I'm actually pretty much liking the whole low carb deal except for limits on certain carbohydrate foods, especially things like oatmeal and whole wheat bread, which carry with them soluble and insolube fiber, the former of which is pretty hard to incorporate in any diet as is. Same goes for fruit. Antioxidants and HDLs and all that.
You don't need oatmeal and whole wheat bread. You can get plenty of fiber from leafy vegetables and low-sugar fruits like berries. Broccoli, brussel sprouts, blackberries, etc.
yes, insoluble fiber. But the problem is soluble fiber. It's not really that prevalent in berries as opposed to larger fruits, but even that is dwarfed by certain kinds of oatmeal.
After five minutes of searching, I've noticed that a lot of the foods high in soluble fiber that aren't like, oatmeal, are pretty esoteric.
Meh, this argument sounds like desperate clinging to the carbs. Give the Oatmeal up.
Not really an option practically for a lot of people who need an instant meal. That's the real thing here. Oatmeal is a ... popular breakfast food. It's convenient and is even one of those futuristic dehydrated meals.
Set the alarm 10 minutes earlier and make some scrambled eggs while microwaving some bacon/sausage, or make an omelet. And cook larger dinners so you have leftovers for lunch the next day. I'm sure theres some study showing that losing weight(better breathing) improves sleep quality enough that you'll functionally gain back the 10 min.
I've started eating 50g or less of carbs a day, so far everything's going fine. Do any of you also calorie count on these diets? It strikes me that I could eat, say, four cans of almonds a day and still be under 50g carbs, but I'd have eaten like 4000 calories or something. Obviously I'm not doing that, but the lingering carb counter in me worries that maybe I'm just eating too much (though I have lost weight since I started).
Just thought I would chime is as someone who actually tried the Atkin's diet about 7 years ago. I can say it worked really well in lowering my weight and I had a stupid amount of energy while on the diet. In total I dropped about 90 lbs and actually felt motivated to go to the gym and work out.
Of course then I moved and went to college and fell into very horrible eating habits and subsequently gained it all back and more. I'm currently on a different diet (Nutrisystem 4 days in woo) but already I'm not enjoying this diet as much and am usually feeling hungry all the time. Still I plan to stick it out and see how it works for me, but if in a few months i'm still not feelin it I think i'll be giving the low-carb diet another go. With a decent schedule and a drive to actually fix my broken eating habits I think it'll work well.
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
I'm actually pretty much liking the whole low carb deal except for limits on certain carbohydrate foods, especially things like oatmeal and whole wheat bread, which carry with them soluble and insolube fiber, the former of which is pretty hard to incorporate in any diet as is. Same goes for fruit. Antioxidants and HDLs and all that.
You don't need oatmeal and whole wheat bread. You can get plenty of fiber from leafy vegetables and low-sugar fruits like berries. Broccoli, brussel sprouts, blackberries, etc.
yes, insoluble fiber. But the problem is soluble fiber. It's not really that prevalent in berries as opposed to larger fruits, but even that is dwarfed by certain kinds of oatmeal.
After five minutes of searching, I've noticed that a lot of the foods high in soluble fiber that aren't like, oatmeal, are pretty esoteric.
Meh, this argument sounds like desperate clinging to the carbs. Give the Oatmeal up.
Not really an option practically for a lot of people who need an instant meal. That's the real thing here. Oatmeal is a ... popular breakfast food. It's convenient and is even one of those futuristic dehydrated meals.
Why do you have to get your fiber during breakfast? You can get it in your lunch, dinner, or snacks throughout the day.
yeah, but we do get the most nutritional benefit from breakfast, not just because it's supposed to be a large meal after a night of fasting before a heavy metabolic load, but because it's traditionally been like, only five different types of food as opposed to thousands of lunch and dinner menus. Again, I'm just saying that for simplicity's sake, it's easy to eat oatmeal and call it a day as far as fiber is concerned than to supplement yourself with a wide variety of fruits, nuts and greens throughout the day. I mean, we all know which is healthier, but which is the more doable is the question that interests me.
Are you going to tell someone who is worried about heart disease who has been eating high fiber oatmeal for breakfast ritualistically to eat something else? Depends, if you're willing and able to make the time investment to go over the research and options. But you're teaching a person several ideas instead of one: to snack throughout the day instead of heavy meals, to learn to live with less traditional staples, to develop strategies to keep fresh fruits - certain fruits, and fresh nuts - certain nuts - around for regular snacks on top of the whole protein breakfast deal. Your almond smoothie, getting up in time for breakfast, palatable leftovers, variety, innovation, good foods - all great ideas, all too many ideas.
I appreciate the validity of your claims about nutrients, I'm just worried that the diet is too restrictive and may undo healthy habits without extensive dietary education.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
All chesse is white. Pretty much all dairy is white, though some cheese and butter will yellow slightly, I think based on salt content. The orange color of cheese is added, to make them look like the wax-covered cheese wheels that used to be the norm.
Anyway, again, anecdotally, an Atkins or South Beach low-carb-style diet can be much easier to follow, because after the initial adjustment, there isn't much hunger involved. You eat as much as you want, good-tasting stuff too, and just find yourself not needing to eat as much. I know it is rather controversial to go with the "carbs are an addictive and harmful drug" approach that Atkins preaches, but it seems true to me. If you don't eat carbs, eating them is a rush, until you eventually need a lot of them throughout the day in order to not feel starving and your body starts showing the damage.
People can get adjusted to lower-calorie without low-carbs, too, I guess, but whenever I've tried that there is a longer period of adjustment and the constant hunger involved never goes away.
Except for people like me who love bread and pasta. I LOVE it!
