Wait braincow, I don't know that it is fair to use an article by Gary Taubes as your source to prove that the APHA is full of shit.
Not saying he is wrong, but this is a bit like asking Don Quixote to write a paper on why windmills are evil
dude is the most accomplished science journalist in the world.
show some fucking respect.
Appeal to authority lols
But seriously, I understand he is a very respected figure. But to use the initiator of a debate as your source to prove that the "other side" is full of shit seems...tree housey.
EDIT: Because in this case I can easily just say the APHA is the oldest and most diverse organization of public health professionals in the world. (to quote their website and wikipedia)
That's fair. I'm a bit too busy to dig out the relevant primary articles, so this will have to do for now. But anyways, this doesn't mean that the information in the article is incorrect.
Just don't shove it down people's throats and completely dismiss current medical opinion.
Wait braincow, I don't know that it is fair to use an article by Gary Taubes as your source to prove that the APHA is full of shit.
Not saying he is wrong, but this is a bit like asking Don Quixote to write a paper on why windmills are evil
dude is the most accomplished science journalist in the world.
show some fucking respect.
Appeal to authority lols
But seriously, I understand he is a very respected figure. But to use the initiator of a debate as your source to prove that the "other side" is full of shit seems...tree housey.
EDIT: Because in this case I can easily just say the APHA is the oldest and most diverse organization of public health professionals in the world. (to quote their website and wikipedia)
That's fair. I'm a bit too busy to dig out the relevant primary articles, so this will have to do for now. But anyways, this doesn't mean that the information in the article is incorrect.
Just don't shove it down people's throats and completely dismiss current medical opinion.
"Current medical opinion" is meaningless. Doctors are just as capable of having biases and committing logical fallacies.
Wait braincow, I don't know that it is fair to use an article by Gary Taubes as your source to prove that the APHA is full of shit.
Not saying he is wrong, but this is a bit like asking Don Quixote to write a paper on why windmills are evil
dude is the most accomplished science journalist in the world.
show some fucking respect.
Appeal to authority lols
But seriously, I understand he is a very respected figure. But to use the initiator of a debate as your source to prove that the "other side" is full of shit seems...tree housey.
EDIT: Because in this case I can easily just say the APHA is the oldest and most diverse organization of public health professionals in the world. (to quote their website and wikipedia)
That's fair. I'm a bit too busy to dig out the relevant primary articles, so this will have to do for now. But anyways, this doesn't mean that the information in the article is incorrect.
Just don't shove it down people's throats and completely dismiss current medical opinion.
"Current medical opinion" is meaningless. Doctors are just as capable of having biases and committing logical fallacies.
Of course it's meaningless.... because if it doesn't coincide with your judgement it's not true. Their assessment and opinions are more meaningful than yours. Doctors aren't biased, they're not basing their ideas on absolute lies. You seem to think that someone has bias because they take medical knowledge to base their decision? Now who's being the silly goose. Keep throwing articles that aren't conclusive, I like it, it further proves my point.
Hey i am also going to apologize for being needlessly flippant about this.
Sorry thread. I will try to do better, as I AM genuinely interested in the science behind this
I am too, which is what this discussion was about. My only qualm at the moment are people who dismiss current practice and ideas as completely wrong and based on "inconclusive" evidence and then throw articles that admit (themselves) are not conclusive either. It's pot calling the kettle black. If the science is what we discuss, I'm fine with it.
Wait braincow, I don't know that it is fair to use an article by Gary Taubes as your source to prove that the APHA is full of shit.
Not saying he is wrong, but this is a bit like asking Don Quixote to write a paper on why windmills are evil
dude is the most accomplished science journalist in the world.
show some fucking respect.
Appeal to authority lols
But seriously, I understand he is a very respected figure. But to use the initiator of a debate as your source to prove that the "other side" is full of shit seems...tree housey.
EDIT: Because in this case I can easily just say the APHA is the oldest and most diverse organization of public health professionals in the world. (to quote their website and wikipedia)
That's fair. I'm a bit too busy to dig out the relevant primary articles, so this will have to do for now. But anyways, this doesn't mean that the information in the article is incorrect.
Just don't shove it down people's throats and completely dismiss current medical opinion.
"Current medical opinion" is meaningless. Doctors are just as capable of having biases and committing logical fallacies.
Of course it's meaningless.... because if it doesn't coincide with your judgement it's not true. Their assessment and opinions are more meaningful than yours. Doctors aren't biased, they're not basing their ideas on absolute lies. You seem to think that someone has bias because they take medical knowledge to base their decision? Now who's being the silly goose. Keep throwing articles that aren't conclusive, I like it, it further proves my point.
