8 years (I forget whether it's 8 or 9 >> or 7 for now). It was noted to last long enough to note a large change in >> rates in colon polyps but not a change in colon cancer rates which follows >> colon polyps. <SNIP>
>> >Yes, but the study was for 3 decades, no? >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Modification Trial shows no effect on heart disease, breast cancer, >colorectal cancer, or weight. <SNIP>
>> >But, given that the typical media and public opinion is that anyone >> >that has high fat in their diet will surely drop dead at an alarmingly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >vegetables. The second difference is the media have slammed LC 100X >over the years compared to anything they ever did to low fat. I still have yet to see the media bashing low carb more than low fat.
<SNIP>
>> No worse than when I tried targeting specifically carbs for reduction. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it correctly. I'll give you credit for one thing. At least you >didn't say you tried Atkins. I certainly tried a lot less than 200 grams of carbs per day, like even 100, and got slowed down on my bike more than by targeting other forms of calories for reduction.
>> > With LC you are satiated and that is the huge >> >difference that makes LC work for so many of us. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So, what LC plan did you follow? Since reducing carbs gives me *worse* results than reducing other forms of calories, and everyone I know who had any Atkins books did not get better off as a result, the Atkins Foundation and for that matter whoever is responsible for South Beach are surely not going to get one red cent from me for their books!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
trader4@optonline.net - 13 Mar 2009 15:18 GMT > In <6985bedb-8ae5-44a0-901c-14199ff4e...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > trad...@optonline.net wrote in part: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > decrease in colon polyps from replacing fats with whole grains and fruits > and veggies. That's obviously not the point. Low fat, Low Cal, I don't care. What I want to know is why you think these are OK, while LC is deemed a failure because it didn't result in a reduction in obesity in America during it's brief peak in popularity a few years back. These other approaches have been the gold standards for weight loss for decades. Endorsed by the media, health authorities, the govt, the FDA food pyramid, teaching in school, shelves full of products designed to be low cal or low fat, etc. So, how is it after 3 decades of obesity gettin much worse, they get a pass but LC is deemed a failure?
> <SNIP> > >> I still have yet to see the media bashing low carb more than low fat. You really are living in your own universe. The only negative that has come out regarding low fat that I've seen that was widely reported in the media was the Nurses Health Study that we've been discussing. And I would not call that bashing. All they did was report it and how it throws into doubt some of the alleged benefits of low fat. It was a very worthy story, because it was a major longer term study. It had it's run of a few days or weeks. Then it was back to business as usual.
Now let's compare that to what goes on with LC, which is indeed bashing. The media constantly misrepresents what LC is, either through total ignorance or intentionally. Here's a sampling of what is common, which I'm sure others here in the LC newsgroup can verify: LC is zero carb. LC is all red meat. LC means no vegetables. LC is no fruit. LC is no fiber. Then they have some sound bites from a dietitian stating that LC is unhealthy and unsafe. And then they show a fridge full of pork chops and butter or a plate with all meat. I've never seen any of that with low fat. In fact, the mainstream media is still very positive about LF and LC while very negative about LC.
Then we have all the negative publicity heaped on the late Dr. Atkins before and after he died. There were people out trying to get his medical license pulled because they didn't like LC. I have never seen anything approaching that with Dr. Pritkin.
> >> No worse than when I tried targeting specifically carbs for reduction. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > even 100, and got slowed down on my bike more than by targeting other > forms of calories for reduction. As I suspected. What you did was carb reduction, not LC. You didn't follow a plan, like Atkins. With carbs at 100g a day or above, I'm not at all surprised that you didn't notice any hunger suppression or other positive results. That's why with Atkins you start out at 20g per day for 2 weeks. It's during those first few days when your appetite greatly diminishes and cravings for foods go away. You wouldn't be at 100g a day until the end of Atkins, if even then, when you're at your goal weight and in maintenance.
> >> > With LC you are satiated and that is the huge > >> >difference that makes LC work for so many of us. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is responsible for South Beach are surely not going to get one red cent > from me for their books! Yes, better to curse the darkness than light a candle. They do have libraries you know.
Don Klipstein - 15 Mar 2009 03:55 GMT >> In <6985bedb-8ae5-44a0-901c-14199ff4e...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> trad...@optonline.net wrote in part: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >a failure because it didn't result in a reduction in obesity in >America during it's brief peak in popularity a few years back. Because my experience is that low carb fails and low calorie does not.
> These other approaches have been the gold standards for weight loss for >decades. Endorsed by the media, health authorities, the govt, the >FDA food pyramid, teaching in school, shelves full of products >designed to be low cal or low fat, etc. So, how is it after 3 >decades of obesity gettin much worse, they get a pass but LC is deemed >a failure? I saw people gaining/keeping weight on low carb more than on low calorie.
>> <SNIP> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >verify: LC is zero carb. LC is all red meat. LC means no >vegetables. LC is no fruit. LC is no fiber. All I ever see along these in lines is occaisonally saying low on vegetables.
> Then they have some sound bites from a dietitian stating that LC is >unhealthy and unsafe. I still seem to think something so unbalanced as reduction of carbs to less than 100 grams per day is not optimum for health. I also hear Atkins fans and fans of low carb in general saying I can eat all the meat I want, all the faty meat I want...
> And then they show a fridge full of pork chops and >butter or a plate with all meat. I've never seen any of that with low >fat. In fact, the mainstream media is still very positive about LF and >LC while very negative about LC. I saw less positivity of Low fat than of low carb since 2000, including a report in the mainstream media last year on some study claiming low carb achieved more weight loss than low fat, Mediterrainean, and some other diet. And since 1997 or so enough sound bites here and there saying carbs are what cause weight gain.
>Then we have all the negative publicity heaped on the late Dr. Atkins >before and after he died. There were people out trying to get his >medical license pulled because they didn't like LC. I have never >seen anything approaching that with Dr. Pritkin. I have seen very little promotion of Pritikin. This is the first time I even heard his name mentioned in misc.consumers, a newsgroup I have subscribed to since 1997 or so.
>> >> No worse than when I tried targeting specifically carbs for reduction. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >wouldn't be at 100g a day until the end of Atkins, if even then, when >you're at your goal weight and in maintenance. The "low fat" diet that the government promotes is merely trying us to have 30% or less of our caloric intake from fat.
If I consume 30% of 2,000 calories per day from carbs, that's about 150 grams of carbs per day.
If I consume 25% of calories from fat and 2,000 calories per day, you call that low fat, but if I consume 25% of calories from carbs and 2,000 calories from carbs, you call that *not* low carb? Did I get that right?
And if carbs are bad, why should reduction from 300 grams per day to 100 grams per day with same calorie intake be ineffective or even in my experience counterproductive? (impairs my ability to burn calories as much as I usually do)
>> >> > With LC you are satiated and that is the huge >> >> >difference that makes LC work for so many of us. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Yes, better to curse the darkness than light a candle. They do have >libraries you know. I have even spent a few days trying to live on nothing but meat, nuts, largely-starch-free veggies, and stuff without calories. I could not ride my bike much faster than I did when eating nothing with calories, and got almost as wired and slept even worse than when eating nothing with calories, and lost weight much more slowly than I did when eating nothing with calories.
Since I have relatives who bought Atkins books and a year or two later said low carb only works for a week or two and after that the body adapts to get everything it can from protein and fat calories and make those count for maintenance of body fat as much as ever from carbs, I am quite skeptical. Makes me see highly of a friend's advice - "Follow The Money". Not only the Atkins Foundation, but also specific agricultural subsets as well as even agriculture in general. "Low Carb" not only benefits beef, pork, poultry and dairy, but also benefits grain farmers gaining from selling grain through inefficient 4-legged/feathered middlemen who benefit from a notion that people should not eat grains directly (other than "low carb" breads such as the one whose nutritional label has "servings per container" much more than the number of slices).
And after that, a close friend of mine had a heart attack at age in upper 40's while mildly overweight and having a diet excessive in calories by "government advice", especially in fat and protein. He cut all forms of calories, fat more than others. His carb intake dropped mildly and still averages 200 grams a day or so, maybe a little more. He got his weight down from about 170 to about 140 (slightly below-average height and mildly smaller-than-average "skeleton frame" ["my words"]).
His cardiologist says that he is exceptionally good at effective lifestyle change. The cardiologist credits 80% of the total cholesterol drop to the statin drug (I suspect as a result of Big Pharma sales pitch efforts; I suspect the truth is closer to 65-70% in this particular case), but this friend's LDL/HDL ratio improved significantly from diet and exercise even according to the cardiologist, and this friend's triglycerides improved very notably and without help from the statin.
If you can explain with science citable with posted links (as opposed to what I call "diet books") why reducing carb intake from 300 to 125 grams per day or whatever is supposed to be ineffective while "carbs are bad", I will "try better" in late May - when my need to be a "professional cyclist" takes a seasonal decrease.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
trader4@optonline.net - 15 Mar 2009 16:13 GMT > In <5dc12465-56d0-4af0-8209-522c01ed5...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Because my experience is that low carb fails and low calorie does not. We're not talking about your personal experience. We're talking about the slam you made against LC saying that since it didn't result in any reduction in Americans waistlines means it doesn't work. Low calorie, which has been promoted and certainly tried by a lot more than LC ever was hasn't worked either. So the point is why you choose to slam one, but not the other. Especially when low fat and low calorie have been so actively promoted precisely during the decades when Americans got far more obese, while LC only had a brief period of being anywhere near as popular. In fact, right now, low fat and low cal are still being promoted by all the mainstream health authorities, govt, media, etc. LC is not.
> > These other approaches have been the gold standards for weight loss for > >decades. Endorsed by the media, health authorities, the govt, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I saw people gaining/keeping weight on low carb more than on low > calorie. Per the above comments, it doesn't explain how you claim LC is a failure because it didn't result in less obesity in the overall population. By that standard, low fat is a failure 10X the size because it's been the gold standard for 3 decades, while LC has not.