Then this diet isnt for you. There is one guy in my office who is severly overweight and everytime I start to talk to him about low/no carbing he just goes. "Yeah man, but i just HAVE to HAVE that POTATO with my STEAK!"
And I just want to look at him and tell him, "Well -- if you can't give up that potato then you need to find another option."
If you know the truth about the issues and decide that eating pasta is more important than not being obese and dying earlier then that's a decision you can make. I just want people to be able to make that informed choice.
I'm definitely not overweight by any stretch of the imagination. I love carbs and I know the consequences, I just don't necessarily care since I only eat it at dinner and have a workout regime that I follow religiously. I am going back to the scrambled eggs and corned beef breakfast since I now have my pots and pans and will probably try other sides with meats to increase protein intake. But I don't know yet. I might just make scrambled eggs as a side for every meal of the day.
You really have a hard on for oatmeal. You're not sleeping with it, are you Paladin?
there was this one time, we were both in the bathtub
I was just a kid
with chicken pox
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm actually pretty much liking the whole low carb deal except for limits on certain carbohydrate foods, especially things like oatmeal and whole wheat bread, which carry with them soluble and insolube fiber, the former of which is pretty hard to incorporate in any diet as is. Same goes for fruit. Antioxidants and HDLs and all that.
You don't need oatmeal and whole wheat bread. You can get plenty of fiber from leafy vegetables and low-sugar fruits like berries. Broccoli, brussel sprouts, blackberries, etc.
yes, insoluble fiber. But the problem is soluble fiber. It's not really that prevalent in berries as opposed to larger fruits, but even that is dwarfed by certain kinds of oatmeal.
After five minutes of searching, I've noticed that a lot of the foods high in soluble fiber that aren't like, oatmeal, are pretty esoteric.
Meh, this argument sounds like desperate clinging to the carbs. Give the Oatmeal up.
Not really an option practically for a lot of people who need an instant meal. That's the real thing here. Oatmeal is a ... popular breakfast food. It's convenient and is even one of those futuristic dehydrated meals.
Set the alarm 10 minutes earlier and make some scrambled eggs while microwaving some bacon/sausage, or make an omelet. And cook larger dinners so you have leftovers for lunch the next day. I'm sure theres some study showing that losing weight(better breathing) improves sleep quality enough that you'll functionally gain back the 10 min.
the health benefits of oatmeal far outweigh whatever meaningless propoganda you have to say it's terrible for breakfast because it insignificantly ruins your low-carb routine.
yeah, but we do get the most nutritional benefit from breakfast, not just because it's supposed to be a large meal after a night of fasting before a heavy metabolic load, but because it's traditionally been like, only five different types of food as opposed to thousands of lunch and dinner menus. Again, I'm just saying that for simplicity's sake, it's easy to eat oatmeal and call it a day as far as fiber is concerned than to supplement yourself with a wide variety of fruits, nuts and greens throughout the day. I mean, we all know which is healthier, but which is the more doable is the question that interests me.
Why is oatmeal more nutritious than bacon and eggs supplemented with a serving of blackberries/strawberries, or, failing that, a multivitamin pill?
You're complicating things way too much. In fact, the level of OCD you are demonstrating (no offense) is one of the primary benefits of a low-carb diet - you don't have to worry about that stuff. Just eat your leafy veggies and maybe some fruits and you'll be totally fine.
Are you going to tell someone who is worried about heart disease who has been eating high fiber oatmeal for breakfast ritualistically to eat something else? Depends, if you're willing and able to make the time investment to go over the research and options. But you're teaching a person several ideas instead of one: to snack throughout the day instead of heavy meals, to learn to live with less traditional staples, to develop strategies to keep fresh fruits - certain fruits, and fresh nuts - certain nuts - around for regular snacks on top of the whole protein breakfast deal. Your almond smoothie, getting up in time for breakfast, palatable leftovers, variety, innovation, good foods - all great ideas, all too many ideas.
I appreciate the validity of your claims about nutrients, I'm just worried that the diet is too restrictive and may undo healthy habits without extensive dietary education.
Dude, seriously, the only "extensive dietary education" I have received on this topic is to read a book or two. It took me like a week to get the basics down. It's not rocket science. It is challenging at first as you go "ok, wtf do I eat if not carbs" but very easy once you figure out some alternatives.
I've started eating 50g or less of carbs a day, so far everything's going fine. Do any of you also calorie count on these diets? It strikes me that I could eat, say, four cans of almonds a day and still be under 50g carbs, but I'd have eaten like 4000 calories or something. Obviously I'm not doing that, but the lingering carb counter in me worries that maybe I'm just eating too much (though I have lost weight since I started).
Calories don't matter. Someone said it perfectly several pages ago. Let me look...
Here it is:
A (food) calorie is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius. The method for measuring calories is to put the food item in a calorimeter. It's a completely closed system to ensure all the energy is accounted for.
You body does not operate like this. Energy is converted from carbs, fats, and proteins in different ways. Also, if your diet is ketogenic, your liver must convert some proteins into glucose. That takes energy (fat) and resources (protein). This is the reason why the "a calorie is a calorie" theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.
But this is a very small part of the entire process. Our bodies use the energy in different ways depending on a host of conditions like hormone levels. Whether the energy that was converted from food ultimately goes into fat cells for storage or muscle cells for energy is based on a very complex symphony of feedback systems.
So...to answer your original question, calories really don't directly have much to do with the way humans metabolize food. To talk about "excess calories" is absurd since it begs the question. It's premise assumes your stomach works like a steam engine or something.
Furthermore, I provide proof in the OP that no two people handle calories the same. Watch the documentary and ask yourself where the calories went. If calories mean what most people assume them to mean, how the hell did some people gain more than others?