You don't have a point. All you have done in this thread is throw one-liner responses like "fail science is fail!" and generally just be annoying as fuck, and then eventually decided to give it a try and then couldn't shut the fuck up about how much you love it.
Medical "opinion" is meaningless. Medical "knowledge" that is based on actual, valid science that does not ignore counter-evidnece, on the other hand, is meaningful. The problem is that most patients aren't knowledgeable enough to distinguish opinion from fact. No one has the time to thoroughly research the science, which is why authors like Gary Taubes are performing a very valuable service for the rest of us by writing these types of books. Not that I think you'll read those books, because you already know everything. And not that reading would actually help you since you don't have the ability to understand what you read.
Claude Bernard said it perfectly more than a century ago.
"Men who have excessive faith in their theories and ideas are not only ill prepared for making discoveries; they also make very poor observations. Of necessity, they observe with a preconceived idea, and when they devise an experiment, they can see, in its results, only a confirmation of their theory. In this way they distort observation and often neglect very important facts because they do not further their aim... But it happens further quite naturally that men who believe too firmly in their theories, do not believe enough in the theories of others. So the dominant idea of these despisers of their fellows is to find others' theories faulty and to try to contradict them. The difficulty, for science, is still the same." CLAUDE BERNARD, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, 1865.
The main thing us low-carb folk are saying is "hey, low-carb has a lot of merit, so we need to do more studies on it and see if they support the overwhelmingly positive results that we see in the people that follow them."
People like you, on the other hand, are doing exactly what Claude says.
This is why I am not inclined to take you seriously. You put way too much faith in established dogma and are incapable of critical thought on your own.
Actually, the Intersalt Revisited paper was studied by Taubes in his article (one passage of which I quoted). As for your second article, it's an observational study on CVD. Observational studies certainly aren't great, especially if they rely on self-reporting. Also, they don't separate the effects on blood pressure decrease from salt reduction and weight loss.
Hey i am also going to apologize for being needlessly flippant about this.
Sorry thread. I will try to do better, as I AM genuinely interested in the science behind this
I am too, which is what this discussion was about. My only qualm at the moment are people who dismiss current practice and ideas as completely wrong and based on "inconclusive" evidence and then throw articles that admit (themselves) are not conclusive either. It's pot calling the kettle black. If the science is what we discuss, I'm fine with it.
I'm not saying the Taubes article is inconclusive. It doesn't draw any conclusions. It merely points out the holes in the salt-blood pressure hypothesis and leaves the reader to make their own decision.
Actually, the Intersalt Revisited paper was studied by Taubes in his article (one passage of which I quoted). As for your second article, it's an observational study on CVD. Observational studies certainly aren't great, especially if they rely on self-reporting. Also, they don't separate the effects on blood pressure decrease from salt reduction and weight loss.
You don't have a point. All you have done in this thread is throw one-liner responses like "fail science is fail!" and generally just be annoying as fuck, and then eventually decided to give it a try and then couldn't shut the fuck up about how much you love it.
No, you seem to be miscomprehending my point. Medical knowledge forms medical "opinion". I use that term loosely because I have no fucking idea how you can confuse medical opinion with medical knowledge since one is derived from the other. I have consistently stated that you cannot dismiss what they say because it's "age-old" whatever the fuck you say since papers have been published that back their claim and their fucking medical education is based on it. My point is validated by you linking article after article with you saying "oh, stop taking it out of context" when I'm quoting conclusions which agree with my point - published results are vague and inconclusive like anything else and if you derive YOUR knowledge from that, you're no better than physicians. Not even close, because you didn't earn a fucking degree or any sort of certification for what you claim. I don't have to prove myself wrong, here, I just have to prove you wrong. Which I have, multitudes of times.
Medical "opinion" is meaningless. Medical "knowledge" that is based on actual, valid science that does not ignore counter-evidnece, on the other hand, is meaningful.
Again, it's simply one derived from another
The problem is that most patients aren't knowledgeable enough to distinguish opinion from fact. No one has the time to thoroughly research the science, which is why authors like Gary Taubes are performing a very valuable service for the rest of us by writing these types of books.
No, the problem is people not qualified to give advice are. The likes of people who go to webmd and self-diagnose and just walk to the doctors office demanding medication for their problem.
Not that I think you'll read those books, because you already know everything. And not that reading would actually help you since you don't have the ability to understand what you read.