> >> <SNIP> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > All I ever see along these in lines is occaisonally saying low on > vegetables. Like your experience with how popular LC ever was, how long the craze status lasted, how many LC vs LF specific products are on supermarket shelves, etc, your experience on how the media treats LC is vastly different from mine.
> > Then they have some sound bites from a dietitian stating that LC is > >unhealthy and unsafe. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fans and fans of low carb in general saying I can eat all the meat I want, > all the faty meat I want... OK, so at least you're not saying the media doesn't trot out some numb nuts dietitian to slam LC. And the statement about eating all the meat you want, all the fatty meat, is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. That's a good example of what the media does and how people buy into it. The actual Atkins plan is to eat only enough until you no longer feel hungry. That is very different than eating all the meat you want.
> > And then they show a fridge full of pork chops and > >butter or a plate with all meat. I've never seen any of that with low [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > diet. And since 1997 or so enough sound bites here and there saying carbs > are what cause weight gain. Sure, I'd agree there is less positive on LF. They've turned the volume down from 100db to 90db. And they've turned the positive volume up on LC from 0 to 10db. That's what I see. And what you see as a big plus for LC, is actually just a news story on a research report that ran for a day or two. On the other hand, if you look at the media, especially TV, they have a lot of time spent on what is not news. An example would be hauling in the dietitian or a Dr. for a segment on how to best lose weight, how to eat healthy. And in all those, I rarely if evert see LC receive an endorsement. In fact, what usually occurs, is following a report like the above, where a study showed LC resulted in more weight loss, they trot out that dietitian to rag on about how even if you lose weight, it's unhealthy, your chol is going to go up, and you should be limiting fat, etc.
> >Then we have all the negative publicity heaped on the late Dr. Atkins > >before and after he died. There were people out trying to get his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I even heard his name mentioned in misc.consumers, a newsgroup I have > subscribed to since 1997 or so. What does that have to do with the fact that he's a big champion of LF and no one set out to destroy him, while there were many out to get Atkins? Including the group that illegally obtained his medical records and spread the very lie about Atkins that you repeated in this thread?
> >> >> No worse than when I tried targeting specifically carbs for reduction. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > call that low fat, but if I consume 25% of calories from carbs and 2,000 > calories from carbs, you call that *not* low carb? Did I get that right? 25% of 2000 calories from carbs = 125g of carb. That level MIGHT be LC for someone in maintenance phase of Atkins. Most are less than that.
> And if carbs are bad, why should reduction from 300 grams per day to 100 > grams per day with same calorie intake be ineffective or even in my > experience counterproductive? (impairs my ability to burn calories as > much as I usually do) Atkins specifically tailored his LC plan based on decades of experience helping patients to lose weight. The purpose of going to 20g and limiting the food choices you have in that first two weeks is to get you into ketosis where your appetite drops and cravings disappear. You don't go around feeling hungry. The point here is you say you tried LC and it didn't work. What you actually tried was a reduced carb diet and I'm sure I'm not the only one here that isn't surprised that it did not work.
> >> >> > With LC you are satiated and that is the huge > >> >> >difference that makes LC work for so many of us. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > count for maintenance of body fat as much as ever from carbs, I am quite > skeptical. I'm quite skeptical that your relatives know anything about the biology of how the body "adapts." It's more likely that they did what you did. Claimed they were doing LC, in their case Atkins, without ever bothering to read a book and figure out what exactly it is they were supposed to do.
> Makes me see highly of a friend's advice - "Follow The Money". Not only > the Atkins Foundation, but also specific agricultural subsets as well as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > breads such as the one whose nutritional label has "servings per > container" much more than the number of slices). Now you're starting to sound like a PETA hack. Where's the list of all the interests that low fat benefits? Who makes all those low fat products that the supermarket shelves are full of?
> And after that, a close friend of mine had a heart attack at age in > upper 40's while mildly overweight and having a diet excessive in > calories by "government advice", especially in fat and protein. Huh? Which govt was he listening to? Certainly not the US one over the last few decades. Curious again that fat and protein get blamed, but carbs get a free pass.
> He cut > all forms of calories, fat more than others. His carb intake dropped [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > exercise even according to the cardiologist, and this friend's > triglycerides improved very notably and without help from the statin. Let's assume all that is true. If you look at the studies that have been done recently on LC, you'd see they had lowered trigs, improved LDL/HDL ratios too. Countless people have reported those results in the LC newsgroup over the years. So, what makes LF so great and LC so bad?
> If you can explain with science citable with posted links (as opposed > to what I call "diet books") why reducing carb intake from 300 to 125 > grams per day or whatever is supposed to be ineffective while "carbs are > bad", I will "try better" in late May - when my need to be a "professional > cyclist" takes a seasonal decrease. If you're really interested, you can do your own research. I'm not to keen on helping those with such closed minds that they can't obtain an Atkins book and read it. And why would you want to anyway? If you're a professional cyclist, not overweight, and happy with what your eating, just keep doing it. You're probably one of the lucky people, with the right genes that can eat a wide variety of foods, percentages, etc and do fine.
Don Klipstein - 17 Mar 2009 10:12 GMT >> In <5dc12465-56d0-4af0-8209-522c01ed5...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >the slam you made against LC saying that since it didn't result in any >reduction in Americans waistlines means it doesn't work. Except that I am talking and continue to talk from experience of myself, including seeing relatives and coworkers buying Atkins books and not getting any thinner.
And Atkins sold 30 million books without reversing the expansion of the average American waistline.
> Low calorie, which has been promoted and certainly tried by a lot more >than LC ever was hasn't worked either. That friend of mine improving his diet dropped from pudgy 160's to lean around 140 pounds by reducing calories, and did so by reducing fat calories the most and carb calories the least.
I also have a relative who got leaner from reducing caloric intake apparently upon doctor advice - and cut calories not disproportionately carb, mildly disproportionately fat because that's where calorie density is highest. His percentage of calories from carbs also increased.
I do as well, except from upticking caories from BEvERages and calories needed to speed recovery therefrom. I weigh about 162 pounds, and with big bones I am only 5-10 pounds fattier than a "beach body".
> So the point is why you choose to slam one, but not the other. I am angered more by diets advocated by those with books to sell and requiring spending more $$$ on food. I am angered more by such diets when experience of so much as family members who bought the books is that they don't work.
> Especially when low fat and low calorie have been so actively promoted >precisely during the decades when Americans got far more obese, Due to increase of calories and increasingly sedentary lifestyle.
> while LC only had a brief period of being anywhere near as popular. If Atkins sold 30 million books and low-carb failed to turn things around, in addition to negative experience of myself and for that matter coworkers and relatives buying Atkins books, I suspect the reason that LC has faded in popularity from a peak is because it largely failed to improve upon low-calorie.
> In fact, right now, low fat and low cal are still being promoted by all >the mainstream health authorities, govt, media, etc. LC is not. Low fat - if you consider 25-30% of calories from fat to be low fat. If 25-30% of calories are from carbs (120-150 grams per day on 2,000 calories per day), would you call that low carb, and if not then why not?
Low calorie - The only people I know successfully dieting did so from that approach.
>> > These other approaches have been the gold standards for weight loss for >> >decades. Endorsed by the media, health authorities, the govt, the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >failure because it didn't result in less obesity in the overall >population. My personal experience is coworkers, friends and family members and myself having 100% failure rate of low-carb and success of the few that go for low calorie.
> By that standard, low fat is a failure 10X the size >because it's been the gold standard for 3 decades, while LC has not. Likely some low-fatters thought that turkey pepperoni was a more appropriate snack than no pepperoni at all, and that it was OK to eat both of the cupcakes of a 2-pack if they were low-fat.
Meanwhile, Americans on average expanded their waistlines by increasing their caloric intake and becoming more sedentary in lifestyle.
>> All I ever see along these in lines is occaisonally saying low on >> vegetables. <BIG SNIP>
>Like your experience with how popular LC ever was, how long the craze >status lasted, how many LC vs LF specific products are on supermarket >shelves, etc, your experience on how the media treats LC is vastly >different from mine. For one thing, approaching and during the peak of the "Low Carb Craze" I heard enough radio ads for weight loss pills with names along the lines of (with exact spelling not guaranteed since I heard those mainly on radio ads and I listen to radio a lot more than I watch TV) Thermo-Carb, Carbolyte, Carb-Blocker, Carb-Assassin, etc. Those pills were generally stimulants / appetite-suppressants, often with active drug ingredient being ephedrine or something similar in effect - usually ephedrine if the supplement was entirely herbal. That perked my ears to "Big Lie".
>> > Then they have some sound bites from a dietitian stating that LC is >> >unhealthy and unsafe. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >until you no longer feel hungry. That is very different than eating >all the meat you want. My experience is that meat is appetizing, along with anything spicy and/or flavorful. Spicy/flavorful foods, whether "Red Hot" "Cheetos" or foods less "Junk Food" than that, I find to be "diet busters" as much as beer.
And, I never had non-carb calories sate me better than carb calories. If I am hungry at 3 PM and buy 3/4 pound of chicken salad that is close to 75% chicken 25% mayo and eat half of it, I remain hungry. I eat the other half and I am still hungry. Half an hour later I am still hungry. I can satisfy the hunger at that point with a few ounces of veggies and a couple ounces of bread. I can do the same with half as much chicken salad and a few more ounces of veggies and 1 ounce more bread.
>> > And then they show a fridge full of pork chops and >> >butter or a plate with all meat. I've never seen any of that with low [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >volume down from 100db to 90db. And they've turned the positive >volume up on LC from 0 to 10db. That's what I see. You surely look at other than what I see! And I don't have my TV-viewing so low as to not notice TV promoting low-carb more than low-fat.
> And what you see as a big plus for LC, is actually just a news story >on a research report that ran for a day or two. On the other hand, if >you look at the media, especially TV, they have a lot of time spent on >what is not news. Such as sound bites added in here and there and somewhat often, equating carbs as being fattening more than fat being fattening. And from 1998 to 2007, my experience is that those equated carbs with being fattening almost as much as calories being fattening.