This idea that weight loss can be managed in a meaningful way by calculating calories is horseshit. The entire premise is false, so the question is invalid.
Replying to the bolded statement, but also this post in general:
Your body "needs" an extremely small amount of carbohydrates. And, the fun fact is that your liver is capable of producing this amount. What this means is that you can essentially live on a zero carb diet. How do you think the Eskimos survived all this time? Their diets consist almost entirely of animal fats and protein. The only carbs they eat are during short sub-arctic summers, when certain types of berries can be found growing in the bushes. Even those however are extremely low on carbohydrates.
Also, to reiterate my point in the OP, Eskimos gain weight only if they start eating the starchy food that they buy from the civilized towns. This happens despite keeping overall calorie intake the same (essentially replacing some of the protein and animal fat with carbs = weight gain!).
...You must not be from Canada.
Inuit (the term 'Eskimo', just FYI, is extremely insensitive - it literally translates to 'eaters of raw meat') have awful diets and, as a result, communities in Norman Wells see semi-regular outbreaks of scurvy. It's quite terrible.
The OP is filled with all of the standard anti-science, anti-medicine rhetoric I'm used to seeing from proponents of quack treatments. Let me guess: you also think that Mona Vie is a panacea, and that colds are actually caused by improperly aligned chakras?
The only way science progresses is by continuously questioning itself. Yet that is the one thing that the majority of obesity researchers and medical experts have not done when faced with all the negative data and observations of failure after failure. You have 50-60 year old doctors that are still preaching the same bullshit they read in their medical textbooks back in med school. They have blamed everything and everyone, yet in their zeal to pass judgment on those they treat, they have forgotten to ask one simple question: "What if we are wrong?" In fact, not only have they not done this, but they have also crushed without mercy those of their kind who have suggested it (such as Dr. Atkins). Every alternative hypothesis of what causes weight gain and obesity has either been ignored or vilified by both medical experts and the mass media simply because it contradicted conventional wisdom.
See, here's the thing: it's not up to me to disprove whatever claim has been made by anyone. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is solid evidence backing-up your claim.
Atkins could've very easily demonstrated the truth of his theories by performing a double-blind study. Guess what? He never did. In fact, not one single proponent of this dieting regimen has performed one single double-blind demonstration. All that we have are piles of anecdotes - and anecdotes are not scientific evidence.
When somebody actually bothers doing some proper experimentation and publishes their results in the academic literature, you can call it science. Until then, at best, it's speculation.
Replying to the bolded statement, but also this post in general:
Your body "needs" an extremely small amount of carbohydrates. And, the fun fact is that your liver is capable of producing this amount. What this means is that you can essentially live on a zero carb diet. How do you think the Eskimos survived all this time? Their diets consist almost entirely of animal fats and protein. The only carbs they eat are during short sub-arctic summers, when certain types of berries can be found growing in the bushes. Even those however are extremely low on carbohydrates.
Also, to reiterate my point in the OP, Eskimos gain weight only if they start eating the starchy food that they buy from the civilized towns. This happens despite keeping overall calorie intake the same (essentially replacing some of the protein and animal fat with carbs = weight gain!).
...You must not be from Canada.
Inuit (the term 'Eskimo', just FYI, is extremely insensitive - it literally translates to 'eaters of raw meat') have awful diets and, as a result, communities in Norman Wells see semi-regular outbreaks of scurvy. It's quite terrible.
Turns out scurvy can easily be treated with vitamin C, which leafy vegetables (such as broccoli) and berries have plenty of. No one in this thread or anywhere says "let's eat the exact same diet as the Inuit". If that is what you gathered from this thread then you have serious reading comprehension problems. The only thing that quoted part says is that you do not need carbs to survive, and the Inuit are a proof of that.
The OP is filled with all of the standard anti-science, anti-medicine rhetoric I'm used to seeing from proponents of quack treatments. Let me guess: you also think that Mona Vie is a panacea, and that colds are actually caused by improperly aligned chakras?
No and no.
Which parts of the OP are "anti-science" and "anti-medicine"? Please point them out so we can discuss them openly.
The only way science progresses is by continuously questioning itself. Yet that is the one thing that the majority of obesity researchers and medical experts have not done when faced with all the negative data and observations of failure after failure. You have 50-60 year old doctors that are still preaching the same bullshit they read in their medical textbooks back in med school. They have blamed everything and everyone, yet in their zeal to pass judgment on those they treat, they have forgotten to ask one simple question: "What if we are wrong?" In fact, not only have they not done this, but they have also crushed without mercy those of their kind who have suggested it (such as Dr. Atkins). Every alternative hypothesis of what causes weight gain and obesity has either been ignored or vilified by both medical experts and the mass media simply because it contradicted conventional wisdom.
See, here's the thing: it's not up to me to disprove whatever claim has been made by anyone. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is solid evidence backing-up your claim.
Atkins could've very easily demonstrated the truth of his theories by performing a double-blind study. Guess what? He never did. In fact, not one single proponent of this dieting regimen has performed one single double-blind demonstration. All that we have are piles of anecdotes - and anecdotes are not scientific evidence.
When somebody actually bothers doing some proper experimentation and publishes their results in the academic literature, you can call it science. Until then, at best, it's speculation.
How does one perform a double blind study on a diet? Anyone that will actually manage to obey the study directions will manage to figure out they are on a low carb diet.
About scurvy and intuit: Zero carb diets (not whats being proposed here) are interesting because meat has every essential nutrient the human body needs, except maybe vitamin C, which it has a very very low level of. But, vitamin C competes with glucose for binding spots, so if you are on a zero carb diet scurvy does not manifest itself because your body only needs very low levels to fulfill its requirements (since all vitamin C is being absorbed).