I read every article you linked and I fail to see how you think I won't read anything else. You're dismissing medical knowledge right now because you read a few articles and talked to a few people.
Claude Bernard said it perfectly more than a century ago.
"Men who have excessive faith in their theories and ideas are not only ill prepared for making discoveries; they also make very poor observations. Of necessity, they observe with a preconceived idea, and when they devise an experiment, they can see, in its results, only a confirmation of their theory. In this way they distort observation and often neglect very important facts because they do not further their aim... But it happens further quite naturally that men who believe too firmly in their theories, do not believe enough in the theories of others. So the dominant idea of these despisers of their fellows is to find others' theories faulty and to try to contradict them. The difficulty, for science, is still the same." CLAUDE BERNARD, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, 1865.
You do fucking realize that is how medicine is taught? Fucking MD's are evidence-based educations given to current doctors. You're fucking contradicting yourself every second with every post. Current medical knowledge is based on evidenced-based medicine and that's how they derive their education. YOUR papers are observational and fucking looking back at old data and not conducting studies to derive their conclusions. Not to mention most papers have no criteria or valid methodology or any fucking proper protocol that people agree upon.
The main thing us low-carb folk are saying is "hey, low-carb has a lot of merit, so we need to do more studies on it and see if they support the overwhelmingly positive results that we see in the people that follow them."
People like you, on the other hand, are doing exactly what Claude says.
What? Using evidence to counter your arguement? I'm sorry you're unhappy that every article you put agrees with me.
This is why I am not inclined to take you seriously. You put way too much faith in established dogma and are incapable of critical thought on your own.
Established dogma based on medical knoweldge based on evidence. I mean, seriously, stop it. You're digging a deeper hole.
This is getting way off-topic. LeCaustic, I am not responding to any more of your retarded posts unless they contain links to papers about low carb vs. high-carb, as well as a summary description (from your own mouth, not copy pasted from the abstract) demonstrating that you did in fact understand the conclusions of those papers correctly.
This is getting way off-topic. LeCaustic, I am not responding to any more of your retarded posts unless they contain links to papers about low carb vs. high-carb, as well as a summary description (from your own mouth, not copy pasted from the abstract) demonstrating that you did in fact understand the conclusions of those papers correctly.
:rolleyes:
This is ridiculous. You don't get the point at all and you have the worst comprehension skills.
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.
This, in the OP, is downright arrogant, ignorant and fucking ridiculous.
I've heard that we have "report" buttons that we can use to flag posts for review that we find unacceptable, and that nobody has any control except for the mods and admins over who posts where. In fact, I've heard that meta-modding is bad in of itself.
But yeah, high levels of sodium causes widespread systemic changes, something that no study has ever refuted. As in, eating a sodium rich diet will fuck up your organs and blood vessels. Handwaving that away by urging people to just drink more water is disingenuous at best, reckless endangerment at worst.
I've heard that we have "report" buttons that we can use to flag posts for review that we find unacceptable, and that nobody has any control except for the mods and admins over who posts where. In fact, I've heard that meta-modding is bad in of itself.
I don't know what meta-modding is.
But I do know that there are rules against thread-shitting and trolling and derailing.
This thread is not about sodium. If you want, make a separate thread about how evil it is.
I've heard that we have "report" buttons that we can use to flag posts for review that we find unacceptable, and that nobody has any control except for the mods and admins over who posts where. In fact, I've heard that meta-modding is bad in of itself.
I don't know what meta-modding is.
But I do know that there are rules against thread-shitting and trolling and derailing.
This thread is not about sodium. If you want, make a separate thread about how evil it is.
I think the issue is that you aren't a mod and don't have the authority you just attempted to excercise.
I would like a persistent thread on ban and infraction theory to clear up stuff like this, but for reference, I believe a post including a direct attack on another user without substantive information related to the topic is against the rules. In addition, the post may be a corollary of thread assassination. I do believe the atopical nature of the post, though, is the primary infractive property, although I really only know this because I read user profile infractions as a hobby. It also probably has something to do with whether the post is reported or not.
If you want to start a thread on this I'd contribute.
I think the main problem everyone having with this diet is that the downsides aren't clear and delineated - there is no major kryptonite for superman other than "can't give up carbs? Have a pre-existing condition?" I think, psychologically, people view disclaimers as making a method seem more real and down to earth. Nothing's perfect.
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.
There's an exception to every rule, and every person should be skeptical if anything comes along claiming to have no exceptions.