> An example would be hauling in the dietitian or a Dr. for a >segment on how to best lose weight, how to eat healthy. And in all >those, I rarely if evert see LC receive an endorsement. Just last year I saw one explaining how low-carb was supposed to be most-successful, on a major broadcast TV channel.
> In fact, what usually occurs, is following a report like the above, >where a study showed LC resulted in more weight loss, they trot out that >dietitian to rag on about how even if you lose weight, it's unhealthy, >your chol is going to go up, and you should be limiting fat, etc. My experience with local and national news on major broadcast TV channels is closer to the opposite.
>Then we have all the negative publicity heaped on the late Dr. Atkins >before and after he died. There were people out trying to get his >medical license pulled because they didn't like LC. I have never >seen anything approaching that with Dr. Pritkin. As much as I am a Usenet junkie since mid 1995 or so, this thread is first one I have experienced with that name - and even you managed to mis-spell it. It's Pritikin. That makes me think how much of a factor he managed to be.
>> I have seen very little promotion of Pritikin. This is the first >> time I even heard his name mentioned in misc.consumers, a newsgroup >> I have subscribed to since 1997 or so.
>>>What does that have to do with the fact that he's a big champion of LF >>>and no one set out to destroy him, while there were many out to get >>>Atkins? Pritikin did not gain the traction that Atkins did, and I suspect due to his recommendations not requiring spending more $$$ for food that I see for Atkins.
Not that I believe much that a diet that is as low-fat as Atkins is low-carb is better than a well-balanced low calorie diet, though I do have a friend shedding about 25-30 pounds in 2 years from cutting calories of all forms, and targeting fats for most reduction (and succeeding by doing so) on advice from his cardiologist - probably because foods with higher fat content have higher calorie density.
Along with that relative of mine shedding about 15-20 pounds in 2-3 years as a result of cutting mainly calories, somewhat cutting more in fat and less in carbs mainly because fat is where a lot of high calorie density is, though I credit cutting calories.
> Including the group that illegally obtained his medical records >and spread the very lie about Atkins that you repeated in this thread? My opinion is that illegally-obtained medical records of a public figure indicating opposite of stance of that public figure in a medical area, when such public figure or estate thereof wants them to remain secret, is more likely to be truth than a lie.
Meanwhile, weight of Dr. Atkins on his death certificate was 258 pounds. It surely appears to me that this figure was not illegally obtained, based on what snopes.com has to say.
>>> I'll give you credit for one thing. At least you didn't say you >>>tried Atkins. >>I certainly tried a lot less than 200 grams of carbs per day, like >> even 100, and got slowed down on my bike more than by targeting other >> forms of calories for reduction.
>As I suspected. What you did was carb reduction, not LC. You follow a >plan, like Atkins. With carbs at 100g a day or above, I'm not at all >surprised that you didn't notice any hunger suppression or other >positive results. There is still the matter of my personal experience of reducing carbs from 300 grams per day to 100 grams per day being ineffective and you say that is supposed to be ineffective.
On a 2,000 calorie per day diet, 100 grams of carbs per day is 20% of the calories. You surely like to call 25-30% of calories from fat as "low fat".
> That's why with Atkins you start out at 20g per day for 2 weeks. It's >during those first few days when your appetite greatly diminishes and >cravings for foods go away. I find less than 100 grams of carbs per day slows me down on my bike so much as to be an impossibility.
I am aware of ketosis, been there, done that. Makes me *slightly* better from being less hungry and less alert when in calorie deficit. Ketosis remains considered to be a "stress condition" (my words) by experts in that area who don't drink the low-carb Kool-Aid.
> You wouldn't be at 100g a day until the end of Atkins, if even >then, when you're at your goal weight and in maintenance. Everyone I know with a good "beach body" eats more than 100 grams of carbs per day.
>> The "low fat" diet that the government promotes is merely trying us to >> have 30% or less of our caloric intake from fat. If I consume 30% of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>and 2,000 >> calories from carbs, you call that *not* low carb? Did I >>get that right? 25% of 2000 calories from carbs = 125g of carb.
> That level MIGHT be LC for someone in maintenance phase of Atkins. >Most are less than that.
>> And if carbs are bad, why should reduction from 300 grams per day to >>100 grams per day with same calorie intake be ineffective or even in my >> experience counterproductive? (impairs my ability to burn calories as >>much as I usually do)
>Atkins specifically tailored his LC plan based on decades of experience >helping patients to lose weight. With exception of every single person I know who bought his books. And every single person I know who went from pudgy to lean or stayed lean all along (not many nowadays) did so from a diet that is definitely low in calories, and that I suspect you would call low fat and call *not* low carb.
> The purpose of going to 20g and limiting the food choices you have in >that first two weeks is to get you into ketosis where your appetite drops I have gotten into ketosis, been there, done that. I also had appetite and cravings subside after 2 or 3 days of low-calorie. And mildly low calorie with a couple hundred grams of carbs per day in my experience alows me to ride my bike fast enough to burn more calories. Works great until I succumb to what busts any diet - BEvERages or spicy tasty food.
>and cravings disappear. You don't go around feeling hungry. As I said...
> The point here is you say you tried LC and it didn't work. What you >actually tried was a reduced carb diet and I'm sure I'm not the only one >here that isn't surprised that it did not work. As I have said, if carbs are bad, why should 300 grams per day not be worse than 150 grams per day?
I suspect, especially with relatives and co-workers buying Atkins books and the only people I know successfully dieting for weight loss and improved blood chemistry being ones who went low-calorie and actually reduced caloric intake less from carbs than other forms of calories, that low-carb is BS of kind to smell for "following the money".
> With LC you are satiated and that is the huge difference that makes LC >work for so many of us. Including nobody I know, even among relatives and coworkers who bought Atkins books.
>> I go low calorie and after 2 or 3 days I don't get hunger pangs - just >> feel wired and slowed down, but low carb did that even worse to me.
>>>So, what LC plan did you follow?
>>>> Since reducing carbs gives me *worse* results than reducing other >>>>forms of calories, and everyone I know who had any Atkins books did >>>>not get better off as a result, the Atkins Foundation and for that >>>>matter whoever's responsible for South Beach are surely not going to >>>>get one red cent from me for their books!
>>>Yes, better to curse the darkness than light a candle. They do have >>>libraries you know. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> calories, and lost weight much more slowly than I did when eating nothing >> with calories.
>> Since I have relatives who bought Atkins books and a year or two >>later said low carb only works for a week or two and after that the >>body adapts to get everything it can from protein and fat calories and >>make those count for maintenance of body fat as much as ever from >>carbs, I am quite skeptical.
> I'm quite skeptical that your relatives know anything about the >biology of how the body "adapts." One does not need a biology or biochemistry degree to notice how the scale reads or how one looks in front of a mirror when naked.
> It's more likely that they did what you did. Claimed they were doing >LC, in their case Atkins, without ever bothering to read a book Including whe they buy such books? Why should 100% of people I know successfully getting or remaining lean be other than the ones buying Atkins books?
> and figure out what exactly it is they were supposed to do.
>> Makes me see highly of a friend's advice - "Follow The Money". Not >>only the Atkins Foundation, but also specific agricultural subsets as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>than "low carb" breads such as the one whose nutritional label has >>"servings per container" much more than the number of slices).
>Now you're starting to sound like a PETA hack. I hate PETA, ALF and SHAC even more than the anti-carbers that my family and others I know to have shown to be better to avoid following advice of.
I consider SHAC and ALF to be criminal terrorists and PETA to be coddlers thereof, and all of those to be inflammatory along the lines of Operation Rescue (who even protested Disney "for being excessively pro-gay" [my words]).
I wish that members of PETA and their ilk and anti-carbers get married to each other, and find themselves married to each other when they get to "the next world".
> Where's the list of all the interests that low fat benefits? As much as you like to bash low-fat and low-calorie, I suspect you should be able to come up with such a list.
> Who makes all those low fat products that the supermarket shelves are >full of? Skim milk - been around as long as people knew it had half the calories of whole milk? Dairies in general did that ever since butter became a money-maker - milk fat was used to make butter.
Pretzels - as old as Philadelphia is?
Low fat soup - never got as prevalent as the "Low Carb" tags under vegetable oils did.
>> And after that, a close friend of mine had a heart attack at age in >> upper 40's while mildly overweight and having a diet excessive in >>calories by "government advice", especially in fat and protein.
>Huh? Which govt was he listening to? Certainly not the US one over >the last few decades. He got the heart attack after failing to heed such.
>Curious again that fat and protein get blamed, but carbs get a free pass.
>> He cut all forms of calories, fat more than others. His carb >>intake dropped mildly and still averages 200 grams a day or so, maybe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>as a result of Big Pharma sales pitch efforts; I suspect the truth is >>closer to 65-70% in this particular case), Recent update of his bloodwork: His statin dose was halved a few months ago, he increased his diet efforts a little, he increased his exercise efforts somewhat more, and his total cholesterol went from about 46% to about 56% of what it was during the year before his heart attack. And his LDL/HDL ratio improved.
>> but this friend's LDL/HDL ratio improved significantly from diet and >>exercise even according to the cardiologist, and this friend's >>triglycerides improved very notably and without help from the statin.
>Let's assume all that is true. If you look at the studies that have been >done recently on LC, you'd see they had lowered trigs, When accomplishing weight loss - which was only done for more than 2 weeks by anyone I know by reducing calories and not targeting carbs more than other forms of calories. Also among people I know, only ones other than ones who bought Atkins books lost weight for more than 2 weeks.
> improved LDL/HDL ratios too. Countless people have reported those >results in the LC newsgroup over the years. So, what makes LF so great Not that I think fat calories are more fattening than others, but it does appear to me that a lot of excessive calorie intake is in form of fat.
>and LC so bad? I would say complete lack of positive experience there and some significant positive experience doing otherwise by everyone I know.