This has been shown to be true in a controlled setting. Back in the 50s a couple of medical researchers volunteered to do zero carb for an entire year. No ill health effects were reported, and their general health improved.
The intuit who have health problems have them because theyre now eating a combination of their old diet and flour/sugar. When you combine those two, bad things happen because the carbs and anti-nutrients in the wheat prevent mineral and vitamin absorption from the meat in the diet.
Intuit pre-exposure to flour/sugar did not have health problems.
Another aspect of the intuit thing that's interesting is that these groups, who now have tons of problems with diabetes etc. because of their exposure to sugar/flour still have extremely low rates of heart disease because theyre omega 6:3 ratio is extremely low due to all the seafood they eat.
The OP is filled with all of the standard anti-science, anti-medicine rhetoric I'm used to seeing from proponents of quack treatments. Let me guess: you also think that Mona Vie is a panacea, and that colds are actually caused by improperly aligned chakras?
The only way science progresses is by continuously questioning itself. Yet that is the one thing that the majority of obesity researchers and medical experts have not done when faced with all the negative data and observations of failure after failure. You have 50-60 year old doctors that are still preaching the same bullshit they read in their medical textbooks back in med school. They have blamed everything and everyone, yet in their zeal to pass judgment on those they treat, they have forgotten to ask one simple question: "What if we are wrong?" In fact, not only have they not done this, but they have also crushed without mercy those of their kind who have suggested it (such as Dr. Atkins). Every alternative hypothesis of what causes weight gain and obesity has either been ignored or vilified by both medical experts and the mass media simply because it contradicted conventional wisdom.
See, here's the thing: it's not up to me to disprove whatever claim has been made by anyone. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is solid evidence backing-up your claim.
Atkins could've very easily demonstrated the truth of his theories by performing a double-blind study. Guess what? He never did. In fact, not one single proponent of this dieting regimen has performed one single double-blind demonstration. All that we have are piles of anecdotes - and anecdotes are not scientific evidence.
When somebody actually bothers doing some proper experimentation and publishes their results in the academic literature, you can call it science. Until then, at best, it's speculation.
Err, there is plenty of it if you actually bother to look.
Results: A greater proportion of the low-carbohydrate diet group than the low-fat diet group completed the study (76% vs. 57%; P = 0.02). At 24 weeks, weight loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate diet group than in the low-fat diet group (mean change, −12.9% vs. −6.7%; P < 0.001). Patients in both groups lost substantially more fat mass (change, −9.4 kg with the low-carbohydrate diet vs. −4.8 kg with the low-fat diet) than fat-free mass (change, −3.3 kg vs. −2.4 kg, respectively). Compared with recipients of the low-fat diet, recipients of the low-carbohydrate diet had greater decreases in serum triglyceride levels (change, −0.84 mmol/L vs. −0.31 mmol/L [−74.2 mg/dL vs. −27.9 mg/dL]; P = 0.004) and greater increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (0.14 mmol/L vs. −0.04 mmol/L [5.5 mg/dL vs. −1.6 mg/dL]; P < 0.001). Changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level did not differ statistically (0.04 mmol/L [1.6 mg/dL] with the low-carbohydrate diet and −0.19 mmol/L [−7.4 mg/dL] with the low-fat diet; P = 0.2). Minor adverse effects were more frequent in the low-carbohydrate diet group.
Limitations: We could not definitively distinguish effects of the low-carbohydrate diet and those of the nutritional supplements provided only to that group. In addition, participants were healthy and were followed for only 24 weeks. These factors limit the generalizability of the study results.
Conclusions: Compared with a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet program had better participant retention and greater weight loss. During active weight loss, serum triglyceride levels decreased more and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level increased more with the low-carbohydrate diet than with the low-fat diet.
yeah, but we do get the most nutritional benefit from breakfast, not just because it's supposed to be a large meal after a night of fasting before a heavy metabolic load, but because it's traditionally been like, only five different types of food as opposed to thousands of lunch and dinner menus. Again, I'm just saying that for simplicity's sake, it's easy to eat oatmeal and call it a day as far as fiber is concerned than to supplement yourself with a wide variety of fruits, nuts and greens throughout the day. I mean, we all know which is healthier, but which is the more doable is the question that interests me.
Why is oatmeal more nutritious than bacon and eggs supplemented with a serving of blackberries/strawberries, or, failing that, a multivitamin pill?
You're complicating things way too much. In fact, the level of OCD you are demonstrating (no offense) is one of the primary benefits of a low-carb diet - you don't have to worry about that stuff. Just eat your leafy veggies and maybe some fruits and you'll be totally fine.
Are you going to tell someone who is worried about heart disease who has been eating high fiber oatmeal for breakfast ritualistically to eat something else? Depends, if you're willing and able to make the time investment to go over the research and options. But you're teaching a person several ideas instead of one: to snack throughout the day instead of heavy meals, to learn to live with less traditional staples, to develop strategies to keep fresh fruits - certain fruits, and fresh nuts - certain nuts - around for regular snacks on top of the whole protein breakfast deal. Your almond smoothie, getting up in time for breakfast, palatable leftovers, variety, innovation, good foods - all great ideas, all too many ideas.
I appreciate the validity of your claims about nutrients, I'm just worried that the diet is too restrictive and may undo healthy habits without extensive dietary education.
Dude, seriously, the only "extensive dietary education" I have received on this topic is to read a book or two. It took me like a week to get the basics down. It's not rocket science. It is challenging at first as you go "ok, wtf do I eat if not carbs" but very easy once you figure out some alternatives.