Nutrition is just about getting the right nutrients for what your body demands; and not giving it too much of what it doesn't need. Most people live a sedantary life (at least, most people who live in the 1st world) and don't need the quickly-available energy medium of carbohydrates in large amounts. Many, many people are taking in too many carbs and that causes problems with your body's base disposition to blood sugar (glucose) levels; which in turn causes messed up insulin response and levels. Untreated, that usually leads to diabetes; which unless I'm mistaken has been on the rise in the 1st world in a pretty good correlation with the rise in sedantary lifestyle and/or increased carb consumption.
I'm gonna lay down a shitty analogy here. If you drink a lot of beer, you're gonna get a bad hangover in the morning; headache, dehydration, etc. If you drink a lot of beer with a lot of water, you're gonna piss a lot of alcohol out and your hangover won't be as bad. If you just have 1 or 2 beers, you probably won't have a hangover in the morning.
Low carb diets are the last option in that analogy. Being low on carbs isn't a set-in-stone neccessity for being healthy, but it's probably the best thing you can do if you don't have a daily lifestyle that can utilize and burn it up.
That's pretty interesting about grains geckahn. I guess one more reason to avoid them.
It's also one of the reasons why some carb heavy sources (sweet potatoes, yams) are significantly better than others. Although with the caveat that people who have developed strong insulin resistance may not handle those that well either.
Here's an entry on sweet potatoes from a great blogger i read:
We can measure the nutrient and toxin content of a food, and debate the health effects of each of its constituents until we're out of breath. But in the end, we still won't have a very accurate prediction of the health effects of that food. The question we need to answer is this one: has this food sustained healthy traditional cultures?
I'm currently reading a great book edited by Drs. Hugh Trowell and Denis Burkitt, titled Western Diseases: Their Emergence and Prevention. It's a compilation of chapters describing the diet and health of traditional populations around the world as they modernize.
The book contains a chapter on Papua New Guinea highlanders. Here's a description of their diet:
A diet survey was undertaken involving 90 subjects, in which all food consumed by each individual was weighed over a period of seven consecutive days. Sweet potato supplied over 90 percent of their total food intake, while non-tuberous vegetables accounted for less than 5 percent of the food consumed and the intake of meat was negligible... Extensive herds of pigs are maintained and, during exchange ceremonies, large amounts of pork are consumed.
They ate no salt. Their calories were almost entirely supplied by sweet potatoes, with occasional feasts on pork.
How was their health? Like many non-industrial societies, they had a high infant/child mortality rate, such that 43 percent of children died before growing old enough to marry. Surprisingly, protein deficiency was rare. No obvious malnutrition was observed in this population, although iodine-deficiency cretinism occurs in some highlands populations:
Young adults were well built and physically fit and had normal levels of haemoglobin and serum albumin. Further, adult females showed no evidence of malnutrition in spite of the demands by repeated cycles of pregnancy and lactation. On the basis of American standards (Society of Actuaries, 1959), both sexes were close to 100 percent standard weight in their twenties.
The Harvard Pack Test carried out on 152 consecutive subjects demonstrated a high level of physical fitness which was maintained well into middle-age. Use of a bicycle ergometer gave an estimated maximum oxygen uptake of 45.2 ml per kilogram per minute and thus confirmed the high level of cardiopulmonary fitness in this group.
Body weight decreased with age, which is typical of many non-industrial cultures and reflects declining muscle mass but continued leanness.
There was no evidence of coronary heart disease or diabetes. Average blood pressure was on the high side, but did not increase with age. Investigators administered 100 gram glucose tolerance tests and only 3.8 percent of the population had glucose readings above 160 mg/dL, compared to 21 percent of Americans. A study of 7,512 Papuans from several regions with minimal European contact indicated a diabetes prevalence of 0.1 percent, a strikingly low rate. For comparison, in 2007, 10.7 percent of American adults had diabetes (1).
I'm not claiming it's optimal to eat nothing but sweet potatoes. But this is the strongest evidence we're going to come by that sweet potatoes can be eaten in quantity as part of a healthy diet. However, I wish I knew more about the varieties this group ate. Sweet potatoes aren't necessarily sweet. Caribbean 'boniato' sweet potatoes are dry, starchy and off-white. In the US, I prefer the yellow sweet potatoes to the orange variety of sweet potato labeled 'yams', because the former are starchier and less sweet. If I could get my hands on locally grown boniatos here, I'd eat those, but boniatos are decidedly tropical.