>> If you can explain with science citable with posted links (as opposed >> to what I call "diet books") why reducing carb intake from 300 to 125 >> grams per day or whatever is supposed to be ineffective while "carbs are >> bad", I will "try better" in late May - when my need to be a >> "professional cyclist" takes a seasonal decrease.
>If you're really interested, you can do your own research. I'm not to >keen on helping those with such closed minds that they can't obtain >an Atkins book and read it. I note lack of a link.
> And why would you want to anyway? If you're >a professional cyclist, not overweight, Actually very mildly overweight, 5 or 10 pounds fattier than a "good beach body", though 10 pounds leaner than a decade ago. And I expect 10 pounds less fatty than I am jow if I did not like BEvERages so much or satisfy hunger with "fire hot Cheetos" (tasty, but appetite stimulant like anything I find so tasty) or kielbasa sausage sandwiches or hotdogs when the workload schedule gives me little chance to eat anywhere other than a convenience store before 3:30 PM. Delivering sandwiches for a living means low chance to eat a decent lunch at lunchtime.
> and happy with what your eating, >just keep doing it. You're probably one of the lucky people, with the >right genes that can eat a wide variety of foods, percentages, etc and do >fine. I still see so many people I know being pudgy and getting a little pudgier. The few people I know getting or staying lean are none of the people I know who got Atkins books.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
trader4@optonline.net - 17 Mar 2009 14:56 GMT > In <c4e0699e-db9b-4496-843e-32da88def...@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > And Atkins sold 30 million books without reversing the expansion of the > average American waistline. There you go again. Bitching about Atkins, while failing to mention Low Fat, Low Cal. If you stack up books and diet plans on those two, they would go to the moon and back. Yet they get endorsed, while the fact that Atkins books couldn't reverse obesity is taken as proof that LC doesn't work. Here's an additional thought. Just maybe the obesity problem would be even worse had it not been for Atkins. I would be one of those statistics in the obese ranks were it not for Atkins.
> I am angered more by diets advocated by those with books to sell and > requiring spending more $$$ on food. Again, how many books have been written and profited from LF and Low cal? Yet, they get a free pass. And you actually endorse them! Now the comment about people spending more money on food is interesting. I don't see why anyone would give a rat's a.s about how someone else chooses to spend their money. Unless you have an anti- meat agenda. Do I smell PETA here? I suppose you're also very upset about those that choose to buy organic products that cost 3X too right?
> I am angered more by such diets when experience of so much as family > members who bought the books is that they don't work. Gee, doesn't take much to anger you does it? I'm not angry at all the Low cal, LF books. I don't dislike Pritkin either. The reason your family members failed is likely because they did what you did. Didn't bother to read a book and claimed they were doing LC, while still eating 150g a day of carbs and God knows what else.
> > Especially when low fat and low calorie have been so actively promoted > >precisely during the decades when Americans got far more obese, > > Due to increase of calories and increasingly sedentary lifestyle. Gee, you think just maybe that's because eating lots of carbs, while avoiding fat, makes most people MORE HUNGRY?
> > while LC only had a brief period of being anywhere near as popular. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > LC has faded in popularity from a peak is because it largely failed to > improve upon low-calorie. And now you've actually done it. You now claim you did Atkins, when in fact you stated that all you did was reduce carbs down to 125-150g a day. One more time, THAT IS NOT ATKINS.
> > In fact, right now, low fat and low cal are still being promoted by all > >the mainstream health authorities, govt, media, etc. LC is not. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Low calorie - The only people I know successfully dieting did so from > that approach. Yes, in that special little world of yours. Where the supermarket shelves are not full of products designed and marketed as low fat or low cal, but instead loaded with LC ones. Where the media reporting bashes and inaccurately reports not LC, but LF and Low cal.. Where the govt and health authorities have not actively promoted low fat for 3 decades. Where Atkins died of a heart attack. And where you tried Atkins and it did not work, despite the fact that what you did was not even close to Atkins.
> >> > These other approaches have been the gold standards for weight loss for > >> >decades. Endorsed by the media, health authorities, the govt, the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > myself having 100% failure rate of low-carb and success of the few that > go for low calorie. Which has zippo to do with calling LC a failure based on the fact that it did not reverse obesity, while endorsing low fat, which hasn't reversed it either. In fact, it has reigned supreme precisely over the decades when obesity skyrocketed the worst. And again you claim here you did LC, when you did not.
> > By that standard, low fat is a failure 10X the size > >because it's been the gold standard for 3 decades, while LC has not. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Meanwhile, Americans on average expanded their waistlines by increasing > their caloric intake and becoming more sedentary in lifestyle. Gee, you think just maybe that's because eating lots of carbs, while avoiding fat, makes most people MORE HUNGRY?
> >> All I ever see along these in lines is occaisonally saying low on > >> vegetables. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > being ephedrine or something similar in effect - usually ephedrine if the > supplement was entirely herbal. That perked my ears to "Big Lie". Hmm, who was selling those products? Atkins, Agatston, Bernstein? No. They didn't sell them or advocate using them. Which you would know if you bothered to read a book. So, exactly what does some companies promoting their own pills have to do with anything? Again, it's curious how you pick and choose your data. There are even MORE diet pills available and I'm sure an order of magnitude MORE have been sold over time to support diet attempts that were low fat or low calorie. Yet, diet pills are used as a slam against LC only?
> >> > Then they have some sound bites from a dietitian stating that LC is > >> >unhealthy and unsafe. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > And, I never had non-carb calories sate me better than carb calories. That hasn't been the experience for most people. And if you go take a look around, there have been studies that confirmed this.
> If I am hungry at 3 PM and buy 3/4 pound of chicken salad that is close to > 75% chicken 25% mayo and eat half of it, I remain hungry. I eat the other > half and I am still hungry. Half an hour later I am still hungry. > I can satisfy the hunger at that point with a few ounces of veggies and > a couple ounces of bread. I can do the same with half as much chicken > salad and a few more ounces of veggies and 1 ounce more bread. Try doing that on a real LC plan, where you start off at 20g a day of carb. I can assure you that your experience will likely be totally different. If you started your day with cereal or pancakes, then the chicken salad experience would not surprise me. But only one of us here has actually done LC, so how would you know?
> >> > And then they show a fridge full of pork chops and > >> >butter or a plate with all meat. I've never seen any of that with low [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You surely look at other than what I see! And I don't have my TV-viewing > so low as to not notice TV promoting low-carb more than low-fat. Again, you're in your own little world. If there is so much promoting of LC, and it's so successful, then there should be a market for lots of LC formulated products. Yet, we only had a brief period of a few years when lots of those products briefly appeared. Probably 90% of them are gone now. The remaining ones have been relabeled as reduced sugar, precisely because marketing doesn't want to be associated with LC at all. If LC was being promoted, they would be having a free ride on the LC bandwagon of media support.
But the supermarket is chock full of low fat and low cal specific products. Why? Because they are still being promoted by the media, govt, and health authorities and there is a big market for them and a very small market for LC. Except of course, where you shop.
> > And what you see as a big plus for LC, is actually just a news story > >on a research report that ran for a day or two. On the other hand, if [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Just last year I saw one explaining how low-carb was supposed to be > most-successful, on a major broadcast TV channel. Yes, one time, last year. Probably the day after a study came out showing that LC had better results. And supposed to be better is key here. Because the next thing usually following the positive, there is a big warning about the serious health risks of eating fat.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 17 Mar 2009 17:53 GMT one of the problems that people have with low carb is that they are severely addicted to carbs. they act like a drug in your system. it is hard to stay on a low carb diet at first. even though you may not be hungry, the carb addiction kicks in [i call it the sugar worm :)] and bacon just will not do :) leptin and ghrelin hormones are somehow involved here.
i think low fat is also responsible for the diabetes epidemic. hey, as long as it's low fat, it must be okay, right? no problem with downing all that soda, it's low fat (let's not even get into all the artificial sweetners which while no calorie, keep that craving for the sweet taste in your mouth). no problem with having all that sugar coated cereal for bkfst as long as you use skim milk, right? fat and protein do not induce blood sugar problems. they help regulate it.
for those of you who believe in evolution, just think what your forebearers ate: lots of veggies & fruit they gathered, and all the meat they could hunt down. they did not farm grains, which are the main carbs of our diet.
Dee Flint - 17 Mar 2009 18:20 GMT > one of the problems that people have with low carb is that they are > severely addicted to carbs. they act like a drug in your system. it is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > they could hunt down. they did not farm grains, which are the main carbs > of our diet. Actually as hunter/gatherers, they DID use a lot of grain. It grew wild and they collected and stored it. The difference was that it was a complex carb not a refined carb.
Doug Freyburger - 17 Mar 2009 20:07 GMT > "AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they collected and stored it. The difference was that it was a complex carb > not a refined carb. Watch some educational videos of hunter gatherer societies. They eat well under 5% of their calories from grains. That's not what I mean by "a lot of grain" but it is admittedly some. There are also some hunter gatherer societies that don't eat any grain at all.
Grain as a staple of the diet not at spice levels is new on an evolutionary time scale. New enough that I'm wheat intolerant.
The advent of civilization came with a combination of herding with selective breeding for docility to domesticate animals, planting grain to feed the herds, deciding to feed the peasants the grain same as the herds, making hay so herds could be kept over the winter. Today much of the world still does need to depend on feeding humans livestock fodder. Some day the whole world will get to chose to eat livestock fodder or not. Even being wheat intolerant and having the options of eating stuff other than grain I still sometimes chose to eat Rye Crisp or other grain products. Fattening and addictive.
Kaz Kylheku - 17 Mar 2009 21:00 GMT > for those of you who believe in evolution, just think what your forebearers > ate: lots of veggies & fruit they gathered, and all the meat they could hunt > down. In other words, /lean/ protein, carbohydrates, and exercise.