To tell you the truth, I'm not really interested in this diet's feasibility for a single individual. I AM interested in the ambitious public health aspect envisioned in the first post of the thread. That and I believe in sandwiches.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
yeah, but we do get the most nutritional benefit from breakfast, not just because it's supposed to be a large meal after a night of fasting before a heavy metabolic load, but because it's traditionally been like, only five different types of food as opposed to thousands of lunch and dinner menus. Again, I'm just saying that for simplicity's sake, it's easy to eat oatmeal and call it a day as far as fiber is concerned than to supplement yourself with a wide variety of fruits, nuts and greens throughout the day. I mean, we all know which is healthier, but which is the more doable is the question that interests me.
Why is oatmeal more nutritious than bacon and eggs supplemented with a serving of blackberries/strawberries, or, failing that, a multivitamin pill?
You're complicating things way too much. In fact, the level of OCD you are demonstrating (no offense) is one of the primary benefits of a low-carb diet - you don't have to worry about that stuff. Just eat your leafy veggies and maybe some fruits and you'll be totally fine.
Are you going to tell someone who is worried about heart disease who has been eating high fiber oatmeal for breakfast ritualistically to eat something else? Depends, if you're willing and able to make the time investment to go over the research and options. But you're teaching a person several ideas instead of one: to snack throughout the day instead of heavy meals, to learn to live with less traditional staples, to develop strategies to keep fresh fruits - certain fruits, and fresh nuts - certain nuts - around for regular snacks on top of the whole protein breakfast deal. Your almond smoothie, getting up in time for breakfast, palatable leftovers, variety, innovation, good foods - all great ideas, all too many ideas.
I appreciate the validity of your claims about nutrients, I'm just worried that the diet is too restrictive and may undo healthy habits without extensive dietary education.
Dude, seriously, the only "extensive dietary education" I have received on this topic is to read a book or two. It took me like a week to get the basics down. It's not rocket science. It is challenging at first as you go "ok, wtf do I eat if not carbs" but very easy once you figure out some alternatives.
To tell you the truth, I'm not really interested in this diet's feasibility for a single individual. I AM interested in the ambitious public health aspect envisioned in the first post of the thread. That and I believe in sandwiches.
What do you mean by "interested in the ambitious public health aspect envisioned in the first post"? You mean the diet's applicability and attractiveness and ease of adherence of the general public? We all know the first two aspects - people love their pastas and bread. It's unlikely that we'll be abandoning those any time soon. For ease of adherence, it depends on how fast the demand goes up and how quickly the nutrition industry adapts by pushing out low-carb foods.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
It's not rocket science. It is challenging at first as you go "ok, wtf do I eat if not carbs" but very easy once you figure out some alternatives.
Dude, how do you beat the GOD FOODS of Pasta, Pizza, Brownies and Cake?
It's not rocket science. It is challenging at first as you go "ok, wtf do I eat if not carbs" but very easy once you figure out some alternatives.
Dude, how do you beat the GOD FOODS of Pasta, Pizza, Brownies and Cake?
I struggle
I mean steak is cool and all, but browniessssssss
It's hard to quit for some people, like any addiction. I used to like them as much as anyone else, but I haven't looked back, really. Every now and then I crave some, but I just gulp a sugar-free cherry-flavored jello and it's all good.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
I just happen to hate vegetables. Dunno why. Don't mind fruit though, but 99% of vegetables make me feel eurgh.
WHY DO YOU KEEP LOOKING AT ME IN THAT TONE OF VOICE BROCCOLI
that's why i'm interesting in what the most junk food-like version of the low carb diet would be - if you can get all the goodness without the carbs. Bacon, eggs, sausages etc is one version (although without ketchup could be tricky, although I guess mayonnaise is a good medium).
Feel free to browse Google Scholar for more of them.
Reductions in waist circumference and blood pressure did not differ across groups. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased more in the low-carbohydrate group (8.4 mg/dl [0.22 mmol/l]) than in the low-fat group (6.3 mg/dl [0.16 mmol/l]) (p<0.01). Change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol did not differ across groups.
I just happen to hate vegetables. Dunno why. Don't mind fruit though, but 99% of vegetables make me feel eurgh.
WHY DO YOU KEEP LOOKING AT ME IN THAT TONE OF VOICE BROCCOLI
that's why i'm interesting in what the most junk food-like version of the low carb diet would be - if you can get all the goodness without the carbs. Bacon, eggs, sausages etc is one version (although without ketchup could be tricky, although I guess mayonnaise is a good medium).
Are you trolling, LeCaustic? I think you should stop, if that is the case.
Are you kidding me? I've already debunked the initial "articles" in the first post and I'm debunking your other articles. I highlighted the laughably bad conclusions that debunk your attempt at pretty much countering my argument. It's not trolling if it's pretty much proving you wrong.
I haven't seen you debunk anything dude. Feel free to point to your posts where you do that. I like how you cherry-picked the sentences in the conclusion, but you completely missed that:
a) weight loss in the low-carb group was greater
b) HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels increased more in the low carb group
Other things may have remained the same, but low-carb was still superior in that particular study.
Also if you have access to the entire study then you better post the entire conclusion rather than just a part of it that seemingly supports your argument.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
If I'm going to try this, I'm going full-out ketogenic. LET THE ACETONE BREATH ROLLL
Are you trolling, LeCaustic? I think you should stop, if that is the case.
Are you kidding me? I've already debunked the initial "articles" in the first post and I'm debunking your other articles. I highlighted the laughably bad conclusions that debunk your attempt at pretty much countering my argument. It's not trolling if it's pretty much proving you wrong.