Instead, I eat potatoes, but I'm reluctant to recommend them whole-heartedly because I don't know enough about the traditional cultures that consumed them. I believe there are some low-CHD, low-obesity African populations that eat potatoes as part of a starch-based diet, but I haven't looked into it closely enough to make any broad statements. Potatoes have some nutritional advantages over sweet potatoes (higher protein content, better amino acid profile), but also some disadvantages (lower fiber, lower in most micronutrients, toxic glycoalkaloids).
I saw boniato's at an Asian grocery store today. Unfortunately, it was unclear which varieties they were referring to.
Still, I should try buying some the next time I'm in the area.
What are some good recipes for boniatos and sweet potatoes?
I Just Microwave the Sweet potatoes in a tightly, wrapped, piece of plastic wrap for 8-10 mins (depending on the sixe of the potatoe.) and bam! Mmmm, Mmmm good and healthy!
In fact, I just had a Salmon Patty, Asparagus, along with the potatoe.
So how binary is ketogenesis? Is it after a certain amount of time has elapse where I haven't had any carbs that my metabolism shifts to using these ketone body things for energy? Will munching on one or two unavoidable (due to eating out with company, etc) carb sources throw it all out of whack and "reset the timer?"
So, I'm willing to give this low-carb thing a try. In the past 2 years, I have lost 40 kilo's by excersizing and semi-starving myself during weekdays. On the weekends however, I would pig out and eat burgers and drink beer like there was no tomorow. This approach worked for two years, but now that I'm on a more reasonable weight (I went from 125 tot 85 kilo's, I'm 1.88m) it doesn't anymore. I still have a belly and mantits though, so I need to shed some more fat.
The question I have is: When you consume proteine through proteine shakes, does this make you feel satisfied and full? For example, if I would drink a proteine shake for breakfast, will this "kickstart my metabolism" and make me feel satisfied until lunch? All my life I've had bread (15 grams CH per slice) for breakfast. Is replacing the bread with a proteine shake a good idea?
So, I'm willing to give this low-carb thing a try. In the past 2 years, I have lost 40 kilo's by excersizing and semi-starving myself during weekdays. On the weekends however, I would pig out and eat burgers and drink beer like there was no tomorow. This approach worked for two years, but now that I'm on a more reasonable weight (I went from 125 tot 85 kilo's, I'm 1.88m) it doesn't anymore. I still have a belly and mantits though, so I need to shed some more fat.
The question I have is: When you consume proteine through proteine shakes, does this make you feel satisfied and full? For example, if I would drink a proteine shake for breakfast, will this "kickstart my metabolism" and make me feel satisfied until lunch? All my life I've had bread (15 grams CH per slice) for breakfast. Is replacing the bread with a proteine shake a good idea?
Replacing the bread with a protein shake is a good idea, but in my experience, it won't keep you satisfied until lunch. Because of the kind of protein most powders are (whey), they digest quickly, which is part of the point - to get protein into your system quickly to help with post-workout muscle repair. And then, even if you go with a casein powder which digests more slowly, I think simply the fact that you're consuming a liquid will not keep you unhungry until lunch. Even when I load protein shakes with other stuff, they've never lasted me till lunch...
I don't really have anything science-y to back my opinion up, so maybe I'll get laughed out of the thread, but that's my opinion based on personal experience.
So, I'm willing to give this low-carb thing a try. In the past 2 years, I have lost 40 kilo's by excersizing and semi-starving myself during weekdays. On the weekends however, I would pig out and eat burgers and drink beer like there was no tomorow. This approach worked for two years, but now that I'm on a more reasonable weight (I went from 125 tot 85 kilo's, I'm 1.88m) it doesn't anymore. I still have a belly and mantits though, so I need to shed some more fat.
The question I have is: When you consume proteine through proteine shakes, does this make you feel satisfied and full? For example, if I would drink a proteine shake for breakfast, will this "kickstart my metabolism" and make me feel satisfied until lunch? All my life I've had bread (15 grams CH per slice) for breakfast. Is replacing the bread with a proteine shake a good idea?
Replacing the bread with a protein shake is a good idea, but in my experience, it won't keep you satisfied until lunch. Because of the kind of protein most powders are (whey), they digest quickly, which is part of the point - to get protein into your system quickly to help with post-workout muscle repair. And then, even if you go with a casein powder which digests more slowly, I think simply the fact that you're consuming a liquid will not keep you unhungry until lunch. Even when I load protein shakes with other stuff, they've never lasted me till lunch...