> they did not farm grains, which are the main carbs of our diet. Not only that, but farming is also a main source of animal and vegetable fat.
trader4@optonline.net - 18 Mar 2009 00:41 GMT > > for those of you who believe in evolution, just think what your forebearers > > ate: lots of veggies & fruit they gathered, and all the meat they could hunt [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not only that, but farming is also a main source of animal and vegetable fat. I don't think they had any grains similar to what we have today to farm, even if they could. The grains we have today only exist because they were selected and developed to produce the grains. Like they started with some grain that was small, almost useless or inedible. Then they'd find an abnormally large one, or a tastey one, or hopefully both and save the seed and replant it, continuing that process for God knows how long, until they had the big, useable grains that emerged in the last few thousand years. That process is how a type of grass became corn in Mexico.
Dee Flint - 18 Mar 2009 04:28 GMT On Mar 17, 4:00 pm, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > for those of you who believe in evolution, just think what your > > forebearers [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Not only that, but farming is also a main source of animal and vegetable > fat. I don't think they had any grains similar to what we have today to farm, even if they could. The grains we have today only exist because they were selected and developed to produce the grains. Like they started with some grain that was small, almost useless or inedible. Then they'd find an abnormally large one, or a tastey one, or hopefully both and save the seed and replant it, continuing that process for God knows how long, until they had the big, useable grains that emerged in the last few thousand years. That process is how a type of grass became corn in Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than corn, the wild ancestors of our domestic grains still exist. They happen to be a useable size in their wild form. The primitives gathered everything that was edible, fruits, veggies, SEEDS (which grains generally happen to be), and nuts.
Corn is a real mystery as it is unclear how it might have developed. No one has yet figured out what it came from.
To get interesting information on grains, their use and the eventual metamorphosis to farming, the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is an interesting read.
trader4@optonline.net - 18 Mar 2009 12:37 GMT > <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Other than corn, the wild ancestors of our domestic grains still exist. It's not a question of whether they exist. The question is, how much does it yield, how much grain do you get from a single plant, how tastey/edible is it, how easy is it to grow compared to what we farm today, etc. I suspect the answer is that plants growing in the wild are significantly different than grains we grow today and that difference would limit how much would be available, how much could be consumed, and the nutrient content that someone living off the wild plant would get.
Everything we have has been developed to significantly enhance and change it over the time it's been cultivated by man. How about something like an apple? If a hunter-gatherer was lucky enough to find one, how do you think the sugar content, size, resistance to disease /insects that might have destroyed it before it was harvested, etc would compare to the ones we have today? And then top that off by the fact that you can buy the juice today off the shelf and get the juice from God knows how many apples cultivated to be high in sugar in one easy delivery system. That's a big difference from how apples may have been part of a diet of hunter gatherers.
> They happen to be a useable size in their wild form. The primitives > gathered everything that was edible, fruits, veggies, SEEDS (which grains [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > metamorphosis to farming, the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is an > interesting read. Doug Freyburger - 18 Mar 2009 16:48 GMT > Other than corn, the wild ancestors of our domestic grains still exist. > They happen to be a useable size in their wild form. Add they are still in use to make hay for livestock. Hay fields are far less selective about species.
> The primitives > gathered everything that was edible, fruits, veggies, SEEDS (which grains > generally happen to be), and nuts. Once it was discovered that plants grow from seeds, deliberate planting started. Once it was understood that "like parent like child" applied to humans, animals and plants, deliberate selective breeding began. Even before deliberate selective breeding farming processes did put some pressure on unifomity - Kill the animal that bolts out of the herd and the result is breeding for docility. Harvest all at once and plant from that harvest and the result is breeding for all ripening together. Neither of those features are bred for in the wild.
> Corn is a real mystery as it is unclear how it might have developed. No one > has yet figured out what it came from. Not according to recent issues of Discover magazine. Genetic testing shows a specific wild source and a small number of mutations that make it look so different.
One trend I like in recent agricultural research is finding wild relatives, finding perenial relatives of them, doing cross polination and selective breeding to produce perenial versions of many food crops. Especially with grain having a perenial version would make huge long term difference in soil erosion.
Dee Flint - 18 Mar 2009 22:52 GMT [snip] Not according to recent issues of Discover magazine. Genetic testing shows a specific wild source and a small number of mutations that make it look so different.
One trend I like in recent agricultural research is finding wild relatives, finding perenial relatives of them, doing cross polination and selective breeding to produce perenial versions of many food crops. Especially with grain having a perenial version would make huge long term difference in soil erosion.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I'll have to look into that article. Being from Iowa, corn is near and dear to my heart.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 18 Mar 2009 21:45 GMT > On Mar 17, 4:00 pm, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> In other words, /lean/ protein, carbohydrates, and exercise. leaner than the factory farmed meats of today, but not what i'd consider low fat. but it's good fat, full of cla, unlike factory farmed beef. i'd even bet that wild boar fat is good for you. and wild duck and geese still have lots of fat on them.
Dee Flint - 18 Mar 2009 22:55 GMT >> On Mar 17, 4:00 pm, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > beef. i'd even bet that wild boar fat is good for you. and wild > duck and geese still have lots of fat on them. You got your quotes mixed up. The part you left in was not written by me. However these primitive ancestors got in a LOT more physical labor than we do now. This makes a huge difference. Also since they died young of accidents (hunting, weather, and many others), war, disease, etc they probably didn't live long enough to develop health problems from their diet.
Doug Freyburger - 18 Mar 2009 16:59 GMT > > for those of you who believe in evolution, just think what your forebearers > > ate: lots of veggies & fruit they gathered, and all the meat they could hunt > > down. > > In other words, /lean/ protein, carbohydrates, and exercise. Seal blubber lean? Where there was a choice among game to hunt the fatter animal types were chosen and eaten. A choice was not always available but stone age huts made out of dozens of mammoth tusks says that our ancient ancestors would eat lots of very fatty meat whenever it was available.
With carbohydrates a similar principle applied - When sweeter was available it was preferred.
> > they did not farm grains, which are the main carbs of our diet. > > Not only that, but farming is also a main source of animal and vegetable fat. Farming increased the reliability of the supply of food animals with more fat and the reliability of the supply of sweet or starchy food plants. Much of the world now lives in a plenty of both having evolved to eat as much of the limited supply as possible.
Don Klipstein - 18 Mar 2009 23:21 GMT >> In <c4e0699e-db9b-4496-843e-32da88def...@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> >We're not talking about your personal experience. We're talking about >> >the slam you made against LC saying that since it didn't result in any [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >would be one of those statistics in the obese ranks were it not for >Atkins. I'm sure it works for a few, but I never saw it work.
>> I am angered more by diets advocated by those with books to sell and >> requiring spending more $$$ on food. > >Again, how many books have been written and profited from LF and Low >cal? Yet, they get a free pass. And you actually endorse them. I never saw anyone buy a book by the guy whose name I saw a couple times a decade since I started reading Usenet or any other low fat advocate.
The sandwich shop I deliver for never saw a need to get low fat cheese or low fat salad dressing, so the low fat stuff did not appear to me to be anything like low carb. My place had a memo come down to promote new menu items for low carb - not that revenue or profits changed, but I see what diet trends have more money associated with them.
>Now the comment about people spending more money on food is >interesting. I don't see why anyone would give a rat's a.s about how >someone else chooses to spend their money. Unless you have an anti- >meat agenda. Do I smell PETA here? I hate them even more than people making money pushing diets - I regret saying insufficiently last time that PETA and their ilk really get me in a bad mood. If circuses gave their animials better treatment than the animals would get after they die and go to heaven, I bet PETA would still want people to boycott circuses.
> I suppose you're also very upset about those that choose to buy >organic products that cost 3X too right? That also ticks me off, chemophobia. 95% of the chemicals I see people saying are worst poison on Earth, whatever, aren't what's killing us. Chemophobia is hurting America's industries.
But I never saw restaurants promoting organic to the extent I saw low-carb promoted. I never heard ads for daily multivitamins marketed to followers of anything with exception of low-carb. I never heard a barrage of ads for weight loss pills with names implying anything specific is fattening except carbs.
>> I am angered more by such diets when experience of so much as family >> members who bought the books is that they don't work. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Didn't bother to read a book and claimed they were doing LC, while >still eating 150g a day of carbs and God knows what else. No, they tried what the books said and it did not work for long.
>> > Especially when low fat and low calorie have been so actively promoted >> >precisely during the decades when Americans got far more obese, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Gee, you think just maybe that's because eating lots of carbs, while >avoiding fat, makes most people MORE HUNGRY? They were not avoiding fat when fat consumption was 38% or so of calories. They were eating more calories as sodas, frenchfries, and portion sizes got supersized, quarter pounders and whoppers became available in double versions, and they got less exercise as cable TV, VCRs, DVDs, satellite TV, video games and internet became parts of our lives.
>> > while LC only had a brief period of being anywhere near as popular. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >And now you've actually done it. You now claim you did Atkins, I do not claim I did specifically atkins - that relatives did.
> when in fact you stated that all you did was reduce carbs down to > 125-150g a day. One more time, THAT IS NOT ATKINS.
>> > In fact, right now, low fat and low cal are still being promoted by all >> >the mainstream health authorities, govt, media, etc. LC is not. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the govt and health authorities have not actively promoted low fat for >3 decades. Unless 25-30% of calories from fat is low fat, but 25-30% of calories from carbs you say is too much carbs.
> Where Atkins died of a heart attack. And where you tried Atkins Again, I did not say I tried specifically Atkins, though I have relatives who did.
> and it did not work, despite the fact that what you did was not even >close to Atkins. <SNIP>
>> My personal experience is coworkers, friends and family members and >> myself having 100% failure rate of low-carb and success of the few that >> go for low calorie. > >Which has zippo to do with calling LC a failure based on the fact that >it did not reverse obesity, while endorsing low fat, I don't endorse it to the extent of claiming that fat calories are more fattening than others, though I did say that's where a lot of easily cuttable excessive calories are.