I haven't seen you debunk anything dude. Feel free to point to your posts where you do that. I like how you cherry-picked the sentences in the conclusion, but you completely missed that:
a) weight loss in the low-carb group was greater
b) HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels increased more in the low carb group
Other things may have remained the same, but low-carb was still superior in that particular study.
That's the hilarious part. I don't get how you see no reduction in blood pressure and no difference in LDL as a good thing. That is bad regardless of how you put it, especially since BOTH groups increased HDL and lost weight. In essence, it's showing that there is no significant difference. Now, go ahead, show me another article that "proves" this atkins diet is by and far loads superior to other diets.
Are you trolling, LeCaustic? I think you should stop, if that is the case.
Are you kidding me? I've already debunked the initial "articles" in the first post and I'm debunking your other articles. I highlighted the laughably bad conclusions that debunk your attempt at pretty much countering my argument. It's not trolling if it's pretty much proving you wrong.
But like, how did you refute anything he said?
My brain is seriously exploding in confusion.
The articles are pretty much about how much more awesome low-carb is vs low-fat. I don't consider it remotely true if the health benefits don't change for some of the more important attributes. It doesn't mean shit if your HDL increases if your LDL is the SAME. That means you're still circulating the same amount of LDL which CAUSES plaque buildup.
I haven't seen you debunk anything dude. Feel free to point to your posts where you do that. I like how you cherry-picked the sentences in the conclusion, but you completely missed that:
a) weight loss in the low-carb group was greater
b) HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels increased more in the low carb group
Other things may have remained the same, but low-carb was still superior in that particular study.
That's the hilarious part. I don't get how you see no reduction in blood pressure and no difference in LDL as a good thing. That is bad regardless of how you put it, especially since BOTH groups increased HDL and lost weight. In essence, it's showing that there is no significant difference. Now, go ahead, show me another article that "proves" this atkins diet is by and far loads superior to other diets.
Also if you have access to the entire study then you better post the entire conclusion rather than just a part of it that seemingly supports your argument.
I haven't seen you debunk anything dude. Feel free to point to your posts where you do that. I like how you cherry-picked the sentences in the conclusion, but you completely missed that:
a) weight loss in the low-carb group was greater
b) HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels increased more in the low carb group
Other things may have remained the same, but low-carb was still superior in that particular study.
That's the hilarious part. I don't get how you see no reduction in blood pressure and no difference in LDL as a good thing. That is bad regardless of how you put it, especially since BOTH groups increased HDL and lost weight. In essence, it's showing that there is no significant difference. Now, go ahead, show me another article that "proves" this atkins diet is by and far loads superior to other diets.
Also if you have access to the entire study then you better post the entire conclusion rather than just a part of it that seemingly supports your argument.
MAIN RESULTS
At 2 years, weight loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate (4.7 kg) and Mediterranean-diet (4.4 kg) groups than in the low-fat (2.9 kg) group (p<0.001). Reductions in waist circumference and blood pressure did not differ across groups. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased more in the low-carbohydrate group (8.4 mg/dl [0.22 mmol/l]) than in the low-fat group (6.3 mg/dl [0.16 mmol/l]) (p<0.01). Change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol did not differ across groups.
Previous SectionNext SectionCONCLUSIONS
In moderately obese adults, Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets led to more weight loss than did a low-fat (30% of calories from fat) diet. The low-carbohydrate diet increased high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations more than did the low-fat diet.
What's your point? I talked about main results, which is what matters. Conclusions are biased attempts at persuading journals to allow their article to get published. The main results, as I showed AGAIN, display the misleading conclusions.
- edit -
They don't even include the inclusion criteria. That is seriously the weakest "article" I have ever read in my entire life. It's less than 2 pages and doesn't show all the results.
I haven't seen you debunk anything dude. Feel free to point to your posts where you do that. I like how you cherry-picked the sentences in the conclusion, but you completely missed that:
a) weight loss in the low-carb group was greater
b) HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels increased more in the low carb group
Other things may have remained the same, but low-carb was still superior in that particular study.
That's the hilarious part. I don't get how you see no reduction in blood pressure and no difference in LDL as a good thing. That is bad regardless of how you put it, especially since BOTH groups increased HDL and lost weight. In essence, it's showing that there is no significant difference. Now, go ahead, show me another article that "proves" this atkins diet is by and far loads superior to other diets.
Switching to a low carb diet (which I dont know if the "low carb" group in this study actually was low carb), will cause a change in your LDL profile, from small dense LDL to large buoyant LDL. a large buoyant LDL pattern is associated strongly with a lowered risk of heart disease.
I could go on and on about this subject, but this isn't a heart disease thread. Basically all you need to know for this specific argument is that LDL numbers themselves are pretty much inconsequential, and a low carb diet causes the LDL profile to become healtheir and thus lower the risk of heart disease.
Since there was no difference in LDL in either diet, then you could just as easily call the low-fat diet the "fail diet", and the difference in weight loss would indicate that the low-carb diet is less "fail" than the low-fat one.
Since there was no difference in LDL in either diet, then you could just as easily call the low-fat diet the "fail diet", and the difference in weight loss would indicate that the low-carb diet is less "fail" than the low-fat one.
You just proved me right. They're both the same...
I haven't seen you debunk anything dude. Feel free to point to your posts where you do that. I like how you cherry-picked the sentences in the conclusion, but you completely missed that:
a) weight loss in the low-carb group was greater
b) HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels increased more in the low carb group
Other things may have remained the same, but low-carb was still superior in that particular study.
That's the hilarious part. I don't get how you see no reduction in blood pressure and no difference in LDL as a good thing. That is bad regardless of how you put it, especially since BOTH groups increased HDL and lost weight. In essence, it's showing that there is no significant difference. Now, go ahead, show me another article that "proves" this atkins diet is by and far loads superior to other diets.