I don't really have anything science-y to back my opinion up, so maybe I'll get laughed out of the thread, but that's my opinion based on personal experience.
There are ways to slow down the digestion of protein, even if it's whey. I generally dump 4-5 servings of low-sugar peanut butter in my morning shakes, along with 2 scoops of whey. That lasts me until lunch quite easily.
So, I'm willing to give this low-carb thing a try. In the past 2 years, I have lost 40 kilo's by excersizing and semi-starving myself during weekdays. On the weekends however, I would pig out and eat burgers and drink beer like there was no tomorow. This approach worked for two years, but now that I'm on a more reasonable weight (I went from 125 tot 85 kilo's, I'm 1.88m) it doesn't anymore. I still have a belly and mantits though, so I need to shed some more fat.
The question I have is: When you consume proteine through proteine shakes, does this make you feel satisfied and full? For example, if I would drink a proteine shake for breakfast, will this "kickstart my metabolism" and make me feel satisfied until lunch? All my life I've had bread (15 grams CH per slice) for breakfast. Is replacing the bread with a proteine shake a good idea?
Replacing the bread with a protein shake is a good idea, but in my experience, it won't keep you satisfied until lunch. Because of the kind of protein most powders are (whey), they digest quickly, which is part of the point - to get protein into your system quickly to help with post-workout muscle repair. And then, even if you go with a casein powder which digests more slowly, I think simply the fact that you're consuming a liquid will not keep you unhungry until lunch. Even when I load protein shakes with other stuff, they've never lasted me till lunch...
I don't really have anything science-y to back my opinion up, so maybe I'll get laughed out of the thread, but that's my opinion based on personal experience.
But integrating them into my diet is a good idea, in general?
Maybe I'll try a protein shake and 1 slice of bread (Instead of the 3 I normally have). That would keep me under 40 gr a day.
It's so goddamn hard for me to imagine a diet that doesn't involve bread.
Alright then, I'll ditch the bread completely. It'll take some time to get used to but I'm motivated enough.
Anymore tips on fitting protein shakes in a low carb diet are welcome.
I drink them whenever I feel lazy. Hence the name. :P You can also use low-sugar fruits in your shakes, like berries. Don't go overboard though, and only do it in the morning.
You can also get unsweetened almond milk to give your shakes some nice texture, and dump some cinnamon powder to give them a nice taste.
I drink them whenever I feel lazy. Hence the name. :P You can also use low-sugar fruits in your shakes, like berries. Don't go overboard though, and only do it in the morning.
You can also get unsweetened almond milk to give your shakes some nice texture, and dump some cinnamon powder to give them a nice taste.
Berries sound cool.
Thanks for all the advice in this thread. I'm really motivated to stick at this for a while. I'm really curious to see if this is going to work on me. I'm a bit sceptical, since I have had so much succes with the whole calories out > calories in = succes thing, but I love a good challenge.
It cuts your statement in about half, as a pound is roughly equal to two kilograms
Wrong. 2.21 lbs = 1 kg.
Regarding insulin's effect on the body:
Liver: Promotion of: breakdown of glucose for use as energy, storage of glucose as glycogen, conversion of glucose to triglycerides (fats), protein synthesis inhibition of: glucose synthesis, breakdown of glycogen, protein breakdown
Muscle: Promotion of: uptake of glucose, storage of glucose as glycogen, breakdown of glucose for use as energy and protein synthesis
Adipocytes (fat cells): Promotion of: uptake of glucose, breakdown of glucose for use as energy, conversion of glucose into triglycerides (fats) for storage and synthesis of a protein that allows breakdown of VLDL-particles and therefore import of triglycerides (fats) from these particles.
Source: Medical Physiology, Boron & Boulpaep 2nd edition
Edit: Oh, and glycogen is the way glucose is stored for easy access, in case anyone was wondering.
umm not sure for what you're doing, but lead lard is definitely what you want. It's a great cooking oil once you render it and the cracklings are delicious with fried eggs and steak.
Posts
Just don't shove it down people's throats and completely dismiss current medical opinion.
"Current medical opinion" is meaningless. Doctors are just as capable of having biases and committing logical fallacies.
Of course it's meaningless.... because if it doesn't coincide with your judgement it's not true. Their assessment and opinions are more meaningful than yours. Doctors aren't biased, they're not basing their ideas on absolute lies. You seem to think that someone has bias because they take medical knowledge to base their decision? Now who's being the silly goose. Keep throwing articles that aren't conclusive, I like it, it further proves my point.