> which hasn't reversed it either After so little participation that the sandwich shop I deliver for never found a need to stock low fat cheese or low fat salad dressing.
> In fact, it has reigned supreme precisely over >the decades when obesity skyrocketed the worst. And again you claim >here you did LC, when you did not. <SNIP>
>> For one thing, approaching and during the peak of the "Low Carb Craze" >> I heard enough radio ads for weight loss pills with names along the lines [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Hmm, who was selling those products? Atkins, Agatston, Bernstein? It's hard enough for me to determine who is behind some light bulbs that I evaluate, and if you look at my website you will see that's where I have some expertise. Let alone supplements enabling people to buy and eat more food.
>No. They didn't sell them or advocate using them. Which you would >know if you bothered to read a book. So, exactly what does some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >sold over time to support diet attempts that were low fat or low >calorie. Yet, diet pills are used as a slam against LC only? I heard more diet pill ads on radio pushing a notion that carbs are more fattening than anything else more than I heard diet pill ads pushing any other notion.
<SNIP>
>> My experience is that meat is appetizing, along with anything spicy >> and/or flavorful. Spicy/flavorful foods, whether "Red Hot" "Cheetos" or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That hasn't been the experience for most people. And if you go take a >look around, there have been studies that confirmed this. I see enough studies saying anything anyone wants to hear. I get pointed to enough studies claiming things such as atmospheric CO2 being higher a couple hundred years ago or whatever than it is now, and I know atmospheric science a lot better than the technical details of how noise gets into medical and diet studies.
>> If I am hungry at 3 PM and buy 3/4 pound of chicken salad that is close to >> 75% chicken 25% mayo and eat half of it, I remain hungry. I eat the other [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >chicken salad experience would not surprise me. But only one of us >here has actually done LC, so how would you know? I know others who did LC in general, and Atkins specifically, and the diet successes of people I know were entirely elsewhere.
>> >> > And then they show a fridge full of pork chops and >> >> >butter or a plate with all meat. I've never seen any of that with low [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Again, you're in your own little world. <SNIP from here largely repetition>
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Dee Flint - 17 Mar 2009 16:05 GMT [snip]
> I still see so many people I know being pudgy and getting a little > pudgier. The few people I know getting or staying lean are none of the > people I know who got Atkins books. > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) Fact of the matter is that NO "diet" works as people view it as temporary and go right back to eating badly. The only thing that works is adopting a healthy eating style eaten in the proper quantities and to continue that forever.
FOB - 14 Mar 2009 18:20 GMT When you change two things at once--less fat, more whole grains etc (really more than one thing) how do you know which one caused the change? You can only get accurate results when you test one thing at a time. Remove the fat, don't change anything else. Add fruits or veggies or whole grains, don't change anything else. d
| I am not claiming that low fat is better than low calorie balanced | diet, except for noting that the 8 year study on 49,000 women found a | major decrease in colon polyps from replacing fats with whole grains | and fruits and veggies. Don Klipstein - 15 Mar 2009 04:14 GMT >When you change two things at once--less fat, more whole grains etc (really >more than one thing) how do you know which one caused the change? You can [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >| major decrease in colon polyps from replacing fats with whole grains >| and fruits and veggies. That study was attempting to keep unchanged either calorie consumption, or level of food intake to have the study participants making the change to maintain their level of satisfaction with their food intake.
I do consider that the decrease in the precursor to a common cancer probably decreased more from increase of antioxidants/vitamins and fiber than from decrease of fat. (The cancers that follow were not effectively tracked by that study or the applicable subset of that study as of the time of the major-news-headlines because that portion of that study was only 8 years old then and it usually takes much longer than that for this common cancer to develop ftrom cancer from "original cause").
Please keep in mind that changing the study conditions to ones that result in major body weight change have effects of their own on cancer rates - it is well established that fatter people get more colo-rectal and breast cancer and less-overweight people get less colo-rectal and breast cancer.
(Men with "man-boobs" beyond pectoral muscle mass to any extent even minor or overweight at all - please beware that 7/10 of 1% of breast cancers in USA, a very common cancer having notable correlation with overweightness, strike men.)
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Rich Billionaire - 15 Mar 2009 08:33 GMT I'm not on the atkins diet, but I did eliminate all empty carbs from my diet, such as bread, rice, sugar, cereal, etc. I eat fruit, vegetables and lean meat. I don't eat massive amounts of saturated animal fat. I get a small or modest amount of fat from meat, plus some fat from salad dressings, plus fish oil pills, and raw nuts. I eat chicken without the skin. I lost 31 pounds so far. I'm looking better, feeling healthier, and doing fine. Humans didn't evolve to eat empty carb type foods, so I am sure that I don't need those. In fact I know they are extremely harmful and damaging to the body, so there is no way I will ever eat those foods again. And as long as I don't eat massive amounts of animal fat, I think I will be fine. I don't see why not eating empty carbs has to mean eating enormous amounts of animal fat. Everybody knows that saturated fat is a bad thing. And so are empty carbs.
Orlando Enrique Fiol - 15 Mar 2009 10:50 GMT fb@billionairesclub.com wrote:
>I'm not on the atkins diet, but I did eliminate all empty carbs from >my diet, such as bread, rice, sugar, cereal, etc. I eat fruit, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >chicken without the skin. I lost 31 pounds so far. I'm looking better, >feeling healthier, and doing fine. Sounds like the same South Beach I'm doing. I've lost nineteen pounds in a month with occasional necessary departures from the diet.
>Humans didn't evolve to eat empty >carb type foods, so I am sure that I don't need those. In fact I know >they are extremely harmful and damaging to the body, so there is no >way I will ever eat those foods again. I could never make such a promise. I know I won't eat empty carbs thrice a day, every day, and I know I'll stay away from them most of the time. But, if I'm somewhere and encounter a truly amazing dessert, some freshly baked bread, real French fries or fresh warm corn tortillas, I'm probably going to have some and get back on plan later on that day.
>And as long as I don't eat >massive amounts of animal fat, I think I will be fine. I don't see why >not eating empty carbs has to mean eating enormous amounts of animal >fat. Everybody knows that saturated fat is a bad thing. And so are >empty carbs. Everybody also knows that we're occasionally going to eat foods high in either or both saturated fats and empty carbs. I don't plan on permanently giving up duck, chicken hearts or beef tongue, although I can easily live without pork bacon, fatty roasts, butter, cream and most high fat cheeses. You sound very enthusiastic about your eating choices, almost bordering on zealotry. I'm old enough to allow myself some doctrinal latitude, doing what I know is right most of the time and indulging in the other stuff on occasion. In my experience, any time a diet becomes pedantic and overwhelming, I lose interest. Bottom line, I know what empty carbs and saturated fats do to my metabolism, cholesterol, blood sugar levels and weight. After a month on South Beach, my total cholesterol is down a hundred points, I've lost weight, my fasting glucose levels are down thirty points and my blood pressure is lower than ever. I wouldn't trade any of that for the bloated hunger I previously considered my birth curse. However, I've proven to myself that I can take one to three days a week of eating one meal of anything I want while continuing to lose weight and derive health benefits from a predominantly low-carb diet. Some people can't do that, I realize. Some people can't reject less desirable carb choices while holding out for their weekly indulgence of what they really enjoy. Most people are so essentially controlled by their carb cravings that they either give in all the way or banish them out of desperation and self preservation. But, moderates like me should not be perceived as noncommittal weaklings. I know that for me, balance between what I enjoy in food and what my body can process is the key. I have found that balance to reside somewhere in the low-carb zone most of the time, without too much animal fat, but with fruits and whole grains every day. On occasion, I seem to be able to tolerate moderate amounts of refined carbs and saturated fats. Those occasional indulgences help me get through the low-carb times when I sometimes feel deprived. No diet is going to work unless deprivation feelings either dissipate or are replaced by extremely strong motivations. Being totally blind, I don't look at myself in the mirror each day. My fiancee loves me at whatever weight I find myself. There go two strong motivations that work for most people. My health has clearly been the strongest motivation, since I was bordering on diabetes a month ago and know I could reverse the genetic pull with low-carb eating and weight loss. Those motivations keep me on the straight and narrow when I'd prefer to give in. But, I've also developed ways of evaluating what's worth going off plan. I don't eat any packaged or boxed baked goods, sliced breads or frozen processed foods. I don't consider pasteurized juices worth it for me. But, I refuse to live through this summer without watermelon, peaches and sweet corn.
Orlando
FOB - 15 Mar 2009 15:40 GMT People think they know.
Everybody knows that saturated fat is a bad thing.
Doug Freyburger - 10 Mar 2009 23:18 GMT > >> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have a hard time believing less than 80% success rate for those > sticking to any weight reduction diet for 6 months. Here's where a classic problem with pushing low fat comes in - Obvious does not always equal true and the data needs to override any expectations of the obvious.
Dr Atkins started as a cardiologist. Because it was taught he prescribed low fat to his patients. Most could not stay on it (problem 1). Of those who did stay on it about 6 months in there numbers started getting worse (problem 2). He started looking for an alternate system that gave better results at least 6 months in and that's one of the two stories of how he started advocating low carb. Six and more months in it has a better percentage of giving better cholesterol numbers. The human body produces cholesterol as a side effect of dietary carbs among other reasons.
> Meanwhile, I have tested diets and found low-carb to slow me down on my > bike more than anything else does. Depends on your patience with getting back into condition and on the intensity of your rides. Starting low carb does cut the endurance but the effect is temporary. Given taking it easy for the first two weeks then building up again most folks find improved endurance while on carb carb, but worse intensity.
> > I think part is the extremely slow death of the "low fat is the only > >right way" fraud that's been pushed since the 1970s, > > I found the "low fat craze" to be mainly just a few years centered > around the late 1980's and the following "low carb craze" to be much > greater. And waistlines of Americans expanded through both of these. Trader4 already addressed this. You and I seem to be on a different planet because I had the same experience as Trader4 on this history.