Switching to a low carb diet (which I dont know if the "low carb" group in this study actually was low carb), will cause a change in your LDL profile, from small dense LDL to large buoyant LDL. a large buoyant LDL pattern is associated strongly with a lowered risk of heart disease.
I could go on and on about this subject, but this isn't a heart disease thread. Basically all you need to know for this specific argument is that LDL numbers themselves are pretty much inconsequential, and a low carb diet causes the LDL profile to become healtheir and thus lower the risk of heart disease.
That's what I'm trying to get at, which I already posted before. These articles are weak and terribly misleading. They don't display the full results of the trial at all or the inclusion criteria (which I find really crucial). I'm trying to say is that this diet isn't necessarily superior by a large margin to low-fat diets.
Also, I agree/know that it's supposed to lower LDL, but it didn't. I mean, that's weird, right?
Since there was no difference in LDL in either diet, then you could just as easily call the low-fat diet the "fail diet", and the difference in weight loss would indicate that the low-carb diet is less "fail" than the low-fat one.
You just proved me right. They're both the same...
So given the choice between a diet that does nothing (low-fat) and one that makes me lose weight (low-carb), I'm gonna take the one that makes me lose weight. And that's if I buy into the most critical possible interpretation of one article.
Posts
Set the alarm 10 minutes earlier and make some scrambled eggs while microwaving some bacon/sausage, or make an omelet. And cook larger dinners so you have leftovers for lunch the next day. I'm sure theres some study showing that losing weight(better breathing) improves sleep quality enough that you'll functionally gain back the 10 min.
Of course then I moved and went to college and fell into very horrible eating habits and subsequently gained it all back and more. I'm currently on a different diet (Nutrisystem 4 days in woo) but already I'm not enjoying this diet as much and am usually feeling hungry all the time. Still I plan to stick it out and see how it works for me, but if in a few months i'm still not feelin it I think i'll be giving the low-carb diet another go. With a decent schedule and a drive to actually fix my broken eating habits I think it'll work well.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
yeah, but we do get the most nutritional benefit from breakfast, not just because it's supposed to be a large meal after a night of fasting before a heavy metabolic load, but because it's traditionally been like, only five different types of food as opposed to thousands of lunch and dinner menus. Again, I'm just saying that for simplicity's sake, it's easy to eat oatmeal and call it a day as far as fiber is concerned than to supplement yourself with a wide variety of fruits, nuts and greens throughout the day. I mean, we all know which is healthier, but which is the more doable is the question that interests me.
Are you going to tell someone who is worried about heart disease who has been eating high fiber oatmeal for breakfast ritualistically to eat something else? Depends, if you're willing and able to make the time investment to go over the research and options. But you're teaching a person several ideas instead of one: to snack throughout the day instead of heavy meals, to learn to live with less traditional staples, to develop strategies to keep fresh fruits - certain fruits, and fresh nuts - certain nuts - around for regular snacks on top of the whole protein breakfast deal. Your almond smoothie, getting up in time for breakfast, palatable leftovers, variety, innovation, good foods - all great ideas, all too many ideas.
I appreciate the validity of your claims about nutrients, I'm just worried that the diet is too restrictive and may undo healthy habits without extensive dietary education.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I'm definitely not overweight by any stretch of the imagination. I love carbs and I know the consequences, I just don't necessarily care since I only eat it at dinner and have a workout regime that I follow religiously. I am going back to the scrambled eggs and corned beef breakfast since I now have my pots and pans and will probably try other sides with meats to increase protein intake. But I don't know yet. I might just make scrambled eggs as a side for every meal of the day.
there was this one time, we were both in the bathtub
I was just a kid
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
the health benefits of oatmeal far outweigh whatever meaningless propoganda you have to say it's terrible for breakfast because it insignificantly ruins your low-carb routine.
Why is oatmeal more nutritious than bacon and eggs supplemented with a serving of blackberries/strawberries, or, failing that, a multivitamin pill?
You're complicating things way too much. In fact, the level of OCD you are demonstrating (no offense) is one of the primary benefits of a low-carb diet - you don't have to worry about that stuff. Just eat your leafy veggies and maybe some fruits and you'll be totally fine.
Dude, seriously, the only "extensive dietary education" I have received on this topic is to read a book or two. It took me like a week to get the basics down. It's not rocket science. It is challenging at first as you go "ok, wtf do I eat if not carbs" but very easy once you figure out some alternatives.
Calories don't matter. Someone said it perfectly several pages ago. Let me look...
Here it is:
...You must not be from Canada.
Inuit (the term 'Eskimo', just FYI, is extremely insensitive - it literally translates to 'eaters of raw meat') have awful diets and, as a result, communities in Norman Wells see semi-regular outbreaks of scurvy. It's quite terrible.
The OP is filled with all of the standard anti-science, anti-medicine rhetoric I'm used to seeing from proponents of quack treatments. Let me guess: you also think that Mona Vie is a panacea, and that colds are actually caused by improperly aligned chakras?
See, here's the thing: it's not up to me to disprove whatever claim has been made by anyone. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is solid evidence backing-up your claim.
Atkins could've very easily demonstrated the truth of his theories by performing a double-blind study. Guess what? He never did. In fact, not one single proponent of this dieting regimen has performed one single double-blind demonstration. All that we have are piles of anecdotes - and anecdotes are not scientific evidence.
When somebody actually bothers doing some proper experimentation and publishes their results in the academic literature, you can call it science. Until then, at best, it's speculation.