Sorry thread. I will try to do better, as I AM genuinely interested in the science behind this
I am too, which is what this discussion was about. My only qualm at the moment are people who dismiss current practice and ideas as completely wrong and based on "inconclusive" evidence and then throw articles that admit (themselves) are not conclusive either. It's pot calling the kettle black. If the science is what we discuss, I'm fine with it.
You don't have a point. All you have done in this thread is throw one-liner responses like "fail science is fail!" and generally just be annoying as fuck, and then eventually decided to give it a try and then couldn't shut the fuck up about how much you love it.
Medical "opinion" is meaningless. Medical "knowledge" that is based on actual, valid science that does not ignore counter-evidnece, on the other hand, is meaningful. The problem is that most patients aren't knowledgeable enough to distinguish opinion from fact. No one has the time to thoroughly research the science, which is why authors like Gary Taubes are performing a very valuable service for the rest of us by writing these types of books. Not that I think you'll read those books, because you already know everything. And not that reading would actually help you since you don't have the ability to understand what you read.
Claude Bernard said it perfectly more than a century ago.
"Men who have excessive faith in their theories and ideas are not only ill prepared for making discoveries; they also make very poor observations. Of necessity, they observe with a preconceived idea, and when they devise an experiment, they can see, in its results, only a confirmation of their theory. In this way they distort observation and often neglect very important facts because they do not further their aim... But it happens further quite naturally that men who believe too firmly in their theories, do not believe enough in the theories of others. So the dominant idea of these despisers of their fellows is to find others' theories faulty and to try to contradict them. The difficulty, for science, is still the same." CLAUDE BERNARD, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, 1865.
The main thing us low-carb folk are saying is "hey, low-carb has a lot of merit, so we need to do more studies on it and see if they support the overwhelmingly positive results that we see in the people that follow them."
People like you, on the other hand, are doing exactly what Claude says.
This is why I am not inclined to take you seriously. You put way too much faith in established dogma and are incapable of critical thought on your own.
Anyways, here are some studies that show a negative or weak link between salt and hypertension:
http://scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/224/4656/1392
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/297/6644/329
http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/3/267
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/20/1590?ijkey=038e16ac9b16769baf65c65cefe14b1fa25e0626&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/16/1117
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/17/1383
I'm not saying the Taubes article is inconclusive. It doesn't draw any conclusions. It merely points out the holes in the salt-blood pressure hypothesis and leaves the reader to make their own decision.
i did, in fact, miss that.
Again, it's simply one derived from another
No, the problem is people not qualified to give advice are. The likes of people who go to webmd and self-diagnose and just walk to the doctors office demanding medication for their problem.
I read every article you linked and I fail to see how you think I won't read anything else. You're dismissing medical knowledge right now because you read a few articles and talked to a few people.
You do fucking realize that is how medicine is taught? Fucking MD's are evidence-based educations given to current doctors. You're fucking contradicting yourself every second with every post. Current medical knowledge is based on evidenced-based medicine and that's how they derive their education. YOUR papers are observational and fucking looking back at old data and not conducting studies to derive their conclusions. Not to mention most papers have no criteria or valid methodology or any fucking proper protocol that people agree upon.
What? Using evidence to counter your arguement? I'm sorry you're unhappy that every article you put agrees with me.
Established dogma based on medical knoweldge based on evidence. I mean, seriously, stop it. You're digging a deeper hole.
:rolleyes:
This is ridiculous. You don't get the point at all and you have the worst comprehension skills.
This, in the OP, is downright arrogant, ignorant and fucking ridiculous.
This discussion is over. Either stay on topic or get out.
But yeah, high levels of sodium causes widespread systemic changes, something that no study has ever refuted. As in, eating a sodium rich diet will fuck up your organs and blood vessels. Handwaving that away by urging people to just drink more water is disingenuous at best, reckless endangerment at worst.
I don't know what meta-modding is.
But I do know that there are rules against thread-shitting and trolling and derailing.
This thread is not about sodium. If you want, make a separate thread about how evil it is.
I think the issue is that you aren't a mod and don't have the authority you just attempted to excercise.
I apologize if this was against the rules. I'll back off.
and seriously when is telling someone to get on topic or gtfo against the rules? Might want to amend them if it is.
If you want to start a thread on this I'd contribute.
I think the main problem everyone having with this diet is that the downsides aren't clear and delineated - there is no major kryptonite for superman other than "can't give up carbs? Have a pre-existing condition?" I think, psychologically, people view disclaimers as making a method seem more real and down to earth. Nothing's perfect.