> Though not the one involving about 49,000 women, lasting for years, > where about half the participitants replaced fats with carbs (though > mainly taking in increased carbs in the form of whole grains and veggies, > widely said to be healthier). It's no mystery that veggies are healthier than pretty much anything else. How folks conclude that grains are healthy by starting with frosted flakes, switching to oatmeal, and seeing improvement, that's a mystery to me. Logic seems to be a weak point among dietary scientists.
> The actual results were reduction of heart disease if fat decrease was > targeted to reduction of "bad fats", and heart disease being largely > unchanged otherwise. Conveniently low carb plans stress avoiding bad fats and using good ones. The judgement of which are good and bad are different because of the data, though. Everyone considers transfats bad. Low carbers understand that saturated fat is good in the absence of high carb food.
The big news that doesn't get much attention is a point I'll repeat from Trader4 - Fat intake was not linked to heart disease in that study.
> > Low fat is *one* of *several* right ways not the one and only one way. > > I consider true - more important is to reduce calories. This study > disappointed both low-fatters and low-carbers. How to reduce calories without triggering hunger? That's why both low fat and low carb plans have been popular. There's a percentage of the population who isn't hungry while on low fat so they are natural low fatters. There's a higher percentage of the population who isn't hungry on low carb so they are natural low carbers. I think this one difference is more important than issues like who sees what cholesterol results after how long.
> >Dietary cholesterol is a > >tiny contributor to the total compared to the amounts > >created by our own bodies. > > In only 80-85% of the population. And sure enough after 6+ months about 80% of low carbers see improved numbers. Looks to me like we've identified a percentage of the population who are natural low fatters.
> >Triglycerides? Any diet that triggers either net loss > >of stored fat or burning of fat for energy will reduce it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > How is that supposed to be any good? Are you asking why the result of a successful hunter's diet is beneficial? That's what ketosis is. It's not hard to look up the many health benefits of ketosis once you get past the ignorance of confusing ketoacidosis, of confusing a starvation result with a succesful hunt result and so on.
Are you asking why ketosis is so good at reducing triglycerides? Trigylerides are, among other uses, the bodies transportation mechanism for fat. If the body is burning fat as its primary fuel then fat is pulled out if the blood at a very high rate so levels go down. Burning for fuel is very fast compared to the gradual process of storing in fat cells - Fat cells tend to have poor circulation.
> > and/or aerobic exercise on the other end. > > Aerobic exercise is known to be good on all fronts, including even > improving HDL/LDL ratio when one increases indulgence in "other bad > things" to extent of keeping total cholesterol and triglyceride levels > same as before. Not that I advise "maintaining indulgence". A bit of trivia about aerobics - It's good for ADHD symptoms. Disorganized? Go for a run.
Don Klipstein - 11 Mar 2009 23:47 GMT >> >> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >Conveniently low carb plans stress avoiding bad fats and >using good ones. My experience from the height of the low carb fad was that low carbers say fatty meat is not a problem, and that I should read the Atkins books.
The judgement of which are good and bad
>are different because of the data, though. Everyone considers >transfats bad. Low carbers understand that saturated fat is >good in the absence of high carb food. The bug study also said saturated fats are bad.
>The big news that doesn't get much attention is a point I'll >repeat from Trader4 - Fat intake was not linked to heart >disease in that study. I am aware and always was aware that the study indicated changing fat-carb balance had no significant effect on heart disease unless saturated and trans fats were targeted for reduction.
>> > Low fat is *one* of *several* right ways not the one and only one way. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >see improved numbers. Looks to me like we've identified >a percentage of the population who are natural low fatters. As I said before, blood chemistry gets better of one gets on any diet that works and stays on it. I know lots of people trying low carb, some specifically Atkins, and all of them were disappointed before staying on for 6 months.
>> >Triglycerides? Any diet that triggers either net loss >> >of stored fat or burning of fat for energy will reduce it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Are you asking why the result of a successful hunter's diet >is beneficial? I would imaging people who hunt get more aerobic exercise than most modern non-hunters do, and that humans who hunt are not close to strict carnivores where edible plants are common.
> That's what ketosis is. It's not hard to look >up the many health benefits of ketosis once you get past [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >burning fat as its primary fuel then fat is pulled out if the >blood at a very high rate so levels go down. Calorie defecit in general does that.
> Burning for fuel is very fast compared to the gradual process of >storing in fat cells - Fat cells tend to have poor circulation. Carbs burn faster than anything else - that's why road racing cyclists have their diets increased from those of more sedentary people more in carbs.
>> > and/or aerobic exercise on the other end. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >A bit of trivia about aerobics - It's good for ADHD symptoms. >Disorganized? Go for a run. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Del Cecchi - 11 Mar 2009 04:47 GMT snip
> If the mechanism of soluble fiber is to pull dietary > cholesterol out of the food during digestion then it > can't have a large impact. Dietary cholesterol is a > tiny contributor to the total compared to the amounts > created by our own bodies. I believe the soluble fiber binds to bile acids in the intestines, preventing them from being reabsorbed and causing the liver to use cholesterol to manufacture more. This results in a lower serum cholesterol.
Crosspost trimmed
trader4@optonline.net - 11 Mar 2009 14:49 GMT On Mar 10, 11:47 pm, Del Cecchi <delcecchinospamoftheno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Crosspost trimmed I've seen articles and research that says the soluble fiber gets converted by bacteria to short chain fatty acids, which then get metabolized and it's these fatty acids that result in the chol reduction.
Don Klipstein - 10 Mar 2009 03:02 GMT >On Mar 9, 3:58 am, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >> In article <x51tl.2073$gm6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >i think the one you really need to watch is that vldl number. Total cholesterol 300? That's awfully high, and rather high even when LDL/HDL ratio is good and triglyceride level is good.
Total cholesterol 300 combined with "normal" HDL/LDL ratio and "medium-upper normal" level of triglycerides appears to me to be invitation of a heart attack before enjoying much retirement.
My friend approached his heart attack with total cholesterol in the 260's to around 270. My best impression so far is that his triglyceride level was a bit on the high side due to this friend of mine being slightly overweight and "being well-fed".
He got his triglyceride level down a lot by increasing exercise and reducing calorie intake in all forms, though reducing fat calories more than reducing other forms of calories.
He improved is HDL/LDL ratio in large part by major uptick in aerobic exercise. That worked better for him than fish oil. In earlier times of being on the statin before major uptick of aerobic exercise, my friend had the statin reducing HDL to below-recommended levels as well as reduction of LDL.
And women have gender-related-hormonal heart attack protection decreasing bigtime after menopause. Heart attacks are #1 cause of death of each one of both genders of Americans!
(My friend having a heart attack at an early age is male, as usual.)
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
trader4@optonline.net - 10 Mar 2009 16:52 GMT > In <Lw9tl.2185$%u5.1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, AllEmailDeletedImmediately > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > reducing calorie intake in all forms, though reducing fat calories more > than reducing other forms of calories. One thing that virtually everyone sees with LC is an immediate and substantial drop in trigs while having a high total fat intake. To see them go from 250 to 75 is not unusual.
> He improved is HDL/LDL ratio in large part by major uptick in aerobic > exercise. That worked better for him than fish oil. In earlier times of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Don Klipstein - 11 Mar 2009 23:02 GMT >> In <Lw9tl.2185$%u5.1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, AllEmailDeletedImmediately >> wrote:
>> ><trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message >> >news:929b0e95-c530-4c45-86e3-94757209f5ec@r18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] >substantial drop in trigs while having a high total fat intake. To >see them go from 250 to 75 is not unusual. What about once the body gets used to the change in what forms the calories are in? I have had relatives and friends say that they lose weight in the first week or two of low carb, until the body gets into the swing of making protein and fat into body fat (if previously excessive calories were mainly carbs). Blood triglyceride level correlates well with direction of change of body fat content and should be low when a diet is working.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Doug Freyburger - 11 Mar 2009 23:36 GMT > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > calories are in? I have had relatives and friends say that they lose > weight in the first week or two of low carb, They haven't paid attention to what's written. In the first two weeks there's water loss because the body stores carbs by dissolving it in water. Goodbye stored carbs, goodbye water it was stored in. Not understanding this folks can incorrectly believe something changed in their fat loss once they run out of stored carbs when in fat no change in fat loss rate happened at all.
> until the body gets into the > swing of making protein and fat into body fat (if previously excessive > calories were mainly carbs). There's no low carb plan in existance that says replace your previous too many calories of carb with too many calories of fat and it takes on the order of an extra stick of butter per day to be able to store new body fat. With normal low carber fat intake in the 100 gram range that's in the 200 gram range. No way they did anything rational and managed to store new body fat, not even if they have never read a book on the topic.
> Blood triglyceride level correlates well > with direction of change of body fat content and should be low when a diet > is working. trader4@optonline.net - 12 Mar 2009 19:45 GMT > In <552964dd-7e8c-4530-a5ee-f39096205...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > What about once the body gets used to the change in what forms the > calories are in? Trig go way down and stay down. That has been my personal experience and that of I think all the regulars on the LC group.
Here's one study that discusses the effect, though it's not long term.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-6-6/42376.html To investigate whether moderate reduction in carbohydrate intake might affect cholesterol levels, Krauss and his team had a group of 178 overweight men eat a standard diet including 54 percent energy intake from carbohydrates for one week.
The men were then randomly assigned to continue the same diet, or switch to a 39 percent carbohydrate diet, or a 26 percent carb diet for three weeks.
For an additional five weeks, men ate a similar diet but their calorie intakes were reduced to produce weight loss. In the final four weeks of the study, their energy intake was adjusted for weight stabilization.
Compared to the men who stayed on the standard diet, those with the lowest carb intake showed reductions in harmful triglycerides and "bad" LDL cholesterol levels. They also enjoyed an increase in the ratio of "good" HDL cholesterol to total cholesterol levels, and other improvements in their blood fat profile.
These healthy changes were seen whether or not the men were eating less saturated fat, and whether or not they lost weight.