Turns out scurvy can easily be treated with vitamin C, which leafy vegetables (such as broccoli) and berries have plenty of. No one in this thread or anywhere says "let's eat the exact same diet as the Inuit". If that is what you gathered from this thread then you have serious reading comprehension problems. The only thing that quoted part says is that you do not need carbs to survive, and the Inuit are a proof of that.
No and no.
Which parts of the OP are "anti-science" and "anti-medicine"? Please point them out so we can discuss them openly.
How does one perform a double blind study on a diet? Anyone that will actually manage to obey the study directions will manage to figure out they are on a low carb diet.
This has been shown to be true in a controlled setting. Back in the 50s a couple of medical researchers volunteered to do zero carb for an entire year. No ill health effects were reported, and their general health improved.
The intuit who have health problems have them because theyre now eating a combination of their old diet and flour/sugar. When you combine those two, bad things happen because the carbs and anti-nutrients in the wheat prevent mineral and vitamin absorption from the meat in the diet.
Intuit pre-exposure to flour/sugar did not have health problems.
Another aspect of the intuit thing that's interesting is that these groups, who now have tons of problems with diabetes etc. because of their exposure to sugar/flour still have extremely low rates of heart disease because theyre omega 6:3 ratio is extremely low due to all the seafood they eat.
back it up citing specific examples or GTFO
Err, there is plenty of it if you actually bother to look.
http://www.annals.org/content/140/10/769.abstract
Here is an article published in a medical journal
http://ccjm.org/content/69/11/849.full.pdf+html
Here is another:
http://ebm.bmj.com/content/13/6/176.extract
Feel free to browse Google Scholar for more of them.
http://skin.gcnpublishing.com/fileadmin/content_pdf/archive_pdf/vol39iss2/70062_main.pdf
American Dietetic Association gives the green light to low-carb diets to treat obesity.
To tell you the truth, I'm not really interested in this diet's feasibility for a single individual. I AM interested in the ambitious public health aspect envisioned in the first post of the thread. That and I believe in sandwiches.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What do you mean by "interested in the ambitious public health aspect envisioned in the first post"? You mean the diet's applicability and attractiveness and ease of adherence of the general public? We all know the first two aspects - people love their pastas and bread. It's unlikely that we'll be abandoning those any time soon. For ease of adherence, it depends on how fast the demand goes up and how quickly the nutrition industry adapts by pushing out low-carb foods.
Dude, how do you beat the GOD FOODS of Pasta, Pizza, Brownies and Cake?
I struggle
I mean steak is cool and all, but browniessssssss
It's hard to quit for some people, like any addiction. I used to like them as much as anyone else, but I haven't looked back, really. Every now and then I crave some, but I just gulp a sugar-free cherry-flavored jello and it's all good.
WHY DO YOU KEEP LOOKING AT ME IN THAT TONE OF VOICE BROCCOLI
that's why i'm interesting in what the most junk food-like version of the low carb diet would be - if you can get all the goodness without the carbs. Bacon, eggs, sausages etc is one version (although without ketchup could be tricky, although I guess mayonnaise is a good medium).
FAIL diet is FAIL
This OP from SA: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3299911
has many recipes for things like low-carb brownies etc..., and also sugar-free ketchup. I haven't tried any of them though.
Are you kidding me? I've already debunked the initial "articles" in the first post and I'm debunking your other articles. I highlighted the laughably bad conclusions that debunk your attempt at pretty much countering my argument. It's not trolling if it's pretty much proving you wrong.
a) weight loss in the low-carb group was greater
b) HDL ("good" cholesterol) levels increased more in the low carb group
Other things may have remained the same, but low-carb was still superior in that particular study.
Also if you have access to the entire study then you better post the entire conclusion rather than just a part of it that seemingly supports your argument.
But like, how did you refute anything he said?
My brain is seriously exploding in confusion.
That's the hilarious part. I don't get how you see no reduction in blood pressure and no difference in LDL as a good thing. That is bad regardless of how you put it, especially since BOTH groups increased HDL and lost weight. In essence, it's showing that there is no significant difference. Now, go ahead, show me another article that "proves" this atkins diet is by and far loads superior to other diets.
The articles are pretty much about how much more awesome low-carb is vs low-fat. I don't consider it remotely true if the health benefits don't change for some of the more important attributes. It doesn't mean shit if your HDL increases if your LDL is the SAME. That means you're still circulating the same amount of LDL which CAUSES plaque buildup.
What's your point? I talked about main results, which is what matters. Conclusions are biased attempts at persuading journals to allow their article to get published. The main results, as I showed AGAIN, display the misleading conclusions.
- edit -
They don't even include the inclusion criteria. That is seriously the weakest "article" I have ever read in my entire life. It's less than 2 pages and doesn't show all the results.
Get a better article
Switching to a low carb diet (which I dont know if the "low carb" group in this study actually was low carb), will cause a change in your LDL profile, from small dense LDL to large buoyant LDL. a large buoyant LDL pattern is associated strongly with a lowered risk of heart disease.
I could go on and on about this subject, but this isn't a heart disease thread. Basically all you need to know for this specific argument is that LDL numbers themselves are pretty much inconsequential, and a low carb diet causes the LDL profile to become healtheir and thus lower the risk of heart disease.
You just proved me right. They're both the same...
That's what I'm trying to get at, which I already posted before. These articles are weak and terribly misleading. They don't display the full results of the trial at all or the inclusion criteria (which I find really crucial). I'm trying to say is that this diet isn't necessarily superior by a large margin to low-fat diets.
Also, I agree/know that it's supposed to lower LDL, but it didn't. I mean, that's weird, right?
So given the choice between a diet that does nothing (low-fat) and one that makes me lose weight (low-carb), I'm gonna take the one that makes me lose weight. And that's if I buy into the most critical possible interpretation of one article.