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.
Nutrition is just about getting the right nutrients for what your body demands; and not giving it too much of what it doesn't need. Most people live a sedantary life (at least, most people who live in the 1st world) and don't need the quickly-available energy medium of carbohydrates in large amounts. Many, many people are taking in too many carbs and that causes problems with your body's base disposition to blood sugar (glucose) levels; which in turn causes messed up insulin response and levels. Untreated, that usually leads to diabetes; which unless I'm mistaken has been on the rise in the 1st world in a pretty good correlation with the rise in sedantary lifestyle and/or increased carb consumption.
I'm gonna lay down a shitty analogy here. If you drink a lot of beer, you're gonna get a bad hangover in the morning; headache, dehydration, etc. If you drink a lot of beer with a lot of water, you're gonna piss a lot of alcohol out and your hangover won't be as bad. If you just have 1 or 2 beers, you probably won't have a hangover in the morning.
Low carb diets are the last option in that analogy. Being low on carbs isn't a set-in-stone neccessity for being healthy, but it's probably the best thing you can do if you don't have a daily lifestyle that can utilize and burn it up.
I saw boniato's at an Asian grocery store today. Unfortunately, it was unclear which varieties they were referring to.
Still, I should try buying some the next time I'm in the area.
What are some good recipes for boniatos and sweet potatoes?
In fact, I just had a Salmon Patty, Asparagus, along with the potatoe.
The question I have is: When you consume proteine through proteine shakes, does this make you feel satisfied and full? For example, if I would drink a proteine shake for breakfast, will this "kickstart my metabolism" and make me feel satisfied until lunch? All my life I've had bread (15 grams CH per slice) for breakfast. Is replacing the bread with a proteine shake a good idea?
Replacing the bread with a protein shake is a good idea, but in my experience, it won't keep you satisfied until lunch. Because of the kind of protein most powders are (whey), they digest quickly, which is part of the point - to get protein into your system quickly to help with post-workout muscle repair. And then, even if you go with a casein powder which digests more slowly, I think simply the fact that you're consuming a liquid will not keep you unhungry until lunch. Even when I load protein shakes with other stuff, they've never lasted me till lunch...
I don't really have anything science-y to back my opinion up, so maybe I'll get laughed out of the thread, but that's my opinion based on personal experience.
There are ways to slow down the digestion of protein, even if it's whey. I generally dump 4-5 servings of low-sugar peanut butter in my morning shakes, along with 2 scoops of whey. That lasts me until lunch quite easily.
But integrating them into my diet is a good idea, in general?
Maybe I'll try a protein shake and 1 slice of bread (Instead of the 3 I normally have). That would keep me under 40 gr a day.
It's so goddamn hard for me to imagine a diet that doesn't involve bread.
Eggs, sausages, salami, bacon... all excellent breakfast foods as long as you don't eat carbs (such as bread!) along with them.
Anymore tips on fitting protein shakes in a low carb diet are welcome.
You can also get unsweetened almond milk to give your shakes some nice texture, and dump some cinnamon powder to give them a nice taste.
Berries sound cool.
Thanks for all the advice in this thread. I'm really motivated to stick at this for a while. I'm really curious to see if this is going to work on me. I'm a bit sceptical, since I have had so much succes with the whole calories out > calories in = succes thing, but I love a good challenge.
Wrong. 2.21 lbs = 1 kg.
Regarding insulin's effect on the body:
Liver: Promotion of: breakdown of glucose for use as energy, storage of glucose as glycogen, conversion of glucose to triglycerides (fats), protein synthesis inhibition of: glucose synthesis, breakdown of glycogen, protein breakdown
Muscle: Promotion of: uptake of glucose, storage of glucose as glycogen, breakdown of glucose for use as energy and protein synthesis
Adipocytes (fat cells): Promotion of: uptake of glucose, breakdown of glucose for use as energy, conversion of glucose into triglycerides (fats) for storage and synthesis of a protein that allows breakdown of VLDL-particles and therefore import of triglycerides (fats) from these particles.
Source: Medical Physiology, Boron & Boulpaep 2nd edition
Edit: Oh, and glycogen is the way glucose is stored for easy access, in case anyone was wondering.
Is back fat better for actual flavor, though?
http://genaw.com/lowcarb/cream_cheese_clouds.html
Also, a scoop of chocolate protein powder blended with 4 oz. whipping cream and ice makes something that tastes damned close to a Frosty.
Replace that with unsweetened almond milk, or just water + peanut/almond butter for thickness.