> I have had relatives and friends say that they lose > weight in the first week or two of low carb, until the body gets into the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'd like to see a reference that says trigs correlates well with direction of change of body fat content. I mean specifically that, not overall body fat content. IE, if someone is 300lbs and loses 2lbs, their trig measurably improve? Or gains 2 lbs and they get worse? And it gets low when any diet is working, as long as you're just losing weight? Never heard any of that before. If you're saying that trig improve when you're obese and lose a substantial amount of weight, I would think that is true. But clearly that isn't the mechanism at work during LC. I can tell you that to see triglycerides drop substanitally, maybe cut by 3X in a matter of a couple weeks or less isn't unusual.
Dee Flint - 03 Mar 2009 14:39 GMT I grew up on a farm and there was no "teaching" to eat low fat or white meat over dark meat. All my life, even as a tiny child, I disliked fatty food and always went for the chicken & turkey breast and trimmed every possible bit of visible fat off my beef and pork (except bacon).
Do not mistakenly think humans are carnivores. We are not but instead are omnivores. We evolved to eat a little bit of a wide variety of things. Our digestive tract is NOT like a carnivores or an herbivores. It is an in-between design. So going for the fatty stuff isn't necessarily a part of our heredity.
trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd love to see any reference for this. Sounds more like a myth to > me. The problem with this that I can see - There's heavy pressure in the low fat world to prefer boneless skinless flavorless chicken breast over the dark meat and anyone who has learned preferences is going to prefer the white meat because that's what gets taught. As a result I have little idea how many people would have the preference in the absence of pressure to avoid fat and prefer the white meat.
I prefer dark meat and no amount of pressure to go lean ever managed to change my tastes. I can't say I "crave" the fattier darker meats or that I "hate" the leaner lighter colored meats, just that when they are on the platter side by side I'll go dark. I think that has my tastes aligning with AllEmail's rather than being a part of a predictive trend.
The closest I can find to a reference isn't going to work properly -
True evolved carnivores go for the fat, fatty organs, and fatty meats before they go for the leaner meats when they bite into a kill. Watch any documentary on lions or other cats, wolves or other wild dogs, hyenas and so on.
That's *not* the same as saying some humans are more like a carnivore than like an herbivore.
Doug Freyburger - 03 Mar 2009 16:58 GMT > I grew up on a farm and there was no "teaching" to eat low fat or white meat > over dark meat. So you grew up in the 50s or 60s before the low fat craze then, right? The pressure to avoid fat has been active for decades.
> All my life, even as a tiny child, I disliked fatty food > and always went for the chicken & turkey breast and trimmed every possible > bit of visible fat off my beef and pork (except bacon). Then you're a natural low fatter. Some percentage of the population is. Figuring out which plan type is for you works far better than deciding one plan type must be right for everyone.
> Do not mistakenly think humans are carnivores ... Thanks for repeating one of my points for me.
> The closest I can find to a reference isn't going to work properly - > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's *not* the same as saying some humans are more like a > carnivore than like an herbivore. AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 03 Mar 2009 21:39 GMT >> I grew up on a farm and there was no "teaching" to eat low fat or white >> meat [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> possible >> bit of visible fat off my beef and pork (except bacon). dh will only leat the really lean bacon, cooked very crisp.
> Then you're a natural low fatter. Some percentage of the > population is. Figuring out which plan type is for you > works far better than deciding one plan type must be > right for everyone. > >> Do not mistakenly think humans are carnivores ... we are omnivores.
> Thanks for repeating one of my points for me. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> That's *not* the same as saying some humans are more like a >> carnivore than like an herbivore. Hoots - 03 Mar 2009 13:49 GMT > On Feb 26, 4:58 pm, Kate XXXXXX <k...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I'd love to see any reference for this. Sounds more like a myth to > me. Sounds kind of gay to me, but that's OK, too.
>> I like the whole thing equally... But have always echewed the skin >> (horrid slimy stuff!), and loathe the Pope's Nose. I could quite
>> happily never eat meat again, but please to not threaten me with a fish >> free diet! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - Hoots - 01 Mar 2009 13:06 GMT >> ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > to need the higher protein/fat diet. i've always craved the leg and > thigh and hated the breast meat. I like breasts.
Just trying to inject a positive note here, that's all.
Kate XXXXXX - 01 Mar 2009 13:41 GMT >>> ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Just trying to inject a positive note here, that's all. Chicken breasts with 'goose poo'
4 chicken breasts clove of garlic, crushed 4 dollops of that prepared 'fresh' basil in tubes... Looks like goose poo! half a pint of chicken stock juice of half a lemon
Spread the garlic and goose poo on the chicken and put it in a lidded baking dish. Pour the stock round the chicken and put the lid on.
Bake at 175C for 40 minutes.
This is tonight's dinner, served with baby roast potatoes and carrots and peas.
 Signature Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Hoots - 03 Mar 2009 13:48 GMT >>>> ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > This is tonight's dinner, served with baby roast potatoes and carrots > and peas. I have a great joke about basil in a tube and breasts but I shall not use it.
Seems like a "shooting fish in a barrel" kind of thing.
Don Klipstein - 01 Mar 2009 19:22 GMT >> ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >to need the higher protein/fat diet. i've always craved the leg and >thigh and hated the breast meat. I crave chicken thigh meat, and found fat makes me fat, and low-carb slows me down on my bike.
It appears to me that those with more sedentary lifestyle (unhealthy anyway on average) tend to have a lower carb requirement and requirement to have higher percentage of calories from protein, *as part of being required to consume less caloric intake*,
and more active people have a higher carb requirement since carbs are basic body fuel.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 02 Mar 2009 02:10 GMT >>> ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > and more active people have a higher carb requirement since carbs are > basic body fuel. when i lift weights i don't consume substantially more carbs. i make baked oatmeal with frt and nuts and agave and eat about the equiv of a serving of oatmeal w/frts and nuts and a cup of coffee before i leave. i don't work out for hrs on end, so my carb intake is fine. after the workout i eat a couple of hard boiled eggs until i get home for my regular bkfst. ditto for the bike days, except i don't bring the eggs.
i'm not lifting weights right now, tho. menopause has just sliced and diced me. :(
trader4@optonline.net - 01 Mar 2009 16:23 GMT > ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: > [quoted text clipped - 155 lines] > make much difference. Every time I quit or fall off I end up > gaining. That's my choice - Regain or keep trying. To the above, I would add that it's not clear that any of the diets was actually low carb. Though they talk about LC in the headline, the actual diets were:
Carb heavy High fat Low fat High protein
Without knowing more, we have no way of knowing if any of them fits the definition of LC along the lines of Atkins. For all we know, all of them could have had 200g a day of carb or more.
Also, given the above, rather amazing though not unusual, that the CNN article then drags in Atkins, with an interview with of all things a vegetarian that supposedly went on Atkins. But like Doug says above, neither the reporter nor the subject has a clue about Atkins.
I also agree that it's hard to imagine being on a calorie restricted diet and not feeling hungry. One of the common findings in other studies that really did test a LC diet vs other approaches was that LC lead to hunger suppression, while other diets did not.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately - 02 Mar 2009 02:02 GMT snip
To the above, I would add that it's not clear that any of the diets was actually low carb. Though they talk about LC in the headline, the actual diets were:
Carb heavy High fat Low fat High protein
Without knowing more, we have no way of knowing if any of them fits the definition of LC along the lines of Atkins. For all we know, all of them could have had 200g a day of carb or more.
Also, given the above, rather amazing though not unusual, that the CNN article then drags in Atkins, with an interview with of all things a vegetarian that supposedly went on Atkins. But like Doug says above, neither the reporter nor the subject has a clue about Atkins.
I also agree that it's hard to imagine being on a calorie restricted diet and not feeling hungry. One of the common findings in other studies that really did test a LC diet vs other approaches was that LC lead to hunger suppression, while other diets did not.
too many carbs make me ravenous. and i'm not talking 200gr/day. just eating the wrong kind will do it. i find the gluten ones don't work well for me at all. my ususal fare is 3 eggs scrambled in coconut oil or butter, an orange or kiwi, and a cup of coffee for bkfst at about 9am. sometime in afternoon i have about 10oz of whole raw milk (sometimes i make hot cocoa using stevia or agave) and then i get dinner around 6: c2oz raw cheese, salad, fruit is the usual. on w/e it's brunch of 1.5 oatmeal-cottage cheese pancakes w/no sugar added homemade berry sauce or unsweetened applesauce and either beef or chicken for dinner w/veggies (green leafies, swt potatoe/carrot) and a piece of fruit (sometimes made into a berry or apple crisp). i eat very little grain, potatoes, pasta, root veggies, or rice.
Don Klipstein - 09 Mar 2009 02:05 GMT >snip > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >studies that really did test a LC diet vs other approaches was that LC >lead to hunger suppression, while other diets did not. I got hunger supression on low calorie diet after a few days, whether low-carb or not.
I also get slowed down riding my bike when I incur calorie deficit, and had this more with low-carb than with targeting other forms of calories for reduction.
>too many carbs make me ravenous. and i'm not talking 200gr/day. >just eating the wrong kind will do it. i find the gluten ones don't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >piece of fruit (sometimes made into a berry or apple crisp). i eat very >little grain, potatoes, pasta, root veggies, or rice. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Stephanie - 17 Mar 2009 12:30 GMT > ma...@not4mail.com (Maria) quoted: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's not like anyone doubts that reducing calories works, so why > not compare actual plans? That was my thought as well.
The Master - 26 Feb 2009 17:15 GMT > Regardless of diet, most participants had dramatic weight loss after six > months, losing an average of 13 pounds. ROTFLMAO!!! This study defines "dramatic weight loss" as 13 pounds...
> According to Sacks' research, many of the 800-plus participants regained > weight after a year, but about 80 percent of them lost at least eight > pounds after two years. But were able to keep off a stunning 8 pounds! Wow! *rolling eyes*
|
|
|